[Jetmir]

Originally Posted by bihari

Actually, Abu Bakr (r) simply recommended Umar (r) as his successor, after consultation from a number of companions. After this he addressed the community and they took baya on Umar (r) after his death, so they agreed with his decision.... many people forget the part about baya...

No, brother. People actually gave baya to Umar ra before Abu Bakr ra died.

Anyways, democracy is 51% decide how the rest 49% live.

[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by Jetmir

Anyways, democracy is 51% decide how the rest 49% live.

Nope, that's how a flawed democracy works. A true democracy protects the rights and liberties of minorities; allowing all to pursue their own happiness without infringing on the right of others to do the same.

[jinnzaman]

Shari'ah is the law as the Law-giver intended it.

Democracy is a system of governance. It has many flaws.

Wahi > man-made thought.

Why do people support democracy when they don't even live within one?

[Jetmir]

YouTube - Islam & Democracy by Abdur-Raheem Green

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Jetmir

No, brother. People actually gave baya to Umar ra before Abu Bakr ra died.

Anyways, democracy is 51% decide how the rest 49% live.

You make a good point, bro, and I know in the US its a two-horse race (between Democrats and Republicans) but it can be even less than that. It's whatever the largest percentage vote. So say there are 5 candidates and they each get 19% of the vote except one who gets 24%, then he wins, even though he only got 24%. So 24% decide how the other 76% live. And if there are more candidates, then the percentages can be even lower! That is democracy.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

You make a good point, bro, and I know in the US its a two-horse race (between Democrats and Republicans) but it can be even less than that. It's whatever the largest percentage vote. So say there are 5 candidates and they each get 19% of the vote except one who gets 24%, then he wins, even though he only got 24%. So 24% decide how the other 76% live. And if there are more candidates, then the percentages can be even lower! That is democracy.

I haven't heard of any existing democracy that works like that...
You still need to form a majority government, and the less votes you have, the less power you have to act. And typically systems that run on proportional representation go through leaders like laundry (i.e. Israel). And then of course what MuslimZ mentioned, rights for the minority.

How you seem to picture it really isn't how it works.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jetmir

Anyways, democracy is 51% decide how the rest 49% live.

salam

for the sake of argument, it should be noted that in an "islamic" state along the lines that most people here seem to advocate, majority is completely immaterial. It could be 51% deciding how the other 49% will live, or 10% deciding how the other 90% live, or 1% deciding how the other 99% live. Since the message came from God himself, and these guys are sure that their own interpretation of the message is the correct one, then it doesnt matter how many or how few people disagree with them. It could be one guy with the entire country against him, but if God himself agrees with him and he has the power to impose his will and God's will on everyone else, then thats enough.

[DeenDude]

"Unlike Christians or Jews, we Muslims are allowed to look at the Qur'an without the aide of scholars/priests/rabbis"

-- huh? christians and jews can look & read their books and "get something out of it" no less than muslims or anyone else. what in the world made you think otherwise? we have our mullahs, they have their priests. i find that a bit presumptuous and illustrative of a very blatant and obviously mistaken stereotype of christians and jews.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

I haven't heard of any existing democracy that works like that...
You still need to form a majority government, and the less votes you have, the less power you have to act. And typically systems that run on proportional representation go through leaders like laundry (i.e. Israel). And then of course what MuslimZ mentioned, rights for the minority.

How you seem to picture it really isn't how it works.

Actually, it really is how it works. At least that's how it works in the UK. I thought Canada had a similar system to ours.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

for the sake of argument, it should be noted that in an "islamic" state along the lines that most people here seem to advocate, majority is completely immaterial. It could be 51% deciding how the other 49% will live, or 10% deciding how the other 90% live, or 1% deciding how the other 99% live. Since the message came from God himself, and these guys are sure that their own interpretation of the message is the correct one, then it doesnt matter how many or how few people disagree with them. It could be one guy with the entire country against him, but if God himself agrees with him and he has the power to impose his will and God's will on everyone else, then thats enough.

shura of sunni scholars ftw?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Actually, it really is how it works. At least that's how it works in the UK. I thought Canada had a similar system to ours.

They still need to form a gov't by clumping together with other parties etc. to make a majority. Barring that, as soon as anyone has a major issue they can call a vote and change the gov't. Thus why many gov'ts that work like that are changing far more frequently than say the American administrations. There are pluses and minuses to that sort of system.

And even then it's still not that case that a small minority is dictating to the majority 'how to live', they're restricted by constitutions, charters, traditions, etc.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

They still need to form a gov't by clumping together with other parties etc. to make a majority. Barring that, as soon as anyone has a major issue they can call a vote and change the gov't. Thus why many gov'ts that work like that are changing far more frequently than say the American administrations. There are pluses and minuses to that sort of system.

And even then it's still not that case that a small minority is dictating to the majority 'how to live', they're restricted by constitutions, charters, traditions, etc.

I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. What I stated above is how the UK system works (and unless it's dramatically different the Canadian system also). You said that's not how it works.

Now you're talking about parties joining together to make a majority government. That still doesn't change the fact that a party can have a majority government even if only a minority of the electorate votes for them, and this is exactly what happened in the UK in our last general election. The Labour party had an ultimate majority in the House of Commons even though they only got 30% of the overall vote. I'm assuming you know how a first-past-the-post system works.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

No, they weren't. Muhammad Asad based his views on the teachings of a Mutazilite scholar.

And what's wrong with a Mutazilite? Do you even know what a Mutazilite is?

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

It's inappropriate for those not learned in the Quran to attempt to give tafsir of it.

Again, the Qur'an was meant to be interpreted by believers, hence it says "oh ye who believe" in various places, NOT 'oh scholars' or 'oh ulema'

if people blindly follow the ulema...bad things happen as seen here; a historical example of what happens when people blindly follow the ulema:

I am sure you are aware of the Ottoman Turks, who ruled the Ottoman Empire. Anyways, the ruling Ottomans are famous for their practices of having not only four wives, but hundreds of harems and concubines. Now I hope you agree that extramarital sexual relations are never permissible in Islam. So how could this be allowed? The ulema of the time permitted such practices and people blindly followed and committed zina to major extents.

Also, when the Ottoman Turks, forbade the slave trade of men and women, the ulema of Hijaz gave a fatwa saying that it was wrong to forbid slave trade, and even declared jihad against the Ottomans. So do you really believe that following these types of fatwas are the true Islam?

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by bihari

And what's wrong with a Mutazilite? Do you even know what a Mutazilite is?

If you know what a Mutazilite is, why would you ask a Sunni what's wrong with a Mutazilite?

Originally Posted by bihari

Again, the Qur'an was meant to be interpreted by believers, hence it says "oh ye who believe" in various places, NOT 'oh scholars' or 'oh ulema'

The Qur'an also tells us to "ask those who know" if we do not know.

Originally Posted by bihari

if people blindly follow the ulema...bad things happen as seen here; a historical example of what happens when people blindly follow the ulema:

"Blindly follow" .. do you believe Ijmaa is a source of law?

Originally Posted by bihari

I am sure you are aware of the Ottoman Turks, who ruled the Ottoman Empire. Anyways, the ruling Ottomans are famous for their practices of having not only four wives, but hundreds of harems and concubines. Now I hope you agree that extramarital sexual relations are never permissible in Islam. So how could this be allowed? The ulema of the time permitted such practices and people blindly followed and committed zina to major extents.

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

Originally Posted by bihari

Also, when the Ottoman Turks, forbade the slave trade of men and women, the ulema of Hijaz gave a fatwa saying that it was wrong to forbid slave trade, and even declared jihad against the Ottomans. So do you really believe that following these types of fatwas are the true Islam?

I don't know which fatawa you're referring to, what the content of them was, what the daleel was, and who the ulema were. If you could cite that, it'd be helpful - though even if I did have that information, I'm hardly qualified to pass fatawa of my own.

Anyway, do you think the ulema of the Hijaz were upon kufr, or had strayed from Islam? If so, why?

Further, if the Ottoman scholars and the scholars of the Hijaz disagreed, then by definition there was no ijma.. correct?

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

If you know what a Mutazilite is, why would you ask a Sunni what's wrong with a Mutazilite?

Going in circles; nice way to evade the question.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The Qur'an also tells us to "ask those who know" if we do not know.

Just curious to know where it says this, and even so, it doesn't say to blindly follow, which unfortunately is the case for most people nowadays

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

So prostitution is allowed? When clearly it says that sex is only within the bounds of marriage:

"23:6 [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: Asad(23,3)