Voting and Takfir - Maulana Zeeshan Chaudri

Whenever any elections draw near, the debate begins as to who and who not to vote for. Who will be beneficial for the Muslims and who will be harmful? Some claim that the voting system is pointless as all the candidates are similar, whilst some believe in a conspiracy that all elections are rigged to cause Muslims maximum harm. The aim of this essay is not to answer any of the above questions, as everyone may have their respected evidences. However, it is to respond to a notion held by some zealots that voting in elections regardless of one’s intent is Kufr (Disbelief), and the perpetrator of this act of treachery to Islam has left the fold of the religion (with the exception of those who did so out of ignorance). As bizarre as this view sounds, many youth accept this to be the correct view and begin to do Takfīr (charge someone with disbelief) to those who allow the act.

My aim is to respond to this ignorant claim and show how ludicrous this view is when looked at from the traditional Sunni perspective. But before delving into this topic, I would like to comment about the dangers of charging one with disbelief and the way the scholars dealt with this. I will only mention classical scholars whose statements all would accept.

It is reported in the Sahihayn (al-Bukhari and Muslim) that the Prophet (saw) said ‘A person does not charge a person with sin (Fisq) or Disbelief (Kufr) except it returns to him, if he (the accused) is not like that (of what he has been accused of).’[1]

The Hadith warns about the dangers of loosely attributing sinfulness to a person, let alone disbelief, without having concrete evidence that they are so. It is also understood that the words of the Prophet are in regards to charging Disbelief to a person attributing themselves to Islam, as the one who openly manifests his disbelief, then there is no harm in calling him what he is. Many Ahadith have come to this effect, which is why Ibn al-Wazīr (d.840) had classified it as Mutawātir (Ithār al-Haq ‘alā al-Khalq, p.381)

Imam al-Shawkāni (d.1250) stressed the danger of loosely charging someone with disbelief, when he stated:

‘Know, that applying the ruling on a Muslim that he has left the fold of Islam and entered into disbelief, is not appropriate for the one who believes in Allah and the last day. Rather he should only apply the ruling of disbelief, when he has evidence more clear than the Sun at day time. It is established via authentic narrations from a large group of companions that the one who states to his brother, ‘Oh Kāfir, then it returns on one of the two’’ (al-Sayl al-Jarrār, 4/548)[2] Similar statements can be found from a host of Sunni scholars.

This is under the assumption that the person has done an act of disbelief, as merely doing an act of Kufr does not necessitate that the person has become a Kāfir. This may be because the person had done so out of ignorance, or may have wrongly understood a text etc. So the Ahl al-Sunnah have always been extremely cautious when charging someone with disbelief, rather Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728) mentions:

‘From the apparent defects of the people of innovation is their charging one another with disbelief and from the praiseworthy nature of the people of knowledge are them taking out their opponent’s mistakes, yet refraining from Takfīr’. (Minhāj al-Sunnah, 5/251)[3]

Anyone who has associations with these types of people would know the truthfulness of Ibn Taymiyyah’s words.

This should serve as a warning to those who easily classify acts as disbelief, especially when the scholarly community by large are opposing their opinions. As for the topic of voting, then we should try to offer an academic approach, dealing with the commonly used arguments and providing further evidence from ourselves.

A common argument put forth is that Democracy is a system of Shirk, hence those who participate in the system are doing an act of Shirk. Therefore those who vote for a party or person are also aiding this Shirk/Kufr, and so are also doing Shirk themselves. Once this logic is explained to the Muslim voter and he still votes, then he is a Kāfir/Mushrik.

Like most modern terms, Democracy can be difficult to define. However, a basic distinction between procedural and substantive is important, as the former would not be problematic to most ‘Ulamā, or at the very least not be considered Kufr. Procedural would focus on the electoral process and it is the meaning intended by the general public when using the term Democracy. As for the substantive aspect of the term, then this has been an area of dispute for modern ‘Ulamā as it includes conceptions such as civil liberties and individual rights, the application of which even differs between various Western states. There is no doubt that many articulations of these concepts do in certain issues oppose divine law, so before one intends to condemn or condone a person’s support of Democracy, clarification of their understanding of the term is necessary (see The Princeton Encyclopaedia of Islamic Political Thought (2013) New Jersey: Princeton University Press p.128-130).

Secondly, one must understand that voting in itself is not Harām or Shirk. Rather, the ruling of voting would change from scenario to scenario. If a group are travelling and cast a vote on who should be placed in charge, this is commendable. Likewise, if the vote is for something evil, then that would be a sin. Does that mean voting for Shirk is Shirk?

Many scholars have discussed that obedience of a Mushrik only becomes Shirk when ones heart agrees with the Shirk. As for the mere action, then it is a sin. Qādhi Abā Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi (d.543) has stated:

‘A believer can only become a Mushrik with the obedience of a Mushrik, when he obeys him in his belief (I’tiqād), as that (the heart) is the place of disbelief and faith. Thus when he obeys him in an action whilst his faith is sound and remaining on Tawĥīd (oneness of Allah) and Tasdīq (affirmation), then he is a sinner. Understand that at all places’ (Aĥkām al-Qurān, 2/275)[4] Al-Qurţūbi (d.671) also quotes this from Ibn al-‘Arabi and agrees (See Jami’ Aĥkām al-Qurān, 7/77-78)

A similar statement is said by Abū Hayyān al-Andalūsī (d.745) in his Tafsīr, where he explains the verse when Allah warns the Prophet (saw) and the Saĥābah that if they obey the Mushriks (in regards to slaughter) then they will become Mushriks:

‘And if you obey them, then you will be idolaters: meaning if you obey the friends of the devils. You are the idolaters: Because obedience of them is obedience of the devils and that is idolatry, but he is not an actual Mushrik unless he obeys him in the heart’ (al-Baĥr al-Muĥīţ 4/633)[5]

Similar statements can be found in various Tafāsīr, which show that obedience of a Mushrik has to be followed by belief in the heart. There are clear exceptions to this rule, that is when the act is such that it shows the state of a person’s heart has disbelieved, so for example prostrating to a Hindu God, or clear disparagement of the Musĥaf etc (as mentioned by various authorities).

Now this clearly shows that electing a person to rule by other than Shari’ah, when done without the intention that someone other than Allah has the right to legislate, the most that can be said that it is a sin not Shirk. But even this will only be classified as a sin if he does so because he sees a personal worldly gain or something to that effect. As for the one who does so for an overriding greater benefit for Islam, then this comes under the scope of Ijtihād (legitimate opinion [this is not the literal meaning of Ijtihād]). This is par the Uşūl laid down by the early authorities cited. But now there are two ways to look at the current situation in the West, as one doesn't have a choice whether they want to live under Shari’ah law or non-Shari’ah law.

One is that the system of legislating is already established, so the voting is not giving anyone the right to legislate but rather choosing out of a pool of people who will inevitably take the role. And as we have seen, voting in itself is not an act of worship, rather it is Mubāh (permissible). Therefore, in this situation it becomes incumbent to choose the lesser of the two (or more) evils.

The second way is that voting is giving the right to legislate, but as seen it is not Shirk but a sin. So there is a Mafsadah (evil) involved in voting, but at times not voting has a greater evil (Mafsadah) which is the spread of more sin and Kufr. So if there is a greater Mafsadah for not voting or a greater Mafsadah in voting, that is what the Ĥukm would be. I will show that both understanding can be considered valid.

Once that is known, we can discuss the concept of lesser of the two evils.

This Uşūl of ‘lesser of two evils’ is often sighted in this discussion. The option of choosing the lesser of two evils occurs when there are two actions that are harmful, and the person takes the less harmful option. An example of this mentioned by the Uşūlis is when the Bedouin came to the Masjid and began urinating. The Saĥābah got up to stop the man, but the Prophet stopped them. This was because it could have spread the urine in more places or even be harmful to the physical state of the Bedouin. In this situation, the man urinating in the Masjid is a sin and not preventing the one urinating is also a sin. But by preventing him, one is committing a great evil (Mafsadah) because of either the urine spreading or physical harm to the Bedouin (See Ibn Ĥajr’s (d.852) Fatĥ al-Bārī, 1/324-5)[6]

What should be noted here is that it is not a condition for this principle that the person’s life or limb be in danger, as is clear from the example above. Another scenario mentioned in the books of al-Ashbah wa al-Nadhā’ir is of lying to reconcile between two Muslims. Lying is a sin, as is cutting ones ties with another Muslim. But the latter is seen as a greater evil, hence it is permissible to lie to reconcile between Muslims. (al-Ashbah wa al-Nadha’ir of al-Suyūţī (d.911), 1/88 and al-Ashbah wa al-Nadhā’ir of Ibn Nujaym (d.970), 1/78)[7]

So it is quite easy for the reader to understand the principle of ‘lesser of two evils’ in the topic being discussed. To further show that the principles applies to this scenario without leaving any doubt is the Hadith of Umm Salamah:

"She said: By Allah! We were upon this (peace and security) until a person from the Ethiopians challenged his kingdom. She said: By Allah! I did not see us become upset more severely than us becoming upset on this, fearing that this person might defeat al-Najāshi, so he may come to power not acknowledging our rights as al-Najāshi would. She said: al-Najāshi went ahead to engage with him in a battle while between them was the Nile River. She said: the companions of the Prophet SAW said: Who from us can go out to witness the battle and then tell us the news? She said: al-Zubair ibn al-'Awām said: I will, to which they said: Then you surely will. He was the youngest one of them. She said: They blew into a water skin, and he placed it on his chest. He then swam on it towards the place in the Nile River where the battle was taking place, until he reached it. She said: We then made Dua to Allah Ta'ala for al-Najāshi that He gives him Dhuhūr (victory) upon his enemy, and al-Tamkīn (establishment) in his land." (Sirah Ibn Hisham 1/338, Musnad Ahmad no. also narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā, 3/264, the Ĥadīth is Ĥasan, translation via Abuz Zubayr)[8][9]

It is well known that al-Najāshi was not a Muslim at this time; rather he accepted Islam some time later during the 7th Hijri. Al-Țabari (d.310) and a group of scholars said he became Muslim in the 9th year of Hijra and others have said it was just before the conquest of Makkah (Ibn Ĥajr ‘al-Isābah fi Tamyīz al-Saĥābah’, 1/348)[10]. It is known that this incident took place in the early part of the migration. Here we have an example of two non-Muslim armies, both ruling by other than the Shariah having a war while the Saĥābah made Du’ā for one to have victory over the other. Umm Salamah actually states that they made Du’ā for al-Najāshi to have Tamkīn (establish himself) in the land. This makes it apparent that to make Du’ā for one party of Kuffār to take the rule in contrast to another party of Kuffār for an Islamic benefit is permissible. Also, there is nothing in the narration suggesting that the opposition army were definitely going to be harmful for the Muslims, so to claim that they made Du’ā because of necessity (Dharūrah) is baseless.

A few other objections to the evidence have been that at the time of al-Najashi, the Shariah was incomplete. So at that time it was permissible, but when the Shariah was completed, this became abrogated. Again, this is a baseless claim, as to prove abrogation; we must show specific evidence where the Prophet prohibited making Du’ā after this event. This is not found, and something not mentioned by any classical scholars.

Another is an attempt to differentiate between voting and making Du’ā. Both are means of assisting for a goal, and if voting is Shirk, then the Du’ā of the Sahabah was worse, because they were asking Allah for this Shirk to be established in the land. This is another baseless objection.

Furthermore we have the classical debate amongst the Fuqaha of joining a Kafir army who wage war against another Kafir army for an Islamic benefit (Maslahah). Abu Bakr al-Jassas (d.370) states in his Mukhtasar (Abridgment) of Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi’s (d.321) ‘Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha’

Chapter: Regarding the Muslim with a covenant (in a Non-Muslim country) fighting with the people of Shirk

Our companions (The Hanafis) have said: It is not suitable that he fights with the people of Shirk because the rulings of Shirk are dominant.

(Sufyan) al-Thawri (d.161) has stated: It is permissible to fight with them

Al-Awzai’(d.157) stated: It is not permissible to fight with them except they lay down a condition upon them, if they are victorious that they will return them to Dar al-Islam

And al-Shafi’ee (d.204) has two opinions.(Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha 3/454)[11]

Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsi (d.490) has detailed the Hanafi stance. He mentions that it is not permissible to fight with the Kuffar against the Kuffar, as this will be putting one’s life on the line to uphold the rule of the Kuffar. Then he states ‘That is not permissible except when the Muslims fear for themselves. At that time they should fight to remove any (possible) harm to themselves, not for the dominance of the rule of Shirk. The basis for this is the Hadith of Ja’far’…. (He mentions the Hadith of Ja’far fighting for al-Najashi against the opposing army, this Hadith in its authentic version doesn't mention fighting but Du’ā, as quoted above), and he concludes ‘So we know that there is no problem with that (i.e. fighting) at the time of fear’. (al-Mabsut, 10/97-8)[12]

Here, al-Sarakhsi clarifies that it is permissible to fight when there is a fear that the opposing army will be harmful to the Muslims. But his intent should be for the Islamic Maslahah, not to establish the non-Islamic law.

What is important to note is that none of the four schools deemed it as an act of Kufr or Shirk. Yes, they differed in its permissibility for various reasons but at the same time respected each other’s Ijtihad. So this begs the question, why has fighting for a Kuffar army against another Kuffar army (which would entail establishing a Kufr state) been classified permissible with the intent of removing further evil by a large group of classical Fuqaha (and the most it is said it is impermissible), while voting for a Kuffar party against another party is somehow Kufr and Shirk which has no room for Ijtihad?!

There are other evidences for its permissibility, such as the case of the Prophet Yusuf (as) taking up a role of authority under a Kufr regime; rather he asked for the position. He said ‘Appoint me over the storehouses of the land, Indeed, I will be a knowing guardian’ (Surah Yusuf 55). The King of Egypt was not a Muslim at the time so naturally didn't rule in accordance to Allah’s commands. With this incident there are various objections a person can put forth, but I will suffice by quoting 3 accepted and respected authorities and their understanding of the incident of Yusuf (as). This to clarify that taking evidence from this incident is not something made up by myself or other contemporary scholars, rather it is an explanation given by scholars before us.

Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

And in this vein is Yusuf (as) the Truthful assuming responsibility over the stores of the land for the King of Egypt – indeed, his asking to be appointed to the stores of the land – while (the Pharaoh) and his people were disbelievers... And it is known that, with their disbelief, they would certainly have had practices and methods in the collection of wealth, and its expenditure on the King’s entourage, household, army, and subjects which would not be in keeping with the practice of prophets and their justice. Yusuf would not have been able to do all that he wished, and that is what he considered (to accord with) God’s religion, for the people had not answered (his call to faith), yet he performed what he could of justice and good. And, through authority, he gained a level of honour for the believers of his house which he would not have been able to without that. All of this falls within the purview of the verse: {Fear Allah as much as you are able]. Thus, if two obligations collide and it is not possible to reconcile them, and so the more pressing of the two is given priority, the other in this situation will not now be an obligation, and one who leaves this for the sake of that which is more important will not, in reality, be neglecting an obligation. Similarly, when two prohibitions come together and it is not possible to avoid the more serious of the two except by doing the lesser, doing the lesser will not in reality be prohibited in this situation. (Majmu’ al-Fatawa 20/56-57)[13]

It should be clear to the reader that Ibn Taymiyyah considered the case of Yusuf (as) as being an example of ‘lesser of the two evils’. In another place he writes:

Whoever is granted authority, intending with it the obedience of Allah and to establish to what ability he has been given his Din and (to establish) the benefits for the Muslims, thus he establishes therein, to what ability he has been given, the obligations and he refrains as much as possible from the unlawful, he will not be questioned for what he is helpless from. Indeed the noble coming into authority is better for the Ummah, then the wretched coming into authority. (Majmu’ al-Fatawa 28/395)[14]

Al-Qurtubi also comments on the incident of Yusuf (as):

Some of the people of knowledge have stated: In this verse there is permission for a noble person to work under a wretched person or a Kafir leader (al-Sultan al-Kafir), with the condition he is entrusted in an action which the (leader) will not interfere in, so he can do what he pleases. As for when his actions are only in accordance with the choice of the wretched leader and his desires and sins, then that will not be permissible. (Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, 9/215)[15]

Al-Qurtubi further mentions that some scholars did not allow it, while al-Qurtubi himself believes the first opinion to be correct.

Al-Izz Ibn Abd al-Salaam (d.660), known as the Sultan of the scholars, stated:

If Kuffar were to conquer a large portion of land, the they (the Muslims) should appoint judges (under the regime) who would look after the benefits of the Muslim masses. And what becomes apparent is that they should enforce all of that for attaining the general benefits and removing the encompassing harms. As it is far from the mercy of the Sharia and His considerations for the benefits for His servants, to invalidate the general benefits (Masalih) (Qawa’id al-Ahkam, 1/85)[16]

This is a clear example of taking roles of authority in non-Islamic systems for the benefit of Islam and the Muslims. Naturally, if that is permitted by many scholars, then to vote a person into the position should also be permitted.

There are other evidences that can be brought forth but I would like to mention another quote from Ibn Taymiyyah, which would further prove our point.

Ibn Taymiyyah discusses the ruling in regards to a judge taking up a role under the Tatar rule (they were not Muslim). This judge would have limited power on one hand (as he is bound by a Kufr system) but there is a Maslahah for the Muslims by having a Muslim judge. Thus Ibn Taymiyyah states

Likewise al-Najashi, despite him being the King of Abyssinia, his people did not obey him in entering Islam, rather a small group became Muslim with him. Because of this the Prophet (saw)… (he mentioned the Hadith where the Prophet prayed for him and praised him). Many of the Islamic rules (Ahkam) or most of them, he (al-Najashi) was unable to perform. So he didn't do Hijrah, nor wage Jihad, nor do Hajj, rather it has been narrated that he didn't perform the 5 daily prayers, fast the month of Ramadhan and give Zakah. Because if al-Najashi made any of that apparent to his people, they would have rejected it and he couldn't go against them. And we know with certainty that he wasn't able to rule between them with the Quran. Because his people would not accept that.

Then Ibn Taymiyyah extracts a rule from the above:

Many a times a man is appointed as a Judge or a leader amongst the Muslims and Tatars and he has some justice in him which he tries to act on, but he is unable to do that, rather at times they prevent him, and Allah doesn’t burden a soul more than it can bear.(Then he goes on to praise these type of people who have noble intents) (Majmu’ al-Fatawa 19/217-8)[17]

Although this is slightly off topic, it shows Ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that it is permissible for Muslims to seek some authority even if they are prevented from judging by the complete Shariah, as in it there is a Maslahah. This then shows that participating in a non-Islamic system is permissible if there is benefit for the Muslims.

In conclusion, we would state that voting is not always a permissible act, but rather the benefits and harms need to be weighed up. At times it would be commendable and at other times reprehensible. We do accept that some scholars have considered the whole system flawed and voting impermissible, therefore if someone follows that opinion and decides not to vote, they should not be condemned. Likewise, those that do vote should not be accused of going against Shariah. All in all it comes down to an issue of Ijtihad, but what we can say with certainty is that it is not Kufr or Shirk when one’s intention is sound. This I have shown by restricting myself to quoting classical authorities whom are accepted across the board, lest some may doubt contemporary scholars.

I would like to finish by stating the opinions of some contemporary scholars that these individuals look up to, in order to show that the views expounded in the above essay have been accepted by their great authorities and it would also show the different approaches to it.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaimin (d.1421):

"I think that elections are obligatory; we should appoint the one who we think is good, because if the good people abstain, who will take their place? Evil people will take their place, or neutral people in whom there is neither good nor evil, but they follow everyone who makes noise. So we have no choice but to choose those who we think are fit.

If someone were to say: We chose someone but most of the parliament are not like that,

We say: It does not matter. If Allaah blesses this one person and enables him to speak the truth in this parliament, he will undoubtedly have an effect. But what we need is to be sincere towards Allaah and the problem is that we rely too much on physical means and we do not listen to what Allaah says. So nominate the one who you think is good, and put your trust in Allaah". (Liqa’at al-Bab al-Maftuh no.210, translation from the website ‘Islamqa’)[18]

Shaykh al-Albani (d.1419):

In audio Q/A about participating in elections, the Shaykh concludes with the following:

However, the point is that it has been imposed upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is imposed upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians.

If the Muslims do not choose between them, then their own people will choose. In either case, one of them is going to be elected. But as we said earlier there may be four or five candidates. The Muslims in that country must consider it like this: The first candidate is a Baathist and a non-Muslim, the second is a communist and a non-Muslim, the third is an atheist and a non-Muslim and so on. The last is a practicing Christian who does not harbor animosity towards the Muslims. If there is no way around the fact that one or two of them are going to be elected, then what should the Muslims do? Should they say, "We are not going to get involved? They are Christians. Let them fight each other." No, this is not the case, because two of these candidates will be elected regardless.

So O Muslims, O you who have sense, is this principle to be applied in this scenario or not? I say yes, because the Muslims in this case are between two evils. Similarly, this is the case if the candidates were Muslims, since amongst the Muslims are Communists, Baathists and so on. Okay, do we just sit back and watch or should we choose the one whose harm is less?!"(audio can be heard here www.madeenah.com/the-reality-of-al-albaanees-position-on-voting/)[19]

Shaykh Abdullah Azzam (d.1409), head of the Jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets:

The Imam, the Martyr was asked many times about participating and entering the Parliament? So he would say: ‘The Parliament is a Legislative body, and to legislate other than what Allah revealed is Kufr which takes you out of the fold of Islam. If this body agrees to this type of legislation, then this is a dire matter upon their religion and creed.

As for their (the Muslims) entering the Parliament with the intent of being a barrier to the man-made Kufr laws and to stand in opposition to it and to stand in front of the oppression, then this is a matter which the general benefit (al-Maslahah al-‘Aamah) is given preference to. Islam, in these types of matters, looks at the benefits and harms, so he (the Muslim entering the Parliament or participating) should see what is given preference to in this matter from the benefits and harms. With the condition that they don’t fall into or expose themselves to forbidden acts. (From the online edition of the book ‘Mafhum al-Hakamiyyah fi Fikr al-Shahid Abdillah Azzam www.tawhed.ws/pr?i=4451) [20]

Allahu A’lam

---

[1] لا يرمي رجل رجلا بالفسوق و لا يرميه بالكفر إلا ارتدت عليه إن لم يكن صاحبه كذلك

[2] اعلم أن الحكم على الرجل المسلم بخروجه من دين الإسلام و دخوله في الكفر لا ينبغي لمسلم يؤمن بالله و اليوم الآخر أن يقوم عليه إلا ببرهان أوضح من شمس النهار، فإنه قد ثبت في الأحاديث الصحيحة المروية عن طريق جماعة من الصحابة أن من قال لأخيه: يا كافر فقد باء بها أحدهما

[3] من عيوب أهل البدع تكفير بعضهم بعضا، و من ممادح أهل العلم أنهم يخطئون و لا يكفرون

[4] إنما يكون المؤمن بطاعة المشرك مشركا إذا أطاعه في اعتقاده : الذي هو محل الكفر والإيمان ; فإذا أطاعه في الفعل وعقده سليم مستمر على التوحيد والتصديق فهو عاص فافهموا ذلك في كل موضع

[5] أي وإن أطعتم أولياء الشياطين إنكم لمشركون لأن طاعتهم طاعة للشياطين وذلك إشراك ولا يكون مشركاً حقيقة حتى يطيعه في الاعتقاد، وأما إذا أطاعه في الفعل وهو سليم الاعتقاد فهو فاسق

[6] إِذْ لَمْ يُنْكِرِ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى الصَّحَابَةِ وَلَمْ يَقُلْ هُمْ لِمَ نَهَيْتُمُ الْأَعْرَابِيَّ بَلْ أَمَرَهُمْ بِالْكَفِّ عَنْهُ لِلْمَصْلَحَةِ الرَّاجِحَةِ وَهُوَ دَفْعُ أَعْظَمِ الْمَفْسَدَتَيْنِ بِاحْتِمَالِ أَيْسَرِهِمَا وَتَحْصِيلُ أَعْظَمِ الْمَصْلَحَتَيْنِ بِتَرْكِ أَيْسَرِهِمَا

[7] وَمِنْهُ: الْكَذِبُ مَفْسَدَةٌ مُحَرَّمَةٌ وَمَتَى تَضَمَّنَ جَلْبَ مَصْلَحَةٍ تَرْبُو عَلَيْهِ جَازَ: كَالْكَذِبِ لِلْإِصْلَاحِ بَيْن النَّاس، وَعَلَى الزَّوْجَةِ لِإِصْلَاحِهَا وَهَذَا النَّوْع رَاجِعٌ إلَى ارْتِكَابِ أَخَفِّ الْمَفْسَدَتَيْنِ فِي الْحَقِيقَةِ

[8] قالت : فوالله إنا لعلى ذلك ، إذ نزل به رجل من الحبشة ينازعه في ملكه . قالت : فوالله ما علمتنا حزنا حزنا قط كان أشد ( علينا ) من حزن حزناه عند ذلك ، تخوفا أن يظهر ذلك الرجل على النجاشي ، فيأتي رجل لا يعرف من حقنا ما كان النجاشي يعرف منه .
قالت : وسار إليه النجاشي ، وبينهما عرض النيل ، قالت : فقال أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم : من رجل يخرج حتى يحضر وقيعة القوم ثم يأتينا بالخبر ؟ قالت : فقال الزبير بن العوام : أنا . قالوا : فأنت . وكان من أحدث القوم سنا . قالت : فنفخوا له قربة فجعلها في صدره ، ثم سبح عليها حتى خرج إلى ناحية النيل التي بها ملتقى القوم ، ثم انطلق حتى حضرهم .
قالت : فدعونا الله تعالى للنجاشي بالظهور على عدوه ، والتمكين له في بلاده . قالت : فوالله إنا لعلى ذلك متوقعون لما هو كائن ، إذ طلع الزبير وهو يسعى ، فلمع بثوبه وهو يقول : ألا أبشروا ، فقد ظفر النجاشي ، وأهلك الله عدوه ، ومكن له في بلاده . قالت : فوالله ما علمتنا فرحنا فرحة قط مثلها .
قالت : ورجع النجاشي ، وقد أهلك الله عدوه ، ومكن له في بلاده ، واستوسق عليه أمر الحبشة ، فكنا عنده في خير منزل ، حتى قدمنا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو بمكة

[9] قال الشيخ شعيب الارنؤوط في تعليقه علي مسند احمد تحت هذا الحديث :إسناده حسن، رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير محمد بن إسحاق، فقد روى له مسلم متابعة، وهو صدوق حسن الحديث إلا أنه مدلس، لكنه هنا صرح بالتحديث فانتفت شبهة تدليسه

[10] قال الطّبريّ وجماعة: كان ذلك في رجب سنة تسع، وقال غيره: كان قبل الفتح.

[11] في المستأمن يقاتل مع المشركين
قال اصحابنا لا ينبغي ان يقاتل مع اهل الشرك لان حكم الشرك هو الظاهر وهو قول مالك
قال الثوري يقاتلون معهم
قال الاوزاعي لا يقاتلون الا ان يشترطوا عليهم ان غلبوا ان يردوهم الي دار الاسلام
وللشافعي قولان

[12] وَإِذَا كَانَ قَوْمٌ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مُسْتَأْمَنِينَ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ فَأَغَارَ عَلَى تِلْكَ الدَّارِ قَوْمٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ لَمْ يَحِلَّ لِهَؤُلَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَنْ يُقَاتِلُوهُمْ؛ لِأَنَّ فِي الْقِتَالِ تَعْرِيضَ النَّفْسِ فَلَا يَحِلُّ ذَلِكَ إلَّا عَلَى، وَجْهِ إعْلَاءِ كَلِمَةِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَاعَزَازِ الدِّينِ، وَذَلِكَ لَا يُوجَدُ هَهُنَا؛ لِأَنَّ أَحْكَامَ أَهْلِ الشِّرْكِ غَالِبَةٌ فِيهِمْ فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ أَنْ يَحْكُمُوا بِأَحْكَامِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ فَكَانَ قِتَالُهُمْ فِي الصُّورَةِ لِإِعْلَاءِ كَلِمَةِ الشِّرْكِ، وَذَلِكَ لَا يَحِلُّ إلَّا أَنْ يَخَافُوا عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ مِنْ أُولَئِكَ فَحِينَئِذٍ لَا بَأْسَ بِأَنْ يُقَاتِلُوهُمْ لِلدَّفْعِ عَنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ لَا لِإِعْلَاءِ كَلِمَةِ الشِّرْكِ، وَالْأَصْلُ فِيهِ حَدِيثُ جَعْفَرٍ ء رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ء، فَإِنَّهُ قَاتَلَ بِالْحَبَشَةِ مَعَ الْعَدُوِّ الَّذِي كَانَ قَصَدَ النَّجَاشِيَّ، وَإِنَّمَا فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَمَّا كَانَ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَوْمئِذٍ آمِنًا عِنْدَ النَّجَاشِيِّ فَكَانَ يَخَافُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَعَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ، فَعَرَفْنَا أَنَّهُ لَا بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ عِنْدَ الْخَوْفِ

[13] وَمِنْ هَذَا الْبَابِ تَوَلِّي يُوسُفَ الصِّدِّيقَ عَلَى خَزَائِنِ الْأَرْضِ لِمَلِكِ مِصْرَ بَلْ وَمَسْأَلَتُهُ أَنْ يَجْعَلَهُ عَلَى خَزَائِنِ الْأَرْضِ وَكَانَ هُوَ وَقَوْمُهُ كُفَّارًا ... وَمَعْلُومٌ أَنَّهُ مَعَ كُفْرِهِمْ لَا بُدَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمْ عَادَةٌ وَسُنَّةٌ فِي قَبْضِ الْأَمْوَالِ وَصَرْفِهَا عَلَى حَاشِيَةِ الْمَلِكِ وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَجُنْدِهِ وَرَعِيَّتِهِ وَلَا تَكُونُ تِلْكَ جَارِيَةً عَلَى سُنَّةِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَعَدْلِهِمْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ يُوسُفُ يُمْكِنُهُ أَنْ يَفْعَلَ كُلَّ مَا يُرِيدُ وَهُوَ مَا يَرَاهُ مِنْ دِينِ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّ الْقَوْمَ لَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُ لَكِنْ فَعَلَ الْمُمْكِنَ مِنْ الْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَنَالَ بِالسُّلْطَانِ مِنْ إكْرَامِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يَنَالَهُ بِدُونِ ذَلِكَ وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ دَاخِلٌ فِي قَوْلِهِ: {فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ} . فإذا ازْدَحَمَ وَاجِبَانِ لَا يُمْكِنُ جَمْعُهُمَا فَقُدِّمَ أَوْكَدُهُمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ الْآخَرُ فِي هَذِهِ الْحَالِ وَاجِبًا وَلَمْ يَكُنْ تَارِكُهُ لِأَجْلِ فِعْلِ الْأَوْكَدِ تَارِكَ وَاجِبٍ فِي الْحَقِيقَةِ. وَكَذَلِكَ إذَا اجْتَمَعَ مُحَرَّمَانِ لَا يُمْكِنُ تَرْكُ أَعْظَمِهِمَا إلَّا بِفِعْلِ أَدْنَاهُمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِعْلُ الْأَدْنَى فِي هَذِهِ الْحَالِ مُحَرَّمًا فِي الْحَقِيقَةِ.

[14] فَمَنْ وَلِيَ وِلَايَةً يَقْصِدُ بِهَا طَاعَةَ اللَّهِ وَإِقَامَةَ مَا يُمَكِّنُهُ مِنْ دِينِهِ وَمَصَالِحِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَأَقَامَ فِيهَا مَا يُمَكِّنُهُ مِنْ الْوَاجِبَاتِ وَاجْتِنَابِ مَا يُمَكِّنُهُ مِنْ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ: لَمْ يُؤَاخَذْ بِمَا يَعْجِزُ عَنْهُ؛ فَإِنَّ تَوْلِيَةَ الْأَبْرَارِ خَيْرٌ لِلْأُمَّةِ مِنْ تَوْلِيَةِ الْفُجَّارِ.

[15] قَالَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ: فِي هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ مَا يُبِيحُ لِلرَّجُلِ الْفَاضِلِ أَنْ يَعْمَلَ لِلرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ، وَالسُّلْطَانِ الْكَافِرِ، بِشَرْطِ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ أَنَّهُ يُفَوِّضُ إِلَيْهِ فِي فِعْلٍ لَا يُعَارِضُهُ فِيهِ، فَيُصْلِحُ مِنْهُ مَا شَاءَ، وَأَمَّا إِذَا كَانَ عَمَلُهُ بِحَسَبِ اخْتِيَارِ الْفَاجِرِ وَشَهَوَاتِهِ وَفُجُورِهِ فَلَا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ

[16] وَلَوْ اسْتَوْلَى الْكُفَّارُ عَلَى إقْلِيمٍ عَظِيمٍ فَوَلَّوْا الْقَضَاءَ لِمَنْ يَقُومُ بِمَصَالِحِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ الْعَامَّةِ، فَاَلَّذِي يَظْهَرُ إنْفَاذُ ذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ جَلْبًا لِلْمَصَالِحِ الْعَامَّةِ وَدَفْعًا لِلْمَفَاسِدِ الشَّامِلَةِ، إذْ يَبْعُدُ عَنْ رَحْمَةِ الشَّرْعِ وَرِعَايَتِهِ لِمَصَالِحِ عِبَادِهِ تَعْطِيلُ الْمَصَالِحِ الْعَامَّةِ وَتَحَمُّلُ الْمَفَاسِدِ الشَّامِلَةِ، لِفَوَاتِ الْكَمَالِ فِيمَنْ يَتَعَاطَى تَوْلِيَتَهَا لِمَنْ هُوَ أَهْلٌ لَهَا، وَفِي ذَلِكَ احْتِمَالٌ بَعِيدٌ.

[17] وَكَذَلِكَ النَّجَاشِيُّ هُوَ وَإِنْ كَانَ مَلِكَ النَّصَارَى فِلْم يُطِعْهُ قَوْمُهُ فِي الدُّخُولِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ بَلْ إنَّمَا دَخَلَ مَعَهُ نَفَرٌ مِنْهُمْ؛ وَلِهَذَا {لَمَّا مَاتَ لَمْ يَكُنْ هُنَاكَ أَحَدٌ يُصَلِّي عَلَيْهِ فَصَلَّى عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ خَرَجَ بِالْمُسْلِمِينَ إلَى الْمُصَلَّى فَصَفَّهُمْ صُفُوفًا وَصَلَّى عَلَيْهِ وَأَخْبَرَهُمْ بِمَوْتِهِ يَوْمَ مَاتَ وَقَالَ: إنَّ أَخًا لَكُمْ صَالِحًا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَبَشَةِ مَاتَ} وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْ شَرَائِعِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَوْ أَكْثَرِهَا لَمْ يَكُنْ دَخَلَ فِيهَا لِعَجْزِهِ عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَلَمْ يُهَاجِرْ وَلَمْ يُجَاهِدْ وَلَا حَجَّ الْبَيْتَ بَلْ قَدْ رُوِيَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يُصَلِّ الصَّلَوَاتِ الْخَمْسَ وَلَا يَصُومُ شَهْرَ رَمَضَانَ وَلَا يُؤَدِّ الزَّكَاةَ الشَّرْعِيَّةَ؛ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ كَانَ يَظْهَرُ عِنْدَ قَوْمِهِ فَيُنْكِرُونَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَهُوَ لَا يُمْكِنُهُ مُخَالَفَتَهُمْ. وَنَحْنُ نَعْلَمُ قَطْعًا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ يُمْكِنْهُ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ بِحُكْمِ الْقُرْآنِ وَاَللَّهُ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَى نَبِيِّهِ بِالْمَدِينَةِ أَنَّهُ إذَا جَاءَهُ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ إلَّا بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إلَيْهِ وَحَذَّرَهُ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوهُ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إلَيْهِ.... وَالنَّجَاشِيُّ مَا كَانَ يُمْكِنُهُ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ بِحُكْمِ الْقُرْآنِ؛ فَإِنَّ قَوْمَهُ لَا يُقِرُّونَهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَكَثِيرًا مَا يَتَوَلَّى الرَّجُلُ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالتَّتَارِ قَاضِيًا بَلْ وَإِمَامًا وَفِي نَفْسِهِ أُمُورٌ مِنْ الْعَدْلِ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَعْمَلَ بِهَا فَلَا يُمْكِنُهُ ذَلِكَ بَلْ هُنَاكَ مَنْ يَمْنَعُهُ ذَلِكَ وَلَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إلَّا وُسْعَهَا

[18] أنا أرى أن الانتخابات واجبة ، يجب أن نعين من نرى أن فيه خيراً ، لأنه إذا تقاعس أهل الخير ، مَنْ يحل محلهم ؟ سيحل محلهم أهل الشر ، أو الناس السلبيون الذين ما عندهم خير ولا شر ، أتباع كل ناعق ، فلابد أن نختار من نراه صالحاً .
فإذا قال قائل : اخترنا واحداً لكن أغلب المجلس على خلاف ذلك .
قلنا : لا مانع ، هذا الواحد إذا جعل الله فيه البركة وألقى كلمة الحق في هذا المجلس سيكون لها تأثير ولا بد ، لكن الذي ينقصنا الصدق مع الله ، نعتمد على الأمور المادية الحسية ولا ننظر إلى كلمة الله عز وجل .... فَرَشِّحْ مَنْ ترى أنه خير ، وتوكل على الله

[19] مفروض على الشعب أن يختاروا من هؤلاء الذين رشحوا أنفسهم. ومفروض على الشعب أن يكون في مجلس الأمة أفراد من النصارى. ليه؟ لأن النصارى مواطنين، والعدالة الإسلامية تشمل كمان مواطنين. يعملون الآن بحسابات دقيقة، أهل البلد [كلمة غير واضحة] ايش نسبة النصارى إلى نسبة للمسلمين، ما أعرف يعملون حساب لليهود وللا؟ المهم حسب النسبة يضعوا أن هذه البلد بدوا مثلا اثنين من النصارى. إذا المسلمين ما اختاروهم يختارهم بني جنسهم بنو دينهم، يعني هم على كل حال راح ينجحوا ء راح ينجحوا على كل حال. لكن مرشحين منهم كما قلنا أربعة أو خمسة .المسلمون فى ذاك البلد يقولوا: فلان مع كونه كافر فهو بعثي، والثانى مع كونه كافر فهو شيوعي، الثالث مع كونه كافر في الأصل فهو ملحد إلخ. فلان والله متدين بنصرانيته وما يعادي المسلمين. يا ترى ما دام ولا بد أنه ينجح واحد أو اثنين من هؤلاء، شو موقف السلمين بقى.ءاحنا ما نتدخل، هؤلاء نصارى -بقولوا عندنا في الشام ( فخار يكسر بعضوا) لا مو هيك القضية. هؤلاء بتقولوا فخار يكسر بعضوا، بدوا ينجح منوا شخصين رغم أنوفكم. فيا مسلمون! يا عقلاء! أ ليست القاعدة هذه ترد في هذه الصورة وللا؟ الآن أنا أقول: نعم، لأن المسلمين واقعين بين شرين الآن، كما هو الشأن تماماً بالنسبة للمسلمين؛ المسلمين فيهم بعثيين، فيهم شيوعيين، فيهم ملاحدة. طيب، نقعد نتفرج أو نختار أقلهم شراً؟

[20] سئل الإمام الشهيد في عدة أماكن عن حكم المشاركة والدخول في البرلمانات؟ فقال: البرلمان مجلس تشريعي، والتشريع بغير ما أنزل الله كفر يخرج عن الملة، فإذا وافق المجلس على هذا التشريع فهذا أمر خطير جدا على دينهم وعقيدتهم.

أما إذا كان دخولهم في البرلمان بنية معارضة القوانين الوضعية الكافرة والوقوف ضدها والوقوف في وجه الظلم، فهذا أمر ترجحه المصلحة العامة، والإسلام في مثل هذه الظروف ينظر إلى المصالح والمفاسد، فينظر أيهما أرجح في هذا الأمر المصلحة أم المفسده، ولكن بشرط أن لا يقعوا أو يتعرضوا للحرام