[Paiblyelaxy]

Abu Musa narrated – I entered upon the Messenger of Allah with
two men from the bani umaay,so one of the two men said – O
Messenger of Allah appoint me over some of that which Allah made
you responsible for, and the other man also said something similar
So the Prophet replied “I swear by Allah I would not appoint over
this work anyone who asked for it nor anyone who covets it”
(Muslim)

Commentary
a. To seek positions of ruling for the authority they bestow is not the
characteristic of a leader, and hence anyone who has such aspirations
is not suitable for the position.
b. These principles are in contrast to the non-Islamic political bodies
where politics is seen as a profession and a way to make money and
garner power, and hence becomes coveted and competed over
amongst anyone irrespective of their capabilities.

[Encannavalf]

lol that is a very good point

It is said that seeking to be the Caliph may be seen as disqualifiying one from it.

however once a Caliph is in power, even if he came to power by force

so long as he enjoins Islam etc it is forbidden to fight him or disssent

[Ibrattnofich]

Abu Musa narrated – I entered upon the Messenger of Allah with
two men from the bani umaay,so one of the two men said – O
Messenger of Allah appoint me over some of that which Allah made
you responsible for, and the other man also said something similar
So the Prophet replied “I swear by Allah I would not appoint over
this work anyone who asked for it nor anyone who covets it”
(Muslim)

Commentary
a. To seek positions of ruling for the authority they bestow is not the
characteristic of a leader, and hence anyone who has such aspirations
is not suitable for the position.
b. These principles are in contrast to the non-Islamic political bodies
where politics is seen as a profession and a way to make money and
garner power, and hence becomes coveted and competed over
amongst anyone irrespective of their capabilities.

However this is not the reason democracy is not allowed in Islam.

[warrgazur]

However this is not the reason democracy is not allowed in Islam.

One of the reasons, another is obviously because the majority of people can never be the source of law. If the majority think homosexuality is halal it does not become halal. However the people who argue for Islamic democracy claim that a Islamic democracy would only legislate the halal and prohibit the haram.

[animilius]

One of the reasons, another is obviously because the majority of people can never be the source of law. If the majority think homosexuality is halal it does not become halal. However the people who argue for Islamic democracy claim that a Islamic democracy would only legislate the halal and prohibit the haram.

And.. the majority of the people are "dumb" so how can the uneducated people rule the country.. lolz

[famosetroie]

And.. the majority of the people are "dumb" so how can the uneducated people rule the country.. lolz

This is silly . How is Democracy haram ?

[AlexBolduin]

This is silly . How is Democracy haram ?

Democracy is not just haram, it is a system of Kufr. It is haram to implement it in any country because it is not Shariah, in fact it is man-made. Anything which is not Shariah is kufr and is not acceptable. For evidences you may read the books of salaf sualiheen.

[citalopram]

There is no doubt that uncontrolled democracy is Haram. The democracy in which the majority opinion is allowed to do legislation against the rules set by Islam is ofcourse in a head on collision with Islam but what about controlled democracies? A controlled democracy can make it binding upon the elected members constitutionally not to legislate against Islam and if they try to it shall be deemed as unconstitutional by a court of law.

The second form of controlled democracy can be that there shall be a constant council of scholars and the council collectively shall be taken as the head of the state. Under this council a democratically elected assembly is established which can look after the issues of of public welfare and has nothing to do with legislation.

[VYholden]

read this, it will help you to understand the matter better:http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5235D.pdf

[pupyississido]

The second form of controlled democracy can be that there shall be a constant council of scholars and the council collectively shall be taken as the head of the state. Under this council a democratically elected assembly is established which can look after the issues of of public welfare and has nothing to do with legislation.

this is pretty much what the shura (in the upper tier). for the lower tier perhaps one may look at the system in iran. in the lower cadre however what Islamic shariah demands are appointments. in election campaigns of course the first thing sacrificed is calls and promises for actual implementation or enforcement of Islam. people will not vote for a so-called Mullah even if he is on lower tier. elections assumes that people know collectively what is better for them , when in fact they would always , collectively, go towards the easier options rather than the correct ones. unless of course one has a population that is majorly pious.

plus such elections would retain the corrupt civil servants etc in the public service (after many elections in pakistan and many votes they are still there, but with different parties). such elections would also require a near to 80-90 % turnout (which is rare) and also clean fair elections.

then again in Islam the preferred practice has always been appointments and not self-promotion (as in asking to be appointed) which pretty much nullifies candidacy.

(many people who are pro-democracy make the grave error in assuming that in shariah every appointment is a religious scholar when in fact the person can be anyone who is upright (and preferably religious), it is just that the appointment made is by a scholar)

[blodwarttufla]

this is pretty much what the shura (in the upper tier). for the lower tier perhaps one may look at the system in iran. in the lower cadre however what Islamic shariah demands are appointments. in election campaigns of course the first thing sacrificed is calls and promises for actual implementation or enforcement of Islam. people will not vote for a so-called Mullah even if he is on lower tier. elections assumes that people know collectively what is better for them , when in fact they would always , collectively, go towards the easier options rather than the correct ones. unless of course one has a population that is majorly pious.

plus such elections would retain the corrupt civil servants etc in the public service (after many elections in pakistan and many votes they are still there, but with different parties). such elections would also require a near to 80-90 % turnout (which is rare) and also clean fair elections.

then again in Islam the preferred practice has always been appointments and not self-promotion (as in asking to be appointed) which pretty much nullifies candidacy.

(many people who are pro-democracy make the grave error in assuming that in shariah every appointment is a religious scholar when in fact the person can be anyone who is upright (and preferably religious), it is just that the appointment made is by a scholar)

1. Can't the first issue that you mentioned about election and selection be solved through ijtihaad?

2. Though it is much far fetched but possible that if people are Islamically educated , they will vote for the Islamic minded person. Secondly , the council , who shall be the chief legislator can set some rules for the candidates such as they can set a minimum level of Islamic studies , him being a pious God fearing person , his character being good etc as the prerequisites for the candidates before going into the elections.

[UriyVlasov]

1. Can't the first issue that you mentioned about election and selection be solved through ijtihaad?

2. Though it is much far fetched but possible that if people are Islamically educated , they will vote for the Islamic minded person. Secondly , the council , who shall be the chief legislator can set some rules for the candidates such as they can set a minimum level of Islamic studies , him being a pious God fearing person , his character being good etc as the prerequisites for the candidates before going into the elections.

the first issue isn't actually a problem. it is a preferred opinion versus a new thing. so I doubt Ijtihaad is even needed. then again if the Qadhi deems that appropriate because of lack of good options to choose from or too many good options then perhaps that can be accepted.

second thing you mentioned can be done perhaps after 10-15 years of living under shariat. then people might vote for an Islamic minded person. again the chief legislator would eventually have to deem someone worthy of standing for elections based on personal conduct. why can't he just choose the appointment anyway? the need for election here would again arise out of the two situations i mentioned in above paragraphs.

[TamreuddyRada]

second thing you mentioned can be done perhaps after 10-15 years of living under shariat. then people might vote for an Islamic minded person. again the chief legislator would eventually have to deem someone worthy of standing for elections based on personal conduct. why can't he just choose the appointment anyway? the need for election here would again arise out of the two situations i mentioned in above paragraphs.

The need for the election of the member arises because the member shall have to look after the basic welfare requirements of his constituency and if it is left upon the people to decide for the right man , it shall fall under Amruhum Shura Baynahum. Secondly , the council might not be able to select the right person due to the lack of communication with the people of that area and if the member under-performs , the council shall be blamed for his failure.

[Rjvpicux]

The need for the election of the member arises because the member shall have to look after the basic welfare requirements of his constituency and if it is left upon the people to decide for the right man , it shall fall under Amruhum Shura Baynahum. Secondly , the council might not be able to select the right person due to the lack of communication with the people of that area and if the member under-performs , the council shall be blamed for his failure.

i guess i would have to read al ahkam assultaniyyah again which talks about these things in detail. obviously it is not a new problem.

p.s can you reply to me on facebook chat?...it is an important question

[Andromino]

Abu Musa narrated – I entered upon the Messenger of Allah with
two men from the bani umaay,so one of the two men said – O
Messenger of Allah appoint me over some of that which Allah made
you responsible for, and the other man also said something similar
So the Prophet replied “I swear by Allah I would not appoint over
this work anyone who asked for it nor anyone who covets it”
(Muslim)

Commentary
a. To seek positions of ruling for the authority they bestow is not the
characteristic of a leader, and hence anyone who has such aspirations
is not suitable for the position.
b. These principles are in contrast to the non-Islamic political bodies
where politics is seen as a profession and a way to make money and
garner power, and hence becomes coveted and competed over
amongst anyone irrespective of their capabilities.

There could be other reasons against democracy, but this one is simply flawed.

Indeed, seeking power is a lack of humblesness and lack of humility. This is something thats generally understood ethical consideration. Yet if your going to extend this argument to say that somone cannot take part it politics, then by such standards its impossible for humans to even form a civilization. Every job is a "seeking of power" in one way or the other. Politics is similarly a job in service of the people. If the intention of the politician is to serve the community and not merely seeking power, then politics is just like any other job and people have right to be part of politics just as the people have right be seek the ppower of a doctor or engineer or scholar or anything else.

Secondly, 90% of the leaders iin Islamic history would be one who ssought for power. Do we say all of them are haram prohibited governments? What level of prohibition is this hadith about? Is it a personal prohibition like prohibition of having pride? Or is this one that requires public law controlling it ?

Thirdly, how exactly is one man autocratic government free of being subject to this hadith ? How do you say that the autocrat cannot be someome who was seeking for power? How could it be possible that a revolutionery movement wanting to impose a autocratic governement would be free of power seeking, when such revolutions by nature has to have a goal to seek power ?

[Evdokia]

And.. the majority of the people are "dumb" so how can the uneducated people rule the country.. lolz

said as a joke

but essentially very true

just look where unrestrained democracy has taken the West

[rusculture]

QUOTE=warea;811094]There could be other reasons against democracy, but this one is simply flawed.

Indeed, seeking power is a lack of humblesness and lack of humility. This is something thats generally understood ethical consideration. Yet if your going to extend this argument to say that somone cannot take part it politics, then by such standards its impossible for humans to even form a civilization. Every job is a "seeking of power" in one way or the other. Politics is similarly a job in service of the people. If the intention of the politician is to serve the community and not merely seeking power, then politics is just like any other job and people have right to be part of politics just as the people have right be seek the ppower of a doctor or engineer or scholar or anything else. To be a doctor or engineer one is trained and they pass exams then they are selected by their peers who asses their competency, and if they are incompetent this becomes manifest very quickly and they are sacked. Politicians can hide their incompetences and hide their performance, they are not directly accountable to anyone.

Secondly, 90% of the leaders iin Islamic history would be one who ssought for power. Do we say all of them are haram prohibited governments? What level of prohibition is this hadith about? Is it a personal prohibition like prohibition of having pride? Or is this one that requires public law controlling it ? Where do you get the 90% from?

Thirdly, how exactly is one man autocratic government free of being subject to this hadith ? How do you say that the autocrat cannot be someome who was seeking for power? How could it be possible that a revolutionery movement wanting to impose a autocratic governement would be free of power seeking, when such revolutions by nature has to have a goal to seek power Two points...

1) You like most moderns have somehow been educated to believe without any criticism the basic assumption that one man leadership or hereditary leadership is bad and democracy is is good. A democracy, any democracy today (except maybe Iceland after 2008) is ruled by a hidden elite, they own the politicians and they govern the economy...the whole idea that politicians rule is patently false....you just need to study it dispassionately. So democracy is actually rule by a oligarchy and mass elections allow this oligarchy to gain easy control.

2) One man rule needs to be put into context, we are not talking about a nation-state system created by colonial powers which then has a dictator installed....this is totalitarian government. We are talking about one man rule emerging organically within a context of no underlying bureaucracy and control, instead the one man leader is not only a servant of the people, responsible to God, but he is also dependent on his people for his power. He knows that if he commits injustice he will lose his kingdom. His people will love him if he is just and wise. This is too idealistic? fantasy? we need a separation of powers, and state system which prevents one man from coming to power and gaining total control? Well this has not been achieved in any democracy, all modern states are absolutist and give huge power to the government to control the masses in great detail...you cannot even get on a bus or a train without you showing your ID papers.

One man kingdoms that are organic train their people to rule from birth...if they are no good they are easily replaced by another more competent relative or sibling.

Democracies involve expensive and distracting elections every 4 years and the civil servants who govern in the background remain in power for decades regardless of which party rules....please open your eyes and look at what is going on in the democratic countries millions and trillions of dollars are being given from ordinary people to bankers...and tell me the bankers are not in charge.

[Ephejvll]

Abu Zakir and brothers for this thread.

It may only be a semantic distinction, but I argue that the authentic Muslim ruler differs from the democratic ruler in the following way:
in an Islamic society which fulfills the minimal requirements of Islam, the authentic Muslim ruler is first a servant of Allah then a ruler, whereas in a democratic society which represents democracy, the democratic ruler is first a servant of men, then a ruler.

This difference means that the sincere servant of Allah can never be misguided by Allah as a servant to the Most Just, the Author of Justice, the One who commands good and forbids evil. Even if a servant of Allah commits evil, what is Good remains universal and absolute, and such an evil servant still has a path of repentance and return to the Good. And what is Evil remains Evil universally and in absolution such that even if the evil servant rules for 50 years, the distinction between Good and Evil remains, and Allah remains, The Living, The One who Never Sleeps.


In contrast, the democratic ruler is first a servant of men. Men do NOT have the attributes of Allah ().
The servant of men is encumbered by the commands and desires of men be they good or evil. And as is usually the case, evil, corrupt men tend to prevail in advancing their evil in political affairs in short term on account of their willingness to deceive, corrupt, betray, defy laws and regulations and customs. As well, evil men thirst for the material things of this world, making their misguidance easier to accomplish and fulfill.
Hence, the servant of men is more inclined to become the servant of evil men. In a democracy, as men are the sovereign power and the ruler is their servant, men can alter what is good and what is evil so that they become relative, even reversed.

The servant of Allah has a trustworthy Lord and Master.
The servant of men is encumbered with the fickleness and weakness of men.

[jakitula]

To be a doctor or engineer one is trained and they pass exams then they are selected by their peers who asses their competency, and if they are incompetent this becomes manifest very quickly and they are sacked. Politicians can hide their incompetences and hide their performance, they are not directly accountable to anyone.

Politicians are also learnt and trained or in the least have done grass root activism and service to the people and they usually rise from their ranks as such. Its not true that they hide their incompetence or so. And you cant generalize some instances, just as you cant generalize fake doctors or weak educational degrees and standards upon the whole profession of medicine.


Where do you get the 90% from? because competing for kingship is all too common in Islamic history.

Two points...

1) You like most moderns have somehow been educated to believe without any criticism the basic assumption that one man leadership or hereditary leadership is bad and democracy is is good. A democracy, any democracy today (except maybe Iceland after 2008) is ruled by a hidden elite, they own the politicians and they govern the economy...the whole idea that politicians rule is patently false....you just need to study it dispassionately. So democracy is actually rule by a oligarchy and mass elections allow this oligarchy to gain easy control. False. My opinion on democratic system is from the notion that agreement of Muslims to carry out a task is better that one man opinion doing whatever he wants, unless the man is a mujtahid or someone having a status of being a senior wali of Allah by which his opinion are known to be based on sure guidance. And the agreement of Muslims in giving bayah to a leader is better than one man imposing his rule despite the opposition by the vast majority. Imagine you were living in a society where you had to by force give your consent to one particular religious scholar and his opinion, and compare it wit the fact that we give bayah and become part of a jamat based on whose scholarship and opinion we appreciate by our free choice. If this is how we are free in much more important issues of religious matters, then how could depriving this freedom in much more less important civil and non-religious matters somehow be "unsialmic" ?

The "hiiden elite" argument is just conspiracy theories and unnecessary generalizations.



2) One man rule needs to be put into context, we are not talking about a nation-state system created by colonial powers which then has a dictator installed....this is totalitarian government. We are talking about one man rule emerging organically within a context of no underlying bureaucracy and control, instead the one man leader is not only a servant of the people, responsible to God, but he is also dependent on his people for his power. He knows that if he commits injustice he will lose his kingdom. His people will love him if he is just and wise. This is too idealistic? fantasy? No underlying control ? Do you realize that society's are vast more advanced and complex than simple tribal society's with a single tribal elder ?

The rest of what you said is just general comments neither exclusive to autocratic government, nor necessary a part of autocratic government. So no point made there.

we need a separation of powers, and state system which prevents one man from coming to power and gaining total control? Well this has not been achieved in any democracy, all modern states are absolutist and give huge power to the government to control the masses in great detail...you cannot even get on a bus or a train without you showing your ID papers. Not really. False generalizations.

One man kingdoms that are organic train their people to rule from birth...if they are no good they are easily replaced by another more competent relative or sibling. except that the replacement comes with bloodshed and after years of social repressions and destruction.

Democracies involve expensive and distracting elections every 4 years and the civil servants who govern in the background remain in power for decades regardless of which party rules....please open your eyes and look at what is going on in the democratic countries millions and trillions of dollars are being given from ordinary people to bankers...and tell me the bankers are not in charge. The 4 years can be expanded to 8 years or more, whatever is best for Muslim society. Or the election can instead be a mere form of checking whether the people are satisfactory with the government or not, rather than direct elections for replacement. So if a people continue to vote in favor of the government, then competitive elections are not held until such a time when the government looses favor by the determined rate. As i said elsewhere, the core of democracy is in people having a choice in whom their leader is and decisions and powers being shared among the collectivism of the leaders and society. The form and shape of democracy beyond that can be modified and improved based on further Islamic thoughts and do not requires some direct point by point copying of a western system. And i am, as said before, not in favor of any such blind copying of any western system in whole and instead demand a different route from them to keep up with the religious and culture principles of Islamic society at every level.

[yQvpyNt3]

The "hiiden elite" .... is just conspiracy theories and unnecessary generalizations.

unfortunately you are wrong on this, however they are not all that hidden if you can step out of the 'what the mainstream media tells me is always true' mindset.

amongst them are the ones referred to here....


400 super rich Americans control more wealth in the country than 150 million other Americans

Even though a government shutdown was averted – working class people will still be screwed over in America. A new report by Wealth for the Common Good shows that the 400 richest people in America – our nation’s oligarchs – have never had it so good and are paying the lowest taxes ever in their lifetimes.

Those 400 super rich Americans control more wealth in the country than 150 million other Americans, and yet are effectively taxed at a rate of just over 16% while the rest of spay up to 35% plus higher levels of sales, property, and other taxes.

To put that in perspective These 400 rich oligarchs effective tax rate has dropped by more than 2/3 since Dwight Eisenhower's administration – while the rate for working people has nearly doubled.

Rich people get a 2/3 tax cut over the last 50 years – working people get screwed with a 100% tax hike.

To make matters worse – average CEO pay increased dramatically last year – despite an 20% real under- and un-employment rate plaguing the rest of us. And yet – now Congress says they're gonna pass a budget that cuts federal education, health care, and energy assistance programs for working class Americans while doing nothing to make America’s oligarchs pay their fair share or sacrifice even one damn thing.

When families have a lot of money for a long time and political parties rely upon their continued donations to survive then these families become very power - it is as simple as that

- and that is before we even mention the powerful lobby groups and self-serving fraternal organizations and those who benefit from them.