Is Voting Really Haram?

Islamic Law

Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad

May 04 |00:00

Last Updated on Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:59

Participation in a kufr system does not necessarily mean participation in kufr itself. It depends on the nature of such participation.

When we discuss the issue of voting, or any other (contemporary) issue of a similar nature, we should try to understand its reality before forming a conclusion regarding its ruling, a phenomenon termed fiqh al waqi’ (knowing and understanding the environment and factors surrounding the topic of concern). Ibn al-Qayyim considered one of the prerequisites of the mufti alongside fiqh al mas’alah (possessing proper perception of the issue at hand and its related rulings) as being fiqh al waqi’, given that it is also necessary in order to arrive at a legal opinion about a certain issue of concern.

Let us commence by considering the following scenario: There is, in a faraway land a ruler who lives alongside his subjects. The ruler, in formulating his governance, leaves the matter to the people offering them two choices: they may choose either the law of God or secular law. This situation involves the following three parties:

Firstly, the ruler himself who offers the implementation of the law of the Creator (Shari’ah h) to question or debate between people; there is no doubt that this ruler committed an act of kufr (disbelief) for he is obliged to rule by the law of the Creator. Allah says, “Legislation is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him.”^[1] To him this ayah is addressed, “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (disbelievers).”^2]

Secondly, the subjects who are requested to select between the Shari’ah and secular law; of course, it is incumbent upon them to opt for the Shari’ah. The mechanism of choosing the Shari’ah may take various forms such as voting, demonstrations, or lobbying through correspondence. No doubt, people must do their best in order to bring about the implementation of Islamic law, and thus, can anyone argue that it is impermissible for people to vote to choose the Shari’ah since voting is an essential part of democracy which in turn is kufr? If such a claim were to be posited then it becomes evident that we have proved unable to conceptualise the issue at hand. To claim voting is an act of kufr is extremely inaccurate and as a point in case take the situation where a person is consulted (as happens in some countries including the UK) as to whether he would opt for a Shari’ah court or a court that will rule on the basis of secular law. Should this person, in view of the aforementioned erroneous argument, declare that he refuses to choose since choosing is voting which in turn is part of democracy, a system of kufr?! What should such an individual do? Should he abstain from doing anything? What if the constitution states that the judicial system is to remain secular unless the person opts for the Shari’ah? Can we say in this case that this person is obliged to vote or choose the Shari’ah court? Can we also say that abstention from voting means that the person has implicitly accepted secular law as the basis of the judicial system which is an act of kufr?

From this discussion we can conclude three important points:

Voting, in many cases, merely means choosing or selecting.
Participation in a kufr system does not necessarily mean participation in kufr itself. It depends on the nature of such participation.
Abstention from voting sometimes causes more harm than voting itself.

Thirdly, the people who want to be part of the legislative executive like those who want to be members of parliament. This issue requires a separate detailed study and is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Another important scenario which must be highlighted is when the inhabitants of a country who have the Shari’ah as the dominant system want to choose a leader - they employ elections as a mechanism selection; can we say this is democracy and thus an act of kufr?

From the above discussion we may conclude that it is absolutely wrong to generalise the ruling by saying that democracy is an act of kufr. Instead we should say things that makes sense to people and reflects our correct understandings. We should be extremely careful in accusing individuals of kufr; the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The one who accuses his brother of kufr then surely one of them is as has been claimed.”

The word democracy was originally coined to mean the rule of the people, however, these days it has various connotations where it can be used to merely mean a selection mechanism. That is why we see the introduction of the term liberal democracy. Some observers believe that this new term was introduced in order to emphasise that Muslim countries should be democratic in their selecting rulers as well as constitution. So from this perspective, a liberal democracy entails that the constitution itself has to be subject to selection through a democratic mechanism.

Muslims living under a Kufr system

Muslims living in a liberal democracy should understand their situation in all of its various facets. Muslims believe that ultimate justice, peace, and reason cannot be achieved unless the divine system is dominant. In many cases they are unable to achieve this in the foreseeable future. So what should they do until they reach this stage?

Abstinence from voting will not realistically lead to change and any sane person would say that abstaining from selecting the least evil option would only leave room for the more evil option to win.

Here I would like to respond to the various arguments posited by those brothers who are against selection through voting. What is important is that we identify why we are against voting, is it because it is an act of kufr or because it is harmful and damaging for Muslims? Having responded to the first claim let us now focus on the second. It may be argued that:

Selecting one of these parties ultimately endorse their policies that are based on man-made laws (kufr law).

This is not necessarily the case for the following reason: choosing an option means that you endorse it only if there are better options offered. But if the other choice is worse, then you are actually endorsing the difference between this option and the one that is less harmful. Take for example eating un-slaughtered meat for a starving person, he is allowed (or even obliged) to do so, yet does that mean that he is endorsing eating un-slaughtered meat? Of course not; he is endorsing the difference between these options which in this case is saving his life. Saving his life by eating un-slaughtered meat is better than starving to death. That is why this is an agreed upon principle. So quoting each party’s statement that they are going to do so and so if they win separately and without comparing this with what other parties say is not a very honest approach since it does not give the audience the full picture. This becomes worse when the alternative presented is just a hypothetical solution.

So I urge the brothers and sisters not to accuse anybody of kufr or sins just because they vote for one of these parties in such a situation. Such accusations reflect ignorance as well as naivety in comprehension.

By voting you are involved in the political system - a step towards integration which ultimately resulting in the loss of Muslim identity whilst living in western countries.

I agree that integration in its wider meaning leads to the loss of Muslim distinctiveness and it is a hidden agenda by the enemies of Islam to deceive Muslims so that they lose their identity. However, this is not necessarily an implication of voting. I agree that full political participations might lead to major problems for Muslims and we have to be very careful when stepping into this arena. However, ticking the box for one of the candidates in no way qualifies as full political participation.

I would like to mention here that I also advise our brothers who are involved in leading Muslims in terms of politics to be aware that some Muslims might understand that voting means full involvement in the game of politics, a realm that is full of deception and cunning, a fact realised by many non-Muslims themselves. So they should use cautious language when encouraging Muslims to vote. Statements such as “voting is the only way for Muslims in this country”, “voting is the lifeboat”, “voting is part of our belief”, “voting means citizenship” and so on should be avoided. Such emotional and excessive statements lead to contrary statements and reactions that are equally emotional and extreme.

It is not true that we do not have another option. We have to strengthen our Muslim community and work hard for our independence.

I think all agree that the Muslim community needs to strengthen itself and its own organisations. However, this is not an option that is incompatible with having party A, B or C in power. We can vote to select the best option while we are working for our community and our future.

We are not going to get anything by voting while it might be impermissible so it is better to abstain from it.

It is not easy to come up with such a conclusion. We need a thorough analytical study that can confirm that all parties are nothing but different faces of one coin. I agree that voting is not the lifeline for Muslims in this country as represented by some Muslims and I have asked parties on both sides of the voting argument to come up with an academic study to prove their points. However, it is difficult to say that all parties are exactly the same in internal and external policy. Logically, not all non-Muslims are the same, even the kuffar of Makkah were different. Abu Talib, the uncle of the Prophet, was completely different from Abu Jahl. Abu Talib helped the Prophet (peace be upon him) and sheltered him while the other uncle would torture the Prophet and his companions. Should we not do our best to choose the one that is less evil and better for humanity? Indeed, abstention from voting is essentially indirect voting. Let me explain this by the following example:

Imagine that 6 people were to vote for two parties named A and B. A states in his manifesto that he will legalise pornography, ban faith-schools, kill 1000 Muslims, and prevent Muslims from adorning the hijab. B states that he will legalise pornography but allow faith schools and kill 500 Muslims. 3 of us vote for A and 2 votes for B and I, in believing that voting is kufr, abstain from doing so. What will happen?

Inevitably, A will win, but if I vote for B, then no one will. So by participating I lessen the evil. Let us now say that we have 2 more people, either they vote for B or abstain. Abstention will not change the situation while encouraging them to vote for B, who will do all these filthy things, will mean that A will lose which means that we saved the life of 500 Muslims and had a chance to have faith schools and practice hijab! So whether we vote or not, we actually vote since we are part of the population. This is how the system works, at least in Britain. If someone disagrees with this then s/he should provide proof bearing in mind that s/he should be systematic in his/her approach and clear in presenting his/her case. In his abstaining to vote s/he has implicitly accepted the principle of voting when it is proved that abstention from voting is indirect voting.

If we vote we will not bring any Muslim to power.

It is indeed correct, but who said that our aim (in the near future) is to bring a Muslim into power. Our realistic aim in the near future is to have a better person with a better system in power. It is impractical to think of having a true Muslim leader in the near future in most non-Muslim countries. Our ultimate aim is to help those who are better than their co-politicians.

Boycotting elections is better for Muslims since it sends a strong message to the politician that we are not happy with them and their system. Moreover it will show the ineligibility of this round of elections.

This might be true but as I said earlier we need a deep study and understanding of the complicated political situation to confirm such conclusions. I urge those brothers who believe in this to produce a provisional work proving this point. In the mean time we should know that such boycotting will not be effective unless all Muslims do so. That is why, before we arrive at such conclusions a deep discussion with all Muslims involved in politics and other related fields should take place. It should not be an individual opinion of a single party. However, we should bear in mind that if a decision were taken to boycott elections, then we should be clear why we do so. Is it because of the original ruling of voting and elections or because of the impracticality of it?

Conclusion

I would like to conclude by urging the community to be united in their decision. Such unity is the only way for their voice to be effective. Unity here means following one strategy whether we decide to vote or boycott elections. Once we decide to vote, which in the UK is the decision at least for the moment, we should appoint one main body to lead us in the political process.

Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com

[1] 12:41

[2] 5:44

Bookmark

Email this

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (28) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

One of the Shieks students who is mastering Constitutional law.
written by Jack Johnson, May 22, 2011

@Fatimaa, May 16, 2010

Dear sister in islam, i love you for the sake of Allah but must put you in your place.
#1The shiekh is qualified to speak about the political process, but given the fact you display an evident bias i will rebut your childish (

...
written by muslim brother, May 06, 2011

if we all practised the way of live Allah ta ala has mentioned in the holly Quran, before the eyes of the non-muslims aound us e.g. neighbours etc.. then maybe they will want to know more about our way of life and we will one day insha allah have a majority for shariah law. just by not voting you cant get shariah law. The Prophet (SAW) achieved success through their character, honesty, Showing Mercy etc.... Lets try to sort ourselves out in our primary defects then move on to the nitty gritty thinks...Forgive me if i have said anything wrong....

Poor Fatwa using weak evidences
written by Abu Maryam, May 31, 2010

Having being a flag bearer of 'you can vote to minimize harm or lesser of to evils' I have changed my view that you can only vote if your life is at threat (hihrah is best!!). I changed because I have looked into voting over a week and the evidences provided for pro-voting were generic ones which do not answer the specific and are very fragile and out of context. The 'fatwas' by the likes of Haitham al-Haddad and Abu 'Eesa Niamutallah are not convincing at all.
The fatwas fall flat on the first premise if you are faced with evil choose lesser of the two (or x election part!!) - you are not forced to vote!!! Abstain because all parties have proven to lie, are not trustworthy and go against their covenants after being elected.
Also we can eat pork in a life or death situation - how can this be analogised and reconciled towards voting? The Muslims rejoiced when an enemy of my enemy got defeated - how can that be analogised and reconciled. I love England to beat Pakistan in cricket - can I use that to reconcile towards voting?
Don't forget brother Saleem, the examples you have used for example are for a specific singular incident in a hadith (or ayah) and not to with law making.
When you state, "Ibn Taymiyyah gave a verdict to refrain from stopping the Tartars from drinking alcohol (despite the obligation of forbidding this evil) since their drunken state would prevent them from slaughtering people and raping women"
I would agree it is the wise and correct thing to do.
But by voting any - any party, they go on to cause corruption by making halaal what is haraam and vice versa for years and years- so surely by voting you have aided and abetted them! This is different to one off incidents like the examples you have given.

Can I use this principle of lesser of two evils or attaining benefit via haram means in everything now?
Can I go to a pub and drink alcohol with people and play poker so to stop them going out and stealing from other people or even worse?
Can I now go and make 4 girlfriends in that way it will stop these girls from sleeping with other men (or women) but I won't be sleeping with them but chatting and holding hands only in the hope they may accept Islaam and I can marry. Well I can marry them anyway if they are People of the Book!!
Get my logic?

Finally if they make voting obligatory or threaten your life to vote (really do you think so??) the answer is in the Quran...

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): “In what (condition) were you?” They reply: “We were weak and oppressed on the earth.” They (angels) say: “Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?” Such men will find their abode in Hell – What an evil destination!
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #97)

Also what happens if any of theses immoral and corrupt parties get in, we should know...

HADITH 19
On the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said : One day I was behind the prophet and he said to me: "Young man, I shall teach you some words [of advice] : Be mindful of Allah, and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. If you ask, ask of Allah; if you seek help, seek help of Allah. Know that if the Nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, it would benefit you only with something that Allah had already prescribed for you, and that if they gather together to harm you with anything, they would harm you only with something Allah had already prescribed for you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried."
Narrated by Tirmithi

Another method
written by Ahmed, May 20, 2010

Here is the problem I face in Canada.

One party is for homosexual marriages.
One party is for bombing Muslim countries.
Another party is for a mix of both.

I came to the conclusion that I cannot vote for any of them. How will I face Allah having voted for any party that condones the above?

My solution, I go to the ballot box, my Muslim name is crossed out. I take my ballot in the voting area and mark nothing on the paper. I fold my ballot and go deposit it in the ballot box.

The advantage of this?
1) The politicians see the Muslim turnout and hence can be more sensitive to Muslim needs. They do not know whom I voted for (in my case none of them).
2) I did not vote for any of this parties.

This is a gesture waiting for Sharia law to come inchaAllah.

Allah Alim.

Questionable views...
written by Fatimaa, May 16, 2010

I personally think the shaikh has a child like grasp of democracy and voting.

The most basic of political texts (A Heywood for example) will explain that sovereignty is with the people and through elections it is transferred to the rulers - how's that for just a simple non-consequentialist selection process!

Evidence
written by Jagler, May 08, 2010

As far as i understand the author has written what he "Thinks" we should do when we're confrontend with voting. It does lak of islamic evidence. Why are the arguments not provided with evidence?

I think voting itself is not an act of anything. It's just a way of making a chose. But what's very important is what you chose for. Democrasy says the people should decide what's right or wrong. The Qoran says it's Allah who desides that. So if you vote in a democratic system you are a part of a system that replases the legislation of Allah.

dear convert brother
written by Faysal, May 06, 2010

If you aren’t content with them, then why are you helping them? Think about this.

Akhi, I agree that there are many approaches we can utilise and some will be more effective than others. Our intention and choices are upon our own shoulders, but this issue should not be clouded by playing the “k” card.

Firstly, it’s not good practice to loosely use Islamic terms such as “BAYAH”, this has a specific shari understanding. If by bayah you mean allegiance to the political system then note even by choosing to live in this country you show a level of allegiance to the system and the laws etc, whether you agree with them or not. To keep this concise, you can’t use your own mind to decide what level of participation is halal or haraam, you need to bring a specific evidence to classify that actually voting in a non-Muslim country is haraam, for which there isn’t. I encourage you to look in to this further if it is still unclear. Wslm.

-1

to faysal
written by convert brother, May 05, 2010

Akhi, nobody is saying we are content with zionist lapdogs or bnp limesuckers. I am saying that as someone who votes in an election of kufr, I will be held responsible for the actions the candidate I GIVE BAYAH TO that go against Islam.

Also, once again, votes don't go as far as the Pound of the dollar do. This is reality.

Worth it?
written by Faysal, May 05, 2010

Jazakallah khair Shaikh for another informative discussion.
An apathetic and complacent attitude on this matter is not doing anything for this ummah, rather it is helping those that don’t want the Muslims to vote. Even if we can lessen the evil by one degree, this should not be frowned upon or ignored. Voting is very key in many Muslim areas, this can be summed up by a recent text message..."If you are content with pro-Zionist Friends of Israel as yr MPs in Ilford, then don't vote, if you don't mind the BNP, who want to kick you & yr children out of this country, being elected in Barking then don't vote, otherwise VOTE."

-3

golden duas
written by ibrahimali, May 05, 2010

Our LORD Appreciated Christians as per Quranic Verses 3:55,5:82,57:27,28 Except Quranic Verses 5:14,15,16 & 57,9:31. As per Quranic Versus 4:59 and 83, it is our duty to spread the following messages to all concerns towards public peace, security, health and wealth of mankind in the world as per our website -------------. The following message ought to have published to all the members of the group so far.As per quranic versus 4:59 and 83 it is a duty tospread the following messages in the interest of public peace, health and wealth. "please download from web site ------------ for peace, security, health& wealth for mankind and the same may be published as news to all members of the community through government websites, all medias in the country in its local languages and also other websites in the country based on quranic verses 2:2,10:57,17:11,16,28:59,39:55,57,13:37&65:8. Otherwise it will amount to refusal to follow our Lord Order, guidance and direction as per Quranic verses 6:26"

With kind regards
U.IBRAHIM ALI

Admire the Sh but not this opinion/article.
written by Haqq is Clear, May 05, 2010

Salamalaikum,
Though it was an interesting read, I have to agree with the majority of people here. I do respect sh haitham so much and benefit greatly from many of his talks, and I have awaited his clarity/explanation of his opinion on voting in the UK for some years now - but having read it at last, I do not find it convincing nor applicable. If I were to face Allah on yawm al qiyaamah, these arguments would not give me confidence to believe what I did (concerning a doubtful matter) was worth the risk of it being a mistake. If it makes sense to some, then I can appreciate that, but it doesn't counter any of the arguments I have heard/read/squestioned on the other side, and thus I am now firmer on the understanding that it is not permissable to vote in these elections.
Wallahu Alam.

Very poorly written argument
written by meelash, May 04, 2010

Sorry, but this is a very misleading and almost childishly thought-out argument. I say this because of the large number of clear red-herrings and non-analogous analogies that are brought throughout.
In fact, the entire first section has to be thrown out as a red herring, since in no election are we being asked to choose between implementing Shariah, or the Constitution of the country. When we choose between candidates or parties, all of them are clearly operating under the same umbrella of the governmental system which is not Shariah. So the entire example and discussion is ridiculously irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy to prove a premise regarding a special case, and then propose that as proof of the same premise applying to the general case.

If we go through like this and eliminate all such logical fallacies from the article, the end result will not be very much said at all...

A note to adamt
written by Ibraheem, May 04, 2010

Assalaamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu,

adamt, you said:

Tell me something, how did they go to Iraq? Did they cast a vote? Yes they did!

And none of us had power to say "NO!"

No one was there to speak for us, for Muslims in Iraq, for Occuppied Palestine. No one.

This is not entirely true. In fact, the opposite was. They did hold a vote, that's for sure, but there were 'Muslim MPs' who said they would vote against it. As far as I can remember, 4 of them were absent from the vote and 2 of them voted for the war!

...
written by Convert Brother, May 04, 2010

@Nozrul Hussain:

Yeah, you said it, that is a terrible anaolgy.

And I agree with you though, people should understand how the political system works... including Shaikh Hadad. Understanding academically/theoretically is different than understanding what happens in reality.

Can we have some Shara'i perspective
written by abu, May 04, 2010

Salaam, thanks for the article, i was just wondering if you could provide some evidences from the Quran and Sunnah for this, as this is no different from any other issue in islam. If it had been an article on divorce or salah im sure you would have quoted tons of Quran and ahadith, so why does this differ, you only give mere analogies, which in my view are very easy to counter. Take you argument about lesser of the two evils first of all who decides whats more evil? is it the mind or the shariah texts? From party manifestos you can see that all major parties support the foreign occupation, whereas the BNP yes the BNP say they will withdraw the troops and have a peace treaty with the Muslim world! so who's the lesser of the two evil if that condition qualifies. And im not even a scholar, please dont act like a democracy and ignore these comments.

Voting in a secular political system
written by Nozrul Hussain, May 04, 2010

In response to what was posted below:

The key point for those who believe it is Kufr and shirk that they should understand is that...

'voting is a means to choose a person to legislate by other than Allaah's Law'

just as...

'walking is a means to get to the Christian church in order to commit shirk'

So if you see a Muslim walking to a church does it automatically mean he is going there to commit shirk? No, for he may have the intention to go and speak to the Priest about some necissity such as to tell him that some of his congregation are vandalising muslim homes.

Likewise you cannot assume that a person is voting to choose a person to legislate, rather he could be voting because he sees a necessity that needs to be fulfilled such as making sure that the a person who will impose islamophobic rules doesn't get there.

It's about the intention of voting... no one doubts the kufr of taghut.

The above analogy of a Muslim walking to a church and may or may not got and worship at the Church is flawed.

As the Sheikh said correctly people need to understand how the political system works. No one casts a vote not knowing who or what they are doing. Everyone knows that they are voting for someone who will, if they win the parliamentary seat/constituency that they are contesting, represent them and their interests in Parliament when it comes to passing policies and making laws. This is not an assumption. This is the job/duty of an MP. So there is no assumption here. A person does not become an MP not to take part in the making of legislation. If that was the case then that person sdould not be an MP.

And Allah knows best. Salaam.

Votes can say yes to "war."
written by adamt, May 04, 2010

It is a very well written and deep post. Jazak Allah Khairun.

"This cannot be applied to casting a vote in these elections as no one is claiming that it is a life and death situation. Of course casting a vote is better than dying - but unless there is a rule in this country that people who do not vote will be executed I don't see how this is being claimed here."

Tell me something, how did they go to Iraq? Did they cast a vote? Yes they did!

And none of us had power to say "NO!"

No one was there to speak for us, for Muslims in Iraq, for Occuppied Palestine. No one.

Yes, voting depending on certain matters, can cause life and death. It already has, it already doing so right now.

What gets me and it really confusing, is I see organisations saying, "It's Haraam to vote," and yet, they use the same system they call kufar system to ask prime ministers, mps for help about their leader, or about staying in UK.

I don't think the so called "kufar" will have a problem with lots of seats taken by Muslims.

Why?

We cannot even celebrate Eid together. When time comes for real, we use our own self motives and call it Islam.

-3

Good article
written by Khalid, May 04, 2010

Well said, however there are a lot of articles like this. Maybe we can comprehend what you are saying but there are a lot of people who will be looking for answers which they may not find straight away or understand.

You should have had a clear cut answer in your conclusion.

i.e. "Voting is not haram in Islam"

None the less keep up the good work.

-1

A Quick Question
written by Ibraheem, May 04, 2010

Assalaamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu,

JazaakumAllaahu Khayran for this article Shaykh; a couple of points that I was unsure of previously were made clearer for me walhamdulillaah.

A quick question however:
You stated that
From this discussion we can conclude three important points:
1) Voting, in many cases, merely means choosing or selecting.
2) Participation in a kufr system does not necessarily mean participation in kufr itself. It depends on the nature of such participation.
3) Abstention from voting sometimes causes more harm than voting itself.

I understand the first two points given the information provided, however the third one is very vague. For instance, how do we apply it in our current climate? We have three parties who forward their own agendas, and we all know that the majority of things that each party claims they will do, most probably they won't as evidenced from years and years of politics. For this reason, the claim of 'more good than the other' or 'the lesser of the two evils' is incongruent to the reality of our situation since their is no assurance that they will even make well on their claims.

Similarly, since the Muslims as a whole are divided on this issue, first on whether to vote or not, and then a subdivision of what party to vote for, and practical application would be too small to make a difference anyway. Unless the whole body of the Muslims is clear on a certain party being more beneficial/less evil then the act of our voting will not produce a change since we would not be influential enough to cause that change.

So the question still stands; will voting actually cause any good/less harm? Or will our act of voting cause harm that we will, in turn, be called into account for on the Day of Resurrection, abstaining from which, we would not?

WasSalaamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullaah.

...
written by Convert Brother, May 04, 2010

If my kafir mother can utter such a profound statement as "Why do people even bother voting? Its not like they look out for anyone's interests but their own."

When we get into maslahah/rukhsah then how do you take this? Is it Lib Dems/Labour who talk cute about the muslim communities here while they are silent on moral issues (sodomy, khamr, abortion) and raise the banner of war on our brothers and sisters overseas? Is it the BNP who openly dispise muslims here and wish them gone but are against interference in our lands?

No, I will not take a maslahah/rukhsah here. I won't even get into the issue of bayah as well.

If we want some form of political clout here, there are other ways. Throw some money around like certain advocacy groups and see what happens. Won't happen though.

The key point for those who believe it is Kufr/Shirk..
written by YSN, May 04, 2010

The key point for those who believe it is Kufr and shirk that they should understand is that...

'voting is a means to choose a person to legislate by other than Allaah's Law'

just as...

'walking is a means to get to the Christian church in order to commit shirk'

So if you see a Muslim walking to a church does it automatically mean he is going there to commit shirk? No, for he may have the intention to go and speak to the Priest about some necissity such as to tell him that some of his congregation are vandalising muslim homes.

Likewise you cannot assume that a person is voting to choose a person to legislate, rather he could be voting because he sees a necessity that needs to be fulfilled such as making sure that the a person who will impose islamophobic rules doesn't get there.

It's about the intention of voting... no one doubts the kufr of taghut.

-2

Voting
written by Abu Hammaad, May 04, 2010

I've always adopted the opinion that voting for non-Islamic law as Shirk and Kufr based on the evidences in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. However, most Muslims would think this is only the opinion of certain groups. I'm not affiliated with any group but seeing the evidence it clearly outweighs the opinion of those who say is permissible.
It is a very detailed topic and would take awhile to discuss, but the main issues with voting are:
*Attribute of Allah (swt) i.e Al Hakim.
*Shirk of allowing others to make law.
*Making Halal Haram and vice versa.
*Limiting Allah's (swt) Legislation to time and place i.e. During the time of the Prophet (saw) and companions, only in Muslim lands.
*Allah (swt) puts in authority whom he wills (evident from Qur'an and sunnah) voting can not change Allah's (swt) decree.
*Political parties policies against Islam and Muslims.

If I was to vote I believe I would be accountable on the Day of Judgment for the above points I made.

A little confusion
written by Yousuf, May 04, 2010

Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh,
Jazakumullahu Khayran Shaykh, I just have a small issue with this:

If we consider voting to be permissible but we find little benefit in doing so, should we not then consider ourselves to be assisting corrupt politicians in gaining power by voting?

Also, by then abstaining, are we not just distancing ourselves from this? I can't really see how it can be said that by abstaining you are actually involved because at the very least, you would not be participating in electing any of these corrupt individuals.

A little more clarification please...

Principle of Lesser of Two Evils
written by Abu Abdullah, May 04, 2010

Sh. Hadad states:
"This is not necessarily the case for the following reason: choosing an option means that you endorse it only if there are better options offered. But if the other choice is worse, then you are actually endorsing the difference between this option and the one that is less harmful. Take for example eating un-slaughtered meat for a starving person, he is allowed (or even obliged) to do so, yet does that mean that he is endorsing eating un-slaughtered meat? Of course not; he is endorsing the difference between these options which in this case is saving his life. Saving his life by eating un-slaughtered meat is better than starving to death. That is why this is an agreed upon principle. "

He has mentioned an agreed upon principle - and the circumstances in which this rule of lesser of the two evils applies - one in which someone needs to save his life, in other words a life and death situation or something similar.

This cannot be applied to casting a vote in these elections as no one is claiming that it is a life and death situation. Of course casting a vote is better than dying - but unless there is a rule in this country that people who do not vote will be executed I don't see how this is being claimed here.

And so therefore the refutation given by the Sheikh is inapplicable here, and the original point still stands.

Questions and an Objection
written by Abu Hurairah, May 04, 2010

I agree with most of what the Shaykh has said.

1) If there are three parties; one less evil than the other and you know/think the party with the lowest evil will not be able to win, is it allowed to vote for the second least evil party in order for the most evil not to win whilst not choosing the least evil?

2) Why is it not made clear for the Muslims who they should vote for? In the age we're living in you have to be an Usooli to work out which harm is greater than the other and consequentially who to vote for thereafter! So in places like Bow and Bethnal Green where you have multiple Muslim candidates there will be a split in the voting which may lead to neither of them winning. Why is Muslim voting being propagated before a 'main body' is appointed to guide us?

Objection:
The claim 'abstention from voting is essentially indirect voting' is only accurate in certain cases like the analogy Sh. Haitham mentioned, however the reality is not analogous to that so I put it to you that it is not the case currently where abstention is the same as participation.

And Allaah knows best.