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

**Penisvergroesserung** · 07-12-2011, 06:56 PM

Before I reply, are we in agreement that the ruling system of the Prophet (saw) and the khulafa rashidoon is the proper and intellectually superior model for ruling?

1. Who are you suggesting should legislate on new issues that arise within a country? A benevolent dictatorship? What exactly is your alternative other than the people? Do you believe Allah is going to give us a new prophet every hundred years or so who will definitively address new issues? Of course not, and in that absence, people will differ regarding issues. As such, the consensus of the majority matters. :.

Legislation is for the sovereign, Al Haakim Allah (SWT) alone.
Here is a link to a Usulul Fiqh dars regarding Allah (SWT) as al Hakim, the source of legislation, and how the Aql and the Naql (revelation) come together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBjPx4mnnSc

According to the Islamic ruling system, the ruler titled caliph, sultan, amir, or whichever, receives Bayah, allegiance, from the Muslim people to rule by and implement and lead by the Hukm Sharii.
The ruler is responsible for adopting rulings on various issues. Abu Bakr (rh) adopted several rulings, such as on divorce, which were practiced by the sahaba and Muslim people. But the ruler is wise to avoid adopting on all issues to allow for jurisprudential interpretation ijtihad.
When an issue arises which is new, the ruler is responsible for dealing with it by adopting on the issue, or not adopting on it, depending. The process of doing this is according to Ijithad.
He may choose to have a Fiqh committee address it, or have various scholars do so, or choose to do so himself if he is qualified. But it is NOT open to majority vote in the sense that people who have no knowledge of deen, who are enemies of Islam, can decide on the adoption.

2. As I stated previously, a state could simply adopt a constitution that says no law shall be passed which violates Islamic law (with a clear definition of what is Islamic law). Therefore, if a people try to pass a piece of legislation that contravenes the shariah, the courts could simply strike it down. New issues arise and you can't simply ignore them. Saying "follow the shariah" isn't a real answer, because it assumes that the shariah has specifically addressed the issue before.

Do PEOPLE know what is right and wrong INTRINSIC TO THEMSELVES?
Do you know what is right and wrong simply by observing a matter?

People have NO INTRINSIC POWER TO ORIGINATE RIGHT AND WRONG.
And yet you wish to grant them power to vote on what is right and wrong. Based on what? Their feelings? Their dreams?

Thus, Allah (SWT) said

Translation of Quran 3:3
Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

:
3. The majority of the people matters, because if the majority of the people don't like what the government is doing, they'll simply kick out or kill the leaders. You could try ignoring the majority if you're leading, but you aren't gonna be lasting too long--I can guarantee that .

So the whims of the majority should be obeyed?
If you are speaking of the dynamic between a ruler and the ruled, then the matter of the people's consent is important in some ways, either as legitimatization of the authority of the government, as in a pledge of allegiance. In the Islamic ruling system, the Bayah is the transfer of POWER and authority of the People to the ruler. Whether this happens via a direct general election, or a selection committee, this is the issue of ruling according to Shariah.

But majority rule that votes on each and every law breeds chaos and conflict. This was the original idea of democracy for a select few GREEK men who were empowered to decide day to day laws based on their individual interests. It became indirect when these men chose 'representatives' who decided for them.

Today, select elite men continue to decide laws in democracies by getting representatives elected by fooling the masses of people to support them. Presidents of the USA are largely deemed as employees who do the bidding of the elite and power who got them elected. The idea of Right, Good, Justice are mere slogans to win majority or popular support.

Democracy is a venue for the authoritarianism of a few elite, powerful, and very often wicked men, to determine the affairs of the majority.

And Allah knows best.

07-12-2011, 06:56 PM	#34
Penisvergroesserung Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	Before I reply, are we in agreement that the ruling system of the Prophet (saw) and the khulafa rashidoon is the proper and intellectually superior model for ruling? 1. Who are you suggesting should legislate on new issues that arise within a country? A benevolent dictatorship? What exactly is your alternative other than the people? Do you believe Allah is going to give us a new prophet every hundred years or so who will definitively address new issues? Of course not, and in that absence, people will differ regarding issues. As such, the consensus of the majority matters. :. Legislation is for the sovereign, Al Haakim Allah (SWT) alone. Here is a link to a Usulul Fiqh dars regarding Allah (SWT) as al Hakim, the source of legislation, and how the Aql and the Naql (revelation) come together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBjPx4mnnSc According to the Islamic ruling system, the ruler titled caliph, sultan, amir, or whichever, receives Bayah, allegiance, from the Muslim people to rule by and implement and lead by the Hukm Sharii. The ruler is responsible for adopting rulings on various issues. Abu Bakr (rh) adopted several rulings, such as on divorce, which were practiced by the sahaba and Muslim people. But the ruler is wise to avoid adopting on all issues to allow for jurisprudential interpretation ijtihad. When an issue arises which is new, the ruler is responsible for dealing with it by adopting on the issue, or not adopting on it, depending. The process of doing this is according to Ijithad. He may choose to have a Fiqh committee address it, or have various scholars do so, or choose to do so himself if he is qualified. But it is NOT open to majority vote in the sense that people who have no knowledge of deen, who are enemies of Islam, can decide on the adoption. 2. As I stated previously, a state could simply adopt a constitution that says no law shall be passed which violates Islamic law (with a clear definition of what is Islamic law). Therefore, if a people try to pass a piece of legislation that contravenes the shariah, the courts could simply strike it down. New issues arise and you can't simply ignore them. Saying "follow the shariah" isn't a real answer, because it assumes that the shariah has specifically addressed the issue before. Do PEOPLE know what is right and wrong INTRINSIC TO THEMSELVES? Do you know what is right and wrong simply by observing a matter? People have NO INTRINSIC POWER TO ORIGINATE RIGHT AND WRONG. And yet you wish to grant them power to vote on what is right and wrong. Based on what? Their feelings? Their dreams? Thus, Allah (SWT) said Translation of Quran 3:3 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong). : 3. The majority of the people matters, because if the majority of the people don't like what the government is doing, they'll simply kick out or kill the leaders. You could try ignoring the majority if you're leading, but you aren't gonna be lasting too long--I can guarantee that . So the whims of the majority should be obeyed? If you are speaking of the dynamic between a ruler and the ruled, then the matter of the people's consent is important in some ways, either as legitimatization of the authority of the government, as in a pledge of allegiance. In the Islamic ruling system, the Bayah is the transfer of POWER and authority of the People to the ruler. Whether this happens via a direct general election, or a selection committee, this is the issue of ruling according to Shariah. But majority rule that votes on each and every law breeds chaos and conflict. This was the original idea of democracy for a select few GREEK men who were empowered to decide day to day laws based on their individual interests. It became indirect when these men chose 'representatives' who decided for them. Today, select elite men continue to decide laws in democracies by getting representatives elected by fooling the masses of people to support them. Presidents of the USA are largely deemed as employees who do the bidding of the elite and power who got them elected. The idea of Right, Good, Justice are mere slogans to win majority or popular support. Democracy is a venue for the authoritarianism of a few elite, powerful, and very often wicked men, to determine the affairs of the majority. And Allah knows best.
	Quote