Islam. The religion of peace, tolerance and truth?

[Coyote]

Which says essentially the same thing as the source I had quoted with a bit more information. As long as they aren't forced to go against their faith.

No different than:

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?"

Answer: Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

This passage makes it abundantly clear that we are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything—paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, and showing respect. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, he was under the government of Rome during the reign of Nero, perhaps the most evil of all the Roman emperors. Paul still recognized the Roman government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?

The next question is “Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land?” The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!'“ From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).

Read more: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land ​

Obviously, you're desperate to sidestep your attempt at dishonesty (taqiyya) with pointless cutting and pasting.

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Describe for us the principle of democracy and how that conflicts with islamist sharia.

Why?

Here, I'll lend an assist as you're just too dishonest to objectively examine the matter.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West - IslamQA

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


The bolded part above was added by me. Now, let's examine the principle of democracy, shall we?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review

For Islam, democracy poses a formidable challenge. Muslim jurists argued that law made by a sovereign monarch is illegitimate because it substitutes human authority for God’s sovereignty. But law made by sovereign citizens faces the same problem of legitimacy. In Islam, God is the only sovereign and ultimate source of legitimate law. How, then, can a democratic conception of the people’s authority be reconciled with an Islamic understanding of God’s authority?

As we know, democracy is shirk, at least according to the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish).

What's a pious moslem to did?

Decisions, decisions.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

If that is what you got out of the article you very clearly did not read it. I assume you just cherry picked it. It's worth a read.

 

[irosie91]

According to islamist sources such as the one I supplied you.

Which says essentially the same thing as the source I had quoted with a bit more information. As long as they aren't forced to go against their faith.

No different than:

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?"

Answer: Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

This passage makes it abundantly clear that we are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything—paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, and showing respect. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, he was under the government of Rome during the reign of Nero, perhaps the most evil of all the Roman emperors. Paul still recognized the Roman government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?

The next question is “Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land?” The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!'“ From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).

Read more: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land ​

Obviously, you're desperate to sidestep your attempt at dishonesty (taqiyya) with pointless cutting and pasting.

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Describe for us the principle of democracy and how that conflicts with islamist sharia.

Why?

Here, I'll lend an assist as you're just too dishonest to objectively examine the matter.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West - IslamQA

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


The bolded part above was added by me. Now, let's examine the principle of democracy, shall we?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review

For Islam, democracy poses a formidable challenge. Muslim jurists argued that law made by a sovereign monarch is illegitimate because it substitutes human authority for God’s sovereignty. But law made by sovereign citizens faces the same problem of legitimacy. In Islam, God is the only sovereign and ultimate source of legitimate law. How, then, can a democratic conception of the people’s authority be reconciled with an Islamic understanding of God’s authority?

As we know, democracy is shirk, at least according to the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish).

What's a pious moslem to did?

Decisions, decisions.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

In a shariah court-----Last week's French murderers would be found inncent of crime. When the journalist Daniel Pearl
was murdered in Pakistan----the murderers did a video of the
event to PROVE their innocence ----in a shairah court-----Daniel Pearl ADMITTED to being a jew-----a fact which would vindicate them in the kinds of courts Coyote advocates. Musharraf convened a special non muslim court to try the murderers----they were convicted, sentenced to death---but the sentence was never carried out because it would violate the shariah law that coyote supports------Musharraf----last I heard is in jail

 

[irosie91]

Which says essentially the same thing as the source I had quoted with a bit more information. As long as they aren't forced to go against their faith.

No different than:

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?"

Answer: Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

This passage makes it abundantly clear that we are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything—paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, and showing respect. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, he was under the government of Rome during the reign of Nero, perhaps the most evil of all the Roman emperors. Paul still recognized the Roman government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?

The next question is “Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land?” The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!'“ From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).

Read more: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land ​

Obviously, you're desperate to sidestep your attempt at dishonesty (taqiyya) with pointless cutting and pasting.

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Describe for us the principle of democracy and how that conflicts with islamist sharia.

Why?

Here, I'll lend an assist as you're just too dishonest to objectively examine the matter.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West - IslamQA

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


The bolded part above was added by me. Now, let's examine the principle of democracy, shall we?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review

For Islam, democracy poses a formidable challenge. Muslim jurists argued that law made by a sovereign monarch is illegitimate because it substitutes human authority for God’s sovereignty. But law made by sovereign citizens faces the same problem of legitimacy. In Islam, God is the only sovereign and ultimate source of legitimate law. How, then, can a democratic conception of the people’s authority be reconciled with an Islamic understanding of God’s authority?

As we know, democracy is shirk, at least according to the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish).

What's a pious moslem to did?

Decisions, decisions.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

Hollie----I guessed you read it-----but I did not----so polite me---kept quiet

 

[Hollie]

Obviously, you're desperate to sidestep your attempt at dishonesty (taqiyya) with pointless cutting and pasting.

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Describe for us the principle of democracy and how that conflicts with islamist sharia.

Why?

Here, I'll lend an assist as you're just too dishonest to objectively examine the matter.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West - IslamQA

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


The bolded part above was added by me. Now, let's examine the principle of democracy, shall we?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review

As we know, democracy is shirk, at least according to the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish).

What's a pious moslem to did?

Decisions, decisions.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

If that is what you got out of the article you very clearly did not read it. I assume you just cherry picked it. It's worth a read.

I'm afraid you're in denial, or more likely employing taqiyya, by not understanding that such Western precepts of democratic republics, representative rule, free thought / expression are totally anathema to Islamism.

The politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) requires submission, not free thought and free expression.

 

[Hollie]

Obviously, you're desperate to sidestep your attempt at dishonesty (taqiyya) with pointless cutting and pasting.

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Describe for us the principle of democracy and how that conflicts with islamist sharia.

Why?

Here, I'll lend an assist as you're just too dishonest to objectively examine the matter.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West - IslamQA

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


The bolded part above was added by me. Now, let's examine the principle of democracy, shall we?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review

As we know, democracy is shirk, at least according to the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish).

What's a pious moslem to did?

Decisions, decisions.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

Hollie----I guessed you read it-----but I did not----so polite me---kept quiet

I certainly did read it. As with much concerning islam, I read it and suffered from dizziness and an upset stomach.

 

[Coyote]

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Why?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

Hollie----I guessed you read it-----but I did not----so polite me---kept quiet

I certainly did read it. As with much concerning islam, I read it and suffered from dizziness and an upset stomach.

Now I think you are lying. You googled to find a quote that bolstered your argument without reading through the entire article. Otherwise you would not have used it. If scholarly works on democracy and Islam give you dizzyness then perhaps you ought to stick with Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer

 

[Coyote]

You seem to have a problem with other people cutting and pasting material. Yet you do it yourself. How odd.

Why?

The bold part is exactly what is layed out in Christianity and Judiasm - one can not be forced to obey a law that compels one to sin. That isn't rocket science so while your repetitive cut and paste example is helpful, it's not truly necessary. The point was already made and acknowledged.

Good questions, and those are among the questions being tossed around in Islam these days. That was, by the way an EXCELLENT article, it took a while to read and I still have to read the other articles in the set. Did you read the entire article? If you did, you'll see how he laid out a framework for democracy within Islam. Very interesting.

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

If that is what you got out of the article you very clearly did not read it. I assume you just cherry picked it. It's worth a read.

I'm afraid you're in denial, or more likely employing taqiyya, by not understanding that such Western precepts of democratic republics, representative rule, free thought / expression are totally anathema to Islamism.

The politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) requires submission, not free thought and free expression.

Read your article for a change - it really is good and informative and discusses exactly that. I'm assuming the other articles in that set are interesting as well but I haven't read them.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of democracy in Islamism:


Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


107166: Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system
What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliment or other levels of the democratical government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the islamic state organized, and governed in the classical times?.

Praise be to Allaah.


Firstly:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is.

It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067):

Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:40]

“The decision is only for Allaah”

[al-An’aam 6:57]

End quote.

This has been discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 98134.

Secondly:

The one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, then he nominates himself or someone else (for election) is approving of this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.

People seem to think that democracy is nothing more than elections. Once you have an election that is it. The article you posted prior was far more detailed and thoughtful, about what a democratic form of government means and whether it can mesh with Islam - the difficulties, the jurisprudence, the historic precedences. You really should have read it.

I did read it.

What we find is that the politico-religious ideology invented by Muhammud (swish) is utterly hostile to representative rule.

You should have made an attempt to understand the ideology.

Hollie----I guessed you read it-----but I did not----so polite me---kept quiet

I certainly did read it. As with much concerning islam, I read it and suffered from dizziness and an upset stomach.

Now I think you are lying. You googled to find a quote that bolstered your argument without reading through the entire article. Otherwise you would not have used it. If scholarly works on democracy and Islam give you dizzyness then perhaps you ought to stick with Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer

You're getting quite angry and frustrated.

What a shame your attempts at taqiyya are so terribly inept.

http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/sound/article_16230.shtml

The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked:

Is it permissible to vote in elections and nominate people for them? Please note that our country is ruled according to something other than that which Allaah revealed?

They replied:

It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in the hope that he can become part of a system which rules according to something other than that which Allaah has revealed and operates according to something other than the sharee’ah of Islam. It is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for anyone else who will work in that government, unless the one who nominates himself or those who vote for him hope that by getting involved in that they will be able to change the system to one that operates according to the sharee’ah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government, provided that the one who nominates himself will not accept any position after being elected except one that does not go against Islamic sharee’ah. End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

 

[Coyote]

Nope, not angry at all - your article put me in a good mood and was well worth the time it took to read it A pity you didn't bother so now you have to grasp at straws and start throwing in other articles.

 

[irosie91]

I don't follow Pamela Geller-----I have read stuff about her in
the news---but that is all. I did read the book that Robert
Spencer wrote and some of his other comments-----he is a fine scholar------everyone should read his stuff

 

[Coyote]

I don't follow Pamela Geller-----I have read stuff about her in
the news---but that is all. I did read the book that Robert
Spencer wrote and some of his other comments-----he is a fine scholar------everyone should read his stuff

I know you like Spencer. I don't. So we have different opinions.

 

[Hollie]

Here we see consensus among islamist "scholars" as to the revulsion for democratic values and precepts.

Islam is utterly consumed with revulsion for the societal norms of Western liberal democracy.

How lucky for the islamist Pom Pom wavers that they are safely ensconced in the Great Satan and protected from the very islamist sharia hell holes they rattle on about.

Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (23/406, 407

They were also asked:

As you know, here in Algeria we have what are called legislative elections. There are parties which call for Islamic rule, and there are others that do not want Islamic rule. What is the ruling on one who votes for something other than Islamic rule even though he prays?

They replied:

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allaah’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Faasiqoon (rebellious and disobedient to Allaah).

 

[irosie91]

Nope, not angry at all - your article put me in a good mood and was well worth the time it took to read it A pity you didn't bother so now you have to grasp at straws and start throwing in other articles.

what's wrong with "other articles" even in courrooms --evidence must be corroborated

I don't follow Pamela Geller-----I have read stuff about her in
the news---but that is all. I did read the book that Robert
Spencer wrote and some of his other comments-----he is a fine scholar------everyone should read his stuff

I know you like Spencer. I don't. So we have different opinions.

I base my opinion of his dispassionate and very accurate
description of society ruled by shariah law-----or even as
it was in his ancestral Turkey---just highly influenced by
shariah law. My own husband was born in a shariah cesspit-----not that he remembers----but members of his family and community certainly did-------and they told me about it---
intelligent people. A relative by marriage was born in turkey----Robert Spencer expresses all the same stuff I have
learned from meny different sources like a fine writer and a fine scholar. elia Kazan was not neurotic for no reason.

I have lots of sources------you have nothing

 

[Coyote]

Here we see consensus among islamist "scholars" as to the revulsion for democratic values and precepts.

Islam is utterly consumed with revulsion for the societal norms of Western liberal democracy.

How lucky for the islamist Pom Pom wavers that they are safely ensconced in the Great Satan and protected from the very islamist sharia hell holes they rattle on about.

Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (23/406, 407

They were also asked:

As you know, here in Algeria we have what are called legislative elections. There are parties which call for Islamic rule, and there are others that do not want Islamic rule. What is the ruling on one who votes for something other than Islamic rule even though he prays?

They replied:

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allaah’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Faasiqoon (rebellious and disobedient to Allaah).

A consensus? From one site.

There isn't a consensus yet - Islam is all over the board on this. But the earlier article looked at how Islam could work with modern democratic values using history, Islamic jurisprudence and an understanding of the underpinnings of the religion. Fact is - yes, it is possible.

 

[Coyote]

Nope, not angry at all - your article put me in a good mood and was well worth the time it took to read it A pity you didn't bother so now you have to grasp at straws and start throwing in other articles.

what's wrong with "other articles" even in courrooms --evidence must be corroborated

I don't follow Pamela Geller-----I have read stuff about her in
the news---but that is all. I did read the book that Robert
Spencer wrote and some of his other comments-----he is a fine scholar------everyone should read his stuff

I know you like Spencer. I don't. So we have different opinions.

I base my opinion of his dispassionate and very accurate
description of society ruled by shariah law-----or even as
it was in his ancestral Turkey---just highly influenced by
shariah law. My own husband was born in a shariah cesspit-----not that he remembers----but members of his family and community certainly did-------and they told me about it---
intelligent people. A relative by marriage was born in turkey----Robert Spencer expresses all the same stuff I have
learned from meny different sources like a fine writer and a fine scholar. elia Kazan was not neurotic for no reason.

I have lots of sources------you have nothing

Funny. Haven't seen anything from you Rosie

 

[Hollie]

Nope, not angry at all - your article put me in a good mood and was well worth the time it took to read it A pity you didn't bother so now you have to grasp at straws and start throwing in other articles.

Other articles serve to corroborate what your Islamist "scholars" clearly delineate about islamist ideology. It is a smothering, suffocating and fascistic ideology totally consumed with an OCD-like adherence to rituals and practices designed to implement a cowed and compliant populace.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I don't claim to be any expert on Islam, but I have tried to educate myself. First, I don't believe in bashing anyone's genuinely held spiritual beliefs as long as those beliefs do not hurt others.

Islam, like most religions has passages in its Holy Book that conflict. Jihadist tend to focus on one sura in the Koran that basically says all non-Muslims must either convert, become a subjugated and second class group and pay a tax called a jizya, or be killed.

Or course the Koran also says respect "People of the Book" (i.e. Jews and Christians).

So, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Hollie]

Here we see consensus among islamist "scholars" as to the revulsion for democratic values and precepts.

Islam is utterly consumed with revulsion for the societal norms of Western liberal democracy.

How lucky for the islamist Pom Pom wavers that they are safely ensconced in the Great Satan and protected from the very islamist sharia hell holes they rattle on about.

Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system - islamqa.info


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (23/406, 407

They were also asked:

As you know, here in Algeria we have what are called legislative elections. There are parties which call for Islamic rule, and there are others that do not want Islamic rule. What is the ruling on one who votes for something other than Islamic rule even though he prays?

They replied:

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allaah’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Faasiqoon (rebellious and disobedient to Allaah).

A consensus? From one site.

There isn't a consensus yet - Islam is all over the board on this. But the earlier article looked at how Islam could work with modern democratic values using history, Islamic jurisprudence and an understanding of the underpinnings of the religion. Fact is - yes, it is possible.

I understand you're desperate and grasping at straws to prop up your Islamist ideology, but you might want to take a look around the world today and also look back with a historical (in your case, hysterical) perspective. At no time in islamist history have such precepts as representative rule, one person one vote, equality regardless of race, religion or nationality, etc., ever been a distinguishing characteristic of Islamist ideology.

 

[Coyote]

I don't claim to be any expert on Islam, but I have tried to educate myself. First, I don't believe in bashing anyone's genuinely held spiritual beliefs as long as those beliefs do not hurt others.

Islam, like most religions has passages in its Holy Book that conflict. Jihadist tend to focus on one sura in the Koran that basically says all non-Muslims must either convert, become a subjugated and second class group and pay a tax called a jizya, or be killed.

Or course the Koran also says respect "People of the Book" (i.e. Jews and Christians).

So, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I agree.

You should look at the article Hollie posted: Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Boston Review (very long - but very interesting) - it makes me think. Not just on democracy but the concepts of divine law, rights, individual rights, collective rights, how Islam has within it's framework the foundations for a just, merciful society that is both Islamic and modern - if it can shift. Really mind blowing article.

 

[irosie91]

I don't claim to be any expert on Islam, but I have tried to educate myself. First, I don't believe in bashing anyone's genuinely held spiritual beliefs as long as those beliefs do not hurt others.

Islam, like most religions has passages in its Holy Book that conflict. Jihadist tend to focus on one sura in the Koran that basically says all non-Muslims must either convert, become a subjugated and second class group and pay a tax called a jizya, or be killed.

Or course the Koran also says respect "People of the Book" (i.e. Jews and Christians).

So, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

It is also in the eyes of the victim For information on
what prison is like----ask an inmate, not the warden. For
information life as a black slave----ask MAMMY ---not
scarlett
For information on what shariah is like-----ask a non muslim
who survived it. There are many in my family and ---their friends and communities.
Long ago----when I was a student enduring a lecture on "drugs"----of the intoxicating kind------and the treatment of
their complications and the nature of the complications----
the lecturer said-------no pharmacist and no doctor knows
this stuff so well as do the addcicts themselves. They are the VICTIMS of the drugs----they experience the side effects and know how their friends died. For shariah the victims are the people who lived it as non muslims. Feel free to ask----I have a witness right here sipping coffee