PDA

View Full Version : Democracy Is the Very Essence of Heresy, Polytheism, and Error


abumuwahid
7th June 2007, 01:06 PM
Written by Sheikh Abu Musab Al Zarqawi
Thursday, 24 May 2007

"Democracy has come to tell us that the people in a democratic regime constitute both the executive power and the source of authority and that it has the last say in all matters, and no one can appeal [the people's] decisions and no one can criticize [the people's] rulings, for it has full power and it is the source of authority. Its will is sacred, its choice is binding… That which the people permits is permitted, that which it forbids is forbidden, and that which it accepts as law and regime must be accepted as such. Anything else has not sanctity nor value nor weight, even if it is religion or divine law given by the Lord of the world.

This principle – that is, government of the people [and] by the people – is the very core of the democratic system … and it exists only through this [principle]. This, then, is the 'religion of democracy' which is being praised and glorified with much fanfare. This is what its theoreticians and thinkers and missionaries keep publicizing, and this in fact is what we see and experience in the reality from which we suffer. Democracy, in all its variations and interpretations, is based on principles and foundations, the most important of which may be summarized as follows:

First: Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority, including the legislative [authority]. This is carried out by choosing representatives who act as proxies for the people in the task of legislating and making laws. In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshiped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it contradicts the bases of the faith [of Islam] and monotheism, and because it makes the weak, ignorant man Allah's partner in His most central divine prerogative – namely, ruling and legislating. Allah said: 'Sovereignty is Allah's alone. He has commanded you to worship none but Him' [Koran 12:40]. 'He allows none to share His sovereignty' [Koran 18:26]…

Second: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah… This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'

"One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection. According to Allah's religion, he has only one choice: 'Repent or be killed.'

Third: Democracy is based on considering the people to be the sole sovereign, to whom all juridical matters and conflicts should be referred, and if there is any controversy or conflict between governor and governed, each of them threatens the other to refer to the will of the people and its choice, so that the people should decide on the matter on which is disagreed. This conflicts with and is contradictory to the principles of monotheism, which determines that the arbiter, deciding by His judgment in matters of discord, is Allah and none else. Allah said [Koran 42:10]: ' And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah.' Democracy, on the other hand, says: 'And in whatever things you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to the people and to none beside the people…'

"Fourth: Democracy is based on the principal of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.

Fifth: Democracy is based on the principle of separation between religion and state, politics, and life; what is Allah's is rendered unto Allah, which is just worship in the places designed for it. All other aspects of life - political, economic, social, etc. - are the people's prerogative…

Sixth: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of association and of forming political parties and the like, no matter what the creed, ideas, and ethics of these parties may be. This principle is null and void according to [Islamic] law for a number of reasons… One of them is that voluntary recognition of the legality of heretical parties implies acquiescence in heresy… Acquiescence in heresy is heresy…

Seventh: Democracy is based on the principle of considering the position of the majority and adopting what is agreed upon by the majority, even if they agree upon falsehood, error, and blatant heresy… This principle is totally wrong and void because truth according to Islam is that which is in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna [i.e., the tradition of the Prophet], whether its supporters are few or many; and that which contradicts the Koran and the Sunna is false even if all the people of the world agree on it…"

It is both noteworthy and surprising that despite the fact that democratic experiments have had damaging consequences for the Muslims, causing weakness, controversy, division, and conflict … despite all this, many people continue to admire democracy and defend it as though they were its owners and creators; their hearts are imbued with the love of democracy as the Children of Israel were imbued with the love of the [golden] calf… Allah has decided this matter: 'I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship' [Koran 109:1], and at the end of the same chapter [He says]: 'You have your religion and I have mine' [109:6]. The matter, then, is a matter of principle; it is non-negotiable, and there can be no concession regarding it whatsoever… It is a matter relating to the principles of our creed – nay, it is the very essence of our creed.

taken from http://www.tawheedunspun.org

Abuz Zubair
7th June 2007, 01:10 PM
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, without the 'Sheikh' plz.

aburasheed
7th June 2007, 01:17 PM
Fourth:Democracy is based on the principal of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.
"..., they will not hurt Allah in the least, ..." [Muhammad 32]

abumuwahid
7th June 2007, 01:39 PM
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, without the 'Sheikh' plz.

Point noted but not taken,,,,,,Sir. :D

Did somebody die and make you a title policeman? :D

I think you take yourself far too seriously.

Abuz Zubair
7th June 2007, 01:55 PM
ÝáÇ íÞÕÑ ÈÇáÑÌá ÇáÚÇáí ÇáÞÏÑ Úä ÏÑÌÊå æáÇ íÑÝÚ ãÊÖÚ ÇáÞÏÑ Ýí ÇáÚáã ÝæÞ ãäÒáÊå æíÚØí ßá Ðí ÍÞ Ýíå ÍÞå æíäÒá ãäÒáÊå æÞÏ ÐßÑ Úä ÚÇÆÔÉ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåÇ ÃäåÇ ÞÇáÊ ÃãÑäÇ ÑÓæá Çááå Ãä ääÒá ÇáäÇÓ ãäÇÒáåã

This is from the muqaddima of Muslim to his Sahih. We should rank people according to what they deserve. A person shouldn't be over-praised and given title he does not deserve, nor should one be deprived of the status and title he deserves.

Learn some deen before you start preaching it to others.

Zarqawi was a mujahid with many good and some bad deeds like everyone else, and we hope that he is a shaheed. But he wasn't a minor Talib al-'ilm, let alone a Shaykh.

He is only called a 'Shaykh' by internet jihadis who have no Shaykhs (since they are all gov. scholars), so they need make their own Shaykhs otherwise their rubbish wouldn't sell.

abumuwahid
7th June 2007, 02:13 PM
And you sir should learn some manners.

Anyway - I have taken your advice and ranked Abu Musab according to what he deserves - Mujahid and Shahid (insha Allah.)

I hope you have no further objections.

I will ignore your rather childish and immature interent jihadi statement. I hope that you are not just saying these things to mess up the thread by detracting from the original message?

Abuz Zubair
7th June 2007, 02:26 PM
abumuwahid.. when was the last time you looked in the mirror?

In the beginning of the thread, all I said was this:
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, without the 'Sheikh' plz.

To which you replied with this nonsense:

Point noted but not taken,,,,,,Sir. :D

Did somebody die and make you a title policeman? :D

I think you take yourself far too seriously.

So I gave you a slap back because I think that's what you deserved. I don't take rubbish from you youngsters like many others do on other forums with soft replies like: 'oh, dear brother, forgive me, pardon me', etc, etc...

I told you, I give as good as I get.

Now, if you control your attitude and grow up, you will be treated like a grown up.

You continue to be an internet kiddie that you are, I would continue to deal with you how your Dad should've dealt with you.

abumuwahid
7th June 2007, 02:43 PM
abumuwahid.. when was the last time you looked in the mirror?

In the beginning of the thread, all I said was this:


To which you replied with this nonsense:



So I gave you a slap back because I think that's what you deserved. I don't take rubbish from you youngsters like many others do on other forums with soft replies like: 'oh, dear brother, forgive me, pardon me', etc, etc...

I told you, I give as good as I get.

Now, if you control your attitude and grow up, you will be treated like a grown up.

You continue to be an internet kiddie that you are, I would continue to deal with you how your Dad should've dealt with you.

In the context of this thread then yes, your advise is well meaning and acceptable.

But in light of your rude behavior in other threads then perhaps not and so I will treat you the same as you treat others.

It's as simple as that, young man.

Logic lover
7th June 2007, 05:08 PM
Looking at the title of the thread - would it be wrong to say that throghout the history of human beings in which shirk was/is mostly prevailant - 'democracy' is the essence of all?

If so, were all the tyrants 'democratic'?

Was 9 mischiefmakers of the people of Ad 'democratic'?