Comments: All About Voting [Archive]

View Full Version : Comments: All About Voting

Anonymous

5th May 2005, 02:08 PM

http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1225 (/viewarticle.php?articleID=1225) 

Excellent article. Although, I do not expect the non-voting idiots to take head.

Anonymous

5th May 2005, 07:37 PM

That was uncalled for 'Muslim Voter' . We should not call Muslims who dont vote Idiots , they may very well have strong Islamic reasons for not doing so. Besides, it is not from Islamic Manners to call Muslims Idiots. Thankyou.

Anonymous

5th May 2005, 08:17 PM

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللّهِ إِلاَّ وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ " And most of them believe not in Allaah except that they are Mushrikoon ." (EMQ Yoosuf , 12: 106) بادروا بالأعمال فتنا كقطع الليل المظلم. يصبح الرجل مؤمنا ويمسي كافرا. أو يمسي مؤمنا ويصبح كافرا. يبيع دينه بعرض من الدنيا ‘Be prompt in doing good deeds! (Before you are overtaken) by turmoil which will be like a part of the dark night. (During which) a man will wake up in the morning as a believer and go to sleep as a disbeliever; or he may go to sleep as a believer and awake as a disbeliever. He will sell his Deen by any offer (temptation) of the dunyaa.’ (Saheeh Muslim, book of Eemaan, chapter 51 hadeeth #118) the morron and idiot is the on who sells his Deen, and thinks he on the right track and calls other towards it!and it's not only a handful of ULAMA, as so conceitingly said by Abu-Zubair, Sh. Abdullah Ghunayman (hf) has this to say:http://s4.youshareit.com/files/3637f980dc655cc5f08e6d4bc94ead50.html (http://s4.youshareit.com/files/3637f980dc655cc5f08e6d4bc94ead50.html) 

The disbelief (kufr) of electing legislators besides Allah.The Fatwa of Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Ghunaymaan.
The Shaykh, may Allah (swt) preserve him, says: “All creatures are the slaves of Allah (‘ibaad Allah), the Majestic and High, and He created them so that they may become worshipers of Allah, the Majestic and High. The slave must act according to the commands of His Master and a follower of His Speech and Shari’ah (Law), and not (become) a lord or a rival to Him in the legislation (tashree’a) and the judgment (hukm) between the creation. If he is like this, (then) he becomes a competitor with Allah to the same degree that Fir’awn (Pharaoh) and his fellow greater tawagheet did (i.e. those things which have transgressed the limits of Tawheed and are worshipped besides Allah).”
He also said: “And concerning that which makes a creature, which the people establish, choose and say that ‘this act is on my behalf’ or ‘I chose this’ – after which he becomes a legislator of laws which he judges by – (then) he came with something which negates his iman (belief) and he must review himself and seek repentance so he does not fall into shirk, which is the greatest of sins.”
Those who elect legislators along with Allah claim they do so because their intention is not to make them partners with Allah, but rather reformers. The answer of the Shaykh concerning this question which was addressed to him (is as follows): “If one does an action which is the opposite of the Shari’ah, his intention does not benefit him. The one who elects the legislator and (then) he says, ‘I only elect him to become a reformer’, although the action of this legislator is to be a partner along with Allah in terms of His legislation, which is against the Book of Allah and His legislation – (then) verily, the hukm (legislation) is for none but Allah (swt). However, the intention may be accepted if the action is permissible within the Shari’ah.
He also said, may Allah preserve him, “Yes, if a person knows that he elected this person so he can become a legislator, and he knows that (the right of) legislation is for none but Allah alone, the Majestic and High, and he said, ‘I want this person (as a legislator) because I know that he is a righteous person and he will establish righteousness which will prevent the Mufsideen (those who cause corruption) from taking over, and therefore I elect this person’, that will indeed not benefit him.”
He also said, “Although he claims his intention is righteous, it will not benefit him, even if it is righteous. This is because electing him on this basis is not permissible, and due to that he has fallen into a negating factor from among the negating factors of belief (iman).”
He also said in his answer to the question that if the person enters in legislative council and said he will not start legislating and will not practice any forms of legislation, but will only take the position of legislation (what is the ruling upon such a person)? He said, may Allah preserve him: “If he enters the government which consists of legislation and laws, he is surely content with it, and being content with laws from other than Allah, the Majestic and High, is kufr (disbelief). For example, if he allowed himself to become a legislator, that in itself is not only kufr, but he also becomes one of the heads of the tawagheet; and the tawagheet are many. He is one of the tawagheet because he lets the hukm be with him and not with Allah, the Majestic and High.”
He said, may Allah have mercy upon him, in an advice he gave to the voter (for man-made law): “My advice to you is to cling to the commands of this deen (religion), and to be steadfast upon the Tawheed of Allah (swt). And if you fall short of this, (then) you must repent and seek refuge and renew your iman. And the world does not benefit you, so the person must leave these matters and renew his deen should he have fallen into one of the negating factors which negate iman.”
Regarding the validity upon praying behind those voters who elect creatures in the position of legislation, he said, may Allah preserve him: “If one has fallen into that and he knows; praying behind him is not valid. One must pray behind those who have correct ‘aqeedah (creed/belief) and have not fallen into one of the negating factors which negate iman.”
[Taken from a recorded lecture delivered by Shaykh al-Ghunaymaan entitled: ‘And (agree) that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.’ (Aali ‘Imraan 3:64)]

Anonymous

6th May 2005, 04:41 AM

aslaamu aleykum,

Our diin is about nasiiha advice. If we are going to corporate and listen to each to be effective as an ummah than we have follow the beautiful manner/character that our beloved prophet s.a.w. (the last prophet for all those who follow the way Abraham). If we are going to make more of an effective change where we are than why not. We don’t afford to be lazy and do nothing, day and night we have to think how to improve our selfs and those around us for the better. The voice of muslims must be heard, we are not terrorist nor do we support terrorism but demonizing muslims in order to make it ok to infringe upon their civil right is not only wrong it inhumane. How are we going to fight against injustices around the world if we are not united as an ummah?

Anonymous

6th May 2005, 04:44 AM

vote inshalah

Abuz Zubair

6th May 2005, 08:03 AM

To abu-hudhayfa:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللّهِ إِلاَّ وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ 

" And most of them believe not in Allaah except that they are Mushrikoon ." (EMQ Yoosuf , 12: 106) بادروا بالأعمال فتنا كقطع الليل المظلم. يصبح الرجل مؤمنا ويمسي كافرا. أو يمسي مؤمنا ويصبح كافرا. يبيع دينه بعرض من الدنيا 

‘Be prompt in doing good deeds! (Before you are overtaken) by turmoil which will be like a part of the dark night. (During which) a man will wake up in the morning as a believer and go to sleep as a disbeliever; or he may go to sleep as a believer and awake as a disbeliever. He will sell his Deen by any offer (temptation) of the dunyaa.’ (Saheeh Muslim, book of Eemaan, chapter 51 hadeeth #118) 

the morron and idiot is the on who sells his Deen, and thinks he on the right track and calls other towards it! 

No, you are the only moron and an idiot here. And why wouldn’t you be after implying that the scholars of this Ummah – bar your four Imams are all Mushrikun pagans. So now, Abdullah Azzam is a Mushrik who sells his Deen, so is Sheikh al-Albani and the word community of Muslim scholars. Sheikh Haitham is one of the top senior students of one of the oldest scholars of the Arabian Peninsula, Sheikh Ibn ‘Aqil, who is a senior to Sh Ibn Uthaimeen and a closer student of Sh Sa’di than him. Refer to the book Fath al-Jalil regarding the Seerah of Sheikh al-Hanabilah ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Aqil, for the Sheikh states about Sh Haitham: “He is the most beloved of people to me. Whoever respects Sh Haitham, respects me.”

Here comes along a Jahil idiot, who has been deprived by Allah of any understanding in His Religion, who declares the great scholars of this Ummah, the bulk of them indeed, as pagans – including the leaders of Jihad and Mujahidin, such as Sheikh ‘Abdullah ibn Yusuf ‘Azzam. You are akin to the same Takfiris that Abdullah Azzam mentioned who refused to pray behind him in Afghanistan.

Even the great Sheikh Humud ibn Uqla al-Shuaibi didn’t regard joining the Parliament as an MP to be an act of Shirk, let alone voting:يدخل بعض أهل الخير والصلاح للبرلمانات حتى يخففون من الشر الذي قد يحصل إذا هم تركوا هذا المكان ، فما رأيكم في الدخول في البرلمانات ؟ وهل من دخل وهو ينوى الإصلاح يعذر بهذا ويكون مجتهدا ؟ البرلمانات قائمة على القوانين الوضعية كما لا يخفى ، والتعامل مع القوانين الوضعية محرم لا يجوز ، والذي يحكّم القوانين كافر ، والذي أراه أن الدخول في البرلمانات لا يجوز ، ولكن بعض العلماء قال : إذا كان من الممكن أن يكون الأغلبية في البرلمان للإسلاميين فيترتب عليه أن يكون وجودهم مؤثر ويبطل المشاريع العلمانية جاز ذلك 

Q: Some of the righteous and pious people enter the Parliaments in order to lessen the evil which may come about if they were not to enter. What is your opinion with respect to entering the Parliaments? And the one who enters it with the intention of reform, is he accused for it and regarded to be a Mujathid in his view? (i.e. a matter of Ijtihad)

A: The Parliaments are based on man-made laws as it isn’t hidden. To engage in man-made laws is forbidden and not allowed. As for the one who rules by such man-made laws then he is a Kafir. In my opinion, it is not allowed to enter the Parliament. However, some of scholars said: If it is possible to have a majority of Islamists in the Parliament, such that their presence becomes effective and blocks the secular schemes, then such is permissible.

Hence, the Sheikh, although he regards entering the Parliament to be Haram – and not at all Kufr and Shirk as the Juhhal claim – he acknowledges and mentions the other opinion which says that it is allowed to enter the Parliament, if some good is achieved. Now tell me dear brother, is Sheikh Humud al-‘Uqla ignorant of the matters of Tawheed and Shirk to regard this issue as a matter of Fiqhi Khilaf amongst the scholars? You cannot now accuse him of not knowing the reality of these parliaments for he clearly states that the Parliament is a Taghut system and the legislator therein besides Allah is a Kafir!

As for the statements of Sh Ghunaiman you cited, then they are completely irrelevant here. During the first part of the audio recording, he is simply discussing the person who votes for someone to become a legislator besides Allah. This is certainly not what the Muslims are voting for, precisely as the Companions made Dua to bring Negus to power, but not with the intention of making him a legislator besides Allah. Secondly, he forbids Muslims from entering the Parliament with the intention of bringing about a greater good and preventing a harm, not because by merely entering the Parliament he would be considered a legislator besides Allah, but because the prerequisites of entering a Parliament demand certain actions that are apparently clear-cut Kufr. No one is disputing this issue. However, many of the scholars circumvent this problem by applying the Fiqhi issue of Yamin with Ta’wil, such as the Ikhwan in Iraq swearing an oath that they believe in Ba’ath, intending by that the Day of Judgement.

He also says in the tape that the one, who enters the Parliament to legislate besides Allah, or the one who votes for the MPs to legislate besides Allah, then one cannot pray behind him. He is 100% correct in that. But this is not what we are discussing here. Because people are simply voting for the better of the two Kuffar, and not voting to make him a legislator besides Allah. Hence, Sh al-Ghunaiman’s statements here are completely irrelevant. Otherwise, could anyone claim in his right mind that Sh ‘Abdullah al-Ghunaiman would forbid people from praying behind Sheikh al-Albani or al-Subail (or even Sh Humud for that matter) for their ‘Shirki’ Aqeeda by calling the Muslims to vote for the Islamists in elections?!

To put your Ihtijaj with Sh al-Ghunayman to rest, we will contact him and ask him to respond to our particular question of voting for the better of the two Kuffar, and whether or not scholars like Sh Abdullah Azzam, al-Albani and al-Subail are guilty of Kufr and Shirk or not, by deeming it permissible to vote for Islamists or the best of the Kuffar for Islamic interests.

wasalam

Anonymous

6th May 2005, 06:55 PM

<a name="2865"></a>abu-hudhayfa you eeediyaat

Anonymous

6th May 2005, 11:29 PM

so if u vote for one to be an mp, isn't he*******a member of a*******legislating taghut institution? It doesn't matter if u call khamr happy drink, it's still khamr and*******haram!

*******

*******

Anonymous

7th May 2005, 12:41 AM

as,

Brother Abu Hudayfa, take my sincere advice, don't bother in this thread, leave the true jahils who want to vote suite themselves, just watch this space, their taghout thrones have their days numbered.******* Then we'll see who has the last laugh!

Until then, just sit back and enjoy the circus of clowns who play with Tawheed!

ws.

PS. You can all come out now, the BNP threat has gone!, instead a greater zionist one awaits.

Anonymous

8th May 2005, 04:26 AM

Assalaamu 'alaikum my brothers and sisters in deen



I have sincerely looked at the arguments made by many of the scholars for voting in a non-islamic election and have not found any of them to convince me. Nor can I sincerely accept that the opinion for voting in a secular election is a valid ikhtilaf.



I remember that in the past amongst other fellow alim that it was known to be clearly kufr, then it became haram, then it became lesser of the two evils (necessity (darurah)), then mubah and now I hear it is fard! (i.e. i am sinful if i dont vote!)



For those who are non Arab and not aware of fiqhi principles: Many of the rules of islam are clear–cut. These are the rulings no scholars what ever his level of knowledge can change since ijtihad in these matters is illegal. A ruling must be consistent with the reality. As an example we know by necessity that alcohol is haraam. This ruling must fit the correct reality. So the ruling of this Haraam will fit on what is dictated by reality as being alcohol.



We again know from necessity that Ruling by non-Islam is kufr (disbelief), fusuq (transgression) and dhulum (oppression). And helping, choosing, electing, voting a person to do this constitute the same ruling.



Now comprehend the reality of voting for a person to go into secular parliament. What do you think he/she does there (in benefit or harm)? If he/she does nothing than why vote?



The recent argument I have come across is that that’s not the reality. And this is probably the strongest argument in the sense that it does not contradict the clear text. I asked him to forgo any pre-conceptions and opinions of halal or haram and reasoning used by scholars and let the reality itself dictate. After that he had no argument.



Ma as salam



Abu Yusuf al Hind

Anonymous

8th May 2005, 01:56 PM

ya muslimoon talk to each other nicely just because the kuffar talk in a disrespectful way when stressing a point doesnt mean you should act in a simular fashion.The *******muslims are becoming like the kuffar in so many ways these days that sometimes we act like them without realizing it retain youre identity indeed The Prophet (s.a.w)said indeed I have not been sent accept to perfect the character,I love you all for the sake of Allah swt and it saddens me to see you hurting each other like this are not the kuffar hurtting us enough as an ummah******* so why are you seeking to hurt each other more,I have read most of the arguement from both sides and you both have evidences and it should be left to the individual what they choose to with them them and verily Allah swt is the one who will judge us by what we intended,wa salam.

Abuz Zubair

8th May 2005, 06:10 PM

Guest,

JazaakumAllahu Khairan dear brother for your advice. May Allah accept it from you and place it in your scales of good deed.

Although, there is nothing more disrespectful and saddening, then being accused of Shirk and Kufr by your younger and inexperiences brothers. Don't you think?

wasalam

Anonymous

8th May 2005, 08:38 PM

"Although, there is nothing more disrespectful and saddening, then being accused of Shirk and Kufr by your younger and inexperiences brothers. Don't you think?"

Na'am, that's what we all think and feel when reading your answers!

Anonymous

9th May 2005, 12:54 PM

Assalamu Alaikum all,

True muslims find answers in quran and sunnah and i have not yet seen an argument with relevant evidences for voting.

If there is any, could you please point it out to me.

Jazakallah Khayr.

ps stop arguing and being rude to eachother is this is only discouraged by the sunnah

Anonymous

10th May 2005, 06:52 PM

As regards to the scholars making takfeer of every voter outright is also not correct. As the ruling on each voter varies from one another and for who they voted for. 

Even Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisee mentions this in his Fataawa section:

"And from them are those who are brought and he sees those elaborate (campaign) posters, which have written upon them in bold text: "Islam is the Solution", and the likes of that from the slogans, which the legislating polytheists deceive the general Muslims with. So they vote for them and choose them, due to their love for Isl

As this is the case for those who voted for Islaamic parties in Muslim countries, believing that they will implement Shariah. Even Abul Ala al-Mawdudi and his party believed that all other parties (secular) is "sovereignty of the people" and that in his party, it is the "sovereignty of Allaah". Considering this, that his party still particpated in democratic elections, and by doing so, whilst still opposing "western democracy". Even though the number of seats won by Jamaat-e-Islaami were very few, and the only two parties to ever win were the two secular parties, Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif and People's Party of Benazir Bhutto. Never did you ever see al-Mawdudi advising the Muslims to vote for either of the two major parties as a lesser of two evils, of who will more benefit to the Muslims in Pakistan. 

This is the same for Shaykh Abdullah Azzam (May Allaah accept his martydom, Ameen) in his book, "Mafhum al-Haakimiyyah", where he says:

'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 [Bhutto] 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...'


Here we can see from Abdullah Azzam also saying something similar to Abu Ala al-Mawdudi, that they totally opposed to the idea of voting for any Kufr secular party, just for some kind of benefit. As voting for a Kufr party that will give the right of legislating unlimitedly to the MP's and not*******in accordance by*******the Shariah of Allaah, as intended by the Islaamic parties. 

Also to further prove what I am saying, the Fatwa of Shaykh Hamood ibn Uqla al-Shu’aibi, which was posted by Abuz Zubair himself:

Question: Some of the righteous and pious people enter the Parliaments in order to lessen the evil which may come about if they were not to enter. What is your opinion with respect to entering the Parliaments? And the one who enters it with the intention of reform, is he accused for it and regarded to be a Mujathid in his view (i.e. a matter of Ijtihad)?

Answer: The Parliaments are based on man-made laws as it isn’t hidden. To engage in man-made laws is forbidden and not allowed. As for the one who rules by such man-made laws then he is a Kafir. In my opinion, it is not allowed to enter the Parliament. However, some of scholars said: If it is possible to have a majority of Islamists in the Parliament, such that their presence becomes effective and blocks the secular schemes, then such is permissible.

And the same can also be said of the number of examples given by Abuz Zubair, listing many scholars from the last century who did this on the other thread, which appears to be closed now. How many voted for the Kufr parties? 

Using examples of scholars representing Islaamic parties in the last century*******to prove that we should vote for Kufr parties in the UK is totally incorrect. In fact my father is a Jamaat-e-Islami (al-Mawdudi's party)*******supporter for the last 30 years, and never will you ever see him*******vote for any Kufr party in the UK or*******anywhere else, all in the name of gaining some Masaalih (Benefit). Even though I oppose the participation of elections all together in the first place and have had a number of disagreements with him on it.**************am and due to allegiance to its Shari’ah and they do not know or do not intend the dead-end street of Shirk, which those representatives take to rule with some of the penalties of the (Islamic) legislation in their claim."

Anonymous

10th May 2005, 06:56 PM

There is no way for me to edit my post above, but one of the quotes I gave has some for reason has been split in half, and one part has*******ended up below, but the entire quote is here of what I said:

---------------------------------------------------

"Even Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisee mentions this in his Fataawa section:

And from them are those who are brought and he sees those elaborate (campaign) posters, which have written upon them in bold text: "Islam is the Solution", and the likes of that from the slogans, which the legislating polytheists deceive the general Muslims with. So they vote for them and choose them, due to their love for Islam and due to allegiance to its Shari’ah and they do not know or do not intend the dead-end street of Shirk, which those representatives take to rule with some of the penalties of the (Islamic) legislation in their claim."

Anonymous

10th May 2005, 07:11 PM

Also I found some interesting answers in the Q&A section from the official Jamaat-e-Islami website. The question was about joining hands with People's Party (Socialist) of Benazir Bhutto against the then government of Nawaz Sharif (question was asked when Nawaz was in power a couple of years ago):Question: Current statements by the ex-ruler and head of People's Party, Benazir Bhutto reflect that she has quite soft corner for the Jama’at whereas the Jamaat has before the elections, been declaring both the big parties equally vicious. Is it possible to organize a joint PPP-Jama’at movement against the present Muslim League government?Answer: When these people are thrown out of the government their hearts soften, because they are left with no authority and force to use. Yet when they are seated back on the rose-bed of power, they get hardened once again. Basically, however, both People's Party and the Muslim League are villainous and callous. When in opposition, Mr. Nawaz Sharif was "soft". Today it is the People’s Party.

Abuz Zubair

10th May 2005, 09:10 PM

Again, you are going round and round in circles. You have contributed nothing new to the discussion.

Please understand what exactly we are discussion.

We are discussing from a pure theological perspective, whether or not voting for an Islamic or a non-Islamic party and taking part in the democratic electoral system, amounts to Kufr and Shirk or not – irrespective of the reasons behind which a person votes.

Meaning: On the one hand, we have a person who votes for these parties (Islamic/non-Islamic) to be elected so that they may implement secularism at the expense of Shariah. On the other hand, we have another person who votes for these parties (Islamic/non-Islamic) to be elected for a greater Islamic interest or to lessen the harms of Kufr.

Are they both guilty of Kufr and Shirk? You say they are.

The scholars I quoted say, they are not, and it is simply a matter of Fiqhi difference of opinion.

You say that merely joining the Parliament means that you have become a legislator besides Allah.

On the other hand Sheikh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam encourages the Islamists to join the Parliament. Is he a Mushrik or not?

You see, this is why I had to close these threads because the brothers cannot even seem to understand the argument. They are too blinded by the Taqleed of their group and thought, that they are bold enough to persist in accusing the scholars and Mujahidin of this Ummah of Kufr and Shirk.

Hence, this thread (and all other threads) to do with this topic will be closed.

For those who haven’t been blinded by partisanship, and those who haven’t been restricted by the Taqlid of their ‘four imams’, the following two threads will always be available for the readers so that they may discern for themselves where the truth lies:

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

http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=621 (viewtopic.php?t=621)

wasalam