What is the ruling on municipal elections?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : We move from the major elections to the minor ones, the municipal elections. What is your opinion on them, and what do you say to those who claim their permissibility on the grounds that they have no connection to polytheistic democracy, and that having a Muslim as the mayor is better?
The Shaykh : Having?
The questioner : He gestured with his hand, so I understood.
The Shaykh : It requires a study of grammar.
The questioner : Even in the worst case, if it is a Muslim, even in the worst case, it is better than if it were a Christian, a socialist, or a communist. And whoever abstains from voting on the excuse that the mayor is forced in some cases, for example, is sinful, because that justification does not hold. On the other hand, if we enable a disbeliever to take the presidency, he will assist in the wrongs that he would certainly stand against if the president were Muslim.
The Shaykh : The important thing, my brother, is that this question, though in reality it is lighter than the previous one, every election revolves around a non-Islamic principle. In fact, it is a Zionist Jewish principle: the end justifies the means. I distinguish between a Muslim nominating himself for a seat in one of the municipal councils and his choosing whom he believes to be the lesser evil in that council. The distinction must be made even in the major elections. I wrote to the "Salvation" group in Algeria, and they sent me a question about the elections. I explained to them, with some detail, what I mentioned earlier: that these elections and parliaments are not Islamic, and that I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself to be a deputy in this parliament, because he will never be able to do anything for Islam. Rather, the current will sweep him away, as happens in all the existing governments in the Arab countries today.
However, I also said that if there are Muslims—and unfortunately this exists in every land of Islam—who nominate themselves to enter the parliament claiming to reduce evil, we cannot prevent them from nominating themselves, because we only have the power to advise, clarify, and convey the message. So if it is a reality that he will nominate himself for the major or minor elections, as you put it, and a Muslim nominates himself against a Christian or a communist or the like, if we can prevent the Muslim from nominating himself, whether in the major or minor election, we choose that. Why? Because there is an Islamic principle on the basis of which we say what we said: if a Muslim is between two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two. There is no doubt that having a Muslim mayor is, without doubt, the lesser evil, and I do not say it is better, than having a disbeliever or an atheist mayor. But this mayor burns himself without knowing it. This mayor burns himself and does not know it, because when he explains himself claiming that he wants to reduce evil, he may do so, but he does not know that he is burning from another side. So his case is like that of the scholar who does not act upon his knowledge. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:. In this, we distinguish between being elected and electing. We do not nominate ourselves to be elected, because we will burn. As for the one who refuses but to burn himself, a little or a lot, and nominates himself in this election or that, we choose this Muslim over that disbeliever or that atheist, on the basis of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil.
The questioner : Shaykh, I understand from this statement that regarding the parliament or regarding the municipal elections, if a Muslim nominates himself, then voting for him is permissible?
The Shaykh : From the perspective of preserving, from the perspective of preserving.
The questioner : The lesser of the two evils?
The Shaykh : From the perspective of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil, not because it is good.
The questioner : We now move to a specific issue, O Shaykh. We will list it for you so that we may know the ruling.
The Shaykh: O Allah, O Generous One.
The Shaykh : Having?
The questioner : He gestured with his hand, so I understood.
The Shaykh : It requires a study of grammar.
The questioner : Even in the worst case, if it is a Muslim, even in the worst case, it is better than if it were a Christian, a socialist, or a communist. And whoever abstains from voting on the excuse that the mayor is forced in some cases, for example, is sinful, because that justification does not hold. On the other hand, if we enable a disbeliever to take the presidency, he will assist in the wrongs that he would certainly stand against if the president were Muslim.
The Shaykh : The important thing, my brother, is that this question, though in reality it is lighter than the previous one, every election revolves around a non-Islamic principle. In fact, it is a Zionist Jewish principle: the end justifies the means. I distinguish between a Muslim nominating himself for a seat in one of the municipal councils and his choosing whom he believes to be the lesser evil in that council. The distinction must be made even in the major elections. I wrote to the "Salvation" group in Algeria, and they sent me a question about the elections. I explained to them, with some detail, what I mentioned earlier: that these elections and parliaments are not Islamic, and that I do not advise a Muslim to nominate himself to be a deputy in this parliament, because he will never be able to do anything for Islam. Rather, the current will sweep him away, as happens in all the existing governments in the Arab countries today.
However, I also said that if there are Muslims—and unfortunately this exists in every land of Islam—who nominate themselves to enter the parliament claiming to reduce evil, we cannot prevent them from nominating themselves, because we only have the power to advise, clarify, and convey the message. So if it is a reality that he will nominate himself for the major or minor elections, as you put it, and a Muslim nominates himself against a Christian or a communist or the like, if we can prevent the Muslim from nominating himself, whether in the major or minor election, we choose that. Why? Because there is an Islamic principle on the basis of which we say what we said: if a Muslim is between two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two. There is no doubt that having a Muslim mayor is, without doubt, the lesser evil, and I do not say it is better, than having a disbeliever or an atheist mayor. But this mayor burns himself without knowing it. This mayor burns himself and does not know it, because when he explains himself claiming that he wants to reduce evil, he may do so, but he does not know that he is burning from another side. So his case is like that of the scholar who does not act upon his knowledge. 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 and illuminates others.
مثل العالم الذي لا يعمل بعمله كمثل المصباح يحرق نفسه ويضيء غيرهThe questioner : Shaykh, I understand from this statement that regarding the parliament or regarding the municipal elections, if a Muslim nominates himself, then voting for him is permissible?
The Shaykh : From the perspective of preserving, from the perspective of preserving.
The questioner : The lesser of the two evils?
The Shaykh : From the perspective of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil, not because it is good.
The questioner : We now move to a specific issue, O Shaykh. We will list it for you so that we may know the ruling.
The Shaykh: O Allah, O Generous One.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.