At first I would like to explain what I mean by 'Reform' and 'Replacement'. 'Reform' deals with partial changes in the branches of a system but not the basis, owing to the fact that the basis is sound. Whereas 'Replacement' changes the whole system including it roots because of the corruption both in it's basis and branches.
Democracy is built on kufr ideas. It emanated from the creed of separating religion from life, and consequently separating religion from the state and It was established on two ideas:
a) Sovereignty is for the people
b) The people are the source of authority
Democratic Government and all it's institutions are built upon these ideas and ensures that these values are upheld. As it is built upon kufr ideas no amount of reform will make this system as Islamic. Imagine all the laws passed by the parliament are from Quran and Sunnah, will this make this system Islamic? No, as because these laws are implemented due to the fact of majority opinion not because it is the Hukm of Allah. When Allah has decreed a law then how come we sit in the parliament and vote whether we want it or not?? That means sovereignty is for the people. Allah (swt) says in the Quran:
“Hukm (command) rests with none but Allah: He declares the Truth, and He is the best of judges.” (6:57)
[‘Hukm' (command) here means sovereignty ]
[‘Hukm' (command) here means sovereignty ]
So Democracy need replacement not reform. No amount of reform will make it Islamic. Some Muslims incorrectly views Democracy as compatible to Islam, hence they are in the opinion to reform democracy rather than to replace it. They support participation of Islamic groups in the current kufr political system with the view to reform it.
Even if they have intention to replace the system still it is incorrect to participate in the current non-Islamic political system. First of all Sharia doesn't allow us to participate in a kufr system and it is not possible to replace a system by being part of that system. Cause no system allows to destroy itself. All the political system has mechanism to protect itself. So even if an Islamic party gains absolute majority in the parliament still it won't be able to replace the system due to checks and balances employed by the system to protect it's fundamental pillars. To clarify this point I want to give a brief explanation of how separation of powers in the democratic government protect itself from reforming it's fundamental pillars.
Democratic Government is consist of three core branches:
a. Executive Body :The executive branch of government has sole authorityand responsibility for the daily administration of the state affairs. Like Ministers, Secretaries are part of this body.
b. Legislative Body (Parliament): It's an assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws. It is commonly known as parliament or congress.
C. Judicial Body: The judiciary is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes.
Under Democratic system the power of running the state affairs are divided in the above three branches in a way that no one has absolute power and prevents one branch from becoming supreme. Typically this is accomplished through a system of "checks and balances". The following two examples clarifies this point:
a. Executive Body :The executive branch of government has sole authorityand responsibility for the daily administration of the state affairs. Like Ministers, Secretaries are part of this body.
b. Legislative Body (Parliament): It's an assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws. It is commonly known as parliament or congress.
C. Judicial Body: The judiciary is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes.
Under Democratic system the power of running the state affairs are divided in the above three branches in a way that no one has absolute power and prevents one branch from becoming supreme. Typically this is accomplished through a system of "checks and balances". The following two examples clarifies this point:
Example 1:
On February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities, arguing that many women would not seek an education if they could not wear the head scarf. The Parliament voted 403-107 (a majority of 79 per cent) in favour of the first amendment, which was inserted into the constitution stating that everyone has the right to equal treatment from state institutions. However the country's educational board and numerous universities vowed to defy the new law. On 5 June 2008, Turkey's Constitutional Court annulled the parliament's proposed amendment intended to lift the headscarf ban, ruling that removing the ban was against the founding principles of the constitution. The highest court's decision to uphold the headscarf ban cannot be appealed.
Example 2:
On February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities, arguing that many women would not seek an education if they could not wear the head scarf. The Parliament voted 403-107 (a majority of 79 per cent) in favour of the first amendment, which was inserted into the constitution stating that everyone has the right to equal treatment from state institutions. However the country's educational board and numerous universities vowed to defy the new law. On 5 June 2008, Turkey's Constitutional Court annulled the parliament's proposed amendment intended to lift the headscarf ban, ruling that removing the ban was against the founding principles of the constitution. The highest court's decision to uphold the headscarf ban cannot be appealed.
Example 2:
This example is taken from the supreme court verdict of Bangladesh. Former chief justice Shahabuddin Ahmad, who was one of the judges in the then Appellate Division, said the following in the verdict on the constitution's eighth amendment case in 1989:
"The structural pillars of the constitution stand beyond any change by amendment process. Any amendment will be subject to the retention of these basic structures,"
According to the verdict, the basic structural pillars of the country's constitution are sovereignty of people, supremacy of the constitution, democracy and secularism. It says none of these can be changed, even by amending the constitution.
Conclusion:
Islam provides a system of life to satisfy all human needs irrespective of time and place. It is a complete way of life. Allah (swt) says in the quran:
“This day I have perfected your Deen (complete way of life) for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [Al Maida 5:3]
“And We have revealed the Book to you explaining everything. [TMQ Al Nahl 16: 89]
Hence, Islam can provide us with the answer how to change the current currupt system of life. Our beloved prophet Muhammad (saw) has shown us practical steps on how to change a corrupt society to an Islamic society of peace and justice. And that is the only method which will lead us to success. Method of Rasulullah (saw) has been explained in the article The Messenger's (saw) methodology of establishing the Deen
No comments:
Post a Comment