Is political consulting job to a candidate or a political party halal or haram?

I just read [this question](https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/14801/what-kind-of-government-is-suggested-by-islam-democracy-or-kingdom-or) which asks "What kind of government is suggested by Islam? Democracy or Kingdom or …?" However, I thought it seems a little too broad or opinion-based at such level, because it already assumes (or have to assume) that Islam as a religion is inclusive of a theory of government. However the assumption I believe can be supported as a valid idea. First, because Islam is considered by Muslims to be the source of ultimate guidance on every aspect of life. This indeed can be understood from various Quranic verses, the most explicit being the verse which [asserts](http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.itani/41:53) : "We sent down you a book that is an explanation for everything." On the other hand, we also know that Prophet Muhammad himself established a government in Medina which he ruled and governed according to teachings of Islam with collaboration of his companions and followers. In fact, some historians of political theory argue that the formal agreement the Holy Prophet signed with tribes of Medina (known as دستور المدینة or Charter of Medina), can be regarded as the first formal Constitution in history. (See the wiki-page, [Constitution of Medina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina)) . Therefore, there does seem to be an actual doctrinal and historical basis for a government/political theory in Islam. So the question is: what are the other doctrinal or historical evidences that can be used for elaborating a theory of government according to the teachings of Islam. And what are the existing theories of Islamic government, if any, as formulated by Islamic scholars? **Post-script:** Please note that this question is not asking for opinions but 1) Quranic and narrated statements related to politics of Islam which may help us in postulating an Islamic political theory, and 2) existing theories on Islamic government.

What is the ruling regarding a Muslim man running for the Head of State in the elections in an Islamic country which has unfortunately adopted the system of democracy? If his intentions are to move away from democracy as much as possible and move closer to the Shari’ah, though it would be nearly impossible to significantly change the system, can he run?

In mainstream Islam, Quran desecration such as burning the Quran, is widely regarded as highly disrespectful and offensive, irrespective of the person's beliefs. This perspective suggests that such acts should not be permitted in any state. However, this view seems to conflict with the principle of freedom of speech, as exemplified by the 2023 Quran desecration in Sweden . **My question is whether there exists an established, possibly liberal, interpretation of Islam, particularly within fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence, that allows for the burning of the Quran by non-Muslims (e.g., atheists) within a state that protects freedom of speech. If such an interpretation exists, what reasoning does it provide to support this stance?** I guess the answer may depend on whether the state is Islamic. I am aware that in Sweden, during July 2023, nearly all heads of established mosques called for a total ban on Quran desecration . Nonetheless, I am interested in exploring whether Islamic legal thought encompasses varying viewpoints on this matter and how they reconcile it with the principle of freedom of speech. EDIT: I appreciate it if downvoters can motivate their downvoting.

Check the following verses: - [Surah Al Maidah:51](https://quran.com/al-maidah/51) > O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians—they are guardians of each other.1 Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. - [Surah Al Bakarah:120](https://quran.com/en/al-baqarah/120) > Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you until you follow their faith. Say, “Allah’s guidance is the only true guidance.” And if you were to follow their desires after all the knowledge that has come to you, there would be none to protect or help you against Allah. The current world is not dominated by Islam. It is dominated by the Western, so-called "Rules-based International Order," with the USA at its forefront. Back then, the world was not this connected and ruled by a single power like the USA through 800 military bases. There was no NATO, UNO, or EU. Apart from military factors, there are also economic factors. The Western alliance controls the world economy. The West has the largest economy, and they control the world economy through the USD or EURO. Science and technology are also controlled by them. As a result, life-saving drugs come from the West. They are also in control of food grains, as revealed by the ongoing Ukraine war. Muslim-majority countries are walking on a thin rope. If the Muslim-majority countries follow these verses exactly as they are, they will not survive. They will either be sanctioned, invaded, or die of hunger or disease. The Qur'an is supposed to be a universal message applicable to the world until it exists. So, how are these verses relevant according to today's reality? ____ What is wrong with this community? What kind of person would DV this well-structured and well-researched question?

As we know that Islam is a complete quote of life. I heard that there is no concept of democracy in Islam. Is it true?

I was talking with my friend last time about poverty in the world and he said: "Allah gives what he wants to who he wants, we should just accept that". But if someone exploits another via employment shouldn't we say that it shouldn't be accepted according to Islam? Also shouldn't we all live equally if the laws of Islam are applied?

First, let me point out the motivation for this question: the story of Abd-Allah ibn Jahsh attacking the Quraysh caravan in the Rajab month despite Rajab being a sacred month. "At first Muhammad [pbuh] disapproved Abd-Allah's actions, saying, "I did not instruct you to fight in the sacred month." But later he announced a new revelation: 'They ask you concerning fighting in the sacred months. Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-Al-Ḥarâm, and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.'"(from wiki) Now many cite this incident as evidence of anti-Islam being the greatest zulm than anything else. For example, in a political situation (in a Muslim majority but non-sharia democratic country), where the ruling party is by all standards a zalem and got in power in an illegitimate way. But the opposition is clearly anti-Islamic and if they go to power, they killing, abduction, corruption etc might be reduced but they will establish anti-Islamic values and laws such as LGBT rights, abolition of blasphemy law etc. And by Allah, this is not a hypothetical situation. This is the situation we are struggling with in real life. For the Muslims, it is a tough choice and we are divided. Some of us prefer the Zalem but Muslim ruler and some of us prefer the Just but the atheist ruler. The first group argues that it is better to be under the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf than to be under the rule of Christian, but the latter group argues that we should prefer for the betterment of humanity and since the Muslim ruler here in this case causes more harm, we should oppose him according to the Islam.

Many Muslim clerics wants to get rid Ahok, a christian governor of Jakarta. They quoted Al Maidah 51. They said that Muslims must pick non Muslim leaders. That means, they said, Muslims in Jakarta should not vote Ahok. However, Ahok is a fine governor. Most of our governor were corrupt. Things went better since he became governor. People expect Ahok to win easily on election. However, his anti corruption stance means many officials with links to the clerics lost a lot of money. Is this true? Muslims cannot vote for a non Muslim governor? Thousands were marching when a governor said they are being lied to by some people by using that quranic verse http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/world/asia/jakarta-protest-blasphemy-ahok-indonesia.html?_r=0

I have seen this question on the Judaism.StackExchange: What is the appropriate response of someone outside Israel during a war? Jewish people living outside Israel feel responsibility to help the cruel regime that fired the war unfairly and very far from basics of humanity. Muslims can also ask the same question, to be at least a Muslim, as prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: > مَن اَصبَحَ وَ لَم یَهتَمَ بامُورالمُسلِمین فَلَیسَ بمُسلِم > > The one who does not care the Muslims affairs is not a Muslim So I want to make the same question: What is the appropriate response of someone outside a Muslim country during a war? Please verify both cases of Muslims being attacked by non-Muslims (like the case of Palastine or Myanmar) or a war between two Muslim countries.

OKay.. here in Pakistan surveys are not much , its some questions and answers but IF I use Vpn to do those surveys honestly but .. wait surveys require honestly and attention so it will be okay If I access those surveys by using VPN to earn money or it will be haram thanks you ... and sometimes its against their policies but sometimes are okay .. maybe

The grand muftis of both Lebanon and Uganda supported the 2015 Islamic Declaration on Climate Change, saying: >We particularly call on the well-off nations and oil producing states to lead the way in phasing out greenhouse gas emissions as early as possible and no later than the middle of the century. Whereas the Declaration itself contained a strongly worded warning: >Our species, though selected to be steward (*khalifah*) of the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation on it that we are in danger of ending life as we know it on earth. This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained. And the earths fine equilibrium (*mizan*) may soon be lost. However, Morocco was the only Middle Eastern country to present an emissions cutting climate pledge ahead of the summit, with the then environment minister, Hakima el-Haote saying: >It is an emotive call for a spiritual fight against climate change that will be very important for Muslims ... It speaks to issues of accountability, fairness, differentiation and adapaptability on the Paris Agreement. I think the right way to make this call is through the Qu'ran. Whilst, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister said: >In Saudia Arabia we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we are not going to need fossil fuels. I don't know when, maybe in 2040, 2050 or thereafter ... [and got this reason plan to become] a global power in solar and wind energy ... Solar could be more economic than oil And that they planned to export electricity rather than oil. Notably, in the main conference organised by the Islamic Declaration only a single religious scholar from Saudia Arabia attended, whilst none of the invited Shia religious leaders did so, **Q. Given how much of the economy is dependent on oil, this might only have been expected of Saudia Arabia. Though of course one might equally and more justifiably argue exactly the opposite should hold. However, what underlines the complete lack of representation by the Shia clerics on this urgent global issue which affects the Islamic world just as much as the world elsewhere?** **And has this changed since 2015?**

Perhaps at some time in the future, Israel, the Palestinian National Authority, and the Arab League will make a treaty to divide the land of Palestine/Israel into a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. Let's assume this also gives Palestine sovereignty on top of the Haram esh-Sharif hill. Is there any religious prohibition on such a treaty?

- **Are elections, to choose your leader, allowed in Islam?** I have been reading some contradictory opinions on this, on the one hand we have the so called fundamentalists who label it as un-islamic and state that only caliph can rule muslims who is chosen by a group of clerics. On the other hand we have others who say that there is no clear rule of succession in Islam and all previous "Islamic" governments have been infact monarchies and that the act of Election is in effect like giving Bayath to the ruler. - **Is democracy such that the constitution makes it clear that no law can be passed against Islam still shirk?** I read the answers given here https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2927/whats-the-limit-of-democracy-in-islam And understood that Democracy in it's most pure form is actually un-islamic. But what is the verdict regarding many "Islamic" countries which argue that since the consitution is based on Islam, the law creating bodies can never pass any law against Islam and is therefore a kind of Islamic democracy.

Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan ruled Islamic Caliphate from 661 till 680. Did he come to the power in a legitimate way (according to Quran and hadith)? I am only interested in the views of Sunni Muslim scholars. Please support your answer using accepted references (and explicitly state the school they belong to if they are not generally accepted by Sunni scholars).

Is it allowed for a political party to steal a secret information from its opponents? The purpose is to win the election and establish more islamic laws in the legislation

>**ISLAM FORBIDS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF WEALTH: PAS** > >The tabling of motion [to compel members of parliament to declare their assets] met with objections from opposition MPs. > >PAS deputy president and Kubang Kerian MP Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man told reporters at the parliament lobby that Islam does not allow people to publicly disclose their wealth due to security concerns. > >“In Islam, there is a hadith that says if god has given you wealth, do not declare it to the public as there are many observers,” he was quoted as saying by Malay Mail. > >Hadith refers to the records of the words of Prophet Muhammad. Source I'm wondering if Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man is correct.

I have some question based on the following hadith from Sahih Muslim : > One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no > argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of > Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of > allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the > days of Jahillyya. Based on this: 1. Is it obligatory for every muslim to follow an Imam ? 2. How to know who to consider as imam ? 3. Does the four mujtahid (Imam Abu Hanifa RA, Imam Malik RA, Imam Shafii RA and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) says anything about the above questions ?

There is a hadith or is it Quranic ayat which says 'don't select those as ruler who have intentions to be rulers'? Please give reference.

Can anyone tell me about the origins of Shia and Sunni division? Why were two different groups of Muslims created? Allah didn't send us to live divided. No verse of Quran or Hadith suggest that as far as I know. Both of the groups are driven by great scholars. They know Quran and Hadith very well still they are leading to something that Allah does not like? Is there any political involvement?