Just a topic to cover a couple of points raised in this blog: http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/
The first one is pretty simple and obvious - when the quraysh offered the Prophet 
leadership/kingship if he stopped teaching the truth, the prophet refused. Some people use this as a proof against participation in politics:
The evidences generally cited include Quranic verses and the offers of political involvement made by the leaders of Quraish to the Prophet(saw):[218]
“And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends (allies) one of another” (Quran 9:71)
“And incline (or accept) not to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you; and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall you be helped” (Quran 11:113)
“One day some of the important men of Makkah gathered in the enclosure of al-Kabah, and Utbah bin Rabia, a chief among them, offered to approach the Prophet(saw) and contract a bargain with him whereby they give him whatever worldly wealth he asks for, on condition that he keep silent and no longer proclaim his new faith. The people of Quraish endorsed his proposal and requested him to undertake that task. Utbah came closer to the Prophet(saw) and addressed him in the following words: ‘We have seen no other man of Arabia who has brought so great a calamity to a nation as you have done. You have outraged our gods and religion and taxed our forefathers and wise men with impiety and error and created strife amongst us. You have left no stone unturned to estrange relations with us. If you are doing all this with a view to getting wealth, we will join together to give you greater riches than any Quraishite has possessed. If ambition moves you, we will make you our chief. If you desire kingship, we will readily offer you that. If you are under the power of an evil spirit which seems to haunt and dominate you so that we cannot shake it off its yoke, then we shall call in the skilful physicians to cure you.’ ‘Have you said all?’ asked Muhammad (pbuh) and hearing that all had been said, he recited Quran (41:1-5). Utbah sat and listened attentively with his hand behind his back to support him. When the Messenger reached the verse that required prostration, he prostrated himself. After that, he turned to Utbah saying: "Well Abu Al-Waleed! You have heard my reply, you are now free to do whatever you please.”[219]
Ibn Kathir in his tafsir mentions that the Quraish sought a sort of compromise with the Messenger of Allah(swt) and proposed that he should prostrate himself before their gods in return for their prostration to his God, and that he should cease denouncing their gods and their manner of worship in reciprocation for whatever he demanded of them. The Quraish thought that the gulf between them and Muhammad(saw) was not unbridgeable. They thought an agreement was somehow possible by allowing the two camps to co-exist in the region and by granting him some personal concessions. To cut all arguments short and firmly distinguish between one form of doctrine and worship and the other, Surah Kafiroon was revealed.These incidents it is argued show that participation in a non-Islamic system through sharing power or compromising on any Sharia matter is prohibited.
That is a misappropriation of the facts IMO - the reason for no deal was the kuffaar were demanding that the Prophet stop preaching and even accept their false gods. This was not a political matter, but a religious one.
This is mentioned in the article, but refuted under the auspices of necessity - where if something is a necessity maybe it can be accepted to. But this is forgetting that the primary goal of the Prophet was to spread the word of God.
(Irrelevant side note - if the persecution was deemed too high, he did not have to wait for an offer - simply stopping preaching at any time would have resulted in a cessation of hostilitied towards the Prophet (saw). So this was not a political issue.)
But as with an article with subtext, that was just the first forray, just to get some arguments out into the open and the main bit is this which mentions other treaties rejected by the Prophet (saw):
The tribes of Amir bin Sasa’a and Kinda said they would support his leadership but wanted leadership after he passed away in return for their support - the Prophet(saw) rejected their requests:
“Al-Zuhri related to me that he went to the Banu Amur bun Sasa’a and called them to the path of God, offering himself to them. One of their men, named Bayhara bin Firas, replied to him, ‘I swear, if I were to have this brave man of Quraysh, I could eat up the Arabs with him.’ He then said to him, ‘If we were to follow your orders and then God gave you victory against those opposing you, would we have power after you were gone?’ He replied, ‘God controls power and places it where He wishes.’ Bayhara commented in reply, ‘Are we to present our throats to the Arabs in you defence and then, if God gave you victory, see power go elsewhere than to us? We’ll have nothing to do with you!’ And so they refused him.”[220]
“Kinda replied to him (the Prophet(SAAS)), ‘If you are successful, will you grant us power after yourself?’ The Messenger of God(SAAS) replied, ‘Power rests with God; He places it where He wishes.’ They responded, ‘We don’t need what you bring.’ Al-Kalbi went on to state, ‘And they (Kinda) said, ‘have you come to us to keep us from our gods and have us go to war with the Arabs? Remain with your people. We have no need of you!’’ “[221]He also rejected the offer of Shayban bin Thalaba when they agreed to protect the Prophet(saw) against the Arabs but refused to offer any protection against the Persians:
“ ‘We would be reneging on a pact that Chosroe has placed upon us to the effect that we would not cause an incident and not give sanctuary to a troublemaker. This policy you suggest for us is such a one that kings would dislike. As for those areas bordering Arab lands, the blame of those so acting would be forgiven and excuses for them be accepted, but for those areas next to Persia, those so acting would not be forgiven and no such excuses would be accepted. If you want us to help and protect you from whatever relates to Arab territories alone, we should do so.’ The Messenger of God(SAAS) replied, ‘Your reply is in no way bad, for you have spoken eloquently and truthfully. (But) God’s religion can only be engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides.’ “[222]
All of these conditions were arguably minor, even acknowledged by the Prophet(saw) in the case of Shayban bin Thalaba. As such, it is difficult to see why the example of Mecca, with texts relating to offers of political power are not considered sufficient to prohibit voting and political participation in non-Islamic systems.
However even this is not the knockout blow that it is suggested.
First, this is not a matter as suggested - the first of the two examples shows a tribe willing to accept Islam and also wanting leadership - hence thiswould not be a case of not accepting the leadership of Non Muslims, but of the Prophet not giving leadership to a specific tribe of Muslims - people who would have then accepted Islam. As such seeing this as a proof that you cannot participate with non Muslims in a weak and flawed argument.
In the second rejection, as mentioned in the article, the Prophet even acknowledged that it was in no way bad. However if this was a religious matter of refusing an alliance, that Prophet would probably not have spoken so well of it.
More, we do know that the prophet entered into treaties. Firstly before moving to madinah with the madinans where the Muslims were given power.
There also was the treaty of Hudaybia - something that could have been classed by outsiders as something disastrous for the Muslims sicne it seemed to favour the Kuffaar of Makkah overwhelmingly. Yet this was signed by the prophet and was eventually a great victory for the Muslims.
Can you provide authentic narrations for this fact? The article actually addresses your point, in a section which you have ignored - it cites authenticated narrations where offers were made to the Prophet(saw) with none of these "religious" conditions - simply that he stop attacking their system, rulers and way of life. Maybe you can address the article's argument.
Secondly, you've not addressed their core argument - principles the pro-voting camp use can override even religious notions due to the harm/lesser evil/necesssity - why did the
Prophet(saw) not use these principles when companions were being tortured, expelled and even killed by all levels of society?
This is a red herring with no evidence.
The Quraysh had no problem with the Prophet(saw) convey his dawa as was seen in the first three years where he preached, invited even the rulers to banquets, prayed publicly in the Kabah with Ali and his wife etc
They had a problem when after year 3 he started attacking their system, culture and way of life.
Stopping preaching was not the problem - stopping attacking their way of life was the problem - which he continued despite harm coming to his followers and him included - including being exiled from Mecca to a valley.
Sadly the modernists today jump into bed with kufr systems rather than attacking them.
Yep your article is riddeled with modernist assumptions, textual fabrications/distortions, selectivism of the article you are critiquing etc.
Wrong interpretation - it was the case of a tribe that was given two conditions - embrace Islam and provide UNCONDITIONAL support - they refused the second condition, imposing a condition that went against Islam.
Its relevance is that if the Prophet(saw) did not accept or enter political authority where even one condition of Islam was violated, how is it permitted to accept or enter political authority riddled with kufr conditions/laws etc???
It's like saying the Prophet(saw) would not drink water with one drop of haram substance (like urine) but it's ok to drink a glass ful of haram substance (urine) - defies logic!
The Prophet(saw) commented that the offer was not "rationally" unreasonable however it was unacceptable to God so he could not accept it - likewise any rulers who ask us to join them, if they have any kufr conditions/rules etc these are unacceptable to God regardless whether they are "religious" or not - this is nothing more than just an arbirtrary secular separation. To Muslims all of Islam is religious - it is not possible to impose such secular distinctions on the Prophet's(Saw) rejection of the rulers and those who wished to bring him to power albeit with minimal kufr conditions.
Totally irrelevant - subject matter of treaties is not the same as entering governance of kufr or transferring authority to others to undertake kufr. We are permitted to make treaties between governments and that is all this evidence shows. To extend it is to make a category error and the resulting opinion is invalid.
yes it was - the meccan way of life was all about pimping religion. People would put their idols in the ka'bah and then would flock to Makkah in order to visit them.
religion was the industry of the place.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Two fundamental problems with your point:
-So why did the Quraysh not stop the Prophet(saw) preaching his new religion for the first three years?
-Why does the letter they wrote/speeches to him mention no problem with his new religion but kept repeating for him to stop criticising their forefathers, worships, rulers etc?
That is the important bit as that was also their business.
It was bad for business to tell people to give up their old false idols.
As for why there was less resistance earlier... there is a popular saying that goes "First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win."
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If his "religious" call affected their business, it should have affected it in the first three years when many people were entering Islam... they only began having a problem with him when the verses of "fasda bima tomar" were revealed in year three and the Muslims began coming out in open and paraded as a group/party in full view of the public posing a challenge to the system. Your argument does not hold water as this point undermines it.
Slogans or popular sayings have a context which you appear not to be familiar with. If the Prophet(saw) had not began confronting the system and gradually carried on with his call no one would have had a problem. The same occurs in contemporary western societies - people can call to whatever religion or ideology they want - its when they start creating a problem for the system, by not integrating, adopting the national identity, challenging the system etc they are then viewed as a problem by the authorities and based on the threat level appropriate action is taken from nothing, propaganda, violence etc
If one is never a threat to the system or social processes one is left to pretty much get on with things. As Islam is an ideology with ambitions to dominate, all systems see it as a threat! Thus the war on Islam going on at the moment.