Header Ads

Header ADS


Sanni K. Yusuf

All definitions of democracy (at least the ones research has exposed me to) have one thing in common - the people. That laws are made by the people, and where there is disparity, the opinion of majority (of the people) will reign supreme; hence the mantra: "...government of the people, for the people, by the people." This apparently captures and encapsulates all other definitions however technically worded. 

The fashioners of democracy never had God at heart while they propounded the system of government. Even if they had, it wasn't Allah. That is why democratic laws are usually at loggerheads with Allah's. They are not founded on divinity. If Allah says go right, democracy may say go left. That is kufr!

Democracy and monarchy have something in common. While democracy vests sovereignty in the hands of the people, monarchy does same in the hands of a person or a group of persons. While laws are made by the people in democracy, monarchical laws are made by one person - the king or the queen. 

Monarchy or kingship, like democracy, is alien to Islam. If it was part of the Deen, Fatimah would have ascended the thrown of power after her father (sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) returned to his Lord. And Hasan or Husein would have got the baton of leadership from their mum. 

Britain uses monarchy with democratic principles. This is why its system of government is called constitutional monarchy. Saudi Arabia uses kingship too, but with Sharee'ah laws. I guess this is why scholars have not been hard on the system of government adopted by Saudi Arabia. Since it is an ijtihaad phenomenon, and the laws of Allah are being practically upheld, monarchy in this wise is OK. 

To be continued.

No comments

Powered by Blogger.