Do you want democracy in muslim countries or shariah law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aadil77
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 94
  • Views Views 13K

Democracy or Shariah Law?


  • Total voters
    0
Shariah Law ofcourse. I mean the proper Shariah Law, like the one implemented in the Prophets :arabic5: and Sahabahs time. Not the one being implemented nowadays nor the one purposely misunderstood by the media. If one was to study both shariah Law (Allaahs Law) and man made law, they would find more justice and wisdoms in the former than in the latter.

You don't need to be extra intelligent to see which has more benefits. You just need to be sincere.

I chose Shariah Law because I believe it is Gods Law. If the people of a home believe they have every right to run their home how they think best because its THEIR home, then the Lord has every right to run His earth how He thinks best, because its HIS earth.

There is a big difference between a nation who fights to implement their laws on an earth that does not belong to them, and a nation who fights to implement Gods laws on an earth that belongs to God. The former nation are the suppressors, and that latter nation are the liberators.

For mans Law is faulty and unfair, while Gods Law is perfect and Just.

SubhanAllah! :statisfie

And even with all the intelligent brains put together, no one can derive rulings and laws more better than the Laws of Allah!

This is because the true Shariah law is perfect and there is nothing left in a thing when it is PERFECT! :D
 
...why both?

Becasue this thread is indicating that there is a conflict between democracy and Shariah law which there clearly isnt.

If Democracy is a western type of governing system then what is an Islamic type of governing system?
 
Becasue this thread is indicating that there is a conflict between democracy and Shariah law which there clearly isnt.

Yes democracy and Shariah law have no conflict at all. :statisfie
 
I was just reading an article this morning relating to this:

To Judge by Other than Sharia
The fourth cause of apostasy is to judge by other than the sharia that Allah sent down to the Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam. For example those who believe that the systems and laws devised by men are better than the sharia, or that it is permissible to judge by other than the sharia even if one does not believe that judgment to be better than that of the sharia, or that Islam should be restricted to the private relationship between an individual and His Lord without entering into the other aspects of life.

http://www.beautifulislam.net/aqidah/causes_of_apostasy.htm
 
If Democracy is a western type of governing system then what is an Islamic type of governing system?
Islamic is the one implemented in the Prophet's :saws1: and the Sahabas' (May Allah be pleased with them) time.
 
Last edited:
Exactly the point!

And I don't know why people think that Shariah would leave no room for democracy?! This doesn't even make sense!

Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

But as for the one who nominates himself or nominates others in this system in order to join the parliament and enjoin good and forbid evil, and establish proof against them, and reduce its evil and corruption as much as he can, so that people of corruption and disbelievers in Allaah will not have free rein to spread mischief in the land and spoil people’s worldly interests and religious commitment, this is a matter that is subject to ijtihaad, according to the interests that it is hoped will be served by that.

Some scholars are even of the view that getting involved in these elections is obligatory.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on elections, and he replied: I think that elections are obligatory; we should appoint the one who we think is good, because if the good people abstain, who will take their place? Evil people will take their place, or neutral people in whom there is neither good nor evil, but they follow everyone who makes noise. So we have no choice but to choose those who we think are fit.

If someone were to say: We chose someone but most of the parliament are not like that,

We say: It does not matter. If Allaah blesses this one person and enables him to speak the truth in this parliament, he will undoubtedly have an effect. But what we need is to be sincere towards Allaah and the problem is that we rely too much on physical means and we do not listen to what Allaah says. So nominate the one who you think is good, and put your trust in Allaah. End quote.

From Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh, no. 210

http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/sound/article_16230.shtml

The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked:

Is it permissible to vote in elections and nominate people for them? Please note that our country is ruled according to something other than that which Allaah revealed?

They replied:

It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in the hope that he can become part of a system which rules according to something other than that which Allaah has revealed and operates according to something other than the sharee’ah of Islam. It is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for anyone else who will work in that government, unless the one who nominates himself or those who vote for him hope that by getting involved in that they will be able to change the system to one that operates according to the sharee’ah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government, provided that the one who nominates himself will not accept any position after being elected except one that does not go against Islamic sharee’ah. End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (23/406, 407

They were also asked:

As you know, here in Algeria we have what are called legislative elections. There are parties which call for Islamic rule, and there are others that do not want Islamic rule. What is the ruling on one who votes for something other than Islamic rule even though he prays?

They replied:

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allaah’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Faasiqoon (rebellious and disobedient to Allaah).

50. 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 5:49-50].

Hence when Allaah stated that those who do not rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah are guilty of kufr, He warned against helping them or taking them as allies or close friends, and He commanded the believers to fear Him if they were truly believers. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as Awliyaa’ (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion as a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, and nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allaah if you indeed are true believers”

[al-Maa’idah 5:57]

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote.

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (1/373).



Islam Q&A
 
I really can not comprehend how Sariah law can be actually implemented unless it is voted into place by democratic process.
 
I really can not comprehend how Sariah law can be actually implemented unless it is voted into place by democratic process.

But Shariah law does include democracy!!!! :( It is what should be called Islamic democracy!
 
Shariah Law for sure.

Democracy is a flawed concept and i don't believe in it. It gives the impression of legitmacy even if no such legitmacy exists. We are all told that we have a voice in how we are governed and yet you only need to look at the worldwide anti-Iraq war demostrations in 2003.
What political voice do Muslims have in Britain and to what extent would they approve of the many laws passed, such as British Licensing laws for alcohol? Consider also the 'non-combatants' taken prisoner in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S and held prisoner without trial in Guantanamo Bay.
 
iran is not a shariah country, I'd be hesitant to say its a muslim country, they are far from islam

Well of course, you're a Sunni and they're 'raafidis' no? ;p

in iran you don't need brothels as their marriage method is virtually prositution, you pay the women some money and can have a 'islamic' marriage contract for a couple of hours to a couple of days - its completely forbidden in islam

....

And you don't get to democratically choose sharaih even though most would be for it

Oh yes, Muta is a nasty little practice. My point was if you forced Shariah on a majority Muslim country but most Muslims don't want Shariah it won't work and it'll turn into an Iran-like state where everyone's breaking the moral laws behind the governments back. As I & Woodrow (if Woodrow meant something else then I apologize for misquoting!) have said, you need the Shariah to be elected by the people.

Also, I think democracy and Shariah are compatible if the democracy is never allowed to go beyond Shariah law. Islam does not make it clear how leadership should be followed through. Sunnis go by what the Sahaba did and Shias ..well we know how that turned out. So why would it be incompatible for a Shariah state to be implemented with a democracy? There are a couple of advantages to this: first, Islam has multiple interpretations even within Sunnism (The 4 Madhabs); second, the Quran & Sunnah don't cover everything: they don't provide laws for how to drive cars, where people can build things, whether and how much minimum wage should be, how much should the environment be protected, how much money should be invested in things like space research, how much schools should be funded, etc. The list goes on infinitely but my point is, although we may have different opinions to each, a democracy might help find an answer to those questions that makes the people happy. Last, it stops people from corrupting the caliphate like the dynasties did in Islamic history. So democracy has advantages that need not step on the toes of Shariah law. The Taliban are a perfect example; imagine they were in charge of an imaginary Islamic state and they decided to cut the funding of women's education (it isn't compulsory in Islam for a woman to go to school as far as I know) . Some scholars would say 'to keep the unity one should obey the caliph in this regard no matter how strict (I think ibn taymiyah was of the opinion that we ought to obey the caliph so long as he doesn't do anything that makes him guilty of kufr) but a democracy would stop such things from happening.
 
Last edited:
The original post explains clearly what the brother means when he says 'democracy'. But perhaps the title should be changed to 'Western Democracy' or 'man made Law' for more clarity.
 
Well of course, you're a Sunni and they're 'raafidis' no? ;p

The main religious leaders are for certain yes - they're not considered muslim by scholars, the rest of the iranians are victims of their misguidence and we don't know for sure if they follow the most deviant of their teachings

Oh yes, Muta is a nasty little practice. My point was if you forced Shariah on a majority Muslim country but most Muslims don't want Shariah it won't work and it'll turn into an Iran-like state where everyone's breaking the moral laws behind the governments back. As I & Woodrow (if Woodrow meant something else then I apologize for misquoting!) have said, you need the Shariah to be elected by the people.

That happens in every country, not everyone is going to want to live by islam. Things will go underground - even in saudi. Main thing is you will be unable to openly sin and break islamic laws - atleast this way you will not affect others around you eg; people who want to live by islam and not be affected by evil. If people are desperate to commit evil then they'll have to go through much more difficult ways of carrying out what they want as it won't be allowed in the open.

Also, I think democracy and Shariah are compatible if the democracy is never allowed to go beyond Shariah law.

True

Islam does not make it clear how leadership should be followed through. Sunnis go by what the Sahaba did

We'll just follow their example

and Shias ..well we know how that turned out. So why would it be incompatible for a Shariah state to be implemented with a democracy?

Democracy would be used in matters that aren't governed by islamic law - laws such as whether you can park on a double yellow line

There are a couple of advantages to this: first, Islam has multiple interpretations even within Sunnism (The 4 Madhabs); second, the Quran & Sunnah don't cover everything: they don't provide laws for how to drive cars, where people can build things, whether and how much minimum wage should be, how much should the environment be protected, how much money should be invested in things like space research, how much schools should be funded, etc. The list goes on infinitely but my point is, although we may have different opinions to each, a democracy might help find an answer to those questions that makes the people happy.

Yep exactly

Last, it stops people from corrupting the caliphate like the dynasties did in Islamic history. So democracy has advantages that need not step on the toes of Shariah law. The Taliban are a perfect example; imagine they were in charge of an imaginary Islamic state and they decided to cut the funding of women's education (it isn't compulsory in Islam for a woman to go to school as far as I know) . Some scholars would say 'to keep the unity one should obey the caliph in this regard no matter how strict (I think ibn taymiyah was of the opinion that we ought to obey the caliph so long as he doesn't do anything that makes him guilty of kufr) but a democracy would stop such things from happening.

hmm yep

I should have made my original post clear
 
Last edited:
The original post explains clearly what the brother means when he says 'democracy'. But perhaps the title should be changed to 'Western Democracy' or 'man made Law' for more clarity.

In spite of what many people think. America is not a true democracy. Contrary to popular belief, we as individuals do not get to vote for many of our laws. We elect representatives who in turn vote for laws. We do not even vote for our President. We vote for the electoral college who in turn votes for the President. The 10 states with the largest electorial votes pretty much control who wins. It is possible for a candidate to win the majority of the states, have the majority of the popular vote and still loose the election because the opposition carried the electoral college. The USA is not a democracy. It is Free Enterprise Capitalism. Although many Western Countries call themselves Democracies, I do not know of any country that is a Democracy.
 
Although many Western Countries call themselves Democracies, I do not know of any country that is a Democracy.

hmm same with muslims countries, we don't know any that follows shariah properly
 
hmm same with muslims countries, we don't know any that follows shariah properly


:sl:

Many countries are actually loosing much individual control of government. I personally believe that International Corporate Law is the is now the Government of many nations. Big business, is now a major world power, if not the largest world power. Very difficult to control as it has no national affiliation nor central rule, yet has investors from nearly every nation.
 
sharia laws. its implented properly but i think some muslims doestn agree punish people who commited filty crimes therfore they feel pity so they put blame on leaders...
 
sharia laws. its implented properly but i think some muslims doestn agree punish people who commited filty crimes therfore they feel pity so they put blame on leaders...

:sl:

You may be correct. But I do not know of any country that actually has Sharia law. Some have something they call Sharia, but it seems to be incomplete at best and in a few cases has very little resemblance to Sharia.
 
:sl:

You may be correct. But I do not know of any country that actually has Sharia law. Some have something they call Sharia, but it seems to be incomplete at best and in a few cases has very little resemblance to Sharia.

May you give me a textbook definition of Sharia? May you also point out to me what Saudi Arabia/Iran other countries are doing wrong to practise 'incomplete' Sharia? Thanks.
 
Aristotle said - democracy is a reign of hyenas over the donkeys.


In my opinion liberal democracy reminds such situation -

There is a ship on rough sea, big storm, lightnings, water is flowing aboard, ship is staggering, and in such situation all members of crew have identical vote to decide, from the waiter, through stoker to a captain.

This is liberal democracy.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top