The Shirk of Voting to Man-Made
Law
Despite the clarity of the
message of Islam, all of the evidences listed above, and the numerous books and
leaflets on the matter of democracy, we still find the Muslims canvassing
others to vote, in particular to certain individuals who apparently seem to
have some care for the issues which are affecting the Muslims. Unfortunately,
even some scholars (like Saleh Al-Munajjid of Saudi Arabia, Haitham Haddad of
Al-Muntada and Abu Eesa Niamatullah of Islamic Awakening) have fallen into this
trap, willingly or unwilling, and are encouraging Muslims to vote for one Kafir
or another to come into power, legislate (which is the Right of Allah (swt)
alone) by Kufr and conduct treaties on the Muslim's behalf! Despite the fact
that in all their articles they state that voting is the exclusive right of
Allah (swt) and that it is haram to vote for a kafir normally, to defend their
position they cite the need to be "wise", understand the deep and
complex reality we are living in (Fiqh al Waaqiah) and to try and derive as
much benefit (masalih) and prevent as much harm (diraar) as we can.
Al-Hamdulilah that Allah (swt)
has risen these type of people when Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) was not around! Do
you not know the story of the Munaafiq who had a dispute with a Jew regarding
the harvest of the fruits from a tree? When he came to Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)
for judgment disregarding the judgement of Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw),
he was killed without remorse.
"And who ever seeks a way
other than submission to God (i.e. Islam), it will not be accepted from him,
and he will be a loser in the world to come." [EMQ 3:85]
The main argument that these
ilk-of scholars cite is the ‘Lesser of two evils’ and the principal that the
Shari'ah was revealed, ‘For Muslims to derive all benefits and prevent all
harms.’ The fact that these principals are found quoted by some great Islamic
authorities is not the point of contention. The truth of the matter is that
these scholars misuse their application. For example, they say that in Shari'ah
if one were found all alone in the desert and without food, the Shar'iah
permit's the Muslim to eat from unslaughtered meat to save one's life. unslaughtered
meat being obviously normally haram (prohibited).
Then they cite the lesser of
two evils, the greater evil being to die, and the lesser one to live albeit by
eating unslaughtered meat. Somehow, from this example they draw the parallel that
we have to vote for a Kafir in the Kufr system we are residing in because of
'lesser of two evils'.
Firstly, the issue of being
stranded in the desert at risk of losing one's life and eating the haram meat
is one of life and death and necessity (duroorah). And even in this situation
the Muslim can only eat enough meat such that he is able to recover from his
ills. What is said of the one who then having sufficed his basic organic needs,
he then were to go ahead and feast on the unslaughtered meat (such as Pork)
such that he began to enjoy it and such that he begins to invite other Muslims
to feast with him!!! Obviously it would be said that he is committing an evil!
As regards to applying this principal to voting and committing Shirk there is
no parallel or analogy (qiyas). Who is threatening to kill us if we do not
vote? If we do or do not vote we still will live after the elections,
Insha’Allah.
So where are the two evils
such that one can chose the lesser? There is only the action to vote which is
haram or evil, and the other choice not to vote, which is obligatory. At the
same time, we can see that the "lesser evil" is based on an arrogant
certainty about the consequences of the choice of the lesser evil winning or working
out as one might have hoped. In fact, those Muslims who voted for the Labour
party and Tony Blair in the 1997 and subsequent elections as the lesser evil
found that they acted quite differently once in power. Gordon Brown, David
Cameron and any other candidate will be no different.
As well, the "lesser
evil" concept (applied wrongly) weakens the Muslims belief in Islam as a complete
and comprehensive Deen with solutions to all of mankind's problems (wherever we
are on this earth). If the Muslims consistently feel obliged to vote for
candidates in whom they do not believe and this principle is continually used
to justify further integration into Kufr society, many Muslims will end up
feeling that Islam does not have all the solutions to man's problems- if every
time Muslims adopt the Kufr solution! Some may even reject the Deen completely,
having integrated into Kufr completely.
Another common feature of
those so-called Muslims who do opt for the 'lesser evil' and vote in Kufr
elections is that often this 'lesser evil' is not regarded as an evil but as a
correct alternative. By these practices being present in the Kufr societies in
the West, it has to some Muslims gained a sense of legitimacy - perhaps there
may even be Muslims who think of their choice as meritorious. If a person is
facing any criminal charge, for example theft or fraud, he would not flaunt it
in public. However we find these evils mentioned so openly and discussed
without any hesitancy amongst those so-called Muslims in charge of the Kufr political
parties and Masjid commitees.
We find these 'lesser evils' mentioned so openly,
one wonders if it is even regarded as wrong. The lesser evils of today were the
major evils of yesterday and so on and so forth until we eventually lose all of
our Islamic thoughts concepts and ideas and become a true "British"
citizen. One shudders when one thinks what the lesser evils of tomorrow would
be. As Muslims, we are so fortunate that our Sharî'ah has been perfected and
protected. Let us not legitimise our evils as the West has done. If we are unable
to uphold the standard that Islam set, we should regretfully acknowledge our shortcomings
as such and not regard our wrongs as acceptable or even waajib (obligatory) as
some deviated scholars have claimed.
Secondly, with regards to the
issue of Shari'ah being for the benefit of Muslims, do they forget that the
Shar'iah is what has been revealed to the Prophet (saw) via the Qur'an or his acitons,
sayings and consent i.e. the Sunnah and not by what their own mind, 'Aqel or Hawaa.
Allah (swt) says.
“Have they not heard the ayah
in the Qur'an when Allah (swt) says,"Maybe you dislike something and this
is actually of benefit for you? And maybe you would like something and it is
actually an evil for you. Allah (swt) alone knows and you do not know (however
much 'Aql or wisdom you may profess to have)" [EMQ 2:216]
And Allah (swt) says about
those who take their own opinions, judgement and desires above the commandment
of Allah (swt),
"Do you not see those who
take their own Hawaa (desires) as gods?" [EMQ 45:23]
There is no place in the
Shar'iah of Islam for one to decide a matter once Allah (swt) has decreed it.
"It is not for any
believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to
have any choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has
gone astray into manifest error." [EMQ 33:36].
In fact the argument of
benefits and interest has been refuted by Allah (swt) Himself when He
said,
"Say: if your fathers,
your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, your wealth that you have
gained, your business that you fear decline, your homes where you live - are
dearer to you than Allah (swt) and the Messenger and Jihad in the way of Allah,
wait till the torment of Allah reaches you" [EMQ 9:24].
In the above ayah, Allah (swt)
is enumerating all things that are of benefit to a Muslim, from their own
lives, wealth to their business and their families. Allah (swt) has said that
if these are dearer to us that Allah, His Messenger and Jihad in His way, then
wait till Allah's decree in the way of punishment is upon us. It is well known
that the Prophet (saw) has said in an explicit hadith,
"What I have forbidden to
you, avoid; what I have ordered you [to do], do as much of it as you can." [Bukhari, Muslim]
Allah (swt) did not allow the
excuse of all these much greater "tangible benefits" and interests to
be used to neglect the obligatory deeds like jihad and we know that we have been
ordered in these duties to do as much as we can. However, with regards to the
Haram deeds, we have been ordered to leave it completely. How then can one use
the arguments of benefits? With regards to the benefits they believe they will
bring and the harms they may prevent they list them as follows; to prevent the
BNP from coming into power, to prevent the aggressive war policies which kill
innocent Muslims around the world, to promote those Kuffar who believe in truth
who will give a good image for Islam e.g. the Respect Party of George Galloway
etc. These are the classic arguments of those who have already decided to participate
in a non Islamic system. In order to justify their actions, they will cite
benefit for Islam and Muslims as a legitimate evidence to partake in a
non-Islamic system.
If we were to examine the general (aam) and
detailed (khaas) evidences we find that benefit is defined as that thing or
action the Shari’ah permits us to benefit from. Hence benefit (maslaha) is
defined by Islam, not by our own weak and limited mind. Firstly, when was the Kufr
of George Galloway and his "Respect Party" (respect the homosexual,
respect the lesbian, respect the pornographer, respect the sale of alcohol,
respect the gambling, respect the free mixing etc.) worse or even better than
the Kufr of the BNP? Did Allah (swt) not teach us about the types of people
this Kuffar (including Jews and Christians), the Munafiq and the Muslim /
Mu'min to which one of these belongs George Galloway? The answer, as George
affirmed that he is a kafir and that he is not going to become Muslim. Allah
(swt) warns the Muslims from taking these people as awliyaa (friends,
protectors, supporters, people in charge over you),
"O you who believe! do
not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do
not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement
hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts
conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you,
if you will understand. Lo! you are they who will love them while they do not
love you, and you believe in the Book (in) the whole of it; and when they meet
you they say: We believe, and when they are alone, they bite the ends of their
fingers in rage against you. Say: Die in your rage; surely Allah knows what is
in the breasts." [EMQ 3:118-119]
Allah (swt) also says,
"O you who believe! do not take for
guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among
those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of
(your duty to) Allah if you are believers." [EMQ 5:57]
And in another place in the
Qur'an,
"You will see many of them
befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have
sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in
chastisement shall they abide. And had they believed in Allah and the prophet
and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but!
Most of them are transgressors." [EMQ 5:80-81]
Allah (swt) has clearly and
explicitly forbidden the Muslim from ever allying with the Kuffar, seeking
their help or allowing them in authority over us. So how then can we go out and
canvass for them? Will George Galloway rule by the Shari'ah or he will rule by
his own desires and by Kufr? The answer is that he will rule by kufr. How then
can one justify choosing him to come into power.
Regarding the BNP, apparently
these scholars using their ration come to the conclusion that if the Muslims do
not vote in these elections, then the BNP will come into power! Unfortunately
for them, the history of the Muslims testifies otherwise - the Muslims have been
in the UK for the past forty to fifty years; How is it that the BNP have stayed
out? Why suddenly this year the BNP may gain support and have a landslide
victory and become the ruling party?! Who are the famous political commentators
that profess this view anyway?
The fact of the matter is, the
more the British public see the Muslims occupying positions such as in
parliament, on television and this concept of multi-culturalism takes hold, the
more the support for the BNP will rise. The more visible so-called Muslims
become, the more the resentment will grow from the indigenous population. So
where now is the argument of those claiming to propagate the concept of
preventing harm? Besides, the BNP up until now have had no political might nor
power and have not really caused any harm upon the Muslims; whereas the
Conservatives and the Labour party have been in power during the bombing of
Muslims in Iraq - the first and second Gulf Wars and during the time of the
biting sanctions when millions of Muslims in Iraq were killed, and currently
when the launch of the war against Islam announced its first victims with relation
to the thousands killed in Afghanistan. Is this not harming to the Muslims? Is
it really worth selling your deen and your brothers abroad so that you can
safeguard your measly salaries, and plots of land where you build your places
of worship?
With regards to preventing the
aggressive foreign policy; well this is a simple fantasy in those people's
minds and shows how bereft their understanding is in relation to the British and
European parliamentary systems. What can Mr Galloway do? What benefit can Mr Galloway
bring the Muslims? In fact he is only going to bring benefit to himself by furthering
his fame and fortune on the back of Muslims apostasies. As Allah (swt) has warned,
"They desire that you
should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike;
therefore take not from among them friends..." [EMQ 4:89]
We find that these shallow and
false political arguments and deceptive analyses are more often than not put
forward as a primary source of evidence by the likes of MPAC and the MCB's of
this world, who with the open support of the British government (morally and financially)
are trying their level best to deceive the Muslim Ummah into voting by provoking
their survival instinct and their need for security. This shameless call for a perceived
interest or some hidden political agenda by committing the Muslim vote is prohibited
in Islam categorically for Allah (swt) says:
"Say: Allah never commands what is
shameful: do you say of Allah what you know not" [EMQ 7:28]
to be continued . . . .
