Election is just around the corner. This will take place on the 14th of May 2007. The issue is often reduced to the question: Is voting halal as far as Islam is concerned? As a Muslim, when it comes to voting, we must know the Shariah ruling related to it so that we can adopt and act upon it.
Unfortunately, some of us did not care what Islam said on this matter. We became too confused especially in matters related to laws of Islam governing political action. What we learn is the appearances or the forms rather than substances of religious teachings.
Webster dictionary defines the term vote as a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office for a proposed resolution of an issue. In other words, voting is a process in which voters give a mandate or power to a candidate to represent them in the resolution of a particular issue. According to Shayk Muhammad Ibn Adam Al-Kauthari, the process by itself is Halal. Classical Fiqh books are full of proofs that it is halal to vest somebody power and sovereignty as long as the action he is being deputized in is halal to begin with. In light of the above, he clearly stated that while voting in itself is halal, it becomes HARAM if it deputizes somebody to do a haram act. (e.g. ruling and judging by other than Allah’s (swt) laws).
On the other hand, the influential Pakistani thinker Maulana Maududi rejected the idea that the Ummah can ever be sovereign. H was categoric: the very idea of popular sovereignty was blasphemous. According to him, it was an usurpation of Allah’s (swt) will by human beings. So how then can we go out, vote and canvass for them? Will our candidates rule by Shariah or they will rule by man-made law and by their own desires?
It is beyond argument that the Constitution of the Philippines and the laws and systems emanating from it are not Islamic. The rulers have no other role except to implement these man-made laws. In no uncertain terms, Allah (swt) forbids that in Qur’an. Allah (swt) says in Surah Al-Maidah:
“…And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the Thalimoun (oppressors, tyrants, and wrong doers) [5:44]
“…And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the kafiroun (disbelievers) [5:45]
“…And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are the Fasiqoun (rebellious, disobedient) [5:47]
The verses condemn that those who rule with anything other than Allah (swt) has revealed regardless of their sincerity, piety, intentions or objectives.
Ruling and judging also comes under the jurisdictions of actions which should be performed for Allah’s (swt) sake alone as He has said:
“Verily, the absolute right of legislating is for none but Allah (swt)“ [12:40]
And Allah (swt) says:
“… Do they seek the Hukm (command, judgment, legislation) of jahiliyah) ignorance, disbelief) who is better than Allah in Hukm for a people who have an unshakeable belief” [5:50]
These verses make it clear that the matter of ruling and judging by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed is greater than simply one of disobedience in a single action.
In this light, do we as Muslims realize that we are committing haram act when we vote for a person whom we know will not rule by Islam? We should understand that when we vote for a certain candidate to a certain position, we are authorizing him to rule according to the State’s constitution, system and laws.
Do we realize that we are committing shirk when we vote for a person to legislate instead of Allah? The election of congressman or senator to a Senate or House of Representatives (on national level) is an authorization for him to carry out a specific well-defined purpose which includes legislation.
It should be well established that the only sources for extracting a rule regarding any issue are the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Opinions formulated on desire and benefit has absolutely no meaning or weight in Islam. What is the use of Shariah if we start using our minds to determine right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, beneficial and harmful and leave the orders of Allah (swt) behind our backs?
In fact, the Ulama of the Deen of Islam, such as Abu Osama and Dr. Abu Ziyaad, have declared participating in such a process as Shirk Akbar (the greatest form of Shirk) that takes one outside the fold of Islam.
Despite the clarity of the message of Islam, we still find some of our brothers canvassing others to vote, in particular to certain individuals who apparently seem to have some care for the issues which are affecting the Muslims. Even some of our Ulamas (just too darn many to name) have fallen into this trap, willing or unwillingly, and are encouraging Muslims to vote for one dirty Kaafir or another to come into power, legislate (which is the right of Allah (swt) alone) by Kaafir and conduct treaties on the Muslim’s behalf.
When they were taught aspects of Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Syria or Egypt, they preached that “there is no politics in Islam”. However, when their own personal interests were at stake, suddenly there is politics in Islam, but not the type that Prophet Nabi (saw) preached, rather the type that the kuffar preach – that of freedom, democracy and secularism.
As Muslim, we must strengthen our own defenses against this kuffar onslaught by immersing ourselves in the vast Islamic culture, actively seeking out the Haqq (the truth) and not being satisfied to just imitate our so-called community leaders when they openly go against that which is known from Islam by necessity.
January 17, 2008 at 6:57 am
Well said!!! But am sorry to say it’s detached from reality. Politics today has become so complicated in keeping with the changes of the times, that it cannot be compared to the time of the Prophet. There is nothing you will find on what you might call electoral process in Muhammad’s (P.B.U.H) time because there was none. Therefore you cannot say to have an election the way the Prophet did it. When he died, he did not leave behind a method or a process on how to pick from among his companions a successor (khalifa). It was up to those he left behind to decide and come up with a scheme. It is also wrong to say that democracy is Kuffr because the concept as we know and practice them now also was non-existent. Being non-existent, Muhammad (P.B.U.H) could not have a ruling on it. The first four caliphs (the glorious caliphs) were chosen on the basis of the tribal tradition of choosing a tribal leader but which has a semblance of a democratic process. That is by calling on the elders and chose from among themselves through a simple democratic process the most qualified to lead nascent Islam.
Another thing that caught my attention is the quotation from the influential Pakistani thinker Maulana Maududi who is said to have “rejected the idea that the Ummah can ever be sovereign. He was categoric: the very idea of popular sovereignty was blasphemous. According to him, it was an usurpation of Allah’s (swt) will by human beings. So how then can we go out, vote and canvass for them? Will our candidates rule by Shariah or they will rule by man-made law and by their own desires?” If popular sovereignty is blasphemous because it constitutes usurpation of Allah’s (swt) will by human beings, how does he propose to govern by Allah’s will? Assuming governing through the Shariah is in a sense governing through Allah’s will, what does the Shariah say about choosing a leader? What type of political structure? Not democratic of course because it is blasphemous? But what? Kings, Emirs, Sultans (dynastic), military dictators or theocratic dictatorship? All of these by the way are in existent in the Middle East and which I believe is contributing to the worsening conditions of the Middle East.
I could comment on almost every paragraph of the above post but seems to me to be pointless. Suffice it to say that I am not convinced I am living a sinful life for the simple reason that I live in a predominantly democratic Christian country with an ideology that is considered blasphemous and following man-made laws. I want of course to live under a divine law and in a system that is designed by no less than the Greatest Architect of creation Himself. But I also believe all this is mere wishful thinking. This is only possible right in the Kingdom of God where he will rule supreme and where I would live in eternal bliss. But then…I would have died!!!
January 17, 2008 at 7:01 am
Thank you brother/sister for those substantial and informative yet constructive comments you posted. There are a lot of truths in what you say, but to think of it as detached from reality is a sign of hopelessness and despair. On the contrary, enjoining what is good and forbidding what is bad is the real REALITY that we Muslim must face. You might think it’s impossible. But as a Muslim, we must believe that with Allah (swt) nothing is impossible; in fact anything is possible. We must believe that Allah (swt) will facilitate our success, as soon as we make the EFFORT no matter how small. We must believe that everything comes in our way, is merely part of the on-going test and that is really what our life on earth is all about. Who knows that three generations from today might bring? Perhaps some of Gloria Macapagal’s descendants might one day become a Muslim and change the republic of the Philippines to an Islamic Republic! Though you may not be able to reach that period of time, but because of your unshakeable belief and hope in your heart, you died in a Muslim state. Allah (swt) alone knows as He is the best of planners. We must believe that Islam is suitable for life not only in the golden era of prophet (saw). We must certainly know that Islam is for all times. Islam is as suitable today as if it was when the prophet (saw) was alive. Allah (swt) will only hold us accountable for what resources we have, and how we use it. He does not hold you and me responsible for what is beyond our influence and limitations. He encourages us to strive and the struggle will be something within our capacities even if we do not think so.
In the present circumstances, it seems that the most effective way we can do is to use the resources we have, our freedom of speech and the morality and justice of our cause. We can use very effective legal and non-violent methods like what we are doing in the media. Our duty is simply to tell the truth in the most eloquent and persuasive we can.
In most cases you could be right in saying that the selection of caliphs in the golden era of Islam was semblance to democracy. Yes, but not exactly the democratic process like what we have in the present time. The selection of these caliphs was not a democratic process. Their selection was not done by ordinary citizens of the Islamic empire but rather the council formed by the prophet (saw). The golden era of Islam was in the times of two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar. Without a doubt, both of them upheld the morality of leadership to a benchmark, which still finds no parallel. They themselves as great human beings held themselves accountable to every citizen of the empire. Every citizen had the right to object the caliph’s decision if they considered them out of the jurisdiction of Islam and if pressed; court had the independence to call the caliph to answer for his decisions and actions. Such a level of independence is not present in the form of government today. When this true, this shows that to implement an Islamic system of governance, we have to walk away from democracy. This is what our mujahidden brothers are worth fighting and dying for (May Allah (swt) guide and protect them if they have pure intention).
If during the golden era of Islam, the system followed was not plain democracy, then why the current Muslim trying to find a solution in democracy?
If we want democracy then perhaps in due course of time, it might erode the values that Islam brings in. Do we merely accept them and remain weak dependent upon the West and remain far from our deen. The prophet (saw) did not intend this for us, for he explained to us these things in order to flee from them – like a parent who says to a child: “Do not go up this road, as there is a wild animal waiting to eat you if you do”. So this is warning from the parent to the child not to take the path. So we have to work to repel these weaknesses, to fight them, reject them and not to be pleased with them.
Forgive me but I made no further justification to Maududi’s standpoint of negating the very idea democracy based on popular sovereignty as blasphemous. He actually argued that the only purpose of an Islamic State was to promote Islam, and that power can be exercised in God’s name only by those who truly believe in Islam acting as Allah’s (swt) representatives on earth. A consultative assembly can only advise and consent, not exercise sovereignty or ultimate political control. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“ . . . Do they seek the Hukm (command, judgment, legislation) of Jahiliyyah (ignorance, disbelief) who is better than Allah in Hukm for a people who have an unshakeable belief”. [5:50]
In another verse:
“ . . . Verily the Hukm (command, judgment, and legislation) is none but Allah; He has commanded that you worship none but Him . . .”. [12:40]
These verses make it clear that no one has the authority to come up, legislate, pass or propose any kind of laws except Allah (swt). Only His (swt) laws are to followed; Onlt He (swt) has the right to be worshipped. No one else can take part in or claim a share of His Sovereignty and Rule.
Personally, I am more inclined to agree that democracy is Kuffr though the concept was non-existent. Literally speaking the word democracy is of Greek construct, emanating from two root words, Demos and cracy. Demos being the Greek word for “people” and cracy being the word for “ruling” or “legislation” Consequently the reading means “the rule of the people”. That’s why we usually hear the oft repeated phrase “Democracy is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people”. Consequently, the sovereignty in democracy is for the people and their desires. So if the people deem by majority opinion that alcohol should be permitted (in our society) and is actually a good thing then this would be accepted as law. In addition, if people deem prostitution, gambling, pedophilia, killing Muslims, homosexual, etc is beneficial to the people, then through the process of majority of voting, these and other motions would be accepted and implemented as law such that people can judge and live them.
If we just turn to Islamic History and Tradition to find out how the earliest Muslims conducted themselves after the death of the prophet (saw), the Sahabas habitually sought guidance from the Sunnah of the prophet (saw) and traditions in all aspect of life. Whenever a dispute came up, first and foremost, they looked into the Qur’an and decided the case accordingly, if they found it there. But if they did not find it in the Qur’an, they referred to their knowledge of the practice of the prophet (saw) and decide the case accordingly. If they failed to find it there also, they inquired from other companions about it.
Alhamdullillah, the Qur’an and the Sunnah have been preserved to confront every time we are confused about an issue. We can never ignore the Sunnah of the prophet (saw) and the way Sahabas understood it as it is the only way we will be able to imply Islam in ourselves as it is supposed to be implied. These two sources knowledge and wisdom shed light in our darkest hours. They bring a ray, a glimmer, a floodlight of hope when there is only despair and confusion. No other source is required or necessary for all eternity to come, for the religion has been perfected.
May Allah (swt) guide us to the right path and fill our lives with peace, contentment, bliss and hope.
ALLAH (SWT) KNOWS BEST!