Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Election Is Banned in Islam: Saudi Scholar
Emirates 24/7 ^ | Thursday, January 17, 2013

Posted on 01/18/2013 10:34:11 PM PST by nickcarraway

A well-known Saudi Islamic scholar has issued a new fatwa (edict) saying holding elections for a president or another form of leadership is prohibited in Islam.

Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak, reputed for his radical views, described western-style elections as an alien phenomenon to Islamic countries.

“Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems,” he wrote on his Twitter page, according to Saudi newspapers.

“Selecting an Imam (leader) must be up to the decision-making people not the public…election is a corrupt system which is not based on any legal or logical concept for those who enforce this system by some Moslems…this system has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: deathtoislam; religionofpieces; saudiarabia; waronterror

1 posted on 01/18/2013 10:34:40 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Up your fatwa.


2 posted on 01/18/2013 10:43:32 PM PST by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Now this is a big surprise . . . NOT. Islam is a tyrannical death cult.
3 posted on 01/18/2013 10:43:44 PM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

ahhh the good old ROP at work again


4 posted on 01/18/2013 10:50:16 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Until the West deals in a definitive manner with the radical Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia, the worldwide fundamentalist wave and the associated terrorism will continue. The radical Wahhabi sect which finances and motivates radical Islamists operates freely and openly in Saudi Arabia because the decadent royal family is terrified of them. The Wahhabi tolerate them as long as they get oil money and are free to operate.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 10:53:04 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

He posted this on the Western invention ‘Twitter” without any shame whatsoever.


6 posted on 01/18/2013 10:57:34 PM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

He’s right.

Nobody who’s paycheck comes from the government should have a vote.

Nobody on welfare or other gov subsidized income should have a vote.

People should not be able to vote themselves $$


7 posted on 01/18/2013 11:57:26 PM PST by onona (KCCO, and mind the gap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale

The royal family (now the royal faction) in Saudi ARE the Wahabi.


8 posted on 01/19/2013 12:19:27 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allendale

I’ve read that Saudi Arabia may be running low on easily accessible oil, so the end of the Saudi Royals may be sooner than later.


9 posted on 01/19/2013 12:20:53 AM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onona; nickcarraway
The Founder of Saudi, and several subsequent kings, have made manful attempts to turn all the people in the country into relatively close RELATIVES.

The theory is that the more closely related they are the more likely they are to come to agreements of benefit to everybody.

In the meantime the wealth is controlled by a smaller group at the center of power, but it gets distributed well enough to keep down radicals.

It has never occurred to them that the King could simply declare EVERY individual in Saudi to be a member of the nobility, and get the same effect.

10 posted on 01/19/2013 12:23:57 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onona; nickcarraway
Nobody who’s paycheck comes from the government should have a vote.

Nobody on welfare or other gov subsidized income should have a vote.

It is interesting that federal government is now the single largest employer in the country.

Add to that the state and local employees of government and you have a huge voting block.

Add to that recipients of government largess and the productive class of the population are at a huge disadvantage.

When you look at it in hindsight the people of the early 19th century had the right idea when the right to vote was limited to those that owned real estate. The logic behind this was that at the time taxes were only levied on real property. Therefore if you did not pay taxes you could not vote.

Only those that paid taxes could vote for those that could impose taxes. What could be fairer than that?

11 posted on 01/19/2013 12:28:16 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The scumbag is correct in his interpretation of Islam. It is antiethical to a free society.
12 posted on 01/19/2013 12:50:36 AM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Everyone knows that islam sees democracy, including elections, as a sin.

Of course, the radical “progressives” have the same idea.


13 posted on 01/19/2013 1:30:58 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

But look at the swell president we freely elected...


14 posted on 01/19/2013 3:33:45 AM PST by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I guess Islam is smart enough to not trust low information voters.


15 posted on 01/19/2013 4:28:06 AM PST by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onona
Nobody who’s paycheck comes from the government should have a vote.

Nobody on welfare or other gov subsidized income should have a vote.

So, members of the military and retirees shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hm.

16 posted on 01/19/2013 5:05:12 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allendale
the radical Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia

The only good muslim, is a dead muslim. There si no negotiating with them, there is not any rational thinking amongst anyone who is a follower of islam. The west must simply decide that islam will cease to exist. Destroy Mecca, Medina, Qom and every other place that is islamic. Completely discredit Maohammad as the rapist pederast pedophile megalomaniac that he was. Islam must be destroyed or it will destroy us all.

17 posted on 01/19/2013 5:41:54 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Obama has turned America into an aristocracy of the unaccomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks nickcarraway.
Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak, reputed for his radical views... “Selecting an Imam (leader) must be up to the decision-making people not the public... this system has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”
And where do the decision-making people come from? What a complete a**hole that Sheikh is.


18 posted on 01/19/2013 6:33:28 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Islam is simply fascism masquerading as a religion. The evidence is clear. This a$$hole should be targeted and eliminated like a virus.


19 posted on 01/19/2013 6:57:11 AM PST by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

20 posted on 01/19/2013 8:24:29 AM PST by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bubman

I wholeheartedly agree.


21 posted on 01/19/2013 9:58:48 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
About 1807 land in the United States went from being something of marginal value to being absolutely worthless.

It was all the gub'mnt could do to get people to buy any of it. Eventually, by the time Lincoln was President, they started giving it away!

Obviously linking voting to land ownership in the early 19th century was ridiculous and a concept readily abandoned.

I'd suggest you re-read some of the speeches where property is mentioned because THEY DON'T MEAN LAND ~ they mean SLAVES!

22 posted on 01/19/2013 10:01:43 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: piytar

The Islamic theory of leadership is clearly derived from the Roman Empire’s theory of leadership ~ tribalism is far more democratic, so that’s not the source.


23 posted on 01/19/2013 10:04:03 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I'd suggest you re-read some of the speeches where property is mentioned because THEY DON'T MEAN LAND ~ they mean SLAVES!

The property requirement was pretty broad, and included livestock (which slaves essentially were under the law at the time). Benjamin Franklin opposed the property requirement, and made the famous observation:

Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election, the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers-but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or the jackass?

No state other than the original thirteen ever had a property requirement because, as you point out, all those states were on the frontier and property ownership was laughably easy to come by. The only effect of property requirements on the frontier would be to punish shop owners and town doctors and pastors and anyone else who might rent space in growing towns -- essentially discouraging any form of commerce other than farming.

24 posted on 01/19/2013 6:29:34 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Obviously linking voting to land ownership in the early 19th century was ridiculous and a concept readily abandoned.

I am talking in regards to voting in the states you are talking about territories.

Yes land in the territories was cheap because improving the land to the point that it could be farmed was a long and laborious process that killed many of the men that tried.

Land in the 13 original states was not cheap and no one was giving it away. Also remember that who could vote and even who could own land was in the hands of the states.

25 posted on 01/19/2013 6:58:13 PM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Virginia was the most populated state at the time of the Revolution. Today it's territory includes much of Minnesota, all of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia AND, lo and behold, hunks of New York and Pennsylvania.

Conditions in Virginia or places once part of Virginia are controlling in this argument until well into the 1840s.

Charles Lee and others could tell you all about what happened to land prices ~ he went bankrupt selling land to pioneers for less than he paid for it

Clark and others made a few bucks because they assembled Revolutionary War land patents from veterans or their relatives ~ plus, he had his own land grants.

New England was a minor portion of the country important more for the number of Senators they picked up than the value of their farm land at that time.

Earlier in the immediate post Revolutionary War period a number of my ancestors actually relocated from what is now Central New York to Vermont ~ they imagined that area could be reduced to agricultural and forestry products ~ instead sheep farmers moved in and drove them out with the stench.

From there they moved to the Ohio Valley ~ one of them became a land agent and sold most of the land in what is now the state of Indiana. I've read through his journals.

Once the Louisiana Territory was subjected to prelimary surveying, the price of land throughout the now Midwest crashed ~

America became a nation of landowners ~ all you had to do was move West. New states were forming right and left in the North and the South, and just as rapidly the franchise was expanded.

The ownership of slaves was no longer the sole criteria for voting.

26 posted on 01/19/2013 7:20:45 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson