Video

Why would it be haram? What type of question is this honestly

He isn’t qualified to open his mouth on these issue whether he’s against or for. Seek it from the mouth of the Mufti, we have hundreds of trusted institutions, Darul Iftaa as Masriyya, Jordan and more. Were putting the matters of the religion in the hands of children who have no traditional study or Sanad.

For those who disagree with voting in democracy, please answer the following question. Party A has 99 votes Party B has 99 votes Party A has less evil and more Islamic beneficials Party B is evil throughout and does not benefit the Muslims By you NOT voting, you are voting. All you done is indirectly voted for Party B to win. So is NOT voting, classified as indirectly voting?

Oh my god not this again. We jad this discussion back 2015 😢

If these questions are still topics of serious discussion then we have our reason why we are being butchered by others. We are stuck in the 1600s and they are asking about quantum physics

Allah won't organise your bin collection.

What kind of question is this no one should ask anything about Wahhabis they are not scholars this cult should be discarded so Muslims can flourish

What a load of nonsense. Are we to believe Allah’s law is in need of correction by men now. What do you mean flexibility in the sharia? Where does Allah say. How law. Or Sunna is flexible? Who is behind this mindless nonsense. Brothers and sisters step away from any man who is promoting half baked truth. Allah know everything and he gave is Al Quran and sunnah of our beloved. This one law is sufficient for me you until the day you die. There is now substitutes or addons. Names shiyuukhs agreeing upon a matter doesn’t make it halal. So chooses are yours you follow Allah and his book and his messenger or what so and so agreed upon. This is one of the biggest fitna in the Muslim nations. They follow men. Otherwise we would have been winners and victorious.

👍

May the almighty Allah bless my brother Abu taymiyyah for talking about this it's just unfortunately today Muslims country's ar in the UN some are in NATO an we as Muslims know for sure what this organizations are doing especially against Muslims may the almighty Allah guide as all as Muslims............😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢 🤲🏼🤲🏼🤲🏼🤲🏼🤲🏼

thank you for a relevant topic

Not every vote is shirk

You shouldn't even be able to vote

[𝘿𝙪𝙝𝙖 𝙋𝙧𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧] Abu Dharr (May Allah be pleased with him)reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "In the morning, charity is due on every joint bone of the body of everyone of you. Every utterance of Allah's Glorification (i.e., saying Subhan Allah) is an act of charity, and every utterance of His Praise (i.e., saying Al-hamdu lillah) is an act of charity and every utterance of declaration of His Greatness (i.e., saying La ilaha illAllah) is an act of charity; and enjoining M'aruf (good) is an act of charity, and forbidding Munkar (evil) is an act of charity, and two Rak'ah Duha prayers which one performs in the forenoon is equal to all this (in reward)." [Muslim].Riyad as-Salihin 1140

Even if you use your common sense, why would anyone want to vote for liars

May Allah bless you for speaking haqq, I know it’s not easy so may Allah increase you

So lesser of two evils: Party A: ruling by man made laws Party B: ruling by man made laws but with friendly colors What about option 3 of not voting at all? Certainly that is a option as well as the first two option in basis are haram and option 3 of not voting is not haram.

Lecturing about Halal and Haram all day long- don't drink it's Haram, don't do drugs, don't do Zinah etc - but we changing Legislation and we are changing everything Halal to Haram and Vice-versa.... it's not like Lobbying anyways;

The akad/agreement of democracy itself is kufr. It is recognizing humans as the supreme legislator instead of Allah. This is major shirk. Even if the ruling is in line with islam, the recognized legislator(s) are human, not Allah.

a nice balanced approach. i personally wont be voting nonetheless

Do you realise that you imply that exclusiveness of tashri3 is a variable, and does not belong to Allah in our current era and circumstances ?? You're not able to promote a specific candidate, which is one of many proofs that it's not about the lesser of 2 evils, otherwise you would clearly call to vote for one. If you can't then there's no clear maslaha. As for Ibn Taymiya's fatwa, was it about someone who will have to make bay'a to a taghut king and constitution, or was it someone who will have freedom to apply Allah's law within his perimeter of action (like prophet Yusuf 'alayhi salam)? Is any candidate today able to implement any part of the shari'a in the UK? The biggest mafsada today is really to take that power of legislation that democracy wants to give us, through the vote, where it only belongs to Allah. The biggest maslaha is to avoid it and find other ways to have a political impact. It is so irresponsible to call for lesser of 2 evils when most of your audience haven't disavowed democracy in the first place. And this is on the shoulders of 'ulamas and preachers who never talk about the kufr of democracy as a political system. As for those who see democracy as a good system, la a3budu ma ta3budun.

The system in the U.K. makes it virtually impossible for Niqabi to vote, And so we need to ask ourselves why has the proof of identity been introduced, it has never been an issue in the past. Now we have a drip feed of being censored and things made so much more difficult. I won’t be voting, vote for who? people follow own desires give a person some sort of power/ responsibility then look at what people do. I do not believe it’s permissible To vote

Okay I'm with him, voting is Shirk because it associates partners with Allah, but if a Muslim represents you it's no longer shirk 😂. If the better, is a candidate with a Muslim name, shirk is absolutely fine. The shariah legislates shirk due to need. Salafis listen to this and think this type of reasoning follows.

Voting is shirk

These Sheikhs they dont talk these about kings but when it come for umma to elect the lesser the evil they came with this non sense

A lot of rubbish uk politics is set up as a two party system, both have anti Islamic agendas.. and all these so called Muslims who are elected are redundant just like the rest of the politicians.. Muslims need to go back to country of origin and stop playing games with the religion.. also the mosques in the uk are controlled and monitored by the government!! That’s why nothing of substance is ever taught in them

8. Shaikh WaseeUllaah Àbbaas. Reference: Recording done with the Shaikh's permission on January 24th, 2007 (5 Muharram 1428): The following question, from America, is about voting for those it is believed will benefit the Muslims. We are not asking about a Muslim entering into an election as a candidate, nor are we concerned about Federal elections. Rather, the question is about voting in local elections for those who have the authority to delegate plots of land to the Muslims, abandoned buildings, and other such benefits. If the Muslims don't vote for them, other groups will and, therefore, acquire these benefits. So, may Allah reward you well dear Shaikh, do you have any advice in this matter? Shaikh: That which appears correct to me, insha'Allah, is that if some good is anticipated as a result of voting, then we vote. We vote for the candidate as long as he is presently benefiting the Muslims or promises to benefit the Muslims in the future, even if he is not a Muslim. It would be inappropriate for the Muslims to refrain from voting for this individual, especially if the leader of the Muslims can dictate terms, conditions, and other stipulations on him as a result of the Muslims voting. For example, the leader of the Muslims says, "We will vote for you on the condition that you support our interests, mention them to your superiors, etc." And this applies in any country where the Muslims are a minority, not just in America. By voting the Muslims may gain needed influence over politicians and other authorities. In return, these politicians and authorities may do something that will benefit Islam and the Muslims. This is especially the case in local elections where, as you have mentioned, the one who wins may have the authority to give away plots of lands on which schools can be built. I am familiar with this because it is even practiced in India. In this instance, it is not befitting in the least for the Muslims to hesitate or delay voting for these candidates. The Muslims should not hesitate to vote because withholding their votes will not harm these candidates in the least. They will win by the votes of non-Muslims regardless if the Muslims vote or not. For this reason, the Muslims should use their vote as a favor to these candidates. As a result, the Muslims will be placed in an advantageous position of influence over these candidates. When they feel that they are indebted to the Muslims, the Muslims can benefit from their empathy and their sympathetic views and understanding of Muslim causes. This is a general Islamic benefit required by the Islamic public interests. This is our belief. This is also the verdict given by our Shaikhs in India. Even Shaikh Bin Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him), from what we have heard, used to rule with the permissibility of participating in elections. And for this, insha'Allah, we hope from Allah a good future for the Muslims in every land. If this affair brings good to the Muslims then it's not befitting to hesitate. Questioner: May Allah reward you with good. In order to bring about further benefit, dear Shaikh, for those who say that this action includes assisting one who rules by other than what Allah revealed... Shaikh: This doesn't assist the one ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in view of the fact that if we don't vote, the [non-Muslims] will win by their own votes. They will be elected without a doubt. They will come into power by their own accord whether or not we isolate ourselves from them or from the entire world… Thus, this does not assist them in establishing non-Islamic laws. They are the rulers and the ones in authority in those lands whether we vote for them or not. As a result, we should make an effort to influence them in a way that will be beneficial to Islam and the Muslims, insha'Allah. Questioner: May Allah reward you with good dear Shaikh. Please excuse us for taking so much of your time. Shaikh: May Allah reward you with good. I mention this with a clear conscience because we have heard our Shaikhs give this verdict, especially when it benefits the Muslims. This is also the case in India; some of the idol worshippers in the Parliament speak on behalf of the Muslims and their interests...and it is possible that Allah will aid the deen by using a disbeliever.

7. Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Àbbaad. Reference: Private sitting with the Shaikh on January 19th, 2007 (29 Dhul Hijjah 1427): There is a question from America related to the ruling of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries who vote in local elections. Is it permissible for these Muslim minorities to vote in local elections if they believe that one of the candidates can benefit the Muslims by giving land, allowing them to give dawah, or other benefits? Shaikh: There is no harm in voting for candidates who will be of more benefit to the Muslims than the others. In this instance, voting for them is an example of doing the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater evil. All of the candidates are disbelievers and, therefore, harmful. However, the candidate who is less harmful to the Muslims is better than the candidate whose harm is far greater. Questioner: For the one who says that voting is from the innovated means, for example...? Shaikh: In any event, this is something evil with which the people have been afflicted. If people have two choices, one being abhorrent and the other also detestable but of less harm, which should the people choose? The people should choose the lesser of the two evils, correct? Even though the Roman Christians and the Persians are all disbelievers, the people were happy when the Roman Christians were victorious over the Persians. Questioner: Some people oppose this by mentioning that they are not forced to vote in the first place? Shaikh: What I have mentioned is based on the premise that some benefit for the Muslims may be attained by voting. However, if there is no benefit then they should not participate.

6. Shaikh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee. Reference: Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #284 starting at approx 54mins. and continuing on tape #285: Questioner: Some students of knowledge issued a verdict permitting voting for the best of the available Christian candidates based on the premise that this is from choosing the lesser of two evils. Is this permissible? In addition, isn’t this considered to be increasing their numbers which may in turn have a negative effect on the public's opinion of Muslims? Shaikh: I have been asked this question on more than one occasion, and I believe that it is incomplete. So if you want to complete this unfinished question by bringing further clarity [then do so]... Questioner: What is the permissibility of voting for the best available candidate, particularly if they are Christian? Shaikh: This question is incomplete just as it was when presented by other than you. I will now say 23 what I think is intended by the question. In the event that there are a number of Christian candidates who are imposed upon the Muslims, meaning that one of them has to be elected whether the Muslims like it or not, the previously mentioned principal is applied: namely, choosing the lesser of two evils. For example, there are four Christian candidates in a certain country and it is inevitable that one of them will be the winner (elected). Hypothetically speaking, if it were only the Muslims voting [for these candidates] and no one else - not even one other person is voting - such that if the Muslims refrained from voting they wouldn't be elected, then it is not permissible to vote for them. Is it clear up to here? Questioner: Yes Shaikh: However, if the situation is contrary to this, and this is what I think the question is referring to, then one of them must be selected due to the electoral process established today. It is upon you to know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever...[The Shaikh then begins to explain some of the ills of democracy and the harm of giving power to someone who requests it, in contrast to the beauty of the Islamic shooraa] Discussing these issues is lengthy. However, the point is that it has been imposed upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is imposed upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians. If the Muslims do not choose between them, then their own people will choose. In either case, one of them is going to be elected. But as we said earlier there may be four or five candidates. The Muslims in that country must consider it like this: The first candidate is a Baathist and a non-Muslim, the second is a communist and a non-Muslim, the third is an atheist and a non-Muslim and so on. The last is a practising Christian who does not harbor animosity towards the Muslims. If there is no way around the fact that one or two of them are going to be elected, then what should the Muslims do? Should they say, " We are not going to get involved? They are Christians. Let them fight each other." No, this is not the case, because two of these candidates will be elected regardless. So O Muslims, O you who have sense, is this principle to be applied in this scenario or not? I say yes, because the Muslims in this case are between two evils. Similarly, this is the case if the candidates were Muslims, since amongst the Muslims are Communists, Baathists and so on. Okay, do we just sit back and watch or should we choose the one whose harm is less???

5. Shaikh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee. Reference: Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #660 starting at approx 20mins. 40Secs: After being asked general questions pertaining to elections, the last specifically related to local elections, al-Allaamah Nasiruddin al-Albaani said: “Elections emanate from a non-Islamic principle. In fact, they stem from a Zionist principle, namely, the ends justify the means. However, I distinguish the issue of a Muslim who runs for office from the issue of voting for one whose harm in that office may be less than others. The distinction between the two issues is essential even in the major elections. Jamaa'atul-Inqaadh in Algeria sent me a question about elections so I wrote them a detailed clarification. I mentioned to them, as I have mentioned previously, that elections and Parliaments are not Islamic and that I do not advise any Muslim to nominate himself as a representative in Parliament because he will never be able to do anything for Islam. Rather, the movement will overcome him just as it has happened with all of the existing governments in the Arab countries. Even with that being the case, I noted that in all of the Muslim lands, regrettably, there are Muslims who nominate themselves to Parliament claiming that they will reduce evil. We can not forcefully prevent them from campaigning; all we can do is advise, clarify, and convey [the truth]. Hence, if a 22 Muslim is going to nominate himself as opposed to a Christian or Communist, whether it be for major or minor elections (according to your terminology) then we vote for him. Why? Because there is an Islamic principle upon which I have based my answer. If a Muslim is placed between two evils he chooses the lesser of the two evils. There is no doubt that having a Muslim as the president (mayor) of local government is less harmful - and I don't say better - than having a mayor that is a disbeliever or an atheist. However, this politician destroys himself without even realizing it. When he nominates himself with the claim that he desires to lessen the evil - and he may do so - he doesn't know that he is being burnt from another angle. His example is that of the scholar who does not act according to his knowledge. The Prophet said, " The example of the learned one who does not act according to his knowledge is like that of a lamp [lit. a burning wick]; it burns itself while providing others light. " For this reason we differentiate between voting and campaigning. We do not campaign for office because we will burn. As for the Muslim who insists on burning himself, be it mildly or severely, by running for office, then we vote for him as opposed to the disbeliever or the atheist using the principle of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil.” Questioner: Our Shaikh, I understand from this that as it relates to Parliament and even local elections that if a there is a Muslim candidate it is permissible to vote for him. Shaikh: Yes, however based on the principle, and memorize what I am saying, based on the principle of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil; not because he is better.

4. Shaikh 'Abdul 'Azeez bin 'Abdullaah bin Baaz Source: al-Aqalliyaat al-Muslimah - Page 34, Fatwa No.8: Question: It is noticeable that most Muslim minorities around the world concentrate on uniting the Muslims while neglecting to establish pure and correct Islaamic belief. What, your Eminence, do you have to say about this manhaj? Answer: The call to unite the Muslims is, whichever way you look at it, a good thing and very important and there is a pressing need for it. However, if knowledge and correct understanding of religion and the tenets of faith accompany it, then this is more complete and more obligatory. This is because their uniting upon incorrect tenets of belief does not satisfy, nor fulfil what is required and does not benefit them greatly. It is therefore necessary that the method of inviting is complete. It should be to unity and to holding firmly to the Rope of Allaah and adherence to His Religion while stressing the importance of correct belief. This is how the Messenger, prayers and peace be upon him, and his noble companions (radi-'Allaahu 'anhum) proceeded so that the method of inviting might be comprehensive and complete.

3. The Permanent Committee (al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah) Source: Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 23/407: Question: Is it permissible for Muslims who live in secular countries to form Islamic parties, which will be official parties within the framework of the law, but whose aim will be to call people to Allaah? Answer: Praise be to Allaah. It is prescribed for Muslims who are living in non-muslim states to unite, to form bonds amongst themselves and cooperate with one another, whether that is in the name of Islamic parties or Islamic organizations, because that is a kind of cooperating in righteousness and piety. And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

2. The Permanent Committee Source: Fataawaa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah, 12/385: Question: Some people are Muslims but they indulge in political parties, and those parties follow either Russia or America. These parties are many and varied, such as the Progressive party, the Socialist party, the Independence party, the Liberal party, the Nationalist party, the Youth party, the Democratic party, and other parties which are all more or less similar. What is the attitude of Islam towards these parties, and towards Muslims who indulge in these parties - is their Islam sound? Answer: Praise be to Allaah. Whoever has an understanding of Islaam, strong faith, Islaamic integrity, farsightedness and eloquence, and is thus able to exert some influence on the direction of the party so that it will take an Islamic direction, may get involved in these parties or with the one which is most likely to be more receptive towards the truth - in the hope that Allaah will benefit others through him and guide whomsoever He wills to give up deviant political trends and follow the just politics of sharee’ah, thus bringing the ummah together on the Straight Path. But he should not follow their deviant principles. Whoever does not have such strong faith and integrity and fears that he may be influenced by them instead of wielding influence, should keep away from those parties, so as to avoid fitnah and to protect his religious commitment from the same fate as they suffered, lest he fall into deviance and corruption as they have done.

Just in case people are misunderstanding or don't agree, here are examples of fatwas by major scholars on the issue: 1. Shaikh Muhammad bin Saalih al 'Uthaimeen (rahimahUllaah) Source: Session With A Group Of American Muslims, 'Unaizah, Saudi Arabia 12/29/1416 - 5/16/96: Question: On politics. American government policies affect many countries in the world including Muslim places such as Palestine and Kashmir. Since the officials who make the decisions are elected by the public, is it permissible for (American) Muslims to vote for or elect someone who is favourable to the Muslims? Answer: It is an obligation (waajib) that the Muslim vote for the the less evil or harmful to the Muslims from among the kuffaar and there is no problem in this. Pay attention! I said obligatory (waajib). Allah has stated in the Qur'aan: “Alif Laam Meem. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land (Syria), Iraq, Jordan and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah. And on that day, the believers will rejoice at the victory given by Allah… (to the Romans against the Persians).” [Ar-Rum 1 - 4]. Meaning that the Romans would be victorious over the Persians, namely, the Christians over the Magians, and Allah has decided that we be happy for their victory. That is, about the Christians defeating the Persians, because they are closer to Islam (in belief).

Shaykh, we waited very long for a new video. 🌹

Assalaamu 'Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh. I’m listening from Seattle 🇺🇸. I haven’t voted 🗳️ since I was in university. Why would I vote for a non believer?

Lastly, to The honourable respected Sheikh that I do Love and admire, our imams need to have the vision and foresight of how the disbelievers game strategy is and if we look at it from a different angle like a game of chess, we need to see the dangers and effects and their aims in why they are pushing Muslims to vote. And if we can see this which only a few scholars do, you will understand that taking part in democracy is the greater of two evils. May Allah bless you

Sheikh Muqbil who actually lived in a democracy has the opinion of staying away from it. Those who said it's OK is only to prevent a lingering genocide against the Muslim citizens. No western country is lingering on genocide of its Muslim citizens.

Many of the Muslim in governance have adopted an Islamic laws in their practise in order to achieve status. Yet the imams are silent on these candidates so we see inconsistency in their behaviour just as they are silent on the action of the rulers today

Lastly, we should also be aware that this is a Push by the government to make the Muslims accept democracy as a way of life and they at the same time silence the Muslims when they talk about re-establishing Allah's Deen

The reason for the surge of Le Pen in France is the recent backing of a rich "French Murdoch" capitalist. Real power is not decided by our papers in their boxes.

Secondly, the harm of voting in a democracy is so severe that it is affecting people's belief where they seek help and they see the current system as the only way to solve man's problems and the same people and scholars do not work for the re-implementation of Islam. This is evident. They have given up on this subject

I love the shake but I will disagree with him on the following When you can make an exemption to the wall, you can't make it based on any benefits. There is no evidence for this and this is this pure man-made opinion. Everything that has been used has been related to life and death scenarios in our current reality that does not happen

He is calling to kufr. Because when you vote in the west, you have to understand the reality. You're not simply voting for a leader, but rather you are voting for a deputy who will go to the legislating chambers that will propose/vote laws that goes against the Shari'ah. Abu Taymiyyah said it himself, legislating is a right that belongs to Allah alone so he who legislates with other than what Allah legislated has claimed something that belongs to Allah alone and has claimed rububiyyah which makes him a taghut, a false diety. And if you vote for tawagheet you are essentialy voting for another false god which is kufr. It is equivalent to do a vote on who to bow to and ask rizq. Except that instead of sujood and rizq, it is hakimiyyah.

May Allah SWT protecte you, I really love you for the sake of Allah SWT alon,

Their mom prevented them from any type of social interaction with my family ,Islamic community and even a lot of time myself .

My daughters are struggling so bad as a result of this situation

This has caused my children tremendous damage

It is not true that this predicament is unique to this time. Muslims had to deal with Mongols and their law from Jasiq who at the time apparently accepted Islam but scholars like ibn Taymiyya rahimehullah made takfir on them unless they accept sharia and judge with it. Ibn Kethir rahimehullah spoke of this as well. There are other examples. None from the salaf or khalef made any excuse or provided any leeway in this matter. It is a form of Shirk which you can do only in state of Ikrah. In matters like this there is no maslaha. Imagine if people as collective decide to chose which members of ruling elite of mongols will be allowed to decide what set of halal and haram will be applied over them. We are not even forced to vote today, it is all based on illusion that it will be better. The illusion of choice. It is like if they said: if you people make sajdah to idol we will be better to you muslims, we will not invade your lands that often and will not put laws to make your life a little bit harder. Maybe we will not pursue the policy of deportation to your original lands where you came from.

america