I did find these three links.
- Principles of Fiqh.
- Principles of Fiqh » Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings » Customs and
traditions » Clothing, adornment and images » Womens clothing.
- .
aruges
68152: Our attitude towards the differences of opinion among the imams with
regard to covering the face
There is an important matter that is giving me sleepless nights, which is: what
is the meaning of the differences of the imam concerning a certain issue? If I
say to someone that Shaykh So and so says that something is haraam, he says to
me that is according to his madhhab or the madhhab of his country, and we follow
a different madhhab that says it is halaal. This led me to the issue of hijab.
For example, my country follows the Maaliki madhhab, the imams of which say that
“that which is apparent” [al-Noor 24:33] refers to the face and hands. In
addition to that, the face-veil is virtually banned in my country, i.e., you
could never wear it in your daily life, such as wearing it at work or in school.
There are laws that ban it and the gloves. Although personally I am fully
convinced about the face-veil, I cannot wear it. What is your ruling on that?
Because every time I listen to tapes about hijab from Shaykhs from another
madhhab, I feel that my hijab is not Islamically acceptable, and I understand
from their words that I am currently unveiled and making a wanton display of
myself (tabarruj) and I am a cause of fitnah among this ummah. What should we
do, as we are confused?.
Published Date: 2006-08-16
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims learned the rulings of Islam from the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the
Holy Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of
opinion among them except with regard to some minor issues. If that happened,
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them
what was correct.
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the
Sahaabah spread out to various regions to teach the people Islam, there appeared
some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different
times and in different places. These differences were due to a number of
reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars:
1- The evidence had not reached the one who held a different opinion, and he
made a mistake in forming his opinion.
2- The hadeeth had reached the scholar, but he did not regard the transmitter
as trustworthy, and he thought that it went against something that was stronger,
so he followed that which he thought was stronger than it.
3- The hadeeth had reached him but he forgot it.
4- The hadeeth had reached him but he understood it in a way other than the
intended meaning.
5- The hadeeth reached him but it was abrogated, and he did not know the
abrogating text.
6- He thought that it contradicted something that was stronger than it,
whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa’)
7- The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his ruling, or he derived
the ruling by means of weak arguments.
For a detailed discussion of these reasons and others, see Raf’ al-Malaam ‘an
al-A’immati’l-A’laam by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and al-Khilaaf bayna
al-‘Ulama’: Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu by Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen.
We think that what we have mentioned about the reasons for differences among the
scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha
Allaah.
Secondly:
What should the Muslim’s attitude be towards differences that arise between the
scholars? In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in
matters where they differed? The answer depends:
1 – If the Muslim is one who has studied shar’i knowledge and learned its basic
principles and minor issues, and he can distinguish right from wrong with regard
to scholarly views, then he has to follow that which he thinks is correct and
ignore that which he thinks is wrong.
2 – If he is one of the rank and file, or has not studied shar’i knowledge, and
thus cannot distinguish between right and wrong with regard to scholarly views,
then he must follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge he trusts and who he
believes to be trustworthy and religiously committed, whether he is from his own
country or another country, and differences between scholars will not matter
after that. He does not have to change what he is doing because he hears another
scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is following, unless he
realizes that what he learned later on is the correct view, on the basis of his
confidence in the religious commitment and knowledge of the second Shaykh.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The one who has knowledge of evidence is required to follow the evidence, even
if it goes against some of the imams, if it does not go against the consensus of
the ummah.
The one who does not have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah
says (interpretation of the meaning): “So ask of those who know the Scripture,
if you know not” [al-Nahl 16:43]. He should ask one who he thinks has more
knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that does not mean that doing
so obligatory, because the one who is better may make a mistake with regard to a
particular issue, and the one who is regarded as less knowledgeable may be right
with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the one who is more
knowledgeable and more religiously committed.
See also the answers to questions no. 8294 and 10645.
Thirdly:
If you ask about our view on the issue of covering the face, the most correct
scholarly view in our opinion is that it is obligatory to cover the face in
front of non-mahram men. There is a great deal of evidence and scholarly views
concerning that, as among the Maalikis. Many of them said that it is not
permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of non-mahram men, not
because it is ‘awrah but because uncovering it runs the risk of fitnah. But some
of them think that it is ‘awrah. Hence women, in their view, are forbidden to go
out in front of non-mahram men with their faces uncovered.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a
screen”
[al-Ahzaab 33:53]
al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The entire woman is ‘awrah, her body and her voice, so it is not permissible to
uncover that except in cases of necessity, such as when testimony is given
against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End
quote.
Ahkaam al-Qur’aan by Ibn al-‘Arabi (3/1578, 1579).
Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him), who is also Maaliki, said:
This verse indicates that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind
a screen if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something.
That includes all women. Because it is a basic shar’i principle that the entire
woman is ‘awrah, her body and her voice – as stated above –it is not permissible
to uncover that except in cases of necessity such as when testimony is given
against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End
quote.
In al-Jaami’ li Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (14/227) it says:
For more information on the views of Maaliki fuqaha’ concerning the obligation
for women to cover their faces, see: al-Ma’yaar al-Mu’arrab by al-Wanshireesi
(10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141),
al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi ‘ala al-Sharh
al-Kabeer (2/55).
We have discussed this issue and its evidence in more than one answer on this
site. Please see the answers to questions no. 11774, 12525, 13998, 21134 and
21536.
Fourthly:
With regard to what you mention about the laws in your country forbidding women
to cover their faces, that is something that makes us feel very sad, to hear
that covering and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling
are being encouraged everywhere, especially when that happens in a country that
is supposed to be Muslim.
If the laws forbid women to cover, and you fear persecution because of covering
your faces, then there is no sin on you if you do not do it in that case, so
long as that is based on necessity. So a woman should not go out of her house
with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law
and put up with a little bit of hassle, let her do so for there is no obedience
to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.
See also the answer to question no. 2198 and 45672.
And Allaah knows best.
https://islamqa.info/en/68152
- .
- Knowledge & Propagation » Knowledge » Manners of Seeking Knowledge.
ares
22652: Our attitude towards differences among the scholars
If there is some issue and there is more than one shar’i fatwa concerning it,
and a fatwa that says it is halaal (permissible) and a fatwa that says it is
haraam (forbidden), and a fatwa that is in between, then which should the Muslim
choose, especially with regard to modern issues in which qiyaas (analogy) and
ijtihaad (studying an issue within the framework of the Qur’aan and Sunnah) may
play a part, and concerning which there is no shar’i text, such as bank
interest, or what we call investments or returns on investment, or any other new
names that are given to it?
What do you say about people who say that this is the fatwa of a scholar, and
that he is responsible for it, and that it is hung around his neck?
What is your view on one who follows the dispensations granted by the scholars
or the easier options that they grant? They say that these are the people of
knowledge and these are their fatwas, and they know better than we do about
that? But their fatwa may go against the fatwas of other shaykhs and scholars in
the same country or in other countries, so which of them should we follow? How
can we know what is right and what is not? Please note that most people do not
have sufficient knowledge to decide whether the fatwa issued by a scholar or
mufti differs from those issued by other scholars.
Published Date: 2008-05-28
Praise be to Allaah.
Before answering this important question, we must first describe the conditions
that must be met by the mufti so that he may be regarded as one of the people of
knowledge whose words count and if he expresses a different view we may then say
that there is indeed a difference of opinion among the scholars. There are many
such conditions, which ultimately boil down to two:
1 – Knowledge, because the mufti will be telling people about the rulings of
Allaah, and he cannot speak of the rulings of Allaah if he is ignorant of them.
2 – Soundness of character, i.e., he is righteous in all his affairs, he fears
Allaah and he keeps away from anything that may undermine his credibility. The
scholars are agreed that a fatwa cannot be accepted from one who is immoral,
even if he is knowledgeable. This was clearly stated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi.
Whoever meets these two conditions is a scholar whose words may be accepted, but
whoever does not meet these conditions is not one of the people of knowledge
whose words may be accepted. The words of one who is known to be ignorant or who
is known not to be of good character cannot be accepted.
Al-Khilaaf bayna al-‘Ulama’ Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu, by Shaykh Ibn
‘Uthaymeen, p. 23
What is the Muslim’s attitude towards the differences of the scholars described
above?
If the Muslim has enough knowledge to enable him to compare the views of the
scholars based on the evidence and to decide which is more likely to be correct,
and he can tell what is more correct and more likely to be correct, then he must
do that, because Allaah has commanded us to refer disputed matters to the
Qur’aan and Sunnah, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His
Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day. That is better and more
suitable for final determination”[al-Nisa’ 4:59]
So he should refer the disputed matter to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and whatever
appears to him to be more correct, based on the evidence, is what he should
follow, because what is obligatory is to follow the evidence, and he may refer
to the words of the scholars to help him understand the evidence.
But if the Muslim does not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to decide
which of the scholarly opinions is more likely to be correct, then he should ask
the people of knowledge whose knowledge and religious commitment he trusts and
then follow the advice or fatwas they give. Allaah says (interpretation of the
meaning):
“So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know”
[al-Anbiya’ 21:43]
The scholars have stated that the madhhab of the common man is the madhhab of
his mufti.
If their opinions differ, then he should follow the one who is most trustworthy
and most knowledgeable. This is like when a person falls sick – may Allaah give
us all good health – and he looks for the most trustworthy and knowledgeable
doctor so that he can go to him, because he is most likely to give him the right
treatment than anyone else. It is more important to be on the safe side in
religious matters than in worldly ones.
It is not permissible for the Muslim to follow whatever scholarly opinion suits
his desires if it goes against the evidence, or to seek fatwas from those who he
thinks are going to be lenient in their fatwas.
Rather he has to be on the safe side when it comes to his religion, and ask the
scholars who have the most knowledge and are most fearing of Allaah.
Al-Khilaaf bayna al-‘Ulama’ by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 26; Liqa’ Munawwa’ ma’a
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, p. 25, 26
Is it befitting for a wise man to take precautions for his physical health and
go to the most skilled doctors no matter how far away they are, and spend a
great deal of money on that, then take the matter of his religion lightly and
not to care about it unless it coincides with his whims and desires, and to take
the easiest fatwa even if it is contrary to the truth? Indeed, there are even
people who – Allaah forbid – ask a scholar a question, and if his fatwa does not
suit their whims and desires, they will ask another, and another, until they
find a person who will give them the fatwa they want!
There is no scholar who does not have some issues in which he strove to make a
decision on the basis of ijtihaad but failed to reach the right answer, but he
is excused for that and he will have a reward for his ijtihaad, as the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “If a judge passes a ruling to the
best of his ability and knowledge and gets it right, he will have two rewards.
If he passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge but gets it
wrong, he will have one reward.” (al-Bukhaari, 7352; Muslim, 1716).
It is not permissible for the Muslim to follow the errors and mistakes of the
scholars, for that combines all kinds of evil. Hence the scholars said: whoever
follows that concerning which the scholars differed, and takes the easiest of
their fatwas, becomes a heretic, or close enough. Ighaathat al-Lahfaan, 1/228.
Heresy means hypocrisy.
We ask Allaah to give us understanding and to help us to acquire beneficial
knowledge and to do righteous deeds.
With regard to what you mention about bank profits, this has already been
answered. Please see Questions no. 181 and 12823.
And Allaah knows best. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and grant him
peace.
https://islamqa.info/en/22652
Shura
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses of "Shura", see Shura (disambiguation).
Shura (Arabic: شورى shūrā) is an Arabic word for "consultation". The Quran and
Messenger Muhammad encourage Muslims to decide their affairs in consultation
with those who will be affected by that decision.
Shura is mentioned as a praiseworthy activity often used in organizing the
affairs of a mosque, Islamic organizations, and is a common term involved in
naming parliaments.[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
1 Shura in Islam
1.1 Shura in the Qur'an
1.2 Shura and the caliphate
2 Shura and contemporary Muslim-majority states
2.1 Resemblance between majlis al-shura and a parliament
3 Soviet etymology
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Shura in Islam[edit]
See also: Islamic democracy
Some modern Sunni Muslims believe that Islam requires all decisions made by and
for the Muslim societies to be made by shura of the Muslim community and believe
this to be the basis for implementing representative democracy.[1] Traditionally
however, the Amir/Sultan/Khalifa would consult with his Wazirs (Advisors) and
make a decision, after taking into consideration their opinions.
Shia Muslims say that Islam requires submission to existing rulers, however they
are chosen, so long as they govern according to sharia or Islamic law. This is a
more traditional approach, characteristic of many centuries of Islamic history
(see History of Islam).
The difference between the two appears more semantic than actual—the latter
accept that the rulers must be accounted in all aspects of ruling, to ensure
affairs are managed in the best possible way whether decisions were taken
through consultation or not.
Shura in the Qur'an[edit]
The first mention of the Shura in the Qur'an comes in the 2nd Sura of Qur'an
2:233 in the matter of the collective family decision regarding weaning the
child from mother's milk. This verse encourages that both parents decide by
their mutual consultation about weaning their child.
The 42nd Sura of Qur'an is named as Shura.[2] The 38th verse of that Sura
suggests that shura is praiseworthy life style of a successful believer. It also
suggests that people whose matter is being decided be consulted. It says:
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct)
their affairs by mutual consultation among themselves; who spend out of what We
bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised] [3]
The 159th verse of 3rd Sura orders Muhammad to consult with believers. The verse
makes a direct reference to those (Muslims) who disobeyed Muhammad, indicating
that ordinary, fallible Muslims should be consulted. It says:
Thus it is due to mercy from God that you deal with them gently, and had you
been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you;
pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the
affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in God; surely God loves
those who trust.[4]
The first verse only deals with family matters. The second proposed a lifestyle
of people who will enter heavens and is considered the most comprehensive verse
on shura. The third verse advices on how mercy, forgiveness and mutual
consultation can win over people.
Muhammad made all his decisions in consultation with his followers unless it was
a matter in which God has ordained something. It was common among Muhammad's
companions to ask him if a certain advice was from God or from him. If it was
from Muhammad, they felt free to give their opinion. Some times Muhammad changed
his opinion on the advice of his followers like his decision to defend the city
of Madinah by going out of the city in Uhad instead of from within the city.
Arguments over shura began with the debate over the ruler in the Islamic world.
When Muhammad died in 632 CE, a tumultuous meeting at Saqifah selected Abu Bakr
as his successor. This meeting did not include some of those with a strong
interest in the matter—especially Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's cousin and
son-in-law; people who wanted Ali to be the caliph (ruler) (later known as Shia
) still consider Abu Bakr an illegitimate leader of the caliphate.
In later years, the followers of Ali (Shi'a Ali) as the ruler of Muslims became
one school of thought, while the followers of Abu Bakr became the Sunni school
of thought.
The Sunni school of thought believe that shura is recommended in the Qur'an
(though some classical jurists maintained it is obligatory), The Qur'an, and by
numerous hadith, or oral traditions of the sayings and doings of Muhammad and
his companions. They say that most of the first four caliphs, or rulers of
Islam, whom they call the Four Rightly-guided Caliphs, were chosen by shura.
(See Succession to Muhammad, Umar ibn al-Khattab, The election of Uthman, and
Ali Ibn Abi Talib.)
The Shi'a school of thought believe that Muhammad had clearly indicated that Ali
was his appointed infallible ruler of Muslim nation regardless of shura, a
recommendation that was ignored by the first three caliphs. Shi'a do not stress
the role of shura in choosing leaders, but believe that the divine vice-regent
is chosen by God, or Allah, from the lineage of Muhammad (Ahl al-Bayt). The
largest Shi'a sect believes that the current imam is in "occultation", hidden
away until the last days, but there are minority Shi'a who follow leaders
believed to be infallible imams.
Shura and the caliphate[edit]
During and after Imam Ali's tenure as caliph, the Muslim community fell into
civil war. Power was eventually grasped by the Ummayad caliphs and then by the
Abbasid caliphs. There were also rival caliphates in Egypt and Al-Andalus, which
today is known as Spain. Later the rulers of the Ottoman Empire inherited the
caliphate. The Ottoman Caliphate was officially dissolved by the newly founded
Grand National Assembly of Turkey in 1924.
Few of the later caliphs had anything but nominal control over the many Islamic
states, and none were chosen by shura; all reached power by inheritance. The
Muslim clergy counseled submission to rulers but also stressed the duty of the
ruler to rule by shura. They based this recommendation on the passages from the
Qur'an mentioned above. The verses indicate that shura is praiseworthy but do
not indicate who should be consulted, what they should be consulted about, or
whether the ruler or the shura should prevail in the event the two do not agree.
Shura and contemporary Muslim-majority states[edit]
[hide]Part of a series on:
Islamism
Fundamentals[show]
Concepts[hide]
Caliphate Democracy Ijma Islamic calendar Islamic republic Islamic state Jihad
Sharia Shura Ummah Pan-Islamism Caliphalism
Influences[show]
Manifestations[show]
Movements[show]
Key texts[show]
Key ideologues[show]
Related topics[show]
Portal icon Politics portal
Portal icon Islam portal
v t e
In some Muslim nations, shuras play a role in the constitution or governance.
Some Muslim nations, such as Turkey, are secular democracies[citation needed],
and (Morocco) is a constitutional monarchy. They could thus be said to be ruled
by one version of shura. For instance, the bicameral Parliament of Pakistan is
officially called the Majlis-i-Shura, although the Constitution uses various
spellings of the term. In Egypt, the Upper House of Parliament is known as the
Shura Council. The People's Consultative Assembly in Indonesia is called Majlis
Permusyawaratan Rakyat in Indonesian language. The word musyawarat is derived
from shura/syawara.
In some monarchies and clerical regimes, there is a shura with an advisory or
consultative role. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, was given a shura council, the
Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, in 1993; there are now 150 members. All
real power is held by the King, who is elected by family members. Oman, also a
monarchy has a shura council; all members are elected except the president, who
is appointed by the Sultan. The council can only offer advice, which may be
refused if vetoed by the Sultan.
In Iran, a council called the assembly of experts has the ability to impeach the
supreme leader. In addition to that, a general shura wields legislative powers,
equivalent to a modern-day Western parliament.
Shuras have also been a feature of revolutions in Islamic societies, such as in
the Iranian revolution of 1979, where they were formed by workers and held
considerable power over parts of the economy for a year before being dismantled.
Shuras were similarly a feature of the uprisings in Iraq[5][6] in 1991, where
they functioned as a form of participatory democracy.
Resemblance between majlis al-shura and a parliament[edit]
Many traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that to be in keeping with Islam, a
government should have some form of council of consultation or majlis al-shura,
although it must recognize that God and not the people are sovereign. Al-Mawardi
has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they
must be just, have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one,
and have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi
also said that in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the
people themselves should create a majlis, select a list of candidates for
caliph, and then the majlis should select a caliph from the list of
candidates.[7]
Many contemporary Muslims have compared the concept of Shura to the principles
of western parliamentary democracy. For example:
What is the shura principle in Islam? ... It is predicated on three basic
precepts. First, that all persons in any given society are equal in human and
civil rights. Second, that public issues are best decided by majority view. And
third, that the three other principles of justice, equality and human dignity,
which constitute Islam's moral core, ... are best realized, in personal as well
as public life, under shura governance.[8]
Other modern Muslim thinkers distance themselves from democracy. Taqiuddin
al-Nabhani, the founder of the modern transnational Islamist party Hizb
ut-Tahrir, writes that shura is important and part of "the ruling structure" of
the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars." If the caliph "neglects
it," by not paying much or any attention, as happened after the first four
caliphs, "he would be negligent, but the ruling system would remain Islamic."
This is because the shura (consultation) in Islam is for seeking the opinion and
not for ruling. This is contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy.[9]
The democratic parliamentary system being distinct from and inferior to the true
Islamic caliphate system according to Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.[10]
Under the Hizb ut-Tahrir constitution, non-Muslims may not serve a caliph or any
other ruling official, nor vote for these officials, but may be part of the
majlis and voice "complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers
or the misapplication of Islam upon them."
Still others, such as the Muslim author Sayyid Qutb, go further, arguing that an
Islamic shura should advise the caliph but not elect or supervise him. In a
rigorous analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur'an, Qutb noted that Islam
requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually
the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must
execute. In 1950 Qutb denounced democracy in favor of dictatorship, saying it
was already bankrupt in the West and asking why it should be imported to the
Middle East.[11][12]
The practice of a consultative, but not bill-passing, caliph-electing or
popularly elected shura, was adopted by the self-described strict Emirate of
Afghanistan. While the Kandahar Shura of the Taliban debated issues, in the end
its spokesman declared, "we abide by the Amir's view even if he alone takes this
view." [13]
Soviet etymology[edit]
In Persian language and Dari in Afghanistan, the term شوروی, shuravi is used for
'Soviet' (the etymology being related to council). In Tajik language it is
written Шӯравӣ.
See also[edit]
Islamic democracy
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Esposito, John L., Oxford Dictionary of Islam, OUP, (2003)
Jump up ^ Online Qur'an Project Chapter 42
Jump up ^ Online Qur'an Project 42.39
Jump up ^ فبما رحمة من الله لنت لهم و لو کنت فظا غلیظ القلب لانفضوا من حولك فاعف
عنهم و استغفر لهم و شاورهم فی الأمر فإذا عزمت فتوکل علی الله إن الله یحب
المتوکلین Online Qur'an Project 3.159
Jump up ^ The Kurdish Uprising & Kurdistan's Nationalist Shopfront and its
Negotiations with the Baathist/Fascist Regime, BM Blob and BM Combustion,
London, July 14, 1991.
Jump up ^ A Comrade's Testimony: A Journey to Irak, Communism No. 7,
International Communist Group, April 1992
Jump up ^ Process of Choosing the Leader (Caliph) of the Muslims
Jump up ^ "The Shura principle in Islam" by Sadek Jawad Sulaiman
Jump up ^ The System of Islam, (Nidham ul Islam) by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani,
Al-Khilafa Publications, 1423 AH - 2002 CE, p.61
Jump up ^ The System of Islam, by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, p.39
Jump up ^ Qutb, Sayyid, Tafsir Surat al-Shura (Beirut, 1973), pp.83-85; Ma'alim
fi al-Tariq, p.3
Jump up ^ Source: letter in al-Akhbar, August 8, 1952
Jump up ^ Interview with Taliban spokesman Mullah Wakil in Arabic magazine
Al-Majallah, 23 October 1996
External links[edit]
Liberal Democracy and Political Islam: The Search for Common Ground
Ijtihad.org
Alhewar.com
Shura.org
[show] v t e
Islamic philosophy
Categories: Arabic words and phrases in Sharia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura