To Vote or Not to Vote?

To Vote or Not to Vote?

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

Attempting to gain political influence through Muslim involvement in the British electoral system has always been a source of controversy between the scholars of Islām.

With the upcoming 2010 UK General Elections rapidly approaching, one feels that some guidance from the Sharī‘ah is necessary.

Before we can just enter the voting system, we must appreciate its implications. To vote in the general election is to elect an individual to the House of Commons. The UK is governed through the application of statute law and case law as we do not have a constitution. Statute law is arrived at through the subjective opinion of the ordinary men and women parliamentarians. Case Law is the application of judicial precedent in the courts by judges interpreting statute law. The law in Britain nevertheless harks back to Canon [Christian] law in certain cases. This modern day construct is very different from the Islamic position, for indeed the right of legislation is due only to our Creator, the Al-Mighty.

Therefore, by entering a system of rule which is based upon other than the Sharī‘ah and more importantly, often contradicts and sometimes even opposes the Sharī‘ah, then it is a consensus of the Muslim scholars that ruling by it is impermissible.

Likewise, to elect in, vote for, and thereby ultimately support a political party which has within its manifesto, rules and laws contradictory to that of the Sharī‘ah, then this also takes the same ruling of impermissibility for the Muslims. But what is important to realise is that such Islamic rulings are based upon specific scenarios and situations. If a change of circumstance occurs, the ruling will also change. One may ask, “What if there is no Sharī‘ah being implemented, so what shall we do then? Do we have any other option other than what is in front of us?”

This is the scenario faced by us here in the UK today where almost two million Muslims live peacefully according to the law of the land and in obedience to the law of the Creator. Yet we must recognise that our government whom we implicitly support by our very existence in this country affects us on different levels:

• At an international level, the British government has waged wars, occupied, killed and allegedly tortured innocent people in other sovereign countries of the world.

• At a national level, civil liberties have been polluted which has had a disproportionate ill effect on the Muslim population.

• At a local level, council decisions make real differences to the quality of life for Muslims, for instance in the granting of planning permission for mosques and schools.

With the presence of certain political parties campaigning who “seem to be better for the Muslims” notably the Liberal Democrat party, the ‘Respect coalition’ and other anti-war parties, versus the reality of recognising the importance of not wasting one’s vote on parties that are highly unlikely to win in some seats, Muslims are faced with the decision on whether to utilise their voting right. Should we do so and why?

As for the tangible benefits, then we can summarise them as the following:

1. Voting out people who we find advocate policies that we do not agree with will place others on notice of the sincerity of our feeling.

2. Those who promote an anti-war stance will obviously benefit the Muslims through cessation of hostile actions against innocent people as part of a foreign policy. The saving and preserving of even one innocent life is an almost unimaginably virtuous action.

3. Those who promote a call to truth and clarity as part of policy and via the media will only pave the way for a better understanding and promotion of the peaceful and perfect way of Islām.

4. Those who promote local causes, especially supporting the ethnic minorities in their overall needs whether financial, spiritual and religious, will lead to a more confident and peaceful progression of multicultural community-building upon which this country thrives on.

5. Strategically ensuring that extremist parties such as the previously underrated BNP do not get hold of power, especially in areas with large Muslim populations, such as the North West.

One can keep listing the benefits, but we must also remember that all of these perceived benefits come at a price. Either the elected party reneges on its promises, and/or suffers from the larger more serious problem of moral and religious corruption particularly with regard to legislation. So if the Muslims cannot have their cake and eat it, what does the Sharī‘ah tell us to do?

One of the most fundamental principles that the religion of Islām is based upon, is that if a person is presented with two evils and has no choice but to perform one of them, then he wards off the greater evil (or harām) even if it means performing a lesser evil (or harām).

Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh have mercy upon him) said,

“The Sharī‘ah has been revealed to obtain all possible benefits and to prevent as much harm as possible and reduce it. Its aim is to produce the best possible scenario from two good options if both cannot be achieved together, and to ward off the worst of two evils if both evils cannot be prevented.” (al-Fatāwa, 23/343)

The Sharī‘ah evidences for this very important principle in Islāmic law from the Qur’ān and Sunnah are too numerous to mention here. We will suffice ourselves with the following:

• Allāh the Al-Mighty says in the Qur’ān,

“They ask you about the Sacred Month and fighting in it. Say: ‘To fight in this month is a grave (offence); but to bar others from the Path of Allāh, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its inhabitants from it is greater with Allāh. Dissension is greater than killing.” (al-Baqarah, 217)

Both killing an enemy and to have disbelief in Allāh are two great evils, but here the disbelief is a greater evil and tribulation, and therefore the lesser of the two evils has been allowed.

• Allāh the Al-Mighty relates to us the story of Khidr (‘alayhis salām) in the Qur’ān when he said,

“As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working on the sea. I rendered it imperfect because behind them there was a king who was taking every ship by brutal force.” (al-Kahf, 79)

Here, the ship that belonged to the poor people was damaged by Khidr so as to make it unattractive to the oppressive tyrant. At least this way, the poor people kept their ship for it to be repaired later even though it was an evil action to damage it. Again, the lesser of the two evils was selected.

This principle was well understood by the scholars as Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allāh have mercy upon him) later said,

“Allāh the Al-Mighty prohibited the Believers during the Makkan period from retaliation (against their Quraishi oppressors), rather they were ordered to pardon and disregard their oppression so that fighting back was not taken as an excuse for a greater evil occurring. This would be an evil greater than their forbearance and the possibility of being harmed. The overall benefit in preserving their lives, religion and families is preferred over the benefit in fighting back and revenge.” (I’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn, 3/179)

• It was also narrated that ‘A’isha (radhy Allāhu ‘anhā) said that the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to her,

“O ‘A’isha! Were your nation not close to the Pre-lslāmic Period of Ignorance, I would have had the Ka’bah demolished and would have included in it the portion which had been left, and would have made it at a level with the ground and would have made two doors for it, one towards the East and the other towards the West, and then by doing this it would have been built on the foundations laid by Ibrāhīm.” (al-Bukhārī, 656)

Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allāh have mercy upon him) commenting on this hadīth said,

“The Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saw the greatest of evils in Makkah and he was unable to change them. Then Allāh gave them the victory and the Muslims entered Makkah and it became the land of Islām. The Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was determined to change the House and return it back to the original foundations of Ibrāhīm. However, he prevented anyone from doing that even though he had the power to do so. He feared that a greater evil would occur with the Quraish failing to appreciate (such a move) given their very recent conversion to Islām from disbelief.” (I’lām al-Muwaqi’īn, 3/6-7)

Imām Ibn Hajr (may Allāh have mercy upon him) also commented that from the benefits of the aforementioned hadīth is,

“…to leave forbidding a certain evil fearing that one will be afflicted by a greater evil.” (Fath al-Bārī, 1/271).

So one can clearly see that the principle in Islāmic Law known as, “Warding off the greater of two evils even if it involves performing the lesser evil” is a clear and agreed upon tool to help Muslims live their lives as best they can.

With that and in conclusion, it is the opinion of this author that due to the situation we face in our lives today, the Muslims of the UK should get politically involved in the various forthcoming electoral processes in order to achieve various Sharī‘ah benefits. This is based upon the following evidences:

1. Numerous texts from the Qur’ān and Sunnah prove that to enjoin good and forbid evil is an intrinsic part of Faith, and therefore one of the greatest communal obligations in Islām, as Allāh says, “You are the best nation ever to be brought forth for people. You enjoin the good and forbid the evil, and you believe in Allah.” (āl-’Imrān, 110)

Based upon this, it is mandatory that every Muslim change the evil in his or her life. Undoubtedly, if we have the ability to potentially delay and disrupt the plans of those who are in power then this becomes an obligation for us. Likewise, blocking the BNP and other similar parties at the local level is undoubtedly from the communal obligations upon the Muslims.

2. The specific evil in the world that has been caused by the expansionist foreign policy of certain states is undoubtedly a great trial facing our nation today. As proved above, it is upon us to ‘commit’ the lesser evil of supporting some political parties in order to ward off the greater evil, or more realistically speaking, to make it more difficult constitutionally for this to happen.

3. According to many scholars, it is allowed to enter the political system in order to elicit change using the well known principle found in Usūl’l-Fiqh namely “Shar’u man qablana, shar’un lanā” i.e. “The legislative laws of the previous prophets is legislation for our nation too.” The scholars who accepted this principle, clarifying that it would only be applicable if it had not been abrogated by legislation in our Sharī‘ah, used the Qur’ānic narrative on the Prophet Yūsuf (‘alayhis salām). He accepted a ministerial position in a government that was ruling by laws other than the Law of Allāh in order to achieve the greater good. It is accepted by these scholars that there is nothing in fact within our Sharī‘ah that contradicts or abrogates such an action.

Using these facts, to enter the political system either by standing for election or simply supporting those standing is something to be taken seriously. It should be encouraged with the full involvement of the people of knowledge and experience in order to safeguard the sacrosanct nature of the Sharī‘ah.

Effective action is always the objective and this can only be achieved by constant contact with the ‘ulemā as previously mentioned. Finally, the following action is advised:

• We must use our vote and the votes of all family members who are eligible. For instance it is imperative that our elder women who rarely use this legal right do so. It is incumbent upon us to ward off the greater evils which will be realised by our apathy at this time of need.

• One should consult the people of knowledge and political acumen in their local areas before making a decision on whom to vote for. There are natural advantages and disadvantages to be found in all the parties which is why we have explained the principle of accepting the lesser of the two evils in such detail.

• One should consider carefully who has been supporting their Islāmic rights most and is promising the most benefit for Muslims on the whole etc.

• Consider the very real threat of pure aggressive enemies of the Muslims taking power such as the BNP and other extremist parties, as well as others that have shown racism and discrimination time and time again such as the Conservatives and Labour.

And indeed, Allāh the Al-Mighty knows best.