By resorting to the idea of separating religion from life, The West has given the right of legislation to itself. It takes the view that man must live his life as he pleases and not as others would like; in accordance with his own whims and not the will of others. They took the view that man cannot practice this right until he enjoys his freedom. This has led his freedom to be represented as the freedoms of belief, ownership, opinion and personal freedom. It considered this idea of freedoms as sacred.

These freedoms have specific technical meanings.

Freedom of belief allows the individual to believe in the religion he chooses. Or it allows him to move from one creed to another, even if it was a daily occurrence. It permitted him to reject religions altogether.

Freedom of ownership allows the individual to own whatever he wants and through any means he wants. He also has the right to dispose of with his wealth in any manner he wishes. If he wants to give it as a gift to his dog and prevent his inheritors from it, then nobody can stop him from doing so.

Freedom of opinion allows him to say whatever he wants, whether it is true or false, without any obstacle or monitoring. He can violate or criticize any opinion that goes against his understanding or whims.

Personal freedom allows individuals to run their personal affairs without any consideration for values, ethical constraints or spiritual restrictions.

This idea of freedoms, which are basic requirements of Democracy, has caused the values of those who advocate it to decline to a level lower than that of animals.

The freedom of belief has made religion lose its importance in capitalist societies. It belittled religion greatly when it permitted individuals to change their religion the way they changes their clothes.

With the spread of the materialistic thought and the restriction of the religious thought, the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual values have disappeared. The souls of the people have become devoid of compassion, and they have come to live like wolves, where the strong subjugate the weak.

Freedom of opinion has permitted the people to say what they like and to call for whatever they want. So, every false, strange and crazy opinion is to be found in their societies; they are devoid of the truth any criteria for it. You also come to hear any common person blaspheme against the Messenger 􀁕, without any law to prevent him from this; like Salman Rushdi, who uses freedom of belief as a pretext and hides under freedom of speech.

As for freedom of ownership and its criteria of benefit, it has created the monstrosity of Capitalism, which has taken colonialism as a method to control people’s future, and to seize their resources, exploit their wealth, and spill the blood of their peoples. This is to compete with others for the Haraam earning, to trade with the blood of the Muslims, to fuel civil wars and wars between nations so as to sell their products and those of their military industries, which have made huge profits. These capitalist states have stripped themselves of any spiritual, ethical or humanitarian values. Rather they use religion, if compelled, to cover their interests and claim to have ethical and humanitarian values to conceal their ugly face and putrid smell.

As for personal freedom, it has transformed societies in the democratic countries into declined animalistic societies. They have descended to a level of disgusting licentiousness that even the animals have not reached.

Their legislation has permitted abnormal and erroneous sexual relations.

You see amongst them practices that you do not see even amongst animals. They practice group sex and incest with their mothers, daughters and sisters. They practice sex even with animals. Hence diseases appear amongst them that never existed before. The break up of the family can be seen in their societies and the mutual respect between the members of a single family has been lost. Personal freedom is the freedom to do away with all restrictions; allowing any kind of values and the freedom to destroy the family. It is in the name of freedom that all the grave sins are committed and all the prohibitions are permitted.

So the freedom of fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, nudity, and alcohol, and the pursuit of every action no matter how low or despicable it may be, is all done with the utmost freedom without any pressure or compulsion.

These are the effects of Democracy. They are the product of man’s whims and not from Allah 􀀬, and they are not derived from the revelation that comes from the heavens. They have nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. If we return to the thing that established Democracy in the minds of its advocates and thinkers, and the circumstances into which it was born, it will become very clear that it was founded on a kufr basis and it was established as a response to sayings such as those of Louis XV; “We did not receive the crown except from God”, and Louis XIV; “The authority of the kings derives from the delegation of God. God is its exclusive source and not the people. Kings are not accountable for how they practice their authority, except before God.” The intellectuals described the theory of the social contract of Jean Jacque Russo as, ‘the Bible of the French secular revolution.’ From all of this the complete contradiction of Islam with Democracy becomes clear to us, in regards to the source from which it came, the creed from which it emanated, the basis on which it is founded and the thoughts and systems it has brought.

- The source from which it has come is man. He is the ruler who is referred to in issuing judgments on actions and things, in respect of them being husn (pretty/worthy of doing) or qubh (reprehensible). This is nothing but following one’s whims and desires. The roots of its creation lie with the philosophers of Europe.

As for Islam, it is opposite to that. It is from Allah 􀀬. He 􀀬 revealed it to His Prophet Muhammad, His Servant and Messenger 􀁕. The ruler in Islam refers to the Shar’a in issuing rules and not to the mind. The role of the mind is restricted to understanding the Sharee’ah texts.

- As for the creed from which Democracy emanates, it is the creed of separating religion from life, which is the creed based on the compromise solution. This creed did not reject religion but abolished its role in life and State, and consequently gave man the right to lay down his own system.

It was on the basis of its creed that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

As for Islam it is contrary to this. It is based on the Islamic ‘Aqeedah that obliges all of life’s affairs, and the State to be directed according to the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬. In other words, life proceeds according to the Sharee’ah rules that emanate from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.

It was on the basis of its ‘Aqeedah that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

- The basis on which Democracy is founded is that sovereignty is for the people. The people are the source of the powers. Based on this, the democratic systems created three powers; the legislative, executive and judicial powers, so as to practically express its sovereignty and authority.

As for Islam, sovereignty lies with the Shar’a, and the Ummah does not possess the right of legislation. However, Islam has obliged the Muslims to execute the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬, and it manifested this through the establishment of the Khilafah State as defined by the Sharee’ah texts.

- Democracy came with systems and thoughts based on benefit and the following of whims, whilst the legislation of Islam is based on following the texts and deducing the Shar’eeah rules from them, i.e. it is based on the adherence to and following of guidance.

The statement that Democracy has some good elements from which Islam can benefit is baseless and is not based upon evidence. We have seen some of the effects of Democracy; it has created an evil situation that contains no goodness. The best Ummah brought forth to mankind does not need to take anything from Democracy. Is there a deficiency in Islam, which needs to be compensated for by making such a claim?