I highly relate to this hypothetical Arab: In my early teenage I was impressed by democracy, believing that it is the best governing system that we should adopt, yet the more I learnt about democracy and saw what resulted from it (especially in the last two decades) the more I lost such impression, and I'm glad to say that I'm currently anti-democratic ☺️ I think anyone with fair knowledge of Islam and democracy comes to the conclusion of their incompatibility, any other view is based on a misunderstanding of what Islam/ democracy is, or simply mere stickling, one example of such incompatibility is that a Muslim should never obey any order or law that conflicts with his/her religion, regardless of such an order or law being the result of democracy or tyranny, in other words: There's no weight for any human wish, opinion, or order if it goes against Islam, whether it comes from an individual, the majority, or even the whole mankind.
Not all laws go against Islam and in today’s democracies, countries have a judiciary that strikes down laws as unconstitutional. Same can be done with laws against islam so you criticism falls flat.
@@syedahmed8650 In democracy the source legislation is the people, while in Islam the source is Allah, also in democracy the constitution itself can be changed if the people choose to do so, while in Islam there no way to do that, these are very foundational differences between the two, so you may invent an 'Islamic democracy' but no democratic would consider it to be true democracy.
@@islamadam8502 Again you have simplistic and reductionist understanding of how modern democracies operate. The source of law in a democracy comes from upholding the values and beliefs enshrined in the constitution. A Muslim state would guarantee that Islam will be the only source of law just as liberal democracies uphold the ideals of liberalism. Have you ever seen a liberal democracy implement an Islamic law? No. Unless the people in power themselves apostate then there is no way for there to amend Islam out of the constitution. There is no foundational difference between the two. Democracy is simply a method of governing. It is a vehicle absent an ideology.
What's rhe alternative? Saudi Arabia is rule by greedy, psychopathic, genocidal, philandering, gambling, drinking monarchs with no accountability. Egypt is ruled by a corrupt, psychopathic, unaccountable military Syria is ruled by a man willing to inflice such destruction on his own people for his own gain. What is your alternative? Life in the West is flawed but it miles better than any non-democratic muslim country.
That was a great presentation of such simple and explicit yet complicated point. I wouldn't be able to summarize it in 22 minutes video. Nevertheless I am not surprised! Very well said and thanks for sharing.
@@BloggingTheology Dear Paul, Islam stands directly against God of Abraham and God of Israel. No wonder Islam stands against nation of Israel too. See what God of Abraham, Jehovah foretold through Prophet Ezekiel about nation of Israel around BC 500, that is almost 1000 years before the advent of Islam! These amazing prophecies are getting fulfilled right before our eyes! Ezekiel 37: 21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; 23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. 24 And my servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in mine ordinances, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
@@BloggingTheology Every Christian and Muslim need to study both the Books (Bible and Quran) very carefully. Islam depends on the words of one person, one total Stranger! The stranger who manhandled an innocent man, the Islamic prophet, at Hira cave and pressed him at least 3 times, without any provocation! Who was he? Did he reveal his identity or name? No, never. Did he claim he was angel Gabriel from God of Abraham? No, never. See his mysterious behavior! Even a street bully won't press an innocent man without any provocation! Entire Islam is based on this one person, since Allah never interacted with humanity! Allah never spoke to any human being till today. No human ever seen him! Allah remains as a character inside the pages of Quran, the book that the Stranger brought! Did Allah carry out any activity in last 1400 years? If you know anything, please share. Any witness for above Stranger? No, none, till today. 1.8 billion people follow this total Stranger! Without asking any questions. From very childhood asking questions are discouraged and blind faith is instilled in young minds. Whereas God of Bible forewarned and foretold about this Stranger well in advance! The Stranger who will directly stand against God Almighty's saving program for sinful humanity, that is, by sending His son in order to die on the cross of Calvary. Now, what was the most important mission our above total Stranger of Hira cave had? 1. Deny Jesus as Son of God Almighty. Declare boldly that Allah got no son! Declare that saying Allah got a son is the greatest sin! 2. Deny God of Bible's second program: deny Jesus died on cross of Calvary. Say the ultimate falsehood, that some one else died on cross! 3. In short blind the eyes of humanity to God Almighty's saving program and generate doubts about it in human mind! That is the declared mission of Islam. 4. Stand against Ten Commandments God Almighty Himself declared on Mount Sinai! Encourage the Islamic prophet to brake the Ten Commandments! The Stranger of Hira cave, the real person behind Islamic religion, spoke directly against what the Real angel Gabriel of Bible spoke to Mary, the future mother of Jesus Christ. See below please. Luke 1: 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. In Quran we do not know the real identity of the Stranger! Whereas Bible forewarned about him as below, well in advance! 1 John 2: 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us-eternal life. 26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 2 Corinthians 11: 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Islam spoke about another Jesus- Issa! Islam spoke about yet another spirit -- the so called Jibreel, spirit of Allah! 2 Corinthians 11: 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. Galatians 1:6-9 No Other Gospel 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
@@BloggingTheology Before the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in AD 632, he got the complete revelation of Quran. He was illiterate. Still he ensured that the Quran verses were recorded with the help of his companions (sahabis). Those ayaths were recorded on plain stones, camel bones, animal skin and palm tree leaves according to Islamic history! That was the very FIRST QURAN! THE ORIGINAL QURAN! THE REFERENCE QURAN WHICH SHOULD LAST FOREVER! THE VERY QURAN ALLAH PROMISED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT FOREVER! NOW THE QUESTION IS: WHERE IS THAT ORIGINAL REFERENCE QURAN AS ON TODAY? WHERE IS THAT QURAN PROTECTED AND PRESERVED BY ALLAH HIMSELF AS ON TODAY? IF IT EXISTS TODAY , YES IT IS A MIRACLE AS MUSLIMS CLAIM! IF NOT, ISLAM SIMPLY COLLAPSES! You agree? However what is the real truth? 1. Most probably that Original Reference Quran recorded by the Islamic prophet was included in the Quran portions destroyed by fire on orders of Caliph Uthman. If so that Original Reference Quran is lost forever! 2. What about the present Quran available with us? a. First post Islamic prophet Quran was made after his death in AD 632. Caliph Abu Bakr was forced to compile the first post Islamic prophet Quran because of sudden death of many Quran memorizers in the subsequent wars. Did Allah or prophet commanded him to do the compilation of Quran? No, never! In fact Allah himself promised to preserve and protect his Quran forever! However sudden loss of so many Quran memorizers forced Caliph Abu Bakr to take his own decision, without seeking advice from Allah or Muhammad! That is how the Abu Bar Quran came into existence! Most Muslims will get shocked that this First Quran had no involvement of Allah or prophet! b. Thus Abu Bakr appointed a young man, Zyad Ibn Tabith, who was previously the scribe of the Islamic prophet before his death. Zyad Ibn Tabith was obviously reluctant to undertake the job, which was not commanded by Allah or prophet. However he had no other choice, but to obey the orders of the king. c. Why did Caliph Abu Baker ordered the compilation of Quran, which was not commanded by Allah or prophet when Allah himself promised to protect his Quran? Means, Abu Baker had no faith in Allah's words? And he compiled a Quran with the help of above Zyed Ibn Tabit. Obviously an unauthorized Quran! However even this unauthorized Quran was not complete! One ayath was missing in it for so many years! No one could identify or realize or point out the grave mistake! Finally Zyed Ibn Tabit while revising the Abu Baker Quran, on orders of Caliph Uthman, remembered about the grave mistake and added the ayath in the Revised Uthman's Quran! And Caliph Uthman ordered the destruction of all other Quran materials!!! d. Even the Revised Uthman's Quran had its own problems. Two solid Surahs were missing in it and also one ayath on stoning of adulterous women and verse of suckling the breast by adult men! e. Abdullah ibn Masʽood was one of the four most prominent Quran teachers appointed by Islamic prophet. He totally disapproved the Revised Uthman's Quran too! Then, what credibility Revised Uthman's Quran got ? f. Now Muslims use many different ARABIC QURANS! See the links below please. 1. Display of 26 versions of Arabic Quran @ Hyde Park , London th-cam.com/video/EsgphL9lGcc/w-d-xo.html 2. Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3 th-cam.com/video/EpsnXMZ5lEE/w-d-xo.html g. Here is a solid example for totally different Arabic Qurans. FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS sihraani ... two works of magic ... 28:48 FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH saahiraani ... two magicians ... 28:48 Obviously "two works of magic" FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS cannot be exactly equal to "two magicians" FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH. Both cannot be true! When that is the ground reality, many Muslim brethren still hold on to the belief that ""Allah sent the Final Testament, the Qur'an, and unlike the previous books, has never been changed."" Only one book in the planet earth claims preservation and protection straight away from God Almighty! Means, that Book must be visible to anyone who would like to see that! Who would like to cross check it! Whereas when ask questions we get answer that it is preserved in memory! Does it make any sense? Even prophet himself forgot ayaths! That is recorded in Islamic texts! That means preservation by memory is not a genuine option! That is why the prophet painstakingly recorded the Quran ayaths on plain stones, camel bones, animal skin and palm tree leaves! And his followers gave no respect for his works! They did not bother! No wonder the Original Reference Quran went in flames by Caliph, Uthman! And Allah was totally missing in whole Quran preservation and protection process!
The founding fathers of the biggest and most powerful democracy in the world had nothing good to say about democracy. For example, Benjamin Franklin if my memory serves me right said democracy is a wolf in sheepskin. One question I always pose to "Muslim" supporters of democracy. How can my father who has always worked hard and always earned halal money and always followed and respected the laws and rules of Sharia and the law of the land have his vote equalled with a person who takes bribes, rapes, and steals. What kind of justice is that and what kind of politicians will it beget. Small example is the politicians elected to office in the middle Eastern countries that have pseudo democracy. Look at the conditions of people in those countries and ponder
I hope not. Bad enough we have a democratic republic. Can't imagine how bad America would be if it was a full democracy. May Allah swt guide and bless us all
Thank you once again for your blog. As I understand the concept, democracy's purpose is to peacefully resolve disagreements among society's members. Ideally with protections for minority views, democracy provides a mechanism to adopt rules by which to live and interact. It being a civil process, its goal is to further an ongoing process of civilization. This, of course, calls for people to live with some rules they disagree with as no one is always in the majority. Personally, I don't see that as paying a price. Certainly, if I believed that only I knew the correct answer to all questions, I should become a hermit.
The late Bertrand Russell, (a British philosopher, logician, and social critic) on Western democracy: "Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them."
Maybe "the stupid" indeed the honest man. And the "clever" tyrant is just liar. But sometimes like The Quran say, the majority will make you astray from the path
Democracy should be seen as a "tool" similar to knife and "double edge" tools. Therefore, Democracy should not be generalized to one ideology or to other. The evil for Muslims and even for non-Muslim conservatives of every culture, is the extremists. In this case, extreme leftists. LBGT non only against human recreation, but lack "muwaddah" (spiritual lovely-care), necessary for family, society and nation.
What kind of democracy? Abu Bakr was elected via Shura where only those with the prerequisite knowledge could vote on behalf of those who didn't have the knowledge. If you mean the democracy we have in the west where there vote of a murderer is equal to the vote of a doctor, then no. Islam is not compatible with this "democracy".
That’s really an oversimplification of western democracy. A murderer must be proven to be a murderer in a court of law. This is in both the Islamic and western traditions. Why would they not have the same voice to criticize the government as that of a doctor? Why is that unislamic?
Callthe Copington: 20-3 MMA, 0-3 IRL You said quote; "Abu Bakr was elected via Shura where only those with the prerequisite knowledge could vote on behalf of those who didn't have the knowledge." That's NOT true. Where did you get your information from? Stop posting inaccurate information if you are a Muslim.
Assalamu alaikum, Paul, that was really amazing by both of you and the author of the book (may Allah grant him and all of us paradise). To have this deep understanding of Islamic ruling system by both of you is something I really admire. I am a Kurd but can Arabic language very well and always listen to the top greatest scholars of Islam. When they denounce democracy or any other man made system and advise Muslims to leave them and stick to Islam, they say: (don't worry about any good in these man made systems because that good will certainly be included in our Lord's religion and it would be purified of any bad and harm).
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🗳️ Guy Eaton discusses the relationship between Islam and democracy. - Democracy is seen as a mechanism for Muslims to participate in and advance their interests in Western societies. - The speaker presents a somewhat utopian view of democracy's benefits for Muslims. - Eaton raises concerns about the potential consequences and drawbacks of Muslim participation in democratic systems, including compromises on Islamic principles and values. 09:47 🤝 Democracy in Western countries, corruption, and the price of participation. - Eaton explores the meaning of democracy and how different people may perceive it. - He highlights issues of money in politics and the need for significant financial contributions for election campaigns. - Eaton discusses the challenges of representing Islamic principles within democratic systems, such as the example of gay marriage legislation. 19:47 🌊 The mysterious tide of public opinion and its impact on laws. - Eaton touches on the ever-changing nature of public opinion and the potential psychological influences that drive shifts in societal views. - He provides an example of changing attitudes toward homosexuality and how public opinion can radically transform over time. - Eaton argues that legal systems influenced by ever-changing public opinion lack stability and may respond to passing fancies. Made with HARPA AI
I think it's a sword of to edges we face, either lose the Islamic values by conceding in participating in democratic activities, or be a possible target to a democratic far rights parties, But here is the thing you see, democratic pulls can easily be digest in many cases, Like in the last pull in France for example by the council regarding the burkini dress which got withold by the interior minister, So this democracy is just relatively changing according to which excuse they make to withold it if it's outcome does not really suits those in power, It's all pointless we should try to encourage for Khalifa.
The point you make about France - Muslims had to vote for Macron despite all he did because the alternatives were worse than him. That was a forced compromise. What if we are more proactive about it perhaps we can avoid getting to that point.
As a Muslim Turk living in Turkey, this question actually keeps my thoughts busy a lot. In Turkey there are scholars who defend the idea that to vote ,and by this means to participate in a democratic process, is shirk. Because by doing so you simply give a slave of Allah the right to make laws for you and on your behalf, while Allah is Malik Al Mulk subhanahu wa taala. And there are other scholars who say that if a Muslim accept that laicism and democracy is shirk, and doesn't defend that any being have a right to put laws instead of Allah's laws or to change them, and by keeping these in mind so they should vote for someone who they believe will serve people in the way Allah subhanahu wa taala orders them to. Because if Muslims don't vote for good people, then the they'll be ruled by their enemies, which is a close idea to the idea of the scholar you mentioned. And after listening to your doubts about the latter idea Mr. Paul, I started to think that participation in a democratic process is not what a Muslim should do. I don't have a right to say that it's shirk (Allah knows the best) but by voting for someone who supposedly is going to rule with the fear of Allah in his heart is nothing more than an assumption and when you consider that, for these democratic systems Islamic rules are more than scary, then, in a system that is literally enemy to the words of Allah, expecting a ruler to rule in accordance with the word of Allah is "naive", as you said. This was a very beneficial video for me. Thanks and May Allah subhanahu wa taala rewards you for your services. May Allah subhanahu wa taala guides us to what's true, to the right path.
Hüseyin Abi biz bir fasist devletin kalintisiyiz. Maas yok deseler vazifeden istifa eden ilk imamlar olur. Devlet siyaset ayrildi deniyor ama bilakis devlet dini müesseselere tesellüt etti. Bizim aklimiz, gönlümüz o irkci, dünyaci küfür nizaminin merhunudur. Hayif bize hayif.
@@ruhmuhaccer864 " Mûsâ kavmine, "Allah'tan yardım isteyin ve sabredin. Şüphesiz yeryüzü Allah'ındır. Ona, kullarından dilediğini mirasçı kılar. Sonuç Allah'a karşı gelmekten sakınanlarındır" dedi." A'raf, 128 Faşizm de, laiklik de, bütün insan icadı yaşama yöntemleri de batıldır. Ve "batıl yok olmaya mahkumdur" (İsra,81). Allah'tan yardım isteyeceğiz. El-Hakîm olan Allah'tan başka sahibimiz yoktur. Bizi bu fitnelere karşı selamette kılacak da elbet O'dur. Sabır kardeş sabır.
To Hüseyin Arslan You said Quote; "...this means to participate in a democratic process, is shirk." How did you come up with this idea, that it is "SHIRK" to participate in the Democratic process? Don't make stuff up in your DEEN based on your desires. And DON'T let people tell you when they make stuff up and tell you your DEEN! Sahih International: Quran 33:36 It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤۡمِنٍ وَّلَا مُؤۡمِنَةٍ اِذَا قَضَى اللّٰهُ وَرَسُوۡلُهٗۤ اَمۡرًا اَنۡ يَّكُوۡنَ لَهُمُ الۡخِيَرَةُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِهِمۡ ؕ وَمَنۡ يَّعۡصِ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوۡلَهٗ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِيۡنًا You said it is "SHIRK" However Allah AwJ SAID: ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِيۡنًا Dalala is NOT SHIRK as you suggested or claimed! These Salafi Shaykhs just make things up based on their desires and NOT Quran and Sunnah.
If I may add another point: one of the misconceptions about democracy is that decisions are taken according to the choice of the majority of 'the people', the fact is that they are taken according to the choice of the biggest number of 'voters who share a common choice', which may or may not represent the choice of the majority of the people .
Even if you take the biggest number of voters you take 51% majority while ignoring concerns of 49% of voters/people. Moreover, people/voters can be easily manipulated for wrong choice by media manipulation which is what happened in the last French election.
Mashallah brother, your analysis is on point. I have only voted once in my life, and that was when i turned 18, but lost all my optimism in democracy after the criminal invasion of Iraq, which unfortunately my country was involved in as well. I personally prefer small governments and liberty in our secular and liberal world, but as long as my religious rights are there, I don´t really care if it´s left or rightwing government, and the best thing is my conscience is clear.
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: "A man follows the religion (i.e. ways and manners) of his intimate friend. So, each of you should carefully consider whom he takes as his intimate friend." before getting into a democratic party as a Muslim you might have the right Inentions , but after you get it and get mixed with people with different views ,it's possible for a person to leave the reason he got into politics from the start .
I believe this translation of Surah At-Tawbah, verse 31 is a warning for all of us. But Allah knows best. "They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." - Surah At-Tawbah, verse 31
There are levels of law and legislation. For example, driving on the left or right side of the road isn't a divine law but necessary nevertheless. Whereas, cutting the hand of the thief is divine law. People, ministers of office, legislation and other mechanisms can revise the laws, or add laws where needed. Even the Caliphs suspended laws and created others.
Power can be misused by acts of Commission or Omission at the hands of those who reign it. We all understand the Commission aspect but what is overlooked is the Omission aspect which manifests itself as unfair leniency towards friends. A leader is one who keeps the Commission and Omission of authoritative acts in justice, impartiality and equitably. Had punishments the Prophets delt to the transgressors not been carried out would be manifestation of Omission. Ironically, the liberalism sees them as Commission. Democracy is rule and supremacy of man. Islam is rule and supremacy of God. End of debate.
الديمقراطية تعني الحكم للشعب وهذا كفر لأنه ينبغي أن يكون الحكم لله وحده لا شريك له قال الله تعالى ( إن الحكم إلا لله أمر أن لا تعبدوا إلا إياه ذلك الدين القيم ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون ) الآية 40 سورة يوسف
Also my personal observation is that it is far more productive to gain ranks in the governmental departments and institutions while preserving the deen. Joining the political system is a lose lose and only a compromise.
Democracy comes from the Greek 'demos kratos' which is essentially the law by the people and for the people and is geared towards self legislation as opposed to legislation from the creator. It emerged historically as a solution after the separation of church and state due to the English monarchy misusing religion to further their own selfish lifestyles and hence the historical revolutions that came about finally culminated in removing religiosity from having a part in legislation and paving the way forward for freedom and liberty. The point to note is that It is the legislative mechanism that belongs to the capitalist ideology associated with secularism and is not the legislative mechanism for the Islamic ideology whose legislative mechanism is the Shariah. It is haram for a Muslim to believe in democracy, to participate in it or to propagate it, regardless of benefit or no benefit because in democracy sovereignty belongs to man as the source of legislation, whereas in Islam sovereignty belongs to Allah exclusively.
Very good talk brother Paul SubhanAllah - for eg a recent book by Michael Franzese ‘ Mafia Republic ‘ describes the illusion in practice of so called American democracy
Well done spot on Paul. I ask allah the all mighty to reward you for your efforts and for your truthfulness seeking the objective truths. It is like the cup of water a drop of poison will make the purity of the water impure and contaminated.
The highest law is Allah"s law and sovereignty belongs to Him. When comes to our Iman, there's no two way about it. Allah alone is supreme. Allah is Al-Akhbar, or do we believe the govt is Al-Akhbar? Taking part in election, giving your votes to a party that forms into a govt which doesn't recognizes Allah's sovereignty, but that the state is supreme - that is syirk.
"And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying." Quran 6:116
I like your point on the “price of participation” in democratic systems; however (like you alluded) this price only exists within the affiliation of political parties rather than the actual democratic system itself, due to the existence of ulterior influence. In George Washington's farewell address to the newly formed republic, he described the dangers of political parties, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty." Washington is quite clearly describing the whip in modern politics and the dangers of conformity to a political party. The price tag of democracy resides within the institution of the political faction, not the system. When it comes to funding (PACs, and Super PACs in American Government & Politics), this price tag is further minimized through the removal of political parties. When it comes to the actual system of democracy, and its favorability to other political systems, that is a whole different argument. The inquiry is: Is Islam compatible with democracy? Is it beneficial to participate in democratic systems? Yes it is; however, political parties are a stain to that democratic system. I feel this video was a solid criticism of political parties and exterior influence on governmental function. I enjoyed this video. Cheers.
This reaction video is mainly premised on the cost/benefit analysis. What about the halal/haram analyis of participating in Secular Democracies that allows man to make halal and haram?
No system of governance is ever going to be perfect, nor will it be able to please all of the people all of the time. But let's be honest, the countries where people, of all different types and backgrounds, face the least oppression and injustice are countries that are governed by democracy (liberalism and secularism). Democracy may be far from perfect, but it's the best we have. A non-democratic kingship or religious state might be ok for a place where everyone is the same - same religion, same sect, same views and opinions etc but it won't work where there is a diverse mix of people who believe, think and live differently.
Yeah, that’s what one would think when they know nothing about history beyond 100 years and drink the whole bottle of democracy kool-aid. You’re wildly, wildly, wildly overestimating how different people are actually allowed to be under secular democracies. And at the same time there are rational limits to how different multiple cultures can be and still coexist under the same state, any sane society needs limits for how different people can be or they start fighting. Democracy cultists make the delusional double-whammy claim that 1) all state entities in the past forced people to conform to the point of being clones of one another 2) we don’t make anyone conform to anything ever Lastly, there isn’t meant to be a magic way to know good and just people and choose them to be rulers or there would not be problems on earth. Trying to solve this problem is naïve. What we really need is to have tribes and large families again so people can have each other’s backs if they are threatened by the state or any belligerent party, or even from the chaos of life. This is what we lost by ignoring God’s commands about silatul arham صلة الإرحام Modern individualism is what makes man weak, depressed and vulnerable and in constant need to have laws about every little thing to feel safe from the state / protected by it.
U must be non Muslim.. But the best system tested and proven is the khilafah system practiced by the rashidons.. they included minorities as well.. and their rights where cared for well and beyond
Mustafa Sabri Efendi, the last SheikhulIslam of the Ottoman Empire, tells in his work Mevkif'ul-Akl 👇 [If the state leaves the line of Islam, "Obeying the dictates of religion is not the business of the government. It is only the business of society." says, this is to separate religion from the state. In such a case, the state apostatized (abandoned religion). If the society consents to such a government, or if the government will make laws by taking the society's proxy in the parliament (that is, by voting), the society will become apostate just as the government is apostate. In this case, the following verse applies to both that government and that ummah: "Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers themselves." (Surah Maida, Verse 44) A political regime that accepts the principle of secularism means that it has rebelled against the rules of Islam. Therefore, first of all, this government apostatized, and then those who obeyed this administration became apostates one by one. Just as those who take part in the political administration are apostates one by one, the masses obeying this government also fall into apostasy (kufr).] (Mavkif'ul-Akıl, 4/280)
I think a good middle ground is for parties that subscribe to Islamic values should be formed and promoted but not as a “Islamic” party. Insha Allah more people will support the party and legislation can then be influenced. It’s dangerous to change one’s views (from the truth) because of political correctness and should be utterly condemned. You always have a choice!!!
Salam everyone Islamic democracy is fascinating It mandates 5 things 1. The political leader or emir/ khalifah is their servant. Our beloved prophet SAwS practiced that and so did the first 4 caliphs RA 2. Voting or Bay3a. Our beloved prophet SAwS himself insisted on bay3a from men and women and did the at on 3 occasions in 12 years. It was a given that people who believed in his message believed he was the best among humanity and he carried Allah’s mandate and was to be obeyed. They suffered persecution by being Muslim. Despite that he went through the process. His grandson Imam Hussein RA was history’s martyr for free choice of leadership. 3. Leaders should have shura. This mandates distribution of power as mentioned in Paul’s beautiful speech. 4. Justice is key that the leaders are accountable for on the day of judgement. Omar RA and Imam Ali RA were particularly dreadful of that responsibility in front of Allah. 5. The leader should not desire that leadership. As mentioned above by Paul, this is lacking in western democracy but it was very present within Islam and practiced by the first four true caliphs. We can add Imam Hassan RA for his six months and Omar bin Abd Al Aziz to that list. Imam Ali RA told people around him that his khilafah is not worth the sole of his shoe. Our beloved prophet SAwS Omar and Ali RA specifically reported that mandate and practiced it. 6. Protection of the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, obviously not practiced by Western liberal democracies. Under Islam, racial divisions were abolished from day one. Under Islam, Christians and Jews and Hindus had their own Cannon law. That gave them not only freedom of speech about their faiths but practice that was clearly opposed to Islam, however Islam granted them that inherent right. They were (the only) ones awarded liquor licenses through Islamic history. As mentioned in France, Muslims have no freedom of speech or freedom of action regarding their faith. Unfortunately Muslim countries like Tunisia or Turkey had preceded France in that. Islam even allows people to have their own deen or loyalty or indebtedness to principles and actions. There is no compulsion in deen. Imam Hanifa argued with atheists at his time and no one put them in prison. Shame on a Muslim who does not have a strong argument against atheism or immorality and resorts to violence to settle that!
It must be understood that there is no utopian livelihood under any authority because we all differ in understanding thus will always lead to differences in society, just as it did under the Khulafaah Rashidun and those who came after. Issue for us Muslims is about ideological discussion that has Aqīdah ramifications. To adopt (how can one deny that when that is the requirement and eventual end as we see how some try to say Islamic democracy) ally with an ideology (capitalist ideology, that differs from its core with Islām including its values) and its powerful element ie the politcal authority ie democratic system, is no less than betrayal of Allāh SWT and His Messenger SAW. If we understand what the Prophet SAW and the Sahabas RA went through the struggle in Makkah, yet they did not participate in the secular system of Quraysh (when the Quraysh offered the Prophet SAW everything including kingship over tthem) then the picture shouldn't be ambiguous at all, rather we should be a example of a community that stands for its principles and not one that sells its values for very cheap gains. So what's the way forward? As Muslims irrespective of where we are, we must hold on to the Islāmic Aqīdah and its values to our best of ability however, we should be mindful that we can not protect and propagate Islām (What benefit is greater than Islam!) unless we have a political authority ie the Khilafah, furthermore we must understand that to achieve any other benefits, we can not do so living under alien ideologies and specially an ideology that seeks to destroy Islām. Lastly but importantly, every thoughts and emotions are governed by laws, so we see today, take for example of lgbt, capitalism sees it as individuals right however Islām views it as a crime. Capitalism sees the legislation to be a matter for mind, where as Islam restricts it to Allāh SWT, so how can there be similarity when the basis contradicts! It can not. So in respect to participation in secular democratic system, Islām contradicts from its core ie in secular system its man is the god of society and state, while in Islām it's Allāh SWT is the God of society and state. Thus we are not allowed to seek any other political order beside the one Islām mandated ie the Khilafah and only through the Khilafah we can remove the sin on our neck and address all our issues Biiznillāhita'ala
Totally agree with you. And it appears that Hijra is the solution and answer to Muslims’ current predicament. As a Muslim living in the West and disapproving of the system, I really would like to migrate “somewhere” but where? Sheikh Imran Husain advises that we move into small villages with like-minded Muslims and abide by the Quran within the community. Several of these “villages” have been established already which might be one small move to khilafah. However, with current Islamophobic events in India, where should the 200 million Muslims migrate to?
@@aminaahmad8328 Jazak Allāh Khairan for your points. I would narrow it down to 2 points in shaa'Allāh. 1) Muslims living in Capitalist West. Here the challenges as you mentioned are some what diffrent ie here the objective of the host is to integrate/assimilate the guest into its ideals ie become a secular liberal. From this respect, the end is that unfortunately many will be lost to secular creed as we are seeing and so the future generations will be a big issue. Hence to protect our Imān and it's values, we need to move to Muslim lands (which ever one that is possible from individuals perspective). From this perspective, it doesn't mean that we become insular, rather because we live amongst Muslims, we need to engage the community and work towards the requirements of Islām ie society and State of Islām. This is important because, it's this what will lead us towards that which is pleasing to Him JJ. On this point, we need to follow step by step what the Prophet SAW and the Sahabas RA did in Makkah in respect to the political activities (it's important to be specific in terms of separating actions as we do with Salah or Siaam...) until Allāh SWT blessed them with the Khilafah in Madinah. As for our Brothers and Sisters that are living in places like India or occupied Palestine, Kashmir, China.... There are few points to consider. Those who are living in these lands, need to clearly understand that they are part of One Global Ummah and part of that One solution ie the Khilafah, removing all secular nationalists sentiments. By doing so, they pave the way for themselves and future generations towards Islām requirements Biiznillāhita'ala. As for us not living in these lands, we need to be their support (which ever way Islām permits), expose the atrocities committed against Muslims and make the clear link with them that we are One Ummah and their issues are our issue. And lastly but importantly, we need to work tirelessly to bring back Islām and its authority ie the Khilafah in the Muslim world (capable places) so that we can bring Humanity out of darkness to the Light of Islām Biiznillāhita'ala These are few points to consider in shaa'Allāh.
@@kingmosesix432 100% agree with you, Allāh SWT gave us the best system and that is the Shari'ah and Khilafah. My point was that as human we will make mistake hence we shouldn't think that the society and state will be angelic
@@mawlududdin2891 well tgts true u can c tht human nature given power will eventually be corrupted or atleast not angelic.. U can c tht as soon as the 4 rasidon chalips radiAllahu ajma en died they next generation became monarchs amd corrupt.. The thing is this is quite common so the islamic principle here is tgt AS LONG AS THE ENFORCE SHARIA IN THE CONSTITUTION its fine. Thts why most scholars did not tell to opt out the ruler if hes a drinker or anyother personal sins.. As long as he enforced sharia hes fine despite his personal characters.. Thts why eventho after rasidon they were monarchs however scholars didnt revolt and said "hey bring back how rashidon used to choose chalip and dont elect ur sons" because they knew as long as sharia is implemented the system is ok... even tho its best to have chalips in the way rashidon had
Iam from indonesia, indonesia is a democratic country since 1950s. however, our democrcy here actually a modified democracy. we also have Pancasila as our national ideology.
Yes, it is. Provided that the democracy doesn't involved voting against the laws of Allah. In constitutional democracies it is often the case that the constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be voted against.
Islamic democracy is one where people who pray 5x a day and pay Zakat are allowed to vote. If you don’t pray or pay Zakat you lose the right to vote or participate in government. امرهم شوري بينهم And their affairs are mutual consultation “BETWEEN THEM”. Between them is the key word. Today’s democracy doesn’t care if you pray or pay Zakat. They only care if you have a passport and paid your government taxes. There’s no moral condition for participating in government. In an Islamic country, if you don’t pray at the mosque or pay your Zakat you lose the right to vote. There needs to be a way to track people (men’s) prayers at the mosque and of course Zakat can easily be tracked through the banking system.
To be honest these objectives are sensitive a little bit and very very detailed and very harsh field to go into trust me For Muslims I think they need to use the term in Arabic “ الشورى al-Shura “ rather than using the word democracy I know that there is things in democracy matches al-Shura also I understand the two words sadly been translated that they are the same thing and this is the problem that I refuse anyone trying to make the case like this Because in the west Democracy is actually been connected to the secular meaning in the west and Shura been connected to the meaning that Islam established In democracy the throne is for the people or the nation and in monarchy the throne is for one person and both to me are tyranny systems but in different forms one is singular and one is plural and make the source of judgment in wrong centralisation and this is the problem of governing in all the history of humanity and the objective correct solution was in the Islam system in all the history because the Islam system is trying to make a gather and balance between democracy and monarchy and fix them and this been in the concept of Shura and imamah or khlafah And to try to summarise it we make of course the nation to get involved and also the leaders but our ultimate sources when we disagree or see something wrong or even judge….etc are the Quran and Sunnah in the understanding of the Salaf saleh that’s the correct approach and somehow summaries the idea of the Islam system in governance And I remember beautiful quote from sheikh Mohammed abdu also summary this he said: “The Human is a slave for God alone, and he is a master of everything after him”.
The Shrua happens only based on scholarly consensus, and not based on whims of the general public. Shura underpins Divine basis, not individual's desires.
@@theintuitivetruth No, originally Shura involved everyone but this doesn’t mean if someone deny to give the “ بيعه allegiance " with no good reason from Quran and Sunnah or someone could not give the “ بيعه allegiance " because of incident or event or situation which made a barrier or a wall between that person or group of people or whoever and giving of “ بيعه allegiance " in this case we take “ اهل الشوكه والجمهور which is the scholars and people of power in society who are the majority and they are doing in the approach and the main sources Quran and Sunnah “ and I agree in the sense if you mean “ majority or minority or individuals or groups of people or scholars or whoever is it, I agree that they must to establish Shura but the correct one that involved everyone with of course depending on divine basis and their Shura when they practice it they need to not conflict the divine basis even if they are some of the scholars !! This is very important that scholars desires or all people desires are not the judgment. The MAIN judgment in everyone is the divine basis which is from Quran and Sunnah and what the first generation of Islam practices specifically the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and the first 5 Khulfa May Allah be pleased with them practiced Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him he actually elect to the Muslims the people khulfa and he did not choose someone and impose him on people. No he actually elected to them names as in Hadith and also he gave a prophecy on what people and Allah and him are actually pleased specific one of them Abu Baker RA in this prophecy he is telling what inside everyone from people they all see Abu baker RA is the one and prophet told this prophecy because there is ambiguous event will happen and it will happen that may cause a little rash and this truly happened in " السقيفه “ which there is a group of ansar after prophet Mohammed peace be upon him dead the companions were busy in this so this group of ansar they elected a someone from the Sad bin Obadah and this was the event that the prophet tell this prophecy so to not be any conflicting in opinions or something like this and to show to that these people actually accept Abu baker and this what happened actually when Abu baker and Omar and a group of companions know about this they immediately in rush they went to handle the situation and when they came to the ansar, the ansar said from us a prince and from you a prince and Abu baker and the companions they explained to the ansar the divine basis that the Khelafah one of its main conditions to be in “ قريش Quresh " after that immediately they accept that and they immediately elected Abu baker because this what in there hearts originally but they did not remember that condition until the companions cleared to them this and then actually the companions started to elect each other do you know that or not? Actually abu baker elect companions and in the end they all agreed on abu baker because they already know he is the one in there hearts But still as you can see if the prophet impose someone they would not do this Shura to elect and to choose and the scholars said the khelafah of abu baker all of Muslims unite and gave the “ بيعه allegiance " to abu baker it is an “ اجماع consensus “ and by that happed to Omar Bin alkhatab May Allah be pleased with him and to make a surprise to you Abu baker RA he asked every single Muslim if they are electing him and subhanallah the Muslims they are actually following the suggestion of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him in order and priority very accurate and they agreed on him and scholars also said it was a unity by all Muslims “ اجماع consensus “ and Omar bin alkatab RA said clearly in long Hadith in bukary: …..فمَن بَايَعَ رَجُلًا علَى غيرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ، فلا يُتَابَعُ هو ولَا الذي بَايَعَهُ؛ تَغِرَّةً أنْ يُقْتَلَا. الراوي : عبدالله بن عباس | المحدث : البخاري | المصدر : صحيح البخاري الصفحة أو الرقم: 6830 | خلاصة حكم المحدث : [صحيح] The translation: …. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed." And I can continue talking about the other khalefas but I gave the examples of the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and abu baker RA and Omar RA just to show that this is something not questionable and I’m ready to provide to you every single saying about anything you want about this and I already gave you clear evidences and I summarised to you many long things in direct points and I actually have clear understanding of what “ المتغلب meaning and situation “ and I know you didn’t bring this until now but I will tell there is a lot of details that many people don’t know the differences about it and about the situations of “ الاضطرار " and the situations of going to the origin way of the prophet approach “ منهاج النبوه " because of course in “ الاضطرار " it is different of how prophet did it and Muslims in abu baker…etc and I will not get in details these are enough evidences at least as direct examples from the first two important khalefas after the prophet And I hope I answered your concerns.
Look Paul, non participation would mean that your community must create a separate government or immigrate to a country governed by Muslim laws. In terms of your community participation is better than non participation and the fact that Muslims vote incorrectly doesn't "change" Islam.
Is participation in the democratic system the law? Are we forced to vote? How is participation better when people are voting for gay marriage and all other things which go against Islam? That stuff trickles down into our communities as well.
@@millionfish because you can vote against the policies you don't believe in rather than leave the vote to people who will vote against what you believe. A small effort against wrong can go a long way. At least you have mechanism through which to legally oppose corruption. Why wouldn't you choose to use it? What alternatives do you have? Do Hijrah to Gambia?
@@ninjadebruyns8577 The alternative is either to not participate, or yes, make hijrah to a Muslim country (also, we need to stop having this inferiority complex. Gambia can be turned around economically if we move back and dedicate time and effort into it).
@@millionfish I personally have no inferiority complex. I spent most of my life in Africa. I am a pragmatist. Work with what you have and do what is prudent and possible. If a country has general law and order and also allows you the freedom to practice your religion it is still much better than many countries. I've traveled and lived on 3 different continents and I can say definitively that Britain is really not that bad even by Islamic metrics: like preservation of religion, life, property, lineage, and honor. Remember that a country isn't necessarily in accordance with the Shariah because it has capital punishment and doesn't allow certain vices. There are also positive requirements of law and if you experienced lawlessness like many people have you would perhaps have a fairer assessment of your society in which you can probably drive to the store and buy groceries and not likely get killed.
@@ninjadebruyns8577 I never said Britain is a bad country, they're much, much better than France, Austria, etc. I didn't even say to move to Gambia. I said, partaking in western politics is pointless because you'll always be a minority and never get anything passed. Almost every "Muslim" MP voted for gay marriage, sex-ed curriculum, etc. Whatever positives are greatly outweighed by the negatives.
A respectable point of view however the opposite(dictatorship) has not been discussed .islam in itself is not always understood the same way amongst regular muslims and scholars alike . Giving power to one person to decide for the hole nation and impose his understanding of islam on the rest of the muslims can be very problematic that is besides the fact that giving absolute power to one party has always resulted in tyranie and corruption.
Hizb ut Tahrir have expounded a very similar viewpoint in the UK over the past three decades whilst being widely pilloried for the same. White guy says this and suddenly we're like wow, what an amazing observation!
The controversial issue of democracy and participating in it - it's like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. This issue is at the heart of the current spat btw Yaqeen institute and other Muslim scholars who take strong issues with their approach. The truth is we are to participate in democracy we will have to make compromises to get even the smallest benefit for the ummah. How do we measure or determine if the good/benefit will outweigh the bad/sacrifice? We should reflect on the story of the sahaba who were sent on an expedition of reconnaissance but ended up killing and taking booty contrary to the instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.). However, Allah in the Quran came to their defense because their crime/sin (identified as such in the surah Baqarah) cannot be compared to the crime of the Quraish. Perhaps, before we conclude on the bad optics of the positions and actions of Muslim politicians we should consider the benefit that can come from them being there. Make no mistake, this does not mean that we should accept whatever they do but that we should keep them on their toes and pull on their rope to keep them from falling into the fire. There will always be the risk of hypocrisy or falling off the path for them. May Allah guide us, our scholars, and our leaders. Ameen
@Shakima Basan Al-Baqarah 2:217 يَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلشَّهْرِ ٱلْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِۖ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌۖ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَكُفْرٌۢ بِهِۦ وَٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ وَإِخْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِۦ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ ٱللَّهِۚ وَٱلْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ ٱلْقَتْلِۗ وَلَا يَزَالُونَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ ٱسْتَطَٰعُوا۟ۚ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَٰلُهُمْ فِى ٱلدُّنْيَا وَٱلْءَاخِرَةِۖ وَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ أَصْحَٰبُ ٱلنَّارِۖ هُمْ فِيهَا خَٰلِدُونَ English - Sahih International They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally. English - Tafsir Jalalayn Thus the Prophet (s) sent forth the first of his raiding parties under the command of `Abd Allh b. Jahsh. They fought against the idolaters and killed [`Amr b. `Abd Allh] Ibn al-Hadram in [the sacred month of] Rajab, thinking that it was the last day of Jumd II. The disbelievers reviled them for making fighting lawful in a sacred month, and so God revealed the following: They ask you about the sacred, the forbidden, month, and fighting in it (qitlin fhi, `fighting in it', is an inclusive substitution [for al-shahri l-harmi, `the sacred month']). Say, to them: `Fighting (qitlun is the subject) in it is a grave thing (kabr, `grave', is the predicate), that is, heinous in terms of sin; but to bar (saddun is the subject), people, from God's way, His religion, and disbelief in Him, in God, and, to bar from, the Sacred Mosque, that is, Mecca, and to expel its people, the Prophet (s) and the believers, from it -- that is graver (the predicate of the [last] subject), [that is] more heinous in terms of sin than fighting in it, in God's sight; and sedition, your idolatry, is graver than, your, slaying', in it. They, the disbelievers, will not cease to fight against you, O believers, until, so that, they turn you from your religion, to unbelief, if they are able; and whoever of you turns from his religion, and dies disbelieving -- their, good, works have failed, that is, they are invalid, in this world and the Hereafter. Thus they will not count for anything and will not result in any reward. The specification of death as a condition is because if that person were to return to Islam [again], his original deeds would not be invalidated, and he will be rewarded for them, and he would not have to repeat them, [deeds] such as [performing] the Pilgrimage: al-Shfi` is of this opinion. Those are the inhabitants of the Fire, abiding therein.
Ur analogy with a sahaba is wrong.. the sahabah in this eg didnt do aqqedah issue it was a issue of hukum.. But participation in democracy is an aqeeda issue not hukum its like worshipping idols WILLINGLY It not like drinking alcohol which is sin but way lesser than shirk... As for lose/profit analysis tht remember the Prophet endowered what is endowerd for 13 yrs yet he didnt give in.. The thing is Muslims living in west is problem.. Thts why he have hijrah Thats why establish khilafah was of so utmost importance eg the sahabas didnt even wait to bury the Prophet Muhammed salahualiwasallam to elect chalip.. thts how important of a matter it is.. Today since we lost tht.. We r understanding the problem now
Democracy are on the boundaries that God Allowed , like selecting a leader , or life laws ,like roads etc .. and its not for normal citizens to vote , only those who are expert and have a sound reasoning in that field .. Allah knows best ,
A small point which somewhat undermines your view - MPs were *not* whipped to support the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. They had a free vote. Please do your homework. What this means is that a large part of your post is based on a mistake, or much worse, a lie. Democracy is merely a mechanism. If you win your argument then eventually you will have your way politically. Muslims are allowed to use this mechanism too, you know. This was how slavery was abolished, not to mention a number of other positive changes. Changes that would have been all but impossible otherwise. I think you misunderstand what democracy is for. It does abound with flaws, but it still stands as the worst possible form of government. Apart from all the others we have tried.
Athenian democracy was an apartheid state. In their definition of people, anyone who was mixed or non pure blooded athens were excluded. It was also a system that completely excluded women. They were not even considered as "people". The closest to athenian democracy is zionist israel perhaps, in how they exclude the rights of palestinians. Democracy was all about exclusion and power.
In imagining an ‘Islamic democracy’, I’m wandering can the distinction be made between morals and governance. Could we agree that our morals don’t change but we can still vote for who we want to govern us. So their policies cannot touch the halal or the haram but it can influence all that is in between because, remember, Islamic fiqh is much more nuanced and encompassing than western law.
Yes, Islam and democracy are compatible! It will not mean that Muslims will accept every liberal law in the West, but any law which does not contradict Islam can be accepted. The anti-Islamic values and laws should be resisted though.
Islam teaches or prescribes 1) consultation 2) social harmony and unity 3) consent 4) loyalty 5) public office is a deputyship. These can best be put to practice in a republic. Not in a monarchy, which promptly turns authoritarian as the Umayyad example and its successors evinced.
Paul I think you are talking about secular democracy that is not underscored by a rule of law enshrined with the limits of God. You are missing the possibility that democracy can function as mechanism for populace legislation outside of what must necessarily be applied to society under divine law where only God can be the legislator. Those laws, I'd have you know, are very few. Something like the ten commandments.
Democracy may sound good at first hearing “a system where the majority chooses who leads them based on their interests”. What’s wrong with this is that this gives the opportunity to unqualified people to rule leading the state to ruins. It is also sensible to attacks such as the election turns to a election where budget, charisma & shallow promises rules. Allah have already given us a system which works perfect, a caliphate. I just mentioned some reasons from a non-religious aspectiv, but ofc the right of legislation only belong to Allah the Lord of the worlds
I highly relate to this hypothetical Arab: In my early teenage I was impressed by democracy, believing that it is the best governing system that we should adopt, yet the more I learnt about democracy and saw what resulted from it (especially in the last two decades) the more I lost such impression, and I'm glad to say that I'm currently anti-democratic ☺️
I think anyone with fair knowledge of Islam and democracy comes to the conclusion of their incompatibility, any other view is based on a misunderstanding of what Islam/ democracy is, or simply mere stickling, one example of such incompatibility is that a Muslim should never obey any order or law that conflicts with his/her religion, regardless of such an order or law being the result of democracy or tyranny, in other words: There's no weight for any human wish, opinion, or order if it goes against Islam, whether it comes from an individual, the majority, or even the whole mankind.
Can you please provide some sources you researched from, I’m very interested.
JazakumuLLaah khayran
Not all laws go against Islam and in today’s democracies, countries have a judiciary that strikes down laws as unconstitutional. Same can be done with laws against islam so you criticism falls flat.
@@khans11o I would recommend the writings of Plato and Alija Izetbegović on politics as a start.
@@syedahmed8650 In democracy the source legislation is the people, while in Islam the source is Allah, also in democracy the constitution itself can be changed if the people choose to do so, while in Islam there no way to do that, these are very foundational differences between the two, so you may invent an 'Islamic democracy' but no democratic would consider it to be true democracy.
@@islamadam8502
Again you have simplistic and reductionist understanding of how modern democracies operate. The source of law in a democracy comes from upholding the values and beliefs enshrined in the constitution. A Muslim state would guarantee that Islam will be the only source of law just as liberal democracies uphold the ideals of liberalism. Have you ever seen a liberal democracy implement an Islamic law? No. Unless the people in power themselves apostate then there is no way for there to amend Islam out of the constitution. There is no foundational difference between the two. Democracy is simply a method of governing. It is a vehicle absent an ideology.
Democracy = rule by international finance and the Merchant class
Not true. You had democracy in the USSR and even Nazi Germany (in its own implementation)
I will take it than being ruled by dumb aristocrats who have no idea what to do except sitting on the throne.
@@DawingmanT900how? Both the soviet union and nazi germany were one-party states
What's rhe alternative?
Saudi Arabia is rule by greedy, psychopathic, genocidal, philandering, gambling, drinking monarchs with no accountability.
Egypt is ruled by a corrupt, psychopathic, unaccountable military
Syria is ruled by a man willing to inflice such destruction on his own people for his own gain.
What is your alternative? Life in the West is flawed but it miles better than any non-democratic muslim country.
Not saying we copy democracy exactly as it is but I think it is really shortsighted to throw the baby out with the bath tub
That was a great presentation of such simple and explicit yet complicated point. I wouldn't be able to summarize it in 22 minutes video. Nevertheless I am not surprised! Very well said and thanks for sharing.
Glad it was helpful!
You are confused by the "presentation" and I am confused by what you have written.
@@BloggingTheology
Dear Paul,
Islam stands directly against God of Abraham and God of Israel. No wonder Islam stands against nation of Israel too.
See what God of Abraham, Jehovah foretold through Prophet Ezekiel about nation of Israel around BC 500, that is almost 1000 years before the advent of Islam! These amazing prophecies are getting fulfilled right before our eyes!
Ezekiel 37: 21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; 23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
24 And my servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in mine ordinances, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
@@BloggingTheology
Every Christian and Muslim need to study both the Books (Bible and Quran) very carefully.
Islam depends on the words of one person, one total Stranger! The stranger who manhandled an innocent man, the Islamic prophet, at Hira cave and pressed him at least 3 times, without any provocation!
Who was he? Did he reveal his identity or name? No, never.
Did he claim he was angel Gabriel from God of Abraham? No, never.
See his mysterious behavior! Even a street bully won't press an innocent man without any provocation!
Entire Islam is based on this one person, since Allah never interacted with humanity! Allah never spoke to any human being till today. No human ever seen him! Allah remains as a character inside the pages of Quran, the book that the Stranger brought! Did Allah carry out any activity in last 1400 years? If you know anything, please share.
Any witness for above Stranger? No, none, till today.
1.8 billion people follow this total Stranger! Without asking any questions. From very childhood asking questions are discouraged and blind faith is instilled in young minds.
Whereas God of Bible forewarned and foretold about this Stranger well in advance! The Stranger who will directly stand against God Almighty's saving program for sinful humanity, that is, by sending His son in order to die on the cross of Calvary.
Now, what was the most important mission our above total Stranger of Hira cave had?
1. Deny Jesus as Son of God Almighty. Declare boldly that Allah got no son! Declare that saying Allah got a son is the greatest sin!
2. Deny God of Bible's second program: deny Jesus died on cross of Calvary. Say the ultimate falsehood, that some one else died on cross!
3. In short blind the eyes of humanity to God Almighty's saving program and generate doubts about it in human mind! That is the declared mission of Islam.
4. Stand against Ten Commandments God Almighty Himself declared on Mount Sinai! Encourage the Islamic prophet to brake the Ten Commandments!
The Stranger of Hira cave, the real person behind Islamic religion, spoke directly against what the Real angel Gabriel of Bible spoke to Mary, the future mother of Jesus Christ. See below please.
Luke 1: 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
In Quran we do not know the real identity of the Stranger! Whereas Bible forewarned about him as below, well in advance!
1 John 2: 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us-eternal life. 26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.
2 Corinthians 11: 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
Islam spoke about another Jesus- Issa!
Islam spoke about yet another spirit -- the so called Jibreel, spirit of Allah!
2 Corinthians 11: 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Galatians 1:6-9 No Other Gospel 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
@@BloggingTheology
Before the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in AD 632, he got the complete revelation of Quran.
He was illiterate. Still he ensured that the Quran verses were recorded with the help of his companions (sahabis). Those ayaths were recorded on plain stones, camel bones, animal skin and palm tree leaves according to Islamic history! That was the very FIRST QURAN! THE ORIGINAL QURAN! THE REFERENCE QURAN WHICH SHOULD LAST FOREVER! THE VERY QURAN ALLAH PROMISED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT FOREVER!
NOW THE QUESTION IS: WHERE IS THAT ORIGINAL REFERENCE QURAN AS ON TODAY? WHERE IS THAT QURAN PROTECTED AND PRESERVED BY ALLAH HIMSELF AS ON TODAY?
IF IT EXISTS TODAY , YES IT IS A MIRACLE AS MUSLIMS CLAIM! IF NOT, ISLAM SIMPLY COLLAPSES!
You agree?
However what is the real truth?
1. Most probably that Original Reference Quran recorded by the Islamic prophet was included in the Quran portions destroyed by fire on orders of Caliph Uthman. If so that Original Reference Quran is lost forever!
2. What about the present Quran available with us?
a. First post Islamic prophet Quran was made after his death in AD 632. Caliph Abu Bakr was forced to compile the first post Islamic prophet Quran because of sudden death of many Quran memorizers in the subsequent wars. Did Allah or prophet commanded him to do the compilation of Quran? No, never!
In fact Allah himself promised to preserve and protect his Quran forever! However sudden loss of so many Quran memorizers forced Caliph Abu Bakr to take his own decision, without seeking advice from Allah or Muhammad!
That is how the Abu Bar Quran came into existence! Most Muslims will get shocked that this First Quran had no involvement of Allah or prophet!
b. Thus Abu Bakr appointed a young man, Zyad Ibn Tabith, who was previously the scribe of the Islamic prophet before his death. Zyad Ibn Tabith was obviously reluctant to undertake the job, which was not commanded by Allah or prophet. However he had no other choice, but to obey the orders of the king.
c. Why did Caliph Abu Baker ordered the compilation of Quran, which was not commanded by Allah or prophet when Allah himself promised to protect his Quran? Means, Abu Baker had no faith in Allah's words? And he compiled a Quran with the help of above Zyed Ibn Tabit. Obviously an unauthorized Quran! However even this unauthorized Quran was not complete! One ayath was missing in it for so many years! No one could identify or realize or point out the grave mistake! Finally Zyed Ibn Tabit while revising the Abu Baker Quran, on orders of Caliph Uthman, remembered about the grave mistake and added the ayath in the Revised Uthman's Quran! And Caliph Uthman ordered the destruction of all other Quran materials!!!
d. Even the Revised Uthman's Quran had its own problems. Two solid Surahs were missing in it and also one ayath on stoning of adulterous women and verse of suckling the breast by adult men!
e. Abdullah ibn Masʽood was one of the four most prominent Quran teachers appointed by Islamic prophet. He totally disapproved the Revised Uthman's Quran too! Then, what credibility Revised Uthman's Quran got ?
f. Now Muslims use many different ARABIC QURANS! See the links below please.
1. Display of 26 versions of Arabic Quran @ Hyde Park , London
th-cam.com/video/EsgphL9lGcc/w-d-xo.html
2. Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3
th-cam.com/video/EpsnXMZ5lEE/w-d-xo.html
g. Here is a solid example for totally different Arabic Qurans.
FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS
sihraani
... two works of magic ... 28:48
FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH
saahiraani
... two magicians ... 28:48
Obviously "two works of magic" FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS cannot be exactly equal to "two magicians" FROM THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH. Both cannot be true!
When that is the ground reality, many Muslim brethren still hold on to the belief that ""Allah sent the Final Testament, the Qur'an, and unlike the previous books, has never been changed.""
Only one book in the planet earth claims preservation and protection straight away from God Almighty! Means, that Book must be visible to anyone who would like to see that! Who would like to cross check it!
Whereas when ask questions we get answer that it is preserved in memory! Does it make any sense? Even prophet himself forgot ayaths! That is recorded in Islamic texts! That means preservation by memory is not a genuine option! That is why the prophet painstakingly recorded the Quran ayaths on plain stones, camel bones, animal skin and palm tree leaves! And his followers gave no respect for his works! They did not bother! No wonder the Original Reference Quran went in flames by Caliph, Uthman! And Allah was totally missing in whole Quran preservation and protection process!
The founding fathers of the biggest and most powerful democracy in the world had nothing good to say about democracy. For example, Benjamin Franklin if my memory serves me right said democracy is a wolf in sheepskin. One question I always pose to "Muslim" supporters of democracy. How can my father who has always worked hard and always earned halal money and always followed and respected the laws and rules of Sharia and the law of the land have his vote equalled with a person who takes bribes, rapes, and steals. What kind of justice is that and what kind of politicians will it beget. Small example is the politicians elected to office in the middle Eastern countries that have pseudo democracy. Look at the conditions of people in those countries and ponder
I hope not. Bad enough we have a democratic republic. Can't imagine how bad America would be if it was a full democracy. May Allah swt guide and bless us all
Freedom is still important
Thank you once again for your blog. As I understand the concept, democracy's purpose is to peacefully resolve disagreements among society's members. Ideally with protections for minority views, democracy provides a mechanism to adopt rules by which to live and interact. It being a civil process, its goal is to further an ongoing process of civilization. This, of course, calls for people to live with some rules they disagree with as no one is always in the majority. Personally, I don't see that as paying a price. Certainly, if I believed that only I knew the correct answer to all questions, I should become a hermit.
Excellent video. Left me intrigued about Gai Eaton's work given a few people I respect have mentioned him
Thanks for sharing bro Paul. Interestingly today world needs this kind of info. Bless you 😇
Brother Paul, you are doing amazing work.I just want to tell you that.🤝☝️
Thank you so much 😀
@@BloggingTheology Thank you, God bless you.
The late Bertrand Russell, (a British philosopher, logician, and social critic) on Western democracy:
"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them."
Maybe "the stupid" indeed the honest man. And the "clever" tyrant is just liar. But sometimes like The Quran say, the majority will make you astray from the path
Democracy should be seen as a "tool" similar to knife and "double edge" tools.
Therefore, Democracy should not be generalized to one ideology or to other. The evil for Muslims and even for non-Muslim conservatives of every culture, is the extremists. In this case, extreme leftists.
LBGT non only against human recreation, but lack "muwaddah" (spiritual lovely-care), necessary for family, society and nation.
Bertrand Russell was an atheist. We have better role models criticizing dem*cracy
what he had in mind him and his "accomplices" is much much worse.
On an unrelated note, the beard look really suits you MashaAllah 😊
Thanks! 😃
What kind of democracy?
Abu Bakr was elected via Shura where only those with the prerequisite knowledge could vote on behalf of those who didn't have the knowledge.
If you mean the democracy we have in the west where there vote of a murderer is equal to the vote of a doctor, then no. Islam is not compatible with this "democracy".
Can Muslims today accept a leader chosen by some other people to be their leader till he dies?
That’s really an oversimplification of western democracy. A murderer must be proven to be a murderer in a court of law. This is in both the Islamic and western traditions. Why would they not have the same voice to criticize the government as that of a doctor? Why is that unislamic?
May Allah bless you for your insight.
A famous poet said, " Democracy is a system where people are counted but they are not weighed. "
Callthe Copington: 20-3 MMA, 0-3 IRL
You said quote;
"Abu Bakr was elected via Shura where only those with the prerequisite knowledge could vote on behalf of those who didn't have the knowledge."
That's NOT true. Where did you get your information from? Stop posting inaccurate information if you are a Muslim.
@@Toronado2 What's the true information?
Assalamu alaikum,
Paul, that was really amazing by both of you and the author of the book (may Allah grant him and all of us paradise). To have this deep understanding of Islamic ruling system by both of you is something I really admire. I am a Kurd but can Arabic language very well and always listen to the top greatest scholars of Islam. When they denounce democracy or any other man made system and advise Muslims to leave them and stick to Islam, they say: (don't worry about any good in these man made systems because that good will certainly be included in our Lord's religion and it would be purified of any bad and harm).
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 🗳️ Guy Eaton discusses the relationship between Islam and democracy.
- Democracy is seen as a mechanism for Muslims to participate in and advance their interests in Western societies.
- The speaker presents a somewhat utopian view of democracy's benefits for Muslims.
- Eaton raises concerns about the potential consequences and drawbacks of Muslim participation in democratic systems, including compromises on Islamic principles and values.
09:47 🤝 Democracy in Western countries, corruption, and the price of participation.
- Eaton explores the meaning of democracy and how different people may perceive it.
- He highlights issues of money in politics and the need for significant financial contributions for election campaigns.
- Eaton discusses the challenges of representing Islamic principles within democratic systems, such as the example of gay marriage legislation.
19:47 🌊 The mysterious tide of public opinion and its impact on laws.
- Eaton touches on the ever-changing nature of public opinion and the potential psychological influences that drive shifts in societal views.
- He provides an example of changing attitudes toward homosexuality and how public opinion can radically transform over time.
- Eaton argues that legal systems influenced by ever-changing public opinion lack stability and may respond to passing fancies.
Made with HARPA AI
MashaAllah well explained!
Thank you very much for the effort of putting a light on the subject.
I think it's a sword of to edges we face, either lose the Islamic values by conceding in participating in democratic activities, or be a possible target to a democratic far rights parties,
But here is the thing you see, democratic pulls can easily be digest in many cases,
Like in the last pull in France for example by the council regarding the burkini dress which got withold by the interior minister,
So this democracy is just relatively changing according to which excuse they make to withold it if it's outcome does not really suits those in power,
It's all pointless we should try to encourage for Khalifa.
The point you make about France - Muslims had to vote for Macron despite all he did because the alternatives were worse than him. That was a forced compromise. What if we are more proactive about it perhaps we can avoid getting to that point.
I really enjoyed this video brother Paul. If possible in the future it would be nice if you could make a longer video about this. جزاك الله خيرا
As a Muslim Turk living in Turkey, this question actually keeps my thoughts busy a lot. In Turkey there are scholars who defend the idea that to vote ,and by this means to participate in a democratic process, is shirk. Because by doing so you simply give a slave of Allah the right to make laws for you and on your behalf, while Allah is Malik Al Mulk subhanahu wa taala. And there are other scholars who say that if a Muslim accept that laicism and democracy is shirk, and doesn't defend that any being have a right to put laws instead of Allah's laws or to change them, and by keeping these in mind so they should vote for someone who they believe will serve people in the way Allah subhanahu wa taala orders them to. Because if Muslims don't vote for good people, then the they'll be ruled by their enemies, which is a close idea to the idea of the scholar you mentioned.
And after listening to your doubts about the latter idea Mr. Paul, I started to think that participation in a democratic process is not what a Muslim should do. I don't have a right to say that it's shirk (Allah knows the best) but by voting for someone who supposedly is going to rule with the fear of Allah in his heart is nothing more than an assumption and when you consider that, for these democratic systems Islamic rules are more than scary, then, in a system that is literally enemy to the words of Allah, expecting a ruler to rule in accordance with the word of Allah is "naive", as you said.
This was a very beneficial video for me. Thanks and May Allah subhanahu wa taala rewards you for your services. May Allah subhanahu wa taala guides us to what's true, to the right path.
Hüseyin Abi biz bir fasist devletin kalintisiyiz. Maas yok deseler vazifeden istifa eden ilk imamlar olur. Devlet siyaset ayrildi deniyor ama bilakis devlet dini müesseselere tesellüt etti. Bizim aklimiz, gönlümüz o irkci, dünyaci küfür nizaminin merhunudur. Hayif bize hayif.
Allah is imaginary. You made it up.
@@ruhmuhaccer864 " Mûsâ kavmine, "Allah'tan yardım isteyin ve sabredin. Şüphesiz yeryüzü Allah'ındır. Ona, kullarından dilediğini mirasçı kılar. Sonuç Allah'a karşı gelmekten sakınanlarındır" dedi." A'raf, 128
Faşizm de, laiklik de, bütün insan icadı yaşama yöntemleri de batıldır. Ve "batıl yok olmaya mahkumdur" (İsra,81). Allah'tan yardım isteyeceğiz. El-Hakîm olan Allah'tan başka sahibimiz yoktur. Bizi bu fitnelere karşı selamette kılacak da elbet O'dur. Sabır kardeş sabır.
To Hüseyin Arslan
You said Quote;
"...this means to participate in a democratic process, is shirk."
How did you come up with this idea, that it is "SHIRK" to participate in the Democratic process? Don't make stuff up in your DEEN based on your desires. And DON'T let people tell you when they make stuff up and tell you your DEEN!
Sahih International: Quran 33:36 It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤۡمِنٍ وَّلَا مُؤۡمِنَةٍ اِذَا قَضَى اللّٰهُ وَرَسُوۡلُهٗۤ اَمۡرًا اَنۡ يَّكُوۡنَ لَهُمُ الۡخِيَرَةُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِهِمۡ ؕ وَمَنۡ يَّعۡصِ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوۡلَهٗ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِيۡنًا
You said it is "SHIRK"
However Allah AwJ SAID: ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِيۡنًا
Dalala is NOT SHIRK as you suggested or claimed! These Salafi Shaykhs just make things up based on their desires and NOT Quran and Sunnah.
@@Toronado2 brother, chill. Read my whole comment carefully. It is not me who says it's shirk. Salam.
Amazing by your clear and truly thought about Islam despite your relatively short journey in the Deen.
Fantastic, eye opening, insightful. At 14mins28, be prepared to get goosebumps.
If I may add another point: one of the misconceptions about democracy is that decisions are taken according to the choice of the majority of 'the people', the fact is that they are taken according to the choice of the biggest number of 'voters who share a common choice', which may or may not represent the choice of the majority of the people .
Even if you take the biggest number of voters you take 51% majority while ignoring concerns of 49% of voters/people. Moreover, people/voters can be easily manipulated for wrong choice by media manipulation which is what happened in the last French election.
Mashallah brother, your analysis is on point. I have only voted once in my life, and that was when i turned 18, but lost all my optimism in democracy after the criminal invasion of Iraq, which unfortunately my country was involved in as well. I personally prefer small governments and liberty in our secular and liberal world, but as long as my religious rights are there, I don´t really care if it´s left or rightwing government, and the best thing is my conscience is clear.
JazakaAllahu khayr Paul. You are treasure!
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: "A man follows the religion (i.e. ways and manners) of his intimate friend. So, each of you should carefully consider whom he takes as his intimate friend."
before getting into a democratic party as a Muslim you might have the right Inentions , but after you get it and get mixed with people with different views ,it's possible for a person to leave the reason he got into politics from the start .
I believe this translation of Surah At-Tawbah, verse 31 is a warning for all of us. But Allah knows best.
"They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."
- Surah At-Tawbah, verse 31
The price of democracy is too high
Its basically as high as polytheism
I think its better to endure the consequences of not participating
There are levels of law and legislation. For example, driving on the left or right side of the road isn't a divine law but necessary nevertheless. Whereas, cutting the hand of the thief is divine law. People, ministers of office, legislation and other mechanisms can revise the laws, or add laws where needed. Even the Caliphs suspended laws and created others.
Great presentation, great food for thought
👍🏽😘
thank you brother Paul.
Two words I don't like these days: Democracy and free market! I am allergic to them😣
Democracy is a word created by the USA so it can Invade any 3rd World Country that is not towing the American demands.
Power can be misused by acts of Commission or Omission at the hands of those who reign it. We all understand the Commission aspect but what is overlooked is the Omission aspect which manifests itself as unfair leniency towards friends. A leader is one who keeps the Commission and Omission of authoritative acts in justice, impartiality and equitably.
Had punishments the Prophets delt to the transgressors not been carried out would be manifestation of Omission. Ironically, the liberalism sees them as Commission.
Democracy is rule and supremacy of man. Islam is rule and supremacy of God. End of debate.
Ustaz Paul thank sharing knowledge...👍❤
الديمقراطية تعني الحكم للشعب وهذا كفر لأنه ينبغي أن يكون الحكم لله وحده لا شريك له
قال الله تعالى ( إن الحكم إلا لله أمر أن لا تعبدوا إلا إياه ذلك الدين القيم ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون ) الآية 40 سورة يوسف
awesome brother Paul
welcome to Bosnia
my country
i would love to show u sARAJEVO
>Why did you help pave the way for [the people of Lut?]
>My Lord, my Party mandated me to.
>Then accompany your Party in the eternal fire.
Also my personal observation is that it is far more productive to gain ranks in the governmental departments and institutions while preserving the deen. Joining the political system is a lose lose and only a compromise.
Very Nice topic to touch on...!!! ✌😇🧘♂️
We had a concept in Islamic Sicily before called al-lafif , I think it's a model worthy of mentioning
Btw Paul, the second Caliph Umar (r) appointment representatives to vote in the 3rd Caliph. Did you know that?
Democracy comes from the Greek 'demos kratos' which is essentially the law by the people and for the people and is geared towards self legislation as opposed to legislation from the creator.
It emerged historically as a solution after the separation of church and state due to the English monarchy misusing religion to further their own selfish lifestyles and hence the historical revolutions that came about finally culminated in removing religiosity from having a part in legislation and paving the way forward for freedom and liberty.
The point to note is that It is the legislative mechanism that belongs to the capitalist ideology associated with secularism and is not the legislative mechanism for the Islamic ideology whose legislative mechanism is the Shariah.
It is haram for a Muslim to believe in democracy, to participate in it or to propagate it, regardless of benefit or no benefit because in democracy sovereignty belongs to man as the source of legislation, whereas in Islam sovereignty belongs to Allah exclusively.
If we cannot make halal haram, and haram halal, then why umar did declare Mut'ah haram while it was halal in the time of the Prophet (pbuh)?
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ
Brother i am seeking yr permission to download this utube & upload it to my rumble channel.👍🏽
Yes of course :)
Well chosen reads, brother Paul.
Very good talk brother Paul SubhanAllah - for eg a recent book by Michael Franzese
‘ Mafia Republic ‘
describes the illusion in practice of so called American democracy
Well done spot on Paul. I ask allah the all mighty to reward you for your efforts and for your truthfulness seeking the objective truths. It is like the cup of water a drop of poison will make the purity of the water impure and contaminated.
The highest law is Allah"s law and sovereignty belongs to Him. When comes to our Iman, there's no two way about it.
Allah alone is supreme. Allah is Al-Akhbar, or do we believe the govt is Al-Akhbar?
Taking part in election, giving your votes to a party that forms into a govt which doesn't recognizes Allah's sovereignty, but that the state is supreme - that is syirk.
Thank you Paul, very insightful.
You are right. It comes as a package. You can't say you will take the good and leave the bad. You have to take both.
"And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying." Quran 6:116
Glad that you discussed this.
Most valuable 20min I had today.
Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.
I like your point on the “price of participation” in democratic systems; however (like you alluded) this price only exists within the affiliation of political parties rather than the actual democratic system itself, due to the existence of ulterior influence.
In George Washington's farewell address to the newly formed republic, he described the dangers of political parties,
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty."
Washington is quite clearly describing the whip in modern politics and the dangers of conformity to a political party. The price tag of democracy resides within the institution of the political faction, not the system. When it comes to funding (PACs, and Super PACs in American Government & Politics), this price tag is further minimized through the removal of political parties.
When it comes to the actual system of democracy, and its favorability to other political systems, that is a whole different argument. The inquiry is: Is Islam compatible with democracy? Is it beneficial to participate in democratic systems?
Yes it is; however, political parties are a stain to that democratic system. I feel this video was a solid criticism of political parties and exterior influence on governmental function.
I enjoyed this video. Cheers.
Please keep making your videos
The cup of water analogy is regards to the Muslim participation within democracy and the effects it may have to their eman
I strongly advise you to read articles written by Mohamad Elhamy, an Egyptian historian.
This reaction video is mainly premised on the cost/benefit analysis. What about the halal/haram analyis of participating in Secular Democracies that allows man to make halal and haram?
Revert - all are born Muslim, they simply revert back to their fitr. Brilliant content. Thank you!
Beard looking incredible 😍
No system of governance is ever going to be perfect, nor will it be able to please all of the people all of the time. But let's be honest, the countries where people, of all different types and backgrounds, face the least oppression and injustice are countries that are governed by democracy (liberalism and secularism). Democracy may be far from perfect, but it's the best we have. A non-democratic kingship or religious state might be ok for a place where everyone is the same - same religion, same sect, same views and opinions etc but it won't work where there is a diverse mix of people who believe, think and live differently.
Yeah, that’s what one would think when they know nothing about history beyond 100 years and drink the whole bottle of democracy kool-aid.
You’re wildly, wildly, wildly overestimating how different people are actually allowed to be under secular democracies. And at the same time there are rational limits to how different multiple cultures can be and still coexist under the same state, any sane society needs limits for how different people can be or they start fighting.
Democracy cultists make the delusional double-whammy claim that 1) all state entities in the past forced people to conform to the point of being clones of one another 2) we don’t make anyone conform to anything ever
Lastly, there isn’t meant to be a magic way to know good and just people and choose them to be rulers or there would not be problems on earth. Trying to solve this problem is naïve. What we really need is to have tribes and large families again so people can have each other’s backs if they are threatened by the state or any belligerent party, or even from the chaos of life.
This is what we lost by ignoring God’s commands about silatul arham صلة الإرحام
Modern individualism is what makes man weak, depressed and vulnerable and in constant need to have laws about every little thing to feel safe from the state / protected by it.
U must be non Muslim..
But the best system tested and proven is the khilafah system practiced by the rashidons.. they included minorities as well.. and their rights where cared for well and beyond
You are on point. I agree with you.
Mustafa Sabri Efendi, the last SheikhulIslam of the Ottoman Empire, tells in his work Mevkif'ul-Akl 👇
[If the state leaves the line of Islam,
"Obeying the dictates of religion is not the business of the government. It is only the business of society." says, this is to separate religion from the state.
In such a case, the state apostatized (abandoned religion). If the society consents to such a government, or if the government will make laws by taking the society's proxy in the parliament (that is, by voting), the society will become apostate just as the government is apostate. In this case, the following verse applies to both that government and that ummah:
"Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers themselves." (Surah Maida, Verse 44)
A political regime that accepts the principle of secularism means that it has rebelled against the rules of Islam. Therefore, first of all, this government apostatized, and then those who obeyed this administration became apostates one by one. Just as those who take part in the political administration are apostates one by one, the masses obeying this government also fall into apostasy (kufr).] (Mavkif'ul-Akıl, 4/280)
I think a good middle ground is for parties that subscribe to Islamic values should be formed and promoted but not as a “Islamic” party. Insha Allah more people will support the party and legislation can then be influenced. It’s dangerous to change one’s views (from the truth) because of political correctness and should be utterly condemned. You always have a choice!!!
Gai Eaton was an amazing writer. الله يرحمه
I believe in Representative democracy versus parliamentary representation. It is not perfect but on a basic level more local in the vote process.
I just want answer of this question that
How a vote of sinner is equal to the vote of a pious ?
Thanks for this wise words
Islam: sovereignty belongs to Allah alone.
democracy: sovereignty of people which is Shirk
Salam everyone
Islamic democracy is fascinating
It mandates 5 things
1. The political leader or emir/ khalifah is their servant. Our beloved prophet SAwS practiced that and so did the first 4 caliphs RA
2. Voting or Bay3a. Our beloved prophet SAwS himself insisted on bay3a from men and women and did the at on 3 occasions in 12 years. It was a given that people who believed in his message believed he was the best among humanity and he carried Allah’s mandate and was to be obeyed. They suffered persecution by being Muslim. Despite that he went through the process. His grandson Imam Hussein RA was history’s martyr for free choice of leadership.
3. Leaders should have shura. This mandates distribution of power as mentioned in Paul’s beautiful speech.
4. Justice is key that the leaders are accountable for on the day of judgement. Omar RA and Imam Ali RA were particularly dreadful of that responsibility in front of Allah.
5. The leader should not desire that leadership. As mentioned above by Paul, this is lacking in western democracy but it was very present within Islam and practiced by the first four true caliphs. We can add Imam Hassan RA for his six months and Omar bin Abd Al Aziz to that list. Imam Ali RA told people around him that his khilafah is not worth the sole of his shoe. Our beloved prophet SAwS Omar and Ali RA specifically reported that mandate and practiced it.
6. Protection of the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, obviously not practiced by Western liberal democracies. Under Islam, racial divisions were abolished from day one. Under Islam, Christians and Jews and Hindus had their own Cannon law. That gave them not only freedom of speech about their faiths but practice that was clearly opposed to Islam, however Islam granted them that inherent right. They were (the only) ones awarded liquor licenses through Islamic history. As mentioned in France, Muslims have no freedom of speech or freedom of action regarding their faith. Unfortunately Muslim countries like Tunisia or Turkey had preceded France in that.
Islam even allows people to have their own deen or loyalty or indebtedness to principles and actions. There is no compulsion in deen. Imam Hanifa argued with atheists at his time and no one put them in prison. Shame on a Muslim who does not have a strong argument against atheism or immorality and resorts to violence to settle that!
May Allah have a mercy on the soul of the author and Thank you bro Paul 🙏.
It must be understood that there is no utopian livelihood under any authority because we all differ in understanding thus will always lead to differences in society, just as it did under the Khulafaah Rashidun and those who came after.
Issue for us Muslims is about ideological discussion that has Aqīdah ramifications. To adopt (how can one deny that when that is the requirement and eventual end as we see how some try to say Islamic democracy) ally with an ideology (capitalist ideology, that differs from its core with Islām including its values) and its powerful element ie the politcal authority ie democratic system, is no less than betrayal of Allāh SWT and His Messenger SAW. If we understand what the Prophet SAW and the Sahabas RA went through the struggle in Makkah, yet they did not participate in the secular system of Quraysh (when the Quraysh offered the Prophet SAW everything including kingship over tthem) then the picture shouldn't be ambiguous at all, rather we should be a example of a community that stands for its principles and not one that sells its values for very cheap gains.
So what's the way forward? As Muslims irrespective of where we are, we must hold on to the Islāmic Aqīdah and its values to our best of ability however, we should be mindful that we can not protect and propagate Islām (What benefit is greater than Islam!) unless we have a political authority ie the Khilafah, furthermore we must understand that to achieve any other benefits, we can not do so living under alien ideologies and specially an ideology that seeks to destroy Islām.
Lastly but importantly, every thoughts and emotions are governed by laws, so we see today, take for example of lgbt, capitalism sees it as individuals right however Islām views it as a crime. Capitalism sees the legislation to be a matter for mind, where as Islam restricts it to Allāh SWT, so how can there be similarity when the basis contradicts! It can not. So in respect to participation in secular democratic system, Islām contradicts from its core ie in secular system its man is the god of society and state, while in Islām it's Allāh SWT is the God of society and state. Thus we are not allowed to seek any other political order beside the one Islām mandated ie the Khilafah and only through the Khilafah we can remove the sin on our neck and address all our issues Biiznillāhita'ala
Totally agree with you. And it appears that Hijra is the solution and answer to Muslims’ current predicament. As a Muslim living in the West and disapproving of the system, I really would like to migrate “somewhere” but where? Sheikh Imran Husain advises that we move into small villages with like-minded Muslims and abide by the Quran within the community. Several of these “villages” have been established already which might be one small move to khilafah. However, with current Islamophobic events in India, where should the 200 million Muslims migrate to?
@@aminaahmad8328 Jazak Allāh Khairan for your points.
I would narrow it down to 2 points in shaa'Allāh.
1) Muslims living in Capitalist West. Here the challenges as you mentioned are some what diffrent ie here the objective of the host is to integrate/assimilate the guest into its ideals ie become a secular liberal. From this respect, the end is that unfortunately many will be lost to secular creed as we are seeing and so the future generations will be a big issue. Hence to protect our Imān and it's values, we need to move to Muslim lands (which ever one that is possible from individuals perspective). From this perspective, it doesn't mean that we become insular, rather because we live amongst Muslims, we need to engage the community and work towards the requirements of Islām ie society and State of Islām. This is important because, it's this what will lead us towards that which is pleasing to Him JJ. On this point, we need to follow step by step what the Prophet SAW and the Sahabas RA did in Makkah in respect to the political activities (it's important to be specific in terms of separating actions as we do with Salah or Siaam...) until Allāh SWT blessed them with the Khilafah in Madinah.
As for our Brothers and Sisters that are living in places like India or occupied Palestine, Kashmir, China.... There are few points to consider. Those who are living in these lands, need to clearly understand that they are part of One Global Ummah and part of that One solution ie the Khilafah, removing all secular nationalists sentiments. By doing so, they pave the way for themselves and future generations towards Islām requirements Biiznillāhita'ala. As for us not living in these lands, we need to be their support (which ever way Islām permits), expose the atrocities committed against Muslims and make the clear link with them that we are One Ummah and their issues are our issue. And lastly but importantly, we need to work tirelessly to bring back Islām and its authority ie the Khilafah in the Muslim world (capable places) so that we can bring Humanity out of darkness to the Light of Islām Biiznillāhita'ala
These are few points to consider in shaa'Allāh.
Ur 1st para is problematic if i understand correctly..
Allah gave us the best system tht is the khilafah system
@@kingmosesix432 100% agree with you, Allāh SWT gave us the best system and that is the Shari'ah and Khilafah. My point was that as human we will make mistake hence we shouldn't think that the society and state will be angelic
@@mawlududdin2891 well tgts true u can c tht human nature given power will eventually be corrupted or atleast not angelic..
U can c tht as soon as the 4 rasidon chalips radiAllahu ajma en died they next generation became monarchs amd corrupt..
The thing is this is quite common so the islamic principle here is tgt AS LONG AS THE ENFORCE SHARIA IN THE CONSTITUTION its fine.
Thts why most scholars did not tell to opt out the ruler if hes a drinker or anyother personal sins..
As long as he enforced sharia hes fine despite his personal characters..
Thts why eventho after rasidon they were monarchs however scholars didnt revolt and said "hey bring back how rashidon used to choose chalip and dont elect ur sons" because they knew as long as sharia is implemented the system is ok... even tho its best to have chalips in the way rashidon had
What if not democracy? Do we have a comeplete setup for that?
Agreed there is price to pay but better participate when it has to do with our existence
Iam from indonesia, indonesia is a democratic country since 1950s. however, our democrcy here actually a modified democracy. we also have Pancasila as our national ideology.
Yes, it is. Provided that the democracy doesn't involved voting against the laws of Allah. In constitutional democracies it is often the case that the constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be voted against.
Marvelous insights
Well said akhi..I agree
Islamic democracy is one where people who pray 5x a day and pay Zakat are allowed to vote. If you don’t pray or pay Zakat you lose the right to vote or participate in government.
امرهم شوري بينهم
And their affairs are mutual consultation “BETWEEN THEM”.
Between them is the key word.
Today’s democracy doesn’t care if you pray or pay Zakat. They only care if you have a passport and paid your government taxes. There’s no moral condition for participating in government.
In an Islamic country, if you don’t pray at the mosque or pay your Zakat you lose the right to vote.
There needs to be a way to track people (men’s) prayers at the mosque and of course Zakat can easily be tracked through the banking system.
To be honest these objectives are sensitive a little bit and very very detailed and very harsh field to go into trust me
For Muslims I think they need to use the term in Arabic “ الشورى al-Shura “ rather than using the word democracy I know that there is things in democracy matches al-Shura also I understand the two words sadly been translated that they are the same thing and this is the problem that I refuse anyone trying to make the case like this
Because in the west Democracy is actually been connected to the secular meaning in the west and Shura been connected to the meaning that Islam established
In democracy the throne is for the people or the nation and in monarchy the throne is for one person and both to me are tyranny systems but in different forms one is singular and one is plural and make the source of judgment in wrong centralisation and this is the problem of governing in all the history of humanity and the objective correct solution was in the Islam system in all the history because the Islam system is trying to make a gather and balance between democracy and monarchy and fix them and this been in the concept of Shura and imamah or khlafah
And to try to summarise it we make of course the nation to get involved and also the leaders but our ultimate sources when we disagree or see something wrong or even judge….etc are the Quran and Sunnah in the understanding of the Salaf saleh that’s the correct approach and somehow summaries the idea of the Islam system in governance
And I remember beautiful quote from sheikh Mohammed abdu also summary this he said:
“The Human is a slave for God alone, and he is a master of everything after him”.
The Shrua happens only based on scholarly consensus, and not based on whims of the general public.
Shura underpins Divine basis, not individual's desires.
@@theintuitivetruth
No, originally Shura involved everyone but this doesn’t mean if someone deny to give the “ بيعه allegiance " with no good reason from Quran and Sunnah or someone could not give the “ بيعه allegiance " because of incident or event or situation which made a barrier or a wall between that person or group of people or whoever and giving of “ بيعه allegiance " in this case we take “ اهل الشوكه والجمهور which is the scholars and people of power in society who are the majority and they are doing in the approach and the main sources Quran and Sunnah “ and I agree in the sense if you mean “ majority or minority or individuals or groups of people or scholars or whoever is it, I agree that they must to establish Shura but the correct one that involved everyone with of course depending on divine basis and their Shura when they practice it they need to not conflict the divine basis even if they are some of the scholars !! This is very important that scholars desires or all people desires are not the judgment. The MAIN judgment in everyone is the divine basis which is from Quran and Sunnah and what the first generation of Islam practices specifically the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and the first 5 Khulfa May Allah be pleased with them practiced
Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him he actually elect to the Muslims the people khulfa and he did not choose someone and impose him on people. No he actually elected to them names as in Hadith and also he gave a prophecy on what people and Allah and him are actually pleased specific one of them Abu Baker RA in this prophecy he is telling what inside everyone from people they all see Abu baker RA is the one and prophet told this prophecy because there is ambiguous event will happen and it will happen that may cause a little rash and this truly happened in " السقيفه “ which there is a group of ansar after prophet Mohammed peace be upon him dead the companions were busy in this so this group of ansar they elected a someone from the Sad bin Obadah and this was the event that the prophet tell this prophecy so to not be any conflicting in opinions or something like this and to show to that these people actually accept Abu baker and this what happened actually when Abu baker and Omar and a group of companions know about this they immediately in rush they went to handle the situation and when they came to the ansar, the ansar said from us a prince and from you a prince and Abu baker and the companions they explained to the ansar the divine basis that the Khelafah one of its main conditions to be in “ قريش Quresh " after that immediately they accept that and they immediately elected Abu baker because this what in there hearts originally but they did not remember that condition until the companions cleared to them this and then actually the companions started to elect each other do you know that or not? Actually abu baker elect companions and in the end they all agreed on abu baker because they already know he is the one in there hearts But still as you can see if the prophet impose someone they would not do this Shura to elect and to choose and the scholars said the khelafah of abu baker all of Muslims unite and gave the “ بيعه allegiance " to abu baker it is an “ اجماع consensus “ and by that happed to Omar Bin alkhatab May Allah be pleased with him and to make a surprise to you Abu baker RA he asked every single Muslim if they are electing him and subhanallah the Muslims they are actually following the suggestion of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him in order and priority very accurate and they agreed on him and scholars also said it was a unity by all Muslims “ اجماع consensus “ and Omar bin alkatab RA said clearly in long Hadith in bukary:
…..فمَن بَايَعَ رَجُلًا علَى غيرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ، فلا يُتَابَعُ هو ولَا الذي بَايَعَهُ؛ تَغِرَّةً أنْ يُقْتَلَا.
الراوي : عبدالله بن عباس | المحدث : البخاري | المصدر : صحيح البخاري
الصفحة أو الرقم: 6830 | خلاصة حكم المحدث : [صحيح]
The translation:
…. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."
And I can continue talking about the other khalefas but I gave the examples of the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and abu baker RA and Omar RA just to show that this is something not questionable and I’m ready to provide to you every single saying about anything you want about this and I already gave you clear evidences and I summarised to you many long things in direct points and I actually have clear understanding of what “ المتغلب meaning and situation “ and I know you didn’t bring this until now but I will tell there is a lot of details that many people don’t know the differences about it and about the situations of “ الاضطرار " and the situations of going to the origin way of the prophet approach “ منهاج النبوه " because of course in “ الاضطرار " it is different of how prophet did it and Muslims in abu baker…etc and I will not get in details these are enough evidences at least as direct examples from the first two important khalefas after the prophet And I hope I answered your concerns.
Freedom of religion is an essential part of a democracy! Islamic caliphate heavily restricts religious freedom
where do you take your facts from lol
@@TawhidCodex simple look at so called Islamic states today.
Islamic caliphate literally rules over Christian and Jews too lmao. That's why there's so much preserved ancient churches in Islamic countries
Look Paul, non participation would mean that your community must create a separate government or immigrate to a country governed by Muslim laws. In terms of your community participation is better than non participation and the fact that Muslims vote incorrectly doesn't "change" Islam.
Is participation in the democratic system the law? Are we forced to vote?
How is participation better when people are voting for gay marriage and all other things which go against Islam? That stuff trickles down into our communities as well.
@@millionfish because you can vote against the policies you don't believe in rather than leave the vote to people who will vote against what you believe. A small effort against wrong can go a long way. At least you have mechanism through which to legally oppose corruption. Why wouldn't you choose to use it? What alternatives do you have? Do Hijrah to Gambia?
@@ninjadebruyns8577 The alternative is either to not participate, or yes, make hijrah to a Muslim country (also, we need to stop having this inferiority complex. Gambia can be turned around economically if we move back and dedicate time and effort into it).
@@millionfish I personally have no inferiority complex. I spent most of my life in Africa. I am a pragmatist. Work with what you have and do what is prudent and possible. If a country has general law and order and also allows you the freedom to practice your religion it is still much better than many countries. I've traveled and lived on 3 different continents and I can say definitively that Britain is really not that bad even by Islamic metrics: like preservation of religion, life, property, lineage, and honor. Remember that a country isn't necessarily in accordance with the Shariah because it has capital punishment and doesn't allow certain vices. There are also positive requirements of law and if you experienced lawlessness like many people have you would perhaps have a fairer assessment of your society in which you can probably drive to the store and buy groceries and not likely get killed.
@@ninjadebruyns8577 I never said Britain is a bad country, they're much, much better than France, Austria, etc.
I didn't even say to move to Gambia. I said, partaking in western politics is pointless because you'll always be a minority and never get anything passed. Almost every "Muslim" MP voted for gay marriage, sex-ed curriculum, etc. Whatever positives are greatly outweighed by the negatives.
A respectable point of view however the opposite(dictatorship) has not been discussed .islam in itself is not always understood the same way amongst regular muslims and scholars alike . Giving power to one person to decide for the hole nation and impose his understanding of islam on the rest of the muslims can be very problematic that is besides the fact that giving absolute power to one party has always resulted in tyranie and corruption.
Last thought: not participating in politics is a positive political choice.
Hizb ut Tahrir have expounded a very similar viewpoint in the UK over the past three decades whilst being widely pilloried for the same. White guy says this and suddenly we're like wow, what an amazing observation!
that's definitely true.
Masha'allah
Masha'Allah
My God protect you
Very nice video
Thank you
Jazak Allah khier
Many many thanks
Incredible juxtaposition provided by our elder statesman, dear brother Eaton.
The controversial issue of democracy and participating in it - it's like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. This issue is at the heart of the current spat btw Yaqeen institute and other Muslim scholars who take strong issues with their approach. The truth is we are to participate in democracy we will have to make compromises to get even the smallest benefit for the ummah. How do we measure or determine if the good/benefit will outweigh the bad/sacrifice? We should reflect on the story of the sahaba who were sent on an expedition of reconnaissance but ended up killing and taking booty contrary to the instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.). However, Allah in the Quran came to their defense because their crime/sin (identified as such in the surah Baqarah) cannot be compared to the crime of the Quraish. Perhaps, before we conclude on the bad optics of the positions and actions of Muslim politicians we should consider the benefit that can come from them being there.
Make no mistake, this does not mean that we should accept whatever they do but that we should keep them on their toes and pull on their rope to keep them from falling into the fire. There will always be the risk of hypocrisy or falling off the path for them. May Allah guide us, our scholars, and our leaders. Ameen
@Shakima Basan Al-Baqarah 2:217
يَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلشَّهْرِ ٱلْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِۖ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌۖ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَكُفْرٌۢ بِهِۦ وَٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ وَإِخْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِۦ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ ٱللَّهِۚ وَٱلْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ ٱلْقَتْلِۗ وَلَا يَزَالُونَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ ٱسْتَطَٰعُوا۟ۚ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَٰلُهُمْ فِى ٱلدُّنْيَا وَٱلْءَاخِرَةِۖ وَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ أَصْحَٰبُ ٱلنَّارِۖ هُمْ فِيهَا خَٰلِدُونَ
English - Sahih International
They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.
English - Tafsir Jalalayn
Thus the Prophet (s) sent forth the first of his raiding parties under the command of `Abd Allh b. Jahsh. They fought against the idolaters and killed [`Amr b. `Abd Allh] Ibn al-Hadram in [the sacred month of] Rajab, thinking that it was the last day of Jumd II. The disbelievers reviled them for making fighting lawful in a sacred month, and so God revealed the following: They ask you about the sacred, the forbidden, month, and fighting in it (qitlin fhi, `fighting in it', is an inclusive substitution [for al-shahri l-harmi, `the sacred month']). Say, to them: `Fighting (qitlun is the subject) in it is a grave thing (kabr, `grave', is the predicate), that is, heinous in terms of sin; but to bar (saddun is the subject), people, from God's way, His religion, and disbelief in Him, in God, and, to bar from, the Sacred Mosque, that is, Mecca, and to expel its people, the Prophet (s) and the believers, from it -- that is graver (the predicate of the [last] subject), [that is] more heinous in terms of sin than fighting in it, in God's sight; and sedition, your idolatry, is graver than, your, slaying', in it. They, the disbelievers, will not cease to fight against you, O believers, until, so that, they turn you from your religion, to unbelief, if they are able; and whoever of you turns from his religion, and dies disbelieving -- their, good, works have failed, that is, they are invalid, in this world and the Hereafter. Thus they will not count for anything and will not result in any reward. The specification of death as a condition is because if that person were to return to Islam [again], his original deeds would not be invalidated, and he will be rewarded for them, and he would not have to repeat them, [deeds] such as [performing] the Pilgrimage: al-Shfi` is of this opinion. Those are the inhabitants of the Fire, abiding therein.
Ur analogy with a sahaba is wrong.. the sahabah in this eg didnt do aqqedah issue it was a issue of hukum..
But participation in democracy is an aqeeda issue not hukum its like worshipping idols WILLINGLY
It not like drinking alcohol which is sin but way lesser than shirk...
As for lose/profit analysis tht remember the Prophet endowered what is endowerd for 13 yrs yet he didnt give in..
The thing is Muslims living in west is problem..
Thts why he have hijrah
Thats why establish khilafah was of so utmost importance eg the sahabas didnt even wait to bury the Prophet Muhammed salahualiwasallam to elect chalip.. thts how important of a matter it is..
Today since we lost tht..
We r understanding the problem now
Democracy are on the boundaries that God Allowed , like selecting a leader , or life laws ,like roads etc ..
and its not for normal citizens to vote , only those who are expert and have a sound reasoning in that field ..
Allah knows best ,
You make a good argument for limiting Muslim immigration to democracies.
A small point which somewhat undermines your view - MPs were *not* whipped to support the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. They had a free vote.
Please do your homework.
What this means is that a large part of your post is based on a mistake, or much worse, a lie.
Democracy is merely a mechanism. If you win your argument then eventually you will have your way politically. Muslims are allowed to use this mechanism too, you know. This was how slavery was abolished, not to mention a number of other positive changes. Changes that would have been all but impossible otherwise.
I think you misunderstand what democracy is for. It does abound with flaws, but it still stands as the worst possible form of government. Apart from all the others we have tried.
The rashidun caliphate was democracy..
Nooooooo
Bruh please
Learn more
You don't even understand the word "democracy" and you come here to talk.
No bro
Athenian democracy was an apartheid state. In their definition of people, anyone who was mixed or non pure blooded athens were excluded. It was also a system that completely excluded women. They were not even considered as "people". The closest to athenian democracy is zionist israel perhaps, in how they exclude the rights of palestinians. Democracy was all about exclusion and power.
JazakALLAHukhairan
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
As-Salaamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu
Wa alaykumu s-salam
In imagining an ‘Islamic democracy’, I’m wandering can the distinction be made between morals and governance. Could we agree that our morals don’t change but we can still vote for who we want to govern us. So their policies cannot touch the halal or the haram but it can influence all that is in between because, remember, Islamic fiqh is much more nuanced and encompassing than western law.
Yes, Islam and democracy are compatible! It will not mean that Muslims will accept every liberal law in the West, but any law which does not contradict Islam can be accepted. The anti-Islamic values and laws should be resisted though.
Yeah even the goverment of rashidun caliphate using greek democracy style
@@yottwr6108 who are you?
Islam teaches or prescribes 1) consultation 2) social harmony and unity 3) consent 4) loyalty 5) public office is a deputyship.
These can best be put to practice in a republic. Not in a monarchy, which promptly turns authoritarian as the Umayyad example and its successors evinced.
Paul I think you are talking about secular democracy that is not underscored by a rule of law enshrined with the limits of God. You are missing the possibility that democracy can function as mechanism for populace legislation outside of what must necessarily be applied to society under divine law where only God can be the legislator. Those laws, I'd have you know, are very few. Something like the ten commandments.
@@yottwr6108 that's only the etymology of the word. The concept itself is much older.
I swear To indivisible Ultimate reality ( Allah) I got sophisticated in blogging theology, intellectually and linguistically
Democracy may sound good at first hearing “a system where the majority chooses who leads them based on their interests”.
What’s wrong with this is that this gives the opportunity to unqualified people to rule leading the state to ruins.
It is also sensible to attacks such as the election turns to a election where budget, charisma & shallow promises rules.
Allah have already given us a system which works perfect, a caliphate.
I just mentioned some reasons from a non-religious aspectiv, but ofc the right of legislation only belong to Allah the Lord of the worlds