Democracy is major shirk

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

If it's not a game why do you keep dancing around presenting all the alleged criterion according to the Shari'ah

Speaking on my own behalf, I'm just waiting on you.

In other words, you dont know what Shura is in Islam and you have no shar'i istidlal for equating shura with democracy and you refrain from giving a concise definition of democracy.

Its obvious that you are the one doing the dancing.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I was right when I said that the democrats are following their own desires claiming democracy is not shirk.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

In other words, you dont know what Shura is in Islam and you have no shar'i istidlal for equating shura with democracy and you refrain from giving a concise definition of democracy.

Its obvious that you are the one doing the dancing.

No in other words, it means I'm calling you on your bluff and exposing that when confronted you don't know nor do your Saudi funded scholars know what they're talking about.

[Khorosani]

Then there is no debate; as long as the objectives of Shari'ah are met. There is no conflict with democracy and Islam. This is your own admission!.

In reality, democracy is for a people to chose their government and the laws that government will abide by their own whims, in reality i'm talking about the method of voting which there is no problem with, if you change democracy than it wouldn't be democracy.


Similarly people being NOT able to choose their leaders can cause more harm and benefit. Remember Allah says the condition of the people is not changed unless they change themselves. If they want to be lead bad then this is their decision. Not someone else choosing it for them.

That is true, but as i said it depends on the society, and educated and moral society is more capable of voting for their own leaders than afg or pak where there are educated people who are immoral, moral people who are uneducated, both, and than you have those who are neither and unfortunately those are the majority. Those people are like sheep, they can be swayed very easily. The people can easily be swayed by people who will promise them food but don't have a grain of emaan

In the current day, MOST of the Ulama have even less of a clue; they're stuck in a static mindframe where beard length is more important than ending poverty.

The ulema of course, as ibn taymiyya has mentioned, have to be aware of the dunya and ilmi matters, you can also have pious people who know the dunya who have knowledge and a strong tie with the kibaar al ulema (whoever they may be) and can make their own ijtihad on matters that may arrive. Just because you haven't met Ulema who are aware of the matters that inflict us, doesn't mean there aren't because I know scholars who are aware and scholars who stay quite and scholars who do speak about the mess we are currently in

You don't "think so" is not Islam says so. If anything THIS IS EXACTLY why people picking their leaders is crucial in Afghanistan or Pakistan because all you're doing is maintaining a vicious cycle of ignorance and social irresponsibility and maintaining the dictatorial climate that exists in both societies.


Is a dictator essentially a bad thing? Yes if he is a thalim no if he is "dictating" the commands of Allah with kindness and firmness. What i'm saying is that shura is the best method to use, anything else that would be used (such as voting) is merely permissible. voting among the people who are easy to sway is not necessarily a good thing. There could be a person who is implementing the sharia but is a coward, or he loves wealth, or he just seems to be popular and in those cases, where the people are easy to sway should the method of voting be used? Since that can lead to more mafsada its a method that shouldn't be used at the moment.

How else do you pick leaders then? Some guy who thinks women have no role in society, that they don't need to learn to read or work or should be discriminated because she wanted to leave an abusive marriage....these types of men should be our leaders?

No of course not, but if such a leader is in place and he establishes the sharia he should be obeyed even in his mistakes. However the shura should be ready to debate such matters.

How and who determines who is qualified to be elected in a shura?

This is answering two questions one from yourself and from i believe brother Kushal, The Scholars and pious leaders. This may sound strange but in reality, there are always pious scholars and leaders who are in succession. we have scholars and leaders today who can be gathered and pick the ones who would succeed them. In our day in time the ones who can determine such are the ulema (deobandi, salafi, maghribi ect ect) mujahideen and duat.

This is false, execution is not the penalty for leaving prayers Burning the house of someone for leaving prayers was abrogated since they did not do it except that one time.

That was just one example, this is a difference of opinion among the scholars so if you follow an opinion that it is abrogated, i'm not familiar with this than that is your opinion my point is if there is an sharia state it should be allowed to have different madhabi courts as a show of tolerance.

[Khorosani]

this is what democracy is. Your describing democracy. Like I told Shamlawar, saying democracy is shirk is like saying Shura is shirk.



When I say your all over the place, what I mean is that your post contradicts itself. In your previous post, in the first paragraph your saying that democracy is OK and then later saying it is not. For example in the post above you state the Shura is chosen by the leaders and the leaders are chosen by the Shura. So they choose each other, does that not bring corruption because how do we know that the corrupt are not choosing the corrupt. This is what leads to a dictatorship or oligarchy where a group of people take over and support one another while keeping the masses enslaved. What your describing is against humanity therefore against Islam.

I usually mistaken democracy as voting, they aren't the same thing. Most people no democracy as such. You have a point about the corrupt being corrupt, no system is perfect in this world and reality we live in and Democracy, as we can see in the states is no different. The difference is that the corrupt in a shura system have to go through certain guidelines such as protecting the borders, establishing the hudood, forbidding evils such as alcohol, riba, haram meat but they may be corrupt in other matters like spending the Muslims money extravagantly or killing Muslims but the society can still be protected to a point even with a corrupt shura, that is not the case with democracy as we can see in our days because not only are the matters of where the money of the Muslims are being spent but the matters of the morality of the society is also destroyed. Corruption has been in our ummah for a long time, but it took at least 1000 years for our ummah to completely fall flat on its base where as it took democracy 200 years, as we can see it is failing now.

[khushal]

No in other words, it means I'm calling you on your bluff and exposing that when confronted you don't know nor do your Saudi funded scholars know what they're talking about.

Shamlawar and the Saudi funded Scholars know what they are talking about, they are manipulating. They are talking about direct democracy which does not work or exist and nobody desires. This is a response to the latest developments in Saudi Arabia and the middle east where people desire an Islamic system where their voices are heard and "consultation" with the people is done. They are trying to send a message that the Saudi family = Islam and those who oppose the Saudi family are committing major "shirk".

[Khorosani]

Shamlawar and the Saudi funded Scholars know what they are talking about, they are manipulating. They are talking about direct democracy which does not work or exist and nobody desires. This is a response to the latest developments in Saudi Arabia and the middle east where people desire an Islamic system where their voices are heard and "consultation" with the people is done. They are trying to send a message that the Saudi family = Islam and those who oppose the Saudi family are committing major "shirk".

Trust me, Shamalwar is NOT a fan of the saudi family. The scholars who are based in Saudi are not their fans either.

[khushal]

I usually mistaken democracy as voting, they aren't the same thing. Most people no democracy as such. You have a point about the corrupt being corrupt, no system is perfect in this world and reality we live in and Democracy, as we can see in the states is no different. The difference is that the corrupt in a shura system have to go through certain guidelines such as protecting the borders, establishing the hudood, forbidding evils such as alcohol, riba, haram meat but they may be corrupt in other matters like spending the Muslims money extravagantly or killing Muslims but the society can still be protected to a point even with a corrupt shura, that is not the case with democracy as we can see in our days because not only are the matters of where the money of the Muslims are being spent but the matters of the morality of the society is also destroyed. Corruption has been in our ummah for a long time, but it took at least 1000 years for our ummah to completely fall flat on its base where as it took democracy 200 years, as we can see it is failing now.

Democracy is basically consultation among people which is exactly what a Shura is. In direct democracy, policy is implemented by the majority of the people with no checks and balances about how that policy would effect the people's freedoms. Direct democracy's formula of "majority" is "authority" where the "majority" become the tyrannical force over the minority which is why exists because they do not work. There has to be checks and balances to protect all in the society which is why a constitution or law is needed that can not be violated that protects all equally. In a constitutional democracy like the US, the law can not be violated by the majority's will or desire. The law supersedes everything.

Jefferson, the author of the US constitution was not a muslim but he was a student of the Quran. Saudi funded People like Shamlawar would like you to think that democracy is a western thing. Democracy is not a western thing or invention, it is a natural phenomena in nature. It is a myth that proclaims that democracy was first practiced by the Greeks. Read up on What Alexander saw in Ancient Egypt when he conquered it or how the Persian empire was administered.

[khushal]

Trust me, Shamalwar is NOT a fan of the saudi family. The scholars who are based in Saudi are not their fans either.

Then why does he dance around questions when asked. He is either extremely incompetent or just a manipulator.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Notice the people who think democracy is shirk are the same ones who say forcing women into sex as war booty is not rape.

[khushal]

In a constitutional democracy, the ones elected are not above the law. The law is supreme. This guy is not arguing against democracy, he is arguing against force and corruption and the fact the Egyptian military violated the essence of democracy. They used force to silence the people's hunger for justice which is what democracy is all about.

The guy is just using manipulating tactics to tell people not to bring the house of Saud to justice.

The prophet always consulted with people on what they wanted and desired as long as those wishes did not violated the quran. He was not a dictator.

[Almas]

Lol. What?