A common misconception is that Shirk is limited to idol worship. Unfortunately, this is incorrect.
Examples of the different types of shirk are;
Shirk al-Ibadah (Shirk in Worship): This involves worshipping idols, saints, or any entity besides Allah.
Shirk al-Rububiyyah (Shirk in Lordship): This involves believing that creations like the sun, moon, or stars control one’s fate or hold power over Allah’s will.
Shirk in Legislation and Judgment: This involves making laws or judgments that contradict Allah’s law or obeying someone other than Allah in matters of faith.
Outward Shirk: This includes open and apparent acts of associating partners with Allah, such as worshipping idols or graves.
Hidden Shirk: This involves inwardly believing in or trusting in something or someone other than Allah, even while outwardly appearing to be a Muslim.
It is obvious that the shirk of democoracy and partaking in it is Shirk in Legislation, as Democoracy attempts to strip Allah from this right and places this right in the hands of man !!
#staymuslimdontvote
#staymuslimdontvote
ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY ?
A brother asks:
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
“Akhi how would we reply to the doubt some bring basically saying we can have a democracy in an lslamic state but it’s based on a shariah constitution so like how in the US.
it’s democracy but they cannot vote to change the constitution since that’s the foundation, so similarly we could have something like that, But the constitution is shariah basically, And everything can be voted on aslong as it doesn’t go against the shariah.
So, like we can vote to legalise or ban things, etc, I figured I’d ask you for your thoughts on this”
Answer:
وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
Democracy and Islam can never be the same. In Islam, we have the concept of shura, and what is used by the shura to determine outcomes is drawn from the Quran and Sunnah.
Democracy contrary to Islam, has its own system of lawmaking and passing bills and determining outcomes, politicians make the laws derived from their own whims and desires.
In fact Democracy is built on the majority ruling. This is achieved through the voting process.
You will be surprised to know that the idea of the majority rules was a concept that the Khawarij had put forth in order to govern their affairs and that of the people.
After their disagreement with both Ali (ra) and Muawiyyah (ra), and after establishing their administration in Haraura, the Khawarij now declared:
“Bai’ah is meant for Allah the Almighty alone. It is our duty to enjoin the good on the people of the land and forbid the evil.
There is no Caliph or ruler in Isla. After gaining victory, all matters must be settled by mutual consultation of the Muslims, and their *Majority should decide all issues.*
Both Ali and Muawiyyah are at fault.” (The History of Islam Vol.1, page 479.)
So, for those who adopt this view point, and screan democracy, calling it fair and just, or foolishly attributing it to Islam, are more in line with the view of the Khawarij and thier view on governance by majority vote.
Let us not forget it was Abu Bakr (ra) who was alone on his view to fight the Bughaat (rebels), while the majority were saying, “Are you going to fight a people who say Lailahailallah”
Allah (swt) sent Mohammed (saw) with a Shariah and a Minhaj, and whoever strays from it will be doomed!.
And Allah knows best.
-Abu ousayd
14 Rabi Al-Akhir 1446H
Tawhid al-Hakimiyyah | BIDAH?
Tawhid al-Hakimiyyah | BIDAH? Is it allowed for us to say tawhid is divided into four and include the tawhid of hakimiyyah – meaning, to single out Allah with rule/judgment?
The concern with the tawhid of hakimiyyah and singling it with mention did not exist except in the last centuries, it being the thirteenth-century hijri. It was only singled out when man-made laws were established; thus some spoke about it and that rule belongs solely to Allah, even though its beginnings appeared in the time of ibn Taymiyyah and ibn Kathir regarding the Yasiq of the Tatar.
We say here that there are some who have a particular position concerning whoever speaks about the tawhid of hakimiyyah based on criticism of a particular movement (the Sahwah movement) or based on specific occurrences, none of which is based on looking at the issue from a scientific lens.
Thus verdicts were passed declaring whoever singles out hakimiyyah as a type of tawhid as an innovator. But the correct view is that there isn’t an issue adding the tawhid of hakimiyyah. It’s not said he is an innovator and declaring him one for this is a mistake. There are those who divided tawhid into two categories, then came those who divided it into three; he would be an innovator according to that view. There are also some people of knowledge that divided tawhid into five categories, adding the tawhid of following. Is he an innovator as well? The rule (qa’idah) is that there is no problem with terminology if it is correct. If reality requires highlighting and paying attention to a certain tawhid and making it an independent category, even if it is within the categories before it, there is no objection; and there are many parallels for that.
Hakimiyyah enters into the tawhid of asma and sifat, based on the name al-Hakam as in the hadith: “Verily, Allah is the judge and the rule belongs to Him.” And it is based on the effects, i.e., one of the meanings of rububiyyah: the act of ordering and forbidding. Where is the bid’ah in that? The one who declared another an innovator for this is either a mistaken mujtahid, and this is said about those known for being honest, or a misguided jahil or one trying to patch up rulers that substituted the law of Allah and a trumpet for them. We say here as well that from the people of knowledge are those that made the conditions of ‘la ilaha illallah’ to be seven. While some of them extracted eight and mentioned the condition of kufr in the taghut, although it is present within the seven conditions.
However, due to its importance, it was separated from the condition of love and made independent. Are they innovators? Similar to this is the issue of iman. Some of the Salaf made it two statements: statements (qawl) and action (‘amal). But when people of innovation appeared and began to speak, some of them said it is: qawl, ‘amal, and belief (i’tiqad). And when the Murjiah spoke concerning action, the Salaf said iman is: i’tiqad, qawl, and acting on the pillars (‘amal bil-arkan).
Thus they included the word ‘arkan’ to clarify. And some made it: qawl, ‘amal, i’tiqad, and intention (niyyah). And some of included: following (itba’). All of the foregone is correct. Each that required clarification or importance the Salaf increased by that amount. They are not invented additions, as they were present and contained in the speech of those who preceded in general. Based on the rule of some people, whoever added to the two words concerning iman is an innovator. Source: Al-Wasit fi Sharh Awwal Risalah fi Majmu’ah at-Tawhid, pp. 27-8. By Shaykh Ali Al-Khudayr #staymuslimdontvote
Argument #5 | The Lesser Of Two Evils
Argument #5 | The Lesser Of Two Evils But worse than all of the other imaginative evidence is the evil so-called principle [The lesser of two evils].
Which states: which is it better to do, to drink alcohol, to commit Zina or to kill a baby? So one chooses to drink alcohol (the presumed lesser evil), becomes drunk, rapes the woman and kills the baby! Just like the one who votes for the sake of having an Islamic school thereby declaring war against God by legislating laws such as allowing the Islamic school, homosexuality, Mosques, abortion, boycotting Muslims in Muslim lands, supporting the Americans in their crusade against Muslims, supporting Zionist in Palestine etc.
This evil principle has no ground in Islam whatsoever but because a little bit of knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than the one who has no knowledge at all people quote the above evil statement and confuse it with the divine rules of duress or compulsion since the messenger Muhammad (SAW) stated: “My Ummah is not accountable for errors, for forgetting or during duress”.
Duress has been classified by Shari’ah as life and death issues e.g. when somebody has been under torture or is threatened with it during his/her arrest and which Islam grants as a divine permit (Rukhssah) relating to divine circumstances i.e. Al-Ahkaam ul-Shari’yyat ul-Wadhi’iyyah.
I wonder where the person is who is being tortured and forced to vote or to share power with the kufr regimes!! Moreover the above evil and so-called principle indicates clearly that voting for man-made law and sharing power with Kufr regimes is evil but I wonder what the greater evil is?!! Perhaps it is to denounce Islam because it is difficult to abide by it !! (so “permit me to vote or I will declare kufr?”). #staymuslimdontvote
Argument #4 | Alliance of Al-Fudhoul
Argument #4 | Alliance of Al-Fudhoul A further example of imaginative evidence is wrongly justifying the prohibited actions of voting for man-made law or sharing power with kufr regimes by the Islamic opinion which permits the leader of the state to enter into an agreement i.e. a treaty with another state to protect travellers who wish to visit Makkah in Hajj and which is called Hilf Al- Fudhoul because the messenger Muhammad (SAW) said: “If they invite me to enter an alliance like Hilf Al-Fudhoul I will enter it”
Knowing full well that no one is allowed to be involved in the duties of the state except the leader of the Islamic state i.e. the Khaleefah, not any individual or groups.
This alliance did not mean the rules & regulations of the Shariah where now stripped, nor did it mean Muhammad(saw) would need to rule and abide by democracy, or replace Allah(swt) as the law maker I wonder What the relationship is between the actions of the messenger Muhammad(SAW) who abided by the commands of Allah(SWT) who permitted him(SAW) to enter a treaty in his capacity as a leader & the prohibited actions of those going to vote for man-made law or sharing power with kufr regimes or those entering treaties in their capacity as individuals or groups!! #staymuslimdontvote
Argument #3 | The Treaty of Hudaybiyah
Argument #3 | The Treaty of Hudaybiyah Yet another example of imaginative evidence is wrongly attributing to the Messenger Muhammad(SAW) that he compromised with kufr regimes by involving himself in the treaty of Hudaybiyah whereas His (SAW) involvement in Hudaybiyah was worship to Allah(SWT) since it is permitted Islamically for the leader of the Islamic state to have treaties or cease-fires, unlike going to vote for man-made law or to be a candidate for a kufr party such as the Labour, Liberal or Conservative party Furthermore the agreement still allowed for believing women to migrant to Madina it also gave the opportunity for Muslims to gather around the outskirts of Mecca & Madina to attack the caravans of Quraysh and the Messenger never spoke against these Muslims
I wonder what the relationship is between the actions of the messenger Muhammad(SAW) who abided by the commands of Allah(SWT) and the prohibited actions of those going to vote for man-made law or sharing power with kufr regimes!! #staymuslimdontvote
Argument #2 | The Abyssinian King
Argument #2 | The Abysinnian King Another example of imaginative evidence is wrongly attributing to the Abyssinian king that he was a Muslim implementing kufr.
First of all to refer to the actions of man is another indication that we are refraining from the only example we must follow i.e. the messenger Muhammad (SAW) and not the Abyssinian King. However for argument’s sake let us consider the claim. It is well known that the Abyssinian king was not a Muslim as far as the Muslims at the time were concerned.
However it has been narrated that when the messenger Muhammad (SAW) declared Salat ul-Janazah for the king the Muslims were informed that he died a Muslim. Hence no one is able to claim that the king embraced Islam during his life or when Allah (SWT) ordered us to rule by Islam or before his death. In addition Islam was completed upon the death of the messenger Muhammad (SAW) and not upon the death of the Abysinnian king. In any case how can anyone imagine a king who hides his belief as a divine example to follow?
The scholars of Hadith classify the sayings, actions and consent of the Sahabi as Hadith Mawoqouf i.e. not Hadith which we are obliged to follow or to take as evidence. How about someone who wasn’t a Sahabi? As for the consent of the messenger Muhammad (SAW) for the actions and sayings of a Muslim they are always derived from Al-Hadith Al- Marfou’ Al-Taqriri which are attributed to the messenger by a Sahabi whereas the king was not known as a Muslim let alone a Sahabi. And the consent of the messenger only applies to actions and sayings which took place in front of him and which he is able to address otherwise one could consider the consent of the messenger for some of the actions of Abu Lahab as divine evidence!!
The king was not a Sahabi or a Muslim for the Prophet (SAW) (our only divine example to follow). Finally if the Abysinnian king was a Muslim why did he keep a relationship between his kingdom and the enemies of Islam i.e. the Quraishi regime and why did the messenger not go to him to seek support to implement Islam instead of seeking the support of e.g. Al- Khazraj, Al-Aws, Banu Sa’ssa’ah, Banu Hanifah etc. I wonder What the relationship is between the actions of Abysinnian king and the prohibited actions of those going to vote for man-made law or sharing power with kufr regimes!! #staymuslimdontvote
