DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**enfoires** · 06-29-2011, 10:37 AM

As for the protests, I recently received photos of Yemeni protesters with Qat bulges in their cheeks. Dozens of photos of men with bloodshot eyes, qat bulges, shouting about hurria and such.

I believe there was a hadith about this:

This hadith seems to embody our reality today. One needs only to read and hear what many leaders of the Egyptian activists are saying about Islam, and one can recognize ar Ruwaybidah among us. Democracy presents that people with no knowledge, no morality can rule and determine the affairs if they so choose. Hence, the rise of libertinism as evident by the Guardian magazine and the spread of immorality throughout the world.

(This hadith from Baihaqi)

It is argued that this hadith pertains to the rulers after the khulafa rashiduun but not those of today. The distinction is that today, the rulers essentially represent kufr overtly or betray their authority as rulers of Muslim lands. Removing them is critical to bringing back Islam into life, as today's rulers and regimes and modern states stand against Islam and are obsticals to the resumption of Islam in life and the true worship of Allah.

The Hadith of Ubaadah ibn Saamit.

(Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)

Qadi Iyad said: "If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible”.

I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people.

06-29-2011, 10:37 AM	#18
enfoires Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	As for the protests, I recently received photos of Yemeni protesters with Qat bulges in their cheeks. Dozens of photos of men with bloodshot eyes, qat bulges, shouting about hurria and such. I believe there was a hadith about this: This hadith seems to embody our reality today. One needs only to read and hear what many leaders of the Egyptian activists are saying about Islam, and one can recognize ar Ruwaybidah among us. Democracy presents that people with no knowledge, no morality can rule and determine the affairs if they so choose. Hence, the rise of libertinism as evident by the Guardian magazine and the spread of immorality throughout the world. (This hadith from Baihaqi) It is argued that this hadith pertains to the rulers after the khulafa rashiduun but not those of today. The distinction is that today, the rulers essentially represent kufr overtly or betray their authority as rulers of Muslim lands. Removing them is critical to bringing back Islam into life, as today's rulers and regimes and modern states stand against Islam and are obsticals to the resumption of Islam in life and the true worship of Allah. The Hadith of Ubaadah ibn Saamit. (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) Qadi Iyad said: "If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible”. I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people.
	Quote