Democracy is major shirk

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

There's nothing in the Qur'an that says or even implies democracy is shirk

It is just the interpretation of the Rabbis and Monks who think they understand God better than God does.

You still owe me an answer. What are the condititions of participants of a shar'I shura? Please quote the verses.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You still owe me an answer. What are the condititions of participants of a shar'I shura? Please quote the verses.

Al-Quran (
And it was by God's grace that thou [O Prophet] didst deal gently with thy followers:1 for if thou hadst been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from thee. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel with them in all matters of public concern; then, when thou hast decided upon a course of action, place thy trust in God: for, verily, God loves those who place their trust in Him. (Surah Al-Imran verse 159)

2
Lit., "with them" - i.e., with those of his followers who had failed in their duty before and during the disaster at Uhud. According to all available accounts, the Prophet did not even reproach any of them for what they had done.
This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur'anic legislation relating to statecraft. The pronoun "them" relates to the believers, that is, to the whole community; while the word al-amr occurring in this context - as well as in the much earlier-revealed phrase amruhum shura baynahum in 42:38 - denotes all affairs of public concern, including state administration. All authorities agree in that the above ordinance, although addressed in the first instance to the Prophet, is binding on all Muslims and for all times. (For its wider implications see State and Government in Islam, pp. 44 ff.) Some Muslim scholars conclude from the wording of this ordinance that the leader of the community, although obliged to take counsel, is nevertheless free to accept or to reject it; but the arbitrariness of this conclusion becomes obvious as soon as we recall that even the Prophet considered himself bound by the decisions of his council (see note 90 above). Moreover, when he was asked - according to a Tradition on the authority of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib - to explain the implications of the word 'azm ("deciding upon a course of action") which occurs in the above verse, the Prophet replied, "[It means] taking counsel with knowledgeable people (ahl ar-ra'y) and thereupon following them [therein]" (see Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse).

[laevanay]

For Muslims it is simple. The Holy Quo'ran is the law.

Still trying to find the chapter on traffic laws. Can you point me to that part please?

[laevanay]

Yet they are scholars and you are not. So you must quote at least on mujtahid scholar who states that Shura is democracy.

Remember they are the same idiot scholars who spend too much time under other "scholars" to see the light of day. For example.....

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vari...rns-women.html

and

http://rt.com/news/saudi-writer-molest-women-946/

and the list of these ignorant scholars continues to go on.... Idiots like these influence an entire community on what they think is Islam. This is pathetic! This is NOT Islam... Anything that supports Islam is not Shirk, Democracy supports Islam, House of Al-Saud does not support Islam and therefore is...... Bark on.....

[khushal]

This is a forum, i can be all over the place if i want.

Shura is to consult one another to reach to a decision on various matters.

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

The people of shura are chosen by the leaders and are based on their knowledge of deen and dunya and the people who chooses them in my opinion are the scholars and the leaders.

ps. at the same time i'm a lay man, and therefore my answer is limited to the amount of knowledge i have. However the bases of people being part of a shura is for them to have knowledge of the sharia and knowledge in the matters of the dunya so a proper decision can be made on how to handle an issue ect ect.

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.

[khushal]

Remember they are the same idiot scholars who spend too much time under other "scholars" to see the light of day. For example.....

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vari...rns-women.html

and

http://rt.com/news/saudi-writer-molest-women-946/

and the list of these ignorant scholars continues to go on.... Idiots like these influence an entire community on what they think is Islam. This is pathetic! This is NOT Islam... Anything that supports Islam is not Shirk, Democracy supports Islam, House of Al-Saud does not support Islam and therefore is...... Bark on.....

khorosani,
This is what I mean about the corrupt supporting the corrupt. The Corrupt house of saud is supporting the corrupt sheikhs and the corrupt sheikhs support the corrupt house of saud and they are keeping the masses enslaved.

Shamlawar is trying to keep the voice of the people shut so the house of saud can stay in power so he can keep getting paid by them.

[asad71]

Still trying to find the chapter on traffic laws. Can you point me to that part please?

When eyes are shut traffic laws don't matter. A Muslim is a Muslim because, among other requisites, he must follow The Holy Quora'n which has been sent down by Allah swt to guide humans in every respect.

[asad71]

That's not democracy, that's Oligarchy. Minute something becomes Oligarchy it is no longer democracy.

What we really feel should be democracy and don't find it practiced anywhere is inherent / built-in in Islam. If we call that pure democracy, then pure democracy is the essence of Islam.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

That's not what democracy is and this is probably the MOST IRRELEVANT verse to cite to demonstrate that. Look at who it mentions Rabbi and Monks, These are THEIR ULAMA, this verse is talking about ULAMA who out of their own interprettaion determine what is halal and harram.

This is one of the most BLATANT examples of irony; because this verse is exactly against the type of Government where Mullahs decide what is Lawful and Permissible on their own accord.

In most democracies , murder, rape and other crimes were not determined by the masses but were in place because these were inalienable. the Qur'an's laws are inalienable .

Oh wonderful, Ulama are not allowed to make laws, but random idiots elected into a parliament are allowed to make laws.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Al-Quran (
And it was by God's grace that thou [O Prophet] didst deal gently with thy followers:1 for if thou hadst been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from thee. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel with them in all matters of public concern; then, when thou hast decided upon a course of action, place thy trust in God: for, verily, God loves those who place their trust in Him. (Surah Al-Imran verse 159)

2
Lit., "with them" - i.e., with those of his followers who had failed in their duty before and during the disaster at Uhud. According to all available accounts, the Prophet did not even reproach any of them for what they had done.
This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur'anic legislation relating to statecraft. The pronoun "them" relates to the believers, that is, to the whole community; while the word al-amr occurring in this context - as well as in the much earlier-revealed phrase amruhum shura baynahum in 42:38 - denotes all affairs of public concern, including state administration. All authorities agree in that the above ordinance, although addressed in the first instance to the Prophet, is binding on all Muslims and for all times. (For its wider implications see State and Government in Islam, pp. 44 ff.) Some Muslim scholars conclude from the wording of this ordinance that the leader of the community, although obliged to take counsel, is nevertheless free to accept or to reject it; but the arbitrariness of this conclusion becomes obvious as soon as we recall that even the Prophet considered himself bound by the decisions of his council (see note 90 above). Moreover, when he was asked - according to a Tradition on the authority of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib - to explain the implications of the word 'azm ("deciding upon a course of action") which occurs in the above verse, the Prophet replied, "[It means] taking counsel with knowledgeable people (ahl ar-ra'y) and thereupon following them [therein]" (see Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse).

There is a whole list of ayat stipulating the requirements of participants in shura. By quoting this above text you expose your lack of knowledge. Face it, you never read the Qur'an and you have absolutely no clue what so ever about what Islam is all about. You just don't want to stick to principles and rules of Islam and learn from scholars so you claim to be "Mu'tazili'.

You're not much better than your fellow non-Pashto speaking friend, Khushal.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

khorosani,
This is what I mean about the corrupt supporting the corrupt. The Corrupt house of saud is supporting the corrupt sheikhs and the corrupt sheikhs support the corrupt house of saud and they are keeping the masses enslaved.

Shamlawar is trying to keep the voice of the people shut so the house of saud can stay in power so he can keep getting paid by them.

Are you going to quote a scholar who endorses your understanding of democracy and shura or are you going to by the ignorant coward that you are by just dodging the question and making silly one liners" democracy is shura" on an on?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

This is a call to all you democrats:

Please quote scholars, mujtahideen who speak about democracy and shura in our times. Modern scholars of this era.

Not random modernist idiots with a PHD from the English speaking countries. I mean proper great 3aalims of Azhar and Deoband.

Since you declare Ahmed Shaakir, the Egyptian Muhadith as a Saudi, please quote another Egyptian or Indian scholar.

At least someone knowledgeable who supports your ideas of democracy.

If you have absolutely no scholar backing you up, then it is obvious. You are inventing your own religion based on your own whims and desires since none of you here is a scholar and none of you have the authority to interpret or give rulings regarding modern phenomena.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There is a whole list of ayat stipulating the requirements of participants in shura. By quoting this above text you expose your lack of knowledge. Face it, you never read the Qur'an and you have absolutely no clue what so ever about what Islam is all about. You just don't want to stick to principles and rules of Islam and learn from scholars so you claim to be "Mu'tazili'.

You're not much better than your fellow non-Pashto speaking friend, Khushal.

Ahem what are these alleged Ayat that deal with the other "conditions" please educate and enlighten us.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This is a call to all you democrats:

Please quote scholars, mujtahideen who speak about democracy and shura in our times. Modern scholars of this era.

Not random modernist idiots with a PHD from the English speaking countries. I mean proper great 3aalims of Azhar and Deoband.

Since you declare Ahmed Shaakir, the Egyptian Muhadith as a Saudi, please quote another Egyptian or Indian scholar.

At least someone knowledgeable who supports your ideas of democracy.

If you have absolutely no scholar backing you up, then it is obvious. You are inventing your own religion based on your own whims and desires since none of you here is a scholar and none of you have the authority to interpret or give rulings regarding modern phenomena.

PWNED


Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was one of the scholars who opposed the idea of Pakistan. He was also Shaiykhul-Hadees (Chief of Faculty) of Darul Uloom Deoband and led the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, an organization of the 'Ulama, that saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. He said: "All should endeavour jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam."

[randolph85]

I am guessing that when approached by the words of a scholar which he doesn't agree with, he will say that this man or others aren't real scholars or muslims, this is a typical salafi tactic. Its strange that in the current days of "too many chiefs, not enough indians" in that scholarship is almost a dime a dozen, he holds the title of "scholar" with such high esteem like the shias he hates and their imams, despite the fact that even great scholars disagree with each other.