Monday, January 3, 2011

Jamal Sultan's Comment For The Fatwa of DR. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Ustad Sultan Jamal hafizhahullah have a very good comment on the fatwa Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi in terms of democracy. Here I intend to quoting to be taken advantage by the readers, and so that readers know the untruth points of the speech of Dr  alQaradhawi.

Jamal Sultan said: "This issue is very important, and when the express is an expert in fiqh caliber Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the problem is increasingly important, not to mention the pulpit as the place to spread the fatwa to be read not less than one million people speak Arabic. So at that moment, no doubt about the danger will be greater, and he promoted himself to every writer and owner of thought.

Fatwa disseminated in a format that has no theme at all and almost no value at all, it is enough for you when you are confronted with a phrase you can say: "it's true," the same attitude as when you can not say: "That's wrong! " However, there really is a strange confusion, and some objective nature and the unknown histroris Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mistake led to his talk, which demands I examine long enough to discuss the "terms and consideration" to expect the breadth of liver fatwa fatwa giver, and we know the seriousness of his to gain clarity of truth, wherever located and a sincere concern, insha God on the big issues that make the busy generation of Muslims in today.

In the fatwa was prompted, as asserted by Ustadz Fahmy: "Is it kufr democracy?" So, Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi to open the conversation by saying: "Surely the substance of democracy is to give opportunity to the people to choose who will manage and control their affairs, so they are not led by the ruling they did not like, or regulated by a system they hate. Also They also must have the right to judge and criticize when authorities made a mistake, also an option if the ruler the contrary. People should not be herded to the flow or economic systems, social, cultural, political or they do not know and nor will they approve of, and that substance of democracy. "

Then Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi added as he commented: "Reality shows, that the person who is carefully considering the substance of democracy, then he will find that it includes the concept of Islam"

Introduction which is the first and substantial errors which resulted in his fatwa wrong overall.

Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi has determined that the substance of democracy is giving opportunity to the people to choose their leaders ... and so on. This is one of the principal products of the various products of democracy or one view of the various appearances of democracy, but it was not the substance of democracy, as alleged by Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi. However, substantially democracy is the rejection of theocracy, ie the system of government based on religious authority and run the government in the name of God on earth. The birth of democracy in his own course of its history is as a result of the dispute against the state church, man's law against religious law, the law on behalf of the people and the people against the law in the name of God and religion.

In other words, we can say that democracy is the other side of secularism and democracy are among the effects negate each individual's trust of mankind from the shoulders of society. Because, if we reject the guardianship of religion and God for the benefit of the people, then all of guardianship under it will definitely rejected. From here was born the various facilities and systems that manage the ins and outs of society, which prevent the emergence of violence, oppression and tyranny in any form, and it took place after the civil state with the thinkers and supporters managed to realize its ultimate triumph over the church and religious leaders and successfully removed power from them, as is well known by every researcher in modern European history.

Among the impacts of the final victory for the democratic movement is the elimination of the nature of the sanctity of all positions, issues and meanings, while not determined by the people as something sacred. That is what is haram according to most people as illegitimate, while the halal is what the majority opinion as halal, with closed eyes than any other references, whether they be religious or otherwise. Because, if you establish that there exists a reference shari'ah which is above human or opinions should come first before the people, so therefore you have to abort the basis of democracy. Because, if you say, for example, "Truly this problem based on the texts of the Koran, should not be done by humans, then therefore, you have made the law only on Allaah alone, not on people. During the rule and law drawn from the people, then ends the story of democracy.

Such is the story of democracy in a concise and is also the substance, which is known for certain by Ustadz Fahmi Huwaidi and flow of thoughts. Thus, if we can say as was said by Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "Whoever careful attention to the substance of democracy, surely he'll get that democracy includes the concept of Islam." Or we'll say as he said also: "Islam has preceded democracy by establishing rules that became the foundation for the substance, it's just that Islam gave details on the ijtihad of the Muslims in accordance with the teachings of their religion, their world interests, and the development of their lives"

What appears clear from the fatwas Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is, that he describes democracy with a certain image that she dreams-dream and dream, then he issued a fatwa based on the delusion that playing angannya pipe, rather than on the nature of the history of democracy and objectivity that form of democracy in terms of modern human thought.

Perhaps something very clearly shows this is the expression of Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his fatwa: "And the expressions of people who say that democracy means the rule which the supreme power in the hands of the people, so there must refuse the principle which states that the highest authority in the hands of God, is a phrase that totally unacceptable, because voice of democracy should not reject the highest authority in the hands of God for all humanity. I believe such a thing never occurred in the hearts of the majority caller democracy. But the concentration they are refused an arbitrary dictatorship, and rejected the government that oppressed people , either ruler or dictator zhalim. "

Actually, I (Jamal Sultan) do not understand the true expression of Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi stating: "Such a thing has never occurred in the hearts of the majority caller democracy. However, the concentration they are refused an arbitrary dictatorship, and reject authoritarian rule of the people." Did he ever do research that produces such nature? If his opponent say: "Verily, it always occurred in the hearts of the majority caller democracy," then who will assess and justify one of these two expressions?

Indeed shari'ah fatwas requires precision and accuracy in speech, more than just a phrase that just based on feelings (for example: "I am sure such things never occurred" etc. .. ed.) I really understand Dr. Joseph alQaradhawi in terms of sincerity to maintain the values of justice, freedom and protection of human rights and their honor. In that case, people like him and I know how cruel whip-whip of the executioner, and also how menyeramkannya prison oppressors. However, the talks the issue of justice, freedom and human rights is one thing, while setting the terms of political thought to impose shariah law against it is another thing. As reality continues to be as in the past does not change as I expected. We should also contemplate the words of Dr. Shaikh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "Those Muslims who are calling for democracy in essence calling on him as a form of government, which can realize the principles of Islamic politics in the selection of leaders, the establishment of consensus and loyalty, and enforcement amar nahi ma'ruf evil, against kezhaliman, reject disobedience, especially if you arrive at a clear kufr which has no proof of God. "

Here, I totally agree with Dr Sheikh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the criteria put forward regarding manhaj for Islamic government. But, if that encourages you to put the stamp of democracy in this conversation and manhaj these? Is that true purity conceived by the term "Western-made, development, history and pertikaiannya" to keep with you desperately and beautify the appearance in front of the Muslims? It reminded us of what that includes Muslims minds in the fifties and sixties about the term "socialism", so they make socialism and Islam are two sides of one coin. The same experience also re-occur once again in terms of democracy.

Indeed, democracy is not what you are detailed under the analogy of your own, or specified by others. But democracy is a whole social system to maintain the building. It's up to you want to accept it or reject it, then find another manhaj for those of you who gave birth to one another for an original term in accordance with the `Aqeedah, religion, history and your humanity.

If we can accept these terms along with a few adjustments to it to be in line with our environment, then how do you think about the term theocracy, or the so called "rule of the divine." We will only distanced himself from the monopoly of power by religious leaders on behalf of the representatives of the sky known as the European church history, and stay for us, which made the law of God with power over mankind and society ungangan statutory limit. At that time, whether we can say that the substance of the theocracy that is "God's law" is Islam?!

By the same measure, if you say: "Verily, it is of Islamic democracy," it is also justified to say: "Surely it from Islamic theocracy!"

While we would say: "Verily, democracy and theocracy, both the European term that was born and formed and shows (cultural) West, it does not provide benefits for us as Muslims. Because Islam does not recognize the government of religious leaders, as Islam is also not familiar with the term "letter of sin", and not too familiar with the term civil conflict between state and church, or between religion and state. Therefore, Islam as religion, history, and culture is different from Christianity as a religion, history, and culture. It shows tell us with certainty the differences of various terms of thought, politics, and methodology between the two (Islam and Christianity).

The problem here is that some Muslims imagine that human rights, justice, freedom, rights of succession of power and a ban on oppression in the earth are things that are championed by the democratic system for the community, where it is not possible for them to illustrate these principles can be realized under the umbrella of another term in Islam. That is a very dangerous mistake. Surely the rights and humanitarian principles were merely the impact of the birth of secularism or democracy in European societies. Along with it may also produce, maintain, and enforce on other people without going through the path of secularism or democracy.

However, the dominance of Western thought on the various schools of thought and politics in contemporary society, and invested by the European tyranny into the mind and the soul of a third world society among them are some of the Muslims, do not leave any little opportunity for non-European reasonable to think originality of thought or imagined or methodological work that is not affected by the "pole of Europe", as well as various manhaj and term. So most of the efforts of the "third world" in the field of thought, methodology and terms that include this fatwa-, mere footnotes or endnotes for Matan (content), which comes from Europe. And we-at-Islamic environment, an Islamic conscience refuse unless noted caution attitude which was shy of democracy, while pretending not to know that the attitude of prudence was significant in the objective reality as a rejection of democracy, but we still continued to insist to retain the term, although in fact, objectively, has left him.

Indeed Butterfly Party-Party of Italian prostitutes, forced him into the world of parties, and some of its members entered the Italian parliament, for "vote whore" enough to make the various provisions of new laws in society, if it all sounds the same.

Who do not want to be recognized by Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is, that this Butterfly Party aspired democratic rights. If you deny its existence or refused entry to parliament or reject participation in the vote count by its members, then you are not democratic, and this acts against democracy. That's the nature of the objective, that there is no reason for you to it, and no place to escape from admit it.

It is true that you reject this, and I feel the same way. However, the meaning of that is that we reject democracy as a frame system for the government in an Islamic state. Stay for me and you find a new term and a new system, which brings together between religion and the world, shari'ah and society, justice and morality, freedom and values, rights and rights of the servant of God, and all it is those aspects that are not have a relationship with democracy.

Do you feel upset my master (Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi), if the West refuses to recognize the term and your new system. Because they are basically reject your religion, as the subjective logic of the democratic system that regulates life, necessitated accept pluralism. That is, if we berhusnuzhzhan (assume good faith) to their sincerity in holding all sorts of principles, especially those dealing with relations between states.

In a fatwa Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi about democracy, there is still another ambiguity, namely in an attempt to legitimize some of the executive power in implementing democracy, where the Doctor to promote the understanding of some Islamic governments. More good, we look at what the Doctor, then see also our comments after that.

Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi said: "Among the arguments according to observers of the Islamic group that shows democracy is the principle of imported and have nothing to do with Islam, is that it is based on majority rule, and consider the most votes is the holder of power in governing and controlling various problems, and in assessing and deciding that you really trust any of a variety of different problems using a majority vote in a democracy as a breaker and references. Thus, any opinion which won most votes in absolute terms, or limited to a few occasions, that opinion in force, although sometimes it is incorrect and false.

In fact Islam does not use such facilities and not mentarjih (favor) an opinion on the opinion of Iain because of an agreement of the majority, but the Islamic view on the subject matter; Was he wrong or right? If true, then he will enforce, even with only one vote, or even absolutely no one who menganutnya. If any,. then he will reject it, although with him there are 99 people out of 100 people who participated.

In fact, the texts of the Qur'an shows that a majority is always in kebathilan and always accompany the taghout, as contained in the word of Allah, the Exalted this:

"It means: And if you obey most of the people in this earth, they will lead you astray from His Path." [Al-An'am: 116]
His words also:

"It means: And most people will not believe, even if you really want it" [Yusuf: 103]

In the Koran, be repeated many times to his word the following:

"It means: But most manusza not know" [al-A'raaf: 187]

Furthermore, Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi added as he commented on this by saying: "The phrase is totally unacceptable, because it is based on a wrong thing"

Should we need to talk about democracy in the Muslim community, which the majority of them from among those persons knowledgeable, intelligent, faithful again grateful. We do not want people talking about atheists or people who have gone astray from the Path of Allah:

Then, in fact there are some things that do not enter into the category of voting and can not be retrieved his voice, because it included part of what has been fixed and permanent that can not be changed unless they change their own society and not become Muslim again.

Thus, there is no place for voting in the various provisions of sharia are already definite and religious subjects as well. Voting was only on ijtihad problems that could include more than one opinion. Human beings has become a habit for different opinions about it, if there are many different opinions on some issues. Then, whether those problems will be left relying just like that? And if there's an election in the absence of unseeded opinion? Or is there needs to be an underdog?

[Copied from the book Al-Qaradhaawiy verb-Miizaan, author Sulaiman bin Salih Al-Khurasyi, Indonesian Edition Thought Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi In Scales, translator M. Abdul Ghoffar, EM Publisher Pustaka Imam Shafi'i, Po Box: 147 16 001 Bogor, First Matter Dzulqa'dah 1423 H / January 2003]

Related Posts

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl