I'm honestly confused. But voting with the intention to promote kufr, is haram, definitely, and is kufr.
Instead of spreading our opinions lets consult the scholars, and see what they say. Cuz speaking without knowledge is highly reprimanded.. afaik. May Allah SWT forgive me if I said any wrong. Ameen. Allahu alam.
You are allowed to vote if by voting it helps or aids muslims in anyway, or by voting stops someone who is against islam/muslims from getting into power.
If you dont want to vote then you don't have to, but dont call it bidah or haram as its not in certain circumstances
Narrated Jubair ibn Mut’im: The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W), said: "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah." [Sunan Abu Dawud (Vol. 2, pg. 753) No. 5121]
From the examples of the Rightly Guided Khalifah and further on, there was no mass general election where people would go into voting booths and cast ballots to choose their candidate. The people of influence in the society would be the ones who would make the determination as who would be the next Khalifah. Then the general masses would follow suit once they arrived at a decision. And in the beginning, whoever Medina chose, then rest of the towns and provinces would follow suit with what is called the bai'ah (pledge). Those of the people of influence would directly pledge to the newly appointed leader and the general masses in the rest of the territories would give the bai'ah to his appointed governors.
Abu Bakr's appointment came in the courtyard of Sa'ad ibn Ubaadah when Umar impetuously grabbed Abu Bakr's hand and made bai'ah to squash any fitnah that was going to occur. The others of the Ansar followed afterwards. Umar was chosen by Abu Bakr on his deathbed. Uthman was chosen though shura (council) of six potential candidates selected by Umar. As you can see, none of this was the decision of the general masses. When the people of influence made their decision, then the common people obeyed.
Lastly and more importantly, all of these people (those appointed and those who made the decision) were Muslims and implemented Shariah, the Law of Allah. They were not participating to establish or keep in place man-made laws. This is kufr. Voting in the political process of the disbelievers suggests that you would rather abide by that law, be complicit in perpetuating that law, are pleased with that law. This is kufr. Democracy is the will of the people. Not the Will of Allah. Muslims better get their affairs in order and stop imitating the disbelievers in their politics. Also, when a Muslim votes like many of them have done with Western candidates who eventually got elected, then those Muslims are complicit with whatever of warfare and oppression that those leaders subject the Muslims around the world. Also, of the evil laws they implement like allowing gay marriage. Let that be on your conscious. You assisted in putting them there with your vote. You suffer the consequences on the Day of Judgement for your participation in that political process. And Allah Knows Best
Last edited by Misbah0411; 05-24-2016 at 10:33 AM.
Show no concern for the praise of one whose praise cannot adorn you in any way, nor for the blame of those whose blame cannot dishonor you. And seek the praise of the One whose Praise is all honor and whose blame is all disgrace. Ibn Qayyim
NO ITS NOT. How do you think the first caliphs were ELECTED!? Whoever keeps saying it's haram is doing bidah
Caliphs were not necessarily elected on the basis of a democratic general opinion.
There however were Shura councils involved that reached a consensus on the who the Caliph would be.
From the examples of the Rightly Guided Khalifah and further on, there was no mass general election where people would go into voting booths and cast ballots to choose their candidate. The people of influence in the society would be the ones who would make the determination as who would be the next Khalifah. Then the general masses would follow suit once they arrived at a decision. And in the beginning, whoever Medina chose, then rest of the towns and provinces would follow suit with what is called the bai'ah (pledge). Those of the people of influence would directly pledge to the newly appointed leader and the general masses in the rest of the territories would give the bai'ah to his appointed governors.
Abu Bakr's appointment came in the courtyard of Sa'ad ibn Ubaadah when Umar impetuously grabbed Abu Bakr's hand and made bai'ah to squash any fitnah that was going to occur. The others of the Ansar followed afterwards. Umar was chosen by Abu Bakr on his deathbed. Uthman was chosen though shura (council) of six potential candidates selected by Umar. As you can see, none of this was the decision of the general masses. When the people of influence made their decision, then the common people obeyed.
Lastly and more importantly, all of these people (those appointed and those who made the decision) were Muslims and implemented Shariah, the Law of Allah. They were not participating to establish or keep in place man-made laws. This is kufr. Voting in the political process of the disbelievers suggests that you would rather abide by that law, be complicit in perpetuating that law, are pleased with that law. This is kufr. Democracy is the will of the people. Not the Will of Allah. Muslims better get their affairs in order and stop imitating the disbelievers in their politics. Also, when a Muslim votes like many of them have done with Western candidates who eventually got elected, then those Muslims are complicit with whatever of warfare and oppression that those leaders subject the Muslims around the world. Let that be on your conscious. You assisted in putting them there. You suffer the consequences on the Day of Judgement for your participation in that political process. And Allah Knows Best
If you read what i posted, its allowed to vote if the benifit is greater than the loss. There are obviously certain circumstances which allow it, it does not mean that everytime there is a time to vote we must.
Example 2 people going for power and one of them is against muslims and will bring about oppression against them, shut down masjids, make their lives difficult etc
The other one will not do these things and is for allowing all faiths to live peacefully with no problems
Then you are allowed to vote for the 2nd person to protect the interests of muslims ie the lesser evil.
This in no way means that anybody is supporting their ways or kufr or even wants to be governed by them and whoever says that needs to fear Allah in their speech towards muslims. Yes there are SOME who would rather be governmed by man made laws over sharia (May Allah guide them)
But we are not in a position to call for sharia, in the west muslims are not the majority which is what allows it to be implemented, we are the minority so untill that time, while we are living in non muslim/islamic lands we have to adhere to their laws unless it explicity goes against the law of Allah.
Not everything is black and white, there are grey areas which is left to the scholars to give rulings on these matters
Narrated Jubair ibn Mut’im: The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W), said: "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah." [Sunan Abu Dawud (Vol. 2, pg. 753) No. 5121]
From the examples of the Rightly Guided Khalifah and further on, there was no mass general election where people would go into voting booths and cast ballots to choose their candidate. The people of influence in the society would be the ones who would make the determination as who would be the next Khalifah. Then the general masses would follow suit once they arrived at a decision. And in the beginning, whoever Medina chose, then rest of the towns and provinces would follow suit with what is called the bai'ah (pledge). Those of the people of influence would directly pledge to the newly appointed leader and the general masses in the rest of the territories would give the bai'ah to his appointed governors.
Abu Bakr's appointment came in the courtyard of Sa'ad ibn Ubaadah when Umar impetuously grabbed Abu Bakr's hand and made bai'ah to squash any fitnah that was going to occur. The others of the Ansar followed afterwards. Umar was chosen by Abu Bakr on his deathbed. Uthman was chosen though shura (council) of six potential candidates selected by Umar. As you can see, none of this was the decision of the general masses. When the people of influence made their decision, then the common people obeyed.
Lastly and more importantly, all of these people (those appointed and those who made the decision) were Muslims and implemented Shariah, the Law of Allah. They were not participating to establish or keep in place man-made laws. This is kufr. Voting in the political process of the disbelievers suggests that you would rather abide by that law, be complicit in perpetuating that law, are pleased with that law. This is kufr. Democracy is the will of the people. Not the Will of Allah. Muslims better get their affairs in order and stop imitating the disbelievers in their politics. Also, when a Muslim votes like many of them have done with Western candidates who eventually got elected, then those Muslims are complicit with whatever of warfare and oppression that those leaders subject the Muslims around the world. Also, of the evil laws they implement like allowing gay marriage. Let that be on your conscious. You assisted in putting them there with your vote. You suffer the consequences on the Day of Judgement for your participation in that political process. And Allah Knows Best
In an Islamic society, when a popular opinion is contrary to sharia, then the option in does not matter, sharia is obviously the precedent. I agree with you on this brother.
However in the matter involving dunya, if I had a club or a council (say a basketball club) and we decided to run that by democratic voting, instead of having an Amir make the decisions, to my knowledge this is lawful.
Living in a nonmuslim society, where the system is not based on Islam, I do not see any issues in voting for whatever topic is put to vote, as long as the Muslim voting does not vote for something haram (as in they should go and vote against legalizing homosexuality or not vote at all, but it would be absolutely haram for them to vote in favor of that because this goes against their own Islamic principles.)
I am not arguing any merits of democracy. We are seeing moral degradation right in front of us.
I am just saying that I do not see how democracy for nonmuslim states is an issue. They're nonmuslim societies to begin with anyway and if we live in one the best we can do is to contribute what Islamkc values we have to that society and give them dawah.
However in an Islamic society, pure democracy is not something that should be allowed. Democracy can only be allowed so much that does not clash with sharia. The whims of the people on the basis of their naffs, regardless of how popular they may be, should never override the law decreed by Allah.
Also in terms of voting for prime minister or president or whatever title in a nonmuslim state,
I cannot blame a person who voted against president bush jr, for bush's crimes. He did what was in his power to prevent that candidate from coming into power.
And even a person who did vote for Bush the first time, surely did so believing he wouldn't do the things he did. (I can't think of any excusable reason anyone voted for him the second time though.)
I got news for you they are all against Muslims. Some show it more than others. If you want to deceive yourself in thinking otherwise then be deluded. Allah knows best what is the nature of the disbeliever when He made the general statement:
120. Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: "Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur'an), then you would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper. (Surah Baqarah)
Show no concern for the praise of one whose praise cannot adorn you in any way, nor for the blame of those whose blame cannot dishonor you. And seek the praise of the One whose Praise is all honor and whose blame is all disgrace. Ibn Qayyim
In an Islamic society, when a popular opinion is contrary to sharia, then the option in does not matter, sharia is obviously the precedent. I agree with you on this brother.
However in the matter involving dunya, if I had a club or a council (say a basketball club) and we decided to run that by democratic voting, instead of having an Amir make the decisions, to my knowledge this is lawful.
Living in a nonmuslim society, where the system is not based on Islam, I do not see any issues in voting for whatever topic is put to vote, as long as the Muslim voting does not vote for something haram (as in they should go and vote against legalizing homosexuality or not vote at all, but it would be absolutely haram for them to vote in favor of that because this goes against their own Islamic principles.)
I am not arguing any merits of democracy. We are seeing moral degradation right in front of us.
I am just saying that I do not see how democracy for nonmuslim states is an issue. They're nonmuslim societies to begin with anyway and if we live in one the best we can do is to contribute what Islamkc values we have to that society and give them dawah.
However in an Islamic society, pure democracy is not something that should be allowed. Democracy can only be allowed so much that does not clash with sharia. The whims of the people on the basis of their naffs, regardless of how popular they may be, should never override the law decreed by Allah.
Also in terms of voting for prime minister or president or whatever title in a nonmuslim state,
I cannot blame a person who voted against president bush jr, for bush's crimes. He did what was in his power to prevent that candidate from coming into power.
And even a person who did vote for Bush the first time, surely did so believing he wouldn't do the things he did. (I can't think of any excusable reason anyone voted for him the second time though.)
We are not talking about some club. This is about voting for disbelievers in a kufr based political system. And whatever little you get in dunya (the crumbs) from participating in the elections at the expense in the Hereafter.
Show no concern for the praise of one whose praise cannot adorn you in any way, nor for the blame of those whose blame cannot dishonor you. And seek the praise of the One whose Praise is all honor and whose blame is all disgrace. Ibn Qayyim
We are not talking about some club. This is about voting for disbelievers in a kufr based political system. And whatever little you get in dunya (the crumbs) from participating in the elections at the expense in the Hereafter.
I will be honest, I would like to edit/remove my previous post in retrospect as I honestly do not have enough knowledge to make a comment and I also honestly do not have an opinion for or against this right now.
I am not currently in a position where I have an option of voting, so I don't worry about 'whether I would vote or not'
I will leave my comment though, because maybe those opinions should be stated just to be put on the table. (So that they may be disproven or supported by someone who is more legitimate in these matters than I am)
But I myself do not really know or have an opinion on the matter of voting in nonmuslim systems of government.
To me pure democracy for an Islamic society should not be advocated ever.
But voting in a nonmuslim democratic society is just not something I am sure about (both for or against)
all le that being said, I do not see why it would be haram, but I also have not looked into this issue and lack the required knowledge to make any such statement with any sort of finality.
I do appreciate your input though brother Misbah0411, Jazakallah.
and I pray that Allah guide me (and all of us) to the Truth, Ameen
it's unfortunate to see that almost all the Muslim countries are ruled by kings and dictators and they're reluctant to give the right to their people to elect their rulers. I see a strategic planning behind this campaign against democracy and islamization of democracy. some scholars who are spreading this hatred on internet appear to be the part of this planning..
what was the fault of Mr mursi? Was he not determined to implement shariah laws in Egypt..?
crux of this matter is that islamization of democracy in Egypt rang the bell for the kings and dictators.
it's unfortunate to see that almost all the Muslim countries are ruled by kings and dictators and they're reluctant to give the right to their people to elect their rulers. I see a strategic planning behind this campaign against democracy and islamization of democracy. some scholars who are spreading this hatred on internet appear to be the part of this planning..
what was the fault of Mr mursi? Was he not determined to implement shariah laws in Egypt..?
crux of this matter is that islamization of democracy in Egypt rang the bell for the kings and dictators.
This is a brilliant example.
It is because of a lack of democracy that we had Hosni Mubarak and his filth.
So dictatorship is clearly lacking.
However it is because of pure democracy that someone as disgusting as Sisi (although not democratically elected) can enjoy popular support. So a person of Sisi's filth under a true democracy could become elected a person who may even come with platform policies which are anti Islamic.
The truth is apparent that all these systems presently implemented in current governments are flawed to varying degrees and allow for corruption.
That being said I still see nothing wrong or haram in voting against Trump if you are an American citizen.
Hypothetically speaking, would it be permissible for a Muslim to attempt to change democracy by 'joining' and changing it to Shariah?
Go to the top and abolish democracy, and establish Shariah? With the help of the Muslims voting? But...... Afaik people will be checking the head.......... Idk.. Pretty risky.
But isn't it haram to use haram to do something good?
Hypothetically speaking, would it be permissible for a Muslim to attempt to change democracy by 'joining' and changing it to Shariah?
Go to the top and abolish democracy, and establish Shariah? With the help of the Muslims voting? But...... Afaik people will be checking the head.......... Idk.. Pretty risky.
But isn't it haram to use haram to do something good?
There isn't enough Muslims to change the forms of governments in Western Countries. Secondly, how many who call themselves Muslims would even vote to establish Shariah where they live. From the commentators on this forum, it is likely discouraging.
Show no concern for the praise of one whose praise cannot adorn you in any way, nor for the blame of those whose blame cannot dishonor you. And seek the praise of the One whose Praise is all honor and whose blame is all disgrace. Ibn Qayyim
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Cpt.America liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks