Question Summary:
as you know, here in pakistan, maulana sufi muhammad has lead the fight to bring the sharia to at least a part of pakistan. however he has made a statement that most ulama here especially in karachi feel he should not have made and they say it is his personal opinion and not a fatwa. Question Detail:
as you know, here in pakistan, maulana sufi muhammad has lead the fight to bring the sharia to at least a part of pakistan. however he has made a statement that most ulama here especially in karachi feel he should not have made and they say it is his personal opinion and not a fatwa.
sufi muhammad said that the system of democracy, the court system and the entire democratic system is kufr. and people like altaf hussain of the mqm movement are kafir for opposing the implementation of sharia in swat.
what does the sharia say about this matter. sufi saahib quotes the quran sura al-maaida in which refers to those that rule according to a law other than the sharia of Allah as kafiroon.
what is the correct opinion about this matter?
Answer :
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
There are two issues in your query:
1. The democratic system being Kufr.
2. Opposing the implementation of Shari’a in Swat.
1. It is true that the democratic system is un-Islamic. Islam only recognises a ‘Shari’a system’, that is a system governed by the Qurān and Hadīth. Any system other than a ‘Shari’a system’ is un-Islamic and should not be supported by Muslims.
‘Democracy” is derived from the Greek word “dēmokratia” (“Dēmos” meaning people and “Kratos” meaning rule or strength). It is evident that in a democratic state, citizens are at liberty to voice their opinions and actively participate in decision-making and other state related issues. This has lured many Muslims to believe a democratic system to be a fair, just and equitable system. Convincing as it may seem, the truth is that a democratic system is un-Islāmic.
One of the primary flaws in a democratic system is that ‘majority view’ is accepted. This is irrespective of whether the ‘majority view’ conforms to Shari’a or not. In an Islāmic system, views that conform to Shari’a are accepted and views against Shari’a are rejected, though it may be the ‘majority view’. This flaw could be deduced from the following verse.
Allāh Ta’ala states in the Qurān:
وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ
“If you obey the majority of those on earth, they will make you lose the way of Allah”. [6:116]
Furthermore, if one analyses the structure of a democratic system, one can conclude it is simply ‘people ruling themselves by themselves’. As Muslims, we firmly believe that our lives are governed by the laws of Shari’a (Qurān and Hadīth) and not by laws that people invent by themselves for themselves.
Allāh Ta’ala states in the Qurān:
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
“So, never by your Lord! Never shall they become believers, unless they make you (Muhammad –Sallallāhu alayhi wa sallam) the judge in the disputes that arise between them, then find no discomfort in their hearts against what you have decided, and surrender to it in total submission”. [4:65]
Legislation is the right of Allāh Ta’ala. Man is bound to the legislation of Allāh Ta’ala. The democratic system has taken the right of legislation from Allāh Ta’ala and given it to man, whereby man has the power to invent laws to suite himself. This is purely un-Islāmic. Supporting democracy is tantamount to supporting the laws invented by man and abandoning the laws of Allāh Ta’ala. Allāh Ta’ala strongly condemns such action and has labelled its perpetrators as Fāsiqūn (transgressors) and in another verse as Zālimūn (oppressors).
Allāh Ta’ala states in the Qurān:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
“And those that not rule by that which Allāh has revealed are surely the transgressors”. [5:47]
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“And those that not rule by that which Allāh has revealed are surely the oppressors”. [5:47]
Shah Waliyullāh has also rejected the concept of ‘democracy’ in his book titled Hujjatullāh Al-Bāligah. You may refer to it for your study. (vol 1, pg 135, Qadeemi, Chapter On Administrating a City)
We do not intend discussing democracy from a secular point of view. However, just as a thought, apart from Islām not recognising a democratic system, many non-Muslims have also criticized this system. Some have mention that voters are not well educated enough to exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect would probably not be capable in making correct decisions. Since the time of Milton Friedman, economists have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy.
It is also important to explain the position of voting in a democratic state. The democratic system is un-Islāmic. However, it will be permissible to vote within such a system.
As Muslims, our object of voting within a democratic system is not to promote its values and un-Islāmic teachings. Rather, it is to use the mechanism of democracy to promote our own values, as democracy allows freedom of religion. Muslims minorities in non-Muslim countries should live in harmony with their fellow citizens and use the democratic machinery in the most efficient way to advance their cause just as anyone else will do so in a democratic system.
When a person casts a vote, he is effectively offering his opinion in favour of a candidate to represent the nation. If there is a pious and upright Muslim candidate, he should be voted for, as he will seek the best interest of Islām and the Muslims.
At times, it may happen that there exists no Muslim candidate; however, there are candidates that could cause great harm to Islām and others who, despite not benefiting Islām, will not cause harm to Islām.
In such situation, it would be advisable to vote the candidate that will not cause harm to Islām, despite him not benefitting Islām. As Muslims, we will not be liable for the wrongs of this candidate, as the main intention of electing him into position was for the sake of safeguarding Islām and the Muslims from a greater evil.
2. The second issue is opposing the implementation of Shari’a law in Swat. In answering this question, it is essential to understand the history and background to the establishment of Pakistan.
After the liberation of India, the Muslims felt that they should establish a completely independent country, whereby they could institute Islāmic rule and Shari’. In this regard, the Muslim League Party travelled the length and breadth of India campaigning for people to support their course. By the plan of Allāh Ta’ala and the untold assistance of the Ulāma, the likes of Mawlāna Thānwi, Mawlāna Zafar Ahmad Uthmāni, Mawlāna Shabbīr Ahmad Uthmāni and others, Pakistan was granted to the Muslims.
At that time, Liaqat Ali Khan was the leader of the Muslim League Party. He had sought the assistance of the Ulamā. The Ulamā acceded to this proposal of his, provided he gave them a guarantee that the constitution of Pakistan will be based on Islāmic values and principles. Liaqat Ali Khan responded by saying that Pakistan would obviously have an Islāmic constitution, as majority of its citizens would be Muslims.
It is evident from the above that Pakistan was established solely for the institution of Islāmic rule and values. Why must Shari’a and Islāmic rule not be established in Pakistan, when this was the very reason for which Pakistan was established?
Moreover, majority of Pakistan’s citizens are Muslims. Thus, it demands that they should be implementing Islāmic rule. Why should Islāmic rule be opposed in a country that has majority Muslims? Yes, if majority citizens are non-Muslims, then the implementation of Islāmic rule is a different issue.
And Allah knows best
Wassalamu Alaikum
Ml. Talha Desai,
Student Darul Iftaa
Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah
|
