Advice2Ummah RE - Voting

Advice to the Islamic Nation Regarding Electoral Participation
ADVICE TO THE ISLAMIC NATION REGARDNG ELECTORAL

PARTICIPATION
Throughout this discussion, the words parliamentary participation, electoral

participation and voting may be interchanged. However it must be clarified
that we are specifically referring to an instance where Allāh’s rights are
violated, such as what takes place in a system aiming to implement man
made laws. Based upon this, we mustn’t take our arguments and apply them
to a situation that does not exist. I reiterate, the discussion is based upon
entering into democratic elections where the right of legislation will be
entrusted to man, be it a single individual or a party or the entire population.
It is far beside the point if we enter into our discussion, cases where the
outcome is not a violation of Allāhs uluhiyyah, such as Islamic shūrah, which
is not entrusting governance into the hands of man. Despite this clear
misinterpretation of the reality you will still find many fatawā comparing
democracy to shurāh.
PARTICIPATING IN DEMOCRACY BEING SHIRK, RARE

OPINION?
Some may bravely regard that participating in the democratic process being
shirk to be a shāth opinion.
Firstly a shāth opinion is an irregular opinion expressed solely by the one

who issues it. Likewise it goes against the consensus and is based upon no
evidence. This is the general understanding of a shath opinion and every
madhab (school of thought) have their own definition and in Islamic
1
jurisprudence shāth opinions are disregarded. An example of this would be a

person who argues that the Jumu’ah prayer precedes the khutbah, despite all
of the evidence showing the contrary and the ijmā’ of the scholars approving
otherwise.
Upon seeing this assertion on an internet forum, it became upsetting to see

the extent that people will go to hide the truth or how ignorant people can be
playing on the minds of those who are less aware.
Although this is not a common argument, its worth clarifying with more
depth so that this misconception does not escalate and become adopted by the
majority of the youth.
This issue of voting is a contemporary one, however its roots date back to pre
Islām, and its reality is as clear as the reality of any other man made
legislating system. It can be seen from the efforts of those who endorse voting
that they themselves are aware that voting is shirk and not a shāth opinion,
hence their desperate attempt to play with the minds of the Muslims and
convince them otherwise. Had they truly believed it to be shāth then they
would not exhaust so much of their time on this topic as most scholars tend
not to, regarding issues unanimously seen as shāth.
The understanding of an opinion being shāth is more or less straight forward,

obviously there are areas that scholars may have discussed in length in the
past, yet this is not the subject at discussion.
It’s quite strange that one would claim that the idea of voting to be shirk is a
shādth opinion, when Democracy is considered a way of life, and a religion
by those who invented it. Ruling man by man made laws is what they pride
themselves upon, in fact even those who say it’s not kufr or shirk themselves
confess that it’s another way of life.
2
You often hear them say that ‘we must participate or we’re allowed to participate
to ward off the greater evil and therefore due to the circumstance it’s permitted’. So
there seems to be no disagreement that in essence democracy is kufr and
shirk, thus the need to justify participating in it.
So in effect what those who regard voting to be shirk are saying is that in
essence supporting, empowering and assigning an individual to govern with
man made laws to obtain such an authority in the land is shirk, which no one
denies, in fact this seems to be the common understanding amongst all
people. The reality of the kufr involved in democracy is an undeniable one.
It’s this principle that the scholars who say itsis kufr and shirk adhere to
disregarding any feeble arguments presented by the others such as ‘lesser of
the two evils’, Maslaha etc. You will even find them confirming the kufr of
any man made laws in their own fatāwa.
As stated in Haytham Al-Haddad’s fatwa, he clearly recognises that man

made law is kufr,
“The ruler himself who puts the law of the Creator (Shari’ah) in question or debate
between people; there is no doubt that this ruler committed an act of kufr 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.” [Qur’an, 12:41].
To him this ayah is addressed, “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah
has revealed, such are the Kafirun (disbelievers).” [Qur’an, 5:44].1
Even the confused author of ‘To vote or not to vote’ states:
1 All About Voting
3
“Therefore, by entering a system of rule which is based upon other than the Sharî'ah
and more importantly, often contradicts and sometimes even opposes the Sharî'ah,
then it is a consensus of the Muslim scholars that ruling by it is impermissible.”
Far greater than it being impermissible, the scholars are unanimously in

agreement that it is kufr and shirk as indicated in the verse: “Verily judgement
belongs to Allah.”
I think it’s quite pertinent to mention here, highlighting how confused these
people are, the clear contradiction made in his ‘here’s one I made earlier’
‘fatwa’ when further down after stating:
“Therefore, by entering a system of rule which is based upon other than the Sharî'ah
and more importantly, often contradicts and sometimes even opposes the Sharî'ah,
then it is a consensus of the Muslim scholars that ruling by it is impermissible.”2
He then goes on to say:
He (Yusuf) accepted a ministerial position in a government that was ruling by laws

other than the Law of Allâh in order to achieve the greater good. It is accepted by these
2 To vote or not to vote
4
scholars that there is nothing in fact within our Sharî'ah that contradicts or abrogates
such an action.”3
So it seems clear that there is a common pattern amongst these defeatists, that
they recognise man made law to be kufr and shirk…
“…Likewise, to elect in, vote for, and thereby ultimately support a political party
which has within its manifesto, rules and laws contradictory to that of the Sharî'ah,
then this also takes the same ruling of impermissibility for the Muslims…” As
admitted in ‘To vote or not to vote’4
Based upon the consensus of the Muslims, setting up a rival unto Allāh is
shirk, which is the reality of voting in the electoral process. With this in mind,
how can it be a shāth opinion, when what all that these scholars are saying is
the issue of ‘Maslaha’ and ‘lesser of the two harms’ are not valid exceptions to
this principle laid down by consensus of scholars.
It’s like a person trying to engage in a haram action, where this action is
deemed unlawful by the consensus of Muslims and a scholar arrives at the
verdict that what the individuals claim to be ‘maslaha’ or ‘lesser of the two
harms’ are invalid.
Is what these scholars who say, ‘participating in elections to be kufr’ based

upon the evident reality surrounding voting to be kufr and shirk, that
inconceivable?
In fact the lay people themselves recognise that maslaha, lesser of the two
evils and certainly not ikrah, coercion are not acceptable arguments.
3 To vote or not to vote

4 Same as above
5
Again it’s like those who approach a scholar arguing that they desire to take
out a mortgage or open an off license based upon the principles of maslaha,
lesser of the two evils or coercion, when at the same time there are people
clearly in the same situation making do and arguing that the principle of
maslaha, lesser of the two harms, or coercion cannot be used.
In reality the magnitude of shirk is far greater then taking out a mortgage or
selling anything illegal in Islam. As Allah the Most High states:
“And we did not send before you a messenger, except we revealed unto him
that there is no God except me so worship me.”5
The calling to the worship of Allah alone is what he sent every messenger for,
and likewise He the Most High states “And verily we have sent to every
nation a messenger, calling people to the worship of Allah and to abstain
from taghut (false deities).” 6
5 Anbiyaa 25
6 Nahl: 36
6
The kufr and shirk of Democracy is undeniable by anyone who obtains an

atoms weight of faith, as Mahmoud Shakir states:
“ Then this (i.e. the seeking of a law other then the law of Islam) is kufr and no one
from the people of the Qibla doubt in the takfir of the one who utters this (the
preference of any other law) or the one who calls to it.”7
Therefore the scholars who declare it to be kufr and shirk, regardless of how
small they are in number, can there opinion be totally dismissed and
considered shāth as if though it’s based upon no evidence. That which is
presented by the scholars who have adopted the correct opinion is a clear
representation of the reality that is; historical, self professed by those who
invented it, implement it, wage war in its defence and export it to Muslim
lands.
Even if the scholars, who declare participating in another religion such as

voting to be unlawful, are small in number, then what implications does this
have upon the truth? Those who argue for it fail to bring relevant evidence
but rather rely upon misconceptions that have been taken far out of context,
and use this against a clear open reality. So therefore the people who deem it
permissible are in need to bring reliable, relevant evidence which permits
them to go engage in clear manifested open kufr and shirk that the scholars
do not differ in its regard.
An argument presented by Haytham Haddād highlights how feeble and

baseless their evidences are “It is when the inhabitants of a country, who have the
shari’ah as the dominant system, want to choose a leader for their country; Say they
have four candidates to choose from. They employ elections as a mechanism to select
the leader, can we say this is democracy and that it’s an act of kufr?”
Unfortunately it must be said; the argument is irrelevant and besides the

point, and not a true representation of the reality we are facing. Most people
7 Umdat at tafsir 157/4
7
would probably not even take notice of the evidences presented, but rather
trust his position as a learned man.
There are various scholars who deem voting impermissible which amount to
more than ‘just a handful’. We must also be sincere with the Most High and
seek the evidence and principle presented as opposed to the quantity of
scholars. In fact the argument that is presented by those who deem it
permissible is very fragile and can be dismissed with the one who possess
even the slightest amount of knowledge.
Engaging in this action also gives credit to a system and a way of life that
would not exist unless the people casted their votes thus providing the fuel
for such a tyrannical system to live.
I don’t feel that mentioning scholars is the pivotal argument that needs to be
presented in order to provide the one with a sound mind that voting in the
elections is haram and kufr. However due to the lack of understanding of
many, it seems to be the only way to convince those who have not grasped
the firm understanding of tawheed and the pure meaning of the verses of the
Quran. So unfortunately it must be included despite the clarity of the verses
in the final revelation and the unhidden reality of Democracy.
Although they may vary in background, general understanding and opinions,

the scholars mentioned are to illustrate the range of scholars who agree to
voting being haram as it violates Allāhs rights. It therefore should declared,
that these scholars are all of different levels in knowledge, some may have
specialised in different fields and some may also be learned men of this dīn
who are the leaders of communities and islāmic groups. It maybe the case
that I differ in their understanding and opinions, nevertheless they have
united and agreed on this issue as it is from the Usūl (fundamental principles)
of the dīn.
8
From this list is:
Sheikh Muqbil Hādī Al wādi’ī who Scholars such as Nāsir Ad Dīn Albānī
mentions in his regard:
“He’s a sheikh who calls to the book (al Qurān) and the Sunnah and to what
the Salaf As Sālih were upon.”
Like wise Bin Bāz also states about him:
“This man Sheikh Muqbil is more knowledgeable than me muhadithan…”
Also Sheikh ‘Uthaymīn quotes:
“Sheikh Muqbil; Imām, Imām, Imām” (signifying his great status)
Additionally Ahmed An Najmy says:
“Verily the honourable Sheikh Muqbil Bin Hādī is an ‘ālim of the salafi
understanding, and adopts the manhaj of the Salaf as Sālih in his books and taught
his students this manhaj.” (Refer to Appendix for Arabic text and sources)
Sheikh Muqbil states, under the title ‘Democracy is Kufr’, regarding the
meaning of Democracy: “The nation rules itself by itself; which means kufr and
whoever calls to democracy and he knows it’s meaning then he is a kāfir (disbeliever)
as he is calling to make the nation a partner (sharīk) with Allāh ‘Azza wa Jal…”8
He includes the statement of the Most High :
8 Qam’ Al Ma’ānid Wa Zajr Al Hāqid Al Hāsid
9
“Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I am only a man like you. It has been inspired to
me that your Ilâh (God) is One Ilâh (God i.e. Allâh). So whoever hopes for the
Meeting[] with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a
partner in the worship of his Lord”9
He continues to say;
“We reject (kafarnā) Democracy that makes us a partner with Allāh”
And;
“They will not be pleased with us until we become Jews or Christians “And whoever
does not rule by Allāh’s law are disbelievers”10
“And do they seek the judgement of Jahiliyyah”11
9 Kahf 110
10 Māida 44
11 Māida 50
10
Furthermore, he states:
“Do you know the meaning of democracy? It means voicing your opinion over all
affairs and they have opted in some disbelieving countries for homosexuality and the
majority opt for it (its legalisation) and then the government establish it.”
“If the option of legalising or not legalising is given to the people concerning the
legalising of…” and then mentions some prohibited actions in Islam and then
says “Do you think they will be legal or illegal? All of this is regarded as the voice of
the people under the name of democracy, which the broadcasting cooperation have
given life to and pride themselves upon it and we must confirm and be steadfast upon
our religion until Allah takes our souls. This issue is a very dangerous issue which is
an obvious apostasy and clear open kufr (bawāh), “And do they have partners
who have legislated for them that which Allāh has not permitted12)” (quote
summarised).
“And we have to leave off the following of desires and make them agree with the
religion of Allāh”.
“I say in regards to the constitution; don’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (meaning participate) but
rather reject and say to them, “Verily I’m Muslim. And remember what I say to
you and I place my affairs with Allāh”.13
“So therefore withdraw (from democracy) and say to them between me and you is
the book of Allāh and the Sunnah of the messenger”.
12 Shu’arrā 21
13Ghāfir 44
11
“We must be truthful to Allāh and hold in unison to the book of Allāh and be one
hand in the face of falsehood “The Muslim is the brother of another Muslim…”.
“In Democracy is the corruption of the nation and the corrupting of the Dunyā and
Dīn… And it’s for the rectification of Kufr.”
“We must fear Allāh and say ‘We are free from Democracy and free from Kufr”.
“As you are signing (agreeing) to Kufr and are fuelling the country to its desires and
are going to assist upon falsehood, Allah the almighty states “Help you one another
in Al Birr and At Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one
another in sin and transgression. And fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is Severe in
punishment.”14
“It’s perceived that we would sign and we say ‘No’ ‘No’ ‘No’, as this is the meaning
of bartering with Islam” (he means that by participating in democracy and
elections you are treating Islam like a transaction where your negotiating the
terms and price).
14 Al Māida 2
12
“They are calling to the servitude and to their filthy (Khabīth) laws…”
“And those are the people who many think that they are calling
(democrats/politicians) to justice, to freedom, equality, rather their calling to
something which is strange (to us).”
“And this is their state (from the context, it seems as if he is referring to the
politicians and those in support of democracy), and many people are unaware of it, is
it that they think they are being called to justice or freedom, for their freedom is a
debasement and degradation and their freedom isn’t freedom, rather its oppression
injustice and treachery.”
Also Sheikh Yahya Al hajūrī states:
“If someone asks you: "What is the reality of elections?" Say: It is from the
democratic systems that seek to wipe away Allaah's true Laws. It is also an imitation
of the disbelievers, and it is not permissible to imitate them. There are many dangers
that can be found in elections and not one single benefit or advantage for the
Muslims. From the most significant of its dangers is that it makes an equal balance
between the truth and falsehood as well as the truthful one and the false one, all in
accordance to what the majority holds. It also neglects loyalty and disloyalty…”15
He also highlights:
“And elections are as impermissible as other major sins that are obligatory (for us) to
forbid and it is not permissible for us to be silent about them to the best of our
ability.”
Additionally he comments:
15 Al Mabādī Al Mufīdah fi Tawhīd wal Fiqh wal 'Aqīdah - Basic Principles regarding
Tawheed, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Belief- new Arabic print pg. 29 #48.
13
“And the means used for elections are prohibited (as well). Whether (a person) gives
them [the people who promote elections] a ride in his car or helps them get a voter's
card and registration or other than that - whatever leads to prohibited actions is
prohibited (as well)… No one who is upright has common sense and loves goodness
for himself and the muslims would be pleased with it [elections].”16
When asked about the ones who promote elections he answers:
“It is from the disbeliever's system of democracy.”17
“And it (elections) are not permissible neither for a man nor a woman nor; neither for
a Jinn nor a human.”
“…And it has perils and evils that none know except Allah. And Ahlus Sunnah have
exhausted themselves in warning against this trial acting upon the statement of
Allah: “So that those who were to be destroyed (for their rejecting the Faith)
might be destroyed after a clear evidence, and those who were to live (i.e.
believers) might live after a clear evidence. And surely, Allah is All-Hearer,
All-Knower.” (Al-Anfal 8:42)
…and His statement: “And ask them about the town that was by the sea, when
they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday): when their fish
came to them openly on the Sabbath day, and did not come to them on the
day they had no Sabbath. Thus We made a trial of them for they used to rebel.
And when a community among them said: "Why do you preach to a people
whom Allah is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?" (The
preachers) said: "In order to be free from guilt before your Lord (Allah), and
perhaps they may fear Allah." So when they forgot the reminder that had
been given to them, We rescued those who forbade evil.” (Al-A'raf 7:163-165)
16 From the tape: Questions from Inner Hadramout - the city of Tareem
17 From the tape: Questions from the people of Radfan dated 9 Rajab, 1422H
14
Elections are prohibited. It is blind following of the disbelievers and from the branches
of democracy. And democracy is prohibited. It is the ruling of the people by
themselves without a Book or a Sunnah. And democracy is disbelief. And partisanship
(hizbiyyah) is prohibited except for the party of Allah, glorified and exalted is He.”18
Shaykh Abū Nāsr Muhammad ibn 'Abdullaah ar-Raymee al-Imām explains:
Elections enter into association of partners with Allaah and that is Shirk of obedience,
since elections are from the democratic system. And this system was established by
the enemies of Islām for the purpose of turning the Muslims away from their Religion.
So whoever accepts it, being pleased with it, propagating it, believing it to be correct,
surely he has obeyed the opponents of Islām in opposition to the command of Allaah,
the Mighty and Majestic. And this is the very essence of associating partners with
Allaah with regard to obedience. Allaah has said:
"Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods), who have instituted for them
a religion which Allaah has not allowed. And had it not been for a decisive
Word (gone forth already), the matter would have been judged between them.
And verily, for the Dhalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers), there is a painful
torment. You will see (on the Day of Resurrection), the Dhalimun (polytheists
and wrong-doers, etc.) fearful of that which they have earned, and it (Allaah's
Torment) will surely befall them...)”19
18From the tape: Questions from Ibb, As-Sayyani district, Wadi Khair village and those
around it - recorded on 8th Dhul Hijjah, 1423H
19 From Shaykh Muhammad al-Imaam's book Tanweerudh-Dhulamaat bi Kashf Mafaasid wa
Shubahaat Al-Intikhabaat (Illuminating the Darkness in order to uncover the corruptions and
doubts concerning Voting), pages 39-40
15
Sayid Qutb (RH) states in Dhilāl:
Verily the Hukm is for Allāh (alone) and it is restricted to him, by the laws of
his uluhiyah (worship), so therefore the governance is from the particulars of
uluhiyah (worship).20
‫ ر‬، ‫ " ! ن إ‬#‫ن ا‬

ّ ‫إ‬: 1990/4 ‫ ال‬- ‫ل – ر ا‬
%#‫ ) اد'& ا‬،*‫ه‬,‫ ا‬-./ ) *‫آ‬#‫ إذ ا‬،2‫ " أه‬#4 5#6 7'
‫؛‬2‫أه‬ -./ &‫ أو‬5#6 ‫زع ا‬5
The concept of Hukm in Islām is on par with the concept of ritualistic

worship, with this in mind, calling for the participation in the ritual of voting
is tantamount to shirk and disbelief as this is a violation of Allāh’s uluhiyah.
Sheikh Imām Anwar al ‘Awlaqi comments about those who state ‘The
majority of scholars say it’s permissible’
“Giving a fatwa calling on people to vote in democratic elections is not an easy thing.
One would expect solid evidence from Quran and Sunnah when inviting people to
take such a step. However what I have seen is the opposite. I would ask you to read
such fatawa and judge them not based on the names or numbers of scholars who are
behind them but on the evidence. There was a moment in time when the majority of
20
Fī thilāl al qurān 1990/4
16
the scholars of the Muslim world were towing the official line of the Mu’tazila and
that didn’t make it right.”
Furthermore he indicates:
“In addition to that I found out that many people are asking the ones who are telling
the people not to vote to bring their evidence! The burden of proof is on the ones who
call others to participate in a disbelieving system, in a disbelieving country not the
other way around. Anyway the evidence for not voting are all the verses of Quran
that refer to governance as a right of Allah in surat al Nisa and al Bakarah, the verses
talking about disavowal of the disbelievers in surat al Bakarah, al Nisa and al
Mumtahina, and the hadiths of Rasulullah that instruct us to be separate from the
disbelievers.”21
This is a major cause of concern, when reading these fatāwa and justifications,
it becomes apparent that one of their major arguments is that ‘sheikh so and
so says’, and if you then go on to read their fatāwā you’ll be disappointed in
how brief they are.
From those who also warn against participation in the electoral process is
Sheikh Abu Mohammed ‘Ásim Al Maqdisī, who describes democracy in his
book, ‘Democracy is a religion’ as:
“And this is its greatest (i.e. that the authority belongs to the people) characteristic
according to its people and in its cause they devoutly praise it. ‘Oh brother of tawhīd’
from its distinguished characteristics is al Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (associating
partners with Allāh) and falsehood that nullifies the religion of Islām, in its severest
forms of nullifying, and the millah of tawhīd in its most severest forms of
opposition.”
21 http://www.kalamullah.com/current-affairs16.html
17
‫ وه‬، 4 ‫ن‬C7! 7D‫ و) أ‬...7‫ ا!?ا>* '= أه‬-./ "ُ '‫ا ه أ‬A‫وه‬
‫ي‬A‫ ا‬F>6‫?ك وا‬H‫? وا‬I ‫ ا‬-./ -/‫ ) أ‬JI5 K‫ ا‬2‫ ا‬/‫! أ‬
*L‫ر‬M‫ ا‬N O‫ أ‬L‫ر‬Mُ!‫* و‬P=‫ ا‬N O‫ أ‬2‫ َ* ا‬7N‫م و‬S‫ د!) ا‬T=!
It is strongly advised to read his in depth works regarding this issue, such as
the above mentioned book. Upon doing so it will be apparent how in depth
they deal with the discussion as opposed to those who issue their fatāwa with
such shallow logical based arguments.
He further explains:
“Democracy is the rule of the people or the rule of the taghūt, however in all cases it’s
not the rule of Allāh the greatest the highest.”
KJ ‫ ال‬,‫ ا‬YD &7' N= ...‫ت‬VW‫ " ا‬

ُ ‫ أو‬XMH‫ ه ُ" ا‬:*>‫وا!?ا‬
‫ل‬M2‫? ا‬6 ‫ " ا ا‬
Also:
“Therefore this is the freedom of democracy which is the freedom from the religion of
Allāh and his legislation and is a transgression of his limits.”
[‫ّي ود‬M\‫ و‬M.‫?ا‬O‫?ّر ) د!) ا و‬#2‫ ا‬:*>‫[ ه ?!* ا!?ا‬A‫إذًا ه‬
As for the ministers he comments about their status by saying:
18
“These ministers, in reality, are awthān (objects of worship22), idols that are
worshipped and alleged gods who call to be worshipped in their temples (in their
houses of gatherings)…”
*ٌ 4= *ٌ '^ *ٌ ‫دةٌ وأ‬6M ٌ‫ ٌ* وأ`=م‬4= ٌ‫ن‬a‫* أو‬#‫ء ا=اب ه" ا‬d
"‫ه‬4M
He continues:
As for the people, Allāh categorises them into two, in doing so he refers to -
the verse:
“He is the one who revealed upon you (Mohammed) his book.”23
22 Wathan, which varies to an Idol as they usually take the form an inanimate object as
opposed to an idol
23 Āli ‘imrān 7-8
19
“The first category is the people of knowledge, who are deeply rooted (in faith and
principles). For they take it all (knowledge and principles) and believe in it all, they
bind the general with the specific, the absolute with the restricted and the summarised
with its detail, and all that which is obscure to them then they return it to the mother
of principles that are clarified and concise and to the firmly planted and established
principles that is tightly interwoven with the legal (islāmic) evidences.
The second category, the people of deviation and misguidance, who are those who
follow vagueness, the take it and rejoice in it solely (disregarding the largely
remaining evidences and misrepresenting its reality) and from it they seek tribulation,
rejecting its conciseness or clarity or its explanation.”
،f4 ‫م‬M‫ن ا‬W4? ،ًMD 4 ‫=ن‬d!‫ و‬5‫و‬A/g! :‫" ورخ‬7' F‫ أه‬-1

‫`ل‬,‫" ردو[ إ& أ ) ا‬7' F O‫ أ‬F‫ وآ‬،=64 FC‫ وا‬،[4 %7W‫وا‬
.‫?ع‬H‫ ا‬F.‫ د‬7' ‫?ت‬P\ 2‫ت ا‬f‫=ت واا' ا?ات ا?ا‬6‫ ت ا‬#‫ا‬
‫ء‬i24‫ و [ ا‬4 ‫? ن‬I!‫ و‬5‫و‬A/g! ،= 4H2‫ن ا‬M62! :‫ل‬L‫ و‬h!‫ ز‬F‫ أه‬-2
...[?JI ‫= أو‬6ُ ‫ أو‬# )' )L?M ..*=2I‫ا‬
Therefore all fellow Muslims should be aware, that Democracy is in essence a

clear issue to the one with insight. Anyone who dampens the reality of
participating in democracy and elections and redefines it as ‘selecting’ or
‘choosing’ is conforming to the description of the second category, as
explained by Sheikh Abū Mohammed. Unlike the first category these people
fail to truly present the reality as it is, and do not go back to the firmly
established principles of this religion when matters seem vague to them.
These include matters of creed such as; Tawhīd, Loyalty to Allāh and his
messenger, Loyalty to Allāh’s legislation, pride of Islām, disavowal from the
20
taghūt and reliance upon God and its likes, which are all primary principles
that have been shunned despite their pertinence given in the final revelation.
Their deviation is based upon feeble grounds stemming from arguments built
upon conjecture and speculation, so much so that these arguments lead to
false claims about one of the noblest personalities history has mentioned,
Yusuf (A.S). These claims are so devious that may lead to apostasy if heed is
not taken which will later be discussed
To add to the list of the scholars who deem voting to be kufr is Sheikh ‘Abdul
Qādir bin ‘Abdul ‘Azīz where he mentions:
“As for those amongst the people who vote for them (i.e. Members of Parliament),
they are committing Kufr as well, because according to the representative democracy,
the voters are in reality delegating them to practice the mastership of Shirk –
legislating beside Allah – on their behalf.”
As explained by an anonymous Tunisian Sheikh in his works titled Tahdhīr

min atanajasa bi mashārakah fy intikhābāt Tūnisī, where he explains:
“Verily the participation in legislative and general elections, in reality, are based
upon the choosing of a ruler and a legislator of laws that are not the laws of Allāh…
This (elections) is based upon the selecting a man who gives no value to the law of
Allāh.”
He then explicitly states:
“I therefore declare: Participation in the elections as disbelief and the exiting from the
millah of Islām.”
Additionally the fatwā of Sheikh Ibrahīm Bin ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Barakāt who
explains in his fatwā ‘Hukm al mashārikat fy intikhābāt at Tashrī’ī’:
“And what is called ‘legislative elections’ is kufr as that is seeking judgment in other
than Allāh’s law, as that means that the absolute sovereignty to the people and
21
therefore the people they are the ones who choose the laws that are implemented.
Therefore if they (the people) want Islām then they choose it and if they desire other
than that then they choose it. If the Nation differs in an issue they then return it (the
affair) to the majority and that, with no doubt, is Kufr Bawāh (manifest disbelief)…”
، ‫?ع ا‬O ?V &‫آ" إ‬#\ j‫ن ذ‬, ?I ‫ ) ا‬،*M!?H2‫ت ا‬4f254 &J! ‫و‬
،7' %6W\ 2‫ م ا‬,‫ر ا‬2f! ‫ي‬A‫ ه ا‬XMH ،XMH7 *7W‫دة ا‬J‫= أن ا‬M\
?,‫ ا‬XMH‫ ا‬k72/‫ وإن ا‬،‫ر‬f‫ ا‬7 [?V ‫ وإن أراد‬،4 " #! ‫م‬S‫ن أراد ا‬l
‫اح‬6‫? ا‬I ‫ ) ا‬jO ‫ا‬A‫ وه‬،XMH‫* ا‬67V‫ أي أ‬،*67V,‫ " إ& رأي ا‬#‫ ا‬YD?!
Furthermore, another who recognises voting to be kufr is Sheikh Abū Mus’ab

‘Abdul Wadūd in his book Qātia’ mahzilat al intikhābāt:
“…If you participate in these elections…then you are supporting them upon their
oppression and disbelief…”
Sheikh Abu ‘Umar As Sayf (As Shahīd) explains:
“Regarding general elections, which is the selection of a leader or members of

legislative councils…, for it is not permitted as it is from the paths and ways of the
Democratic disbelieving system…”24
Sheikh Abū Mohammed states in his fatwā regarding voting to repel a greater
evil:
“…Whether it’s to give room for the dīn or the Dunyā or to remove the oppression
and the reality of that is not the selecting of a legislator or ruler that governs by other
then what Allāh has revealed…Then there is no problem...”
He further clarifies that if there is any type of legislation taking place then this
is not permitted:
24 Risālah ilā mujāhidi Al-‘Irāq
22
‫ي أو‬Annn‫ ا‬Y?nnnnnnnn! "nnnn‫" ا‬nn=' Ynnnnnn!‫" و‬nnnnn7' - ‫اء‬nnn ‫ن‬nn‫ آ‬jnnnnnn7\ *Mnnnnnnnnn2‫* ا‬nnnnnnnn=!‫* أم د‬nnnnnnnn!5‫ د‬-
"nnn‫) و‬nnnnn ! *nnnnnnnn jnnn‫ر ذ‬nnnnnnn2/‫?') ا‬nnnnnH ‫م أو‬nn ‫ن‬nnnnn #! ?nnnnnnnni4 ‫^ل‬nnn5‫ ا أ‬، ‫ن أو‬nnnnn ! nnnnn
jnnn‫ر ذ‬nnnnnnnnn2/‫ أو ا‬K!nnnnnnnnnnn2‫ ً ا‬oO ) ‫?ات؛‬nnnnnnnnI ‫ ا‬D‫ر‬gnnnn ‫ن أن‬nnnnn ! nnnnn jnnn‫س ذ‬gnnnn4،
“…and (in the case when) the reality of the voting is for the purpose of a legislating
body or a ruler who governs by other then Allāh’s law, then it is not
permissible…”25
Sheikh Mohammed Al Fazāzi, after highlighting the reality of democracy,

states:
“It is (electoral participation) unlawful from islāmic jurisprudence (muharaman

shar’an), and it leads to apostasy and exiting Islām…”26
Abu Qatāda Al Falastīnī clearly expresses his condemnation of electoral

participation throughout his interview regarding this issue. Like most sources
mentioned, please refer to them for a wider insight.
“After understanding this (he refers to the reality of democracy that he formerly
explains) then this as we see, this contends with the right of Allāh from his
uluhiyyah…so if we describe someone as having the right to issue orders
independently and that he’s the sayyid, (master) meaning obeyed…then we have
understood the parliament as sayyid, the master, meaning god. And elections based
upon its meaning, is the voting of a sayyid, meaning ilāh (god). It’s the picture how
the children of democracy (those who ascribe to it) understand it and how its
(democracy) companions understand it…”
Sheikh Ahmed Bin Mahmūd al Khālidī comments:
“And this is the reality of what they practise in elections, for they subscribe/practise
another religion by it (the elections), the religion of democracy, which ascribes
governance to the people and not Allah. These people are choosing a god that they will
25 Hukm fy mashārakah fy intikhābāt majālis nayābiyyah takhlū min al mukafarāt

26 Natharāt fī Siyāsiyyah as shari’yyah
23
empower or entrust the authority of absolute legislation in agreement to the

constitution.”
Sheikh Feiz Mohammed also illustrates the impermissibility of elections in his

talk, which is available online.
Also from those who deem it impermissible are: Dr Israr Ahmed of tanzeem e
Islami, Sheikh Abu Hamza Al Misri and also this seems to be the most
commonly accepted stance from Hizb At Tahrir.
Bearing in mind, all that which has been presented, can the misconception of
it being a shāth opinion really be accepted? Can one really argue it’s an
outrageous opinion that voting is kufr and shirk despite its manifest reality?
Is it not for those who deem it permissible to present the sharī dalīl rather
than logic and analogy that is far from the reality being discussed?
REJECTION OF FALSE DEITIES AND A BRIEF CLARIFICATION

OF RULING BY OTHER THEN ALLĀHS LAW
One of the most crucial issues when it comes to voting is the sidelining of the
most important principle in Islām, abstaining and rejecting false deities. As
mentioned earlier Sheikh Abū Mohammed illustrates that those who
encourage Muslims to participate in democracy are from those of (zaygh wa
dalāl), vagueness and misguidance and they fail to return that which is
unclear to them to the core principle of the religion.
The most core principle annihilated when participating in elections is Tawhīd

and rejection of taghūt (false deities). Therefore it is paramount that this
concept is discussed here, however this topic can never be completed in just
one article, and it requires volumes upon volumes for justice to be given to
such a topic. As Allāh says in the Qurān:
24
Say, "If the sea were ink for [writing] the words of my Lord, the sea would be
exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought
the like of it as a supplement.”
Glory be to God, who sent every messenger to proclaim that there is no God
but him and to abstain from the false deities.
“And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship

Allah and avoid Taghut.”
And glory be to Him, the one who sent down his final revelation, wherein
each verse came down to confirm and establish his tawhīd. With such an
important concept, anyone who strays from the oneness of God and enters
into areas that violate Allāhs rights, has surely wronged himself and Allāh
will cause all his action to be void. As Allāh states:
“And indeed it has been revealed to you (O Muhammad SAW), as it was to

those (Allâh's Messengers) before you: If you join others in worship with
25
Allâh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be
among the losers."
The extent of this sin is so great that even the final messenger and those
before him were warned in such a stern manner and tone. So therefore, how
about those who are not messengers? And those who have not had their
former sins and those to come forgiven? How about those who have not been
promised paradise? How is we are so confident to prop up a false deity and
give him the support he needs to commit the greatest sin one can commit?
As reported in an authentic hadīth on the authority of Abū ‘Abdillāhi

Nu’mān bin Bahīr who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam) say: “That which is lawful is clear and that which is
unlawful is clear, and between the two of them are doubtful matters about
which many people do not know. Thus he who avoids doubtful matters clears
himself in regards to his religion and his honour, but he who falls into
doubtful matters [eventually] falls into that which is unlawful, like the
shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly
every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allah’s sanctuary is His prohibitions.
Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body
is whole, and which, if it is diseased, all of [the body] is diseased. Truly, it is
the heart.” [Related by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.]
‫ رـل ا‬K‫ـ‬M : ‫ ـل‬، =‫ ا 'ـ‬L‫? ر‬H4 )4 ‫ـن‬M=‫ ا ا‬6' 4‫') أ‬

‫= أـر‬4‫ و‬، )4 ‫ـ?ام‬#‫ وإن ا‬، )4 ‫ل‬#‫ ) إن ا‬:‫" !ل‬7‫ و‬7‫ ا 'ـ‬7`
L?‫?أ !ـ= و'ـ‬62‫ت ــ ا‬6H‫ ) ا\& ا‬، ‫? ) ا=س‬t‫) آ‬7‫ـ‬M! ‫ت‬62H
26
‫ أن‬jO! &#‫ آـ?ا' !ـ?'& ل ا‬، ‫?ام‬#‫ ا‬Y‫ت وـ‬6H‫ ا‬Y‫ و) و‬،
J‫ـ‬C‫ أ وإن ا‬، ‫ر‬# ‫ أ وإن & ا‬، & j7 F ‫أ وإن‬، Y\?!
‫ أ وه‬، ‫ـ‬7‫ـ آـ‬JC‫ـ ا‬J‫ـت ـ‬J‫ وإذا ـ‬، 7‫ آ‬JC‫ ا‬u7` K‫ـ‬#7` ‫* إذا‬iP
: "‫" ] ر‬7J‫ [ و‬52 : "‫ري ] ر‬f6‫( روا[ ا‬X7‫اــ‬
The issue for the true monotheist is clear like the clarity of the day, as for
those who delve into such grey and cloudy areas and whose hearts are short
sighted, and who cannot see the magnitude of the sin involved in it despite
the conciseness of the Qurān then we say to you, as said by the noble
messenger (s.a.w.) “And whoever fears the grey areas then he is cleared himself in
his religion and honor”… Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allah’s
sanctuary is His prohibitions.”
As for the true believer then we say to you: Remain patient and steadfast,
place your affairs in the hands of Allāh and he will take you forth from you
discomfort, and as Allāh states “And whoever fears Allāh then he will provide
for him a way out…”
And likewise to the true monotheist (muwahid) we say: “verily the lawful is
clear and the unlawful is clear.”
Ibn Al Qayum states in his book ‘lān al muwaqa’īn :
27
“Tāghūt is all that a servent exceeds the boundary with, from that which is
worshipped, followed or obeyed, so therefore the tāghūt is all the people that
judgement is sought from, other then Allāh and his messenger, or that which they
worship other than Allah…”
F‫ت آ‬VW ‫ع‬W ‫ع أو‬62 ‫د أو‬6M ) [ 6M‫ ا‬4 ‫وز‬C\ F‫ت آ‬VW‫وا‬
?V &7' 5M62! ‫ ) دون ا أو‬5‫و‬6M! ‫? ا ور أو‬V ‫آن إ‬#2! ) ‫م‬
*'> 5‫ن أ‬7M! 5MW! ‫?ة ) ا أو‬4
Therefore the transgression of one who rules by other than Allāhs law is due
to the following points:
1. His claim to have the right to legislate

2. The worship of the people towards him by seeking judgement,
obedience and the acceptance of his legislations.
Allāh the Most High states:
“Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed
to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to
refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and
Satan wishes to lead them far astray.”27
Sheikh al Alwasī states in his tafsīr of this verse: “that it (tāghūt) is everyone that
rules by falsehood…”
27 Nisā: 60
28
‫?[ و‬JI\ ,‫ا ا م ل ا‬A‫ ه‬#=4 ‫هـ‬.F>64 " #! ) F‫=[ آ‬M ‫و‬
‫وي‬P6‫ ا‬jA‫آ‬
Ibn Kathīr explains this verse was revealed in relation to “a group from the
hypocrites who confessed their Islām, yet desired to seek judgment of jahiliyyah.”
‫آا إ& م‬#2! ‫ أرادوا أن‬،‫م‬S‫?وا ا‬y‫ ) أ‬،)=‫'* ) ا‬D :

.*7‫ه‬C‫ا‬
Alāmma ‘Abdur Rahmān as Sa’dī in his tafsīr states 184 “Whoever rules by
other than Allāh’s legislation is a Tāghūt (false diety).
:(184 ‫ي‬MJ‫? ا‬JI\) ‫ي‬MJ‫ ا? ) ا‬6' *M‫و ل ا‬

‫ت‬V> ‫?ع ا‬O ?i4 " ) F‫وه آ‬
Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahāb explains:
“The forms of Taghūt are many however their main categories are five,”
&'‫ و) اد‬،‫ وه راض‬6' )‫ و‬، ‫= ا‬M {74‫ إ‬،*J/ "‫?ة ورؤ‬t‫ آ‬KV‫ا‬W‫وا‬
.(... ‫^ل ا‬5‫? أ‬i4 " )‫ و‬،JI5 ‫دة‬6' &‫ و) د' ا=س إ‬،Xi‫" ا‬7' ) ً oO
From his list he mentions:
“The one who rules by other than Allāh’s law.”
The evidences illustrating that judging by man made laws is kufr and shirk
are ample. Only an ignorant person who has disbelieved in Allāh would
argue otherwise.
Additionally Sulaymān bin Sihmān states in durar:
29
“At Tāghūt comes under three variations; Tāhgūt of hukm (legislation, Tāghūt of
worship and tāghūt of obedience and following.”28
BEHIND NOT REJECTING IN FALSE DEITIES
Allāh has obligated ‘kufr bi tāghūt (rejecting the false deities) on every single
individual. It is seen as a cornerstone of ones faith to the extent that it’s
deemed void if he fails to do so. As the verse states “If you join others in
worship with Allâh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you
will certainly be among the losers.”
Therefore for one to ensure his faith is sound he must take the step of
rejecting these false deities. As explained above its evident that these
legislators are false deities and should be shunned in protest of our rejection
of their ways.
In referring to the verse Nahl: 36, Mohamed Ibn Abdul Wahāb clarifies:
“Be aware, May Allāh have mercy upon your soul, the first thing Allāh has obliged
the children of Ãdam with is the rejection of the false deities (al kufr bi Tāghūt) and
the īmān in Allāh, and a person will not be a Muslim except by rejecting the false
deities even if he prays and fasts. Furthermore a monotheist is never a monotheist
except after having disavowed everything that is worshipped besides Allāh, even if HE
worships Allāh.”
‫دة‬O ‫ إذ‬،‫م‬S‫ ا‬F/‫ و د‬7J ) ! " ‫ت‬VW4 ?I ! " ‫ن إذا‬J5S‫أل أن ا‬

F 4 ?I ! ‫" أن‬7J‫& ا‬7' XD2J\ ( ‫ !?دده ا?ء ?ارا ) إ إ ا‬2‫ ا‬2‫ا‬
28
Durar as siniyah 503/10 risālat muhimah fy Tāghūt
30
‫ و !ا و‬6#! ‫[ و‬6M! ،' ‫دا و و‬2'‫د ) دون ا ا‬6M
j‫ت آ ذآ? ذ‬VW4 ?I ‫= ا‬4 ) ‫?وط‬O ‫ د و‬2‫* ا‬7 ....[?`=!
‫ و‬،‫& و `م‬7` ‫ت و إن‬VW4 ?I ‫ ا‬M4 ‫ إ‬7J "7J‫ ! ن ا‬،"7M‫ ا‬F‫أه‬
‫ ا‬6' ‫د ) دون ا و إن‬6M F‫?اءة ) آ‬64 ‫! ن ا ا إ‬
He then includes the verse: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the

Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in
Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy
handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.”
Sheikh Abdur Rahmān Bin Hasan concludes in Durar as Siniyah:

“The verse (baqara) illustrates that there cannot be a servant that holds to Lā ilāha
ilAllāh (the shahadah) except if he rejects the false deities…”
Sheikh Shanqītī states:

“And whoever does not hold to the trustworthy handle (the shahāda) then he has
withdrawn from imān (the status of a muslim)…It is not possible for Imān in the
tāghūt and īmān in Allāh to be combined, as Kufr bi Tāghūt is a condition of īmān in
Allāh…as explicitly in the statement of Allāh (baqarah…)”29
29 Adwā al bayān 256/2
31
‫?وة‬M‫ ه ا‬4 ‫!ن‬S‫ن ا‬, ‫!ن؛‬S‫^ل ') ا‬M4 &a‫?وة ا‬M4 jJ2J! " )‫و‬
‫ت‬VW4 ?I ‫ن ا‬, ‫ ؛‬4 ‫!ن‬S‫ ا‬Y '2D‫ ا‬F#2J! ‫ت‬VW4 ‫!ن‬S‫ وا‬،&a‫ا‬
‫ت‬
ِ ُVNW4ِ ْ?Iُ ْ !َ ْ)َ َ } : u!?` ‫ آ ه‬،= )‫ أو رآ‬4 ‫!ن‬S‫?ط ا‬O
Sheikh Abdur Rahmān bin Hasan states:

“The scholars from the salaf and khalf, those from the companions, the tabiīn, the
imāms and all of the ahl us sunnah are in agreement that a person is not a Muslim
except by being free from greater shirk and having barā from it and whoever commits
it…”
Therefore we say, is propping up a false deity expressing your dissociation

from shirk? And having barā from it and whoever commits it?
‫ أن‬،*N=J‫ ا‬F‫ أه‬YD‫ و‬،*.,‫ وا‬،)M42‫ وا‬،*4#‫ً ) ا‬I7/‫ً و‬I7 ‫ء‬7M‫ ا‬YD
،7M )‫?اءة = و‬6‫ وا‬،?6‫آ‬,‫?ك ا‬H‫?د ) ا‬C24 N‫ إ‬،ً7J ‫ا?ء ! ن‬
! ‫ آ‬، 7‫'ل آ‬,‫ص ا‬/‫ وإ‬،‫* وارة‬W‫ ا‬XJ#4 "\‫دا‬M‫" و‬Pi4‫و‬
ًoO 4 ‫?آا‬H! ‫و[ و‬6M! ‫د أن‬6M‫& ا‬7' ‫ ا‬%
N ‫ن‬
N l» :)##‫ي ا‬A‫ذ ا‬M
Sheikh Nāsir al Fahad states:

“Verily Allāh, glory be to Him, has placed al kufr bi Tāghūt and imān in Allāh as a
condition for one entering Islām…”30
‫م‬S‫ل ا‬/7 4 ‫!ن‬S‫ ا‬Y ‫ت‬VW4 ?I ‫?ط ا‬O 5#6 ‫ان ا‬
WHAT DOES REJECTING THE FALSE DEITIES MEAN?
As stated in Durar as siniyah, Mohammed ibn ‘Abdul Wahāb explains:
30
At tibyān fī kufr man a’ānal amrīkān
32
“As for the description of rejecting false deities then it is that you believe in the
falsehood of the worship to others than Allāh, and that you leave it, hate it, reject its
people, oppose them…And that you have animosity for the people of shirk and you
oppose them and this is the millah of Ibrahīm…”
،Pi6\‫ و‬، ‫?آ‬2\‫ و‬، ‫? ا‬V ‫دة‬6' ‫ن‬W4 2M\ ‫ن‬g : ‫ت‬VW4 ?I ‫* ا‬I` g
‫د‬6M‫ ا‬S‫ أن ا ه ا‬2M\ ‫ن‬g ، 4 ‫!ن‬S‫=& ا‬M ‫ وأ‬. "!‫د‬M\‫ و‬، 7‫? أه‬I \‫و‬
‫د‬6M F‫ ') آ‬I=\‫ و‬، 7‫دة آ‬6M‫اع ا‬5‫ أ‬YD -7f\‫ و‬، [‫ دون ) ا‬، [ ‫و‬
*7 [A‫ وه‬، "!‫د‬M\‫?ك و‬H‫ ا‬F‫ أه‬Ti6\‫ و‬، "‫ و\ا‬، ‫ص‬/S‫ ا‬F‫ أه‬X#\‫ و‬، [‫ا‬
4 ‫? ا‬6/‫ أ‬2‫ة ا‬,‫ ه ا‬: [A‫ وه‬، =' XV‫ ) ر‬JI5 I 2‫?اه" ا‬4‫إ‬
" = ‫?ءاء‬4 5‫ إذ ا " إ‬M )!A‫?اه" وا‬4‫=* إ‬J ‫ " أة‬K5‫ } آ‬
&2 ‫ًا‬4‫ء أ‬Pi6‫اوة وا‬M‫= " ا‬4‫== و‬4 ‫ا‬4‫ " و‬4 5?I‫ون ) دون ا آ‬6M\ ‫و‬
‫هـ‬.31(4:*=#2‫)ا‬ { [ ‫ و‬4 ‫=ا‬d\
As stated by Sheikh Sulaymān bin Sihmān, also in durar as siniyah: “And what
is meant by the meaning of abstaining from it (tāghūt) is having animosity to it, and
hatred for it in the heart, and cursing it and disgracing it with the tongue and
attempting to destroy it by the hand if capable, parting from it and whoever claims to
abstain from the false deities and does not do so has not been truthful.”32
2‫ وإزا‬، ‫ن‬J74 #6\‫ و‬6‫ و‬، X74 \‫ و'او‬، Pi4 ‫ ه‬4=2D‫وا?اد ) ا‬
‫ `ق‬j‫ ذ‬FMI! "‫ت و‬VW‫=ب ا‬2D‫ ) اد'& ا‬، 2‫ر‬I‫و‬، ‫ '= ارة‬4
In reference to verse 4, chapter 60 Sheikh Hamd bin ‘Atīq: “A person does not
become a muslim who openly declares his religion until he opposes every group
(misguided) by what they have become renowned for and that he explicitly shows
31 Ad Durar as siniyah 161/1

32 Ad Durar as siniyah 503-502/10
33
animosity to them. And whoever rejects shirk: then this means to openly declare ones
tawhīd or the forbidding of shirk and warn to against it.”
‫ و!?ح‬، ‫? '=ه‬2O‫ ا‬4 *ٍ I.> F‫ آ‬kf! &2 ، =! ‫" ?ًا‬7J‫و ! ن ا‬
u!?2‫ ا‬: [=' )!‫ر ا‬yl ‫?ك‬H4 [?I‫ ) آن آ‬. = ‫?اءة‬6‫ وا‬، \‫او‬M4
33
= ?!A#2‫ وا‬، ‫?ك‬H‫ أو ا= ') ا‬، 24
WHY IS PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS HARAM

AND SHIRK
Some may try to strip the reality of voting by claiming its merely ‘selecting’
an individual from a list of people and there is no sin on the person as he is
not responsible for his role as a lawmaker.
Sheikh Abū Muhammed Al Maqdisī states:
“As for the one votes: then, as you are aware, the reality of what he will stand for
when he practices this pagan religion (democracy) is that he is choosing a legislator
(lord) from these various lords. They are entrusted to legislate and represent him in
this pagan service.34
‫ن إن أ‬nn‫ال آ‬dnnnnnJ‫ ا‬hnnnnnn` *innnnnn` ?nnnnV *#!?nnnnn`، Knnnn5‫* وآ‬nnnnnnnn

K!nnnnnnnnnnnn2‫ول ا‬dnnnnnJ‫ ا‬nn=' nn5‫ ه إ‬unnnnnnn *W7nnnn *M!?nnnnnnnnnnnnnH\ ‫م أو‬nn
‫ن‬nnnnn #! ?nnnnnnnnni4 ‫^ل‬nnn5‫ ا ؛ أ‬nnnnn ‫ز‬nnnnC!
Sheikh Abū Basīr At Tartūsi includes in his fatwā 1005:
The meaning of legislative elections, as they are known, in the current present
systems that do not rule by Allāh’s law is: selecting legislating gods and lords that
33 Sabeel an Najaat wa fakaak pg 92

34 Al ishrāqah
34
legislate for the people and country…Their rubūbiyyah (lordship) and uluhiyyah
(godliness) are made known to the voters and that they have the right to legislate and
that is not permissible…as it the greater shirk…”
Abu Qatāda explains:
After understanding this (he refers to the reality of democracy that he formerly
explains) then this as we see, this contends with the right of Allāh from his
uluhiyyah…so if we describe someone as having the right to issue orders
independently and that he’s the sayyid, master meaning obeyed…then we have
understood the parliament as sayyid, the master, meaning god. And elections based
upon its meaning, is the voting of a sayyid, meaning ilāh (god)…”
“It’s the picture how the children of democracy (those who ascribe to it) understand it
and how its (democracy) companions understand it…Therefore what is elections?
Elections means that I am pleased with this (individual, referring to MP) to represent
me in expressing my desire to brand something lawful or illegal…and as that is
manifest that opposes the shahādah (lā ilāha ila Allāh).”
The Scholars unanimously agree that supporting a disbeliever in his religion

and allying with them for the sake of their creed is kufr, disbelief. It is no
hidden secret that these legislators have adopted the creed of democracy and
have deemed it superior to any other way of life including Islām.
The statement of sheikh Muqbil also stresses why democracy is shirk:
“The nation rules itself by itself; which means kufr, and whoever calls to democracy
and he knows its meaning then he is a kāfir.”
Supporting an MP or any legislator is giving him a free right to oppose Islām

and destroy this religion.
35
“They intend to put out the Light of Allâh (i.e. the religion of Islâm, this
Qur'ân, and Prophet Muhammad SAW) with their mouths. But Allâh will
complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it).”
It’s not long ago when many foolish, naïve Muslims participated in the war in
Iraq, and it was not long after that when he sought to place a ban on the
Niqab, the veil.
Whether the ban was introduced or not, it illustrates their animosity for the
religion and how they reserve the capability to remove and suppress any part
of Islām they wish. And lets face it, we can see where this is going, it won’t be
long until this law eventually gets passed, that’s because Allāh states “most of
them are fasiqūn” and that’s the essence of democracy.
Sheikh Abū Mus’āb ‘Abdul Wadūd states: “in all of this (voting and aiding them
upon their kufr and oppression) is the prolonging of this disbelieving country (here
he is referring to Algeria, although the reality is the same).”
‫[ او* ا ?ة‬A‫ا إ>* '? ه‬A‫ ه‬F

ّ ‫ آ‬
THE MISCONCEPTION OF THE COMPANIONS WHO MADE

DU’Ã FOR NAJĀSHI
Abu Qatada when asked about this misconception, after highlighting the
manifest shirk of voting states:
36
“…Then why are they disputing (meaning where’s the room for debate?) From which
gate do they dispute this issue? Are we now discussing the topic of the permissibility
of supporting a kāfir (disbeliever)? Are we not now speaking about the issue of
fighting a kāfir under the banner of a kāfir? ...The issue in front of us is a person
choosing his god, his sayyid his legislator…”
The issue to hand, as you can see, is the permissibility of supporting of a disbeliever
over another. In essence a disbeliever is not aided (in war), so if some of the people of
knowledge see that helping a disbeliever over another to attain some type of benefit for
the Muslims then that’s an issue that remains in the realm of fiqh…”
He then goes on to explain that supporting them (disbelievers) over OTHER

Muslims, nullifies Imān as it is enters primarily into walā of Allāh and his
messenger and the believers. He then continues by saying:
“As Haythamī and others from the people of knowledge mention…for example, the
permissibility of helping a kāfir over another…, so this is a fiqhy issue”…so therefore
the statement that Duā is from the highest forms of support is false, bātil.”
Furthermore he states:
“And the issue as you can see is a subsidiary (far’iyyatun) issue, an ‘amali issue in
front of an issue of doctrine (‘itiqādiyyah).”
This misconception has surfaced due to a lack of precision when relating the
reality of electoral participation. Those who bring this as evidence in support
of participating in the elections fail to recognise that voting entails more then
just support of a disbeliever over another.
Again we have a analogy made, Qiyās which is incorrect, the likening of the
companions supporting Najāshi over his rival to the likening of supporting
one legislator (tāghūt) over his rival. Far from merely supporting another
37
enemy of Allāh over another, voting entails that an individual empowers a

person allowing him to take authority in legislating, which is a nullifier of
faith.
The major error with this argument is that they have used the story of the
companions when in Abyssinia, despite the clear concise, explicit verses of the
Qurān that instruct the believers to abstain from false deities.
For this overseen reality, the analogy is void and deemed false. The incident
of Najāshi and empowering a pseudo god are very different. If only those
who made this analogy would recognise this stark difference, they would
have realised that the issue of supporting a polytheist or a non-believer
against a common enemy has been discussed in the past by the scholars under
what many refer to as ‘Fighting under the banner of the polytheists’. This
issue is a separate one in totality and when the scholars discuss this issue they
are referring to a scenario where the Muslims are not committing the greater
shirk.
If fighting under the banner of a polytheist does not entail shirk, then as we
will see, the scholars differed in its regards, due to it being a derivative (fari’)
issue as opposed to a core one (aslī).
As mentioned in Al Umm 159/4:
“If support is sought from a group of Muslim captives from the polytheists, and the
fighting is against another group of polytheists then it is said:
“They are permitted to fight as it is said that Zubayr (ra) and his companions fought
in the land of the Abasynians with polytheists against polytheists.”
And likewise it’s further explained:
38
“And what is forbidden when fighting them (the polytheists allied with polytheists) is
the permitting of shirk.”
There is also some discussion regarding the authenticity of this narration as

Shāfi’ states:
“And we are not sure of the news of Zubayr regarding its authenticity…”
This is due to the presence of Muhammed Ibn Ishāq in the chain, it is also stated:
And if it is authentic, then Najāshi was Muslim, a believer in the messenger (s.a.w)
…”
Despite some concern of the scholars regarding its authenticity, for arguments
sake, we will agree to it being sound.
Imām Ahmed notes various scenarios and discusses the permissibility of

fighting along the polytheists against another polytheist. In one instance he
deems it ‘lawful’ and in another he states:
“I do not know”
Bahūti discusses in ‘kashf al Qinā’ from the hanbali school:
“It is not allowed to fight with the polytheist against an enemy of theirs except if the
Muslims fear their evil.”
Also mentioned by Al Jasās al Hanafī in Mukhtasar al ikhtilāf al fuqahā lil

imām At tahāwi:
39
“It is not permitted to fight with the people of shirk as the ruling of shirk is apparent
and this is the opinion of the Māliki.”
Thowrī states:
“They can fight with them.”
Awzāi’ mentions:
“They are permitted to do so if they make it a condition that if they overpower them,
then they take them to the land of Islām.” (454/3)
Ibn Hubayrah, in al Fisāh explains:
“They differ regarding: Is the help sought from the polytheist or if they are assisted
upon their enemy. Māliki and Ahmed state that they are not helped under any
circumstance.” (286/2)
What is discussed here is not aimed at helping formulate an opinion

regarding this topic, rather it is to highlight that fighting under the banner of
the polytheist is not an action that removes one from the realms of Islām, so
long as the common enemy are not Muslims. This is why the scholars
explicitly mention that the enemy fought are not fighting under the banner of
Islām and that no shirk takes places.
There is no debate amongst the scholars regarding its permissibility had this
issue been one where the Muslims were requested to carry out an action that
nullifies the core of their belief.
Therefore if a situation arose where their maybe some attainable benefit for
participating in battle with polytheists against other polytheists, then the
40
scholars may discuss whether its abstention is more dangerous than its
participation.
However if for example, the polytheists demanded the Muslims to wear their
symbols of disbelief, whether it be a cross or some other type of kufr, in order
to participate to attain a greater good, then there is no room in this scenario
for debate regarding its permissibility. This is so, as this is a nullifier of the
core of faith and no benefit can justify such an action.
So therefore brother and sisters in Islām it is clear that the Qiyās made does
not stand, and the event of the companions in Abysinia is far from the reality
of participating in another religion, that nullifies ones core belief.
As Abū Qatāda mentions in ‘condemnation of the democratic process’, where

he enquires about why there is uncertainty regarding this topic, he highlights
that what people are referring to is the assistance of the polytheists over
others. This, as we are aware has been clarified by the scholars.
So for those who see that making Dua for a taguūt over another is the same as
voting for one legislator over another has been misled to believe this due to a
lack of insight into the difference.
YUSUF (AS) WORKING FOR THE KING OF EGYPT
“O two companions of the prison! Are many multiple lords (gods) better or
Allâh, the One, the subjugator? You do not worship besides Him but only
names which you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allâh
has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but
Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His
Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.”
(Surah Yusuf)
41
From the deceptive measures of those who argue in favour of electoral

participation, is the accusation that Yusuf worked as a minister in the
government of the disbelieving king of Egypt. They then draw an analogy,
between this and working in parliament, which they claim that because Yusuf
(AS) acquired this position for the sake of the ‘greater good’ and ‘Da’wa’ then
likewise voting for an MP who will deliver this, is permitted. In the feeble
article ‘to vote or not to vote’ it states:
“Thirdly, according to many scholars, it is allowed to enter the political system in

order to elicit change using a well known principle found in Usūl’l-Fiqh namely "The
legislative law of the previous Prophets is legislation for our nation too…The scholars
who accepted this principle, clarified it would only be applicable if it had not been
abrogated by legislation in our Sharī‘ah, based in turn on the Qur’ānic narrative on
the Prophet Yūsuf ('alayhis salām), who accepted a ministerial position in a
government that was ruling by laws other than the Law of Allāh in order to achieve
the greater good.”
It is not enough that we read in the Qurān of how Yūsaf (as) was accused of a
crime he did not commit, so how do we then add to this accusation another
which is far greater then the one mentioned in the Qurān.
The accusation, that he ruled in a system that was a tyrannical tāghūt system
like the ones present today to obtain some benefit, is a crime against Yusuf
(a.s) and those who use this to justify voting must be extremely cautious.
To base the permissibility of selecting a false diety and empowering it to a

god like position based upon this misconception of Yusuf (a.s) shows how
desperate for some type of evidence they are. Despite all the concise verses in
the Qurān (ayāt Muhkamāt), the clear ahadīth and the core principle of this
Dīn that highlight the obligation of not supporting any pseudo God, they rely
42
on a circumstance where little is known about. Filling in the gaps and making
assumptions is what they have done with the story of Yusuf and therefore one
of their fundamental arguments is based upon conjecture.
“They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there
has already come to them from their Lord guidance.”
If we look into the story of Yusuf (AS) his uncompromising stance towards
shirk is evident during his encase ration when he states:
“O two companions of the prison! Are many multiple lords (gods) better or Allâh, the
One, the subjugator? You do not worship besides Him but only names which you
have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allâh has sent down no
authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allâh. He has commanded
that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight
religion, but most men know not.”
The scholars of tafsīr such as al Qurtubi 191/9 state that he refused to

interpret their dreams until he familiarized them with Tawhīd. His lineage
was one of monotheism, the son of Ya’qūb, the son of Ishāq the son of Ibrāhīm
(AS), these were the greatest players in calling people to the oneness of God
and they all took the same uncompromising stance against shirk. It was the
same stance that the final messenger to mankind took (s.a.w) when he refused
to submit to their offers of what they threw at him from the worldly riches.
43
As stated in an authentic hadīth narrated by Bukhari, “Prophets are brothers,

all from different mothers, yet their father is one, and their dīn is one..” This
highlights that although they may have come with different legislations, the
core of their religion was one, singling Allāh out in worship. As the verse
states:
“And verily we sent to all nations messengers calling the people to the
worship of Allāh and to abstain from Tāghūt .”
Therefore, for us to say that Yusuf (AS) placed himself in a position where the
laws of Allāh were violated, i.e. major shirk taking place, for the sake of
bringing about some benefit is a damning accusation. Which prophet ever
compromised his call? Which prophet ever settled for partial implementation
of tawhīd?
Rather what we have is a messenger who won over the trust from the king for
his religion and gave him a free role to rule however he desired. This is a by
far a different reality to entering into parliament and being subject to the
decision of the majority and then having it established in the name of that
parliament, which in effect, is it being passed in your name.
It’s not confirmed as to whether the king became Muslim or not, however a
narration on the authority of a number of scholars suggest so. As Ibn Jarīr
44
and Al Baghawaī on the authority of Mujāhid, state that the king embraced
Islām. There isn’t much need to go too deep into the Islamic legal evidences
here as it has been discussed in “The doubts regarding the ruling of democracy in
Islām”.
Despite basing such a sensitive issue concerning the rights of Allāh, those
who legalise the participation in democratic elections base their argument
upon this uncertain misconception. Although, as clarified in the above
mentioned article, the scholars state that: if there is difference in possible
meanings then the use of that argument, as evidence, drops. Due to this
misconception, a core concept of the dīn is opposed and although various
narrations suggest that the king became Muslim they choose not to err on the
side of caution. In light of all of the available verses in the Qurān, authentic
traditions of the messenger (s.a.w) and the statements of the scholars
regarding other than Allahs judgement, they side with this evidence to push
people to the ballots.
If we say, for example, that the king never accepted Islām, can we then say
that this evidence presented of Yūsuf accepting a position as minister for the
king is acceptable?
Firstly its incumbent upon us to recognise that the Qiyās used here, as that’s
what it is, is not accepted. This is so, as these people have drawn an analogy
with the incidents that led him to being a minister and its reality to the reality
of a Muslim becoming a minister in a democratic system, which is very
different. They then go further to say that if an individual can enter into the
democratic system as Yūsuf (a.s) did, then surely it’s permitted for people to
vote.
So what is the difference between the two realities? The first factor that we
must recognise is that there is not much known about the king other than
45
what is mentioned in the Qurān and maybe in various Ahadīth, as well as the
tafsīr (although it mentions him becoming Muslim). Likewise not much is
known about the reality of the situation and what the role of Yusuf entailed.
Again, although the verses and narrations state that he was given full
authority in the land, the rest is merely the thoughts of people, often based
upon conjecture. However what is known to us is the reality of the
democratic system and if the Qiyās is made then its wrong for the following
reasons.
Firstly; the governments today oblige those who desire to be a part of it to

swear an oath that they bear allegiance to their system which is the highest
authority in the land. As sworn by all MPs in the U.K, the oath of MP’s as its
known, reads:
“I [name] swear by the almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to her majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law, so help me
God.”
As it can be seen, it is required that a true form of allegiance is made, these

oaths often entail that the ministers respect the laws and display true sincerity
to that false deity, and this oath varies from country to country.
So the reality of today’s governments requires this level of sincerity, which

opposes the fundamental beliefs of Islām that ‘true’ allegiance is to Allāh and
his messenger and the believers, and if one swears true allegiance to anyone
else then he has left the fold of Islām. It is also important to bring to the
surface that these governments openly announce their opposition and
disapproval of the religion of Allāh, to the extent that they seek to destroy any
possible seed that is planted and may reap into an Islamic government. We
see their open hostility to anyone who desires to implement the laws of Allāh
even if they are in a far corner of the globe, thousands of miles away.
46
Likewise if someone openly expressed their desire to rule by the laws of the
all mighty Allāh, will they be permitted to do so like Yūsuf (a.s) did? We
have already been informed by Allāh that the king said to him:
“Indeed, you are today established [in position] and trusted."
And also Allah states:
“And thus We established Joseph in the land to settle therein wherever he

willed.”
And the narration of Ibn Zayd which tabbari mentions in his tafsīr:
“He did in the land as he pleased.”
Also on the authority of Wahb, Sudī, Ibn ‘Abbās and others where the king
explicitly states:
“And I hand over to you the authority to do as you please and we to you,
followers…and I am merely one of your subjects.”
So the verses narrate to us the situation and no where do we see Yusuf (a.s)
being forced to make an oath of allegiance to any false deity, nor was he
subjected to the rule of any man made laws, rather it is apparent that it was
47
the opposite. If anyone desires to say he was then “Hātū burhānakum…” let
him bring his evidence and know, that his accusation maybe tantamount to
kufr.
Secondly: The position of authority was given to him as stated:
“And like so we gave the authority to Yusuf.”
So here we can see that Yusuf (as) had the authority and it was given to him,
and not the king, as the verse explicitly shows.
Yet again a desperate attempt has been made by taking the story of Yusaf (a.s)
and claiming our reality mirrors that, however the true monotheist sees past
such a misconception and holds firm to the rope of Allāh.
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE GREATER GOOD AND ‘LESSER OF

THE TWO HARMS’
The use of Maslaha as an argument in support of electoral participation

indicates that these people are unable to bring any evidence that is sufficient
to support their claim. For example they often use the story of Yusaf (as),
Najāshī and also Hilf al Fudūl, so if these arguments support their claims,
why then, do they feel the need to present the argument of ‘lesser of the two
harms’.
Before delving deeply into the issue of maslaha ‘benefit’, we must establish
that there is no Maslaha greater then the core, Usūl of this dīn, which is
singling Allāh alone in worship. For this purpose mankind was created, as he
the Most High states:
“And verily I did not create man or jinn except to worship me.”
48
Also:
“And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to
Him in religion.”
The statement and testimony of shahāda is what every verse in the final
revelation came to establish. It’s the reason for the revelation of all books, all
messengers and all laws.
It’s often argued by the spineless ones who trust in democracy to bring them
out of their hardship that: ‘If you don’t vote then people are going to vote
anyway and these crimes against Islam will be committed anyway, so
therefore you may as well minimise the evil.’
Then we say to these individuals:
If shirk is taking place in your local community and you witness it, do you
then participate in those rituals of shirk arguing ‘Its taking place anyway so I
may join in and encourage them not to worship a bigger taghūt or wathan or
idol, in order to minimise the harm?
49
No sane individual will ever be audacious enough to claim this, then why do
they have the confidence to say this in regards to voting? Are their principles
of Allah’s Uluhiyyah still cloudy and infirmly planted?
Sayid Qutb states that:
“The word ‘benefit of the da’wah’ must be removed from the dictionary of the people of
da’wah, as it it’s an entrance for Shaytān that he comes to them from it…”
He continues to say:
“Maslaha of da’wah has been transformed by the people of da’wah to an idol that is
worshipped, and they have forgotten the methodology of the core da’wah.”
He also comments:
“Verily the legislation of Allāh as he revealed it and as the messenger (s.a.w)

portrayed it, incorporates the benefit of mankind. Therefore if mankind one day are
presented with a maslaha that opposes the legislation of Allāh then they are deluded,
as has been presented in the book of Allāh: “And they do not follow except
conjecture and what they themselves desire.”
Secondly: They are disbelievers, (kāfiroun): A person does not claim that benefit is in
what he sees from that which opposes what Allāh has legislated, and remains for a
moment upon this religion or from its people.”
‫ ) س‬Y?ُ\ ‫ أن‬XC! ‫* ا'ة‬#7 *7‫ إن آ‬: ‫ ر ا‬XW ‫!ل‬

"\g! ‫ أن‬7' ^M! ) = "\g! ‫ن‬WH7 F/‫ ^* و‬5, ،‫ب ا'ات‬#`‫أ‬
‫ب‬#`‫[ أ‬6M2! "=` &‫* ا'ة إ‬#7 ‫ل‬#2\ ‫ و‬،‫ص‬fO,‫* ا‬#7 * 5 )
F`,‫ = ا'ة ا‬M ‫ن‬J=!‫ا'ة و‬
50
.. ‫ '= رل ا‬i74 ‫ وآ‬، ‫^ ا‬5‫ آ أ‬، ‫?ع ا‬O *=P2 ?H6‫* ا‬#7 ‫إن‬
‫ واهن‬:
ً ‫ " أو‬،" ‫?ّع ا‬O *If "2#7 ‫? ذات ! ٍم أن‬H67 ‫ا‬4 ‫ذا‬l
" ‫ا‬4 } ‫" اى‬4‫ءه" ) ر‬D ‫{ و‬I5,‫ن إ ا) و \ى ا‬M62! ‫{ إن‬
.23:"C=‫ا‬
‫?ع‬O ً If ‫* !?ا[ ه‬#7‫ !' أ أن ا‬.. ‫ آ?ون‬:ً 5a "‫وه‬
. ‫هـ‬-‫ا ا!) ا‬A‫ ه‬F‫ و) أه‬،)!‫ا ا‬A‫& ه‬7' ‫* وا ة‬# &6! "a ، ‫ا‬
The fatāwa in favour of voting often mention that engaging in democracy is to

obtain the greater good and help establish the laws that are in line with
Islamic interests. The question then arises ‘What are Islamic interests and
who/how are they defined? Ultimately the Islamic law came to abolish all
forms of false deities and bring the people back to the oneness of Allah.
Although Ibn Taymiyyah clearly stated that:
“The Shariah has been revealed to obtain all possible benefits and to prevent as much
harm as possible and reduce it if both cannot be achieved together, and to ward off the
worst of the two evils if both evils cannot be prevented.”35
This understanding should not be abused and be used as a dalīl to live a life
in accordance to ones whims and desires, we must be carful how we
approach this, as this concept does not authorise an individual to enter
another religion in an attempt to obtain some ‘benefit’.
The reality of what they are claiming, when used in the context of voting is
that; one participates in another religion, i.e. democracy to ward off the threat
of an MP who is unsympathetic to Islam and Muslims. However in reality the
35
Fatawa 23/343
51
system itself has been installed to suppress the purity of the true religion of
Islām.
Here Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the ‘Shariah’ and the foundation and core of it
is the oneness of God and the abstaining and following that which opposes
the shariah.
In the reality of today’s political arena, mainly in the west, it is inconceivable

that the maslaha can be identified and attained due to the complexity and
overwhelming variations of violations to the laws of Allāh. On one hand a
party can ‘promise’ to deliver a domestic ruling in favour of the Muslims,
under the slogan of freedom for ethnic minorities, whilst at the same time on
a global level they seek to destroy the religion of Allāh.
If we look not too far back, many Muslims who had hoped in bettering their
stay in the west casted their votes in favour for candidates such as Bush,
Obama and Blair, who as soon as they gained power initiated or continued
their war on Islām. Many of these democratic participants were driven to the
ballots by the fatāwa of scholars who claimed there was a need to choose one
who they identified to be ‘a lesser evil’.
Allāh (s.w.t) states in the Qurān:
“And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow
their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance." If
you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge,
you would have against Allah no protector or helper.”
52
These concise verses in the Qurān can not be any clearer. The reality of
democracy is that it is the millah of the west, the Jews and the Chrisitian.
Furthermore they rule by their desires as the verses categorically states, “And
if you follow their desires” which is the essence of democracy in the form of
ascribing the godhead of the land to the nation, or individuals who represent
them. Once this breach and violation of the rights of Allāh takes place, then
as he, the Most High states, “Then you (Mohammed) have no supporter or
helper from Allāh” So in terms of attaining the greater good, how can it be
possible when we turn our backs on Allāh, incurring his wrath.
Engaging in democracy, another religion is the cause of the downfall of the

Muslims, as Allāh states to his beloved messenger:
“Verily we revealed unto you (Muhammed) and those before you, that if you
ascribe partners (unto me), surely your actions will become void and in you
and surely you will be of the losers.”
This is his stern warning to all the messengers and to Muhammed s.a.w
himself. So how is that we feel confident to participate in democracy when
53
voting for a legislator is shirk in itself, let alone what occurs after that from
their evil legislations and animosity to this religion.
We saw how many hopes were raised by the defeatist scholars who
encouraged Muslims to vote for Obama and some even sent letters to
congratulate his victory in the elections, only to be deceived and stung by the
same trap. Politics more often then not is a dirty game and these enemies of
Islām seize to mislead the blind scholars and the ignorant Muslims to
empower them into the position of supreme authority in the land. Promises
were made of troop withdrawals from Iraq and the Muslims rejoiced, only to
be redeployed and reshuffled to other countries such as Afghanistan and at
the same time behind close doors they scheme and plan to destroy the final
message to mankind.
As Allāh states:
“Verily Najwā (secret council) is from the Shaytān, so that he may cause grief
to the believers.”
Without doubt, regardless of who is empowered to take full authority in the

land, they hold these secret councils to destroy this religion, as this is the
ongoing conflict between truth and falsehood.
As the Most High states:
“And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind
and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion. But if your
54
Lord had willed, they would not have done it, so leave them and that which
they invent.”
Bearing in mind the reality of democracy and how the attainment of

‘Maslaha’ is a farce, we must revisit our established principles of Tawhīd, and
ask ‘does the false hope of attaining these masālih justify empowering an
individual to legislate besides Allāh?
Also what is extremely surprising is those who call for the participation in the
democratic process fail to identify and unify the small population of Muslims
to vote for one specific legislator. If the maslaha was so apparent and the
danger so imminent, why are they failing to identify which legislator to
empower and to ensure that the Muslim votes do not counter act others? The
Muslim communities have been left with no guidance, just an open door to
participate in what is most certainly another religion.
Also scholars state that for the Muslims to engage in an illegal action to
prevent a greater one, then there has to be no other means available and if
there is then, the engaging in the sin becomes unlawful. Therefore the
guidelines have been documented and this is not the first time where people
use this ruling to engage in what there desires call them to.
Sheikh Abu Qatāda again deals with the issue of Maslaha in his interview
when he states:
55
“And whosoever sees the permissibility of entering (elections) as a maslaha in this

topic has come with something great (in magnitude) to the religion of Allāh. The
necessity of the religion takes precedence over all necessities and that’s unanimous,
and nothing takes precedence of the dīn as shātabi (RH) says…”The necessities are of
different levels and the necessity of the religion has been given precedence, placed
before any other.”36
Many of these fatāwa such as the one issued by Haytham Haddād lists many
examples of the ‘lesser of the two harms’ giving the impression that voting is
permitted due to warding off a greater harm. It’s important to be aware that
none of the examples provided are remotely similar to the reality of
committing kufr to obtain some benefit.
For some it may seem far fetched, the principle of supporting one tyrant over
the other by empowering him and supporting his manifesto, as the same as
supporting one false prophet over the other. If two men claim to be prophets
and one was a greater threat to Islām and the Muslims, can we say that
empowering one over the other is permitted as his threat is less? If supporting
one over the other by means of calling people to assist him in attaining power
is not permitted, and its totally inconceivable that anyone would regard it to
be otherwise, then in principle, supporting one tyrant over the other in the
democratic elections is the same.
The reason for this is that support for one member of parliament and
empowering him involves an individual to engage in another religion, giving
credibility to their man made ungodly system and elevating his status into a
god like one of legislating. In reality this is setting up a rival unto Allāh, so
why is it that supporting a false prophet over another is clearly recognised to
be out rightly unlawful? The Companions of the messenger s.a.w never aided
one false prophet over another, although they deemed some of them a greater
36 Refer to Mawāqafāt fy Usūl As Sharī’ah vol 1/38
56
threat than others. Some posed a more imminent threat than others, and
although their situation was dire, the thought never crossed their mind.
With regards to ‘the lesser of the two evils’ the guidelines of this ruling must
be explained and clarified to the people. The lesser of the two harms, exists in
circumstances such as an individual being coerced or unable to prevent
various harms befalling one self. For example, as the scholars in the past have
clarified, that if one is coerced to make a choice between two options, both
being harām, then the lesser of the two is chosen.
Another issue pertaining to this topic is the principle that; if one is alleviated
from this coercion then immediately he is not excused to engage in or opt for
an evil or an unlawful matter. As the principle states ‘what is permitted with an
excuse becomes false (not permitted) once the situation changes.’
Mā jāza l’uthrin batala bi zawālihi
It’s more than apparent from the latest video issued regarding voting, that
they have taken this issue as a joke and have turned what; according to them
is a situation where we are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils, in to a
comical advert. Do they really expect people to take their fatawā seriously
after issuing such a video? Do they really look like they are forced to choose
one legislator over the other? They are propagating something so serious,
calling the people to engage in another religion where the rights of the Most
High are violated, yet they come forth with such rhetoric with no Islamic legal
evidence.
Additionally there is another principle that the scholars mention which states:
If it becomes loosely used, then it becomes restricted: Itha itasa’at dāqat.
57
In fact this is what has happened, the gates for the participation in democracy
have been opened and people are entering them and when approached they
use the fatāwa of these scholars to justify their actions claiming ‘It’s the lesser
of the two evils’.
IN CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we can see that as the messenger s.a.w. stated in a narration,

reported by Abī ‘Ãsim, on the authority of Jābir bin ‘Abdillah who said:
“We were sitting with the messenger s.a.w one day when he drew a line on the
ground in front of him like so, and said “This is the path of Allāh”, he then drew a
line to his right and to his left and said “these are the paths of the Shaytān.” He then
placed his hand upon middle line and recited the verse: “And, [moreover], this is
My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] ways, for
you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may
become righteous.”
"‫ ذ " و`آ‬76 )' " 4 ‫?ق‬I2 F6J‫ا ا‬M62\ ‫[ و‬M6\ ً 2J >‫ا `?ا‬A‫وأن ه‬
‫ن‬2\ " 7M 4
Without doubt, democracy is a path of the shaytān, a path that leads to the
destruction of man, allowing him to lead a life of disobedience to his creator.
As true believers in Allāh, we have been granted the final revelation a source
of guidance and criteria between that which is right and that which is wrong.
The Quran to the true believer is a source of hope in times of hardship and a
reference in times of confusion, Allāh the all mighty states:
58
“Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous
deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth
just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish
for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He
will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship
Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that -
then those are the defiantly disobedient.”
Allāh explicitly states that he has promised to make the believers successful
and establish them in the land and that the religion he has chosen for these
people is Islām. He goes on to mention that he will change their situation
from one of fear to one of security, which is what the Muslims today are
seeking. However this will only come about when they single him out in all
worship. Upon obedience to the All-mighty can we then expect this promise
to be delivered, and as Allāh reiterates in the Qurān time after time, “For
verily Allāh does not fail to fulfil his promise.”
The biggest reason for the downfall of this ummah is the lack of attention
paid to these verses of Allāh, and when shari’ evidence is sought,
unfortunately, more often than not, the verses of Allāh are not sufficient for
many. Despite the manifest reality of democracy, and clarity of this verse,
59
people have formulated shocking opinions, which have been the cause of the
delay of Allāh’s promise.
Engaging in democracy is no short term solution, and for those who regard it
as a permanent permitted form of rule then they have most certainly
disbelieved in Allāh and that which was revealed unto Muhammed s.a.w.
Brothers and sisters in Islam; be aware of the dangers involved in these

fatāwa and safeguard your honor, your dīn and your dignity. As the
messenger s.a.w stated:
“Shirk is more hidden than a black ant creeping on a black stone in the middle of a
moonless night.”
Need more be said about such an open form of disobedience to God?
In regards to the fatāwa of those who call to the participation of the electoral
process, it has been reported in a narration:
Narrated by Darimy in his sunan on the authority of ziyaad bin hadir who said:
Umar said to me:
“Do you know what will destroy Islam?
He said
“No”
Who then said “The mistake of the Scholar is that which will destroy it, and the
argument of the hypocrite from the book and the rule of the misguided leaders.”
(Albani declares it authentic)37
37 Mishkaat al masaabih bi tahqiqihi 89/1
60
‫?ف‬M\ F‫ ل '? ه‬:‫) !? ل‬4 ‫وروى اار == ') ز!د‬
‫ب‬2 4 %=‫ال ا‬D‫" و‬M‫ "! ز* ا‬:‫ ل‬. :‫ ل‬،‫م؟‬S‫!م ا‬
u4‫ ة ا‬H] u#` [‫ إ=د‬56,‫ ل ا‬.")7P‫* ا‬.,‫و " ا‬
89/1 :#24
Also is the Hadīth of Mas’ūd (ra) on the authority of Yazīd ibn abī ziyād, on
the authority of Mujāhid, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar (ra):
“The messenger s.a.w. said: “The three things I fear most for my nation are: The
mistakes of the scholars, the argument of the Munāfiqīn by the Qurān and the
Dunyā…”
‫ ل‬:‫) '? ل‬4‫ه ') ا‬C )' ‫ ز!د‬4‫) أ‬4 !^! )' M )4 ‫د‬MJ !
‫ال‬D‫ و‬،"' *‫ ز‬:‫ث‬a 2‫& أ‬7' ‫ف‬f\‫ أ‬O‫" »أ‬7‫ و‬7' ‫& ا‬7` ‫رل ا‬
" ='‫ أ‬YW\ 5‫ ود‬،‫?ن‬4 %=
As Sha’bī states: Umar (ra) said:
“A time will be corrupted by three things; Misguided imāms (religious leaders), the
argument of the hypocrites from Qurān and the Quran is the truth, and the mistakes
of the scholars.”
،‫?ن‬4 %=‫ال ا‬D‫ و‬،‫ن‬7P *.‫ أ‬:*aa ‫ ا^ن‬JI! :?' ‫ ل‬:6MH‫ول ا‬

"M‫ وز* ا‬،% ‫وا?ن‬
As shātabi states: It is not correct to rely upon the mistakes of the scholars nor
take what they say as a result of blind following…”38
38 Al mawāqifāt li shātibiy 170-172/4
61
Bukhāri also mentions in ‘Kitab al I’tisām’ in his authenticated book: If one

exerts effort and makes ijtihād that is incorrect without knowledge then it is
rejected according to the statement of the messenger s.a.w. “Whoever acts not
in accordance to our affair (sunnah) then it is rejected.”39
Therefore, it is upon us to verify that these Islamic verdicts that are issued are
based upon Islamic principles and that they are correctly used. If not, then we
should abstain from them and openly condemn them.
Most of these fatāwa are based upon Qiyās despite the concise explicit verses
instructing man to keep away from any legislation other than Allāh’s, as well
as abstaining from that which is worshiped besides Allāh.
We ask Allāh s.w.t that he replaces our hardship and fears with security and
ease. And that he establishes his religion throughout the lands. And we also
openly declare our disapproval to you, O Allāh, of the actions of those who
participate in the elections, we ask Allāh to guide us and them, and that he
gives us all the insight to single Him out in His worship and that he pardons
all of the Muslims. Ameen
www.advice2ummah.co.uk
39 Fath al Bāri 318/13
62
63

Advice2Ummah RE - Voting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advice2Ummah RE - Voting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advice2Ummah RE - Voting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advice to the Islamic Nation Regarding Electoral Participation

ADVICE TO THE ISLAMIC NATION REGARDNG ELECTORAL

Throughout this discussion, the words parliamentary participation, electoral

PARTICIPATING IN DEMOCRACY BEING SHIRK, RARE

Firstly a shāth opinion is an irregular opinion expressed solely by the one

jurisprudence shāth opinions are disregarded. An example of this would be a

Upon seeing this assertion on an internet forum, it became upsetting to see

The understanding of an opinion being shāth is more or less straight forward,

As stated in Haytham Al-Haddad’s fatwa, he clearly recognises that man

Even the confused author of ‘To vote or not to vote’ states:

1 All About Voting

Far greater than it being impermissible, the scholars are unanimously in

He then goes on to say:

He (Yusuf) accepted a ministerial position in a government that was ruling by laws

2 To vote or not to vote

Is what these scholars who say, ‘participating in elections to be kufr’ based

3 To vote or not to vote

The kufr and shirk of Democracy is undeniable by anyone who obtains an

Even if the scholars, who declare participating in another religion such as

An argument presented by Haytham Haddād highlights how feeble and

Unfortunately it must be said; the argument is irrelevant and besides the

7 Umdat at tafsir 157/4

Although they may vary in background, general understanding and opinions,

From this list is:

Like wise Bin Bāz also states about him:

“This man Sheikh Muqbil is more knowledgeable than me muhadithan…”

Also Sheikh ‘Uthaymīn quotes:

“Sheikh Muqbil; Imām, Imām, Imām” (signifying his great status)

Additionally Ahmed An Najmy says:

He includes the statement of the Most High :

8 Qam’ Al Ma’ānid Wa Zajr Al Hāqid Al Hāsid

“We reject (kafarnā) Democracy that makes us a partner with Allāh”

“And do they seek the judgement of Jahiliyyah”11

Also Sheikh Yahya Al hajūrī states:

When asked about the ones who promote elections he answers:

“It is from the disbeliever's system of democracy.”17

Shaykh Abū Nāsr Muhammad ibn 'Abdullaah ar-Raymee al-Imām explains:

Sayid Qutb (RH) states in Dhilāl:

‫  ر‬، ‫ "  ! ن إ‬#‫ن ا‬

The concept of Hukm in Islām is on par with the concept of ritualistic

KJ ‫ ال‬,‫ ا‬Y D &7' N=  ...‫ت‬VW‫ " ا‬

[‫ّي ود‬M\‫ و‬M.‫?ا‬O‫?ّر ) د!) ا و‬#2‫ ا‬:*>‫[ ه ?!* ا! ?ا‬A‫إذًا ه‬

As for the ministers he comments about their status by saying:

، f 4 ‫م‬M‫ن ا‬W4? ،ًM D 4 ‫=ن‬d!‫ و‬5‫و‬A/g! :‫" ورخ‬7' F‫ أه‬-1

Therefore all fellow Muslims should be aware, that Democracy is in essence a

As explained by an anonymous Tunisian Sheikh in his works titled Tahdhīr

He then explicitly states:

Furthermore, another who recognises voting to be kufr is Sheikh Abū Mus’ab

Sheikh Abu ‘Umar As Sayf (As Shahīd) explains:

“Regarding general elections, which is the selection of a leader or members of

24 Risālah ilā mujāhidi Al-‘Irāq

Sheikh Mohammed Al Fazāzi, after highlighting the reality of democracy,

“It is (electoral participation) unlawful from islāmic jurisprudence (muharaman

Abu Qatāda Al Falastīnī clearly expresses his condemnation of electoral

Sheikh Ahmed Bin Mahmūd al Khālidī comments:

25 Hukm fy mashārakah fy intikhābāt majālis nayābiyyah takhlū min al mukafarāt

empower or entrust the authority of absolute legislation in agreement to the

Sheikh Feiz Mohammed also illustrates the impermissibility of elections in his

REJECTION OF FALSE DEITIES AND A BRIEF CLARIFICATION

‫ ر‬، ‫ " ! ن إ‬#‫ن ا‬

KJ ‫ ال‬,‫ ا‬YD &7' N= ...‫ت‬VW‫ " ا‬

[‫ّي ود‬M\‫ و‬M.‫?ا‬O‫?ّر ) د!) ا و‬#2‫ ا‬:>‫[ ه ?! ا!?ا‬A‫إذًا ه‬

،f4 ‫م‬M‫ن ا‬W4? ،ًMD 4 ‫=ن‬d!‫ و‬5‫و‬A/g! :‫" ورخ‬7' F‫ أه‬-1

‫ رـل ا‬K‫ـ‬M : ‫ ـل‬، =‫ ا 'ـ‬L‫? ر‬H4 )4 ‫ـن‬M=‫ ا ا‬6' 4‫') أ‬

‫آا إ& م‬#2! ‫ أرادوا أن‬،‫م‬S‫?وا ا‬y‫ ) أ‬،)=‫'* ) ا‬D :

:(184 ‫ي‬MJ‫? ا‬JI\) ‫ي‬MJ‫ ا? ) ا‬6' *M‫و ل ا‬

‫دة‬O ‫ إذ‬،‫م‬S‫ ا‬F/‫ و د‬7J ) ! " ‫ت‬VW4 ?I ! " ‫ن إذا‬J5S‫أل أن ا‬

‫م‬S‫ل ا‬/7 4 ‫!ن‬S‫ ا‬Y ‫ت‬VW4 ?I ‫?ط ا‬O 5#6 ‫ان ا‬

‫ن إن أ‬nn‫ال آ‬dnnnnnJ‫ ا‬hnnnnnn` innnnnn` ?nnnnV #!?nnnnn`، Knnnn5‫* وآ‬nnnnnnnn

‫[ او* ا ?ة‬A‫ا إ>* '? ه‬A‫ ه‬F