Democracy is major shirk

[RevolutionThroughReason]

For people for are claiming the Democracy is major shirk and compromises the Sovereignty of Allah(swt)

tell us how do people deal with an issue like how to deal with What degree of funding should be allocated for healthcare versus Urban Development based on Fatwas?

[khushal]

neither are Mashars or tribal chiefs.

Then how do they become mashers and tribal chiefs?

[Kushan Prince]

Pashtuns have been practicing democracy for hundreds of years, long before the Europeans. What do you think a Jirga is.

A political assembly.

[khushal]

RTR,
You have a hard time looking up how one becomes a masher or tribal chief? lol

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] & [MENTION=4934]RevolutionThroughReason[/MENTION],

So far I have not posted my personal views. But rather quotes from scholars and even a mujtahid (Ahmed Shaakir) about democracy being shirk.

What do you have except your layman- views and opinions?

RTR: You ask how to decide about funding? The question is already answered but I will sum it up:

A democratically elected parliament concistst of unqualified people who are elected simply because they convinced people through propaganda and lies. In the parliament people decide what is halal and what is haram.

In an Islamic shura, the members of the shura are selected based on merit: piety, scholarly achievements, expertise in various fields like economics.

When a Shura decides about a matter that is not legislated in Sharia, like allocating funds, the decision is based on knowledge and expertise.

In a democratically elected parliament, such decisions are based on whims and desires.

This is why you have a government shut-down in America because people cannot put their whims and desires aside.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] quote a scholar who supports your stance in this matter.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

RTR,
You have a hard time looking up how one becomes a masher or tribal chief? lol

show me an instance where a mashar or chieftan was from a family outside of the previous chieftan's and so on and so forth

[RevolutionThroughReason]

[MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] & [MENTION=4934]RevolutionThroughReason[/MENTION],

So far I have not posted my personal views. But rather quotes from scholars and even a mujtahid (Ahmed Shaakir) about democracy being shirk.

What do you have except your layman- views and opinions?

RTR: You ask how to decide about funding? The question is already answered but I will sum it up:

A democratically elected parliament concistst of unqualified people who are elected simply because they convinced people through propaganda and lies. In the parliament people decide what is halal and what is haram.

In an Islamic shura, the members of the shura are selected based on merit: piety, scholarly achievements, expertise in various fields like economics.

When a Shura decides about a matter that is not legislated in Sharia, like allocating funds, the decision is based on knowledge and expertise.

In a democratically elected parliament, such decisions are based on whims and desires.

This is why you have a government shut-down in America because people cannot put their whims and desires aside.

All I have to say in your argument is "not necessarily"


In most democracies you cannot vote against the constitution. Similarly voting for most social and economic issues does not imply voting to legislate the fundamental laws of Shari'ah.

This is why even though you post scholarly references; they do not actuallly prove that Islam opposes democracy because they have not considered all cases.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

All I have to say in your argument is "not necessarily"


In most democracies you cannot vote against the constitution. Similarly voting for most social and economic issues does not imply voting to legislate the fundamental laws of Shari'ah.

This is why even though you post scholarly references; they do not actuallly prove that Islam opposes democracy because they have not considered all cases.

Yes, you are right, social and economic issues do not imply voting to legislate. But who is deciding in a democracy? People who have obtained a chair in a parliament by advertising themselves. The one with the prettiest face or the most money and friends in high places like the media gets the most votes. Not the one who has the most knowledge.

So again, in a democracy, even when a decision is not specifically kufr or shirk, it is still against principles of Islam.

You say that scholars, even mujtahideen who speak out against democracy are not sufficient to qualify democracy as shirk. In other words, you believe you have more knowledge than scholars. Your understanding of Islam is apparently greater. To that I say: humble yourself.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

show me an instance where a mashar or chieftan was from a family outside of the previous chieftan's and so on and so forth

I am from a very conservative traditional Ghiljay tribe. Most of our elders have served as mesheran in big jirgas resolving disputes and hostilities all across the Pashtun belt.

My grandfather was a chief, his father was a chief, his father was a chief etc etc.

If I decide to move back to the village, people will unanimously appoint me as chief if the warlords who are tied to the current regime are no longer there.

Why? Because of my lineage. Regardless of the fact that I was away from the village for over 20 years.

This is unfortunately how things work. This is why I am against the traditional tribal system of electing leaders.

The emphasis is on lineage rather than on merits. They dont look at expertise, level of knowledge, acquaintance with the community etc.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

He was elected and chosen by the people. He was not named as the successor like a monarch is and he did not come to power by force like a dictator does. Shura is democratic.

Name on mujtahid scholar who describes democracy as Islamic shura. Please mention just one major mutjahid scholar.

You claim to be a Sunni Muslim, you should know that in Sunni Islam only a scholar is allowed to make such statements. It is not up to laymen to state what is Islamic and what not.

So you have to have a major scholar backing up your claims. If you don't it means you are inventing stuff and basically you are inventing your own religion.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes, you are right, social and economic issues do not imply voting to legislate. But who is deciding in a democracy? People who have obtained a chair in a parliament by advertising themselves. The one with the prettiest face or the most money and friends in high places like the media gets the most votes. Not the one who has the most knowledge.

So again, in a democracy, even when a decision is not specifically kufr or shirk, it is still against principles of Islam.

You say that scholars, even mujtahideen who speak out against democracy are not sufficient to qualify democracy as shirk. In other words, you believe you have more knowledge than scholars. Your understanding of Islam is apparently greater. To that I say: humble yourself.

Incorrect; I'm saying that the scholars ON THIS ISSUE clearly do not know what they're talking about and it is evident from the explanation you gave. Even though you're not a scholar, the misinformation you're getting comes from those individuals. In Representative based democracy; a representative or Parliament member represents the demands of his constituents and petitions on their behalf. Of course. This is EXACTLY WHAT a Shuraa would be. The parliament meet to legislate in accordance to the demands and interests of their respective constituents of regions they represent and together work on a plan which they can use to meet the demands of ALL their constituents. However in no instance IN ANY of this does it mean that the Parliament can VOTE away the Constitution of the country. In the case of Islam; the population nor parliament can efface the legal and political role of the Qur2an when it comes to the explicit expectations of Shari'ah. This is why the judgment of scholars, at least the ones you referenced is incorrect, they lack ANY Knowledge and have an incorrect understanding of how the political apparatus works in a democracy. One should know what it is they oppose before opposing it. As others have said this animus against democratic processes is really something Encouraged by Autocrats to manipulate the rhetoric of religion to prevent any threat to their power.

[khushal]

I am from a very conservative traditional Ghiljay tribe. Most of our elders have served as mesheran in big jirgas resolving disputes and hostilities all across the Pashtun belt.

My grandfather was a chief, his father was a chief, his father was a chief etc etc.

If I decide to move back to the village, people will unanimously appoint me as chief if the warlords who are tied to the current regime are no longer there.

Why? Because of my lineage. Regardless of the fact that I was away from the village for over 20 years.

This is unfortunately how things work. This is why I am against the traditional tribal system of electing leaders.

The emphasis is on lineage rather than on merits. They dont look at expertise, level of knowledge, acquaintance with the community etc.

I am now seeing why RTR thinks it is lineage. It must be a Ghiljay thing or it happens in large valleys where feudal social structures have taken place. In Zazi, there is different different approach since there are no feudal social structures because of the rugged landscape. Anyone can become a masher as long as the people choose him. It does not matter what family he comes from or what his father or grandfather was. My father nor grandfather were chiefs, but I can become one if I can convince people to choose me as one. But since I would be coming from America, the chance of me actually winning the hearts and minds of my tribesmen would almost be zero because my rivals would argue I am not of the people.

How a masher is choosen is that one elder from each Kor in the village would meet in the masjid, those elders would discuss and debate on who would be choosen as the village masher that would represent them in a tribal Jirga. That person could be anybody, he does not have to be one of the elders, he could be some 30 year old who has a talent for speech or has wisdom or courage. It depends on the situation and what the village requires from the Jirga. They could send a different person to the tribal Jirga each time depending on who can represent them best.

In mediation, the two sides in the dispute can choose anyone that they feel are unbiased and has the wisdom to make a fair decision.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

LOL ....Shamlawar can you believe this guy? I swear he makes up everything on the spot.

[khushal]

@khushal & @RevolutionThroughReason,

So far I have not posted my personal views. But rather quotes from scholars and even a mujtahid (Ahmed Shaakir) about democracy being shirk.

What do you have except your layman- views and opinions?

RTR: You ask how to decide about funding? The question is already answered but I will sum it up:

A democratically elected parliament concistst of unqualified people who are elected simply because they convinced people through propaganda and lies. In the parliament people decide what is halal and what is haram.

In an Islamic shura, the members of the shura are selected based on merit: piety, scholarly achievements, expertise in various fields like economics.

When a Shura decides about a matter that is not legislated in Sharia, like allocating funds, the decision is based on knowledge and expertise.

In a democratically elected parliament, such decisions are based on whims and desires.

This is why you have a government shut-down in America because people cannot put their whims and desires aside.

Shamlawar,
What those scholars are talking about is direct democracy. Direct democracies are flawed and they do not work and that is why we don't see them anywhere on earth.

In representative constitutional democracies, democratically elected parliaments, which can consist of laymen and Scholars, can not implement laws that violate the Constitution of their respective nations. For example, one hotly debated issue in America today is gun control. Even if 99% of the people vote to take guns away from people, that does not mean they can do it because it would violate the 2nd amendment. The LAW supersedes people's whims and desires.

You do realize that a major sticking point in the peace talks between the Taliban and the US is not democracy but the Afghan Constitution which was written by an American.

Also, the reason the government shut down in America is because the representatives cant agree on how to spend the money. It has nothing to do with democracy, its just disagreements which is human nature and they are handling it peacefully which is good.