Today I was having a debate with a very loving uncle of mine regarding the issue whether a non Muslim could become the ruler of an Islamic state. Wedidn't end up with any conclusion so I need your help. I am of the view that anon Muslim can become a ruler provided he has all the abilities required ina genuine leader and can make the state prosperous. So what does Islam ordainus about this matter. If the answer is "YES", then it's ok for me but if not then kindly answer my following queries:
1). If he can't become a leaderthen in my view its injustice for him just because he was born in such conditions which he has no control of?
2). He lives in the state and lovesit and can sacrifice his life for his motherland like any other Muslim can sowhat's the difference?
3). In such debates, just to make an argument, weassume any such supposed leader to implement all the things which have beenprohibited by Islam on us even though our constitution doesn't allow any suchrule to be passed. So even then why is Islam not allowing it?
The only criteria that we have in the Qur'an for someone to become leader is that his leadership should be the result of Shora (consultation and voting of the representatives of people).
On the other hand there are some religious obligations that are supposed to be handled by the leader of Muslims. Examples are leading the Friday prayers (or appointment of Imams for Friday prayers), judging based on the Shari'ah or appointment…
I adopted a child of my wife's brother. I came to Saudi Arabia as an employee with my wife and my adopted child. For this purpose I marked the passport of my adopted child on my name. I admitted my adopted child in a school where all documentation completed with my name. In Pakistan I admitted my adopted child in a school with his real father name. I have completed child adoption process legally by family court in Pakistan. I have complete legal documentation but for going to Saudi Arabia they didn't accept. All my relatives know this my son is a adopted. My question is can I live with my adopted child in Saudi Arabia with my name or send him to back to Pakistan with my wife. So please give me complete guidance in the light of the Qura'n and Sunnah.
I believe that since you have no intention to conceal the reality and have done your best in revealing the true parents of the boy you have adopted in Pakistan and since you have been forced to register him in your name by the country of your residence you are not committing a willful sin. If you have been forced by circumstances to adopt this act unwillingly you are not incurring a sin. God Almighty…
I have just read this writing. Difference between Khilafah and Malookiyyah. Three questions are popping up in my mind.
One, if Mulookiyyat means the system that is based on "transferring" authority to sons, then, Syedna Ali should be called as the pioneer of Mulookiyyat instead of Syedna Muawiyah because he, first, transferred the authority to his son Syedna Hasan?
Two, if Mulookiyyat means the system that is based on "receiving" authority from father, then, Syedna Hassan should be called as the poineer of Mulookiyyat instead of Syedna Yazeed because he, first, inherited the authority from his father Syedna Ali?
Three, what if a going ruler tries to transfer the authority smoothly in his life just to make sure the nation does not have to be ruler-less at the time of election so as to save the nation from possible disruption and differences?
(Here I am using "Syedna" for Yazeed too as I do not want to disrespect anyone before being enlightened about all).
If some one appoints his son or close relative as the next Khalifa then this is what can be called Mulukiya. However if people themselves appoint the son of the last Khalifa as the new Khalifa then this is still Khilafah system based on Shora (although there is a danger of making this as a routine, appointing son after father without considering his qualities which then will be close to Mulukiyah. Both Abubakr and Umar…
My question is that what is difference between Khilafah and Malookiyah and why is Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (rta) mostly blamed for that. And is Hazrat Muawiyah really responsible for turning Khilafah to Malookiyah?
Khalifa is a word that was used for people who became the rulers of Muslims after the demise of the prophet (pbuh). Literally it means one that stays behind, successor.
While literally the word Khalifa can be used and has been used for any Muslim ruler who became head of the state of Muslims in the past (when Muslims only had one state), the word Khilafah, that is an infinitive word, sometimes refers to the system…
We know that even in the Islamic countries the people who are often elected into the parliament are not of Islamic mind. They tend to be secular. Can we entrust them the responsibility to legislate for us according to the laws of the religion? How can give authority to a member of parliament to interpret Islam? It will be like the British Parliament which even passed homosexual laws? .How can ever a Islamic minded parliament established through vote? I believe a better option is the concept of Majlis e Shoorah introduced by General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan or the institutes like Islamic Ideology Council.
The question is that the collective matters of Muslims have to be decided with their mutual consent. And it is only the majority of the Muslim populace which elects the members of the parliament. If they choose people who do not consider the Islamic view much important they may not be voted in the office. If the Muslim populace decides to vote some party or person in the office it gives them the right to…
It is said that verses 97-100 of Surah Al-Nisa make migration in the way of Allah obligatory on every Muslim living in a non-Muslim country except when one is living to preach Islam or is in great disgust finding no way out of it. I am a Pakistani living in Europe. What course should I adopt?
A simple translation of the verse 97 follow:
Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they have been unjust to their souls (for they have been not openly declared their faith fearing the powerful persecutors), they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah's earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein? So these it is…
The term Shaheed is much in use these days in politics in Pakistan. While one understands that these are references to political Shahadat but those using this term ever so often attribute rewards for those who lay down their lives in the way of Allah rather for attainment of power. What would you say about these so called Shaheeds? Moreover, it is generally believed that a soldier dying in uniform e.g. Gen Zia and others are Shaheed in the religious sense. Is this a right concept?
Shaheed, as a term of Islamic religious literature is one who spends his life in the struggle of uplifting the word of God and even sacrifices his life. Obviously this person must be obeying all the religious injunctions. Even then we cannot testify that such and such person got the status of Shaheed when he died in the battlefield fighting against the enemies of God since nobody could determine his true motives. We the Muslims…
I have been living in Canada for the last 38 years. In north America the way of life is very different from an Islamic environment. The state laws are governing there. I understand (I study a lot of Quran tafseer and hanafi fiqh) what the Islamic laws are and how they are to be applied in an Islamic society. But how they could be applied to our lives in north America, for instance:
In principle, when you are living in a country you need to follow the rules of that country. This is because as a resident of that country you have entered into a covenant with the ruling system to follow the rules and as you know breaking covenant is a serious sin in Islam.
There can now be two cases:
1. Some of the rules of the country stop you from practising some of…
I sometimes read your websites for understanding, yet I afraid I cannot help to say that your associate answers on certain caliph issues after Hadrat Ali (ra) is quite contrary to the history lessons I read in the famous books. My questions follow: Does power when assumed by someone itself is the criteria of right or wrong? Does power of Ommayyeds and the founder of the dynasty necessarily curtails the man who is brought up in prophetic traditions, from childhood, even without giving him any divinely inspired role? Is Islam nothing but an extension of political power and without it, it is simply collapsed, as a non-entity? Does anyone who grasps power is now the ultimate source of inspiration as ulul amr, ideally with consultation, practically without just like communist leaders of bygone days of soviet union?
I am not sure what particular questions and answers you are referring to. It helps if you could be more specific. Nevertheless the following is what I believe in based on my understanding:
What is meant by rebellion?
Rebellion does not mean simply falling into error and ignoring legal and moral laws of any institution rather it connotes challenging the authorities and openly defying them. It is persistence in rejection and defiance that renders an act into rebellion and enhances its severity. Therefore, in some instances a rebellious attitude may reflect itself in persistently ignoring less significant matters.
Is it wrong for a Muslim to become a Freemason?
If I ask you what will be your obligations (a full list of them) when you become a Freemason do you know them all so that you can let me know? And if you know them before becoming a member, will you be allowed to let me know?
If the answer to both the above is 'yes' then please let me know these obligations and I will let you know based on my understanding whether it…
Our religious scholars frequently issue a statement that the whole Pakistani population of 150 million desire an Islamic system. Is it not an exaggeration, definitely not based on reality? What is the moral standing of this statement?
These are political statements, not worthy of discussion. Politicians frequently claim that a gathering had tens of thousands of people, whilst in reality there may only be a few hundreds. We are oblivious to moral standards during such exaggerations. One of the basis of piety in the Qur’an is to be absolutely truthful. Our public attitudes belie this. We frequently build a mountain of a molehill, and use slander just in order to criticise others…
Hudood Ordinance has been hotly discussed recently. People still are guilty of moral violations, the urban population being aware of it, the rural largely ignorant. Our local mosques and clerics too are culpable for this ignorance. If social education is the premise for establishment of shari‘ah, then will this ever happen in our current circumstances in Pakistan? Or will shari‘ah never be implemented?
We are faced with two tasks, social education and formulating a legal framework based on the Divine guidance. Currently around 55 states profess Islam as their official religion, and therefore the legal representatives are bound to base any legal ruling on the Islamic principles. However, it is equally important that they educate the masses prior to the implementation. We should also ponder over the hesitation in the implementation of the Islamic laws, in spite of…
I understand you hold that it is not obligatory for the believers to gather in number and fight for the rule of God. The question is how then do we ensure establishment of Allah's laws that were mentioned in the Quran, like inheritence law, law of divorce, law of punishment? What then is the wisdom behind Allah even giving these rules in the Quran? I believe in order to be able to practice all of Allahs laws we need to try and atleast give an effort to form an Islamic state, non-violently, rather than waiting for things to happen and do nothing about it?
It is natural for believers to implement the laws of God when they attain power in a land. A ruler who claims to be a believer and rules the Muslims but does not implement the Sharia and instead introduces some paralell he is accountable to God. However, we are obliged to follow the law. In order to amend the law we need to spread the awareness among the masses in the country that the system…
In your response to the question entitled Women's Role in Political Affairs in Early Islam you have conclude that the women at "the time of the Holy Prophet (sws) were not politically aware." If Hazrat Ayesha (rta) could travel to fight a war to make sure that the assassins of Hazrat Usman (rta) were punished she must had played a role earlier when opposition between caliphate and Alids surfaced. Why is that not a possibility?
I never wrote "the women at that time were not politically aware?" I wrote: "Women at the time of the Prophet (sws), in general, were not politically aware". If it was not because of women like Ayesha (rta) I had not put the phrase "in general" in my above statement.
During the selection of the Rashidoon Caliphs, were the wives of the Prophet (sws) consulted or not? If not, than why women demand the right to vote in an Islamic country?
1. Women at the time of the Prophet (sws), in general, were not politically aware and therefore, generally, were not consulted in political matters. This is not the case at our time any more. The Quranic verse that advises Muslims to base the management of their affairs on consultation (42:38) does not say that only men should be consulted. Also please note that politically there is a difference between consultation and voting. consulting is an…
It is obvious that the issue of Khelafat was always a difficult issue in the history of Islam and one that affects Islam a lot:
Why the Holy Prophet (SWS) was an exception?
The Shari`ah does not give details about all the spheres of human activity. Its main concern remains purification of human self. In matters other than worship, the Shari`ah only gives guidance in those spheres where the human mind was prone to making such errors of judgment which were likely to have a negative impact on the cleansing of the human mind, body or soul, whether at the individual or the collective level. The guidance of…
In your earlier response, you wrote that Democracy is the recommended way of Islamic ruling according to the Quran. However, in yet another place, you wrote that a ruler is obliged to rule by Shariah otherwise he will be guilty of kufr. My question is, how will a ruler rule both by Shariah and also accept Democracy when the citizens of the country have no regard for Islamic values?
In our replies we had asserted that the Holy Qur'an exhorts Muslims to adopt any form of government, consented by the citizens of the state. Any system, which fulfills this condition of free and active participation of the citizens in the process of running the state's affairs, can be adopted. Obviously this refers to a state where the majority of the citizens are true believers. Our statement that if a ruler openly and knowingly disobeys…
In your answers you said: "if the leaders or rulers would have treated their land with fairness, then their rule would have lasted for long time". Are you talking about the four rightly guided Caliphs? What we have seen in history is that these four rightly guided Caliphes had set such a wonderful example that even the Westerns are forced to admit their administrative qualities and achievments. You know about Hazrat Umar (ra)'s administrative qualities and achievements. Yes nobody is perfect. Can you please provide me with some references from the history to show how Hazrat Umar (ra) actually treated non-Muslims under his rule or leadership?
Actually I made it clear in my reply that I did not meant the 4 rightly guided Khulafa. I wrote:
This question is regarding a Youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ioqkDE3PRk) addressed by Mr. Shezad Saleem about friendship with Christians. I want you to please explain to me that what does he mean by determining Jews and Christians as 'kafirs'?
Some scholars and the generality consider the Jews and Christians and all the non-Muslims as kaafir. Mr Shehzad Saleem holds that we cannot declare someone kaafir to be definitely destined for Hell because we have no means to determine if they have rejected the truth knowingly. We cannot know whether they have disbelieved in Islam after being convinced of the veracity of the faith. There could be people who opt to ignore the faith because…