Should Secular Democracy be considered shirk?

[Hyperborean]

By nature, Secular state is when a state is governed without the guidance of Quran (or another revealed book) or Sunnah.

The Quran says: “Verily, the rule belongs to none but Allah.” (Sura Yusuf, v. 40).

Therefore,

1 - Appointing a secular ruler to a state associates a human being with Allah, and is therefore shirk.
2 - Anybody who believes that almighty Allah (SWT) is not the only, exclusive Legislator and Commander is a disbeliever i.e. Kaafir.
3 - Anybody who believes in Almighty Allah (SWT) and associates anyone else with Him, contravening his being the sole legislator and commander is a Mushrik i.e. associates another as partner unto Allah (SWT).

 

[Zatarra]

What is "shirk" in this context?

 

[TashaN]

3 - Anybody who believes in Almighty Allah (SWT) and associates anyone else with Him, contravening his being the sole legislator and commander is a Mushrik i.e. associates another as partner unto Allah (SWT).

And thus you can kill all Muslim rulers who role secular states. Is this what you are aiming at?

Secular states = Kufr
Secular ruler = Kafir
Kafir = kill him?

 

[TashaN]

This is the creed of those who commit suicide attacks in Muslim countries. They know they are not allowed to kill Muslims under any circumstances, so they make them kufar first then they kill them.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I see it like this, all muslims if indeed we are submitting to Allah's will should want to live by the rules set forth by Allah in this deen. However, calling muslims who do not live or who appoint secular governments kafir, I don't think I can get onboard for that. I mean, of course we shouldn't be pining to get away from shariah, Qur'an and sunnah though. I can see that. I just can't see the kafir part.

I think it's somewhat of a legitimate question. Although I would supplant the word shirk with kufr. I would ask is secular democracy a form of kufr. I think in many ways is definitely can be, however many parts of it are actually supported by shariah though. Like the muslims living under shariah would get to pick their leader instead of having one chosen for them, or have a self-appointed leader.

 

[Sahar]

I think in many ways is definitely can be, however many parts of it are actually supported by shariah though. Like the muslims living under shariah would get to pick their leader instead of having one chosen for them, or have a self-appointed leader.

Why would this be secular democracy? I would call it Islamic democracy. Electing a government that represents the people's will is very essential to the Islamic political thinking and system, electing Abu Bakr after the prophet (pbuh) is a very good example.

 

[Sahar]

Without any doubt, the secular political system is a form of shirk and kufr. " And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers." Al Ma'ida: 44

 

[maro]

Why would this be secular democracy? I would call it Islamic democracy. Electing a government that represents the people's will is very essential to the Islamic political thinking and system, electing Abu Bakr after the prophet (pbuh) is a very good example.[/qoute]

Without any doubt, the secular political system is a form of shirk and kufr. " And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers." Al Ma'ida: 44

I agree

 

[Delamere]

As there is no compulsion in religion does Islam not respect the rights of those who choose to believe differently and live according to their conscience. Surely we should not be afraid of allowing others to live as they wish?