The Shirk of Voting in Legislative Elections !

Q and A with Shaykh `Umar Ibn Maḥmūd Abū `Umar Regarding the Shirk of Voting in Legislative Elections!

The Shaykh said: “I say: In the first question, they say; “Our Noble Shaykh, to begin with, some of those who spread (the idea of) Parliamentarian elections, and that they are permissible, have come with a new doubt which they have relied upon. And this doubt is based upon a Ḥadīth, the Text of which is the following:

From Umm Salamah Bint Abī Umayyah Ibn al-Mughīrah, the wife of the Prophet (saws) she said, “When we arrived in the land of Al-Ḥabashah, we were given the protection of the best neighbour, An-Najāshī.” Until she said, “So by Allāh! We were upon that (peace and security) until a person came upon him, – meaning one who disputed him in his kingdom –.” She said, “So by Allāh! We did not know grief that was more severe than the grief that we grieved at that point out of fear that that one would defeat An-Najāshī, so a man come not acknowledging our rights as An-Najāshī would acknowledge them.” She said, “And An-Najāshī went ahead (to engage with him in a battle), while between them was the width of the Nile.” She said, “So the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh (saws) said, ‘Who is a man who will go out and observe what takes place between the people, then come to us with the news?’” She said, “So Az-Zubayr Ibn Al-'Awwām said, ‘I will.’” She said, “And he was among the youngest of the people.” She said, “So they blew into a water skin for him, then he placed it upon his chest, then he swam on it until he arrived at the place in the Nile River where the meeting place of the people was, then he went until he witnessed them.” She said, “So, we made Du`ā’ to Allāh for An-Najāshī, to have dominance over his enemy, and consolidation for him in his country. And the matter of Al-Ḥabashah was sought to be made stable through him. So we were with him in the best of homes, until we came back to the Messenger of Allāh (saws) and he was in Makkah.”

The questioner says, “Aḥmad and Al-Bayhaqī narrated it, and this phrasing is that of Aḥmad, from the path of Ibn Isḥāq, who said, Az-Zuhrī narrated to us (Ḥaddathanā), from Abī Bakr Ibn Abdir-Raḥmān Ibn al-Ḥārith Ibn Hishām, from Umm Salamah.

So the method of using this as evidence according to them, is that they made Du'ā’ to Allāh to give An-Najāshī consolidation in the land, and he was a kāfir at that time, as they said. And if Du'ā’ is the highest levels of support, then whatever is less than it like voting, is included in it from a more deserving point. Then they said, if you forbid (participating in) the elections, then is it allowed for you to make Du'ā’ to Allāh to consolidate a seat in parliament for a man, instead of voting for him? So what is your opinion with in the way the evidence is used, and what is the correct stance which it is upon us to take towards those who are of the opinion of the permissibility of voting in the general legislative elections, Wa Jazākum Allāhu Khayr.”

I say, and with Allāh is the granting of success, as it is known, that the issue of elections is a newly invented issue, modern and it is from the new occurrences.

And before a Fatwā can be made about any issue, it is a must to understand it, and to refer it back to its correct origin (Asl), and to deal with it according to, to how it is (defined) in the terminology of its person (i.e. the one who uses it and invented it) or in the terminology of its person, and not as the Muftī or the speaker imagines. So first, we must know, what is the issue of the elections according to those who invented it and according to those who deal with it, then after that it is upon us to know the ruling of Allāh regarding it, through the method of Ijtihād which the People of Knowledge know, or upon the methods of the People of Knowledge.

So, as we see, that the topic of elections has been spoken about extensively, and every day a (new) doubt appears for the person of doubts, and it is known that the doubts will never end, in reality.

And the people have spoken a lot about it, and it has is clear to every individual with clear sight, that the topic of elections; it is not looked at, it is not looked at by considering it to be an instrument or a means, rather, it is looked at based upon its basis from which this means spurted out of. Meaning that elections are the practical application of an 'Aqīdah and of a fundamental, or as they label it today, an ideology.

So this is the issue. So if we understand the basis, then at that time, judging upon the branch becomes easy for us. As for some are the discussion, like I hear a lot, about the elections only, in other words, by separating it, its condition far away from its reality and far away from its origin, then this is from the concealment, and this is from the evil, rather, this is from the deviation from the correct path.

Elections are means, yes, but a means to what? A means spurted out of what?

What is known is that the systems, there are systems which are called democratic systems, and they give the right of Siyādah (sovereign authority, command, mastery, lordship, sovereignty, supremacy, rule) to the people. And the Siyādah, as it is known, in the constitutional science, or the political science, is that it is a high, absolute authority, which there is no authority higher than it, which has the right to issue laws. This is the Siyādah. So they say that the Siyādah is for the people, the Siyādah is for the nation.

So this Siyādah, out of which spurts the right to legislate, the authority of legislation, the judicial authority, then the authority of enforcement, then these must be based upon the will of the people and upon that which the people want and upon that which the people approve of.

And Democracy is established upon two foundations; upon the foundation of the majority and the minority, and from the right of the minority is to strive and to dispute to reach to the majority. And from the right of the majority is to rule and to legislate and to operate the, and to enforce the matters and operate the rulings. This is the basis of democracy. So as we see, the issue returns back to the understanding of Siyādah.

So at that time, the elections are a voicing of the will of the people. How do we know the will of people? They say by the method of elections and voting.

So voting is a means to knowing the will of people, which they themselves have the right of Siyādah in legislation in that which we are in right now, in the topic of parliaments. So the parliament is the body from which comes, firstly, many matters come from it, but firstly what comes from it is legislation, in other words, labeling something to be Ḥalāl and removing the ruling of forbiddance off of it, this is the meaning of legislation (Tashrī`). Legislation means, it is labeling something Ḥalāl and removing the ruling of forbiddance off of it, or labeling something Ḥarām and removing the ruling of forbiddance, permissibility off of it.

This legislation, it is from the right of this body, which has been elected by the people. And this is an issue, as we see, which disputes the right of Allāh in that which is His right, from His Dietyness (Ulūhiyyah). Because Ulūhiyyah is not complete except with the meaning of commandment, as Allāh said,

“Surely, His is the Creation…”

And this is the Lordship (Rubūbiyyah),

“…and the Commandment.” [7:54]

And it is the Ulūhiyyah.

And the Ilāh (God), He is the One who commands. So if we dispute, so if we describe anyone as having the right to issue commands independently, and that is As-Sayyid, in other words, the One who is obeyed, as Ibn `Abbās explained it at His saying,

Say: “He is Allāh, (the) One.” [112:1]

He said, He is As-Sayyid Al-Mutā` (The Obeyed One). As-Sayyid, whom none of His Commands are rejected, Al-Mutā', whom none of His Commands are rejected. [This phrase which is narrated within the Tafsīr of this Sūrah has been narrated from 'Abdullāh Ibn `Abbās, 'Abdullāh Ibn Mas'ūd, Abū Wā’il, Shaqīq Ibn Salamah and Abū Ja'far, as was mentioned by Ibn Jarīr at-Tabarī and Ibn Kathīr also mentioned it from Zayd Ibn Aslam. Al-Qurtubī mentioned it from Sufyān as well]

So at that time, we understand that the Parliament is As-Sayyid, in other words, the Ilāh. And that the elections, their meaning, in that which they represent, it is electing a Sayyid. This is what they mean, the electing of an Ilāh.

It is the way in which its (i.e. democracy’s) people have understood them (i.e. the elections) and like its people have acknowledged them, and not as some imagine it, that it is the achievement of benefits or that which resembles that, or that they are (a way of) electing a ruler whom rules with the Sharī'ah, in the face of those disputing in, upon the way in which to implement a principle, and the likes of this.

No. The legislation, the parliament is a legislative body, and a supervisory body and it has other authoritative (responsibilities). For example in some of the systems it is that which, the majority, it is that which from its right is to have the ministers be from it and for the authority of implementation to be from it.

These are matters which are secondary to the first matter, and it is the right to legislate, those who have the right to issue legislation, as it has passed in the discussion.

So what is an election? The meaning of an election is that I am satisfied with this one (individual) as a representative for me in expressing my will in declaring something to be Ḥalāl or Ḥarām, here in the legislation. And this, as it is clear, is in opposition to his saying of “Lā Ilāha Illā Allāh”, in opposition to the will of the Muslim who says “I render myself obedient to Allāh through Ulūhiyyah”. In other words, I do not accept anyone, in this issue, the legislation, I do not accept a legislator except Allāh. I do not accept as a ruler over me, (and) a ruler, not in the meaning of ruling in the meaning of implementation, but a ruler in the meaning of the right to issue commands, except Allāh. And it is that which some of the contemporaries label it with, and it is a correct labeling, with Ḥākimiyyah.

Therefore, why do they dispute in this issue? From what point is this issue disputed against?

Are we now talking about the subject of the permissibility of assisting a kāfir?

Are we now talking about the topic of whether it is permissible to fight along with, under the banner of a kāfir against another kāfir?

Why is there, why is there this deviation away from the point of this topic?

The issue that is in front of us, and it is that the, that the person chooses his god (Ilāh), his master (Sayyid), his legislator (Musharri'). And whosoever sees the permissibility of entering the benefits into this topic, then he has come with something immense in the Religion of Allāh.

Because, because the necessity of the Religion (Dīn) is given precedence over any (other) necessity, as there is consensus upon. Nothing of is given precedence over the necessity of the Religion (Dīn), as Ash-Shāṭibī said. [Ash-Shāṭibī said, “As the Ummah, rather, the rest of the Millahs, have agreed that the Sharī`ah was put in place to preserve the five necessities, and they are: the Religion (Ad-Dīn), the self (An-Nafs), the offspring (An-Nasl), the wealth (Al-Māl) and the mind (Al-`Aql).” “Al-Muwāfaqāt Fī Uṣūl ash-Sharī`ah”, Vol. 1/38. Also, Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥanafī al-Ḥalabī, known as Ibn Amīr al-Ḥajj, (Died in the year 879 H.) said, “And the preservation of the Religion, amongst the necessities, is given precedence over other than it, when there is conflict, because it is the greatest goal. He said:

"And I created not the Jinns and humans except so that they should worship Me" ([51:56]

And other than it is a goal due to it (i.e. All the other goals are only goals for the benefit of the Religion). And because its fruit is the most complete of fruits, and it (i.e. its fruit) is the achievement of eternal happiness in the nearness to the Lord of the Worlds. Then the preservation of the self is given precedence over the preservation of the lineage (An-Nasab), the mind, and the wealth, due to it including the Religious benefits, because they (i.e. the Religious benefits) are only achieved through the acts of worship, and their achievement (i.e. the acts of worship) is reliant upon the survival of the self. Then the preservation of the lineage is given precedence, because it is for the survival of the self of the child. Because through the forbiddance of Zinā, no mixing of the lineage takes place, so he (i.e. the child) is attributed to (only) one individual, so he (i.e. the father) does diligence in raising him and preserving his (i.e. the child’s) self. Otherwise, he (i.e. the child) would be neglected, then his self would be lost due to his inability to preserve it. Then the preservation of the mind is given precedence over the preservation of the wealth, due to the loss of the self through its loss (i.e. if the mind is lost, the self is essentially gone as well), to the point that the person joins the animals (i.e. meaning that if the person looses his mind, he becomes like an animal in his ability to function, know right from wrong, etc.) and the responsibility falls off of him with its loss. And from there, with its loss becomes obligatory what is obligatory with the loss of the self, and it is the full blood money (i.e. If someone harms someone else and destroys his mind, he is responsible to pay the full blood money as if he killed the person). Then the preservation of the wealth (comes last).” “At-Taqrīr Wat-Taḥbīr Fī Sharḥ Kitāb at-Taḥrīr”, Vol. 3/231]

Because the necessities are at different levels, and, and the necessity of the Religion (Dīn) is given precedence, placed ahead of any other necessity, from the necessity of the self (An-Nafs), the wealth (Al-Māl), the honour (Al-`Irdh), the offspring (An-Nasl), to the end of them.

The question that is in front of us, as you see, it is discussing the topic of assistance; the permissibility of supporting a kāfir against a kāfir.

The default (ruling) is that the kāfir is not supported. Then if some of the People of Knowledge see the permissibility supporting a kāfir against another kāfir, to achieve a benefit from, from, for the Muslims, then this is an issue that remains in the realm of Fiqh, because it does not nullify the default (ruling). Contrary to those who see the permissibility of supporting the kāfir against a Muslim, as some of the astray ones saw. Rather, I call him one of the Fuqahā’ who disbelieved in Allāh with this Fatwā, those who permitted supporting America against Ṭālibān, for example.

And this is not allowed, because support is included, primordially, within allegiance (Al-Walā’), and the default is Al-Walā’ for Allāh, for His Messenger and for the Believers. And disavowal from the disbelievers is obligatory.

So that which, now we are in an issue which was mentioned in some of the books of Fiqh, as Al-Haytamī mentioned. Al-Haytamī mentioned, from Ash-Shāfi'ī, he mentioned in “Al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyyah”, the issue of the permissibility of supporting a kāfir against a kāfir to achieve a benefit, and he mentioned some of the words of the People of Knowledge, so this is an issue which is an issue of Fiqh.

Someone might say “I made allegiance with him.” No, in reality, he has not made allegiance with him, rather he only made allegiance with himself, the Muslim, in order to achieve a benefit for himself and for the Muslims.

So this, as for the use of evidence, as for his saying, and in the question, in reality, the question, as we see, there are some mistakes. So his statement that the Du'ā’ is the highest level of support, this is not correct, because the Prophet (saws) made Du'ā’ for 'Umar when he said, “O Allāh, give 'Izzah to Islām with either one of the two 'Umars.”, “O Allāh, give 'Izzah to Islām with the two 'Umars.”, in a narration, as its basis is authentic, even if its phrasings differed. [This Ḥadīth was narrated by At-Tirmithī, Aḥmad and others, with a similar phrasing. From Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (saws) said, “O Allāh, give 'Izzah to Islām with the one of these two men who is most beloved to you; with Abū Jahl Ibn Hishām or with 'Umar.” He said, “And the most beloved to him was 'Umar.” This Ḥadīth was declared “Ḥasan Ṣaḥīḥ Gharīb”, by At-Tirmithī after narrating it. It was also declared “Ṣaḥīḥ” by Al-Albānī in “Ṣaḥīḥ At-Tirmithī”]

So he sees that this is a kind of voting. So he, this one is differed with in (it). And there are those who see that it is permissible, despite this, he sees that it is allowed to enter this door for the sake of legislating for Islām, to put forward the image of Islām, to call to Allāh, to support Islām. So those ones, those ones are a lesser level than the, a lesser level than the first type that sees the permissibility of giving the legislation to, to the parliament, and it is allowed for the rulings to be issued by way of the parliament. But they are also not at the position of the third level, so they are (in the) middle.

The point is that we treat each position according to it (i.e. its levels). But here is an issue: Someone might say, “Why, do you make Takfīr and give them the excuse of ignorance?”

I say, no, us, we do not make Takfīr to them in the first place. We do not make Takfīr to those who said it is permissible, we do not make Takfīr based upon the Fatwā (of the one) that says “I rely upon the ruling of Allāh.”, then makes a mistake. Because from the characteristics of the People of Bid`ah is that they say “You have disbelieved” if he contradicts him, from the characteristics of the People of Bid`ah. Rather, what is correct is for it to be said that “You have made a mistake.” We see that the vast majority of those who issue Fatwas upon it (i.e. the permissibility of voting, etc.), he only issues the Fatwā, either out of ignorance regarding the reality of the actuality (of democracy), and those ones are many, like when he says that it is allowed if you have make your intention sincere. So it is as if he is speaking about an issue that is permissible in origin, but it is in need of rectification of the intention. Because the rectifying of the intention is discussed in the permissible issues, like if you say, “Pray with the correct intention.”

So we do not say that those ones have disbelieved and we have given them the excuse of ignorance, because they, in reality, those who gave Fatwas of permissibility, because they, in reality, did not give a Fatwā of kufr, but they made a mistake, they made a mistake in understanding the actuality.

And this has taken place throughout history many times. Is it allowed for us to say that the one who permitted the consumption of certain substances, meaning, when the people differed regarding Qāt [Qāt, also known as Khat, Gat, Chat, and Miraa. It is a flowering plant native to tropical East Africa. Khat has been grown for use as a drug for centuries in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Its fresh leaves and tops are chewed or, less frequently, dried and consumed as tea, in order to achieve a state of euphoria and stimulation], so some of the people said (it is) Ḥalāl, and some of the people said (it is) Ḥarām. Those who said (it is) Ḥalāl, (said so) because they did not see it as intoxicating, and those who said (it is) Ḥarām, (said so) because they saw it as intoxicating. Indeed, one of the two sides is correct.

Is it allowed for anyone to say, “You have disbelieved because you have forbidden that which Allāh made Ḥalāl?” And the other to says, “You have disbelieved because you permitted an intoxicant?” The issue here is a difference in the actuality, while they agree on the fundamental.

I hope that I have clarified, even though I feel that the discussion is condensed, due to the necessity of the situation.

He says: “The second question is; Our Noble Shaykh, based on what you generously put forward, then what is the ruling of Ṣalāt behind he who says it is permissible? Is it upon the one being led to repeat his Ṣalāt prayer, or is it disliked (Makrūh), or is there no harm in it?

All of this returns to knowing his condition. If he has made a mistake, if he has made a mistake in understanding the elections, then this one, we pray behind him, and there is no, and there is no harm, without any dislike, and even without any preference, meaning that we do not put forward other than him ahead of him, except for another reason, and not this reason.

As for if he says it is permissible because he believes that it is allowed for the people to legislate for themselves and that we accept that which the parliament says, then those ones, we do not pray behind them at all. And the Ṣalāt isn’t disliked, it is invalid (Bāṭil), we do not pray behind them.

As for he who says that we enter in order to rectify, and we know that it is kufr, but we do not believe in this matter, and we do not see it, assuming that the issue returns to, the issue of the elections, to what he believes, and not to that which the Legislator implemented, which he is interacting with, and not that which the constitution implemented, then those ones, in reality, meaning, we pray behind them, even though other, other than them are more deserving of the Imāmah than them.

INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES, CLICK: