Tag: Siyasah

Praise be to Allah.It is not permissible for a woman to be appointed as a judge, because that is one of the positions of public authority that are restricted to men only. This has been explained previously in the answer to question no. 71338 .
But if there is no male judge, and the person has no choice but to refer the case to the court, and there is no one available to refer cases to except a woman, and if not referring the case to her would lead to loss of one’s rights or cause harm, then in that case there is nothing wrong with referring the case to her as a matter of necessity.
We put this question to our shaykh, ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Barraak (may Allah preserve him), and he replied: If there is no one available except this female judge, then yes, it is permissible to refer cases to her for judgement as a matter of necessity, because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “So fear Allah as much as you are able” [at-Taghaabun 64:16].
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.This issue is one that is subject to ijtihaad. And we must weigh up the interests and benefits that we hope the Muslims may attain from this participation and the harm that may result from it. 
If the benefits outweigh the harms, then it is permissible to take part, but if the harms outweigh the benefits, then it is not permissible to take part. 
Based on this, the ruling differs depending on the country, the system of voting and the people involved. Taking part may be beneficial to the Muslims in one country, and not in another. The same applies to individuals.  
The Fiqh Council has issued a statement on this issue: Participation of Muslims in elections with non-Muslims, the text of which is as follows: 
alone, and blessings and peace be upon the one after whom there is no Prophet, our Prophet Muhammad, and his family and companions. 
The Islamic Fiqh Council in its nineteenth session, which was held in the headquarters of the Muslim World League in Makkah al-Mukarramah between 22 and 27 Shawwaal 1428 AH (3 to 8 November 2007 CE) has examined the issue of “Participation of Muslims in elections with non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries.” This is one of the topics on which discussion was deferred in the sixteenth conference which was held between 21 and 26 Shawwaal 1422 AH in order that it may be examined more thoroughly. 
After listening to the research that was presented and the discussions concerning it, the Council has determined the following: 
1.
Muslim participation in elections with non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country is one of the shar’i political matters in which the ruling is determined in the light of weighing up the pros and cons, and fatwas concerning it differ according to time, place and circumstances. 
2.
it is permissible for a Muslim who enjoys the rights of citizenship in a non-Muslim country to take part in elections and the like because it is more likely that his participation will bring benefits such as presenting a true picture of Islam, defending Muslim issues in that country, supporting the rights of religious and other minorities, strengthening their role in circles of influence, and cooperating with reasonable, fair-minded people on a basis of truth and justice. That should be in accordance with the following guidelines: 
(i)The Muslim participants should intend thereby to serve the interests of the Muslims and ward off evil and harm from them.
(ii)The Muslim participants should think it most likely that their participation will have positive effects that will benefit the Muslims in that country, such as supporting their position, conveying their requests to the decision makers and those who are in charge of the country, and protecting their religious and worldly interests.
(iii)The Muslim’s participation in these elections should not lead to him neglecting his religious duties.
And Allaah is the source of strength. May Allaah send blessing and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. 
http://www.themwl.org/Fatwa/default.aspx?d=1&cidi=167&l=AR&cid=17
For more information please see the answers to questions no. 3062 and 107166. 
And Allaah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly:
The causes on which zakaah may be spent are defined in the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Zakaah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakaah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler – an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise”
[at-Tawbah 9:60].
For an explanation of this verse, please see the answer to question no. 46209.
Secondly:
With regard to the sources of income of the bayt al-maal (treasury), they are many and varied both in the past and in the modern era.
In al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (8/245-248) it says:
Sources of income for the bayt al-maal:

Zakaah of all types, which the ruler takes whether it is taken from wealth that is visible or hidden, such as grazing livestock, crops, cash and trade goods.
One fifth (khums) of movable booty. Booty refers to all wealth that is taken from the disbelievers by means of fighting, apart from land and real estate. One fifth of this wealth is to be given to the bayt al-maal, to be spent on various prescribed causes. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And know that anything you obtain of war booty – then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveller…” [al-Anfaal 8:41].
One fifth of metals and the like extracted from the ground, such as gold, silver, iron and so on. It was said that this also applies to what is extracted from the sea, such as pearls, ambergris and so on.
One fifth of buried treasure. This refers to all wealth that was buried underground by human actions. What is meant here is the treasure of the disbelieving people of the Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period of ignorance). If a Muslim finds it, one fifth of it is to be given to the bayt al-maal; the remainder belongs to the finder.
Fay’, which is all movable wealth that is captured from the disbelievers without a fight and without mobilising troops. Fay’ is of different types:

Land and property from which the disbelievers fled for fear of the Muslims (at time of war). This is to be made into a waqf, like land that is seized by fighting, and its yield is to be shared out every year. This was stated by the Shaafa‘is, although there is a difference of scholarly opinion concerning the matter.
Movable wealth that is left behind and abandoned by the disbelievers. This is to be divided on the spot, and not turned into a waqf.
What is taken from the disbelievers of taxes or rental of land of which the Muslims have gained possession and rented out to a Muslim or a dhimmi [non-Muslim living under Muslim rule], or rental of land that the Muslims have left in the possession of its original owners, whether it was acquired on the basis of a peace deal or was taken by force then left in their hands on the grounds that they are still its owners and they pay kharaaj (land tax) to us.
Jizyah, which is a poll tax paid by the disbelievers in return for their living in Muslim lands. It is imposed on each adult, able-bodied male, or on a city as a whole, to pay a specific amount of money. If someone pays it who is not obliged to do so, it is regarded as a gift, not as jizyah.
One tenth paid by ahl adh-dhimmah [non-Muslims living under Muslim rule]. This is a tax paid on trade goods that they export to dar al-harb [hostile non-Muslim territory] or that they import from dar al-harb to dar al-islam [Muslim territory], or that they move from one city to another within Muslim territory. It is to be paid by them once a year.

Similar to that is the one tenth paid by traders from dar al-harb, if they come to us with trade goods and seek our protection.

What the non-Muslims in a state of war with the Muslims agree to pay in return for a peace deal.
The wealth of an apostate if he is executed or dies, and the wealth of a heretic if he is executed or dies. Their wealth is not to be inherited [by their heirs]; rather it comes under the heading of fay’. According to the Hanafis, the wealth of an apostate is subject to further discussion.
Wealth of a dhimmi [non-Muslim living under Muslim protection] who dies and has no heir, or what is left over from his wealth after his heirs have taken their shares.  This is also regarded as fay’.
Lands captured by means of fighting that are agricultural lands, according to those scholars who do not think that such lands are to be divided among the fighters who capture them.

The yield of land belonging to the bayt al-maal, or rent on property owned by the bayt al-maal, and earnings on related trade and business dealings.
Gifts, donations and bequests that are given to the bayt al-maal for jihad or other purposes that are in the public interest.
Gifts that are given to judges who were not given gifts before being appointed to that position, or gifts that are given to judges but the giver has a dispute before the judge. If these gifts are not returned to the giver, they are to be given to the bayt al-maal, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) took from Ibn al-Latbiyah [who was sent out to collect zakaah and gave the zakaah to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) but he wanted to keep what was given to him as gifts] what had been given to him as gifts.

The same applies to gifts that are given to the ruler by non-Muslims who are hostile towards the Muslim state, and gifts that are given to state workers, unless the recipient pays towards these items from his personal wealth.

Taxes imposed on people in order to take care of their own interests, whether that is for jihad or other purposes. These taxes should not be imposed on them unless there are insufficient funds in the bayt al-maal to serve that interest and it is essential. Otherwise, this is an illegitimate source of income.
Lost wealth; this refers to wealth that is found but it is not possible to know who the owner is, whether it is found in the street, entrusted to someone for safe keeping, given as collateral, found with thieves and their ilk, and similar wealth of which no one claims ownership. It is to be given to the bayt al-maal.
The estate of any Muslim who dies and has no heir, or he has heirs who do not inherit all of his wealth, according to the scholars who think that what is left over should not be given to his relatives. In the case of someone who is killed and has no heir, the diyah (blood money) for his killing goes to the bayt al-maal and is to be spent on the same causes as the fay’.

The right of the bayt al-maal to this kind of wealth is subject to the rulings on inheritance, according to the Shaafa‘is and Maalikis. The Hanbalis and Hanafis say that it is to be given to the bayt al-maal according to the rules on fay’, not inheritance.

Penalties and confiscated wealth. It is narrated in the Sunnah that one who withholds zakaah is to be penalised by having half of his wealth seized. This is the view of Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh and Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-‘Azeez. It was narrated that a penalty is to be imposed on one who picks fruit for free and takes it out [of the garden or orchard]; the penalty is to be double the value of the fruit. This is the view of the Hanbalis and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh. What appears to be the case is that when such penalties are taken, they are to be spent in the public interest, thus they become due to the bayt al-maal.

It was narrated that ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) took half of the wealth of some people who were appointed to positions of authority when they became rich because of their positions.
One of the sources of income for the bayt al-maal in the modern era is the natural resources that were discovered in the lands of Muslim states, namely petroleum, natural gas, minerals and so on. It is very rare to find a state in which there are no resources of that nature.
Another source of income is what the state charges in return for what it carries out of agricultural, industrial or commercial projects, or services that it offers to the people, such as electricity, telephones, water and so on.
Thus it will become clear that there are many sources of income for the bayt al-maal.
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Allegiance (bay’ah) is a pledge to obey. And it is a shar’i
contract between the one who swears allegiance and the one to whom
allegiance is sworn, namely the ruler or caliph. 

Allegiance is sworn to a caliph after the decision makers (ahl
al-hill wa’l-aqd) select him; they are the ones who meet the conditions
of being trustworthy and of sound opinion. 

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (9/274) it says: 

Bay’ah or allegiance, as defined by Ibn Khuldoon in his
Muqaddimah, means: a pledge to obey; it is as if the one who swears
allegiance is promising his ruler that he will accept his authority with
regard to his own affairs and the affairs of the Muslims, and he will not
dispute with him with regard to any of that, and he will obey him in any
duties that he assigns to him, whether at times of ease or at times of
hardship. When they swore allegiance to a ruler and made this pledge, they
would put their hands in his as confirmation of the pledge. That is akin to
what the seller and purchaser do, so bay’ah or allegiance was accompanied by
a handshake. End quote. 

It also says (9/278): 

The selection by the decision makers of the ruler and their
swearing allegiance to him (bay’ah) is the basis of his taking that
position. The decision makers (ahl al-hill wa’l-‘aqd) are the scholars and
people of wisdom and high status, whose knowledge is accompanied by other
essential conditions: trustworthiness, good character and wisdom. End
quote. 

Just as there are conditions that must be met by the decision
makers, there are also conditions that must be met by the caliph to whom
allegiance is sworn. Some of these conditions are the subject of scholarly
disagreements, but on others there is consensus. Not one of the scholars
disagreed with the condition that the ruler must be a Muslim, because what
is implied by bay’ah (swearing allegiance) is the implementation of the laws
of Allaah, carrying out of hadd punishments and guarding the borders of
Islam, so how can a kaafir implement the laws of Allaah and do these things?
Rather if the ruler is a Muslim and becomes a kaafir, he must be removed
from office because of his kufr. 

Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, discussing the
conditions of leadership: 

He should be a Muslim, because Allaah says (interpretation of
the meaning): “And never will Allaah grant to the disbelievers a way (to
triumph) over the believers” [al-Nisa’ 4:141]. Rulership is the greatest
of such ways. And Allaah has enjoined us to put the people of the Book in
their place and to take the jizyah from them. End quote. 

Al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwa’ wa’l-Nihal
(4/128). 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Al-Qaadi said: The scholars are unanimously agreed that a
kaafir should not be appointed as ruler, and that if the ruler becomes a
kaafir, he must be deposed. End quote. 

Sharh Muslim (12/229). 

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (6/218) it says: 

The fuqaha’ stipulated conditions for the ruler, on some of
which there is consensus and concerning others there is a difference of
opinion. 

The conditions of rulership on which there is consensus are: 

1 – Islam (i.e., the ruler should be a Muslim), because this
is a condition of testimony being acceptable and guardianship being valid,
which are much less serious issues than rulership. Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning): “And never will Allaah grant to the
disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers” [al-Nisa’ 4:141].
And rulership, as Ibn al-Qayyim said, is the greatest of such ways. And he
is to take care of the interests of the Muslims. End quote. 

Based on this, it is not permissible to swear allegiance to a
kaafir ruler, and if the ruler becomes a kaafir then he should be deposed,
according to the conditions that are known to the scholars. 

And Allaah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly:
Terrorism (Arabic irhaab) is a term that refers to scaring others. In and of itself it is neither good nor bad, unless the one who uses this word intends it to mean something and unless we see the consequences of the actions based on it. Whoever says that terrorism (irhaab) in Islam is synonymous with killing is mistaken, because the linguistic meaning of the word does not reflect that. Terrorism refers to scaring, not killing per se. In terms of Arabic usage, words derived from the same root as irhaab (terrorism) appear in the Qur’an where our Lord, may He be exalted, instructs us to fear Him, as in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “and fear [only] Me [wa iyyaaya farhaboon]” [al-Baqarah 2:40]. He has also commanded us to prepare to face the enemy from whom we expect plots against us and plans to wage war against us. This preparation is intended to scare (or terrify) the enemy so that we will not become easy prey for him. This is stated clearly in the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows”
[al-Anfaal 8:60].
The unjust colonialist states use this word in conjunction with Islam, intending thereby to distort its image in the sight of all people. Hence they set up conferences and held seminars, and established research institutes in the name of fighting terrorism, but in all of these efforts there was no discussion at all about these criminal colonialist states who are oppressing the weak Muslims, such as the Hindus and their terrorising of Muslims in Kashmir, or the Russians and their terrorising of Muslims in Chechnya, or the Americans and their terrorising of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Zionists and their terrorising of Muslims in Palestine. Some naïve Muslims have started to use this word to describe anyone they want to fight, and put people off him. They may be right in describing a particular group of Muslims as terrorists, but what about the states that use terrorism, and what about criminal racist organisations that have been spared from having this word used against them, which has become used exclusively in reference to Muslims?!
The rulings and teachings of Islam were prescribed by Allah for the purpose of protecting the honour, life and wealth of the Muslim. For that purpose Islam forbids killing, theft, zina (unlawful sex), and slander, and has ordained severe punishments for anyone who commits those crimes. The punishment may go as far as execution – as in the case of the previously-married zaani (adulterer) – so as to protect people’s honour.
There is a severe punishment for one who terrorises and frightens people, such as gangs of bandits on the highways and those who do similar deeds within the city. They are the ones who strive to spread mischief and corruption on earth. Allah has prescribed the severest punishments for them, so as to ward off their evil and protect people’s wealth, lives and honour. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”
[al-Maa’idah 5:33].
In fact, Islam went even further, as it forbids the Muslim to scare his brother, even in jest. It was narrated from as-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed that he heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “No one of you should take his brother’s property in jest or in earnest, and whoever has taken his brother’s staff, let him return it.” Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (2160) and Abu Dawood (5003); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi.
It was narrated that ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Abi Layla said: The companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) told us that they were travelling with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on a journey. One of the men fell asleep, and some of them went and took some arrows that he had with him, and when the man woke up he panicked, and the people laughed. He said: What made you laugh? They said: Nothing, but we took this man’s arrows and he panicked. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to scare or alarm another Muslim.” Narrated by Ahmad (23064) and Abu Daawood (4351). Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Daawood.
Secondly:
“Terrorism” (irhaab) in Islam is of two types:

That which is praiseworthy

This refers to scaring an enemy lest he attack the Muslims and occupy their land. That involves being fully prepared, arming themselves with faith, being united, and equipping themselves with weapons. The verse from Soorat al-Anfaal quoted above explains that it is obligatory for the Muslims to do this.
Islam is not alone in this regard. Rather all nations compete in manufacturing arms and equipping themselves with weapons of mass destruction, establishing huge armies, and holding military parades to show off their troops and weapons. All of that is a show of strength intended to scare their neighbours and enemies, lest they think of attacking them.

That which is blameworthy

This refers to scaring those who do not deserve to be scared, Muslims or others whose lives are protected by Islamic law, such as those who have a covenant with the Muslims, those to whom the Muslims have granted protection and safety, and non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (ahl adh-dhimmah)
The Islamic Fiqh Council has defined terrorism as: acts of aggression and enmity carried out by individuals, groups or states by way of transgressing against people (affecting their religious commitment, physical and mental well-being, wealth or honour). That includes all ways of scaring, harming and threatening people, or killing them unlawfully, and all actions that are connected to those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, scaring wayfarers and travellers, acts of banditry, and all violent acts or threats that take place in support of criminal objectives, whether they are done by individuals or groups, with the aim of instilling fear and terror in people, scaring them by harming them, or exposing their lives, freedom, sense of security and well-being to danger. Another type of terrorism is damaging the environment, facilities, public or private property, or exposing some national or natural resources to danger. All of these are ways of spreading mischief and corruption on earth, which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has forbidden the Muslims to do in the verse in which He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corrupters”
[al-Qasas 28:77].
Sixteenth session, Makkah al-Mukarramah, 21-26/10/1422 AH — 5-10/1/2002 CE
In this statement, they pointed out two important issues:
The first issue is refuting the argument of those who describe Islam as being a religion of terrorism. Among other things, this statement said:
The members of the Council have noted that media campaigns are well orchestrated, and based on lies and nonsense, as they are organised by the types of media that are irrational and hostile, which are directed by the Zionist media organisations to stir up resentment, hatred and discrimination against Islam and Muslims, and to make false accusations against the final religion of Allah, foremost among which is the accusation of terrorism.
It became clear to the members of the Council that accusing Islam of terrorism through media campaigns is but an attempt to put people off Islam, as people are showing interest in it and are entering the religion of Allah in crowds.
The members of the Council call upon the Muslim World League and other Muslim organisations, and indeed all Muslims, to defend Islam, whilst paying attention to choosing the best methods that are appropriate to the honour that may be attained by undertaking this mission in the context of refuting the lies against Islam, and the accusation of terrorism. It may be noted that terrorism is a global phenomenon that cannot be attributed to a particular religion or people. Rather it is a phenomenon that stems from extremism of which no modern society is free. They explained that there are different types of extremism, such as political extremism, ideological extremism or religious extremism. Extremism that results from exaggeration about some issues of religion is not limited to the followers of a particular religion. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, mentioned the People of the Book exaggerating about their religion, and He forbade them to do that, as He says in His holy Book (interpretation of the meaning):
“Say, O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way.””
[al-Maa’idah 5:77].
The second issue that the council discussed is terrorism carried out at the level of the state. This is a matter concerning which the global media is silent, and has not exposed the people behind it. Among other things, the council said in a statement:
The Council affirms that there is another type of terrorism, which is terrorism carried out at the level of the state. One of its clearest and most abhorrent forms is the terrorism that is perpetrated by the Zionists in Palestine, and what the Serbs did in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosova. The Council regards this type of terrorism as posing the gravest danger to security and peace in the world, and regards confronting it as coming under the heading of self-defence and jihad in Allah’s cause.
End quote.
Thirdly:
With regard to terrorism perpetrated by the West, it is what we read of and witness of their invasion of weaker states and the plundering of their resources, and what we see of torture, rape and killing, all of which is documented via audio and video media, in documents that cannot be denied. This is a continuation of their historical practice of occupation by means of force, violence and weapons.
What is really strange is that Western states – especially America –have not given a definition of terrorism until now! It is clear that they would implicate themselves by any definition they chose. Therefore they have given this word a vague meaning, to be applied to whoever they decide to accuse of terrorism.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allah preserve him) said:
From ancient times, the disbelievers have waged war against Islam, describing it in the worst of terms, in order to put people off it. “They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.” [at-Tawbah 9:32]. That includes their description of Islam as terrorism and savagery. They forget that terrorism, savagery, genocide, transgression against people unlawfully, and all other blameworthy attitudes in fact belong to the way of the disbelievers and are part of the disbelievers’ character.
The fact that some so-called Muslims have behaved wrongly – either out of ignorance or bad intentions – cannot be attributed to Islam, for Islam forbids such deeds.
The way to protect Islam from this accusation is to explain that the actions of these individuals has nothing to do with Islam; rather these are cases of individuals acting badly, and every Muslim is prone to error; no one is infallible except the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Fawzaan (1/416, question no. 247)
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.The word siyaasah (translated above as political outlook) comes from a root (saasa) meaning to become in charge and take care of something, which means looking after something in a manner that maintains its well-being. The phrase sawwasahu al-qawm refers to people appointing someone to run their affairs.
See: Lisaan al-‘Arab (6/107); al-Qaamoos al-Muheet (p. 170).
Al-Bukhaari (3455) and Muslim (1842) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Children of Israel were ruled by the Prophets (tasoosuhum al-Anbiyaa’); every time one prophet died, another prophet would succeed him.”
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“[They] were ruled by the Prophets” means the Prophets took care of their affairs as rulers who are in charge of the people do. Thus siyaasah means to take care of something in a manner that maintains its well-being and serves its interests. End quote.
Ibn Nujaym said:
Siyaasah refers to an action taken by the ruler as he sees fit, even if there is no partial evidence for the action he takes.
Al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq (5/11).
Ibn Khaldoon defined as-siyaasah ash-shar‘iyyah [siyaasah on the basis of Islamic teachings] as follows: [It means] to lead the people in accordance with shar‘i guidelines, in a manner that serves their interests in the hereafter as well as in this world, for their interests in this world are connected to and may serve their interests in the hereafter, because the Islamic guidelines concerning the life of this world are connected to what serves people’s interests in the hereafter. Thus as-siyaasah ash-shar‘iyyah, in reality, means acting in the stead of the Messenger in guarding religious affairs and taking care of worldly affairs. End quote from Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldoon (p. 97)
Based on that, siyaasah is an indivisible part of Islam, and there is no separation between siyaasah (politics) and deen (religion).
Based on the above and on modern usage of the word siyaasah, we may say that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to conduct the people’s affairs and run the affairs of state on the basis of wise politics (siyaasah), because he brought a set of laws that were aimed at achieving what is in people’s best interests and warding off what is harmful and bad.
This is also how the Rightly Guided Caliphs and leaders of guidance after him ran the affairs of the ummah.
See also: at-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah by Ibn al-Qayyim (p. 17-20).
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.I.
The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) – even though they are the best of people – were also human, and there occurred among them that which usually occurs among people of disputes and differences of opinion. But they were the swiftest of people in doing good, and they were the foremost in knowledge of the truth, acting upon it and the swiftest to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, if one of them made a mistake, like any other human.
What is required of anyone who is accountable is to refrain from discussing the differences that arose among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and to think positively of every one of them.
Where could you find any people who are better than those who accompanied the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), migrated with him, strove with him in jihad, and prayed behind him?
See the answer to question no. 127028.
II.
It was narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad in as-Sunnah (1312), Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in as-Sunnah (1219) and al-Bayhaqi in al-I‘tiqaad (p. 358) that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said: No one gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It is proven via many isnads from ‘Ali that he said: No man will be brought to me who gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/479).
He also said:
It was narrated from ‘Ali via approximately eighty isnaads or more that he said on the minbar of Kufah: The best of this ummah after its Prophet are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/407).
III.
It is proven in as-Saheehayn that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, even though it was delayed by a few months.
‘Ali did not show any disagreement towards Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) or express any disapproval of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and never expressed any dissent. Rather he delayed giving his allegiance to Abu Bakr. The reason for that was that he objected to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and others among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) deciding the matter of the caliphate without him, despite his virtue, honour and high status, for he had the right to be present and be consulted about the matter, and that no decision should be taken without him.
The excuse that the Sahaabah gave was that they had hastened to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr so as to ward off fitnah and turmoil in the Muslim community, because they feared that disputes and conflicts might arise if they delayed it.
Another reason for the delay [in ‘Ali swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr] was the fact that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) got angry with Abu Bakr’s response to her when she asked him about her inheritance (from the Prophet(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)], and ‘Ali thought that he should show sympathy to her by staying away from Abu Bakr, especially since she was going through sorrow, distress and grief at the passing of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not refuse to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him); rather he delayed doing so for the reasons mentioned above. Then he came and swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
It is known via tawaatur reports that no one held back from swearing allegiance to him – namely Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him) – except Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubaadah. As for ‘Ali and Banu Haashim, all of them swore allegiance to him, according to consensus, and none of them died until after swearing allegiance to him. But it was said that ‘Ali delayed swearing allegiance to him for six months, or that he swore allegiance to him on the second day. Whatever the case, they swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (8/232).
See also the answer to question no. 147540.
IV.
It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar (may Allah be pleased with them both), let alone that ‘Ali saw that and did not object. All of the reports that have been narrated concerning that are not sound in their isnaads (chains of narration).
Ibn Shabbah said in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1098):
Al-Qaasim ibn al-Fudayl told us: ‘Amr ibn Murrah told me, from Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d, who said: ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) called some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), among whom was ‘Ammar, and said: I am going to ask you something; I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to give precedence to Quraysh over all other people, and he used to give precedence to Banu Haashim over the rest of Quraysh? The people remained silent, so he said: If the keys of Paradise were in my hand, I would give them to Banu Umayyah so that all of them, to the last man, would enter it. By Allah, I would surely give to them and appoint them (to positions of authority), in spite of you. ‘Ammar said: Inspite of me? ‘Uthmaan said: In spite of you. ‘Ammaar said: And in spite of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) got angry and leapt up, and started to beat him severely, and the people intervened and pushed him away from ‘Ammaar.
 This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad. Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d did not hear [reports] from ‘Uthmaan. Al-Haafiz al-‘Alaa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d al-Kufi is well known; he narrated many mursal reports from the senior Sahaabah such as ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Aa’ishah, Ibn Mas‘ood and others (may Allah be pleased with them). Abu Zar‘ah said: [Reports narrated by] Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d from ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali are mursal.
End quote from Jaami‘ at-Tahseel (p. 179)
Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi said in al-‘Aqd al-Fareed (5/57):
In a hadith narrated by al-A‘mash from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, he said: The companions of ‘Uthmaan wrote down his mistakes on a page and wrote down people’s criticisms of him. They said: Who will take this to him? ‘Ammaar said: I will. So he took it to him, and when he read it he [‘Uthmaan] said: May Allah cause your disgrace. ‘Ammaar said: And Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too? ‘Uthmaan stood up and beat him until he fell unconscious. Then ‘Uthmaan regretted it, and he sent Talhah and az-Zubayr to him to say to him: Choose one of three: either forgive me, or accept compensation for the injury, or retaliate in kind [qisas]. ‘Ammaar said: By Allah, I will not accept any of them until I meet Allah! Abu Bakr [ibn Abi Shaybah, the narrator of this report] said: I mentioned this hadith to al-Hasan ibn Saalih, and he said: ‘Uthmaan could not have done more than he did (to seek reconciliation).
This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad, like the previous report. Al-A‘mash is regarded as being among the junior Taabi‘een; he was born too late to have met ‘Uthmaan or ‘Ali or ‘Ammaar.
See: Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (2/224) and at-Tahdheeb (4/196).
In fact, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, who quoted this report in his book, did not trace its isnad back to al-A‘mash. As it is possible that this report may be traced to someone who comes before al-A‘mash [in the chain of narration], it is also possible that it may be traced to someone who comes after him,  whom Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi omitted between Ibn Abi Shaybah and al-A‘mash.
Ibn Abi Bakr al-Maaliqi said: If it is said that ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) beat ‘Ammaar, it should be pointed out that this is not proven. Even if it could be proven, the imam (ruler) has the right to discipline some of his subjects, as he sees fit, even if he is mistaken.
Do you not see that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) allowed people to settle scores with him. Similarly, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) disciplined some of their subjects slapping and hitting with a stick, and they allowed others to settle the score with them.
If someone says that ‘Uthmaan did not allow anyone to settle a score with him,
It should be said to him: How can that be true, when he made offers to that effect in an unprecedented manner, especially when he was under siege in his house, when he said: O people, if you find in the Book of Allah that you should put my feet in fetters, then do so.”
End quote from Shubuhaat hawla as-Sahaabah: Dhu’n-Noorayn ‘Uthmaan (p. 144).
There are sounder reports which contradict that. It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf (7/521) and Ibn Shabbah in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1101), via Husayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan who said: Juhaym, a man from Banu Fihr, told me: I witnessed this event. He said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came and sent word to ‘Uthmaan, saying: Please come; we want to remind you of something novel that you introduced, or things that you did. He sent word to them telling them: Leave for today, because I am busy; your appointment is on such and such a day.
So Sa‘d left, but ‘Ammaar refused to leave.
So ‘Uthmaan’s messenger grabbed him and beat him.
When they and those who were with them gathered at the appointed time, ‘Uthmaan said to them: What grievances do you have against me?
They said: Our grievance is your beating of ‘Ammaar.
‘Uthmaan said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came, and I sent word to them, then Sa‘d left but ‘Ammaar refused to leave, so a messenger grabbed him and beat without me instructing him to do that. By Allah, I did not give any instruction to that effect and I am not pleased with it. This is my hand for ‘Ammaar; let him retaliate.
There is nothing wrong with this isnad, and its men are thiqaat (trustworthy). Juhaym is a Taabi‘i from whom two trustworthy narrators narrated, and he was classed as trustworthy by Ibn Hibbaan, so his hadith may reach the level of hasan.
This report is the soundest of those that were narrated about ‘Uthmaan beating ‘Ammaar.
Conclusion:
It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar in the first place, let alone any notion that he beat him in the presence of ‘Ali and that ‘Ali remained silent and did not defend him. What is required of us is to acknowledge the high status of the companions of our Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), to love them and defend them.
It is not permissible to rely on everything that has been narrated in the books of history, except for that which is proven to be sound. How good are the words of Ibn Khaldoon:
How often the historians, mufassireen and narrators of reports make mistakes in the stories they narrate, because their method is mere transmission of reports, whether sound or unsound, without examining these reports and their chains of narration, and comparing them to other, similar reports, and without examining them in the light of reason and in the light of human nature. Thus they drifted away from the path of truth and fell into grievous mistakes and errors.
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.With regard to laws promulgated in non-Muslim countries, one of the following three scenarios must apply:
1.
The laws are contrary to what Allah has prescribed, such as giving the wife the power of divorce, or not giving the father guardianship over his daughter after she reaches puberty, or giving a daughter the same share of the estate as a son, allowing the drinking of alcohol and zina (sex outside of marriage), and so on. It is not permissible to act upon these laws or approve of them.
2.
The laws are in accordance with what is mentioned in Islamic teachings. In this case, one should abide by them, in obedience to Allah and His Messenger.
3.
The Islamic texts have not said anything about the laws, but they are in the best interests of people, such as laws having to do with driving and the age at which driving is allowed. These laws must be adhered to, in accordance with the religious texts which enjoin being faithful to contracts and covenants, such as the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! Fulfill (your) obligations” [al-Maa’idah 5:1] and the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that forbids something permissible or permits something forbidden.” Abu ‘Eesa [at-Tirmidhi] said: This is a hasan saheeh hadith. It was classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) in Saheeh Ibn Maajah (2353).
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

Democracy is not an Arabic word. Rather it is derived from the Greek, and it
is a composite of two words: demos, meaning the masses or the people,
and kratia, meaning rule. So what is meant is the rule of the masses
or the rule of the people. 

Secondly: 

Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power
of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members
of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given
to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the
people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the
majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on
the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or
reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion,
same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah
have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol
are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers. 

Allah, may He be exalted, has told us in the His Book that legislative
authority belongs to Him alone, and that He is the wisest of those who issue
rulings and judge. He has forbidden the association of anyone with Him in
His authority, and no one is better than Him in ruling. 

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So
the judgement is only with Allah, the Most High, the Most Great!”

[Ghaafir
40:12]

“The
command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you
worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight
religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf
12:40]

“Is
not Allah the Best of judges?”

[at-Teen 95:8]

“Say:
‘Allah knows best how long they stayed. With Him is (the knowledge of) the
unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clearly He sees, and hears
(everything)! They have no Walee (Helper, Disposer of affairs, Protector,
etc.) other than Him, and He makes none to share in His Decision and His
Rule’”

[al-Kahf
18:26]

“Do
they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better
in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith?”

[al-Maa’idah
5:50]. 

Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is the Creator of all things and He
knows what is good for them and what is in their best interests of rulings.
Human beings vary in intellect, attitude and customs, and they are unaware
of what is best for them, let alone what is best for others. Hence in
societies that are ruled by the people in terms of legislation and laws, one
sees only corruption, immorality and disintegration of the social fabric. 

It
should be noted that in many countries this system has changed into
something that has no reality behind it, and it is mere slogans by which
people are deceived; in fact the real ruler is the head of state and his
helpers, and the people are suppressed and have no say in anything. 

There
is nothing more indicative of that than the fact that when this democracy
produces results that do not suit the desires of the rulers, they crush it
underfoot. Cases of election fraud, suppression of freedoms and silencing of
the voices of those who speak the truth are well known to everyone and do
not need further proof. 

This
is very clear in many countries and does not need any proof. 

It
says in Mawsoo‘ah al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu‘aasirah (2/1066): 

Representative democracy: 

This
is one of the democratic systems in which the people exercise authority
through a council of elected representatives of the people. In this system
the people retain the right to exercise some aspects of authority directly
by various means, the most important of which are: 

1.

The right to propose laws, which is done when a number of
people propse a law in general terms or in detail, which the parliament will
then discuss and vote upon.

2.

The right to a referendum, whereby a law that has already
been approved by Parliament is presented to the people so that they can have
their say.

3.

The right of objection, whereby a number of voters defined by
the Constitution have the right to object to a law within a certain period
after it has been passed, which will result in taking the matter to the
people for a general referendum; if the people agree with it, it will be
promulgated, otherwise it will be annulled. This is included in most modern
constitutions.

Undoubtedly democratic systems are one of the modern forms of shirk, in
terms of obedience and submission, or in legislation, as it disregards the
authority of the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, and His absolute
right of legislation, and regards that as one of the rights of created
beings. But Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You
do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you
and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command
(or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship
none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion,
but most men know not.”

[Yoosuf
12:40]

“Say
(O Muhammad SAW): “I am on clear proof from my Lord (Islamic Monotheism),
but you deny (the truth that has come to me from Allah). I have not gotten
what you are asking for impatiently (the torment). The decision is only for
Allah, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of judges.”

[al-An ‘aam 6:57].

End
quote. 

Thirdly: 

Many
people think that the word democracy means freedom! But this is incorrect
because freedom is one of the by-products of democracy. What we mean by
freedom here is freedom of belief, freedom of decadence, and freedom of
expression, and these also have many negative impacts on Muslim societies,
because matters have gone so far that aspersions are cast upon the
Messengers and the messages, and upon the Qur’an and the Sahaabah, on the
grounds of freedom of opinion; and wanton display and uncovering are
tolerated, and indecent images and movies are propagated on the grounds of
freedom. Many such things are happening, of which there is a long list, all
of which are playing a part in the corruption of the ummah, morally and
spiritually. 

Even
that freedom for which countries are calling by means of democratic systems
is not absolute. We see whims and desires, and vested interests, behind the
limitations on those freedoms. At the time when their systems tolerate
aspersions upon the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) and the Qur’an, on the grounds of freedom of expression, we find that
this freedom is denied when speaking about matters such as the “Nazi
Holocaust of the Jews”! In fact anyone who denies this Holocaust is treated
as a criminal and put in prison, even though it is a historical matter that
may be denied. 

If
these people really are promoting freedom, then why do they not let the
Muslim peoples choose their own path and religion? Why did they colonize
their lands and play a role in changing their religion and beliefs? What do
these freedoms have to do with Italy’s slaughter of the Libyan people, or
with France’s slaughter of the Algerian people, or with Britain’s slaughter
of the Egyptian people, or with America’s slaughter of the Afghan and Iraqi
peoples? 

According to those who promote it, freedom may be subject to several
restrictions, including the following: 

1.

The law. Man does not have absolute freedom to drive in the
opposite direction to traffic in the street, or to open a shop without a
license, and if he says “I am free,” no one will pay any attention to him.

2.

Custom. A woman in their countries – for example – cannot go
to offer condolences to the bereaved wearing a bathing suit. If she says “I
am free”, the people will look down on her and throw her out, because it is
contrary to custom.

3.

Public taste. One of them – for example – cannot eat and pass
wind in front of people, or even burp! The people will look down on him even
if he says, “I am free.”

Furthermore, we say: 

Why
shouldn’t our religion restrict our freedom, as their freedom is restricted
by things that they cannot deny? Undoubtedly what is taught by Islam is that
which is in people’s best interests. If a woman is forbidden to make a
wanton display, or if the people are forbidden to drink alcohol and eat
pork, and so on, all of that is in their best interests, physically and
mentally, and for their general welfare. But they refused to restrict their
freedom if the injunction comes from religion, but they say “we hear and we
obey” if it comes from human beings like them or from a (man-made) law. 

Fourthly: 

Some
people think that the word democracy is equivalent to shoora (consultation)
in Islam! This is a mistaken notion for many reasons, including the
following: 

1.

Shoora has to do with new matters that arise or with matters
that are not explained in detail in the texts of the Qur’an or Sunnah. With
regard to the “rule of the people”, the people may discuss what is
well-established in religion, which may lead to refusing to acknowldge the
prohibitions on that which is forbidden, and to forbidding that which Allah
has permitted or made obligatory. So the sale of alcohol is permitted
according to these laws, as are fornication/adultery and riba (usury), but
these laws put pressures on Islamic organizations and the activities of
those who call people to Allah. This is diametrically opposed to sharee‘ah,
so what does this have to do with shoora?

2.

The majlis ash-shoora (consultative committee) is to be
formed of people who have a deep knowledge of fiqh, Islam and sharee‘ah,
fahm, and have a high level of piety and good character. So no one who is of
bad character or foolish, or is a disbeliever or atheist, is to be consulted
or involved in the shoora process. As for the democratic councils of
representatives, they pay no attention to any of the con ditions mentioned
above. The representative may be a disbeliever, or of bad character or
foolish. What does this have to do with shoora as prescribed in Islam?

3.

Shoora is not binding upon the ruler; the ruler may give
precedence to the view of one member of the council that is supported by
proof, and prefer his view over that of the other council members, whereas
in the case of representative democracy, the agreement of the majority
becomes legally binding upon the people.

Once
this is known, then what the Muslims must do is be proud of their religion
and trust that the rulings of the Lord are best for them in this world and
in the Hereafter, and they should disavow systems that go against the laws
of Allah. 

What
all other Muslims must do – rulers and ruled alike – is adhere to the laws
of Allah, may He be exalted, in all their affairs. It is not permissible for
anyone to follow a system or methodology other than Islam. One of the
indications of their acceptance of Allah as their Lord, Islam as their
religion, and Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) as their
Prophet and Messenger, is that the Muslims adhere to Islam outwardly and
inwardly; they respect the laws of Allah and follow the Sunnah of the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 

We
ask Allah to honour us with Islam and to cause the plots of the traitors to
fail. 

And
Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.We put this question to Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak (may Allah preserve him) and he answered as follows: 
Dealing in hashish is an evil action according to all Islamic and rational standards. Hence it is prescribed to report such crimes, as it is also prescribed to report criminals such as murderers, thieves and rapists, so long as we are certain that dealing in hashish is an evil and harmful action. 
If the one who is dealing in hashish is a Muslim, then he is spreading corruption in the land and is also harming himself, because he is the one who is giving the disbelievers a reason to pursue him and pass judgement against him according to laws other than Islamic sharee‘ah and to subject him to a punishment other than that which Allah has revealed. As for reporting him, that comes under the heading of combatting evil and corruption. 
I have no doubts whatsoever concerning this matter. 
And Allah knows best.