Can Muslims Vote in Elections of the Modern Secular State?
What is the legitimacy of the modern
secular state when judged according to the religion of Islam? Is it Halal
(permissible) or Haram (prohibited) for Muslims to vote in elections of the
modern secular state? This essay attempts to answer those questions.
A US-based Egyptian Islamic scholar
declared in a widely circulated Fatwa (legal opinion) that it is Wajib
(compulsory) for Muslims to vote in elections of the modern secular state such
as USA. The preposterous implication of that Fatwa would be such that if
Muslims were to refrain from voting in such elections they would have committed
a sin!
On the other hand the outstanding
Pakistani Islamic scholar, Dr. Israr Ahmad, has categorically declared that it
is Haram for a Muslim to participate in the electoral politics of the modern
secular state (i.e., the state which is established on the basis of a secular
constitution). He has prohibited all members of Tanzeem-e-Islami, the Jama’at
(community) of which he is the Amir (leader), from voting in elections of the
secular state. He also disclosed that Maulana Maududi (rahimahullah), who took
a stand in favor of participating in electoral politics, subsequently changed
his position before his death and opposed such participation.
Our view is that the opinion of the
US-based Egyptian Islamic Scholar is false and that he is dangerously
misguided. We pray that Allah, Most Kind, may guide our learned brother to the
right path. Amin!
Millions of Muslims in USA accepted his Fatwa, reassured themselves that they were rightly guided, and then went out and voted for George Bush. But by September 11th (2001) they were wringing their hands in anguish and grief over the fact that their own government (the Bush Administration), which they had themselves had constituted by their votes, was now waging undisguised war on Islam! (See my analysis in ‘A Muslim Response to the Attack on America’ on the website: www.imranhosein.org .)
Millions of Muslims in USA accepted his Fatwa, reassured themselves that they were rightly guided, and then went out and voted for George Bush. But by September 11th (2001) they were wringing their hands in anguish and grief over the fact that their own government (the Bush Administration), which they had themselves had constituted by their votes, was now waging undisguised war on Islam! (See my analysis in ‘A Muslim Response to the Attack on America’ on the website: www.imranhosein.org .)
In my own native land, Trinidad and
Tobago, the system of electoral politics has consistently polarized the people
racially. In 1956 a secular People’s National Movement (PNM) emerged with
nothing more profound to offer than ‘black’ nationalism. It polluted the
country. It created a stench far worse than the corruption which it spawned and
which led to an epitaph on a 1986 tombstone which read: “All ah we tief” (All
of us stole). I myself suffered professionally from the racism of the PNM, and
so did my father. In fact it drove my father to his grave.
In time the PNM’s ‘black’ nationalism
produced its corollary in the form of ‘Indian’ nationalism. When Indians won
political power the racial stench that the ‘Indian’ nationalism of the United
National Congress (UNC) spawned was no different from that of the previous
‘black’ nationalism. But the one thing that remained consistent throughout this
long dark night of political Jahiliyyah was that Muslims participated in the
electoral politics of race without any consciousness that Islam had something significantly
different to offer to mankind. How else can we explain the phenomenon of
African Muslims supporting the PNM and Indian Muslims supporting the UNC?
Many Trinidadian Muslims are probably
going to be surprised by this essay since it would appear that since 1956, when
the first real general election took place, few learned Muslims in Trinidad and
Tobago have ever seriously questioned the Halal or Haram of elections. There
have been frivolous responses that have sought to dismiss Islamic objections to
voting in elections based on the inconsistency involved in also having, for
example, “a dollar bill in one’s wallet”, “a driving license”, “owning a car or
a house”, etc. When distinguished Islamic scholars equate “Shirk” with a
“driving license” we know that we are truly in grave danger. The distinguished
US-based Indian Islamic Scholar who engaged in that unpardonable frivolity went
on to declare that it was Fard (compulsory) for Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago
to vote in elections.
But Trinidadian Muslims should pause
to consider that there are so many other strange things that also cry out for a
response. For example, we have been singing the National Anthem of the State of
Trinidad and Tobago in which we have declared, time and again, “This our native
land, we pledge our lives to thee,” (i.e., to the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago), when the Qur’an has specifically asked us to pledge our lives totally
to Allah, Most High:
“Say! Verily my prayer, and my
service of sacrifice, and my very living, and my very dying, are all for Allah
the Rabb (i.e., Lord, Creator, Sustainer) of all the worlds. . .”
(Qur’an, al-An’am, 6:162)
Indeed, in pledging his life to the
state, or his native land, or a mango tree, rather than to Allah, Most High,
the Muslim would commit an act of Shirk. The Muslim would also be repudiating
the Hijrah (migration) of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) who left his native land
because of Islam, and the Hijrah of Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) who
did the same.
Again, the Inter-Religious
Organization of Trinidad and Tobago, which includes Muslims, has adopted as its
motto the slogan of the fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.
But the Qur’an has categorically declared that God is not a father (lam yalid).
Anyone who is a member of the Inter-Religious Organization of Trinidad and
Tobago has ipso facto recognized Allah to be father and has thus committed
Shirk!
This essay commences with a
description of the world order today, including an introduction to the modern
secular state and a description of its origins. We discover that the
foundations of that state are firmly rooted in Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk
(blasphemy) – terms that are defined in the essay. Shirk, or blasphemy, is one
of the major signs of the Last Day, and it is connected to Dajjal the false
Messiah or Anti-Christ. n
0+Muslims are reminded that Islam gave
to the world a conception of political organization and of sta0 nnte in which there
was no Kufr and Shirk. That was the Islamic Caliphate. It was destroyed by Europe
because it constituted an obstacle to Europe in its quest to force all of
mankind into Kufr and Shirk.
We admit that there are obvious
merits of the secular state and we go on to examine, from an Islamic
perspective, the status of the modern secular state. This includes a Qur’anic
explanation for the universal Shirk of the modern secular state. We conclude by
offering to Muslims an alternative to electoral politics of the modern secular
state. In presenting that alternative we call believers back to the political
Sunnah (example) of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
THE WORLD-ORDER TODAY
THE MYSTERY OF THE MODERN SECULAR
STATE
MERITS
OF THE MODERN SECULAR STATE
SHIRK
AND KUFR IN THE MODERN SECULAR STATE
THE
CALIPHATE AND THE MODERN SECULAR STATE
QUR’ANIC
EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSAL SHIRK OF THE MODERN SECULAR STATE
ALTERNATIVE
TO ELECTORAL POLITICS OF THE MODERN SECULAR STATE
THE
MUSLIM VILLAGE
CONCLUSION
