(EOP) Why is Modern Democracy prohibited in Islam?

Democracy in the light of Islam: 

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, irrespective of who he is.

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not” [Yusuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah” [al-An’aam 6:57]

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

But as for the one who nominates himself or nominates others in this system in order to join the parliament and enjoin good and forbid evil, and establish proof against them, and reduce its evil and corruption as much as he can, so that people of corruption and disbelievers in Allah will not have free rein to spread mischief in the land and spoil people’s worldly interests and religious commitment, this is a matter that is subject to ijtihaad, according to the interests that it is hoped will be served by that.

Some scholars are even of the view that getting involved in these elections is obligatory.

• Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on elections, and he replied: I think that elections are obligatory; we should appoint the one who we think is good, because if the good people abstain, who will take their place? Evil people will take their place, or neutral people in whom there is neither good nor evil, but they follow everyone who makes noise. So we have no choice but to choose those who we think are fit.

If someone were to say: We chose someone but most of the parliament are not like that,

• We say: It does not matter. If Allah blesses this one person and enables him to speak the truth in this parliament, he will undoubtedly have an effect. But what we need is to be sincere towards Allah and the problem is that we rely too much on physical means and we do not listen to what Allah says. So nominate the one who you think is good, and put your trust in Allah.

It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in the hope that he can become part of a system which rules according to something other than that which Allah has revealed and operates according to something other than the shari’ah of Islam. It is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for anyone else who will work in that government, unless the one who nominates himself or those who vote for him hope that by getting involved in that they will be able to change the system to one that operates according to the shari’ah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government, provided that the one who nominates himself will not accept any position after being elected except one that does not go against Islamic shari’ah.

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic shari’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic shari’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) far away from some of that which Allah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allaah’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Faasiqoon (rebellious and disobedient to Allaah)."

Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith” [al-Maa'idah 5:49-50].

Hence when Allah stated that those who do not rule in accordance with Islamic shari’ah are guilty of kufr, He warned against helping them or taking them as allies or close friends, and He commanded the believers to fear Him if they were truly believers. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as Awliyaa’ (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion as a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, and nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allaah if you indeed are true believers” [al-Maa’idah 5:57]

And Allah is the Source of strength. May Allah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

Democracy in Baba Iqbal's R.A words:

(Iblees is sitting with his five advisors and starts a meeting with self-praising statements and explains what he has done so far to take the world at this stage. First advisor affirms his strategies and explains the state of people around the world. Second advisor reminds them about a threat. But first advisor corrects him and refutes his fear. Third advisor reminds them about another “serious” threat. Forth advisor provides the solution to that threat. Fifth advisor explains that “serious” threat again in more detail to let Iblees understand the seriousness of the matter. Iblees who is listening to all advisors refutes all of the fears that they have but discloses his own fear and considers it a “Real” threat to his satanic system. He explains why he is afraid of that threat and then he finally tells them what to do.)


THE SATAN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL THE SATAN:

 An old game of needs this mean world’s tact, To heavenly host hopes a cold blood act.
 That Great Maker bent to wreck earth soon, Who gave it a name of ‘KAF’ and ‘NOON’.
 To Europe I gave the kingship’s dream, I broke the spell of church and mosque’s team.
 I taught to the poor a lesson of fate, To the wealthy I gave the wealth’s craze great.
 Who can put out that fire’s big blaze, Of riots whome Satan had set ablaze.
 To plants we watered, caused to be trees, Who can bring that old tree to knees.

FIRST ADVISOR:

The Satan’s order is firm every where, The masses too like the servitude snare.
 The bows were writ for the poor in fate, A pray without stay their nature’s trait.
 Either in his heart a wish does not lie, If wakes up ever, would be raw and die.
 Isn’t this a marvel of constant push’ hence, That Mullah is tied with kingship fence.
 A best booze it was to Eastern nature then, No lesser vice singing to ‘eloquence’ ken.
 The Haj and Ka’aba Rounds yet a rite though, The nude sword of Moniin is blunt I know.
 On whose despair he formed a queer view, "On Muslim war is banned in this age new"

SECOND ADVISOR:

Is this roar in goodness that masses are kings? You know not new mischiefs of underlings.

FIRST ADVISOR:

A good point well, my seeing eye hails, No danger too there from a kingship’s veil.
 We gave to kingship the masses rule’s dress, Self conscious now is man with self’s ingress.
 The kingship science has a different sense, It needs not a garb of a monarch hence.
 May be Nation’s Council or Kaiser’s court, A king’s eye craves a foreign land or port.
 Didn’t you see western democratic track, Whose face is shining but inner is black.

THIRD ADVISOR:

What is the harm if lives the royal soul, What is the answer to that Jew’s wicked role.
 That Moses sans vision! that Christ sans cross, He’s not prophet, but, keeps Book for a gloss*.
 How to show that heathen’s shameless eyes, To East, West nations a doomsday lies.
 No worst cancer looks than his nature’s bent, That the slaves have toppled the. master’s tent.
 *Gloss a narration on foot notes, (Fig) here it means a deceptive appearance (over a life of secret wrong doings, a false or misleading inter relation).

FOURTH ADVISOR:

Its counter action see in Rome’s big halls, We have shown his Sons, dream of Caesar’s call.
 Who is now wrapped with waves of Roman Sea, Like lute they weep oft, oft they grow like pine’s tree.

THIRD ADVISOR:

 I can’t admire his prudence and care, Who laid bare the Europe’s statecraft snare.

FIFTH ADVISOR:

Due to thy burning this world gets balance, When you wished laid bare each hidden face hence.
 Thy heat in his clay the world’s pomp and show, You taught the heaven’s fool, a wisdom so.
 Than thee He knows not the nature of men, Who is famous as God, in the fool’s ken.
 Whose duty was praise, rosary and round, Due to thy envy, in shame ever bound.
 All wise men of West are thy pupil though, I have no faith yet in their wisdom so.
 That mischief monger Jew, the Muzdak’s soul. Each tunic gets torn from his crazy goal.
 A crow looks prone to seize the hawk’s force, How quick the time changes nature’s course.
 Being restive she scanned the skies vast space, Like fools we counted ‘dust’ of human race.
 The horrors of future, looking so great, With hills and vales shiver the brooks in spate.
 My Master! that world is going to doom, The world which looks to thy Leadership’s boom.

SATAN (To His Advisor):

Thus lies in my hold the world’s pomp an show, This earth, the Sun and Moon, the Sky’s glow.
 Shall see the East and West my game and roar. As soon I warm up Western nation’s gore.

*1
 The pontiffs of church, the leaders of State, My one din’s echoe for them a dread great.
 To her a modern world if a fool espies; This culture’s wine cups will someone break and sea?
 The collars to whom the Nature has torn, The logic of Muzdak*2 to them cant darn.
 How can frighten me the Socialist lads,*3 Since long jobless, confused and loafing lads.*3
 From that nation but I feel a threat grave, whose heart yet holds hidden embers of crave.
 A few of them I espy in this nation yet, At dawn who take ‘Wuzu’*4 with tear drops jet.
 He knows on whom hidden Times are bright, The Islam, not Muzdak is the future’s fright.

(EOP) Indian Soldier Walks Naked In New Delhi To Protest Indian Army Excesses

NEW DELHI – He is no soldier of fortune. Ashok Kumar says he only wants what is his due. The ex-Border Security Force constable alleged that he was ill-treated by his department and was expelled on medical grounds. Kumar claims that he is fit and ready for his job.
So, on Wednesday afternoon the soldier and his young kids marched naked through the heart of the Indian capital as a mark of protest. Ashok wanted to meet Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi but the cops detained him while he was walking nude on the Rajpath.
Ashok is from Sahvada village in Nangloi area of Delhi. “We detained him as soon as we received information (…) we are interrogating him regarding the incident,” a police officer was quoted as saying by the Indian media. Ashok threatened that if he doesn’t get his job back, he would commit suicide, as he has no money left to take care of his family. His interrogation was on till late evening at the Parliament Street police station.
BSF officials refused to comment on the issue saying they didn’t have any information about Ashok’s termination from the force. “We don’t know too many details about this incident. We will investigate the matter,” said Vijay Singh, PRO BSF.
The BSF, which protests India’s borders with several countries, has been beset by scandals recently. Last year, a female-only unit raised from poor villages of the northwest and the northeast sparked a controversy when reports indicated it would be posted in Indian-occupied Kashmir to help reduce the high rate of suicide incidents in Indian Army units posted there for long tours of duty. Some Indian media reports suggested the unit was raised to provide sexual incentive to army units serving in difficult regions for extended periods of time.
India is spending $30 billion on weapons acquisitions from the United States, Russia and other countries to bolster its quest for superpower status.
Critics say the militarization drive comes at the expense of India’s poor, the largest anywhere in the world.
PakNationalists

(EOP)The Real Problem in the Afghan War is Indian Occupation of Kashmir

- Ignore Kashmir, as the United States does, and the conflict seems incomprehensible. Include Kashmir in the picture, and it all makes sense.
- This confrontation ravages Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance, which was organized to fight the Taliban, is backed by money and weapons from India.
- The United States still sets much of the global agenda. If it hopes to salvage any remotely positive outcome from its massive, nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, then it should move a resolution over Kashmir up on its list of priorities.
Mohsin Hamid has written a brilliant article in the Washington Post describing the deep rooted reasons for the war in Afghanistan. This has been brought up several times, and the Obama Administration tried to focus on it in the beginning. Bruce Riedel before he showed his true Indophile colors also wrote extensively–on resolving Kashmir.
That agenda was lost. The US needs to refocus on resolving Kashmir so that the Bharati occupation of Kashmir ends. The Kashmiris recognize this and this months rebellion by the Pro-Pakistani majority in Kashmir speaks volumes about what the Kashmiris want.
LAHORE — The United States is struggling to implement a strategy for Afghanistan that will improve the lives of the Afghan people and allow U.S. troops to go home. Part of what makes it so difficult is the way Washington views the conflict: through the lens of what officials have dubbed “AfPak,” a war in the southern part of Afghanistan and the adjoining border areas of Pakistan. Though the acronym is falling out of official favor, the AfPak mind-set remains.
A different shorthand for the war might help. “AfPInd” may be less catchy, but it is far more useful. Peace in AfPInd requires not U.S. troops on the ground, but a concerted effort to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table, where under the watchful eyes of the international community they can end their hydra-headed confrontation over Kashmir.
But that’s not how the United States sees this conflict. Mutual mistrust has bedeviled the U.S.-Pakistani alliance since the Afghan war began in 2001. Certain suspicions surfaced again recently in military documents revealed by WikiLeaks alleging that members of the Pakistani intelligence agency collaborated with militant groups fighting the United States in Afghanistan. Both Pakistani and U.S. officials have said that the information is old, unreliable and not true to the situation on the ground. Yet the recriminations and controversy have a “here we go again” feel. After all, we’ve seen this pattern before.
In 1947, when Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan were partitioned into two countries, the status of the region of Kashmir, with a Muslim-majority population and a Hindu prince, was unresolved. The United Nations said Kashmiris should hold a referendum, but both India and Pakistan seized parts of the territory, and since then the two countries have been at each other’s throats.
Enter the United States — not once, but three times.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Pakistan and the United States were allies. The United States gave Pakistan weapons and $2 billion in economic aid; it thought that the Pakistani military would be a bulwark against communism. The Pakistani military thought the United States would help it against a much larger and hostile India.
Then India and Pakistan went to war in 1965. American leaders castigated Pakistan for using U.S.-supplied weapons and terminated the alliance.
Fast forward to the 1980s, and Pakistan and the United States once again were allies. The United States gave Pakistan weapons and $3 billion in economic aid; it thought that the Pakistani military would be a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military thought the United States would help it against a much larger and hostile India.
Then the Soviets were defeated. The United States castigated Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons (to counter India) and terminated the alliance.
Today, Pakistan and the United States are allies for a third time. Over the past decade, the United States has given Pakistan weapons and $4 billion (and counting) in economic aid; it hopes that the Pakistani military will be a bulwark against terrorist groups in the region. The Pakistani military hopes the United States will help it against a much larger and hostile India. Then . . .
By now, the recurring failure in the Pakistan-U.S. alliance should be obvious: The Pakistani military views it primarily as a means of reducing the threat from India, and the United States does not.
But perhaps the United States should.
The reason the Pakistani military continued to back jihadist groups, jointly set up with the CIA in the 1980s, after the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan was that it believed the same tactics could be used in Kashmir against India. And the reason the Pakistani military remains obsessed with shaping events in Afghanistan is because that country is the site of a power struggle between Pakistan and India — what commentators in Pakistan go so far as to call a “proxy war.” It is what Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistan army chief, means when he speaks of Pakistan’s desire for “strategic depth” in Afghanistan.
Fighting terrorists or fighting the Taliban — or indeed, fighting in Afghanistan at all — addresses symptoms rather than the disease in South Asia: the horrific, wasteful, tragic and dangerous six-decade confrontation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
This confrontation ravages Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance, which was organized to fight the Taliban, is backed by money and weapons from India, and militant groups among the southern Pashtuns are backed by Pakistan. It is a big part of why peace eludes the country, even though the Soviets left a generation ago.
Ignore Kashmir, as the United States does, and the conflict seems incomprehensible. Include Kashmir in the picture, and it all makes sense.
At the moment, the Pakistani military uses militant groups to put pressure on India to negotiate, and India uses terrorism as an excuse not to negotiate. By so doing, both sides harm themselves greatly. The vast majority of people in South Asia, who like myself desire peace built on compromise, find our hopes held hostage by security hawks.
The situation is not improving. India’s stance toward Pakistan has hardened since attacks by Pakistan-based militants on Mumbai killed 173 people in 2008. And here in Pakistan, militants are killing even more civilians, police officers and soldiers every month — more than 3,000 Pakistanis in 2009. Some of the preschools I’m considering for my daughter now have snipers on their roofs and steel barricades at their gates.
Meanwhile, the United States has placed 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, where they can do little to eliminate the single biggest problem that nation faces: being made into a battleground by its neighbors.
The United States still sets much of the global agenda. If it hopes to salvage any remotely positive outcome from its massive, nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, then it should move a resolution over Kashmir up on its list of priorities.
Peace in AfPak is failing because the term itself is a willful illusion. Peace in AfPInd will not be easy, but the term rings true, and that at least offers a start.
Mohsin Hamid is a writer based in Pakistan. His most recent novel is “The Reluctant Fundamentalist.” The real problem in the Afghan war is India, Pakistan and Kashmir, By Mohsin Hamid, Sunday, August 8, 2010; B04
Dirtroad an Indian adds:
Bhutto was no friend of India. But he belonged to the same rationalist and sociaist school that built up the great leaders of 60s. He understood the real problems and though his solutions were not always perfect…(like he could have stopped the breaking of Pakistan if he wanted to)..sometimes the appreciation of the problem leads to right steps.
Possibly a peaceful resolution was possible within Asia itself..between India, Pakistan and Russia playing the mediator. Russia would have gladly turned a greater friend of Pakistan as it would have got to the warm waters and it would have slighted China. It was easier for Russia to handle India too.
Possibly we all fell victim to the great game..with US moving fast to dislodge Bhutto and put a retrograde regime in control in Pakistan. It had to act fast as Iran by then has slipped out its fold and Afganistan was becoming a russian influenced state too.
We cannot put the clock back..but as said..an autopsy can still show us the disease. Militancy and a zero-sum game may not be the way forward. And at the end US will still be playing a mediator. Hasn’t it proved enough that with all its so called good-will it is hopelessly out of touch in Asian politics?
With Russia gone..India really has no option now but to depend on US. Unfortunately due to civilizational conflict .. North and South of Himalays..it will be near impossible for Indians to trust the chienese…the same with China too.
Seems we are hopelessly mired in the logjam..but hoping for the enemy’s annihilation may not be the best goal forward for either side.
SiyasiPakistan