Democracy is major shirk

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Written by Yahya Al-Hajooree


Question:

If someone asks you: “what is democracy?”

Answer:

Say: it is when people govern themselves by themselves without a (revealed) Book or Sunnah.

If it is said to you: “What is its ruling?”

Say: It is major Shirk (polytheism). The proof for this is Allah’s saying:

“Verily, the rule belongs to none but Allah.” [Surah Yoosuf: 40]?



Shaykh Yahya Al-Hajooree

“Al-Mabaadee al-Mufeedah fit-Tawheedi wal-Fiqhi wal-‘Aqeedah” Basic Principles on the Subjects of Tawheed, Fiqh and ‘Aqeedah: Points 45 and 46. By Shaikh Yahyaa bin 'Alee Al-Hajooree Al.IBAANAH Book Publishing.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

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

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

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

[DaZahroJaam.]

and tomatoes are haram.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Elections (Voting) haram, bid’ah, imitation of Kufaar; Democracy is disbelief (kufr)!
All Praise and thanks are due to Allaah, the Lord of Creation. To Him belongs praise and grace for guiding us to Islaam and the Sunnah, a praise that would suffice His favors to us outwardly and inwardly, as is required for the nobility of His Face and might of His Magnificence. Abundant Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), and upon his family, companions, his wives – the mothers of the believers – and all those who follow them in good until the Day of Judgement.

Beware – may Allaah show you His Mercy and protect you – that the American

elections and Voting process offered to you in America are an innovation in the Islamic religion, imitation of the kufaar, and can lead to kufr (disbelief) since they are part of the democratic system.
Voting is not Islamic Shuraa
Explained by Shaykh Fawzan

Voting is not Islamic Shuraa – Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan

Questioner:

O noble Shaykh, may Allah give you success. Is it permissible to participate in elections and voting that are based upon democracy and man-made laws?
Shaykh Fawzan:


This is not from the actions of the Muslims. The action of the Muslims is for the scholars firm in knowledge to give the pledge of alliance to the one who is suitable to be the leader and by this he becomes the leader. And the people follow their decision; the people follow the decision of the scholars who are firm in knowledge, from the scholars and judges. It is not a must that everyone has a vote. This is the system of the west not the system of Islam.
Translated by Rasheed ibn Estes Barbeehttp://mtws.posterous.com/voting-is-not-islamic-shuraa

Regarding voting and Elections, Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) said,

“And I say: Are elections not, except the path of democracy? …Democracy is disbelief (kufr) because it means that the populace rules itself by itself. It means there is no Book [Qur`an] and no Sunnah and no Islaam, and the allowing of fornication and homosexuality.”

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullaah) said,

“… And as for the elections [that are] well known [and implemented] today in the various nations, then they are not from the Islamic order. Chaos, personal aspirations enter into them, as do greed and favoritism (bias). Tribulations and the shedding of blood result from them, and the desired goal is not attained by them. Rather, they are just a ground for bids (i.e. campaigns), buying and selling and false claims.” [3]

The personal aspirations Shaykh Fawzaan mentioned is the candidates’ desire and putting themselves forward for leadership and authority – an act the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prohibited. Abu Musa (radiallaahu ‘anhu) narrated: Two of my cousins and I entered the apartment of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). One of them said: Messenger of Allaah, appoint us rulers of some lands that the Almighty and Glorious Allaah has entrusted to your care. The other also said something similar. He (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same.” [4]*

When Shaykh ‘Ubaid Al-Jabiree (hafidhahullaah) was asked if it was permissible for the Muslims in the lands of disbelief [such as America] to enter into elections from the aspect of being “the lesser of the two evils”, the shaykh responded:

“Elections are not from the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet, salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) that is known by the Muslims and that which the Salaf (the first three generations after the revelation of the Qur`an) traversed upon from the time of the Companions and the Imaams of the Taabi’een, and those who came after them. Rather, it is a newly invented matter in Islaam, so it is a bid’ah (innovation), and if it is a bid’ah (innovation) then it is muharram (unlawful).”

Shaykh Al-Jabiree added that the only exception to this is if the Muslims were forced – meaning if they don’t vote, they would not receive any rights [of course, this is not the case in America]. In that case, they could select a pious, knowledgeable and wise man amongst them to speak on their behalf and look after their rights. Then he concluded by advising us of that which is better, saying, “But if the Muslims were patient upon the hardships and loss of their rights in the way of abandoning this innovated matter, it is better for them and more desirable. And Allaah knows best.”

When asked via phone two years ago about voting in America, Shaykh Ahmad An-Najmee (rahimahullaah) said,

“Oh my brother, is it permissible for the Muslims to enter into innovations and join and work with the disbelievers to obtain something that may take place, or may not?! This is not correct in my opinion.”

Shaykh Bur’aee said:

“Democracy opposes Islaam in the equality between people, making equal the kufaar to the Muslims, whereas Allaah says (what means):

Shall We then treat the (submitting) Muslims like the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists and disbelievers, etc.)? What is the matter with you? How judge you? (Al-Qalam 68:35-36) In democracy, the righteous scholar is equal to the homosexual or the one who passes corruption upon the Earth – and this is a great injustice.”
Either maliciously or ignorantly, some falsely accuse the Messenger and his companions of holding elections. Of course, this is a lie – and a lie on the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is disastrous to one’s hereafter. The Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) would sometimes consult companions, setting in motion some of the battles and raids, and other times he would not. Either way, he never held elections. And as for ‘Umar (radiallaahu ‘anhu), while dying, he appointed a shura to decide the third calipha. Furthermore, this shura was made of six companions [and a seventh - Abdullaah ibn 'Umar - to decide the matter in case it was yet unresolved]. And as you can see – may Allaah show you Mercy – the decision was left to the knowledgeable and pious and those who didn’t seek leadership.
This is in contrast to the evil, corrupt, and fraudulent elections in America, where the vote of the ignorant and disbelieving carries more weight than that of the knowledgeable and pious, since each is given a vote and, of course, the knowledgeable and muttaqun are unquestionably the minority. And, likewise, democracy is the rule of the majority, whereas Allaah has revealed (what means): And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allaah’s Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie. (Al-An’aam, ayah 116)

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullaah ar-Raymee al-Imaam was asked regarding the statement of some: “

Democracy and voting are equivalent to the Islamic Shura (Counsel).” The shaykh responded,
“By Allaah, if we did not fear that the ignorant would be influenced by the likes of these words, then it would be obligatory to avoid even responding to this (statement). At any rate, democracy and voting is not combined with the Islamic Shura that Allaah has legislated, not in the fundamentals of the religion nor its subsidiary branches, neither in totality nor in part, not in meaning or in foundation.” And then the shaykh – may Allaah preserve him for the benefit of the Ummah – brought eight detailed evidences in refutation of this statement, at the head of them being that Allaah legislated the Islamic Shura, whereas the people of disbelief, crimes and ignorance legislated democracy. [7]

Footnotes:

[3] The Ruling on Elections and Demonstrations Al-Jareedat ul-Jazeerah, Issue 11358, Ramadaan 1424.

[4] Sahih Muslim, In the Book of Government (CHAPTER: PROHIBITION OF A DESIRE FOR A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AND COVETOUSNESS THEREOF).* * In the case of Prophet Yusuf (‘alaihi salam), Ibn Katheer said, “Yusuf praised himself, for this is allowed when one’s abilities are unknown and there is a need to do so.” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer (Tafseer of Surat Yusuf, Vol. 5).]

[6] Manhaj ul-Anbiyaah fi ad-Da’wah ilal-Laah (Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allaah).

[7] From Shaykh Muhammad al-Imaam’s book Tanweerudh-Dhulamaat bi Kashf Mafaasid wa Shubahaat Al-Intikhabaat (Illuminating the Darkness in order to uncover the corruptions and doubts concerning Voting), pages 31-35.

[Note: This treatsie is based on the stronger of the two opinions, the opinion followed by the overwhelming majority of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Those in the minority who said it is "the lesser of two evils" provided no proof for their statements, and ijtihaad is not exercised when the majority of scholars have already refuted an issue. And of course, scholars are not followed in their mistakes. This would be blind-following. Even then, those with the weaker of the two opinions stipulated that their opinion was based only if the Muslims do not have full rights to practice their religion, which is not the case in America, and to Allaah belongs all Praise.]

[Kochagasht]

i'm not a big fan of the freedom and democracy propaganda, i know it serves a purpose but i still find it grating.

[Badlun]

This is the real issue and bone of contention between extremists and moderate Muslims. Democracy!

Democracy has been declared as polytheism and infidelity above. It means Muslims in non Arab world like Turkey,Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Africa and Central Asia are polytheists and infidels because they are participating in democracy. Even Ikhwans are infidels.

In some Arab countries like Tunisia, Morocco, Algiers also there is a kind of democracy so they are also mushriks and kaaffirs!

Only the Salafi and dictatorial states like Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and Taliban are Muslims.

[Kochagasht]

This is the real issue and bone of contention between extremists and moderate Muslims. Democracy!

Democracy has been declared as polytheism and infidelity above. It means Muslims in non Arab world like Turkey,Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Africa and Central Asia are polytheists and infidels because they are participating in democracy. Even Ikhwans are infidels.

In some Arab countries like Tunisia, Morocco, Algiers also there is a kind of democracy so they are also mushriks and kaaffirs!

Only the Salafi and dictatorial states like Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and Taliban are Muslims.

sorry mate, thats double standards

[M17ArnoBaloch]

shirk = associating partners to Allah 2.. 3 or 4

how is democracy telling us Allah is 2 or 3 ??

and saying democracy is not just shirk but a "MAJOR" shirk is weird and absurd. lol.

this is just an opinion. there are several opionons. opinions such as saying tomatoes are haram. or eating a haram chicken is halal (like shaikhs in arabia do).

[zamurd]

یہ نظام


پہلے بھی شرک تھا، آج بھی شرک ہے


اس نظامِ شرک کو مسترد کرنا ہمارے پیش نظر صرف اس لئے ہے کہ یہ ہمارے دین کے اصل الاصول سے متصادم ہے۔۔۔۔
حکم دینا اور قانون صادر کرنا ہمارے دین کی رو سے صرف اور صرف اللہ احکم الحاکمین کا حق ہے:
وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا (الکہف:26 )
”اور وہ اپنے فیصلہ میں کسی کو شریک نہیں کرتا“
انسانوں کو اس کے احکامات ’پاس‘ نہیں کرنے بلکہ نہایت عاجزی سے اس کی اطاعت اور اس کے احکامات کی فرمانبرداری کرنی ہے۔ وہ جو حرام ٹھہرا دے وہ حرام ہے۔ شرعاً بھی حرام ہے اور قانوناً بھی۔ کیونکہ اسلام میں شریعت ہی قانون ہے۔۔ اور کسی بھی اضافی شرط کے بغیر قانون ہے۔ شریعت انسانوں کے ہاتھوں پاس ہو کر قانون کا درجہ نہیںپاتی بلکہ جب یہ خدا کے ہاں سے نازل ہوتی ہے تو اس کو یہ سب درجات اور مراتب خدا کی طرف سے حاصل ہوتے ہیں۔ رسول پر اگرکچھ اترتا ہے تو وہ اسی لیے اترتا ہے کہ غیر مشروط طور پر اس کی اطاعت ہو:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ (النساء: 64)
اور نہیں بھیجتے ہم کوئی بھی رسول مگر اس لئے کہ اطاعت ہو اس کی، اللہ کے حکم سے“
نہایت واضح ہو، رسول پر جو اترتا ہے وہ محض ’مذہبی جائز و ناجائز‘ نہیں ہوتا۔ اسلام میں ’مذہبی جائز وناجائز‘ اور ’قانونی جائز وناجائز‘ الگ الگ ہوتے ہی نہیں۔ اسلام میں ’مذہبی جائز و ناجائز‘ اور ’قانونی جائز و ناجائز‘ کو الگ الگ کرنا دو خداؤں کو ماننا ہے ایک وہ خدا جس سے ’مذہبی جائز و ناجائز‘ لئے جائیں اور ایک وہ خدا جس سے ’قانونی جائز و ناجائز‘ لئے جائیں۔
یہ ’مذہب‘ اور ’قانون‘ کی تقسیم واضح طور پر شرک ہے۔ یہ کلیسا کا دین ہو تو ہو ”اسلام“ نہیں۔ ’مذہب‘ خدا کے ہاں سے آئے گا اور ’قانون‘ اسمبلیاں پاس کریں گی، یہی تو شرک ہے۔ وہ ذات جس نے محمد ﷺ کو ھدیٰ اور دین حق کے ساتھ بھیجا ہے صرف اس لئے بھیجا ہے کہ محمد ﷺ جو کچھ لے کر مبعوث ہوئے ہیں وہ دین (مذہب +قانون+تہذیب) کی سب صورتوں پر غالب و برتر مانا جائے اور دین اپنے اس کلی معنیٰ میں سارے کا سارا ایک خدائے وحدہ لاشریک کیلئے ہو جائے۔حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ !!!
البتہ اس نظام کی رو سے اللہ احکم الحاکمین جس چیز کو حرام ٹھہرا دے وہ شرعاً تو حرام ہو گی مگر قانوناً حرام نہیں۔ قانوناً حرام وہ اس وقت ہو گی جب عوامی نمائندے اکثریت رائے سے اسے حرام ٹھہرا دیں اور اگر عوامی نمائندوں کی اکثریت اسے حرام نہ ٹھہرائے تو وہ شرعاً ناجائز ہو گا اور قانوناً جائز۔ دوسرے لفظوں میں ۔۔۔۔ خدا کا فرمایا ہوا کچھ بھی ہو قانون نہیں۔ اس نظام کی رو سے دین کی کوئی بات خواہ کتنی بھی قطعی الثبوت اور قطعی الدلالت کیوں نہ ہو اس کا خدا کے ہاں سے نازل ہواہونا اس کے ’قانون‘ ہونے کیلئے کافی نہیں۔(1) کوئی چیز خالق کے اپنے کلام یا اس کے رسول کی سنت متواترہ تک میں، خواہ کتنی ہی صراحت سے حرام کیوں نہ کر دی گئی ہو، وہ قانوناً جائز ہے جب تک کہ نمائندگانِ خلق کی اکثریت اسے ناجائز نہ ٹھہرا دے۔ خدا کے ٹھہرائے ہوئے کسی واضح اور قطعی حرام کوحرام ٹھہرانے میں اب عوامی نمائندے پچاس سال لگائیں یا سو سال یا کبھی بھی اس کو حرام نہ ٹھہرائیں یہ عوامی نمائندوں پر ہے البتہ خدا کی اتاری ہوئی ایک بات قانون نہ مانی جائے گی جب تک اسمبلیاں خداکی اتاری ہوئی اس بات کو ’پاس‘ نہ کر دیں!
یہ بہت ہی بڑی جرأت ہے جو احکم الحاکمین رب العالمین کے سامنے یہ مشرکانہ نظام انسانوں سے کرواتا ہے۔ اس نظام کا یہ شرک ہی ہمیں اس بات سے مانع ہے کہ ہم اسکو اپنی اجتماعی زندگی میں قبول کریں اور کبھی ایک لمحے کیلئے بھی اسکو درست مان لیں۔ جو شخص بھی اپنے رب کے مقام سے واقف ہے اور اس نظام کی حقیقت جانتا ہے وہ اس نظام کے درست ہونے کی شہادت دینا اپنے لئے کفر جانے گا چاہے یہ نظام دنیا میں اس کیلئے یا اسکی قوم کیلئے دودھ اور شہد کی نہریں بہا لانے کا شرطیہ سبب کیوں نہ ہو۔ کجا معاملہ یہ ہو کہ یہ ہماری دنیا اورآخرت دونوں کو بیک وقت اجاڑنے کا سبب ہو اور استعماری قوتوں کے ہاتھوں ہمارے دینی اور دنیاوی استحصال کا ایک مؤکد ذریعہ!
یہ حقیقت ہی کہ: غیر اللہ کا اختیار اس نظام کے اندر ختم نہیں ہو گیا ہے، ہمارے اس کتابچہ کا اصل مرکزی مضمون ہے۔۔۔۔
رہ گیا وہ فلسفہ کہ ’جمہوریت‘ کو اگر محض ایک انتظامی طریق کار کے طور پر لیا جائے نہ کہ ’حاکمیتِ جمہور‘ کی بنیاد پر، یعنی حکم اور قانون کے باب میں اول و آخر خدائے رب العالمین کی شریعت ہی ملک کا دستور ہو اور اللہ اور اس کے رسول کا فرمایا ہوا ہی حرفِ آخر، البتہ اس شریعت کو لاگو کرنے والے ’اولی الامر‘ کے چناؤ کی حد تک عوامی نمائندگی کا کوئی طریق کار اپنا لیا جائے۔۔۔۔ تو اس سے قطع نظر کہ اہل کفر کے ہاں مستعمل الفاظ اور اصطلاحات پھر بھی قابل اعتراض ہی رہیں گے، اور اس مجوزہ فلسفہ کی تفصیلات کو بھی فی الحال ایک طرف رکھتے ہوئے، اِس کے مضمون پر یقینا بات ہو سکتی ہے۔ اس فلسفہ سے کسی مسلمان کو اختلاف ہو گا تو بھی وہ ’کفر و اسلام‘ کا اختلاف نہیں ہوگا، جبکہ نظامِ موجودہ کے ساتھ ہمارا اختلاف بہر حال ’کفر و اسلام‘ والا اختلاف ہی ہے۔ اس معاملہ میں تنگ نظری کے ہم بہرحال مؤید نہیں۔ رب العالمین کی شریعت، کسی بھی اضافی شرط (Additional Qualification)کی پابند ہوئے بغیر، اگر ہر آئین سے بالاتر آئین اور ہر قانون سے بالاتر قانون مان لی جاتی ہے تو اس نظام کو کفر کہنے کی ہمارے پاس کوئی وجہ نہ رہے گی۔
البتہ اس رائے کے حاملین کیلئے ضروری ہوگا کہ وہ اپنے اِس مجوزہ فلسفہ میں اپنا سنجیدہ اور سچا ہونا پہلے اس طرح ثابت کریں کہ وہ اِس حالیہ نظام کو تو پورے زور کے ساتھ مسترد کر دیں جوکہ خدائے رب العالمین کی شریعت کو ہر دستور سے بالاتر دستور بہرحال نہیں ٹھہراتا اور جوکہ رب العالمین کی شریعت کو ’قانون‘ کا رتبہ پانے کیلئے ”اکثریتِ نمائندگانِ جمہور کی منظوری“ ہی کا حاجتمند ٹھہراتا ہے اور جوکہ جمہوریت میں پائے جانے والے کفر کا اصل لب لباب ہے۔

http://www.eeqaz.com/ebooks/013angre...ezinizam04.htm

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

shirk = associating partners to Allah 2.. 3 or 4

how is democracy telling us Allah is 2 or 3 ??

and saying democracy is not just shirk but a "MAJOR" shirk is weird and absurd. lol.

this is just an opinion. there are several opionons. opinions such as saying tomatoes are haram. or eating a haram chicken is halal (like shaikhs in arabia do).

If you dont even know what shirk is how can you say that democracy is not shirk?

[M17ArnoBaloch]

If you dont even know what shirk is how can you say that democracy is not shirk?

Definition:

SHIRK: i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God. Literally, it means the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).[1]

Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

It says no where that Allah has partners.

Wasn't Abu Bakr elected by the Muslim ummah, hence "Democracy". There are many books on this subject Democracy in Islam. Even the Muslim Ummah at the time of the prophet and even after his death practiced it.

Plus shirk is "Polytheism". A good practicing muslim cannot magically become "Kafir" after believing in Democracy. Too extreme bruh. There are many books written on it which will debunk your singular article which is solemnly biased on opinions.

If there is disagreement between one Muslim group and the other about let say (i.e. Democracy) then it is an opinion and not a "fact". You can't become a kafir if it objects an opinion.

Sure you might say its haram, but shirk? where does it say that??

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Definition:

SHIRK: i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God. Literally, it means the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).[1]

Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

It says no where that Allah has partners.

Wasn't Abu Bakr elected by the Muslim ummah, hence "Democracy". There are many books on this subject Democracy in Islam. Even the Muslim Ummah at the time of the prophet and even after his death practiced it.

Plus shirk is "Polytheism". A good practicing muslim cannot magically become "Kafir" after believing in Democracy. Too extreme bruh. There are many books written on it which will debunk your singular article which is solemnly biased on opinions.

If there is disagreement between one Muslim group and the other about let say (i.e. Democracy) then it is an opinion and not a "fact". You can't become a kafir if it objects an opinion.

Sure you might say its haram, but shirk? where does it say that??

You have the time to google and search for your desirable answer on wikipedia, but you have never read the Qur'an with understanding.

Allah is our source for guidance and Allah dictates what is shirk and what is not shirk. Claiming that something which is clearly mentioned in Qur'an to be merely an opinion is disbelief in Qur'an.

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّـهِ
The the judgement is for none but Allâh Surah Yusuf 40

Who ever chooses anybody else to decide what is permissible and what is impermissible, clearly commits shirk.

Allah mentions in Qur'an how the jews took their rabbis as deities and worshipped them. Worship in this sense is that the rabbis decided for people what is permissible and what is impermissible contradicting the teachings of Torah.

Likewise there are many other verses of Qur'an explaining why a believe should not associate partners with allah in matters of obedience.

So for you to come here copy pasting from wikipedia to prove a point, it is evident that:

1 - you are totally ignorant of what tawhid and shirk are

2 - you have never read the qur'an with understanding

3 - you did not bother to read the text in this thread where a scholar explains the matter in details

4 - you are a person who likes to argue just for sake of arguing