jump to navigation

Al-Fursan Media:: 1st Release - Voting in the Midst of the Neo-Crusade November 6, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Al-Fursan Media, Jihād, Knowledge, Videos, Why Voting leads to Kufr , 8 comments

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful

Al-Fursan Media Productions

Presents

Al-Fursan Media’s first release:

[Voting in the Midst of the Neo-Crusade]

We ask our fellow Muslims to make Taubah (repentance) from their evil act of voting for a Kafir in the system of Democracy.

Downloads:

483MB [High Quality]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SE62E0T5
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=e4c15aa
http://www.zshare.net/video/51080917faf17a0f/
http://depositfiles.com/files/i84qzrdc5
http://www.fileflyer.com/view/fP55CAp
http://filegetty.com/220811/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YNQG51SX
http://www.fileflyer.com/view/aP8DNBE
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=09d618e
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8OXVX5M0
http://ia310806.us.archive.org/1/items/Neo-Crusade/Voting-in-the-Midst-of-the-Neo-Crusade.wmv

multiple file x 100MB

Part 1

http://rapidshare.com/files/161762175/HQ.part1.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/f5chtwnoc
http://www.zshare.net/download/510514460e98ab51/
http://uploaded.to/?id=54ysfq

Part 2

http://rapidshare.com/files/161755006/HQ.part2.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/o4er5dvoo
http://www.zshare.net/download/51050513132b751a/
http://uploaded.to/?id=lq6qt3

Part 3

http://rapidshare.com/files/161846880/HQ.part3.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/nsb5ylf9t
http://www.zshare.net/download/51061859c1771779/
http://uploaded.to/?id=dbhkii

Part 4

http://rapidshare.com/files/161816315/HQ.part4.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/ildjqlefz
http://www.zshare.net/download/51057962e3390050/
http://uploaded.to/?id=vu8mgo

Part 5

http://rapidshare.com/files/161739017/HQ.part5.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/w492ca7bi
http://www.zshare.net/download/51048494cba49675/
http://uploaded.to/?id=lqi7r6

Part 6

http://rapidshare.com/files/161724029/HQ.part6.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/6quyov1as
http://www.zshare.net/download/5104644386bb65e5/
http://uploaded.to/?id=8q0g70

sfv-file

http://rapidshare.com/files/161897411/HQ.sfv.html
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/s6012erjg
http://www.zshare.net/download/51069214d65bcabd/
http://uploaded.to/?id=4g5dc4

261MB [Medium Quality]

http://ia310806.us.archive.org/1/items/Neo-Crusade/Voting-in-the-Midst-of-the-Neo-Crusade.rmvb

47MB [Low Quality]

http://ia310806.us.archive.org/1/items/Neo-Crusade/Voting-in-the-Midst-of-the-Neo-Crusade.rm

14MB [Mobile]

http://ia310806.us.archive.org/1/items/Neo-Crusade/Voting-in-the-Midst-of-the-Neo-Crusade_NEW.3gp

Wallahu Akbar!

{And the Honor belongs to Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers but the hypocrites know not}

Please do not forget us in your sincere du’a!

Your brothers in,

Al-Fursan Media Productions

1429/Dhul Qi’dah

2008/November

Al-Yaqeen Media Center:: Jihadi Magazine 3rd Issue with special gift!

Posted by revolution in : Books, Jihād, Knowledge , add a comment

This magazine is in Arabic. To download, click here.

Some of the topics include:

Imam Anwar:: Now That the Elections are Over November 5, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Jihād, Knowledge, True Shuyūkh , 4 comments

Imam Anwar, hafidhullah, once again, tore apart the pro-voting Muslims; this time, he tore apart the Muslims that already voted. One brother told me that he was about to go out and vote, but right before he did, he went on to Imam Anwar’s blog and read his views on voting and was convinced that he should not vote. AllahuAkbar! Look at how beneficial the fruits of Imam Anwar’s words are even though he is physically absent in our presence. The words of Imam Anwar just saved this brother from committing a grave and humiliating sin. May Allah Ta’ala reward our Shaykh and preserve him.

If there is a true Shaykh whose ‘Aqeedah is Sahih and has contact with the Muslim American community, it is Imam Anwar undoubtedly.

This is what he had to say on his blog:

One of the characteristics of a humiliated and oppressed community is their submission to their oppressor and their tolerance of oppression. On the other hand they are arrogant and intolerant among themselves. This is how it was with Banu Israel when living under the Pharaoh. I am sorry to state this but unfortunately this attitude is been reflected by many American Muslims who humiliated themselves by voting for candidates who have no serious concern for their issues.
I mentioned in my previous post:

The perception the American Muslims are giving is that by giving them nothing substantial and by giving them just a little bit of recognition you can get their support, vote and loyalty even if you carry on your war against their brothers and sisters. Just like a dog owner abusing his dog but as long as the bone is thrown out the dog will still give his owner all his loyalty. It is sad but true.

The American Muslims who decided to vote have made a fool out of themselves and the whole world knows it.
Under the heading:”America’s outcast Muslims: Once Bush backers, Muslims today are staunch Democrats. But both Obama and McCain shun them.” The UK’s The Guardian states: “American Muslims have been called the “outcasts” of this presidential election. Muslims themselves have told the media that Islam is being treated as “political leprosy”, a “scarlet letter”, or the “kiss of death””.
Why not just call them house Negros?

The Australian newspaper The Age says: “Neither campaign courts America’s Muslim vote.” they go on to state that: “Neither presidential candidate has made a single visit to a mosque.” If they didn’t even bother to visit a mosque, which is no more than a ceremonial thing anyway but does make the house Negros happy, how can one expect from them any support on our issues? Nevertheless the proud American Muslims have been running around in service of both candidates.
Many American Muslims still insisted on voting. Chasing a mirage that somehow the new president will improve their lot. First it was Bush now Obama. There is a striking similarity between the American Muslim community and the Muslims of al Andalus who chose to stay behind after Muslim Spain fell into the hands of the Catholic monarchs. There are some writings that reveal that after all the oppression they suffered they still had hope that their situation would improve, even after the Catholic monarchs showed them the worst treatment. Since there were no elections back then and no Barak Obama they were clinging their hopes on a Mahdi that would appear and deliver them to safety. A few decades later no Mahdi appeared and their children and grandchildren slowly but surely were loosing their identity until Islam seized to exist all together in the Iberian peninsula. I do not believe that America would do the same because they have grown wiser and more sophisticated than their Spanish predecessors. Muslims will be allowed to pray, fast, and practice Islam as long as it is contained within the spiritual compartment. But they will not be allowed to be Muslim in the full sense of the word. The issues of Sharia law, Jihad, wala and bara, hudud, khilafah, the Quranic teachings concerning the Jews and Christians, and support of Muslim resistance fighters around the world will not be tolerated. Now the spiritual aspect will also be under attack, probably not by the government but by the society at large. The American culture will destroy their families. It will deprive their children and grandchildren of their identity. Time will be the witness.
Muslims have given their vote for free. Back in the nineties we were told that we should not expect anything back because we are not seen as a voting block (back then the prominent view among the Muslims was against participation in the elections.) Well now there is definitely a voting block and it is quite large as some reports say that the Muslim registered voters are around two million!
So what are the Muslims getting in exchange for their vote? Nothing.
Brothers and sisters you can vote, you can run around supporting the campaigns, you can stay silent about the aspects of your religion that do not appeal to your fellow citizens, you can speak out against your Muslim brothers and sisters who support the Muslim causes around the world, you can try your best to fit in and be accepted and the end result will be that you will always be seen as the enemy and you will never be accepted unless you do one thing: give up your religion.
“And never will the Jews and Christians approve of you until you follow their religion” [2:120]

With all of this activism and increased participation the situation of the American Muslims did not improve but in fact it regressed. The Bush campaign of 2000 has outreached to the Muslims more than both candidates of 2008.
Giving a fatwa calling on people to vote in democratic elections is not an easy thing. One would expect solid evidence from Quran and sunnah when inviting people to take such a step. However what I have seen is the opposite. I would ask you to read such fatawa and judge them not based on the names or numbers of scholars who are behind them but on the evidence. There was a moment in time when the majority of the scholars of the Muslim world were towing the official line of the Mu’tazila and that didnt make it right. Then look at the fatawa of scholars such as al Albani, the Lanjna da’ima, Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, al Gabashy and many of the scholars of the salafi orientation around the world who are against participation in democratic election. That is the position of large Islamic movements and individuals such Sayed Qutb, Dr. Israr Ahmad, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and the Salafi Jihadi movement. In Yemen prominent scholars from the Muslim Brotherhood have finally come to the conclusion that the democratic process is no more than a game that wastes the efforts of Muslims with very little gain.

In addition to that I found out that many people are asking the ones who are telling the people not to vote to bring their evidence! The burden of proof is on the ones who call others to participate in a disbelieving system, in a disbelieving country not the other way around. Anyway the evidence for not voting are all the verses of Quran that refer to governance as a right of Allah in surat al Nisa and al Bakarah, the verses talking about disavowal of the disbelievers in surat al Bakara, al Nisa and al Mumtahina, and the hadiths of Rasulullah that instruct us to be separate from the disbelievers. There are scholars who wrote detailed papers on the subject and you may find the links to them on the comments made by some brothers and sisters on my last two posts.
For those who did send me evidence for the position on voting I did respond to some of them and there remains the issue of the Muslims in Abyssinia and Yusuf (as). The response to this is very straightforward: Both the king of Abyssinia and the King of Egypt were not at war with the believers and were both very supportive of the Muslims. In addition to that, there are authentic narrations that al Najashi was Muslim and weaker ones that state that the king in the time of Yusuf became Muslim. But lets assume that this is not the case. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Fiqh should realize that there are stark differences on how Islam calls us to deal with those who are at war with us and those who are not. Allah says:
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous towards them and acting justly towards them. Indeed Allah loves those who act justly. [60:8]

Now that Obama is in office we will see how these four years will unfold. I personally think that since what Obama stands for is falsehood, the justifications of the Muslims in choosing him were false and the process in which the Muslims chose him were also false we cannot expect any good to come out of falsehood.
“Indeed Allah does not amend the work of the corrupters” [10;81]

Assalamu alaykum
Your Brother
Anwar Al Awlaki

Imam Anwar:: Part 2: Voting for the American President November 4, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Jihād, Knowledge, True Shuyūkh, United States of Losers , add a comment

Imam Anwar goes into a quite some depth regarding the issue of voting in America in his blog; this is a valuable piece:

After reading all of the responses to my previous post I have this to say: Brothers and sisters before we carry this discussion any further we must agree on these three points:

  1. The American leaders of today are playing the exact role of Pharaoh and Abu Jahl of yesterday and the American people of today are playing the role that the Quraish, Aad and Thamud used to play yesterday. Therefore the verses of Quran and Hadith of Rasulullah that apply to Pharaoh and Abu Jahl apply to the US leaders and the ones that apply to the Quraish, Aad and Thamud apply to the American people. The US is in a state of war with Islam and Muslims and not just against the so called extremists.
  2. Democracy is a system of governance that is different than the Islamic system of government and is opposed to it and is being spread by the West in the Muslim world by force as an alternative to the Islamic Sharia law.
  3. It is a duty upon us Muslims to strive through Jihad to establish the Islamic Khilafah again. This is not a far fetched idealistic objective but is a tangible realistic one if we but put the effort into achieving it. Therefore the Muslims in the West should see their stay there as temporary and not permanent because it is not feasible to establish such an Islamic state in the West and the Muslims should strive to make hijra to Islamic lands even though they are not ruled by Sharia in order to use their abilities and resources to bring back Islamic rule in Muslim land.

If you do not agree with the above three points then we cannot reach an agreement on the issue of voting because we are basing our views on two completely different platforms.

I would like to thank all of the brothers and sisters who posted comments and I will bypass all of the insults and pure opinion that were piled up on the 100+ comments on my post and focus on some of the opposing views that brought forth some reasonable arguments.

First: There are scholars who said that voting is Halal and in fact some said it is obligatory:

On the other hand there are scholars who said that voting in the democratic system is haram. But for those who say it is halal do they actually know what is happening in the US? Have they been to the mosques and seen the US politicians, male and female, speaking to the congregations that came to worship Allah on Friday? Did they hear the lies, false promises and pure hypocrisy of what these candidates are speaking inside the houses of Allah and most important of all the kufr that they utter in our places of worship? Have these scholars seen how the Muslims in the masajid are falling all over themselves in appeasement and superficial generosity towards these enemies of Allah all in the name of dawa? Have they heard the Imams using the time of the Friday sermon which should be devoted to Islamic teachings calling the Muslims to vote for the same people who will be leading the war against our Muslim brothers and sisters, and then closing with the dua “May Allah bless America”?! Have they seen our Muslim young boys and girls making fools of themselves wearing their “support Obama” T-shirts and waving Obama signs? Have they heard how the Muslims who are part of the campaigns of both candidates speak? Can they talk about wala and bara? Can they even utter any word in defense of Jihad, Khilafah or hudud which are part and parcel of our religion?

I doubt any of these scholars have factored in these issues when they gave their fatwa.

Brothers and sisters the issue is not simply dropping a vote in a ballot box. It is much more than that. It is the whole mindset and the actions that come with it.

Also most of fatawa that were used as support for voting in the US were actually referring to voting in Muslim countries so make note of this.

Second: We are choosing the lesser of the two evils and that is Obama:

I mentioned in my previous post that in the process of choosing the lesser of the two evils you are committing an even greater evil. I would add here the following: Even if you would follow the opinion of those who allow the voting in a disbelieving system when there is a clear lesser evil, in the situation we are facing there is no such clarity. In fact on most of the issues that concern Muslims there is very little difference. For example they have similar views on the war on terror and the issue of Palestine. Anyone with a simple understanding of the history of American politics would realize that on the major issues both parties share the same agenda. But even in the case where there is a clear lesser evil such as Ron Paul I would still follow the opinion of total abstinence because I believe that we are under no necessity to allow the participation in a system of disbelief, and because our participation is a tacit acceptance on our behalf to play by the rules of the democratic system.

On internal issues there are some who asked whether we should vote on issues such as same sex marriage. If you agree with me on point 3 which I mentioned before then it should not make any difference to us Muslims whether the disbelievers marry the same sex or marry dogs and donkeys. Muslims make dawa to the disbelievers and after they believe in Allah they are told what is halal and what is haram, but not until then.

One of the comments mentions the treaty of Hudaybiyyah as evidence for voting. The treaty of al Hudaybiyyah was a treaty between two parties at war. How does this relate to a voter choosing who would lead him? Muhammad (saaws) never negotiated with the disbelievers while he was in Makkah but negotiated the treaty of al Hudaybiyyah after a culmination of five years of Jihad so the Quraish knew that Muhammad (saaws) was negotiating out of strength. The case now is totally different. The perception the American Muslims are giving is that by giving them nothing substantial and by giving them just a little bit of recognition you can get their support, vote and loyalty even if you carry on your war against their brothers and sisters. Just like a dog owner abusing his dog but as long as the bone is thrown out the dog will still give his owner all his loyalty. It is sad but true. So as long as the Muslims are kissing up to the American politicians, these politicians are not going to give them back anything . The reality of the situation is that the American Muslims are desperate. They realize the implications of the war on terror on them and they understand their vulnerable position and are willing to go to extreme lengths just to be accepted and recognized. This zeal for voting and having “our voices heard” and “practicing our right” is a reflection of this mindset. Other minorities such as the Blacks, the Hispanics and the Jews are getting a lot in exchange for their vote. What are you getting? The sister wasn’t even allowed to wear her hijab behind Obama in exchange for her enthusiastic support!

Another comment mentions that the Muslims wanted the Romans to win against the Persians so this is evidence that we can support a candidate. The answer to that is when the Muslims wanted the Romans to win against the Persians, the Romans were not in a state of war with the Muslims and they have not harmed the Muslims in any way, shape or form. So how can you compare that to Muslims supporting candidates who are openly announcing war on Muslims? Quran makes it clear that we should treat the disbelievers who are peaceful with us different than the ones who show their animosity towards us.

Someone else mentions the pact of Fudool. This pact was a pact in the time of jahiliyyah where some of the people of Quraish agreed to provide support for the oppressed. Again this is different than voting. This is a binding agreement on all. If Muslims agree with non Muslims to support the oppressed then that is allowed. But how does that relate to voting? The voter takes no binding promises from the one he votes for.

There where a few comments that accused me of having little knowledge of what is going on in the US because I do not live there anymore, and others saying that as an Imam I should not speak about politics. To all of you wise men out there who are supposedly the “experts”, do you remember eight years ago that it was you who actually told us to vote for Bush, the worst US president ever as far as Muslims are concerned? Haven’t you learned from your mistakes?

Imam Anwar:: Voting for the American President October 31, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Knowledge, True Shuyūkh, United States of Losers , 2 comments

Imam Anwar al-’Awlaki recently made an excellent entry on the blog regarding voting for the Kuffaar. The Muslims in America need to pay close attention to it.

The Muslim community in the US is busy with the vote and are debating who the Muslims should pick as their president. The argument presented is we are choosing between the lesser of the two evils. In reality it is more about being American and part of the system than it is about benefiting the ummah because the fact of the matter is there is no benefit in either candidate whatsoever.

Democracy in an un-Islamic system and we as Muslims should have nothing to do with it. Whether one looks at the root and history of democracy or at the reality of democracy today one can realize that it is a system that is not only different than the Islamic system but is opposed to it. Can’t you see that the West in its war against Islam is offering the democratic system as an alternative to Sharia? So if the West, which is the founder of democracy, sees democracy as an opposing system to Islam why are some Muslims still insisting on participating in it and adopting it as their political religion?

Democracy is a Western system that was founded and developed in the West and today the West, not the Muslims, have full authority and right to tell the world what democracy is and how it should be practiced and implemented. We have our own system of government and likewise it is the Muslims who are going to define it and will not allow non Muslims to meddle with our religion and teach us what is right from wrong.

Muslims should seek to avoid any forms of participation in Western democracy.

The promoters of participation in American elections argue that we are choosing the least of the two evils. This principle is correct but what they are missing is that in the process of choosing the lesser of the two evils they are committing an even greater evil . The breaking down of the psychological barrier that should exist between Muslims and non-Muslims, the erosion of the aqeedah of wala and bara (loyalty to Allah and disavowal of the enemies of Allah,) and the risk of loosing one’s religion are evils that outweigh any benefit that may come out of such participation.
Also the types of candidates that American politics has been spitting out is absolutely disgusting. I wonder how any Muslim with a grain of iman in his heart could walk up to a ballot box and cast his vote in endorsement of creatures such as Mcain or Obama?! How can a Muslim sleep with a clear conscience after he has chosen the likes of G.W. Bush? No matter how irrelevant your vote is, on the Day of Judgment you will be called to answer for it.  You, under no coercion or duress, consciously chose to vote for the leader of a nation that is leading the war against Islam.

There is also a strange belief among some that if we participate in the elections of the disbelievers we will bring good to ourselves, while if we have trust in Allah and avoid the disbelievers, as He wants from us, we will be missing out on some good and would draw harm to ourselves. They are so weak they believe we can only survive in today’s word if we seek  support from the enemies of Allah. But for the believers  Allah is sufficient for them and they do not need to seek assistance from the leaders or the governments of the disbelievers.

The is no benefit for the ummah in voting for the new American Pharoah

Zawahiri on the two primary goals of his movement

Posted by revolution in : Jihād, Knowledge , add a comment

Many people have a misconception that the movement of Usamah bin Ladin, al-Qaa’idah, its purpose and goal is to merely kill people. Unfortunately, we hear the ‘Ulema in some of the Muslim lands repeating this misconception when in reality, it is a repeated statement of the media war machine that purposely does its best to tarnish the image of Usamah’s movement. And this is only because his movement has the capacity to shake the throne of the rulers in the Muslim and non-Muslim lands.

As Muslims, we have a Qur’anic concept that teaches us to be just even against our own selves. So to block out the words of a people - who in this case are extremely influential - is a great injustice indeed and we should open our ears and minds to muse over what they have to say and reflect upon it. We even do the same with our enemies in order to understand them and their mentality.

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri said in his, “The Exoneration” regarding the two primary goals of his movement:

We in Al-Qaa’idah of Jihad do not seek internal conflict. We seek to expel the invaders from the Muslim lands and establish a Muslim state. As we have been led by the mental efforts we made to act in accordance with Shari’ah, our practical plan, which we have repeatedly announced, is the following:

(a) Striking at Crusader and Zionist targets; and

(b) Making serious efforts to change these corrupt regimes and establish an Islamic order.

I repeat that serious efforts are necessary. I do not mean attending a conference or demonstrating for an hour or even attending a lesson for two hours. These might be among the efforts used but making serious efforts is a much larger undertaking. Serious efforts to make changes are much bigger than some people imagine who believe that it is possible to bring victory to the Muslim nation while sitting in their offices among papers and books, criticizing this person and correcting the other person without ever joining the real battle, offering sacrifices in the form of their persons, wealth, children, or leaving their homeland, jobs, salaries, and other trivial worldly things. Serious efforts to bring about change require:

[1] Sincerity in pursuing the objective for the pleasure of Allah; and

[2] Persistence, perseverance, and determination to reach the goal in addition to mobilizing and organizing resources, planning one’s steps, and seizing opportunities.

The great Islamic poet ‘Allamah Mohamed Iqbal, rahimahullah, said:

To the sun always make your way
In the heat of the day and early morning.

[3] They also require a willingness to sacrifice one’s dearest possessions, including one’s life, to reach the objective and be ready to live under pursuit, be made homeless and poor, or spend one’s best years of life in jail.

When we do this, we will have done our best and all that is left is to implore Allah for victory.

We do not exhort only the Mujahideen and the religiously committed to do this but all Muslims because it is their obligation, like prayers and fasting.

The Exoneration by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri [Translated] October 30, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Books, Egypt, Jihād, Knowledge, True Shuyūkh , 5 comments

Finally, the long awaited translation is here! Whoever translated this truly knows of the book’s importance today.

For those who don’t know, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote a book entitled, “The Exoneration: A Treatise Exonerating the Community of the Pen and the Sword from the Debilitating Accusation of Fatigue and Weakness.”

The book is a critique of the supposed claims of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qaadir ibn ‘Abd al-’Azeez, may Allah free him from the Egyptian tyrants, where he condemned the global Jihad and the understanding of the Mujahideen. What was strange about this attack was that this Shaykh has written extensive works supporting the type of Jihad that is going on as we speak. His works were so popular that it has influenced many of the Mujahideen, including al-Qaa’idah fighters. Dr. Ayman’s “The Exoneration” is mainly focused on this book of the Shaykh’s, so through this, many other subjects are tackled. Some of these issues (and other points) include:

This book of Zawahiri’s is a blow to the Munafiqeen and Crusaders who try to use the alleged document of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qaadir. Dr. Ayman had said that the Shaykh’s document was not only written under duress (Ikrah), threat and incarceration, but also under the supervision, guidance and funding of the Crusader/Zionist campaign. He is most probably right about the funding part since the famous RAND Report on “Civil Democratic Islam” urged the United States Government to fund such type of material so that its popularity raises within the Muslim Community.

The total number of pages is 268.

Below are the download links:

[EDIT: Revision of English translation coming soon, bi idhnillah]

As-Sahab Media:: ‘Eid al-Fitr prayer 1429H - Shaykh Abu Yahya al-Libi October 28, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Afghānistān, As-Sahāb Media, Jihād, Knowledge, True Shuyūkh, Videos , 3 comments

To download, click here.

Why Voting leads to Kufr: [6] Most commonly used arguments for voting Part 3 October 18, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Knowledge, Why Voting leads to Kufr , 1 comment so far

This section will be the last of the refutations. There are a few more left, but with knowledge and creativity (in argument), it is very easy to rebuke these people and their ilks.

5. The Rule: “Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil”

Those who use this rule say that to vote for the least harmful candidate in the democratic election, or to vote for him based on some of his good policies which are in opposition to the evil policies of his opponents; then this is a form of commanding the good and forbidding the evil.

So our reply to this is that participating in the democratic elections is itself an evil which is to be forbidden, as it seeks to associate the desires of men with the Legislation of Allah, the Most High. And if this concept is clear in the mind of the reader, then the argument that voting for a candidate in a democratic election – which is Shirk, is equal to the commanding of the good and the forbidding of the evil – which is obligatory, then he will see that this is the exact opposite and reversal of the ruling, which was applied incorrectly in the first place.

From the known conditions of commanding the good and forbidding the evil is that it must be done by means of permissible methods. Thus, it is not allowed to kill a man to stop him from stealing, and it is not allowed to cheat a Muslim out of his money in order to keep him from paying interest (Riba) and it is not allowed to kidnap a man’s family in order to keep him from beating them. This is not hidden from the one with the most basic understanding of commanding the good and forbidding the evil.

Another condition is that the outcome of that commanding or forbidding must not result in a greater evil. Shaykh Al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah be merciful to him, said,

“And if those commanding and forbidding know that the outcome of their action will have an inseparable combination of good and evil, then they are not allowed to do it until they evaluate its outcome. If the good would be predominant, then they should proceed with it. And if the evil would be predominant, then they are prohibited from doing it, even if it entails the loss of a lesser good. In this case, commanding the good that would result in more wrong would be an act of commanding evil and promoting disobedience to Allah and His Messenger.” 39

And Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah be merciful to him, said,

“So if one’s act of forbidding the evil will lead to what is worse and more hated by Allah and His Messenger, then it is not allowed to forbid it, even though Allah hates it (i.e. that evil) and hates those who do it.” 40

So the attempts to forbid the evil, by those who call to participation in the democratic elections, are paid for by the price of Shirk and disobedience. So examine the scale. Even though we agree with our brothers about the terrible and grievous situation faced today by the Muslims in ‘Iraq and elsewhere, we weigh this against the act of Shirk, which we are being invited to, with the intent of reducing this oppression of these Muslims. Allah, the Most High, said:

And ‘Al-Fitnah’ is worse than killing. 41

And He, the Most High, said:

…and ‘Al-Fitnah’ is greater than the killing. 42

And here, the word “Al-Fitnah” means the Shirk and Kufr, as it has come in the books of Tafsir. Shaykh Al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah be merciful to him, said about these verses,

“In other words, that the killing; even if there is an evil and malevolence in it, then in the Fitnah of the disbelievers, there is from the evil and malevolence which is even greater than it.” 43

And Shaykh ‘Ali Al-Khudayr mentioned in his chapter: “Calling to the Testimony of ‘La Ilaha Ill-Allah’ that Shaykh Sulayman Ibn Sahman said about these verses:

“Al-Fitnah’ is the Kufr. So if all the Bedouins and the city dwellers (i.e. all the people) fight until they are all gone, that would be less severe than them establishing a Taghut in the land who rules with what contradicts the Shari’ah of Islam.” 44

Therefore there is no doubt that to commit an act of Shirk with the intention of reducing the harm upon other Muslims (even when this harm reaches the level of death), then the Shirk is a greater evil and can not be performed as part of commanding the good and forbidding the evil, as the evil of that action outweighs the evil of the harm upon the Muslims. 45

6. The Rule: “The Necessity Permits the Unlawful”

So those who use this rule say that the Muslims are in a situation of necessity (Dharurah) wherein performing unlawful actions, such as participating in the democratic elections becomes permissible.

As for the usage to this rule then the reader must know that it is not absolute. Rather, there are exceptions and stipulations to this rule which make it inapplicable to the participation in democratic elections.

Firstly, there are matters that do not qualify as necessities. Therefore, one must be careful not to apply the concession of this rule to something that does not even qualify as a necessity. And it is known that the necessities are five basic categories; one’s religion, one’s self (life), one’s mind (i.e. sanity), one’s linage/honor, and one’s money. 46 Therefore, it is not permissible for one to commit fornication or marry someone who is essentially un-weddable (i.e. Mahram) due to his sexual desires and then for him to excuse his sin with the above rule. Therefore, we see that only certain matters fall into necessities and not all things can be permitted with the application of this rule.

Secondly, when it comes to Kufr and Shirk, there is no excuse to perform it due to a necessity (Dharurah). This is because committing Kufr or Shirk is a violation of one of the categories of necessity itself; one’s religion, as it has passed. Rather, it is in violation of the greatest necessity of all; one’s religion. So how can one seek to justify the preservation of one necessity at the expense of another? Rather, the only time it is permitted is when one is under compulsion (Ikrah). 47

And how could we look to some examples where it is permissible to perform a sin, based upon a legitimate necessity and then use that comparison to permit the performance of an act of Kufr or Shirk?

Shaykh Al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah be merciful to him, said,

“Verily, the things which are forbidden; from them is that which is clearly stated that the (Islamic) legislation did not permit anything from it; neither for necessity or for other than necessity, such as Shirk and illegal sexual acts and speaking about Allah without knowledge and the clear transgression. And they are the four things mentioned in His, the Most High’s, statement: “Say: ‘The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are the great evil sins, whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, making Shirk with Allah for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.” 48 So these things are forbidden in all of the Shari’ahs. And with this prohibition, Allah sent all of the Messengers and He did not permit anything from them whatsoever, not in any condition from the conditions. And due to this, they were revealed in a Makkah chapter (i.e. at the beginning of the Revelation).” 49

Shaykh ‘Ali Al-Khudayr narrated from Shaykh Hamad Ibn ‘Atiq, who said,

“He, the Most High, said: “He has forbidden you only the Maytah (dead animals), and blood, and flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered in sacrifice for other than Allah. But if one is forced by necessity without willful disobedience nor out of transgression of limits, then there is no sin on him.” 50 So it was made a condition, while necessity exists, that the one who eats it, does so without willful disobedience or transgression. And the difference between the two conditions is not hidden (meaning between compulsion and necessity).” And he (i.e. Ibn ‘Atiq) said, “And in the permissibility of the dead (meat) for the one in need, is there anything that indicates the permissibility of voluntary apostasy?! And is this comparison anything like the comparison of marrying one’s sister or daughter, based upon the permissibility of marrying the free one marrying the slave, when he fears fornication and inability (to marry a free woman)? So this purveyor of doubt has added more than the comparison of those who said: “Trading is only like Riba (usury).” 51 52

And Shaykh ‘Ali Al-Khudayr continued,

“And we say: Is there in the permissibility of the dead (meat) for the one who is in need, anything to indicate the permissibility of entering into the councils of Shirk voluntarily, while allying oneself with the secularists and the Taghut-oriented governments by using the argument of ‘the benefits of the Daw’ah’?!” 53

7. The Rule: “Kufr is excused Due to Compulsion”

Once since it is established that Kufr and Shirk are not permitted by necessity, as it has passed in the previous rule, the next step is to validate the participation in democratic elections by using this rule. And those who use this rule attempt to show that the situation is so dire, that it is a matter of compulsion (Ikrah). And we say that if a person were truly compelled to participate in the democratic elections, then this rule would excuse him and there would be no blame on him for doing so.

However, the definition and conditions for compulsion are not found in the situation we are discussing. Firstly, the definition of compulsion (Ikrah) necessitates that one is literally being forced to do something, and not that he voluntarily does it.

‘Ala’ Ad-Din Al-Bukhari defined compulsion as:

“Holding another person upon a matter, which he refused to do, through his fear that the one who is committing it (i.e. the compulsion) is able to implement it (i.e. his threat). So the other one becomes fearful and his being satisfied is removed, due to the implementation (of this compulsion).” 54

And Dr. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillah Al-Wuhaybi said,

“It is the type which takes place upon the compelled one himself and the individual has no more ability or choice due to that.” 55

Therefore, the one who uses this rule to permit the participation in the democratic elections can not claim that this is compulsion (Ikrah). And the mere fact that the Muslims are being called to do this action voluntarily is the clearest proof that they are not being compelled to commit it.

As for the conditions of compulsion (Ikrah), Ibn Hajr said,

“And the conditions of compulsion are four. The first is that the one committing it is able to implement what he is threatening with, while the one being threatened is unable to repel that (threat) even by fleeing. The second is that it is his strong assumption that if he refuses (to comply) then this (threat) will be put upon him. The third is that what he threatened with is immediate. So if he says, ‘If you do not do this, I will beat you tomorrow,’ he is not considered a compelled one. And an exception from that is if he mentioned an amount of time, which is very near or if customarily he does not backtrack. The forth is that nothing is shown by the commanded one that would indicate his voluntary compliance.” 56

Therefore this is a correct rule and if one were truly compelled to participate in the democratic elections, this would excuse him from the Kufr and Shirk he committed thereby. However, it is clear that what is being called compulsion, in this case, does not meet the definition of compulsion (Ikrah), nor does it meet the criteria for the conditions for it to be valid.

—-
39 “Al-Amru Bil-Ma’rufi Wan-Nahyu ‘An Al-Munkar”, Pg. 21
40 “‘I’lam Al-Muwaqqi’in”, Vol. 3/4
41 Al-Baqarah, 191
42 Al-Baqarah, 217
43 “Al-Fatawa ”, Vol. 28/355
44 Look to “Al-Jam’u Wat-Tajrid Fi Sharhi Kitab At-Tawhid ”, Pg. 121
45 And this ties in with the next two rules so pay attention to how these are linked.
46 Look to “Fath Al-Bari ”, Vol. 1/179
47 And we shall address this within the next rule, Insha’-Allah.
48 Al-‘Araf, 33
49 “Al-Fatawa ”, Vol. 14/470-471
50 Al-Baqarah, 173
51 Al-Baqarah, 275
52 “Hidayat At-Tariq ”, Pg. 151
53 “Al-Jam’u Wat-Tajrid Fi Sharhi Kitab At-Tawhid ”, Pg. 121
54 “Kashf Al-Asrar ”, Vol. 4/482
55 “Nawaqidh Al-Iman Al-I’tiqadiyyah Wa Dhawabit At-Takfir ‘Ind As-Salaf”, Vol. 2/7
56 “Fath Al-Bari ”, Vol. 12/311

Why Voting leads to Kufr: [5] Most commonly used arguments for voting Part 2 October 17, 2008

Posted by revolution in : Knowledge, Why Voting leads to Kufr , 18 comments

We will continue the refutations of the commonly used arguments that the Muslims use for voting.

3. The rule: “The Benefit is taken over the Harm”

And this rule is similar to the one which has passed. Those who use this rule to permit the participation in democratic elections say that the benefits that result in electing a candidate whose policies are the least harmful to the Muslims, outweigh the harm of other candidates, whose policies are more threatening towards them.

Firstly, the claimed benefits of electing a candidate within a democratic election – while this is Shirk, as it has passed – does not permit the action being encouraged. This is because the one who participates in this action is in reality seeking a benefit from Allah while violating the sanctities of His Tawhid. In his rebuke of Dr. Safar Al-Hawali’s “Open Letter to George W. Bush”, Shaykh Abu Basir Mustafa Halimah, said the following regarding Al-Hawali’s mentioning that he had encouraged the Muslims in the United States to vote for President Bush:

“I say: The words of the Shaykh (i.e. Safar Al-Hawali) here are false and rejected for different reasons. From them, it was wrong for him to encourage the Muslims to participate in the game of Democracy, which is in place in America and that which takes place due to it from mistakes in creed (i.e. ‘Aqidah) and Shari’ah, whose results are un-praiseworthy, and which can not be excused no matter how many benefits are claimed. So how about here when it opposes the fundamentals of the Shari’ah and its general matters, as we have clarified in many places throughout our projects?!” 28

And even if we were to concede that there are actual benefits in the participation in democratic elections, this still does not make the action permissible. As Allah, the Most High, said:

“They ask you concerning alcohol and gambling. Say: “In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.” 29

And with that, Allah said:

“O you who believe! Alcohol, gambling, Al-Ansab, and Al-Azlam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaytan’s handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that in order that you may be successful.” 30

In his Tafsir of the first verse, Ibn Kathir said,

“As for their benefit (alcohol and gambling), it is material, including benefit for the body, digesting the food, getting rid of the excrements, sharpening the mind, bringing about a joyous sensation and financially benefiting from their sale. Also, (their benefit includes) earnings through gambling that one uses to spend on his family and on himself. Yet, these benefits are outweighed by the clear harm that they cause which affects the mind and the religion. This is why Allah said: “…but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.” 31

And likewise, even if we were to concede that their may be a benefit in participating in democratic elections, 32 the harm upon one’s religion in committing this act of Shirk, by sending someone to legislate laws besides Allah is far greater upon one’s religion and faith than any possible benefits. And we say with all certainty that Shirk is far more harmful to the slave than any intoxicant or gambling and its effect is far more threatening.

4. The Rule: “Actions are based on Intentions”

And those who apply this principle say that as long as one’s intention is to lessen the oppression upon the Muslims, or to provide them some relief or things of this nature, then the action becomes permissible. And they say that as long as one does not intend by his participation in democratic elections to commit any evil and as long as the only intent is to bring about the good, then this permits the action and makes it praiseworthy.

And we say that this error in logical thinking is not only prevalent in the topic we are addressing, but it also permeates other serious topics as well. Therefore, we will give it some detail here, Insha’Allah.

The first point is that sins do not stop being sinful due to the intention of the one who commits them. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, may Allah be merciful to him, said,

“The sins; they do not change their nature by the intention. So the ignorant one must understand that from the generality of his saying, peace be upon him: “Actions are based on intentions”, then thinks that a sin can be turned into an obedience by (a good) intention, such as the person who backbites a man to please the heart of someone else, feeds a needy person with someone else’s money or builds a school, a mosque or a military camp with unlawful money, while his intention is to do good. This is all ignorance, and the intention has no effect in ruling out its being a transgression, a wrongdoing and a sin. In fact, his intending to do good by an evil means – which opposes the requirement of the Shari’ah – is another evil. So if he is aware of this (evil means), then he is stubborn in regards to the Shari’ah. But if he ignores it, then he is sinful for being ignorant, because seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim. In addition, since good things can only be known as such by the Shari’ah, how can an evil be good, then? That is very unlikely. As a matter of fact, the things which cause this in the heart are the hidden pleasure and the inner desire…”

Then he went on to say,

“What is implied is that whoever ignorantly intends to do good by means of a sin, he will not be excused, unless he is new in Islam and does not have the time wherein he can acquire the knowledge, and Allah, the Most High, indeed said: “So ask those who possess the Reminder if you know not.” 33

And he (i.e. Al-Ghazali) further said –

“Therefore his saying, peace be upon him: “Actions are based on intentions” is restricted, as far as the three categories are concerned, to obedience’s and permitted things (i.e. Mubahat), but not to sins. This is because an obedience can be turned into a sin by the (the wrong) intention. Also the permitted action (i.e. Mubah) can be turned into a sin or an obedience by the intention. In contrast, a sin can never be turned into an obedience by the (good) intention. Yes, the intention could have an interference in it (i.e. the sin); and that is when (other) evil intentions are added to it, and which would increase its burden and its great evil result – as we have mentioned in the Book of Repentance.” 34

And in his refutation of the Fatwa of Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz Ibn Baz, who permitted becoming a Member of Parliament and the participation in democratic elections, based on the rule: “Actions are Based on Intentions”, 35 the Shaykh, ‘Abdul-Qadir Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Aziz, said:

“I say that this Fatwa is wrong, according to what we have quoted from Al- Ghazali, that sins do not become permissible by the intention. Besides, the Kufr is the greatest of sins. So as joining the Parliament is Kufr, it will not become permissible by the intention. This is because (of the fact) that the Parliament is the means by which the democratic system is implemented. So knowing the verdict of participating in it or electing (a member) relies on knowing the verdict of democracy, the verdict of which is dependent on knowing its reality.” 36

Therefore the intention is not a factor in permitting a sin as long as the one is aware that it is a sin. And it does not permit committing Kufr or Shirk even if the intention for the outcome of that action is a benefit or relief for the Muslims. If this were the case, then we would permit the selling of Bibles and idols so that the proceeds could be donated to the Muslims in need, and no one would permit such a thing.

——————–
28 “Waqafat Ma’ Ash-Shaykh Safar”, Pg. 18
29 Al-Baqarah, 219
30 Al-Ma’idah, 90
31 “Tafsir Al-Qur’an Al-‘Athim” 1/345
32 And this is yet to be proven as the outcome of the election is not certain nor is any action of the party or Member of Parliament who takes power. What is certain; however, is that in order to reach these claimed benefits, one must engage in an act of Shirk, as it has passed.
33 An-Nahl, 43
34 “Ihya’ Ulum Ad-Din ”, Vol. 4/388-391
35 And this Fatwa was issued in “Liwa’ Al-Islam” magazine, issue #11, 1409 H. Pg. 7
36 “Al-Jami Fi Talab Al-‘Ilm Ash-Sharif ” 1/147-148

Bad Behavior has blocked 1476 access attempts in the last 7 days.