Continuation of the discussion on the ruling regarding the election of a Christian candidate.

The Shaykh : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, as found in the authentic collections of Muslim or al-Bukhari, or both together. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said. This means an employee seeking a position that is not given to him? Because this implies he wants to exploit this position and profit from it. Therefore, only the sincere one should be appointed, chosen by the primary authority or his deputy. Now, we say here, "Choose me as your candidate." You see the signs on the road: "Support me, and I will support you." I also read this headline—(laughs)The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him)—"Support me, and I will support you. Allahu Akbar." Yes.

The questioner : The phrase "So-and-so with Allah, be with him."

The Shaykh : No, that is milder, but "Support me, and I will support you" is disbelief.

The questioner : They place it in the wrong context.

The Shaykh : The point is clear from the written title that these candidates nominated themselves. If it were under an Islamic system with elections, they would not accept them. If it were under an Islamic system with elections, they would never accept them. How would elections work in an Islamic system? The Imam, the Caliph, has a Shura council with a select group of the country's scholars, from its righteous people, those well-versed in the conditions of the people, and so on. He consults them. For example, we need a person to appoint as the head of such-and-such market to monitor it, ensuring nothing enters that is not permissible to sell or buy, no deception, no wrongdoing, and so on. They discuss the matter and look into it, saying, "We see that So-and-so should be appointed." We do not need a council or councils, and so on. The point is, these candidates engage in what is permissible and what is not, in order to succeed. The discussion on this is long and very long. It is incumbent upon the people to choose from among these who nominated themselves. It is also incumbent upon the people that there be individuals from the Christians in the National Assembly. Why? Because the Christians are citizens. Yes, citizens, and Islamic justice also includes citizens. Ah. They do precise calculations for us. How many are the Christians in the country as a percentage of the Muslims? I do not know if they calculate for the Jews or not. This did not occur to us, that they would choose from the Jews. The important thing is that according to the ratio, they place, for example, the country needs two Christians. Two Christians. If the Muslims do not choose them, their own kind, their own religion, or their co-religionists choose them. So, all of these are going to succeed. But the candidates from among them, as we said, are four or five. The Muslims in that country say, "So-and-so is a Ba'athist, and although he is a disbeliever, he is a Ba'athist. The second, although he is a disbeliever, is a communist. The third, although he is a disbeliever by origin, is an atheist, and so on. So-and-so, by Allah, is devout in his Christianity and does not oppose the Muslims." What is the position of the Muslims, since one or two of these must succeed? They say, "We do not intervene. These are Christians. They say in the Levant, 'glass breaks each other.'" No, that is not the case. These whom you say "glass breaks each other," they want two of them to succeed despite your noses. O Muslims, O people of intellect, does this principle apply in this situation or not? Now I say yes, because the Muslims are currently between two evils, just as is the case entirely for the Muslims. Among the Muslims are Ba'athists, communists, and atheists, and this is not far from your experience. So, do we sit and watch, or do we choose the lesser of the two evils? Please.
Abu Layla : Shaykh, in Zarqa, it happened...

The Shaykh : No, no, do not name it. Keep it covered. May Allah guide you. Learn from your Shaykh.
Abu Layla : Yes, may Allah reward you with good. In some countries, the Christians have started exposing each other's papers. And in our country...
Al-Halabi : Zarqa, which we mentioned a moment ago.

The Shaykh : Good.
Abu Layla : It became clear to us that these Christians, if there is a communist among them who is Maronite, and the one who is not Maronite is... yes, why do we give our votes to these people? If these people exist, would not one be worse than the other, or is there one among them who is better? Why do we give them the power of votes? And now, for example, in this country, one Christian person...

The Shaykh : You have strayed, O Shaykh. You have strayed from the topic. And I will not hold it against you if I tell you that I am your Shaykh, andThe Shaykh : a Shaykh has authority over his student, is that not so? That you did not understand the topic.
Abu Layla : I understood the topic. I understand everything you said.

The Shaykh : What is your answer? Do we choose the lesser of the two evils or not?
Abu Layla : My thinking was...

The Shaykh : Leave your thinking aside. What is your opinion? Do you choose the lesser of the two evils or not? The best of speech is what is brief and effective.
Abu Layla : For me, no.

The Shaykh : Meaning, we do not choose the lesser of the two evils?
Abu Layla : They are all the same to us.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : The evil is equal in his view.

The Shaykh : Be patient for a moment. The principle of choosing the lesser of the two evils, did you dismiss it?
Abu Layla : Yes, I dismissed it.
Abu Layla : You dismissed it.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is known.

The Shaykh : Do these people fall under this principle or not?
Abu Layla : He says no.

The Shaykh : Why?
Abu Layla : Because we see them all as the same.

The Shaykh : This contradicts your statement. No, "they are all the same" means no. I just described a picture without specifying a country. I said, among them, all four are Christians. There is the Ba'athist, there is the communist, there is the atheist, and there is the one who holds fast to his religion and does not oppose the Muslims. Leave your country aside. He does not oppose the Muslims. Do you see the difference now?
Abu Layla : Yes, I see it.

The Shaykh : I know what your problem is, and that of others. In the picture I presented to you, all four are Christians: one atheist, one Ba'athist, one communist, and one Christian who holds fast to his religion and does not oppose the Muslims. Of these four, three oppose the Muslims. Is their evil all the same as each other?
Abu Layla : No, of course not.

The Shaykh : Now, if we elect this Christian whose evil is less than the other three, have we erred or have we hit the mark?
Abu Layla : Perhaps there are two answers to this.

The Shaykh : Perhaps on that planet.
Abu Layla : There are two answers, O my Shaykh...

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Abu Layla : The two answers. The first answer: if we come to the lesser of the two harms, we choose this one. But there is another type of people who say, "Do not choose any of them." Why? So that we do not give these people popularity in the future. People will say, "So-and-so chose him, naturally the one who is the lesser of the two harms." He has gained great popularity. For example, he gets twenty thousand votes, and a Muslim also gets twenty thousand votes. So, they are equal, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. Do you not notice that one of the four must succeed?
Abu Layla : He succeeds, O Shaykh, without the Muslims' votes, whoever he is among them.

The Shaykh : Do not mix things up, may Allah be pleased with you. Do not mix Sha'ban with Ramadan. You are now associating a Muslim who gets twenty thousand votes, and that one gets twenty-one thousand votes. This does not harm the Muslim.
Abu Layla : It does not harm him now, O my Shaykh, because he was elected and it is over. But in the future, So-and-so will have great popularity...

The Shaykh : Be patient. The popularity he wants to gain, is it from the one with the lesser evil or the one with the greater evil?
Abu Layla : The one with the lesser evil.

The Shaykh : Now, if we do not choose the one with the lesser evil, who will succeed?
Abu Layla : Perhaps, perhaps the one with the lesser evil will succeed.

The Shaykh : Leave the "perhaps" aside, O my brother, may Allah guide you. The matter is a mathematical operation. Increase his votes, he succeeds. Decrease his votes, he fails. The matter is a mathematical operation. So do not say "perhaps" and "perhaps." We say, if this one, whom we said is a devout Christian and does not oppose the Muslims, if we do not elect him, the other one, who is more harmful to the Muslims, may succeed, is that not so? Where is the principle of taking the lesser of the two harms? We hear fromThe Shaykh : Ali here.
onAl-Halabi : This speech, of course, some of it was mentioned before, but there is a point, which is the issue of the picture you mentioned, O our professor. If it is found, then this speech is accepted.

The Shaykh : What is the picture? May Allah bless you?
Al-Halabi : For example, in a case of three candidates and one who does not hostilities against the Muslims, while the others do. But Shaykh, the reality we are living in now in our countries, generally speaking, is that there are some of these Christians who are of this type. But the other Christians, even if they are not, for example, Ba'athists or communists or socialists, in reality they are missionaries for their religion; they send out missionary pamphlets against Islam and they attack it and so on.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, O Shaykh Ali, you and your companion. My brother, we are merely positing a hypothetical scenario.
Al-Halabi : Yes, the hypothetical scenario, my Shaykh, we have spoken about it before, and I told you if the matter is on this basis...

The Shaykh : Never mind, my brother, I am not in that country. I am dealing with the problems of Islamic countries, all of them. I am dealing with them intellectually.
Al-Halabi : Authentic

The Shaykh : Jurisprudentially. Those who want to apply the scientific and intellectual methodology are the afflicted in the country. I am positing a hypothetical scenario. If you accept this hypothesis, then it does not accept discussion or argumentation. Meanwhile, your companion is discussing it. The issue is either we say these four candidates themselves, all of them, are on the position of that Turkish one regarding harm: "They are equal." Look, now what is he saying? I am telling you, either we assume, and you are enthusiastic now, unfortunately, like others, do not blame us, you are not responding to me intellectually.
Like the enthusiast for the woman who must cover her face. Just look at the evidence, my brother. Cover her face, just do not believe, do not believe that this is obligatory. I am saying these four: either their harm to the Muslims is like each other, in which case their harm cancels each other out.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I said this before you did. Either the matter is like this, or the matter is as I posited, where one has less evil. If they are all like each other, what do you say in your enthusiasm? All of them are like this? Well, in that case, where is the question in terms of grammar? The question is not applicable in that case; because there is no evil one and more evil one here. They are all one in evil. What is this question?
Abu Layla : No. Here it is different.

The Shaykh : Well, and I am answering the question. The depiction of the answer to the question is as I depicted earlier: four disbelievers, one whose harm to the Muslims is lighter than the three. It is obligatory for the Muslims to nominate the one whose evil is less. You are enthusiastic and say they are all like each other. May Allah make them all like each other in the absence of evil, not all of them like each other in evil. But if one has less evil than the other, the one who must be chosen, you must be alert, O Abu Layla. This needs to be recorded for you. Pay attention. Yes, be alert. The rule: the question is, where is the basis for this rule? "The lesser of two harms." I said there is an error in the question. Do you remember or not?
Abu Layla : Yes.

The Shaykh : Where is the error? They did not mention any difference in the subject matter, but rather they equated the four candidates. You say that these are like each other, so we do not choose any one of them. If you say this, and you are my student, I say this and more. But the issue is not that. The issue is that there is a rule here. The rule alerts me that there is an error in the question. That there are four Christian candidates, one of whom has less evil toward the Muslims. Is it true that it is obligatory to choose him? Yes, it is obligatory to choose him; because it is assumed that one or two of these must come out, whether we like it or not. In that case, we exercise independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). But what did you do? You equated them. You felt as those who argue with us on the topic of Prophetic hadiths and so on felt. I went around and looked. These people will later say that the one who succeeded has popularity among the Muslims. They will say, "Let them be full." We care about repelling the greater harm with the lesser harm. Do you understand how?
Abu Layla: Yes.

The Shaykh : But why did you resort to this? When you felt that you were not standing on a rock, but on the edge of a crumbling cliff. You want to show the difference. Is the difference either present or absent? Is there a difference? We choose the one with the least evil—and peace be upon you. If it is not present, do not choose any of them at all.
Abu Layla : May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : Do we elect the one who has an Islamic orientation or something like that?

The Shaykh : If that is the case, we would say it regarding the disbelievers, so why would we not say it regarding the Muslims?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, absolutely not, neither in the past nor in the present.
Al-Halabi : Shaykh, your words are regarding the wording of obligation, my teacher.

The Shaykh : Allow me to correct an old error, either from me or from someone else.
Al-Halabi : From someone else is more likely.

The Shaykh : Never mind, we are not doing a comparison now.

The questioner : The ruling on the one who does not vote at all.

The Shaykh : Wait a moment. What I am saying, and what I said on this occasion, is that I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself. But if all the candidates put their heads together and put themselves in the arena, then we are helping these disbelievers, the Ba'athists, the communists, to succeed. It is not that if they succeed they will go and change the constitution and the law. No, no. Rather, it is from the perspective of reducing evil, alleviating evil, and that is all. So if I had a friend or a student, like...Abu Layla : For example, may Allah forbid, if Satan played with him, and he nominated himself in the name of the Salafis, I would advise him and say to him: Beware, beware of nominating yourself. The first thing you will do when you enter the parliament, or as they call it the National Assembly, is that you will want to shave a little of your beard so that you are acceptable. Yes.

The questioner : The first thing he does when he enters is to swear an oath to respect the constitution.

The Shaykh : That is correct, but I liked to give an example here, otherwise that is a manifestly false claim. Yes, so I do not advise anyone ever. But if, for example, he nominated himself, I would advise him and say to him: Beware, my brother, of burning yourself. And I have said more than once, recently, that these Islamists who nominate themselves in all the Arab countries that adopt the disbelieving system of elections are, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: . These people who nominate themselves and enter parliament, this is their likeness. They are going to burn themselves in the path of something illusory that they cannot reach. They think they will change the system, change the constitution, change the law. No, no. The constitution and the law cannot be changed except as the Exalted said: . But not everything a person wishes for can be attained. We wish that the group of Islamists who want to enter parliament remain on their path in training themselves, in expanding their knowledge in religion, in training the people who live with them, and so on. But the winds blow in ways the sailor does not wish. In that case, we find ourselves facing a reality that we do not control. We used to control the fact that we could advise...Abu Layla : ...the one who nominates himself. But there is no power or strength except in Allah.Abu Layla : He nominated himself. What do we do? Do we let George and Antonios come out there, and Abu Ahmad does not come out?Abu Layla : No, against our will, we have to choose him and those like him. We give these examples for the people. I do not advise any Muslim ever to nominate himself, because first, he is going to burn himself, and he will not light the way for others. He is not going to come out with his hands to do anything.

The questioner : And if that is the case, is there not cooperation in sin and transgression, or approval of what we consider wrong?

The Shaykh : Cooperation in what?

The questioner : In sin and transgression.

The Shaykh : No, if we raise our voice and say to these candidates, "Do not nominate yourselves," where is the approval?

The questioner : No, we do not say "Do not nominate yourselves," but we withdraw from this matter which is based on error, or rather errors.

The Shaykh : We return to the same rule. We acknowledge that this system is based on error. Is there a disagreement on this?

The questioner : There is no disagreement on this.

The Shaykh : There is no disagreement on this. But we are now facing a practical problem. We deal with the greater evil with the lesser evil, or not? This is our rule that we follow.

The questioner : Yes, the rule is correct.

The Shaykh : Well, if it is correct, we return and say: is its application here correct or not? Either it is correct, in which case it is correct, or if it is not correct, .

The questioner : What may be mentioned in this area to prove that it is not correct is that our election of someone like Abu Layla, whom we used as an example, would in this case be, on one hand, an approval on our part before the people, and on the other hand, cooperation with him in wrongdoing and transgression.

The Shaykh : My brother, we have answered you on this. Let us finish with this front and then move to the second front, because we cannot argue on two fronts at once.

The questioner : The front is finished.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, for your sake I am saying, do you allow them to speak? Have you exhausted what you have?

The questioner: Yes.
Al-Halabi : A question, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Al-Halabi : What is the ruling on one who does not vote at all?

The Shaykh : Okay, I think you are in one valley and he is in another. Indeed, you are here on the near bank and he is... -laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him).
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, the same question as our brother Nu'man, just for the sake of...

The Shaykh : Keep what you have. The answer returns to the one who does not want to vote. If he believes in the past philosophy that we have rejected, he should vote from the standpoint of the obligation to repel the greater evil by the lesser evil.
Al-Halabi : Regarding the obligation.

The Shaykh : The obligation, of course. And if he does not believe in this philosophy, then stay in your place and praise or rest.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. That is finished. Okay, yes.

The questioner : The rest is, of course, known as the deception of equalization.

The Shaykh : ...theoretical and not practical.

The questioner : Not practical.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : So you have cut off my way of return, because I found in some hadiths...

The Shaykh : That he explicitly mentioned the narration, whereas above there is none. Yes, no, this is a known matter. Come on.