Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir
To the Questions of the Followers of his Facebook Page "Fiqhi"
Answer to Question
Voting for Democracy is Haram
To: Abdur Rahman Al-Umari
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
It is well known that voting for democracy is haram; however, there are many arguments that people consider, suggesting that for the following reasons, voting could be performed:
- The lesser of two evils (ahwan al-sharrayn).
- The laws of those before us (shar'u man qablana).
- Necessity permits the prohibited (al-darurat tubih al-mahzurat).
- From the objectives of Sharia (maqasid al-shari'ah): Preserving religion, life, and the wealth of Muslims.
Are these rules valid to obtain a Sharia ruling that voting is permissible or obligatory for the benefit of the Ummah?
May Allah reward you with goodness and bless you.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
My brother, we have previously answered these questions in past responses. I will quote for you the following from those previous answers:
1- Answer to a question on 2010/8/29, regarding the principle of "the lesser of two evils" or "the lighter of two harms," which stated:
["The principle of 'the lesser of two evils or the lighter of two harms.'
This is a Sharia principle for a number of jurists (fuqaha), and for the scholars who adopt it, it refers to one meaning: the permissibility of committing one of two prohibited acts, specifically the one with the lesser degree of prohibition, if the person has no choice but to perform one of the two harams, and it is impossible to leave both together; because that is impossible, i.e., entirely beyond one's capacity.
لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
"Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity." (Al-Baqarah [2]: 286)
And He (swt) said:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
"So fear Allah as much as you are able." (At-Taghabun [64]: 16)
This means that this principle, according to those who uphold it, is only applied if it is impossible to abstain from both harams, such that both cannot be avoided except by the occurrence of a greater haram; in that case, the lesser of the two harms is taken. Furthermore, these scholars do not determine the lesser of the two harms based on whim, but according to Sharia rulings...
Examples mentioned by these scholars in application of this principle include:
- If a mother's labor becomes difficult and it is impossible to save both the mother and the fetus together, and a quick decision is needed: either save the mother, which necessitates the death of the fetus, or save the fetus, which necessitates the death of the mother. If the matter is left and no action is taken to save one at the expense of the other, it may lead to the death of both. In such a case, it is said: the lesser of two evils, the lighter of two harams, or the lighter of two evils is taken, which is to proceed with the action that saves the one required to be saved, which is the mother, even if this action itself results in the death of the other... etc.
It is not an application of this principle for a person to be presented with two prohibited matters and choose the lighter one while being capable of refraining from both. This is like those who say: 'Vote for so-and-so even if he is a secularist, kafir, or fasiq,' or 'Support so-and-so and do not support the other because the first helps us and the second does not,' or similar arguments. What should be said here is that both options presented to us are prohibited. It is not permissible to elect a secularist, nor is it permissible to appoint him as a proxy or representative to express the Muslim’s opinion. This is because he does not adhere to Islam and because he performs prohibited acts that the proxy-giver is not allowed to perform, such as legislating and approving prohibited projects, and demanding or accepting prohibited things. In short, he forbids the good and enjoins the evil. Therefore, it is not permissible to elect either of them because electing this one or that one is haram. Refraining from electing both is within one’s capacity..."] End quote.
The full matter is in the answer to the aforementioned question, and you may refer to it.
2- As for the "laws of those before us," they are not a law for us. We clarified this in an answer to a question on 2014/5/3, which stated:
Answer: Yes, some scholars of the rulers (mashaykh al-salatin) use these arguments, but they are arguments that hold no weight because the evidence for ruling by what Allah has revealed is explicit, clear, definitive in its source (qati’ al-thubut), and definitive in its meaning (qati’ al-dalalah), and it is not a matter of dispute among the Imams. Ruling by what Allah has revealed is an obligation (fard). Allah (swt) says:
فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ
"So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 48)
And He (swt) says:
وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ
"And judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 49)
There are many texts to this effect. As for not ruling by what Allah has revealed and resorting to man-made laws, it is kufr if the ruler believes in it, and it is zulm (oppression) or fisq (transgression) if the ruler does not believe in it. This is mentioned in the saying of Allah (swt):
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 44)
And:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 45)
And:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 47)
As for what the scholars of the rulers use as evidence, as we said, it carries no weight...
- As for using public interest (maslahah) as evidence, this is also misplaced, and we review it as follows:
Among the scholars of Usul al-Fiqh, there are those who spoke of maslahah as an evidence, but they stipulated that there must be no command or prohibition regarding it in the Sharia. If a command or prohibition has been revealed, then the ruling of maslahah is not taken; rather, what was revealed in the Sharia is taken. None of the reputable scholars of Usul ever suggested suspending the texts revealed by revelation under the pretext that maslahah requires it.
Riba (usury/interest) is haram; Sharia prohibited it through texts brought by revelation. If interests (masalih) require it, Sharia rejects and prohibits it. If some so-called scholars issue a fatwa permitting it, their fatwa is rejected as it clashes with the Sharia brought by revelation.
The issue of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is categorically haram, like the prohibition of riba, because the texts of revelation have established that. Therefore, there is no room for the judgment of maslahah. Wherever Sharia is, there is maslahah, not the other way around.
In this discussion, we are following the scholars of Usul who were lenient and spoke of "unrestricted interests" (al-masalih al-mursalah); even according to their school of thought, there is no room to cite maslahah. Furthermore, the reality is that "unrestricted interests" do not exist; they only exist in the view of those who say that Sharia left some matters without commanding or prohibiting them, and they claimed to use maslahah in this field. The truth is that Sharia did not leave anything without clarifying its ruling; rather, it clarified the rulings of everything:
تِبْيَانًا لِّكُلِّ شَيْءٍ
"...a clarification for all things." (An-Nahl [16]: 89)
مَّا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِن شَيْءٍ
"We have not neglected in the Register a thing." (Al-An'am [6]: 38)
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 3)
- The conclusion is that participation in systems of kufr and ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is kufr if the ruler who judges by other than what Allah has revealed believes in that rule; it is zulm and fisq if the ruler who judges by other than what Allah has revealed does not believe in that rule, as per the noble verses:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 44)
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 45)
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 47)
Those who say that it is permissible for a Muslim to participate in ruling by other than what Allah has revealed have no evidence nor even a semblance of evidence (shubhat dalil), because the texts prohibiting that are definitive in their source and meaning.
I hope the answer is clear, sufficient, and healing, by the permission of Allah (swt).
4 Rajab 1435 AH - 3/5/2014 CE] End of answer.
The matter is detailed in full in the answer to that question, including the topic of Yusuf (as) and the topic of the Negus (Najashi) upon whom the Messenger ﷺ prayed the funeral prayer in absentia... You may refer to it... and it is clear from it that it does not apply to the permissibility of democratic elections and their tasks in man-made legislation and placing trust in the rule of kufr... etc.
For your information, the "objectives of Sharia" (maqasid al-shari'ah) that you asked about are interpreted by some in a way that achieves interest (maslahah)... and they make them the legal cause ('illah) for rulings. Thus, if there is a benefit in a matter according to their estimation, that matter becomes permissible. This is incorrect... The objectives of Allah in the rulings, through which He clarified His goal in legislating them, are the wisdoms (hikam) of Allah behind these rulings and not their legal causes ('ilal). Therefore, no analogy (qiyas) can be made upon them, nor upon the meanings contained within them. They are specific to each ruling individually and do not transcend it. They may or may not be achieved, and they have no connection to the Sharia 'ilal (legal causes) or to qiyas (analogy); rather, they are the wisdom of Allah for the ruling.
*This research has been detailed in the book The Islamic Personality (Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah), Volume 3 – Chapter: Maqasid al-Shari’ah – Bringing Benefits and Warding off Harms, where it is stated:*
(...As for the first group that considered 'bringing benefits and warding off harms' as a Sharia 'illah (legal cause) for the Islamic Sharia as a whole, and a Sharia 'illah for every specific Sharia ruling, and stipulated for every specific ruling that Sharia evidence must point to the maslahah. To this group, the answer is that considering 'bringing benefits and warding off harms' as an 'illah must be either indicated by the intellect or by the Sharia. If indicated by the intellect, it has no value and no weight...
Accordingly, considering 'bringing benefits and warding off harms' as an 'illah indicated by the intellect is a false consideration and has no value. It is necessary that this consideration to make it an 'illah comes from the Sharia side, not from the intellect, especially since the 'illah is specifically the Sharia 'illah, and not just any cause.
As for their citation of the Quran, Hadith, and Ijma' (consensus) to prove that 'bringing benefits and warding off harms' is an 'illah, it is also a false citation. Regarding the Quran and Hadith, the verses they cited do not indicate causality ('illiyyah), neither in form nor in reality. They cited the saying of Allah (swt):
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ
"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds." (Al-Anbiya [21]: 107)
And His saying:
وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ
"...but My mercy encompasses all things." (Al-A'raf [7]: 156)
And the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: "There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm" (narrated by Al-Hakim). These have no indication for their claim.
They do not indicate that 'bringing benefits and warding off harms' is an 'illah for Sharia rulings; rather, the most they indicate is the negation of harms from the Islamic Sharia as a whole. This does not mean causality ('illiyyah) for the Sharia, nor for any specific ruling within it, due to the lack of causality in this negation of harm alone. Thus, it is not the 'illah for the legislation of the Sharia as a whole, nor the 'illah for any specific ruling of the Sharia.
Therefore, the texts of the Quran and Hadith, even if they indicate that the result obtained from the Sharia is the bringing of benefits and warding off harms, do not indicate that bringing benefits and warding off harms is the 'illah for the legislation of the Sharia, nor the 'illah for every specific Sharia ruling; thus, using them as evidence fails.
As for the consensus (Ijma') they claim, they say it is the consensus of the Imams of Fiqh. This has no value because the consensus that is considered a Sharia evidence is the Ijma' of the Sahaba and none other; therefore, the consensus they cite is not considered evidence...
Consequently, there is no maslahah whose consideration is indicated by the Sharia as a whole, neither by general texts, nor by a group of texts, nor by the entirety of the Sharia. Thus, considering maslahah as a Sharia 'illah is a fundamentally false matter, as there is no maslahah in Sharia considered an 'illah for legislation—neither a Sharia maslahah nor a non-Sharia maslahah...)
The research is complete in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3. If you want more detail, refer to it...
3- As for "necessities permit the prohibited" or the forbidden, we have previously answered that on 2016/1/26, which stated:
("Some scholars took the principle 'necessities permit the prohibited.' Those who held this principle cited evidence such as the saying of Allah (swt) in verse 173 of Surah Al-Baqarah:
إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ ۖ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
'He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.' (Al-Baqarah [2]: 173)
And the saying of Allah (swt) in verse 3 of Surah Al-Ma'idah:
فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
'...But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.' (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 3)
And the saying of Allah (swt) in verse 115 of Surah An-Nahl:
إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۖ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
'He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.' (An-Nahl [16]: 115)
The observer of this principle will find that it is incorrect:
The evidence presented by those who hold this principle does not indicate what they concluded. Rather, the extent of what it indicates is that it is permissible in a state of necessity to eat from dead meat and its like due to hunger:
فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ
'...But whoever is forced by severe hunger...' (Al-Ma’idah [5]: 3)
Makhmashah is hunger and starvation nearing death... at that point, it is permissible for him to eat from the haram... and necessity (* اضطرار - idtirar*), as is clear in the verse, is restricted to starvation (nearing death) and does not go beyond it. The wording is not general or absolute so as to extend its meaning; rather, it is restricted to starvation...
Accordingly, this principle is incorrect in its general application as phrased by those who hold it. The correct view indicated by the evidence relied upon by the proponents of this principle is that a Muslim is granted a concession (rukhsah) to eat or drink what Allah has prohibited from forbidden foods in a state of necessity, and it does not indicate anything else. A concession during necessity in other cases requires other evidence.
It is worth noting that this principle has become, in our era, a crutch to permit every prohibited thing by making the word 'necessity' (darurat) a loose term under which many matters are included according to their interpretation of necessity as they see it, until falling into haram in the name of necessity has become frequent!...
16 Rabi' al-Akhir 1437 AH - 26/01/2016 CE]
The matter is detailed in full in the answer to the question... you may refer to it... and it is clear from it that it does not apply to the permissibility of the current democratic elections and their tasks in man-made legislation and placing trust in the rule of kufr... etc.
4- We also answered on 2016/02/03 and on 2022/6/19 regarding the ruling on participating in elections in detail. You can refer to the mentioned answers, as they contain sufficiency. Allah knows best and is most wise.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
18 Dhu al-Qi'dah 1445 AH Corresponding to 2024/05/26 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's page (may Allah protect him) on: Facebook