You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Just look at even scholars lieing and distoring what elections actually mean to justify their fataawa of participating - they must really think we are all dumb and have no access to research papers and expert opinions on the topic...

Or they may be in the right and know better...

Or maybe they are lieing? How can you tell - just go and read the research out there as to the meanings of voting, how they provide the mandate for the rulers etc and then tell me if they are simply a survey as Hadad argues or a testification of the candidate as others argue...

You wrote:

Why do you always expect Muslims to be so callous as to lie in order to justify their fataawa? The process works in the other way - they looka t the evidences and then make their rulings.

When reality is distorted and not relayed correctly, what do you call it? The dictionary defines it as lieing.

You wrote:

and the rulings of the vast majority of the Muslim scholars is uninimous that it is allowed. Only the odd few say it isn't. I bet many of those are mak-belief scholars too. Pretenders to the throne.

Again this appears to be another lie - maybe you can prove the majority permit it. From all the research I've read on the topic, it's a tiny minority that allows it, and even then they have to play with terms - the tiny minority who "allow" it can't get their story straight - some say it is fard, mandoub, mubah, waqf, fard and mandoub, fard and mandoub and mubah and haram and most even say it is originally haram and they follow an exception to permit it - so even the MAJORITY of those who allow it say it's haram in origin. Like pig is haram and in certain circumstances it's permitted - we don't go around saying pig is allowed when such a fatwa is issued, let alone most scholars allow pig! Thus I assert you are lieing!

You wrote:

Voting is Halaal - it does not start off with the idea that voting is haraam but it has been made halaal due to circumstance.

When reality is distorted and not relayed correctly, what do you call it? The dictionary defines it as lieing.

I would not question their reality but the other sides.

EDIT - but I would not accuse them of lying either. Just of ignorance and misunderstanding.

You should read your own propaganda pieces - it uses the argument of lesser of two evils - which means what??? Both choices are evil (haram) and we need to pick the lesser...

Read the following link which I posted before that gives both sides of the argument and what evidences each side and scholars use - majority say it is haram, a tiny minority saying it is halal in origin, and another tiny minority saying circumstances take it from haram to permitted - however, as I am consistent in my principles (even though numbers are on my side in this case should I choose to abuse them!), numbers are irrelevant - what is important, is the argument and the evidences.

http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/

You wrote:

That is ONE of the arguments that has been used and addressed. It is not the only or main one.

The fact it is there contradicts your post - LOL - most embarressing!

You wrote:

As for that blog, well, I didnt find it to be credible in the slightest. I am not a scholars, but when I read something, I should not be able to spot the flaws.

Yes - I noticed your "critique" or dare I say, your "waffle" against odd bits of it that caught your eye - ignoring all the substantive points which were beyond you

I remember one of the flaws you picked out - all the conditions posed to the Prophet(saw) happened to be unIslamic but you couldn't provide any authentic narrations for it nor explanations for authentic narrations cited in the article where there were no conditions except to stop attacking their system (maybe the prophet(saw) wasn't aware of the exception of najashi or the muslims cheering or the lesser of two evils or necessity - poor chap, couldn't keep up with all these principles!).

Interestingly giving oaths of allegiance to the Queen and legislating is Islamic and okey dokey

Amusing how you go back and update your posts when a critique is posted

You wrote:

you only get "a majority say it is haraam" if you play with the figures "all the scholars of group X say it is allowed, but they are part of group X, so they don't count - its group think, Scholars Y don't count because they are affiliated with organisation Z, that only leaves out of 1.5+ billion people these 100 people and they are the majority!"

Maybe you can show where in the article he does this analysis of numbers whilst the article exposes the connections with movements in the Muslim world - or are you making up arguments which you can refute? Gives you a nice warm feeling doesn't it?

You wrote:

The salafis alone probably have thousands of scholars. Same with the deobandis, the brelvis, the Jama'at-e-Islamis and more.The Muslim brotherhood have a huge following in much of the arab world and they do not oppose elections either. Simply deciding that all these groups and people do not exist in order to give 100 people as the majority is flawed and disingenious at best.

Maybe all these people have done ijtihad on voting in a democratic system - and maybe you can point to their fatwas...

You wrote:

Besides, my last post listed three instances that are AFAIK not covered in that blog.

Maybe you should read it a little more carefully in case your "eagle" eye didn't catch them on the first pass - I recall most of your points refuted in it somewhere...

Maybe you can post the link for this conversation - or have you selectively cut and pasted bits and pieces to make yourself happy that you won???

You wrote:

It was because arguing with you was futile.

You: "Why did the prophet not give up preaching for power?"
Me: "erm.. because his main goal was to preach the word of God... giving that up would be stupid"
You: "See? voting is haraam! you admitted it yourself!
Me: "No I didn't, I merely stated why the Prophet rejected the power offered, because it was taking the prophet from his main purpose"
You: "but how can you know that? prove it"
Me: "They were asking the prophet to not fight idolatory and more, to accept it himself"
You: "See! politics if haraam!"
Me: "Thats not politics or about power, its about core beliefs!"
You: "You need to prove that."
Me: "erm.. hello... worship another God..."

Just becaue you are too stubborn to admit it when you are wrong, it does not make you right.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Amusing how you go back and update your posts when a critique is posted

You wrote:

you only get "a majority say it is haraam" if you play with the figures "all the scholars of group X say it is allowed, but they are part of group X, so they don't count - its group think, Scholars Y don't count because they are affiliated with organisation Z, that only leaves out of 1.5+ billion people these 100 people and they are the majority!"

Maybe you can show where in the article he does this analysis of numbers whilst the article exposes the connections with movements in the Muslim world - or are you making up arguments which you can refute? Gives you a nice warm feeling doesn't it?

You wrote:

The salafis alone probably have thousands of scholars. Same with the deobandis, the brelvis, the Jama'at-e-Islamis and more.The Muslim brotherhood have a huge following in much of the arab world and they do not oppose elections either. Simply deciding that all these groups and people do not exist in order to give 100 people as the majority is flawed and disingenious at best.

Maybe all these people have done ijtihad on voting in a democratic system - and maybe you can point to their fatwas...

Maybe you can do that yourself? I am not your research assistant.

So like many other points you make, I can safely this is another fabrication and fantasy - thousands of mysterious scholars doing secret ijtihad in their bunkers but researchers have failed to notice them but should do and count them as they are the majority... You do make me laugh with your fantasies...

You wrote:

God tells the prophet to say that he is human like them when addressing the mushrikeen and you cannot accept that the prophet is being asked by God tor emind them of their commonalities, but pretend that he is saying "I have hands and feet that are human limbs" as if they were trying to make him carry some heavy rocks.

Your interpretation is that bashar means something more than mortal - what exactly was the commonality being pointed out, if any? I (as in the scholars I've seen) read it as stating he is a human like them except he has revelation... to insert more is going beyond the text and imposing one's views on the text...

You wrote:

When the hadith says God is good, or when the qur'an says what is good has been made halaal, oh you cannot really see that it says that halal things are beneficial to us, but when there is a verse when it mentioned do not harm yourself after mentioning finance (and before going onto other specifics), you somehow CAN see "oh, its about wealth only. its not a general guideline".

I asked you what it means to say God is good - you can't provide any explanation but keep reiterating the point...
Good has been made halal refers to what people know of something as good which has been derived from God's permission to previous nations - the verse does not state Good is what is beneficial, otherwise the term nafi' would have been used. You are attempting exegesis but appear to have no knowledge of the language to do so - what can I say - you want me to agree with an 'aajam's interpretation of a Quranic Arabic and then complain when I don't!
The second verse does not talk about finance but talks about spending in the way of Allah - and not to destroying ourselves by not doing so - ie achieving hellfire and not achieving paradise. It is not talking about material harm. Again you seem not to understand the original Arabic and what it means.

You wrote:

When Hadhrat Umar writes he wants a wall between empires "but you cannot read his intentions", instead of accepting his words for what they were.

You interpret his wanting a wall after having encroached on another nation's territory, as being a "Permanent Border" yet ignore the masses of towns that came under his state's territories through Expansion of Borders and conclude he wanted permanent borders - whilst I make the natural conclusion these were temporary borders taking all the facts into consideration - all of which contradict any notion of permanent borders. But you choose to go against the facts, cannot explain them, and keep reiterating permanancy of borders... maybe you should see a shrink!

You wrote:

When it is convenient for you "you have to prove prohibition through sources" but when it is not "you have to prove permissibility through sources" - opposing angles you have taken in different discussions.

Both are required - as my principle is of waqf - but as you have never studied usool al-fiqh you won't be aware of this position.

You wrote:

Stubbornness is part of you. I may not be the most eloquent and that may allow you to twist things more than necessary. but that is your way.

I would conclude from the above, that that assertion applies to you - it is usually the case of those who do not study the subjects they comment on to have the most absurd positions.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

So like many other points you make, I can safely this is another fabrication and fantasy - thousands of mysterious scholars doing secret ijtihad in their bunkers but researchers have failed to notice them but should do and count them as they are the majority... You do make me laugh with your fantasies...

Take it or leave it. even if I provide you with links (which i wont) you will reject them anyway. Try googling "is voting haraam" and with each one add a new name or group or organisation. A quick look at islam-qa, darul iftaa, sunnipath, islam-online and a few others showed me pretty unanimous views, even if they used different arguments. I am pretty sure you can see them too.

"researchers"? only a bunch of people who discount everyone else. no need for bunkers. all you need is "he is sold out, he has sold out, he has sold out. He disagrees with me, so he has sold out, they all have sold out, their opinions do not count" which is a callous method of thought.

I've looked at the sites you've referenced - they seem to lack the "hordes" of undercover mujtahids you allude to... I've not found any that have not been picked up already in the link I posted... Maybe they are hidden on these sites somewhere... lurking in the background?

a good article in favour of voting:
http://www.mpacuk.org/os/content/view/2028/53/
Voting deemed permissible by some well renowned scholars: Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid, Shaykh Suhaib Hasan, Shaykh Aurangzeb Khan, Shaykh Abdur Raheem Green, Dr. Musharraf Hussain, Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Dr. Jamal Badawi, Shaykh Salman Al Awdah, Mufti Ibrahim Desai, Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, Shaykh Ahmad Kutty, Maulana Khalilul Rahman Sajjad Nomani Nadwi

Fatwa from the Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah on serving office in a non-Islamic country:
http://www.mpacuk.org/os/content/view/2029/53/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question
I live in Bangladesh. In our country recently new group is working. who say democracy is haram in islam. becasue in our constitution it is written all power goes to the people. but in islam all power and law making right is only for Allah. so they tell giving vote is shirk. so we should fight(jihad) against it. besides they say khalifa system is most for a islamic country. so by any means we have to go back to khalifa system. the organization Name is Hizbut Tahrir. they do not follow sunnah that much. they do pray regularly and after the prayer they alwasy make arguments with others about their points and they try to propogate it and they always blame U.S.A. not please tell me are they in the right path of islam. if they are not then tell me form quran and hadith how i can convince them that they are doing wrong things? plese Mufti Sahab help me in this position and may allah grant you jannatur ferdaus for ur excellent work. i have learnet so many new and important things from ur website. and pray dua for me . assalamu alaikum ooa rahamutullahi ooa barakatahu.

Answer
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh

The purpose of voting in a democratic dispensation is not to promote the entire democratic values. It is to use the mechanism of democracy to promote one�s own values as democracy allows freedom of religion. When a person is casting a vote, he is presenting his opinion in favor of one of the candidates to represent and lead a certain group or nation. If there is a suitable, pious and upright Muslim candidate, it would be in the best interest of all the Muslims to vote for such a candidate as he will see to the best interest of Islam and the Muslim masses. At times, it might happen that there is no such candidate; however, there is one extremely harmful candidate who will cause more harm to Islam and the Muslims and another candidate who, despite not benefiting Islam, will not cause harm to the affairs of the Muslims either. In such a situation, it would be better and advisable to vote for the candidate who is least harmful for the interests of the Muslims. In such a situation, a person will not be held liable for the wrongs of the candidate since the main intention of electing him into office was for the sake of safeguarding the Ummah from a greater evil.

It is mind boggling that those Muslims who claim that voting is Kufr and Shirk are citizens of democratic states in which they are required to swear an oath of submission to the constitution and values of democracy and the state. Such people do not have the right to raise such an objection. They should honestly abandon their citizenship and go and live in a purely Islamic state if there is any.

The Fuqaha are unanimous that one may not declare a person a kaafir until there is absolute proof to this effect. They have mentioned this principle that should a person make a statement that is apparently a statement of kufr, and the statement has a hundred possible interpretations, of which 99 have a clear meaning of kufr, and only one interpretation does not imply kufr, then the person should be given the benefit of the doubt. Hence it will not be permissible to declare such a person a kaafir. While we may say that Muslims should not be a party to the systems and ways of the kuffaar, in no way can we declare one who participates in this system to be an apostate. By voting, no one now beliefs that the sovereign right of enacting laws has now been transferred from Allah Ta�ala to any human or that anyone is now a partner unto Allah Ta�ala in this right While voting entails giving support to the system of the kuffaar, it will be wrong, but does not render one an apostate. Take the example of the most fundamental injunction of the Shariah, i.e. Salaah. One who neglects Salaah cannot be declared an apostate. This is despite the fact that there is no injunction more emphasised than Salaah. Take into account the implications of this declaration. It implies that all Muslims who at any time voted are no longer Muslims. Their marriages are not valid and they are living in zinaa with their wives. Their children are illegitimate and no one may inherit their wealth upon their demise. It would be waajib upon an Islamic government to execute them. Now will any person of sound Islamic knowledge be prepared to accept that this is the fate of a person who has voted in kuffaar elections?

As for khilafa, Allah has already promised to bestow it upon the believers with the condition that they have firm faith in Allah and are firm in their deen. Consider the following verses of the Holy Quran:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

�Allah grants a guarantee to those of you who believe and perform the righteous deeds that He will most certainly appoint them the successors on earth (i.e. give khilafa), just like He appointed the people prior to you as successors. He will consolidate their way of life, much to their satisfaction. He will change their present state of insecurity and fear, into one of safety and peace. They would worship Me and would not associate anyone as My partner. Whoever disbelieves after this, is certainly wicked!� (Quran: 24:55)

وَلَا تَهِنُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنْتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ

�And be not infirm, and be not grieving, and you shall have the upper hand if you are believers� (Quran 3:139)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا آَمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا

�Oh you who believe! Believe (sincerely) in Allah, His messenger, and the scriptures He has revealed to His messenger (Muhammad, SAW) as well as the scriptures He had revealed previously. Whoever fails to believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Day of Judgment has indeed strayed and has wandered far away (from the right path).� (Quran 4:136)

The verses above make it clear that in order for the believers to have the upper hand, be successors and have khilafa, true iman and righteous deeds are required. We should ask ourselves: Are the majority of Muslims firm on their deen? If not, then what am I doing to help the situation? Am I involved in their reform and rectification? That�s what our attention and effort should be on.

Wassalam

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah

a detailed article on permissibility of voting:
http://islamicforumeurope.com/images_uploaded/2008/03/img2912.pdf

Debate on voting by Yusuf Patel a member of HT and Yamin Zakaria from Radicalviews.org:

http://www.radicalviews.org/index.php/debates/hizb-ut-tahrir/146-uk-elec...

Elections in non-Muslim Countries: Role of Muslims
By European Council for Fatwa and Research
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-Englis...

well all these articles as well as many others just confirm that voting is considered halal by many renowned scholars and organisations world wide so to call it kufr or such people as secular or government stooges is not clever; but one should realise that it is a valid view even if one disagrees. if you think voting is haram; so be it but respect the other view point.

So four articles, of which one is a repeat of what You posted before, one irrelevant as Ibn Taymiyyah was referring to Muslim rulers who implement Islam and some kufr, all having been already included in the count in the research paper I posted.

Is that what you are arguing constitute the "silent hordes" of scholars who constitute the majority permitting voting in a kufr system? Doesn't it occur to you, there may be similar "silent and imaginary hordes" of scholars who prohibit it as well? The proof for it, similar to your proof - none!

Maybe you need to have a go at doing GCSE maths!

As I said, fabricating matters and attributing them to scholars is haram and it shows the position of those arguing it is halal to vote for people to legislate kufr is untenable (interesting You cites Muslims vote in the Muslim world - so now qiyas with actions of people in the Muslim world with a kuffar society is your latest proof??? LOL)

Interesting debate..that affects us all, nice to see people talking and challenging each other etc..blah blah blah

okay, one day i'll read all the links everyone gave, but..could we have ANOTHER, (preferably less to read) link to an argument that says Voting is Haraam.

i dont vote so im not taking any side

sigh..and they ask my why i want to be like Peter Pan...

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

...one irrelevant as Ibn Taymiyyah was referring to Muslim rulers who implement Islam and some kufr...

erm... I assume you have not read it then. quite surprising how you are willing to read into situations when they suit you, but when they don't "how can you find that out?"

Ibn Taymiyyah (as well as izz al-Din) had more appropriate references which I thought you were citing - having read the citation, I am surprised at it. Noone that I am aware of has a problem with one working for a non-Islamic regime in the Muslim world or the west - which this citation would support.

The argument is that can one give a mandate to someone to rule by kufr or legislate? This citation does not address that issue.

You wrote:

(you may even see that the view of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is parallelising and using a part of the story of prophet Yusuf (as).)

The story of Yusuf, or one version of it(!), would support working for a non-Islamic regime - it would not permit one to rule by kufr or legislate kufr.

That is the evidence you require and try as you may you will struggle to bring any.

Finally, where are the masses of scholars that have been missed who permit voting for non-Islamic regimes etc? Or did you make a mistake in citing that?