Dawah help

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
:salam2:You are not answering the questions akhi....We are talking about an authoritarian monarchy(mulkan jabriyyatan)were the King leaves power to his son regardless of his qualification,piety...etc.,and there is no one to oppose his decision(Rememeber Nuh's A.S son).Where the king,his family are above the law of Allah swt and thus the rule of law is absent,This is the submission to a "man made" and enforced law not the other way around.Where there is no separation of power and independence of the judiciary and the legislator.The prophet S.A.W did not make the difference without purpose in the famous hadeeth below between the Khilafa and Monarchies.

If we say that it Allah swt the Malik then an authoritarian dictatorship has no place in Islam.Mujtahids that retrieve laws from The Book of Allah swt and the Sunnah and try to project them to the social and environmental context thus legislate(Tashrii) are not Mushriks.Under an authoritarian Kingdom a lot of them who have produced fatwas that contradict the government guidelines eventough they were backed by the QUraan and the Sunnah were either banned or tortured in jail. This is what we call separation of powers.And this is why words like democracy disturbs thus some carry on misinterpreting them on purpose.We are not talking about Western democracies carrying the west own ideological background(Materialism,Darwinism,Feminism,..etc) when it comes to men and women for example we are talking about Justice according to the Quraan and Sunnah within our own guidelines and customs,where the rich ,the poor are equal before the law of God as one of few examples when it comes to Hudud...etc .The way you answered shows clearly that You do not understand them with all due respect akhi.Am just talking to you,trying to learn and understand am not arguing.Allah swt is my witness.

Do you guys even realize that you are asking us to participate in a democratic process when you call us to mutual consultation with our scholars in this matter!What about the scholars when they consult with Doctors,engineers and other experts in their fields to deduce laws from the sharia regarding the ever changing circumstances,requirements and challenges that societies go through with time....

Islam believes that the people who are chosen to be the leaders of the Muslims (Ameer-ul-Momineen) should be the most pious among them and ever ready for his accountability . The monarchs, however, were known from history to be the ones who basically ran the kingdom as their own property and tortured and killed people based on their own desire. They are not the ones to be confused with the vicegerent of Allah(SWT)Like Prophet Dawud A.S and Suleiman A.S since those monarchs will be judged much more severely then ordinary people in the hereafter as they exploited their position by their false desires of lust and word domination.

disscussion will follow inshallah.jazakum Allah khair for sharing your inputs

Abu Bakr(RA) had the following to say after he took over the Khilafa:

O Muslims! though you have made me your chief, I am not the best among you. If someone else among you had taken charge of this burden which you have put upon me, it would have been better for me. If you expect that I should rule you just as the Apostle of God did, then I must tell you that it is not possible. The Apostle received Wahi (Revelation) from Heaven, and he was infallible whereas I am an ordinary man. I am not better than you. Therefore, if you see me walking on the straight road, follow me; but if you see me deviate from it, reprove me. If I do right, support me; if I do wrong, correct me. Obey me as long as I obey God and His Apostle. But if you see that I am disobeying them, you too disobey me.

(This is what everybody means by the Rule of Law and the accountability of the Ruler !The Law of Allah swt and nobody is above it).


You have the Qur’an with you, and it is complete. God's Apostle has shown you both by precept and example how to conduct yourselves in this life. The strongest among you all is he who fears God. The weakest among you in my sight is he who is sinful. A people that gives up jihad, loses its honor. Be punctual in saying your prayers, and do not miss them. May God have mercy on you, and may He forgive you all."

There shall be Prophethood (nubuwwa) among you for as long as Allah wishes it to be among you. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be successorship (khilâfa) on the pattern (minhâj) of Prophetship for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be a trying kingship (mulkan `âddan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be a tyrannical kingship (mulkan jabriyyatan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be successorship on the pattern of Prophetship. Narrated from Hudhayfa by Ahmad with a sound chain as stated by al-Zayn in the Musnad (14:163 #18319) and as indicated by al-Haythami (5:188-189):

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 5.79 Narrated byAisha
The people of the Quraish tribe were worried about the Makhzumiya woman. They said. "Nobody dare speak to him (i.e. the Prophet ) except Usama bin Zaid as he is the most beloved to Allah's Apostle." 'Aisha said, "A woman from Bani Makhzumiya committed a theft and the people said, 'Who can intercede with the Prophet for her?' So nobody dared speak to him (i.e. the Prophet) but Usama bin Zaid spoke to him. The Prophet said, 'If a reputable man amongst the children of Bani Israel committed a theft, they used to forgive him, but if a poor man committed a theft, they would cut his hand. But I would cut even the hand of Fatima (i.e. the daughter of the Prophet) if she committed a theft.' "

This is the Rule of Law and the accountability of the Ruler.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
Democracy was not practiced in human history except recently, with few exceptions. Much of what has been said about democracy demonstrates the lack of knowledge about what it is and how it is implemented. In logic, this is called straw-man argumentation: refuting a premise by misrepresenting it.



The majority of people in a Muslim country are Muslim, committed to God and His Messenger, which leads to commitment to Sharia. As a result, their constitution is the Quran and the Sunna and their laws are derived from those two sources by ways of Usool-ul-Fiqh. Such majority will not vote for something that violates that constitution or the law thus established. And even if they do, the Supreme Court, an integral part of a democracy, will overturn the vote when it finds it unconstitutional.

The constitution of Muslims has already been written, by God and His Messenger.

The imaams, judges, and jurists have all legislated thousands of laws. Are they all challenging the exclusive right of God to legislate? Of course not, because their rulings are based on God's principles. That is what the constitution is about!

Asalam Aleikum
Why dont you actually take the time to read through what i've written like i do when i read your replies because to me it looks as though you havent even read them except from a few things.

Coming to the issue of legislation, in democracy the people are the legislators while in islam legislation is only for Allah swt and none has the right to be given legislative rights, no matter who he is. So what you said about imams,judges and jurists above is totally false unless they are those who are led astray by their whims and desires.

Of course not, because their rulings are based on God's principles
But can you say the same for democracy??
Brief explanation of constitution
constitution, Set of doctrines and practices that form the fundamental organizing principle of a political state. It may be written (e.g., the Constitution of the United States) or partly written and uncodified (e.g., Britain’s constitution). Its provisions usually specify how the government is to be organized, what rights it shall have, and what rights shall be retained by the people. Modern constitutional ideas developed during the Enlightenment, when philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke proposed that constitutional governments should be stable, adaptable, accountable, and open, should represent the governed, and should divide power according ...

In other words it is something that was unknown to the muslims and the first time a muslim government used the term was during the final years of the ottoman empire (look for Abdulhamid II) and the only reason he did so was to appease the kuffar (westerners). After that it was imposed on the muslims like many other things during coloniazation. The ruling for this comes under the ruling on imitating the kuffar. The proper term to use should be islamic shari'ah or shari'ah so as to distinguish our laws,principles, rulings from theirs.

Pls read the following fatwa even though i've provided the link before but in this case im going to post the fatwa itself.

What are the sources of Islamic legislation?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The sources of Islam on which all beliefs, principles and rulings are based are represented by the two Revelations: the Qur’aan and Sunnah. This is what is implied by Islam being a divinely-revealed religion: its pillars are based on infallible texts that were sent down from heaven, which are represented in the verses of the Holy Qur’aan and the texts of the saheeh Prophetic Sunnah.

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. End quote.

Jimaa’ al-‘Ilm.

From these two sources the scholars derived other principles on which rulings may be based. Some scholars called them the sources of sharee’ah or the sources of Islamic legislation. They are: ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) and qiyaas (analogy).

Imam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: No one has any right whatsoever to say that something is halaal or haraam except on the basis of knowledge, and the basis of knowledge is a text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) or qiyaas (analogy). End quote.

Al-Risaalah (39).

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

If we say Qur’aan, Sunnah and ijmaa’, they all stem from the same source, because the Messenger agrees with everything that is in the Qur’aan, and the ummah is unanimously agreed upon it in general. There is no one among the believers who does not believe it is obligatory to follow the Book. And everything that the Prophet enjoined in his Sunnah, the Qur’aan obliged us to follow it. So the believers are unanimously agreed upon that, and everything on which the Muslims are unanimously agreed can only be true and in accordance with what is in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (7/40).

Dr. ‘Abd al-Kareem Zaydaan said:

What is meant by the sources of fiqh is the evidence from which it is derived and on which it is based. If you wish, you may say: The sources from which it is derived. Some people call these sources the “sources of sharee’ah” or “the sources of Islamic legislation.” No matter what they are called, the sources of fiqh all derive from the Revelation (wahy) of Allaah, whether it is Qur’aan or Sunnah. Hence we prefer to divide these sources into original sources, namely the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and secondary sources to which the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah refer, such as ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) and qiyaas (analogy). End quote.

Al-Madkhil li Diraasat al-Sharee’ah al-Islamiyyah (p. 153).

With regard to sources other than these four, such as the opinions of the Sahaabah, istihsaan (discretion), sadd al-dharaa’i’ (blocking the means that lead to evil), istishaab, ‘urf (custom), the laws of those who came before us, al-masaalih al-mursalah (things that serve the general interests of the Muslims) and so on, the scholars differed as to how valid it is to use them as evidence. According to the view that they are acceptable – all or some of them – they are secondary to the Qur’aan and Sunnah and should be in accordance with them.

And Allaah knows best.

Waelikum Salam
 

Abu Talib

Feeling low
Democracy was not practiced in human history except recently, with few exceptions. Much of what has been said about democracy demonstrates the lack of knowledge about what it is and how it is implemented. In logic, this is called straw-man argumentation: refuting a premise by misrepresenting it.



The majority of people in a Muslim country are Muslim, committed to God and His Messenger, which leads to commitment to Sharia. As a result, their constitution is the Quran and the Sunna and their laws are derived from those two sources by ways of Usool-ul-Fiqh. Such majority will not vote for something that violates that constitution or the law thus established. And even if they do, the Supreme Court, an integral part of a democracy, will overturn the vote when it finds it unconstitutional.

The constitution of Muslims has already been written, by God and His Messenger.

The imaams, judges, and jurists have all legislated thousands of laws. Are they all challenging the exclusive right of God to legislate? Of course not, because their rulings are based on God's principles. That is what the constitution is about!

Yes that Democracy exists in Yemen and you can see how good it is.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
:salam2:You are not answering the questions akhi....We are talking about an authoritarian monarchy(mulkan jabriyyatan)were the King leaves power to his son regardless of his qualification,piety...etc.,and there is no one to oppose his decision(Rememeber Nuh's A.S son).Where the king,his family are above the law of Allah swt and thus the rule of law is absent,This is the submission to a "man made" and enforced law not the other way around.Where there is no separation of power and independence of the judiciary and the legislator.The prophet S.A.W did not make the difference without purpose in the famous hadeeth below between the Khilafa and Monarchies.

If we say that it Allah swt the Malik then an authoritarian dictatorship has no place in Islam.Mujtahids that retrieve laws from The Book of Allah swt and the Sunnah and try to project them to the social and environmental context thus legislate(Tashrii) are not Mushriks.Under an authoritarian Kingdom a lot of them who have produced fatwas that contradict the government guidelines eventough they were backed by the QUraan and the Sunnah were either banned or tortured in jail. This is what we call separation of powers.And this is why words like democracy disturbs thus some carry on misinterpreting them on purpose.We are not talking about Western democracies carrying the west own ideological background(Materialism,Darwinism,Feminism,..etc) when it comes to men and women for example we are talking about Justice according to the Quraan and Sunnah within our own guidelines and customs,where the rich ,the poor are equal before the law of God as one of few examples when it comes to Hudud...etc .The way you answered shows clearly that You do not understand them with all due respect akhi.Am just talking to you,trying to learn and understand am not arguing.Allah swt is my witness.

Do you guys even realize that you are asking us to participate in a democratic process when you call us to mutual consultation with our scholars in this matter!What about the scholars when they consult with Doctors,engineers and other experts in their fields to deduce laws from the sharia regarding the ever changing circumstances,requirements and challenges that societies go through with time....

Islam believes that the people who are chosen to be the leaders of the Muslims (Ameer-ul-Momineen) should be the most pious among them and ever ready for his accountability . The monarchs, however, were known from history to be the ones who basically ran the kingdom as their own property and tortured and killed people based on their own desire. They are not the ones to be confused with the vicegerent of Allah(SWT)Like Prophet Dawud A.S and Suleiman A.S since those monarchs will be judged much more severely then ordinary people in the hereafter as they exploited their position by their false desires of lust and word domination.

disscussion will follow inshallah.jazakum Allah khair for sharing your inputs

My question to you here is how do the rule of law in islam and democracy fit perfectly together as you claim??

Where there is no separation of power and independence of the judiciary and the legislator? Under an authoritarian Kingdom a lot of them who have produced fatwas that contradict the government guidelines eventough they were backed by the QUraan and the Sunnah were either banned or tortured in jail. This is what we call separation of powers.And this is why words like democracy disturbs thus some carry on misinterpreting them on purpose.We are not talking about Western democracies carrying the west own ideological background(Materialism,Darwinism,Feminism,..etc) when it comes to men and women for example we are talking about Justice according to the Quraan and Sunnah within our own guidelines and customs,where the rich ,the poor are equal before the law of God as one of few examples when it comes to Hudud...etc .The way you answered shows clearly that You do not understand them with all due respect akhi.Am just talking to you,trying to learn and understand am not arguing.Allah swt is my witness.

On the issue of separation of islam, this is not from the sunnah rather it is the way of the kuffar because they believe that religious law in insufficient to administer the modern society. Saying that without separation of powers would lead to injustice is totally false and we only need to look at islamic history to prove it wrong.

I have not misinterpreted what democracy means worngly because you only need to look at modern day democracy to find out what it means but according to you democracy has got another definition different from the western definition ie "islamic democracy" am i correct about this??
if so then what you have done is simply modified democracy to suit islam. Please read the fatwa from islaweb (link included in the previous post under democracy in islam)

Here, some people raised the following question "Why we should not take the merits of democracy and modify them to suit Islam and make it an Islamic democracy". We say that such claims are not correct and any benefit democracy could offer our religion possesses it perfectly and in a higher degree. However, if any democracy changes to suit Islam then it no longer will be a democracy, but a new system. For more details in this subject, please read the book "The reality of democracy" written by Ahmad Shakir .
Allah knows best.


I havent been able to find the book stated above and dont know anything about it, if you do find it pls tell me where i could get the book from.
Dont worry ukhti we are only discussing nobody is arguing but when we muslim differ on anything we are supposed to check it up against the quran and sunnah as Allah swt commands us to do.

:wasalam:
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
My question to you here is how do the rule of law in islam and democracy fit perfectly together as you claim??



On the issue of separation of islam, this is not from the sunnah rather it is the way of the kuffar because they believe that religious law in insufficient to administer the modern society. Saying that without separation of powers would lead to injustice is totally false and we only need to look at islamic history to prove it wrong.

This is not what separation of powers means,below is a little hint:

Umar ibn al-Khattab was the first to place the law of inheritance on a firm basis. He was the first to establish trusts, and the first ruler in history to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Book Reference :
Abu Nu`aym, Hilya al-Awliya’ 1:73-92; al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ 1/2:509-565 #3; Shibli Nu`mani, `Umar The Great 2:336-338.


I have not misinterpreted what democracy

Yes,You have unintentionally inshallah but you have misinterpreted the principles above using Western Liberal democracy as boogie-man.

Let us talk Principles forget the term for now.Otherwise you might as well stop writing in ,speaking and thinking in English because it is a language that the kuffar came up with,that was developed by the kuffar and that is mostly used by the Kuffar ,also if you are concistent with your way of reasoning you might be typing on a haraam keybord, that was also invented by the kuffar,looking at a screen in front of your eyes invented and used by the Kuffar wondering what on earth am I talking about:lol:

It's just a tool you would say, it all depends on what you do with it isn't it?...

I have to go now but I will come back to you later bi idni llah.In the mean time let me share with you this article:



What is shoora?

Shoora comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic dictionaries was to extract honey from hives. The word then acquired secondary meanings all of which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples' minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey.


According to this purely linguistic meaning, shoora is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision.


The important matter on which shoora is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual shoora, the second group shoora, and the third public shoora.


Thus formally understood, shoora has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives.


There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact shoora in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheerahum.. “ It is also said that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their shoora. Non Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains..

What is democracy?


What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with shoora. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we begin to see the connection.


'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208)



The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by rule here is that they make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings of the people, as was the case in Athens.


Similarities


Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as shoora. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between shoora and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life, because a people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population, should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If shoora can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form.

Islam and secular democracy


Basic differences

What is it that characterizes shoora when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and shoora those special forms when placed within their frameworks.


Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically.


Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices:


a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people in the place of God; in Islam only God has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the principle of shoora, because they would not then exclude any matter from its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of shoora which makes that a violation of it.


b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher law.


In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities.


The basic difference is that in Islam it is God's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. No one can be a Muslim who makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept, legislation that is contrary to that Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption.


When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A shoora without restriction or a liberal shoora would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of shoora instead of democracy.


Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic shoora is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not shooraic, because shoora is only one component of it.


This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law.


This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the ulama so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting section of one of al Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected.


Walter Lippman considers it a weakness of democracy that it laid more emphasis on the origin of government rather than on what it should do. He says (Rossiter, 1982, p. 21) :


The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of government rather than the processes and results. The democrat has always assumed that if political power could be derived in the right way, it would be beneficent. His whole attention has been on the source of power, since he is hypnotized by the belief that the great thing is to express the will of the people, first because expression is the highest interest of man, and second because the will is instinctively good. But no amount of regulation at the source of a river will completely control its behavior, and while democrats have been absorbed in trying to find a good mechanism of originating social power, that is to say, a good mechanism of voting and representation, they neglected almost every other interest of men.

Similarities

So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or minor differences.


Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and shoora entail.


In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of democracy or shoora and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is more basic to democracy than the latter.


If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and shoora, it follows that absolute democracy, democracy that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in terms.


Islamic shoora agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did in a general meeting in his town al-Madina. When it was reported to Umar, the second Caliph, that someone said that if Umar died he would give allegiance to so and so as Caliph, he got very angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them (their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said,


If a person give allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, ala ghayri mashoorati-n min al muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom he gave allegiance should be followed (Bukhari, al Muharibeen)



As far as my knowledge goes the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, The exemplary Caliphs were chosen in different ways.


Is the Islamic state democratic?

Can a country that abides by the principle of shoora constrained by Islamic values be described as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people. No, if it is arbitrarily defined in a way that identifies it with the contemporary Western brands of it. Such definitions commit what Holden (1988, p. 4) calls the definitional fallacy.


In essence it is the fallacy of believing that the meaning of 'democracy' is to be found simply by examining the systems usually called democracies. A common example of this is the idea that if you want to know what democracy is, you simply have a look at the political systems of Britain and America. There are some deep-rooted misconceptions involved here. Apart from anything else, though, such an idea involves the absurdity of being unable to ask whether Britain and America are democracies: if 'democracy' means , say, 'like the British political system' we cannot ask if Britain is a democracy.


An example of a definition which commits this fallacy is that of Fukuyama (1992, p. 43)


In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants its people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage.



There was no universal suffrage in Athens where women, slaves, and aliens were excluded; no universal suffrage in America until 1920, in Britain until 1918 or 1928, and in Switzerland until 1971. Fukuyama's definition would exclude all these, and would apply only to contemporary Western democracies or ones that are copies of them.


I called such a definition arbitrary because it selected, without any rational criterion, only those features which are common to the Western democracies, but not those on which they differ, and made them necessary conditions for a country being democratic. Otherwise instead of government, it could have said 'their own president', but that would have excluded Britain and some other European democracies. It could also have been specific on the periods of time between elections, but that would again have excluded some Western democracies.


Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their government, why should that exclude it from being a democracy?


Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer fit for the job?


Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by Islamic principles, of which decision making by the people is only one component and, though important, is not the most important.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

In reviewing the posts it is evident that Islam has the tolerance to include democratic principles as that has been the nature of Islam since the beginning.

If I am not mistaken since the time of the Prophet, may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, there have been majority rule decisions. Islam applied the one man one vote.

Islam always encouraged leadership from amongst the ummath. There were popular elections to decide upon the leadership. This leadership included having non-Muslims alongside Muslims for the most practical approach to resolve problems.

I could go on and on. However, why does there always need to be barriers to communication. We have 1400 years of precedence. When we give dawah we have to be open. In rereading the original post..it seems that there are so many brick walls of potential spiritual issues it is better to rethink.

When presenting Islam we have to have knowledge and not opinion. Opinions are good for question and answer periods. There is a plethora of literature on the subject of democratic principles of Islamic administration. Islam has always encouraged solutions. There is a need to have discussion..i.e. a democratic platform to discuss the needs of the people. The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, set the precedence.

There are discussions of semantics. Islam is inclusive. It can embed democracy without any compromise.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
Well even I found out that Khilafah has a new name now called Democracy thanks to some Muslims.
:salam2:The Khilafa doesn't have a new name,the basic principles of accountability , shared responsibility and equality are perfectly implicit withing the Khilafa system and not necessarily in opposition to Sharia.
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
:salam2:

Yes,You have unintentionally inshallah but you have misinterpreted the principles above using Western Liberal democracy as boogie-man.

I havent, not even a single a bit but it is you are modifying it to suit islam, since you believe in islamic democracy. To equate western democracy as being "a boggieman" is very unfair because this is a system made by mere slaves to oppose the law of Allah. A more befitting term would be a system of kufr & shirk

Allah swt says
And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47]. (All of the above ayahs are from surah Al-maidah (5)

So this is not a matter that is to be taken lightly at all!!!!!!!!!!

Let us talk Principles forget the term for now.Otherwise you might as well stop writing in ,speaking and thinking in English because it is a language that the kuffar came up with,that was developed by the kuffar and that is mostly used by the Kuffar ,also if you are concistent with your way of reasoning you might be typing on a haraam keybord, that was also invented by the kuffar,looking at a screen in front of your eyes invented and used by the Kuffar wondering what on earth am I talking about:lol:

With regards to imitating i would like to share with you the following fatwa

Guidelines concerning imitation of the kuffaar

What are the definitions of imitating the west? Does everything that is modern and new and has come to us from the west imply imitation of them? In other words, when can we say that something is haraam because it is an imitation of the kuffaar?.

Praise be to Allaah.

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever imitates a people is one of them.’” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, al-Libaas, 3512. Al-Albaani said in Saheeh Abi Dawood, (it is) hasan saheeh. No. 3401).

Al-Munaawi and al-‘Alqami said: i.e., dressing as they dress, following their way of life in clothes and some of the things they do.

Al-Qaari said: i.e., whoever imitates the kuffaar, such as in how one dresses, etc., or imitates the evil and immoral people, or the Sufis or the righteous, is one of the people whom he imitates, whether they are good or bad.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem: Imaam Ahmad and others quoted this hadeeth as evidence. This hadeeth at the very least implies that it is haraam to imitate them, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“... And if any amongst you takes them [Jews and Christians] as Awliyaa’ [friends, helpers]), then surely, he is one of them…”

[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

This is similar to the view of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr who said: “Whoever settles in the land of the mushrikeen and celebrates their Nawroz (new year) and Mahrajaan (festival) and imitates them until he dies will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.” This may be interpreted as referring to absolute imitation which implies kufr and as meaning that imitation in part is therefore haraam; or it may be interpreted as meaning that he is one of them to the extent that he imitates them, whether it is in ideas of kufr, sin or partaking in a ritual. It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade imitating the non-Arabs and said, “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” This was also mentioned by al-Qaadi Abu Ya’laa. This was quoted by more than one of the scholars to show that it is makrooh to imitate forms of dress of the non-Muslims which are not known among the Muslims.

See ‘Awn al-Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood.

Imitating the kuffaar falls into two categories:

Imitation that is haraam and imitation that is permitted:

The first type is imitation that is haraam: this means knowingly doing things that are unique characteristics of the religion of the kuffaar and that have not been referred to in our religion. This is haraam and it may be a major sin; in some cases a person may even become a kaafir by doing that, according to the evidence, whether a person does that because he agrees with the kuffaar, or because of his whims and desires, or because of some specious arguments which make him feel that doing it will being him benefit in this world and the next. If it is asked, is the one who does that out of ignorance a sinner, such as one who celebrates Christmas? The answer is that the one who is ignorant is not a sinner because he was unaware, but he has to be told, and if he persists he becomes a sinner.

The second type is imitation that is permissible. This means doing something which is not originally taken from the kuffaar, but the kuffaar do it too. This does not involve a prohibition on resembling them, but one may miss out on the benefits of differing from them.

Imitating or resembling the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and others with regard to worldly matters is permissible only when the following conditions are met:

1 – That should not be any of their traditions or rituals by which they are distinguished.

2 – That should not be part of their religion. A matter can be proven to be part of their religion though a trustworthy source, such as an aayah of the Qur’aan or a hadeeth of His Messenger, or via well-established reports, such as the prostration of greeting which was permitted to the previous nations.

3 – That should not be anything in Islam which refers specifically to that matter. If there is a specific reference in Islam, either approving or disapproving of it, then we must follow what our religion says about it.

4 – This resemblance should not lead to going against any of the commands of sharee’ah.

5 – That should not involve celebrating any of their festivals.

6 – The resemblance should be only according to what is needed, and no more.

See al-Sunan wa’l-Athaar fi’l-Nahy ‘an al-Tashabbuh bi’l-Kuffaar by Suhayl Hasan, p. 58-59
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid



Shura in islam

Shura simply means mutual consultation

Allah says in the quran (Q 42:38)

﴿وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُواْ لِرَبِّهِمْ﴾

(And those who answer the Call of their Lord,) means, they follow His Messenger and obey His commands and avoid that which He has prohibited.


﴿وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ﴾


(and perform As-Salah) -- which is the greatest act of worship of Allah, may He be glorified.


﴿وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ﴾


(and who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation,) means, they do not make a decision without consulting one another on the matter so that they can help one another by sharing their ideas concerning issues such as wars and other matters. This is like the Ayah:


﴿وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِى الاٌّمْرِ﴾


(and consult them in the affairs) (3:159). The Prophet used to consult with them concerning wars and other matters, so that they would feel confidant. When `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, was dying, after he had been stabbed, he entrusted the choice of the next Khalifah to six people who were to be consulted. They were `Uthman, `Ali, Talhah, Az-Zubayr, Sa`id and `Abdur-Rahman bin `Awf, may Allah be pleased with them all. Then all of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, agreed to appoint `Uthman as their leader.


﴿وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَـهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ﴾


(and who spend of what We have bestowed on them.) this means kindly treating the creation of Allah, starting with those who are closest, then the next closest, and so on. (Tafsir ibn Kathir)


Fatwa on shura

Question

I want to ask about the difference between parliament use by countries at present day and Shura that were used long ago by Khulafa ar-Rashidin? Does parliament have similar characteristic with Shura? What is your opinion about it according to Islamic perspective? Do you think that Muslim countries nowadays are using Shura in solving the problem or not?
Answer

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

Al-Shura (Mutual consultation) is a pillar of ruling and governing in Islam. So, all decisions that are made by the state should be through Shura; decisions relative to war, peace, duties towards other countries, establishment of Hudud and amassing armies. In addition, organizing all the affairs of the state should all be made following the consultation of the responsible people of the Muslim community.

Muslims nowadays however do not apply this principle in their lives because of the wide gap existing between those times where the right application of Islam and the present influence of the culture of their enemies.
The Shura that was practised during the rule of the four Caliphs is different from a democratically elected Parliament. First, in Shura no one has the right to go beyond the texts that are in the Qur'an and the Sunnah or legislate something that does not conform to them.The modern Parliaments make their own texts and have the right to pass legislation.

Second, in Shura only the scholars and experts are asked to give their opinions over a given issue while in Parliaments anyone who is elected has the right to participate in passing laws. In those procedures there is no difference between the opinion of a scholar and that of an ignorant person, or the opinion of an expert to that of a novice in the matter. In Parliaments heads (votes) are counted but not weighed while in Shura they are weighed according to their knowledge and savoir-faire. This is the right logic.
No matter how many inexperienced people you put together, they won't be able to give the same valuable opinion as an expert and a scholar in the field.
There are many other differences between the Shura and the modern Parliaments. But it is sufficient that Shura is the way Allah has chosen for His servants. He is the one who knows His servants and creatures and what is good to them
Allah Says (interpretation of meaning):

{Should not He Who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves) All-Aware (of everything).} [67: 14].
Allah knows best.

Link: http://islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=84768


Also i've already read that article along time ago and i believe it was written by Dr Jafari Idris if i am not mistaken and i do not agree with him. I'll give you an example he says that

There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic

Yes there is since it's mentioned in the quran (42:38)

He also says that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy, which i totally disagree with him because all modern day democracies are secular. Is this a mere coincidence?? i dont think so.

:wasalam:
 

Muslimboy2222

Junior Member
:salam2:


The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed
Is ruling with rules other than sharee‘ah “kufr akbar” or “kufr asghar”?


Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Sharee‘ah, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Qur’aan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maa’idah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:

The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: “And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: “. . . and follow not their vain desires . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against compromising on any detail of Sharee‘ah, no matter how small: “. . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . .” [aayah 49]

Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?” [aayah 50]

The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: “. . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [aayah 50]

The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].

The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: “. . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . .” [aayah 42]

Judging or ruling according to other than what Allaah has revealed is contrary to faith and Tawheed, which are Allaah’s rights. It may be counted as kufr akbar (greater kufr) or kufr asghar (lesser kufr) according to circumstances. Kufr akbar will make a person no longer a Muslim in cases such as the following:

If he issues laws and regulations other than those revealed by Allaah, because the right to issue laws belongs to Allaah alone, Who has no partner, and whoever “competes” with Him in a matter which is His alone is a mushrik, because Allaah says: “Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not allowed?” [al-Shooraa 42:21]

If the one who rules by other than that which Allaah has revealed denies the right of Allaah and His Prophet to rule, as is mentioned in Ibn ‘Abbaas’s comment on the aayah:“. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [al-Maa’idah 5:44]. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “Whoever rejects what Allaah has revealed is a kaafir.”

If he prefers the rule of falsehood to the rule of Allaah, whether this is in absolute terms or just in a few matters. Allaah says: “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [al-Maa’idah 5:50]

If he regards the rule of Allaah and the rule of falsehood as equal. Allaah says: “. . . Then do not set up rivals unto Allaah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).” [al-Baqarah 2:22]

If he thinks that it is permissible to rule by something that contradicts the rule of Allaah and His Messenger, or he believes that it is not obligatory to rule according to what Allaah has revealed, or that the matter is optional. This is kufr which is contradictory to faith. Allaah revealed: “O Messenger! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: ‘We believe’ with their mouths but their hearts have no faith. And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you; they say, ‘If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!’ . . .” [al-Maa’idah 5:41]. He says: “Go to Muhammad (peace be upon him), and if he tells you that the ruling is lashes, accept it, but if he commands stoning, ignore what he says. Then Allaah revealed “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon (disbelievers)” [al-Maa’idah 5:44].

If he does not rule according to what Allah has revealed out of stubbornness and arrogance, he is a kaafir and has left Islaam, even if he does not deny the rule of Allaah. Stubbornness and arrogance may mean negligence and turning away, as Allaah says: “Have you seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taaghoot (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytaan wishes to lead them astray. And when it is said to them: ‘Come to what Allaah has sent down and to the Messenger,’ see they hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad) with aversion.” [al-Nisaa’ 4:60-61]

Among the things that may be counted as ruling by other than that which Allaah revealed and kufr akbar is what Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem said about man-made laws and ruling by them: “This is the worst, the most obvious and comprehensive opposition to sharee‘ah and rejection of Allaah’s laws. This is competing with Allaah and His Messenger, contradicting His laws in their preparation, support, structure, ruling and references.

The above is a summary of the things that may imply that ruling by other than that which Allah has revealed is a form of shirk akbar (major shirk):

(1) Ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed.

(2) Denying the right of Allaah and His Messenger to rule.

(3) Preferring the rule of falsehood to the rule of Allaah, whether this is complete or only in a few matters.

(4) Regarding the rule of Allaah and the rule of falsehood as equal.

(5) Thinking that it is permissible to rule by something that contradicts what Allaah has revealed, or believing that ruling by what Allaah has revealed is not obligatory or is optional.

(6) Refusing to rule by what Allaah has revealed.

By examining this topic from different angels, it becomes clear that what is counted as kufr akbar is the following:

Abolishing sharee‘ah as the law governing a country, as Mustafa Kemal (“Ataturk”) did in Turkey, as he abolished the book Majallah al-Ahkaam al-‘Adliyyah which was based on the Hanafi madhhab, and replaced it with man-made laws.

Abolishing sharee‘ah courts.

Imposing man-made laws, such as Italian, French, German law, etc., to judge between the people, or mixing these laws and Sharee‘ah, as Genghis Khan did in his book al-Yaasiq, which combined laws from different sources; the ‘ulamaa’ (scholars) ruled that he was a kaafir.

Confining the role of sharee‘ah courts to so-called “civil” matters, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Setting up non-sharee‘ah courts.

Discussing sharee‘ah in parliament and voting on it; this indicates that implementing sharee‘ah is conditional upon a majority vote.

Making sharee‘ah a secondary or main source, along with other sources of law. Even when they say that sharee‘ah is the primary source of legislation, this is still kufr akbar, because it means that they are allowing the adoption of laws from other sources too.

Stating in the clauses of legislation that reference may be made to international law, or stating in treaties that in the case of dispute, the matter may be referred to such-and-such non-Islamic court.

Criticizing sharee‘ah in public or in private, such as saying that it is rigid, incomplete or backward, or suggesting that it is incompatible with our times, or expressing admiration for non-Islamic laws.

As regards the question of when ruling by other than what Allaah revealed is kufr asghar, which does not exclude a person from the ummah of Islam:

the answer is that this may be the case when a ruler or judge passes judgement according to other than what Allaah revealed out of disobedience or on a whim, or as a favour to someone, or because he was bribed, and so on, although he believes that it is obligatory to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, and that what he has done is a sinful and haraam deed.

As regards the one who is governed by a non-Islamic law, if he refers to it out of choice, then he is a kaafir whose kufr akbar means that he has left Islaam. But if he has no choice but to refer to this law, and does so reluctantly, then he is not a kaafir, because if he had been able to resort to sharee‘ah, he would have done so, and he believes that this non-Islamic law is false.

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid





Link:http://islamqa.com/en/ref/974/


:wasalam:
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
While this thread has been going on for a while, I find it beneficial, because it is clear to me now that many Muslims completely misunderstand what democracy is and how it is implemented. While some of them will no doubt continue to misunderstand it, some may have finally got it.

It is often the case, isn't it?, that when Muslims and Westerners talk to each other, they often talk above each other's heads! If only each side would cool down and actually starts listening until they understand what the other is talking about, there would be much less resentment of the West and much less Islamophobia.
:salam2:Subhanallah Akhi al kareem,We who live in the west with more or less representative gouvrenements are saying the only thing that is missing here is Islam to bring things in order to the system.And you hear voices of our respected brothers saying no dictatorship and authoritarian regime is more suited to Muslim countries,this genuinely makes me smile:D

Discussion continued inshallah.It is a nice subject to talk about with one another, got to leave now be All well in the care of Allah swt.
 

arzafar

Junior Member
let me guess this straight bro. This ought to seal it.

claim 1: democracy at it's very core (election, voting, one man one vote) is not allowed in islaam.​

textual evidence:
"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]

evidence from sunnah and the practice of rightly guided calpihs:

no precedence of voting among the general public! There was some consultation, advice, counsel at the highest level but no majority vote. Often the prophet (s.a.w.) followed minority or even seemingly ridiculous suggestions such as fighting from within the city and digging trenches.
Shoora, governors, judges, military commanders were appointed by the caliphs.

consultation is NOT democracy - not even close. Even dictators and monarchs consult; usually more often than any elected minister!

conclusion: clear-cut prohibition of following majority opinion of the common folk. Any general election, where the general public (i.e. most of the people on the earth) votes or any issue decided by majority opinions/wills/wishes is a source of misguidance and can lead to kufr!

<------------->

claim 2: democracy is Islamic or compatible with Islaam​

textual evidence?
please provide at least 1 verse from the quran that permits or recommends voting, election, polls.

sunnah evidence?
please provide at least 1 hadith that permits or recommends voting, election, polls. Or any instances where the prophet let the people elect a leader, imam, commander.

evidence from the practice of the rightly guided caliphs?
name at least ONE governor, caliph, commander, judge or shoora member who was elected by general vote.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikmum,

It does me so good to have these threads.

OK...the one man one vote is as Islamic as it gets. Consultation is democratic. Why you are scared to use the word I am not sure.

Here we go again..the east and the west...brothers...there is no east or west. It is what you make it.

Help me understand in your own words..very simply what it is that makes you think democracy is anathema to Islam.

I am not joking. I am attempting to come to an understanding.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
:salam2:


So this is not a matter that is to be taken lightly at all!!!!!!!!!!
:salam2:A Smile isn't necessarily tickled out by a mocking tongue.It's sometimes a way of not crying.When you love for your brother what you love for yourself there is a certain humanizing process that takes place.

If you don't learn to feel that you will never be able to stand at the hight of the noble title you gave to you thread "Dawah help"isn't it what you wanted....

Are you gonna do Dawah to every one sicking guidance and answers by giving him a hundred fatwas or by developing a strong and instinctive attitude of deductive reasoning,ever ready to adapt to various situations and singularities of human beings you might come across,and hit the target?

It might be good for the biceps to carry around,but not necessarily strong enough to curb the minds back straight on the right path.It's is Allah swt that guides but you might cut your legs short by neglecting hikma yourself.

Discussion on the principles will follow inshallah and I will show you where you
failed to answer the questions one by one.Allah maak
 

arzafar

Junior Member
well since my questions havent be answered so here is more evidence against democracy (aka not following the majority opinion just because of that.)

Bait rizwan - many companions (probably all) against the deal and oppose it passionately. Muhammad (saw) is very sad. But he follows Allah's command instead of the majority opinion.

Rida wars - After the death of Muhammad (saw), many tribes outside of Medina, refuse to pay zakat. Abu bakr (ra) wages war against them instead of accepting their opinion/demands. No referendum or poll took place.

Conclusion: We and the rulers are supposed to judge by the Quraan and Sunnah and not by the majority opinion.

consultation is consultation - it is not democracy! How can anyone make such an assertion is beyond me. Mubarak also consults, so do army generals. Hitler consulted his commanders. In fact Adolf/DAP came into power via elections :lol:
anyway are these dictators democratic? here is the definition of democracy for those who seem to have forgotten it and are confusing it with whichever term they like. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

cmon democrats, please produce some evidence for election, voting, polls, majority rule, one man one vote, from quraan, hadith/sunnah, practice of salaf. otherwise please stop arguing because all evidence produced thus far goes against majority rule!

at any rate please stop calling a quranic command tradition as if they are not to be followed.
believing in God is also tradition, so is prayer and so is zakah, so are all other islaamic practices. Why do you follow these traditions? What is the logic behind bowing and prostrating and sitting in awkward positions? why cant we just ask God what we want instead of exerting our joints. In fact why do we have to ask anyway? Why am i in this world in the first place? What is the logic behind 2.5% rate of zakah, why not 1% or 10%? What is the logic behind having 2 sajada in a unit of prayer, why not have 10 sajdah? what is the logic behind pigs and dogs being unclean. What if they are bathed in detol and then perfumed? would that make them clean? What is the logic behind slaughtering animals when we have better, cleaner ways to process meat? What is the logic behind allowing upto 4 wives at a time, why not 3, 2, 30? does the moon breaking into two sound logical enough, or is Musa (as) stick becoming snake also a fairy tale? what is the logic behind not cleaning the other parts of the body doing wudu, why dont we do ghusul every time we approach God? What is the logic behind wearing two pieces of cloth to hajj? What is the logic behind the rest of the Islamic traditions?

Then a question is asked to prove that democracy is not haraam!

that is not the question so stop deluding yourself. your assertion is that democracy is halal/islamic. where is the evidence for your assertion? that is the question! obviously you must have some evidence for it or are you following the logic that since it is not haram, it must be halal?

if that is the case, then i have already provided enough evidence that democracy (majority rule) is not from islam, which was my assertion from the beginning. There is a verse about it which you seem to regard as tradition. And there were some very crucial instances where the prophet went against majority opinion. There is also the example of rightly guided caliphs who went against the will and wishes of their people! another example of that would be the human sacrifice practiced by the people of Nile and the Muslim governor stopped that practice against the wishes of the locals. In democracy he would be following the wishes of the locals he ruled (rule by the people); probably offering the sacrifice himself. :lol:

There is also no evidence for elected representatives at all apart from consultation at the highest level! No polling ever took place during the first 100 years of islaam. All the evidence clearly indicates that democracy (majority rule by the definition) is haram.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

After reading this thread it has occurred to me that if one wishes to educate others about Islam one has to be comfortable about the their own faith.

This is a perfect example of putting my faith in a box. Hate to tell you boys...when you speak about Islam it has to come from your heart.

This kind of presentation would put a theologian to sleep. What does this have to do with life and death and the afterlife. This is an exercise in stubbornness.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Yes, brother. You are correct. In assisting a person who wishes to listen to their soul we can not be dogmatic in our approach. There is nothing in the Quran that is harsh.
The most vile sinner can open the Holy Quran and have hope. Is this not Islam. We are given hope. We are given the straightforward path.

In a presentation of Islam....and it is very easy to do so...people have so many questions it is a time of delight. I just answer simple questions. You want to present the pearls of the faith.

People are running away from forms of extremism. Faith is a gentle road. It is full of love. It embraces the soul so the soul can be free.
 

arzafar

Junior Member
still no evidence! all this philosophy has nothing to do with the topic.

My advice to anybody reading this thread is to not be fooled by any of the convoluted philosophy . Just follow the authentic evidence you find in this thread and you will find the answer. here it is one final time

what is democracy?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

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]

Did the prophet (s.a.w.) really follow majority opinion?

No! He followed what Allah commanded or what made most sense. The will and wishes of the majority didnt hinder or influence his mission.

1) Bait rizwan - many companions (probably all) against the deal and opposed it passionately. Umar ra and Ali ra were angry as hell. Muhammad (saw) was very sad because nobody listened to him. But he still followed Allah's command instead of the majority opinion.

2) Battle of the trench - Companions were divided. Some wanted to fight outside of Medina, Some wanted to fight from within Medina. The prophet went with a unique suggestion of digging trenches and defending Medina even though there is conspiracy by other tribes in Medina.

Were the caliphs elected?
no they were handpicked individuals. There was no campaigning, no polls, no election commission to monitor votes. There is some suggestion that Muhammad (saw) favored Abu bakr as his successor. He appointed him (ra) to lead Muslims in prayer when he (saw) was on the deathbed and eventually this is what went in Abu bakr's (ra) favor; not his popularity or the number of votes.

Did the caliphs follow majority opinion?
No. like the prophet they followed the Quraan and also they referred to his (saw) sunnah, irrespective of what the majority thought. Here are a couple of examples.

1) Rida wars - After the death of Muhammad (saw), many tribes outside of Medina, refused to pay zakat. Abu bakr (ra) wages war against them instead of accepting their opinion/demands. No referendum or poll took place.

2) During the caliphate of Umar (ra) the people of Nile practiced human sacrifice to keep the Nile from drying up. The Muslim governor came to know about it and stopped that practice immediately against the will and wishes of the locals! He informed the amir (umar ra) and he concurred.

Did the caliphs hold elections?
No. Never. All judges, governors, shoorah members were appointed by the caliph after some consultation. Caliph had all the discretionary powers.

Finally, is democracy islamic or unislamic?
You be the judge. Allah has made you intelligent enough to decipher truth from falsehood. The key is to follow authentic, unbiased evidence and not blind logic/belief/superstition.

NOTE: to see a thorough criticism and explanation of the severe limitations of logic, please refer to the classical work of Emanuel Kant titled critique of pure reason.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Brother your logic is very flawed. You are doing the very same thing that you accuse others of doing.

You are taking a topic and then you have decided to use conjecture to make you point.

If you take the time to review you will understand that Islam is universal and democratic.

It seems that you are having difficulty with the construct of democracy.

Why are you boxing in Islam. Why does Islam have to have parameters that make you comfortable. The error in your thinking is you wish to have a uniform/democratic path to your box. You dismiss anything outside the box you have contrived.

Kant would agree with me. Kant was the father of existentialism. It is the doorway to faith. He read a lot of Ghazali. A comparative study of Kant and Ghazali makes one understand how similar they were.

You introduced Kant. And both agree the way to the Truth can be reached by faith or reason. Kierkegaard took it one step further..either/or.

Islam is the universal faith. Islam is democratic. Every soul is equal.
 
Top