Is it irresponsible not to vote?

[yasiin sadiq]

I was taught this as a teen. But how do you feel about it. I was also taught it is better to vote for the lesser evil (better politician even if he/she isn't perfect), so always vote. Even though I never have. I live in an American democracy.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam currently there is no lesser evil (better politician even if he/she isn't perfect) between American politicians which only reason for voting can be protection of your right as a civilian just you won't be deprived social care & your rights or don't face hardship due to legal punishments for not voting .

[yasiin sadiq]

On 4/7/2025 at 1:30 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

voting can be protection of your right as a civilian just you won't be deprived social care & your rights or don't face hardship due to legal punishments for not voting .

The lesser evil will protect that better. but i agree there isn't one right now we have all ready elected.

[notme]

Some people can not, in good conscience, vote against their morals.  Each person has to decide whether to vote or not.  Being apathetic to leadership is irresponsible, but making a choice to abstain from voting is a personal decision.  

[mahmood8726]

On 4/6/2025 at 10:31 AM, yasiin sadiq said:

I was taught this as a teen. But how do you feel about it. I was also taught it is better to vote for the lesser evil (better politician even if he/she isn't perfect), so always vote. Even though I never have. I live in an American democracy.

No its not and don't let people guilt trip you into voting in child killers who lie like they breath. If they want the "bigger evil" of not getting elected, they should hold their own party accountable instead of guilt tripping people with a conscience who had a red line on genocide and the mass slaugther of children and the causing of unecessairy bloody wars that claim the lives of thousands of millions. 

Edited April 8 by mahmood8726

[Abu Hadi]

On 4/6/2025 at 10:31 AM, yasiin sadiq said:

I was taught this as a teen. But how do you feel about it. I was also taught it is better to vote for the lesser evil (better politician even if he/she isn't perfect), so always vote. Even though I never have. I live in an American democracy.

I would say that if there are two candidates, and one is not guilty of crimes against humanity and / or major tyranny and oppression and one is, then in that case it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. It is true that in a democratic system, if you don't vote then you don't have a voice. So not voting is, in essence, taking away your own voice. 

At the same time supporting open and obvious thulm (oppression) is worse than not having a voice. If you vote for a candidate that is an obvious criminal on a large scale (i.e. crimes against humanity) then you are supporting this criminal which is haram based on doing amr bil maroof wa nahiya al munkhar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). 

I have said that I didn't vote in this last election in the US, between Harris and Trump. This is because they are both war criminals. Harris wholeheartedly supported and funded the genocide in Gaza and Trump wholeheartedly supported and funded Genocide, this was before he was president by funding and supporting the genocide in Yemen which took place starting in 2015 and was happening thru his presidency. In the case of two open and despotic war criminals you cant support either one. 

BTW Harris could have easily won the election. All she had to say was 'I differ with the President (Biden) on this issue of Gaza and I don't support the Israeli continuing its military actions in Gaza'. If she would have said that one sentence, she would have easily won because we know now, looking back, that they main reason she lost is that she lost the support of the Muslims, young people (20 to 25), and anti war groups and these together represent a significant portion of the Democratic party and they didn't vote in this election. They didn't vote for Trump, they just didn't vote. 

She knew this, btw, and never said this, which means her support for Genocide was more important to her than winning the election. So she deserved to lose

Edited April 9 by Abu Hadi

[Diaz]

42 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I have said that I didn't vote in this last election in the US, between Harris and Trump. This is because they are both war criminals.

ok but brother u could have voted for jill, she is against war and anti zionist, or am i wrong?

[Abu Hadi]

She had zero chance of winning. She held a rally in Dearborn a week before the election and like 50 or 60 people showed up. If she can't get a decent sized crowd in Dearborn which would be probably the supportive city in the US for her message well ...

Also I don't agree with parties or movements that are centered around a single personality. These kinds of parties have a strong tendency to go towards cults or dictatorships that quickly fall apart once the personality dies, gets 'caught' in a big way or moves on to other things

The Democrat and Republican parties have survived because they focus on building a platform rather than being centered around a single personality. Except I would say Republicans in recent years have become the cult of Trump but it didn't use to be that way

Edited April 9 by Abu Hadi

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

I feel that democracy is a pagan system of government. A vote for a lesser of two evils is still evil. We have a two party system in qawm ul lut. The Sodom party and the Gamorah party. Voting for women according to hadiths that I feel are valid show that a country run by a woman is doomed to failure. I prefer a theocracy or atleast a king run by Allah's law. Just because we live in a jungle does not mean we should live like animals. I felt this way even when I was christian.

[Abu Hadi]

I disagree that a country that has a women leader is doomed. If you look at Iran, and also other Islamic countries, women have been leaders and those countries have been successful, relatively under that leadership. The only restriction that I know of, as far as leadership for women is that they cannot be Imam Jama3at (prayer leaders) and this issue has been discussed many, many times on SC and other places. Also, they cannot be marja3t taqleed, according to most marjaa'. They can however be political leaders and have other leadership roles in society, i.e. be principles of school, colleges, leaders of hospitals, and even leaders of political districts like states and counties and I haven't seen anything which says they cannot be political leaders of countries in conjunction and consultation with marjaa' taqleed. 

Our local representative in Michigan in the US is Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian women. In my view, she is the only political leader in the US that I trust at this point. She has more courage in her little finger than the entire group of men in the US congress. 

 A theocracy would only work if the vast majority of the people of that country were one religion and had one particular (general) view of that religion. An example of this is Iran, which is why a theocracy works there. Not perfectly, but mostly works. A theocracy would not work in most, even, Muslim countries today like Lebanon,Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, etc, because although these are majority Muslim countries the ideologies within the country are extremely diverse. Also, these countries have sizeable population of other religions, like Christians and Druze. 

That is why when Imam Mahdi comes out (afs) he will first convince the people of the truth of Islam and the truth of the Leadership of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). He will also have the power to either destroy or muzzle the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). That is why his government will rule the entire world because he will first change to hearts of the people before attempting to impose a system of government on them. You cannot do it the other way around, it won't work. It even says in the Quran 'There is no compulsion in religion' and from what I have read, I believe this is what that ayat is talking about. 

Edited April 16 by Abu Hadi

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

I disagree that a country that has a women leader is doomed. If you look at Iran, and also other Islamic countries, women have been leaders and those countries have been successful, relatively under that leadership. The only restriction that I know of, as far as leadership for women is that they cannot be Imam Jama3at (prayer leaders) and this issue has been discussed many, many times on SC and other places. Also, they cannot be marja3t taqleed, according to most marjaa'. They can however be political leaders and have other leadership roles in society, i.e. be principles of school, colleges, leaders of hospitals, and even leaders of political districts like states and counties and I haven't seen anything which says they cannot be political leaders of countries in conjunction and consultation with marjaa' taqleed. 

Our local representative in Michigan in the US is Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian women. In my view, she is the only political leader in the US that I trust at this point. She has more courage in her little finger than the entire group of men in the US congress. 

 A theocracy would only work if the vast majority of the people of that country were one religion and had one particular (general) view of that religion. An example of this is Iran, which is why a theocracy works there. Not perfectly, but mostly works. A theocracy would not work in most, even, Muslim countries today like Lebanon,Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, etc, because although these are majority Muslim countries the ideologies within the country are extremely diverse. Also, these countries have sizeable population of other religions, like Christians and Druze. 

That is why when Imam Mahdi comes out (afs) he will first convince the people of the truth of Islam and the truth of the Leadership of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). He will also have the power to either destroy or muzzle the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). That is why his government will rule the entire world because he will first change to hearts of the people before attempting to impose a system of government on them. You cannot do it the other way around, it won't work. It even says in the Quran 'There is no compulsion in religion' and from what I have read, I believe this is what that ayat is talking about. 

This is the hadith I was referencing I am not sure of its status amongst shia however so it might not be sahih to shias.

Sahih al-Bukhari 7099

Narrated Abu Bakra:

During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

[notme]

On 4/15/2025 at 12:18 AM, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I feel that democracy is a pagan system of government. A vote for a lesser of two evils is still evil. We have a two party system in qawm ul lut. The Sodom party and the Gamorah party. Voting for women according to hadiths that I feel are valid show that a country run by a woman is doomed to failure. I prefer a theocracy or atleast a king run by Allah's law. Just because we live in a jungle does not mean we should live like animals. I felt this way even when I was christian.

Hard disagree!

Systems of government have not been dictated by our Prophets or Imams, peace be upon them. However, they did give guidelines for leaders.

One or a few fallible people in charge will always eventually be corrupted. A hundred or a few hundred can also be corrupted, as millions, but it is less likely and less complete. Power ALWAYS corrupts fallible beings.

There are no genuine theocracies and there are no kings ruling today who follow Allah's laws.

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

2 hours ago, notme said:

Hard disagree!

Systems of government have not been dictated by our Prophets or Imams, peace be upon them. However, they did give guidelines for leaders.

One or a few fallible people in charge will always eventually be corrupted. A hundred or a few hundred can also be corrupted, as millions, but it is less likely and less complete. Power ALWAYS corrupts fallible beings.

There are no genuine theocracies and there are no kings ruling today who follow Allah's laws.

I am very pro-king or emperor even beyond a religious context. I have just always really liked such forms of government and still admire the early Roman Empire even though they were not Islamic. Yes there are good and bad emperors and kings but that can change quickly but democracy tends to be a slow controlled descent into degeneracy. It also means that you have one person to blame with a king. In a democracy everyone in government is pointing the finger at everyone else and nothing gets done. Philosophically I think that a king or emperor just makes more sense.

[Eddie Mecca]

I adopt Hizb ut-Tahrir's position of not participating in kufr system and not voting for taghut...I believe this is the true Shi'i stance as well...I've never voted...not even once

[Azadeh307]

I only voted one time in my life and it was a mistake so I never did it again. Lol. 

I don't understand American politics (where I am ) at the moment. Why would a politician be motivated to serve all the people in the country when only half like them or worse yet find them to be the worse of two evils and the other half hates them? Maybe they have to believe they can make things better. 

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

19 minutes ago, Azadeh307 said:

I only voted one time in my life and it was a mistake so I never did it again. Lol. 

I don't understand American politics (where I am ) at the moment. Why would a politician be motivated to serve all the people in the country when only half like them or worse yet find them to be the worse of two evils and the other half hates them? Maybe they have to believe they can make things better. 

Diversity is a real hindrance in a country in many ways. It's hard to find a leader everyone can agree on. The interests are too at odds with each other. It leads to tribal like wars.

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

51 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I adopt Hizb ut-Tahrir's position of not participating in kufr system and not voting for taghut...I believe this is the true Shi'i stance as well...I've never voted...not even once

I agree with the sentiment. Voting feels like compromise. It doesn't make a country better, look what it has done to the west. 

[Eddie Mecca]

18 minutes ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

Diversity is a real hindrance in a country in many ways.

There's no real "diversity" in American politics...only illusion of choice...two political parties, 23 different flavors of bagels 

 

Edited April 17 by Eddie Mecca

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

9 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

There's no real "diversity" in American politics...only illusion of choice...two political parties, 23 different flavors of bagels 

 

I don't mean in politics they use the diversity in a country to male the populace to fight each other while our masters plunder the country.

[Ashvazdanghe]

19 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The only restriction that I know of, as far as leadership for women is that they cannot be Imam Jama3at (prayer leaders) and this issue has been discussed many, many times on SC and other places. Also, they cannot be marja3t taqleed, according to most marjaa'.

Salam for a bit correction a woman can be " Imam Jama3at (prayer leaders)"  only for women not men  according to most marjaa' while some of marjaa according to precautionary Wajib don't consider it  correct ;

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/ha167

Thanks to sister @Hameedeh

Quote

(bismillah)

(salam)

The following quote is from Chapter 6 of the book A New Perspective: Women in Islam

Fatma: An Alim is one of the highest levels of Islamic leadership and a Mujtahid is an Islamic research scholar. Could a Muslim woman ever become an Alim or Mujtahid, and could you support your response with any sources in the Qur’an or traditions of the Prophet?

Sayyid: “Seeking knowledge is incumbent upon every Muslim, male and female,” said the Prophet. Note how the Prophet solidifies the tradition by stating the genders individually. An Alim is someone who has reached a high level of Islamic study, and becoming an Alim is acquiring knowledge. Knowledge is limitless and never gender based

Ijtihad is the highest religious degree in Islamic study. When a person reaches the level of Ijtihad, then that person is referred to as a Mujtahid. A Mujtahid is one who is capable of deducing commandments and religious injunctions from their original sources such as the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet. Many Muslim women have reached the level of Ijtihad. There are many prominent Muslim women Mujtihads who are professors in Islamic seminaries, educating collegians on Islam, and authoring books on Islamic jurisprudence, as well.

A female Mujtihad is not something unprecedented. The daughter of the Prophet, Fatima, was one of the most knowledgeable people concerning Islam. She taught others about Islam. Notable companions of the Prophet used to consult Fatima on religious matters. Fatima’s daughter, Zaynab, also taught in the city of Kufa. Zaynab, like Fatima, was well-known as a distinguished religious scholar.

Source: http://www.al-islam.org/wii-persp-edt2/

 

while women can reach to lelvel of Ijtihad which even their male students can become marja3t taqleed by their permission ;  most famous example of  contemporary Mujtahid  woman   has been "Banoo Amin"(Lady Amin) which some of her students from men  have became "marja3t taqleed" which still now women are studying Fiqh with aim of becoming Mujtahid even teachers of "marja3t taqleed"  in Hawza of Qom .

conclusion 

Women can reach to level of Ijtihad in level  of  marja3t taqleed,  & Imam Jama3ats by some conditions although both position are not their natural responsibility & duty  but on the other hand both position are natural responsibility which at least a man most become marja3 taqleed,  & Imam Jama3at as natural obligatory duty & responsibility which the man can be student of the Mujtahid woman . 

 

Quote

Sayyida Nusrat Beygum Amin was one of the most outstanding female jurisprudents and theologians of the 20th century. After being given the permission of ijtihad by prominent scholars, thus entitled mujtahida,

 

Quote

she in turn granted permission of narrating hadith of ijtihad to future renowned female and male scholars.

For example, she gave permission of narrating hadiths to the grand Ayatollah Mar‘ashi Najafi. 

 

Quote

even grand scholar Ayatullah Mar‘ashi Najafi requested permission from her to transmit hadiths. In a part of the permission letter she wrote to Ayatullah Mar‘ashi,24 she said, “After doing istikhara,25 I authorized him to transmit from me what I am authorized to transmit from commentaries, supplications, hadiths, and Islamic rulings from Shi‘a works and non-Shi‘a reports in every way they have been transmitted.26

 

Her Achievement of the Level of Ijtihad

Her giftedness, endless efforts, strong determination, and infinite patience with obstacles bore positive outcomes after years of education and hard work. She was almost forty when Ayatullah ‘Abd al-Karim Ha’iri Yazdi20 and Ayatullah Muhammad Shirazi evaluated her; after her achievement,

they granted her the authority to practice ijtihad.21 

Ayatullah Estahbanati and Ayatullah Sheikh Muhammad Reza Abu al- Majd Najafi Isfahani also granted her permission to do so.22

The great academic and spiritual level of Lady Amin is clearly mentioned in the permission letter of Ayatullah Abu al-Majd Najafi to transmit hadiths:

Quote

I authorize this learned and noble Sayyida, the priceless hidden gem, one of the best children of Lady Zahra (a), the sagacious woman, the perfect gnostic and theologian, to transmit from me what I am authorized to quote from commentaries of the Qur’an, supplications, hadiths, and jurisprudence.23

Banu Amin and Imam Khomeini

Banu Amin was a supporter and believer of Imam Khomeini and the Islamic revolution of Iran. Accordingly, one of her students said:

Quote

In 1359 SC (1980 CE) when she could not leave her house, she kept up with the news of the revolution. When Imam Khomeini spoke on the interpretation of the surah of Fatihah on television, she was captivated by his speech and lessons and asked me to bring his books for her to study them, which I later did. The next day, after she had read the books, she told me, ‘The Imam’s knowledge of God is at a high level. If anyone wants to - God forbid - smear his reputation or insult him, tell that person on my behalf that a calamity awaits him. Beware! Do not ever – God forbid – insult him, since it is due to his great knowledge that he can do extraordinary things.’ A goldsmith knows the value of gold, and a lapidist knows the value of gems.51

Likewise, Imam Khomeini respected Banu Amin, as he would ask about her at times. One of the seminarians in Isfahan says accordingly, “Now and then I went to visit the Imam and he asked about Lady Amin’s health and work, and when I went to the Lady Banu’s house, she would send her regards to him, and would pray for his health and success in achieving Islamic aims.”52

https://al-islam.org/fr/node/43021

https://al-islam.org/new-perspective-women-islam-fatma-saleh-sayyid-moustafa-al-qazwini

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

5 hours ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

This is the hadith I was referencing I am not sure of its status amongst shia however so it might not be sahih to shias.

Sahih al-Bukhari 7099

Narrated Abu Bakra:

During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Salam as you have mentioned even according to some of sunni scholars it has weakness in document also it has been limited to specific condition & time about not following Ayesha in battle of Jamal against Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Sharh (Explanation of) Nahjul-Balagha [by Ibn Abi Al-Hadid ] - According to Abu Bakra: When Talha and Zubair entered Basra, I took my sword with the intention of helping them and went to Aisha and saw that she was ordering and forbidding, and the command was her command. At that time, I remembered a hadith that I had heard from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family , that: A people whose affairs are managed by a woman will never be successful. So I turned back and withdrew from them.

Ibn Abi Al-Hadid says: This news has also been narrated in this way: After me, a group will emerge led by a woman. This group will never be successful.

[شرح نهج البلاغة : 6/227.]

Sharh (Explanation of) Nahjul-Balagha:6/227

https://www.hadithlib.com/rolls/view/2700258/نهى-از-سپردن-زمام-حكومت-به-دست-زنان

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Sharh_nahj_al-balagha_(by_Ibn_Abi_l-Hadid)

which according to    Sunni scholars in historical records when Khosro Parwiz (Khusro II) the Sassanid king has rejected offer of prophet Muhammad (pbu) after his death by his son for a period of time an bloody internal wra for position of Shah (king) has been initiated between men  of Sassanid dynasty which no qualified man for kingship remained so therefore they had to choose a woman as their Shah so when news has arrived to prophet Muhammad (pbu) so then he said it ; which it means when there is no qualified male ruler so then a female ruler can't be a good ruler according to some of of Sunni scholars which in similar fashion they  considered this prohibition exclusively about non muslims communities ; while they have tried to hide original reason about prohibition of  following Ayesha in battle of Jamal against Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

https://www.islahweb.org/fa/post/بررسی_مفهوم_حدیث_نبوی_شریف_«لَنْ_يُفْلِحَ_قَوْمٌ_وَلَّوْا_أَمْرَهُمُ_امْرَأَةً»_-_پاره‌ی_نخست

 

Edited April 17 by Ashvazdanghe

[Azadeh307]

1 hour ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I don't mean in politics they use the diversity in a country to male the populace to fight each other while our masters plunder the country.

Identity politics reminds me of alpaca herd behavior. Did you know that if a farmer has just one alpaca... (this is a metaphor for the hyperindividualization that identity politics have created in USA) that in a short time that alpaca will die?

In order for the alpaca to live there have to be at least 3 alpacas, preferably more. This is because one alpaca always is awake at night watching for predators. If there is only one alpaca this alpaca will stay up all night and miss sleep. After some days of sleep deprivation the alpaca will die.

In a herd of 3 (or more) alpacas, the 3 alpacas take turns being on guard and sleeping in the night. 

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

4 minutes ago, Azadeh307 said:

Identity politics reminds me of alpaca herd behavior. Did you know that if a farmer has just one alpaca... (this is a metaphor for the hyperindividualization that identity politics have created in USA) that in a short time that alpaca will die?

In order for the alpaca to live there have to be at least 3 alpacas, preferably more. This is because one alpaca always is awake at night watching for predators. If there is only one alpaca this alpaca will stay up all night and miss sleep. After some days of sleep deprivation the alpaca will die.

In a herd of 3 (or more) alpacas, the 3 alpacas take turns being on guard and sleeping in the night. 

We have more than hyperindividualism. It's more like we have alpacas, lions, elephants,birds etc. People who have incompatible interests. The alpacas are not going to agree to eat meat as they would die and the lions will not agree to only eat grass as they will die. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Addendum

6 hours ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Shiite female rulers in Iranian history (Seydeh Khatun, Turkan Khatun, Jan baygum Khatun)

Abstract:

Quote

Muslim and Shiite women in Iranian history, inspired by their religious and cultural teachings, have always been influential in politics and government. The political role of these women is very prominent in women such as Seydeh Khatun, wife of Fakhr al-Dawlah Deylami, Turkan Khatun, wife of Malik Shah Seljuq, and Jan Beygum Khatun, wife of Jahan Shah Qaraquyunlu, to the extent that they can be called among the ruling and policy-making women in the history of the Islamic period of Iran.

Seydeh Khatun played a key role in the stability and administration of the Shiite Buyid dynasty.

Turkan Khatun, by joining the Shiites opposed to the Nizam al-Mulk regime, opened the way for Shiites to enter the Seljuk court.

And

Jan Beygum Khatun played a decisive role in political affairs during her husband's reign and even after his death.

In addition to their political influence, these powerful women also provided many cultural services.

https://ensani.ir/fa/article/148870/حاکمان-زن-شیعه-مذهب-در-تاریخ-ایران-سیده-خاتون-ترکان-خاتون-جانبیگم-خاتون-

Seyyedah Malik Khatun or Seyyedah Shirin (c. 340 AH–419 AH) was the first female Shiite ruler in Iran. From 387 AH to 419 AH, she ruled as the Buyid ruler over regions of Iran such as Rey, Hamadan, and Isfahan.  

Malik Khatun, who was an advisor to Fakhr al-Dawlah Daylami After his death, effectively took over the administration of the government and confronted internal rebellions and external threats. During her reign, she was able to maintain the security of the Shiites and kept [the city of] Rey safe from attacks by Mahmud of Ghaznavi.

According to historians, Malik Khatun was able to strengthen scientific communication between the Shiite centers of Iran and Iraq through her political measures.

During her time, there was a large library in[the city of] Rey that was used by scholars such as Ibn Sina.

 

Introduction
Sayyidah Malek Khatun or Sayyidah Shirin is considered the first female Shiite ruler in Iran.[1] She ruled over large areas of Iran for about thirty-two years (from 387 AH to 419 AH) such as Rey (a Shiite city), Hamadan and Isfahan (a Sunni city)[2] and was able to protect Rey from the Ghaznavids.[3]

According to historical research, Sayyidah Malek Khatun lived for eighty years[4] and died in Rey in 419 AH.[5]

According to the Rey Encyclopedia, she was not a Sadaat; however, her tomb in Rey is a place of pilgrimage for people.[6]

In historical books and biographies, she is also referred to by the nickname "Umm Rostam" or "Sayyidah Umm Majdal-e-Dawla Rostam".[7]

Quote

http://commons.wikishia.net/w/images/thumb/9/9b/%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%87_%D9%85%D9%84%DA%A9%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86.png/300px-%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%87_%D9%85%D9%84%DA%A9%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86.png

The tomb of Sayyidah Malek Khatun in Rey

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/سیده_ملک‌خاتون

Quote

until Safavid era.^[41] When Shah Tahmasp I, chose Tehran as the capital of his government in 944/1537-8, Ray became a part of Tehran.^[42] Since then Ray was known only for existence of 'Abd al-'Azim al-Hasani's shrine.^[43]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Ray

[Sunni] Women Rulers in Islamic States

Abstract:

Quote

The present article is a historical report on the rule of women in the Muslim countries of Iran, India, Egypt and Iraq, which came to power during the 7th to 12th centuries of the Islamic calendar. The rule of Muslim women in Iran after Islam is a clear example of the rule of power and management of women. After Islam, with the rise of the Turkish and Mongol dynasties, women gained the position of ruling the state due to the tolerant laws that existed in the field of women's rights. Raziye Khatun was the first female monarch of the Muslim Turkish [in delhi]state who ruled with authority.

Shajara'ldor [Ayyubi]- the second female Muslim monarch - came to power through election; but due to the lack of approval of the caliphate, she was forced to give up the monarchy after a while.

Turkan Khatun, Padshah Khatun, Abesh Khatun and... are other female Muslim rulers who took over the reins of affairs during periods. The present article is taken from the book "Women Rulers" written by Bahriye Üçok , a professor at Ankara University.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahriye_Üçok

https://ensani.ir/fa/article/2053/زنان-فرمانروا-در-دولتهای-اسلامی

Edited April 17 by Ashvazdanghe

[notme]

On 4/17/2025 at 1:08 AM, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I am very pro-king or emperor even beyond a religious context.

As a person who grew up in a culture that values self-determination, this seems very strange to me.  I can't argue against it, because it's completely outside of what I would consider feasible. 

I can somewhat understand and relate to hierarchy though I don't like it, but when your "-archy" gets too small, it seems really fragile and dangerous to me.  

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

2 hours ago, notme said:

As a person who grew up in a culture that values self-determination, this seems very strange to me.  I can't argue against it, because it's completely outside of what I would consider feasible. 

I can somewhat understand and relate to hierarchy though I don't like it, but when your "-archy" gets too small, it seems really fragile and dangerous to me.  

Democracies and Republics are fragile they last around 250yrs on average but hereditary monarchies can last a millennium or more just for one dynasty. I think hereditary monarchies are a more natural form of government. Non-hereditary monarchies tend to suffer from the "peter principle" after about 3 leaders and collapse.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Adendum for further study 

Muhammad Mahdi Shams al-Din

 

Muḥammad Mahdī Shams al-Dīn (Arabic:محمد مهدی شمس الدین) (b. 1936 – d. 2001) was a religious scholar, political theoretician and the chairman of the Supreme Islamic Shi'a Council in Lebanon. He began his scientific and political activities in Najaf under Al-Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim and Ayatullah al-Khoei. The cooperation with al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Muhammad Husayn Fadl Allah in founding al-Da'wa Party and the al-Adwa' magazine was among his most important political activities. In 1975, Shams al-Din accepted the deputyship of the Supreme Islamic Shi'a Council whose director was Imam Musa al-Sadr. After Imam Musa al-Sadr disappeared in 1978, Muhammad Mahdi Shams al-Din accepted the chairman position of this Council and in 1993, he was officially elected as the director of the Supreme Islamic Shi'a Council in Lebanon.

After the Islamic revolution was successful in Iran, although he supported it, he insisted on the independent identity of the Shi'a in Lebanon.

Establishment of Hezbollah and especially bloody fights between Amal movement and Hezbollah had a deep influence on his political thought and manner. Following those fights, he issued the theory of Wilaya of Umma upon themselves against the theory of Wilaya of Faqih. He had many works including Nizam al-hukm wa l-idara fi l-Islam and Ansar al-Husayn .

 

His Political Thought

  English translation of Thawrat al-Husayn fi l-wujdan al-sha'bi translated by Dr. I.K.A. Howard published by Muhammadi Trust of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1405/1985.

In 1954, Shams al-Din wrote the book Nizam al-hukm wa l-idara fi l-Islam to answer the secular movement and specifically to the book of 'Abd al-Razzaq (al-Islam wa usul al-hukm ) which was published twenty years before. He has mentioned his goal of writing the book as proving the existence of a model and system of government in Islam and rejection of separation between Islam and state.

After the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran, regardless of supporting the revolution and its leadership, Shams al-Din insisted on the identity independence of the Shi'a of Lebanon and regarding the tribal and religious variety in Lebanon, prohibited political Shi'a forces from imitating and repeating the experience of the Islamic republic in Lebanon.

Establishment of Hezbollah in 1982 which led to division of some Iran-oriented Islamist members of Amal movement and especially bloody fights between the two groups in 1988 and 1989 had great influences on the thought and political manner of Shams al-Din.

Shams al-Din was deeply devoted to Amal movement which was somehow a non-ideological, moderate and nationalist organization; so, he was not happy with Iran's support of Hezbollah which sought a political-revolutionary transnational project and also the separation of Amal movement.

Following the fights between Hezbollah and Amal, Shams al-Din proposed the theory of Wilaya of Umma upon themselves against the theory of Wilaya of Fqih.

After proposing his theory, he changed his mind regarding his negative position he had proposed about the democracy he mentioned in his book Nizam al-hukm wa l-idara fi l-Islam and in the preface of the new edition of the book in 1990, he declared that in the first edition, he believed in the opposition of democracy with Islam but now he believes that during the Occultation of the Infallible Imam (a), democracy is the criterion of validity of the political system and exertion of people's will is based on the existence of democratic mechanisms.

In his different travels to Arab countries in late 1990s, Shams al-Din called Arab Shi'a to mix with their Arab societies and moreover, made efforts to bring peace between Arab political governments and their opposition Islamist movements.

Quote

He supported the fatwa of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in prohibition of Qame-zani.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_Mahdi_Shams_al-Din

His works 

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/فهرست_آثار_محمدمهدی_شمس‌الدین#:~:text=اولین کتاب از سلسله کتاب‌های مسائل حرجة فی,الحرب عند الإمام علی، دراسة فی نهج البلاغه.

[notme]

11 hours ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I think hereditary monarchies are a more natural form of government.

Why? Because the next ruler is trained from a young age? How do you avoid tyranny and corruption of morals of the powerful individuals? 

I am unfamiliar with the Peter principle, and am looking it up now.  

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

6 hours ago, notme said:

Why? Because the next ruler is trained from a young age? How do you avoid tyranny and corruption of morals of the powerful individuals? 

I am unfamiliar with the Peter principle, and am looking it up now.  

I don't see a democracy less suseptible to corruption nor tyranny than a monarchy. However a democracy is hard to reform once it is corrupt or tyrannical. The rights and protection in democracies are largely an illusion.

[notme]

5 hours ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I don't see a democracy less suseptible to corruption nor tyranny than a monarchy. However a democracy is hard to reform once it is corrupt or tyrannical. The rights and protection in democracies are largely an illusion.

I agree with you that it is more difficult to reform democracy when it does become corrupted - and it always will move toward oligarchy without constant vigilance by the people.  There are more corrupt individuals who must be removed or reformed in a democratic system. However, you did not answer my question about how you avoid tyranny and degradation of the morals of individuals in power under monarchy. 

Do you propose that the people simply violently overthrow any king or ruler who is intolerable? If not, then I would think it would be just as difficult if not more difficult to reform a monarchy than a democracy.

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

1 hour ago, notme said:

I agree with you that it is more difficult to reform democracy when it does become corrupted - and it always will move toward oligarchy without constant vigilance by the people.  There are more corrupt individuals who must be removed or reformed in a democratic system. However, you did not answer my question about how you avoid tyranny and degradation of the morals of individuals in power under monarchy. 

Do you propose that the people simply violently overthrow any king or ruler who is intolerable? If not, then I would think it would be just as difficult if not more difficult to reform a monarchy than a democracy.

I do not think you over throw a king except for apostasy. Revolutions rarely end better than what they overthrow. You wait for the next king. You can't avoid tyranny in either democracy or monarchy or any other government. Democracy just can never truly be reformed and is a slow descent without the ability to change.

[notme]

1 hour ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

I do not think you over throw a king except for apostasy. Revolutions rarely end better than what they overthrow. You wait for the next king.

I agree with you that democracy, like all governments, degrades over time. However, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You have no proposal for avoiding moral degradation in powerful individuals, and you do not propose overthrow. To me (and I recognize, not to you) that seems like failure as a society is inevitable under the circumstances you describe. Power always corrupts fallible human beings. Children who grow up under corrupt parents are almost always also corrupt - and then the ones destined to rule get the corrupting influence of power on top of their corrupt upbringing. And that proceeds downward through the generations. 

1 hour ago, TheWayofTheSalaaf said:

You can't avoid tyranny in either democracy or monarchy or any other government.

True.

Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.

In any event, this has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing your views.

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

5 hours ago, notme said:

I agree with you that democracy, like all governments, degrades over time. However, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You have no proposal for avoiding moral degradation in powerful individuals, and you do not propose overthrow. To me (and I recognize, not to you) that seems like failure as a society is inevitable under the circumstances you describe. Power always corrupts fallible human beings. Children who grow up under corrupt parents are almost always also corrupt - and then the ones destined to rule get the corrupting influence of power on top of their corrupt upbringing. And that proceeds downward through the generations. 

True.

Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.

In any event, this has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing your views.

I am familiar with Thomas Paine and his writings. I am not impressed with him and find him to be a devil worshipper and a degenerate. I think the freemason founding fathers were ungrateful traitors to their king. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I do think that you need to have an equal standard when it comes to judging systems. You simply can not reject monarchy because it can deteriate to tyranny but accept democracy when it can deteriate to a tyranny of the same. I know of no government that can be prevented from falling into tyranny. What makes monarchy can do is it has the possibility of being redeemed once a new monarch has come to power. This is why monarchies can last a thousand years and democracies last only 250 yrs on average. Democracies only last that long because when tyranny does arise the only cure is revolution because of how thoroughly despotic and corrupt it has become and how it has riddled the political body.you simply can not stop the political class and bureaucratic state with a new president or prime minister. A monarch on the other hand can change everything with a simple command. There are no perfect systems that involve men and to think that a paper such as a constitution can account for men's hearts and apathy is idealistically naive. We can not stop men from becoming apathetic but we can have a form of government that may give them a chance to redeem themselves once they have suffered enough because of their apathy. There is no perfect government just a better governments than others. Atleast this is how I see it.