Assalamu alaikum warahmathullah,
Sub: Muslims, Democracy and the Manhaju Salaf
Alhamdulillah I am keeping fine but my only major concern at present is your perception and understanding of Islam. Firstly I would like to make it clear that Deen and Duniyya should be considered as two connotations. But what I feel that often you mixing these two terms together to understand and explain Islam like our contemporary Ihwanees do. I presume that I have clearly distinguished between these two aspects in my previous mail ‘organised Da’wa against organizations’
Muslims should have moderate views and stand in religious matters and political as well. So Muslims should avoid favouring immoderate uncompromising policies while living in any society. There is no harm for a Muslim to live in a country where his/her beliefs and practices are not interrupted by the authority or people. Based on this principle, a country can be classified as:-
1) A country ruled according to Sharia laws and so, Muslims do not have any problem to practice Islam.
2) A country ruled other than Sharia laws but Muslims are permitted to practice Islam as a basic right given by the constitution.
3) A country does not allow Muslims to stay and practice Islam.
The Holy Qur'an and the Sunna of prophet (peace be upon him) do not discourage Muslims either live or cooperate with the above first two countries. But the country mentioned as third, where Muslims are not allowed to live, Allah permitted Muslims to dissent with them. (And Allah said "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who deal with equity." [60:8])
As I mentioned above, a country ruled according to Sharia i.e. Islamic state, would not be a state of absolute democracy nor theocracy or dictatorship or kingdom instead a combination of the first two. Those who are giving verdict against voting, participating in election, organization and collective strive in da'wa often conveniently ignoring the real concept of Islamic state.
Muslims in all over the world do not differ regarding the importance of implementing Islamic law and jurisprudence as a governing system for Muslims. But they mainly differ on how, when and where it is to be implemented. Prophet Salallahu walaikwasalam lived in a place where a taghut system was existed. He never fought against Quaraysh to remove the existing system in Makah instead primarily he tried to purify the people from ascribing partners to Allah. When the Quaraysh told prophet (peace be upon him); you have brought to your people a matter of worry, you have declared their way of life to be foolish, you have insulted their gods. If what you want is money, we will put together a fortune for you, so that you may be richest of us; if you want honour we will make you our chief, if you want power, we will make you king. Prophet (peace be upon him) replied to them; "I swear by Allah if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I give up my work, I would not abandon it until it becomes victories or I lose my life in its course". If the intention of prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam was to establish a kingdom of Allah/ Islamic state he would have accepted the offers of Quaraysh. It shows that establishing Kingdom of Allah in the world is not as important while comparing to inviting people to the fundamental principles of Islam i.e. no one worthy to be worshiped but Allah alone.
Democracy; a lethal weapon of the common peopleYou have quoted the Ayat 40 from Surat Yusuf, Inal Hukum ila Lilah {The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah- (translated by Mohsin khan)} to prove your claim that democracy is a major Shirk? Mahadallah. I really scared that It is the same repetition of the people who had uttered this verse to declare Ali (may Allah pleased with him) as Kafir (disbeliever) when he was decided for arbitration in accordance with the Qur’an to Muāwiyah (may Allah pleased with him) in the Battle of Siffin. It is not the methodology of Salaf but it was the methodology of the deviants- Khawarij. But in contrary to the fact that you people are accusing KNM do not having Manhaju Salaf and the same time claiming that you people are the real bearers of the manhaju salaf??!!!
If every system of ruling other than Islamic principles is a Shirk then Prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam would not have sent his companions to Ethiopia where un-Islamic system of ruling was existed and more over Prophet Yoosuf alaisalaam was a Minister of a non Muslim ruler, king Walid bin Rayyan. Prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam never taught his companions that democracy, secularism etc are shirk. He used to take decision in worldly matters after consulting with his companions. Even the selection procedure of Khalifa was also settled after the consensus of the people of Sahaba.
A country like India where 80% of the people are not Muslims and among the existing Muslims majority of them are grave worshippers, calling upon dead people etc. According to a recent study about the living standard of Indian Muslims, reveals that they are the most backward class among the people of India in general, than backward socio-economic class of Hindus. Being a democratic country, political power and the ruling of the central to the lowest level will be decided the developments of every sphere of life of people in educationally, socially, economically etc.
If you are looking to the Kerala state, you can see that Muslims in Kerala is far better than Muslims in other state of India. The reason is, without any doubt, can say that Muslims in Kerala have well “organized” in politically and religiously and hence, able to do negotiation for the betterment of the community.
If 51 % of the people demand for the Sharia law and the Islamic system of Govt; in India we can think about that. In a democratic system ‘VOTING’ is considered as the lethal weapon of the common people. So express your preference for a candidate or resolution; cast a vote and decide the future of Muslims in India and defend the fascist from ruling the country.
Salafism Vs Utopian Salafism
You have stated in your mail as “people cannot have a system where the majority decides what is halaal and what is haraam. This is shirk or taghut, where people rely on majority and not the deen or Allah's laws and proofs”.
Dear brother beyond any doubt we can say that it is a utopian concept characterized by impracticable perfection and believes in the ultimate perfectibility of man. In the democratic system, majority have no provision to decide a halaal as haraam in deen and vice versa. You have seriously mistaken about this two aspects.
There is no question of majority or minority in case of determining halaal and haram in Deen. If the minority or even a particular individual has decided to change a haraam as halaal in deen it is unlawful in Islam and vice versa. For example people of either majority or minority or the whole nation decided to worship Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), beyond doubt it is a Shirk in Islam as well as very few people or a particular person has decided to worship Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) also will be considered as Shirk in Islam. Is it not childish to blame only the majority?
But, in case of Dunniya or the worldly matters majority have the right to decide traffic rules, foreign policy, construction of express highway, income tax and custom tax rate etc and it will not call as shirk. I do not know how can a Salafi methodology follower like you, from Zubair Mankada group, a rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from the standard of Manhaju Salaf (?), and considering other salafees in Kerala are in Bidha and hence calling them Hizbi, Mubtati etc understood Islamic Monotheism/ Thauhid in a vague perspective similar to Jamaat e Islami and Ihwanees?!! Apart from this it will not come under the classification of Thauhid (Islamic Monotheism) according to the perspective of Ahlu sunna wa Jammah.
What is Thauhid?
Thauhid has three aspects as follows:-
Oneness of the Lordship of Allah: (Tawheed-ar-Ruboobeeyah) To believe that there is only one Lord for all the universe, Who is its Creator, Organizer, Planner, Sustainer, and Giver of security.
Oneness of the Worship of Allah: (Tawheed-al-Ulooheeyah or Tawheed-al-Ebaadah) To believe that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah.
Oneness of the Names and Qualities of Allah:(Tawheed-al-Asma-Sifaat)
One may not name or qualify Allah except with what He or Prophet Muhammad salallahu walaiwasalam had named or qualified Him, and that nobody else can be named or qualified with those names and qualities.
According to the salafi Creed and Methodology (Aqeeda and Manhaj) Thauhid has only three aspects as I have given above. But based on your above statement on Shirk we have to add one more aspect in Thauhid i.e. none other than Tawheed-ul-Haakimiyyah. Now see what scholars say about this:-
1. Shaykh Naasir al-'Umar says:
"They think that tawheed is only singling out Allah in Kingship and the obligation of making the Rule for Him Alone.
2. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen says
"Verily the one who calls to that is an innovator. Indeed this is an innovated categorization, emanating from an ignoramus who does not understand anything from the matters of Creed and Religion."
3. Shaykh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee said to the proponents of this demented concept:
"So you use this term (al-haakimiyyah) to wage war upon those whom you suspect to be disbelievers from amongst the rulers because they do not rule by Islaamic Law. So you have forgotten yourselves, this haakimiyyah covers every Muslim."
In short according to the Salafi creed and methodology if any one who believes that there is a fourth category of Tawheed-ul-Haakimiyyah then he is an innovator. During the last 50 years, jamaat e Islami have been propagating this innovated demented concept of ‘Ina Hukumu ila lilahi’ as Thauhid in the name of Islam in India and elsewhere for the intention of establishing an Islamic state and accusing the Indian Muslims they are committing political Shirk by abiding the laws made by other than Allah. But they could not bring forth any impact on Indian Muslims as Muslims realized that democracy and secularism is not a matter of concern if it will provide Muslims in India complete freedom to believe and practice Islam and moreover can invite people to Islam. Salafi movement in India and outside as well strongly opposed the growth of this Kawarij ideology of Hakkimiyya. But unfortunately nowadays some of the so called self proclaimed salafees in all over the world are propagating Ihwanism as salafism to mislead the youths from the path of pious predecessors. Their enmity is so severe towards their brothers in Islam who have been conveying the true message of Islam than who are presenting Islam with distorted nature. So my dear brother just ameliorates to spread true message of Islam and cooperate with others who are inviting people to Thouhid and Sunna and avoid every sort of rebellion approaches to your brothers in Islam as The Prophet said (s.a.w.): "None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself" (Bukhari), and by Wisdom of the Almighty: "The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion)" (49:10)..
I Hope that you may persuaded the facts. May Allah strengthen us with wisdom, useful knowledge, modesty and foster compassion towards fellow Muslims.
Please visit me@http://abuhaniyya.blogspot.com
Sub: Muslims, Democracy and the Manhaju Salaf
Alhamdulillah I am keeping fine but my only major concern at present is your perception and understanding of Islam. Firstly I would like to make it clear that Deen and Duniyya should be considered as two connotations. But what I feel that often you mixing these two terms together to understand and explain Islam like our contemporary Ihwanees do. I presume that I have clearly distinguished between these two aspects in my previous mail ‘organised Da’wa against organizations’
Muslims should have moderate views and stand in religious matters and political as well. So Muslims should avoid favouring immoderate uncompromising policies while living in any society. There is no harm for a Muslim to live in a country where his/her beliefs and practices are not interrupted by the authority or people. Based on this principle, a country can be classified as:-
1) A country ruled according to Sharia laws and so, Muslims do not have any problem to practice Islam.
2) A country ruled other than Sharia laws but Muslims are permitted to practice Islam as a basic right given by the constitution.
3) A country does not allow Muslims to stay and practice Islam.
The Holy Qur'an and the Sunna of prophet (peace be upon him) do not discourage Muslims either live or cooperate with the above first two countries. But the country mentioned as third, where Muslims are not allowed to live, Allah permitted Muslims to dissent with them. (And Allah said "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who deal with equity." [60:8])
As I mentioned above, a country ruled according to Sharia i.e. Islamic state, would not be a state of absolute democracy nor theocracy or dictatorship or kingdom instead a combination of the first two. Those who are giving verdict against voting, participating in election, organization and collective strive in da'wa often conveniently ignoring the real concept of Islamic state.
Muslims in all over the world do not differ regarding the importance of implementing Islamic law and jurisprudence as a governing system for Muslims. But they mainly differ on how, when and where it is to be implemented. Prophet Salallahu walaikwasalam lived in a place where a taghut system was existed. He never fought against Quaraysh to remove the existing system in Makah instead primarily he tried to purify the people from ascribing partners to Allah. When the Quaraysh told prophet (peace be upon him); you have brought to your people a matter of worry, you have declared their way of life to be foolish, you have insulted their gods. If what you want is money, we will put together a fortune for you, so that you may be richest of us; if you want honour we will make you our chief, if you want power, we will make you king. Prophet (peace be upon him) replied to them; "I swear by Allah if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I give up my work, I would not abandon it until it becomes victories or I lose my life in its course". If the intention of prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam was to establish a kingdom of Allah/ Islamic state he would have accepted the offers of Quaraysh. It shows that establishing Kingdom of Allah in the world is not as important while comparing to inviting people to the fundamental principles of Islam i.e. no one worthy to be worshiped but Allah alone.
Democracy; a lethal weapon of the common peopleYou have quoted the Ayat 40 from Surat Yusuf, Inal Hukum ila Lilah {The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah- (translated by Mohsin khan)} to prove your claim that democracy is a major Shirk? Mahadallah. I really scared that It is the same repetition of the people who had uttered this verse to declare Ali (may Allah pleased with him) as Kafir (disbeliever) when he was decided for arbitration in accordance with the Qur’an to Muāwiyah (may Allah pleased with him) in the Battle of Siffin. It is not the methodology of Salaf but it was the methodology of the deviants- Khawarij. But in contrary to the fact that you people are accusing KNM do not having Manhaju Salaf and the same time claiming that you people are the real bearers of the manhaju salaf??!!!
If every system of ruling other than Islamic principles is a Shirk then Prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam would not have sent his companions to Ethiopia where un-Islamic system of ruling was existed and more over Prophet Yoosuf alaisalaam was a Minister of a non Muslim ruler, king Walid bin Rayyan. Prophet Salallahu alaihiwasallam never taught his companions that democracy, secularism etc are shirk. He used to take decision in worldly matters after consulting with his companions. Even the selection procedure of Khalifa was also settled after the consensus of the people of Sahaba.
A country like India where 80% of the people are not Muslims and among the existing Muslims majority of them are grave worshippers, calling upon dead people etc. According to a recent study about the living standard of Indian Muslims, reveals that they are the most backward class among the people of India in general, than backward socio-economic class of Hindus. Being a democratic country, political power and the ruling of the central to the lowest level will be decided the developments of every sphere of life of people in educationally, socially, economically etc.
If you are looking to the Kerala state, you can see that Muslims in Kerala is far better than Muslims in other state of India. The reason is, without any doubt, can say that Muslims in Kerala have well “organized” in politically and religiously and hence, able to do negotiation for the betterment of the community.
If 51 % of the people demand for the Sharia law and the Islamic system of Govt; in India we can think about that. In a democratic system ‘VOTING’ is considered as the lethal weapon of the common people. So express your preference for a candidate or resolution; cast a vote and decide the future of Muslims in India and defend the fascist from ruling the country.
Salafism Vs Utopian Salafism
You have stated in your mail as “people cannot have a system where the majority decides what is halaal and what is haraam. This is shirk or taghut, where people rely on majority and not the deen or Allah's laws and proofs”.
Dear brother beyond any doubt we can say that it is a utopian concept characterized by impracticable perfection and believes in the ultimate perfectibility of man. In the democratic system, majority have no provision to decide a halaal as haraam in deen and vice versa. You have seriously mistaken about this two aspects.
There is no question of majority or minority in case of determining halaal and haram in Deen. If the minority or even a particular individual has decided to change a haraam as halaal in deen it is unlawful in Islam and vice versa. For example people of either majority or minority or the whole nation decided to worship Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), beyond doubt it is a Shirk in Islam as well as very few people or a particular person has decided to worship Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) also will be considered as Shirk in Islam. Is it not childish to blame only the majority?
But, in case of Dunniya or the worldly matters majority have the right to decide traffic rules, foreign policy, construction of express highway, income tax and custom tax rate etc and it will not call as shirk. I do not know how can a Salafi methodology follower like you, from Zubair Mankada group, a rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from the standard of Manhaju Salaf (?), and considering other salafees in Kerala are in Bidha and hence calling them Hizbi, Mubtati etc understood Islamic Monotheism/ Thauhid in a vague perspective similar to Jamaat e Islami and Ihwanees?!! Apart from this it will not come under the classification of Thauhid (Islamic Monotheism) according to the perspective of Ahlu sunna wa Jammah.
What is Thauhid?
Thauhid has three aspects as follows:-
Oneness of the Lordship of Allah: (Tawheed-ar-Ruboobeeyah) To believe that there is only one Lord for all the universe, Who is its Creator, Organizer, Planner, Sustainer, and Giver of security.
Oneness of the Worship of Allah: (Tawheed-al-Ulooheeyah or Tawheed-al-Ebaadah) To believe that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah.
Oneness of the Names and Qualities of Allah:(Tawheed-al-Asma-Sifaat)
One may not name or qualify Allah except with what He or Prophet Muhammad salallahu walaiwasalam had named or qualified Him, and that nobody else can be named or qualified with those names and qualities.
According to the salafi Creed and Methodology (Aqeeda and Manhaj) Thauhid has only three aspects as I have given above. But based on your above statement on Shirk we have to add one more aspect in Thauhid i.e. none other than Tawheed-ul-Haakimiyyah. Now see what scholars say about this:-
1. Shaykh Naasir al-'Umar says:
"They think that tawheed is only singling out Allah in Kingship and the obligation of making the Rule for Him Alone.
2. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen says
"Verily the one who calls to that is an innovator. Indeed this is an innovated categorization, emanating from an ignoramus who does not understand anything from the matters of Creed and Religion."
3. Shaykh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee said to the proponents of this demented concept:
"So you use this term (al-haakimiyyah) to wage war upon those whom you suspect to be disbelievers from amongst the rulers because they do not rule by Islaamic Law. So you have forgotten yourselves, this haakimiyyah covers every Muslim."
In short according to the Salafi creed and methodology if any one who believes that there is a fourth category of Tawheed-ul-Haakimiyyah then he is an innovator. During the last 50 years, jamaat e Islami have been propagating this innovated demented concept of ‘Ina Hukumu ila lilahi’ as Thauhid in the name of Islam in India and elsewhere for the intention of establishing an Islamic state and accusing the Indian Muslims they are committing political Shirk by abiding the laws made by other than Allah. But they could not bring forth any impact on Indian Muslims as Muslims realized that democracy and secularism is not a matter of concern if it will provide Muslims in India complete freedom to believe and practice Islam and moreover can invite people to Islam. Salafi movement in India and outside as well strongly opposed the growth of this Kawarij ideology of Hakkimiyya. But unfortunately nowadays some of the so called self proclaimed salafees in all over the world are propagating Ihwanism as salafism to mislead the youths from the path of pious predecessors. Their enmity is so severe towards their brothers in Islam who have been conveying the true message of Islam than who are presenting Islam with distorted nature. So my dear brother just ameliorates to spread true message of Islam and cooperate with others who are inviting people to Thouhid and Sunna and avoid every sort of rebellion approaches to your brothers in Islam as The Prophet said (s.a.w.): "None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself" (Bukhari), and by Wisdom of the Almighty: "The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion)" (49:10)..
I Hope that you may persuaded the facts. May Allah strengthen us with wisdom, useful knowledge, modesty and foster compassion towards fellow Muslims.
Please visit me@http://abuhaniyya.blogspot.com
27 comments:
may Allah bless you
Assalamu allikum ,
oh noble Sheikh , your viewpoints seemed to be strong but lacked evidences. it would be always better if we can delete our deductions and conjunctions and cling to the evidences.
the last part had your headings and the scholars statements on a different matter. at least you could have adopted the same scenario from the start, ie to cling to Ilm and Ahalul Ilm.rather than composing your own methodology of deriving a ruling.
for more info www.spubs.com, www.salafitalk.net, in malayalam www.ilmussalaf.info.
May Allah guide you oh noble sheikh!!!
Abu Julaibeeb Aneez Al sheikh
wa'alaikum salaam wa rahmatullah, akhee, Jazakallah khair. plz go through the below statments from great scholars on voting.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said that getting involved in these elections is obligatory.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on elections, and he replied: I think that elections are obligatory; we should appoint the one who we think is good, because if the good people abstain, who will take their place? Evil people will take their place, or neutral people in whom there is neither good nor evil, but they follow everyone who makes noise. So we have no choice but to choose those who we think are fit.
If someone were to say: We chose someone but most of the parliament are not like that,
We say: It does not matter. If Allaah blesses this one person and enables him to speak the truth in this parliament, he will undoubtedly have an effect. But what we need is to be sincere towards Allaah and the problem is that we rely too much on physical means and we do not listen to what Allaah says. So nominate the one who you think is good, and put your trust in Allaah. End quote.
From Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh, no. 210
http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/sound/article_16230.shtml
Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee rahimahullah on voting; it has been imposed upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is imposed upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians.
If the Muslims do not choose between them, then their own people will choose. In either case, one of them is going to be elected. But as we said earlier there may be four or five candidates. The Muslims in that country must consider it like this: The first candidate is a Baathist and a non-Muslim, the second is a communist and a non-Muslim, the third is an atheist and a non-Muslim and so on. The last is a practicing Christian who does not harbor animosity towards the Muslims. If there is no way around the fact that one or two of them are going to be elected, then what should the Muslims do? Should they say, "We are not going to get involved? They are Christians. Let them fight each other." No, this is not the case, because two of these candidates will be elected regardless.
So O Muslims, O you who have sense, is this principle to be applied in this scenario or not? I say yes, because the Muslims in this case are between two evils. Similarly, this is the case if the candidates were Muslims, since amongst the Muslims are Communists, Baathists and so on. Okay, do we just sit back and watch or should we choose the one whose harm is less???
Shaykh Waseeullaah Abbaas: That which appears correct to me, insha'Allah, is that if some good is anticipated as a result of voting, then we vote. We vote for the candidate as long as he is presently benefiting the Muslims or promises to benefit the Muslims in the future, even if he is not a Muslim. It would be inappropriate for the Muslims to refrain from voting for this individual, especially if the leader of the Muslims can dictate terms, conditions, and other stipulations on him as a result of the Muslims voting. For example, the leader of the Muslims says, "We will vote for you on the condition that you support our interests, mention them to your superiors, etc." And this applies in any country where the Muslims are a minority, not just in America.
By voting the Muslims may gain needed influence over politicians and other authorities. In return, these politicians and authorities may do something that will benefit Islam and the Muslims. This is especially the case in local elections where, as you have mentioned, the one who wins may have the authority to give away plots of lands on which schools can be built. I am familiar with this because it is even practiced in India. In this instance, it is not befitting in the least for the Muslims to hesitate or delay voting for these candidates.
The Muslims should not hesitate to vote because withholding their votes will not harm these candidates in the least. They will win by the votes of non-Muslims regardless if the Muslims vote or not. For this reason, the Muslims should use their vote as a favor to these candidates. As a result, the Muslims will be placed in an advantageous position of influence over these candidates. When they feel that they are indebted to the Muslims, the Muslims can benefit from their empathy and their sympathetic views and understanding of Muslim causes. This is a general Islamic benefit required by the Islamic public interests. This is our belief.
This is also the verdict given by our Shaykhs in India. Even Shaykh Bin Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him), from what we have heard, used to rule with the permissibility of participating in elections. And for this, insha'Allah, we hope from Allah a good future for the Muslims in every land. If this affair brings good to the Muslims then it's not befitting to hesitate.
Questioner: May Allah reward you with good. In order to bring about further benefit, dear Shaykh, for those who say that this action includes assisting one who rules by other than what Allah revealed...
Shaykh: This doesn't assist the one ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in view of the fact that if we don't vote, the [non-Muslims] will win by their own votes. They will be elected without a doubt. They will come into power by their own accord whether or not we isolate ourselves from them or from the entire world… Thus, this does not assist them in establishing non-Islamic laws. They are the rulers and the ones in authority in those lands whether we vote for them or not. As a result, we should make an effort to influence them in a way that will be beneficial to Islam and the Muslims, insha'Allah.
The Islamic Jurisprudence Council:
MAKKAH, 9 November 2007 — The Islamic Jurisprudence Council also encouraged Muslims in the West to participate in elections in non-Muslim countries and play an effective political role, especially if elections brought about public good or prevented social evils.
It said this was the only way for Muslims abroad to secure their rights.
It also encouraged Muslims in the West to integrate into Western societies but cautioned them against adopting any Western habits that are contrary to the principles of Islam.
Those who presented papers included Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Subeyel, imam of the Grand Mosque. In the concluding session yesterday, the Islamic Jurisprudence Council emphasized that dialogue with non-Muslims supported by well-prepared media programs are essential in confronting anti-Islamic campaigns.
Islamic scholars from various parts of the world, who attended the conference, also called for the upholding of Islamic unity and adherence to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah (Tradition of the Prophet), while tackling issues affecting Muslim countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, I have seen many Athikaad Zubair Mankada laymans are adhering to the aqeeda of Maududi and sayid Qutub in this regard. Allahu Musta'aan
Assalamu alikkum ,
As a matter of fact people seem to deceive the common mass by mixing the issues of democracy, elections and voting. Whilst all these three needs special and separate rulings.
1: democracy: Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (direct or indirect) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. It originates from the Greek: δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power", circa 400 BC, to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy'
note: Democracy and its ruling are upon the rulers and the law makers.
2: elections: a door to democracy:
note: its ruling would be applied to a larger mass involved in it, including the laymen.
3: Voting: A system used in democracy and Elections.
its ruling needs to be learned separately.
Scholars: Elections (Voting) haram, bid'ah, imitation of Kufaar; Democracy is disbelief (kufr)!
Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah
Amma Ba'd
All Praise and thanks are due to Allaah, the Lord of Creation. To Him belongs praise and grace for guiding us to Islaam and the Sunnah, a praise that would suffice His favors to us outwardly and inwardly, as is required for the nobility of His Face and might of His Magnificence. Abundant Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and upon his family, companions, his wives - the mothers of the believers - and all those who follow them in good until the Day of Judgement.
Dear Muslims,
Beware - may Allaah show you His Mercy and protect you - that the American and Western elections and Voting process offered to you in America and in the West are an innovation in the Islamic religion, imitation of the kufaar, and can lead to kufr (disbelief) since they are part of the democratic system. Additionally, the American candidates are disbelievers and, of course, have no intention of ruling by the book of Allaah and the Sunnah - the complete and perfect legislation that the Lord of all that exists sent down to His final Messenger Muhammad (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) so that the pious amongst mankind and jinn may be guided.
Shaykh Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn 'Abdullaah ar-Raymee al-Imaam (hafidhahullaah) stated:
"Elections enter into association of partners with Allaah and that is Shirk of obedience, since elections are from the democratic system. And this system was established by the enemies of Islaam for the purpose of turning the Muslims away from their Religion. So whoever accepts it, being pleased with it, propagating it, believing it to be correct, surely he has obeyed the opponents of Islaam in opposition to the command of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. And this is the very essence of associating partners with Allaah with regard to obedience. Allaah has said:
Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not allowed. And had it not been for a decisive Word (gone forth already), the matter would have been judged between them. And verily, for the Dhalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers), there is a painful torment. You will see (on the Day of Resurrection), the Dhalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.) fearful of that which they have earned, and it (Allaah's Torment) will surely befall them... (Ash-Shura, ayat 21-22)
So if they say, 'They [elections] are from the legislation of Allaah,'then that is insolence and a lie upon Allaah...
[1]
Regarding voting and Elections, Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) said:
"And I say: Are elections not, except the path of democracy? ...Democracy is disbelief (kufr) because it means that the populace rules itself by itself. It means there is no Book [Qur`an] and no Sunnah and no Islaam, and the allowing of fornication and homosexuality."
[2]
When Shaykh 'Ubaid Al-Jabiree (hafidhahullaah) was asked if it was permissible for the Muslims in the lands of disbelief [such as America] to enter into elections from the aspect of being "the lesser of the two evils", the shaykh responded:
"Elections are not from the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet, salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) that is known by the Muslims and that which the Salaf (the first three generations after the revelation of the Qur`an) traversed upon from the time of the Companions and the Imaams of the Taabi'een, and those who came after them. Rather, it is a newly invented matter in Islaam, so it is a bid'ah (innovation), and if it is a bid'ah (innovation) then it is muharram (unlawful)."
Shaykh Al-Jabiree added that the only exception to this is if the Muslims were forced - meaning if they don't vote, they would not receive any rights [of course, this is not the case in America]. In that case, they could select a pious, knowledgeable and wise man amongst them to speak on their behalf and look after their rights. Then he concluded by advising us of that which is better, saying, "But if the Muslims were patient upon the hardships and loss of their rights in the way of abandoning this innovated matter, it is better for them and more desirable. And Allaah knows best."
When asked via phone two years ago about voting in America, Shaykh Ahmad An-Najmee (rahimahullaah) said, "Oh my brother, is it permissible for the Muslims to enter into innovations and join and work with the disbelievers to obtain something that may take place, or may not?! This is not correct in my opinion."
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullaah) said, "... And as for the elections [that are] well known [and implemented] today in the various nations, then they are not from the Islamic order. Chaos, personal aspirations enter into them, as do greed and favoritism (bias). Tribulations and the shedding of blood result from them, and the desired goal is not attained by them. Rather, they are just a ground for bids (i.e. campaigns), buying and selling and false claims." [3]
The personal aspirations Shaykh Fawzaan mentioned is the candidates' desire and putting themselves forward for leadership and authority - an act the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) prohibited. Abu Musa (radiallaahu 'anhu) narrated: Two of my cousins and I entered the apartment of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam). One of them said: Messenger of Allaah, appoint us rulers of some lands that the Almighty and Glorious Allaah has entrusted to your care. The other also said something similar. He (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: "We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same." [4]*
Abdur-Rahman ibn Samwah (radiallaahu 'anhu) narrated: Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said to me, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not ask for leadership, since if you are given it - having requested it - then you will be all alone to discharge it. But if you are given it without requesting it, you will be helped (by Allaah) in it." [5]
Shaykh Rabee' bin Hadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah) said:
"Rather the ones to be chosen are those who are suitable in [Islamic] knowledge, don't have a desire for such a position, and are pious. Then, we must also benefit from this Prophetic methodology in our education and training. So we should not bring up the youth to have love for leadership, authority and position. If we bring them up upon love of these things, then we have acted contrary to the way and guidance of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)... Then what success can we expect in this world or the Hereafter if we act contrary to the methodology of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?"
[6]
Either maliciously or ignorantly, some falsely accuse the Messenger and his companions of holding elections. Of course, this is a lie - and a lie on the Prophet of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is disastrous to one's hereafter. The Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) would sometimes consult companions, setting in motion some of the battles and raids, and other times he would not. Either way, he never held elections. And as for 'Umar (radiallaahu 'anhu), while dying, he appointed a shura to decide the third calipha. Furthermore, this shura was made of six companions [and a seventh - Abdullaah ibn 'Umar - to decide the matter in case it was yet unresolved]. And as you can see - may Allaah show you Mercy - the decision was left to the knowledgeable and pious and those who didn't seek leadership.
This is in contrast to the evil, corrupt, and fraudulent elections in America, where the vote of the ignorant and disbelieving carries more weight than that of the knowledgeable and pious, since each is given a vote and, of course, the knowledgeable and muttaqun are unquestionably the minority. And, likewise,democracy is the rule of the majority, whereas Allaah has revealed (what means): And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allaah's Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie. (Al-An'aam, ayah 116)
Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdullaah ar-Raymee al-Imaam was asked regarding the statement of some: "Democracy and voting are equivalent to the Islamic Shura (Counsel)." The shaykh responded, "By Allaah, if we did not fear that the ignorant would be influenced by the likes of these words, then it would be obligatory to avoid even responding to this (statement). At any rate,democracy and voting is not combined with the Islamic Shura that Allaah has legislated, not in the fundamentals of the religion nor its subsidiary branches, neither in totality nor in part, not in meaning or in foundation." And then the shaykh - may Allaah preserve him for the benefit of the Ummah - brought eight detailed evidences in refutation of this statement, at the head of them being that Allaah legislated the Islamic Shura, whereas the people of disbelief, crimes and ignorance legislated democracy. [7]
The Shaykh also said that a shura is to consult with one another mutually in cooperation upon the understanding of truth, devoid of fabricated rulings from other than the Divine Legislation.
And know - may Allaah guide you - that democracy, which is to govern oneself by man's laws (instead of what Allaah revealed), is disbelief (kufr), rejecting Allaah's Laws, and accusing it of deficiency.
Allaah says (what means): Verily, this Qur`an guides to that which is most just and right and gives glad tidings to the believers (in the Oneness of Allaah and His Messenger, Muhammad, etc.). who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a great reward (Paradise). (Al-Isra', ayah 9) Shaykh 'Abdul-Azeez Bur'aee (hafidhahullaah) pointed out the above ayah shows that the Qur`an has in it all that is good - for all places and all times and all issues, such as mannerisms, economics, da'wah, or other than that.
Shaykh Bur'aee said:
"Democracy opposes Islaam in the equality between people, making equal the kufaar to the Muslims, whereas Allaah says (what means):Shall We then treat the (submitting) Muslims like the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists and disbelievers, etc.)? What is the matter with you? How judge you? (Al-Qalam, ayat 35-36) In democracy, the righteous scholar is equal to the homosexual or the one who passes corruption upon the Earth - and this is a great injustice."
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-'Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) said, "Because anything which opposed the judgment of Allaah, the Most High, and that of His Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is tughyan (wrong-doing, injustice, oppression, tyranny) and transgression against the judgment of Him to Whom judgment belongs and to Whom all matters return (for final judgment) and that is Allaah. He, the Most High, says (what means): Indeed your Lord is Allaah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He Istawa (rose over) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty). He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly, and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His Command. Surely, His is the Creation and Commandment. Blessed be Allaah, the Lord of the 'Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists)! (Al-A'raf, ayah 54)." [8]
Read - may Allaah guide you - the following three verses and their subsequent tafseer.
Allaah says (what means): And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafirun. (Al-Ma`idah, ayah 44) And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed then they are wrong doers. (Al-Ma`idah, ayah 45) And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed then they are the sinful. (Al-Ma`idah, ayah 47)
The companions understood these ayat to mean: believing - upon knowledge - that a law other than Allaah's is superior or equal to Allaah's Sharee'ah, or is permissible to rule by, is kufr (disbelief). Of course, if the person does so out of ignorance, then he's not a kafir. He is taught and advised. Furthermore, Ibn 'Abbaas (radiallaahu 'anhuma) said: "Whoever rejects what Allaah has revealed, will have committed Kufr, and whoever accepts what Allaah has revealed, but did not rule by it, is a Dhalim (unjust) and a Fasiq (rebellious) and a sinner.' Ath-Thawri narrated that Ibn Jurayj said that 'Ata' said, "There is Kufr and Kufr dunee (less than) Kufr, dhulm and dhulm less than dhulm, Fisq and Fisq less than Fisq." [9]*
It is exclusively Allaah's right to prohibit something or make something lawful, as we learn from the following hadeeth.
Imaam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a hadeeth via several chains of narration from 'Adi bin Hatim (radiallaahu 'anhu) who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) reached his area, 'Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam). 'Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father Hatim At-Ta'i was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, 'Adi went to the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) recited this Ayah (which means): They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah. (At-Tawbah, ayah 31). 'Adi commented, "I said, 'They did not worship them.'' The Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they (Christians and Jews) obeyed them [in that]. This is how they worshipped them."
Prior to that, 'Adi had thought of worship as only bowing and prostrating, and hadn't thought of obedience as an act of worship.
Shaykh Fawzaan said about this aya and hadeeth that explains it:
"Following scholars or anyone else in changing the rulings of Islamic Law is an act of Shirk ul-akbar (Major Polytheism)." Again, the Shaykh stressed that it is Major Polytheism only "if the follower knows that these enacted laws differ from those of Allaah."
Allaah also revealed: [Yusuf said to his companions of the prison:] The command (or the judgment) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not. (Yusuf, ayah 40) Legislation is for none but Allaah; it is His right alone, so this rules out a "mixture" of Sharee'ah and democracy. Ibn Katheer (rahimahullaah) said, "He then affirmed that the judgment, decision, will and kingdom are all for Allaah alone, and He has commanded all of His servants to worship none but Him." [10]
Additionally, Allaah revealed: And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allaah has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad)," you (Muhammad) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad) with aversion. (An-Nisa, ayah 61) This is proof that the one who is called to ruling by the Qur`an and Sunnah and he refuses, then he is from the hypocrites - and this hypocrisy is the more serious hypocrisy in i'tiqad (belief).
The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allaah (His Words, the Qur`an) and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say: "We hear and we obey." And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise). (An-Nur, ayah 51) The Muslim should say, "We hear and obey."
May Allaah show you Mercy. Do you not see that ruling by the sharee'ah of other than Allaah leads to mischief and corruption in the land, whereas ruling by what Allaah revealed is a cause of correcting the affairs of the creation? Look at Arabia - where the law of the land is Allaah's Sharee'ah - and the peace found therein, Maa shaa` Allaah.
Shaykh Fawzaan, a resident of Arabia, said, "As for our country - wal-Hamdulillaah - then it differs from the other countries on account of what Allaah has granted it of goodness, such as calling to Tawheed, putting an end to shirk, establishing an Islamic Government which judges by the sharee'ah. We do not say the country is perfect from every single aspect; however it has - wal-Hamdulillaah - never ceased to be established upon goodness. Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is to be found in it, likewise the establishment of the hudood punishments, and also ruling by what Allaah has revealed..." [11]
And if we as Muslims in America sufficed ourselves with what Allaah has revealed, we would in sha` Allaah see without obstruction - may Allaah bless you - that we have absolutely no need for these kufaar candidates, as we in America are not prohibited from going to the masaajid to learn 'aqidah and offer our obligatory salat except by our own laziness, and the women are not prohibited from wearing hijab except by their refusal to obey Allaah in that matter.
And if we sufficed ourselves with the Qur`an and authentic Sunnah, then the ignorance of those who invite eloquent politicians to the masaajid to lure Muslims into bid'ah will become apparent and shunned instead of applauded and followed.
As Imam Malik (rahimahullaah) said:
Is it that every time a man comes who is more eloquent in arguing than another man we leave that which Jibreel 'alayhi salaam brought to the Messenger sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam?
My brothers and sisters in Islaam, the only One we need and should rely on is Allaah, The Mighty and Majestic, who says (what means): Allaah! Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), and in Allaah (Alone), therefore, let the believers put their trust. (At-Taghabun, ayah 13) Tawfeeq (success) comes from Allaah, and we are commanded to use only legislative means. My dear fellow Muslims, if we correct our 'aqidah, and enjoin Tawheed and the Sunnah while forbidding shirk and bid'ah, Allaah will make us the successors upon the earth, as He promised in Surat An-Nur:
Allaah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islaam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah). (An-Nur, ayah 55)
Know - may Allaah bless you - that Allaah created all of mankind and jinn to single Him out with all worship (making du'aa to Allaah alone, seeking refuge in Allaah alone, sacrificing for Allaah alone, seeking deliverance from Allaah alone). And Allaah will judge us on the Day of Judgement based on our submission to His commands and the commands of His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), about whom Allaah said (what means): Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. (An-Najm, ayat 3-4)
Submission to Allaah's revelation leads to rectification in this wordly life, and Allaah's pleasure and Paradise in the hereafter. Denying/disbelieving in what Allaah revealed - even one ayah or one authentic hadeeth - leads to oppression in this wordly life, and torment and the fire in the hereafter.
May Allaah unite the Muslims upon the Qur`an and authentic Sunnah (upon the specific understanding that Allaah sent down to His Messenger to convey to the companions), and guide us to hold onto the Qur`an and authentic Sunnah with our molars, and guide us to avoid placing our opinions and desires above what He revealed to Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). May Allaah guide all the Muslim rulers, and may Allaah continue blessing Arabia and any country that follows it in ruling by what Allaah revealed for the sole purpose of pleasing Allaah alone.
Footnotes:
[1] From Shaykh Muhammad al-Imaam's book Tanweerudh-Dhulamaat bi Kashf Mafaasid wa Shubahaat Al-Intikhabaat (Illuminating the Darkness in order to uncover the corruptions and doubts concerning Voting), pages 39-40.
[2] Nasaa`ih Wa Fadaa`ih, page 17; Tuhfatul-Mujeeb, page 303.
[3] The Ruling on Elections and Demonstrations Al-Jareedat ul-Jazeerah, Issue 11358, Ramadaan 1424.
[4] Sahih Muslim, In the Book of Government (CHAPTER: PROHIBITION OF A DESIRE FOR A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AND COVETOUSNESS THEREOF).*
* In the case of Prophet Yusuf ('alaihi salam), Ibn Katheer said, "Yusuf praised himself, for this is allowed when one's abilities are unknown and there is a need to do so." [Tafseer Ibn Katheer (Tafseer of Surat Yusuf, Vol. 5).]
[5] Sahih Muslim, In the Book of Government (CHAPTER: PROHIBITION OF A DESIRE FOR A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AND COVETOUSNESS THEREOF).
[6] Manhaj ul-Anbiyaah fi ad-Da'wah ilal-Laah (Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allaah).
[7] From Shaykh Muhammad al-Imaam's book Tanweerudh-Dhulamaat bi Kashf Mafaasid wa Shubahaat Al-Intikhabaat (Illuminating the Darkness in order to uncover the corruptions and doubts concerning Voting), pages 31-35.
[8] Fatawa Arkan-ul-Islam (Islamic Verdicts), Vol. 1
[9] Tafseer Ibn Katheer (Tafseer of Surat al-Ma`idah, Vol. 3)
* Ibn Baaz said: "The rulers who judge by other than what Allaah revealed are divided into different categories, according to their beliefs and to their deeds. One who judges by other than what Allaah has revealed, believing that it is better than the Law of Allaah, is a kaafir by consensus of all the Muslims, as is the one who judges by man-made laws instead of the Law of Allaah, and claims that this is permissible. As for the one who judges by other than what Allaah has revealed, because he finds it convenient to do so, or because of bribery, or due to enmity between him and the person being judged, or any other reason, in the full knowledge that he is acting in disobedience to Allaah and that it is wajib for him to judge by Allaah's Law, he is considered to be one of the disobedient ones and a perpetrator of a major sin and he has committed minor kufr and minor dhulm and minor fisq, as has been reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbaas (radiallaahu 'anhuma), Tawoos, and a number of righteous salaf. This is what is well known to the people of knowledge. And Allaah is the Granter of Success." [Fatawa Islamiya (Vol. 1)]
[10] Tafseer Ibn Katheer (Tafseer of Surat Yusuf, Vol. 5.)
[11] (al-Ajwibah al Mufeedah no. 24)
[Note: This treatsie is based on the stronger of the two opinions, the opinion followed by the overwhelming majority of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Those in the minority who said it is "the lesser of two evils" provided no proof for their statements, and ijtihaad is not exercised when the majority of scholars have already refuted an issue. And of course, scholars are not followed in their mistakes. This would be blind-following. Even then, those with the weaker of the two opinions stipulated that their opinion was based only if the Muslims do not have full rights to practice their religion, which is not the case in America, and to Allaah belongs all Praise.]
Subhanak Allaahuma wa bihamdika ash-hadu anlaa illaaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk
If I said anything correct, then it is from Allaah (subhanahu wa taa'ala), and if I erred, then that is from me and shaytan.
QARADAAWEE ON DEMOCRACY
Speaking in Istanbul, Turkey, Qaradawi explained his opinion that the entire Muslim world needed Democracy.
"The Muslim world needs democracy. It wants democracy. But it should be real democracy and not just democracy by name only... Democracy has done some good things. It has saved humanity from despots and dictators who act like gods. The details should be left to the people. Let them decide for themselves"
ALLAAH TA'ALA SAYS
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ
And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allâh's Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie. (Al-An'am 6:116)
Question:
If someone asks you: “what is democracy (MAJORITY RULE)?”
Answer:
Say: it is when people govern themselves by themselves without a (revealed) Book or Sunnah.
If it is said to you: “What is its ruling?”
Say: It is major Shirk (polytheism). The proof for this is Allah’s saying:
“Verily, the rule belongs to none but Allah.” [Surah Yoosuf: 12:40]
by Shaykh Yahyah Al-Hajooree (hafeedahullaah)
“Al-Mabaadee al-Mufeedah fit-Tawheedi wal-Fiqhi wal-‘Aqeedah” Basic Principles on the Subjects of Tawheed, Fiqh and ‘Aqeedah: Points 45 and 46. By Shaikh Yahyaa bin 'Alee Al-Hajooree
In the Name of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem
In this speech of Shaikh Muqbil, we see the firm stance that he took against the verdict of the Great Ulema of our time (Ibn Baz, Al-Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen) for allowing elections under specific situations. So why does Shaikh Yahya's position seem so strange? As if we forgot that he had an Imam that preceded him. (May Allah have mercy on those Great Ulema and preserve Shaikh Yahya)
Note: All of them saw that elections were not from the deen nor the way of Ahul-sunna.
Question: The companions of elections use the speech of Al-Albani and Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen as proof, so what is your statement about this?
Answer: "Alhamdolilah wa salaatu wa Salaam alaa rasulilah wa alaa Aalihi wa Ashaabihi wa man wallaahu and I bear witness that there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, alone having no partners and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger. To proceed:
The companions of elections are the enemies of these Mashaayikh. Just yesterday we heard in the Committee of Educational Institutions in Sanaa that verily Al-Albani is a freemason when he gave the verdict for those in Palestine from the Muslims to leave because it became Dar-Harb. They launched attacks upon him and said he was astray and an innovator.
And also Shaikh ibn Baz when he gave the verdict in the affair of the Khaleej, they attacked him. And when he gave the verdict for the treaty with the Jews, and we spoke about this regardless of the correctness of this verdict, so they assaulted him and attacked him and from these people was Yusuf Al-Qardaawi ( May Allah not bless him). They want to destroy the People of Knowledge. Hizbiyyah was not legitimized for these people until a requested verdict was needed from them. The Hizbiyyun go to their Shuyookh like Qardaawi ,Fulaan and Fulaan. As for the Ulema, they don't go to them; they want to destroy them.
I called Shaikh Al-Albani (May Allah preserve him) in regards to this verdict. I said to him, "How can you make elections permissible?" He said, "I didn't make elections permissible, but this falls under committing the lesser of the two harms." So we look and see, what occurred in Algeria was it the lesser of the two harms or did the greater of the two harms occur? Read the biography of Abu Hanifa you will find the Ulema prohibiting personal opinions and Istihsaan.
They saw it as a means for Itizaal and a means for displeasure. As for the verdict of Shaikh Al-Albani, they have taken it from a long time ago.
In regards to Shaikh ibn Uthaymeen, from the strange things of his situation is that verily he prohibits parties and groups and makes permissible that which is greater and more dangerous, and it is elections which are a way to Democracy. I say to the ones that dupe the people: If these Mashayikh retract, will you retract from it or not? And we say: verily we see the prohibition of blind following, so it's not permissible for us to blind follow Shaikh Al-Albani nor Shaikh Ibn Baz nor Shaikh ibn Uthaymeen.
Allah says in His Glorious Book (translation): "Follow what has been sent down unto you from your Lord, and follow not any auliya besides Him (Allah). Little do you remember!" (Surah Al-Araf : 3)
And He the Most High says (translation): "And follow not that of which you have no knowledge" (Surah Al-Isra: 36)
So the People of the Sunna do not blind follow. We say to the Mashaayikh: Indeed your verdict is extremely dangerous. Did you not know that Bush (May Allah shame him) when he was the president of America said: Verily Saudi and Kuwait do not apply Democracy.
So it is mandatory for the Mashaayikh to retract from this fatwa. I call on you as a witness that verily I will retract from any mistake in my books or tapes or my calling to Allah (the Most High). I retract with a good and peaceful spirit, and the Mashaayikh, there is nothing on them if they retract; rather it is Waajib upon them because they don't know what is happening in Yemen about what is going around in the parliaments. And the wickedness that occurs because of elections like: the killing and fighting because of elections, the women leaving out displaying their beauty, pictures of women because of elections, and making kufr equal to the Book and the Sunna and the Deen because of elections. What good has these elections produced?
So it is Waajib on the Mashaayikh to retract. We will send to them, InshaAllah, so if they do not retract, we call upon Allah to bear witness that verily we are free from their verdict
because it opposes the Book and the Sunna, whether they like it or hate it. Our honor and our blood are sacrificed for Al-Islam and we will not care, Al-Hamdolilah…….." To finish reading his speech follow the link below.
Source: http://alzoukory.com/book/monaqshah.pdf
Abu Ubaid Ali Ibn Nathaniel Grays
ali53215@hotmail.com (to advise me ONLY)
Is it permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in the lands of non-Muslims? - 1
Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-`Abbaad
Reference: Private sitting with the Shaykh on January 19th, 2007 (29 Dhul Hijjah 1427)
Category: Contemporary Issues
There is a question from America related to the ruling of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries who vote in local elections. Is it permissible for these Muslim minorities to vote in local elections if they believe that one of the candidates can benefit the Muslims by giving land, allowing them to give dawah, or other benefits?
Shaykh: There is no harm in voting for candidates who will be of more benefit to the Muslims than the others. In this instance, voting for them is an example of doing the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. All of the candidates are disbelievers and, therefore, harmful. However, the candidate who is less harmful to the Muslims is better than the candidate whose harm is far greater.
Questioner: For the one who says that voting is from the innovated means, for example...?
Shaykh: In any event, this is something evil with which the people have been afflicted. If people have two choices, one being abhorrent and the other also detestable but of less harm, which should the people choose? The people should choose the lesser of the two evils, correct? Even though the Roman Christians and the Persians are all disbelievers, the people were happy when the Roman Christians were victorious over the Persians.
Questioner: Some people oppose this by mentioning that they are not forced to vote in the first place?
Shaykh: What I have mentioned is based on the premise that some benefit for the Muslims may be attained by voting. However, if there is no benefit then they should not participate.
...
For further clarification, refer to the article entitled "Confusion about Voting?"
Is it permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in the lands of non-Muslims? - 2
Shaykh Waseeullaah `Abbaas
Reference: Recording done with the Shaykh's permission on January 24th, 2007 (5 Muharram 1428)
Category: Contemporary Issues
The following question, from America, is about voting for those it is believed will benefit the Muslims. We are not asking about a Muslim entering into an election as a candidate, nor are we concerned about Federal elections. Rather, the question is about voting in local elections for those who have the authority to delegate plots of land to the Muslims, abandoned buildings, and other such benefits. If the Muslims don't vote for them, other groups will and, therefore, acquire these benefits. So, may Allah reward you well dear Shaykh, do you have any advice in this matter?
Shaykh: That which appears correct to me, insha'Allah, is that if some good is anticipated as a result of voting, then we vote. We vote for the candidate as long as he is presently benefiting the Muslims or promises to benefit the Muslims in the future, even if he is not a Muslim. It would be inappropriate for the Muslims to refrain from voting for this individual, especially if the leader of the Muslims can dictate terms, conditions, and other stipulations on him as a result of the Muslims voting. For example, the leader of the Muslims says, "We will vote for you on the condition that you support our interests, mention them to your superiors, etc." And this applies in any country where the Muslims are a minority, not just in America.
By voting the Muslims may gain needed influence over politicians and other authorities. In return, these politicians and authorities may do something that will benefit Islam and the Muslims. This is especially the case in local elections where, as you have mentioned, the one who wins may have the authority to give away plots of lands on which schools can be built. I am familiar with this because it is even practiced in India. In this instance, it is not befitting in the least for the Muslims to hesitate or delay voting for these candidates.
The Muslims should not hesitate to vote because withholding their votes will not harm these candidates in the least. They will win by the votes of non-Muslims regardless if the Muslims vote or not. For this reason, the Muslims should use their vote as a favor to these candidates. As a result, the Muslims will be placed in an advantageous position of influence over these candidates. When they feel that they are indebted to the Muslims, the Muslims can benefit from their empathy and their sympathetic views and understanding of Muslim causes. This is a general Islamic benefit required by the Islamic public interests. This is our belief.
This is also the verdict given by our Shaykhs in India. Even Shaykh Bin Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him), from what we have heard, used to rule with the permissibility of participating in elections. And for this, insha'Allah, we hope from Allah a good future for the Muslims in every land. If this affair brings good to the Muslims then it's not befitting to hesitate.
Questioner: May Allah reward you with good. In order to bring about further benefit, dear Shaykh, for those who say that this action includes assisting one who rules by other than what Allah revealed...
Shaykh: This doesn't assist the one ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in view of the fact that if we don't vote, the [non-Muslims] will win by their own votes. They will be elected without a doubt. They will come into power by their own accord whether or not we isolate ourselves from them or from the entire world… Thus, this does not assist them in establishing non-Islamic laws. They are the rulers and the ones in authority in those lands whether we vote for them or not. As a result, we should make an effort to influence them in a way that will be beneficial to Islam and the Muslims, insha'Allah.
cont;
conti;
Questioner: May Allah reward you with good dear Shaykh. Please excuse us for taking so much of your time.
Shaykh: May Allah reward you with good. I mention this with a clear conscience because we have heard our shaykhs give this verdict, especially when it benefits the Muslims. This is also the case in India; some of the idol worshipers in the Parliament speak on behalf of the Muslims and their interests...and it is possible that Allah will aid the deen by using a disbeliever.
...
For further clarification, refer to the article entitled "Confusion about Voting?"
The Reality of al-Albaanee's Position on Voting
Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee
Reference: Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #284 starting at approx 54mins. and continuing on tape #285
Category: Contemporary Issues
Questioner: Some students of knowledge issued a verdict permitting voting for the best of the available Christian candidates based on the premise that this is from choosing the lesser of two evils. Is this permissible?
In addition, isn’t this considered to be increasing their numbers which may in turn have a negative effect on the public's opinion of Muslims?
Shaykh: I have been asked this question on more than one occasion, and I believe that it is incomplete. So if you want to complete this unfinished question by bringing further clarity [then do so]...
Questioner: What is the permissibility of voting for the best available candidate, particularly if they are Christian?
Shaykh: This question is incomplete just as it was when presented by other than you. I will now say what I think is intended by the question.
In the event that there are a number of Christian candidates who are imposed upon the Muslims, meaning that one of them has to be elected whether the Muslims like it or not, the previously mentioned principal is applied: namely, choosing the lesser of two evils. For example, there are four Christian candidates in a certain country and it is inevitable that one of them will be the winner (elected).
Hypothetically speaking, if it were only the Muslims voting [for these candidates] and no one else - not even one other person is voting - such that if the Muslims refrained from voting they wouldn't be elected, then it is not permissible to vote for them.
Is it clear up to here?
Questioner: Yes
Shaykh: However, if the situation is contrary to this, and this is what I think the question is referring to, then one of them must be selected due to the electoral process established today. It is upon you to know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever...[The Shaykh then begins to explain some of the ills of democracy and the harm of giving power to someone who requests it, in contrast to the beauty of the Islamic shooraa]
Discussing these issues is lengthy. However, the point is that it has been imposed upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is imposed upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians.
cont;
ഇലക്ഷനും വോട്ടിങ്ങും: അഹ് ലുസ്സുന്നയുടെ നിലപാട്. സുബൈര് മൌലവി
http://www.ilmussalaf.com/elections-and-voting.html
Post a Comment