To justify participation in the nation-state and democratic systems using the examples of Yūsuf عليه السلام and an-Najāshī رحمه الله ultimately neglects the clear differences between the situation of the two men and political orders of their time and the modern reality. (1)
If we look at the reality of the modern nation-state and democratic systems, they are designed to maintain the status quo and make anyone who participates in them compromise their worldview. There’s no way to benefit from participating in them and it comes with a lot of harm. (2)
From the outset, in order to become a member of parliament or take other positions of government, you’re required to make the first compromise and take an oath by the Tāghūt, and there will already be those who accept such a compromise under the guise of “maslahah”. (3)
Even if you’ve managed to avoid this step and enter parliament anyways, you now have to sit amongst blasphemers while they commit shirk in legislation and imitate their appearance, which is why the `ulamā’ said even this category of members of parliament are at least sinners. (4)
Sitting amongst legislators and imitating them in their appearance as a member of parliament is no different from shaving your head, wearing a monk’s clothes and going to a temple to sit amongst Buddhist monks while they worship an idol. (5)
Additionally, this entails engaging in or at least listening to debates about state policy, and it’s very dangerous for one’s īmān to hear it challenged by arguments for secular laws and ideologies which contradict the Sharī`ah. (6)
Allāh ﷻ says: When you hear Allāh’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to benefit the Dīn by engaging in parliament. (7)
Furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to benefit the Dīn by engaging in parliament. (7)
Even if you take part in enacting one law which is in line with the Sharī`ah, the law wasn’t legislated based on the Qur`ān and Sunnah but rather the shirk of popular acceptance, and it can likewise be removed by popular vote. (8)
This is why Shaykh Ahmad Shākir رحمه الله declared man-made European laws kufr even if they didn’t contradict the Sharī`ah:
“We see that some of the laws coming from Europe differ with the core of Islām. (9)
“We see that some of the laws coming from Europe differ with the core of Islām. (9)
Some of these laws clearly destroy Islām altogether, while others match Islāmic behaviour. Whoever does this (legislates them) is a sinner and an apostate, regardless of whether he enacts a law matching Islām or not.”
📚 As-Samā’ wa Ta`dā, p. 7 (10)
📚 As-Samā’ wa Ta`dā, p. 7 (10)
If the argument is to engage in da`wah or lessen harm against the Muslims in domestic or international policy, then there’s a much lower chance your voice would be heard than you compromising your faith due environmental pressure. (11)
Apart from human surroundings, the structures of Tāghūtī governments are also dangerous for one’s īmān, as they mostly imitate Western government structures, which were originally designed by Christians and pagans who elevated their authorities to a semi-divine status. (12)
They were also designed to accomodate rulers of secular nation-states.
Thus, when Muslims engage with these structures as members of government, it shapes how people view and interact with them and also shapes how they view and interact with themselves and others. (13)
Thus, when Muslims engage with these structures as members of government, it shapes how people view and interact with them and also shapes how they view and interact with themselves and others. (13)
This subconsciously changes their worldview, way of life and makes them arrogant, turning them away from pure guidance.
The democratic system usually also has three branches of government; the legislature, executive and judiciary. (14)
The democratic system usually also has three branches of government; the legislature, executive and judiciary. (14)
They work to place checks and balances and prevent the state from becoming dominated by a single group of people.
Due to this, it’s nearly impossible in practice to make any meaningful change in government which would result in eliminating the status quo. (15)
Due to this, it’s nearly impossible in practice to make any meaningful change in government which would result in eliminating the status quo. (15)
The nature of democracy makes politicians reliant on pleasing the people’s whims and desires as much as possible to get re-elected, and one of the ways to accomplish this is by excessive spending on building public good provisions outside what’s actually affordable. (16)
This historically harmed economic growth and created a fiscal crisis, which led many democratic states to severely curb the government’s ability to use fiscal and monetary policies to expand economic output, transferring that role to central bankers instead. (17)
The result was a major decrease in the quality and quantity of proposals and policies by the government.
Competition between politicians then became mostly symbolic with minor disagreements. They are forced to agree on the fundamental principles of political economy. (18)
Competition between politicians then became mostly symbolic with minor disagreements. They are forced to agree on the fundamental principles of political economy. (18)
This is the how democracy is very centralised in practice and leaves no room for major changes with each new elected government.
If this wasn’t enough, the military and security apparatus of the secular nation-state also plays a role in maintaining the ruling system. (19)
If this wasn’t enough, the military and security apparatus of the secular nation-state also plays a role in maintaining the ruling system. (19)
If the government is successfully overtaken by those who oppose it, these two external branches of the state either step in to remove the elected government and defend the status quo or force those in government to preserve it themselves. (20)
The Algerian Civil War and Sīsī’s coup against Muhammad Mursī are good examples of this.
The above factors are also good examples of why voting doesn’t bring any “lesser of two evils”, which is the condition given by the `ulamā’ who permit voting. (21)
The above factors are also good examples of why voting doesn’t bring any “lesser of two evils”, which is the condition given by the `ulamā’ who permit voting. (21)
Since democracy is based on lies and fraud to secure votes and funding from lobbyists, it’s also impossible to tell if a certain candidate who has a more beneficial stance towards Muslims in his electoral campaign would actually keep that stance once in office or not. (22)
Military coups are also insufficient, because they don’t completely replace the ruling system but only change the people in charge of it. The experiences of `Umar al-Bashīr and Zia ul-Haq are examples of how Islāmists failed to change the ruling system via military coups. (23)
Once a part of the military take over the government, they become part of the ruling system, are subject to its structures and are tied down by the pressure of other sections of the military and security apparatus, who won’t allow them to diverge too far from the status quo. (24)
In conclusion, the correct methodology to implement the Sharī`ah is based on da`wah and jihād, which are prescribed in the Qur`ān and Sunnah and used by the Messenger ﷺ, who never participated in any ruling system and accepted nothing but complete transfer of leadership. (25)
Loading suggestions...