What is the ruling on elections and voting in them, and what is the evidence for that? And what is the alternative if they are not permissible?

The questioner : The question, O our Shaykh, the first one is a bit long, but I have an explanation. In sha Allah, he says: We are now approaching the parliamentary elections. May Allah protect us and you. Most people in this age live in a period where trials have swept through, to the point that we can almost say these trials have come to shape society and lead it with their strong currents, causing people to adapt to them in a non-Islamic way. So the scholar, before the layman, points to the permissibility of these elections, claiming that if we leave the matter as it is, the disbeliever—who should not be in power—will have complete dominance.

The Shaykh : Who should not be in power?

The questioner : The disbeliever, meaning the one who is either a communist or such, i.e., the disbeliever. They wanted to change things. The disbeliever will have complete dominance, and I emphasize the word "complete." Whereas participation by Muslims in it returns to us a partial share of power that grants the Muslim some of his demands and preserves for him something of his rights. Therefore, from the standpoint of the maxim that says: "That without which the obligatory cannot be completed is itself obligatory," participation in elections is almost obligatory.
And so I ask you, may Allah reward you with good, to clarify for us the Islamic evidence regarding the issue of elections, participating in them, and voting in them, and what the alternative is in this situation? And may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : We have spoken about this issue repeatedly and said: Participating in elections is relying upon those who have wronged themselves. This is because the system of parliaments and the system of elections—I believe every Muslim who has some correct Islamic culture knows that the system of elections and the system of parliaments is not an Islamic system. But at the same time, I think many of those who have some participation in Islamic culture imagine that the parliament is like the Muslim Council of Consultation. This is not the case at all. Some imagine that the parliament, which translates to the Council of the Nation, resembles the Shura (consultation) that we were commanded to follow in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). It is not so at all. This is clear to every Muslim who is discerning in his religion from many aspects, the most important of which is that these parliaments are not established upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, we can say that they are not established upon any of the followed Islamic schools of jurisprudence, as was the case in the Ottoman era. In the Ottoman era, they ruled according to the school of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). And although we do not prefer it or prefer it over what we call people to, which is referring disputes to the Book and the Sunnah, there is a vast difference between that ruling which was based on the opinion of one of the trusted mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) and these parliaments which are established on the systems of disbelievers who do not believe in Allah and His Messenger, on the one hand. In fact, they are the first among those included in the statement of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He): So how astonishing it is that Muslims want to belong to a parliament that rules by the law of those whom we were commanded to fight! So there is a vast difference between this system which the parliament and parliamentarians rule by, if the expression is correct, and the Islamic Council of Consultation. This is the first point.
Second, not every Muslim participates in the Council of Consultation. The Council of Consultation is participated in only by the elite of the nation, or rather, we can say it is participated in only by the elite of the elite of the nation, who are its scholars and its virtuous people. As for the parliament, anyone and everyone participates in it from among the Muslims, and even from among the polytheists, and even from among the atheists. Because the parliament is based on elections, and in elections, anyone who wishes can nominate himself, from among the men, and finally, from among the women as well, from the Muslims, from the disbelievers, from the Muslim women, from the disbelieving women. So there is a vast difference between the Council of Consultation in Islam and what is called today the parliament. Then, if the matter of elections were carried out as they say, with complete and total freedom, meaning that the people, as they say, choose by their own freedom and will those who represent them to raise their issues and problems to them if they arise, the matter would be much easier than what is the reality. How is it when in every country, without exception, whether Muslim or disbeliever, votes are sold and consciences are bought? How can Muslims rule by such elections? This is a little of the description of its evil. This is what can be said regarding what I understood from one part of the question. As for the second part, I can say that it is a cliché in this time to ask: What is the alternative?
It is a very easy word, and because of its ease, the weak ones, the weak people, and those who have been afflicted with distance from the guidance of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) resort to it. They want the alternative to be realized between one evening and the next morning. Recently, we were in a session where we spoke about banks, especially Islamic banks, and we clarified that there is no difference between these banks that raise their Islamic banner. There is absolutely no difference between an Islamic bank and a British or American bank, because the system is one. But unfortunately, the bank that declared itself an Islamic bank may be more dangerous than the other banks, whether British or American. This is because these banks hide behind the veil of Islam. They do the action of the Jews, from whose ways the Book and the Sunnah warned us against following, especially the explicit, well-known hadith in al-Bukhari, in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): They said: The Jews and the Christians? He said: I said, on this occasion, this was last night or the night before last. Yes, we often say that people ask on such occasions about the alternative to these banks which we deny because of their dealing in forbidden riba (usury or interest) by the Book and the Sunnah. They ask: What is the alternative? So I said, and here I say: I throw, as they say, two birds with one stone. The alternative is the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He): The alternative is the taqwa (mindfulness of Allah) of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And there is no doubt that the taqwa of Allah requires, before all else, beneficial knowledge, and secondly, righteous action accompanied by beneficial knowledge. So righteous action does not suffice without beneficial knowledge, and beneficial knowledge does not suffice without righteous action. Rather, it is necessary to combine them. And for Muslims to be able to perform this taqwa, which includes beneficial knowledge and righteous action, this requires tremendous, coordinated efforts between the people of knowledge who perform the duty of teaching and conveying Islam, and the duty of acting upon this Islam for the masses of Muslims. So when the general Muslims interact with their scholars—these scholars by spreading knowledge and those by acting upon knowledge—then the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Welcome. With this, I conclude the answer to that question. The alternative, then, is returning to Islam. The alternative, then, is returning to Islam in understanding and action.