Comments: Why Vote, and Who To Vote For? [Archive]

View Full Version : Comments: Why Vote, and Who To Vote For?

Anonymous

24th April 2005, 02:09 AM

http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1150 

I understand that we are trying to do the lesser of the evil by voting for the party that is going to be slightly better for muslims...however I think that all these politicians lie and therefore we can accept what they are saying. So once they win then they will change what they promised us...so really, is their any point in voting?

Anonymous

25th April 2005, 12:05 PM

Salamualikum, having read the article by the shiekh*******I*******remain unconvinced and so advise my Mulsims brothers and sisters to stay away from voting.******* The Shiekh has not really presented any strong evidence for voting*******but rather has used the principle of 'Maslaha' (benifit) to justify voting.******* Whereas those scholars who argue against voting*******use clear cut evidences from the Quran and Sunah and do not use highly desputed principles such as Maslaha.******* Allah and his messenger know best.*******

Anonymous

26th April 2005, 06:13 PM

Asalamu alaikum ya sheikh. The so called 'fatwa' that you have provided for the muslims out there is not according to the Shari'ah.******* What you need to do is go and study 'TOWHEED' and the 'ONE NESS' of almighty ALLAH (SWT).******* No dis-respect but IF you go and vote in this years coming election and the brothers and sisters who took your 'FALSE' fatwa NOT according to the 'Shari'ah' go and vote, you will*******INFACT be commiting an act of KUFUR and 'SHIRK AKBAR' which is associating partners with allah (swt) and allah (swt) is very angered by this.******* Allah (swt) NEVER forgives the people who vote for man made laws as allah (swt) said 'INNIL HUKMU ILLAH LILLAH' QUR'AN [12:40] (Legislation is for NON but ALLAH) and you being a sheikh at such a high status, you should be CAREFULL of what you are asking the muslims to do.******* REMEMBER ALL the sins will be on your neck on the day of JUDGEMENT.******* Think about the advice.******* May allah (swt)*******guide you ya sheikh!!!!******* Asalamu alaikum.

Abuz Zubair

26th April 2005, 08:03 PM

as-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

It is very strange that I posted my refutation of those who consider voting to be Haram or Kufr about 9 months ago (http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=288 (viewtopic.php?t=288)), and it seems that none of them is actually confident or qualified to respond to my arguments in an academic discussion. Hence, it is no surprise that we don’t find a single brother amongst these brothers who have actually studied Tawheed or Shariah somewhere with someone. They are all unfortunately Juhhal with respect to all Sharai sciences, and this is what makes it difficult for anyone to argue with them. You see, the calamity isn’t that one doesn’t know; rather it is when one believes that he knows, while he clearly doesn’t.

To brother Adnan, if you haven't understood the arguments and are left unconvinced, it gives you no right to advise anyone with respect to anything of the religion. Juhhal cannot advise, they can only take advice.

Even if you think that the Sheikh does not need to present arguments for voting or not voting, the onus of proof is on you to present textual evidence to prove that merely voting in elections for a candidate on certain issues, that are in line with Islamic interests, is Shirk or Haram. But obviously, you cannot prove anything since you seem to lack the fundamentals of Islamic knowledge. Proof is only expected from someone who realises what is considered as proof in the Shariah in the first place.

As for those scholars you referred to who forbid voting all together, then with all due respect to them, they are only three in number (Abu Qatada, al-Maqdisi and Abu Basir, disputably. I didn’t mention OBM here because he is a con-artist). None of them are world renowned scholars. They are only scholars to those who need no scholars. Moreover, they are clearly at odds with the rest of the scholars in the Muslim world. The least we can say about those who blind-follow these three scholars is that they are following Shadh opinion, while it is the Aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah to abstain from the Shaadh and stick to the main body of the Muslims.

As for your clear cut evidence in the Quran and Sunnah that you referred to, then all you can bring is the prohibition of ruling by man-made laws. The point is that no one disagrees with the prohibition of man-made laws etc. I have dedicated a large portion of my time and resources refuting the Murjia and secularists on this point up to now (refer to my recent response to T Ramadan). The problem with you is that you cannot even discern where exactly we agree or disagree. We do not disagree with respect to ruling by man-made laws. Rather, our point of dispute is around the permissibility of voting for a candidate on issues that are in line with Islam. I even gave an example of the Sahabah praying to Allah to give victory to Najashi (then a Kafir), over his contender (also a Kafir), and I don’t see it as any different to voting for a Kafir. Because the Sahabah asked Allah to put this Kafir as a ruler because he catered for their interests, and likewise we are simply voting him in because he caters for our interests. If this is Shirk, then you have quite clearly accused the Sahabah of Shirk. Hence, please be consistent in your ruling, and don’t accuse us all of Shirk at the exclusion of the Sahabah.

As for Maslaha being a disputed principle, then it consolidates what I have already said about your lack of understanding in religion. Quote to me from one book of Usul which states that Maslaha is a disputed principle.

Yes, if the Maslaha contradicts the legal texts, then surely the Maslaha cannot override the texts. But what you do not understand is that we see no contradiction between the Maslaha and the legal texts. In fact, we only see the Maslaha of voting very much in line with the practice of the companions in Habasha.

As for brother Abu Nasir, I guarantee you that you haven’t a clue about Tawheed, which is a shame, since Tawheed is the first obligation on an individual. Hence, my advice to you is to read up a bit more about your religion, starting with Tawheed, before you tell the 99.9% of the scholars of this Ummah, what Tawheed is or isn’t.

Here is a challenge for the blind-followers. Quote to me scholars other than Abu Basir, Abu Qatada and Maqdisi who say that voting in such elections is in and of itself Kufr.

Anonymous

26th April 2005, 11:08 PM

the lengthy explanation for the fatwa declaring that muslims should vote for the 'lesser evil' leaves me wondering who that might be. the outcome*******of this farcical election is no doubt between labour and conservative and they are both equally evil having the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent muslims on their hands.

Anonymous

27th April 2005, 08:33 AM

As-salam alaykum 

For those of you still contemplating whether to vote or not, I urge you to seek and follow knowledge...not emotion, or party. From reading some of the articles, I thought it was quite clear, but since some people are still a bit miffed, I can only say that we must seek knowledge from those who have knowledge. 

In essence, the principle that we are concerned with is summed up by the esteemed scholar, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him), who said, "The Shari'ah has been revealed to obtain all possible benefits and to prevent as much harm as possible and reduce it. Its aim is to produce the best possible scenario from two good options if both cannot be achieved together, and to ward off the worst of two evils if both evils cannot be prevented." (al-Fatawa, 23/343). 

So if we look to the basic principles of shareeah, their are allowances made in instances of necessity: 

1) A sahaba came crying to the Prophet (saw), informing him that under torture by the Kuffar, he was made to say some abominable things and denounce Islam. The Prophet (saw) asked him about how he felt and what his heart felt at the time. He (saw) then informed him that if the same thing happened again, he should do likewise. 

2) We are all aware of the example of a starving person, who is allowed to eat unhalal meat or even pork if he was in a near death situation. 

3) Ibrahim (AS) lied on 3 occasions and according to the shareeah of our Prophet (saw) we can lie in certain situations, such as to your wife in order not to hurt her feelings etc. 

I would recommend that you follow the brothers advice and look at the fatwa of the scholars such as Sheikh Haithum Al-Haddad. Others scholars making similar opinions include Sheikh Munnajjid and Sheikh Shoaib. 

At the end of the day, if you really can't make up your mind, I suggest you ask for Allah's guidance and consult your heart. I believe that any sincere person, who would like to help their dying brothers and sisters will use the option to vote. 

Maybe we don't realise the severity of the situation because we've become immune to the imagery and the mounting death toll. But imagine again, someone bursting into the room of a small girl and shooting her father, brother and mother and then putting a gun to her head....now, imagine that the little girl is your sister? 

If someone put a gun to your sisters head and told you to go to the polling station, would you stop and start discussing the Islamic principles of voting on the way? In that instance, if someone told you that you were wrong or tried to prevent you from going, you'd punch them straight out. Right? But since we haven't really felt the true love for our fellow Muslim, we don't really feel that the poor girl being raped and dying over in Iraq is really our sister. But she is...we just haven't tasted the sweetness of eeman to realise it. 

The problem is that there are too many people talking about Islam and not enough people willing to make that talk a reality. If you're gonna 'talk the talk', then I suggest you 'walk the walk'. As the scholars have mentioned, true eeman manifests itself through*******the actions of the limbs.******* I guess it's easy to do nothing, but it takes true eeman to do something. 

The funny thing is, we will not find many people challenging un-Islamic and extremely violent methods, which are*******justified by people on the basis of our dire situation. But when someone suggests peaceful, non-violent methods, due to our dire situation, we scoff at them? 

Allah knows Best.

gag order

27th April 2005, 02:39 PM

abuz zubair said the following:

"Sahabah*******ASKED Allah to put this Kafir as a ruler because he catered for their interests"

"and likewise we are simply*******VOTING him in because he caters for our interests" 

you know there is a big difference between "asking allah" and voting for a kafir! 

i need to know in the incident mentioned did the sahaba just pray for one kafir over the other or did they actually intervene? if they did not intervene on behalf of the favoured kafir then we have no right to intervene by voting on behalf of the kafir who serves our interest we should just leave it up to allah!*******

if we follow the example you (abuz zubair) mentioned and pray to allah and ask him to install a leader who will best meet our interests rather than vote then that is sufficient for us as it was sufficient for the sahaba. they did not intervene neither should we. in the case of the 2 kafirs conservative and labour we refer this matter to allah and that is best.

Anonymous

28th April 2005, 12:17 AM

<pre></pre>You fail to understand Abuz-Zubair, that some brothers are simply not on talking terms with you in specific, because of your brash, outrageous statements against the Mujahidin and their elders, that can be found on the forums that you run. Those statements reek of hypocrisy (such as the one you said about 'Abdul'aziz al-Muqrin, rahimahullah). Until you retract those statements, within which you appeared to be gloating at the deaths of the cream of this ummah, I don't see why anyone should talk to you about anything for the matter!

Those brothers haven't a problem with approaching scholars (like Haytham al-Haddad, ask him about it, and the emails may also be provided) about debating the issue with Shaykh Abu Qatadah (pending Home Office permission, which has been sought).

But unfortuntely, it displeases me to say, but your Shaykh and the reference point of many on this issue, can't summon his confidence to do this. He refuses to even have a calm privately held discussion that is recorded for the benefit of the masses. If you and everyone can apply pressure on him and get him to have this debate, everyone'd be grateful, as we'd all benefit. If we are wrong, then I'll be the first to say, 'Brothers, we were wrong. I've learnt from Shaykh Haytham, jazahullah khayr, such and such...' If you're mistaken, then I'd expect the same.

I agree, that many of those who have spoken on this issue have not been able to articulate their point across, have erred in the issues of takfir and tabdi', or have simply failed to understand what it's all about. So now, why don't you accept a person of knowledge, who is more than willing, to discuss this issue and give his opposing point across in a knowledge-based fashion?

-

Abu Zakariya, brother, you began your post by advising to not have 'emotion' on this matter. Unfortuantely, the bulk of your post was just that (the kid, and the girl and the gun and these stories).
*******
Like Abuz-Zubair said: The problem isn't that you don't know the argument of the opponents, but the fact that you think you know, but you don't! The opponents say that voting for MP's in Parliament is disbelief. The principle you, and those before that keep mentioning of repelling the lesser evil is inapplicable here - because the greater evil as every Muslim should know is shirk with Allah! As for the examples you brought my dear brother, then none of them have someone committing disbelief for a benefit, and thus, are useless in this instance.

Abuz Zubair

30th April 2005, 01:01 AM

As-Salaamu ‘Alaikum….

To ‘gag_order’,

You said:

"Sahabah ASKED Allah to put this Kafir as a ruler because he catered for their interests"

"and likewise we are simply VOTING him in because he caters for our interests" 

you know there is a big difference between "asking allah" and voting for a kafir! 

i need to know in the incident mentioned did the sahaba just pray for one kafir over the other or did they actually intervene? if they did not intervene on behalf of the favoured kafir then we have no right to intervene by voting on behalf of the kafir who serves our interest we should just leave it up to allah!

This confirms what I said about you and your ilk, and that is you cannot understand simple English, nor are you bothered to read any academic discussion if it goes beyond three pages. I say this because this very point you are raising here, I dealt with it in my response to a brother, which I placed on this very forum, for everyone to openly read and refute.

Here is what I said:

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 (means) from asbaab (pl. of means). 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.

Furthermore, forget about voting, or making Dua, for even merely wishing for a Kafir to come into power and legislate besides Allah is Shirk. For being pleased with, or to hope for Shirk, is Shirk and Kufr. However, are the Sahabah to be accused of Shirk and Kufr, for wishing or making Dua for Negus to be brought to power? You will say: yes. We will say no, because they only wished, and therefore made Dua for him to be brought to power, because he served their interests, not because they believed in him as a legislator besides Allah.

Hence, please do us all a favour and read up on all that’s already there, and save me copying and pasting from what I have already written.

To Abu Duajanah,

Good to see you reply, although late, but never too late. (But what took you so long anyway?)

I don’t exactly know what private discussions you are referring to. But if the discussion is with one of you guys, I can understand why he is refusing. Because, you guys are simply not interested in knowing the truth, contrary to what I used to think of you before. I wrote my responses to ‘The Doubts’ about 9 months ago, and none of the brothers have had even attempted a response to that, including you. This is what makes me wonder, is it even worth responding to complete Juhhal with all the Sharai sciences, who are more interested in winning the debate, than searching for the truth.

If you are not competent enough to respond to it, and are simply a blind-follower of less than a handful of Mashaikh, then just admit that you are a muqallid and remain silent. If you, however, choose to be a proponent of your views, then be ready to defend it like a Mujtahid in an academic manner, not like a Muqallid Jahil.

If the discussion is with Sh Abu Qatada, then it’s really up to Sheikh Haitham whether or not he sees a benefit in it or not. I personally, do not see any benefit in it, because such discussions/debates are not held for the purpose of seeking the truth, rather only to win the argument. What would be preferable, if Sh Abu Qatada could respond to Sh Haitham’s fatwa on the issue, or even what I have written on the topic so far (as mine goes more in depth and deals with your arguments head on). I mean, something as simply as the Ethiopian incident that I keep quoting, it will be helpful if that alone the Sheikh can deal with.

Whatever the case, Sheikh Abu Qadata is on a different level. You guys, as I have seen, are on another level. If you cannot respond to what’s already there, and yet still be proponents of this view, it becomes quite obvious that you do not give two hoots about seeking the truth.

You said:

Like Abuz-Zubair said: The problem isn't that you don't know the argument of the opponents, but the fact that you think you know, but you don't! The opponents say that voting for MP's in Parliament is disbelief. The principle you, and those before that keep mentioning of repelling the lesser evil is inapplicable here - because the greater evil as every Muslim should know is shirk with Allah! As for the examples you brought my dear brother, then none of them have someone committing disbelief for a benefit, and thus, are useless in this instance

Talk about pot calling the kettle black! If you were to read my response to you – 9 months back – you will realise where we actually differ. If we believed that voting for MPs in Parliament is disbelief, we would completely agree with you that the Maslaha cannot override explicit texts. On this very issue I responded to Ramadan’s recent call, and thanks to Sheikh Haitham for teaching us and encouraging us to learn these issues of Maslaha and Mafsadah in depth.

However, we simply do not regard the act of voting in and of itself an act of Kufr or Shirk. Hence this is where we differ! Not with respect to the doctrine of Maslaha and Mafsadah. You need to prove to us that merely voting is an act of Kufr. Because, all you have brought so far, has been refuted at length by yours truly in a series of long emails sent to you, the last of which never received a reply. Please accept it.

When we mention ‘Mafasid’ here, we are simply referring to various political parties, and not the act of voting itself.

I would prefer that this discussion does not continue here. I already have a thread dedicated to this topic, and that’s where it should be discussed:

http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=288&start=0 (viewtopic.php?t=288&start=0)

gag order

30th April 2005, 03:06 AM

THE ARROGANCE OF ABU ZUBAIR IN HIS OWN WORDS:

"This confirms what I said about you and your ilk, and that is you cannot understand simple English" (unfortunately despite his "allegedly superior knowledge" he hasnt learnt any manners!)

"If you were to read my response to you – 9 months back" (here he has confused me with someone else, we have never met so whoever it is your thinking of it aint me this is quite telling of his motives in replying - he thinks he is bashing the guy from 9 months ago !)

"this very point you are raising here, I dealt with it in my response to a brother" (so ? whats this other brother business got to do with anything ? so far you have failed to deal with*******MY previous post)

MY PREVIOUS POST: in the incident mentioned did the sahaba just pray for one kafir over the other or did they actually intervene? if they did not intervene on behalf of the favoured kafir then we have no right to intervene by voting on behalf of the kafir who serves our interest we should just leave it up to allah!*******

if we follow the example you (abuz zubair) mentioned and pray to allah and ask him to install a leader who will best meet our interests rather than vote then that is sufficient for us as it was sufficient for the sahaba. they did not intervene neither should we. in the case of the 2 kafirs conservative and labour we refer this matter to allah and that is best.

"I even gave an example of the Sahabah praying to Allah to give victory to Najashi (then a Kafir), over his contender (also a Kafir), and I don’t see it as any different to voting for a Kafir" (the difference between the 2 is like night and day ! refering a matter to allah and taking matters into yuor own hands is not the same from the above example we should pray to allah for the outcome rather than interfere or intervene wether it be with words, the sword, or the ballotbox)

"are the Sahabah to be accused of Shirk and Kufr, for wishing or making Dua for Negus to be brought to power? You will say: yes." (abu zubair really lost the plot here - no one on this forum has even implied such a thing against the sahaba but he uses it as some kind of moral leverage in his argument how pathetic is that? re-read my previous post NO KUFR OR SHIRK mentioned!)

"This is what makes me wonder, is it even worth responding to complete Juhhal with all the Sharai sciences" (showing off with knowledge, WARNING: abu zubair knows all the "sharai sciences" everyone else is complete juhhal - this guy knows it all !*******yet with all*******his "sharai sciences"*******whenever he is "intellectually cornered" he has his moment and instead of tackling the points made launches into his trademark chris eubank "i'm better than you" routine! **************

"They are all unfortunately Juhhal with respect to all Sharai sciences" (they are ALL meaning everybody is juhal except him ! you are so full of it !)

"and it seems that none of them is actually confident or qualified to respond to my arguments in an academic discussion". (you havent got what it takes to answer my previuos post - that much is evident)

"As for those scholars you referred to who forbid voting all together, then with all due respect to them, they are only three in number" (make that four, shaykh faisal also forbids voting and besides it doesnt matter how few or how many people hold to a view. a few people can have the correct view while the majority are wrong and vice versa) 

"Juhhal cannot advise, they can only take advice". (he said this to someone who understood the argument but didnt accept his reasoning. man! you do get off talking to people like this ?)

"If you are not competent enough to respond to it, and are simply a blind-follower of less than a handful of Mashaikh, then just admit that you are a muqallid and remain silent." (this is not directed against me but i find his attitude really sickening. i mean who do you think are telling someone to "remain silent" ?)

"If you, however, choose to be a proponent of your views, then be ready to defend it like a Mujtahid in an academic manner, not like a Muqallid Jahil" (ballotboy here fancies himself as a mujtahid who is so well versed academically but all that education really shows through in his attitude towards abu dujanah)

you need to start*******BEHAVING yourself and RESPECT people for NOT BELIEVING your arguments*******and having an opinion different to you and ACCEPT the fact that many of us will NOT be voting. also if you want to vote*******its your choice but dont use islam to justify your vain desires.

Abuz Zubair

30th April 2005, 06:35 PM

Thank you, gag_order, for confirming to us time and time again, that you are too shallow to understand basic logic. This is not arrogance on my part. It is plain truth that you must learn and accept.

Let me further simplify the issue for you:

1. Merely hoping for a Kafir to take power, who will most definitely legislate besides Allah, is it Kufr or not?

Ans:

a) If one believes that the Kafir should legislate besides Allah, and therefore he hopes for him to come into power, then that is Kufr 

b) If one believes that the Kafir will serve the Muslims’ interests, and therefore he hopes for him to come into power, then such is not Kufr – rather this is something every Muslim should hope for. 

2. A hope is always followed by means to actualise that hope. The best of those means is Dua. Making Dua for a kafir to take power, who will most definitely legislate besides Allah, is it Kufr or not?

Ans:

a) If one believes that the Kafir should legislate besides Allah, and therefore he makes Dua to Allah to bring him into power, then that is Kufr 

b) If one believs that the Kafir will serve the Muslims’ interest, and therefore he makes Dua to Allah to bring him into power, then that is not Kufr, in fact, every Muslim should follow up his hope with the means to actualise this hope, and that is by making Dua. 

3. A hope is always followed by means to actualise that hope. From those means is voting. Voting a Kafir into power, who will most definitely legislate besides Allah, is it Kufr or not?

Ans:

a) If one believes that the Kafir should legislate besides Allah, and therefore he votes for him, then that is Kufr. 

b) If one believes that the Kafir will serve Muslims’ interests, and therefore he votes for him, then such is not Kufr, in fact every Muslim should follow up his hope with the means to actualise this hope by voting. 

It cannot get more ridiculous than to claim that making Dua for someone to come into power, isn’t the same as voting for someone to come into power. Because such differentiation necessitates that for one to carve out idols to be worshipped is Shirk, but if one makes Dua to Allah, that Allah himself should carve out idols, is not Shirk. In other words, if one worships two gods, it is Shirk, but if one makes Dua to Allah to give him another God, then that is not Shirk.

The people of Tawheed, and the members of Millat Ibrahim, do not differentiate between the Sabab of Dua, and any other forms of Asbab. For there is no difference between constructing temples to worship idols there in, or asking Allah to construct those temples for us, for both are acts of Shirk.

Hence, if you differentiate between the two types of Asbab, Dua and voting; that necessitates either of two things:

1) that the Sahabah were all Kuffar Mushrikun by making Dua to Allah to give Negus victory, and establish his dominion in the land, while he was a Kafir Mushrik and a legislator besides Allah; OR, 

2) It is permissible for a Muslim to hope for Kufr and Shirk, and indeed make Dua to Allah in that regards, so long as he does not take part in Kufr and Shirk himself. 

And both of these outcomes of your view are clear cut misguidance with respect to the fundamentals of our religion, and indeed both necessitate Kufr.

Anonymous

30th April 2005, 10:14 PM

However, we simply do not regard the act of voting in and of itself an act of Kufr or Shirk. Hence this is where we differ! Not with respect to the doctrine of Maslaha and Mafsadah. You need to prove to us that merely voting is an act of Kufr.

That's precisely what I'd said. Thank you for repeating it.

The reality is, Shaykh Haytham is a muqallid in this issue, as are you and several others who have issued verdicts permitting political participation in parliament. They took is all from Dr 'Abdurazzaq al-Shayiji. Please, come back to earth, I haven't spoken to someone who's so conceited for such a long time.

As for 'benefits' and what not that you're talking about in reference to the purported debate, then I told Shaykh Haytham categorically that, his insistence to not have settled stance, his refusal to have a public debate, and his insistence on not having a recorded decision in private (after he argued that in public debates voices are raised, and hearts turn against each other), will be taken against him and will it will be considered that he 'did a runner'. To which he requested that I email him the day after (Wednesday 27/4) to obtain a final decision, (which was nothing new).

I mean, something as simply as the Ethiopian incident that I keep quoting, it will be helpful if that alone the Sheikh can deal with.

As this appears to be the final straw, I relayed the question (doubt) unto the Shaykh, and the narration (which he'd already had briefly written about in Ju`nat al-Mutyabin), and he replied with various things and also the following (I handwrote it whilst he was answering):
<div style="text-align: right;">(1
شرط القياس: استواء الفرع مع الاصل في علة الحكم.

وأما وقد اتفقنا على أن البرامان هو مؤسسة تعني الطاغوت في دين الله فـإنكم تجيزون الدعاء لرجل ان يصبح طاغوتا فهل هذا الفرع الذي قستموه يستوي مع الأصل كما في قصة النجاشي وابن الزبير والذي صورته الدعاء لمظلوم ان ينتصر على ظالم؟

2) إذا سويتم بين الدعاء لرجل بالنصر مع انه كافر واطلقتم العبارة لأنه يجوز نصر الكافر لحصول التمكين فهل في دينكم يجوز ان يقاتل المسلم تحت راية كافر ضد كافر اخر لحجة استواء الدعاء باعتباره نصرا مع القتال معه باعتباره نصرا اخر؟

إن قلتم بالجواز فماذا تسمون من مات تحت رايته؟ والرسول صلى الله عليه و على اله وسلم يقول: (من قاتل تحت راية عمية ...) ، فهل تسمونه شهيدا؟ وإن قلتم بالمنع ، فدل هذا على تفريقكم بين الدعاء وبين العمل (النصرة) باليد وامثالها.

ملاحظة: نقول لكم لقد قلتم بالجواز والوجوب ثم ذهبتم تبحثون على ادلة دون تمحيص ولا دراسة

<div style="text-align: left;">That's what he said, and Allah knows best. I also requested that he responds to the verdicts (which, as I'd stated are mainly copies of each other).
</div></div>

Anonymous

30th April 2005, 10:29 PM

Having briefly skimmed your last response to gag_order; why do you go far and mention al-Najashi when you have the example of the companions, some of them hoping, and being pleased at the way the Persians defeated the Romans, as in the Ghulibat al-Rum..., and what do you say of it, in light of what I just typed above in Arabic?

Abuz Zubair

1st May 2005, 06:15 PM

As-Salaamu ‘Alaikum,

The man with no proof or rational arguments is a slave to his conjectures and desires. Please tell us, how did you come to find out that Sheikh Haitham is a Muqallid of al-Shaiji? Have you ever seen any of al-Shaiji’s books on his shelf? How did you come to conclusion that I am copying and pasting from al-Shaiji’s books, or imitating his ideas? And whoever said that al-Shaiji is the main proponent of the view that taking part in such elections is permissible? Al-Shaiji has hundreds and hundreds of scholars as his predecessors in this issue, including Sh al-Albani and Sh Abdullah ‘Azzam. Al-Shaiji isn’t someone whose works are relied upon so heavily. I only have one book of his, and that is in refutation of al-Madkhali and his blind-followers, and even that I didn’t find interesting and never got to finish it.

Please do realise, dear brother, that the issue of voting is nothing new. In fact, it dates back to (and perhaps goes further than) the beginning of the 20th century, and since then the scholars have been writing on these issues, and indeed, since then, I have not known of a scholar who regarded participation in these elections by voting to be an act of Kufr or Shirk. Many of the scholars in fact became MPs, and from them Sh Muhammad b ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Mubarak (Syria in 1940s). For you to suggest that Shaiji is the pioneer of this view, and we are all his Muqallids just highlights your compound ignorance of this issue from every perspective.

I have hardly spoken to Sh Haitham about this issue. All of what I presented to you so from my own readings into whatever relevant I have available on this issue. On the other hand, it seems that you are the one who is unable to answer my arguments, and therefore you resort to asking the Sheikh to respond; which reminds me of Abu Khadija and Amjad Rafiq referring to Ali Hasan and others to respond to straight forward emails by Idrees Palmer. To top it up, you turn around and call me a Muqallid!

I was also of the opinion that voting is Kufr and Shirk after being convinced by Abd al-Qadir’s booklet on Democracy, which was the only book I had read back then on the issue. Indeed, I also gave fiery Khutbas imputing all those who vote with Shirk (back in 97). It was only after I become engrossed in Sh Abdullah Azzam’s lectures and writings (to the extent that I memorised his words and was mesmerised by them), I came to realise that there is a valid difference of opinion. And it was only a matter of time, that I changed my opinion altogether, and that is before I had even heard of Sheikh Haitham. You see, you are pretty much new to the scene, and you are not expected to know these things in detail. It will, nevertheless, take you time to become mature and look beyond the individuals you have made into icons for yourself.

The Abyssinian incident isn’t the final straw. I never brought the incident as a Dalil. Rather, the voting issue altogether is from Maslaha Mursalah about which there is no explicit Nass either prohibiting or allowing it. I only used the incident as a Shahid to prove that the Maslaha of voting is in line with the practise of the companions.

Now, to what the Sheikh said (according to you):وأما وقد اتفقنا على أن البرامان هو مؤسسة تعني الطاغوت في دين الله فـإنكم تجيزون الدعاء لرجل ان يصبح طاغوتا فهل هذا الفرع الذي قستموه يستوي مع الأصل كما في قصة النجاشي وابن الزبير والذي صورته الدعاء لمظلوم ان ينتصر على ظالم؟ 

[Translation: When we have agreed that the Parliament as an institute is regarded to be a Taghut in Allah’s religion. You then permit making Dua for one to become a Taghut (in the parliament). So is this outcome (Far’) which you analogical deduced, equal to the origin (the Asl), which is the incident of al-Najashi and ibn al-Zubair, where the scenario is merely making Dua for the oppressed to be aided over the oppressor?] 

1) The Dhahir of what the Sheikh is saying, is that it is not permissible to make Dua for a person to become an MP, and to make Qiyas over the companions making Dua for Negus is inaccurate, since they merely made Dua to Allah that He helps the oppressed over the oppressor. This goes against what you (Abu Dujanah) and gag_order earlier said about the permissibility of making Dua, but the prohibition of voting. 

2) ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubair was born much later on. The Sheikh most probably meant: al-Zubair ibn al-‘Awwam. Al-Zubair was asked to go to the fighting seen and report back to the Muslims who is winning (which in our time is like informing the Muslims of the election results) 

3) The Sheikh is incorrect in saying that the companions were merely making Dua to aid the one oppressed against the oppressor. Let me quote to you the whole incident from the Seerah of Ibn Hisham, in Umm Salamah’s words: قالت فوالله إنا على ذلك إذ نزل به يعني من ينازعه في ملكه قالت فوالله ما علمنا حزنا قط كان أشد من حزن حزناه ثم ذلك تخوفا أن يظهر ذلك على النجاشي فيأتي رجلا لا يعرف من حقنا ما كان النجاشي يعرف منه قالت وسار النجاشي وبينهما عرض النيل قالت فقال أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من رجل يخرج حتى يحضر وقعة القوم ثم يأتينا بالخبر قالت فقال الزبير بن العوام رضي الله عنه أنا قالت وكان من أحدث القوم سنا قالت فنفخوا له قربة فجعلها في صدره ثم سبح عليها حتى خرج إلى ناحية النيل التي بها ملتقى القوم ثم انطلق حتى حضرهم قالت ودعونا الله تعالى للنجاشي بالظهور على عدوه والتمكين له في بلاده 

[Translation: "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) ]

We therefore deduce from above the following points:

1) The companions became really upset when someone threatened the authority of Negus. 

2) The companions realised that Negus caters for their interests and rights more than anyone else. 

3) One of the companions was sent to report back on the results of this battle because it was in the interests of the Muslims to know the outcome. 

4) The companions resorted to the greatest of means available to them to aid Negus in his victory, and that was Dua. 

5) The companions explicitly made Dua to Allah to over power (Dhuhur) Negus over his enemies. 

6) The companions explicitly made Dua to Allah to establish Negus as a ruler in the land. 

7) Through out this incident Negus was a Kafir. 

8) This refutes the claim that the companions merely made Dua to Allah to assist an oppressed over the oppressor; rather it was a lot more than that. In fact, the struggle had nothing to do with oppression. It was simply a struggle over the kingdom. 

As for the Sheikh’s second argument:2) إذا سويتم بين الدعاء لرجل بالنصر مع انه كافر واطلقتم العبارة لأنه يجوز نصر الكافر لحصول التمكين فهل في دينكم يجوز ان يقاتل المسلم تحت راية كافر ضد كافر اخر لحجة استواء الدعاء باعتباره نصرا مع القتال معه باعتباره نصرا اخر؟ إن قلتم بالجواز فماذا تسمون من مات تحت رايته؟ والرسول صلى الله عليه و على اله وسلم يقول: (من قاتل تحت راية عمية ...) ، فهل تسمونه شهيدا؟ وإن قلتم بالمنع ، فدل هذا على تفريقكم بين الدعاء وبين العمل (النصرة) باليد وامثالها . 

[Translation: If you were to consider it equal (sic), to make Dua for a person to be aided with victory, knowing that he is a Kafir, and if you were to say this in absolute sense, that it is permissible to aid a Kafir to give him authority in the land, is it then permissible in your religion for a Muslim to fight under the banner of a Kafir against another Kafir, claiming that that Dua as a means to victory is the same as fighting along with the Kuffar as another means to victory?

If you were to say it is permissible, then what do you call those who die under this banner? While the Prophet SAW says: Whoever fights under any flag blindly (paraphrasing)… Do you then call him a martyr? And if you were to say that such is not allowed, then you have already distinguished between making Dua and practically helping the Kuffar and other such means.]

1) Fighting under a Kafir banner is a different issue altogether, because even though in Asl it is not allowed and prohibited by legal texts, it is however permissible for a greater Maslaha. Whereas Shirk can never be permissible for a greater Maslaha, for Tawheed is the greatest of all Masalih (interests). 

2) It is allowed to fight under a non-Islamic banner for a greater Maslaha, legally and rationally, that no two Muslims scholars would dispute. Indeed, the Katibat al-Mujahidin in Bosnia were part of the 5th Corps of the Bosnian nationalist-secularist army. None of the scholars ever condemned the Mujahidin for fighting under the Bosnian army flag. 

3) If there ever was a situation in England that the BNP start a civil war in order to ethnically cleanse all the foreigners, we will have no choice but to fight back under a united front, whoever it is lead by, Sikhs, Hindus or whatever, and we are rewarded if our intention is to serve Islamic interests. 

4) This example does not distinguish between the means of Dua and other practical means. Because Dua is a permissible means, and so is voting, whereas fighting under a Kafir banner is also a means, but a prohibited one. However, if one does fight under a Kafir banner, against another Kafir, without any Sharai Dharurah, then he is surely sinful, but not guilty of Shirk, and this is the clear cut difference between the two issues. 

5) The Sheikh is contradicting himself here, for in the first point he suggests that even to make Dua for a Kafir to get into power is not allowed, whereas here, he finds it necessary to distinguish between the means of Dua and all other practical means. 

6) If the Shariah allows one to make Dua for a Kafir to be established in the land who best serves our interests, then Dua being the best of all means, dictates that all those lesser means than Dua should also be permissible by Qiyas al-Awla. 

As for the Sheikh’s comment:ملاحظة: نقول لكم لقد قلتم بالجواز والوجوب ثم ذهبتم تبحثون على ادلة دون تمحيص ولا دراسة 

[Translation: We say to you, you first claim that it is permissible or even obligatory, and then you go out of your way searching for evidences without a thorough research or study]

Conjectures, and more conjectures. With all due respect, the Sheikh should realise and accept that he is Shadh in this issue, along with al-Maqdisi and Abd al-Qadir, in opposition to nearly all the scholars of the Muslim Ummah from various backgrounds. Even Abu Basir clearly stated that he does not regard this issue to be that of Kufr or Iman, or Tawheed and Shirk!

This brings me to an important point, as I previously mentioned to you Abu Dujanah. If you truly and firmly believe that this issue is a matter of Kufr and Shirk, then please ask your Sheikh, are we all guilty of Shirk (and this includes, al-Albani, Abdullah Azzam, al-Subail, Haitham, and host of other scholars you may or may not have respect for)? Would he be confident enough to charge us with this crime? Please spell it out for us ya Aba Dujanah and show us your courage, is Sheikh Abdullah Azzam a Mushrik? Or at least guilty of Shirk and setting up Lords besides Allah? If you cannot be confident enough to charge us with the enormities you are talking about, then surely all your arguments are simply Batil and nonsense aren’t they?

gag order

1st May 2005, 08:47 PM

i know the issue very well hence i am not arguing with you wether it is kufr or shirk (at this point)

this should be clear to everyone that abu zubairs*******voting is with the intention of securing our interests*******only, we do not partake of their "other evils". 

however*******i am arguing whether it is necassary for us to vote when we know that unlike the negus, todays politicians are prisnors of the*******MASONS they cause them to*******lie and cheat and decieve. 

the muslims who argue that voting is kufr are looking at the implications of voting (not*******the tactical benefit to muslims as in your case)*******ie voting is knowingly empowering someone to challenge the right of allah to legislate. then they are correct to say that voting is kufr in this context but they also extend it towards muslims voting for "benefit" with good reason, 

especially*******when many muslims vote*******to prove alliagance to the british*******against their own muslims abroad like the MCB types, to be chummy with the kafirs and appease them like the MCB types, and like the MCB types they actually believe quite sincerely that secularism is ok and that allah is the lawgiver only in personal aspects of the deen , FOR THIS REASON VOTING*******IS KUFR and all avenues to it should be blocked.

but in the context of the 2 kafirs competing with each other where one is on favourable terms with*******the sahaba*******then this is bieng tactical but that does not mean we have to play by their MASONIC rules and put an "x"*******that is not our way. what we have to do is at least try to*******EMULATE the sahaba and do what they did.*******

"If one believes that the Kafir will serve Muslims’ interests, and therefore he votes for him, then such is not Kufr" (i agree it is not kufr to secure our interests but the end does not justify the means even if it be a lesser evil especially when there*******is no pressure on us to choose between lesser and greater evil. therfore voting is wholly unecassary.*******

"in fact every Muslim should follow up his hope with the means to actualise this hope by voting".*******(in the case of the 2 kafirs did the sahaba commit to any*******supporting ACTION to follow up their prayer? i know that when we pray we make effort also but with regard to the 2 kafirs did the sahaba even lift a finger to help the cuase of the favoured kafir? please answer.

he*******used*******the example of the 2 kafirs to support his argument but when i*******used the same example*******to*******show that he may have misunderstood it, he came up with this little cracker:*******"if one makes Dua to Allah, that Allah himself should carve out idols, is not Shirk. In other words, if one worships two gods, it is Shirk, but if one makes Dua to Allah to give him another God, then that is not Shirk". (please refrain from using such examples i*******understand the point you are trying to make but it is*******IRRELAVENT*******and a bad example not beffitting for men of tawhid - you*******seem to be*******very clever in this regard you create side issues to distract from the main point.

before any of you go to the ballot box just remember that whatever "benefit" your candidate "promised" depends on whether the freemasons allow him/her to win!!! 

"Thank you, gag_order, for confirming to us time and time again, that you are too shallow to understand basic logic." (why do you insist on bieng a jerk?)

Anonymous

2nd May 2005, 01:25 AM

This goes against what you (Abu Dujanah) and gag_order earlier said about the permissibility of making Dua, but the prohibition of voting.

Please don't give it a Waylun-Lilmusalin (Woe to those who pray) kick. Infact, my words were that it is permissible to do du'a that Allah punishes an enemy with another enemy. I didn't cross that line to other things.

The quotes taken from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, and not the arguments of Yusuf (Ikhwani argument) and al-Najashi, are what's been taken from al-Shayiji. The utilisation of the principle of outweighing the masalih and mafasid in this matter in specific is what's been taken from al-Shayiji. That principle being the bulk of your evidences.

I read the bit you bolded out in Arabic to him. I cannot see what's new in the seven points you mentioned. It's like this: do you compare someone who is being oppressed, and we hope and supplicate that he becomes victorious over his oppressor, with someone going to worship a taghut? Would you make du'a for al-Najashi to go worship an idol of Jesus? No. Would the companions do that? No. If al-Najashi were the oppressor, do you see the companions making du'a for him? No. Likewise is the case if you're analogising between al-Najashi and voting in parliament - voting for someone to go worship a taghut (man-made laws).

As for it being oppression or not; then (my explanation to what he said), is that the reality of the matter in the narration that we're talking about, is that the Muslims were living peacefully in a land ruled by al-Najashi. Another man came along and wanted to dispose him of his rule injustly (oppressively). Otherwise, what do you call the taking of one land by another without right to it?

You said:

6) If the Shariah allows one to make Dua for a Kafir to be established in the land who best serves our interests, then Dua being the best of all means, dictates that all those lesser means than Dua should also be permissible by Qiyas al-Awla.

1. What you're saying here is that du'a is the best and highest means, thus all means - and this includes fighting - fall within the permissibility. So is this what you believe, that it is permissibile to fight under a banner of a disbeliever, and in your answer please away from trying to taint it with mentionings of khilaf and what not.

Just a side-point, Shaykh Sulayman al'Alwan (fakkallahu asrah) was asked about demonstrations, and in his answer he made mention of how, quite the contrary to what you said, du'a` is not the best thing because you are not actually doing anything with your hand and to the best of your ability.

With all this, so that it's clear for everyone:

1. Do the permittors (yourself) agree that the Parliaments reality is that it is a taghut of the country, that delegated to it the legislative authority?

2. Subsequently, and based upon the above we state that the MP is a taghut, who was by law endowned the right of legislation (legislation being the ability to permit, prohibit, and oblige).

3. This legislator (MP) was only given the right to this authority by people voting him in, so what gave this person this right is the vote, and the ballot papers.

4. Based on upon 3., we come to realise that the reality of the vote is acceptance to give the right of legislation to other than Allah.

5. This reality might give rise to other branches (effects), which all those who permit talk about, and it is the assumed overriding benefits (overriding the evil). Again, I state this is the branch, and not the foundation. al-Shatibi laid down a juristic principle when he said (paraphrased): Every branch that is adminstered by the foundation and found false (cancelled) is not taken account of [Vol. 3/96 of al-Muwafaqat].

If you disagree, then can you tell us what the reality of parliament is, and the reality of the MP?

For the above reasons we believe that participating in the electoral process (voting) is kufr. And so that you don't take this far as you've done before, we believe that ignorance is an excuse in this matter, and more so in this matter than many others is that we have many of those who state permissibility and issue verdicts with that, and are also popular. Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi makes lengthy mention of this matter in his beneficial book, al-Risalah al-Thalathiniyah (chapter: http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=6&c=1987) .

Finally:

As for the scholars that you mentioned then I do not believe that a single one of those scholars permit shirk whilst he knows it, but they said what they said either because they didn't know or the reality surpassed them (i.e. they know, but forgot or were inattentive).

Even though I know of an equal number of scholars (to the number you named) who are reknowned although maybe not as much as the first two (al-Albani, 'Azzam), because they have never had official statuses (many are from the Jazirah), I will refrain from naming them, for my lack of certainty (100%) of what they actually said, and because I don't see the need.

Shath, I wont respond to, if you knew the fiqhi meaning of the word you wouldn't say what you said. I've read what Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam had said on this issue in his Tafsir of Surat at-Tawbah (taken from Mafhum al-Hakimiyyah..., Shaykh 'Abdullah as you probably know was Ikhwani for most of his haraki (active) life. Thus there's no surprise in what he said. He mentions his opinion on it, doesn't mention any evidences for it (as far as I can remember). And Allah knows best.

Anonymous

2nd May 2005, 01:29 AM

Just an additional point, you made mention of how al-Albani believes it permissible, can you reference me as to where. As far as I know he believes it impermissible, and this is what is narrated by Shaykh Muhammad 'Abdulmaqsud al'Afifi (who also believes it impermissible), and I was told Shaykh Salim al'Amry was asked about it online and he said the view of his Shaykh (al-Albani) is that it is impermissible.

Can you correct what I know, or correct yourself on this, barakallahu feek

Anonymous

2nd May 2005, 01:55 AM

Interesting discussion, I have 3 questions to Abuz-Zubayr though; 

Firstly, the Riwaayah you bring up about the story of the Sahaabah making Du’aa for Najashi, can you show the authenticity for it since that would help a lot. Basically, is it Saheeh or not? 

Secondly, since this incident happened before a lot of laws and rulings were revealed to the Rasool alayhi salaat wa salaam, wouldn’t that mean, that being a just ruler (which Najashi was) was in a way, equal to what they considered to be a “just and correct rule” since that’s what the Rasool informed them about? 

Plus, what’s the evidence that says that the Sahaabah even knew about the obligation of judging by Allahs law, since Najashi judged by his then Christian laws, wouldn’t they also then consider that to be from the laws of Allah since the laws revealed to Muhammad didn’t come until years after? 

Thirdly, You said: 'Even Abu Basir clearly stated that he does not regard this issue to be that of Kufr or Iman, or Tawheed and Shirk!' Previously, you'd made mention of how he's from those who do see this. You rely on Abu Basir saying;<dir>

'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.', 

clearly, the dameer (intention?) here, in the word 'kufr' goes back to the person, and not the action. Hence, Abu Basir does see it from the issues of Kufr, Iman, Tawheed and Shirk! </dir>

Abuz Zubair

2nd May 2005, 04:34 AM

The quotes taken from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, and not the arguments of Yusuf (Ikhwani argument) and al-Najashi, are what's been taken from al-Shayiji. The utilisation of the principle of outweighing the masalih and mafasid in this matter in specific is what's been taken from al-Shayiji. That principle being the bulk of your evidences. 

Abu Dujana, just grow up and show us that we are having a mature and an academic discussion here. I honestly do not have a clue as to why you had to drop al-Shaiji in this discussion. I mean, just because he uses the same arguments as us, means that one of us is making Taqlid of the other? If Abu Hanifah forbids alcohol due to the Quranic verse, and so does Malik after him using the same evidence, is Malik making Taqlid of Abu Hanifah? You would be right in your claim, perhaps, if I had read al-Shaiji’s writings on the issue and simply quoted and pasted his arguments, as you do with Sh Abu Qatada. But you need to mature up and stop coming up with baseless assumptions because they make you look really foolish and childish.

I read the bit you bolded out in Arabic to him. I cannot see what's new in the seven points you mentioned. It's like this: do you compare someone who is being oppressed, and we hope and supplicate that he becomes victorious over his oppressor, with someone going to worship a taghut? Would you make du'a for al-Najashi to go worship an idol of Jesus? No. Would the companions do that? No. If al-Najashi were the oppressor, do you see the companions making du'a for him? No. Likewise is the case if you're analogising between al-Najashi and voting in parliament - voting for someone to go worship a taghut (man-made laws).

Allahul-Musta’an. I have not come across such nonsense in my life. You guys easily defeat the Ash’aris and the Batinis in your Tahrif al-Nusus (altering the texts).

* You say that voting is Shirk, because it entails ‘placing a Kafir in authority’ who is most definitely going to legislate besides Allah.

* The Sahabah made Dua to Allah saying: ‘Oh Allah give him victory and authority in the land’, while this Kafir is most definitely going to legislate besides Allah.

Do not you see that your view implies Takfeer of the Sahabah?

Either admit that the Sahabah asked Allah to place Negus as a ruler over them and give him Tamkin in the land – and not just aid him against his contender, or you should admit that you have a problem with the Dhahir of this text and join the Jahmiyah in Ta’til al-Nusus.

If al-Najashi was the oppressor, in the sense that he was a contender to a King already in power, would the companions make Dua for him? You said out of your compound ignorance: No. Whereas the truth is, that Umm Salamah explicitly stated the reason WHY the companions made Dua for al-Najashi, which was that al-Najashi catered for their interests and knew their rights well, whereas the other didn’t. It was nothing to do with who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. Please put aside your false imaginations around this incident in your bid to make Ta’wilat that even put the Ash’aris to shame.

1. What you're saying here is that du'a is the best and highest means, thus all means - and this includes fighting - fall within the permissibility. So is this what you believe, that it is permissibile to fight under a banner of a disbeliever, and in your answer please away from trying to taint it with mentionings of khilaf and what not.

Not at all. Pay attention to what you read, dear brother. I categorically stated that fighting under a non-Islamic banner is Haram and not Shirk, which could be permissible at times due to a greater Maslahah. What I mean is that the Dua is the best of means, and all that which falls within it from the lesser means, then they are also permissible, provided that the Shariah hasn’t prohibited those means, and this is why I excluded fighting under a Kafir’s banner as an Asl.

For example, if we want to buy houses which is a Sharai interest, and the only means to that is by getting mortgages, then such means forever remain Haram. The means we are talking about here is voting, about which there is no text from the Quran or the Sunnah, forbidding or allowing it, hence it falls under Masalih Mursalah.

1. Do the permittors (yourself) agree that the Parliaments reality is that it is a taghut of the country, that delegated to it the legislative authority?

Arguably, yes.

2. Subsequently, and based upon the above we state that the MP is a taghut, who was by law endowned the right of legislation (legislation being the ability to permit, prohibit, and oblige).

Not necessarily, as we have many examples of Muslim MPs, amongst them famous scholars like al-Mubarak in the 1940s, who became MPs in order to promote Islamic legislation and preserve Islamic values. Hence, so long as a person is promoting Islamic values in the parliament he is to be commended and not to be condemned as a Taghut Mushrik! And this is where your problem lies that the handful of people whom you have chosen to trust from amongst the world community of scholars have made this issue very black and white. The problem with you Muqallids is that you cannot see beyond these four people. I mean, look at all your discussions. It seems you have no one to quote but Abd al-Qadir, Muhammad al-Maqdisi or Abu Qatada. Surely, this world is full of great scholars from the east to the west of the Muslim world, and surely, such a crucial knowledge of Tawheed, cannot be restricted to just these 3 scholars could it? You guys remind me of the Madkhalis who cannot see beyond, Rabi’ al-Madkhali.

3. This legislator (MP) was only given the right to this authority by people voting him in, so what gave this person this right is the vote, and the ballot papers.

This is based on the assumption that anyone who becomes an MP is in fact a legislator besides Allah, which I showed in the above example isn’t the case with Muslim MPs; or on the assumption that the voter actually gives the would-be MP the power to legislate besides Allah, which isn’t the case with respect to Muslim voters, for they only vote to bring an MP into power (even if it means that he legislates besides Allah, as in the case of al-najashi), whether he be a Muslim or a Kafir, who would best serve their interests, and not because they want to place him as a legislator besides Allah.

If you understand/agree with these points, the rest of your points became irrelevant.

For the above reasons we believe that participating in the electoral process (voting) is kufr. And so that you don't take this far as you've done before, we believe that ignorance is an excuse in this matter, and more so in this matter than many others is that we have many of those who state permissibility and issue verdicts with that, and are also popular

Firstly, there is no such thing is al-Udhr bil-Jahl (excuse for ignorance) in the Asl of religion such as Tawheed and Shirk. You need to read up on Sh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s books and al-Durar al-Saniyah to become aware of the issue, instead of simply making Taqleed of your Sheikh, and it seems all your views are simply Taqleed. Akhi, Allah has given you ‘Aql, so use it, don’t be a Muqallid miskin.

Secondly, please consult your intellect; after myself (and others) having read the books of your Mashaikh, then having read your arguments here, can we still be excused for Jahl?! If you excuse us for Jahl, then that means you really haven’t established Hujjah against us, i.e. you haven’t actually dutifully explained to us your case at all, or that you have no Hujjah to establish! So what have you been doing all this time?! And if you have given me all the relevant arguments and proofs, how can you then accuse me of being Jahil of your proofs, and then not make Takfeer on me? Your approach dictates that there is not a Kafir in the world! Because 1) you believe in Udhr bil-Jahl with regards to the Asl of Iman, and 2) Even when the proofs are given you hesitate in making Takfeer, which means Takfeer can never be performed by the likes of you!

Thirdly, perhaps I am a Jahil, so you can excuse me for ignorance (after showing me all the proofs etc). But what about the thousands upon thousands of Ulama (the knowledgeable people of this Ummah) who believe in the permissibility of voting, are they ignorant with respect to Tawheed? Let’s take Sh Abdullah ‘Azzam, for example, the man is a Mujahid Sheikh with a couple of Masters and a PhD. Is such a person excused for ignorance with respect to Tawheed and Shirk?! I think it is much safer to accuse you, Abu Dujana, of compound ignorance, than accusing the world community of Muslim scholars of ignorance with respect to Tawheed and Shirk, don’t you think?

For argument’s sake, let’s say that you are correct in your claim that all those who believe in the permisibnlity of voting are guilty of Kufr, but Takfir is not made due to Udhr bil-Jahl. Would please do the honours of explicitly stating for us here the following:

I, Abu Dujana, believe and state that Sheikh Abdullah ibn Yusuf ‘Azzam, the reviver of the Jihad and the great Alim of this century is guilty of Kufr and Shirk for believing in the permissibility of voting and becoming MPs.

If you can only state that, instead of constantly avoiding it, I would admit that you really and truly are 100% convinced about your view. If you refuse, then we all know what to think of you and your views.

And yes, he was an Ikhwani, blah blah blah, and the rest of what you say to quickly brush the argument aside. I am simply interested in you making the statement above.

As for the scholars that you mentioned then I do not believe that a single one of those scholars permit shirk whilst he knows it, but they said what they said either because they didn't know or the reality surpassed them (i.e. they know, but forgot or were inattentive).

No one permits Shirk. But the question is, can there be a situation when an ‘Alim does not know of Shirk and he is excused for it as well? So on what basis do you make Takfeer on the scholars of the Rafidah? How is the excuse of ignorance (jahl) applied to an Alim? I mean, is this Irja or what?!

Secondly, just look at the lengths to which you will go in defending less than a handful of scholars you have idolised for yourself, that you impute ignorance on the great scholars of the Ummah that they do not know the Asl of religion, Tawheed and Shirk? Don’t you see that you have been deceived by Iblis already?

Just an additional point, you made mention of how al-Albani believes it permissible, can you reference me as to where

Sh Mashhur Hasan in his latest book about the Fitan of Iraq quotes Sh al-Albani’s fatwa in its entirety, where he permits the masses to vote, while he has reservations about Muslims becoming MPs.

To Fulan ibn Fulan:

All your questions have been previously responded to at the following link:

http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=288 (viewtopic.php?t=288)

clearly, the dameer (intention?) here, in the word 'kufr' goes back to the person, and not the action. Hence, Abu Basir does see it from the issues of Kufr, Iman, Tawheed and Shirk!

Your explanation, although it may be possibly correct, the apparent meaning of what he says is quite different. Because he says, La Ara Kufrahu (I do not see his Kufr), wala jawaza takfirhi (nor is it permissible to make Takfeer on him). Hence, the Dhahir of what he says is the man hasn’t committed Kufr (Takfeer Mutlaq), nor is his Takfeer permissible (Takfeer Mu’ayyan).

Even if he says that the act itself is Kufr, it only makes the number from 3 to 4 of those scholars who deem the act of voting to be an act of Kufr and Shirk, and hence Shaadh.

Anonymous

2nd May 2005, 06:24 PM

Even if he says that the act itself is Kufr, it only makes the number from 3 to 4 of those scholars who deem the act of voting to be an act of Kufr and Shirk, and hence Shaadh.

You can add another 2 from the UK...

Shaykh Abu Hamza who reportedly has ijazah from the knowledgable Shaykh Omar Abdur Rahman and Shaykh Faisal who studied aqeedah for 8 years in medina university

Mansoor Ali

2nd May 2005, 07:21 PM

Here are some things we need to learn about the political system:

The Prime Minister and other political leaders are puppets of the rulers who rule from behind the scenes.

The myth of choice exists to deceive us into believing that we have a choice.

The policies of the British government are laid out by a secretive organisation called The Royal Institue of International Affairs, based in London. Its membership list is supposed to be secret. 

All institutions that affect our lives - the political system, the judicial system, the media, the education system, the banking system - are******* controlled by the same people.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs is part of a network of organizations that coordinate worldwide policies that serve their agenda of centralising more power to consolidate their grip on mankind.

The Prime Minister only serves the real rulers, not the people.

The real rulers are those who dominate the Bank of England, MI-6, The Round Table Group which spawned the Royal Institue of International Affairs, and these people are slowly crafting a global dictatorship.

It does not matter who you vote for, the political leaders are knowingly or unknowingly puppets and if they start to go against the wishes of the hidden rulers, they either lose their jobs or their lives.

The bankers are at the heart of this conspiracy. They want to hoard the world's natural resources and reduce mankind's population. They control the different political parties.

Anonymous

2nd May 2005, 07:37 PM

Shaykh Abu Ammar Yasir Qadi had this to say about voting:

I re-iterate, in my opinion its a sheer waste of time, and getting involved with a lot of shubuhat, and its evils far far outweigh its good, and the way it exists and is practiced in the minds of many Muslims is closer to kufr, and insha Allah you will never find me promoting it, etc, etc... but in and of itself its not kufr.

Lastly, this is my opinion and the opinion of those whom I respect. Yes there are others, some whom I regard as scholars and some whom I don't, who hold a more stricter opinion. If anyone wishes to follow them, that's their business.

Source: al maghrib forums

Abuz Zubair

3rd May 2005, 02:16 PM

As-Salaamu ‘Alaikum,

1) Abu Hamzah is not a scholar in any sense, nor qualified to give Fatwa or write books. Ask Abu Qatada if you don’t trust me. He has no Ijaza from Sh Umar Abd al-Rahman in anything, and having or not having Ijaza does not give anyone any credibility. 

2) Faisal is more knowledgeable than Abu Hamzah, for at least he has studied Shariah for 8 yrs in Imam M b Saud uni (and not Madinah). However, eight years of study does not make anyone a scholar. Again, ask Abu Qatada or Abu Basir about Abu Hamzah and Faisal, are they or are they not scholars, if you don’t trust me. 

3) Sh Yasir clearly states that the act of voting, in and of itself not an act of Shirk or Kufr, which is what precisely I have been stating here. I have no problems with anyone who finds voting a waste of time. My only objection is to those who consider voting in and of itself to by Kufr and Shirk, and therefore impute Kufr on anyone who votes; and this only results from their ignorance of the Shariah in general and Tawheed and Shirk issues in particular. This is why when they are requested to admit that Ulama Rabbaniyun, like Abdullah Azzam are guilty of Kufr and Shirk, they remain silent, which either means that they are not sure about what they are preaching, or that they secretly hold amongst themselves that Abdullah Azzam really was guilty of Shirk, but they don’t say so in public in case they are shunned by the masses. Reminds me of the Madkhalis if you ask me. 

4) Whether or not voting is a waste of time, is an irrelevant issue here. You are more than welcome to believe in the free masons controlling the world, etc. For me, these conspiracy theories are just a distraction to keep us from facing the real world and practically tackling our problems head on. This is why we find all the conspiracy theorists just that – theorists, with nothing practical to offer to those who want change. 

5) Let’s keep this discussion confined to the Islamic legality of voting, and not whether it’s a waste of time or not. We can discuss it in a different thread. 

wasalam

Anonymous

3rd May 2005, 04:42 PM

Bismillahir rahmanir raheem

If participating in,*******and encouraging the kufaar to do their*******kufr (by voting and giving out leaflets*******to*******advertise their party)*******is your minhaj in preference to the jihad when the kufaar are attacking us, then I don't think you deserve the help of Allah!

A scholar may be jaahil in regards to his understanding of*******the reality of democracy (i.e. shirk covered by an unusual*******Latin name) and make a severe error*******in a*******FATAWA regarding this but YOU the one who contemplates doing*******THE ACTION have to fear Allah. You know that these people will be inventing laws out of their own desires*******and the*******evidence has been well established for this point, so encouraging these kufaar in their kufr by giving them votes and not forbiding it is a baatil minhaj.

Don't you see that making*******DUA TO ALLAH*******that he allows a kafir to stay in power to benefit the muslims is totaly different to HELPING A*******KAFIR IN HIS KUFR! Dont you see that if you help a christian put on his belt to go to church and you know he is going to the church then you have participated in his kufr. 

Wal hamdulillahir rabbil alamin

Abuz Zubair

4th May 2005, 01:44 AM

If participating in, and encouraging the kufaar to do their kufr (by voting and giving out leaflets to advertise their party) is your minhaj in preference to the jihad when the kufaar are attacking us, then I don't think you deserve the help of Allah!

I am glad that you mentioned Jihad, since all these kids shouting ‘Voting is Kufr’ are qa’idin (sit backs). Hardly any of them have been blessed with the dust of Jihad touching their feet (inc. Sh Abu Qatada), nor do I think Allah will ever bless such people with Jihad, and for the right reasons indeed.

A scholar may be jaahil in regards to his understanding of the reality of democracy (i.e. shirk covered by an unusual Latin name) and make a severe error in a FATAWA regarding this but YOU the one who contemplates doing THE ACTION have to fear Allah.

You wish the Ulama were Juhhal and the Juhhal like you were Ulama – especially with respect to Tawheed and Shirk! You mean, scholars do not know what democracy means because the word is Greek? You can’t be serious*******:) This is while they themselves have been taking up positions in the Parliament since 1940s, and they don’t know what they are doing?

Do you also mean that the scholars of the Ummah – the whole lot of them – that oppose your figureheads (who can be counted on one hand), have all severely erred in their verdicts? While only 3-4 scholars in the entire Muslim Ummah have suddenly discovered that ‘Democracy’ is actually a Greek term, and therefore casting one’s vote in Elections is Shirk? Hello? Are you daft? ‘Who am I and why am I here?!’

Don't you see that making DUA TO ALLAH that he allows a kafir to stay in power to benefit the muslims is totaly different to HELPING A KAFIR IN HIS KUFR!

Stay in power? What language do you speak, brother? The companions asked Allah to bring him to power, while he legislates besides Allah. Is that not helping the Kafir in his Kufr? Was the Manhaj of the Companions a Batil Ikhwani Manhaj? You need to take lessons in basic logic, I think.

Dont you see that if you help a christian put on his belt to go to church and you know he is going to the church then you have participated in his kufr

Oh, but then, using your flawed logic and the example, if one makes Dua to Allah that a Christian puts his belt on and goes to the Church, then such is perfectly acceptable and in line with the actions of the Companions!

You guys need to take some basic lessons in Tawheed, erm… may be before that, you need lessons in basic logic which every human being is usually blessed with.

wasalam

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 04:26 AM

Salamolaycom dear brothers,I have read the above******* articles and if I may offer you some sincere advice. Our current climate is a tactical one where choices should be made to aid the muslims in their situations world wide.Recently our respected brother Barbar Achmed has called for muslims to vote indeed he is actualy standing as a candidate in this election.Our situation is a complex one right now and it is good that we should******* be discussing it.There are many problems one is that many muslims cannot *******leave this country at the moment and I am one of those I do not want to stay*******but I know what will happen if I openly try to leave and so t I take the safer of the options and stay here for now, Sharia states that we are not supposed to reside here ,where are we to go and what will happen to us when we get there as we know its haram to give youreslf to harmsway and so what I wish I could do in another place for Him swt I will do here through dawa means verbal and political, hopeing that Allah swt may accept it, I must be a vanguard agains the enemies of our deen and if it meens I get spat on along the way so be it Allah swt knows my intention and He swt knows I have offerd up to him what I own in the best of buisness transactions,there are so many honrable tasks that you the shabab could take up*******, Abu Waleed would ask for $100,000 dollars each month for refugees and injured muslims in georgia and azerbyjan is there any of you as brave an strong in iman to take on such a task ,when I look at men like Dr.Rafil Dhaffer I know that I have never done anything, jihad has many branches catch one eat of its fruit untill youre Lord is pleased to meet you and you to meet Him swt,look at youre situation and it will come clear to you you are cribing about a vote while our enemies molest us, I say do all you can to smite their opportunities and if it means I have to vote then that is one of many actions I will use and as long as Allah swt knows my intention I do not care from which direction the shrapnel flows, as Allah understansand and knows all things,wa salam.

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 03:37 PM

assalaamu alaikum

I am glad that you mentioned Jihad, since all these kids shouting ‘Voting is Kufr’ are qa’idin (sit backs). Hardly any of them have been blessed with the dust of Jihad touching their feet (inc. Sh Abu Qatada), nor do I think Allah will ever bless such people with Jihad, and for the right reasons indeed. 

As far as I can see*******you are also one of the*******qadi'een so no need to even bring this issue up. It does not stop us talking about this most excellent minhaj and encouraging eachother to fulfill our duties rather than voting for some*******dirty evil harbi*******kafir. 

Thank you for also correcting me on where the word 'democracy' originally came from, but you see regardless where the word originates from I still know the reality behind it and that has already been explained so keep pondering over this reality before you make your vote*******insha'allah. 

Do you also mean that the scholars of the Ummah – the whole lot of them – that oppose your figureheads (who can be counted on one hand), have all severely erred in their verdicts? While only 3-4 scholars in the entire Muslim Ummah have suddenly discovered that ‘Democracy’ is actually a Greek term, and therefore casting one’s vote in Elections is Shirk? 

I meant that some scholars have erred in both understanding the reality of democracy, and then in turn also looked over the fact that those who legislate or help others to legislate by another sharia have indeed commited war against Allah, making it*******a bigger of the evils. You also keep talking very boastful as if the amount of scholars that support you in your minhaj can be counted on more than one hand. Most scholars have not said anything regarding it or have not permitted it and have not discussed whether it entails kufr to participate in the legislation of another sharia. Regardless, we go by the text and an opinion cannot be shaadh if it agrees with the text and the way of the salaf and the others do not!

Stay in power? What language do you speak, brother? The companions asked Allah to bring him to power, while he legislates besides Allah. Is that not helping the Kafir in his Kufr? 

In regards to the hadith you are talking about, then I do not even know the authenticity of the hadith. It would be a good idea if you can bring us the isnad aswell as the text*******and*******insha'allah tell us more of the asbaab wurood alhadith, and tell us which scholars class it as saheeh because it just being in Ibn Hisham's seerah does not in any way make it sahih. I'm sure you understand that aswell, my respected brother.

As far as I can see then this ahadith was at time (the makkah period)*******before much if not most of the sharia*******and qur'an having been revealed. Suratul ma'idah had not been revealed as it was one of the last surahs to be revealed and the ahl alkitaab held a higher position in the eyes of the muslims before this medinah period and were favoured amongst other kufaar. Look to suratul ruum - how Allah told us that the believers will be happy when the christians defeat the fireworshippers. Then at the medina period,*******correct me if I am wrong, but I know of no ayah of the quraan calling them ahlal kitaab; just kufaar.In the makkan period they had their previous book (the*******injeel, of which some*******had been corrupted)*******and their authority which was not a democratic system, rather their laws were mostly based on the texts they had with no other say in the matter,*******whereas us on the other hand*******had our*******law*******and our qura'an not complete and our authority not even been born into existence.******* These are just my comments before I even know the authenticy and any sharh of the hadith.

Oh, but then, using your flawed logic and the example, if one makes Dua to Allah that a Christian puts his belt on and goes to the Church, then such is perfectly acceptable and in line with the actions of the Companions!

My logic does not dictate that. Your logic dictates that both the actions are halal and how flawed is that logic. As stated above: I do not know of the hadith you have brought up and its authenticy but I was trying to make a comment on how you are using it. How different the two actions are: One is asking Allah to make the kafir continue in his evil deeds so that it benefits the muslims*******and*******one is you actually*******participating in the evil deeds of the kafir.

I hope to Allah that you will not reply to me in a more insulting manner than last time and without trying to shame your brother in Islam*******by questioning my basic*******tawheed and my basic logic. Indeed, it is not for a muslim to insult his brother at this stage of*******a debate like the way you did*******by telling him:

You guys need to take some basic lessons in Tawheed, erm… may be before that, you need lessons in basic logic which every human being is usually blessed with.

The issue of democracy and our role within it has a lot of misconceptions, doubt and fitnah since we are not supposed to be in this position to ask ourselves the question in the first place. The muslims and our sharia are supposed to be in a******* position of authority over the*******kufaar. A lot of*******misused evidences are being used and all of this while we are living in amongst the kufaar and their fitnah. It is enough to confuse a muslim so be careful how to speak to your brothers in Islam. Remember it is you that are going into the doubt zone by participating in this system of kufr, not us that have left it alone and continue with our da'wa to them, hoping that they will embrace Islam and make a difference to our situation by using Islam as their reference point*******and not kufr.

wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 03:39 PM

Abuz-Zubair, you still can't tell the difference between making du'a that Allah gives victory for a disbeliever, over another disbeliever (and hence tamkin); and between giving victory to a kafir to become a legislator in a taghuti institution (as you yourself admitted). You avoided the point about the incident in Surat al-Rum. When the companions wished that the Persians defeat the Romans - which was obviously going to result in tamkin for one other the other (same with al-Najashi, which is why I don't stress the word tamkin, cause victory in such a battle is bound to lead to it) - did that mean that the companions wanted a disbeliever to previal over a land, and rule it by disbelief and oppression (which is what happens in these Parliaments), or they merely wanted him to have victory over the land, for other interests they had?

You have two choices:

a. Du'a is not nusrah, infact it's a wish, hope that you ask Allah to bestow. The companions wished and hoped in Allah that al-Najashi would rule over the other one.

b. The companions wished for someone to rule by disbelief and wanted disbelief to prevail.

That's of course if this narration is even authentic, thanks to Ibn Fulan for bringing that back to my attention. The least one can say of it, is that it's mursal, and you should know what the muhadithin say about what's mursal.

Furthermore, is being a ruler of a land, disbelief, in and of itself, in the same manner that legislating laws and swearing allegiance and oath to the Queen (as occurs in Parliament) is?

Perhaps you have no problem with an MP saying the following:

"I swear by Almighty God [or, I do solemnly and sincerely affirm] that I shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law. [So help me God.]"

What about the motions that are passed in the name of parliament, and hence, in the name of each and every single MP?

The problem Abuz-Zubair, is that not only can you not tell the difference, but really, you have no clue about what goes in parliament or what entering parliament entails. You're relying on your imagination to tell you.

I categorically stated that fighting under a non-Islamic banner is Haram and not Shirk, which could be permissible at times due to a greater Maslahah. What I mean is that the Dua is the best of means, and all that which falls within it from the lesser means, then they are also permissible, provided that the Shariah hasn’t prohibited those means, and this is why I excluded fighting under a Kafir’s banner as an Asl.

Look at what you're saying:

* Du'a is the highest means of nusrah.
* The companions made du'a for al-Najashi, the then-kafir (disputable).
* Fighting is permissible if there's a greater maslahah.
* The companions had a maslahah in having al-Najashi victorious.
* They did the greater, and didn't do that which is lesser, and permitted (as you say), fighting, when there's a maslahah.

So how can the Shari'ah permit that which is higher form of nusrah (according to you), du'a, and prohibit the lesser forms of nusrah, fighting?!

Even simpler: They can fight if there's a maslahah. They can make du'a that Allah causes al-Najashi to defeat his opponent. Du'a is the greatest means of support and help. Fighting is lesser than it. But no - you can do the greater, but not the lesser. Aren't you ashamed of what you're saying?

Two choices again, you can:

* Accuse the Shari'ah of being contradictory, permitting the higher forms, and prohibiting the lesser forms.
* Say du'a is not infact a form of nusrah.

Not necessarily, as we have many examples of Muslim MPs, amongst them famous scholars like al-Mubarak in the 1940s, who became MPs in order to promote Islamic legislation and preserve Islamic values.

I have a question: with this democratic process, what are the limits that you have for Muslims. I mean, can a Muslim become a candidate? An MP? A Lord? Or are they only allowed to vote for 'the lesser evil' MP?

As I understand it so far, you permit entering into Parliament, becoming part of the taghut (as you accepted it is), with the intention of reform and good.

So tell me now; can you tell us the difference between doing this, and having zina with a woman (haram), with the intention of protecting her from becoming a prostitute (good intention)?

And since when do intentions change the rulings on prohibited things? Or is becoming part of a taghut not prohibited according to you?

Secondly, please, have you read the manifesto of Hizb al-Sha'b, of whom he, and Shaykh Mustafa Zarqa (who you should have quoted, as he's more popular)? And in that time, the 1940's, just when the foreign forces were leaving Syria and Egypt, were the assemblies the same as they are today? When Shaykh Muhammad Rashid Rida permitted entering the national assemblies then, were they the same as the legislative assemblies they have today? A brief study of the two different periods, will highlight the clear differences to anyone who isn't blind.

Furthermore, Abul-A'la al-Mawdudi, he's a closer example. Abul'Ala believes in the prohibition and disbelief of democracy, and the democratic electoral process (voting). Ghazi Tawbah in his biography on him mentions and quotes him on this. al-Mawdudi, as you may or may not know, and his group (al-Jama'ah al-Islamiya) entered the Pakistani parliament. May you enlighten us as to what caused him to do so?

My point is: Yes, some scholars did permit entering into parliament (and I'll get to that point below), but for you to use them as some sort of evidence, especially when you have no clue about why and what parliament was, or even is, is the peak of stupidity.

And now, to your big ring-around Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam.

Firstly, your insistence on mentioning him prompted me to review that book, Mafhum al-Hakimiyyah.

Here's what's interesting:

Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam says:

'And as for those people who stand by the tawaghit, establishing their place or voting for them to rule - then whoever stands by or votes for a ruler - whist knowing that he will not rule by the Shar'iah of Allah, and that he will implement man-made laws, and they do that out of a wordly interest or desire, then he is expelled from the religion of Islam, and is not treated as one of the Muslims'.

'Many of the Pakistani people who stood by Benazir are ignorant and do not know, and are excused by their ignorance, but the scholars are never excused, and whoever stood by Benazir or helped her, whilst knowing that she will not rule by the rule of Allah, and that she will seek judgement from man-made laws, then he is a disbeliever, out of the fold of religion of Allah...'

He later adds, 'Many of the Muslims today fall into these actions, and fall into these mukaffirat (forms of disbelief), whilst not knowing! We cannot judge them as disbelievers, for if we were to do that we'd be expelling 80% of this ummah from the religion of Allah!

'But what is upon us is to teach the people their religion, clarify their creed and make clear these dangerous forms of disbelief, and after we establish the hujjah, and teach them about these forms of disbelief, then, whoever insists on these actions and these matters, then is would become the disbeliever, outside the fold of Islam'

So here, we see Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam excuse the Muslims with ignorance of the reality of these things, contrary to the opinion that you hold onto, and if you were to do what you're trying to do with me, which is, to hold me account according to principles I don't hold myself, then you'd have to ask Shaykh 'Abdullah to takfir of the 80% of this ummah for falling into these forms of disbelief.

Yes, Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam, though his words are somewhat ambigious, believed in the permittance of entering parliament to oppose prohibited legislations, and to promote Islamic ones. The explanation to this mistake is as follows:

Firstly, we hold Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam to be a great scholar, an Imam of knowledge and action, we consider him to be a martyr and Allah is most aware of his account. But those greater than him fell into mistakes, and falling into mistakes is one of the characteristics that make us human.

Secondly, Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam is not ignorant of Tawhid and Shirk at all. His mistake wasn't in those matters, his mistake was in understanding and perceiving the reality of these legislative assemblies. Again, so the ignoramuses can understand, this isn't ignorance in Tawhid and Shirk, Iman and Kufr in the least, this is ignorance of the reality of the thing upon which he was applying the ruling on.

To make things even simpler: when coffee and tobacco entered the lands of Islam, some scholars said 'This is permitted', others said, 'This is prohibited'. Those who belived it prohibited didn't say to the ones who viewed it permitted as mushari'in, who prohibited what Allah has permitted and vice versa, and hence kuffar for doing so! What they said however, is that the opponents to them in that matter, failed to understand the [b]reality of the thing which they judged.

Likewise, those who believe entering into parliament (and notice we've strayed off the topic a little from voting), is permissible, failed to understand the reality of what they were judging and hence fell into a mistake. If they knew the reality, we are certain that they would have judged it as shirk to enter it. After all, isn't this the fiqh alwaqi' that people keep talking about today?!

As for takfir of the scholars of the Rawafid, then this is because they disbelieved in the religion of Allah ta'ala in numerous matters, as for this matter, then it is ignorance of the reality of a new (hadith) matter upon this ummah, and upon which they differed upon. It's upon the readers to understand this simple, yet extremely important difference.

As for shath, wallah I find it surprising that a student of knowledge says such ridiculous things. Do you know what shath means Abuz-Zubair? A brother asked me this question and I responded briefly as follows: 'Shath in Usul means astraying from the truth. Any two individuals who do not agree with each other, will consider the other to be a shath. In our religion, a shath is someone who goes against the jama'ah, the jama'ah being the truth. Imam Ibn Hazm discusses this in some detail in his book al-Ihkam, and brings examples. Him (you) mentioning it, is like 'Ali saying to the Khawarij, when they used the passages of the Quran, 'They said a word of truth, wanting falsehood by it.'

Many many are the scholars who believe in the disbelief or prohibition of entering parliament, some have compiled lists almost numbering a hundred! Most of those scholars believe in the prohibition (and some disbelief) of entering the electoral process.

You know what, this continuous dandanah (ring-around) scholars of yours, reminds me of what Safar al-Hawali said and did: '"We Muslims desired to see you elected and we have proof that the votes which gave you victory were our votes, and I personally advised Muslims to vote for you."' Oh dear, I wonder what Safar has to say to Gitmo detainees? Oh, sorry, I didn't realise he was actively participating in handing brothers over to the Saudi government. Are these the scholars you want us to listen to Abuz-Zubair?

My intention by this post is to make clear to the people, that there's lots more to say (especially about the principle of al-masalih al-mursalah, what kind of maslahah is this, and in any case, it's strange how you use such a questionable principle in the first place), and other matters, but as of now, I haven't the time to get into any more detail, maybe Allah will make matters easier in the near future.

Ultimately, I stress the importance of knowing the reality of what is happening, and what some people are encouraging others to partake in.

- Parliament (House of Commons being our focus) is a legislative assembly, having the ability to pass, amend and repeal laws, and is hence a taghut.
- Parliament is formed of a majority and an opposition.
- Every MP has to swear an oath of allegience to the Queen and the law.
- Motions, which MP's can request, are passed in the name of Parliament collectively, after which no one has a right to oppose.
- Important: In democracy, acts (laws) gain their legitimacy by both the majority and opposition. Without the opposition, there would be no democracy, and hence these act wouldn't be passed.
- Voting for someone to become an MP is calling someone to take part, and become part of this taghut (parliament).

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 03:52 PM

Hardly any of them have been blessed with the dust of Jihad touching
their feet (inc. Sh Abu Qatada), nor do I think Allah will ever bless
such people with Jihad, and for the right reasons indeed.

Oh dear. This is what's called a below the navel attack. It's not allowed. You're breaking the rules here.

It's not in anyones interests here to talk about what he has or hasn't done, particularly in the current climate. So please, for the sake of Allah, zip those lips.

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 08:53 PM

<h2>Hardly any of them have been blessed with the dust of Jihad touching
their feet (inc. Sh Abu Qatada), nor do I think Allah will ever bless
such people with Jihad, and for the right reasons indeed.</h2>

Ajeeb Abuz-Zubair that you can say such things without being ashamed. And what kind of adab of debating is it that you have learned where ever you've been studying? Wallahi your writng glows with pride and stubbornness...

may Allah guide you, 

ps. wallahi if you one day should see that you're in the wrong, it's going to be embarrassing to look your brothers in their eyes.

Anonymous

4th May 2005, 10:36 PM

I must say that was a cheap shot by Abuz-Zubair. Who are you to say if Allah will bless someone with Jihad or not?

Anonymous

5th May 2005, 02:18 PM

ASA,

I hope Abuz Zubair is not claiming to know the knowledge of the unknown by that cheap comment!

WSWRWB.

Anonymous

5th May 2005, 02:43 PM

I wanted to comment about Shaykh Yasir Qadhi's stance, which has been mentioned. In fact, I had this discussion with him and he prefers to abstain from it. He also said that the truth is closer to those who hold it be Kufr then those who promote it. Even if he does not hold it be Kufr, it appears that he holds it be prohibited.

Abuz Zubair

5th May 2005, 05:10 PM

does not stop us talking about this most excellent minhaj and encouraging eachother to fulfill our duties 

Indeed, talking about this most excellent Manhaj is all we’ve ever seen you do. What a struggle it is to move your jaws constantly, and often shout at the top of your voice ‘JIHAD’!! MashaaAllah brother, keep it up!

Thank you for also correcting me on where the word 'democracy' originally came from

OMG! I didn’t even notice you said ‘Latin’ and not ‘Greek’! LOL! Thank YOU for pointing that out for me. But this tells me the level of people I am debating with, I guess.

Most scholars have not said anything regarding it or have not permitted it and have not discussed whether it entails kufr to participate in the legislation of another sharia

Look. The scholars in various Middle Eastern countries and the rest of the Muslim world have been becoming MPs in the Parliaments and have been encouraging the masses to vote for the Islamists to defeat the secularists. This has been continuing since the early 19s. There has been no scholar since who condemned such participation to be an act of Shirk – i.e. for Muslims to vote for the Islamists, nor did ANYONE declare a Muslim MP of being a Lord besides Allah by becoming an MP. Fact, my dear brother. Except it.

It is sheer stupidity for anyone to claim that for nearly a century now, none of the scholars in the Muslim world have realised the reality of the electoral system except 4, or that none of the scholars realised that such participation is an act of Shirk, except 4! This stupidity is akin to the Shia stupidity who claim that all of the Companions apostatised but 4.

In regards to the hadith you are talking about, then I do not even know the authenticity of the hadith. It would be a good idea if you can bring us the isnad aswell as the text and insha'allah tell us more of the asbaab wurood alhadith, and tell us which scholars class it as saheeh because it just being in Ibn Hisham's seerah does not in any way make it sahih. I'm sure you understand that aswell, my respected brother.

If you have to rely on your opponent to find out the classification of the Hadeeth, because you yourself are unable to do so, then really and truly, you shouldn’t be debating anything. Go and educate yourself about the science of Hadeeth.

I have already dealt with the authenticity issue, if you care to read my response to the ‘Doubts’ nonsense:

http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=288 (viewtopic.php?t=288)

These are just my comments before I even know the authenticy and any sharh of the hadith

Then why argue out of utter ignorance? Why don’t you save everyone’s time, learn and then come back and debate.

Why should I waste my time on you, if you haven’t done your homework?

To Abu Dujanah:

Abuz-Zubair, you still can't tell the difference between making du'a that Allah gives victory for a disbeliever, over another disbeliever (and hence tamkin); and between giving victory to a kafir to become a legislator in a taghuti institution (as you yourself admitted).

No… There is no ‘(and hence Tamkin)’ in the text. The text explicitly says: Give him Tamkeen (authority) in his land, meaning: Establish Negus (who was then a Kafir) as a ruler in the Land, and not his opponent.

You are still bent on following the illogical distinction between making Dua to Allah that someone comes into power, and helping that someone in coming into power. Dua IS helping someone coming into power, and in fact, is the best of help. Didn’t the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam say that the Ummah will be victorious by the Du’a of the weak? Hence, Du’ah is in fact aiding as declared by the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam. But I am astounded that I have to bring a legal text which is so badihi, so logically clear cut. You have to leave your obstinacy and accept the truth, for anything other than that is just going around in a circle of silly arguments.

For argument’s sake, if we were to accept your far-fetched explanation, would you make Dua for Babar Ahmad that he gets Nasr and Tamkeen in these elections over his enemies? Or for that matter, any of the Kuffar whom you regard to be the least harmful to the Muslims?

You avoided the point about the incident in Surat al-Rum. When the companions wished that the Persians defeat the Romans - which was obviously going to result in tamkin for one other the other (same with al-Najashi, which is why I don't stress the word tamkin, cause victory in such a battle is bound to lead to it)

I didn’t avoid anything, I only went for the clearest of all proofs. The incident in Surat al-Rum is in my favour, because the Companions were happy that the Persians defeated the Romans. But the reason for their happiness with the Romans defeating the Persians wasn’t the same as the companions preferring Negus in power.

The difference in both reasonings is stated in the texts. The reason why the Companions become pleased with the Romans defeating the Persians was because the former were Ahl al-Kitab, closer to the Muslims, than the latter who were pure Mushrikun with no previous book. If the Romans were to be defeated, that wouldn’t have caused any harm to the Muslims, nor did it bring about any good. Where as the reason the Companions beseeched Allah to bring Negus into power is because that directly affected their interests living as minorities in Abyssinia. Hence, it wasn’t just the case of Negus prevailing over his enemy, rather it was also because Negus catered for their interests, while his contender did not.

did that mean that the companions wanted a disbeliever to previal over a land, and rule it by disbelief and oppression (which is what happens in these Parliaments), or they merely wanted him to have victory over the land, for other interests they had?

How self-contradictory can you get.

Just slow down for a second and read what you said:

“did that mean that the companions wanted a disbeliever to previal over a land”

And then:

“or they merely wanted him to have victory over the land”

Erm… You tell me.

But I may take this opportunity to say that the Companions did not bring him into power by their Duas because they wanted him to rule by Kufr. They only did that for their interests.

Now, replace Companions with us, and Dua by voting in our case.

You then continue in your stubbornness:

a. Du'a is not nusrah, infact it's a wish, hope that you ask Allah to bestow. The companions wished and hoped in Allah that al-Najashi would rule over the other one.

Firstly, you are an opponent of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – because he categorised Dua to be Nusrah when he said:وهل تنصرون وترزقون إلا بضعفائكم بدعائهم وصلاتهم وإستغفارهم 

“Can you ever be victorious and attain provision, except through the Du’a, Salah and Istighfar of the weak amongst you?”

Secondly, Du’a is not just hope, rather it is from the means of attain one’s hope.

Thirdly, wish is not the same is hope. Wish (Tamanni) is to wish for something that may be impossible to achieve, where as hope (raja) is to hope for something possible to achieve.

Fourthly, to hope for a Kafir to have authority in the land is as much Kufr as aiding him with one’s Du’ah or vote.

Fifthly, likewise, hoping for a better of the two Kuffar to come to power, is as much in line with Shariah is making Dua or voting to that effect.

That's of course if this narration is even authentic, thanks to Ibn Fulan for bringing that back to my attention. The least one can say of it, is that it's mursal, and you should know what the muhadithin say about what's mursal

Mursal?! Do you even know what Mursal is? Mursal is when the Tabi’i attributes something to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – without mentioning the Sahabi who narrated the Hadeeth.

But, when did Umm Salamah narrate anything from the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam in this narration that it should be rendered Mursal?!

This confirms that you are definitely ignorant of Mustalah, as well as the rest of the sciences! Dear brother, nobility is in acknowledging your lack of knowledge, and not making assumptions as you go along and basing your Deen on conjectures!

Bearing in mind that nine months ago your eminence declared the Hadeeth weak on account of Tadlees and NOT Irsaal, which was more reasonable. So what happened? Change of Ijtihad? Or is it a surrender to your whims and jahl?

Dear brother, I dealt with this in my second response to you. Do you even bother reading what I write? Or are you completely gripped by emotions? Here is what I wrote to you – nine months ago!

You said to me in your email:

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.

To which I said in reply:

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.

And since, I have found out that Ahmad Shakir classified it to be Sahih.

As for the oath you cited with respect to MPs joining the Parliaments + motions etc, then that requires a separate topic altogether, where the discussion is between those who have studied Fiqh to understand what is or isn’t allowed in various circumstances.

The Ikhwan in Iraq used to make an oath in the Iraqi Parliament saying that they believe in Ba’ath, and by that they meant the Day of Judgement, and not Saddam’s Arab-National Socialism.

So how can the Shari'ah permit that which is higher form of nusrah (according to you), du'a, and prohibit the lesser forms of nusrah, fighting?!

Firstly, this only comes from your assumption that Dua does not equal Nusrah.

Secondly, in Shariah we have the goals and the means. The goals can only be achieved by the means. It is permissible to take all means to achieve the goals so long as they are not Haram.

Hence, apply this principle to reality: Our goal is to bring the best of the Kuffar to power, or keep him in power for our interests, as did the Sahabah. We have various means to achieve this goal, that include Dua, fighting and voting. The Shariah blocks one of the means, and that is fighting, and therefore, the rest of the means remain permissible to attain that goal.

As to why Shariah forbade fighting in particular but allowed other means? It is like asking, why did Shariah place a Hadd on slandering but not Takfeer, or cutting the hand for theft, but not for Riba which is worse.

So tell me now; can you tell us the difference between doing this, and having zina with a woman (haram), with the intention of protecting her from becoming a prostitute (good intention)?

And since when do intentions change the rulings on prohibited things? Or is becoming part of a taghut not prohibited according to you?

Again, you are basing this argument on the assumption that joining a Parliament in and of itself Haram or Shirk.

This is where you should ask a question: what is the ‘illah (effective cause) behind the prohibition of joining the Parliament? Is it Haram in and of itself, or is the ‘illah that Laws besides the Laws of Allah are passed? Hence, what if one joins the Parliament while that ‘illah is missing? Why would joining the parliament then be Kufr? Because the Hukm always accompanies the ‘illah.

Hence, this is the difference between joining the parliament and committing Zina. For the ‘illah in the prohibition of Zina is Zina itself, unlike the Parliament.

When Shaykh Muhammad Rashid Rida permitted entering the national assemblies then, were they the same as the legislative assemblies they have today? A brief study of the two different periods, will highlight the clear differences to anyone who isn't blind.

O please, enlighten us with a brief study by showing how the Parliaments were more Islamic then than they are now.

Furthermore, Abul-A'la al-Mawdudi, he's a closer example. Abul'Ala believes in the prohibition and disbelief of democracy, and the democratic electoral process (voting). Ghazi Tawbah in his biography on him mentions and quotes him on this

I remember reading this in ‘Abdul-Qadir ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s book on Democracy years ago. But I doubt that the quote had anything to do with Muslims voting for Islamists in an election. It was a general comment about Democracy and the electoral system and the unorthodoxy there of that all Islamists agree on.

Yes, Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam, though his words are somewhat ambigious, believed in the permittance of entering parliament to oppose prohibited legislations, and to promote Islamic ones

No, his words are quite explicit as far as I remember. Please quote his words and leave it for the readers to decide whether or not they are ambiguous.

Secondly, Shaykh 'Abdullah 'Azzam is not ignorant of Tawhid and Shirk at all. His mistake wasn't in those matters, his mistake was in understanding and perceiving the reality of these legislative assemblies. Again, so the ignoramuses can understand, this isn't ignorance in Tawhid and Shirk, Iman and Kufr in the least, this is ignorance of the reality of the thing upon which he was applying the ruling on

How silly can you get Abu Dujanah? You just quoted to me passages from Abdullah Azzam accusing the 80% of the Ummah of Kufr for merely voting for Lords besides Allah, and you then claim that ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam didn’t know what he was talking about when he allowed one to become an MP?! What are you on bro?

Here is Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, with several Masters and a PhD in Usul, writes on politics, history etc, and gives a Fatwa that one may become an MP to promote Islamic interests, and you come along, ignorant with respect to nearly all aspects of Shariah, and claim that the Sheikh ‘didn’t know the waqi’. You break world records in making assumptions. I mean, it seems that your whole Deen is based on conjecture. Otherwise, please support your claim that the Sheikh didn’t know the reality!

Ok, let’s say he didn’t know the waqi’. So what about other hundreds of scholars since the early 20th century up until our time. It’s been a century and no one knows the waqi’ except Sh Abu Qatada, Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Abdul-Qadir and Abu Basir?!

Furthermore, the Sheikh still accuses the masses of Kufr, although he does not make Takfeer Mu’ayyan of them, and this is while the masses are more ignorant of the Waqi than the scholars. Hence, the question still remains, if a person commits Kufr, due to his ignorance of the Waqi’, is he or is he not guilty of Kufr?

Hence, most of the people that will vote today, InshaaAllah, are they or are they not guilty of Kufr? If you say they are, then that means you accuse Sh Abdullah Azzam of Kufr.

If you say they are not guilty of Kufr, then all your ‘dandanah’ about voting being Kufr is just baseless rubbish.

Likewise, those who believe entering into parliament (and notice we've strayed off the topic a little from voting), is permissible, failed to understand the reality of what they were judging and hence fell into a mistake. If they knew the reality, we are certain that they would have judged it as shirk to enter it

There you go again. Claiming ‘Ilm al-Ghaib. Why don’t you and your handful of scholars try to conviced the world community of scholars that such actions are in fact Shirk, instead of being so certain that – only if – Abdullah Azzam knew what the world is about, he wouldn’t have said what he said?

Al-Subail, who is a member of the Fiqh council recently gave a Fatwa about voting that it is permissible so long as it is in the interests of Islam and Muslims. Not a single scholar in the world condemned him for that. And this further consolidates that you need to grow up and acknowledge that Islamic knowledge isn’t guarded by just 4 people.

Your point about Shaadh is correct, but only if what you followed is definitely the truth. Here we have a kind of Ijma Sukuti on voting in elections for Islamic interest for we still haven’t come across a Mukhalif. Then come along a handful of individuals, who in response to the Ikhwani method of a political process and to favour their method of a Jihadi process, branded voting to be an act of Kufr.

If every heretic were to take your words in an absolute sense, then dear brother there will be no Shudhudh left. It is very convenient to quote Ibn Hazm here because he fell into a lot of Shudhudh due to his Dhahiri Madhab. What I mean by Shudhudh here, however, is what al-Tahawi said in his Aqeeda:و نجتب الشذوذ و الخلاف والفرقة... 

We avoid Shudhudh (following an odd opinion), Khilaf (differences) and Furqah (splitting).

I know you will claim that you are not Shaadh because you are on the