[Eujacwta]

al-Salamu 'Aleykum,

In Egypt they voted for the Islamists whether Ikhwanis or Salafis and now the Muslims dominate their parliament, whereas if they had left the voting, the Copts and liberals and Heretics would have taken over and Islam would then be in a much worse condition than before.

By bringing the Muslims and dominating the so called parliament you can influence the code of the country and alter the Constitution to suit Shari'ah and little by little you'd have exactly what you want. Because Shari'ah is a set of divine laws and the constitution is a set of man made laws and in many occasions or in most these two do not contradict one another, so creating an Islamic state is done simply by inserting the necessary divine laws into the constitution and removing or editing the laws that conflict with them.

And parliament is a place where the representatives of the people meet and this is an Islamic concept As the Prophet (SAWS) said in the Hadith:
لا يستقيم الناس الا بعرفاء
and
اخرجوا الىّ من بينكم اثنى عشر نقيبا
and
أخرجوا الىّ عرفائكم

Also no one should expect a successful Islamic state that is established within a week, this is achieved step by step and not all at once, when Ameer al-Mumineen 'Umar bin 'Abdul-'Aziz came and wanted to fix many of the corrupt rituals and laws that were practiced upon in the Caliphate of some of those who preceded him, his son came and asked him: "O father, you have now received the pledge and the affair of the Muslims is in your hands, yet I see so much evil and corruption taking place everyday?" So Mawlana 'Umar (rah) replied: "O son is it not enough for you that each and everyday your father revives a Sunnah and buries a Bid'ah?" he continued:"If I were to reform ALL of this matter at once I fear that they would ALL abandon this matter at once."

The origin of the matter is that in Islam the one who is supposed to work in the field of politics is supposed to be a Faqih, not necessarily a 'Alim but he is supposed to rule on matters from a solid Islamic base and perspective, this man can reach the position of leadership either by a bloody rebellion, or by simply voting him and his likes in there, and this is more peaceful and thus recommended.

In Islam we say that we are told to settle our affairs through Shura, but Allah (swt) and his Prophet (SAWS) did not inform us of a specific means to fulfill Shura, the pious predecessors for example used to leave the matter to the Mouhajirun mainly and the people of Madinah, they would consult each-other and they would choose the Caliph, in our days there are no "Mouhajirun and people of Madinah" so voting through ballot boxes can be the most appropriate way to fulfill Shura.

When the majority of believers vote for a man then Allah would be pleased with their decision and this nation cannot agree upon falsehood, and the Prophet (SAWS) used to consult his companions and in several occasions left his own opinion then settled for the opinion of the majority. The wisdom behind this is that the Prophet (SAWS) decided that the people are knowledgeable about the affairs of their worldly lives and this is the verse of Allah in his book:

{And their affair is (decided) by mutual consultation}

Once the infallible decided on a matter or received divine inspiration regarding a matter no Muslim can reject it and he who does has rejected Allah in the process. As for the Sahaba (ra) whom Allah has revealed in his divine inspiration that he is pleased with them and whom the Prophet (SAWS) described as the best of generations, they had an admirable experience with Shura and they settled their affairs in the best of manners but as we said their method is not applicable today.

Now one asks, can anyone in the Islamic lands vote for any candidate he likes? Can a christian vote for a christian or a Fasiq vote for another Fasiq? certainly not as there are usually committees (even in western democracies) and this Islamic committee or in other words Ahlul-Halli wal-'Aqdi chooses appropriate qualified candidates that have gathered the 10 necessary conditions. [The committee is usually the top 'Ulemaa in the Muslim lands]

As for the philosophy of democracy according to its original western definition and understanding then this is prohibited as it contradicts Islam and Shari'ah, but if we use our own Islamic definition for this then democracy/voting is no more than a tool that can be used for good as well as bad, just like a TV or a computer can be used for good or bad, so democracy can be used to fill the gap that was left after the prophet (SAWS) and his companions (ra) passed away and it can be used in a way that the majority of believers can vote for the candidate they deem worthy of any position.

Now the situation gets very complicated and reaches a scholarly level when people get into the issue of "Is democracy currently the available alternative to tyranny and oppression? Would adopting democracy in our current time and situation bring us more good and repel much harm from the nation of Islam?"

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...ly-Haram/page2

these is a lot of sense spoken here

A long time ago I studied with the HT for a year or so and most of the people I met who associated with them were nice Muslims, but they had a few very confused ideas in one or two areas.

I think perhaps the most harmful of these was the idea that Muslims should not vote in elections in an un-Islamic system even if they can help promote Muslim interests through voting.

Muslims don't have to accept the ideology of secular democracy to vote - they can do it pragmatically knowing that they are simply using an opportunity to support Muslim interests in what may itself actually be a kufr system.