A must read: Tariq Ahmad Siddiqi, a scholar from Hyderabad, explains the Islamist position on democracy & secularism. In the Indian context (in any given minority context, living in secular liberal societies), their position is clearly hypocritical. Read his article carefully.

Feroze Mithiborwala

7 hours ago · 

• A must read: Tariq Ahmad Siddiqi, a scholar from Hyderabad, explains the Islamist position on democracy & secularism. In the Indian context (in any given minority context, living in secular liberal societies), their position is clearly hypocritical. Read his article carefully.
  ~~~ The word democracy comes from Greek language in which 'demos' means all the citizens of a state and 'kratos' means power or rule. The term Democracy has nothing to do with Islamism. According to Maulana Maududi, Islamic State is the rule of Allah over the people with justice:
  Hukmullah al-annas bil-Haq.
  حکم اللہ علی الناس بالحق
  Maulana Maududi has given this definition of Islamic State while criticizing on a definition of Democracy according to which "it is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. In Islamic State, the Primary or absolute Law Giver is Allah. When a legislative assembly gives or makes a law, it rebels from the Laws of Allah. Not only the legislative Assembly, but, in fact, all the people of a Democratic State are rebellious.
  For Islamists, Democracy is completely a False System or Batil Nizam. "When we add the word 'Secular' before the word Democracy, already a false system, and make the term "Secular-Democracy", it signifies a doubled falsity because secularism is all about the "mere welfare of this world" and doesn't include the wellbeing of Hereafter. Therefore Secular Democracy is a clear Falsehood, 'Batil' and 'Taghoot'. Taking Part in such a Haram system by voting and electing a Democratic Government is also, in fact, Haram. That is why, according to Islamists, Muslims cannot establish a secular Democracy even only a 'Democracy' in true sense in Muslim Majority countries. This is also a fact that the term Democracy clearly denotes the 'rule of citizens', not the rule of Allah.
  
  After 1400 years, the concept of 'Khilafah' has become foreign to the Muslim Masses of Islamic countries and now the Western form of Democracy is being popular among them. Therefore, Muslim Brotherhood Islamists are using the term Democracy on a temporary basis, only for a transitional period, under the condition of forced necessity, i.e., izterar, a divine law. But theoretically and absolutely, using this anti-Islamic term is invalid for Muslim Brotherhood.
  
  One can examine the Islamist ideology himself and clearly find out that Muslim Brotherhood is in fact deceiving the People of Egypt by using the anti-Islamist term 'Democracy'. The meaning, spirit and practices of this Western concept are quite contrary to the meaning of Islamist State or Theocracy. Islamists are not using a fair word for their religious philosophy of state when they articulate the word Democracy. In the furious motion of establishing the rule of Allah, they are missing a moral point that such strategy can never work when an Idealist movement asserts to establish a Utopian State and applies false tactics like this. An ideal movement should use ideal terminology, which must not be dubious or based on double speak. While establishing a Utopia, Islamists ought to be perfect from the letter to the spirit and they should not adopt a term that is being used by 'Jahiliyaah' a term used by Islamists to denote every practice contrary to the Quran and Sunnah.
  
  Therefore, on the one hand, Islamists condemn the rule of People, and on the other, they are using the term Democracy for propagating their Ideology.
  
  Now, it is clear that the two constitutions, Islamist and Secular are two opposing things. If an Islamist Muslim believes in an Islamist Constitution, he shouldn't believe in a secular one. How can he accept a secular constitution, if he doesn't believe in Secularism itself?
  
  It should be clear that general Muslims believe and accepts secularism. For example, I don't reject Secularism as a false principle. In fact, As an Indian Muslim, I recommend Secularism for Iran, Egypt and Pakistan. But an Islamist cannot believe and accept Secularism as a valid political Ideology for Islamic countries where there is 5 - 15 % population is Christian.
  It is obvious that Christians cannot believe in Islamic Constitution. Then who are Islamists to enforce a religious criminal code upon them? When communal forces will enforce a religious constitution and criminal code upon Muslims, and deprive them constitutionally for holding top posts, will it be right? Many Islamists say in the motion of discussion 'yes'. If it is right, then why are they opposing Narendra Modi?
  
  Islamists shouldn't try to take contract of All Muslims. For example, you can see in the above comments that, Feroz Sahab, Shama Zahra Zaidi Saheba, and of course me too, are also Muslims and support secularism. Such Muslims simply reject Islamist concepts of State.
  
  Islamists can Individually propagate their opportunist Ideology. But taking contract of all Muslims will bring clash not only within the Muslim community worldwide but it will give way for an anti-Muslim propaganda as I have discussed above in my first comment below this status.
  
  Islamists should say simply that "we are Islamist Muslims, accept secularism practically, in a condition of forced necessity which prevails in India, but we do not believe in secular democracy as a valid ideology. In this forced necessity or Izterar, we recommend Secularism for India and defend it, but because there is no such forced necessity in Egypt or Paksitan, therefore we reject secularism and want to establish an Islamic State there".
  
  And what is this 'forced necessity' for? Achieving the equal status of first class citizenship!
  
  If you do not believe secularism a correct political ideology, your way is different form general Muslims. If you ideologically criticize on Indian Constitution, a law may or may not permit it, it is a legal matter and I cannot tell anything about it, but why you people are speaking on the behalf of all Muslims?
  
  If a Christian doesn't accept the Islamic Constitution theoretically, he cannot be a citizen of it. He is simply a Zimmi and cannot have a right to hold a top post. In case, he accepts the Islamic Constitution, becomes a Muslim, only then, he can be constitutionally eligible to hold all the top posts in an Islamic Theocracy. But this can only be possible when the converted Christian doesn't criticize on the fundamental principles of the state. Criticizing or refuting them as Muslim is considered apostasy which is punishable to death in an Islamic State.
  It is a great hypocrisy that Islamists, accept the Secular Democratic constitution, and keep criticizing on it as Invalid, demanding equal rights in all aspects. They should first ascertain their position in a secular democratic country, i.e., either they are within the boundary of Secularism or outside it. If they want to remain within it, and enjoying equal status like general public, they must not criticize it. They must consider Secularism as sacred as Islamist constitution which doesn't permit to criticize on its fundamental principles after accepting them.
  No constitution, whether be it Islamist or secular, can give us the permission to accept its fundamental principles practically, and then criticize on the same theoretically, and give you the equal status constitutionally. Neither an Islamic State does so, nor should a Secular State permit it on theoretical level.
  
  If one recommends Islamic State in Egypt or Iran being an Islamist and rejects secular system there, he must not demand equal constitutional status in any secular countries. It is only a theoretical and moral obligation, not legal.

  Like · 

  • 5 people like this.
  • 

    Krishna Prasad This article has a logic .

    6 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • 

    Mohamed Ajmal oh.. what a logic... now when Islamist win though democratic process - u term as they dont accept it ideologically... who is a hypocrite.. U secularists is it..?? u dont want anything to do with Islam that's the bottom line... Islam as being fanciful title is ok but as what was practiced by Muhammad sal and his Sahabah is not ok...??

    5 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • 

    Mohamed Ajmal How idiotic say to anyone "If one recommends Islamic State in Egypt or Iran being an Islamist and rejects secular system there, he must not demand equal constitutional status in any secular countries.".... and then claim again that we are secularist.. we give equal rights etc as if they are saints... when in reality they are nothing more than liars....

    5 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • 

    Mohamed Ajmal One good thing about Eygpt is... it had made clear and known what the western world and secularist had the hatred of Islam in their hearts... "This (is the fact) and surely, Allah weakens the deceitful plots of the disbelievers." [Al-Anfal 8:18]

    5 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Malik Amer the whole article baseless.remove secular spects from your eyes and wear quranic spects,you will find inshallah a different world.

    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • 

    Amir Shahzad i agree with you tariq saheb well said and keep it up.

    4 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Omair Anas A good attempt without references of citations used in the articles. Unless citations referred, no use to read it carefully Feroze Mithiborwala . I strongly doubt in his propositions for his conclusions. Let him refer first so that we understand how far his citations are relevant in this write up.

    3 hours ago · Like
  • 

    Krishna Prasad Dear friends, tariq saab has said simple truths such as religion based ruling and secularism cannot go together like democracy is in opposition to autocracy. One has to be clear to have what ,if that clarity misses,confusion erupts. If i support hindut...See More

    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • 

    Krishna Prasad There are some spelling mistakes my system did not cooperate in correcting, both the worlds instead of orlds,

    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • 

    Shama Zehra Zaidi All theories of "Islamic" constitutions are purely imaginary and are only used by groups to get hold of power and make everyone else adhere to what they believe is "Islamic". This as true of the present governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Akhwani...See More

    about an hour ago · Edited · Like