Islam & Demoracy

Background

On 1st September, 1876 Sultan Abdul-Hamid acceded to the throne and became Khaleefah of the Muslims. A short while later Midhat Pasha resumed the post of Grand Vizier whereupon; Britain called for a conference in Istanbul gathering the ambassadors of the major powers, with the aim of consolidating peace in the Balkans through the introduction of a host of new proposals. The conference was held and the Ottoman State was pressed into carrying out the reforms, and accordingly Midhat Pasha embarked upon carrying out the domestic reforms. He established a committee formed of 16 civil servants, 10 scholars and two high ranking army officers. He assigned to this committee the task of drafting a constitution for the State. After some extreme difficulties, the committee finally approved of a draft constitution which was inspired by the Belgian constitution. It was promulgated under the title of Qanun Assas (Basic Law) on 23rd December. Hence, a Belgian constitution, with consideration given to some Islamic aspects, became the official constitution of the Islamic State for the first time.

Among the matters stipulated by this constitution was to address all the citizens of the State as Ottomans and to recognize their personal freedom. Instead of Islam being the constitution of the State, as was the case up until then, the constitution stipulated that Islam was the Deen of the State, meaning that the State’s public holidays and other related matters would be considered from an Islamic viewpoint. The constitution also stated that a popular representation would be established through two assemblies, one for the deputies known as The Council of Deputies, and the other for the senators known as The Senate, with members of both houses enjoying parliamentarian immunity. They would neither be subjected to the State’s laws nor the Shari’ah rules until such immunity was waived. It also stipulated that the two assemblies should convene on the 1st November of each year, that they should be inaugurated by the throne’s speech, and that the laws proposed by the two assemblies should be implemented once each assembly had endorsed them and once the Sultan had ratified them. In other words, legislation would be carried out by the two assemblies. Further, it stipulated that the drawing up of the budget should be referred to the Deputies Council and that a Supreme Court formed of ten members from the Senate, ten government consultants and ten consultants from the Appeal Court should be established. It stipulated that the rule in the Wilayas should be based on decentralization.

Abdul-Hamid’s opposition to Midhat’s constitution

Since this constitution was considered a democratic system; it was composed of Kufr laws which contradicted Islam. Accordingly as the rules themselves contradicted Islam, had they been implemented, their implementation would have implied the abolishment of the Khilafah system and the establishment of a state similar to any other European state, such as Belgium for instance, whose constitution served as the source of this constitution. Thus the Sublime Porte did not implement it and Abdul-Hamid, as well as the scholars and prominent Muslim figures opposed it. In this way the Sublime Porte started to avoid implementing the constitution and submitting to the demands of the major powers. Abdul-Hamid sensed Britain’s trickery and hostility and it seemed that he had also uncovered her attempts at contacting government officials. As a result of this he dismissed Midhat Pasha from his post as Grand Vizier and banished him for perpetrating the high treason, for Midhat Pasha was in contact with the British and he was behind the policy of relying on the Western states. The major powers, especially Britain were closely following the Ottoman State and they pursued the implementation of the constitution drafted by Midhat Pasha. Indeed, Britain endeavored to hold a conference to investigate the issue of the Balkans, the Ottoman

State & Its Domestic Reforms

On 13th June 1878 the conference of Berlin took place, hosting the major powers, Britain, France, Russia and Germany. Disraeli, the Jew, was the British Prime Minister at the time and he represented Britain at the conference. Bismark meanwhile represented Germany and sided with the Ottoman State by opposing the British throughout the conference. The meetings of the conference lasted for four weeks, at the end of which a host of resolutions, were adopted including a demand for the Ottoman State to introduce modern reforms to its system. However, Abdul-Hamid snubbed them and concentrated his efforts towards training his army. He started to crush those who called for the reliance on the Western states or who demanded the removal of Islam and the adoption of the Western system. The adherents of these ideas were forced to leave the country and establish their centers in Paris and Geneva. Abdul-Hamid pursued his bid to consolidate the institution of the Khilafah among the Muslims through Islam, to make it able to confront the Western thoughts. However, he failed in his attempt and the European states, although still unable to introduce the democratic system to the state succeeded in introducing a host of Western laws. They continued pursuing this aim until the Young Turk party rebelled against the Sultan in 1908. They declared the constitution on 21st July 1908 in Salonika and in the same month, they marched towards Istanbul and occupied it. They coerced Sultan Abdul-Hamid into approving the constitution and appointing ministers acceptable to them. By 17th November, the inauguration of the Ottoman parliament had become easy and Abdul-Hamid submitted temporarily to the Young Turk party. However, he remained determined to abolish the constitution and return to the Islamic Shariah.

On 13th April, a revolution against the new rulers broke out. The soldiers revolted and surrounded their officers. They shouted:”Down with Young Turk! Down with Young Turk”. Hence, the Deen inspired war against the modern innovations was declared, and the majority of the masses marched zealously against the constitution. On 15th April, the Sultan appointed Tawfiq Pasha as Grand Vizier and assigned to him the task of restoring the implementation of the Islamic Shari’ah and the Islamic rules and the abolishment of the new constitution. However, the army in Salonika revolted once more against the Sultan, seized power and dismissed the government. On 26th April a national committee was held and acting on a Fatwa from Sheikh-ul-Islam, it took the decision to remove Sultan Abdul-Hamid. His brother Muhammad Rashad acceded to the throne and the constitution was returned and implemented. Hence, the ruling system within the Ottoman State changed and became constitutional and parliamentarian rather than a Khilafah system. All that was left of it was a head of state called the Khaleefah who held the Sultanate. A parliament and a government were in place and the rules were enacted by parliament. The role of the Shari’ah rules in government and legislation was over. This was as far as the constitutional laws were concerned.

As for the Shari’ah rules which the judges ruled by, these had been changed even before then. It was since 1856 that the move towards taking the Western laws started. Pursuant to pressure from the Western states, especially Britain and France, and pressure from their agents and those smitten by them from among the Muslims, the State had adopted a host of Western laws since the days of Sultan Abdul-Majid. They had been introduced to the State and had been implemented, with the judges ruling by them. For instance, in 1275 AH (1857 CE) the State enacted the Ottoman penal code. In 1276 AH (1858 CE), the State enacted the Law of Rights and commerce. In 1288 AH (1870 CE), the State split the courts into two types: Shari’ah courts and regular law courts for which a system was established. Then in 1295 AH (1877 CE) the bill for the establishment of regular courts was established, and in 1296 AH (1878 CE) a decree of basics on the Rights and Penalties Procedure was issued, and a Fatwa from Sheikh-ul-Islam as well as other Fatwas from other scholars were issued permitting the taking of such laws on the basis that they did not contradict Islam. When the scholars found no excuse for introducing the civil law to the State, the Journal was established as a law for transactions and the civil law was discarded; this was in 1286AH (1876CE).

An imitation of the old French civil law was taken into account. The law was taken from their books of jurisprudence, while taking into account what the civil law contained in terms of actions and what could be taken in terms of rules, provided a Fiqhi quote was found to agree with them.
Even the basis upon which the French civil law was built, that is the natural tendency or what is known to them as the spirit of the text, was taken and an article was drafted for it which stated: “The precept in the contracts lies in the intentions and the meanings, not in the expressions and the wordings”. Therefore, the Shari’ah rules and the Islamic Fiqh had been abandoned. The Western laws were adopted as was the Western jurisprudence. The way these laws were taken varied from one law to another. Some Western rules were taken as they were, without any consideration as to whether these were found in the Islamic Fiqh or not, and without any thought given as to whether they agreed or contradicted the Shari’ah rules, such as the penal code which abolished the Hudud. Other laws were taken as rules only, with consideration given to the fact that they were found in the Islamic Fiqh even if this were by an unknown Mujtahid, or from a Faqih who was not qualified to the extent of a Mujtahid. In other words if the rule had been found in the books of Fiqh or found amongst the scholars opinions, it would have been taken, otherwise it would not have been taken, as was the case with the procedure laws. Some of the laws were imitated in terms of codification, categorization and cases, while making the Shari’ah rules the exclusive articles of law, such as the Journal, which represents a host of Shari’ah rules that was established in imitation of the French civil law. Hence, the Shari’ah by which the judges ruled became Western rules rather than the Islamic Shari’ah, even if some of those rules were Shari’ah rules.

The impact of the Fatwas in the introduction of Western laws

What enabled the introduction of the rules of the democratic system as a constitution for the Islamic State and the Western laws as legislation implemented in the courts, in their capacty as Islamic courts within the Khilafah State, were the Fatwas of the scholars which stated that they did not contradict Islam, particularly the Fatwas of the Sheikh-ul-Islam. Fatwas were issued stating that the democratic system did not contradict Islam and that Islam was the Deen of democracy. A Fatwa was given by the Sheikh-ul-Islam stating that it was permitted to adopt the Western laws and implement them in the courts upon the Muslims, because Islam does not prohibit their adoption. Hence, the rules of the democratic system were established as a constitution for the Islamic State, and the ruling system was considered by the majority of Muslims to be a Khilafah system, so long as the head of state was called the Khaleefah, even if the ruling systems implemented were not from the rules of Islam. Furthermore, the Western laws started to be implemented in courts of the Islamic State and these became considered as Islamic laws. Thus the State was still considered an Islamic State, implementing Islam, even though what if act she was implementing was Western laws, as long as Islam permitted these laws. This implementation of the democratic system within the ruling system and of the Western laws within the courts did not affect the Islamic status of the State, nor did it affect the Islamic status of the laws as far as the majority of the Muslims were concerned, since Islam did not prohibit the adoption of these laws. Contrary to this, this implementation was approved by the Muslims. To some it was even regarded as a reform initiative within the State. Nobody looked upon these laws and these rules as being rules and laws of kufr, they rather approved of them and kept silent about them. If there had been anyone who disapproved of those laws and those rules, he never spoke out, nor did he oppose the Khaleefah, nor did he demand anything of him. If there had been anyone who disapproved of the suspension of the Hudud, he never proclaimed this openly by confronting the Khaleefah with his disapproval nor did he demand him to restore them.

The reasons behind the Fatwa of the Sheikh-ul-Islam and other scholars

Pertaining to the adoption of the democratic rules and Western laws was attributable to three matters:

1. It had become implanted in people’s minds at the time, and even nowadays, that it was permitted to adopt any matter which did not contradict Islam and which was not prohibited by a Shari’ah text. They used as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had found contracts dating back to the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) existing among people and he had approved them, and that which he did not approve of, he prohibited. Hence, that which he approved was permitted and that which he prohibited was unlawful. Likewise, it was permitted to adopt any thought, or rule, or law that did not contradict Islam and that had not been prohibited.

2. The Mubah (permitted) is that which carries no rebuke. Hence the absence of the rebuke is permission. So taking a matter whose prohibition has not been mentioned would be Mubah. Furthermore, the Shari’ah kept silent about it and did not outline its rule, and whatever Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah.

It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Truly Allah has commanded some obligations, hence do not neglect them; and He prohibited certain matters, hence do not violate them; and He determined certain limits, hence do not transgress them and He condoned certain matters out of mercy, not forgetfulness, hence do not search for them”. Therefore, any Thing that Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah. The adoption of rules and laws which have not been mentioned by the Shari’ah and which the Shari’ah did not mention by any prohibition is part of the Mubah. This is since there is no rebuke about them and since no prohibition was mentioned, and since it was not mentioned by the Shari’ah and because the Shari’ah kept silent about it.

3. The fact that at that time it became widespread that democracy is from Islam, for it is based on Shura (consultation), justice and equality. It was also based on giving the authority to the Ummah, and this is what Islam is concerned with. Islam equates between rich and poor, rights and duties and between a minister and a shepherd and makes their affairs amongst them based on Shura, and make enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar one of the most important principles. Shura in Islam has been organized in modern times by what the Europeans refer to as parliament. Enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar has been formulated in the modern civilization through the freedom of press to criticize and the freedom of individuals and groups to write and voice their opinions frankly. They approve what they see and they disapprove what they see and they speak as they wish. Hence no person is beyond reproach, nor is the government, or the Wali. What straightens them, deters them and forces them to keep to the straight and narrow are the awareness of public opinion and its freedom of criticism. This is what is referred to in the Qur’an as “joining together in the mutual teaching of Truth”. In this way it was deduced that democracy is from Islam and the Qur’an mentioned it and the Messenger (saw) commanded it.

The Error of the Fatwas

Consequently, fatwas related to the adoption of the democratic constitution and the Western laws were issued. The State was still considered to be an Islamic State, functioning as the Khilafah system, and the legislation was still considered Islamic as the laws that had been adopted were Islamic laws.

This is where the flaws and the deviation occurred, because the thought concerning these three matters contained a fundamental error in their understanding of Islam. This is attributable to several aspects:

1. There is a difference between the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters namely the doctrines and Shari’ah rules, and the thoughts related to sciences, techniques, industries and the like. It is permitted to adopt the thoughts related to sciences, techniques and the like, provided these do not contradict Islam. As for the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters and Shari’ah rules, it would be forbidden to adopt any of them, except those brought to us by the Messenger of Allah (saw) whether it was from the Book of Allah (swt), or the Sunnah, or from what the Book and the Sunnah have guided to. Evidence about this is reflected in what Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "I am but human like you. Hence, if I ordered you something related to your Deen’s affairs, do take it, and if I ordered you something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human”. Evidence is also reflected in the Hadith about the pollination of palm trees, where he (saw) was reported to have said: “You are better acquainted with your worldly affairs”. Therefore that which is not part of the Shari’ah, namely the Aqeedah matters and the rules, can be taken as long as it does not contradict Islam. However, that which is part of the Shari’ah, namely Aqeedah matters and rules, can only be taken from what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought and nothing else. The democratic rules and laws are rules taken to solve man’s problems; hence they form part of the legislation. Thus it would be wrong to adopt them, unless they have been brought by the Messenger of Allah (saw). It would be wrong to adopt them unless they were Shari’ah rules only.

2. The Messenger of Allah (saw) has explicitly forbidden us from taking anything other than what he brought. Muslim reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He, who introduces in our order something that is alien to it, must be rejected”. In another narration, he (saw) was reported to have said: “He, who performs an action alien to our order, must be rejected”. Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Hour shall not come until my Ummah follows the ways of the nations before her, hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length”. Upon this they asked: “Is it the Persians and the Romans?” He (saw) replied: “Who else among people but them?” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “You shall follow the ways of those before you hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length, and even if they entered a lizard’s hole you will follow them”. I said: “O Messenger of Allah! You mean the Jews and the Christians?” He (saw) replied: “Who else?” These texts clearly forbid us from taking anything from others. The first Hadith, with its two narrations, is clear about the prohibition and about the censure of taking, for it says: “It should be rejected”. The other two Ahadith contain the meaning of prohibition. This prohibition is applicable to the taking of the rules of the constitution and the laws from other than Islam, because it is introducing something alien to our order, even taking from other than our order. It is an emulation of those who are like the Persians and the Romans, namely the British and the French, who are from the Romans, hence, it is forbidden to take these rules and laws.

3. The Messenger of Allah (saw), even in his capacity as a Messenger, never used to answer when asked about a rule which had not been explained by the revelation. He used to wait until Allah (swt) had revealed such a rule. Bukhari reported on the authority of ibn Mas.ud (ra) that “the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the spirit and he remained silent until the verse was revealed”. Bukhari also reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said: “I was taken ill once and the Messenger of Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr came to visit me. He (saw) came to me while I was unconscious, so he performed Wudu. and then poured that water over me, so I regained consciousness and then said: O Messenger of Allah! How do I judge in my assets? What do I do with my assets? He (saw) said nothing to me until the verse of inheritance was revealed”. This indicates that it is forbidden to take from other than the revelation. If the Messenger of Allah (saw) refrained from giving an opinion until the revelation came to him, this proves that nothing is to be taken apart from what the revelation has indicated.

4. Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has ordered and to abstain from taking what he (saw) has prohibited. Allah (swt) also commanded us to refer in judgement to the Messenger of Allah (saw), namely to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought. Allah (swt) says:

“And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you and refrain from whatever he has forbidden you”. [Al Hashr 59:7]

This means that we should not take anything that the Messenger of Allah (saw) has not brought to us. As for the opposite understanding of “whatever he has forbidden you” this is inapplicable and nullified by the generality of the Shari’ah texts which prohibit the taking of anything other than from the Islamic Shari’ah, such as Allah (swt) saying:

“No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judges in all disputes amongst them”. [Al Nisa 4:65]

And also in His saying (swt)

“They wish to refer in judgment to Taghut (evil) whilst they have been commanded to reject it”. [ Al-Nisa 4:60]

Also such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “any action alien to our order must be rejected”, this should be the case with every opposite understanding. If a Shari’ah text were to indicate other than what we deduce from it, then this understanding should be nullified and should not be applicable, such as Allah (swt) saying:

“And do not coerce your women to commit fornication if they wished to remain chaste”. [Al Nur 24:33]

The opposite understanding of which is that if they did not wish to remain chaste, it would be permitted to coerce them. However, this understanding is nullified by the generality of the text which forbids fornication, which is Allah (swt) saying:

“....and do not approach fornication”. [Al Isra 17:32]

Therefore, the meaning of the verse would be to abide by what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has ordered and to abstain from what he (saw) has forbidden. Hence, we must not only make lawful what Allah (swt) has made lawful, we must forbid what Allah (swt) has forbidden. That which the Messenger of Allah (saw) has not brought to us, we do not take and that which he has not forbidden, we do not forbid. However, the non prohibition does not mean the permissibility of taking, for it is forbidden to take from other than Shari’ah, it rather means the non prohibition of that which Allah has not forbidden. This is the meaning of the verse. If this verse were linked to Allah (swt) saying:

”Let those who violate his command beware of being struck by Fitna or by a severe punishment” [Al Nur 24:63]

if it were known that the phrase ‘whatever’ in His saying ‘Whatever he has brought to you’ and ‘Whatever he has forbidden you’ were a term of generality, the obligation of taking what he has brought would clearly be manifested, and that the prohibition of taking from other than what he had brought would be a sin that carries a severe penalty. Allah (swt) also says:

“No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them” [Al Nisa.a 4:65]

Hence, He denied Iman from those who refer in their judgment to other than the Messenger of Allah in their actions, which indicates conclusively that reference in judgment should be restricted only to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought. Besides, Allah (swt) has rebuked those who wished to refer in judgment to other than what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought. He (swt) says:

“Did you not see those who pretend to have believed in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you; they wish to refer in judgment to Taghut whilst they have been ordered to reject it; and Shaytan wishes to lead far astray” [Al Nisa.a 4:60]

This indicates that referring the judgment to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought would be a deviation and a reference in judgment to Taghut.

5. The Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, and the Muslims are commanded to refer in their actions to the address of the Legislator and to conduct their affairs in accordance with this address. So, even if they adopted something that does not contradict the address of the legislator in any of their actions or in any of their conducts, they would have in this case taken other than the Shari’ah rule, for they would not have taken the original Shari’ah rule, but rather that which does not contradict it, hence their adoption would not be an adoption of the Shari’ah rule. Besides, if one were to take that which conforms to the Shari’ah rule, but from other than the Book and the Sunnah, this adoption would be forbidden for it is not the taking of the Shari’ah rule, but rather an adoption of other than the Shari’ah rule that happens to agree with the Shari’ah rule. In this case it would not be a reference to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought, but a reference to other than what he (saw) has brought, despite its agreement with it. This is so because the Muslim is commanded to adopt the Shari’ah rule and nothing else. For instance, marriage according to the Shari’ah is subject to a Shari’ah based offer and acceptance, with the wordings of Hijab (marrying off) and Qabool (acceptance in marriage) and in the presence of two Muslim witnesses. If a Muslim man and woman went to a church, and a priest undertook the marriage contract on the basis of Christianity using the words of Inkah and Tazwij in the presence of two Muslim witnesses, would they be considered to be married according to the Shari’ah rule or according to other than that? In other words, would they have referred to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought, or to what the distorted and abrogated Christianity has brought? Also, for instance, if a Christian died and his family were to divide his inheritance among themselves according to the rules of Islam, because Islam is fair, just or beneficial, and if they were to take a limitation of succession document from the Shari’ah court, would they have referred to the Shari’ah rule, or would they have merely taken the system because it was fair, just or beneficial? They would have undoubtedly taken other than the Shari’ah rule, because the taking of the Shari’ah rule should be taken because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought it, as it is part of the commands and the prohibitions of Allah (swt). Only then would its taking be considered a taking of the Shari’ah rule. However, the taking of the rule because the rule is just and fair, or because it is beneficial, is not considered taking the Shari’ah rule. The verse states: “until they make you judge”, and it states “and take whatever the Messenger has brought to you”.

Thus a rule should be taken on the basis of the fact that it has been brought by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Accordingly anything that is taken on other than this basis, it would not be considered a Shari’ah rule regardless of whether this agreed with the Shari’ah rule or contradicted it and even if the same Shari’ah rule were taken as it is, but not taken because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought it, but rather because it is beneficial and just.

6. The Messenger of Allah’s approval of the Kufr contracts is exclusive to him (saw), in his quality as the Messenger of Allah, as his approval is legislation, just like his sayings and his actions. This quality is not conferred upon any other person but him (saw). Therefore, whatever the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed, said, or approved is considered as legislation and it is based on the revelation. No one apart from the Messenger of Allah (saw) has the right to legislate. Hence, the contracts which the Messenger of Allah (saw) has approved have become Shari’ah rules, even if they had been contracts of the times of Jahiliyyah (ignorance). This is because their approval by the Messenger of Allah (saw) serves as evidence that they are Shari’ah rules, even if these were acts of worship. Hence, they would have been deduced from the approval of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and would have been taken on that basis, not because they had been contracts of Jahiliyyah which happened not to contradict Islam. The Sahaba (ra) used to refer to the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw) over a rule as evidence about the rule being a Shari’ah rule. It has been reported that the lizard was eaten at the table of Rasool Allah (saw) and he did not eat from it; thus ibn Abbas (ra) used his silence (saw) as evidence about the permissibility of eating lizard, despite the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not eat from it. In addition, the fact that there are many incidents in which the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw) served as evidence that they were part of the Shari’ah rules.
7. The Mubah is not that which carries no (Haraj) rebuke, for the absence of rebuke from the performing or the refraining does not indicate Shari’ah permission, nor does the lifting of rebuke necessitate the granting of choice. The prohibition of something does not mean the commanding of its opposite. Also, the commanding of something does not mean the prohibition of its opposite. The lifting of rebuke could be coupled with the obligation, as is the case in Allah’s (swt) saying:

“And he who makes Hajj to the House or Umrah, there is no rebuke in making Tawaf”. [Al Baqarah 2:158]

Hence, the Tawaf during Hajj and Umrah is an obligation and not Mubah. Also, the lifting of rebuke could be a Rukhsah (licence), as is the case in Allah’s (swt) saying:

Hence, there is no rebuke if you were to shorten your prayers. [Al Nisa 4:101]

Here, the lifting of rebuke does not mean the permissibility. Therefore, the Mubah is not that which there is no rebuke in it, rather the mubah is that which the heard evidence from the address of the Legislator has indicated the granting of choice between performing and abstaining without any other alternative. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) is that which the Shari’ah has granted the choice between taking and abstaining, either by directly mentioning the granting of the choice in the text itself such as Allah’s (swt) saying:

“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will”. [Al Baqarah 2:223]

Or such as Allah’s (swt) saying:

“And eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight, of things therein as wherever you will” [Al Baqarah 2:35]

Or by deducing the understanding from the text such as Allah’s (swt) saying:

“But when you finish the Ihram” [Al Maidah 5:2]

Or His (swt) saying:

“….and when the Salah is over you may disperse” [Al-Jum.ah 62:10]

Or His (swt) saying:

“Do eat from the good things We have provided for you” [Al Baqarah 2:57]

Besides, the Ibaha is part of the Shari’ah rules, and the Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, so it requires a Shari’ah evidence from the heard evidences to indicate that the thing is Mubah in order for it to be Mubah. Hence, the absence of a Shari’ah rule about something to indicate that it is Wajib, or Mandub, or Haram or Makruh, does not indicate that it is Mubah, for it still requires a Shari’ah rule to indicate its Ibaha. As for the things and actions which existed before the arrival of Shari’ah, such as contracts and transactions among others, their Ibaha was not a continuation of what they had been before the arrival of the Shari’ah, it is rather derived from a Shari’ah text that indicated it. Trade was mentioned by a Shari’ah text that is Allah (swt) saying:

“And Allah made trade lawful and made usury unlawful” [Al Baqarah 2:275]

Hiring was performed by the Messenger of Allah (saw), for it has been reported that he (saw) hired a man from Bani Al-Dayl as a guide to show him the way. Hence, the Ibaha of trade and that of hire has come from a Shari’ah text and not from its continuation from the days of Jahiliyyah. As well as being a saying from the Qur’an, or a saying from the Messenger of Allah (saw), the Shari’ah text could also be an action, that is the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and it could also be a silence, that is the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Thus whatever continued in terms of actions, things, contracts and transactions from the days of Jahiliyyah to the days of Islam, and which the Muslims continued to pursue, they would have pursued it because a Shari’ah evidence had come to indicate its Ibaha, either by a saying from the Qur’an or the Messenger of Allah (saw), or by an action of the Messenger or by his silence (saw), but not just by a continuation of what had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah. That which has not been established as Shari’ah evidence, such as a saying, or an action or a silence, and had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah, should not continue and should not be taken, even if no prohibition were mentioned. Shari’ah evidence should rather be sought for it. Hence the Ibaha of that, which had existed before the arrival of Shari’ah and continued after its arrival, has been established by a Shari’ah rule related to it. It would be wrong to say that because the Shari’ah has kept silent over it, it’s Ibaha has continued, and that which the Shari’ah has kept silent over and has not explained, its rule must be Mubah. This is because the Shari’ah has not kept silent over it but demonstrated its rule by an evidence related to it, and the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw) is not considered a silence of Shari’ah, but rather a statement from Shari’ah, for the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw) is just like his saying and his action and just like the Qur’an, i.e. a statement of a Shari’ah rule. No Muslim has the right to say that the Legislator (swt) has kept silent over something and has not stated its rule after reading Allah's (swt) saying:

“This day I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen” [Al Ma.ida 5:3]

Also His saying (swt):

”And We have revealed the Book to you explaining everything” [Al Nahl 16: 89]

Hence, no Muslim has the right to claim that there are situations devoid of a Shari’ah rule, meaning that the Shari’ah has completely disregarded such a situation and has not established an evidence for it. That is that the evidence did not come from either the Book or the Sunnah, or they have not given an indication through a legitimate Illah (Shari’ah reason), that which the text has mentioned either explicitly, or by way of indication, or deduction or by way of analogy, to draw the attention through this evidence or this indication to the rule related to a host of situations, whether it is Wajib (compulsory), Mandub (recommended), Haram (forbidden), Makruh (despised) or Mubah (permitted). No Muslim should hold this view, for he would be slandering the Shari’ah by claiming that it is imperfect and he would be legitimizing the reference in judgments to other than the Shari’ah, thus contradicting Allah’s (swt) saying:

“No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them. [Al Nisa.a 4:65]

If the Shari’ah did not come with the rule and the Muslim adopted a rule that the Shari’ah had not come with, he would have referred in judgment to other than the Shari’ah, and this is forbidden. As he would be claiming that the Shari’ah has not come with the rules for all situations. So, claiming a permission to refer to other than Shari’ah under the pretext that Shari’ah has not come with these rules, would be a false claim. Therefore, it is inconceivable to state that whatever the Shari’ah has kept silent over is Mubah, for this would be an Ibaha to refer to other than Shari’ah, in addition to the fact that it would be a slander against the Shari’ah by claiming that it has kept silent over certain rules and has not established them. Besides, this would be in contradiction to reality, as Shari’ah has in fact not kept silent over anything at all.

As for the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) saying: “Truly Allah has decreed certain obligations, hence do not neglect them..” this denotes the prohibition of asking about that which has not been mentioned textually by Shari’ah. It is similar to his saying (saw): “Truly the gravest sinners amongst the Muslims would be those who ask about something that has not been forbidden upon them, then it became forbidden because of their asking”. There are many ahadith to that effect. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “spare me the things I have not mentioned to you, for those before you perished because of their constant asking and their arguing with their prophets; so refrain from that which I forbid you and perform to your utmost ability that which I order you”. It has also been reported that he (saw) once recited Allah’s (swt) saying: “And Allah commanded people to perform Hajj.. Upon this a man asked : .O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?. He (saw) did not reply. So the man asked again : .O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?. Again he (saw) did not reply. So the man asked him a third time : .O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : .By He Who owns my soul, if I said it, it will become obligatory, and if it did become obligatory you would not be able to perform it, and if you did not perform it you would be sinful. So spare me that which I have not ordered you”.

Hence, the meaning of the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “and He has condoned other things” and in the narration of: “and that which He kept silent over is a condemnation”, is that He (swt) has lightened your obligation, so do not ask lest you overburden yourselves. For instance, the duty of Hajj has been decreed in general terms, and someone asked whether it should be performed every year. Allah (swt) has reduced this obligation and made it once in a lifetime in order to lighten your load and out of mercy upon the people, so He (swt) has condoned and kept silent over this obligation being every year. Thus one does not look into these things and does not ask about them. Evidence about the fact that this was the meaning is the saying of Allah’s Messenger (saw): “Hence, do not look into them” after he (saw) had said: “And He has condoned certain things” So, the point at issue is prohibiting Muslims from asking about things whose prohibition has not been revealed. The point at issue is not that He (swt) has not stated some of the Shari’ah rules, for the context of the Hadith reveal the mercy of Allah (swt) upon them and His condoning. As for the other narration: “And that which He kept silent over is a condemnation”, it also indicates that the issue is related to the prohibition of searching and asking about that which Allah (swt) has lightened for you and has not forbidden for you. Thus when something is not prohibited it is a condemnation from Allah (swt), in other words, that which He (swt) kept silent about its prohibition denotes a condemnation from Allah (swt), thus do not ask about it. This is reflected in Allah’s (swt) saying:

"O you who have believed do not ask about matters which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble" [Al Ma.ida 5:101]

Then He (swt) said:
"Allah has condoned them." i.e. those matters [Al Ma.ida 5:101]


The contradiction between Islam and Democracy

8. Democracy contradicts Islam completely in the fundamentals and in the details, and this is reflected in several aspects :

· Democracy gives the sovereignty to the people and entrusts them with the whole matter. Hence, people are the supreme reference in everything. According to the rules of democracy, people are the source of power. Thus people are the source of the legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power. It is people who legislate, appoint the judges and establish the rulers. This is contrary to Islam which makes the sovereignty to Shari’ah and not to people. In this way the whole matter is to the Shari’ah and it is the supreme reference in everything. As for the powers, Islam has made the legislative power for Allah (swt), not to people. It is Allah (swt) alone who legislates the rules in everything, be it in regard to worship, transactions, the punishments or otherwise. It is forbidden for anyone to legislate, even if it was a single rule. People in Islam have the authority - namely the rule, so it is the people who elect the ruler and appoint him. Thus people are the source of the executive power only - they select the man who assumes the authority and the rule. As for the judicial power, this is assumed by the Khaleefah or whoever deputises for him in this. It is the Khaleefah who appoints the judges or appoints someone who appoints the judges. No person from among the people, individuals or groups alike has the authority to appoint a judge. This is rather restricted to the Khaleefah and his deputy.

· The leadership in the democratic system is collective and not for the individual. The power is also collective and not for the individual. The authority, or the rule is assumed by the council of ministers meaning the cabinet. The head of state, be it a king or a president, is a nominal figure who reigns but does not rule. The body that rules and assumes the power is the cabinet. This is contrary to Islam, where the leadership is for the individual and not a collective and where the power is also for the individual and not a collective. It has been reported on the authority of Abu Sa.id Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If three people set off on a journey, they should appoint one of them as an Amir”. Abdullah ibn Omar also reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “It is forbidden for any three people to be anywhere on earth without having appointed one Amir from amongst them”. The word ‘one’ means just that, and it refers to a number, namely one and no more. This is deduced from the opposite understanding of the word ‘one’. The opposite understanding can be asked and its indication is equal to the indication of the text as far as the evidence is concerned. The opposite understanding can only be made redundant in one single instance that is if a text nullifies it. In this instance, no text has come to nullify it, thus it is applicable. This stipulates the application of: “they should appoint one as Amir” and no more, or “without having appointed one Amir” and no more. Hence, the opposite understanding in the two Ahadith indicates that it is absolutely forbidden for the Imara to be conferred to more than one man. This is supported by the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for in all the situations in which he appointed Amirs, never did he (saw) appoint more than one Amir over one single area. Thus the authority, namely the rule, is assumed by the head of state - the Amir ul- Mu.mineen, (the Khaleefah) and all of the state related mandatory powers are confined to him. He is the one with the competence in the authority and in the rule and no one share any of this competence with him rather it is exclusive to him. Thus, leadership and authority in Islam is for the individual.

· The state in the democratic system consists of several institutions and not one single institution. The government is one institution, that is the executive power, and every syndicate is an independent institution with the competence of rule and power in the field for which it has been established. For instance, the lawyers syndicate is an institution that has the power and the rule in all the issues related to the lawyers, ranging from the authorizing of lawyers to practice the profession, or suspending them, or prosecuting them, and it deals with all matters related to the lawyers in terms of power and rule. Similar to this are the doctors’ syndicate, the pharmacists’ syndicate and the civil engineers’ syndicate, among others. The syndicates enjoy within their respective fields the same competence enjoyed by the government in terms of power. The government itself does not enjoy the same power conferred to the syndicate in its specific field. This is contradictory to Islam, where the state and the government are one body, which holds the power, the Khaleefah. He is exclusively the one with the competence and no other person has any competence at all. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Imam is a guardian, and he is responsible for his guardianship”. The phrase ‘he is’ refers in an Arabic grammatical context to a restrictive form and it is a separating pronoun. Thus His saying (saw) ‘and he is responsible’ denotes a restriction upon the responsibility of the Imam. Hence, there exists nobody within the state, the individuals or groups, who have any power to rule, conferred to him in origin, apart from the Khaleefah.

· In the democratic system, seeking people’s opinion in ruling matters is considered an obligation. The ruler must seek people’s opinion or the opinion of the councils elected by the people, and he has no right to contradict people. Thus seeking people’s opinion is compulsory in the democratic system. This is contrary to Islam, where seeking the Ummah’s opinion that is the Shura (consultation), is Mandub and not compulsory. It is Mandub for the Khaleefah to seek the Ummah’s opinion and not obligatory upon him. This is so because although Allah (swt) praised the Shura. He (swt) restricted it to the area of Mubah only. So, the fact that it is confine to the area of Mubah serves as a Qareenah (conjunction) that it is not compulsory, because its subject matter is Mubah. Hence, a consultation in such a subject matter cannot be obligatory. Therefore, it is Mandub for the Khaleefah to consult the Ummah, because Allah (swt) praised the Shura and because it can only be in the area of Mubah.
· In the democratic system, the government is bound by the majority’s opinion in every single matter, whether this were in legislation or other than that. However, they tend in some cases to make the majority rule binding even if this was 51%, and in other cases they tend to impose two thirds’ majority. In any case, the majority’s opinion is binding in every matter. This is contrary to Islam, where the majority’s opinion is not given preponderance in everything and is not always binding. Further elaboration follows:

o The Shari’ah rules, namely the legislative opinions: These are not subject to the majority’s opinion, nor the minority’s opinion, but everyone should comply with the Shari’ah evidence. Evidence about this is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did comply in the issue of the treaty of Al-Hudaybiya with the revelation and brushed aside the opinions of Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra). He (saw) even brushed aside the opinion of all the Muslims and rejected categorically their opinion, and he forced them to comply with his opinion despite their anger and their resentment He (saw) said to them: “I am the servant of Allah and I shall not violate His command”. This proves that that which is preponderant is not the majority, nor the minority, but rather what has been established by the revelation, i.e. the Shari’ah evidence. If there were several evidences, the strongest evidence would be given preponderance. Thus, the rule is taken and given preponderance according to the strength of its evidence. However, obliging people to adopt the rule and enacting it as a law is exclusively the competence of the Khaleefah, for he alone reserves the right to adopt the rules, and this is derived from the general consensus of the Sahaba, which denotes that the Imam reserves the right to adopt specific rules and to order their implementation. The Muslims for their part should abide by them and cast aside their own opinions. The established Shari’ah principles are: “The order of the Imam is binding openly and secretly, the order of the Imam settles the differences, and the Sultan reserves the right to generate from the rulings that which is appropriate to the new problems which arise”. What applies to the Shari’ah rules applies also to the Shari’ah definitions, where the preponderant factor is the strength of the evidence, and it is the Khaleefah alone who reserves the right to adopt them. Therefore his own opinion would be the decisive and binding factor.

o The opinion that indicates a thought in a specific subject, whether this generates one or several actions. The action or actions will be studied on the basis of the subject. In other words, the opinion related to the undertaking of actions, is when the subjects will require understanding and contemplation. The opinion is sought with the aim of reaching a specific idea about the subject. Thus a decision is made on whether to undertake the action or refrain, or on the manner in which the action is to be undertaken, namely that which is related to the ‘opinion, warfare and tactics’. This opinion which indicates a thought in a specific subject should be subject to correctness, and not subject to the majority. For instance: Should the revival of the Ummah be worked for by elevating her intellectual level or by raising her economic standards? Were the wars of apostasy which broke out in the time of Abu Bakr (ra) considered a rejection of Shari’ah rules or a mere armed rebellion? The way Ali (ra) dealt with the Walis when he took office - should he have kept them or removed them, or should he have kept some and removed the others? The way he (ra) dealt with the issue of Mu.awiyya in particular – should he have removed him from the Wilaya of Al-Sham immediately or should he have kept him until he had established his authority over all the territories of the Khilafah?

The Ottoman State’s building of a railway track between Istanbul and Baghdad, should they have given it to German contractors or Belgian contractors? Britain’s attempt at joining the European Community in 1962 – should she have joined or not? In other words, would her entry have allowed her to maintain her international standing and keep her influence over Europe intact or would it have resulted in economic and political loss? The development of wealth in Egypt - should it have been through the establishment of heavy industry or through the building of the .High Dam? Turkey’s nuclear armament program - should she have endeavored to acquire nuclear weapons by relying on her own resources and expenditure or should she have relied on foreign investment? The Ottoman State’s endeavor to improve education: Should she have opted for increasing the amount of schools and universities or should she have reviewed the education curricula?

Therefore, in every action whose subject requires understanding and contemplation, soundness should be given preponderance over the majority. Evidence about this is reflected in the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for when he (saw) together with the Muslims, halted by the nearest water of Badr, Al-Hubab ibn ul-Munthir (ra) did not like the spot and he was well acquainted with places and an expert in warfare, so he said to the Messenger of Allah (saw): “Is this the place which Allah has ordered you to occupy, so that we can neither advance, nor withdraw from it, or is it a matter of opinion, war and tactics?” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “It is rather a matter of opinion, war and tactics.” Upon this Al-Hubab said: “This is not the place to stop”. He then pointed to a spot and soon the Messenger of Allah (saw) and those with him stood up and followed Al-Hubab's opinion.

In this Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) abandoned his opinion and did not refer to the Muslims’ opinion. He (saw) followed that which was sound and was content with the opinion of one person in a matter which the Messenger of Allah (saw) described as being ‘a matter of opinion, war and tactics’. Thus he (saw) imposed this opinion upon all the Muslims, since it was the correct one and the soundest opinion. This indicates that every opinion of this type, i.e. ‘a matter of opinion, war and tactics’, is given preponderance on the grounds of soundness, and not that of majority. It is up to the Khaleefah alone to decide that which is sound, for it was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who decided on what was sound in the battle of Badr, in his capacity as head of state, not in his capacity as a Messenger. Similar to the opinion that indicates a thought in a specific subject, is the technical opinion which the experts understand, because it is of the type that requires understanding, contemplation and expertise. Evidence about this is reflected in the fact that the opinion of Al-Hubab (ra) was accepted in a strategic matter. It was an opinion in a technical matter given by a person who was well acquainted with places and expertise in warfare. Similar to this are the non-Shari’ah definitions, for these also require understanding and contemplation.

o The opinion that leads to an action and does not require understanding and contemplation by the experts and technicians. In this type of opinion, preponderance is given to the majority and it is binding, such as the election of a Khaleefah - do we vote for this man or that man? Or such as the appointment of a referee to look into an incident - do we appoint this person or that person? Or such as the establishment of development projects - do we build hospitals or schools? Or such as granting aid to the farmers - do we grant them cash or do we grant them machines, seeds and fertilizers? And so on. Hence, every action that does not require understanding and contemplation by the experts and technicians should be subject to the opinion of the majority and the State is bound by such an opinion. Therefore, the Khaleefah is bound by such an opinion. Evidence about this is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) accepted the majority’s opinion in Uhud and went outside Madinah despite the fact that he (saw) deemed this opinion to be wrong and deemed the sound opinion to be other than that of the majority as did the senior Sahaba who also held a different opinion to that of the majority; their opinion was that of the Messenger of Allah (saw), that they should remain inside Madinah. This indicates that the majority’s opinion in such an action is the one that is preponderant and binding. Some people may get confused about the difference between an action whose subject requires understanding and contemplation and an action that does not require this. However, if one were to scrutinise the evidence of each of the two actions, the difference would be clearly manifested. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Al-Hubab (ra) in the battle of Badr: “It is a matter of opinion, war and tactics”, which means that camping in such a place is related to matters which should be referred to the experts, i.e. it is part of the military matters which require contemplation and study and part of the tactics set up for the enemy which require scrutiny in order to set up such tactics. As for the battle of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to the Muslims: “If you think it is right to stop in Madinah and leave them where they have encamped, for if they halt they will have halted in a bad position and if they try to enter the city, we can fight them therein.. Upon this some of the Muslims said : .O Messenger of Allah! Lead us forth to our enemies, lest they think that we are too cowardly and too weak to fight them.. Upon this Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salool said : .O Messenger of Allah! Stay in Madinah, do not go out to them. We have never gone out to fight an enemy but we have met disaster, and no one has come in against us without being defeated, so leave them where they are. If they stay they stay in an evil predicament, and if they come in, the men will fight them and the women and children will throw stones on them from the walls, and if they retreat they will retreat low spirited as they came”.

Hence, the issue was about whether to go out or not to go out, and not about the place of the battle - meaning that the issue was not about whether they should have fortified themselves inside Madinah and fought from there or they should have fortified themselves in the mountain of Uhud. The issue was about the enemy coming towards them, should they have gone out to meet them and engage in a war with them or should they have stayed put and if they were attacked, then to fight back, whereas if the enemy did not attack them, then to let them be. Hence, there was a difference between the reality of both situations and between the ways in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) handled each of the two situations.

From this difference between the two situations, the difference between the action that was referred to the sound opinion and the action that was referred to the opinion of the majority becomes manifest. In other words, there is a difference between the action whose subject requires understanding and contemplation and the action that does not require understanding and contemplation. The action whose subject is critical and important and whose understanding requires exertion, is different in its nature from the action that has no subject, or whose subject is not critical or is common knowledge. Although this difference between the two actions is somewhat subtle, it does however exist and can be understood. Therefore, the majority’s opinion in Islam is only taken in one single situation that is in the actions which do not require understanding and contemplation by the experts and technicians. As for the other actions, these are not subject to the majority’s opinion. This is supported by what has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra): “If you agreed upon a consultation, I would not contradict you”. This serves as evidence that the majority’s opinion is given preponderance. However, he (saw) restricted their agreement to an explanatory qualification, thus he (saw) said: “Upon a consultation”. And if his (saw) saying “I would not contradict you” was linked to his contradiction to their opinion in Al-Hudaybiya, and to his enjoining of Al-Hubab’s (ra) opinion upon them, it would become clear that his saying: “Upon a consultation” serves as a qualification for not contradicting them. Also their non contradiction is a matter related to a consultation, which is other than that which is a revelation and other than that which is a matter of ‘opinion, war and tactics”. We deduce from this that the Hadith indicates that the majority’s opinion is given preponderance in matters which are other than the Shari’ah rules and other than that which is a matter of .opinion, war and tactics.. Therefore, Islam contradicts democracy.

· In democracy, some individuals enjoy an immunity that protects them from the law. Thus the law cannot touch them due to the immunity they enjoy, as is the case with the head of state and the members of parliament. If the head of state committed a crime, he would not be prosecuted and he would not be subject to the law, because he enjoys this immunity. Likewise are the members of parliament, for if any of them were to commit a crime during a parliamentary session, he would not be prosecuted and he would not be subject to law enforcement until his immunity is lifted. This is contradictory to Islam, where no citizen of the Islamic State is given any immunity whatsoever. The head of State is like any ordinary person in that if he committed a crime he would be prosecuted and the law would be implemented upon him. The same applies to the members of the Shura. Council, for each one of them is like any ordinary person. However, if the crime of the accused person were not connected to his profession within the State, and was in other than ruling or administrative matters, he would be prosecuted before the judicial court. Whereas if the crime he was accused of were connected to his profession within the State, namely a crime related to ruling or administrative matters, he would be prosecuted before the court of Mathalim. Immunity in the Islamic State is given to no one except the envoys who come from abroad on the diplomatic missions. Only they enjoy diplomatic immunity and apart from them, no one at all has any diplomatic immunity.


The general freedoms in democracy contradict Islam

· There exists in the democratic system what is known as general freedoms: Personal freedom, freedom of ownership, freedom of creed and freedom of expression. Hence, every person can do what they wish. So there is no punishment against fornication; it is even forbidden to enact such a punishment, for this is regarded as an infringement of personal freedom. Also, every person can acquire through any means, anything they wish. Thus one can acquire wealth through gambling, deception or monopoly. Also, every person can embrace any Aqeedah they wish and they can express any opinion they wish. This is contradictory to Islam, for in Islam there is no freedom, meaning non adherance to anything when performing actions. Islam indeed restricts the Muslim to abiding by the Shari’ah rules. Every action performed by the Muslim is subject to the adherence to the Shari’ah rules. What is known as general freedoms has no existence in Islam. There is no personal freedom, for the men and women fornicators will be lashed and the men and women adulterers will be stoned. Also there is no freedom of ownership, for the wealth that is acquired through gambling or unlawful transactions cannot be owned, and the wealth whose acquisition is forbidden by Shari’ah such as Riba (usury) cannot be owned. One cannot own anything by way of deception or monopoly. Also, there is no freedom of belief, for if the Muslim apostasies he would be killed if he did not repent. As for what is referred to as freedom of expression, Islam has permitted the Muslim to express his own opinion, provided it is not sinful and has also ordered the uttering of the truth everywhere and at all times. In the Hadith of Ubada ibn us-Samit (ra), when the Ansar gave their Baya.a to the Messenger of Allah (saw), he was reported to have said: “That we would speak the truth at all times and that in Allah’s service, we would fear the censure of none”. Islam has also commanded the confronting and the accounting of the ruler with regard to his actions. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza, and a man who stood up to a tyrant ruler to advise him and was killed by him”. This is not regarded as freedom of expression, but an adherence to Shari’ah rules. It is also a permission to voice one’s opinion in some cases and an obligation to voice it in other cases. Therefore, Islam contradicts democracy in terms of what is known as general freedoms, for there are no freedoms in Islam except for the freedom that means the liberating of slaves from slavery.


From these seven points alone, the complete contradiction between Islam and democracy becomes clear. It also becomes clear that the rules of democracy are one thing and the rules of Islam are another and that there exists a clear difference between them. Each of them is conspicuously different from the other. Therefore, democracy is other than Islam. From all that which has been mentioned in these sections, it becomes clear that the idea stating: “That which does not contradict Islam and has not been prohibited by a text can be taken”, is false in essence. It becomes clear once the evidences have been closely studied, that the adoption of any rule from other than what the Shari’ah has brought is an adoption of a Kufr rule, for it is an adoption of other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Allah (swt) has forbidden us from referring to other than Shari’ah, and in addition to His forbidding it as mentioned in the evidences listed earlier, such as His (swt) saying:

“No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them” [Al-Nisa.a 4:65]

And the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): "Every action not based on our order is rejected", He (swt) has clearly prohibited the adoption of the rule that He did not reveal; for He (swt) addresses His Messenger (saw) by saying:

“And rule between them by that which Allah has revealed” [Al Ma.ida 5:49]

And He (swt) also says:

“And beware lest they seduce you away from that which Allah revealed to you” [Al Ma.ida 5:49]

Allah (swt) did not stop at that but went on to censure those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. He (swt) says:

“And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” [Al-Mai.da 5:44]

In another verse He (swt) says:

“They are the transgressors”

and in a third verse :

“They are the wrong-doers”

This indicates the emphasis in abiding by what Allah (swt) has revealed and confining oneself in taking the rules from Him and the absolute prohibition of taking from other than Him (swt). Hence, the adoption of the Western laws and the democratic rules is not only an error, it is rather an adoption of a Kufr rule and that is Haram, regardless of whether it agreed with Shari’ah or contradicted it. In fact, even if the identical rule were adopted, it would still be Haram since it was adopted on a basis other than that of Shari’ah. Accordingly, that which the Muslims implement in their transactions nowadays according to the Western laws is an implementation of rules of Kufr, regardless of whether it agreed with or contradicted the Shari’ah. Even if a person were to hire a labourer or rent a house or a car, and conducted the rental transaction according to Western laws, it will be a transaction conducted according to a Kufr law. Whereas if he were to conduct the transaction according to the Shari’ah rules, this would be Halal, regardless of whether this agreed or contradicted the law.