What is the ruling on entering parliaments, with the evidence cited?

The questioner : What is the ruling on entering parliament?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible.

The questioner : It is not permissible. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : And you as well.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, regarding the issue of the National Charter currently in the public sphere, surely you must have received some news about it or something of the sort?

The Shaykh : No, by Allah, I asked if the National Charter had been issued? I was told: No.
Al-Halabi : It has not been issued yet, but they wrote in the newspapers that within the last few days of this month, meaning after ten or fifteen days, it will be finalized.

The Shaykh : No problem, but what is its content?
Al-Halabi : Its general content, our Shaykh, is to affirm this democracy, namely freedom of belief and freedom of party pluralism. It is the people who choose what they want. These are the things they keep repeating in constitutions and democratic systems; there is nothing new in it...

The Shaykh : There is nothing new in it. The ruling is known. Excuse me.
Al-Halabi : One ruling.

The questioner : Is it possible, Shaykh, to provide the evidence for the impermissibility of parliament so that we may take...

The Shaykh : The evidence, my brother, is derived from a set of matters. First: the parliamentary system is not an Islamic system. I think this is known to everyone, but it must be clarified somewhat. You all know that parliaments are based on the people electing those who represent them in the House of the Nation, which they call parliament. The elections are based on a non-Islamic foundation because they equate the Muslim with the disbeliever, the righteous with the wicked, the knowledgeable with the ignorant, and the man with the woman. All of these are matters that contradict Islam and conform to the custom of the disbelievers in their lands, the lands of disbelief and misguidance. When a Muslim adopts such a system by his affiliation with parliament, it means that he has contradicted the Islamic system based on a specific understanding of the verses of Shura (consultation) . I say a specific understanding of these texts, and although this specific understanding is very clear and admits no other interpretation, Allah the Mighty and Majestic said in the Qur'an, addressing His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): We know necessarily that this does not mean the general Muslim population, men and women, the knowledgeable and the ignorant, those who take refuge with him and mix with him and sit with him, and those who do not see him except once a year or once in a lifetime. Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, does not mean this broad, comprehensive sense covering these types and categories in this verse. So who are those whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered to be consulted? They are those known among the Muslim jurists as the people of authority and decision (ahl al-hall wa al-'aqd), meaning the people of knowledge and expertise. Among the qualities of these people, after faith, is righteousness. Then, they must possess qualities by which they excel the general public in one aspect, and the one who consults them benefits from their qualities in another aspect. This Islamic system of Shura is clearly, very clearly, different from the parliamentary system. Therefore, in parliament there will be the righteous and the wicked, the believer and the disbeliever. This is from one aspect.
And from another aspect: non-Muslims, the disbelievers, or Muslims who are not righteous, will try by all means—and this is a reality, not an imagination, with a motive for it—to increase their numbers and their presence in parliament by buying votes, meaning buying consciences. And a Muslim does not do that. Consequently, the result will be that only those who are not righteous will succeed in parliament. And even if some of them succeed, the successful ones will be very few. At that point, they will not have a voice that has any influence in parliament, because the overwhelming majority is against them. Experience is the greatest proof. Here we are in the Jordanian parliament; we rejoiced greatly when the so-called democracy was declared and freedoms were given to Islamic parties, and, praise be to Allah, many individuals from among the Muslims entered parliament. But whether they entered or not, the situation remained as it was before, meaning as it was said: "Can the shadow be straight when the stick is crooked?" The foundation of parliament is based on a non-Islamic basis, and therefore, what is built on a defective foundation is defective. This is in addition to the fact that some parliaments require one to swear by other than Allah, or to swear by Allah to uphold the law and the existing system, which contradicts Islam in many of its details. For all these reasons, it is not permissible for a Muslim to enter parliament. Instead, he must devote his life to raising Muslims and nurturing them with a correct Islamic upbringing, and educating them in the correct Islam.