What is the ruling on political parties?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Praise be to Allah. There is no doubt or ambiguity, for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has commanded us to cooperate in His Book (Exalted and Majestic is He).
The Shaykh : There is no doubt.
The questioner : And this is an obligatory duty upon the Muslims.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : The issue we see among everyone, in reality, lies between the matters of legitimate organization that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has commanded us to cooperate in, and the issues they want to address through partisanship, gathering, and dividing the Muslims under what is called political banners.
The Shaykh : Perfect.
The questioner : You mentioned, my Shaykh, in response to the honored brother’s question, the existence of a grouping where its members are organized according to nationalities, and you answered that there is no objection. Is this division according to nationalities, as is observed, leading to some of these people taking precedence over others, or causing division? Please elaborate on this issue.
The Shaykh : In which issue, my brother? In political organization? Or in the organization of what I referred to and mentioned earlier, which is obligatory in Islam?
The questioner : In what is obligatory in Islam.
The Shaykh : Okay
The questioner : The cooperation should be...
The Shaykh : So, if the previous question was within these limits, there is no issue.
The questioner : So, here, for clarification, so that it is not confused...
The Shaykh : No problem, clarify it for us, my brother, because this is truly a point of inquiry, meaning...
The questioner : Yes, your question regarding nationalities, if you could repeat it to the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him)...
Al-Halabi : He is not repeating the written text, because he has read the written text; rather, he is repeating the clarification: Is it political, partisan, grouping organization? Or the obligatory legal organization that our Shaykh emphasized and encouraged us to pursue?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : The obligatory one.
Al-Halabi : Is this a reality?
The Shaykh : I do not think so.
Another questioner : I mean, if there is a group, meaning people who agree on the Salafi methodology, but the existence of a grouping, for example, differs from another grouping by nationality to facilitate da'wah work...
The Shaykh : Yes, I imagine this regarding the obligatory organization, as we all acknowledge it is not imagined. It is only imagined in that organization which is the brother of the forbidden partisanship, at least according to our understanding. And now that the question has been repeated on the topic, let us expand a little after this clarification. We now have two organizations: one we command and one we deny. We think that the organization we deny may occur as mentioned in this current question. Let us ensure: what is the reason that this organization took nationality into account? What is the secret behind that?
Another questioner : To facilitate da'wah work and because these people are unable to do the same work as the other individuals.
The Shaykh : This has nothing to do with nationality. It could be one nationality where some people are capable and others are not, and another nationality where everyone is capable of work. So, nationality has no relation to the matter here. I fear that the matter is related to regionalism or tribalism, as it is called today.
The questioner : And it happens...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And it happens...
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore, if this is the intention, if this is the intention, it aligns with the forbidden organization in our view and does not align with the obligatory organization in our view. Okay, anything else?
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : There is an issue actually being discussed that we were researching with a group of brothers. It is that in the case of some who have chosen political work in some Islamic countries, and have adopted this path, and have achieved some progress, it seems. In these countries, do they boycott? Or do they advise along with boycotting? Or do they advise along with supporting them to help them reach rule or something similar?
The Shaykh : We have been asked this question many times, by phone here and orally in the Hijaz. Our answer to this, part of it, is understood from the previous speech. And I mention on this occasion that one of the Algerians called me by phone a month or two months ago and asked me about this grouping and partisanship. So I answered him with what you know: there is no partisanship in Islam. As for calling to Islam and cooperating in this call, this is an obligatory duty, and its obligation is a collective obligation (fard kifayah). So the man answered me that the current president in that country has under his control so many millions of young people.
Al-Halabi : The party president, you mean, my Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, so many millions. He said five or six, and I no longer remember exactly. And on this occasion, during Hajj, I met some of them and mentioned this news to him. He said to me, "No, this number is exaggerated. If it is said to be two or three million, that is possible." In any case, I answered the questioner by phone and said: "And this president was able to teach these millions and raise them in Islam." So he was stunned.The questioner : Of course, and this is the point we are emphasizing. A question had also come to me, which is an answer to some of what came in your question. We now have several groups, including the group that won the political round, as you mentioned earlier. But we see, according to what we heard from the tapes in which you spoke, that this grouping and this partisanship is not legitimate. But what is your opinion now? Different groups have nominated themselves to succeed in what they call municipal elections. What do you advise our position to be? Do we join this Islamic grouping, or what? So I answered him frankly: Do not group and do not become partisan. But if there are several groups that have nominated themselves, choose from them the least evil, meaning choose the Muslims, of course. But this does not mean that they should join them. This is from the principle of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) which states that if a Muslim falls between two evils, he chooses the one with less evil or harm. So, do not group. But if there are Islamic groups and non-Islamic groups, we must choose whoever is more beneficial for the Muslims, even if it is some benefit. I mean, some evil is less than some. This is my answer to what you asked from the question. Yes, please go ahead.
Another questioner : In the name of Allah, and praise be to Allah. Regarding the discussion you just had, regarding the absolute sovereignty of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), as we know...
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : So, if one of the Muslims enters the parliament, it is considered a dilution of the issue of creed, which we never agree with, nor with the pre-Islamic age of ignorance (jahiliyyah) in any way. They are in jahiliyyah and we are in Islam. We are not connected with them at all, and we do not meet them at all. So in this regard, if a Muslim enters under a jahili rule, this will be a diluting view for Muslims regarding creed. And as we know, creed is the first thing, and it entails the implication of "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no deity but Allah), which is absolute sovereignty.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : So I hope you will clarify this for us.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt about this, my brother. I think the group in question are those who are of the opinion that if they enter the parliaments that exist today, they will reform and not corrupt. They do not disagree with us on the fact that the foundation of Islam is tawhid (the oneness of Allah) and that it is obligatory for us to fight all systems that contradict Islam. So they agree with us on this point, except for a few individuals among them, of course. But we do not agree with them that this is the path to reform. Reform, as we said earlier, is achieved by presenting the correct knowledge, starting from 'aqidah (creed) to morals and behavior, and raising Muslims on this foundation. Entering a parliament whose system is based on the opposite of Islam, whether it be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred Muslims, does not achieve the victory of Islam at all. Rather, it contains what you pointed out. And although this does not obligate the individual to approve and support the existing system, which is the Islamic system, there is no doubt that it is clear for Muslims to focus on educating the Muslim community, teaching them, and raising them on Islam, without joining these parliaments that were established on non-Muslim, disbelieving systems. Even those who enter are afflicted by the entry; they disagree with that. But unfortunately, they agree with us in a statement and disagree with us in its application. They agree with us on the principle that says: "The end justifies the means," that it is not an Islamic principle. But in practice, even some of today's Islamic blocs justify this principle and implement it in practice. And there are some studies and theses written in which it is explicitly stated that the Muslim in this time must commit some of the forbidden things. And this is, in reality, very dangerous speech, because it is a clear contradiction of the Qur'an, in which it is said by Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He:[At-Talaq 65:2-3] So how is it correct for someone to say, from the Islamic system, to justify and legitimize contradicting Islam at times, under the claim that it is not possible for a Muslim to fear Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in everything? Is this Islam? No, this is not from Islam. But now it is given the name of Islam and the Islamic system. And this is part of the danger of engaging in politics, in our belief. Although those who want to engage in politics must deviate, a little or a lot, and consequently they must justify this deviation, as we hear from al-Qaradawi and others, permitting things whose prohibition is well known. And Allah is the Helper. And now it is eleven o'clock, so we will suffice with this much. Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise be to You. I testify that there is no god but You. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.
The Shaykh : He prays, and his recitation in the first rak'ah is from what is easy of Surat Ghafir, from verse 38 to verse 44.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt.
The questioner : And this is an obligatory duty upon the Muslims.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : The issue we see among everyone, in reality, lies between the matters of legitimate organization that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has commanded us to cooperate in, and the issues they want to address through partisanship, gathering, and dividing the Muslims under what is called political banners.
The Shaykh : Perfect.
The questioner : You mentioned, my Shaykh, in response to the honored brother’s question, the existence of a grouping where its members are organized according to nationalities, and you answered that there is no objection. Is this division according to nationalities, as is observed, leading to some of these people taking precedence over others, or causing division? Please elaborate on this issue.
The Shaykh : In which issue, my brother? In political organization? Or in the organization of what I referred to and mentioned earlier, which is obligatory in Islam?
The questioner : In what is obligatory in Islam.
The Shaykh : Okay
The questioner : The cooperation should be...
The Shaykh : So, if the previous question was within these limits, there is no issue.
The questioner : So, here, for clarification, so that it is not confused...
The Shaykh : No problem, clarify it for us, my brother, because this is truly a point of inquiry, meaning...
The questioner : Yes, your question regarding nationalities, if you could repeat it to the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him)...
Al-Halabi : He is not repeating the written text, because he has read the written text; rather, he is repeating the clarification: Is it political, partisan, grouping organization? Or the obligatory legal organization that our Shaykh emphasized and encouraged us to pursue?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : The obligatory one.
Al-Halabi : Is this a reality?
The Shaykh : I do not think so.
Another questioner : I mean, if there is a group, meaning people who agree on the Salafi methodology, but the existence of a grouping, for example, differs from another grouping by nationality to facilitate da'wah work...
The Shaykh : Yes, I imagine this regarding the obligatory organization, as we all acknowledge it is not imagined. It is only imagined in that organization which is the brother of the forbidden partisanship, at least according to our understanding. And now that the question has been repeated on the topic, let us expand a little after this clarification. We now have two organizations: one we command and one we deny. We think that the organization we deny may occur as mentioned in this current question. Let us ensure: what is the reason that this organization took nationality into account? What is the secret behind that?
Another questioner : To facilitate da'wah work and because these people are unable to do the same work as the other individuals.
The Shaykh : This has nothing to do with nationality. It could be one nationality where some people are capable and others are not, and another nationality where everyone is capable of work. So, nationality has no relation to the matter here. I fear that the matter is related to regionalism or tribalism, as it is called today.
The questioner : And it happens...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And it happens...
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore, if this is the intention, if this is the intention, it aligns with the forbidden organization in our view and does not align with the obligatory organization in our view. Okay, anything else?
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : There is an issue actually being discussed that we were researching with a group of brothers. It is that in the case of some who have chosen political work in some Islamic countries, and have adopted this path, and have achieved some progress, it seems. In these countries, do they boycott? Or do they advise along with boycotting? Or do they advise along with supporting them to help them reach rule or something similar?
The Shaykh : We have been asked this question many times, by phone here and orally in the Hijaz. Our answer to this, part of it, is understood from the previous speech. And I mention on this occasion that one of the Algerians called me by phone a month or two months ago and asked me about this grouping and partisanship. So I answered him with what you know: there is no partisanship in Islam. As for calling to Islam and cooperating in this call, this is an obligatory duty, and its obligation is a collective obligation (fard kifayah). So the man answered me that the current president in that country has under his control so many millions of young people.
Al-Halabi : The party president, you mean, my Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, so many millions. He said five or six, and I no longer remember exactly. And on this occasion, during Hajj, I met some of them and mentioned this news to him. He said to me, "No, this number is exaggerated. If it is said to be two or three million, that is possible." In any case, I answered the questioner by phone and said: "And this president was able to teach these millions and raise them in Islam." So he was stunned.The questioner : Of course, and this is the point we are emphasizing. A question had also come to me, which is an answer to some of what came in your question. We now have several groups, including the group that won the political round, as you mentioned earlier. But we see, according to what we heard from the tapes in which you spoke, that this grouping and this partisanship is not legitimate. But what is your opinion now? Different groups have nominated themselves to succeed in what they call municipal elections. What do you advise our position to be? Do we join this Islamic grouping, or what? So I answered him frankly: Do not group and do not become partisan. But if there are several groups that have nominated themselves, choose from them the least evil, meaning choose the Muslims, of course. But this does not mean that they should join them. This is from the principle of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) which states that if a Muslim falls between two evils, he chooses the one with less evil or harm. So, do not group. But if there are Islamic groups and non-Islamic groups, we must choose whoever is more beneficial for the Muslims, even if it is some benefit. I mean, some evil is less than some. This is my answer to what you asked from the question. Yes, please go ahead.
Another questioner : In the name of Allah, and praise be to Allah. Regarding the discussion you just had, regarding the absolute sovereignty of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), as we know...
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : So, if one of the Muslims enters the parliament, it is considered a dilution of the issue of creed, which we never agree with, nor with the pre-Islamic age of ignorance (jahiliyyah) in any way. They are in jahiliyyah and we are in Islam. We are not connected with them at all, and we do not meet them at all. So in this regard, if a Muslim enters under a jahili rule, this will be a diluting view for Muslims regarding creed. And as we know, creed is the first thing, and it entails the implication of "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no deity but Allah), which is absolute sovereignty.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Another questioner : So I hope you will clarify this for us.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt about this, my brother. I think the group in question are those who are of the opinion that if they enter the parliaments that exist today, they will reform and not corrupt. They do not disagree with us on the fact that the foundation of Islam is tawhid (the oneness of Allah) and that it is obligatory for us to fight all systems that contradict Islam. So they agree with us on this point, except for a few individuals among them, of course. But we do not agree with them that this is the path to reform. Reform, as we said earlier, is achieved by presenting the correct knowledge, starting from 'aqidah (creed) to morals and behavior, and raising Muslims on this foundation. Entering a parliament whose system is based on the opposite of Islam, whether it be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred Muslims, does not achieve the victory of Islam at all. Rather, it contains what you pointed out. And although this does not obligate the individual to approve and support the existing system, which is the Islamic system, there is no doubt that it is clear for Muslims to focus on educating the Muslim community, teaching them, and raising them on Islam, without joining these parliaments that were established on non-Muslim, disbelieving systems. Even those who enter are afflicted by the entry; they disagree with that. But unfortunately, they agree with us in a statement and disagree with us in its application. They agree with us on the principle that says: "The end justifies the means," that it is not an Islamic principle. But in practice, even some of today's Islamic blocs justify this principle and implement it in practice. And there are some studies and theses written in which it is explicitly stated that the Muslim in this time must commit some of the forbidden things. And this is, in reality, very dangerous speech, because it is a clear contradiction of the Qur'an, in which it is said by Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He:
And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out (3) And will provide for him from where he does not expect.
ومن يتّق الله يجعل له مخرجا ويرزقه من حيث لا يحتسبThe Shaykh : He prays, and his recitation in the first rak'ah is from what is easy of Surat Ghafir, from verse 38 to verse 44.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.