visionusman
being content
Assalamualaikum all. The discussion about an islamic form of democracy has recently stirred some interest. Allow me to add my humble perspective.
It is not permitted in Islam to have a ruler who has not obtained the shoora of the people he eventually rules. Although many have differing opinions on this specific matter I hold on to my opinion with backing of some insight and lessons that history has taught us all. The right of shoora is gauranteed to all muslims whether men, women, or even those who have payed their penalty for any crime they might have committed. This has been granted to us all in the quran and thus should not be doubted. After the Ghazva of Uhud Allah SWT ordered the Prophet SAW to forgive the Sahaba RA who had disobeyed the Prophet SAW. This disobedience was not a small matter because it resulted in the martyrdom of 70 Sahaba RA and also converted certain victory in to a defeat. The Prophet SAW was also injured in the process as Khalid bin Walid (a Kafir at the time), counter attacked having noticed that the flanks of the muslim army were now exposed because the gaurd wing had quit their position. However Allah SWT told the Prophet SAW in the Quran that he should not only forgive those Sahaba but also grant them the right of shoora in all further matters of the state in which divine guidance had not been decreed. This therfore proves that we all have a right to vote (shoora) in all matters that do not interfere with the shariah which of course can not be altered by any means as it has been established by the Lord and by His messenger SAW. Needless to say I am only talking of an islamic state, not the UK.
To illustrate the role of a vote in electing a muslim ruler let me quote some examples from the islamic history. Firstly when the Prophet SAW became ill, before he parted from this world, he asked Hazrat Aisha RA to convey a message to the sahaba who were waiting in the masjid for the Prophet to lead the prayers. The message was to ask Hazrat Abu Bakr RA to lead the prayers. However as Hazrat Aisha RA was the daughter of AbuBakr Siddique RA she thought that the people might say that after he led the prayer, the Prophet died and therefore instead she sent a message that Syedina Umar RA was to lead the prayers. She did later make tawba for this mistake. We should not judge her at all. Any way the Prophet SAW was subsequently able to go to the window and from there he saw that Umar RA was leading the prayers. He said No thirce and then said that in the presence of Abu Bakr neither Allah, nor the people would accept any other Imam. This too establishes the importance of the will of the people. Even after Hazrat Abu Bakr accepted the orginal and let me add provisional nomination to become khaleefah (only because the Ansar were already in an advanced stage of nominating a khaleefah themselves which could have been divisive), he went back to the mosque of the prophet and said that if u the people wish please nominate some onle else. He even suggested once again the name of Umar RA. But the people said that we want you Abu Bakr to become khaleefah and no one else. Similarly the nomination of Usman RA as Khaleefah after the shahadat of Hazrat Syedina Umar RA is also an example of how the will of the people was given the final weightage. Hazrat Ali was the favoured candidate of the committee established by Hazrat Umar on his death bed, but the members of that committee told Usman RA that we knocked on every door of medinah and the people wanted you to be Khalifah, therefore only you have the right to be the khaleefah.
If this is not enough evidence then let me conclude my argument by talking of the Shahadat of Hazrat Hussain RA. When yazit was nominated the khaleefah, the people did not really want him to be the next khaleefah. However the people and some sahaba did not start a movement against him because they did not want a huge division. This was probably a mistake as the benefit of hindsight would have told them otherwise. I say that because Hazrat Hussain RA refused to accept yazit as his khaleefah. This was in view of the fact that the people did not want him as their ruler. Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA also did not accept yazit's claim to the khilafat. The people of koofah then came to hazrat Hussain RA and offered their support to him to initiate a struggle against Yazit if he came to koofa himself. Abdullah bin Umar did warn Hazrat Hussain that these people would let him down, however Hazrat Hussain's reply was that if I see something wrong and I am given the means to wage a struggle against it then my Imaan is of the highest standard and therefore I will try to stop that wrong with my hands. When he came close to koofah he was (as expected really) stranded by the people of koofah. He said that since the means of waging a struggle have now been taken away from me then just let me and my family pass so that we may migrate. But he was not only denied passage, but a fierce embargo was also put in place not even allowing for water to go through. He therefore died (attained shahadat). This did result in a review of the stance that the sahaba had earlier taken (thus the benfit of hindsight) and it also establishes for us the principle of an islamic democracy in which no ruler can be righteous unless he has been voted in to rule. Remember that the islamic principle of a democracy does not allow us to change the shariah. But also remember that islam is the first religion to put in to practice a form of democracy. Alas the unfortunate fact today is that the muslim world does not have an elected ruler any where apart from malaysia.
We should all enjoin what is right and also stop or try to stop what is wrong. There isn't a doubt in my mind that it is wrong for any islamic state to have a monarchy. I do think it is our duty to try and change that peacefully at the least through education, increased awareness and prayer inshAllah.
It is not permitted in Islam to have a ruler who has not obtained the shoora of the people he eventually rules. Although many have differing opinions on this specific matter I hold on to my opinion with backing of some insight and lessons that history has taught us all. The right of shoora is gauranteed to all muslims whether men, women, or even those who have payed their penalty for any crime they might have committed. This has been granted to us all in the quran and thus should not be doubted. After the Ghazva of Uhud Allah SWT ordered the Prophet SAW to forgive the Sahaba RA who had disobeyed the Prophet SAW. This disobedience was not a small matter because it resulted in the martyrdom of 70 Sahaba RA and also converted certain victory in to a defeat. The Prophet SAW was also injured in the process as Khalid bin Walid (a Kafir at the time), counter attacked having noticed that the flanks of the muslim army were now exposed because the gaurd wing had quit their position. However Allah SWT told the Prophet SAW in the Quran that he should not only forgive those Sahaba but also grant them the right of shoora in all further matters of the state in which divine guidance had not been decreed. This therfore proves that we all have a right to vote (shoora) in all matters that do not interfere with the shariah which of course can not be altered by any means as it has been established by the Lord and by His messenger SAW. Needless to say I am only talking of an islamic state, not the UK.
To illustrate the role of a vote in electing a muslim ruler let me quote some examples from the islamic history. Firstly when the Prophet SAW became ill, before he parted from this world, he asked Hazrat Aisha RA to convey a message to the sahaba who were waiting in the masjid for the Prophet to lead the prayers. The message was to ask Hazrat Abu Bakr RA to lead the prayers. However as Hazrat Aisha RA was the daughter of AbuBakr Siddique RA she thought that the people might say that after he led the prayer, the Prophet died and therefore instead she sent a message that Syedina Umar RA was to lead the prayers. She did later make tawba for this mistake. We should not judge her at all. Any way the Prophet SAW was subsequently able to go to the window and from there he saw that Umar RA was leading the prayers. He said No thirce and then said that in the presence of Abu Bakr neither Allah, nor the people would accept any other Imam. This too establishes the importance of the will of the people. Even after Hazrat Abu Bakr accepted the orginal and let me add provisional nomination to become khaleefah (only because the Ansar were already in an advanced stage of nominating a khaleefah themselves which could have been divisive), he went back to the mosque of the prophet and said that if u the people wish please nominate some onle else. He even suggested once again the name of Umar RA. But the people said that we want you Abu Bakr to become khaleefah and no one else. Similarly the nomination of Usman RA as Khaleefah after the shahadat of Hazrat Syedina Umar RA is also an example of how the will of the people was given the final weightage. Hazrat Ali was the favoured candidate of the committee established by Hazrat Umar on his death bed, but the members of that committee told Usman RA that we knocked on every door of medinah and the people wanted you to be Khalifah, therefore only you have the right to be the khaleefah.
If this is not enough evidence then let me conclude my argument by talking of the Shahadat of Hazrat Hussain RA. When yazit was nominated the khaleefah, the people did not really want him to be the next khaleefah. However the people and some sahaba did not start a movement against him because they did not want a huge division. This was probably a mistake as the benefit of hindsight would have told them otherwise. I say that because Hazrat Hussain RA refused to accept yazit as his khaleefah. This was in view of the fact that the people did not want him as their ruler. Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA also did not accept yazit's claim to the khilafat. The people of koofah then came to hazrat Hussain RA and offered their support to him to initiate a struggle against Yazit if he came to koofa himself. Abdullah bin Umar did warn Hazrat Hussain that these people would let him down, however Hazrat Hussain's reply was that if I see something wrong and I am given the means to wage a struggle against it then my Imaan is of the highest standard and therefore I will try to stop that wrong with my hands. When he came close to koofah he was (as expected really) stranded by the people of koofah. He said that since the means of waging a struggle have now been taken away from me then just let me and my family pass so that we may migrate. But he was not only denied passage, but a fierce embargo was also put in place not even allowing for water to go through. He therefore died (attained shahadat). This did result in a review of the stance that the sahaba had earlier taken (thus the benfit of hindsight) and it also establishes for us the principle of an islamic democracy in which no ruler can be righteous unless he has been voted in to rule. Remember that the islamic principle of a democracy does not allow us to change the shariah. But also remember that islam is the first religion to put in to practice a form of democracy. Alas the unfortunate fact today is that the muslim world does not have an elected ruler any where apart from malaysia.
We should all enjoin what is right and also stop or try to stop what is wrong. There isn't a doubt in my mind that it is wrong for any islamic state to have a monarchy. I do think it is our duty to try and change that peacefully at the least through education, increased awareness and prayer inshAllah.
