No announcement yet.

Is the Islamic State Based on the principles of Democracy, Freedom, And Human Rights

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is the Islamic State Based on the principles of Democracy, Freedom, And Human Rights

    Is the Islamic State based on the principles of
    “Democracy, Freedom, and Human Rights”?

    Because of the absence of any Islamic State that applies the Islamic system, the Muslims cannot comprehend what life under the Islamic system truly consists of. Thus, it is natural for Muslims to try and think of the Islamic system in terms of systems that they feel being applied upon them. Furthermore, the regimes in the Muslim world are among the most corrupted regimes in the world, including those that have proclaimed themselves as “Islamic.” When Muslims are exposed to life in the West and realize that quality of life, concern for the human being, and the accessibility of services and rights, are better than what exists in the Muslim world on a relative scale, many Muslims become attached to the Western way of life.

    To complicate matters, the West, in its plan to spread its way of life and culture throughout the Muslim world, propagates the notion that the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Human Rights are universal values. The West purposefully spreads these concepts detached from the Western outlook so that Muslims would not view them as Western ideas but rather universal ideas and norms. The end result of all of these factors caused the Muslims to believe that the Islamic State is a state modeled after Western principles of Democracy, Freedom, and Human Rights. And if the Islamic State is not based upon these principles, then it would degenerate into a dictatorial state that would be marked by oppression and iron-fisted rule.

    In actuality, these ideas are not universal ideas but Western ideas that emanate from the Western way of life. Not only do these ideas contradict Islam, but they also contradict reality and fail to correctly address the human being. Democracy, which is derived from the Greek term Demos Cratus (“people power”), is based upon the notion that sovereignty and authority belong to the people. In other words, Democracy appoints the human being as the source of laws and rules for other human beings, and is based on the notion that the people should be left to rule themselves and implement any system of their choosing upon themselves. This concept contradicts the very basic notion in Islam that sovereignty belongs to Allah in the sense that Allah is the only source of laws and rules, and the people have only the authority to understand these laws and implement them. Furthermore, in Democracy, the people choose the frame or structure by which they will implement these laws and rules, whereas in Islam the laws and rules can only be implemented using the Islamic political system that was defined by Allah and applied by the Messenger of Allah.

    Aside from this conflict with Islam, Democracy as an idea cannot be applied in reality because every society has a ruling structure that is charged with implementing the rules. Even in the Democratic societies of the West, there exists a ruling body that implements the rules upon the rest of the people. Thus, the idea that everybody rules his or her own self has no basis in real life.

    As for Freedom and Human Rights, they are related in the sense that freedom is the basis from which human rights emanates. The Western intellectuals espoused the notion that human beings have certain freedoms, the most important being freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of ownership, and personal freedom. This notion came from the idea that the human being is born naturally good, and only by restricting his freedoms does he commit evil. Thus, the securing of these freedoms and liberties is the basis of the call for human rights. According to the Western outlook, the source of evils in the society are the restrictions that are imposed upon the human being that limit his freedoms; thus, only by securing the freedom of the human being and enabling his inherently good nature to manifest itself will the problems of society be minimized.

    Such terms were sold to the Muslims as very attractive slogans, which appealed to many given the oppressive conditions imposed upon the Muslims by the regimes. In reality, these terms not only contradict Islam, but like Democracy, failed to address the reality as well. First, the West was incorrect in its description of the human being as naturally good or evil because the human being is neither good nor evil by nature. Rather, the human being has certain instincts and needs, and a mind to choose which path to satisfy these needs. If he chooses to satisfy them according to Allah’s rules, then he does good; and if he chooses to satisfy them according to any other way, then he will do evil. Therefore, the concept of good or evil is used to describe the actions of the human being to address his natural instincts and needs; good and evil cannot be used to describe the human being’s natural state. And the idea of Freedom conflicts directly with the fundamental notion in Islam that all human beings are slaves to Allah. Furthermore, this idea of freedom conflicts directly with reality because in the real world, all societies, even the “free” societies, are governed by systems of laws and rules that restrict the actions and behavior of human beings. When the U.S. Constitution says that all human beings have the right to free speech, religion, press, and assembly, it is the law of the land, and not “freedom,” which gives the citizens these freedoms, and the law can revoke, suspend, or modify these freedom when it sees fit to do so.

    As for the four freedoms that collectively form the basis of human rights, they all contradict Islam because the Muslim does not have the freedom to renounce Islam. And while freedom of speech may allow someone to insult the prophets or ridicule Allah, Islam does not allow the uttering of such statements. Also, the Muslim does not have the right to own whatever he wants in any way he wants, nor does he have the right to exercise his sexual desires freely in the name of personal freedom. Islam regulates how the human being satisfies his sexual needs in addition to regulating what the human being can own and how he acquires this ownership in such a way that guarantees that his needs are satisfied and the high standard of society is maintained.

    Furthermore, the West misunderstood the impact of allowing the human being to live freely like the animals in the jungle. The Western intellectuals mistakenly diagnosed the roots of the existing evils in the society as the restrictions imposed upon the human being, which limit his freedom. What they failed to realize is that all societies, by their nature, have restrictions, and the issue is not the presence or absence of restrictions but whether the restrictions are man-made or made by Allah. Thus, while the West believed that securing the freedom of human beings will result in good, in actuality the expression of these freedoms has caused so much evil in the society that even some Western thinkers and intellectuals themselves begun to doubt the validity of this idea. In the name of freedom of ownership, the wealthy nations have given themselves the freedom to exploit the world’s resources and to keep the rest of the world in a state of poverty. And within each nation, the elite have consolidated virtually all the wealth of the society while the masses struggle among themselves for the few crumbs that the elite have left behind. And in the name of personal freedom, vices such as homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography, have reached epidemic proportions.

    Therefore, the Muslims should be aware that the ideas of Democracy, Freedom, and Human Rights are specific ideas that emanate from a unique outlook and are not universal ideas. As a result of being man-made, such ideas are inferior to Islam and fail to address the reality, and the misery and suffering that they have resulted in attests to their inferiority. The question comes: If the Islamic State is not based on Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights, then what is the Islamic State based upon? The Islamic State is based upon the notion that sovereignty belongs only to Allah (swt). Such an idea is consistent with the reality because, if Allah is the Creator of human beings, then Allah (swt) is the only one fit to design a system of laws and rules for the human being to live by. In reality, the human being can never be free because, wherever he lives, he is subjected by the laws of the society. The human being will either be a slave to other human beings or a slave to Allah, depending upon whose laws he will submit to. The Islamic State provides the correct solution to this dilemma by subjecting the human beings to the justice of Allah’s system. By correctly addressing the human being’s relationship to Allah in this manner, Islam saves humanity from being slaves to other human beings and man-made system, as in the Democratic system. Therefore, the Islamic State is the state where all human beings are slaves to Allah and no human being is the slave of another human being.

    Lastly, the Muslims should detach themselves from the concept of “human rights.” As illustrated, the notion of human rights is specific to the Western outlook, and is based upon an incorrect assessment of the nature of the human being. Furthermore, the concept of human rights is a subjective term, and as such, it is used as a political tool used by certain powers to consolidate their interests in the international scene. On the other hand, Islam correctly defines the rights of the human being, which are the Shariah rights given by the Creator of humanity. These Shariah rights and fixed and permanent, and they apply upon everyone at all times and places.

    soldiers of Allah

    "Only for Allah and to gain His pleasure"
    "You are either slave to what made man or u are slave to what man made"

    Ok, with all the sects, people of the book, and kufirs, Islam claims no coersion in religion. It also makes other, seemingly contradictory statements. To accomodate all the above, democracy, individual rights, and civil law appear to be an avenue to achieve a just order. Democracy on Islamic terms for those states to which it applies would be beneficial. You can have democracy within a monarchy, even.


      Is the Khalifah a Dictator?

      The Muslim world today is essentially run by regimes who govern the society in a dictatorial fashion with no regard for the well-being of the people. Unfortunately, those regimes that have claimed themselves as Islamic are no exception to this phenomenon. In fact, these regimes are among the most authoritarian that exist in the world. The existence of these regimes has caused many to mistakenly perceive the Islamic State as a dictatorship with the Khalifah as some sort of totalitarian figurehead. To complicate matters further, the only other existing alternative available to the people are the Democratic societies that exist in the West, which comparatively offer a much better life than what exists in the Muslim world. As a result, many Muslims believe that the models of Democracy and Dictatorship are the only types of political systems that exist. This misconception has caused many Muslims to believe that, unless the Islamic State is modeled after the Democracies of the West, then it will resemble a dictatorial regime no different than what exists in the Muslim world today.

      The reality is that both the Democratic and Dictatorial systems are man-made systems in which the sovereignty belongs to the human being. The only difference between the two systems is the relative concentration of power; in a democracy, power is more dispersed among several branches that comprise the elite ranks of society, whereas in a dictatorship, the power is typically concentrated in the hands of one individual. However, the common denominator between the two is that, regardless of the concentration of power, the sovereignty still resides with human beings, whether one individual as in a dictatorship or in a group of elite as in a democracy (In theory, democracy states that power is in the hands of the people; however, such a theory has no practical reality because the very nature of society will prohibit such a chaotic distribution of power. Therefore, democracy is best described as an “Elitist” society). Islam is unique from both systems in that the sovereignty belongs to Allah. In the Islamic State, the Khalifah, like the people, is a slave and servant of Allah, and he is confined by the Islamic rules. Although the Khalifah has the authority, he does not possess the sovereignty. And the sovereign, who is Allah, has determined conditions for the Khalifah’s authority, including how this authority is given to him and when this authority can be taken away from him. The Khalifah is given the authority by the Muslim Ummah to implement the Islamic system, and obeying him is obligatory only if he exercises his authority for this purpose. However, once he begins to implement non-Islamic rules or he becomes unable to carry out this position, then he must be disobeyed. Furthermore, implementing non-Islamic rules is grounds for the Khalifah to be removed, and Islam outlines the procedures for selecting and removing the Khalifah.

      Therefore, the Khalifah is far from the concept of dictatorship because the very basis of Islam, which establishes Allah (swt) and His Shariah as the sovereign, eliminates the source of dictators, which is the concept of designating sovereignty to human beings. Furthermore, the Islamic system, like any other system, has checks and balances to further ensure that the rulers do not overstep their boundaries. The most important of these checks and balances is the taqwa of the individual, which instills within the Muslims the Fear of Allah. This taqwa will motivate the individuals to continuously monitor the Islamic State’s policies and hold the rulers accountable for their actions. In addition, there are many other checks and balances, such as the Islamic political parties, which serve as the eyes and ears of the Ummah; the Majlis as-Shura, which continuously advises the Khalifah and addresses the grievances of the masses; and the Madhalim courts, which have the power to judge cases between the citizens and the State and can remove a ruler from his post. With all of these checks and balances in place, the Khalifah will think one thousand times before attempting to enact any policy or engage in any action that defies the limits of the sovereign.

      Is the Islamic State a National State?

      When the Prophet (saaw) migrated to Medina and established the first Islamic State, he began the Islamic State’s first constitution with the following statement: “This Ummah is one Ummah, distinguished from all others.” This statement set the tone for the structure of the Islamic State to come by declaring, first, that the Islamic State is a unique state and, secondly, that the Muslim Ummah is one Ummah. Islam does not recognize any borders between the Muslims on the basis of race, nationality, or ethnicity. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:

      “Hold fast to the Rope of Allah, and do not be divided.” [Al-Imran: 103]

      “And those who disbelieve are allies to one another. And if you (Muslims) do not do so (become united), there will be Fitnah and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption.” [Al-Anfal: 73]

      The second ayah is a clear warning to the Muslims of the consequences of allowing any division to emerge among themselves. From the onset of the Daw’ah, the Prophet (saaw) made it clear that Islam is a universal message that was not restricted by nationality. He incorporated into his group Shuaib, who was of Roman descent; Salman, who was of Persian descent; Bilal, a Black man from Abyssina; and Arabs from both the poor and elite sectors of society. This is a clear indication that Islam recognizes no nationality or ethnic divisions. The universality of Islam was also illustrated in the actions and policies of the Islamic State during both the time of the Prophet (saaw) and throughout its history. In choosing the location of the Islamic State, the concept of “national homeland” was not a factor. He chose to establish the Islamic State in Madinah, which was a different region altogether, and those who migrated with him were called Muhajiroon, or “immigrants.” After he established the Islamic State, the Prophet (saaw) worked to consolidate his position among the Arabs by undermining Quraysh. Had his vision been formulated along nationalistic tendencies, he would have relocated his capital to Mecca. However, he maintained the capital of the Islamic State in Madinah. Furthermore, the Prophet (saaw) would have ceased his efforts once he consolidated himself among the Arabs. However, towards the latter part of his life, the reason for him consolidating his position among the Arabs became clear. It was not to become the leader of the Arabs, but to establish the Islamic State as a strong enough power to confront the superpowers of the world and to carry Islam to the far regions of the world. In light of this, he sent delegations to the Romans, the Persians, and the Egyptians. And before he passed away, he initiated the Army of Usama in order to fight the Romans, which he did during the Khilafah of Abu Bakr. By the time of Umar, the Islamic State expanded to include many non-Arab countries, such as Egypt, Persia, and the territories of the Romans, and even some parts of central Asia. The people who lived in these newly liberated territories no longer associated themselves with their national or ethnic background but became Muslims united under one flag, one constitution, one central authority, and one capital.

      Throughout its history, the Islamic State manifested the capacity of Islam to dissolve all types of borders. Today, people who reside in areas that were once non-Arab and were distinct from one another, such as the Berbers of North Africa, the Blacks of central and southern Africa, and the Turks of Central Asia, all embrace the same way of life and adhere to the same culture. These areas all adopted the Arabic language, which is the language of Islam, as their language, and many of the great scholars of Arabic were non-Arabs. This bond, which Islam produced, was so powerful that it took centuries of concentrated effort by the West to inject concepts such as Nationalism and Patriotism, which resulted in the artificial divisions that exist today. Even the capital city of the Islamic State moved at least four times throughout its history. From Madinah, the capital moved to Al-Kufa during the time of Ali, and then to Damascus during the Umayyad Era, which was a conquered territory inhabited by non-Arabs. From Damascus, the Abbasids moved the capital to Baghdad in present-day Iraq, and later the Uthmanis, who were Turks, moved the capital to Istanbul. Those who were conquered by the Islamic State, such as the Abbasids and the Uthmanis, became the rulers of all the Muslims worldwide.

      Therefore, the Islamic State is not a national state that is confined to a certain territory. The Islamic State is a global state for all human beings. The Islamic State’s jurisdiction is not based upon nationalism but is rather based upon who is a citizen of the state. And the citizenship of the Islamic State is not determined by the person’s nationality or ethnicity, but is determined by his willingness to live under the rules of Islam and to accept the duties and responsibilities that this entails.

      The idea of a global Islamic State sounds somewhat far-fetched because the concept of nationalism was injected into the Muslims, to the extent that many Muslims are unable to fathom the idea of removing the borders that exist between them. As a result, the notion of establishing an Islamic state within each Muslim country sounds more appealing and plausible to some. However, this scenario will strengthen the existing status quo because it will pacify the Muslims. The end result will be a strengthening of the existing nationalism that is keeping the Muslims in a state of perpetual weakness. The correct solution is for the Islamic State to open its borders and call the Muslims to annex themselves to its body. If the Prophet (saaw) was able to annex the territories around him which were inhabited by Kuffar at such a rapid rate, then the Islamic State would be able to easily unify the Muslims because the people around the Islamic State would already have Islam in their minds and hearts.

      "Only for Allah and to gain His pleasure"
      "You are either slave to what made man or u are slave to what man made"