Misconceptions of the principle: 'the lesser of two evils'

Alomgir Ali

Jun 28 |00:00
Last Updated on Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:32

Ibn Hajar also mentions in Fat’h Al Bari that Imam Ahmed did not narrate the ahaadeeth of khurooj (rebellion) against the rulers to certain people out of the fear that they may misunderstand the texts and create a greater difficulty. He likewise mentioned how Imam Malik disliked narrating ahaadeeth of the attributes of Allah to some people out of the fear that they may liken Allah to his creation.

 

 Throughout the last election campaign there were frequent discussions amongst Muslims regarding the permissibility of participating in the electoral process. This brief article does not intend to address that specific issue (dealt with by scholars elsewhere), but instead, debunk a current myth amongst many people that one of the principles that was used to justify the permissibility of voting (although not the main argument used which many people do not realise), “the lesser of two evils”, only pertains to matters of life and death and can only be applied in matters of coercion and necessity. Although this misconception is often attributed to laymen, it seems to have also found its place amongst certain callers to Islam (du’at).
 
In order to understand the reality of the issue one needs to differentiate between two important maxims:
 
  • ad-Darurah tubeehu al Mahzuraat (Necessity makes the impermissable lawful)
  • ad-Darar al Ashadd Yuzaalu bi-darar al Akhaff (The greater evil is repelled by the lesser evil).[1]
 The first maxim is a sub-maxim for general maxim, “Hardship begets facility,” whereas the second is a sub-maxim for a different general maxim: “Harm must be eliminated”. A cursory look at the works al-ashbaah wan-nazaa’ir and al Qawaa’id al Fiqhiyyah would ascertain that the two aforementioned maxims (in bullet points) are not one and the same, but two separate principles dealing with different situations. Therefore, considering them to be the same can be quite detrimental as will be shown.
 
The principle “Necessity makes the unlawful lawful” is primarily based on the following evidence:
 
“He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, or transgressing due limits, - then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.”[2]
Allah also says in another verse:
 
“Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters disbelief - except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty.”[3]
Both verses indicate the permissibility of what was initially deemed impermissible due to necessity, which in both cases are related to life and death. However, the principle of lesser of two evils is primarily based on other evidence, such as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. On the 6th year after hijrah the Messenger (peace be upon him) left with his companions from Madinah to perform ‘Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) despite Makkah being ruled by the Quraysh and there being severe enmity between the Muslims and the Polytheists. Naturally, the Polytheists denied access to the Muslims which eventually led to reconciliation talks between the two parties and led to the formation of the famous treaty. Some of the following matters were agreed upon in the treaty:
 
  • There would be no war between the 2 parties for 10 years.
  • Whoever went to the Prophet (peace be upon him) from Quraysh without the permission of their parents or guardians must be returned back to Makkah, but whoever went to Quraysh from the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not be returned.
  • The Muslims would have to return back to Madinah without performing ‘Umrah but would be allowed to perform it the following year but for only three days.[4]
Such stipulations proved to be difficult for many to accept such as Umar ibn al Khattab given that it involved an apparent harm and evil (mafsadah). However, in order to safeguard the rest of the Muslim inhabitants in Makkah and to ensure that the propagation of Islam would be allowed to spread without any hindrance, the Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted the terms of the treaty. Many scholars have used this incident as a basis for establishing the principle of inclining towards the lesser of two evils. There are two important matters that we can learn from this incident:
 
  • The Prophet (saw) was not coerced into accepting the treaty.
  • The matter was not one of life and death for the Prophet (saw). He could have easily chosen to abstain away from agreeing with the terms of the treaty and simply walk away, but instead, he (saw) accepted a treaty that contained a stipulation that inevitably lead to harming  some Muslims, although it was simply in order to prevent a greater harm.
Al Nadwi said regarding this incident, “Everything which occurred in the treaty of Hudaibiyah is indicative of this principle since it necessitated adhering to the difficult conditions which seemingly contained much harm for the Muslims. However, it became evidently clear in the end that the treaty was, in essence, a benefit and a means to success through the ‘manifest victory’[5] (al fath al Mubeen).”[6]
 
The other key incident that is used as a basis for this maxim is the hadith of the bedouin that urinated in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) mosque. Anas ibn Malik narrated that a bedouin once came and urinated in a corner of the mosque. The people begun to reproach him but the Prophet stopped them allowing the bedouin to finish urinating. In another narration the Prophet said after the incident, "You have been sent to make things easy and not to make them difficult."[7] Ibn Hajar commented upon this narration and said, "…He ordered them (the Companions) to refrain from preventing the bedouin in order to achieve the greater benefit, which was the prevention of the greater evil by bearing the lesser one (daf' a'dham al mafsadayn bihtimaal aysarihimaa).[8]
 
Similarly, Al Nawawi commented on the incident saying, "In this narration is (i.e. benefits to learn) to repel the greater of two harms by bearing the lesser of the two (daf' a'dham ad-dararayn bihtimaal akhaffihimaa).[9] Both Ibn Hajr and Al Nawawi stated that by preventing the Companions from forbidding this munkar two greater harms were avoided. The first was that the sudden prevention of one urinating could physically harm the individual. Secondly, it would most likely lead to the bedouin soiling his clothes and contaminating other areas of the mosque. Thus, the greater evil was prevented by committing the lesser one, which in this case was allowing the bedouin to complete urinating. This is another clear proof that the principle ‘the lesser of the two evils’ is not merely restricted to issues pertaining to matters of life and death.

Another example of the application of this principle can be found in the narration where the Prophet said to Mu'adh ibn Jabal, "Whoever meets Allah without associating any partners with him will enter paradise." Mu'adh said, "Should I not give glad tidings to the people and inform them of this?" The Prophet replied, "No, for I fear that they may become lax."[10]  Withholding knowledge is a great sin in the sight of Allah, however, if narrating such knowledge leads to a greater evil then spreading it must be prevented as in the case above. Hence, by committing the lesser evil (which in this case would be withholding certain knowledge the greater evil was prevented.

Ibn Hajar also mentions in Fat’h Al Bari that Imam Ahmed did not narrate the ahaadeeth of khurooj (rebellion) against the rulers to certain people out of the fear that they may misunderstand the texts and create a greater difficulty. He likewise mentioned how Imam Malik disliked narrating ahaadeeth of the attributes of Allah to some people out of the fear that they may liken Allah to his creation. From one perspective their actions were somewhat questionable since it seems that they were withholding Islamic knowledge. However, these great Imams, in keeping with their vast knowledge knew that they were doing such in the interests of this religion, even if it meant committing apparent 'evils'.
 
Given the plethora of examples used by Islamic jurists, it can be concluded that the principle ‘the lesser of two evils’ can be applied in both coercive and non-coercive situations, as well as those that pertain to life and death. To assume otherwise is to incorrectly assimilate one maxim into another which will inevitably lead an individual to a flawed conclusion.

Notes:

Source: www.islam21c.com

[1] This principle has been expressed in a number of different ways.
[2] Surah Al Baqarah 2:173; verses which hold similar meanings are also found in the elsewhere Qur’an, see: 5:3, 6:145, 16:115, 6:119.
[3] Al Nahl 16:106
[4] Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad: 4/325. According to Dr. D. al ‘Umari it is graded hasan (acceptable). See: al ‘Umari: 2:443. It was also declared Hasan by al Arna’ut in his checking of the musnad (31/225) hadith number: 18910.
[5] This is in reference to the verse: 48:1
[6] Al Nadwi: 278.
[7] Al Bukhari
[8] Ibn Hajar: 1/388.
[9] An-Nawawi: 1/191
[10] Al Bukhari
 

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
What willthe harm be If Muslims dont vote
written by Nazmul, August 17, 2011
According to the 2 principles they should only be applied if there is a harm/evil so to avoid the greater harm/evil you allow the lesser harm/evil.

But what will be the harm if Muslims dont vote?

Not just that the people who say to vote they dont say who to vote for. For the sake of argument lets say theres a greater harm which will occur if we dont vote, but how will we avoid that greater harm of we are not united on who to vote for?
This article
written by Abu Maryam, August 08, 2010
Is brother Alomgir Ali a scholar?

HE SAID
"ad-Darar al Ashadd Yuzaalu bi-darar al Akhaff (The greater evil is repelled by the lesser evil).[1]

...Another example of the application of this principle can be found in the narration where the Prophet said to Mu'adh ibn Jabal, "Whoever meets Allah without associating any partners with him will enter paradise." Mu'adh said, "Should I not give glad tidings to the people and inform them of this?" The Prophet replied, "No, for I fear that they may become lax."[10] Withholding knowledge is a great sin in the sight of Allah, however, if narrating such knowledge leads to a greater evil then spreading it must be prevented as in the case above. Hence, by committing the lesser evil (which in this case would be withholding certain knowledge the greater evil was prevented."

SO, BASICALLY YOU HAVE SAID, THE PROPHET(pbuh) HAD COMMITTED AN EVIL BY TELLING MU'ADH NOT TO DISCLOSE THIS HADITH (BECAUSE OF HIS WISDOM THAT THEY WILL LAX). WOW - WHAT AN ACCUSATION TO MAKE AGAINST THE FINAL MESSENGER (pbuh) ! WHY DID HE (pbuh) TELL MU'ADH BUT TOLD HIM TO NOT TELL OTHERS. IS THERE MORE TO THIS HADITH THAN MEETS THEY? WHAT DOES THIS GENERAL STATEMENT MEAN??

BROTHER, YOU TALK ABOUT PEOPLE, LAYPEOPLE AND DA'EES GETTING FLAWED CONCLUSIONS FROM THE "Lesser of two evils" ARGUMENT, BUT YOU, YOURSELF HAVE SHOWN YOU SEEM TO HAVE FLAWED CONCLUSIONS!

PLEASE REPLY TO BROTHER NAVEEDS CRUCIAL OBJECTIONS



...
written by Naveed, July 19, 2010
Salaams

Just another point the article states, 'This brief article does not intend to address that specific issue (dealt with by scholars elsewhere), but instead, debunk a current myth amongst many people that one of the principles that was used to justify the permissibility of voting (although not the main argument used which many people do not realise), “the lesser of two evils”, only pertains to matters of life and death and can only be applied in matters of coercion and necessity. Although this misconception is often attributed to laymen...'

the article then states that there are two different principles.

'ad-Darurah tubeehu al Mahzuraat (Necessity makes the impermissable lawful)
ad-Darar al Ashadd Yuzaalu bi-darar al Akhaff (The greater evil is repelled by the lesser evil).[1]'

You said the first principle is 'related to life and death.'

The question is which principle is being used to justify voting for secular parties. If we believe that voting for secular parties is haram in origin then according to what you have written you'd be forced to justify voting due to life and death and thus compulsion. This means that your original point about criticising some 'lay' ppl for claiming that the ruksaa requires necessity ie related to life and death becomes utterly redundant.

Apparently the only way you could justify voting for secular parties according to the second principle is by arguing that it is mubah in origin. This is what I've read according to your article.

Any comments to this apparent contradiction in your article?
...
written by Naveed, July 16, 2010
Salams

just another point. Warding off a greater evil with a lesser evil indicates that two actions are inevitable and the two results from those acts are inevitable.

There's nothing inevitable in voting for secular parties except that you'd be perceived as supporting kufr.

...
written by Naveed, July 16, 2010
Salaams

perhaps based on the above article scholars should refrain from givig fatwa for ppl to vote for kufr secular parties. However I am glad that some pro secular voters are engaging with the arguments rather than pretending there is some sort of 'ijma' on the issue to silence any critique.

There are two things that seem to be lacking in these discussions on pro secular voting firstly is a clear understanding of the subject matter under question and secondly the ability to correctly apply Islamic shariah principles to the given subject.

Let's take the first matter voting in a secular democratic context symbolises an explicit will and an explicit desire in support for a candidate who represents a particular philosophy and a particular set of manifesto commitments. Manifestos are a set of proposed laws that a party decides on which it would seek to implement. By voting them means your explicit support for them. As for ppl who claim that they are tactically voting to prevent another party from coming to power or who claim they vote for them but with an intention other than supporting their policies and their secular (kufr) philosophy then this is not how the democratic process works in theory even if ppl may do this in practise. This is because a thousand votes for one party is perceived as a thousand ppl supporting that party. Hence the democratic process doesn't discriminate between the differing intentions and only takes into account one intention ie the support of the party.

Similarly voting is also seen as an endorsement of the system hence the importance secular thinkers give to voter turnout. That's because by voting gives confidence to the party that does get the overall majority that it has achieved a mandate from the ppl to rule. If the voter turnout is 30% and a party achieves 28% that government will face difficult questions on whether it has achieved a mandate to rule. If however the turnout was 80% and the ruling party got 28% then no such problems of confidence of that government would be seen even though it achieved the same overall majority.

So voting in a democratic process gives support to the system and expresses your will on whch candidate/party you desire to implement their proposed policies and philosophies (even if they have no chance of coming to power).

On this understanding voting for one party who wishes to rule by kufr indicates (accordingto the democratic system) your support for democracy and your desire to see a party come to power to rule by kufr.

Therefore the argument for legitimising pro secular voting is an argument that seeks to legitimise engaging in a process in which your vote indicates your desire to see the implementation of kufr. How then does any variant of the principle of lesser of two evils apply here? This is because the haram act is legitmised as halal even when a halal option remains ie not voting. It can't be argued that by not voting we are already legitimising a candidate who comes to power in our constituency. This is a separate issue and relates to matters of living in daral kufr and in particular a democratic society. If we argue that by merely living here we are 'represented' by a kafir to implement kufr then it would be incumbent for us to leave this country. Secondly even in the uk not voting is perceived as a rejection of the system hence the reason why politicians like former justice secretary jack straw argued for the possible introduction to compulsory voting. He believed it was a possible measure
to ensure the maintenance of democracy.

As for ppl legitimising voting due to the presence of saving lives quote clearly voting for kufr is haram and can possibly lead to shirk. The results of voting are uncertain with candidates going back on manifesto pledges or not getting the party one desires into power. Hence how can something uncertain be used to justify a clear violation of the Nass?

More can and should be said. My final point if secular Muslims who wish to see te secularisatipn of Islam and if kafir politicians who have an agenda against Islam and Muslims wish to see Muslims vote for secular parties then the ulema Shouldnt fall into the trap of trying to legitimise it. Hence they should take the stance of imam Malik and ibn hajr in withholding this type of fatwa for fearthe Muslims may inadvertently fall into sin and kufr by believing in a kufr political process.

Rashid
written by Rashid, July 15, 2010
Salam alaykum

I don't know why you are over complicating things here brother.

The treaty of Hudaibiyah was subject to revelation and the Prophet SAW unlike the UK elections obviously never contradicted any Islamic rules or obligations in this even if it was unpopular at the start. Please explain which Islamic obligations this treaty contradicted if you disagree.

I remember Pervez Musharraf abusing the incident of the treaty of Hudaibiyah to justify supporting the US crusade in Afghanistan.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy

Share This