A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| Ember |
| 04/14/05 at 09:26:43 |
| [slm] Q1 - Did women have voting rights in muhammad (pbuh) time? If so when was this shown? Q2- Does Islam promote democracy? If so what are the rights of the minority in the democracy? How does it help uphold the rights of all the individuals in the community? Q3- What is the difference between Fiqh and Share'a Plus, do you lot know of a good book on Islamic government and laws???? |
| Democracy, Islam and Government |
|---|
| anon |
| 04/15/05 at 01:00:06 |
| [slm] From my limited understanding I will try to help you. For your first question, is it not a greater right that a woman can challenge a caliph (Hazrat Omer) to change his ruling, and see it changed right then? Voting is a means to give your opinion. Publically calling the ruler into account and getting your problems settled by him is a much greater right and a much greater show of opinion. Answering those questions is getting into useless debates. It should be enough to know that Shariah does not set a certain system of government. It only sets a few requirements for any government or ruler to follow. Any govt/ruler following those guidelines would comprise Islamic rule. One scholar who has spent his life studying Islam said [i]"Any govt who strives to help the cause of Islam is Islamic in the eyes of the shariah"[/i] Other requirements I have heard from scholars include: 1. The govt/ruler should have accountability and should have means to be held accountable by any citizen. (ex: Hazrat Omar (May Allah be well pleased with him) and the man who questioned him about his dress, and the woman who questioned his ruling regarding mehr) 2. being responsible for food, clothing(?), and health services for all its citizens (ex: Hazrat Omar's concern about any dog going hungry. Free hospitals in Muslim caliphates. Pastures for injured animals who could not survive in the wild--sort of zoo for injured animals except without cages) You should ask yourself why people consider the 'democracy' practised in the west as the ideal system? The only reasonable answer I get from people is that it holds the rulers accountable as they have to re-appear in elections. I think that is a very lousy system of accountability--that you do as you please and then after 5 yrs the only accountability is that you may not get selected again! Islam requires a much stricter system of accountability. Also the past century has shown how under the guise of democracy govt's can take steps repeatedly that are not in the best interests of its citizens. E.g. was the invasion of Vietnam really in the best interests of the average american? In Islam the court should be above all and any simple person should be able to challenge any decision, by any govt official in the court and if proven to be against the teachings of Islam, or against the interests of Muslims, the govt should be forced to change its stance.Imam Abu Hanifa believed in this so much that he risked his life for it. When the ruler did not accept the courts law above his own decisions, Abu Hanifa refused to work as qadi (judge) for the ruler, and persevered imprisonment and public lashings. His only worry then was that his mother would be hurt seeing him get tortured. As Iqbal said: "I do not like this idea of counting heads and not weighing them!" The democracy of today is not accepted amongst all intellectuals as the best system of govt. Infact some western thinkers call it a "necessary evil." However the shariah does not hold anything against democracy. Choosing a president/ruler using general voting is sanctioned in the Shariah, because the early Muslim khalifas had the general population taik 'bait' (pledge) on their hands. If the majority had not pledged allegience they would not have become khalifa. So the idea of democracy is rooted in the Islamic tradition. [i]Democracy is not un-Islamic, and it may be "necessary" in the times we live in. Allah knows best.[/i] |
| 04/15/05 at 01:14:11 |
| anon |
| Re: Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| jaihoon |
| 04/15/05 at 02:31:55 |
| [quote] Did women have voting rights in muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) time? If so when was this shown? [/quote] [slm] Dunno if women had voting rights, but SHE sure had Living Rights- She was saved from being buried alive- a practice which was widespread among the Arabs in those days. Her rights for property ownership was also recignized legally for the first time on the planet. Rights to seek knowledge was also enouraged. A mother's rights on her children were three-fold of that of the Father... and much more. sallallahu alaihi wa sallam |
| Re: Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| Ember |
| 04/15/05 at 09:23:14 |
| [slm] To be more specific, how was the khalifa chosen? Did they vote? or was it the choice is the big wigs of the time? Did women have a say in who got voted, IF there was a vote? I know that when giving witness there shouls be 3 women to one man, how about votinng? |
| democracy & how the Caliphs were chosen |
|---|
| timbuktu |
| 04/15/05 at 10:38:54 |
| [slm] From my understanding, Islam does not set a particular mode of government as necessary. It sets score by following the Sharia`ah, by caring for the weak, by justice with compassion, not by some -ism or -cracy. We are told in the Quran to hold to "shura", which (I don't know Arabic) has been translated as "consulting". And we are told to ask from among those who know - (the ulema). And then there is a Hadith in which the prophet (saw) told the Sahaba that there would be Khilafa on the manhaj of prophethood, but it would last forty years, then would come "malookiya" - kingship. In this there would be injustices, but we muslims are not to rise as long as the kings "establish Salah". This has been taken to mean arrangements for other religious duties as well. So, consulting is the path, but counting votes and establishing laws accordingly can be accepted if the laws do not deviate from Islamic principles. 3 women compared with one man! I thought it was two. Anyway, equal voting rights for women are OK. The main point is there should be a body to oversee that any laws made are according to the Quran and Sunnah, not in conflict with it. |
| Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| Saffiya |
| 04/15/05 at 15:50:45 |
| [slm] In response to question number 2: By definition we find that democracy is in contradiction to Islam, "Islam is Total Submission to Allah exclusively, and to follow the command of Allah with full obedience, and rejection and bara’ (disassociation) from shirk and its people." And Allah (swt) said: "The only deen accepted by Allah is Islam," A persons Deen is what he/she believes in (Allah exclusively), and what he lives by (Khilafah and shari’ah) and what he dies for, (Da’wah and Jihad). This means that if we are Muslims, the only deen acceptable for us is Islam, we believe in it, live by it and die for it. So there is no way for us to believe in democracy, nor live by it, nor fight to defend it. Democracy is defined according to those who believe in democracy we as Muslims cannot redefine democracy and it is not an Arabic word, rather we can only take the definition and judge it on that. Democracy is defined as: "The rule of the people, by the people, for the people." This means that the people are the ones to legislate law for themselves, that sovereignty is for man. Democracy calls for so called freedoms, - The freedom of Religion Freedom to worship whatever and whoever they wish, whether one god or many gods; whether they worship themselves, their desires, their money or their private parts. - The Freedom of Ownership Freedom to own whatever and however they like, whether selling his body or his wife’s body it doesn’t matter because he is free. - Personal Freedom To be free to eat, speak, wear and behave the way he likes etc. - Freedom of Expression Freedom to say what you like, to lie how you like, to slander, to insult, to swear, to curse however you like. However, this will inevitably causes chaos; so they use this freedom to vote for someone to make law and order. In parliament, they do not eat ice cream, they legislate law e.g. to prohibit swearing in public; but instead permitting swearing in a ‘legal’ way, in films, books, media, ‘joking’ etc. So we have understood that the people vote to decide what they think is the best law, then they count the votes and take the majority opinion, there is always confusion and disagreement, there is no black and white and is always grey areas. i.e. It is entirely based on compromise. Allah (swt) said: "We sent to you this book, as a guidance confirming the previous books, and abrogating all the previous books, (you must) Rule and judge between them by all of whatever Allah revealed, and do not follow their desires instead of what Allah sent to you, for every nabi, we sent Shari’ah and a way of Life." [EMQ 5: 14] From this verse alone, we see that Democracy is fundamentally contradictory to Islam, and is irreconcilably against the command of Allah. Allah ordered us to implement only and all of His (swt) commands and prohibitions, to rule and judge by whatever he revealed and to reject any and all opinions that the people may have, whether minority or majority.Allah (swt) said:"Do people want to follow the law of jahiliyyah (ignorance); Who is a better legislator than Allah? If you believe." [EMQ 5: 50] There is no doubt that Allah (swt), the one who created us and created the universe and everything in it, He is the best to know us and what is best for us. He (swt) is the best to decide what is right and wrong and we have no right to question him. Only the fool would leave His (swt) wisdom and guidance for our own ignorance and conjecture. Allah (swt) said: "legislation is only for Allah. " [EMQ 12: 40] The one who legislates we call him, "rabb" or "ilah", so if we say "there is no ilah except Allah" we must take Allah alone as ilah exclusively, otherwise we commit shirk and we will become kaafir (a disbeliever). Allah (swt) said: "Do you see the one who claims he believes in what has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and what has been revealed before you, and yet he arbitrated to taghout (other than Allah)." [EMQ 4: 60] It is impossible for us to refer to any law other that of Allah, in any dispute we must return to Allah and his laws for arbitration. We can never believe in Allah as Al Hakam (legislator) exclusively and then refer to man-made law for arbitration, Allah (swt) said: "There is no compulsion in the deen, the truth is distinguished from the falsehood, whosoever rejects taghout and then believes in Allah, they have grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break …" [EMQ 2: 256] Allah (swt) informed us that the first pillar of Tawheed is "…whosoever rejects taghout…" And the second pillar "…and then believes in Allah…" [EMQ 2:256] This means that we must stay away from and reject all that is worshipped, followed or obeyed instead of Allah (swt), whether Satan, human, idols, law and order or a ruler. Allah (swt) said: "It is not fitting for the believing men or the believing women, when Allah and His messenger decide a matter, that they should have any choice in the matter, and whosoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, they are in clear misguidance." [33:36] When Allah (swt) uses ‘clear misguidance’ in this and other ayat, it means Shirk (polytheism). So it is impossible for us to vote over what is right or wrong, or what is lawful or unlawful as this has already been decided by Allah (swt), and it is impossible for us to have a choice after that. In the time of the Prophet (saw), the jews used to come and ask the muslims, "who gives life?" They said "Allah", they asked, "who takes life?" the Muslims said "Allah" … then they said "who takes the life of the sheep when you slaughter?" the Muslims said "it is Allah," then they asked "who takes the life when the sheep dies by itself?" the Muslims said "Allah," then they asked "how do you eat what Allah kills with your metal knife, but you do not eat what Allah kills with His golden knife?" So Allah revealed the Ayah: "Do not eat what has not been mentioned on it the name of Allah, that is sin, but the shaytan inspire their own people to debate with you the matter, if you obey them you become Mushrik." [EMQ An’am 21] So there is no room for discussion or preference in the law of Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Allah is the one who legislates and judges, and nobody dares to comment on it" [EMQ Ra’d: 41] So there is no possibility of voting to decide law and order as the verdict is always with Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Whatever it occurs that you have a problem, the verdict is for Allah," [EMQ Shura: 10] Allah (swt) said:"They take their priests and rabbis as lords instead of Allah," Hatib bin Uday used to be from the Ahl Al Kitab, he said: "I came to the Prophet (saw) and at that time I had a gold cross on my neck, the messengers said "take this idol from your neck" and he recited the ayah … (above), I said; "how do we do so?" he said: "didn’t they forbid what Allah permits, and you obeyed them, and permit what Allah forbids and you take it?" I said: "yes" he said: "that is the way you used to worship them."" May Allah (swt) protect us from falling into the same hole as the Jews and Christians, who left Allah to follow their own desires, who twist and change the word of Allah to please eachother, even to legislate homosexuality after Allah prohibited it. Verily Democracy is a religion of disbelief; anybody who believes in it is a disbeliever, anybody who lives by and obeys its man-made law is Mushrik as he obeys and arbitrates to taghout, even though Allah (swt) ordered him to reject it, and anybody who fights to defend it, and kills and bombs others to force them into it and dies for the its sake can never die except as a kaafir, and will be punished after that forever and ever in the hellfire. The only solution is to reject this taghout (that which is worshipped, followed or obeyed instead of Allah) and to worship Allah (swt) exclusively, to leave man-made law and to embrace Islam, live by Islam and die for the sake of Allah, gaining paradise in the hereafter forever and ever. [wlm] :-) |
| Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| Ember |
| 04/18/05 at 10:24:50 |
| [slm] Jazaka Allahu khair sister Saffiya, that was a wonderful reply. Islamic laws make great sense to me, I am having trouble proving to a non-muslim that based on our Quran and sunnah we could have guidance for a good government for ALL people (muslims and non-muslima). Plus, I am looking for examples in the prophets life that helps establish this government. Another thing I hear all the time that religion should change with time. When I say that Islam is for all times based on its rules for leading a good life, I have examples and backing. For an Islamic government I don't have the knowledge to make a solid argument. Some of my points have been about our rule of spain, the fair amount of jaziya in the lands we concurred etc but I am short of good points. |
| Islmaic government |
|---|
| timbuktu |
| 04/18/05 at 12:20:49 |
| [slm] For an understanding, the best times are the Prophet's [saw] time, and the Khulafae Rashideen. See the pact of Madinah with the different tribes of Aus and Khizraj, and the Jewish tribes. All accepted the Prophet's [saw] authority, but the Jews were allowed to decide if they wanted to abide by the Torah, or by the ruling of the Prophet. All were required to defend the common territory of Madinah. They had equal rights, and when they conspired with the Mushrikeen of Makkah, they were warned, and then war with them begun because they had not given up their scheming and plotting against Madinah. Look then at Umar's (ra) rule. How he travelled to Jerusalem? How the Muslim army went through the streets of Jerusalem, with the non-Muslim women turning out to see the Muslim soldiers, but the soldiers going through the streets without liftng their heads? How the Muslims returned the jizziya when they had to retreat against a far superior Roman army, etc. How Umar understood that a non-Muslim slave had threatened to murer him, but refused to punish or expel him because he hadn't committed any crime yet. Lok at the first welfare state introduced by Umar (ra0, but the rationale for which had been provided by the prophet in the Hadith, which says something like "whatever someone earns is his, and what he leaves behind is for his heirs, except for the liabilities that he leaves behind." meaning that if a deceased person's estate is insufficient to discharge his loans, the Islamic state will do so. |
| Islamic Law is adaptable |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 05/09/05 at 16:44:56 |
| [slm] [quote author=Ember link=board=lighthouse;num=1113485204;start=0#6 date=04/18/05 at 10:24:50] Another thing I hear all the time that religion should change with time. When I say that Islam is for all times based on its rules for leading a good life, I have examples and backing. For an Islamic government I don't have the knowledge to make a solid argument.[/quote] Sister, it is true that Islam is for all times, but it is not quite correct to say that Islamic Law never changes. The principles on which the Law is based never changes, but the letter of the Law may change. This is established within our Sharee'ah. The only part of the Law which never changes constitutes those laws which deal with beliefs and rituals. However, when it comes to social issues (mu'aamalat), the law is much more flexible. So, for example, neither the Qur'an nor the Sunnah has taught us how to elect a leader. However, it has given guidelines for it. So we know the importance of a leader (from the Qur'an and Sunnah), what his qualities should be (mainly from the Sunnah), his rights and duties (Qur'an and Sunnah), the concept of Shura (from the Qur'an and Sunnah), and so on. Yet, the exact method of elections has been left open for us to mould based on our times and situation. This is the only way a Deen can be timeless, if it is flexible enough to mould. However, in order for it to stay Divine, and not be completely altered by people, it has to have Divine principles that do not change with time. Islamic Law has this amazing combination of both, which can neither be found in Judaism nor Christianity. I can give you more examples, insha Allah, if you need. But that should suffice for now insha Allah. Abu Hamza |
| Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| Ember |
| 05/09/05 at 17:01:57 |
| [slm] Jazaka Allahu khair brother timbuktu for the examples. They will come in handy. Brother Abu Hamza , thats a great point that you raise. I forgot about the shura etc that we are allowed to have. I would appreciate some exaples on the flexibilities that Islam has provided in comparison to Christianity and Judaism or some names of texts I could look up for them. Jazaka allahu khair salaams |
| Re: Urgent need |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 05/09/05 at 17:08:37 |
| [slm] Insha Allah when I have some time I'll give some examples. In the meantime you should listen to the lectures entitled "MaqassuDul Sheerah" at this link: http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50017&TitleName=Mokhtar_Maghraoui The entire series is quite long and involved, but it would be quite beneficial for you, I think, if you have time. Wassalam. |
| Re |
|---|
| humble_muslim |
| 05/09/05 at 17:14:10 |
| AA Sister Ember, This may have some of the answers you're looking for. http://www.islam4all.com/trialogu.htm |
| NS |
| Examples |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 05/09/05 at 18:08:35 |
| [slm] Sr. Ember, the basic difference between Islamic Law and other forms of Religious Law is that Islamic Law contains a corpus which is adaptable, whereas when Christians and/or Jews speak about Religious Law, they have no notion of adaptability or "change." To them, Divine Law is meant to be ordained by the All-Knowing, the Wise. Therefore, Religious Law, since its source is Divine, should be so far-sighted that there should never be any need to change. It should have covered all grounds. God, since He knows the future, should have legislated things that were timeless. Therefore when they speak of Religious Law, they speak of a corpuse of law which can never change. And if anyone tries to change it, he is labelled as a liberal or secular. Not so in Islam. Islamic Law is based on principles, yes, that do not change. It has objectives that do not change. Its main objective is to promote the well-being of all people in all aspects of earthly and heavenly life. That objective will never change. Its sources of Law will not change - Qur'an, Sunnah. It has axioms that do not change (choosing the lesser of two evils, necessity takes precedence over want, Life takes precedence over Reason/Intellect, and so on). But specific legal rulings derived based on unchanging principles may themselves change. [Please note that the above is only true for issues of mu'aamalat - dealings between people, social issues, not issues related to ibaadaat. Those do not change and are constant, much like the "religious law" of other faiths.] An example of this is when the Prophet (saw) legislated that if someone finds a stray camel, he should leave it as it is. The camel has vegetation that it can feed on, and it carries its water, so it should be left alone until its owner finds it. Umar, in his time, changed this law. He legislated that if a stray camel is found by someone, he should take possession of the camel, feed and and take care of it until its owner is found. At that moment, the camel should be handed over to the owner. Ali, in his time, changed the law again. He legislated that if someone finds a stray camel he should not take possession of it, nor should he leave it. Rather he should take the camel and give it to the State, which has the duty of feeding and taking care of it until the owner is found. In this simple example, we see that what the Prophet (saw) had legislated was not followed by the letter by the Caliphs that came after him. They changed the letter of the law because of the circumstances that existed in their times (In Umar's time there were plagues and lack of harvest, so the camel would die if it was left alone; In Ali's time there was mass discord and evil among the people, there were thieves that would take possession of the camel and never give it back to the owner, etc). However, the *spirit* of the law, the purpose behind Rasulullah's legislation - namely the *protection* of property (i.e. the camel) - was maintained by all the Caliphs. It was this objective that they were trying to preserve, though they chose different means to do so based on their circumstances. That is Islamic Law. This kind of adaptability is unheard of in orthodox Religious Law of the Jews and Christians. When it comes to choosing a state leader, a constant is Shura. Any major decision cannot be made, which would affect the entire Ummah, without performing Shura. Therefore Abu Bakr made shura with several key companions (including Ali, Uthman, Abdul Rahman, Talhah, Zubayr, etc) before appointing Umar. Umar similarly appointed a Shura to choose the next khalifah. Any decisions that they khulafaa' made was based on Shura. And so on. However, what constituted shura (all Muslims, only the Madinans, only some Sahabah?), this changed with time and circumstances. Wallahu a'lam. Hope that helps. |
| 05/09/05 at 18:11:10 |
| Abu_Hamza |
| Re: Urgent need for answers, pls help |
|---|
| peaceb2u |
| 08/07/05 at 18:40:05 |
| salamz This is probably too late for the "urgency" of the questions, but I read this following hadith, and was under the impression that women were allowed to participate politically at the time of the Prophet (S) and afterwards. At his time, men and women gave Bayaa'--their oaths of allegiance-- to show their support for the Prophet (S) as their leader (political, religious, economic) instead of ballot votes, but I've always understood this to be the same concept: Narrated Urwa Aisha the wife of the Prophet, said, "Allah's Apostle used to examine the believing women who migrated to him in accordance with this Verse:'O Prophet! When believing women come to you to take the oath of allegiance to you... Verily! Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.' (60.12) 'Aisha said, "And if any of the believing women accepted the condition (assigned in the above-mentioned Verse), Allah's Apostle would say to her. "I have accepted your pledge of allegiance." "He would only say that, for, by Allah, his hand never touched, any lady during that pledge of allegiance. He did not receive their pledge except by saying, "I have accepted your pledge of allegiance for that." 006.060.281 - Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)) - - - - |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |