Dear All AoA
I have heard this aguement from certain islamic groups that there is no limit of ruling in islam and rather it is Haram to restrict tenure of the ruler.
They cite the example of Sayyedna Usman RA that he refused to resign by saying that " I can not leave the Ridaa which is given to me by Prophet SAW)"
The other aguement is used is that as the issue is the implementation of islam so as long as the leader is implementing islam he can not asked to leave.
Personally I dont agree with these notions and to me there must be limit on the length on the ruling. This is also necessary to restrict people creating a personality cult, autocracy and most importantly to make sure there is always steady flow of new ideas and blood in the politics.
I also agree with the current restriction on becoming the PM/CM for third time.
I would also like to share a anecdote which I read. During the protests against president Charles de Gaul of France, one american journalist asked one of the protestor on the streets of Paris that why people were suddenly against Charles de Gaul only after couple of months when he was elected (3rd time for 7 year term) as president with a huge majority. To the astonishment of the journalist the protestor said we are sick of seeing his face everyday.
As human being we dont like routines and get bored with regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative ways. So it is natural and logical that people get fed up with the same thing everyday. I think this is the very reason that in many countries they have adopted a time limit on the ruling. Even in Britain, where there is no limit, there is a internal part mechanism whereby prime minsters are forced out after 10-11 years to save the institutions and to keep the faith of the people in the system.
I would like to know the opinions of the learned forum members on this issue whether in support or against the term restriction (secular and islamic both).
FJ
