I can see the line of thinking. However:
Also isn't in line with your interpretation of that verse.
If your interpretation is true, than no form of government is compatible with Islam.
Seeing as civilization would simply not exist without some form of government, I doubt that was the intention.
I did read it. NEVER just assume your post wasn't read just because it may not have been understood or the person disagrees. After all, yes Allah has final say in the Qur'an, but as he's not taking part in politics, that's not really relevant from a practical perspective save from what's contained in the Qur'an.
What is kufr/shirk, anyway? I've never heard the English word "shirk" used as a noun.
Free tip: people filter jargon. Just use English.In Islam, tawhid encompasses more than just "monotheism" in the religious sense. For example, the majority of Christians believe in a Triune-God and classify themselves as monotheists, yet according to the vast majority of traditional Muslims, this would not constitute proper tawhid and is considered a form of shirk, this is stated explicitly within the Qur'an:
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا
Translation: "O people (يَا أَهْلَ[of] the book (الْكِتَابِ
-Qur'an 4.171
Similarly, just as most traditional Muslims classify the belief in the Christian trinity as shirk (idolatry), even though it is still "monotheistic" [which, come to think about it, is not very different from Judaism, where many schools of Halakha also classify trinitarianism as Avodah Zarah], the majority of traditional Muslims also generally take the view that giving legislation to any individual other than Allah is a form of major shirk (idolatry) and according to the some of the more strict schools (such as the Hanbali maddhab), taking part in voting and/or actively letting yourself take part in being governed by the the will of the majority rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah is a tantamount transgression which could possibly make you a Munạfiq (hypocrite). Some topics, such as Shi'as doing tawassul at the graves of Imams are somewhat controversial (some view it as Bid'ah others view it as Shirk), but practically every orthodox Islamic scholar I've met agrees that supporting democracy is idolatry from an Islamic perspective.
I think I see the key phrase: taking part in voting... rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah. (What about the Hadith? Or Qur'an-only Muslims?)
IOW, if the will of the people goes against the Qur'an (and any accepted ancillary works), then it doesn't work. If it doesn't contradict the Qur'an, then there shouldn't be a problem.
'Sides, democracy isn't about the people having the final say. Someone else still does.
Perhaps.Perhaps therein lies the problem?
And I don't think I'm misrepresenting it.
Yusuf Ali's is the translation I have, and it's my favorite. Your word-for-word translation, however, is unnecessarily difficult to follow.
Last edited:
My beliefs about the US Government have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. The topic at hand is the relationship between shirk and supporting democracy in regards to Islam.
