Do you find anything in Islam to oppose democracy (as described above), and is it in our interests to do so.

I feel democracy is an appropriate way to fulfill certain obligations of the faith in the contemporary world.

The Islamic tradition contains a number of key concepts that are key to “Islamic democracy.” It is important for Muslims not simply to copy what non-Muslims have done in creating democratic systems, because there are different forms that legitimate democracy can take.

Iran’s President Mohammad Khatami, in a television interview in June last year said that “the existing democracies do not necessarily follow one formula or aspect. It is possible that a democracy may lead to a liberal system. It is possible that democracy may lead to a socialist system. Or it may be a democracy with the inclusion of religious norms in the government. We have accepted the third option.”

My dear brother, the world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum, which is the vacuum of spirituality, and Islam can provide the framework for combining democracy with spirituality and religious government.

The synthesis of spirituality and government builds on a fundamental affirmation at the heart of Islam: the proclamation that “There is no divinity but The God” and the affirmation of the “oneness” of God.

This concept, called tawhid, provides the foundation for the idea that one cannot separate different aspects of life into separate compartments.

Ali Shariati, who made important contributions to the ideological development of the Islamic revolution in Iran, wrote in On the Sociology of Islam, that tawhid “in the sense of oneness of God is of course accepted by all monotheists. But tauhid as a world view . . . means regarding the whole universe as a unity, instead of dividing it into this world and the here-after . . . spirit and body.”

In this worldview, the separation of religion from politics creates a spiritual vacuum in the public arena and opens the way for political systems that have no sense of moral values. The Oneness of God requires some form of democratic system.

No Muslim questions the sovereignty of God or the rule of Shari’ah. However, most Muslims do (and did) have misgivings about any claims by one person that he is sovereign. The sovereignty of one man contradicts the sovereignty of God, for all men are equal in front of God. . . . Blind obedience to one-man rule is contrary to Islam.

The doctrine of tawhid virtually requires a democratic system because humans are all created equal and any system that denies that equality is not Islamic.
@Asad Ullah:

The Noble Qur’an – al-Maa’idah 5:48

… To each among you we have prescribed a law and a minhaaj…

Hadith – Bukhari and Muslim:

A person asked Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) as to who amongst the people were the best. He said: Of the generation to which I belong, then of the second generation (generation adjacent to my generation), then of the third generation (generation adjacent to the second generation).

Our minhaj should “Quran and Sunnah.” And that is what Khilafah is all about, it is the best system for humanity. And by the way Allama Iqbal says:
“Apni millat par qayas aqwam-e-maghrib se na kar … Khas hay tarkeeb main Qaum-e-Rsool-e-Hashmi”.

Hence according to Iqbal, legislative assemblies constituted by experts of various disciplines including the experts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Uṣūl al Fiqh can play an important role in exercising collective ijtihad.

However, later Iqbal realized some practical problems that might arise in the legislative assemblies where Muslims are in minority like British India. He proposed the formation of an assembly of Ulema who should be independent of the legislature. “The idea” of the assembly, according to Iqbal, “is to protect, expand, and, if necessary, to reinterpret the law of Islam in the light of modern conditions, while keeping close to the spirit embodied in its fundamental principles.”

For this reason, many scholars including Mūḥammad Khālid Mas‘ūd contend that “the significance of Iqbal’s contribution in this discussion thus lies in his re-construction of ijtihād as a collective effort in the form if ijmā‘, rather than an individual attempt.”

Here, Iqbal’s contention that the abolition of Khilafah in Turkey and its replacement with the republican form of government is based on ijtihād, needs critical assessment. There is no doubt that the Khilafah in Turkey remained only in namesake since the whole institution of Khilafah was distorted and degenerated. It can also not be disputed that Islamic political system is based on consent and elective principle.

But was it not clear to Iqbal that Mustafa Kamal Ataturk was not interested in restoring Islamic political system, rather he aimed and established a thoroughly secular republic based on the Western model?

If Kamal Ataturk had abolished the distorted and torn out Caliphate in 1924 in order to establish the genuine Caliphate based on Shūra with the supremacy of Sharī‘ah, this would have been welcomed by the Muslim world whole heartedly. But, history bears witness to the fact that all the attempts of Ataturk were manoeuvred on Western model of modernization.

But, it does not however mean that Iqbal accepted secularism and secular foundation of democracy which shall be soon discussed later in the paper. Perhaps to Iqbal, the abolition of the distorted caliphate and the formation of a republican government is Ijitihād, not of course the formation of Western styled secular republic which is repugnant to Islam.

Please go enjoy wine with your American friends and leave us to worry about Muslims. DO NOT EVER WRITE ON ISLAM …. IDIOT!

Even prominent Islamic revivalists of the twentieth century like Maulana Maududi and Imam Khomeni have advocated the cause of democracy.

Maulana Maududi was the first to write about the concept of a Theo democracy – a God centered democratic polity.

Imam Khomeini established separation of powers, a parliaments, elections and public accountability along with the institution of Vilayat-e-faqi after the Islamic revolution of Iran. Indeed there is nothing in Islam and in Muslim practices that is fundamentally opposed to democracy — justice, freedom, fairness, equality or tolerance.

You and anti-Islam Westererns present Islam as an anti-democratic and inherently authoritarian ethos that precludes democratization in the Muslims World.

By misrepresenting Islam in this way you conspire to show that Islam as a set of values is inferior. This argument is also helpful to Israel, which regardless of its egregious human rights violations against Palestinians, continues to enjoy the reputation as the sole democracy in the Middle East. As a so-called democratic nation, Israel with its horrible record is preferred over Islam, which has an exemplary history of tolerance and freedom.

Using extremely broad, simple and crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, you reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God.

You falsely assume that secularism and democracy are necessarily connected. Secularism is a liberal tradition not a prerequisite for democracy.

Religion does play a significant role in democratic politics.

Do you understand the distinction between dejure sovereignty and defacto sovereignty. For example even though God was supposedly sovereign in Afghanistan, in fact it was the Taliban who awere sovereign there till 2001. Those who thought that Allah was sovereign in Taliban’s Afghanistan worshiped Mulla Omar.

I would urge you read some books – start with Iqbal- he will show you the difference between sovereignty in principle and sovereignty in fact. Sovereignty is always man’s whether in a democracy or an Islamic State. Rejecting democracy because man is sovereign is a big mistake. What we really need to worry about is how to limit the defacto sovereignty of man.

Democracy with its principles of limited government, public accountability, checks and balances, separation of powers and transparency in governance does succeed in limiting man’s sovereignty. The Muslim world plagued by despots, dictators and self-regarding monarchs badly needs the limitation of man’s sovereignty.

Sure U can play with words and even enforce UR Secular world order by the use of Military, but we will defend our religion till the last breath.

And remember if U are a true Muslim then U must submit UR self completely in the Path of Allah (SWT), A Muslim can adopt technology/ language/ materialistic things from the west (or any other culture) but accepting their SECULAR Ideology is not in a true Muslim’s agenda.

So as a message to all my Muslim brothers who support such Culture (Democracy in general) …. Remember what democracy stands for, Democracy means “Rule of the Majority” where as we Muslims have been blessed with the Holy Quran and the Sunnah … so we do not need any democracy but simply a kind of governance that implements the Quran/ Sunnah based rules on the general public … and what better system could there be for doing this then “THE KHILAFAT”

This was the first time I actually started to like your article until i read your last paras. All i read in your article is that Islam is a religion but to us Muslims,Islam is a COMPLETE CODE OF LIFE which includes Politics,Economics,Social Life,Education System and everything else. And what democracy are you talking about?? & you really think that those people carrying guns and Armour with beard are Muslims?? You don’t even try to get the facts right. You are talking about change…who really need to change…Did Afghans ask U.S. to meddle in their country?? Did they found Nukes in Iraq…Why don’t you write any thing on that?? all you write about that Islam needs a change and how Muslims turning into extremists…& Muslims need a change…I’m looking forward to your reply!

DO WATCH THE FOLLOWING LINKS:

A TRUE FACE OF DEMOCRACY.This is the real Extremism,the real Terrorist:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=107690379241030&ref=mf

& A little Piece Of History Of Islam:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=103207463041276&ref=mf