What Is Your Opinion On Democracy By Shaykh Muqbil رحمه الله
- Thread starter Omar del Sur
- Start date
𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈
VIP
Thank you for sharing. Sh Muqbil raised valid arguments against democracy, in its ugly form, but did not bring up any of its desirable aspects, which makes it more the attractive over other systems of governance viz. oligarchy etc. Conversely, in his Islamic State book, Sh M Asad draws a distinction between the exterior framework, Islam in this instance, which he likened to the scaffolding of a property vis-a-vis configuration, with democracy being that in that respect, which he likened to its interior artefacts; he further argued whilst the framework MUST remain intact, configuration could be modelled at one's heart's content.
A Muslim nation may adopt democracy less its abominable, undesirable elements in direct contradiction with any tenets of Islam.
Whilst in agreement with Sh Muqbil's in principle, I too am more inclined to Sh Asad's in its application. Now, how does one reconcile the two?
A Muslim nation may adopt democracy less its abominable, undesirable elements in direct contradiction with any tenets of Islam.
Whilst in agreement with Sh Muqbil's in principle, I too am more inclined to Sh Asad's in its application. Now, how does one reconcile the two?
I think you're referring to Muhammad Asad, the white/Jewish convert.
Obviously I'm not against reverts and I don't support pitting reverts and people born into Muslim families against each other.
But one thing with many white reverts is they bring Western thinking with them. A lot of white reverts are not fully able to detatch themselves from Western type thinking and I think Muhammad Asad was an example of this kind of thing. Now I want to be clear- my point is not racism or promoting racism against white reverts. I'm not against anyone because they're a white revert. But many of them are not really able to leave Westernized thinking behind and they end up interpreting Islam in a Westernized way.
Muhammad Asad in a way is sort of like Andrew Tate. He reverted? Great, alhamdulilaah. But you shouldn't look at what either of them say when it comes to Islam.
Andrew Tate didn't really leave behind his pre-Islam mindset enough after he (supposedly) became Muslim. Muhammad Asad was still was a European, Western type person and I don't think he really left behind that kind of thinking.
For example- what did he say about Dajjal? He said that Dajjal is clearly a metaphor for Western civilization. When you look at the hadith, it's very clear that Dajjal is an actual person and not a metaphor. So with Asad, it's not just he became a revert- but he became a revert and then he started pushing really wrong ideas like saying Dajjal is a metaphor for Western civilization. And this shows I believe that he was following this Western mindset of thinking you can just use your own reasoning however you want and just wildly reinterpret things on the basis of your reasoning.
In reality, he was not a Sheikh at all. That he took an interest in Islam and converted, I'm happy. But throw out what he said and follow real scholars like Sheikh Muqbil instead.
Also btw I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Muhammad Asad was a perennialist.
Anyways, as Sheikh Muqbil said, democracy is kufr. There is no way we should accept or believe in democracy- and there is no such thing as Islamic democracy, as the Sheikh explained
𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈
VIP
Walaal, could I redirect you. Yes, that M Asad, and for a moment, let us put whom he was to aside, and concentrate upon his ideas, which I think might not work given you have reduced him to being a 'perennialist'. Is there validity in his idea: framework (Islam) vs configuration (democracy, or any other system of governance)?
And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.
-Surah Al-An'Am 6:116 (translation of the meaning)
For a lot of people, the idea that they should reject democracy is something hard to digest. Democracy is treated as this holy, sacred thing and once people have internalized this mindset... telling them the truth is like telling a child who is a fervent believer in Santa the truth about Santa. It's been built up as this beautiful thing in their mind. But the reality is other than the perception.
Once you think about that ayah I referenced and you reflect on it, fully accepting it and taking it as a starting point- it is very clear- democracy is not even something desirable. Democracy is the rule of the majority and the Quran clearly warns us as to the majority.
Rather than hand the hukm to the majority, I think we should leave behind any rosy image of the majority. Democracy ideology promotes this idea that the majority is fundamentally good and benevolent and that is just not the case. We should be wary of the majority and not even want to hand the rule over to them.
-Surah Al-An'Am 6:116 (translation of the meaning)
For a lot of people, the idea that they should reject democracy is something hard to digest. Democracy is treated as this holy, sacred thing and once people have internalized this mindset... telling them the truth is like telling a child who is a fervent believer in Santa the truth about Santa. It's been built up as this beautiful thing in their mind. But the reality is other than the perception.
Once you think about that ayah I referenced and you reflect on it, fully accepting it and taking it as a starting point- it is very clear- democracy is not even something desirable. Democracy is the rule of the majority and the Quran clearly warns us as to the majority.
Rather than hand the hukm to the majority, I think we should leave behind any rosy image of the majority. Democracy ideology promotes this idea that the majority is fundamentally good and benevolent and that is just not the case. We should be wary of the majority and not even want to hand the rule over to them.
I reject the entire concept of ignoring who the person is. It is a wrong principle and the right principle is this:
Imaam Muhammad bin Sireen (rahimahullaah) said:
“Verily, this knowledge is Religion. So look into (i.e. investigate) whom you take your Religion from.”
We have to extremely careful when it comes to who we take knowledge from when it comes to the dīn. So it is super important and we should pay attention to who it is. This is the right principle in the matter.
As to Asad's idea, no it has no validity. The right system should be one hundred percent Islamic, it should not be a Westernized form of Islam mixed with democracy. All he's doing is promoting Westernization. Islam is already perfect, it doesn't need any foreign ideology mixed into it.
𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈
VIP
Thanks for sharing the Ayah.
I could not possibly disagree with the Ayah, or Islamic teachings, ergo my bringing up harmonisation of any man-made system with tenets of Islam, and its assuming precedence and supremacy.
In truth, I have no attachment to democracy, and for the record, I am in favour of the current Chinese system of governance: a concoction of pseudo socialism-commnunist-democracy. I'll come back to expand on that.
I could not possibly disagree with the Ayah, or Islamic teachings, ergo my bringing up harmonisation of any man-made system with tenets of Islam, and its assuming precedence and supremacy.
In truth, I have no attachment to democracy, and for the record, I am in favour of the current Chinese system of governance: a concoction of pseudo socialism-commnunist-democracy. I'll come back to expand on that.
Democracy in the sense that the people dictate what is good or bad is wrong and goes against the ruling of Allah. But I don't think there is harm in electing a representative to voice your concerns like a town councilmember. As long as the nation is governed under sharia and not by the people.
Hmm... so what you're getting at is can Islam and man-made systems be harmonized- I think I understand that correctly, right?
Well with democracy specifically I would say absolutely no. Liberal democratic ideology is always promoting this image of the majority as fundamentally good and benevolent- whereas the Quran specifically warns us against following the majority. But... isn't the rule of the majority the fundamental essence of democracy? Then democracy is based on popular sovereignty whereas in Islam sovereignty belongs to Allah. Democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible.
As for communism... didn't Somalia try to mix Islam and communism? People here would know a lot more about that history than I would but I think it illustrated that the two are opposed. I don't think it was just because of the leader at the time- I think trying to mix communism and Islam logically leads to measures that are contrary to Islam. Communism and Islam are fundamentally at odds. That being said, I think the Somalia socialist era had some accomplishments and I don't mean in any way to negate those accomplishments.
As for socialism... "Islamic socialism" (btw there is no Islamic socialism) was a big thing during the Cold War. But you look at "Islamic socialist" figures... Siad Barre, Gaddafi, Zulfikar Bhutto, Saddam... I don't think "Islamic socialism" has ever been in line with Islam. I'm not trying to attack any of those people, I'm just saying, I don't think any of them were one hundred percent in line with Islam in terms of their governance.
what would be your solution if the islamic ruler becomes corrupt? This is a huge problem with islamic states i haven't figured out a solution to yet.
that's an interesting concept- so the overall government would not be democratic but there would be elected local representatives to talk on behalf of the people?
I'm against it but I think it's an interesting idea. I'm not saying it's against the sharia but... if you really managed to create some one hundred percent Islamic government... I think the West would try to do whatever to topple it, right? I assume they would particularly like to promote "human rights", "democracy" and homo activists... so my problem, besides any possible sharia issues... my problem with local councilman democracy is... I'm worried that some people would get interested in democracy and activism and then they could form a larger democracy movement with a bunch of covert support from the West and try to overthrow the government... but that's just my theory
I think we're bound to end up with corrupt rulers in this day and age.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever disapproves of something done by his ruler then he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little (little = a span) will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. (i.e. as rebellious Sinners).
حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، عَنِ الْجَعْدِ، عَنْ أَبِي رَجَاءٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِرْ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ السُّلْطَانِ شِبْرًا مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ".
Sahih al-Bukhari 7053 - Afflictions and the End of the World - كتاب الفتن - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic
sunnah.com
so if you get a corrupt leader, you are out of luck?I think we're bound to end up with corrupt rulers in this day and age.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever disapproves of something done by his ruler then he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little (little = a span) will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. (i.e. as rebellious Sinners).
حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، عَنِ الْجَعْدِ، عَنْ أَبِي رَجَاءٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِرْ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ السُّلْطَانِ شِبْرًا مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ".
Sahih al-Bukhari 7053 - Afflictions and the End of the World - كتاب الفتن - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic
no, because you can still go to jannah. the main goal of life is to go to jannah. it isn't to establish a utopia on earth.
whether it's sharia, democracy, communism, whatever- no system is going to ensure the people running the system don't become morally corrupt.
but any idea that democracy is superior because you can supposedly vote a bad ruler out... it is completely false.
first off, we have to follow what Islam says and not just base things on our own reasoning.
secondly- the people don't even get to decide who the candidates. it is a small elite who are deciding the candidates. all the people get to do is choose from one of two candidates put in place by the same tiny elite. voting doesn't change things.
some people here might not remember when Obama was elected. he ran on "CHANGE". and then when he got in power he did the exact same stuff as Bush except he just added some blm and lgbt stuff. then Trump came in and did the same stuff. then Biden continues doing the same stuff. there's no real difference, they all push the same policies, they just have different faces. any idea that democracy is superior to sharia because you can vote... it is entirely naïve.
I get what you mean, yeah the west definitely would try to use their usual tactics of using the populace to propagate their agenda. The way I see it though is that there's a lot of people in a nation, and people from certain towns or districts need a voice of their own. Someone from their area to represent their problems or issues that they're facing. A small village might come together and pick someone that will relay any grievances they might be having to the government. But even then one can argue the government itself can choose a representative from the populace. The way I see it though that could also bring in issues of nepotism or corruption if they're not chosen by a consensus of people.
Last edited:
𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈
VIP
Valid points. When reflecting upon the harmonisation thought of any of the said systems, which seeks to reconcile them with Islam, it is a quest for strengthening core principles of Islam, and not to dilute, or water down said core principles. We are in agreement on the sanctity of core tenets of Islam, and I think yours is very clear, let us then further advance the discourse. Suppose we wish to institute a sound technologically agile Public financing system? How do we go about it?
Postscript:
In principle, I lose not much sleep over on humans, for imperfect they are, and prone to temptation.
𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈
VIP
And in that context, and in practice, let us consider the system of governance the Umawiyah & Abassiyah had, shall we?
Someone who knows that subject would have to answer. I don't know about that area.
I haven't really studied them. At some point, I would like to learn more about that history but first I want to have a deeper understanding of areas like Quran and hadith.
The Chinese method is absolutely terrible. It violates human freedom and promotes the atomization of society. It is also far less efficient, Japan/S.Korea produced more durable growth.
The goal for Muslim nations should be to become a Social Democracy.
For very poor nations, initally, a Suharto-like Guided Democracy to wipe out feudal elements and to remain cohesive, and an eventual transition to a full democracy when until there is a large enough bourgeoisie.
Last edited:
