Participation in Democratic Elections

[Abuz Zubair]

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum

Participation in democratic elections in this country and elsewhere has been a subject of much controversy amongst some circles.

While we have the general Muslim community in this country believing in the permissibility of such participation, we still find a few groups of practising young men totally and utterly reject such participation, and consider it to be Haram – in fact Shirk and Kufr.

When we encouraged the Muslims to vote last European elections, we received some emails from those genuinely concerned, questioning our stance, while others simply charged us with Kufr and Shirk.

I had intended to discuss this topic a while back with the brothers on the opposition on this forum, but never actually got around to initiate it. Until we received a message from a brother/sister informing us that our stance on participation in general elections has turned away many 'Salafi/Jihadi' youth from us, and that they would like us to engage in a discussion concerning the permissibility of such participation in elections.

Hence, I initiate this thread for a positive and fruitful discussion on this issue, provided that we keep our calm, speak only from knowledge and not conjecture, and avoid copying and pasting articles (flooding).

So, can one of the most knowledgeable brothers who hold such participation to be Haram, briefly list their reasons? (bullet point form preferred)

wasalam

[Abuz Zubair]

I came across a document called "The Doubts" - in reply to those who encouraged Muslims to vote last European elections, and I replied back to the brother with my criticism of what he had composed and strongly advised him not to let the document out, before properly thinking it through and getting it checked with someone qualified in Shara'i sciences.

However, it seems that the document managed to get out in the public scene, due to which I also feel obliged to make my criticisms to that public.

was-salamu 'alaikum

==================================

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum dear brother Abu *******,

The following are just a few comments on the article you sent in:

1) Democracy is a very loose term, like freedom, slavery, terrorism, etc, which we cannot accept nor reject, before finding out what one means by that. For example: there are more than a dozen of definitions for Democracy, like:

a. 'the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives'

b. 'Form of government in which the people rule, either by directly voting on issues (direct democracy), or indirectly through electing representative to decide issues (representative democracy).'

c. 'the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group'

d. 'a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them'. And this is what essentially the Islamic ruling system is about. Since there is no divine text regarding the method of electing an Imam. The early Islamic history gives us three examples of electing an Imam: 1) The Imam appointing a ruler to replace him, or 2) the Imam appointing a committee to appoint an Imam from amongst them, or 3) Ahlul-Hal wal-'Aqd, who are essentially the representatives of their communities, and lastly 4) For a person to seize power militarily. However, there is no specific text which restricts the election of Imam to these methods as generally described by classical scholars. Rather, since there is no text in this issue, the matter is open to Ijtihad, and the Mujtahid should come up with the best viable solution for the Ummah to select one Imam. From such viable solutions is to have general elections where the Ummah decides who should be their leader, or elections restricted to Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd to decide, who to be the Imam. This concept agrees with the last definition of democracy I mentioned, while there are hundreds of other definitions that need not mentioning.

However, the important point to notice here is that all the terms above are regarding the government and governance, and not the right of legislation, because the governor is not always the 'legislator besides Allah'. For example, if a Muslim is elected as a governor by Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd, he does become a governor, but it does not mean he is also an independent legislator. The same is also applied to a Kafir governor, as he enforces the law of his religion, ideology etc, and not his own (except in a few cases), but nevertheless, for us he is 'legislating besides Allah'. But what is important is that we understand the difference between being a governor and a 'legislator besides Allah'.

Based on this, Islam has no problem with democracy, as long as it is merely an administrative system, through which we can elect an Imam, who is best suited for the position of Imamate (which includes ruling by the Shar' along with the rest of the conditions mentioned by the Fuqaha). However, as for those who define democracy as a tool to grant man the right of legislation, then this is something Islam completely rejects, as this is Shirk with Allah without doubt.

This is why it is incorrect to label Democracy as Shirk at its face value without realising the intending meaning behind the phrase. In fact, the issue is very much like the Ash'aris throwing at us ambiguous terms like Hadd, and asking whether Allah has Hadd or not. Our answer is that we do not reject it, nor do we affirm it, unless they tell us what they mean. If they mean by Hadd, that Allah does not dwell in His creation, then we believe Allah has a Hadd which separates Him from His creation, and in this context Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak affirmed Hadd for Allah. However, if they mean by Hadd, that Allah's hearing, seeing and Qudrah is Mahdud, then obviously we reject the word along with its meaning.

This is a very important point to understand, because it seems your entire article is based on this understanding.

2) On page 5 you say: "And if we conclude that these Members of Parliament commit Shirk and Kufr by legislating laws besides Allâh, then what would be said about the people who elect them for this job, knowing that this candidate will be engaging in the formation of man-made laws on behalf of the people who elect him". Your statement is not applicable to an MP who strives to legislate the laws of Allah in the parliament, for he is not committing Shirk. Example of that is found in Kuwait and other Arab countries, where Islamists join the parliament, to outvote those who want to legalise gambling, alcohol and other prohibitions. Can anyone with sane mind say that such Muslim MPs are engaged in the formation of man-made laws? Parliament is just a decision making committee and yes they do issue laws, sometimes in agreement with the Shar', and sometimes in contradiction to it. Most of the laws passed are the so-called administrative laws, which are of benefit to the society in general. Allah has given the right of deriving administrative laws to the Mujtahidin, and all of that comes under Masalih Murasalah in Usul.

Secondly, those who may vote for a Kafir MP, do not do so believing that he has the right of legislation besides Allah, or even giving him that right. Rather, they see him as the most suitable Kafir who best represents their local and global interests, and acknowledges their rights, and on this basis, the Muslim voters try their utmost to bring him into power instead of a Kafir who does not acknowledge their rights. An example of that is found in Sirah of Ibn Hisham, that when the throne of Negus was threatened by another competitor, the Muslims became really worried, and began to make Du'a to Allah to help and aid Negus over his enemy, for Negus respects their rights, while his competitor does not. By your argument, those companions committed Shirk with Allah by seeking to put a Kafir in authority, by making Dua to Allah to give him Tamkin, and they further rejoiced when Allah did put this Kafir in authority, and obviously this Kafir is not going to rule with the Shariah of Muslim minority. Therefore, what is the difference in aiding a Kafir over another Kafir by making dua to Allah, or by voting? By Du'a, you are asking Allah to put him in power, and by voting, you are using your votes to put him in power.

3) On page 6 you claim that mere participation in the parliament is Kufr because to sit in a company of those who legislate besides Allah, and therefore indirectly or directly, mocking Allah's legislation, is apparently being pleased with Kufr, and therefore, the participation itself is Kufr. However, the quote you brought from Sh Sulaiman is in fact a refutation of your claim, as he clearly states: ' and does not prevent them', and this is exactly what a Muslim MP's role is in the parliament to block anti-Islamic legislations and to promote Islamic legislation.

4) On page 7 you state: ' Those who permit the participation in democratic elections are at different levels in misguidance'. As it appears from this, you do not even regard our issue at hand to be an Ijtihadi issue, that you attribute all those who differ with you (and that is the bulk of the Ummah bar a few followers of only a handful of scholars who have decided to adhere to the opinion of prohibition). I suggest that you revisit this statement, or the nature of difference that exist, for surely the truth cannot be restricted within just the three contemporary scholars, upon whose writing you have based your entire article.

5) On page 8 and 9 you argue that the Pharaoh had accepted Islam, and to substantiate that you merely bring a quote from Mujahid, which is not Daleel in and of itself. You also bring what's been attributed to Ibn 'Abbas that the Pharaoh said: “I give you the authority, so do whatever you will. And we are merely your followers and I am not one to refuse being your subject and obeying you and I am no more than one of your subjects". If you read what is before it and what is after it, you will realise that this statement is actually against you and not for you. This is because, the Pharaoh made this statement, after he actually saw how Yusuf saved them from starvation, and this is several years after Yusuf was given authority. Therefore, Yusuf was given authority, by the King to work under him, while the King himself was a Kafir. And this is if the narration is correctly attributed to ibn Abbas, and if ibn 'Abbas is not mistaken. Please also refer to Qurtubi for his Fiqhi arguments about when it is allowed/prohibited to take up positions of authority under oppressive and kufr regimes, for he uses the very same Quranic verse to prefer the opinion that it is permissible for take up government positions under Kuffar with conditions attached.

You then claim that since there is Ihtimal that he was a Muslim, we cannot use it as evidence. If people were to apply this principle, the way you are applying it here, then 90% of the law will become defunct, as nearly everyone will find Ihtimal with regards to any evidence!

Moreover, divine texts actually oppose the ihtimal you bring forward about Islam of Pharaoh, for it is clear from Surah Ghafir 34 and Yusuf 56 that the Pharaoh and his people were Kuffar, and this is the Asl, which cannot be removed with your ihtimalat without any mustanad sharai! This is also the explicitly stated opinion of Sheikh al-Islam ibn Taymiya (see Majmu 20/56). Even if we were to believe in your ihtimal, then the Islam was Pharaoh was after Yusuf was given authority, according to the quote of Ibn Abbas you brought from al-Qurtubi.

For more on the Fiqh of this issue, please refer to al-Izz ibn 'Abdis-Salaam's Qawaid al-Ahkam where he says that if Kuffar take over a Muslim land, that Muslims should take up the positions of Qadha to gain general Masalih because: "It is far from the mercy of Shari' and His considerations for the Masalih of His servants, to invalidate the general Masalih…". In accordance with this, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah also gave his verdict saying that it is permissible to take the positions of authority, in order to prevent someone worse from taking over those positions. He further backs his argument using the same story of Yusuf, saying that although Yusuf wasn't able to do all that he wanted to do while in authority (so that refutes your claim), rather all that was possible for him to do was to be just and fair to the public, due to which he utilised the King's position in his favour, which he wouldn’t have been able to achieve without volunteering for the position of authority, and as Allah says: "Fear Allah as much to your utmost" (see Majmu 20/56)

6) Rest of the 'misconception' you try to tackle are all based on your own misconception and that is that merely voting is an act of Shirk. My question to you is, which of the mainstream scholars have ever classified this act of voting, to be Shirk? al-Lajnah al-Daimah, have a fatwa on this, and they consider such participation in elections to be prohibited in non-Muslim countries, but not on the basis of Shirk, rather on the basis of al-Wala wal-Bara. Do you honestly believe that the only scholars in the world to recognise such electoral participation as Shirk are only a handful of people like, Abu Basir, al-Maqdisi et al? And they are the only ones to see the truth, while the rest of the Ummah and their scholars are blind?

7) You end by accusing the Muslim voters of falling into Kufr and Shirk, as well as those who are actively calling people to vote by implication. However, you seem to be giving Udhr bil-jahl to those who fall into Shirk, following the arguments of Abu Basir, and perhaps al-Maqdisi as well. But the fact is that there is no Udhr bil-Jahl in matters of Tawheed and Shirk, as stated by Ibn Jibrin, Ibn Baz, the Lajnah, as well as Sh Humud, Sh Ali al-Khudayr et al, which is the mainstream position of the Najdi scholars, which was made clear and emphasised by Sh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhab in his book Mufid al-Mustafid. Sh Abu Batain would even call the opponents Dhullaal who would say that the one who commits Shirk with Allah is excused for ignorance, until Hujjah is established! And even if we were to say that Hujjah must be established, then Sh Muhammad ibn Abdil-wahhab said that Quran itself is a sufficient Hujjah, so whoever has a copy of the Quran, Hujjah is established against him!

However, if you do happen to be of the opinion that the Mushrik is excused for ignorance, then please tell us what you exactly mean by establishment of evidence. Do you mean by that Iqamat al-Hujjah, or do you mean by that Fahm al-Hujjah. If it is the former, then I guess according to your standards, I am a Mushrik, even if I misunderstand your arguments in this article, because al-hujjah has reached me, regardless of whether I understand it or not. If you mean by that Fahm al-Hujjah, then you might be treading the path of the Murjia, since according to this definition of iqamat al-hujjah, the mushrikin at the time of the Prophet are Muslims, as well as the disbelievers in the rest of the Prophets, for they used to say (as they said to Shuaib): La Nafqahu Kathiran mima taqul" or as Allah says of them "Am Ala Qulubin Aqfaluha".

I say this with hope that you realise what mess you have landed into by writing this piece without much research, and without being qualified enough to write on such issues, while merely blind following a handful of scholars in an age we have committees of learned scholars setup through out the World. And surely, as Ibn al-Qayyim said (which is the Hanbali Madhab), the Hujjah of Allah upon His creation will never cease to exist, and therefore, for anyone to restrict Istifta to a handful of people is more ignorant than those who absolutely restrict the truth within the four Madhabs.

8) One of the things that also upset me, was the style of your comments directed towards the 'authors' of the two articles appeared on our website. One of them being Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad, a dearly respected Sheikh, a student of Sheikh Abdullah ibn Aqil and Sheikh Ibn Jibrin, I noticed that you referred to him as "this individual" and that "this one should fear Allah". Irrespective of his knowledge, the man deserves respect and honour, as he is old enough to be your father. I do not need to tell that the Prophet SAW said: He is not from us who does not respect his elders, nor he is merciful to the youngsters. You have every right to disagree as long as it is a mater of Ijtihad and you are making Taqlid of someone you trust. You can differ with Ibn 'Abbas if you want, but there are etiquettes of addressing someone older than you, more knowledgeable than you, and who is also your predecessor in Islam! According to Aisha, the Prophet SAW commanded us to place people in their levels, and not to elevate them above their level, nor to belittle them. Moreover, people like myself, and you should know our worth before rebuking respected scholars in this manner, as al-Dhahabi said: May Allah have mercy on the one who knows his worth!

9) After having an overall view of your research, I gather that you have hardly relied on primary sources related to this topic. Most of your citations are from secondary sources, which is a point of weakness in your research. A researcher, who is seeking to objectively research a topic, seeking the truth, and not partisanship, would not limit his 'bibliography' to only a hand full of authors, who all seem to have one view on the topic. For an objective researcher, it is a must that he looks into what the scholars of Islam, from various backgrounds, in our time have stated regarding a particular issue, and then objectively looking at their arguments and analysing their statements, and then coming up with the conclusions, that are not based on partisanship, but seeking the Hukm of Allah in an issue. Take for example Ibn al-Qayyim, especially in his Ijtima al-Juyush al-islamiyah, he quotes from all the Tawaif, even the mutakallimin and the Sufiyah. Another example is Ibn Abil-Izz, for his brings the arguments of Mutazilas and Asharis, and approves of what is true in both of them and rejects the false. Therefore, such deep issues, by their nature need time, and they cannot be written by copying and pasting quotes from 3 or 4 books sitting on the shelf, within a week or so. Writing such articles is an Amanah, and it requires much patience and fear of Allah, while one pens every word down on a piece of paper.

10) What you just did by writing this article is that you wrote a Fatwa prohibiting something, you have no clear text from Allah regarding its prohibition. Now, if you think that you are a Mujtahid in this issue, and you have acquired all the abilities required in a Mufti to deal with this issue, then congratulations. If you believe that you are not a Mujtahid in this issue, then you are a Muqallid, and it is Haram on the Muqallid to issue verdicts. Because Taqleed, as Ibn al-Qayyim says, is not Ilm, it is Jahl, and in the sight of Allah it is worse than Shirk to speak about Allah without knowledge, because that is the root of all shirk. What a Muqallid can do, is to relate the ruling of another Mufti. So if you were to simply relate the Fatwa of al-Maqdisi at the end, perhaps you would be excused, because you are not issuing a verdict, rather you are only narrating a verdict and attributing to the Mufti. Moreover, the Salaf would hate to issue verdicts, as you probably already know. Al-Athram says that Imam Ahmad was asked questions at various occasions, and he would say: I do not know. This is in spite of him knowing the difference of opinion amongst scholars!

11) Based on this, I sincerely advise you not to publish this article, until after having spoken to people of knowledge from various backgrounds, listening to their arguments. After you have written it, I would suggest that you get one of the people of knowledge whom you trust (even Abu Basir) to check your work, to make sure that you do not fall into error, and that your arguments are strong and straight. For if you place half-baked worked, and crooked arguments on the plate for everyone to see, then expect a barrage of refutations. And as you will realise, such hastiness only works against the hasty author, because he loses people's trust, and they only know him as a person who acts on impulse.

I hope you do not take any of this to your heart. Allah knows I really admire you as a wonderful brother who has done much to damage the Batil that the SP are upon. May Allah reward you for that, but it does hurt me to see an able brother like yourself, causing damage to his bright and scholarly future by restricting to a handful of scholars, and being hasty in issuing verdicts. Many of the people of Bida, like Abu Khadija and others, were further lead astray, when they became the self-styled Muftis, and placed themselves in positions of Ifta, while they forgot their worth.

May Allah unite us on guidance and brotherhood,

Was-salaamu 'alaikum

Your brother

Abuz-Zubair

[Abuz Zubair]

The respected brother replied back to me with the following:

==================================

Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Jazaakallahu khayra for the comments.

Although I had not written the article, as I don’t have time to write a 26 page article in the midst of my exams, (I’ve only had the chance to write these comments today) I fully uphold the view of its author, and I hope in Allah, that it is the correct view and is guidance.

The following is a reply to what you said:

1. Regarding the word ‘Democracy’, then it isn’t a word that the Shar’ came with, nor is it known in the language of the Arabs, and thus, we ought to refer it to its use (customs), amongst its people, and to look at its origin. The way in which Democracy is utilised in society is clear, and it is on this basis that the author wrote his article, and this is clear and obvious. In addition, the word’s roots are discussed, indicating the shirki-foundations of it. It is similar to Allah’s prohibition of the people of Israa`eel to say: “Raa’ina”, likewise, we ought to avoid the word Democracy due to the false connotations it holds. (Ibn al-Qayyim has an awesome discussion on the maraatib of alfaath and what not in the first volume of I’laam al-Muwaqi’een, and how it is wrong for a mufti to base his fatwa on the meaning of the word, without looking to how the people use it, and this is exactly what the authors did, jazahumullah khayr).

This renders the rest of the discussion regarding appointing an Imaam irrelevant here.

Regarding labelling Democracy as shirk, then Democracy – unlike the word hadd – holds shirki-connotations from the start. Thus it is considered shirk, until the speaker proves his intent is otherwise. As for the words “freedom”, “terrorism” and “slavery”, then these are asked about due to them not having his foundation. Even Ni’matullah agreed that it is impermissible in asl, so the question is, if isn’t isn’t impermissible due to it being shirk, then on what basis is it impermissible?

I’d like to say that not every aspect of Democracy is shirk, and I am someone who says: Democracy is the best man-made system, but the best system is that of Allah’s.

2. You appeared to be suggesting, and perhaps even stressing, that Ahlul-Hal wal-'Aqd are elected by the masses? If this is the case, please provide your evidence.

And in addition, Ahl al-Hal wal-‘Aqd only discuss what there is no nass about, unlike these MP’s, so the qiyaas is invalid.

You said, “Your statement is not applicable to an MP who strives to legislate the laws of Allah in the parliament, for he is not committing Shirk. Example of that is found in Kuwait and other Arab countries, where Islamists join the parliament, to outvote those who want to legalise gambling, alcohol and other prohibitions. Can anyone with sane mind say that such Muslim MPs are engaged in the formation of man-made laws?”

3. There are several problems with these assemblies found in Arab countries:

1. The members have to take up a qasam of walaa` and ihtiraam to the qaanoon in those lands, this in itself being a qasam of kufr.

Why should the legislation that is in opposition to the shar’ of Allah be proposed, and then have this individual agree or disagree to it? And what if a law that the assembly proposes, is in accordance with the shar’ of Allah, like the numerous examples where MP’s proposed to issue laws that prohibit alcohol, and then you had those who accept and reject and so on. Is this from Islaam? And how can you have a law of Allah subject to voting and consent and the rejection of the kaafir majority? Wouldn’t this be rendered as mocking of the deen?

4. You mentioned the example of Negus, and this can be replied to from a number of angles:

Negus was prior to the completion of the Sharee’ah.
Negus, according to several sources, including the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam to which you refered, and Zaad al-Ma’aad amongst others state that he only lived for six months, within which he entered Islaam.
If the second point is not accepted, then it is permissible to make du’aa` that Allah punishes the oppressors with the oppressors, and the narration about making du’aa` has weakness due to it having a someone accused of tadlees, and I did not find the riwaayah in Ibn Hishaam’s Seerah as you stated.

Doing du’aa` in this means is permitted, as it does not provide legitimacy to the person, unlike a vote.

5. You mentioned how Shaykh Sulaymaan’s quote is a refutation of “your” claim. However as I indicated briefly above, the assemblies such as these are ‘ayn al-istihzaa` with the words of Allah, and particularly the Arab ones.

6. Regarding Yoosuf ‘alayhis-salaam, then the article explains how Yoosuf ‘alayhis-salaam was calling to Tawheed and stating that the Hukm is only for Allah whilst in prison, so would he contradict that after he is given power?

In addition to this, al-Qurtubi discusses the khilaaf on taking up positions of authority under oppressive and kufr regimes, and concedes that the view he holds is that it is permissible, if there are none who will disagree/contradict/veto (whichever) him, and this is not the case in today’s assemblies as is known, as Parliament is not entirely sovereign and has several constraints on its authority. So the example is inapplicable here.

Regarding the King in Yoosuf’s time, then the majority of scholars are on the view that he did not enter Islaam, perhaps the author should have mentioned that.

7. As for taking positions of Qadaa`, whilst ruling with Islaam, then this is not a problem, and no one disagrees, even if it be in some matters and not others, then although some scholars disliked it, as Ibn Hajr mentions in al-Fath, it is permitted on the basis mentioned by al’Izz bin ‘Abdisalaam (and I don’t have Qawaa’id al-Ahkaam wa Masaalih al-Anaam with me now unfortunately).

8. Regarding a mainstream scholar, then honestly bro, I don’t understand this term, and I don’t really know what makes one a mainstream scholar. So I can’t answer that.

9. As for the issue of al’uthr bil-jahl and what not, then that can be discussed elsewhere, in a separate topic if you so wish, and it is an issue that I am probing further into. Obviously, what is required is not the understanding of Abi Bakr, and this issue is something I’d be interested in discussing.

Jazakallahu khayr, it would be have been better to ask if I authored the article before directing all your comments at me, but khayr inshallah, it’s all good.

Waffaqana Allahu wa iyaakum ilal-khayr.

Wassalam,

Your bro with all due respect,

Abu ********

[Abuz Zubair]

The following is my response to his reply:

======================================

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-rahmatullahi wa-barakaatuh

Jazaakallahu khayra for the comments.

Baarak Allahu Feekum

Although I had not written the article, as I don’t have time to write a 26 page article in the midst of my exams, (I’ve only had the chance to write these comments today) I fully uphold the view of its author, and I hope in Allah, that it is the correct view and is guidance.
alHamdulillah, I feel very happy to know that you are not the author of this piece. However, the fact that you fully uphold the view of this article, is a matter of concern for me, as it is not clear whether you merely uphold the general view of the article, or you actually uphold everything said in the article, including the inappropriate manner in which Sheikh Haitham was addressed, as well as charging your brothers Muwahhideen with Shirk and Kufr.

The following is a reply to what you said:

1. Regarding the word ‘Democracy’, then it isn’t a word that the Shar’ came with, nor is it known in the language of the Arabs, and thus, we ought to refer it to its use (customs), amongst its people, and to look at its origin. The way in which Democracy is utilised in society is clear, and it is on this basis that the author wrote his article, and this is clear and obvious.

This is exactly what Abu Baseer says in refutation of some Ikhwanis who claim Democracy is 100% compatible with Islam, relying only upon some of the definitions for Democracy. As Abu Baseer correctly stated, and as it is more than obvious, the term democracy must be understood according to 'urf, and no one disagrees here. However, what Abu Baseer and those who take his words for granted miss out on, is that even in 'urf democracy does NOT have one fixed definition. The thinkers to date have not agreed on a fixed definition of democracy. So on one hand, you have dictators claiming to be ruling by democracy while the rule remains within their lineage, and on the other hand you have the believers in so-called 'true democracy' who call for every single political decision to be based on votes. These are the two far extremes, and between them there are tens of other definitions. This is why I said, that for Abu Baseer and his followers, or the Ikhwanis to either declare democracy to be Shirk, or to claim harmony between democracy and Islam is nonsense, primarily because the Kuffar themselves haven’t agreed on a unified definition.

In addition, the word’s roots are discussed, indicating the shirki-foundations of it.
We are talking about the definition of democracy 'urfan in our times, which has very little to do with its Greek origin, and even the original Greek definition, which is as ambiguous as ever, cannot be declared a Shirki definition until we find out what exact is meant by the word 'cratus'; the right of rule, or the right of legislation besides Allah?

It is similar to Allah’s prohibition of the people of Israa`eel to say: “Raa’ina”, likewise, we ought to avoid the word Democracy due to the false connotations it holds. (Ibn al-Qayyim has an awesome discussion on the maraatib of alfaath and what not in the first volume of I’laam al-Muwaqi’een, and how it is wrong for a mufti to base his fatwa on the meaning of the word, without looking to how the people use it, and this is exactly what the authors did, jazahumullah khayr).

This we have no disagreement about. Terms that are Muhtamalah, should not be used. In fact we should adhere to Shar'ee terminologies, even if there is no ihtimal in a newly invented term. For example, in Ilm al-Kalam, we may say to the Mutakallimin that Allah is in al-jihah al-'adamiyah (the non-existent direction), and such phrase has the right meaning, however, we should not use such expressions, but rather adhere to (al-Rahman 'Ala al-'Arsh Istawa). So I agree, we shouldn't use the word Democracy to describe the Islamic ruling system. However, our discussion is not about the appropriateness of the term, it is about the term having multiple meanings, and that one may not be selective in choosing a definition of his liking, and then use that as a basis of Hukm. This is the error that both, Sh Abu Basir and some Ikhwanis fall into.

This renders the rest of the discussion regarding appointing an Imaam irrelevant here.
And I hope you see how the subject of 'appointment of Imam' IS relevant here, as it is in harmony with some of the definitions of Democracy.

Regarding labelling Democracy as shirk, then Democracy – unlike the word hadd – holds shirki-connotations from the start. Thus it is considered shirk, until the speaker proves his intent is otherwise. As for the words “freedom”, “terrorism” and “slavery”, then these are asked about due to them not having his foundation. Even Ni’matullah agreed that it is impermissible in asl, so the question is, if isn’t isn’t impermissible due to it being shirk, then on what basis is it impermissible?
I mentioned the example of Hadd to prove why we should not approve or reject a term and its meaning, except after enquiring what a person means by that. As for your comment about Democracy holding Shirki connotations from the start, then as explained earlier, this is a wahm on your part. The original definition of Democracy is no different to most of the definitions of democracy today, and as ever, they are ambiguous. So to claim that the term Democracy had a shirki start is baseless. The only people I have heard mention such are Abdul-Qadir Abdul-'Aziz and Abu Basir, and both of their claims are questionable to say the least.

Al-Lajnah al-Da'imah regard it to be impermissible due to giving support to the Kuffar and aligning with them. So their reason for prohibition is al-Wala wal-bara. Yet, the committee is known for its harsh stances on issues of Shirk, Tawheed, Dar al-Harb and Islam, and 'Udhr bil-Jahl. However, even they do not recognise this as something contradicting Tawheed. Apparently, the only scholars who discovered this to be Shirk Akbar are less than a handful!

I’d like to say that not every aspect of Democracy is shirk, and I am someone who says: Democracy is the best man-made system, but the best system is that of Allah’s.

So which aspect of democracy is not Shirk according to you?

2. You appeared to be suggesting, and perhaps even stressing, that Ahlul-Hal wal-'Aqd are elected by the masses? If this is the case, please provide your evidence.

May be it was a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd in the past have been people's representatives, and their bay'ah on behalf of their following was considered enough as a bay'ah to the Imam. These people are usually given their position of 'wikalah' on behalf of their followers by the followers themselves. So amongst them are scholars, generals, politicians and all those who have a following. And since Shar' has not restricted the wasa'il of selecting and recognising Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd, it is Islamically legal to select them via elections.

And in addition, Ahl al-Hal wal-‘Aqd only discuss what there is no nass about, unlike these MP’s, so the qiyaas is invalid.

May be you are getting confused between Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd and Ahl al-Shura. We are not talking about Shura here. We are simply talking about electing of Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aqd through an electoral process which is just a waseelah and not in contradiction to the Shar'. So what MPs and what Qiyas?

You said, “Your statement is not applicable to an MP who strives to legislate the laws of Allah in the parliament, for he is not committing Shirk. Example of that is found in Kuwait and other Arab countries, where Islamists join the parliament, to outvote those who want to legalise gambling, alcohol and other prohibitions. Can anyone with sane mind say that such Muslim MPs are engaged in the formation of man-made laws?”

3. There are several problems with these assemblies found in Arab countries:

1. The members have to take up a qasam of walaa` and ihtiraam to the qaanoon in those lands, this in itself being a qasam of kufr.
Every Muslim who is resident in the UK cannot enter the country except with this condition. And at the end, it is only a condition. If it contradicts with the Shar', the condition is Fasid, while the 'aqd is still correct (refer to Sh Abu Baseer's book in refutation of Sh Abu Qatada in Dar al-Harb and Fai issue). Moreover, such might even be permissible in the Bab of Tawriyah in Aiman, in Fiqh, wallahu Alam.

Why should the legislation that is in opposition to the shar’ of Allah be proposed, and then have this individual agree or disagree to it? And what if a law that the assembly proposes, is in accordance with the shar’ of Allah, like the numerous examples where MP’s proposed to issue laws that prohibit alcohol, and then you had those who accept and reject and so on. Is this from Islaam? And how can you have a law of Allah subject to voting and consent and the rejection of the kaafir majority? Wouldn’t this be rendered as mocking of the deen?
You know how bogus this argument is. What else do you expect in a Kafir parliament?! What do you mean by "Is this from Islaam"? Who from the Lib Dems, Tories, or LAB give two hoots about whether it is from Islam or not. In this sense, every Kafir is mocking Islam by not being a Muslim! But this is the weakest argument you have brought forth. Else, tell me, how that affects the ruling of the permissibility to enter the parliament and promote laws in harmony with Islam.

4. You mentioned the example of Negus, and this can be replied to from a number of angles:

Negus was prior to the completion of the Sharee’ah.
Bogus argument, for if you are claiming Naskh, then you have not come up with any Nasikh.

Negus, according to several sources, including the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam to which you refered, and Zaad al-Ma’aad amongst others state that he only lived for six months, within which he entered Islaam. The incident I referred to occurred after the Quraish failed in persuading al-Najashi to extradite the Muslims, according to the narration of Umm Salamah, and Najashi accepted Islam, when the Prophet SAW sent a letter to him from Madina, and that’s 7 years after Hijrah, when the Muslims returned from Ethiopia, which was the same year when al-Najashi married of Umm Habibah to the Prophet SAW. Therefore, the Muslims made Dua for him that Allah gives him Tamkeen on this earth, while he was a Kafir.

If the second point is not accepted, then it is permissible to make du’aa` that Allah punishes the oppressors with the oppressors, and the narration about making du’aa` has weakness due to it having a someone accused of tadlees, and I did not find the riwaayah in Ibn Hishaam’s Seerah as you stated.
Any sane Arabic speaking person knows the difference between asking Allah to destroy the Dhalimin with Dhalimin and extracting the Muslims from amongst them Salimin, and asking Allah to give Nasr and Tamkeen to a Kafir on this earth over another Kafir! This explanation is too far fetched, and the Ta'assuf in your explanation is not hidden.

As for your claim that the narration is weak due to Tadlees is also bogus, because even if Ibn Ishaq is Mudallis, he narrates this Hadeeth from al-Zuhri explicitly saying: Haddathani Muhammad ibn Muslim al-Zuhri. Therefore, the chain goes: Ibn Ishaq (Hdth) al-Zuhri ('An) Abi Bakr ibn 'Abdir-Rahman ibn al-Harith al-Makhzumi ('An) Umm Salamah. The Rijal are Thiqat and the Sanad is Muttasil.

If you cannot find the Riwayah in Ibn Hisham as I stated, how can you then give your ruling of Da'f in the Hadeeth due to Tadlees?!

In any case, you will find this riwayah under the section: Hadeeth Umm Salamah 'An Rasulai Quraish Ma'a al-Najashi. Let me translate it for your benefit:

"She said: By Allah! We were upon this (peace and security) until a person from the Ethiopians challenged his kingdom. She said: By Allah! I did not see us become upset more severely than us becoming upset on this, fearing that this person might defeat al-Najashi, so he may come to power not acknowledging our rights as al-Najashi would. She said: al-Najashi went ahead to engage with him in a battle while between them was the Nile River. She said: the companions of the Prophet SAW said: Who from us can go out to witness the battle and then tell us the news? She said: al-Zubair ibn al-'Awam said: I will, to which they said: Then you surely will. He was the youngest one of them. She said: They blew into a water skin, and he placed it on his chest. He then swam on it towards the place in the Nile River where the battle was taking place, until he reached it. She said: We then made Dua to Allah Ta'ala for al-Najashi that He gives him Dhuhoor upon his enemy, and al-Tamkeen in his land." (1/376 Dar Ihya al-Turath al-'Arabi)

Doing du’aa` in this means is permitted, as it does not provide legitimacy to the person, unlike a vote.
There is a clear contradiction in logic here. The companions are asking Allah to place al-Najashi (then Kafir) as a ruler over them, while the Du'a is a sabab from asbaab. Voting is also a sabab from asbab. Otherwise, according to your understanding, it is Shirk to vote for a kafir party to bring them to power, but permissible to make Dua to Allah to bring them to power! Meaning, it is Shirk for you to put a Kafir in authority, but Tawheed for Allah to perform this Shirk?! Ya laha min 'uqul.

5. You mentioned how Shaykh Sulaymaan’s quote is a refutation of “your” claim. However as I indicated briefly above, the assemblies such as these are ‘ayn al-istihzaa` with the words of Allah, and particularly the Arab ones.

Yes, indirectly, it is istihza, just as any sin is indirectly istihza. However, the ruling of Kufr is the one involved in direct istihza, which usually does not happen in the parliaments. Even if it happens, it is the duty of the Muslim MPs to forbid the evil, and this is the very reason for which they are there. Therefore, the application of this verse, and the subsequently ruling of Kufr is certainly out of context and out of place here.

6. Regarding Yoosuf ‘alayhis-salaam, then the article explains how Yoosuf ‘alayhis-salaam was calling to Tawheed and stating that the Hukm is only for Allah whilst in prison, so would he contradict that after he is given power?

And who on earth said he contradicted his call to Tawheed in the first place? The whole point behind our argument is that the action of Yusuf was not Shirk, just as voting is not Shirk! That is the crux of the matter being debated here! In fact, it is you who are indirectly accusing him of Shirk by claiming that taking up such positions under a Kafir ruler is Kufr and Shirk, and this is exactly what pushed you guys to come up with Batil Ta'weelat and Ihtimalat that are in Ghayat al-bu'd wal-ta'assuf!

In addition to this, al-Qurtubi discusses the khilaaf on taking up positions of authority under oppressive and kufr regimes, and concedes that the view he holds is that it is permissible, if there are none who will disagree/contradict/veto (whichever) him, and this is not the case in today’s assemblies as is known, as Parliament is not entirely sovereign and has several constraints on its authority. So the example is inapplicable here.

You have completely misunderstood al-Qurtubi's argument here. What he means by this condition is that the person must be allowed to practice justice, meaning he must not come under the influence of the oppressive ruler. For if working under him means that he must do all that the oppressive ruler asks him to do, then it is not permissible for him to work under him. Please also read the quote from al-Mawardi brought by al-Qurtubi in the same section.

Regarding the King in Yoosuf’s time, then the majority of scholars are on the view that he did not enter Islaam, perhaps the author should have mentioned that.

7. As for taking positions of Qadaa`, whilst ruling with Islaam, then this is not a problem, and no one disagrees, even if it be in some matters and not others, then although some scholars disliked it, as Ibn Hajr mentions in al-Fath, it is permitted on the basis mentioned by al’Izz bin ‘Abdisalaam (and I don’t have Qawaa’id al-Ahkaam wa Masaalih al-Anaam with me now unfortunately).

So what is the difference between Qadha under a Kafir ruler, where a Muslim Qadhi passes ruling in accordance with the Shar', and an MP who backs legislation which confirms to the Shar'?!

8. Regarding a mainstream scholar, then honestly bro, I don’t understand this term, and I don’t really know what makes one a mainstream scholar. So I can’t answer that.

What I mean by mainstream scholar, is the scholar who is an all rounder. Like Ibn Taymiyah who wasn't just famous for Jihad, or his writing against the Tatar, or his battles against the Ash'aris. He was an all rounder, who mastered all Islamic sciences, a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and was of general benefit to all Muslims from all walks of life, and this is what gave him fame, as it is clear from his Fatawa.

This is very important for us Muqallids to understand, so that we know from who to seek Fatwa etc. Generally, you will find scholars today of various categories. Those who gain fame due to general benefit, which the Ummah receives from them, and they have works in nearly all Islamic fields, such as Sh ibn Baz, Ibn Qu'ud, Sh Shuaibi and others. While there are other scholars (and no doubt they are scholars), who become famous by controversies, whereas before they were not well known at all. This is no insult to them, nor am I suggesting that they can never be right. But the point is, I believe it is a grave error to give them a position they simply do not deserve just because of their bravery and the fact that they have written books on a few contemporary controversial issues. There are other mainstream scholars who are recognised Ulama from India, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, KSA, and in fact there are beneficial committees of scholars set up dealing with modern day issues like Islamic banking, medical issues etc. These people are the mainstream scholars.

And in this light, I believe it is an error to think that only a handful of scholars (namely, Abu Baseer, al-Maqdisi, Abdul-Qadir 'Abdil-'Aziz) who discovered a Shirk which was not known to any of the scholars in this century! And if this really is a Shirk, at least SOME mainstream scholars must have explained this Shirk to the people, because explaining something like that is not even considered a security risk for them!

9. As for the issue of al’uthr bil-jahl and what not, then that can be discussed elsewhere, in a separate topic if you so wish, and it is an issue that I am probing further into. Obviously, what is required is not the understanding of Abi Bakr, and this issue is something I’d be interested in discussing.
Well, this is just the appropriate place to discuss this issue because the author of this piece, whom you fully agree with, has charged his brothers muwahhidin with Shirk and Kufr in a sweeping statement! So those charged with Shirk would like to know, that after reading the 'clarification' article, are they convicted with Shirk or not? Because Takfeer is Hukm Shar'i, and it has various results and consequences that I am sure you are not unaware of. And as for this joke of Udhr bil-Jahl, even if you give Udhr bil-Jahl, then it only takes 5 mins to establish evidences against a person, so hiding behind 'Udhr bil-Jahl excuse is really a joke.

And if this issue is so clear cut, and according to you, if evidence is established against a person, regardless of if he understands it or not, then there is no reason why you should pause in Takfeer of myself, Sh Haitham, Ni'matullah and all those Muslims who voted. For if you pause in performing Takfeer, even after your 'clarification' reaches us, then surely a deep issue like that cannot be an issue of Tawheed and Shirk and from the Usool al-Din!

Jazakallahu khayr, it would be have been better to ask if I authored the article before directing all your comments at me, but khayr inshallah, it’s all good.
If you are the sender of the article, and the article has no name on it, it is no wonder that everyone's guess has been that you are the author. I suggest you make clear to the people that you are not the author of this article. Moreover, whoever Majhool is the author of this article, please tell him that Fatwa of Mastoor is not accepted, nor is an 'Aami allowed to act on it. There is no security risk involved in what he wrote, and if he is so definite about what he wrote, and considers himself the defender of Tawheed, let him put his name it. Sh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab will put his name on his books, calling a whole bunch of people 'Mushrikin' not fearing anyone but Allah.

Waffaqana Allahu wa iyaakum ilal-khayr.

Wassalam,

Your bro with all due respect,

Abu *******
May Allah reward you for your response.

Please open your heart to the truth, for there is no success in coming up with far fetched explanations to our arguments. Please remember that all scholars/groups have amongst them truth and falsehood, and that not everything Abu Baseer et al say is correct, just as not everything that Ikhwanis say is Batil. We need to raise ourselves above this Ta'assub and acknowledge the truth promoted by Muslims other than us .

And Allah knows best.

wasalam

[Abuz Zubair]

The brother then replied back with the following, and I haven't heard from him since.

===============================

Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Unfortunately, in the midst of exams and what not, I won't be able to discuss this matter with you as I wish, so perhaps after they finish (in a few weeks), we can resume the discussion.

Meanwhile, my stance is: This is a naazilah that requires a mutammakin Usooli mujtahid to study the mannataat and come up with a verdict. Personally, I think the evidences lean towards the prohibition, and that the one who goes forth with such a matter is doing a big mistake. Likewise, to call it shirk without further probing and deeper analysis feehi maa feeh. I think, on both sides, justice hasn't been done to this topic.

As for the author of the piece actually, then, if you moved your cursor on the file without clicking on it, you'll see the name of the author.

I do hope to resume this discussion after the first week of July on both topics: 1) Democracy and 2) al'Uthr bil-Jahl.

Wassalam,

Abu *******

[Abuz Zubair]

Further to that, Abu Baseer was asked about those who participate in these elections in order to prevent a greater evil, to which he replied saying that although it is still wrong to vote, but he does not consider the one who votes guilty of Kufr, nor is it permissible to make Takfeer on him.

ولكن من ينتخب شخصاً كافراً لاعتقاده أنه بانتخابه لذلك الشخص يدفع كافراً آخر أشد منه ظلماً وشراً وكفراً .. فهذا لا أرى كفره، ولا جواز تكفيره، والله تعالى أعلم.

This is contrary to how some youth portrayed this issue as a black and white issue and made it a matter of Tawheed and Shirk.

wasalam

[Abu_Tashfeen]

pls state in, bullet points if possible, the evidences that permit voting. in case my question being unclear, then im referring to such arguements such as the lesser of two evils, etc etc.

Allaahu Al3am, since my knowledge is limited, the defence for voting was brought before the refutation for voting. Therefore i would deem it to be common sense to start this discussion from there and to continue in that trend since it is 'u' (whoever it may be) who r trying to convince us to vote in 'too' liberal 'lets teach homosexuality in our schools' democrats. Please also bring the reasons for why u think it is important for muslims to vote.

I will ask Abu ******* if he would prefer to comment on this discussion with u first or if we leave that for now and go the way i requested above. But in the mean time being high light what i requested.

jazaakhumuLlaahu khayr

and i hope u forgive me if i ever wronged u.

wa alaykum assalaam

[Abuz Zubair]

Brother Abu Tashfeen,

The above perhaps could be summarised as follows:

1) The author of 'The Doubts' article regards the mere action of voting in these elections, in and of itself an act of Kufr. So according to him, the one who votes – irrespective of his intention – has been charged with Kufr, and is awaiting a trial to be convicted as a Mushrik. Based on this understanding, he writes his entire article.
2) We say in reply, that we fundamentally disagree that the mere action of voting in these elections, in and of itself is an act of Shirk, and therefore, regard the rest of his article to be completely irrelevant.
3) What the discussion above proves, is that this issue is not a black and white issue, or an issue of Kufr and Iman and Tawheed and Shirk. Rather, as the brother above admitted, it is a naazilah, which requires in-depth study from a well-grounded Usuli-Faqih.
4) And if it is such a delicate issue that it requires a well-grounded Usuli Faqih to ponder over, it can hardly be from the fundamentals of our religion, let alone a matter of Iman and Kufr.
5) The fatwa of Abu Baseer – whose words have also been relied upon by the author - as quoted above also proves that he does not regard the action, in and of itself to be an act of Kufr, rather as he explicitly states, that the one participating in these elections in order to prevent a greater evil, is not committing Kufr, and nor is he to be made Takfeer of.

Your question about 'the lesser of the two' principle is a secondary issue. The two articles posted on IslamicAwakening used that principle, referring to labour is a greater evil, and Lib Dems and the rest as a lesser one. As you may notice, Shirk does not play a part in this equation, because we simply do not regard this action to be in and of itself, Shirk. For if we regarded it to be Shirk, then their argument would be valid, since there is no evil greater than Shirk.

Regarding voting for liberals who also promote wider acceptance of Homosexuality in this country, then this is also a secondary issue. But briefly, it is common sense that teaching homosexuality at schools will never affect us as much as draconian laws introduced by Blunkett, which will include from next year, locking up even British Muslims indefinitely without charge. So far, over 600 families have been shattered by Blunkett.

But these are all secondary issues. The main discussion here is about the permissibility of voting.

[Umm SaifulIslam]

It amuses me how at the end of your lengthy unecessary postings you have the picture of Sayyid Qutb!!! Maybe you should try reading his works again. He made takfir on Ikhawanul Muslimeen and rejected Democracy in its entirety as its whole constitutional system and set up is without doubt kufr and Shirk, of course it is. What on earth are you doing, ItaqAllah!

[Abuz Zubair]

Erm… the article you copied and pasted from Abdil-Qadir 'Abdil-'Aziz's book (which we used to circulate a decade ago) has been responded to above, and we certainly want to move forward in our discussion, not backward.

I guess you should try to read and understand the arguments you flooded the board with, then care to read my 'lengthy unnecessary postings' in reply to that with much concentration, and then post a reply to my arguments. This way we can move forward instead of going around in circles and flooding the forum with material I have already read before many of the cyber-jihadis became practising.

As for Sayyid Qutb making Takfeer of Ikhwan, well in this free society, I guess you are free to believe whatever you like!

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

As-salaamu alaikum

There is no need to quarrel in this issue my brothers and sisters.
Sister ummsaifillah you say that sayyid qutb declares
the ikhwaan to be murtadoon(apostates) correct?If so then bring the proof of this my sister so we can look in to it.As for merely voting then as shaikh abu baseer said his book on democracy that the issue must looked at in detail and therefore if one votes to to make the rights of legislation for other than allah then this shirk or votes believing that the democratic system is correct than this also shirk.The reason why must not make a gerneral ruling is because merely voting isnt a clear action of kufr but it "muhtamal"meaning it could be kufr and could be just just a sin.
As for those who directly take part in the democratic system like the"legislators in parliament then they are kuffar for 2 reason:

1-Before they take their positon in paliament they must make an oath to honour and be sincere to the constitution(At- taaghoot) and this itself is kufr and shirk
2-Their taking part in legislating laws that contradict the sharee'ah.

now if one can enter into parliament without doing this then it wouldnt be major kufr but this is theroretical because atleast one of these 2 reasons must happen.I would also like to add that shaikh abu muhammad al-maqdasee holds the same opinion on those who vote and that we must look at he persons "qasd"his intention in this action of voting.wallahu a'lam
before declaring him a mushrikh

wassalaamu alaikum

[Umm SaifulIslam]

A'oudhu Billah, La Hawla wala Quwata Illa Billah.

Then if you use to circulate such material then why is there any doubt concerning this matter.

Dont you see that by so-called Muslims casting their vote they are effectively strengthening the existence of democracy which was set up to rebel against Allah. You are voluntarily participating in a legislative system and there is absolutely no distinction between the MP and the voter as the legislation of democracy belongs to the people, how? VOTING.

It is all part and package of the system of democracy so please dont waste your time in trying to make a distinction between the parliament and the voter as they are all part of the same system.

Whats the matter with you, you need to be spoon fed or what?!

Allah commanded you to make Baraa from all that opose Islam and set up to hinder man from the Path of Allah.

AstaghfurAllah, Wallahi I stand before Allah and make Baraa from you.

It is sincerity of devotion that makes the difference not just knowledge alone, the shaytaan has firm grounded knowledge far more than you could probably ever dream of and had been practising and worshipping Allah even before you were taken from the progeny of Adam(as) and still Iblees disobeyed Allah and then became proud, stubborn and haughty in his argument thinking he was clever. So please save the patronising obnoxious comments as it clearly bears no ground.

[Umm SaifulIslam]

Also, there is no excuse of ignorance for Major Shirk!

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum

I don't know fiqi side of things, however if ones studys how a bill is passed from the green paper to the white then the bills, the first reading, second reading, commitee stage, the report stage, the third reading the other place and the royal assent etc etc.... even then like with issue of the hunting ban the MP's had voted in favor of the ban and then the lords over ruled it. So in order for lesislation to passed you would need a majority of of MP to vote on that so say about 300+ MP's and even then the lords can turn round and over rule it.
Look at the example of Algeria they had a majority vote and what was ... "some times we have to resort to undemocratic maens to protect democracy"...

I think it's wishful thinking personally.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu aliakum


My sister

you seem to be speaking from pure emotions and no 'ilm
i would like to ask you the following questions.

1-Name 1 scholar that has proceded you in making merely voting in elections kufr
2-Show me daleel from the book and sunnah or ijmaa' that merely the action of voting is kufr akbar.


abu muhammad al-maqdasee says" and we do not declare all those who paticipate in elections to be kuffar for not all of them seek by their particpation lords and legislators(with allah)infact some of them intend( by their paritcipation)to elect a representative that will best serve their worldy and living interests"

source-"hathihi 'aqeedutuna" pg 26

And this is coming from an expert in this matter.So i ask you to affirm that the action of voting is shirk before we talk about "al'uthru biljahl"(execuse of ignorance in matters of tawheed.


wassalaamu alaikum

[gag order]

is voting the same as giving allegiance?

consider the situation when abu bakr wanted to go to war against those who didnt pay zakah which they used to pay to the rasool (but not to abu bakr when he became khalifah) all the sahaba who were present objected but abu bakr who was just one man overuled the majority. overuling the majority is the same is nullifying a key principle of democracy - voting or majority rule.

before anyone can say democracy is halal or haram shouldnt we first find out what the sharia says about it? what is the shari definition or equivalent arabic word (in the sharia) that means democracy?

if no such concept such as democracy exists in sharia then as a principle of sharia should we not "refer it back to the people who first used it"

is voting kufr? we all know allah has forbidden gambling but if an MP was canvassing for muslim votes and proclaimed
"we want to make gambling halal but vote for me and i will secure your rights and argue for you in parliament"

and the muslims went ahead and voted becos he promised some benefit or advantage but avoided gambling like a good muslim should, in the light of sharia have the muslims not unwittingly rejected the ayah where allah says 'the sin is greater then the profit' ???

[Umm SaifulIslam]

so then show me the evidence that we can implement Halal through Haram??

oh, and can I ask the previous poster what is wrong in hating FisaBeelillah? All the evidence has been provided to support my refutation, more than enough.

Particpating in voting in kufr government systems is kufr and shirk and its crime is clear as day disregard what a persons objective is because Allah is in no need to implement His Deen through those who challenge Him in His Names and Attributes. Baraa is Baraa. Those who oppose the Shariah of Allah, their act has to be rejected in its totality. Take the Jews at the time of Dawud(as) Surah Araf, those jews who disobeyed and set their fish nets on the Sabbath were turned into pigs. Then there were a group of jews that made full Baraa from the criminals and asking why another set of jews would want to help a people whom Allah was about to destroy. The saved chose were those who acted according to LA ILAHA ILALLAH and those that didnt commit the crime but didnt make Baraaa were turned into monkeys.

So I ask you all, if this destruction of disobedience invoked the Wrath of Allah consequently turning the criminals into pigs and monkeys including those who didnt make Baraa, then what about you the ones that want to take part in democratic kufr elections and those of you who dont vote but make excuses for this hidious act claiming you want to help Islam and the Muslims. Your help is not wanted by Allah in this regard it is your command of Alwalaa wal Baraa that has to be acted upon in order to make a clear distinction between HAQQ and BATIL, IMAN and KUFR.

What is the matter with you people not wanting to understand, Subhana Allah.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum




here we go with the emotionalism again
sis answer my questions that posed almost 3 weeks ago and then talk so if u cannot then(and trust you cant) insist you dont post any further on this topic and seek knowledge


your brother
\abu musa.

[Abuz Zubair]

To Umm SaifulIslam

You said:
Dont you see that by so-called Muslims casting their vote they are effectively strengthening the existence of democracy which was set up to rebel against Allah

No, on the contrary, Muslim participation in democratic elections, especially when they are the 'key voters', can make or break candidates' political future; and if not, then it surely exposes the Democracy hoax to the World, as we witnessed in Algeria.

So either way, it works in our benefit.

By the way, the indisputable Imam of Mujahideen of this century, and the reviver of Jihad, al-Sheikh al-Shaheed 'Abdullah ibn Yusuf 'Azzam – may Allah have mercy upon him – said (as quoted in al-Hakimiyah fi fikr al-Shaheed Abdullah Azzam), that he believes that it is permissible for Muslims to become MPs in Jahili parliaments in the Arab countries. Would you also include him in your list of Mushrikeen?

You said:
It is sincerity of devotion that makes the difference not just knowledge alone

Yes, just as sincerity of devotion was of no avail to the Khawarij without knowledge, or little respect for its people.

You said;
Also, there is no excuse of ignorance for Major Shirk!

I agree with you 100%. But please answer this question:

Am I correct to assume that you regard us to be Mushrikeen apostates, since we have fallen into Shirk Akbar (according to you), and since there is no excuse for ignorance in these matters? I would like to see a straight forward response to this question.

And if you do, then can you name me one Muslim scholar you know of in the UK? Since people like, Haitham al-Haddad, Suhaib Hasan et al are all Mushrikeen anyway. Abu Baseer will also be a Mushrik for not calling Mushrikeen, Mushrikeen. So who do have left?

You said:
What is the matter with you people not wanting to understand, Subhana Allah

Exactly!

To Abdullah:
May be you are right in what you say, and many have commented that even if participation in these elections is Islamically legitimate, in reality it is hardly of any benefit. Here, if you are politically clued up and have enough experience to judge these things for yourself, you have every right to your opinion, since something like this depends on how people personally look at things. This issue itself is not governed by the Sharee'ah.

However, the issue we are discussing here, and we would strictly like to remain within that scope, is the legitimacy of participating in such elections from a legal point of view.

To Dear brother 'gag order'

You said:
is voting the same as giving allegiance?

No British citizen, irrespective of his faith, regards his act of voting as giving allegiance to anyone. Everyone votes for his interests. For example, BNP members would often vote for the Tories in certain areas where they fear Labour votes. A Sikh voted for the BNP last elections because they shared his interest of fighting Islam. Likewise, the Muslims voted for different parties all over the country in accordance with their interests.

So if there were great chances of RESPECT winning a seat, they voted for them. If there was little chance of that, they voted for Lib Dems to keep Labour at bay. And in areas where Lib Dems are weak, they voted for the Labour to keep the Tories at bay. And as you can see, it is more than clear that our allegiance lies with our interests more than the parties being voted for, as is the case with all voters across the UK.

You said:
and as for voting consider the incident when abu bakr wanted to go to war against those who didnt pay zakah which they used to pay to the rasool (but not to abu bakr when he became khalifah) all the sahaba who were present objected but abu bakr who was just one man overuled the majority. overuling the majority is the same is nullifying voting - this is what happend on that one occasion.

This is called Shura, and is out of the scope of our discussion. Even if democracy is applied in an Islamic state in the process of electing governors only, even then the Khalifah has the right to replace a democratically elected governor by his own governor.

You said:
before anyone can say democracy is halal or haram shouldnt we first find out what the sharia says about it? what is the shari definition or equivalent arabic word (in the sharia) that means democracy?

if no such concept such as democracy exists in sharia then as a principle of sharia should we not "refer it back to the people who first used it"

I have already responded to this in my reply to the 'Doubts' article. But I paste it here for your convenience.

This is exactly what Abu Baseer says in refutation of some Ikhwanis who claim Democracy is 100% compatible with Islam, relying only upon some of the definitions for Democracy. As Abu Baseer correctly stated, and as it is more than obvious, the term democracy must be understood according to 'urf, and no one disagrees here. However, what Abu Baseer and those who take his words for granted miss out on, is that even in 'urf democracy does NOT have one fixed definition. The thinkers to date have not agreed on a fixed definition of democracy. So on one hand, you have dictators claiming to be ruling by democracy while the rule remains within their lineage, and on the other hand you have the believers in so-called 'true democracy' who call for every single political decision to be based on votes. These are the two far extremes, and between them there are tens of other definitions. This is why I said, that for Abu Baseer and his followers, or the Ikhwanis to either declare democracy to be Shirk, or to claim harmony between democracy and Islam is nonsense, primarily because the Kuffar themselves haven’t agreed on a unified definition.

You said:
why is voting kufr? we all know allah has forbidden gambling but if an MP was canvassing for my vote and said

"we want to make gambling halal so come and vote for me and i will secure rights for muslims and argue for you in parliament"

and i went ahead and voted but avoided gambling like a good muslim should, in the light of sharia have i not rejected the ayah where allah says
the sin is greater then the profit and disbelieved in the prohibition of gambling?

This is a matter of weighing up between the Masalih and the Mafasid. Sometimes, it could be a difficult task for one to weigh up between the Masalih and the Mafasid, where as other times it could be easier than one thinks.

For example, gambling is Haram by agreement and everyone knows its harmful effects on communities. But likewise, Anti-terror laws have affected the Muslims by criminalising the whole community a lot more than gambling, homosexuality or anything else. In this country, we have bars, night clubs, etc, everything operating legally, yet we are still free to practice our faith, and Islam still remains the fastest growing religion in Europe and world wide. However, these Anti-Terrorism laws not only put our societies at risk, it has put our thoughts, beliefs and convictions at risk. Here, no doubt the latter has more damaging affects on Muslim communities than the gambling.

But how would one know the Masalih or the Mafasid and the needs and worries, of his local Muslim community, while his heart and mind are lost in the Hindukush mountains?

Also, by voting for the candidate who promises to secure your rights, even if he wants to legitimise gambling or homosexuality etc, does not make you guilty of Kufr, for you simply didn't vote for him on Haram issues, you only voted for him on Halal issues. Moreover, any Kafir candidate that stands for elections is bound to back Haram legislations. This is something no one can avoid. What matters is WHAT we vote for, and not WHO we vote for.

wasalam

[abu zakeeyah]

I remember reading a fatwa by the lajnah in regard to taking an oath to defend 'kufr' constitution in the volume on Aqeedah it said what means "Such an act is not allowed without 'khalf'-swearing so how about when one swears" exact references later inshallah.the answer is actually thay short.
Other than that I believe voting is permissible.

[islamic@rebel]

not voting is a vote for the other side

[Abu_Tashfeen]

bismillaahir rahmaanir raheem

for those who pansy around (dont mean it offensively) on what the meaning of democracy is, lets jus leave it aside.

lets jus talk about what we know of democracy in the UK since da majority of the ppl here are from the the UK.

there r two types of voting in this issue to be considered.

ataswiyaat tashree3i... voting for those who legislate.

if those whom u vote for legislate other than what Allaah has revealed, then this type of voting is impermissable.

ataswiyaat at tanfeezi... voting for those who implement

if those whom u vote for, have the power to implement, then voting for them can be permissible. such as voting for the head teacher of ur childs school.

this is from a fatwa written by shaykh abu baseer summarizing his works on voting and democracy.

i have myself talked to one of the scholars who wer propagating that the ppl in UK should vote. He has stated to me personally that he very much regrets supporting this matter and had always had doubts about it from the beginning.

alot of people on both sides of the fence... those shabbab who r against some actions of some scholars and those scholars themselves on the side of voting.. (and by their own admission) have rushed to fast on this issue.

my advice, and by this i know i will stand in front of Allaah subhaanahu wa ta3ala on the day of Judgement and be asked about it....

do not vote for anyone who by ur vote will legislate by other than what Allaah revealed and have the influence and power to send warplanes and weapons to kill palestinian children and iraaqi children

but if ur vote is for other than that and the scholars have said it is beneficial, then it is up to u.

in regards to what exactly happned in the UK, with ppl telling us to vote etc etc... i have been conducting a lengthy investigation into this matter and have come up with some surprising matters which even some of the scholars themselves on both sides wer not aware of.

i have advised from the beginning and continue to advise everyone now.

keep ur tongues still and have patience. fear Allaah and increase ur knwoeldge. aim for sincerity in all that u do.

[sajedina]

Abuz Zubair

I have never met anyone who changed so completely in his set of beliefs the way you have. Listening to you these days, it’s like this ‘abuz zubair’ is a shield for a faceless but very potent MI5 agent posing as a liberal, pro-modern version of islam, muslim.

Can you represent here in full Shaikh Azzam’s fatwa about living in the West. Sorry fella, just want to make sure you have not taken it out of context. And did he then mention anything about voting for people who are killing our people?

All these fatwas that you have talked about by all these accommodating scholars, does anyone say anything at about a country that has declared all out war on at least two muslim countries? Oops sorry, three…just counting the major ones that is…Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq.

You also wrote an article about being wary of fake scholars who pass unacceptable fatwas, like the French ulema writing in acceptance of the ban on the hijab in schools. So how do you accept the aalim who says that Americans and brits in arab countries have an aqd amn with us because we gave them visas to come into our countries. Therefore it is haraam to kill them. Hmmm, so if I invite a fella into my house and he proceeds to steal my business, rape my daughter, sodomise my son, I can’t do anything to him cause he is my honoured guest? Now if you know that the fella is bad news, what kind of an idiot invites him into his house anyway? I’ll tell you what kind of an idiot. The idiot who thinks that the Americans and the brits are going to keep him power and protect him from the righteous anger and justice of his own people.

In another post you were waxing lyrical about this protest that you had attended. Can you tell me how many protest marches did Rasulillah SAW attend and how many petitions he signed, groveling and begging and pleading with the kuffar? I need you to just give me one instance of each.

By the way you said in an earlier post that you got your good manners from the Brits. There is this absolutely fabulous book called “The Book Of Manners” printed by Darusssalam, complete and very educative book on Islamic etiquette. You won’t ever have to ask a pork eating, alcohol swilling kafir anything about manners in any situation ever again, it is that thorough, mashAllah.

Now it was really nice reading that article about phony fatwas. So what is e-jihad? And how is it fardh? I would really appreciate an answer to this one.

For all you real muslims out there, please really be careful with the materials now being presented on this site. There was one time when it was a truly great muslim site but now I think its been taken over by the forces that be and they are using it to push through this really revolting modernistic version of Islam that of course just does not exist.

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,

i just have had a quick read of this, i think there are many ways to look at this issue, i think everyone gets emotional when talking about this and neither of us have teh knowldge to discuss it,

as well as stopping having digs at sheikhhaytham we shud also stop having digs at others sheikhs too.

i do have one question for abu zubair, and i think it may make you look at the situation more clearly.

firstly, do western politicians lie? .....( think about Iraq and the answer is clear)...........

if the answer is YES

then lets say that your principles are correct about voting, how now do you trust the kuffar when YOU know that they lie and cheat?

and YOU KNOW that they only play upon the feelings of Muslim communities by going to their mosques when the voting times come .


i think you will find this question thought provoking at least.

also when you say we should have muslim MP's in the parliment, who are they? where are they? .........i only know one so called muslim called the so called 'lord' ahmed .

and please explain to us brother why you havent tried to lessen teh evil by taking off your shalwar and putting a suit on and by joining the parliment to become an MP. the reason why i ask this, with all due respect is that if you encourae people to vote, then you ur self should be active in this arena,

i love youfor the sake of Allah and please take no offense.
ws

[gag order]

participation in parliament and voting to secure muslim interests has failed to stop them pushing through oppressive anti terror legislation

Muslims face increased stop and search

Vikram Dodd and Alan Travis
Wednesday March 2, 2005
The Guardian

-Hazel Blears, the minister responsible for counter-terrorism, said yesterday that Muslims will have to accept as a "reality" that they will be stopped and searched by the police more often than the rest of the public.

-Ms Blears told MPs that "there was no getting away from it", because the terrorist threat came from people "falsely hiding behind Islam".

-Her comments, on the day when leading British Muslim groups met to hammer out a strategy on maximising the
Islamic vote for the election, provoked immediate condemnation from Islamic leaders.

-Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "She is demonising and alienating our community. It is a legitimisation for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community."

-The Home Office minister's comments come at an awkward time for the Labour government.
It is struggling to pass anti-terrorism legislation through parliament and preparing for a general election where the traditionally loyal Muslim vote is threatening to desert the party.

[Unspecified]

"gag order"

Assalaamu alaikum,

You know, there are manners that need to be mantained when you air your views.

Not only in this post, but many of the others of yours I have seen plastered all over the forum.

Much more can be achieved through discussion in a polite, sincere and constructive manner - in an way that befits a Muslim. Accusations and condemnations thrown about get you nowhere.

[gag order]

unspecified can you please specify whether you have anything RELEVANT to add to this topic!


and i dont like your ATTITUDE towards my posts: "plastered all over the forum" business, listen to your own advice about manners!


if you have taken offence to my ridiculing democratic elections why hide it behind the "manners" business???

[Unspecified]

Originally Posted by gag order

unspecified can you please specify whether*******you have anything RELEVANT to add to this topic! </p>

Plastered besmeared, coated, covered, daubed, overlayed, smeared, spread</p>

Would you rather have smeared?</p>

:)</p>

[gag order]

if voting is considered the "the lesser evil" then what is the "greater evil" ?

is the "greater evil" committed when someone does not vote?

those who argue that it is permitted to vote describe it as "the lesser evil" acknowledging that it is an "evil" but determined nontheless to commit it.

and this is where the problem lies: does the principle of lesser and greater evil apply when we have a third choice ie not to vote at all since there is no pressure on us to do so hence we are free from choosing a lesser or greater evil ?

if i was given a choice between BLT (greater evil) and cajun chicken (lesser evil) i would choose neither since it is not obligatory to choose any of them i would rather have the egg mayo!

even if all the muslims witheld from voting, the kafir politicians are still obliged to uphold their free and democratic society and to dispense justice to ALL whether they be muslim, jew, or sikh. so is it really necassary for us to even commit this "lesser evil" by voting ?

the politicians who seek your vote are obliged to uphold the principles of a free and equal society well meaning though it is, but no matter who you vote for the same people remain in power

[Ibn_Dhiraar]

As-salaamu 'alaykum.</p>

This topic on voting was interesting and an eye-opener to certain aspects involved in this matter. And brother*******Abuz Zubayr made me think twice about labelling it &quot;Shirk&quot;. (I used to say it was Shirk to vote). But, obviously, I need to research a lot more before I can label it &quot;Shirk&quot; and call the voters &quot;Mushrikeen&quot;. Baarakallaahu feek for the interesting discusion.</p>

Also, dear brother*******Abuz-Zubayr, you asked whether those who say voting is Shirk, consider Sheikh Haithaam, al-Albaanee, ibn 'Utheimeen etc to be Kuffaar. Well, I do know of a Hizb (Abu 'Eesaa al-Rifaa'i)*******who consider voting in general elections to be Shirk, who have declared Haithaam and the rest to be Kuffaar and callers to the Hell Fire (that would obviously include you as well). </p>

There you have one group brave enough (or stupid enough) to declare these people to be Mushrikoon/Murtaddoon.</p>

[Abu Nihla]

Salams</p>



If there exist different opinions on this its better u abandon voting in this kuff regimes. What Abu Zubair as done is to post in abandunce akwal of individuals that can be overlooked since their opinions do not constitute Hujjah upon shariah i.e. What Bin Baaz or Al-albani think on voting is not bonding as hujjah but their own opinion based on their own ijtihad.</p>





Many scholars also have stated that voting in this regimes constitutes kufr so it is a contesious issue.</p>



I ask Abu Zubair why is it worthy of him to support Muslims tovote in this kufr constituitions? Whhat good has it brought to this Ummah except Muslim to vote for their meat to be sloughtered by Muslims.So by getting a minority they help vote in reforundums that contain kufr.</p>



For me voting as i have read and understood in this kufr constitutions is Haram and i kneed no shaikh to tell me that.</p>

[Abu Nihla]

Also i think Abu Zubeir is playing tricks on people. The statement of Abdullah Azzam on this could have been easily verified if he was alive and his condition knwn to the Ummah. Rem from his statements he was refuted by many scholars so m sorry what Abdullah Azzam thought or said is his and can be rejected and if eviddence was given to him and his error showed to him then he deserves his judgement but we are pple who donnot condemn our dead so for the sake of avoiding the contraversy i will say Allah knows his status best.</p>





All those shuyukh if they call towards voting no matter what great deal of knowledge they******* have, then we consider them shuyukh who call towards danger and apostasy. We donot worship shuyukh but Allah so this shuyukh who call towards voting Muslims into this chambers of kufr then they haave done takfir on themselves as was said by Shaikh OBL in his interview as to why he lebbeled the govt of Saudi as Kuffar. We do-not label pple as kuffar bbut we label the actions the rest translates to itself.</p>

[brother]

salaam alaykum akhi abuz zubair

is there any chance you can compile your posts into article format so that they can be posted elsewhere?

[Abu Faaris As-Sumalee]

Salam walaykum

Mashallah, excellent topic to talk about. I thought that choosing the lesser evil is only an option when you have no choice but to choose between two evils. Can anyone actualy say that they have no choice but to vote, and please dont say that choosing not to vote is a greater evil.

[brother]

akhi did u read what was posted above?

Abuz zubair - there is a broken link in the last post of this other excellent thread about voting which is now closed:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=438&page=7&highlight=voting

could you fix it?

[Abuz Zubair]

I was referring to this thread

[brother]

brother abuz zubair do you think you could make a single article on this subject summarising the arguments for voting and a refutation of the counter arguments?

[Abuz Zubair]

lol... I've been asked to do the same with my posts on Ash'arism, but I ust don't have the time.

What some good brothers are doing is that they are compiling readable series of articles from my posts Why don't you do the same with my posts on voting?

[gag order]

from what i've observed, some have adopted greek ration in their aqeeda but not in their politics and others have adopted greek ration in their politics but not in their aqeeda.

[Abuz Zubair]

from what i've observed, some have adopted greek ration in their aqeeda but not in their politics and others have adopted greek ration in their politics but not in their aqeeda.

:)

Thanks for sharing your observation.

From what I have observed, is that some do not know what Islam is, let alone greek philosophy.

Muslim theologians did not reject Greek philosophy because it is Greek. In fact, Ahl al-Sunnah even agreed with Aristotle with respect to the possiblity of infinite regress of events in the past, and that is in theology, so there you go.

What they rejected from the Greeks were the concepts that were at odds with Islam.

So the criteria to accept or reject something isn't that it is Greek, Indian or Chinese.

The criteria is to compare it with Islam. The part which agrees we accept, and that which does not we reject.

But for that, one needs to know what Islam is before he begins to compare :)

[brother]

lol... I've been asked to do the same with my posts on Ash'arism, but I ust don't have the time.

What some good brothers are doing is that they are compiling readable series of articles from my posts Why don't you do the same with my posts on voting?

akhee if you could just make a list of links to the posts which you think are important about this subject it would be very helpful

then insha'allah if i can i should like to make it into some sort of article format

[al-mizzi]

yaa abaa az-zubayr...

what do you think of this istidlaal that its the lesser of two evils:

the beginning of surah ar-room mentions the Muslims supporting room over faaris; albeit moral support.

I would like to add that I dont think every situation is lesser of the two evils. Sometimes it is a surety (and I mean ghalabah azh-zhunn) that either this man will commit kufr or that man. Its not like this man might commit kufr and this one might etc. Last election in the states it was going to be either bush or karey. Third parties dont even stand a chance. Its not like the Americans will say nevermind we choose so and so. So and so doesnt have a chance. This is just like Room vs. Faaris. We cant choose the Muslims to take over the region because they didnt have the power and force at that time. So in that case its fine to choose the lesser of the two evils.

This is similar to a man who is about to kill 10 Muslims or drink khamr. He has them tied up with a gun in one hand and a bottle in the other. He asks you to choose for him which to do. Will you sit there and say...hmmmmm. I cant vote?

Now if he asks you that question while he is not currently in the position to do either, you should probably tell him to shut up.

Also, I dont like voting for Muslims because you are doing a huge evil which is helping someone commit apostasy. What if your vote was the one he needed to go take that oath?

thoughts?

[Abuz Zubair]

Ya mizzi! Welcome and nice to see your first post!

what do you think of this istidlaal that its the lesser of two evils:

the beginning of surah ar-room mentions the Muslims supporting room over faaris; albeit moral support.

I completely agree with this istidlal the why you showed. Unfortunately, many from both sides of the camps do not understand this particular istidlal.

They think that when we say ‘lesser of the two evils’, we are referring to ‘voting’ as one evil and a pro-war MP as another. On this basis they say that if voting is Haram, it cannot be overridden with a maslaha, or aversion of mafsada, such as preventing the MP from coming into power.

Whereas by the two evils we mean a bad MP and a worse one. Voting is just a permissible means of opting for the bad and not the worse.

What is said is exactly what I asked these brothers: you have two kafirs, one wants to kill 10 Muslims and the other 20. Would you choose the lesser of the two evils or abstain from voting because it is Haram? Of course, if they are unable to kill a fly then they will be told to shut up.

As far as voting for Muslims is concern then I would rather have a Kafir voted in than a so-called ‘Muslim’ MP. Kafirs are more considerate towards us than these so-called Muslim MPs.

With respect to the halif bit, jurists would always find a way around. Besides, halif prohibition is applicable to both, a Muslim and a Kafir.

The point being made here is that whether you vote for a Kafir or a Muslim, he is going to get in anyway, and whoever gets in will eventually make the halif. What you are doing by voting is not help him make halif, but merely selecting the bad instead of the worse or the ugly.

[al-mizzi]

Well the pledge of allegiance thing they do is outright kufr and a kaafir is already doing stuff like that every day. So you arent really preventing him from shirk or kufr. But by not voting in a 'muslim' you are preventing him from something he would not have ordinarily done.

Some 'muslims' out there dont really deserve the name so the difference between the two isnt really one of substance but more of a theoretical deal.

Anyway, all of that is really ijtihaadi I guess.

Keep up the good work brozer.

[Abuz Zubair]

jk n u remember us in ur duas and frequent here more often...

[abuzakarya]

As-salamu alaykum. Personally, I keep oscillating from from view to the other on the matter of voting. I think it is clear that both sides have strong arguments. Brother Abuz Zubair makes an intelligent and well-grounded argument in favour and, by the other side, I mean not the loud mouths and ignoramuses who Abuz Zubair sparred with and defeated due to his greater knowledge; rather, I mean Imans Al-Albaani and Muqbil who both opposed voting in a democratic system and their arguments were, in my view, overwhelmingly correct.

My point now is about the reality we now face in the UK. Regardless of the academic arguments, isn't it clear that we have achieved nothing by our voting in the UK? The so-called anti-war and liberal MPs have been swept along by the anti-Islamic feeling that now prevails in Britain. Surely, the time has come to put aside our differences and face up to some cold hard facts: voting or abstaining are both exercises in futility. We are not the masters of our fate as Muslims in the UK. We are on the verge of a holocaust in 10-20 years.

The cure or even a bandage on the wound is not going to come by apppealing to the least hostile British politician. We need to start a movement to appeal to the rulers of the Muslim lands to save our souls. Yes, we abandoned the Ummah by migrating to the West but now we need the Ummah to forgive us and take us back and shelter us before we become a distant memory in Europe's bloody history. There is no hope in participating in the political systems of the kuffar. We, in the UK, have learned that the hard way.

[Logic lover]

Abuz Zubayr wrote:

''referring to labour is a greater evil, and Lib Dems and the rest as a lesser one. As you may notice, Shirk does not play a part in this equation, because we simply do not regard this action to be in and of itself, Shirk. For if we regarded it to be Shirk, then their argument would be valid, since there is no evil greater than Shirk.''

I believe, this is the point which needs to be discussed first if there is a disagreement.

I agree that if voting and becoming an MP constitute Shirk in themselves, then there is no point of discussing whether voting or abstaining from it is greator evil or whether voting for a certain candidate over another is choosing the lessor of the two evils.

So, challengers please, inshaAllah.

[Abuz Zubair]

well said brother... jk for showing understanding

[abufurqan]

Democracy is Hypocrisy!

The concept of freedom of expression is indeed an evil one. It provides nothing but justifications to allow haters of Islam and God to broadcast their satanic views in a 'civilised' and conniving manner. Furthermore, the disbelievers and enemies of God continue to use this evil concept to defend their malicious actions of publishing insulting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). They claim that if Muslims are allowed to condemn and air their views about acts such as homosexuality, it should also be allowed for them to voice their opinions and satirise Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Homosexuality, the taking and receiving of interest, fornication, adultery, paedophilia, drinking alcohol, patriotism, freedom, democracy, liberalism, man-made laws and so forth are all rebuked and cursed by God; hence, Muslims are obliged to expose these great evils. There is an immense difference between condemning homosexuality, as well as other ills of Western (non-Islamic) civilisation, and mocking the Messenger of God or a deity. A pure monotheistic religion can in no way be compared to the customs of Western society – a society which promotes corruption and evils which only do harm for its people. A Muslim does not condemn anything because it is their own opinion; how many more times must it be reiterated that the opinions of Muslims are not of their own minds and emotions, but of the judgements of God Almighty. One can ask the West to refute the argument that all the above mentioned acts cause nothing but harm, so why is it so wrong to condemn them? On the contrary, it is forbidden for Muslims to ridicule or make a mockery out other false religions and deities, let alone Prophets of God. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'aan:

وَلا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ فَيَسُبُّوا اللَّهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
And insult not those whom they [disbelievers] worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge... (EMQ al-An'aam, 6:108)

Since the disbelievers disobey their Lord and choose to follow their whims and desires instead of His commands, they are incapable of distinguishing the difference between what God has forbidden and what He has chosen and blessed. They claim that freedom of speech is acceptable and lawful providing it does not offend or cause harm to others, yet when it comes to Muslims these laws do not apply. A person is free to satirise the Prophet of God but not free to express their opinions and deny the Holocaust. A person is free to roam around naked but not free to cover themselves as it may 'terrify' or 'frighten' children and the elderly. A person is free to join the crusaders and kill innocent Iraqis but not free to do the opposite. Individuals such as Nick Griffin and Tony Blair are free to describe Islam as a 'wicked faith' and an 'evil ideology', yet others, such as Sheikh Abu Hamza and Sheikh Faisal, are labelled as anti-Semitic and 'preachers of hate' for expressing their Islamic views concerning Jews and the Western way of life.


It is clear for Muslims to see that the European community have gathered together once again, as they have done so in the Middle Ages, in order to re-launch their crusade against Islam and its followers. Out of desperation to silence any person who exposes the flaws in their way of life, they are now unable to conceal their hatred for Islam and Muslims. Are a few cartoons really worth increasing the threat of terrorism? What will it take for them to learn that there is a very small limit in disobedience to Allah and it is only a matter of time before His punishments reach them and they are destroyed.

The Western crusaders need to understand one thing: Islam is the future for Europe and the world and there is nothing any law, president, army, nation or people can do to stop it.

[Logic lover]

JazakAllah brother abufurqan for your post.

Though your post offers some interesting point on the evil of democracy - it is not the point being discussed. The main proponent (Abuz Zubayr of this forum) of democratic participation would not object to many of the points you have raised, nor would I.

I will repost what needs to be addressed, inshaAllah:

Abuz Zubayr wrote:

''referring to labour is a greater evil, and Lib Dems and the rest as a lesser one. As you may notice, Shirk does not play a part in this equation, because we simply do not regard this action to be in and of itself, Shirk. For if we regarded it to be Shirk, then their argument would be valid, since there is no evil greater than Shirk.''

I believe, this is the point which needs to be discussed first if there is a disagreement.

I agree that if voting and becoming an MP constitute Shirk in themselves, then there is no point of discussing whether voting or abstaining from it is greator evil or whether voting for a certain candidate over another is choosing the lessor of the two evils.

So, challengers please, inshaAllah.

[al-gharib]

click the link there is a whole book on voting goes through democracy methods and why its not allowed to vote and all the arguments people use to justify voting

http://islambase.freehostia.com/publications/voting/

[Logic lover]

Quote from the book

''Voting is haram (forbidden) which leads to Kufr (disbelief), Shirk (associating Partners with Allah) and apostasy'' Unquote.

Still voting in a kufr system is not being suggested as shrik and kufr in itself (but leads to, or rather may lead to).

How about saying - ''anything which may lead to shrik and kufr should be avoided to be on the safeside?''

Any more understandings?

[Abu Hafsa]

Can akhi Abu Zubair provide the arabic for the Hadith regarding the sahabah making dua for Najashi to be in power and where it can be found i know it was mentioned in english already but arabic sources are required, what is this book Dar Ihya al Turath al-Arabi is it a Hadith book. Also Is there any idea of which Sahabah are making the dua apart from al-Zubair ibn al-'Awam.

She said: al-Zubair ibn al-'Awam said: I will, to which they said: Then you surely will. He was the youngest one of them. She said: They blew into a water skin, and he placed it on his chest. He then swam on it towards the place in the Nile River where the battle was taking place, until he reached it. She said: We then made Dua to Allah Ta'ala for al-Najashi that He gives him Dhuhoor upon his enemy, and al-Tamkeen in his land." (1/376 Dar Ihya al-Turath al-'Arabi)

Also dont we say; that Kuffr occurs by belief or saying or action. And with regards to Ruling by other then what Allah (swt) revealed (Kuffr Akbar, Tashree al-Aam, not Kufr Asghar once or twice) is Kuffr Action which expels you from the Millah, regardless what one believes in the heart.

Likewise with Voting though you may do it to prevent greater evil, the action still is that of giving legitmacy for man to make laws regardless if you have another intention, bearing in mind the hadith every action is by intention.

[Logic lover]

Sheikh Abdullah Azzam stated that voting (he was referring to Pakistani election during Benzir's time) in a kufr system for worldy reason amounted to kufr/shirk.

So, what about those Muslims, who vote for few pennies in Child Benefit and Pensions and other worldly issues? They are excused for ignorance, even in the matter of Shirk and kufr?

What about those Muslims, who do not vote yet they wish that one party wins over the other (both being kufr based) because of some worldly benefit? Does this type of intention amount to kufr in belief?

As for joining parliament for the Islamic reason - Shekih Azzam permited that, rightly or wrongly.

[Abuz Zubair]

Can akhi Abu Zubair provide the arabic for the Hadith regarding the sahabah making dua for Najashi to be in power and where it can be found i know it was mentioned in english already but arabic sources are required, what is this book Dar Ihya al Turath al-Arabi is it a Hadith book. Also Is there any idea of which Sahabah are making the dua apart from al-Zubair ibn al-'Awam.

I believe I have quoted the narration in Arabic somewhere in this thread, along with where it is to be found and who declared to be authentic. It is collected by Ahmad.

Also dont we say; that Kuffr occurs by belief or saying or action. And with regards to Ruling by other then what Allah (swt) revealed (Kuffr Akbar, Tashree al-Aam, not Kufr Asghar once or twice) is Kuffr Action which expels you from the Millah, regardless what one believes in the heart.

Likewise with Voting though you may do it to prevent greater evil, the action still is that of giving legitmacy for man to make laws regardless if you have another intention, bearing in mind the hadith every action is by intention. No, because the two issues are completely different. Replacing the Sharia with manmade laws is in and of itself Kufr, irrespective of a person’s intention. Voting in and of itself, even for a kafir person, is not Kufr.


In fact, as stated earlier, it is a matter of being slapped around the face, or being beaten with a stick and tortured. If one had a choice, obviously he would opt for the less painful of the two. If a person was given a choice that he may either die with a shot to his head, or that he may be skinned alive, he would obviously opt for the former for an easy death. Is this suicide? Of course, not! Death here is inevitable anyway, he is only choosing the lesser evil of the two methods. The same goes for voting.
Sheikh Abdullah Azzam stated that voting (he was referring to Pakistani election during Benzir's time) in a kufr system for worldy reason amounted to kufr/shirk.

So, what about those Muslims, who vote for few pennies in Child Benefit and Pensions and other worldly issues? They are excused for ignorance, even in the matter of Shirk and kufr? One must place his words into context. He is discussing Muslim countries with socialist parties and Islamic ones. He is imputing Kufr on those who, instead of bringing Sharia into power, they vote for atheist parties for worldly reasons. This is like helping the apostates against the Muslims in a war for worldly reasons.

The situation in Western countries is entirely different, where you do not have an Islamic alternative. Secondly, even things like public safety and health, etc, or even the taxes you pay, about which there are no clear cut injunctions in the Sharia, can easily be covered under masalih mursala. For instance, if a person has a choice to either vote for conservatives who believe in family values, and lib dems who do not, then surely, voting for the former is more in line with Islamic interests than the latter.

This is obviously a very simplistic way of looking at a theoretical argument. In reality, where the masalih and mafasid lie is a complex issue.

What about those Muslims, who do not vote yet they wish that one party wins over the other (both being kufr based) because of some worldly benefit? Does this type of intention amount to kufr in belief? Excellent point. If a person wishes that lib dems come into power, because he expects them to be softer with Muslims, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, his wishes are Islamically correct.

However, if a person wishes that they come into power because they would bring better health service, even then it would not be Kufr, because he is not wishing for them a) so that they can legislate, or b) in order to help a kafir agenda against a Muslim agenda. In fact, he is simply voting for a better health service which falls in line with Islamic interests, or masalih mursala.

However, if he wishes for the socialists to get in, because he believes in their ideology, or if he wishes to champion their cause against the Islamists, then of course, he is guilty of Kufr, irrespective of whether he votes, makes du’a, campaigns, or he does not do any of it. Kufr has taken place by the fact that he merely desired the hukm of jahiliyya.

This is why the companions were not guilty of kufr for desiring, and then making du’a that Najashi should come into power.

[abu_ibrahim]

If one had a choice, obviously he would opt for the less painful of the two. If a person was given a choice that he may either die with a shot to his head, or that he may be skinned alive, he would obviously opt for the former for an easy death. Is this suicide? Of course, not! Death here is inevitable anyway, he is only choosing the lesser evil of the two methods. The same goes for voting.


Assalamu Alaykum,

I don't think you can make a comparison of such, you gave examples of being shot or being skinned. However who is forcing you to vote? Who is telling you that you should vote or you will die or suffer an evil? Being threatened with death makes them excused as they are coerced.

[Logic lover]

Wa alaikum as Salam.

Quote:
''don't think you can make a comparison of such, you gave examples of being shot or being skinned. However who is forcing you to vote? Who is telling you that you should vote or you will die or suffer an evil? Being threatened with death makes them excused as they are coerced.''

I think, brother Abuz Zubayr meant the Muslims in other parts of the world. So, saving another Muslim is equivalent to saving oneself. Is it not?

[Intoodeep]

I think, brother Abuz Zubayr meant the Muslims in other parts of the world. So, saving another Muslim is equivalent to saving oneself. Is it not?

but thats never happened. There is no benefit here. Prove there is.

[Abuz Zubair]

Sorry brothers, I think you misunderstood...

The example I gave of being skinned alive or shot refers to two political parties, one of them will inevitably will come to power. So you have a choice between the bad, the worse and the worst, and one of them must come to power. In order to lessen the evil, you would obviously opt for the bad.

So in terms of the previous scenario, you must opt for being shot in the head over being skinned alive. You cannot sit back and say: 'oh, voting is haram so do what you like with me', because then you will be skinned :)

This actually reminds us of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya. During the Tatar invasion of Damascus, he and his companions saw a group of Tatar drinking. He told his companions not to stop them from drinking. For if they were sane, they would go on a rampage and looting. So here, you have two evils: a) The Tatar drinking, and b) the Tatar looting the Muslims, while A is lesser of an evil than B.

[Logic lover]

Are we discussing the validity of voting (whether it is Shirk unconditionally, or conditionally or haram unconditionally or conditionally or permissible conditionally or obligatory conditionally)?

Or are we discussing the wisdom of voting?

[Abuz Zubair]

You are right, we are discussing the former and not latter.

The point being made above is that just as person opting to be shot in the head would not be suicide, likewise, opting for the least evil of the parties would not be haram either. Similarly, the Sahaba wishing and making dua for a kafir to come into power would not be considered choosing a legislator besides Allah.

[Intoodeep]

The point being made above is that just as person opting to be shot in the head would not be suicide, likewise, opting for the least evil of the parties would not be haram either. Similarly, the Sahaba wishing and making dua for a kafir to come into power would not be considered choosing a legislator besides Allah.

But under Usool al Fiqh what is the principle you are invoking with that evidence? Is it Maslahah or Dharurah?

Each of these have conditions and limits.

[Abuz Zubair]

Maslaha is a huge topic in Usul al-Fiqh, within which comes the concept of dharura.

[abudurrah]

To Abu Zubair
Asalaamualaikum

this is my first post and i would like to understand your argument properly

from what i have read this is what i have understood of the islamic opinion you have adopted
i may be wrong so correct me if i am wrong or if you think anything should be added

1. you do not believe that malsahah can overide shariah text when the issue in question involves shirk and kufr but if the issue is of a haraam nature then the haraam can be permitted for the sake of maslahah

2. you believe it is allowed to vote even if the voter fully recognises the fact that the ruler being voted for will rule by kufr

3. You believe voting is permissible irrelevant of the principle of lesser of two evils since it plays no part in this argument
while most people use lesser of two evil to say voting is allowed

4. lesser of two evil is only used to say that you can vote one evil leader over another, e.g a kafir that would kill 10 muslims over a kafir that would have killed 20

5. The evidence you use to say voting for a kafir is permissible is the one where the sahaabah make dua to Allah to keep kafir ruler in power over another also the fact that the muslims rejoiced when the romans defeated the Persians

therfore by analogy you can also vote to keep a kafir which serves the interests of the muslims

5i) question: do you believe it to be permissible to vote irrelevant of the proofs (the abysinninan one) you give? the reason im asking is that you mention that a lot of scholars also say voting is permissible in order to give weight to the argument, but i know many scholars who do not use this incident as a proof rather their proof is lesser of the two evils meaning it will be benefit to the ummah (and they say that this is enough proof) to vote, and they admit it is shirk, ive heard this myself, an example is the sheikh abu haneefah (a regular on islam channel)

5ii) question: do you believe it is fard to vote in the elections (or that it is a sin not to vote), since due to not voting a more evil mp may win and muslims are obliged to remove evil.
basically is there any punishment on the one that doesnt vote and doesnt do what is best for their capability to remove as much evil as they can

6. also using the abysinian incident(making dua to Allah (swt) for the abysinnian king to stay in power) you admit that it is also allowed even fight under the banner of the kafir against a kafir (if its dharourah, nessecity) , but in its asl it is haraam

7. the condition you put for voting to be allowed is that you vote for the kafir to be in power not vote for the kafir to rule by kufr law

8. Question is so this means it depends on the intention?

9. if one does vote for the purpose that kufr law is implemented then it is shirk otherwise if they vote so the leader has power and benefits the leader more the another leader will then this is not shirk

10. A muslim is allowed to join the legislative body and an enforcement body

Questions

11. what is the your opnion on bein mp by evidence from quran and sunnah because i have not se