Dawah help

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
what does Allah say about following the majority?
"And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah's Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie."
- Surah Al-An'am [6:116]

:salam2:Well since this is the only point you're clinging onto.. you implying that a Muslim ruler after the prophet S.A.W.is entitled to receive wahy and thus his judgment is infallible!If you take verses out of context you can make the Quraan say whatever you want it to say.However you are proving exactly our point here!

The prophet s.a.w was receiving revelation (wahy)! He didn't speak out of his own wish and desire.Thus where the Quraan is clear on the commands of a certain situation nobody can oppose it be it the Sahaaba or the prophet himself or anybody else and even less the khalifa.When it was a clear cut.

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to listen to his Companions and accept their opinion if it was proved sounder. In Battle of Badr, the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions were deployed in the nearest place to Badr's wells. But Companion Hubab ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah be pleased with him) was not satisfied with this. With great politeness he said to the leader of Muslims and their Imam (peace be upon him): "O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him),

"Has Allah inspired you to choose this very spot or is it stratagem of war and the product of consultation?" The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "It is stratagem of war and consultation." Al-Hubab said: "This place is no good; let us go and encamp on the nearest water well and make a basin or reservoir full of water, then destroy all the other wells so that they will be deprived of the water." The Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of his plan and agreed to carry it out.[3]
[3] Ibn Hisham: al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Biography of the Prophet), 1/620; Ibn Kathir: al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Biography of the Prophet), 2/402; al-Suhayli: al-Rawd al-Anif, 3/62; and al-Tabary: Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk (History of Nations and Kings), 2-29

This proves clearly that nobody is above the law!And that the law of Allah swt is the rule,thus when there is room for consultation various approaches can be taken.Furthermore With an expanding territory and the growth of population, there is an imperative need for the separation of powers administrate the whole and make sure the Rule of Law prevails between the executive,The legislature and the judiciary(Umar RA as quoted in my other post was a pioneer in this process)!Unless a naive mind would expect among other the Governor of each province to take care of every case of Justice for example!Majilis As Shura increased in numbers through time the more the Islamic territory expanded.(If this is not a model of representative government for the people and by the people I don't know what is).There was such a dynamic of thought of constructive critic and debate in the Khilafa time subhnallah:

The righteous Tabi`y (Follower, one of the generation after the Companions of the Prophet) Abu Muslim al-Khawlany (may Allah be pleased with him), who used not to fear anything or anyone but Allah, stood up and addressed the caliph of Muslims and the greatest leader in the world while he was on the pulpit and said to him: "O Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), you are but one of the graves. If you bring something you will have something; otherwise you will have nothing. O Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), do not consider that the caliphate is to collect funds and distribute them. But caliphate is to say right, act with justice and take people to the Path of Allah. O Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), we do not care how turbid are the rivers if our sight is purified. Do not incline to a certain tribe, so your injustice will overpower your justice." Then he sat down. Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "May Allah bless you, Abu Muslim (may Allah be pleased with him)."Al-Tabary: Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk (History of Nations and Kings), 5/297.

Fact check During the rule of Imam Ali (ra), a Jew stole a shield from the Khalifa. Ali (ra) took the matter to court and brought his son as a witness. The judge ruled against Khalifa and stated that a son cannot be a witness for a father in court. When the Jew witnessed such fairness, he voluntarily confessed that he stole the shield and embraced Islam.

Allah swt is the legislator not the Dictator and not the king and not the khalifa.The Jurists (Maglis as Shura)legislate further (Tashrri)on a practical level using the various sources QUraan and sunnah,Ijmaa and Quiyas.I would remind you that a dictator or a monarch is usually someone that legislates himself being the sol sovereign !Like Pharao said "am your lord most high"!and there is no one to bring him into account(This is a Taghut!A Khalifa according to a lot of scholars can be even be impeached if he doesn't rule justly and obeys the divine law).If you serve Allah swt by serving the people it doesn't mean that you are worshiping them as Gods!

Furthermore the khalifa's rule responding to a certain historical context is temporal he will die someday!So unless Islamic history becomes another source of legislation the models of governance will remain a historical tool to respond to the requirements of their time.

Imam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

No view is binding unless it is based on the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Everything other than them should be based on them

And for this you did not show a single verse!

AS Shura which existed before The revelation of the Quraan Al Karim was practiced before Islam in Arabia between the tribes and if Allah swt deemed it as a praiseworthy necessity who are you or I to disqualify something just because it was historically known to be practiced by the Kuffar and call it imitation..

Like Abu bakr As Saddiqq R.A after the death of the prophet said"Let those who worshiped Muhammad(S.A.W) know that Muhammad (S.A.W)has dies but for he who worshipped Allah SWT let him know that Allah swt will never die"

On Another note!I don't have the time now to go through the whole thread and I don't even wanna do it as the prophet said:
"...Whoever conceals (a fault) of a Muslim, Allah will conceal him on the Day of Judgement..."

Collected by Muslim, 2699

Arguing just for the sake of argument is a very unproductive exercise,and this is exactly what Muslimboy did which is a proof that he exist only in opposition and confrontation.I would remind him that a Muslim with a strong faith exist regardless of the convergence or divergence of ideas.

He recognizes good from wherever it might come from.

I would invite him also to read what he posted again ,he will realize that his suicidal attempt to find faults in the principles and call us names using slogans and implicit citations out of context is so self contradicting with a lot of his quotes that it calls to pity.There is a serious danger sometimes when we alienate ourselves from our own principles because we think they belong to the other and thus we see ourselves through the eyes of the other an ironic image of that in world affairs today is that the Kuffar and certain Muslims seem to agree on the fact that the Muslim majority countries are better to be governed by dictatorships than by representative governments,and thus they promote the statusquo "by any means necessary".Am not saying this to attack my brother but just as a constructive critic to come to a better understanding Inshallah.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
Arguing just for the sake of argument is a very unproductive exercise,and this is exactly what Muslimboy did which is a proof that he exist only in opposition and confrontation.I would remind him that a Muslim with a strong faith exist regardless of the convergence or divergence of ideas.

He recognizes good from wherever it might come from.

I would invite him also to read what he posted again ,he will realize that his suicidal attempt to find faults in the principles and call us names using slogans and implicit citations out of context is so self contradicting with a lot of his quotes that it calls to pity.There is a serious danger sometimes when we alienate ourselves from our own principles because we think they belong to the other and thus we see ourselves through the eyes of the other an ironic image of that in world affairs today is that the Kuffar and certain Muslims seem to agree on the fact that the Muslim majority countries are better to be governed by dictatorships than by representative governments,and thus they promote the statusquo "by any means necessary".Am not saying this to attack my brother but just as a constructive critic to come to a better understanding Inshallah.

:salam2:
I dont even recall calling you another name other than your username. Like i said before merely giving our opinions isn't going to solve anything at all, thats why i suggested refering to the quran and sunnah to settle our disagreement. Whether you agree with me or not is totally upto you ukhti, so i am not forcing anyone to agree with me. You are correct about one thing and that is i am against democracy because it goes against islam and i have given enough evidence to prove my point but have you? Pls bring evidence from the quran and sunnah like i did.

Secondly, do you believe that western democracy is compatible with islam? if not what type of democracy is compatible with islam? Which principles are you talking about?? if you mean democracy then i say this is completly false because if it were true then the muslims would have been the first people to implement democracy but they werent were they?? Let me ask you another question, is communism compatible with islam?? if not pls state why?


:wasalam:
 

arzafar

Junior Member
^^^

there is no point in arguing bro. they have already made their minds up. they go off on their own tangent without addressing the main question. The text is crystal clear but they derive their own meaning just to argue. They have their own interpretations of what is posted and even well known terms like democracy are confused with completely different terms like consultation. they just cant face up to the reality. Which ruler doesn't consult? :lol:
i asked for proof several times. they dont have any! all they have is words and more words without any substance, proof, evidence. Based on logic i could fill up volumes against democracy and equal volumes for democracy. but i dont because what i say doesnt matter. Only Quraan and hadith matters.

they criticize taqleed when islaam = taqleed of Muhammad ibn Abdullah! This is what Imam shaafai said. It is such a simple concept. Who introduced mankind to islaam? was it Muhammad (saw) or our logic? Who should we follow? Muhammad (saw) or logic? We must pray like he (saw) prayed, fast like he (saw) did, believe like he (saw) did, read quraan like he (saw) did, give charity like he (saw) did, run the government like he (saw) did and basically try to copy his teachings instead of following our logic. Yes he consulted and so should the muslim rulers but that's where it ends! He (saw) never held elections. He (saw) never asked the common man on the street who to fight and who not to fight. He (saw) never held a referendum to decide what should be done to the people of makkah after they were defeated.

Similarly, you should do dawah on the basis of quraan and hadith NOT on the basis of logic. If you look at the stories of the converts almost all will mention the idea of God as one of the main reasons why they accepted islaam. You should concentrate your dawa on Tawheed and inshallah you will succeed. even if you dont, there would be no regrets or confusions.
from the worldly aspects you could invite kaafirs to lunch, give them help etc if they ask questions, your answer must come from the quraan or sahih hadith not form your logic! if you cant find it, just tell them you dont know and God has ordered not to lie. For eg, if they ask about stoning the adulterer/adulteress you say yes it is from islaam and the prophet (saw) did it. You will be amazed how much people respect your honesty.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

My last response was deleted.

So let me try a watered-down approach.

The proof of argument is with you. And you have not provided any conclusive evidence that democracy is not compatible with Islam. None.

You do not understand democracy as you have some prejudicial blockage to its connotation and denotation. You are confusing some misguided western principles. The western world today is not democratic. If you happen to live in the west and read about the state of the US you will understand that fascism and democracy are two different systems.

If you wish to present a balanced view of Islam you can not be so prejudiced in your presentation. You will lose people from the get go.

If you wish to bring people to the knowledge of Islam you must be prepared to understand where they are coming from. You have no clue. The Prophet was easy on those that were wishing to revert.

You defy logic. Logic is accepted in Islam. We are told to seek and gain knowledge. Logic is ancillary to Islam. It is the twin of reason. Islam is a reasonable and logically way to live.

You are becoming very emotional. You are the one who is dividing the issue. How can you teach someone about your faith when you are debating with Believers.

If this gets deleted I will start to have fun.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
i asked for proof several times. they dont have any! all they have is words and more words without any substance, proof, evidence. Based on logic.
:salam2:Volumes ...As far as Kant is concerned don't even get me started,you would make him a WWF wrestling fan, following your definition of logic,Am half German,I know Kant very well.

Now do not divert the attention The burden of proof is on you! and for that you have not produced a single verse or hadeeth.Not one that is unequivocally explicit against democracy.

All you had to offer was a specific verse referring to a clear cut judgment by Allah swt that testifies to the Rule of Law principle,you know..the "kill them wherever you find them" syndrome that the Kuffar use against Islam and that some Muslims use as general rule to kill innocents.

Furthermore, Islamic history as flawed as you tried to fit it in as an argument is not a source of Sharia! Your question has been answered and your argument proven flawed eventough the burden of proof was on you!.

If you can not even bother to quote the Quraan and Sunnah to prove your assertions forget about Kant he is not worth your time yet.

Discussion will continue Inshallah.
 

ditta

Alhamdu'Lillaah
Staff member
Assalaam walaikum,

My last response was deleted.

As-salaamu'Alaykum,

No response in this thread has been deleted.

And I have sort of been following this thread and I can't really see where it is leading.

Walaykum-Salaam.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

First, it is good to see you post.

Second, not to worry..probably lost in cyberspace...

Three..I know what you mean..where is this headed? It is good to discuss how to live Islamically in a democratic country. The Believer selects Islam. Something about enjoing good and forbidding evil ( we have to be on the alert about not joining evil when we live in sparsely populated Muslim area.).

I do not like to see factions. And there needs to be none. Islam is inclusive.
 

ditta

Alhamdu'Lillaah
Staff member
As-salaamu'Alaykum,

It is nice in attempting to engage after a long period.

In reading and skimming some of the responses, I can see certain points although I failed to comprehend others (maybe my lack of intellect).

Anyway, I thought I would check the definition of secularism and democracy.

Secularism: exclusion of religion from public affairs: the belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools

Democracy: free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the majority of the people.

Now I look at the society I live in (in my experience), the opinions I hear on the radio (which have been selected) and it points/advocates towards a combination of secularism and democracy.

I seemed to get the impression from the responses that Islamic rule could be established through democracy which is ludicrous because firstly look at the characteristics of the people and where Islam is in our lives as Muslims (generally). We are far away from it. It seems to me people do not want it because we have become secularised. Not to mention non-Muslims!

I look at my society. The notion of equality of representation is absent. The theory of it may sound good although it is a man-made system which is inherently flawed - despite how good it may be. For example, inequality in pay; a women being paid far less compared to a man for the same production/value created. (Where is the equality?) (Hasn't rich/poor gap increased?)

In an ideal world according to democracy (from my limited understanding or maybe you can coin another term for this - maybe discrimination) is that race, gender, sexual preference, nationality, ethnicity or class (any other factors) should have no influence upon how far you get in life. However it does on many occasions. There is an inherent inequality in society despite people stating otherwise (with their blinkers on).

You look at the system we live in (my experience) and I fail to see where personal voice can be heard. There is clamp down on voicing opinion (on the street, the method used by non-Muslims and now Muslims which is a separate issue). I look at what I can do under this 'democracy' and it isn't much. I can phone my member of Parliament/representative and book an appointment (which I have never done because I have no pressing need with him). I can be selected for jury duty. (Arguably under this system we have become increasingly individualised which has eliminated our collectivism).

I can see someone may say you can walk down the street wearing what you want (sometimes nothing!), looking how you want, talking how you want etc. However isn't this then the eroding of manners, etiquette, etc - in terms of what we see when walking down the street. I think this opinion is held by many non-Muslims in this country (whether religious or not). They are disillusioned with the ways things are. One party in the other out. Isn't that what happens in America - Democrats and Republicans are akin to Labour and Conservative.

Therefore, any country that isn't 'progressive' towards a democracy is labeled as backwards, the irony.

And often you will hear in the public (by people who can speak through dominant mediums) that there needs to be a separation of the Church (or any other religion) from government. So I fail to see compatibility. I think this has been achieved through secularism. If something has a big enough bandwagon (meaning an issue or campaign) it can be transferred from what was traditionally wrong (according to a certain or any religion, or even a person's moral value/ethical point of view) to something that is progressive.

And I don't see how the system of a nation can be attributed towards the establishment and development of technology. Arguably isn't that achieved through a person's/group intelligence, intellect rather than the system. Whatever system it is, each will advocate the development of technology - a better way of doing things. Maybe one preaches that it happens quicker than another although that is debatable - with no definite answer.

Ultimately as Muslims I think the only real thing we can strive to do is learn and understand the Qur'aan and Sunnah. And, look how we can be better people. Insha'Allaah, there are few good answers to Da'wah although I think it is an important issue which has been devalued due to the eagerness of so many people wanting to do it although maybe lack the necessary skills. (I'm referring back to the original response)

Allah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) knows best. I hope Allah forgives me for any errors that I have made.
 

Abu Talib

Feeling low
:salam2:Volumes ...As far as Kant is concerned don't even get me started,you would make him a WWF wrestling fan, following your definition of logic,Am half German,I know Kant very well.

Now do not divert the attention The burden of proof is on you! and for that you have not produced a single verse or hadeeth.Not one that is unequivocally explicit against democracy.

All you had to offer was a specific verse referring to a clear cut judgment by Allah swt that testifies to the Rule of Law principle,you know..the "kill them wherever you find them" syndrome that the Kuffar use against Islam and that some Muslims use as general rule to kill innocents.

Furthermore, Islamic history as flawed as you tried to fit it in as an argument is not a source of Sharia! Your question has been answered and your argument proven flawed eventough the burden of proof was on you!.

If you can not even bother to quote the Quraan and Sunnah to prove your assertions forget about Kant he is not worth your time yet.

Discussion will continue Inshallah.

Assalamu`alaykum

In the democracy which you define can a woman be elected as a head of the state then?
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
Assalamu`alaykum

In the democracy which you define can a woman be elected as a head of the state then?
No,if this goes against the Quraan and the Sunnah and as long as the consensus of the Ulamaa legislating from a free and independent body fearing Allah swt alone affirm it and this goes for other issues as well even for democracy.


Let me clarify briefly what we are talking about here.We are not taking the western model of democracy which has exclusively been nurtured trough centuries of the West's own ideological background and developments of thought which is both morally and scientifically objectionable from an Islamic point of view.And by the way democracy is not a monolithic concept there are plenty of different models out there.

We are simply saying that the basic principles are not inherently absent from the Islamic concept of governance,Where issues summarized as such like accountability,shared responsibility and representation.

Where the Quraan and the Sunnah are the Rule,thus the need for the accountability of the Ruler,and the separation of powers between the different bodies of governance,the equality before the law,these are all noble principles which are not Anti Islamic at all.Secularism is a western product,which could further develop to numerous awkward tenets and legislations because of the incarnation concept of the human being in Christianity,Which had the roots for it's own destruction,Inna al batila kana zahoka"Verily falsehood is bound to persish").

The fact of Free Will and that there is no compulsion in religion for example is a basis for individual freedom and the freedom of conscience within the hudud of the state of course.

You can believe what you wanna believe but don't break the law.You can not force people to believe,the only thing you can is doing Dawah to them as prescribed.In bthe meqan timen you can also do what you can to make sure Muslims do no get tortured inhumanly in jails of a Muslim country after being ordered to do so by the kuffar.



I don't understand why We keep using the West's own ideological background and development of thought which we are accustomed or exposed too again and again , as a boogiemann to disqualify the concept of a representative government ,really!Without a single proof.Some have the impression that if a government is serving the people he is worshiping them as Gods and call for some sort of despotic regime,and we fail to understand that if you don't serve the people,you are not serving God and you will only end up serving yourself. Which is totally false if the constitution is the QUraan and the Sunnah.And this is what we are talking about here.They live in a "Godless universe" so they adapt to it, we don't, we adapt to a God fearing universe to administrate our affairs ,that simple to understand.
 

ditta

Alhamdu'Lillaah
Staff member
As-salaamu'Alaykum,

^ To a degree you are correct. My knowledge is limited regarding this discussion (which might be apparent) although when looking at the Summary of the Islamic Jurisprudence (prescribed punishments and judiciary to be specific), in relation to the related topics you can see that the fundamental of what democracy (my understanding of the theory of democracy is limited) could be about is to an extent are similar - maybe ensuring rights are not lost. (Although none of its fundamentals are arguably apparent (it has been diluted or changed to suit agendas, arguably) (because how can it be), you often here of the more developed democracies - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and I think Germany - but have they really succeeded?).

Obviously they cannot because in Islam reference is made to the Qur'aan, Sunnah, Consensus of Scholars or deduction. Referring to the society we/I live in, secularist thinking is influential which means; religion has no basis, linking to the democracy that is designed/developed.

Arguably, if democracy is about the people's rights and equality in theory then it possesses characteristics of what Islam states or would be an ideal system to live in. However, the democracies in practice do not fit the theory (although again my knowledge of what democracy is all about is limited although despite its strengths it cannot be a substitute, maybe this is where the confusion originally arose from?).

I hope this is what your talking about.

Walaykum Salaam.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
Hopefully leading to discouraging the brother from giving da`wa to people where he tells them things about Islam that are not true, cannot be proven or are opinions/interpretations rather than established tenets. That would be misrepresenting Islam, which is the opposite of da`wa.
:salam2:

First of all, i am not misrepresenting islam or anything of the sort, so lets be clear on that issue. Second i have provided evidence from the both the quran & sunnah to prove my point, but have you? Who is misrepresenting islam in this case?

:wasalam:
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
No,if this goes against the Quraan and the Sunnah and as long as the consensus of the Ulamaa legislating from a free and independent body fearing Allah swt alone affirm it and this goes for other issues as well even for democracy.


Let me clarify briefly what we are talking about here.We are not taking the western model of democracy which has exclusively been nurtured trough centuries of the West's own ideological background and developments of thought which is both morally and scientifically objectionable from an Islamic point of view.And by the way democracy is not a monolithic concept there are plenty of different models out there.

We are simply saying that the basic principles are not inherently absent from the Islamic concept of governance,Where issues summarized as such like accountability,shared responsibility and representation.

Where the Quraan and the Sunnah are the Rule,thus the need for the accountability of the Ruler,and the separation of powers between the different bodies of governance,the equality before the law,these are all noble principles which are not Anti Islamic at all.Secularism is a western product,which could further develop to numerous awkward tenets and legislations because of the incarnation concept of the human being in Christianity,Which had the roots for it's own destruction,Inna al batila kana zahoka"Verily falsehood is bound to persish").

The fact of Free Will and that there is no compulsion in religion for example is a basis for individual freedom and the freedom of conscience within the hudud of the state of course.

You can believe what you wanna believe but don't break the law.You can not force people to believe,the only thing you can is doing Dawah to them as prescribed.In bthe meqan timen you can also do what you can to make sure Muslims do no get tortured inhumanly in jails of a Muslim country after being ordered to do so by the kuffar.



I don't understand why We keep using the West's own ideological background and development of thought which we are accustomed or exposed too again and again , as a boogiemann to disqualify the concept of a representative government ,really!Without a single proof.Some have the impression that if a government is serving the people he is worshiping them as Gods and call for some sort of despotic regime ,and we fail to understand that if you don't serve the people,you are not serving God and you will only end up serving yourself. Which is totally false if the constitution is the QUraan and the Sunnah.And this is what we are talking about here.They live in a "Godless universe" so they adapt to it, we don't, we adapt to a God fearing universe to administrate our affairs ,that simple to understand.

:salam2:
You are saying that we shouldn't use western democracy as an example to define what democracy means, so what you are basically saying is that we should define it so that it suits islam i.e "islamic democracy" ?

We are simply saying that the basic principles are not inherently absent from the Islamic concept of governance,Where issues summarized as such like accountability,shared responsibility and representation.

Even though some values of democracy may seem some what "similar" in nature but does that mean they are equal and compatible? I'll give you an example in both christianity and judaism things like adultery, fornication,stealing etc are forbidden just like in islam but does that mean they are compatible to islam??

Some have the impression that if a government is serving the people he is worshiping them as Gods and call for some sort of despotic regime

With regards to worshipping false gods besides Allah here is what i posted about it

Almighty Allah says:

"They(jews and christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah) and they (they also took as their lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (mary) while they (jews and christians) were commanded (in the torah and gospel) to worship one Ilah (god i.e, Allah), La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and Glory is to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." {Q 9:31}.

Once while Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was reciting the above verse 'Adl bin Hatim said, "O Allah's Prophet! They do not worship them (rabbi and monks)." Allah's Messenger said, "They certainly do. They ( i.e rabbis and monks) made legal things illegal, and illegal things legal and they ( jews and christians) followed them; and by doing so they really worshiped them."
(Narrated by Ahmad, At Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir). (Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol.10, Page No. 114)

If the jews and christians were taking their rabbis and monks as lords and worshipping them, what about those people in democratic countries, who do you think they worship as their lords?

This is what i was refering to as worshipping humans, and not in the manner as you stated. That is "if" you were meaning me when you said "some".
Lastly when did i ever call for a despotic regime??

:wasalam:
 

Abu Talib

Feeling low
No,if this goes against the Quraan and the Sunnah and as long as the consensus of the Ulamaa legislating from a free and independent body fearing Allah swt alone affirm it and this goes for other issues as well even for democracy.


Let me clarify briefly what we are talking about here.We are not taking the western model of democracy which has exclusively been nurtured trough centuries of the West's own ideological background and developments of thought which is both morally and scientifically objectionable from an Islamic point of view.And by the way democracy is not a monolithic concept there are plenty of different models out there.

We are simply saying that the basic principles are not inherently absent from the Islamic concept of governance,Where issues summarized as such like accountability,shared responsibility and representation.

Where the Quraan and the Sunnah are the Rule,thus the need for the accountability of the Ruler,and the separation of powers between the different bodies of governance,the equality before the law,these are all noble principles which are not Anti Islamic at all.Secularism is a western product,which could further develop to numerous awkward tenets and legislations because of the incarnation concept of the human being in Christianity,Which had the roots for it's own destruction,Inna al batila kana zahoka"Verily falsehood is bound to persish").

The fact of Free Will and that there is no compulsion in religion for example is a basis for individual freedom and the freedom of conscience within the hudud of the state of course.

You can believe what you wanna believe but don't break the law.You can not force people to believe,the only thing you can is doing Dawah to them as prescribed.In bthe meqan timen you can also do what you can to make sure Muslims do no get tortured inhumanly in jails of a Muslim country after being ordered to do so by the kuffar.



I don't understand why We keep using the West's own ideological background and development of thought which we are accustomed or exposed too again and again , as a boogiemann to disqualify the concept of a representative government ,really!Without a single proof.Some have the impression that if a government is serving the people he is worshiping them as Gods and call for some sort of despotic regime,and we fail to understand that if you don't serve the people,you are not serving God and you will only end up serving yourself. Which is totally false if the constitution is the QUraan and the Sunnah.And this is what we are talking about here.They live in a "Godless universe" so they adapt to it, we don't, we adapt to a God fearing universe to administrate our affairs ,that simple to understand.

Okay so lets be more practical now as I stated the question before rather than just making theories. The system which your propose should be practical to implement can you name any country who tried or did it? You can see Yemen which has the constitution the legislation of Allaah which used Democracy but can you see where it stands today?

And please I would love to hear from you what is the difference between Khilafah & Democracy?
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
Okay so lets be more practical now as I stated the question before rather than just making theories. The system which your propose should be practical to implement can you name any ?
:salam2:

Democratic principles are intrinsic within the Khilafa system am not "proposing"anything new.There is not a single country where the law is the Quraan and the Sunnah and everybody be it the rulers or the people are accountable to it thus equal under god.

The difference is that the Quraan and the Sunnah are not to change as to their legislation or implementation and that the jurists would have a big role in extracting the laws from the sources to project them to the socio environmental context.If you recall during the years of famine Umar R.A abrogated the hudud for thieves.This is not called shirk this is only being true to the principle of justice if the conditions for the application of hudud are not met.Because if you apply the punishment of cutting the hand to a needy person before you find a way to create a just system to feed him you go against Maquassid as Sahria.They change laws to a adapt to a godless system like for sodomites marriages for example , we don't we only do it in cases of necessity(Darurat wal Haja)

Now here is my practical question to you all since you didn't see it in on of my posts.

Seeing the situation today In the Muslim majority countries you have but two choices and there is no fuss about it.Would you rather have Dictatorial regimes that oppress Muslims and tortures them in jail,sexually humiliates them, forces women to take of their Hijabs Like Attaturk and Ben Ali did? an Authoritarian regime that steals their wealth and properties(Mubarak is said to have a fortune of 70 billion Dollars while his folk suffers), without being accountable before the people and the law?Is for you bait al mal property of the Muslims or is it that of the ruling class?. Would you rather have a majority Muslim constituency in Parliament were Muslim are not vilified and their rights are respected and actively fought for,where the rights of Allah swt are promoted over others(Like the interdiction of Ribba,Gambeling,Alchol import..etc)?

Unless you wanna cut the throats that Allah swt has made taboo and convert everybody who doesn't agree with your political views from the back of the horses,you have but these two alternatives for a more or less peaceful and just environment to do Dawah and convince the people to come back to Islam as to it's political dimension.Times have changed ,today information is a very useful tool to convince people and invite them towards embracing the truth in all the dimension of their lives.

Am looking forward to read you answers,Inshallah

Allah Maak
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
As-salaamu'Alaykum,
However, the democracies in practice do not fit the theory
.
:salam2:

Religions are intrinsically Idealistic Akhi Al Karim.In Islam we have the chance to have The realistic dimension Cared for as well as it is practical perfection!

That is why we can do better than them.It doesn't change the fact though that the Space of debate and participation where never meant to be absent from the Islamic discourse they have always been there.

And this constitutes a very dynamic frame ground for creativity for research of constructive critic and progress...etc.Freedom of expression has always been there.

Ps.Nice to hear from you after such a long time,Am glad to see you are in the best of health and Imaan Inshallah Akhi :)
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Brother as an addendum to your thoughts we have to be very careful and sure in what we wish to present in our invitation to others.

If nothing else this thread may help the brother gain a larger picture of what he wishes to do; or not to do.

We only give authority to those we wish to; no ruler is going to be given loyalty if the people feel he is unfair.

The part I do not comprehend and please someone explain this one to me: We know Islam is complete system. We know it is democratic. Anyone can be a Muslim. It is total equal opportunity across the board for everyone. So why all the fuss.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
:salam2:

Democratic principles are intrinsic within the Khilafa system am not "proposing"anything new.There is not a single country where the law is the Quraan and the Sunnah and everybody be it the rulers or the people are accountable to it thus equal under god.

The difference is that the Quraan and the Sunnah are not to change as to their legislation or implementation and that the jurists would have a big role in extracting the laws from the sources to project them to the socio environmental context.If you recall during the years of famine Umar R.A abrogated the hudud for thieves.This is not called shirk this is only being true to the principle of justice if the conditions for the application of hudud are not met.Because if you apply the punishment of cutting the hand to a needy person before you find a way to create a just system to feed him you go against Maquassid as Sahria.They change laws to a adapt to a godless system like for sodomites marriages for example , we don't we only do it in cases of necessity(Darurat wal Haja)Now here is my practical question to you all since you didn't see it in on of my posts.

Seeing the situation today In the Muslim majority countries you have but two choices and there is no fuss about it.Would you rather have Dictatorial regimes that oppress Muslims and tortures them in jail,sexually humiliates them, forces women to take of their Hijabs Like Attaturk and Ben Ali did? an Authoritarian regime that steals their wealth and properties(Mubarak is said to have a fortune of 70 billion Dollars while his folk suffers), without being accountable before the people and the law?Is for you bait al mal property of the Muslims or is it that of the ruling class?. Would you rather have a majority Muslim constituency in Parliament were Muslim are not vilified and their rights are respected and actively fought for,where the rights of Allah swt are promoted over others(Like the interdiction of Ribba,Gambeling,Alchol import..etc)?

Unless you wanna cut the throats that Allah swt has made taboo and convert everybody who doesn't agree with your political views from the back of the horses,you have but these two alternatives for a more or less peaceful and just environment to do Dawah and convince the people to come back to Islam as to it's political dimension.Times have changed ,today information is a very useful tool to convince people and invite them towards embracing the truth in all the dimension of their lives.

Am looking forward to read you answers,Inshallah

Allah Maak

:salam2:
Firstly Umar ra never abrogated any commandment from Allah swt, and to say that he did would be accusing him of doing an action that puts a muslim far from the pale of islam i.e Kufr. Umar didn't apply the hadd punishment for theft because inorder to carry out this punishment certain conditions must be met and in addition to this the punishment is not applicable to any type of theft. In other words the he did not carry out the hadd punishment during the famine period because it did not qualify some of the conditions that must be met before the punishment is carried out. To say that he abrogated the hadd punishment is totally wrong, which is why i believe you must verify where you got this information from. I truly hope that it was a mistake and nothing else.

Secondly why must we limit the choices to two only? when it is clear that both of them are not from the sunnah? dictatorship and democracy are only to sides of them same coin and neither of them is compatible with islam. We do not need to create a majority parliament or anything of the sort to achieve our rights, we can acheive it too by following the quran and sunnah.

:wasalam:
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Brother what would you tell the Egyptians that dictatorship ( what they are fighting ) is the same as the democratic change they want to implement a correct system of governance.

Democracy for the hundredth time is the will of the people. It is compatible with Islam ask any Egyptian right now.

We can not box Islam to fit our narrowly defined perceptions of faith.
 

queenislam

★★★I LOVE ALLAH★★★
~May Allah swt help and guide you~Amin

:bismillah:
:salam2:

:ma:
Your thought and intention is very good
but when you don't know you really don't know!
It not complicated
but you need details and good interaction.

I would like to suggest you
call or to drop in and visit your Islamic council
in your country for futher clarification and altogether
clearing your dilemma.
Insya'allah!

~May Allah swt help and guide you~Amin

Take Care!
~Wassalam :)
 
Top