Majority and minority in Islam Democracy in a class society, according to Islamic theories, is non-existent and means only that the minorities rule the majority. It is only in Islamic societies that the old democratic principles are diminished and replaced by majority rule over the minority. Islamic leaders consider majority rule and rule over the people as the most important forms of government, and on this they have the following to say: “Instead of the elite class, allocated specifically to organizations, the majority itself can take control of such organizations, and as the public are increasingly involved in handling these offices, the need for the government of minority would diminish.” Elsewhere, they also say: “Democracy is defined as the official recognition of minorities being ruled by the majority …. But in our attempt towards socialism, we are certain that socialism on its path of development will be converted into democratic socialism where the need for enforcing one’s will onto another or a group, or the will of sections of society enforced onto another group or section, could be eliminated, since the public will be conditioned in living normal lives without the need to be forced to do so by others”(2). In this way, the parties, parliaments and governments of Islamic states must follow the model of majority rule over the minority. But these aspirations in Islamic states have never turned into reality. In Islamic states, at the party level or at the national level, the rule of majority have never materialized. In reality, it was the ruling bureaucratic sector that gained power, and within its structures of Islamic socialism, it dominated the majority and, with its one-sided strategies, presented the world with an unprecedented type of dictatorship and savage system. Within democratic states, the parliamentary minorities and other organizations have a specific measure of freedom. At times it is possible that the views of minorities are proved to be correct against the incorrect views of the majority. Historical experiences result from such minority freedoms. There are many instances where the insignificant views of minorities have turned into the majority views in our world today; there are many opinions that belonged to a small minority but that have since turned into the views of the majority. Most religious and social ideas that have extended across the globe were once initiated from minority groups. It was based on these historical experiences that the views and opinions of minorities were respected and developed. Islamic followers used to be in the minority, but once they gained power, a different situation arose. However, in the same Islamic countries (within parties, parliaments and unions, etc.), the principles of freedom were violated. Thomas Jefferson, a former president of the USA, was of the opinion that “genuine democracy means that minorities are given the right of expression.” To deny this right would result in an “anarchism of the majority.” Not only do such rights not exist within Islamic states, but the limited Islamic leadership, originally with the help of the masses and workers, took national leadership, and the same public and workers were deprived of their basic rights. Soon after, the Islamic dictatorship was replaced by a limited bureaucratic party leadership. This leadership announced that any expression of views by minorities should serve the old exploiting class. However, it did not take long for this leadership, by abolishing the old exploiting forces, to repeat similar slogans to abolish the minorities. The Islamic leaders, in the midst of this struggle, instead of honorably accepting objective realities, divided the views of the workers and those of the educated sector of Islamic society into two opposing categories of feudalism and Islamic law. The abhorrent classification left its mark deep in the working class parties or in the Islamic party. The leader of the Islamic party of Iran, Khomeini, considered the views of any minority groups to be not in line with his own, to be antagonistic and to be inspired by feudalism. Anyone with these views were considered the enemy, as spies within the educated and workers, and in this way, he would suppress in the deadliest manner any freedom-seeking movements. While he was alive, Khomeini never gave his approval to any leadership or group. Not only did he apply force against his opponents but also against any phenomena that did not correspond with his ill thoughts. Khomeini did not operate with patience and reasoning but instead imposed his views on others and expected obedience from the rest. Whoever thought to question Khomeini was dealt with through immediate removal from the circle of leadership and was left in physical and mental isolation. This type of situation arose particularly when Khomeini’s dictatorial rule swept away many of the true leaders of the movement after the Islamic party had taken power. Khomeini was the first Islamic leader who invented the term “the people’s enemy.” Under the pretext of this terminology, the most barbaric treatments were applied to eliminate anything that was deemed in the slightest way to be opposition. Even those scientific activities that did not correspond to Khomeini’s taste were subjected to such phraseology and could not find a safe haven from this fanatical approach. By means of physical torture, confessions were extracted from the accused, which was the only means of gathering evidence, and then used against the individuals. Regular round-ups of groups in their thousands occurred, and summary executions were the order of the day, which generated an ever-increasing state of insecurity, fear and hopelessness in Iran. We ask: Are conditions within Islamic states different now to what they were before? Or have the current elite leadership put aside these sorts of policies? Based on the governing laws of so-called Islamic socialism, minorities are governed by the majority. This is a standard norm operating not only throughout the governmental, parliamentarian establishments, but also throughout the individual parties. Therefore, minorities can be heard only in the absence of the majority, but as soon as majority rule is confirmed, then the minorities must obey their verdicts. There is then no chance of interference by the minorities from that point onwards; the minorities cannot express any of their opinions. Apparently, this seems acceptable, but historical experiences have proven otherwise. In many instances, the majority has taken decisions, but history has also provided minorities with their own rights. We can use the examples of Islamic states to back up our claim. After the February revolution of Iran, both at the time of Khomeini and at the time of his successors, Ayatollah Khomeini, the councils and the parties passed many incorrect decisions through majority rule, while numerous minorities who expressed their own options were either executed, imprisoned or found their way into mental institutions and thus were eventually wasted in the process. The current parliament of the Islamic party considers the contents of the past majority rulings as incorrect. This shows that the majority views could possibly be incorrect. However, the question remains whether the time for a review of the past laws has ultimately arrived. Is there any consideration of minority rights, especially those of the minorities within the group of Islamic followers? Within Islamic states, is it not true that unconditional leadership based on the impositions of power through dictatorship is still the order of the day? Should honest minority groups be constantly victimized so that the majority can continue their leadership? Is this the definition of a genuine (true) democracy, which Khomeini claims to be exercising?
Posted on: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:44:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015