Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Clarifying the meaning of Dar al-Kufr & Dar al-Islam


Today it is unfortunate that the Islamic concepts, definitions and terminologies which were well known by the Muslims in the past have become vague at the least and distorted or totally absent at the worst. One such issue is the subject of Dar al-Kufr (land of disbelief) and Dar al-Islam (land of Islam).

Understanding the distinction between the two is vital when it comes to judging the countries in the Muslim world. Sadly, some judge the Muslim countries from emotional point of view rather than seeing whether they match the definition of Dar al-Islam contained in the Shariah. So when Hassan al-Turabi came to power in Sudan, some exclaimed that it was an Islamic state even though Sudan was still a nation state or when the Iranian revolution took place and Ayatollah Khomeni became the leader of Iran, some jumped with joy believing that he has transferred it from Dar al-Kufr into Dar al-Islam even though the constitution completely contradicted Islam. Even many leading personalities amongst the Muslims and even Islamic movements have a vagueness in understanding the criteria of what determines an Islamic state (Dar al-Islam), a matter that testifies to the intellectual decline of the Ummah. Unfortunately even some who claim to be working for the re-establishment of Khilafah, do not have a clear and crystallised idea of what the reality of Dar al-Islam and the Khilafah is. This demonstrates that the ‘Khilafah’ is used as a slogan by some rather than a serious objective which they are practically working to achieve. Claiming to be working for the re-establishment of Dar al-Islam without knowing its reality clearly is tantamount to claiming to be one who will pray Salah without knowing its pillars (arkan) and conditions (shuroot). Worse still are some who shy away from calling all the corrupt regimes of the Muslim world today as Dar al-Kufr and we have even those who will not term a country like India whose rulers are Kafir (disbelievers) with this label.

Thus it is important for the definition, meaning and evidences for Dar al-Islam and its distinction from Dar al-Kufr to be clarified.

Definition
The “dar” (pl. diyaar) in the Arabic language has numerous meaning such as the halting place (mahallu), the house, abode, residence and the land (balad).

According to Shariah terminology, Dar al-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.

So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security. So if its laws are Islamic and its security is maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Islam. When its laws are the laws of Kufr (disbelief) and its security is not maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Kufr. The term Dar al-Harb (land of war) is synonymous with Dar al-Kufr as in origin the aim of Islam to spread to all lands until it the Islamic state encompasses the whole globe. However there is a difference between those nations which are considered as Dar al-Harb Fi’lan (actual land of war) like the state of Israel which occupies Islamic land and Dar al-Harb Hukman (potential land of war) which include other states which are not occupying Islamic land or engaged with a direct war against our lands. These definitions have been derived from the Islamic evidences and discussed by the Ulema (scholars) in history.

Evidences
The word ‘Dar’ has been used in the sayings of the Prophet (saw) and by his (saw) Companions to mean the domain, or the Islamic State when used in relation to the Muslims and the domain where the Kuffar have the authority when used for the disbelievers.

It is reported on the authority of Sulayman bin Buraydah that his father said, “Yaazid Bin Hussaib Al-Aslami reported that, "Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army...He would say...When you meet your enemies from the polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and restrain yourself from doing them harm. Invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it and desist from fighting. Then invite them to migrate from their Dar to the Dar of the Muhajireen (emigrants) and inform them if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse, tell them they will have the status of the Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims...'"” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294]

What does this Hadith indicate? It is that if they did not move from their land to the land of the Muhajireen they would not enjoy what the Muhajireen enjoy, i.e. the rights of those who are living in the land of Islam. So this Hadith clearly shows the difference between those who move to the land of the Muhajireen and those who do not move to the land of the Muhajireen. Dar al-Muhajireen was the land of Islam at the time of the Prophet (saw), and all other lands outside were Dar al-Kufr.

It is clear then that the identification of the ‘Dar’ (land) is determined through the identification of its Sultan (authority). This authority cannot be verified except on two issues:

Firstly: Looking after the interests of the people according to certain laws;
Secondly: the power which protects the citizens and implements the laws, i.e. the Aman (security).

This is why the two previous conditions were required. Furthermore the application of the law has other evidences. Allah (swt) says:

“Those who do not govern with what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” [Al- Mai’dah: 44]

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr upon which we had a proof from Allah. And it was also narrated by Tabarani. He said: “Unless you see open Kufr.”

So these texts indicate that to rule with anything other than the laws of Allah (saw) is a matter that makes it obligatory upon Muslims to declare war against the Khalifah and it is an evidence which indicates that implementing Islam is a condition for having Dar al-Islam, otherwise the ruler must be fought against.

The security (Aman) has to be with the security of Islam, i.e. the authority of Muslims. The evidence for this comes from the saying of Allah (swt), “Allah will not allow the disbelievers to have an authority over the believers.” [TMQ An- Nisa: 141] i.e. it is not allowed for the disbelievers to have authority (Sultan) over the believers, because giving them authority means that the security of Muslims is in the hands of Kufr and not in the hands of Islam.

Furthermore, the Prophet (saw) used to order the invasion of every land which did not submit to the Sultan of Muslims, and he used to engage in war against them whether the inhabitants were Muslim or non-Muslim. Anas narrated that: “Wherever the Prophet (saw) raided some people he would not raid except in the morning. If he heard the Adhan he would refrain, and if he did not he would invade after dawn”.

And it was narrated by Essam Almusny, who said: “The Prophet (saw) used to tell to the expeditions that he sent: ‘If you` have seen a mosque or heard a call for prayer, then do not kill anybody.’” The Adhan and the mosque are considered symbols of Islam, a matter which indicates that if the land is inhabited by Muslims this does not prevent it from being invaded and fought against as an act of war, but the important factor is that its people will not be killed, yet it will be invaded. This means that it is considered Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Kufr because, though the symbols or rituals of Islam are present, it is not protected by the authority of the Prophet (saw), i.e. the authority and security of Islam. So it would be considered Dar al-Harb (land of war), and like any land defined as Dar al-Harb it would be invaded.

It should be clear that whether the population of the land is majority Muslim or not irrelevant in terms of considering it Dar al-Islam as long as the authority lies with the Muslims.

It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari regarding the city of Khaybar in the Arabian Peninsula. Khaybar at the time of the Islamic State in Medina was known as Dar al-Islam even though all of its inhabitants were Jews. When the Prophet (saw) conquered Khaybar in 7 AH (after Hijrah), and the Messenger consented for them to cultivate their own crops, all of them (i.e. the inhabitants) were Jews. The Prophet (saw) said to them that he had been sent to harvest (i.e. reap the rewards) and not to cultivate. He (saw) subsequently appointed for them governors from the Ansaar (i.e. Muslims), and they lived amongst them (i.e. the Jews).

Al-Bukhari relates on the authority of Ibn Omar (ra), “Omar bin Khattab (ra) expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah’s Apostle had conquered Khaybar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labour and get half of the fruits. Allah’s Apostle told them, ‘We will let you stay on this condition, as long as we wish.’ So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until Omar forced them to go towards Taima’ and Ariha’.” [Sahih Bukhari, Hadith no. 2213]

And also on the authority of Abu Hurayra (ra) and Abu Sa’eed al- Khudri, “The Prophet (saw) appointed a man as the ruler of Khaybar who later brought some Janib (i.e. dates of good quality) to the Prophet. On that, the Prophet (saw) said (to him). ‘Are all the dates of Khaybar like this?’ He said, ‘No, by Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! But we take one Sa of these (dates of good quality) for two or three Sa’s of other dates (of inferior quality).’ On that, Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Do not do so, but first sell the inferior quality dates for money and then with that money, buy Janib.’ Abu Sa`id and Abu Hurayra said, ‘The Prophet made the brother of Bani Adi from the Ansar as the ruler of Khaybar.’” [Sahih Bukhari, Hadith no. 4001]

Dar al-Kufr & Dar al-Islam according to the Sahaba (companions)
It is recorded in Sahih Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Abbas that once when Abdul Rahman bin ‘Awf was speaking with Omar Bin Al-Khattab (ra) (who was the Khaleefah at the time) he said,

“Do not be harsh on them (speaking about some of the Hujaaj) until they return to Madinah, which is Dar al-Hijrah, Dar al-Sunnah and Dar ul-Salaama.” [Sahih Bukhari Hadith no. 3713]

Jaabir bin Ziyaad reported that Ibn Abbas (ra) said, “The Prophet (saw), Abu Bakr and Omar (ra) where from the Muhajireen because they migrated from the Mushrikeen. Amongst the Ansaar were also people who migrated because at that time Madinah was Dar ul-Shirk and they came to the Prophet (saw) on the night of the Bay’ah al-Aqabah.” [an-Nisa’i]

It is recorded in Abu Ubaid’s Kitaab al-Amwaal, and Abu Yusuf’s Kitaab al-Kharaaj, that Khalid Bin Waleed (ra) wrote a letter to the people of Hirah (a place close to Bahrain) and he said, I write this to you: if any of you become old, poor or ill or his people have to donate to maintain his livelihood I will never ask Jizya (tax) of him. He will also receive a grant from the Bait ul-Maal (Treasury of the Islamic state). He and his children will be entitled to this as long as he resides in Dar ul-Hijrah and Dar al-Islam. If they go out (from this jurisdiction) then the Muslims are no longer obliged to provide anything for them.” [Abu Ubaid, Kitaab al-Amwaal, pg. 98 & Abu Yusuf, Kitaab al-Kharaaj, pgs. 155-156]

Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr According to the Ulema
It is reported that Imaam Al-Kasaani (died 587 AH) said, “There is no disagreement among the ahnaaf (scholars of the Hanafi Madhab), that Dar al-Kufr becomes Dar al-Islam, when the rules of Islam becomes dominant. Our brothers only dispute on how Dar al-Islam transfers to become Dar al-Kufr. Our Imam (Abu Haneefah) said, ‘Dar al-Islam becomes Dar al-Kufr in three (situations); when the law and order becomes Kufr, when the state has a border with a Kufr (state) without treaty or when there is no longer any security for the Muslim or the Dhimmi (citizens).’” [Bada’ us-Sanaai’, Vol. 7 pg. 131]

It is reported that Imaam Al-Sarkhasi (died 483 AH) said, “A Dar (piece of land/nation) becomes Dar al-Muslimeen (Islamic nation) when the Islamic rules become dominant (and apparent).” [Sarkhasi, Sharh as-Seerah al-Kabeer, Vol. 5 pg. 2197]

Qadi Abu Ya’la (died 458 AH) said, “Any country where the law is Kufr (disbelief) instead of Islam is Dar al-Kufr.” [al-Mu’atamad fil Usul ad-Deen pg. 276]

Ibn Qayyim’s (died 751 AH) said, “The Jumhour (majority) of the ‘Ulema say, ‘Dar al-Islam is where the Muslims go and reside and the Islamic rules are dominant. If people (the Muslims) reside in one place and Islam becomes dominant, that is Dar al-Islam If however, Islam does not become dominant it is not (considered) Dar al-Islam even if it is in close proximity to the state. Taa’if was so close to Makkah (at the time when Makkah was Dar al-Islam) but it did not become part of Dar al-Islam until it was conquered.’” [Ibn Qayyim, Kitaab Ahkaam ahl al-Dhimmah, Vol. 1 pg. 366]

It is reported that Ibn Muflih (died 884 AH) said, “There are only two, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. Any Dar (domain) where Islamic law is dominant is Dar al-Islam, and any domain where Kufr law is dominant is Dar al-Kufr, there are only these two camps.” [Al-Adaab al-Shari’ah, Vol. 1 pg. 190]

Imaam Mardawi (died 885 AH) said, “Dar al-Harb is Dar al-Kufr, where Kufr law is dominant.” [al-Insaaf, Vol. 4 pg. 122]

Mohammad bin Ali al-Shawkani (died.1255 AH) said, “When we speak about a Dar (dominion) by whoever’s word being dominant, we mean if the command and prohibition is for the Muslims, in a way that no one from the Kuffar becomes dominant with his Kufr except by what is granted him from Islam, then that is considered Dar ul- Islam.” [al-Sayl Jaraar, Vol. 1 pg. 576]

In his work, ‘In the Shade of the Qur’an’, the martyr (died 1966 CE) Sayyid Qutb said, “The whole world in the eyes of Islam is divided into two, the first is Dar al-Islam, and the second is Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is where the Shari’ah of Islam alone is implemented, regardless of whether the inhabitants are all Muslims or Muslims mixed with Dhimmi (Jews and Christians) or if all of the citizens are Dhimmi with only some Muslims in power. Dar al-Harb is any land where the Kufr law is dominant even if everybody in the land is Muslim. [Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. 2 pg. 874]

The honourable scholar Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani (died 1977 CE) said, “The truth is that in considering the land as Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr, two matters must be looked into: firstly, the rule by Islam and secondly the security by the security of Muslims i.e. by their authority (sultan). If the land augments these two elements i.e. it rules by Islam and the security is by the security of Muslims i.e. by their authority, then it becomes a Dar al-Islam and changes from a Dar al-Kufr to a Dar al-Islam. Whereas if it loses one of the two, it does not become a Dar al-Islam. Similarly if Dar al-Islam does not rule by the rule of Islam then it is Dar al-Kufr. The same if it rules by Islam but its security is not by the security of Muslims i.e. their authority, then it also becomes Dar al-Kufr. Hence all the lands of Muslims today are Dar al-Kufr because they do not rule by Islam.” [Shaksiyyah Islamiyya, Volume 2, pg. 249]

Conclusion
Today it is clear that the whole world is Dar al-Kufr as no country including every single Muslim country implements Islam. We see the laws of Allah (swt) abandoned as if they were worth nothing, the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) betrayed and the example of the Sahaba ignored by the rulers of our countries. It is as Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, "The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

Today we have no Imam (Khalifah) who rules by what is contained in the Quran and Sunnah, who acts as a shield to protect the Ummah whose duty it would be to protect the Muslims of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and countless other places where the Muslim blood flows.

Therefore it is paramount for us to work to re-establish Dar al-Islam, the Islamic Khilafah state through emulating the non-violent methodology of the Prophet (saw) in how he transferred Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam and in the pursuit of this it is inevitable that we will be tried and tested.

At-Tabarani upon the authority of Mua’dh bin Jabal (ra) that the Prophet (saw) said, “‘Verily the Grinder of Islam will continue to grind, so continue with the Qur’an wherever it moves (i.e. stick to the Qur’an). Verily the Qur’an and the authority (of Islam) will be separated from each other, do not leave the Qur’an. There will be rulers amongst you, who will allow for themselves things which they will prevent for you. If you disobey them then they will kill you. If you obey them they will misguide you.’ They (as-Sahabah) asked, ‘What do we do in such a situation?’ He (saw) said, ‘Do as the apostles of Isa ibn Maryam (as) did; they were cut by saws and hung upon wood. Being killed in obedience to Allaah (swt) is better than a life of sin.’” [at-Tabarani, Mu’jam al-Kabeer]

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi

O Muslims: The Prophet (PBUH) has Approved the Type of the Flag and the Banner in Islam; Follow Him and you will Succeed



لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ
"You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much."
(Al-Ahzab: 21)
The Islamic State has a flag (Alam); whether it is a Liwaa' or Rayah, as deduced from the flags (Alwiyah) and banners (Rayat) of the first Islamic State, which the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in al-Medina al-Munawwarah. The flag (Liwaa) is white, on which it is written "La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah" with black script. It is tied to the leader (Amir) of the army and is used as a sign ('alam) to him. The evidence for this is what was narrated by Ibn Majah:
«أن النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دخل مكة يوم الفتح ولواؤه أبيض»
"That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم entered Makkah on the day of its conquest while raising a white flag."
Al-Nasaa'i also narrated that:
«أنه صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حين أمَّر أسامة بن زيد على الجيش ليغزو الروم عقد لواءه بيده»
"When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed Usama ibn Zayd as amir to the army for invading the Romans, he tied his flag with his own hands".
The banner (Rayah) is black, on which it is written "La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah" with white script. It is carried by the leaders of the army divisions, battalions, detachments, and other army units. The evidence for this is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, while being the leader of the army in Khaybar, he said:
«لأعطين الراية غداً رجلاً يحب الله ورسوله، ويحبه الله ورسوله، فأعطاها علياً»
"I will give the Raya tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him; and he gave it to Ali." (Hadith is agreed upon)
Thus, Ali, may Allah bless him, was considered then a leader of a division or a battalion in the Army. As for the evidence for the color, it is narrated by al-Tirmidhi, that Albaraa ibn 'Aazib said when he was asked about the banner of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم:
«كَانَتْ سَوْدَاءَ مُرَبَّعَةً مِنْ نَمِرَةٍ»
"It was black squared from Namira".
It is spread amongst the soldiers and the people when the soldiers return back victorious. The evidence for that is narrated by Bukhari in the Great History "At-Tareekh Al-Kabeer" who said Abu Bakr told me, said Thana Salam Bin Sulaiman Abu Mundhir told me Asim Abu Wael from Al-Harith ibn Hassan ibn Kaladah Al-Bakri said:
«دَخَلْتُ الْمَسْجِدَ فَرَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَائِمًا عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ يَخْطُبُ وَفُلانٌ قَائِمٌ مُتَقَلِّدٌ السَّيْفَ فَإِذَا رَايَاتٌ سُودٌ تَخْفِقُ! قُلْتُ: مَا هَذَا؟ قالوا: عَمْرُو بْنُ الْعَاصِ قَدِمَ مِنْ جَيْشِ ذَاتِ السَّلاسِلِ»
"We came to Medina and we saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم on the Mimbar, with someone standing in front of him wearing his sword. There were black banners (rayaat) in front of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. I asked 'what are these banners?' They said, 'It is Amr ibn al-Aas who has just arrived from an expedition".
They had returned victorious and the banners were many to celebrate the victory...
Moreover, the adoption of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of a black banner which he tied it to the brigades and a white flag which he tied it to the armies' leaders is an act of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that we must follow his example. It is not exceptional to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, because just as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم entered Makkah with the flag (Liwaa), he also tied a flag to Osama, and also recognized the banner (Rayah) of Jafar and his brothers in Mu'ta. The Messenger Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said mourning to the people the death of Zayd, Ja'far and Ibn Ruwahah before the soldiers brought the news
«أَخَذَ الرَّايَةَ زَيْدٌ فَأُصِيبَ، ثُمَّ أَخَذَهَا جَعْفَرٌ فَأُصِيبَ، ثُمَّ أَخَذَهَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَوَاحَةَ فَأُصِيبَ»
"Zayd took the banner (raya) but he was hit; and then Ja'far took it and he was hit; and then Ibn Ruwahah took it and he was hit" (Reported by Bukhari from Anas ibn Malik (ra)).
The banner is of great significance in Islam, it was taken as a motto of Muslims to gather under it, and by it their ranks are distinguished. It is chosen for it the brave forefront in their people and in the army to keep it lifted apparent for the people to see it, and if it falls they lift it and show extreme courage to prevent it falling, as the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, did in Mu'ta...
This is in regards to the flag and banner in the era of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and by his approval. Muslims should follow the example of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and make this flag their flag, and this banner their banner in the Islamic State, the Khilafah Rashidah that they will establish soon, Allah willing, and if they do not follow the example of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم there will be sedition (Fitnah)... And this is what is perceived and evident in the torn Ummah's body; as a result of multiple flags for the ripped states and factions!
This is the approved official flag of the state in Islam, as well as its banner... This is what is tied to the army leaders, lifted by the leaders in the wars and spread out amongst the soldiers... It is raised in the state institutions and departments... and is spread out amongst people in their festivals and in victory processions... This is the banner and the flag of the Islamic State following the example of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.
As to the fact that some tribes used to take a flag with a special color in their wars to distinguish themselves, this is permissible. For example in war, the army of al-Sham can take a flag with a different color in addition to the black flag, and the army of Egypt can take also a flag with a different color in addition to the black flag... And this is from the permissible (Mubah). It was narrated in at-Tabarani in al-Kabeer on authority of Mazeeda al-Abdi' saying
«إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَاتِ الْأَنْصَارِ فَجَعَلَهُنَّ صُفَرًا»
"The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has knotted the flags of al-Ansar and made them yellow."
And it was narrated from Ibn Abi Asem in al-Aahad and al-Mathani on the authority of Kurz bin Sama who said:
«...وَإِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَةَ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ حَمْرَاءَ»
"....And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم knotted the flag of Bani Suleim red".
So this is from the permissible (mubah). Army brigades nowadays use badges to differentiate themselves other than the official flag of the state, and it is permissible also to differentiate the armies by their names, as if numbering each army of its armies, so it is called: the first army, the third army for example, or naming it by its wilayah from the wilayat, or a province from its provinces, so it is called: Al-Sham Army or the Aleppo Army for example, and it is permissible for these divisions to have a special flag that distinguishes them administratively, raised in addition to the state's flag.
Thus, the banner of the Islamic state has specific descriptions, which is the legitimate (Shari') banner, which under which Dar al-Islam is sheltered, and by which the armies of Islam are shielded, so you escape from the death of ignorance that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم described in his Hadith which was narrated by Muslim:
«... وَمَنْ قَاتلَ تَحْتَ رَايَةٍ عِمِّيَّةٍ، يَغْضَبُ لِعَصَبَةٍ، أو يَدْعُو إِلى عَصبَةٍ، أو يَنْصُرُ عَصَبَة، فَقُتِلَ فَقِتْلَةٌ جَاهِليَّةٌ»
"...and whoever is killed while under a banner of ignorance, getting angry for the sake of tribalism or fighting for the sake of tribalism or calling to tribalism then his death is that of jahiliyya".
In this case, he صلى الله عليه وسلم called it the banner of ignorance (Amiyah), "from the word "Ta'miyah" meaning blinding, which is disguising and is interpreted as misguiding (Dhalal)". The rest of the Hadith interpreted it as the one fighting for the sake of tribalism, without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening Book, for people or for a class or a tyrant or any issue other than for Allah, like the fighting of ignorance. Or fighting not in order to support the Deen and establish the rule of Allah or for Jihad to uphold the word of Allah, but fighting under the banner of ignorance as the Hadith mentioned, and then if he is killed, then his death is that of Jahiliyya. This Hadith had related the banner to the meaning and not to the form only. What supports this meaning is what came of the meaning of the flag as the purpose for the fighting. It was narrated from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the Romans, where he said:
«... هُدْنَةٌ تَكُونُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ بَنِي الأَصْفَرِ، فَيَغْدِرُونَ فَيَأْتُونَكُمْ تَحْتَ ثَمَانِينَ غَايَةً»
"....a treaty will be between you and the Romans, then they will betray you and march against you with eighty aims....", i.e. eighty banners. Hence the flag carries the idea and the purpose of which the fighting is for.
It is well known that states usually adopt flags to symbolize them and include slogans, drawings or words expressing their ideas and beliefs. They give them a kind of sanctity, and request from their citizens to have the symbol of loyalty to their homeland as their loyalty symbol. This is one of the international norms. From this aspect, the wrath of the West and their agents, the rulers of the damage, were provoked when the Muslims in Syria Ash-Sham adopted the flag; "Rayah or Liwaa", of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Some scholars embarked on issuing Fatwa to some factions on the doctrine of the rulers that it is permissible to take any form of banner or flag, and not necessary to commit to the banner of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that it can be multiple. Thus, they were justifying for them to take the flags of Sykes-Picot, "Al-Amiaya" (ignorance), that was developed by the French and the British to entrench the concept of nationalism. So they made for each country of the Islamic countries a flag to be symbolized by. Thus these flags became a symbol of fragmentation and division, and a substitute for Al-Okab; the banner of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. As these Kaffir colonists, the enemies of Islam have asked their agents, the Muslim rulers, to maintain the banners of division; because they know that the loyalty of these flags mean loyalty to the Kaffir colonists. And since the flag is a symbol of what it is put for; they are particularly keen to ensure that they are not touched except by their will. Thus, the fundamental problem with the West is that it rejects the Islamic flag; because it means that it was the flag of the State of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and because of it is afraid that it will be the flag of the promised Khilafah Rashidah State which brings together Muslims under its rule. The root of the problem with these scholars is that their thought was not built on dissociation (Bara) from these rulers, and missed their minds that the Khilafah State is a state that gathers Muslims under its presidency, and where loyalty is to Allah alone...
O Muslims: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has taken for the first Islamic State a banner and flag with clear and specific descriptions indicated by the text, and that Hizb ut Tahrir invites you to follow the example of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم so that you would succeed...
فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
"Those who oppose his command should beware of a testing trial coming to them or a painful punishment striking them."
(An-Nur: 63)

A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing-Democracy and Shura-Refute Democracy



The slogan ”Islamic democracy” has been coined and attributed to Umar ibnul Khattab (ra), the second Khaleefah, and even to Muhammad (saw). It is said that consultation, or ”Shura,” is a fundamental aspect of Islamic governance, and that it is, in reality, democratic. However, those who describe democracy as being Shura, have dressed the proverbial ”wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Once some light has been cast onto the reality of Shura and democracy, the wolf will be unmasked. Firstly, let us look at the similarities.Similarities between Shura and DemocracyDemocracy entails ruling by the majority opinion. This is in terms of legislation through the parliament and the execution of ruling through a government, which acts (in theory at least) for the majority.

Shura is the verbal noun of the verb ‘’shawara,” or consulted. It means seeking an opinion from the one who is consulted. The Khaleefah or any lawful authority can undertake the Shura. Allah (swt) said to His Prophet (saw) in the Qur’an:

”And do consult them in the matter…” [ Ale-Imran: 159].

Abu Hurairah (ra) said, ”I have not seen anyone more willing to consult others then the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the consultation of his companions.”

Both Shura and democracy involve seeking an opinion from people. This is the only similarity.Can we now say that democracy is Shura ? Could we even say that democracy is Islamic? The answer to both these questions is no. If the wolf has four legs just like the sheep, then are they the same? If the wolf is a warm-blooded mammal like the sheep, should they be kept together? Again, the answer is no! The wolf pup goes to its own mother for milk. Now imagine a newborn lamb that also drinks milk. Would it be wise to view any source of milk as its loving mother? The wolf and the sheep are proof that a similarity between any two things does not prove that these two things are the same.

To say that democracy is Shura, or that it is not Shura, requires a comprehensive understanding of both realities. Then we can see if they are indeed the same. We will see, in fact, that they differ in some fundamental issues. The differences are of such a nature that for the Muslims to drink from the milk of democracy would entail deviation from Islam.

In democracy, the majority opinion is always binding. However, in reality, opinions are of three types. Islam’s verdict on Shura is different for each of these three types of opinion.

1) Shura is never considered in matters of legislation.

2) The expert opinion is taken, regardless of the majority or minority, in matters where an intellectual judgement is required about some subject.

3) The majority opinion is taken for matters of action only.

Let us examine the first point:

1) Shura is never considered in matters of legislation.

The opinions of people hold no value in the matters of halal and haram because it is Allah (swt) who has decided these matters for us in the Book and the Sunnah. Allah (swt) warned about deviation from His Book:”Therefore fear not men but fear me and sell not my verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers” [ Al-Ma'idah: 44].

The ruler is specifically warned not to follow people’s opinions in matters of revelation:”Rule between them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires” [ Al-Ma'idah: 49].

Democracy is built upon following man’s vain desires, without any restriction from the Creator. Democracy gives man the right to decide that sodomy is a crime, or that it is a respectable activity that our children should be encouraged to respect and practice. Democracy, therefore, is not simply a Western name for the Islamic principle of Shura!

The Prophet (saw) clearly refused to consider the people sovereign. On one occasion, the noble Sahabah were concerned about the treaty of Hudaybiyah, before Allah’s (swt) word on the matter had been clarified to them. They expressed their opinions very strongly to the Prophet (saw), because they thought that this treaty would humiliate the Muslims. Nevertheless, he (saw) rejected the opinions of all the Sahabah in order to sign the treaty of Hudaybiyah in obedience to the command of Allah (swt).

Sometimes the Khaleefah may not be certain what Allah’s (swt) rule is on a matter, and Ijtihad may be required. In such a situation, the Khaleefah may consult people of knowledge. This type of consultation is considered next.

2) The expert opinion is taken, regardless of the majority or minority, in matters where an intellectual judgement is required about some subject.

Umar b. Al-Khattab (ra) consulted the Muslims regarding the newly conquered lands of Iraq, whether they should be divided amongst the Muslims as booty, or left in the hands of its people subject to payment of Kharaj. Bilal (ra), Abdur Rahman (ra) and Az-Zubayr (ra) thought that the land should be divided in the same way that the Prophet (saw) divided the land of Khaybar as booty. Umar, however, made Ijtihad upon some ayat in Surah al Hashr to deduce that the land should be Kharaji land. Once Umar heard the views and was convinced with his own Ijtihad in preference to that of the majority, he rejected all other opinions and followed his own expert understanding of the text. During Umar’s Khilafah, he consulted the Sahabah on many issues related to understanding the rules of Islam for new situations, and he adopted the strongest opinion and never the majority opinion. The general consensus of the Sahabah upon this makes it clear that the Khaleefah can consult until he finds the strongest opinion. It is the Khaleefah who decides which is correct and no one else.

The Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert, Habab bin Munthir (ra), over the selection of the place of the Battle of Badr. It was narrated in the Seerah of Ibnu Hisham that, ”when he (saw) camped at the near side of the water of Badr, Al-Habab b. Al-Munthir was not happy with this place. He said to the Messenger (saw), ‘O Messenger of Allah! Did Allah make you camp in this place where we can’t depart from it, or is it the opinion of war and strategy?’ He (saw) said, ‘It is rather the opinion of war and strategy.’ Al Habab b. al-Munthir said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the (right) place. Move the people till we come to the side of the water near to the people (enemy), we camp there..’ The Messenger (saw) said, ‘You gave the right opinion.”’ Here, the Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert without asking for the majority view.

When a correct judgement on a subject, whether technical or Shari’ah, is required it is the correct opinion and not the majority that is followed. Only one man, the Khaleefah, has the right to decide which is correct. The ayah of consultation continues:

”…When you decided (azamta), put your trust in Allah” [ Al-'Imran: 159].

This indicates that the final decision is with ruler and not with the people. This is because the verb ”to decide” used in the text is ”azamta” which means you (singular) decided. If the decision had been for the people then the verb would have been in the form ”azamtum” meaning you (plural). Again, it is seen that Shura and democracy are not the same.

3) The majority opinion is taken for matters of action only.

There are many choices the Khaleefah can make between actions that are Mubah (permissible). To invest in schools or hospitals, to appoint this man or that man, to build a motorway through cornfields on the east side of a town or to build it through pastureland to the west, are some examples. It is natural for people to differ when faced with a simple choice between two actions. A technical study would not come up with a judgement that leads to only one right course of action. In such a case, a choice needs to be made which will be subjective to each person. The Khaleefah can consult the people, and this is recommended but not obligatory according to Islam. The Prophet (saw) decided many matters like this himself, but he also consulted the people such as in the consultation before the Battle of Uhud. The Mushrikeen came to attack the Muslims that day, and the Prophet (saw) and the more prominent Sahabah wanted to fight from inside the city of Madina. However, the majority of the people wanted to go outside to fight the enemy. The Prophet (saw) led the army out from Madinah into the battle in accordance with the wishes of the majority.Conclusion

In the democratic system of ruling, man has the absolute right to do as he pleases. This is decided by the majority opinion. Democracy is Kufr because that would be to place man above his Creator! Shura ”consultation” is not an absolute right of the people. The Khaleefah can consult with the people only in permissible matters (”Mubaah”). We have seen that the majority is accepted only if the matter is one of action and not some specialist subject. If an opinion, such as a strategy of war is needed, then the experts in this field are consulted, even if only one. This is because the ”correct” opinion is sought, and the majority opinion has no worth here.The difference between democracy and Shura is like the difference between water and fire. We should remember the words of the Prophet (saw) narrated by Muslim and Bukhari about the final hour, ”When Dajjal will appear he will have water and fire with him. The thing which the people may consider as water will actually be fire; and the thing which the people may consider as fire, will be the cool and sweet water.”

May Allah (swt) protect us from the fire.


Electing someone to rule by Kufr


بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم 

Sahl b. Sa’d as-Saa’idi (ra) who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Islam began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” It was asked, "Who are those strangers, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, “Those that correct the people when they become corrupt.” [At-Tabarani in al-Kabeer]


The resurgence of the Islamic Ummah and her demands to return to the Islamic way of life on all her affairs has become apparent for all the people to witness. This has manifest itself in revival of Islam as a political Deen, which seeks to implement itself. In fact the discussion that Islam is political and the need for an Islamic State in order to apply the Islamic rules and laws that have been detailed in the Quran and the Sunnah are foregone conclusions. The revival of Islam started as something “strange” in the new secular world order but is now whole-heartedly adopted by the Muslim Ummah as her cause.

However certain confusions still exist within certain elements of the Muslim Ummah who whilst sincere in their efforts and noble in there goals have failed to understand their error of the path they are upon. They are those who cannot distinguish between the Elections as a process of determining the consent of the masses in its selection of a ruler and Democracy.

Democracy: The Rule of Man versus the Rule of Allah

Democracy in principle means that man has a free hand at determining rules and laws as he pleases and he is in total control of this i.e. he is sovereign master of himself. Hence man can decided to enact a piece of legislation that pleases him, so for example in some Muslim countries (including Indonesia) they closed down the nightclubs for Ramadhan and re-open them after Ramadhan was over! Or there is legislation that is still being considered in Bangladesh as to whether to legalise prostitution. Or in the West they have been having trouble deciding whether to permit Homosexual relationships at sixteen or eighteen, whether to have an unelected chamber that can accept or reject legislation, etc.

The point is the principle that that they feel they have the right to decide whether man should interact with the opposite sex and fornicate freely or not, how to we regulate the rules and laws that Man determines etc. The fundamental principle here being that man possesses the right to legislate and make rules and laws. Practically individuals are appointed in Parliaments and legislative houses to debate, scrutinise and enact law. The basis of legislation is the majority decision of these selected people, who will vote according to their own personal experiences, their party line, their business interests (More often than not) and the like.

This is something that is contradictory to the very foundations of Islam and its basic beliefs i.e. that Allah is the sovereign master and the only one with the right of determining legislation and rules and laws as He pleases and the rest of creation including mankind had no right except to Hear and Obey the orders of Allah.

Allah (swt) says in the holy qu'ran:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ 
“The right of Rule is solely for Allah.”(Surah Yusuf verse 40).

Establishing clearly that He is the sole legislator. In fact it is a principle of Aqeeda that Allah is the source of all of Ahkam (laws).

Allah (swt) states Surah al Maida verse 44:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
“And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the kafireen (disbelievers) ”

Ibn Abbas (ra) stated in his Tafseer of this verse that anybody who denies a definitive judgement of Allah contained in the Shariah then such a person is a Kafir. Ibn Jarir at Tabari says that this is agreed upon. Ibn Abbas (ra) went on to say that anyone who says that the Rule of Allah does not have to be established then he is a Kafir. The one who says that the rule of man is better than the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. The one who states that the rules of man are just as good as the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. He also said that the one who does not deny Allah’s (swt) Hukm but believes that it is allowed to rule by other than what Allah has revealed then he is a Kafir because he is denying that the right of Rule is solely for Allah. This is the case even if he says that the rule of Allah is better than the rule that such a person is implementing. However if someone rules by the rules of Kufr i.e. by other than Islam and does not believe in them but rather he hates them and believes what he is doing is a major sin. Then such a person has committed Kufr doon Kufr a Kufr which is less than Kufr i.e. a major sin which is definitely haram but is not a Kafir. This is the soundest position in my view but others have held different positions.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

Al Hafidh Ibn Katheer (ra) in his tafseer of verse 151 of Surah an Nisa made reference to the Tarters at his time, “…who put together for them a law book extracted from different laws of the Jews, the Christians and the Deen of Islam. It also contained many rules taken only from their own opinion and desires that later became a system of law followed by the people and given precedence over the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger (saw) so the ruler who does that is a Kafir.” [Tafseerul Quran ul Atheeem, Ibn Kathir]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE PEOPLE FOLLOW THE WORDS OF A SCHOLAR OR AMEER OR SHAYKH OR KING. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Ash-Shawkani said in one of his essays:
a)That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.

b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.

c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Whilst the position that we adopt is not quite as harsh as that adopted by Ibn Katheer it makes it clear that any notion of ruling or supporting a ruler or ruling authority, or voting for political party that will endorse the rules or legislation of other than Islam is something definitely haram.

This should make it clear that voting or taking part in elections in a democratic system for any of the Kufr parties is something that is Haram and Kufr regardless of the benefit (Maslaha) or the perceived fruits of doing so. This is something that in principle is in conflict with the very Aqeeda of the Muslim.

Imam Shatibi (ra) said in his al Muwaffaqaat fee Usul al Ahkam volume page 25, “The Objective behind the Shariah is to liberate the individuals from his desires in order to be a true slave of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha (Benefit)…Violating the Shariah under the pretext of following the basic objectives or values (maqasid) of the Shariah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body, and since the body without the spirit is useless, therefore the spirit without the body is useless to.”

Elections
Hence voting for any political party which is going to work within a democratic framework and vote for or against legislation in a parliament regardless of the apparent credentials is haram. As for voting a secular party in the Western systems then regardless of noble goal and the correctness of the intention this is something that contradicts the foundations of what it means to being a Muslim and without shadow of a doubt is something that is Haram.

This does not mean that in principle elections are not permitted but rather election in order to gain the consent of the Ummah or the representation of the Muslims as a whole in selecting the Majlis of the Ummah (the consultative body of the Muslims, which is one element of the ruling framework of Islam) or in the election of the Khaleefah, the leader of the Muslims.

The Bayah tul Harb (the Pledge of War) that instituted the Prophet (saw) in authority in Madinah demonstrates this point.

According to the narration’s in Ibn Hisham as authenticated by Ibn Katheer the Prophet (saw) asked the twelve tribes of the Aws and the Khazraj to, “Bring forth for me twelve representatives from amongst yourselves”.

They then appointed their twelve Nuqabah (representatives) who gave the Prophet their support (Nussrah) and allegiance (saw) on behalf of the rest of the people. So it is a permitted style to utilise elections as a mechanism to appoint the Khaleefah as the leader of the Muslims.

Indeed it would more than likely be one of the mechanisms the Khilafah whose return is imminent insha-Allah, would utilise as it facilitates the expression of the opinion of the masses. Imam Muslim narrates in his Saheeh that Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) when he was the Khaleefah of the Muslims was returning from an expedition when he overheard the Muslims saying that when Umar (ra) passes away that they would appoint such and such to which concerned him. So he called for a gathering of all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) in which he stated that the one appoints someone in authority without consulting the Muslims then kill him and kill the one who he appointed!

This was something which all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) witnessed yet although he permitted the spillage of Muslim blood they acknowledged the truth of the statement, which demonstrated the Ijma of the Sahabah (Agreement of the companions that the statement was a Shariah rule which the prophet [saw] informed them of). This made it clear that the masses must select the ruler and not the opinion of a minority faction.

Today however we are living without the Khilafah and the right of Muslims in appointing and selecting the Amir of the Mumineen has been taken away and the tyrant rulers have been appointed by the Kuffar who promote the secular democratic and autocratic systems in our land.
So we are required to work to remove them and give Bayah to Khaleefah so that this right of selecting the ruler can be returned to the Ummah.

Imam al Ghazali (ra) when writing of the consequences of losing the Khilafah stated
“The Judges are suspended, the wilayaat (authorities) are nullified, marriages are void, the decrees of those in authority can not be executed and all humans are on the verge of Haram”. [al Iqtisad fil Itiqad page 240]

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:
وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ
أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ
“So rule between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you”[Al Maidah 5:49]

Voting and Participation within un-Islamic Systems - Refuting Spurious Assertions

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

Islam orders the Muslims to implement the rules and laws laid down by Allah (swt), and that the sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt) alone. This is known by necessity in Islam, as Allah (swt) has told us:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
Whosoever rules by other than what Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers. (Q.5:44)


However, electing candidates for and even participating within kufr systems is justified today through a number of spurious arguments which have either no or an extremely weak basis in Islamic jurisprudence.  Some of these common arguments are listed below with brief responses:



1.  The Prophet Yusuf (as) participated in a non-Islamic system, as a minister:

Even if such an assertion were true (and there is nothing to substantiate such a claim), according to the majority of Usul scholars, the Shari`ah of those before the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), is not considered to be a Shari`ah for us now.[1] This is (and Allah knows best) the strongest opinion and amongst the proof for that being the words “To each among you We have prescribed a law and a clear way” (5:41). Those who do consider it to be a legal source and evidence, only accept it under the condition that it has not been abrogated by anything in Islam, which cannot be claimed in this case (as proven simply by the ayah mentioned above).


2. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) participated in the Fujjar wars, defending the Quraysh against outside aggression:

Any actions from the Prophet that occurred before the onset of Prophethood are not considered to be evidence for the Shari`ah, so to use this as justification has no basis in jurisprudence.


3. But what about his participation in Hilf al-Fudul, since he said if he had the chance to witness it again in Islam he would, and so we can participate in the Western systems:

Hilf-al-fudul was an agreement between Arab tribes that they would help those who suffered injustice, and not to aid the oppressor against the oppressed. Such an agreement is consistent with Islam, but cannot be compared to sitting within an un-Islamic system where the laws that are legislated run contrary to Islam in both root and branch. In other words, this is an inappropriate analogy, and does not fulfil any condition to use as Islamic evidence.


4. The Prophet (saw) took protection from disbelievers, such as his uncle Abu Talib:

This is actually a proof against compromise and participation, since this protection was given to him (saw) without compromising Islam. The protection was given to him without condition and despite the fact that he (saw) was in a severe, open and fierce ideological conflict with the Quraysh. When Abu Talib asked him to give up his call due to the threats delivered by a delegation from the Quraysh that otherwise there would be open war between the two sides until one destroyed the other, the Prophet (saw) gave the famous reply that even if the sun were placed in his right hand, and the moon in his left, he would not give up the call to Islam until either Allah made it victorious or he was destroyed while doing so.


5. The companions were sent to live in Abyssynia, and they prayed for the victory of the Negashi over his opponents:

Making du’a to Allah for the victory of one group over another has no relevance to the material action of taking part in an election process to empower candidates running on a basis that means that they will legislate laws contrary to Islam, within a system that is un-Islamic.
In addition, this is supported that they sufficed with du’a, and they simply sent al-Zubayr bin al-`Awwam to monitor the battle without participating in it, in order to know the outcome.



6. Maslaha – It is in our interests to vote – and Islam  is all about securing the interests and repelling the harm:

The benefit (maslaha) is what is defined by the Shari’ah, and its achievement can only be through valid Islamic means.[2] The idea that we can define our own maslaha (benefits) and weigh them accordingly is nothing short of making our desires the basis of our actions, and is forbidden Islamically as well as being a misunderstanding of the classical use of the principle.[3]


7. Voting for certain candidates to prevent others from coming in, is the lesser of two evil:

The principle “lesser of two evils” is a sub-principle of the principle “Harm is to be lifted”[4] and is only applicable when the Shari’ah has defined the two evils, and defined which is the lesser of the two, such as the example given by al-Zayla`i and quoted by Ibn Nujaym in Ashbah wa’l-Naza’ir: “An example is that of a man who has a wound where if he were to prostrate in the Prayer the blood will flow from the wound but if he did not, then it would not flow. In this case, he must sit and pray indicating his act of bowing and prostrating because to leave the act of prostration is less evil (ahwan) than praying in a state of impurity. Is it not the case that leaving the prostration is permitted in certain conditions where one can choose not to do it like in the case of offering optional prayers while on a riding animal whereas being in a state of impurity and praying is not permitted at all…”[5] Another example Ibn Nujaym quotes is: “Likewise is the case of an elderly person who is unable to recite the Qur’an in the prayer while standing but is able to do so in a sitting posture. If this is so, he prays in a sitting posture because it is permitted to either sit or not to sit in optional prayers whereas it is not permitted to abandon the recitation in the Prayer in any circumstances…”[6]
Here, the mind is not used to outweigh the lesser of the two evils or to decide what action to take but the text and its indications. Other examples include the difficult situation of a mother giving birth and where both are in danger of losing their lives, who then ought to be saved. Thus, the examples are connected with inevitable evils and not in cases where options to avoid the evil exist.



Therefore, it is wholly inapplicable to apply the principle of the “lesser of the two evils” as a default premise because it forbidden to commit a haram in origin and the principle is invalidated whenever a third option exists that does not require one to commit an evil.  In the case of voting for mainstream political parties, no coercion, compulsion or necessity exists. The third option is a permitted one which is to abstain and warn others from doing it. It is also not possible to tell which is the “lesser” or “greater” evil in a given situation especially when voting for these major political parties and it inevitably becomes a case of voting for who brings personalbenefit. For example, in these elections none of the major parties in Britain are against the war in Afghanistan, while the xenophobic BNP is. So which is the lesser evil – increased prejudice against Muslims in the UK, or the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan? Whoever you vote for – you share responsibility in their actions since you actively empowered them.



Some claim that by not voting you have an impact upon the result and therefore you are intrinsically involved in the action. Such a claim is demonstrably false, since its parallel would be the claim that the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) should have participated in the ruling in Mecca, a position he was capable of given his position and stature amongst his people, since if he didn’t participate others would in his place and impose harsher laws upon him.



8.      Are elections, as a way of choosing a leader, haram?

No, elections are simply a mechanism of choosing a leader or representative.[7] Therefore – voting would be permissible in instances such as the following:
  • To select the Khalifah in the Islamic State – comparable to the actions of `Abd al-Rahman bin `Awf, who when appointed to take the opinion of the Muslims as to who should be the Khalifah after `Umar bin al-Khattab said “I did not leave a man nor a woman except that I took their opinion” – which indicates he took into account their opinion as to who they wanted to support for the position by contacting them individually.[8]
  • To elect candidates who would form the consultative body which would represent the views of their constituents within the Islamic State – such as the command of the Prophet to the tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj, “Select from amongst you twelve chiefs, who will be responsible for their people, including themselves”.[9]


In conclusion, all the arguments brought forward to justify voting for candidates and/ or participating within kufr systems have no basis from Islamic jurisprudence, and are attempts to make the evidence fit the rule sought.



And with Allah is all success.




[1] Sh. `Ata’ ibn Khalil, Taysir al-Wusul ila ’l-Usul, p.109.
[2] For an analysis of the principle of maslaha, see `Ata’ Ibn Khalil, Taysir al-Wusul, pp.111-113.
[3] See al-Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat, 1:349 and Ibn Taymiyya, al-Majmu` al-Fatawa, 19:99-100 for the rejection of the mind determining the maslaha and outweighing it.
[4] al-Nabhani, al-Shaksiyyah al-Islamiyyah, 3:457-462.
[5] Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa ’l-Naza’ir, 1:286.
[6] Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa ’l-Naza’ir, 1:286.
[7] al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, pp.5-8.
[8] al-Nabhani, Nizam al-Hukm fi’l-Islam, pp.69-85.
[9] al-Nabhani, Nizam al-Hukm fi’l-Islam, pp.214-237.