Some religious people think that the very phrase "islamic democracy" is a contradiction in terms because democracy is an un-islamic system of government. The basic principle of democracy, they say, is that people can decide everything for themselves, because the ultimate authority lies with the masses. In Islam, however, Allah is the ultimate authority. While in democracy people might or might not decide their affairs according to Islamic teachings, in Islam, you always have to decide everything keeping in view the Islamic injunctions. (For example, people or their representatives might vote in favour of the use of liquor-which will be permissible in a democracy-but you can't do it in an Islamic state. Hence the contradiction, they think).

To me the argument put in this way has some weight i.e., Democracy is not suitable for an Islamic state. But I invite your opinion on it. Do you think there's something wrong with this interpretation?

As far as I know, Islam does not provide a political system. It leaves it to the ppl(or leaders) to decide a system for them. This is evident from the way the first four pious caliphs were selected. all were selected differently. Instead, islam emphasises on the formulation of laws and their implementation.
So if a democratic country formulate laws through its parliament, and if these laws does not contradict islamic laws, then, i think, democracy and islam are always in harmoney. there is no problem.

Islam stands for " limited sovereignty" as against "popular sovereignty" of the West. The State is be governed in accordance with the injuctions of Quran i.e. sovereignty belongs to Allah alone; Man, being His Vicegerent, has to adminster the affairs of State within the bounds of divine law and mutual consultation among the believer. The form of government had no real value bt the Islamic State has to have three characteristics: Sovereignty of Allah, Vicegerency of Man and Mutual consultation. In addition, under divine dispension, the State, as the collection of believers, and the man, as the vicegerent, are responsible to Allah with respect to their conduct. Therefore, the Government should be based on the consent of the governed. This requirement gives the Government the colour of DEMOCRACY.

AoA
I m of the view tht Islam n westernised form of democracy can never go in harmony. In Democracy majority is considered authority but not in the case of Islam where rule of the creater has to prevail at any coast. In democracy a non muslim can be head of state but in Islam only true n pious person can take the reins of country. However in Islam there is freedom of expression n action but to certain limits. Our country is considered fort of islam but it is even not worthy of calling islamic. So niether We R 100 islamic nor democratic, its really big problem.

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

@ thinking
What would you say then about Islam being a complete code of conduct universally applicable in all societies if it does not provide a political system?

Other respected forum members seem to be agreeing with the above interpretation about the basic contradiction between Islam and Democracy, at least in the western sense.

__________________
Are we human because we look at the stars, or do we look at the stars because we are human? Pointless really. Do the stars look back at us? Now that is a question!

Islam does provide a political sytem. The founder of Islam Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) practised a political syatem. He sent his "governors" to other provinces to enforce the LAW.
His caliphs had a majlis-e-shoora which helped the caliph in state affairs. All the dicisions of military expeditions ans state affairs were discussed.
Caliphate was for the most pious person THEN. The caliph for responsible for any misconduct or chaos within his territories and he had to be present before the QAZI by the appeal of any citizen.
So the political system of islam is formed by
Court
Majlis-e-shoora
in the capital and their branches in the provinces.
The representatives would be elected by most pious people of the era not by hte majority.

__________________
Long, long afterward, in an oak
I found the arrow, still unbroke;
And the song, from beginning to end,
I found again in the heart of a friend

Well second coming this was a very confusing type of argument for me...i kept on thinking for two three days, but could't come to any final conclusion.But as far as my thinking leads me, i am of the view that islam is a complete code of life, it gives us ways of living,eating,dressing,talking,hence every doimain has been discussed in islam..(both quran and hadees)...than how can we say that it doesn't gives any political system?

Its very true that Allah Almighty has the supreme powers, but when in an islamic state the people choose a leader or ruler than he gets the authority to rule, and he has to implement the set of laws and regulations in accordance to Islam...whatever people may say whther abt. liquor or any other forbided act, he should think that he is the Naib of allah almighty and he is answerable to god...when he wil think like this automatically he will reject such sorts of demands by the public....and seeing the attitude of the leader/ruler the people will gradually stop demanding premission for such unislamic acts...

Islam is a moderate religion, it does'nt supports extremism...rather it has kept a balance....I think that democracy is suitable for an islamic state,if the ruler is strong enough to keep balance between islam and democracy.....people should be allowed to give thier views and comments but the current ruler should decide to follow in accordance to the principle of islam...

__________________
_____________________________________________

A Man Would Do Nothing,
If He Waited Until He
Could Do It So Well
That No One Would Find Fault
With What He Has Done.

It's simple enough. The point is that there is a contradiction between the principles of democracy and the principles of Islam. Democracy bestows the ultimate authority to the masses while Islam reserves it for Allah or God.
I would like to point out that you are not backing your thesis with arguments. You see, it's not enough to say that Islam provides a political system. We have to outline it's basic principles, and see where and when The Holy Prophet practised or gave explicit order to this effect. Only then we can hope to offer it, for example, to a non-muslim, and convince him about the universal applicability of our religion.
You are giving unlimited authority to the ruler so far as the interpretation and implementation of laws is concerned. There are many vital affairs that have been interpreted in more than one way: the disputes between shi'ites and sunnis are just a few examples (I am not mentioning the disputes because I don't want to open discussion in that direction, but can list and enumerate them if you want). Giving such power to a ruler, even if we leave away the principles of democracy might be dangerous. For example, James II of England tried to enforce his own Roman Catholic religion without the consent of the masses, with disasterous results, of course.

Agreed.... But in our world now who is to decide what is a balance. Religious Ulema are divided even in the case of Jamia Hafsa. Whom would you call unislamic?
Again too much emphasis on the ruler. For a ruler to have such powers even in an Islamic State, he needs first of all to have a complete knowledge of all the nooks and corners of Islam law-and this is not a small thing- and of all the traditions and implications thereof. Then he needs almost a superhuman sense of not only what and how something is to be implemented in an Islamic State but also how to maintain that fragile "balance" as you said. But all these problems are nothing when compared to the last one: how is he going to become the ruler? Who after all is going to decide the most suitable person for this post? The Ulema or the people? If Ulema, then of which school of thought? Who is going to decide, to which school of thought that person will belong? If by a majority of Ulema, who is going to ensure the rights of the minorities?
If it's going to be decided by the people, then who is going to teach the people what qualities to seek in a person? You can't expect it from common people in an Islamic state. It will certainly be taught by the Ulema. But again, of which school of thought? And so on.......
Again the ruler!!! Suppose if General Musharraf says he is an Islamic ruler, and MMA supports him too, may be to save the system, something you can't say MMA can never do given its track record. Will he not get the power to decide what is Islamic and what is unislamic? "Funny" state of things it would be, I must say.

__________________
Are we human because we look at the stars, or do we look at the stars because we are human? Pointless really. Do the stars look back at us? Now that is a question!

Well friendz
We r divided in ideologies, first of all we should be crystal clear tht we want democracy or rule of Islam? We must not mix both, each has its own distinction. Both cant go in harmony. Islam consider quality,while democracy bows before quantity.
Dear Preiti:
U commented ----we as people have to choose pious ruler. It looks like Utopian idea. Here people r ignorant to tht extent tht even they dont know the meaning of the word "Leader", Not to say of choosing them in a transparent way.
Can u name any body who is worthy of calling "Leader" in current time, even we have different views about the founder of nation(Quaid Azam ). So how can we find tht person who is acceptable to the majority?
I hope u would answer my question.
Second coming:
Agreed:
Regards:

__________________
When you try, you risk failure. When you don’t try, you ensure it.

khalifa sab se ziyada muttaqi aur sab se zziyada aqalmand aur sab se ziyada bahadur hona chahiye, aur woh Allah ka muqarrar karda hota hai....
Islam main democracy hai, lekin Election nahi

__________________
Smyler wyth nyfe undur the cloke