So,in your views do Pakistan following blend of Islamic way of governance and democracy???In Pakistan,we are not following Democracy in its purest form.Sovereignty belongs to Allah according to the constitution of Pakistan,and article 227,law contradictory to the teaching of Islam and Hadith cannot be promulgated,is an open proof regarding this statement.

Objective resolution was a right blend but our constitution is self contradictory when it comes to islamic form of government.If any law repugnant to teaching of islam cannot be passed then why we are following interest based economic system which is categorically branded as Haram in Islam.
The present state of affairs suggests that Pakistan is more of democratic in nature than Islamic. Here exists blend of islam and democracy but the Islamic injunctions incorporated does not reflect the true spirit of islam rather they are reflections of Machiavellien scheme of few extremist minds.

I'll go a step ahead. There is no such thing as "Islamic system of governance". Islam does not prescribe any system of governance; only a very general and broad guidance.

This is a good way to satisfy one's conscience but the fact is that knowledge and piety are meaningless terms. Can't be decided who is more knowledgeable or/and pious. But if a person with said qualities uses them for the good of community, s/he will earn the due respect in any society not fraught with excessive corruption.

Why not hungry and poor people? Is their thinking impaired too? And is it guaranteed that an educated person is wiser and more sincere than an illiterate one? Common sense says that as long as there are a lot of hungry, poor and illiterate people, you can implement any system and it won't work. I'm intrigued how this struck you as a 'flaw' of democracy. I'd really like to read what else you have to say on this.

Here's another reminder: All four caliphs were elected in different ways. What is the "Islamic" way to elect, then? Which one is the real "system of caliphate"?

But I'd like to play along a bit more. Women were not allowed to vote in that election. Shouldn't we do the same with women today? What about slaves?

The clause already exists in the Constitution of Pakistan. Doesn't make it less democratic.

"Current face of democracy" is a vague term. There is no single implementation of democracy in today's world. "System of Caliphate", on the other hand, is a meaningless term. It does not exist.

Democracy certainly does not prevent you from an interest-free economy.

How did this suggestion come?

"True spirit of Islam" is just another of our favorite vague terms. And "Machiavellien scheme of few extremist minds" is clearly not democracy. So what exactly was it you were trying to say?

Islam does not prescribe any system for governance just a general idea? Can you please elaborate that. Asking humbly.
Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2

See, a political system is a detailed groundwork about the working of institutions of a country, about their mutual relationship, about the separation of powers among the institutions (or no separation in some other systems), about the procedure of election, about the relationship between citizens and state, and so on. Examples are democracy, autocracy, aristocracy, monarchy etc. etc.

Now Islam does not give any such detailed groundwork. It provides a few points of guidance like it orders the rulers to be just and to run the affairs of state with mutual consultation (sounds like a parliament, no? This is also what Iqbal said in his famous lectures).

Who should become the members of parliament and how they should be elected? There is a difference of opinion between scholars on this because Islam does not give any specific instruction in this regard. What should be the relationship between different institutions like executive, judiciary etc.? Islam again does not give any specific instruction which means that these aspects can be adjusted according to the requirements of time and place. What is the extent of powers of a Caliph/PM/President? Again, there is no consensus because clear instructions do not exist. The thing that is clear is that he is accountable to the people which, again, sounds like a democracy to me.

So the point is, Islamic gives only broad guidance because society keeps changing and evolving and so a single rigidly defined system can simply not work for all times and places. Saying that there is any such thing as "Islamic political system" (I have never been able to understand what exactly this is, and people who are strongest proponents of such a concept are also most clueless) and it should be implemented down the minutest details (which simply do not exist) merely tells that the person does not know what he is talking about. It also tells that we, as a society, prefer blind following over independent/critical thinking.

Perhaps the most important and clear aspect of "Islamic political system" is that the affairs of state are decided with mutual consultation. Incidentally, this is also the cornerstone of a democracy. And this is just one similarity. The ruler does not have absolute powers in both Islam and democracy. The rule can be impeached if he is not fulfilling his responsibilities in both Islam and democracy. And the similarities go on.

Imam Ghazali in his book admitted that Islam does not force Muslims to implement islamic system of governance but God Almighty ordained certain principles that cannot be followed without implementing islamic system of governance.Quran saysin surah Noor verse 65 probably) implement shariah and Allah will replace terror with peace. Islamic system of governance can be traced back to state of Madinah and the period of orthodox caliph. I am including period of orthodox caliph because Prophet PBUH himself predicted that the Caliphat will govern the Muslim for certain period of time.

There are various measures through which knowledge can be tested and piety does not need any definition it reflects. However as i already said piety in this world of sin and woe is scarce.

The begger cannot testify in court according to Islamic law and this argument is supported by Hadith.
Now think why begger is not allowed to do so? And relate it with gullible masses who will vote for anything but merit.
It does not mean that the rich and educated will always make right decision but that will reduce the risk.
Islam also discriminate women positively and it doesn't foster gender equality.This discrimination is right as one cannot compare apples with oranges

The orthodox caliph were elected by pious companion and were endorse by masses later on.From the election of Hazrat Abu Bakar at Bani Saqeefa to the election of Hazrat Ali Same principle was followed.
The point which i am trying to raise here is that political Islam exists in its true spirit and manifestations and that can be formulated by Studying Quran Sunnah and Islamic history thoroughly. Without the aforementioned knowledge people would be trapped by liberal fascist who are more of atheist than liberals.
As i said that implementing Islamic system of governance is hard nut to crack in current environment but it doesn't mean that we should mix it with secular democracy to satiate the cranial desires of nasty human brain.
And if anyone is interesting to know the fallacy of democracy then the respected member can go through my blog:

Usmanwrites . Blogspot . Com

Please elaborate this. I didn't get what you were trying to say.

I already told you that all four caliphs were elected by different methods. You can do a quick Google search and find out. Now, please tell me what was the 'same principle' that you are talking about.

Me too. I'm also talking about the same period.

Would you be so kind to give me the reference of the hadith with this 'law'?

What do you propose? Will gullible masses be able to choose the most knowledgeable and most pious person as a caliph?

We're too easy on sweeping statements. There is no study that supports any such thing that rich and educated people can and will make better decisions than the poor and uneducated. Actually, it's often the rich and educated people who have ulterior political motives.

You haven't responded to anything I raised in a previous post about the differences between a political system and the elusive "Islamic political system". Care to address them?

Irrelevant.

Your blog post only rants about the demerits of democracy and does not tell anything about Islamic political system and how it is different from democracy. And yes, democracy is certainly not a perfect system but the best we have. And it will only improve with time as we refine it through hit and trial. If there is a better alternative, just present it.

According to Imam Ghazali Islam does not force Muslims to implement Shariah but without implementing shariah the islamic principles ordained by God cannot be inculcated in society.

Quran says: implement shariah and we will replace terror with peace.

I will share reference when i will go through my notes of Hadith regarding begger testimony.
But you do know the status of women testimony in the eye of Islam.

Gullible masses is quoted by you out of the context.

In current political system sovereignty belongs to people but in Islamic law it lies With Allah Alone.

Current political system grants universal suffrage but islam promotes relatively narrow electorate.

The constitution of Pakistan gives full right to minorities to propagate their faith but islamic law condemns this narrative.

Democracy is built upon the idea of nation state but islam fosters avant grade approach of Muslim Ummah. Any muslim who will land on islamic republic for the purpose of living will be granted citizenship automatically.

A judge cannot be non muslim but how many non Muslim judges do we have?

And there are rafts of arguments but i am constrained by time and space

Irrelevant.

Sovereignty belongs to Allah in the democratic Constitution of Pakistan.

Tell me, what electorate does Islam propose?

Although such right should be given to the minorities, Constitution of Pakistan does NOT give them right to PROPAGATE their faith. It only gives to them the right to practice it which does not have any clash with your preferred medieval interpretation of Islam.

Pakistan is a nation, isn't it? We're living in a world divided by nations, no? Can you even think of any possibility that nations states cease to exist and we go back to the old division on the basis of religions and kingdoms? It's not a very healthy thing if our minds are stuck in the medieval ages. Why don't Muslim countries join together into one entity called 'Ummah'?

Now since Pakistan is a nation state, not a foster home for "Ummah", your second assumption that any Muslim should be granted citizenship (a pathetic excuse that terrorists from all over the world have been using amply) does not stand either.

That's legal, not political system.

I'd like to mention an important thing: I've said it and I'll repeat it. Please tell me what is this political system of Islam which is in clash with democracy? You are merely telling me a few random Islamic principles that are supposedly in clash with random democratic practices. Is there any political system of Islam that tells us in detail how to run a country or are we just relying on these random principles?