No announcement yet.

It is haram for Muslims to call for the implementation of democracy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    It is haram for Muslims to call for the implementation of democracy

    It is haram for Muslims to call for the implementation of democracy

    On the 21st of March, second phase of the local body elections were conducted, in a bid to prepare the political medium of the country for the establishment of ‘true democracy’ as described by the Musharraf government. Democracy contradicts Islam, as it places sovereignty into the hands of a small group of legislators in parliament who in turn make the law of the land. Islam only recognises Allah (swt) as the legislator for Muslims and forbids man from making laws. Subsequently, it is haram for Muslims to either call for democracy or to participate in its implementation.

    Even the US does not believe in democracy

    Marc Grossman who was recently nominated as the undersecretary of state for political affairs, focussed on democracy as being the cornerstone of US policy in his confirmation address. The stark reality of US foreign policy in securing its national interests, points to a completely different picture. The US readily sacrifices its call to democracy in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the gulf - where it views the oil and the middle east peace process as being vital to its interests. But aggressively, demands the implementation of democracy in Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria.

    This clearly illustrates that as long as US interests are secure, democracy will not be used as a political tool to make the country comply with US wishes.

    The government plans on selling public utilities to benefit the kuffar

    In a recent interview with the Washington Times, General Pervaz Musharraf outlined the strategy of the government to reduce the $38 billion foreign debt. The underlying principle of the strategy is to privatise public utilities and use the proceeds towards reducing the foreign debt.

    In recent weeks, the government has indicated that it preparing to privatise the gas utilities, PTCL, WAPDA, PIA, Thar coalfields etc. The most likely buyers of these privatisation projects will be foreign multinationals, especially the kuffar. In this way, the government is not only handing over these properties to the kuffar, but also the revenue generated from the sale, will go towards paying off the usurious loans of western nations. These public properties are not the property of the government but belong to ummah and Islam has forbidden their privatisation. If the government were sincere to Islam and the ummah it would protect these public assets by investing in them and making them grow, so that its people could benefit from them and not the kuffar.

    Silence of our rulers greets the new Balkan crisis

    After a decade of Muslim genocide in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, and usurping of Muslim land by the kuffar through false political solutions, it comes as no surprise, to observe the silence of our rulers on the recent aggression of Macedonian troops against Muslims. While,

    the kuffar mobilise their armies to protect their people and advocate political solutions designed to give them the upper hand, our rulers are content on keeping our armies firmly shut in their barracks and leaving the Muslims of that region to the mercy of the kuffar. Islam obliges the whole ummah, including our armies to engage in jihad and liberate these lands from the authority of the kuffar. The only way the ummah can use her armies to liberate these lands from the domination of the kuffar, is by removing the present kufr regimes in the Muslim world that are real obstacles to the implementation of jihad. The practical way to do this is to work re-establishment of the Khilafah state. The Khilafah state will unify all the armies of the Muslims

    countries into a single army and will bring all the usurped resources of ummah under the disposal of the state. The Khilafah state together with the army, weapons and resources will be in a strong position not only to liberate all Muslim land but also to carry Islam to the rest of the world by engaging in jihad to make the word of Allah the highest.

    ws salaam
    muhammed kauser
    (College lecturer)

    first try to remerge pakistan with bangaldesh
    that is good start


      >>muhammed kauser
      (College lecturer)

      what a pity.


        Ok now i know for sure we need an iq test for these poli sci forums.

        You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


          Originally posted by Najoomi:
          >>muhammed kauser
          (College lecturer)

          what a pity.

          I feel more pity for a Najoomi than a Lecturer. In fact, I think a lecturer can change lives of so many and a Najoomi can't even change his own.



            Agreed demcracy is kufr and not islamic at all. democracy in greek is from two words demos and cratis meaning humans rule. Democracy in latin means demos cracia meaning humans rule.....

            And Allah says 'the rule is for none but Allah'

            'And rule by them by what Allah has revealed'

            'whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed is a kafir (disbeliever)...dhalim (oppressor)..... fasiq (evil doer)'QUran 5 44, 45 and 47

            So from the definition of democracy it contradicts what islam says fundamentally. to recap democracy means man rules and islam means Allah rules.

            democracy means weak limited humans who dont know right and wrong rules and islam means an unlimited creator who knows creation better than creation knows itself, rules

            democracy means the rich ppl subjugates the poor and islam means we all submit to Allah whether rich or poor.

            Infact one western intellectual said "the golden rule of democracy is: those who own the gold make the rules".

            Thats why we seee only the rich being able to run for elections and seek power. So we find al gore and george w bush r both from very very rich families. We find that there r only really two political parties in usa and when a third candidate wanted to run he had to be a billionare (remember Ross Perot) in order to do so.

            We find the same situation in uk where we find again the rich runing the coutry so we find big businesses bribing labour of conservative parties..... yeah and u guys thought pak was bad.

            so bernie eccleston (owner of Formula One) gives one million pounds to labour so that when labour legislates and removes all advertising of cigarettes from sports labour conveniently allows FORMULA ONE (remember they gave one million pounds) not to remove the adverts for cigarrettes.

            microsoft gives millions of dollars to usa condidates so as to help legislate in his favour (what u guys think, they give this money out of charity????)

            We find nawaz sharif coming to power building roads to connect his businesses u know the Murrey Roads? Benazir Bhutto she gives a 30% quota to the sindhis in getting jobs of karrachi. By the way it is teh sindhis that voted for benazir bhutto.

            Corruptionn is bread from democracy.....we all ask what is the cut of benazi bhuttos husband nowadays it was 10% of every governmental contract and now?????

            When humans make laws they inevatibly make laws that benefit themselves and thus misery and tyranny upon others.... lets not be fooled democracy is corrupt rotten and kufr we r told to leave it not to touch it its not islamic nor is it going to help the muslims just the rich to further exploit the poor.

            FrankParkin says "A political system which garantees constitutional rights for groups to organise in defense of their interests is almost bound to favour the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged"

            Inshallah may Allah help us establish the khilafah to truly implment justice


            Abu Laith


              Another facet of this "democracy" issue is the alarming illiteracy in Pakistan.

              Since 37% of Pakistan is literate and 63% is ILLITERATE, that means:

              63% of the people can't read or write

              63% of the people therefore don't know enough about the world to understand and differentiate economic/political policies of democratic candidates

              63% of the people are therefore in no position to vote and should be automatically disenfranchised.

              Therefore, democracy in the current state of Pakistan is doomed to absolute failure, and a military dictatorship is better.


                Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is to spend five minutes with the average voter.



                  The Conflict Between the Democratic System and the Ruling System in Islam
                  The democratic system conflicts with the Islamic system in the fundamentals as well as the branches. It is not a proper to equate both systems if there exist some similarities between them.

                  Since democracy is kufr and Islam is belief. The term "Democracy" or any of its meanings was not used by the Islamic State that continued in its implementation of Islam for thirteen centuries.

                  In the absence of the system of Islam, people started seeing a democratic system as opposed to dictatorship and military systems. Naturally, people chose the democratic system over the oppressing ones; while all of them are systems of kufr.

                  When we say no to democracy we do not mean yes to oppressive, dictatorial systems. Rather, we mean the Islamic system which is mercy to mankind, revealed from the most Merciful the most Compassionate. However, if certain processes in the Islamic system, such as the election of the Khalifah thereby giving him the bay'a, are similar to the election of a public official in a democratic system, we should not conclude that democracy is part of Islam.

                  Following is a summary of both systems:

                  The Democratic System The Ruling System In Islam:
                  1. Its bases are made by humans.

                  1. Its basis is taken from revelation from Allah.

                  2. The ruling system is in the form of republics (Pakistan, Egypt,) or kingship(Jordan, Saudi Arabia). And it allows any structure of government acceptable to people:

                  2. The ruling system is that of Khilafah. This system has no succession by inheritance. And it does not allow switching from Al-Khilafah to republicanism or kingship.

                  3. Democracy is established on two premises;

                  I. Supremacy is for the people.

                  II. The Legislative Branch

                  III. The Judicial Branch

                  Other institutions support these authorities, such as, the army, internal security, etc.

                  3. In Islam, the supremacy is for the sha'ria and not for the people. The Ummah appoints somebody to implement and rule by the Sha'ria. As for the structure of the ruling system, it is as follows:

                  I. The Khalifah

                  II. The Associates (Mu'awen-ul-tafweed)

                  III. The Associates who carries out orders

                  IV. The Ameer of Jihad

                  V. Governors

                  VI. Judges

                  VII. The Administrative System

                  VIII. Majlis-Shura

                  IX. The Army

                  4. Since supremacy is for the people, they have the power to legislate.

                  4. The revelation is the source of laws; and the people elect the person to implement the Sha'ria.

                  5. The judiciary system is a civil one.

                  5. The Judiciary system in Islam is a Sha'ria one (only)

                  6. In the democratic system, the foreign policy is based on honoring the international borders and waters because they are a manifestation of respect to people's freedom in choosing their systems, laws, and rulers,

                  6. Under the Islamic ruling system, the foreign policy is tied with Jihad, conquest and spread of Islam. It destroys borders and physical barriers to save humanity from worshipping each other to worshipping the lord of humanity.

                  7. The democratic system stands for disunity and for the existence of several states. This is called respecting the independence of these states.

                  7. The system of Khilafah does not recognize the physical borders or the independence of the one Muslim country from another. Since the Ummah is one, the state is one, the army is one, the Raya is one, the budget is one etc.

                  8. Not only that the democratic systems recognizes nationalities and races, but they also encourage them to exist and to protect them.

                  8. The Islamic ruling system does away with all nationalities, tribalistic bonds and races and melts them into Islam.

                  9. The ruler is elected for a specific period of time, (four to six years).

                  9. The Khalifah is chosen for life as long as he is able, wise (Aqil) and not known for misconduct.

                  10. In democracy it is permissible to revolt, demonstrate against the ruler.

                  10. The only case where it is allowed to disobey the ruler is when he orders to disobey Allah (swt)

                  11. It is allowed to form opposition parties that are not based on Islam, such as, secular, and Nationalist parties.

                  11. It is not allowed to from parties which are not based on Islam as a doctrine and a way of life.

                  12. Under democracy, political frame is divided into a ruling party and an opposition.

                  12. Society is not divided in such a manner. However, the people or the Ummah council question the ruler. If he deserves to be removed, the court of injustices (Mahkamutul Mathalim) takes that decision.

                  13. Democracy allows all members of society to compete for the ruling position. This is regardless of his credentials or personal qualities, or religious commitment.

                  13. Islam demands the candidate to be male, Muslim, adult, free, and not known of misconduct and disobedience to Allah.

                  14. Democracy is not consultation. Democracy is a method of ruling that contains major guidelines and details. It does not emanate from Sha'ria. Thus, it is not a divine law as Shura.

                  14. Consultation (Shura) is not a method of governing that contains major guidelines and details. Also it is not one of the ruling pillars. Rather, it is merely taking an opinion which is binding in some cases and not binding in others. However, Shura is a divine rule.

                  15. Democracy emphasizes "compromise" solution.

                  15. Islam, on the other hand, obligates its followers to take that which the Messenger (saaw) brought i.e. Quran and Sunnah, as the source of all beliefs and laws

                  "Whatever the Messenger brought to you, take it and whatever he ordered you to abstain from, abstain" and "No by you God, they will not become (true) believers until they put you as a judge in their dispute." The Messenger (saaw) said, "Anything that is not part of what we have, is rejected." Thus, it is forbidden to take the beliefs and civilization of the West. Democracy is a part of the Western civilization which emanates from the Capitalist belief of separation of belief from life.

                  16. Democracy is established on the belief of capitalism i.e. separation of religion and state.

                  16. The Islamic civilization is established on the spiritual base i.e. believing in Allah (swt) and Halal and Haram are the criterion for all actions in life.

                  17. The democratic way of life emanates from a civilization established on benefit and neglects other values.

                  17. Happiness in Islam is achieving the pleasure of Allah the Supreme.

                  18. In democracy majority rules.

                  18. In Islam, Sha'ria rules.

                  19. Democracy sanctifies liberties. Individual's freedom determines what a society should be.

                  19. Islam has its own rules regarding the rights of the individual and of the jama'a: This is in contrast to the Western notion of freedom and liberties.

                  ws salaamu'alaikum wr wb
                  muhammed kauser
                  (College lecturer)


                    Ok could we get a new forum just dedicated to idiots???

                    CROIRE A L'INCROYABLE
                    You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


                      I am not going to say much. All I know is that Islam was the first system to implement democracy but since most do not understand, they go blind in declaring that it is incompatible with Islam.

                      There is a difference between democracy and secularism. Before passing religious verdicts, please refer to some learned scholar who is both aware of religion and political system and can thus declare what is allowed and not, rather than passing generalizaions based on how democracy is being implemented with secularism or other religions.

                      Islamic system in itself is a democracy. Muhammad(sm) asked for opinions of Sahaba-e-Karam in almost all verdicts. What was that?

                      In treaty of Hudaibiya, Muslims had gone for Hajj, and made a treaty with Kuffar and came back. Why do we think that we should be hostile to all non-Muslims? And Muhammad(sm) did so after having asked his companions.

                      Shariah itself is argued and can have different verdicts in different situations which are to be decided by mutual consultation.

                      And in the end, democracy is a system of solving unsolved problems. Those exist in Islam as much as in any other field. If all Muslims in a paricular country do not want a Shariah law, you cannot implement it; and if you think its wrong, its just a difference of opinion then. You wouldnt want instead to go against majority and may be end in a civil war or a coup or a revolution! Religion encompasses everything, from sociology to technology to psychology to research.

                      Lets be good Muslims by getting good education ourself and by spreading religion such that all Muslims in a country make religious verdicts themself.



                        The treaty of hudaibiyah is a clear example of why Islam is not democratic. All the sahabis were against it was only the Prophet (saw) who was in favour of it.

                        Islam is a solution for all problems so why should we turn to another system.

                        It is YOU who doesn't understand what democracy is. You seem to think that having discussions makes Islam democratic whereas if you search the hadith books you will never find a situation where there was discussion to change something which Allah(swt) had already decided.

                        Allah (swt) says in the translation of the meaning, "They (the Jews and Christians) took their Rabbi's and Monks as lords besides Allah and they were commanded to worship none but one god. There is no Lord except he, exalted is he from the partners they associated with him"
                        [TMQ at Tawba: 31].

                        Ibn Katheer states, "Should anyone turn away from the command of Allah and the Shari'ah and favours something else, then he would have put something else (as a god) before Allah. That this is Shirk is clear from the verse 'They have taken their Rabbis and Monks as lords beside Allah'"
                        (Tafsir ul Qur'an ul Azeem).


                          I'll tell you where Islam was changed against Shariah. Umar abandoned the law of cutting hands in time of famine, there was no such jurisdiction in Islam. Now there is such a jurisdiction based on Umar's verdict. There is no direct Qur'anic proof for that.

                          There is a consensus of scholars my friend. It forms the basis of law! Why is it there if there is no such need? This is exactly what everything demands. I am sure Qur'an does not say anything about test tube babies, but I think we do need to sit and decide on it.

                          As far as taking others as Gods, no one is doing so. Firstly, democracy is a demand of the time in issues that are not directly covered in Qur'an or Prophetic traditions. Secondly, if 90% of the people do not want Shariah, what do you do? Do you just implement and ask for an open revolution? Or do you go out educating people more about Islam who are distressed by foreign propaganda, and lack knowledge because of bad "madrassahs" and religious schools.

                          Before implementing Shariah, let everyone know what Islam is and let everyone know why is it necessary and how it fits in with the modern human rights and international law legislations. Then people will themself want to have Shariah. Islam DOES NOT force. "There is no compulsion in religion." Provide religious education so people accept it, rather than forcing Shariah on them. Shariah is definitely completely religious.




                            I think the issue here is being confused between democracy and elections becuase elections on their own is mubah (permisable) it only becomes haram when in a democratic system, there is no were in the history of islam did the muslims adopt democracy in the time of the khilafah.

                            (please refer to my previous post)

                            THE RULING OF ISLAM ON ELECTIONS

                            Elections are among the means allowed under the Islamic law (Shari'ah) to choose attorneys (agents or representatives). The Messenger of Allah (saw), during the Pledge of Allegiance at Aqabah, said, "Bring out from you twelve foremen to be responsible for their people's upholding of their duties."

                            The regimes ruling in Islamic lands nowadays are all un-Islamic. That is they are regimes of Kufr because their systems are not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) (except for some portions of it). It is forbidden for a Muslim, who believes in Allah and his Messenger (saw), to help, participate in or be a part of these regimes. Rather he must work with utmost diligence and speed to dismantle it and establish the system of Islam in its place. Allah (swt) said:

                            "And those who do not rule with that which Allah has revealed, are indeed the Kaffiroon." [TMQ 5:44]

                            The ruling regimes are fostering and protecting munkar, nay they are the head of munkar. The Messenger (saw) commands all Muslims "Whoever of you sees a Munkar, let him change it with his hand. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his tongue. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his heart and that is the weakest of belief." Therefore, what is requested of you, O Muslims, is not only to refrain from assisting or participating in the regime, but to change it. Change with the heart is possible for every Muslim through hating Kufr and Munkar and renouncing it by saying: O Allah this is a Munkar that we are not pleased with. Change with his tongue is also possible, for every Muslim in many different situations: amongst his family, relatives, friends, and neighbours. As for the one who applauds these regimes, praises their rulers and supports them, he does not even harbour an iota of Iman in his heart. Beware O Muslims, do not belittle the issue for it is a matter of Iman and Kufr!

                            Is it legal (Halal) for a Muslim who fears Allah to contest elections within these regimes of Kufr? Yes, if he announces publicly, simultaneously with his candidacy, that he does not believe in this system, that he will not become a part of it or coexist with it whether he is elected or not, that he will not help a candidate who believes in the system neither individually nor as a part of an electoral list and that he does not want more than to use the podium of Parliament to deliver the word of Haqq and to call upon all Muslims to eradicate the Taghut ( rule of Kufr) from its roots (via intellectual actions and means). It is not enough for a candidate to just believe in this idea but conceal these conditions. He is obligated by the Shari'ah to declare it publicly, for an individual becomes a suspect and a subject of charges as soon as he announces his candidacy under these regimes. If he keeps himself a subject of suspicion and charges, he is sinful. It is illegal (Haram) for a Muslim, in this case, to elect him, help him or congratulate him if he wins.

                            The duties of a Member of Parliament include legislation, vote of confidence in cabinets, ratification of treaties, election of a Republic's President and holding the regime and its institutions accountable. Only the last action is legal (Halal) for a Muslim Member of Parliament to practice. All other functions are illegal (Haram). Legislation cannot emanate from sources outside the Book (Qur'an) and Method (Sunnah). The Sovereignty belongs to Allah, i.e., He is the Legislator. Nothing is legal but that which Allah has made legal (Halal) and nothing is illegal but that which Allah has made illegal (Haram). Allah (swt) said:

                            "They took their Rabbis and Priests for gods instead of Allah." [TMQ 9:31]

                            The Messenger of Allah (saw) was reading this verse when Adee ibn Hatem At-Ta'ei entered wearing a cross around his neck. Adee said: They did not worship them. The Messenger of Allah responded (saw): "Yes (the followers did), they made illegal what is legal and made legal what is illegal and they (the followers) followed them. This is their worship of them." Then Adee became a Muslim. So that who legislates, making things legal and illegal without Allah's permission, is transgressing against Allah and making a god of himself. And those who follow him in this matter has rendered the one followed a god instead of Allah. So wake up, O Muslims! The Member of Parliament who gives confidence to a cabinet ruling with Kufr, ratifies treaties based on Kufr laws or elects a President who rules with Kufr is an accomplice with them in their crime. A Muslim individual who helps that Member of Parliament in getting there, is an accomplice with him in his crime.

                            A Muslim's main concern, whether he is a Member of Parliament or not, is the vital cause of the Ummah, which is saving the Ummah from the claws of the West's idolatry (the so-called Western Culture) and guiding it to the light of Islam through there-establishment of the Khilafah. In lieu of this, we see the Members of Parliament these days work as street builders and endorsers of transactions for their constituents, despite the fact that a Parliament Member's interference in the work of the judiciary or other government departments is a transgression. We read these days that a block of Jordan's Members of Parliament (The Islamic Action Front) are threatening to submit their resignation from the Parliament if the Jordanian government does not retract its decision to raise the price of bread. We ask: why didn't they resign when Jordan signed for peace with the enemy?! Why don't they resign because of the belief they hold that the system is a Kufr system, or is the price of bread more important?! Would the regime care if they resign or continue their resignation (submission)?! Let the candidates who humiliate themselves to win Parliament seats, regardless of the means, take a lesson from the existing Members of Parliament. They found that their existence there is meaningless. They found that what they thought of as shrewdness and understanding of realities was in fact nothing but a mirage and a clear cut case of short-sightedness. It was the regime's enslavement and exploitation of them and of Islam - in whose name they sit in Parliament. When those Members of Parliament, who promised to put Islam in the position of policy-making, fail many people will think that Islam itself failed and not only the individuals who participated.

                            Some candidates try to find a pretext or a Fatwa for their actions on the legal basis "The least of two evils". Based on this, the Arabs supported Peres against Netanyahu in the Jews' elections, deeming Peres and Netanyahu as evil but Peres as the lesser of the two. Thus, it became obligatory for the Arabs to elect Peres. In Russia's elections, Yeltsin and the Communist Zyuganov were deemed evil but Yeltsin was the lesser evil so it became obligatory for the Muslims to support Yeltsin. Here they say; if X gets elected he would be evil and if Y gets elected he would be evil but X is lesser so it is obligatory to elect X and so on. This is definitely not Fiqh nor Ijtihad. The legal basis is not applicable here. Why is Peres' evil less than that of Netanyahu, for example? Who said that X is less evil than Y? These are mere desires. The legal basis is only applicable when a legal text defines one of two evils to be lesser than the other and where there is no way out but one of these two evils. In elections, there is a way out which is for the candidate to obey the laws (of Shari'ah) from the outset of his candidacy to the end. This is viable and possible. The use and abuse of the legal basis of "The least of two evils" as a pretext is thus invalid here. Actually, a Muslim has another stand which is not to elect and not to sink into the abyss of evil.

                            It is untrue that a Muslim cannot work (whether for the vital cause or small issues) but through the Parliament. It is untrue that his work from within (Parliament) is always more effective. Indeed in most cases his participation in Parliament is a false testimony, a sedative against work and change and a release valve for the Ummah's pent-up drive, especially if he fears Allah (in the people's opinion). The best position is for those individuals who fear Allah to avoid this as long as they are going to be a tool to deceive others.

                            We witnessed a couple of years ago that the Islamic Salvation Front's winning of the elections in Algeria did not lead it to the establishment of the Deen. Rather, it led (the Front) to jails because those who hold authority (and power) do not allow it to be transferred to their enemies. We are currently witnessing in Turkey that the power brokers did not give the cabinet to the Refah Party until it swore to and gave guarantees that it will adopt secularism and do everything the way those who hold power desire and require. So the solution does not come from within the Parliaments, rather it comes by taking authority through the seeking of support from those who have strength.

                            The despair of the Muslims (or some of them) of Islam's resumption of its victories; this despondency drives them to resign themselves to the regimes of Kufr. It's time for this despondency to go away. It's time for the Western concepts and standards, which pervaded our culture and made us run after benefits and selfishness, to be destroyed. It's time for us to establish our Khilafah, apply our law (Shari'ah) and elect the Members of the Ummah's Assembly under the Islamic State instead of elections in a Kufr domain under Kufr systems.

                            "It is He who has sent His Messenger with the Guidance and the Deen (Way of Life) of Truth to make it victorious over all ways of life, even if the disbelievers detest it." [TMQ 9:33

                            ws salaam
                            muhammed kauser
                            (College lecturer)


                              Originally posted by muhammed kauser:
                              We read these days that a block of Jordan's Members of Parliament (The Islamic Action Front) are threatening to submit their resignation from the Parliament if the Jordanian government does not retract its decision to raise the price of bread. We ask: why didn't they resign when Jordan signed for peace with the enemy?!
                              like there were never any peace treaties at the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).