Zaid Hamid speech related to Pakistan

[Saleem]

he needs a haircut...

 

[Zarvan]

 

[Chak Bamu]

Mr the things they were told were hadees Sir the words which came out of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW other than the Quran are called hadees by Muslims Sir and just to conquer Constantinople Muslims attacked for 900 years just to fulfill one hadees Mr what HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told us is from ALLAH HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW doesn't speak from himself what ever he speaks is from ALLAH Mr first of all the western democracies is completely haram Sir their can be no political parties in Islam that is completely against Islam and to tackle sectarianism first we would have to implement those 90 % common things which all sects have common in them nothing can be said for sure but to fulfill one hadees war can be fought again and again no problem in that MR just calling hadees historical reference and nothing more is denying hadees and I have talked to those in detail who deny Hadees they basically deny all the orders of Quran so they don't have to do any work they are nothing but traitors of RASOOL SAW Democracy divides people and that mushwarat thing read in contest



Thanks for sharing

Zarvan, I will keep asking you specific questions and you would keep giving me vague answers; and this can go on because you can not back up your bold statements with any thing solid or specific. When you you entangle your opinions with your ego, this happens.

1. I, and most others know what is Hadith. You need not tell us. Muslims all believe in Hadith, you do not need to convince me or others. What you do need to tell me (and others) is how you intend to use SPECIFIC Hadith to make a case for action plan. This you can not do and this is why you are running in circles with vague statements that you are making with a lot of emotion.

2. You seem to be saying that we need to be in a war for hundreds of years for the sake of satisfying YOUR interpretation of one Hadith, about which many other & more learned Muslims have a different opinion. So in effect you wish for Pakistan to be in perpetual war for sake of a Hasith which has a controversial interpretation. Let me be clear, you are willing to have many thousands, even millions be killed just so that YOUR idea of Hadith interpretation can be brought about. Notice that I am not taking a position on interpretation of Ghazwa-e-Hind. I am just pointing out the logical outcome of your obsession with it. You are OK that countless people should be sacrificed, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, just for the sake of your interpretation. I suppose you are intentionally ignoring Hadith that tells us Muslims to be wary of war? You think that Hadith is irrelevant in matter of war?

3. Connected to #2 above is the crucial difference in the nature of Hadith itself and your interpretation of it. The Hadith foretells an event that is yet to take place. This is called prophesy. All Ahadith relating to End times are prophesies. They merely point to future events and shall help Muslims who actually live through those times. Your interpretation of this and other Ahadith takes them not as prophesies, but as a Ahkam, or firm directions. Clearly your approach is not only wrong, but actually disastrous. This is sole reason why I want to confront you as to how you can take a prophesy and use it to make an action plan, when you can have NO idea as to when that prophesy might come to be fulfilled.

4. Your rejection of Democracy is in line with your war-mongering. Democracy is a system of government that ensures the centrality of wishes, expectations, hopes of the people (the tax-payers) in matters of governance. You reject these notions, because your FASCIST ideas about conquering other people can not accommodate them. You wish for Muslims to rule OVER other people. That is FASCISM. The time for that has passed along with slavery, serfdom, and Dodo. Just as we can not contemplate slavery as a social/economic practice - people like me can not understand the role of Fascism in this day and age. There was a time when most everybody accepted fascist practices just as they accepted role of slavery, but that time passed away two centuries ago. Fascism died with colonialism at the end of WW2. Why do you wan to resurrect it?

5. Jihad today is first and foremost with one's own self. You seem to be in dire need of that, since your ego rules your head. Jihad with actual weapons comes much later and with conditions. You can not use prophesies as an excuse for Jihad. Period. It is intellectually dishonest to do so. If Muslims are occupied and suppressed then Jihad can be declared after talks and negotiations fail, not otherwise. I shall be all for Jihad against India, if we are attacked. But I can not support call to Jihad by Nutcases for an aggressive war. This is how you are using Hadith and I can not agree with you in using Hadith of prophesy as an excuse for an aggressive war.

6. Before you blame others for not giving importance to Hadith, check your attitude about Hadith first. While you are using Hadith to support a war, you should not expect to be taken seriously. You should not find fault with others either. At least not with people like @Armstrong.

Now I am awaiting another gibberish post from you that repeats the same idiocy that has given rise to 90% of your 8000+ posts.

 

[Zarvan]

Zarvan, I will keep asking you specific questions and you would keep giving me vague answers; and this can go on because you can not back up your bold statements with any thing solid or specific. When you you entangle your opinions with your ego, this happens.

1. I, and most others know what is Hadith. You need not tell us. Muslims all believe in Hadith, you do not need to convince me or others. What you do need to tell me (and others) is how you intend to use SPECIFIC Hadith to make a case for action plan. This you can not do and this is why you are running in circles with vague statements that you are making with a lot of emotion.

2. You seem to be saying that we need to be in a war for hundreds of years for the sake of satisfying YOUR interpretation of one Hadith, about which many other & more learned Muslims have a different opinion. So in effect you wish for Pakistan to be in perpetual war for sake of a Hasith which has a controversial interpretation. Let me be clear, you are willing to have many thousands, even millions be killed just so that YOUR idea of Hadith interpretation can be brought about. Notice that I am not taking a position on interpretation of Ghazwa-e-Hind. I am just pointing out the logical outcome of your obsession with it. You are OK that countless people should be sacrificed, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, just for the sake of your interpretation. I suppose you are intentionally ignoring Hadith that tells us Muslims to be wary of war? You think that Hadith is irrelevant in matter of war?

3. Connected to #2 above is the crucial difference in the nature of Hadith itself and your interpretation of it. The Hadith foretells an event that is yet to take place. This is called prophesy. All Ahadith relating to End times are prophesies. They merely point to future events and shall help Muslims who actually live through those times. Your interpretation of this and other Ahadith takes them not as prophesies, but as a Ahkam, or firm directions. Clearly your approach is not only wrong, but actually disastrous. This is sole reason why I want to confront you as to how you can take a prophesy and use it to make an action plan, when you can have NO idea as to when that prophesy might come to be fulfilled.

4. Your rejection of Democracy is in line with your war-mongering. Democracy is a system of government that ensures the centrality of wishes, expectations, hopes of the people (the tax-payers) in matters of governance. You reject these notions, because your FASCIST ideas about conquering other people can not accommodate them. You wish for Muslims to rule OVER other people. That is FASCISM. The time for that has passed along with slavery, serfdom, and Dodo. Just as we can not contemplate slavery as a social/economic practice - people like me can not understand the role of Fascism in this day and age. There was a time when most everybody accepted fascist practices just as they accepted role of slavery, but that time passed away two centuries ago. Fascism died with colonialism at the end of WW2. Why do you wan to resurrect it?

5. Jihad today is first and foremost with one's own self. You seem to be in dire need of that, since your ego rules your head. Jihad with actual weapons comes much later and with conditions. You can not use prophesies as an excuse for Jihad. Period. It is intellectually dishonest to do so. If Muslims are occupied and suppressed then Jihad can be declared after talks and negotiations fail, not otherwise. I shall be all for Jihad against India, if we are attacked. But I can not support call to Jihad by Nutcases for an aggressive war. This is how you are using Hadith and I can not agree with you in using Hadith of prophesy as an excuse for an aggressive war.

6. Before you blame others for not giving importance to Hadith, check your attitude about Hadith first. While you are using Hadith to support a war, you should not expect to be taken seriously. You should not find fault with others either. At least not with people like @Armstrong.

Now I am awaiting another gibberish post from you that repeats the same idiocy that has given rise to 90% of your 8000+ posts.

Just look what Muslims did when they were told by RASOOL SAW about Constantinople they kept on attacking the city for next 900 years I repeat the same things because Quran and Sunnah have the same things because they are perfect and nothing needs to be changed Mr Muslims fought 900 years for Constantinople if you have problem following orders of RASOOL SAW than be open about it Mr we give a dam about how much we loose when an order is given that order would be fulfilled if that is over my dead body than I would love to give my life for it and I am ready Democracy is a system that make sures it divides people follow people nafs not what ALLAH says and it turn humans into animals and if you want to run away from Jihad than don't make funny excuses Jihad of all kind is compulsory every time not just one so if you have problem with Jihad just like Abdullah Bin Ubai and his followers had than say it

 

[Jungibaaz]

Everyone stay on topic. No need to discuss religion or debate it.

 

[Scorpion666]

Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.

LOLzz dude u guys were too a part of India 60+ years ago ...so does it mean we are in the same boat ? or History changes for you guys ... I mean enlighten me ? .....
and about the joker with red head gear ...sigh !! I would recommend some Prozak to come out of his dementia.

 

[PWFI]

Mr the things they were told were hadees Sir the words which came out of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW other than the Quran are called hadees by Muslims Sir and just to conquer Constantinople Muslims attacked for 900 years just to fulfill one hadees Mr what HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told us is from ALLAH HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW doesn't speak from himself what ever he speaks is from ALLAH Mr first of all the western democracies is completely haram Sir their can be no political parties in Islam that is completely against Islam and to tackle sectarianism first we would have to implement those 90 % common things which all sects have common in them nothing can be said for sure but to fulfill one hadees war can be fought again and again no problem in that MR just calling hadees historical reference and nothing more is denying hadees and I have talked to those in detail who deny Hadees they basically deny all the orders of Quran so they don't have to do any work they are nothing but traitors of RASOOL SAW Democracy divides people and that mushwarat thing read in contest



Thanks for sharing

This hadiths had not yet fulfill, but fulfill very soon:
Sheikh Imran Hosein - The conquest of Constantinople in Akhirulzaman. - YouTube

 

[Zarvan]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=426940954088965

Zarb e Momin"

 

[Chak Bamu]

Just look what Muslims did when they were told by RASOOL SAW about Constantinople they kept on attacking the city for next 900 years I repeat the same things because Quran and Sunnah have the same things because they are perfect and nothing needs to be changed Mr Muslims fought 900 years for Constantinople if you have problem following orders of RASOOL SAW than be open about it Mr we give a dam about how much we loose when an order is given that order would be fulfilled if that is over my dead body than I would love to give my life for it and I am ready Democracy is a system that make sures it divides people follow people nafs not what ALLAH says and it turn humans into animals and if you want to run away from Jihad than don't make funny excuses Jihad of all kind is compulsory every time not just one so if you have problem with Jihad just like Abdullah Bin Ubai and his followers had than say it

1. Another reminder for you: Prophesy is not an order. Stop mixing these two.

2. It is against Hadith for Muslims to be in perpetual war with others. Your mistake above assures that Muslims would be in perpetual war. For you 900 years of war means nothing. Is that really how you value Human life? How good a Human are you? Is this what your interpretation of Islam makes you? Can Muslims like you ever bring peace and tranquility to this world? Can people like you ever deserve to lead this world?

3. BTW look at relevant Hadith - The chronology of Conquest of Constantinople does not make sense. Can you explain this anamoly?

4. Your views about democracy are a result of willful ignorance. If democracy were really such a divisive system as you say, then it would be reasonable to expect democracies to periodically into Civil War. When was the last time a mature democracy fell into Civil war? Once you find an answer, I would like to ask you another question. Among Muslim countries, what is the frequency of Civil Wars? Your beloved Kings, whether Mughal or Ottoman, had periodical and bloody civil wars. Every few years the whole county would be plunged into disorder and confusion with partisans ready to kill one another. Mercifully, mature democracies do not lapse into civil wars. By just being anti-Fitna, democracy qualifies as a good system, certainly good enough for Muslims. I hope you have read Ahadith about Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Or do you intend to ignore them, just like you ignore any other Hadith that does not fit your mind-set. I believe in Hadith. Do you?

5. Mature democratic systems tend to reward merit, not Nafs. For following Nafs, your beloved kingship is the best and most indulgent system. Do you know how many slave girls Sultans (and so-called Caliphs among Ottomans, Umayyads, Abbasids, etc...) owned? You keep making nonsense claims just because you can not argue on merit. You are alleging that democracy turns people into animals. Let me ask you, do you like the law of jungle with the King sitting on top? Or would you rather have a democratic leader who must go back to the electorate to ask for votes? I would pick a democratic leader, because I can help replace him every few years. But your King could only be removed via intrigue or Civil war - both being the worst political devices.

6. Paksitan's constitution has necessary safeguards and provisions to keep our democracy from aping Western countries' systems where Man has effectively supplanted God. But you would not know or appreciate that, because your formula thinking has no space for critical thought and analysis.

7. It is better to focus on our own shortcomings, since there are too many of them, than finding fault with others. Pakistanis can hardly govern themselves, and you wish for us to govern others, who are doing a better job of it themselves. You desperately need to study History and Political Science, and probably Development Economics too.

Lastly, the reference to Ibn Ubai is more appropriately applied to people who follow their nafs and ego, not someone who is questioning a program for perpetual war-mongering based on Ego. This becomes even more relevant when viewed in the backdrop of misusing Hadith prophesizing possible future events. Moreover, you are assuming the responsibility of Allah's work upon yourself. It is Allah's job to do what he will. Not yours, or anybody else's. You come across as incredibly arrogant when you claim that we (Pakistanis) need to do something to bring about Allah's plan. I am not averse to Jihad, but I certainly see no point in senseless war-mongering.

An example may illustrate my point: Hazrat Umar was angry at a self-motivated army of Muslims who attacked Faras without his approval. He is reported to have said "I wish there were a wall of fire between us and Faras" (Mention in book Al-Farooq By Allama Shibli Naumani?)

@Jungibaaz, I am tired of Zarvan's two bit formulaic statements that he makes so very often. I think he needs to be shown the inadequacy of his mind-set. So please bear with me here. Moreover, the mind-set that anti-India Jihadists carry is made up of the elements that Zarvan clearly displays. One needs to address the theoretical basis of this mind-set. It is very relevant in my view. Thanks.

 

[my2cents]

Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.

Just like erstwhile East pakistan. Keep dreaming

 

[jetti]

Zarb e Momin"

unfortunately you guys have become dard e momin

 

[Zarvan]

1. Another reminder for you: Prophesy is not an order. Stop mixing these two.

2. It is against Hadith for Muslims to be in perpetual war with others. Your mistake above assures that Muslims would be in perpetual war. For you 900 years of war means nothing. Is that really how you value Human life? How good a Human are you? Is this what your interpretation of Islam makes you? Can Muslims like you ever bring peace and tranquility to this world? Can people like you ever deserve to lead this world?

3. BTW look at relevant Hadith - The chronology of Conquest of Constantinople does not make sense. Can you explain this anamoly?

4. Your views about democracy are a result of willful ignorance. If democracy were really such a divisive system as you say, then it would be reasonable to expect democracies to periodically into Civil War. When was the last time a mature democracy fell into Civil war? Once you find an answer, I would like to ask you another question. Among Muslim countries, what is the frequency of Civil Wars? Your beloved Kings, whether Mughal or Ottoman, had periodical and bloody civil wars. Every few years the whole county would be plunged into disorder and confusion with partisans ready to kill one another. Mercifully, mature democracies do not lapse into civil wars. By just being anti-Fitna, democracy qualifies as a good system, certainly good enough for Muslims. I hope you have read Ahadith about Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Or do you intend to ignore them, just like you ignore any other Hadith that does not fit your mind-set. I believe in Hadith. Do you?

5. Mature democratic systems tend to reward merit, not Nafs. For following Nafs, your beloved kingship is the best and most indulgent system. Do you know how many slave girls Sultans (and so-called Caliphs among Ottomans, Umayyads, Abbasids, etc...) owned? You keep making nonsense claims just because you can not argue on merit. You are alleging that democracy turns people into animals. Let me ask you, do you like the law of jungle with the King sitting on top? Or would you rather have a democratic leader who must go back to the electorate to ask for votes? I would pick a democratic leader, because I can help replace him every few years. But your King could only be removed via intrigue or Civil war - both being the worst political devices.

6. Paksitan's constitution has necessary safeguards and provisions to keep our democracy from aping Western countries' systems where Man has effectively supplanted God. But you would not know or appreciate that, because your formula thinking has no space for critical thought and analysis.

7. It is better to focus on our own shortcomings, since there are too many of them, than finding fault with others. Pakistanis can hardly govern themselves, and you wish for us to govern others, who are doing a better job of it themselves. You desperately need to study History and Political Science, and probably Development Economics too.

Lastly, the reference to Ibn Ubai is more appropriately applied to people who follow their nafs and ego, not someone who is questioning a program for perpetual war-mongering based on Ego. This becomes even more relevant when viewed in the backdrop of misusing Hadith prophesizing possible future events. Moreover, you are assuming the responsibility of Allah's work upon yourself. It is Allah's job to do what he will. Not yours, or anybody else's. You come across as incredibly arrogant when you claim that we (Pakistanis) need to do something to bring about Allah's plan. I am not averse to Jihad, but I certainly see no point in senseless war-mongering.

An example may illustrate my point: Hazrat Umar was angry at a self-motivated army of Muslims who attacked Faras without his approval. He is reported to have said "I wish there were a wall of fire between us and Faras" (Mention in book Al-Farooq By Allama Shibli Naumani?)

@Jungibaaz, I am tired of Zarvan's two bit formulaic statements that he makes so very often. I think he needs to be shown the inadequacy of his mind-set. So please bear with me here. Moreover, the mind-set that anti-India Jihadists carry is made up of the elements that Zarvan clearly displays. One needs to address the theoretical basis of this mind-set. It is very relevant in my view. Thanks.

Mr when order is of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW to fulfill it if everything is lost its worth it that is why ALLAH has said in the Quran if you love other things more than ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and doing Jihad in ALLAH's way than be ready for his wrath Mr you are talking about 900 years even if it is 9000 years to fulfill HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW its worth too fight it the so called mature democracy is are the ones who have mass murdered millions world wide in their wars and by the way did you forgot IRA and and what was done to Red Indians and Blacks in USA and to aborginis in Australia mature democracies don't reward merit what they reward is bullshit and just writing that ALLAH is the supreme authority is not enough mr when all your laws and actions are against Quran and Sunnah

One of the main excuses some people use today in attempt to justify the evil act of voting for a person to make law on one’s behalf is that the majority of Muslim scholars say it is allowed to vote, and some even go further saying it is a religious duty
One of the main excuses some people use today in attempt to justify the evil act of voting for a person to make law on one’s behalf is that the majority of Muslim scholars say it is allowed to vote, and some even go further saying it is a religious duty.
This, like every other so-called argument used to justify voting for man to play the role of God and make law, is entirely flawed and can never be used as an excuse to associate partners with Allah by choosing a lawmaker besides Him. There are many places in the Qur’aan in which Allah (SWT) informs us of individuals in the past who were favoured by Him and were given knowledge, yet they abused the knowledge they were given, started to follow their own desires and misled the people.
For example, the Jews and Christians (People of the Book) were accused by Allah of worshipping their rabbis and priests by obeying and following their religious edicts which clearly went against the commands of Allah. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’aan:
“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah).” (EMQ at-Tawbah, 9:31)
‘Uday bin Haatim used to be a Christian. When he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) recite the above verse he tried to deny this and responded: “We did not worship them (rabbis and priests).” The Prophet (SAW) replied: “Did they (rabbis and priests) not forbid what Allah permitted and hence you forbade it; and they permitted what Allah forbade and thus you permitted it?” ‘Uday replied “Yes.” The Prophet (SAW) said, “That is how you worshipped them.” After this incident ‘Uday (RA) embraced Islam.
So it can be argued that any Muslim who blindly follows a scholar when he permits what Allah forbids has taken him as a lord and false god besides Allah. Any matter which is clearly forbidden by Allah – such as alcohol, committing shirk (in this case, voting for man to make law), adultery, interest (ribaa), and so forth – cannot be made lawful by scholars. Moreover, one cannot claim on the Day of Judgement that they were merely following their scholars or the majority of people and therefore cannot be blamed for their actions. Allah (SWT) says:
“And those who followed (blindly) will say: “If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us.” Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.” (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:167)
Furthermore, it is reported in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah that Allah’s Messenger (SAW) said: “Verily, what I fear most for my Ummah is misguided Imaams.” There can be no doubt that the misguided Imaams (or scholars) of today are those who allow voting for man-made law by twisting the verses of Allah and Shari’ah principles in order to achieve popularity, maintain their career and please the masses, tyrannical governments and disbelievers.
What makes someone an ‘aalim?
What makes someone an ‘aalim is not the level of knowledge they have, the length of their beard or their credentials. The Sahaabah, for example, did not study at a “renowned” institution and nor did they achieve any certificates, credentials, degrees, PhDs, and so forth. Despite this, they were the greatest ‘ulamaa (scholars) the Ummah has ever seen.
What makes someone an ‘aalim, besides having knowledge, is when they engage in the duties of the Anbiyaa (Prophets). Allah’s Messenger (SAW) said, “The ‘ulamaa are the inheritors of the Prophets.” Therefore, in order for one to be considered an ‘aalim, they must engage in the duties of the Prophets. The mission of the previous Prophets was to call people away from shirk (associating partners with Allah) and taaghout (false gods, such as lawmakers or MPs). They called society to Tawheed and to reject man-made laws as well as kufr (un-Islamic) ideals, ways of life and values such as freedom, democracy, liberalism and so forth.
It is for the above reasons that the previous Messengers and Prophets were attacked by the disbelievers, vilified, ridiculed, boycotted, imprisoned and some were even murdered or assassinated. This is how we recognise the people of truth: they are tested by Allah and vilified by the disbelievers. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was labelled a lunatic; Ibraaheem (or Abraham) was thrown into fire; Yoosuf (Joseph) was incarcerated for a crime he did not commit; the disbelievers plotted to crucify ‘Eesa (Jesus); Shu’aib (AS) was threatened with extradition; Nooh (Noah) was ridiculed; and the list goes on.
Allah (SWT) has destined, as part of His Almighty Traditions (Sunnatullah), that any person who desires to be with the Prophets, Messengers and their Companions in the Hereafter must struggle in this life the way they did and endure the tests they were made to endure. Allah (SWT) says:
“Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken that even the Messenger and those who believed along with him said, “When (will come) the Help of Allah?” Yes! Certainly, the Help of Allah is near!” (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:214)
In what way have those so-called scholars (who try to justify voting for kufr law) suffered for the sake of Allah and the Deen of Islam? Rather than calling people away from shirk and to shun taaghout (false gods), we find them calling us to commit shirk for their personal interests and benefit (maslahah) and to obey taaghout (those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed). What excuse do these sad individuals (particularly in the UK) have for not speaking out against this great evil? Unlike scholars in the Middle East, they are not being threatened with torture, imprisonment or death yet they are still afraid of upsetting the masses, gaining notoriety or being labelled an extremist.
There is a famous principle in Islam: “The haq (truth) is known by the daleel (divine evidence), not by men.” Therefore, the haq is not established by the number of people that agree with it or the number of “renowned” or celebrity-like scholars who state it. Rather, the haq is known by the daleel (Qur’aan and Sunnah, by the understanding of the Sahaabah). But if it is names you are after and not daleel, below is a brief list (in no particular order) of scholars from across the world that say democracy opposes Islam and that voting and participating in democratic elections is forbidden (haraam):
Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Jordan), Sheikh Feiz Mohammad (lived in Australia, originally Lebanon), Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki (lived in USA, originally Yemen), Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Misri (UK, originally Egypt), Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (USA, originally Egypt), Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal (lived in UK, originally Jamaica), Sheikh Abdul-Qaadir bin Abdil-Azeez (Egypt), Sheikh Naasir al-Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ahmad Fadeel an-Nazal al-Khalayleh (Jordan), Sheikh Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ayman Muhammad Rabee’ al-Zawaahiri (Egypt), Sheikh Sayyid Qutb (Egypt), Sheikh Humood bin Uqla Ash-Shu’aibi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ali bin al-Khudayr (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaani (Saudi Arabia, originally Albania), Sheikh Muhammad Ameen al-Shanqeeti (Saudi Arabia, originally Mauritania), Sheikh Ahmad Hamood al-Khaalidi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Yusuf al-Uyayri (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Abdullah al-Ghunaymaan (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Muhammad al-Fazaazy (Morocco), Sheikh Hani al-Siba’i (UK, originally Egypt), Sheikh Saalih al-Awfi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ziyaad Qattaan (UAE), Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (lived in UK, Lebanon), Sheikh Abu Qataadah al-Filasteeni (UK, originally Palestine). @Chak Bamu

This is a brief review which explains some of the destructive and dangerous effects resulting from plunging into the quagmire of democracy by which many people have been deceived due to putting on their hopes on it even though it is clearly against the methodology of Allah, just as what we are going to explain in this brief study, especially that there have been a lot of bitter experiences encountered by those people who have been deceived by this game and where its diversion and debauchery aspects were shown.
1. The system of Democracy makes us forgetful towards the confrontation in behavior between jahiliyah and Islam, which is the haqq and batil. Due to the fact that the existence of either one of them allows the extinction of the other, it is not ever possible for the two to mix together. Anyone who thinks that through the general election, the jahil fractions will submit all the institutions to Islam is mistaken, as this is clearly in contrast to the rationality, nash and sunan (decision of Allah) which had taken place to the earlier ummahs.
“On account of their arrogance in the land and their plotting of Evil, but the plotting of Evil will hem in only the authors thereof. Now are they but looking for the way the ancients were dealt with? But no change wilt thou find in Allah’s way (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in Allah’s way (of dealing)” (Surat Faathir: 43)
2. The system of democracy will cause the decay in the values of true aqeedah which was believed and practiced by Rasulullahsaaws.gif and the noble Sahabahs. It will cause the spread of bid’ah, of not studying and teaching the true aqeedah to mankind because its teachings cause divisions amongst the party members. In fact, it could make someone to be excluded from the party that it can reduce the total number of votes and voters.
3. The system of democracy does not differentiate between the ‘alim and the jahil, between the mu’meen and the kafir, and between the male and the female, because they all have the same right to speak, without looking at the advantages from the shar’i point of view, whereas Allah swt.gif says:
“…Say: “Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? …” (Surat Az-Zumar: 9)
And:
“Is then the man who believes no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they” (Surat As-Sajdah: 18)
And also:
“Shall We then treat the People of Faith like the People of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge ye?” (Surat Al-Qalam: 35-36)
4. This system causes divisions amongst the da’wah activists and Islamic jamaah, because a section of them plunge and move within this system (whether they want it or not) that would make them support and defend as well as endeavor to make a good name and in turn they would be against anyone who is opposed by this system, while at the same time they support as well as defend anyone who is supported and defended by this system. Therefore, in the end fatwas would be twisted without any certainty between those who allow and forbid, between those who praise and criticize.
5. Under the shade of democratic system the issue of wala’ and bara’ becomes unclear and vague and because of this there are people who embrace and are involved in this system trying to justify by stating that their discords with the socialist party, ba’athist party and other secular parties are only limited to discords in the subject of program only, not a discord in the subject of manhaj and that it is not much different from the discords that happen between the four madzhabs. And they conducted the bond of agreement and confederation so as not to takfeer each other and not to betray amongst themselves, due to that they say that let there be discords but don’t let it spoil the love and affection between us!!
6. This system aims at the establishment of an illusive confederation with the secular parties, as what is happening today.
7. It’s very dominant that for the people who move in the quagmire of democracy, their intention is flawed, as every party strives and aims to defend its party as well as (abusing) making the most of all available facilities and tools to assemble and influence the masses in its surroundings, especially the tools and mediums which have the religious tones such as talks, giving of advices, ta’lim, shadaqah and others.
8. Plunging into the quandary of democracy will also result in the impairment of the noble akhlaq values such as honesty, transparency, the fulfillment of promises and the prevention of lies, pretension and the breaking of promises.
9. Therefore, democracy would also generate a haughty character while belittling others, as well as being proud of each of their own view because what turns into the concern is the defending of it (the view). And Allah says:
“But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: each party rejoices in that which is with itself” (Surat Al-Mu’minun: 53)
10. If we pay a close attention and thorough analyzation, acknowledging and pledging to democracy means “stabbing” (blaspheming) the Prophets and their discourse (missions of Prophethood), because if al-haq (the truth) is to be deduced from the voice of the people’s majority there is no point for the Messengers to be sent and the books to be revealed, especially that it’s normal for the teachings brought by the Messengers to dispute the majority of the mankind who profess to the misguided aqeedah, deviate and have the jahilliyah traditions. @Chak Bamu

With the elections around the corner, Muslims are being bombarded with “Islamic” reasons to support the elections and vote. For the sincere Muslims, who seek the pleasure of Allah Azzawajal in all things, this article will assist in clearing up some of the confusion by presenting the issue with strong evidences from the Qur’an and Sunnah insha Allah. We are available for comment, questions or naseeha.
The Purpose of Muslims
We have been created for the worship of Allah Azzawajal alone: “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” (TMQ Adh Dhariyaat:56) This ‘ibadah (worship) is achieved through complete submission to Allah Azzawajal (Qur’an) and His Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (Sunnah): “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” (TMQ Al Ahzab:36)
The root word of Islam is al-silm which means “submission” or “surrender.” It is understood to mean submission to Allah Azzawajal. This submission includes the ahkaam (Laws) of Allah Azzawajal – that which is declared to be halaalor haraam: “Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him.”(TMQ Yusuf: 40)
“He shares not His legislation with anyone” (TMQ Al Kahf: 26)
Pre-Islam
In the period of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic Makkah), the liberalism of the society was very similar to today. The sexual promiscuity, capitalist exploitation of the masses, power dominance of the affluent, tolerance of religions (paganism, Christianity, Judaism and fire worship) and extremely strong tribal/nationalistic bonds are all characteristics that are very much predominant in the “civilised and liberal” world today.
In was only when the message of Tawheed, (Absolute Oneness of Allah Azzawajal) was proclaimed, that the leadership of Makkah felt their power bases threatened. Various avenues (offers of wealth, prestige, women, power sharing, character assassination and murder) were then employed to silence the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Message and the followers of the Message.
The reason for wanting to silence Rasulullah sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was because his message of Tawheed, meant a major change in the ruling system. It meant a submission to the Laws of Allah Azzawajal and not to the laws of man. It meant that the ruling elite were to be stripped of their self-assumed legislative authority.
Despite being a minority in a position of weakness and in need of all forms of assistance, when Rasulullah sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was offered a power share in Makkah, he refused and Allah Azzawajal revealed Surah Al Kaafirun.
Post-Islam
The first ever Islamic State was established by Rasulullah sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in Madinah and it’s constitution was the Shari’ah. During lifetime of Rasulullah sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Shari’ah was being formulated via Qur’anic revelation under his guidance (Sunnah). Upon the death of Rasulullah sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Shari’ah was defined either in clear text or in principle: “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (TMQ Al Ma’idah:3). This Islamic Legal System was closely implemented by the Khulafah (Caliphs) thereafter, as the Shari’ah firmly became system of governance for Muslims. This system continued, albeit with a few hiccups over time, at state level until the abolishment of the Uthmaani (Ottoman) Khilafah in 1924 by the Jew-Turk, Kemal Ataturk.
Subsequently, the Muslim Khilafah was carved into nation states by the imperial west and today we have more than fifty deeply divided states with a majority Muslim population in addition to many Muslims who are currently resident in the West.
Foremost in our activities, the guiding mission should be to fulfil the obligation of the restoration of Allah Azzawajal’s Law on the earth by all means insha Allah.

The Muslim Situation Today
All of these 50+ nation states are governed by despots, tyrants, imperialists and/or slaves of the west. None of these secular states implement the Shari’ah except for a sprinkling of a few Islamic practices to fool the Muslims, upon whom they’ve enforced their dictatorial rule. Due to our weakness, every man-made system has appealed to us over the years and all attempts to govern ourselves by these Divinely-opposed systems (communism, socialism, arab socialism, liberalism and the system of today: democracy) has compounded our misery.
But a new beast has reared its head: Muslims living in the West aren’t just being asked to support the un-Islamic system of democracy but are being given Islamic reasons to do so!
Naturally this is confusing the sincere Muslims, who in trying to please Allah Azzawajal, are influenced by one of the following:
1) Those who strongly encourage voting/democracy saying that it is an Islamic duty;
2) Those who neither encourage or discourage voting/democracy; or
3) Those who strongly discourage Muslims from participation in any man-made system of governance.
It is absolutely crucial that we examine and measure the evidences that each of these bring forth for their claims against the established texts of Qur’an and authenticated Ahadeeth. In the presence of clear established texts, other principles and opinions should take a back seat: “If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day” (TMQ Surah an Nisaa: 59)Attachments to certain celebrity figures or organisations among the Muslims is not and should not be the basis of our individual decisions. This article strongly argues that option three is the safest for the Muslims as the arguments presented by option one are not valid . Option two is invalidated by Allah Azzawajal’s Command to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
A Brief Description of Democracy
Democracy is a term of Greek origin meaning the ‘rule of the people’. In such a system, the population is given the chance over four or five years to choose which political party, they feel is best to govern them in a process known as voting. Those who obtain the majority of votes are then ushered in as the ruling party of the country (in this case, South Africa). These elected people gain seats in the Parliament, where new laws are discussed, accepted, removed or amended (legislation).
Therefore, those who voted for these politicians are ultimately accountable for the final decisions made by their elected candidates. If these ministers formulate and accept, by their majority opinion, that any Divinely-forbidden acts (abortion, sodomite and lesbian marriages, gambling, prostitution etc) are deemed ‘beneficial’ for the people, then through majority voting, these would be accepted and implemented as law, such that the people will have to live and judge by them. Those who oppose/disobey these laws are regarded as intolerant and opposed to the Constitution.
Are Islam and Democracy Compatible?
Based on the evidences presented earlier, it is clearly established that legislation is reserved solely for the Creator Azzawajal. One of His Attributes is Al Haakim (The Legislator). Within a democracy, legislation takes place according to the whims and desires of the creation. This man-made authority of istihlaal (determining halaal and haraam) is in total opposition to the Shari’ah and thus renders democracy a system of shirk (association of partners with Allah Azzawajal). Support for such a system ranges from being sinful (best case scenario) to being a mushrik (worst case scenario), depending on the extent/degree of one’s belief in the system.
Glaring examples of the intolerance of democracy for Islam (and thus incompatibility) were evident in Algeria in the 90’s and currently in Palestine. The F.I.S. and Hamas both won their respective elections overwhelmingly according to the democratic process but at the mere mention of Shari’ah they were forced out of power.
A Reminder to Those who will choose to vote despite the evidences presented
The call for voting is a call for further subjugation of the will and identity of Muslims. It is a call to integrate into Muslims the values of secularism and the ‘equality’ of Tawheed (Islam) and shirk (all other religions). The drive towards secularising the Muslims has already led to many Muslims suffering the consequences of ‘freedom’, clearly apparent in the lifestyles and values of the disbelieving society around them that many Muslims have proudly adopted. Hayaa (modesty) is disappearing at a rapid rate. Our youth (our future) have become submerged into thekufr (disbelief) culture around them. Rampant illicit sex, drug abuse, HIV and even sodomy have found their way into the Muslim community. Our once-treasured Muslim elders are disrespected with some even being dumped off at ‘old age homes’.
Do we as an Ummah really want to continue down this road?
There are many options available if we want to make a difference. The majority of the people of the land are crying out for the honour and justice that Islam provides. Can we rise to the challenge and honourably invite to Islam? Or will we fool ourselves into believing that an ‘X’ on a piece of paper will bring about the required changes?
Allah Azzawajal and His Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam have shown us the path.
Will we choose another?

Britain is set for another general election and the controversy surrounding the ‘Muslim vote’ is as contentious as ever. There are many motives and incentives to tempt a Muslim to vote and many in the community feel that it is a civil duty. MPs promote voting to Muslims as ‘a means to an end’: whether to protest against the war, keep the BNP at bay, or just to hope that the least evil government reaches power. But is this really what democracy is all about?
Whether you are a secular democrat, a concerned Muslim or just an apathetic citizen, all of these strategic schemes and political posturing cloud the reality of what voting really is. What are MPs really asking us to do by voting for them?
The truth is, MPs are not asking us to protest against the occupation of Afghanistan, they are not asking us to join hands in support of Palestine, they are not asking us to send a message to Labour or to help keep the BNP out of government and they are not calling us to make Shura (consultation).
Whatever we might personally think about it, the Houses of Parliament describes itself on its website as a place of legislation and supreme sovereignty. “Parliament is where new laws are debated and agreed.” It also says, “Parliamentary
sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority
in the UK, which can create or end any law.” And that “
A Member of Parliament (MP) is elected by a particular area or constituency in Britain to represent them in the House of Commons.” [www.parliament.uk]
There is no doubt that MPs are campaigning so vigorously in the community for one thing and one thing only. They are asking you to select them to be the ones who will legislate on your behalf.
So the question for Muslims is: what is the Islamic ruling on making laws and what is the ruling on asking others to legislate on your behalf? It is also important to discuss the ruling on doing these things with the intention of benefitting the community.
Legislation (Al-Tashree&#8217
It is a basic belief of all Muslims that the Shari’ah of Islam is the revealed law of Allah and that it abrogates all other laws and guidance, including those revealed before the Qur’an such as the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel. Seeking guidance from any other law or constitution is condemned to failure. Allah (SWT) says,
“With Allah rests all power of decision, from before and after all else.” [EMQ 30:4]
And the Prophet (SAW) said to Umar (RA) when he found him reading only a page from the Torah, “Are you in doubt O Ibn al Khattab? Have I not brought you something shining and
pure? If my brother Musa were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.” [Musnad Imam Ahmed and Sunan Al Darimi]
Indeed it is agreed among all sects and schools of thought in Islam that the Shari’ah of Islam has been completed and is perfect; nothing has been forgotten and nothing can be surpassed, Allah (SWT) says, “Today, I have perfected your Deen (way of life) and completed My favour upon you all and I have chosen Al-Islam to be
your Deen.” [EMQ 5:3]
The Shari’ah of Allah is perfect and better than any alternative, including democracy. Moreover, the right to legislate and decide what is lawful and unlawful is exclusive to Allah, Who says,
“The right of legislation is for none but Allah.” [EMQ 12:40]
And He (SWT) also says, “He does not share His right of legislation with anybody.” [EMQ 18:26]
There are many other verses like these. It is also agreed upon and known by necessity that people are obliged to seek the judgement of Islam in all matters and forbidden from seeking judgement from any other legislator. Allah (SWT) says, “On whatever you may differ; theHukm (decision and law) is for Allah.” [EMQ 42:10]
“No by your Lord! They are not believers until they seek your judgement (O Muhammad) in all of their disputes without feeling any hardship in your decision and until they submit to it completely.” [EMQ 4:65]
“
[Say:] ‘Am I, then, to look to anyone but Allah for judgment [as to what is lawful and unlawful], when it is He who has revealed to you this Book, clearly clarifying the truth?’” [EMQ 6:114]
“Are you seeking the law of Jahiliyyah (i.e. man made law)? And who is better than Allah in legislation for people of certainty [the believers]?” [EMQ 5:50]
In fact, ruling, legislating and debating what is lawful or not according to our own opinions and wishes, as is what happens in Parliament, is described as lying about and abandoning the Revelation, Allah (SWT) says, “And rule and judge between them according to what Allah has
revealed and do not follow their desires. And beware of them lest they turn you away from even a part of what Allah has revealed to you.” [EMQ 5:49] “And do not say for any lie your tongue may utter, ‘this is lawful and this is unlawful’ so as to attribute a lie to Allah. For those who attribute lies to Allah will never succeed.” [EMQ 6:116]
Representation (Al-Wikaalah) So there is no doubt that the job of an MP as a
legislator is prohibited in Islam and is a form of associating partners with Allah (major shirk). But what about the one who votes and delegates the job of legislation to someone else, such as an MP? In Islam, the responsibility and sin arising from representation (Al-Wikaalah) is shared by the agent and the one on whose behalf he is acting upon. In other words, whether you ask someone to buy, sell or pour alcohol for you; or if you pay someone to commit murder, order someone to steal for you or delegate an MP to legislate law on your behalf, you will share the sin and punishment with your representative. For example, the Prophet (SAW) said, “Truly, Allah
has cursed Khamr (alcoholic beverages) and has cursed the one who produces it, the one for whom it is produced, the one who drinks it, the one who serves it, the one who carries it, the one for whom it is carried, the one who sells it, the one who earns from the sale of it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought.” [Reported by At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah)
Regarding legislation specifically, particularly when it contradicts Islamic laws, Allah (SWT) has described this type of representation as taking and worshipping others as lords and partners with Allah (i.e. al-shirk), “Or do they
have partners that legislate for them in the way of life what they had no permission from Allah?” [EMQ 42:21]
And, “They took their rabbis and priests as lords besides Allah.” [EMQ 9:31]
Uday bin Haatim (RA) was passing by while the Messenger (SAW) recited the above verse and said,
“We did not worship them (rabbis and priests).” The Prophet (SAW) replied: “Did they (rabbis and priests) not forbid what Allah permitted and hence you forbade it; and they permitted what Allah forbade and thus you permitted it?” “Yes,” replied ‘Uday. The Prophet (SAW) said, “That is how you worshipped them.” Public Interest and Benefit (Al-Maslahah) Despite the clear prohibition of voting for a legislator besides Allah, there is still much talk
about the benefit to the community that could be lost by abstaining from the ballot boxes. Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Verily, the Shirk and to attribute to Allah
without knowledge and all forms of unlawful sexual acts, sayings and transactions, whether hidden or apparent, and oppression cannot contain any form of interest or benefit. Whatever is forbidden upon every person in every situation, such as Shirk, Kufr, oppression, unlawful sexual acts or to attribute Ahkam (laws) to Allah that He never legislated, nothing is permissible from it under the pretexts of interest and benefit. That is because Allah (SWT) says, “Verily, Allah forbade the unlawful sexual transactions, whatever was hidden or apparent, and any form of rebellion without Haq and to associate with Allah that which He never revealed, or to attribute to Allah what you do not have knowledge, all of this is forbidden.” [EMQ 7: 33] All these are forbidden amongst all people, in all religions and all Anbiyaa (prophets) have been sent with its prohibition. Nothing is permissible from it ever, whether before Islam or after Islam, and none of these can be taken by permit for any interest or benefit for the Deen or for the Dunyaa.” [Majmoo’ al Fattawaa v18 p476]
@Chak Bamu Read all the above

 

[humanfirst]

@Zarvan
If jihad is compulsory for Muslims as you say then why are you not leaving your home for jihad..?Why dont you go to fata or Afghanistan and fight anti muslim forces..?what is your justification for not doing jihad...?

 

[Zarvan]

@Zarvan
If jihad is compulsory for Muslims as you say then why are you not leaving your home for jihad..?Why dont you go to fata or Afghanistan and fight anti muslim forces..?what is your justification for not doing jihad...?

May be I am some where you really don't want to know Mr yes Jihad is compulsory and I would do it and I am doing my part and have done in past and will do it in near future

Democracy is NOT an Islamic System

The western system of democracy is in total conflict with the Islamic system of government. In the Islamic system of Khilaafat, the ruler is o*ne man whose function it is to govern in accordance with the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, i.e. the Shariah. The duty of the Islamic government headed by a pious, benign autocrat, is to enforce the laws which have already been divinely promulgated.


SHURAA

Shuraa or consultation is a Sunnah practice which the Khalifah adopts. But he is not constrained to succumb to the advices and decisions of those with whom he consults. In the ultimate end, the decision is made by o*nly him.


Some misguided Muslims enamoured by westernism, are at pains to find Shar’i accommodation for western democracy in the Qur’aanic aayat which orders Shuraa. They fallaciously cite the Shuraa verse in substantiation of their belief that Islam accepts the western system of democracy. In this aayat, Allah Ta’ala says: "And, consult with them in affairs. Then when you (the Khalifah) have resolved (to adopt a particular course), repose trust o*n Allah."



The resolution and final decision are the prerogatives of the Khalifah. The Islamic system precludes any parliament or legislative body from enforcing its decisions by majority vote o*n the Khalifah. He is fully empowered by the Qur’aan and Sunnah to act in accordance with his own determination.

The purpose of consultation is to discuss and explore all angles of an issue. By mutual consultation with men of experience, knowledge and piety, all angles and aspects of a matter are highlighted. This allows the Khalifah to form a balanced and the correct decision.

Those with whom the Khalifah consults act in o*nly an advisory capacity. They have absolutely no legislative power. If the Khalifa’s view is in conflict with the unanimous opinion of all his advisors, the Shariah does not bind him to accept such consensus. The Qur’aan vests him with all the authority to make decisions alone and to adopt his own view even if in opposition to what the entire nation believes is right.

THE FORUM

For acting in accordance with the Qur’aanic order of consultation, the Khalifah is not required to establish a formal forum or a formal body of counsellors. The obligation of Shuraa is discharged by the Khalifah consulting o*n an informal basis with whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes.


The concept of Shuraa does not envisage the establishment of a forum like a parliament or any other legislative body. The Khalifah discussing with o*ne or two persons at his home, at the Musjid, outside the Musjid or anywhere else, satisfies the requirement of Shuraa.


It is also not a requirement that there be particular and permanent members whom the Khalifah has to consult. He is free to consult with anyone.


Commenting o*n the un-Islamic system of democracy, Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:


"As evidence for their idea of the validity of democracy, they (its votaries) present the aayat, "Consult with them in affairs". But, I refute their contention with this very same aayat. While this aayat orders mashwarah (consultation), it should be understood that consultation does not mean democracy. You (i.e. the votaries of democracy) regard yourselves to be wise men while in reality you are bereft of understanding.


You should first prove that even o*ne of the four righteous Khulafa or the government of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) was a democracy (in the western concept). The Khulafa were never bound and subservient to the advices/decisions of their advisors (with whom they would consult). According to the Shariah, the government of the individual is the rule.


When the supporters of democracy cite the aayat of Shuraa, they stop midway, without reciting the whole aayat. They conveniently omit: "Then, when you (the Ruler) have finally decided (a matter), repose your trust in Allah (and act accordingly)."


They either conveniently overlook this decisive portion of the aayat or they lack the ability to understand it."


Thus, the concept of democracy or majority rule has absolutely no validity in the Shariah. @Chak Bamu

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Zarvan you are quite a crude & dishonest copy-paste artist. Why can you not have the decency of crediting an article when clearly you DID NOT write it?

You had asked me to read your very very lengthy reply. It is interesting to note that you do not have the intellectual or educational capacity to write something like this yourself. You picked it up from something like:

Muslims Against Voting

And you did not have the decency to link the source. How is that for honesty?

I have scanned through it, and the following are my observations:

1. If this is the extent of your knowledge about political science, then indeed you are in a sorry state. In my last post, I suggested that you get a little bit of an education in Political Science, precisely because I had guessed that the absence of any argument from you to support your POV was because of your lack of basic knowledge in Political Science. I had also guessed you mind-set, but I wanted you to come up with something a bit more reasoned so that I could shred through it. Your two-bit proclamations were getting over-repetitive and absence of any arguments or references just showed the shallowness of your understanding.

2. I have indeed scanned through the references provided in the article - Both Quranic Verses, and Ahadith. I believe in them whole-heartedly, completely, unequivocally. I need to say this so that you may be able to understand what I am going to say next.

I can assure you that the case made is flimsy and the references from Quran and Hadith are mis-applied. Whoever wrote the article has a motivation for mis-representation and that is why he has stretched the meaning of Quran and Hadith and still not able to do a job that he set out to do. So, I can state without any fear of contradiction that the case made by the article is NOT proven.... The arguments are specious, sort of like A is equal to B, therefore A is also equal to Z! This is intellectual laziness at best and outright dishonesty at worst.

3. The author clearly does not have any proper idea of the impact of what he is saying. It is typical fatalist tendency of Salafist 'revolutionaries' to decry everything, without actually offering anything concrete - quite similar to what you have been doing. This is Fitna, Haraj, Fasad. When a group of people set out to dismantle an order (even an imperfect order), without having the capacity (intellectual, educational, moral) to replace it, they are guilty of Zulm. Yes that is right. You are preaching Zulm, because you know what you are told and taught to hate, but you are not able to say anything with certainty as to what must replace it. Throwing around words like Sahaba, Khilafah, Sunnah, does not cut it. Imagine that you abolish a system and when everything is thrown into chaos, muttering vague terms will not recreate order. This is AlQaeda's way of doing (or rather messing up) things. Only incredibly angry, naive, and reactionary people can subscribe to such stuff. One has to be blind to not see the logical result of such thinking.

4. There are indeed FALSE PREMISES in the article quoted by you, such as:
A) Legislation is Shirk (?????). ummm, not really. If Sahaba could legislate for their time, why can't we? We clearly live in a different age and era which is much different from the time of Sahaba. If they could legislate even within a year or two into establishment of Caliphate about things like the term of service in Army, or punishment for theft in times of famine, or ways and means of preserving Quran, then why can't we legislate about concerns of OUR time? Why can we not discuss and legislate about electronic crimes, value of DNA, misuse of Internet, etc...? Clearly the author lives in West or looks only at West to not bother about checking the self-imposed limits to legislation in an Islamic country. He has neither the brains, nor the inclination to learn about Constitutional government in MUSLIM countries. Because if he does, he can not make a White-and-Black case of Islam-against-Kufr, or Haq-against-Batil, or Deen-against-Taghoot. That is also why you have no time for details. You must brush them aside so that you can keep your focus on Zulm, without acknowledging Zulm as it is.
B) Many scholars have decided that voting is haram: And what scholars does the idiot author quote? Not some one respectable or really learned, but AlQaeda operatives like OBL and AlZwahiri. Also thrown into the mix is the one named Albanee - I particularly dislike his half-baked theories based on shoddy faux-scholarship. Do you want me to mention some of his outlandish 'fatwas'? None of these 'scholars' had much in the way of scholarship. No achievement, but they did spread a lot of confusion by their crooked political projects.
C) By Voting, people assume ultimate responsibility for wrong-doings of their rulers: Really??? Politicians are not robots you know. People do not actually hold a collective remote control to make politicians do their bidding. British public was against Iraq war, and yet Tony Blair jumped into it. Vietnam is another example. Come to Pakistan, we had worst leaders like Yahya and Musharraf as bloody dictators. Show one politician worse than them? Trouble with you and the writer of the article is that you both know that voting usually keeps extremists out of power, and therefore you must find fault with it.

5. There are a number of IMPLIED premises:
A) Caliphate continued til end of Ottoman rule: NO - Caliphate ended with Hazrat Ali (R.A). Some may include Amir Muavia, since Hazrat Hassan (R.A.) yielded his right. But no matter how you look at it, Amir Muavia turned it into Kingship, and that was the end of Caliphate. Calling a power-grabbing King by the name of Caliph does not make him a Caliph. You have purposely avoided discussing the difference between Caliphate and Kingship because you knew that you could not defend this label.
B) A scholar does not need to learn, but needs to agree with the notions of the Writer: I am not even going to comment on this foolishness.
C) A Daleel is only valid if it agrees with certain notions of the Writer, and ordinary Muslims are irrelevant: I need to quote two Hadith in this regard. First one has mafhoom like My Ummah shall not agree on an error. Second one has mafhoom Obey majority. Clearly these two Hadith contradict your POV, or atleast puncture it pretty badly. Besides this, you ignore the fact that it is the common people who pay taxes and must therefore have a say in how these taxes are spent. But this is novel notion for people who tend to view people as tax-payers who are good as cannon fodder for wars. To you such a notion is Bidah because it gets in way of your political projects of world conquest. Only that you do not know that even if you somehow assume the right to farm people and grab their money, you can never conquer the world. Islam is not about 'conquering' the world. It is about out-competing other man-made models and presenting people with a choice. But these notions require scholarship and thinking, both of which are beyond people like you.
There are others, but I would stop here.

6. Your 'superiors' are those who happen to divide world into 'Dar-ul-Islam' & 'Dar-ul-Kufr' / 'Dar-ul-Harb'. These notions lost their meaning a few centuries ago. Colonialism ensured that. But still insisting on these notions - as implied by the posted Article - is somehow key to 'correct' version of Islam? The world is a whole lot greyer and mixed up than the days gone by. Even if one were to accept the validity of such views in ancient times, they no longer hold valid today. There are reasons for it, like a great number of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, etc... but I would not go into it just yet.

7. Your interest in Pakistan is unmistakable. You are over-concerned about weapons systems of Army, Navy, Air Force, etc... You are also interested in number of troops and their training. If Indian planes violate Pakistani Air Space for a couple of minutes, you loose your sleep and apatite over it. Does it ever occur to you that Pakistan was created by Voting process? If Pakistan is a result of Haram, then please leave this Haram place. You have quoted OBL, AlZawahiri, and others like them, all of them Arabs, and mostly belonging to Saudi Arabia. Why do you not go to Saudi Arabia and be rid of us? Please your logic should not support you being in Pakistan, a Haram country made by a Haram process of Evil voting, Right? So please then, go live in an Arab country, where dictators and Kings rule, notions of freedom and rights are conditional and uncertain - constitutionalism is not found there in a recognizable form.

8. In view of all the above, when you present your views as being 'Islamic' or rather 'more Islamic' then really you are presenting your lack of knowledge and asking us to believe in you. Sorry, it is not possible. It is also interesting to note that people of TTP and AQ have the exact same mind-set. I am surprised that you profess interest in Pakistan's Army, Air Force, and Navy. Your views are exactly those of the people who have attacked our Airbases, our personnel, and our civilian population. How does it make you feel to use language and rhetoric of terrorists?

9. Lastly, @Zarvan, read all of my reply and respond with civility and without wild accusations like an AlQaeda operative.