Some students of knowledge have issued a ruling permitting the election of the best of the candidates, even if he is a Christian, on the basis of committing the lesser of two harms. Is this correct?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : Some students of knowledge have issued a ruling permitting the election of the best of the Christian candidates on the basis of the lesser of two harms. Is this permissible? And does this not count as increasing their numbers and population, which may negatively affect people's view of the popularity of the Muslims?
The Shaykh : This question has been put to me more than once, and I think the question is incomplete. If you have an explanation to complete this deficiency, because we say that the original principle is to have a good opinion of the people of knowledge, meaning that one does not correct them. - And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings -
The questioner : The permissibility is for the best of the candidates in general, and there is a seat reserved for the Christians.
The Shaykh : I say something here, and this is what I will say, which I think is the intent of the question. The question is incomplete, as it was from others as well. This Christian candidate is either one that is imposed on the Muslims to nominate a Christian, whether they wish it or not. In that case, either there are many Christians who have nominated themselves, and one of them must succeed. In this situation, the rule mentioned earlier applies: choosing the lesser of two harms. For example, if four Christians have nominated themselves in a certain country, and one of them must succeed, and if we assume that all the votes, or all of them, are directed to the Muslims and not a single vote is directed to these Christian candidates, they are dropped. It is not permissible to choose him. Is this clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As for if it is the opposite, and this is what I think the question is focused on: it is necessary, because of the current system, the system of elections. You must all know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever. Even if some countries boast of democracy or something of that meaning from this foreign word, that this represents the democracy of the people and the democracy of governance, this is in reality, what shall I say? "You hear of al-Mu'ayyad, and that is better than seeing him," meaning "I hear the noise but I see no grinding," meaning words with no substance beneath them. So there is no democracy in elections at all. Why?
The questioner : Is there anything in Islam called democracy?
The Shaykh : I am saying they passed here, justice. They mean justice because we are using their words. Islam is rich in everything foreign, democracy, socialism, communism, capitalism, and so on. But they boast that this has democracy, it has justice. Why? From the people and to the people. The people go to choose their deputies and ministers, and so on. How does the people choose, and how do the candidates from the people choose? It is clear from the title of the written document that you are now seeing how many candidates have nominated themselves. First of all, in Islam, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, as in the authentic hadith of Muslim or al-Bukhari or both together, he (peace and blessings be upon him) says: or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said. That is, an employee who asks to be employed is not employed. Why? Because this means he wants to exploit this position and profit from it. So only the sincere one is employed, whom the first responsible person or his deputy chooses. And we say here, I choose me, I am your candidate. You see on the signs on the road, support me and I will support you. I also read this title -laughs-The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) support me and I will support you. Allahu Akbar. Yes.
The questioner : The word so-and-so with Allah, be with him.
The Shaykh : No, that is milder. But the phrase "support me and I will support you" is disbelief.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The intent is that it is clear from the title of the written document that these candidates nominated themselves. If there were an Islamic ruling and an election, they would not accept them.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : Some students of knowledge have issued a ruling permitting the election of the best of the Christian candidates on the basis of the lesser of two harms. Is this permissible? And does this not count as increasing their numbers and population, which may negatively affect people's view of the popularity of the Muslims?
The Shaykh : This question has been put to me more than once, and I think the question is incomplete. If you have an explanation to complete this deficiency, because we say that the original principle is to have a good opinion of the people of knowledge, meaning that one does not correct them. - And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings -
The questioner : The permissibility is for the best of the candidates in general, and there is a seat reserved for the Christians.
The Shaykh : I say something here, and this is what I will say, which I think is the intent of the question. The question is incomplete, as it was from others as well. This Christian candidate is either one that is imposed on the Muslims to nominate a Christian, whether they wish it or not. In that case, either there are many Christians who have nominated themselves, and one of them must succeed. In this situation, the rule mentioned earlier applies: choosing the lesser of two harms. For example, if four Christians have nominated themselves in a certain country, and one of them must succeed, and if we assume that all the votes, or all of them, are directed to the Muslims and not a single vote is directed to these Christian candidates, they are dropped. It is not permissible to choose him. Is this clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As for if it is the opposite, and this is what I think the question is focused on: it is necessary, because of the current system, the system of elections. You must all know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever. Even if some countries boast of democracy or something of that meaning from this foreign word, that this represents the democracy of the people and the democracy of governance, this is in reality, what shall I say? "You hear of al-Mu'ayyad, and that is better than seeing him," meaning "I hear the noise but I see no grinding," meaning words with no substance beneath them. So there is no democracy in elections at all. Why?
The questioner : Is there anything in Islam called democracy?
The Shaykh : I am saying they passed here, justice. They mean justice because we are using their words. Islam is rich in everything foreign, democracy, socialism, communism, capitalism, and so on. But they boast that this has democracy, it has justice. Why? From the people and to the people. The people go to choose their deputies and ministers, and so on. How does the people choose, and how do the candidates from the people choose? It is clear from the title of the written document that you are now seeing how many candidates have nominated themselves. First of all, in Islam, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, as in the authentic hadith of Muslim or al-Bukhari or both together, he (peace and blessings be upon him) says:
We do not appoint to authority one who seeks authority
نحن لا نولي من طلب الولايةThe questioner : The word so-and-so with Allah, be with him.
The Shaykh : No, that is milder. But the phrase "support me and I will support you" is disbelief.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The intent is that it is clear from the title of the written document that these candidates nominated themselves. If there were an Islamic ruling and an election, they would not accept them.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.