Comments for The Khilafah is not a Totalitarian State at http://www.khilafah.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.khilafah.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:35:10 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/multimedia/books/2255-the-khilafah-is-not-a-totalitarian-state#comment-6668 The governmental institutions of the Khilafah state differ from those known in currently applied ruling systems, even though some parts may appear to be similar. The institutions of the Khilafah state are derived from the institutions of the first Islamic State established by the Messenger of Allah (saw) in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah after his emigration from Makkah. Legislation in a democracy is made through members of parliament voting on laws. They may vote on a law that agrees with Islam such as banning alcohol but this doesnt make it an Islamic law. An Islamic law must be derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah through the process of ijtihad (extraction of laws) performed by a scholar (mujtahid). Majority voting has no place in deriving Islamic laws. Below is an extract from the book "Institutions of the Khilafah State" by Hizb ut-Tahrir which answers your question in detail. The ruling system in Islam is not democratic, in terms of giving the right of legislation to the people, where they permit, forbid, praise and rebuke as they see fit. A democratic system is not committed to divine rules at all and instead taking freedom as its core principle. The disbelievers realise that Muslims could not accept a democracy in its true form. Therefore, the colonial powers, particularly America, try to promote it in Muslim lands, by claiming that democracy is simply a means for electing the ruler. In this way they attempt to deceive the Ummah and tempt them to accept a democratic system. Since Muslim lands are suffering under the oppression and tyranny of true monarchs or “republican” dictators in which the sentiments of the people are suppressed and silenced it has been easy to promote democracy in these lands as a means to elect a new ruler! In this way they have carefully avoided discussing the more important aspect of democracy, which is giving the right of legislation, to the people rather than to the Creator. Unfortunately even some Islamists including some scholars have fallen for this deceit, whether with good or bad intention. If you ask them about democracy they say it is a means by which the people elect the ruler. Those that intend to deceive Muslims, like the disbelievers, answer avoiding its real meaning always avoid the real meaning of democracy when they advocate it. They prefer to avoid discussing the fact that in democracies sovereignty is in the hands of the people, and legislation is according to the opinion of the majority, permitting, forbidding, praising and rebuking as they like, instead sticking to the meaning coined by its advocates that it is about having elections. In a democracy the individual must be free to act as he wishes as how else could the people hold sovereignty) Thus, he can drink alcohol, commit adultery, apostasise and insult sacred matters with impunity according to the opinion of the majority, irrespective of the divine rule._ All of this can be permitted under a democracy and its freedoms. This is the true reality and meaning of democracy. How is it possible for a Muslim who believes in Islam to say that democracy is allowed, or that it is from Islam after realising this? Islam has laid out a specific mechanism for the election of the Khalifah by the Ummah. Though sovereignty in Islam is for the shara’, enacting the pledge to the Khalifah by the Ummah is a fundamental condition for him to become a Khalifah. The election of the Khalifah has been occurring in Islam since the early 7th century C.E., while the rest of the world lived in the darkness of dictatorships and the tyranny of kings. If one were to study the election of the rightly guided khulafa’, Abu Bakr, ‘‘Umar, ‘‘Uthman and ‘Ali (ra), it is very clear that the pledge was taken from the influential people of the Ummah and from the Muslims representatives so that each one of them became a Khalifah to whom obedience became incumbent. Nearing the end of ‘‘Umar’s term, ’Abd al-Rahman ibn ’Awf (ra), was delegated to find out the opinion of the representative of the Muslims (at that time, the people of Madinah). He set out to gauge who the Muslims in Madinah thought should be nominated for the post of Khaleefah and visited many houses in that process. He asked the men and women who they would select as Khalifah until he concluded that the overall consensus was in favour of ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman was then given the pledge (bayah). In conclusion, democracy is a system of kufr. This is not because it advocates the election of the ruler, for this is not the main issue. It is rather because the foundation of any democracy is giving the right of legislation to the people and not to the Lord of the worlds. Allah (swt) says: (Indeed, ruling belongs to Allah) [TMQ 12:40] (But no, by Your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission) [4:65] There are many famous evidences that confirm that legislation is for Allah alone. To compound matters further, democracy acknowledges personal freedom, where a man and woman can do whatever they like without observing halal and haram. In a democracy, religious liberties allow apostasy and change of religion without any restriction. Furthermore, freedom of ownership allows the strong to exploit the weak through corrupt and deceptive means thus increasing the wealth of the rich and impoverishing the poor. Freedom of expression is not advocated to express the truth, rather it is used to insult the sanctities of the Ummah, to the point that those who attack Islam under the guise of freedom of expression are considered to have a keen intellect and are rewarded for their efforts. All of this clearly demonstrates that the ruling system in Islam (the Khilafah) is not Monarchical, Imperial, Federal, Republican or Democratic. - Abdul-Kareem Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:39:21 +0100 http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/multimedia/books/2255-the-khilafah-is-not-a-totalitarian-state#comment-6665 In my opinion, democracy and khilafah are closely related. if we can make laws according to Koran in a democracy. It is khilafah. A Caliph (PM in democracy) is elected by a council of ulmah elected and seen as respectable and worthy of representing them by the general public, (the natinoal assembly) ...and every one has to do Bait (vote) forthe caliph. Now the only remaining solution is that the head of the state should make islamic laws. Why call Democracy a kufr ??? - anonymous Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:47:50 +0100 http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/multimedia/books/2255-the-khilafah-is-not-a-totalitarian-state#comment-435 [b]RE: goolam [/b] [b]I see that this article is ambiguous because its espousing a multi-party democratic system.[/b] This article is addressing a very specific accusation that the Khilafah is a totalitarian state. Other details on the Khilafah government structure are found in other articles on the site. For example “Accountability in the Khilafah” and “Method to appoint a Khaleefah.” These should answer most of your questions. Political parties are not unique to democracy. The Khilafah does not have a party system of ruling as found in western democracies. Political parties in the Khilafah are established primarily to account the head of state (Khaleefah) and his government. Their task is to safeguard the thoughts of Islam in society and to ensure the government does not deviate from the implementation and propagation of Islam. [b]1. Who choses the Caliph? All those parties will prefer their own leadership.[/b] Please see the article “Method to appoint a Khaleefah” for details on this. The elected Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah) will effectively appoint the Khaleefah on behalf of the Muslim Ummah unless its possible to have a general election within the 3 day time limit. Members of the Majlis do not have to be members of political parties. [b]2. It seems that only Muslim parties can participate (can women participate?). Any country with a sizeable non-Muslim minority will erupt in war. [/b] Only Islamic political parties can exist within the Khilafah. Women can be members of Islamic political parties and indeed play a vital role in them as we see today in countries like Uzbekistan. Why would a Muslim country with non-Muslim citizens erupt in war? Islam has a track record of integrating non-Muslims into its system for over a millennia. Please see the article on dhimmi for further details. [b]3. Also you're ignoring other successful mutli -party democracies with many parties in the legislature, like Germany, Turkey etc.[/b] To re-iterate the aim of the article is to refute a specific accusation not to address the problems with multi-party democracies. This is addressed elsewhere. Turkey is a stark example of the problems with democracy. The recent court case where the ruling party was nearly banned, years of coup’s by the army and years of hung parliaments. [b]4. The powers of the Caliph will change and this system will result in endless war.[/b] An unfounded accusation. Please provide evidence. [b]5. You system of government has ignored the most important revolutions of the past one hundred years ~ The workers revolutions and the feminist revolution.[/b] The Muslim world has tried many systems sicne the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924 including Socialism and many feminist movements. However, these movements failed as the ideas they are based on are weak compared to the strength of the Islamic ideas. [b]6. You're ignoring all the underpinnings for the Muslim countries revolts against "Islamic" governments. People suffered with Islamic governments and fought them so they could establish western models in the hope the western models will work better. The Ata-Turk revolution and the crushing of Islamists in Arab states are symbolic of this.[/b] What revolts against Islamic governments are you referring to? What suffering are you referring to? The abolishment of the Khilafah by Mustafa Kemal and the division of the Arab provinces during the First World War was forced upon the Muslims. Thousands were killed to destroy the Khilafah. The Arab revolt against the Young Turks in power in the Khilafah had its aim as establishing the Khilafah in the Arab lands. This was not a revolt against Islam. The western model has failed. Look at the worldwide economic crisis, social breakdown and crime. The west forces democracy and the western model on the Muslim world using torture and wars. If it was so good surely people would be willingly embracing it. - Abdul-Kareem Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:46:58 +0100 http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/multimedia/books/2255-the-khilafah-is-not-a-totalitarian-state#comment-424 I've just flipped through a copy of "democracy is kufr" and I see that this article is ambiguous because its espousing a multi-party democratic system. Accept now I realize that your perfect model isn't a mutli-party democract. 1. Who choses the Caliph? All those parties will prefer their own leadership. 2. It seems that only Muslim parties can participate (can women participate?). Any country with a sizeable non-Muslim minority will erupt in war. 3. Also you're ignoring other successful mutli -party democracies with many parties in the legislature, like Germany, Turkey etc. 4. The powers of the Caliph will change and this system will result in endless war. 5. You system of government has ignored the most important revolutions of the past one hundred years ~ The workers revolutions and the feminist revolution. 6. You're ignoring all the underpinnings for the Muslim countries revolts against "Islamic" governments. People suffered with Islamic governments and fought them so they could establish western models in the hope the western models will work better. The Ata-Turk revolution and the crushing of Islamists in Arab states are symbolic of this. - goolam Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:37:56 +0100