What is the position of the Salafi youth regarding the filling of important government positions by communists and secularists and their participation in elections?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In some Islamic countries, sometimes things happen, such as what occurs in Islamic countries, for example, due to their distance from Islam, so the Salafi finds himself confused about what to do. For example, he finds some callers inviting him to participate in entering political elections in universities on the pretext that we do not leave this to the communists, the Ba'athists, and others so that they occupy these positions, such as student elections. Likewise, for example, Islamic groups register in the elections in the same country and enter a party, or without the name of a party, under the name of the group itself. And likewise, for example, these things lead them to religious violations. For example, in order to bring many people to the elections, they must make concessions so that there is a rapprochement between them and the common people, so they concede on some things. For example, if one of them comes to the university wearing the thobe and the turban, they say to him: No, wear the pants so that you are closer, and he is one of the elected. And they photograph the elected candidates and hang them on the university, and the girls participate in that as well, and so on, and many of these things. The aim is to get closer to the common people so that they attract many votes and succeed. So the Salafi finds himself confused by these claims they make to him: How do you leave this? This is from the interests of the sent, and this is from the door of repelling harm, and so on. So what is the correct action? What must he do regarding these things?
The Shaykh : My opinion in this matter has two branches of explanation: one relates to the one who nominates himself, and the other to the one who elects him. As for the one who nominates himself, I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself. This is what I experienced in Syria when the rule was what they called the national rule in the time of Shukri al-Quwatli and his like. And this is what happened recently in Amman, where I currently reside. The Muslim Brotherhood became bold in nominating themselves. So I would ask, "What is your opinion?" a question like this. And my answer: I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself, because in that there are many violations of the Islamic Shari'ah. The first is that he certifies himself. Everyone who nominates himself to be a member of the parliament or the National Assembly and seeks the office, and the one who seeks the office is not appointed.
Second: He is exposed to swearing the legal oath, and at that time he falls into religious violations.
Third, and finally: It is necessary that the one who enters the parliament, which is based on laws that contradict the Shari'ah, and he entered the parliament with the intention of being able to develop it, even if only some development, that he will develop with the long, extended time. The most apparent manifestation of this development is that we saw in the past, and perhaps it happened and I do not know now in this last election, some of the development. From that is what I mentioned earlier: the man whose custom is to wear the Arab dress, so he wears the shirt called in the Levant the "jalabiyyah," and called in Jordan the "dishdasha." This long shirt is what he is accustomed to wearing, and he may wear the white turban on the fez. And with the days, his dress changes completely, so he takes off the shirt and wears the jacket and the pants underneath, and then he continues to follow and follow until he exits after his term in the parliament ends, having become a person other than the person who entered the parliament. For what purpose? He said: In order to change! So he became the one who changed, and he was not able to change. This is my opinion regarding those who nominate themselves. I do not advise anyone, whether he is a Salafi or a Muslim Brother or any other party, because he will certainly be harmed by this nomination of himself. As for what relates to the voter, I am with what came in the question. I see, from the door of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil, that it is obligatory for us to choose these Muslims who accepted for themselves to place themselves in this destruction. Their presence in the parliament is less evil than the presence of the other parties, such as the communists, the Ba'athists, the materialists, and the like. Therefore, I used to advise our brothers to choose the Muslim candidates. And the truth is, you must have read, for the first time, that the Muslim candidates appeared as the great majority in the Jordanian parliament. But I do not believe that they will be able to do that, that they will do something with their election to change the parliament from its course that was set for them. Therefore, I believe that the one who nominates himself is in the same position as the scholar about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:. So this one who nominates himself burns himself and lights a little for others, but the result is that the lamp may go out completely, so no light remains by which to be illuminated.
This is my opinion in this question.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, this is regarding the candidate. What about the nominator?
The Shaykh : I answered, I think, about both matters, but perhaps there is some ambiguity in my answer, so we try to make it clearer by directing your question clearly as well. What remains obscure?
The questioner : Regarding, for example, their taking these arguments and causes that we do not leave this, for example?
The Shaykh : The answer, may Allah bless you, is that he burns himself, he burns himself and is not able to do anything. That is, they justify and legitimize this affiliation and this nomination with such claims, and then after that, what? They are not able to do anything. And the reality, the experiences that Muslims enter into in the parliaments, is nothing behind that at all, except that the rulers are able to manage...
The questioner : Regarding the change, if they are able to... ... the change?
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you, you are imposing a supposition, but the supposition of this hypothesis, as long as it contradicts the actual reality, is of no benefit. Because I am accustomed to answer such a matter with an answer I say: On the hypothesis that you imposed: Yes, it is permissible, rather it is obligatory, hypothetically, it is obligatory. But now we are asking: Is what I mentioned earlier, do we at least believe that those who enter the parliaments based on the contrary of Islam are able to change the basic line of this law?!
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How do you mean?
The questioner : I will mention an example to you.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : In Yemen... the loans that the state conducts, with the external circumstances, it is not hidden from anyone that they are all with interest.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So a number of loans were presented in Yemen that are not lawful... and consequently...; so the interest is general.
The Shaykh : And who denies that it is interest?! But did those who entered fall into a religious violation at all? If the matter is so, we have said that it is permissible. But is this hypothesis that we imposed a real reality? You now said some of them, how, for example, some of them?
The questioner : We do not know all of them, we know some of them, these...
The Shaykh : Okay; no problem, this some that you know, did they not fall at all into a religious violation in what you think?
The questioner : As far as we know, they did not fall.
The Shaykh : Okay; now I ask you, did they nominate themselves?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How do you not know? And how is the election? That is, you are in your house and you are worthy to be a member of the parliament; so the good people who know your status will elect you against your will?!
The questioner : That is, he agreed to the nomination, he agreed that he is nominated.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me! Does this picture occur?
The questioner : It may occur.
The Shaykh : It is also possible for this to happen, all right? And I am saying to you: Did it actually happen? That is not how you drive camels to the water, Sa'd!
The questioner : Let us suppose that it did happen.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Let us suppose that it did happen.
The Shaykh : I say it is permissible, hypothetically.
The Shaykh : Come, let us stop here. It is ten twenty-five, is that enough?
Yes.
The Shaykh : My opinion in this matter has two branches of explanation: one relates to the one who nominates himself, and the other to the one who elects him. As for the one who nominates himself, I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself. This is what I experienced in Syria when the rule was what they called the national rule in the time of Shukri al-Quwatli and his like. And this is what happened recently in Amman, where I currently reside. The Muslim Brotherhood became bold in nominating themselves. So I would ask, "What is your opinion?" a question like this. And my answer: I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself, because in that there are many violations of the Islamic Shari'ah. The first is that he certifies himself. Everyone who nominates himself to be a member of the parliament or the National Assembly and seeks the office, and the one who seeks the office is not appointed.
Second: He is exposed to swearing the legal oath, and at that time he falls into religious violations.
Third, and finally: It is necessary that the one who enters the parliament, which is based on laws that contradict the Shari'ah, and he entered the parliament with the intention of being able to develop it, even if only some development, that he will develop with the long, extended time. The most apparent manifestation of this development is that we saw in the past, and perhaps it happened and I do not know now in this last election, some of the development. From that is what I mentioned earlier: the man whose custom is to wear the Arab dress, so he wears the shirt called in the Levant the "jalabiyyah," and called in Jordan the "dishdasha." This long shirt is what he is accustomed to wearing, and he may wear the white turban on the fez. And with the days, his dress changes completely, so he takes off the shirt and wears the jacket and the pants underneath, and then he continues to follow and follow until he exits after his term in the parliament ends, having become a person other than the person who entered the parliament. For what purpose? He said: In order to change! So he became the one who changed, and he was not able to change. This is my opinion regarding those who nominate themselves. I do not advise anyone, whether he is a Salafi or a Muslim Brother or any other party, because he will certainly be harmed by this nomination of himself. As for what relates to the voter, I am with what came in the question. I see, from the door of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil, that it is obligatory for us to choose these Muslims who accepted for themselves to place themselves in this destruction. Their presence in the parliament is less evil than the presence of the other parties, such as the communists, the Ba'athists, the materialists, and the like. Therefore, I used to advise our brothers to choose the Muslim candidates. And the truth is, you must have read, for the first time, that the Muslim candidates appeared as the great majority in the Jordanian parliament. But I do not believe that they will be able to do that, that they will do something with their election to change the parliament from its course that was set for them. Therefore, I believe that the one who nominates himself is in the same position as the scholar about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The scholar who does not act upon his knowledge is like a lamp that burns itself out while illuminating others.
مثل العالم الذي لا يعمل بعلمه كمثل السِّراج يحرق نفسه ويضيء غيرهThis is my opinion in this question.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, this is regarding the candidate. What about the nominator?
The Shaykh : I answered, I think, about both matters, but perhaps there is some ambiguity in my answer, so we try to make it clearer by directing your question clearly as well. What remains obscure?
The questioner : Regarding, for example, their taking these arguments and causes that we do not leave this, for example?
The Shaykh : The answer, may Allah bless you, is that he burns himself, he burns himself and is not able to do anything. That is, they justify and legitimize this affiliation and this nomination with such claims, and then after that, what? They are not able to do anything. And the reality, the experiences that Muslims enter into in the parliaments, is nothing behind that at all, except that the rulers are able to manage...
The questioner : Regarding the change, if they are able to... ... the change?
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you, you are imposing a supposition, but the supposition of this hypothesis, as long as it contradicts the actual reality, is of no benefit. Because I am accustomed to answer such a matter with an answer I say: On the hypothesis that you imposed: Yes, it is permissible, rather it is obligatory, hypothetically, it is obligatory. But now we are asking: Is what I mentioned earlier, do we at least believe that those who enter the parliaments based on the contrary of Islam are able to change the basic line of this law?!
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How do you mean?
The questioner : I will mention an example to you.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : In Yemen... the loans that the state conducts, with the external circumstances, it is not hidden from anyone that they are all with interest.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So a number of loans were presented in Yemen that are not lawful... and consequently...; so the interest is general.
The Shaykh : And who denies that it is interest?! But did those who entered fall into a religious violation at all? If the matter is so, we have said that it is permissible. But is this hypothesis that we imposed a real reality? You now said some of them, how, for example, some of them?
The questioner : We do not know all of them, we know some of them, these...
The Shaykh : Okay; no problem, this some that you know, did they not fall at all into a religious violation in what you think?
The questioner : As far as we know, they did not fall.
The Shaykh : Okay; now I ask you, did they nominate themselves?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How do you not know? And how is the election? That is, you are in your house and you are worthy to be a member of the parliament; so the good people who know your status will elect you against your will?!
The questioner : That is, he agreed to the nomination, he agreed that he is nominated.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me! Does this picture occur?
The questioner : It may occur.
The Shaykh : It is also possible for this to happen, all right? And I am saying to you: Did it actually happen? That is not how you drive camels to the water, Sa'd!
The questioner : Let us suppose that it did happen.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Let us suppose that it did happen.
The Shaykh : I say it is permissible, hypothetically.
The Shaykh : Come, let us stop here. It is ten twenty-five, is that enough?
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.