[Kolya]

Originally Posted by CombineHarvester

The reason why many Muslims feel this way is because imposed democracies rarely work. I know one particular user of TSR who has said democracy should be forcibly imposed upon Arab countries but this is totally wrong. The country is extremely unstable and rife with corruption so will need a very strong government which has the tools to deliver on policies which will bring about progressiveness to the country.

The Karzai government introduced post war is seen as a joke by many Muslims, Hamid Karzai himself worked for the CIA and involved with providing major support for the Mujahideen. He then went on to "win" (as it was investigated on grounds of irregularities) the national elections with his campaign funded by the US and his brothers who reside in the States. This is what Muslims find disturbing, almost a form of pseudo-colonialism by America in order to gain control of a country whilst making it appear above board and "democratic".

The Muslims I've spoken to want a government which represents the needs of its people. If elections are used to determine which government holds power, voting should be made obligatory for all people and close to a 100% should be achieved. Also, the method of candidate selection should not rest with the occupying power or determined by who has enough wealth to run an expensive presidential campaign. Every candidate should be given equal resources, media airtime and policies made clear without outside (usually Western) influences.

I'm asking about democracy in general, not specifically about the imposition of unstable Middle Eastern democracies. Someone (ThisIsZak) said, earlier in this thread, that any Muslim who votes in an election takes themselves 'out of the fold' and must repent immediately. I believe a couple of other Muslims suggested they broadly agreed with him. So I'm asking if being an Islamic country is considered theologically compatible with being, say, a healthy democracy that came about in an unforced way. If not, what are the preferable options? A theocracy?

[CombineHarvester]

Democracy is a part of Islam and rulers or governments who are in power by force without any consultation of the public are not recognised in Islam. In the early stages of Islam, the public were summoned to a gathering where the caliphs were elected. A leader must be in power with the support of his people, if this criteria is not fulfilled it is not a legitimate rule. The issue of democracy is stated in the Qur'an, in fact the Prophet (saw) himself is commanded by Allah that he must:

"take counsel with them (i.e. the people) in matters (of public concern)." (3:159)

Also, there is a chapter in the Qur'an entitled Shura or 'Consultation' and it states of Muslims that:

"their affairs are run by mutual consultation." (42:38)

Therefore, the opinion of every member of society should be sought when deciding a government or leader in a truly Islamic society. If a government achieves power by force and then allows shura it is still an illegal government. As I mentioned previously, the first four caliphates were elected by means of shura and widely backed by the public.

[Kolya]

Originally Posted by CombineHarvester

Therefore, the opinion of every member of society should be sought when deciding a government or leader in a truly Islamic society. If a government achieves power by force and then allows shura it is still an illegal government. As I mentioned previously, the first four caliphates were elected by means of shura and widely backed by the public.

OK. Thanks.

[ThisisZAK]

Originally Posted by Abu Umar

Wa alaykumus salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!

Akhi, how are you?

I missed you dear brother.

May God bless you dear brother... I'm currently studying but I'll hang out in here from time to time...

Keep up the good work fellas!