A group of Muslim preachers issued a statement supporting the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt while slamming democracy and “un-Islamic” political parties.
A statement issued by 90 preachers and religious scholars from all over the Muslim world praised the revolutions that ousted the dictatorships of Tunisia and Egypt for defeating oppression and ushering in a new era of justice and freedom.
The statement, of which AlArabiya.net obtained a copy, criticized Zein El Abedin Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, the former presidents of Tunisia and Egypt, respectively, for humiliating and dragging them to a state of abject poverty.
The statement also pointed out the role of the two presidents in the political, administrative, and financial corruption that prevailed in their countries as well as the torture of prisoners.
The statement, however, criticized the revolution’s call for the installation of full democracies. Democracy, Muslim clerics argued, allows the people have the final say in their countries’ affairs, which leads to the prevalence of several un-Islamic practices.
“In democracies, people might vote for things that are prohibited in Islam like establishing brothels, allowing homosexuality, drinking alcohol, and usury, and prohibiting the call for prayers or the veil.”
The alternative, they argue, is to apply the concept of “shura,” or consultation, only in matters that are sanctioned in Islam while prohibited matters should be out of the question.
The statement also warned of the involvement of “un-Islamic” parties in the countries’ political scene and cited the example of political parties with communist or secular ideologies.
Signatories of the statement called upon Tunisian women to go back to Islam after the departure of Ben Ali, who promoted secularism, and start abiding by the Islamic dress code that was prohibited by the ousted president.
The statement was signed by preachers from various Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Lebanon.
It is for the people to decide through exercising their right to self-determination that should guide the future political architecture of these countries and not the command and dictats of so-called scholars.
Assalamu alaikum Ibrahim. Jazak Allah for your question
First of all there is no clergy in Islam. However, Islamic scholars have a duty to provide rulings that elucidate Islam’s position on all aspects of life because Islam is a way of life.
Allah (swt) revealed: “And We have sent down to you the Book explaining everything.” [TMQ 16-89]
Thus Muslims are commanded, in regard to their actions, to refer to the wahy (revelation) from Allah سبحانهوتعالى alone and to conduct their affairs in accordance with the commandments within this legislation.
With respect the question of political architecture this is a question of Islam’s viewpoint on the ruling system or governance structure. Here Islam is categorically clear – to legislate or make rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed is absolutely forbidden.
He (swt), the Supreme, describes those who do not rule by His Shariah to be disbelievers, oppressors or transgressors. “And whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the disbelievers …oppressors… transgressors” (TMQ 5:44,45,47)
Thus sovereignty lies with Allah (swt) and His laws above all else.
Islam’s political system is not a theocracy however. The leader of Muslims (Caliph or Imam) is chosen from among Muslims by Muslims through the process of Bay’a.
It has been narrated by Abdullah Bin Amr Bin Ul-Aas (ra) that RasulAllah صلى الله عليهوسلم said: “He who pledged his Bay’a to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man.” [Muslim]
Salam Preditor,
Not everyone shares this vision of how a country should be governed. There will be some that will support this and that is their right but there will be others that will not share this and may advocate a different system (i.e liberal democracy – indeed liberal democracy does not neccessarily mean absence of sharia). In terms of a state architecture you will need to design a structure that is capable of accomodating plurality of views and opinions – otherwise you will be simply replacing one totalitarian system with another (this is what happend in Iran and look where it is now)
Salams brother Ibrahim,
I would argue that liberal democracy necessarily requires pluralism to protect minorities otherwise tyranny by majority is more than a possibility after all democracy by definition favours the majority. Despite this minority rights are not guaranteed under liberal democracy – Europe’s current throes against Islam and Muslims is an apt example – also please note Cameron’s and Merkel’s attack on multiculturalism, which is rooted in secular pluralism. Moreover, how are Muslims to interpret Cameron’s threat of “muscular liberalism”.
Islam’s political system, based on the Quran and Sunnah, however guarantees minority rights allowing Christian and Jews for example to live according to their scriptures in personal life and family law. Minorities are not harmed in any way and non-Muslims are not forced to covert to Islam not as a favour, a concession or because of vague, malleable concepts such as pluralism but because it is forbidden according to the Quran and Sunnah.
The Prophet (saw) forbade harming non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. He said, “He who hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens) hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” Meanwhile the Quran says there is no compulsion in Islam: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion..” [2:256]
Wassalam
it is Allah who has the authority to decide on all matters as He is free of all needs, if man is given authority then he will always decide according to his interests, even if it means harming others.