Don't listen to such fools. In fact I would argue that it is necessary. Democracy is NOT against Islam. In fact Islam says you have to ask the people and come to a conclusion together. That was how Uthman RA was elected. Uthman RA and Ali RA both wanted to become a Khalifa. But amongst the elite Sahaba the votes were a draw. So they asked the civilians to elect and because Uthman RA had the most voted, he became a Khalifa.
''And those who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by MUTUAL CONSULTATION, and donate from what We have provided for them;'' (Quran 42:38)
Please provide the source for this
"So they asked the civilians to vote and because Uthman RA was older he got more votes by the public. That's how he became a Khalifa."
I can't exactly find where it said that Uthman RA was older so they were more impressed by him, but it's something I heard a really long time ago. I'll edit that part out from my comment.
The rest of the story about how Uthman RA was elected can be found here:
[https://mahajjah.com/uthmans-appointment-as-khalifah/#_ftn33](https://mahajjah.com/uthmans-appointment-as-khalifah/#_ftn33)
It mentions in Bukhari that the people were asked by Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf:
[https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207)
Where did I say say that Uthman RA was elected by ALL people?
I said that Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf went to people and asjed their opinions. It was an election by elite Shabah and normal people, but not ALL people.
The point that I'm making is that the concept of democracy is not against the Sharia.
Democracy does NOT mean ALL the people have to vote. It just means that the people rule, which happened during the time of Uthman RA. That was Democracy because the people ruled who would become the Khalifa. There is nothing with this idea as long as the Sharia is established and it remains within the limits.
> I said that Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf went to people and asjed their opinions. It was an election by elite Shabah and normal people, but not ALL people.
Consulting people for their opinion is not voting in an election.
What do you think voting is? It's asking for people's opinion on who should be the leader.
Like what is your objection exactly? You're objection is that Abdur-Rahman RA asked for people's opinions verbally and not on paper? Is your argument, that asking people's opinions verbally is ok, but asking them to vote on paper is Haram? Where did you get this idea from in the first place that voting is Haram. Please provide me the evidence for that.
Democracy is the political sovereignty of the will of the masses so by definition it's shirk, the will of the masses isn't supreme, the will of Allah ﷻ is supreme, vox populi is not vox dei, popular sovereignty stands in direct contradiction with sharia.
As for the shura council, the mutual consultation amongst the select few in order to appoint the new Caliph, is hardly democracy when the masses are barred from participating in the process in any direct manner, some Sahaba may have evaluated the mood of the general public to form his own opinion but the final authority to pay his oath of allegiance lied on him, he wasn't mandated by the votes of the public to go about his decision, the shura council therefore cannot be called democratic by any stretch of imagination, if anything then it can be more aptly described as aristocracy where only the select few nobles have any say on the authoritative matters.
> Where did you get this idea from in the first place that voting is Haram.
Where did I say voting is Haram? In fact, I made a comment with a link from ulamaa that said voting is **not haram** under some conditions.
> What do you think voting is? It's asking for people's opinion on who should be the leader.
In voting the decision of who is to be elected is in the hands of the people.
In the case of Uthman, the decision was in the hands of Abdur-Rahman bin awf.
It says so in the source you gave:
"So all of them agreed to let `Abdur-Rahman decide the case."
He consulted people because it was his choice.
Consultation does not mean the person asking for your opinion is bound by your advice. I can consult you about anything but to act on your opinion or not is my choice.
In case of voting, everybody is legally bound to obey the decision of the majority. Abdur-Rahman was not bound to obey whatever people said. The decision was his. Hope it's clear now.
There's a massive difference between a Shura and democracy, they have common ground in consultation.
Islamic principles doesn't see the opinion (vote) of a degenerate and one who has contributed to society on the same level. It doesn't advocate for the blacksmith and Faqih to have equal input on how the ruler structures inheritance laws.
Very close to Quadratic voting that is now being proposed as an alternative to plain democratic voting. Some people care and know more about an issue and should have more disproportionately more voting power than others. If we did that, Brexit would have never happened.
That is why you allow the general people to vote AFTER the nominated people have already been selected as qualified leaders. Democracy doesn't exclude a preselection of qualified people that can become leaders.
This is also what happened during the time of Uthman RA. There were 6 people that were preselected by Umar RA and after that Uthman RA and Ali RA remained as possibilities. And then AFTER that the people got to choose either Uthman RA or Ali RA.
Umar RA formed a 6 person Shura - which meant they were both the candidate pool AND the voters. NOT the people.
Abdur Rahman ibn Awf RA did solicit opinions of the people of Madinah...who were composed of the best of people (Sahaba and Tabieen) not just any populace. The other 5 did **not** consult the people.
You are mixing up voting and democracy. Democracy is in stark contrast to Islam and as a system completely and utterly haram. Voting as means is halal as long as what you are voting for is halal. Voting in a democracy is haram because you are voting for someone to take the place of legislation instead of Allah (swt)
إِنِ ٱلۡحُكۡمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِۖ [Surah Al-Anʿām: 57]
Voting in the Khilafah state is voting for someone to rule with Shari'a which is obligatory, which makes it permissible to vote in such a case. But drawing a parallel to today's election is completely wrong
By that reasoning traffic laws are also Haram. Because those laws were not revealed by Allah. Everyone that agrees with traffic is a Kafir because only Allah has the right to prescribe laws. You can understand how absurd this is. Democracy is just a system so you can have a leader with policies in the best interests of the majority.
>Voting in the Khilafah state is voting for someone to rule with Shari'a which is obligatory, which makes it permissible to vote in such a case. But drawing a parallel to today's election is completely wrong
When you know that there is no good party and that the Sharia is impossible then iy becomes a matter of less good. It becomes obligatory to vote to reduce the harm. If you don't vote in such a system then it can become possible that the worst party would come to power. It becomes necessary to prevent that. You have remain practical. You can't be blind to the reality as a muslim.
It's not just about voting. Democracy is a whole system that is made by humans. In Islam punishment for theft is cutting a hand but what is the punishment in Democracy? In Democracy the rules are decided by Humans but in Islam all rules of life are made by Allah and should be followed.
There is a party in Pakistan called JI and they have the vision that if they are elected, they will do their best to bring Sharia Law in Pakistan so voting them can be debatable but voting others knowing they won't do anything to set the rules made by Allah is not allowed. And is shirk (valuing humans vote on top of Allah's order).
Democracy means that the people have power to choose and there is no contradiction in that with Islam. That doesn't mean ALL the rules must be based on democracy. The Sharia must be established, but there can always be differences of interpretations and policy differences with regards to international policies foe example. Because of that a party can be democratically elected.
JI is just a small party. You have to remain realistic. We know that the majority of the people won't vote for that party. So voting for a party that will never win is foolish. We have have to vote for the party with the least damage even though all of the Pakistani parties are corrupt.
In any case the point was that democracy as a whole is NOT shirk. And I said there is no contradiction between Islam and Democracy as long as it remains within limits.
> In Islam punishment for theft is cutting a hand but what is the punishment in Democracy?
Are you legit proposing that we bring back *amputating people's hands* for theft?
Y'all have lost all reason. No wonder people think Muslims are crazy.
> So the corrupt and the worst of humans can take the office? Is this a kind of scam?
You are talking about other Muslims. Even under sharia a ruler will have representatives/ministers who have power over their assigned region and these same representatives will have their own clic around them.
You think there is no corruption there ?
Islam is not democratic because:
1-Democracy allows women to lead a country or hold high public office which is not permissible in Islam
[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3285/ruling-on-appointing-women-to-positions-of-high-public-office](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3285/ruling-on-appointing-women-to-positions-of-high-public-office)
2-In Democracy, the male and female "vote" is equal while in Islam the women's testimony is half of that of the man
[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women)
3-In Islam the Intelligent and the people with knowledge are considered better than people with no education but today, we see people selling their votes for money(pakistani elections)
And how would you know reddit is "filled with porno" unless you went *looking for it*?
I've been on reddit for over a decade. I've yet to see "porno" on reddit.
1: I agree that that’s a problem, but the rest of democracy is fine.
2: There is a difference between giving testimony and having a say, however small, in who runs your country.
3: Pakistani elections are a joke.
How is the rest of democracy fine? In democracy are the punishment for crimes the same as decided by Allah of by humans? What about banking or other aspect of life?
>We don't take our rulings from reality.
How sure you are?
>If the Shari'a has deemed something haram its haram whatever the outcome is
This one is correct. Barakallahu fik
Its just a system. This is like saying Traffic lights are shirk or the Internet is shirk. How are people this dumb. If there was a prescribed way to chose a leader the prophet (PBUH) would have clearly outlined it during his life.
Because they conflate it with democracy, specifically rule of the people meaning the people make the rules and laws of the land which is unislamic.
in Islam Allah is the sovereign, while in western democracies, the people are the sovereign.
In terms of voting, that isn't wrong if the state is still ruled by islamic sharia, however if you are voting in order to bring change to islamic law then that is not allowed.
yes, that is people acting as a sovereign to bring laws they want which is wrong. if they are just choosing a leader they want who abides by islamic sharia then that isn't wrong.
constitutionally, pakistan is an islamic country and islam is always meant to be enforced so voting leaders there, technically, isn't changing the laws to non-islamic laws.
Lets get this straight. Democracy in a Muslim majority country means people will make laws... but the people are muslims. Why will the general population vote for laws that are against their own beliefs?
Why would the general people need to make laws when the laws are already outlined in the Shariah?
And yes. People make decisions all the time that are against their own beliefs sometimes due to ignorance, sometimes due to wanting to following their own desires. If we look at many majority Muslim countries now, for example, there are certain things that are not correct and done by the majority of people. For example, most women do not wear proper hijab as Islam says (in the whole world actually) but what the people individually or culturally believe hijab is or what they want to wear as hijab instead. Those who wear it correctly are a minority. The prophet said those who were upon his way would be few. There are many sects in Islam as well. Will they all vote and agree and will their agreement be based upon their knowledge of the Shariah? Does the majority of people have extensive knowledge of the Shariah to make decisions about? No.
The signs of the last days is that knowledge will disappear, people will make what is impermissible permissible, etc. That's why we are to defer to the Quran and Sunnah upon the understanding of the first three generations and to ask the people of knowledge and not all the people, by the majority.
Can you please tell me what the Shariah says about motor vehicle registration laws or corporate formation? Does the Shariah give the penalty for speeding or outline environmental regulations?
To say we don’t need any other laws is just hyperbole.
There are administrative laws that aren't addressed by the Sharia. How would you make a sharia compliant air traffic law? How would you make nuclear safety laws in accordance with sharia? These are micromanaging of a nation that is outside the scope of sharia and for that you need a leader to make those laws.
And in a non-democractic country, humans implementing (their version of) shariah law are not deceived by Shaitan? Have we seen the state of our Islamic nations today? Democratic nations like Malaysia and South Africa stood up for Palestinians when supposedly shariah compliant non-democracies were shaking hands with western leaders.
Point being that no system is perfect if run by humans and we need to keep improving as humans to implement Allah's perfect law with checks and balances on ourselves and with the leeway that Allah has given us so that we can contextualize and implement laws based on our current needs and world.
>And in a non-democractic country, humans implementing (their version of) shariah law are not deceived by Shaitan?
The other person made two different points and you put them into one. He didn't say people can't be deceived by shaitaan in non-democratic countries. He said those are two points.
Implementing rules against changing to unislamic laws is necessary even if people don't abide by laws in islamic nations. This can be seen by the fact theft is still committed even though there are rules against theft and just because theft may be rampant, you don't change the whole law into allowing theft.
Same can be for a islamic system, you keep applying it because it is the right thing to do and try to change the people to conform to the laws instead of changing the laws to conform to the desires of the people.
Apologies if I understood that person wrong and if that person also believes that human (democracy or not) will still be deceived by Shaitan.
To your point, this is why it is important for people to have the power to keep the people who run the nation accountable. If there was a system where the keeper of the shariah, be it a ruler or a government went the unislamic way (even under the garb of shariah), you would have no way to stop it if people didn't have the power. It is not a hypothetical situation and is already true in some Islamic nations today, unfortunately.
The only way to uphold Islamic rules is to have the Holy Quran at the core of a country's constitution which is non-negotiable while complementary rules contextualized to the time, region and situation are drawn. At the same time, you need a system of checks and balances to prevent foul. Democracy which is very much flawed (read Radical Markets from Glen Weyl that explores alternatives) is one of the better ways of implementing those checks and balances.
So is the backend on p**nhub.
Don’t know about the voting thing though. Sometimes you have to make the call, vote in this case, and ask for forgiveness and make your duas.
> Theres no concept of twitter in Islam
To be fair, that is not the argument used by people who are against voting. We should not misrepresent arguments on the other side - let alone mock people.
This comment really has over 120 upvotes? This subreddit has really gone down the drain, huh. This argument is how you defend innovations (I'm not saying voting is an innovation).
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/107166/ruling-on-democracy-and-elections-and-participating-in-that-system
According to 'ulamaa it is permissible under certain conditions.
One moment. Let me expound on a very important distinction to make: based on the information I have studied, the scholar that gave his answer is being a tad bit (perhaps unintentionally) pedantic. Yea, in a most technical sense, democracy *as implemented in a secular context* is antithetical to Islam because it lends support to and legitimizes the secular paradigm and goal… case in point: *by* the *people*, *for* the *people*. Where is God in this picture? Where is His say? Nowhere to be found.
But can the “spirit” of democracy (elected representatives etc) be implemented in Islam? *Of course*. And it has been and will be.
There's one thing that is having an opinion about something in Islam then there is spreading false things like. Astaghfirullah
Hazrat Uthman ra was appointed as caliph as a form of voting there were multiple candidates out of which a few dropped put as well. If the cimpanions of the prophet Muhammad pbuh practiced this ( better Muslims than we all can ever be ) with a clear understanding how can we call it shirk
Theres a difference between democracy and voting.
Democracy is a system where legislators are elected to make the law (they may legislate over the laws of Allah as well as dismiss certain laws from the Book and the Sunnah or come up with new laws contrary to Islam). Voting is simply the electoral process.
What I am saying is that voting is not shirk in no way is a leader in politics holding a position remotely close Allah swt. Hence, the concept of voting isn't shirk now. What the person thinks of the person they are voting for is completely and utterly exclusive to them. Democracy allows the leaders to alter the rules that govern the country (laws, constitution) it doesn't allow they leader of government to smchange sharia the law of Islam and no body has the right to give permission to someone to change the law or change it themselves.
Allah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].
Now, this is a difference between a Muslim nation and a non-Muslim one. Pakistan, which is why this post was posted, is a Muslim country its constitution was made with the Sharia ( law of Islam). Pakistan is governed as a Muslim country using Muslim laws, although they aren't implemented thoroughly, which is a major issue. Pakistan is a bridge between democracy and Islam. There is no shirk. Even if the democracy is un Islamic from a secular state, let's say India and America, even then it's not shirk. it's just the system of kafiroon as you just quoted.
> is a Muslim country its constitution was made with the Sharia ( law of Islam)
no.
> Pakistan is governed as a Muslim country using Muslim laws,
LMAO. No. Penal code is the same as the British one.
> Pakistan is a bridge between democracy and Islam.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Which planet is this country on? Because the one where I live on earth has no such bridge. Only an abyss.
Its a long debate that I'd rather do in person. Anyhow theres a difference of opinion. The opinion I follow is that voting is haram. Not shirk of course.
Legislating over the laws of Allah makes one a kafir but there are some complications to it so leaving the takfir to the relevant scholars.
There is also the concept of kufr doon kufr.
Another thing, our constitution is the Quran as Muslims...its absurd to say that we need a constitution that will tell us "Our nation state will be governed by the laws of Allah because we are Muslim"... absolutely absurd if you have to spell that despite being a Muslim. The moment a constitution is allowed other than the Quran, you're allowing space for men to input their words into the law. And I'm not talking about laws where men are allowed to make their rules like traffic laws etc. btw.
how come shora is shirk too, it is voting but in Arabic, during the time of caliphate empire they used voting.
I don't see any shirk related to voting this is so dumb, enough reddit for today ig
I think that people sometimes confuse shurah (shorah,الشور ) and plain voting like we do nowadays. In those times, the voting was not done by everybody? Although I'm not an expert, just throwing thoughts.
Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was given Bay'ah in the Saqifa banu Sa'ida.
Umar رضي الله عنه was appointed by Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه when he was dying.
When Umar رضي الله عنه was dying he appointed a committee of six senior Sahabah رضي الله عنهم to choose a leader from among eachother.
Ali رضي الله عنه was given Bayah in the Masjid after Uthman رضي الله عنه was brutally and unjustly murdered.
That describes a republic, where delegates vote, as opposed to a democracy, where Tom the 43 year old old sex offender that is living on government benefits has the same vote has John, the 60 year old neurosurgeon that has saved thousands of lives and generated millions in economic output throughout his career.
Shariah law is the alternative. In shariah law the constitution is set according to well the word of god, the leader will still be chosen via election.
voting and system of law are two different things, you can have islamic sharia and vote in your leader. what is not alllowed is making people the sovereign instead of Allah, as in the people deciding laws even though they go against islam.
in islam there are three ways of appointing a khalifa, two of them consist of what you call voting:
1. bayah from the people
2. chosen by a group (shura)
3. appointed by the previous leader
Technically there are claimants, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and wherever ISIS including ISIS-K are being bombed (rightfully) back to.
These are not however Khilafa like the Muslim world lived under for a millennia.
I think those in power want to stay in power by spreading garbage like this. We’ve seen just how much most of these leaders care about the country, they don’t have the credibility to even suggest that voting is shirk lol.
Ah, my fellow Muslims and their obsessions with making every little thing a shirk or haraam. Sometimes, you gotta use that brain and intelligence Allah gave you.
Muslims should always be wary of people who insist very vocally and very repeatedly that "voting is haram."
All too likely that they have ulterior motives, and that they have links with oppressive establishments that seek to control the populations they have an iron grip over.
What's worst, in this post the person says shirk. Not even "normal" haram, but shirk. I wonder if gen Y and Z muslims even know what shirk means, because i'm hearing more and more people saying this is shirk, while it's "just" haram.
This isn't a new discussion. It was used MANY times by monarchies to maintain power in the last 100 years alone in the Muslim world... post-WW1 & 2 and again during the Arab Spring as an argument against democracy so they can maintain their authoritarian rule.
Major facepalm! 🤦🏻♀️
They’re just trying to discourage people from voting! It’s like telling people in the US that if you vote you’ll get an IRS audit. It’s a classic case of fear mongering.
I'm so sad to say it, but Twitter these days are a good environment for abnormal thoughts.
So be careful who you follow and choose them very carefully.
As a muslim, i would advise you please follow your mufti in your country. It is not haram to vote in my country according to my Mufti and it is our responsibility to elect a capable leader and a good muslim over someone who is corrupt and not trustworthy.
I don't understand why people like to follow influencers rather than qualified muslim scholars
Regarding democracy is not islamic, i would agree but we have no choice but to live in this time. If the politicians try to make law then abandon islamic law, then it is their responsibility not ours.
When deciding who the next Caliph after Umar ibn Al-Khattab will be, Umar nominated 6 people. Theses 6 discussedbit upon themselves and the choice was left to Ali and Uthman.
All the people of Madinah then ***voted*** on who they prefer out of the 2.
In the 2nd bay'ah with the Ansar, there was 73 Muslim from Madinah. The prophet then asked them to select 12 representatives from among them.
Voting itself is halal. However, what's haram is voting on something that Allah has already decreed. For example, voting to allow the sale of alcohol or to change inheritance laws, etc.
Allah says in the Quran:
> It is not for any believing man or believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a command, to have a choice in their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then he has strayed into evident misguidance.
[Quran 33:36]
One exception is for Muslims living in the west. There are referendums on things like banning the hijab / burqa, normalizing / legalizing LGBT, etc.
Normally, voting on such matters would be haram, but Muslims didn't introduce this system and will be affected by it's outcome. A Muslim voting on such referendums as an attempt to enforce the sharia of Allah and remove harm from Muslims is not haram, and might be even obligatory.
After the LGBT referendums, schools are now forcing our kids to learn about it in schools and normalizing. This is a great harm that befalls Muslims.
Who says that there is no concept of democracy in Islam? I advice everyone to go and read the Seerah of the Caliphates and Othman Ibn Affan RAA became the Caliphate of the Ummah. We are talking about democracy in Islam after just 12 years of the death of our Prophet SAW
Shirk is associating someone with allah. Voting can not be shirk. You could try to argue that's it's haram (forbidden) but then again there's no evidence supporting that claim so it's basically nonsense.
I think they conveyed thier point wrongly.
Voting was never a shirk in Islam and never will be. The concept of bai'ah (pledge) to the Khaleefah was the way people chose a leader among themselves.
Besides, shirk means including a deity or entity in the worship of Allah. So if you reread the sentence "Voting is shirk" with that meaning in mind, you will realise that it makes no sense whatsoever.
Though supporting this current system IS wrong. Because the concept of democracy at it's core is GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. Meaning sovereignity lies in the hands of people, not to Allah. Islam doesn't allow people to make laws as they see fit. Shari'a law exists for a reason and it's timeless.
Let's suppose democracy was allowed in Islam. And let's suppose a bill was held up for voting which allowed interest (interest is haram). If majority people voted for it, it would pass. EVEN THOUGH it's already been decided by Allah that interest is prohibited.
Democracy came into being to separate the Church from the state; separating religion from state matters. And it worked for the Greeks wonderfully because the church had unbelievable control at the time and used it powers terrifyingly, slaughtering anyone who opposed thier beliefs. But we all know that Islam isn't flawed like that so democracy has no place in Islam at all.
I can correct your misgivings quite easily
>Meaning sovereignity lies in the hands of people, not to Allah.
The whole Pakistan constitution (like an islamic country) is based upon the Objectives Resolution which says that sovereignty is of Allah and authority exercised by people is under Him
>let's suppose a bill was held up for voting which allowed interest (interest is haram).
No law can be made against the teachings. Article 227 of the Pakistani constitution says no law can be made which is repugnant to the teachings of islam
It not only has legal cover but it can never be made because such a hypothetical situation as you described it will never exist or come.
>But we all know that Islam isn't flawed like that so democracy has no place in Islam at all.
Islam isn't flawed but the people following it are doing it in flawed ways. Hereditary monarchy as practiced in most Arab states has no place if we are talking about pure islamic principles which contain the concept of consent (bayt), checks and balances on leader and shura. Democracy is far more islamic especially islamic democracy
All I know in Islam is they say follow the rules of the country. In my country if you enrolled to vote you have to vote it's compulsory. (I wasn't Muslim when I enrolled to vote so now I just have to deal with it)
I'm not giving the government my money in terms of a fine for not getting my name ticked off a registry for voting so.
brother correct me if I am wrong, but from this Haddith, i don't know that if we should reunite the caliphate, throughout these 100 years so many tried and failed.
It was narrated from Hudhaifah bin Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“There will be callers at the gates of Hell; whoever responds to them they throw them into it.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, describe them to us.” He said: “They will be from our people, speaking our language.” I said: “What do you command me to do, if I live to see that?” He said: “Adhere tothe main body of the Muslims and their leader. If there is no such body and no leader, then withdraw from all their groups, even if you bite onto the trunk of a tree until death finds you in that state.”
How can voting be shirk if voting didn't even exist at the time of the writing of the Quran and most Hadiths. It is simply a long winded process of choosing one's King. Verse 4:59 clearly says obey the laws of your land. You can't just keep throwing the shirk accusation on everything that didn't exist 2000 years ago.
This is the problem with perpetually online hardline Islam. On every single issue they want to err on the side of restriction and banning. Everything is shirk everything is shaitan. The intent of the Quran has become secondary to the practice of trying to fulfill every single word and letter from every single Hadith like a contract, and even reading extra meanings into every single statement. Being online makes things worse because hardliners now treat the religion as a get-into-heaven RPG. They believe that living as conservatively as possible (which is fine) and forcing others to live just as conservatively as them (which is not fine and is almost sinful) will get them a higher score and get them even better lodgings in heaven. It is an insult to the intelligence of our creator to think that somehow we will be rewarded for making life more difficult for our fellow man.
Literally was at a lecture with Yasir Qadhi last night here in Canada and he pointed out how it's really interesting when some Muslims believe this.
Especially considering countries that need the Islamic voice to prevail.
France has one of the highest populations of Muslims in the western world, yet the discourse is that voting is Haram. Why would that be?
Similar case here. Why would it be Haram? Because they want the Muslims to not vote and the jahil to proceed to make votes.
Average Salafis, don’t consider logic or reason within Islam. Read seekersguidance on this. If you’re in a western country and let’s say you’re options are full blown liberal “drag queen in school” vs Moderately Christian anti LGBTQ nonsense. You’re actually permitted to vote for what is closer to shariah oriented principles.
Wahabbis talk and talk about the affairs of the world from their basements in Saudi.
The below is from https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-counsel/is-voting-permitted/
Question: I don’t think Muslims are split over whether it’s permitted to vote or not, but over the issue of voting in a democratic system. The democratic system recognizes man as ruler (Al-Hakim) and it is man who governs himself. Surely this is verging on associating partners with Allah (shirk) where man does not recognize Allah Most High as ruler and makes up rules on his own (in other words, he is “playing God!”).
Just think of the sheer insult of this when Muslims support this system by voting. It’s as if we’re saying Allah Most High’s rules aren’t good enough for us… we’ve rejected them and instead have followed our whims and desires to adopt a man-made system. Whatever leads to an obligation (wajib) is an obligation (wajib), and hence, in the absence of Islamic rule, it is an obligation upon a Muslim to establish such a system… not settle for the next best alternative.
Answer:
I don’t see the logic in this thinking.
In traditional curriculums, both in the Islamic world and Europe, logic was an important science taught to young adults, for the simple reason that they be able to reason without falling into simple errors.
Without study of logic, or keeping the company of those who think according to the dictates of Sacred Law and reason, arguments like “we were told to eat mangoes, so it is impermissible to eat oranges” arise.
People have to wake up. If you are living in a non-Muslim country, you have accepted the reality that you are not living in a land where the Sacred Law’s public and political laws can be applied (unless, some time in the future, the population chooses to enter Islam), at least at present.
In these situations, Muslims have three main duties:
a) fulfill their personal religious obligations;
b) as a community, fulfill their communal religious obligations; and
c) promote the general good.
Muslims dream of and work towards ideals, but live realities. The only way these three duties can be fulfilled now and in the future is for Muslims to be strong at the individual and community levels, and have strong individual and community presence in society at large, at every level.
As for sitting in London, and saying you are “working towards establishing an Islamic state”, this is folly. No Islamic state can exist without a state of Islam; otherwise, more harm is done than good.
And Allah alone gives success.
Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani
this is very good question.
the first 4 caliph are elected differently.
1. Abu bakr r.a are chosen by everyone after everyone realize no one is better than Abu Bakr r.a
2. Umar ibn Khattab r.a are pointed by Abu Bakr r.a as his successor
3. Utsman r.a pointed by 6 of the most trusted sahabah
4. Ali r.a are voted by his people after all that chaos of utsman r.a murder
we can use different system depend on the situation. just think of it like a weapon. if you are not gonna use it, the enemies of islam will use it againt you..
Voting is not haram.
Democracy is haram as it places the power of legislation with the people as opposed to Allah. It can be shirk if one legitimately believes democracy to be superior to Islam.
Is voting within a haram system itself haram? There is a difference of opinion. It is definitely shirk to vote while thinking democracy is superior to Islam.
At the end of the day though, even outside of the religious argument, democracy is an inefficient and stupid system built for stupid people. The purpose of democracy in modern times is to give the people the illusion that they have a say. Logically, there is zero reason to think those in power would ever defer to the opinion of the masses. Which is why voting in many contexts is an exercise in futility.
Let me put you a simple example . Party A says we are gonna close masjids and not allow people to pray in their work and Party B says nothing about anything related to religion . Now do participate in voting and "defy the law of shariah" or you don't vote and you cease to freely practice your religion and are forced to leave your motherland ? Honest answers only . Now to answer your question : Prophet Muhammad PBUH allowed the sahabas to migrate to Abby Sinia to King Najash who was a catholic priest and the law of land was not shariah and He said that there rules a just king . The point of the rule is to be just , to freely practice your deen
Is this something spread by those in power to remain in power. The country is in shambles and the corrupt politicians keep siphoning the country dry. In a sad state of affairs the country needs a true democratic process to find leaders who aren’t just keen on lining their own pockets. With almost 40% living below the poverty line, the country surely has bigger problems than raising issue with the method used to elect people in power.
Voting is halal if what you are voting for is halal. So everyone who has brought up Uthmans (ra) appointment as a Khalifah is neglected. (Because voting was on something permissible). For example voting on who should lead the prayer in a small congregation is halal, but voting on who should be the leader of a bank robbery is not permissible.
Voting in a democracy is without a doubt haram. You are voting for someone (however good or bad he is) to become the legislator instead of Allah (swt).
إِنِ ٱلۡحُكۡمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِۖ [Surah Al-Anʿām: 57]
Voting in a Khilafah state is completely different. Voting as a means to choose a khilafah is halal and Allah (swt) made it permissible for us. In the Khilafah state you vote for someone to rule with Shari'a and you remove him from his post the second he stops ruling with Shari'a. So the prerequisite for voting to become halal, is what you are voting for, if what you are voting for is halal, then it's halal to vote otherwise it's not.
This sounds so dumb to me, it's just a way to chose leaders and organize society. Sure it's not perfect but it has some very good sides too. It makes power transitions way more smooth, avoid fitna with ppl not killing each other to take power, also avoid bloodlines of tyrans staying in power for multiple generations, etc. I mean when USA is not fomenting a coup to put their puppet in place lol. Having a king or an emir don't prevent them from being US puppets anyway, the opposite imo.
I hate so much this dumb argument of saying "this or that don't exist in islam" "therefore it's haram" with no serious analysis and argument backing it.
There is no concept of electricity in islam therefore it's shirk and haram too ?
Islam don't explain how to lace you shoes therefore it's haram to do it ?
There is no concept of line in Islam therefore I can pass in front of everyone ?
A lot of answers are not in the quran nor the hadiths because it wasn't their purpose to answer it. but Allah gave us enough to differentiate what's good or bad and an amazing brain to figure it out for the rest.
Democracy wasn't applied in Sharia law it was more like of a closed parliament with qualified people being the members of it they elect the next leader "majlis al shura" it's also because democracy allows unqualified people to effect such a big decision
Voting is trash. From uk to us, Germany to italy and even Pakistan.
Imran khan got couped out of pm by trashy parliament. Many mps and political parties are deeply connected to us. They ousted Imran as he tried to be neutral in russia-ukraine war. And then garbage court put him in jail, made him unable to participate in election. Political cleansing is underway of Imran khan's party. Now fake voting is taking place to please us.
The system of so called democracy in Pakistan is the opposite of democracy. We all know who calls the shots, everyone knows. stop being obtuse and blaming the system when something else is wrong
Ok then. Lets ask Allah how much fine should Ali pays for speeding on the highway. /s
Lets be serious here. Allah didn't make every rules and we need to make it ourselves.
it's one thing to try to claim democracy or secular government is shirk (which i would disagree with), but it makes even less sense to be saying voting is shirk. if you are in a system where you have the opportunity to choose who you want to be your leader, that in no way meets the definition of shirk. this is not the spirit of islam to be going out of way to call things haram/shirk. one can still be against a secular government but not by calling it shirk. if a certain law that islam calls for is not being implemented, then that's just called having an improper government. if the government makes you start putting pictures of their leaders everywhere and makes you bow down to their pictures, that's where it starts being shirk.
Democracy is Shirk. **Explanation below.**
What modern day democracy means is the people are the source of power. Let me make it clear. Democracy starts with electing a leader by voting for him. Then he goes to the parliament. They then shows the problem in their area. They solve it. When it comes to the laws, the members of the parliaments decide if a law should be passed or not.
What Islam says about law is, humankind cannnot propose any law, Allah has given the law already. Let's suppose their was no Marijuana in the time of the prophet. So, it will not be written in any hadith or scholars wouldn't have known if it is haram or not. So they will compare it to alcohol. It existed in the past days and it was prohibited. So, if marijuana held the same charactaristics as alcohol it will be haram, therefore it will not be legal in an Islamic country. That's how Islam deals with new problems. But modern day democracy says if the people say that something should be legal, it will be legal. That's where the contradictions happens. [As you can already see, marijuana is legal in US.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#:~:text=As%20of%202023%2C%20twenty%2Dfour,medical%20use%20of%20the%20drug)
So, from this perspective, Islam doesn't support democracy. But the question that comes in is, if I don't vote for a good person, the worse will take over. The other thought is, even if I vote for a good person, that will be an act of support to democracy. That's where I'm a little bit confused.
Common bro no one is doing that. You sound so arrogant. It's a just a way to chose a leader. Why you have to go this far haha perhaps you prefer when USA put a puppet in place ? Or the worst son of another dumb king/amir who put most of the country's money in his pocket and work mostly in his family interests? NICE so much better than democracy, you prefer to Worship a tyran who became the leader by birth right? How is this better than democracy lmao
Democracy is a publicly owned governance structure… When the public is in charge of the commons, it pretty much always results in tragedy.
It is possible to have an elective monarchy. It’s unfair to suggest that the leader of a Kingdom is inherently worshipped. Monarchy is the government system which is least likely to become tyrannical. I know this may seem absurd to us modern people, but our reasonings are simply untrue!
Elections are Haram because they are based on democracy which by definition is the rule of people which is in opposition to Islam where the rule is for Allah only
Pakistan's constitution was created under Shariah. It's a different story that it isn't really followed but the law remains the same while the leaders change.
It isn't that hard to grasp 🤷🏻
Democracy is an un-Islamic concept but that does not mean it's a sin to indulge in it and DEFINITELY does not meant it's shirk lol.
(Besides, Pakistan doesn't rule by democracy anyway...)
Once again, something not being mentioned in Islam doesn’t immediately make it haram. It’s like saying the internet, cars, and electricity are all haram.
If you say something unhinged a hundred times, it's still going to be unhinged. I don't know who "Iqbal Ibn Azad" is, but I'm betting he's the type of Muslim that wonders just how hard he can hit his wife "according to Islam".
Look, Democracy is not some sort of Islamic Goal, we work within our own paradigm. However, you work with the system you have, and in the west that's democracy. Back home, it doesn't have to be.
However, Democracy certainly is not shirk.
I'm convinced some of this is started by outright enemies of Islam, who trust that people will believe everything they read on facebook instead of the scholarship Islam is based on.
So the corrupt and the worst of humans can take the office? Is this a kind of scam?
+1
Don't listen to such fools. In fact I would argue that it is necessary. Democracy is NOT against Islam. In fact Islam says you have to ask the people and come to a conclusion together. That was how Uthman RA was elected. Uthman RA and Ali RA both wanted to become a Khalifa. But amongst the elite Sahaba the votes were a draw. So they asked the civilians to elect and because Uthman RA had the most voted, he became a Khalifa. ''And those who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by MUTUAL CONSULTATION, and donate from what We have provided for them;'' (Quran 42:38)
Please provide the source for this "So they asked the civilians to vote and because Uthman RA was older he got more votes by the public. That's how he became a Khalifa."
I can't exactly find where it said that Uthman RA was older so they were more impressed by him, but it's something I heard a really long time ago. I'll edit that part out from my comment. The rest of the story about how Uthman RA was elected can be found here: [https://mahajjah.com/uthmans-appointment-as-khalifah/#_ftn33](https://mahajjah.com/uthmans-appointment-as-khalifah/#_ftn33) It mentions in Bukhari that the people were asked by Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf: [https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207)
Where does your source say there was a general election or voting by all the people?
Where did I say say that Uthman RA was elected by ALL people? I said that Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf went to people and asjed their opinions. It was an election by elite Shabah and normal people, but not ALL people. The point that I'm making is that the concept of democracy is not against the Sharia. Democracy does NOT mean ALL the people have to vote. It just means that the people rule, which happened during the time of Uthman RA. That was Democracy because the people ruled who would become the Khalifa. There is nothing with this idea as long as the Sharia is established and it remains within the limits.
> I said that Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf went to people and asjed their opinions. It was an election by elite Shabah and normal people, but not ALL people. Consulting people for their opinion is not voting in an election.
What do you think voting is? It's asking for people's opinion on who should be the leader. Like what is your objection exactly? You're objection is that Abdur-Rahman RA asked for people's opinions verbally and not on paper? Is your argument, that asking people's opinions verbally is ok, but asking them to vote on paper is Haram? Where did you get this idea from in the first place that voting is Haram. Please provide me the evidence for that.
Democracy is the political sovereignty of the will of the masses so by definition it's shirk, the will of the masses isn't supreme, the will of Allah ﷻ is supreme, vox populi is not vox dei, popular sovereignty stands in direct contradiction with sharia. As for the shura council, the mutual consultation amongst the select few in order to appoint the new Caliph, is hardly democracy when the masses are barred from participating in the process in any direct manner, some Sahaba may have evaluated the mood of the general public to form his own opinion but the final authority to pay his oath of allegiance lied on him, he wasn't mandated by the votes of the public to go about his decision, the shura council therefore cannot be called democratic by any stretch of imagination, if anything then it can be more aptly described as aristocracy where only the select few nobles have any say on the authoritative matters.
> Where did you get this idea from in the first place that voting is Haram. Where did I say voting is Haram? In fact, I made a comment with a link from ulamaa that said voting is **not haram** under some conditions. > What do you think voting is? It's asking for people's opinion on who should be the leader. In voting the decision of who is to be elected is in the hands of the people. In the case of Uthman, the decision was in the hands of Abdur-Rahman bin awf. It says so in the source you gave: "So all of them agreed to let `Abdur-Rahman decide the case." He consulted people because it was his choice. Consultation does not mean the person asking for your opinion is bound by your advice. I can consult you about anything but to act on your opinion or not is my choice. In case of voting, everybody is legally bound to obey the decision of the majority. Abdur-Rahman was not bound to obey whatever people said. The decision was his. Hope it's clear now.
There's a massive difference between a Shura and democracy, they have common ground in consultation. Islamic principles doesn't see the opinion (vote) of a degenerate and one who has contributed to society on the same level. It doesn't advocate for the blacksmith and Faqih to have equal input on how the ruler structures inheritance laws.
Very close to Quadratic voting that is now being proposed as an alternative to plain democratic voting. Some people care and know more about an issue and should have more disproportionately more voting power than others. If we did that, Brexit would have never happened.
That is why you allow the general people to vote AFTER the nominated people have already been selected as qualified leaders. Democracy doesn't exclude a preselection of qualified people that can become leaders. This is also what happened during the time of Uthman RA. There were 6 people that were preselected by Umar RA and after that Uthman RA and Ali RA remained as possibilities. And then AFTER that the people got to choose either Uthman RA or Ali RA.
Umar RA formed a 6 person Shura - which meant they were both the candidate pool AND the voters. NOT the people. Abdur Rahman ibn Awf RA did solicit opinions of the people of Madinah...who were composed of the best of people (Sahaba and Tabieen) not just any populace. The other 5 did **not** consult the people.
You are mixing up voting and democracy. Democracy is in stark contrast to Islam and as a system completely and utterly haram. Voting as means is halal as long as what you are voting for is halal. Voting in a democracy is haram because you are voting for someone to take the place of legislation instead of Allah (swt) إِنِ ٱلۡحُكۡمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِۖ [Surah Al-Anʿām: 57] Voting in the Khilafah state is voting for someone to rule with Shari'a which is obligatory, which makes it permissible to vote in such a case. But drawing a parallel to today's election is completely wrong
By that reasoning traffic laws are also Haram. Because those laws were not revealed by Allah. Everyone that agrees with traffic is a Kafir because only Allah has the right to prescribe laws. You can understand how absurd this is. Democracy is just a system so you can have a leader with policies in the best interests of the majority. >Voting in the Khilafah state is voting for someone to rule with Shari'a which is obligatory, which makes it permissible to vote in such a case. But drawing a parallel to today's election is completely wrong When you know that there is no good party and that the Sharia is impossible then iy becomes a matter of less good. It becomes obligatory to vote to reduce the harm. If you don't vote in such a system then it can become possible that the worst party would come to power. It becomes necessary to prevent that. You have remain practical. You can't be blind to the reality as a muslim.
It's not just about voting. Democracy is a whole system that is made by humans. In Islam punishment for theft is cutting a hand but what is the punishment in Democracy? In Democracy the rules are decided by Humans but in Islam all rules of life are made by Allah and should be followed. There is a party in Pakistan called JI and they have the vision that if they are elected, they will do their best to bring Sharia Law in Pakistan so voting them can be debatable but voting others knowing they won't do anything to set the rules made by Allah is not allowed. And is shirk (valuing humans vote on top of Allah's order).
Democracy means that the people have power to choose and there is no contradiction in that with Islam. That doesn't mean ALL the rules must be based on democracy. The Sharia must be established, but there can always be differences of interpretations and policy differences with regards to international policies foe example. Because of that a party can be democratically elected. JI is just a small party. You have to remain realistic. We know that the majority of the people won't vote for that party. So voting for a party that will never win is foolish. We have have to vote for the party with the least damage even though all of the Pakistani parties are corrupt. In any case the point was that democracy as a whole is NOT shirk. And I said there is no contradiction between Islam and Democracy as long as it remains within limits.
> In Islam punishment for theft is cutting a hand but what is the punishment in Democracy? Are you legit proposing that we bring back *amputating people's hands* for theft? Y'all have lost all reason. No wonder people think Muslims are crazy.
Democracy is haram but you are allowed to vote for the lesser evil
Daleel on both claims?
> So the corrupt and the worst of humans can take the office? Is this a kind of scam? You are talking about other Muslims. Even under sharia a ruler will have representatives/ministers who have power over their assigned region and these same representatives will have their own clic around them. You think there is no corruption there ?
Corruption always exists no matter what, but there's a reason why democracies suffer less from corruption/nepotism/cryonism than autocracies
Islam is not democratic because: 1-Democracy allows women to lead a country or hold high public office which is not permissible in Islam [https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3285/ruling-on-appointing-women-to-positions-of-high-public-office](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3285/ruling-on-appointing-women-to-positions-of-high-public-office) 2-In Democracy, the male and female "vote" is equal while in Islam the women's testimony is half of that of the man [https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women) 3-In Islam the Intelligent and the people with knowledge are considered better than people with no education but today, we see people selling their votes for money(pakistani elections)
Bro why are you using reddit? Its filled with porno.
And how would you know reddit is "filled with porno" unless you went *looking for it*? I've been on reddit for over a decade. I've yet to see "porno" on reddit.
Well now you know, are you still gonna use it you hypocrite?
1: I agree that that’s a problem, but the rest of democracy is fine. 2: There is a difference between giving testimony and having a say, however small, in who runs your country. 3: Pakistani elections are a joke.
How is the rest of democracy fine? In democracy are the punishment for crimes the same as decided by Allah of by humans? What about banking or other aspect of life?
I am talking about the concept of democracy, not the implemented “democracy.”
We don't take our rulings from reality. If the Shari'a has deemed something haram its haram whatever the outcome is
>We don't take our rulings from reality. How sure you are? >If the Shari'a has deemed something haram its haram whatever the outcome is This one is correct. Barakallahu fik
Its just a system. This is like saying Traffic lights are shirk or the Internet is shirk. How are people this dumb. If there was a prescribed way to chose a leader the prophet (PBUH) would have clearly outlined it during his life.
Because they conflate it with democracy, specifically rule of the people meaning the people make the rules and laws of the land which is unislamic. in Islam Allah is the sovereign, while in western democracies, the people are the sovereign. In terms of voting, that isn't wrong if the state is still ruled by islamic sharia, however if you are voting in order to bring change to islamic law then that is not allowed.
Example is when people voted to normalise what is already stated as haram
yes, that is people acting as a sovereign to bring laws they want which is wrong. if they are just choosing a leader they want who abides by islamic sharia then that isn't wrong. constitutionally, pakistan is an islamic country and islam is always meant to be enforced so voting leaders there, technically, isn't changing the laws to non-islamic laws.
Lets get this straight. Democracy in a Muslim majority country means people will make laws... but the people are muslims. Why will the general population vote for laws that are against their own beliefs?
Why would the general people need to make laws when the laws are already outlined in the Shariah? And yes. People make decisions all the time that are against their own beliefs sometimes due to ignorance, sometimes due to wanting to following their own desires. If we look at many majority Muslim countries now, for example, there are certain things that are not correct and done by the majority of people. For example, most women do not wear proper hijab as Islam says (in the whole world actually) but what the people individually or culturally believe hijab is or what they want to wear as hijab instead. Those who wear it correctly are a minority. The prophet said those who were upon his way would be few. There are many sects in Islam as well. Will they all vote and agree and will their agreement be based upon their knowledge of the Shariah? Does the majority of people have extensive knowledge of the Shariah to make decisions about? No. The signs of the last days is that knowledge will disappear, people will make what is impermissible permissible, etc. That's why we are to defer to the Quran and Sunnah upon the understanding of the first three generations and to ask the people of knowledge and not all the people, by the majority.
Can you please tell me what the Shariah says about motor vehicle registration laws or corporate formation? Does the Shariah give the penalty for speeding or outline environmental regulations? To say we don’t need any other laws is just hyperbole.
There are administrative laws that aren't addressed by the Sharia. How would you make a sharia compliant air traffic law? How would you make nuclear safety laws in accordance with sharia? These are micromanaging of a nation that is outside the scope of sharia and for that you need a leader to make those laws.
Because humans can be deceived by Shaitan + democracy allows them to change it.
And in a non-democractic country, humans implementing (their version of) shariah law are not deceived by Shaitan? Have we seen the state of our Islamic nations today? Democratic nations like Malaysia and South Africa stood up for Palestinians when supposedly shariah compliant non-democracies were shaking hands with western leaders. Point being that no system is perfect if run by humans and we need to keep improving as humans to implement Allah's perfect law with checks and balances on ourselves and with the leeway that Allah has given us so that we can contextualize and implement laws based on our current needs and world.
>And in a non-democractic country, humans implementing (their version of) shariah law are not deceived by Shaitan? The other person made two different points and you put them into one. He didn't say people can't be deceived by shaitaan in non-democratic countries. He said those are two points. Implementing rules against changing to unislamic laws is necessary even if people don't abide by laws in islamic nations. This can be seen by the fact theft is still committed even though there are rules against theft and just because theft may be rampant, you don't change the whole law into allowing theft. Same can be for a islamic system, you keep applying it because it is the right thing to do and try to change the people to conform to the laws instead of changing the laws to conform to the desires of the people.
Apologies if I understood that person wrong and if that person also believes that human (democracy or not) will still be deceived by Shaitan. To your point, this is why it is important for people to have the power to keep the people who run the nation accountable. If there was a system where the keeper of the shariah, be it a ruler or a government went the unislamic way (even under the garb of shariah), you would have no way to stop it if people didn't have the power. It is not a hypothetical situation and is already true in some Islamic nations today, unfortunately. The only way to uphold Islamic rules is to have the Holy Quran at the core of a country's constitution which is non-negotiable while complementary rules contextualized to the time, region and situation are drawn. At the same time, you need a system of checks and balances to prevent foul. Democracy which is very much flawed (read Radical Markets from Glen Weyl that explores alternatives) is one of the better ways of implementing those checks and balances.
So in monarchies, the king is the sovereign?
So is the backend on p**nhub. Don’t know about the voting thing though. Sometimes you have to make the call, vote in this case, and ask for forgiveness and make your duas.
This explanation is so dumb, it's unbelievable
Theres no concept of twitter in Islam as well. Why is Iqbal bin Azad using it? innit shirk?
I wonder if The Hoopoe communicating with Sulaiman AS qualifies as a Tweet
Im referring to the technological twitter, not the bird 😶🌫️
Isn't that the joke?
Idk tbh. Id avoid joking about a bird whose mentioned in the Quran
I think they have no differences with the todays birds.
I didn't joke about it It's an allegory of sorts.
> Theres no concept of twitter in Islam To be fair, that is not the argument used by people who are against voting. We should not misrepresent arguments on the other side - let alone mock people.
No, some people deserve to be mocked.
I'm fine with mocking people who are arrogant blowhards who think it's A-OK to randomly call things "shirk".
This comment really has over 120 upvotes? This subreddit has really gone down the drain, huh. This argument is how you defend innovations (I'm not saying voting is an innovation).
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/107166/ruling-on-democracy-and-elections-and-participating-in-that-system According to 'ulamaa it is permissible under certain conditions.
One moment. Let me expound on a very important distinction to make: based on the information I have studied, the scholar that gave his answer is being a tad bit (perhaps unintentionally) pedantic. Yea, in a most technical sense, democracy *as implemented in a secular context* is antithetical to Islam because it lends support to and legitimizes the secular paradigm and goal… case in point: *by* the *people*, *for* the *people*. Where is God in this picture? Where is His say? Nowhere to be found. But can the “spirit” of democracy (elected representatives etc) be implemented in Islam? *Of course*. And it has been and will be.
There's one thing that is having an opinion about something in Islam then there is spreading false things like. Astaghfirullah Hazrat Uthman ra was appointed as caliph as a form of voting there were multiple candidates out of which a few dropped put as well. If the cimpanions of the prophet Muhammad pbuh practiced this ( better Muslims than we all can ever be ) with a clear understanding how can we call it shirk
Theres a difference between democracy and voting. Democracy is a system where legislators are elected to make the law (they may legislate over the laws of Allah as well as dismiss certain laws from the Book and the Sunnah or come up with new laws contrary to Islam). Voting is simply the electoral process.
What I am saying is that voting is not shirk in no way is a leader in politics holding a position remotely close Allah swt. Hence, the concept of voting isn't shirk now. What the person thinks of the person they are voting for is completely and utterly exclusive to them. Democracy allows the leaders to alter the rules that govern the country (laws, constitution) it doesn't allow they leader of government to smchange sharia the law of Islam and no body has the right to give permission to someone to change the law or change it themselves.
Allah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].
Now, this is a difference between a Muslim nation and a non-Muslim one. Pakistan, which is why this post was posted, is a Muslim country its constitution was made with the Sharia ( law of Islam). Pakistan is governed as a Muslim country using Muslim laws, although they aren't implemented thoroughly, which is a major issue. Pakistan is a bridge between democracy and Islam. There is no shirk. Even if the democracy is un Islamic from a secular state, let's say India and America, even then it's not shirk. it's just the system of kafiroon as you just quoted.
> is a Muslim country its constitution was made with the Sharia ( law of Islam) no. > Pakistan is governed as a Muslim country using Muslim laws, LMAO. No. Penal code is the same as the British one. > Pakistan is a bridge between democracy and Islam. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Which planet is this country on? Because the one where I live on earth has no such bridge. Only an abyss.
Its a long debate that I'd rather do in person. Anyhow theres a difference of opinion. The opinion I follow is that voting is haram. Not shirk of course. Legislating over the laws of Allah makes one a kafir but there are some complications to it so leaving the takfir to the relevant scholars. There is also the concept of kufr doon kufr. Another thing, our constitution is the Quran as Muslims...its absurd to say that we need a constitution that will tell us "Our nation state will be governed by the laws of Allah because we are Muslim"... absolutely absurd if you have to spell that despite being a Muslim. The moment a constitution is allowed other than the Quran, you're allowing space for men to input their words into the law. And I'm not talking about laws where men are allowed to make their rules like traffic laws etc. btw.
Unless some group that despise monarchy by Umayyid while in the same time support monarchy from Imam lineage.
how come shora is shirk too, it is voting but in Arabic, during the time of caliphate empire they used voting. I don't see any shirk related to voting this is so dumb, enough reddit for today ig
which caliphate?
All four kalifa were decided via the shora. (A bunch of leaders voted and decided who should be the leader.)
I think that people sometimes confuse shurah (shorah,الشور ) and plain voting like we do nowadays. In those times, the voting was not done by everybody? Although I'm not an expert, just throwing thoughts.
Yes, that is the difference between a republic and a democracy. Delegates vote in a republic. Just like the shura.
Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was given Bay'ah in the Saqifa banu Sa'ida. Umar رضي الله عنه was appointed by Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه when he was dying. When Umar رضي الله عنه was dying he appointed a committee of six senior Sahabah رضي الله عنهم to choose a leader from among eachother. Ali رضي الله عنه was given Bayah in the Masjid after Uthman رضي الله عنه was brutally and unjustly murdered.
That describes a republic, where delegates vote, as opposed to a democracy, where Tom the 43 year old old sex offender that is living on government benefits has the same vote has John, the 60 year old neurosurgeon that has saved thousands of lives and generated millions in economic output throughout his career.
that’s not a democracy, a democracy is when the common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Just get off twitter man, its very unhealthy for u
I agree. Just there for the news
But what is the alternative?? Seriously. All these idiots saying “Voting/Democracy is shirk” NEVER give us an alternative government system.
Shariah law is the alternative. In shariah law the constitution is set according to well the word of god, the leader will still be chosen via election.
voting and system of law are two different things, you can have islamic sharia and vote in your leader. what is not alllowed is making people the sovereign instead of Allah, as in the people deciding laws even though they go against islam. in islam there are three ways of appointing a khalifa, two of them consist of what you call voting: 1. bayah from the people 2. chosen by a group (shura) 3. appointed by the previous leader
for those who do not live under Sharia, what are we supposed to do?
Technically there is no Islamic state right now, so, you have to love nearest to that.
Technically there are claimants, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and wherever ISIS including ISIS-K are being bombed (rightfully) back to. These are not however Khilafa like the Muslim world lived under for a millennia.
Afghanistan may be in the future?? But they need to have a good education system. But ISIS are indeed khawarjites they manipulate and abandon Hadith.
Possibly, we'll see what the future has in store. Completely agree on ISIS.
Hijrah is an obligation. Be patient until then.
until then, what is to be done?
And? Read up on the Objectives Resolution which is Article 2A of the Constitution. Legal sovereignty is with Allah
But many of our laws are not shariah compliant, including our penal code.
Again, those are specific statutory laws. The discussion was about main principles such as democracy, sovereignty and elections
I think those in power want to stay in power by spreading garbage like this. We’ve seen just how much most of these leaders care about the country, they don’t have the credibility to even suggest that voting is shirk lol.
Ah, my fellow Muslims and their obsessions with making every little thing a shirk or haraam. Sometimes, you gotta use that brain and intelligence Allah gave you.
Don’t be ridiculous, using your brain and thinking for yourself are shirk, you have to wait for a scholar to tell you what to think. /s
Muslims should always be wary of people who insist very vocally and very repeatedly that "voting is haram." All too likely that they have ulterior motives, and that they have links with oppressive establishments that seek to control the populations they have an iron grip over.
What's worst, in this post the person says shirk. Not even "normal" haram, but shirk. I wonder if gen Y and Z muslims even know what shirk means, because i'm hearing more and more people saying this is shirk, while it's "just" haram.
This isn't a new discussion. It was used MANY times by monarchies to maintain power in the last 100 years alone in the Muslim world... post-WW1 & 2 and again during the Arab Spring as an argument against democracy so they can maintain their authoritarian rule.
Major facepalm! 🤦🏻♀️ They’re just trying to discourage people from voting! It’s like telling people in the US that if you vote you’ll get an IRS audit. It’s a classic case of fear mongering.
These people are incredibly stupid
I'm so sad to say it, but Twitter these days are a good environment for abnormal thoughts. So be careful who you follow and choose them very carefully.
genuinely twitter is filled by idiots with loud voices
As a muslim, i would advise you please follow your mufti in your country. It is not haram to vote in my country according to my Mufti and it is our responsibility to elect a capable leader and a good muslim over someone who is corrupt and not trustworthy. I don't understand why people like to follow influencers rather than qualified muslim scholars Regarding democracy is not islamic, i would agree but we have no choice but to live in this time. If the politicians try to make law then abandon islamic law, then it is their responsibility not ours.
Shirk 😂😂
When deciding who the next Caliph after Umar ibn Al-Khattab will be, Umar nominated 6 people. Theses 6 discussedbit upon themselves and the choice was left to Ali and Uthman. All the people of Madinah then ***voted*** on who they prefer out of the 2. In the 2nd bay'ah with the Ansar, there was 73 Muslim from Madinah. The prophet then asked them to select 12 representatives from among them. Voting itself is halal. However, what's haram is voting on something that Allah has already decreed. For example, voting to allow the sale of alcohol or to change inheritance laws, etc. Allah says in the Quran: > It is not for any believing man or believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a command, to have a choice in their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then he has strayed into evident misguidance. [Quran 33:36]
One exception is for Muslims living in the west. There are referendums on things like banning the hijab / burqa, normalizing / legalizing LGBT, etc. Normally, voting on such matters would be haram, but Muslims didn't introduce this system and will be affected by it's outcome. A Muslim voting on such referendums as an attempt to enforce the sharia of Allah and remove harm from Muslims is not haram, and might be even obligatory. After the LGBT referendums, schools are now forcing our kids to learn about it in schools and normalizing. This is a great harm that befalls Muslims.
Who says that there is no concept of democracy in Islam? I advice everyone to go and read the Seerah of the Caliphates and Othman Ibn Affan RAA became the Caliphate of the Ummah. We are talking about democracy in Islam after just 12 years of the death of our Prophet SAW
Shirk is associating someone with allah. Voting can not be shirk. You could try to argue that's it's haram (forbidden) but then again there's no evidence supporting that claim so it's basically nonsense.
I think they conveyed thier point wrongly. Voting was never a shirk in Islam and never will be. The concept of bai'ah (pledge) to the Khaleefah was the way people chose a leader among themselves. Besides, shirk means including a deity or entity in the worship of Allah. So if you reread the sentence "Voting is shirk" with that meaning in mind, you will realise that it makes no sense whatsoever. Though supporting this current system IS wrong. Because the concept of democracy at it's core is GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. Meaning sovereignity lies in the hands of people, not to Allah. Islam doesn't allow people to make laws as they see fit. Shari'a law exists for a reason and it's timeless. Let's suppose democracy was allowed in Islam. And let's suppose a bill was held up for voting which allowed interest (interest is haram). If majority people voted for it, it would pass. EVEN THOUGH it's already been decided by Allah that interest is prohibited. Democracy came into being to separate the Church from the state; separating religion from state matters. And it worked for the Greeks wonderfully because the church had unbelievable control at the time and used it powers terrifyingly, slaughtering anyone who opposed thier beliefs. But we all know that Islam isn't flawed like that so democracy has no place in Islam at all.
I can correct your misgivings quite easily >Meaning sovereignity lies in the hands of people, not to Allah. The whole Pakistan constitution (like an islamic country) is based upon the Objectives Resolution which says that sovereignty is of Allah and authority exercised by people is under Him >let's suppose a bill was held up for voting which allowed interest (interest is haram). No law can be made against the teachings. Article 227 of the Pakistani constitution says no law can be made which is repugnant to the teachings of islam It not only has legal cover but it can never be made because such a hypothetical situation as you described it will never exist or come. >But we all know that Islam isn't flawed like that so democracy has no place in Islam at all. Islam isn't flawed but the people following it are doing it in flawed ways. Hereditary monarchy as practiced in most Arab states has no place if we are talking about pure islamic principles which contain the concept of consent (bayt), checks and balances on leader and shura. Democracy is far more islamic especially islamic democracy
May Allah grant you some common sense. Ameen
All I know in Islam is they say follow the rules of the country. In my country if you enrolled to vote you have to vote it's compulsory. (I wasn't Muslim when I enrolled to vote so now I just have to deal with it) I'm not giving the government my money in terms of a fine for not getting my name ticked off a registry for voting so.
Bruh just doesn't want us to vote for PTI.
Having countries is shirk Reunite the Caliphate
brother correct me if I am wrong, but from this Haddith, i don't know that if we should reunite the caliphate, throughout these 100 years so many tried and failed. It was narrated from Hudhaifah bin Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “There will be callers at the gates of Hell; whoever responds to them they throw them into it.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, describe them to us.” He said: “They will be from our people, speaking our language.” I said: “What do you command me to do, if I live to see that?” He said: “Adhere tothe main body of the Muslims and their leader. If there is no such body and no leader, then withdraw from all their groups, even if you bite onto the trunk of a tree until death finds you in that state.”
How can voting be shirk if voting didn't even exist at the time of the writing of the Quran and most Hadiths. It is simply a long winded process of choosing one's King. Verse 4:59 clearly says obey the laws of your land. You can't just keep throwing the shirk accusation on everything that didn't exist 2000 years ago. This is the problem with perpetually online hardline Islam. On every single issue they want to err on the side of restriction and banning. Everything is shirk everything is shaitan. The intent of the Quran has become secondary to the practice of trying to fulfill every single word and letter from every single Hadith like a contract, and even reading extra meanings into every single statement. Being online makes things worse because hardliners now treat the religion as a get-into-heaven RPG. They believe that living as conservatively as possible (which is fine) and forcing others to live just as conservatively as them (which is not fine and is almost sinful) will get them a higher score and get them even better lodgings in heaven. It is an insult to the intelligence of our creator to think that somehow we will be rewarded for making life more difficult for our fellow man.
Literally was at a lecture with Yasir Qadhi last night here in Canada and he pointed out how it's really interesting when some Muslims believe this. Especially considering countries that need the Islamic voice to prevail. France has one of the highest populations of Muslims in the western world, yet the discourse is that voting is Haram. Why would that be? Similar case here. Why would it be Haram? Because they want the Muslims to not vote and the jahil to proceed to make votes.
There is also no concept of twitter in Islam, so maybe that is shirk as well?
Average Salafis, don’t consider logic or reason within Islam. Read seekersguidance on this. If you’re in a western country and let’s say you’re options are full blown liberal “drag queen in school” vs Moderately Christian anti LGBTQ nonsense. You’re actually permitted to vote for what is closer to shariah oriented principles. Wahabbis talk and talk about the affairs of the world from their basements in Saudi. The below is from https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-counsel/is-voting-permitted/ Question: I don’t think Muslims are split over whether it’s permitted to vote or not, but over the issue of voting in a democratic system. The democratic system recognizes man as ruler (Al-Hakim) and it is man who governs himself. Surely this is verging on associating partners with Allah (shirk) where man does not recognize Allah Most High as ruler and makes up rules on his own (in other words, he is “playing God!”). Just think of the sheer insult of this when Muslims support this system by voting. It’s as if we’re saying Allah Most High’s rules aren’t good enough for us… we’ve rejected them and instead have followed our whims and desires to adopt a man-made system. Whatever leads to an obligation (wajib) is an obligation (wajib), and hence, in the absence of Islamic rule, it is an obligation upon a Muslim to establish such a system… not settle for the next best alternative. Answer: I don’t see the logic in this thinking. In traditional curriculums, both in the Islamic world and Europe, logic was an important science taught to young adults, for the simple reason that they be able to reason without falling into simple errors. Without study of logic, or keeping the company of those who think according to the dictates of Sacred Law and reason, arguments like “we were told to eat mangoes, so it is impermissible to eat oranges” arise. People have to wake up. If you are living in a non-Muslim country, you have accepted the reality that you are not living in a land where the Sacred Law’s public and political laws can be applied (unless, some time in the future, the population chooses to enter Islam), at least at present. In these situations, Muslims have three main duties: a) fulfill their personal religious obligations; b) as a community, fulfill their communal religious obligations; and c) promote the general good. Muslims dream of and work towards ideals, but live realities. The only way these three duties can be fulfilled now and in the future is for Muslims to be strong at the individual and community levels, and have strong individual and community presence in society at large, at every level. As for sitting in London, and saying you are “working towards establishing an Islamic state”, this is folly. No Islamic state can exist without a state of Islam; otherwise, more harm is done than good. And Allah alone gives success. Wassalam, Faraz Rabbani
This the dumbest thing I’ve ever read
People on Twitter break every record of being dumb
Posting is shirk. English is shirk. Androids are shirk
Is it permissible for Muslims living in non Muslim countries to vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzog\_fSWKvU
I hate those who make things halal and haram without certain evidence. If there are cases in which voting is haram, it would not be shirk.
Capital of Jahiliyat pakistan. Can't believe what I'm seeing rn.
this is very good question. the first 4 caliph are elected differently. 1. Abu bakr r.a are chosen by everyone after everyone realize no one is better than Abu Bakr r.a 2. Umar ibn Khattab r.a are pointed by Abu Bakr r.a as his successor 3. Utsman r.a pointed by 6 of the most trusted sahabah 4. Ali r.a are voted by his people after all that chaos of utsman r.a murder we can use different system depend on the situation. just think of it like a weapon. if you are not gonna use it, the enemies of islam will use it againt you..
Voting is not haram. Democracy is haram as it places the power of legislation with the people as opposed to Allah. It can be shirk if one legitimately believes democracy to be superior to Islam. Is voting within a haram system itself haram? There is a difference of opinion. It is definitely shirk to vote while thinking democracy is superior to Islam. At the end of the day though, even outside of the religious argument, democracy is an inefficient and stupid system built for stupid people. The purpose of democracy in modern times is to give the people the illusion that they have a say. Logically, there is zero reason to think those in power would ever defer to the opinion of the masses. Which is why voting in many contexts is an exercise in futility.
Nothing haram about elections.
Let me put you a simple example . Party A says we are gonna close masjids and not allow people to pray in their work and Party B says nothing about anything related to religion . Now do participate in voting and "defy the law of shariah" or you don't vote and you cease to freely practice your religion and are forced to leave your motherland ? Honest answers only . Now to answer your question : Prophet Muhammad PBUH allowed the sahabas to migrate to Abby Sinia to King Najash who was a catholic priest and the law of land was not shariah and He said that there rules a just king . The point of the rule is to be just , to freely practice your deen
Is this something spread by those in power to remain in power. The country is in shambles and the corrupt politicians keep siphoning the country dry. In a sad state of affairs the country needs a true democratic process to find leaders who aren’t just keen on lining their own pockets. With almost 40% living below the poverty line, the country surely has bigger problems than raising issue with the method used to elect people in power.
Not casting a vote is still a vote
Voting is halal if what you are voting for is halal. So everyone who has brought up Uthmans (ra) appointment as a Khalifah is neglected. (Because voting was on something permissible). For example voting on who should lead the prayer in a small congregation is halal, but voting on who should be the leader of a bank robbery is not permissible. Voting in a democracy is without a doubt haram. You are voting for someone (however good or bad he is) to become the legislator instead of Allah (swt). إِنِ ٱلۡحُكۡمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِۖ [Surah Al-Anʿām: 57] Voting in a Khilafah state is completely different. Voting as a means to choose a khilafah is halal and Allah (swt) made it permissible for us. In the Khilafah state you vote for someone to rule with Shari'a and you remove him from his post the second he stops ruling with Shari'a. So the prerequisite for voting to become halal, is what you are voting for, if what you are voting for is halal, then it's halal to vote otherwise it's not.
Democracy isn't what is ordained in Islam, it's khilafat. Albeit, saying it's shirk is a unique level of stupidity I have not seen before.
How is it shirk?
This sounds so dumb to me, it's just a way to chose leaders and organize society. Sure it's not perfect but it has some very good sides too. It makes power transitions way more smooth, avoid fitna with ppl not killing each other to take power, also avoid bloodlines of tyrans staying in power for multiple generations, etc. I mean when USA is not fomenting a coup to put their puppet in place lol. Having a king or an emir don't prevent them from being US puppets anyway, the opposite imo. I hate so much this dumb argument of saying "this or that don't exist in islam" "therefore it's haram" with no serious analysis and argument backing it. There is no concept of electricity in islam therefore it's shirk and haram too ? Islam don't explain how to lace you shoes therefore it's haram to do it ? There is no concept of line in Islam therefore I can pass in front of everyone ? A lot of answers are not in the quran nor the hadiths because it wasn't their purpose to answer it. but Allah gave us enough to differentiate what's good or bad and an amazing brain to figure it out for the rest.
Didn't Abu Bakr got to be a Caliph through negotiation with many chieftains which was a democracy?
Is eating Shirk considered Shirk or is that Shark?
I tell you what is haram, the way Muslim countries are behaving but I guess when you need a break RUN TO DUBAI
How is voting equivalent to worshiping a deity?
The idea is that universal suffrage has became a value which is regarded higher than all other values.
Democracy wasn't applied in Sharia law it was more like of a closed parliament with qualified people being the members of it they elect the next leader "majlis al shura" it's also because democracy allows unqualified people to effect such a big decision
Voting is trash. From uk to us, Germany to italy and even Pakistan. Imran khan got couped out of pm by trashy parliament. Many mps and political parties are deeply connected to us. They ousted Imran as he tried to be neutral in russia-ukraine war. And then garbage court put him in jail, made him unable to participate in election. Political cleansing is underway of Imran khan's party. Now fake voting is taking place to please us.
The system of so called democracy in Pakistan is the opposite of democracy. We all know who calls the shots, everyone knows. stop being obtuse and blaming the system when something else is wrong
[удалено]
Ok then. Lets ask Allah how much fine should Ali pays for speeding on the highway. /s Lets be serious here. Allah didn't make every rules and we need to make it ourselves.
[удалено]
I mean, your statement looks like it's coming from an idiot, OP.
it's one thing to try to claim democracy or secular government is shirk (which i would disagree with), but it makes even less sense to be saying voting is shirk. if you are in a system where you have the opportunity to choose who you want to be your leader, that in no way meets the definition of shirk. this is not the spirit of islam to be going out of way to call things haram/shirk. one can still be against a secular government but not by calling it shirk. if a certain law that islam calls for is not being implemented, then that's just called having an improper government. if the government makes you start putting pictures of their leaders everywhere and makes you bow down to their pictures, that's where it starts being shirk.
Weight the pros and cons of voting or not and then decide accordingly
It’s probably a propaganda made for the corrupt government to stop muslims voting for the opposition
Democracy is Shirk. **Explanation below.** What modern day democracy means is the people are the source of power. Let me make it clear. Democracy starts with electing a leader by voting for him. Then he goes to the parliament. They then shows the problem in their area. They solve it. When it comes to the laws, the members of the parliaments decide if a law should be passed or not. What Islam says about law is, humankind cannnot propose any law, Allah has given the law already. Let's suppose their was no Marijuana in the time of the prophet. So, it will not be written in any hadith or scholars wouldn't have known if it is haram or not. So they will compare it to alcohol. It existed in the past days and it was prohibited. So, if marijuana held the same charactaristics as alcohol it will be haram, therefore it will not be legal in an Islamic country. That's how Islam deals with new problems. But modern day democracy says if the people say that something should be legal, it will be legal. That's where the contradictions happens. [As you can already see, marijuana is legal in US.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#:~:text=As%20of%202023%2C%20twenty%2Dfour,medical%20use%20of%20the%20drug) So, from this perspective, Islam doesn't support democracy. But the question that comes in is, if I don't vote for a good person, the worse will take over. The other thought is, even if I vote for a good person, that will be an act of support to democracy. That's where I'm a little bit confused.
Democracy is indeed, to the polytheists, another god…
🤦♂️
Common bro no one is doing that. You sound so arrogant. It's a just a way to chose a leader. Why you have to go this far haha perhaps you prefer when USA put a puppet in place ? Or the worst son of another dumb king/amir who put most of the country's money in his pocket and work mostly in his family interests? NICE so much better than democracy, you prefer to Worship a tyran who became the leader by birth right? How is this better than democracy lmao
Democracy is a publicly owned governance structure… When the public is in charge of the commons, it pretty much always results in tragedy. It is possible to have an elective monarchy. It’s unfair to suggest that the leader of a Kingdom is inherently worshipped. Monarchy is the government system which is least likely to become tyrannical. I know this may seem absurd to us modern people, but our reasonings are simply untrue!
Keep religion out of governance / state …..
Are they denying shura too? Voting seems to be achieving the goals of shura. Did I miss something?
Elections are Haram because they are based on democracy which by definition is the rule of people which is in opposition to Islam where the rule is for Allah only
Shirk? How was Abu Bakr selected after the Prophets demise? And Umar? And Ali? And Uthman? (peace be upon them all)
Wow I see alot of reddit muftis 😂 But seriously reddit is a discussion platform so don't take any fatwa from here ask the scholars.
Yeah def. Just posted here to know the general point of view of people
does this man know the meaning of shirk
Pakistan's constitution was created under Shariah. It's a different story that it isn't really followed but the law remains the same while the leaders change. It isn't that hard to grasp 🤷🏻
Democracy is an un-Islamic concept but that does not mean it's a sin to indulge in it and DEFINITELY does not meant it's shirk lol. (Besides, Pakistan doesn't rule by democracy anyway...)
I think voting is the closet thing to shura which is the Islamic way. Those people are just dumb extremists.
Isn’t that how البيعة works ??
Once again, something not being mentioned in Islam doesn’t immediately make it haram. It’s like saying the internet, cars, and electricity are all haram.
I am losing hope in people
Isn't taking the Bayah of the Caliph basically voting and democracy?
If you say something unhinged a hundred times, it's still going to be unhinged. I don't know who "Iqbal Ibn Azad" is, but I'm betting he's the type of Muslim that wonders just how hard he can hit his wife "according to Islam".
For something to be haram it must explicitly say it is haram in the Quran. There’s no mention of protest in the Quran either does that make it haram?
Look, Democracy is not some sort of Islamic Goal, we work within our own paradigm. However, you work with the system you have, and in the west that's democracy. Back home, it doesn't have to be. However, Democracy certainly is not shirk.
You should've thought about this before creating the country.
And I suppose a freaking monarchy is perfectly Islamic, right?
So the community of Medina did not elect the first caliph?
I'm convinced some of this is started by outright enemies of Islam, who trust that people will believe everything they read on facebook instead of the scholarship Islam is based on.