Are Elections Haram? Says Who? And Based on What? Part 3 | February 26, 2005
Press Ctrl & + to increase text size.
Dr. Pasha
If you want to quote any of the material in this book- whether its ideas or words – do so only with proper, open and unambiguous acknowledgment and credit to the author. If you want to reproduce and sell or otherwise market it, seek express permission from the author prior to doing so. Contact:
Admin [at] ISLAMICSOLUTIONS [dot] com
To do otherwise is unlawful. Call it Haram if you want to. Or call it a sin if you want to. In English language, the best-case scenario falls under the broad category of plagiarism. It is also a violation of copyright laws.
CONTENTS:
(4) Muslim Rejectionism in the East
(5) Muslim Rejectionism in the West
(6) Qur’an and Hadith in the Election Fatwa Crossfire
(7) Voting and Elections May Be Fard, Do You Think?
Dealing with Muslim rejectionism is not a new thing for me. My experience goes back decades. It goes back to the unlikely times when Jama’at Islami Hind, one of the strongest, best organized and most effective Muslim organizations in India, and in the world, used to hold a somewhat rejectionist attitude with regard to Muslim participation in elections.
Jama’at people were – Allah bless them! – among the most wonderful people in the world at that time. They were some of the wisest, most moderate, balanced, deliberate and thoughtful of people anywhere.
They barely said anything without supporting it with logic and evidence as well as with Qur’an and Hadith. They were God-fearing people of unimpeachable honesty and integrity – humble, truthful, sincere and forbiddingly hardworking and dedicated.
And yet they believed it was wrong to participate in elections in secular Hindu India. In a sense, they were waiting for their Darul Islam to arrive, I suppose, before they could become politically active and engaged.
Evidently, like a lot of good Muslims, they wanted Khilafah and would take nothing less. To them, obviously, the only legitimate system of government was the Islamic system and everything else was at best a distraction.
As a result, while practicing voting and elections internally to elect their own Amir or leader, they were unable to extend that practice to the larger sphere of life around them that they saw as being based mostly on non-Islam.
Question of Sovereignty:
So, the Jama’at’s position evidently was, yes, elections was the way to go, provided the overall sociopolitical system was informed and guided by the higher principles of Islam. And provided it was not based so much on human whim, self-interest, intrigue and raw politics, if not blatant corruption and falsehood, that characterized much of the status quo and modus operandi in most places.
And then there always was the question of ultimate sovereignty: whether it resided in the people, an assumption which formed the basis of a democracy, or belonged to God Almighty, which was the core belief in Islam. That means, in political matters, where did the buck really stop: with people and their elected representatives or with God and his divine revelation?
Soft Rejectionism:
But to me it was still rejectionism of sorts, even though it was gentle, benign, soft and well-meaning rejectionism – pretty much like everything else that the Jama’at did those days.
It was rejectionism based on regret, sorrow, pain and helplessness rather than on anger, hate or contempt. Knowing them as I did, those were the ultimate opposites and oxymorons – I mean Jama’at stalwarts on the one hand and hate, anger and contempt on the other hand.
Da’wah vs. Demonstration:
Muslims are often long on Da’wah and short on practical demonstration. As a result, by and large, the Jama’at’s focus was on inviting people to Allah – and of course to Islam. What the Jama’at did not seem to grasp fully in a practical, everyday sense – just as many others did not at that time – was the fact that Islam meant life in all its richness and practical complexities: right here and now.
And that power and politics – like labor, wages, money, ownership, management, education, hygiene and medicine – were vital to the complex process of life on earth, as Allah had designed it for human beings, even though the Jama’at seemed to have no difficulty in dealing with this issue at a more abstract and theoretical level.
Cooperation is Key:
And that interacting and cooperating in a constructive and productive manner with a non-Muslim or un-Islamic system and its representatives was an essential requirement designed for survival and success in this world for Muslims as well as for Islam.
Besides, it was also in the interests of the survival and better functioning of the society and the world as a whole.
The Qur’an says:
Ta’awanoo ‘Alal Birri Wat-Taqwa wa Laa Ta’awanoo ‘Alal Ithmi wal-‘Udwan.
Paraphrase:
Cooperate based on virtue and fear of God and do not cooperate based on sin and aggression.
That means, according to the Qur’an, cooperation was key to success in human life at all levels. The only question was how and based on what. The Aayat throws the door wide open for Muslims to cooperate with everyone on matters considered to be of mutual concern and importance.
However, what the Aayat does at the same time is to establish certain clear cut guidelines and parameters on the basis of which any projected cooperation must occur.
Living Culture:
One of our problems as Muslims is that we Muslims while inviting the world to Islam, usually fail to build a living culture and social environment around us that is representative of what we say are the true teachings of Islam. For example, most of us may see no contradiction in holding a public lecture on the Islamic teachings of Taharah and Nazaafah - cleanliness – in a mosque or building that may not be very clean.
That is because things for us are mostly a promise of the wonderful world that would all of a sudden come into being, when and if Islam came into its own, and rarely ever a full and comprehensive package of real life based on the Qur’an, delivered right here and now for everyone to see, appreciate and practice.
That is, Islam provided to people as a workable and as a generally superior model of everyday life that would force attention from others and make them want to emulate and embrace it.
That is because for most of us there is a gap that separates Da’wah to Islam from demonstration of the social effectiveness and viability of Islam in practical life.
Attitude Change:
Attitudes however change. And one of the best predictors of attitude change in such matters is the honesty, integrity and sincerity of the protagonists. As a result, as years rolled by, the Jama’at changed its attitude on this issue and softened its stand on political participation. May Allah bless them for doing so!
The Jama’at now is a force to be reckoned with on the Indian political scene, even though they do not seem to want to vulgarize their lofty mission of inviting people to Allah by engaging in direct politics in the pursuit of electoral office.
A Throwback to Khairul Quroon:
But regardless of where they were positioned on this issue of voting and elections – whether they were for or against them – the people in the Jama’at in India then were some of the most wonderful people in the world.
May Allah give Jannat to those who have gone to meet him; and may he fill with blessings the lives of those still surviving in this world.
Anyone who knew these people could tell they were good slaves and Khalifahs of Allah on earth. They were good Muslims, good neighbors and good citizens. Their lives were a reflection of the lives of our Aslaaf in Khairul Quroon – Sahabah, Tabi’een and others after them.
Rejectionism and Islam Don’t Really Mix:
Islam and Muslim interests, as well as the lives and interests of non-Muslims, were safe in the hands of the Jama’at – to the extent they could be safe in any human hands.
What a boon to their own land and society – and to this earth – they were! And what wonderful role models in general to those who cared to live a truly useful, virtuous and God-fearing life on earth!
Notwithstanding all this, the Jama’at was wrong in its judgment and analysis when it came to participation in elections – not only based on logic, evidence and argument, but also based on Qur’an and Hadith. May Allah forgive me for saying this!
The Jama’at did not fully grasp the fact that elections were one of God Almighty’s greatest gifts to humanity, and not a British or American legacy or invention.
Not that the Jama’at people ever said or believed so. To them it was more a question of sovereignty as well as a matter of the conditions and the environment being right.
Impacting the Environment:
Nor did I fully understand that fact myself at the time. To me what was self-evident, however, was that rejectionism and isolationism did not make intuitive sense in the context of life in the real world. They simply did not look right.
To me that was no way to live – for anyone, anywhere! Cut off from everyone and everything around you, your own life subject to everyone else’s decisions and influence, but you yourself unable to influence anything or anyone in any significant way including your own life!
That to me was not how life worked or ought to work. To me the essence of life was to be active and to be able to impact your environment.
Take that ability away from life forms and you reduce them to an inorganic state. Deny that right and opportunity to people and you kill them psychologically and spiritually and turn them into vegetables.
Even here in the West I have from time to time run into rejectionist and isolationist issues and attitudes. I was forced to deal with one such issue, personal and close, in the early 1990s, as I got a resolution approved from the floor of a national Islamic gathering at Philadelphia condemning the burning of black churches in southern United States.
One of the speakers on the panel I was chairing at the time tried to stop the process in its tracks. He proclaimed it Free Masonry for Muslim conventioneers to say “Aye” in support of the resolution and make appreciative references to Philadelphia’s role in the growth of liberty in America.
To me it was self-evident that burning of a church – any church anywhere – was an evil act, directly in contravention to the teachings of the Qur’an. Burning of black churches in the United States to me was a particularly heinous and evil act, not the least so for being in the South.
Stopping Evil:
And it was crystal clear to me that all decent people everywhere should try to stop and discourage such evil however best they could – with their hands if they could; otherwise with their tongues, pens and other means of communication; or at least kindle a little flame of resentment in their own hearts and minds against such acts of unmitigated evil and wickedness.
I saw it clearly as part of Muslims’ duty of Amr bil Ma’ruf and Nahy ‘Anil Munkar to do so – as part of Muslims’ divine mission of getting people to do the good and right things and getting them to stop doing the bad and evil things.
As a result, it was clear to me that passing of a resolution condemning the burning of black churches in the southern United States was the least Muslims could do to express their horror and revulsion at these despicable acts.
Evidently, this is not how some others saw it. They apparently had rejectionism on their mind.
Another Example:
Other cases and examples are not hard to find. One example that comes to mind is when Gorbachev was liberalizing – practically dismantling – the Soviet Union. It was a day or two before bombs – to borrow an expression from CNN anchor Bernard Shaw – lit up Baghdad like a Christmas tree, in what is called the Gulf War – in 1991 was it?
Some very good and important Muslims had gathered in New York to figure out what to do. The mood was somber, the air full of anxiety and the talk grim and pretty much Muslim.
I proposed a resolution asking governments in Muslim countries to follow Gorbachev’s example and liberalize and democratize their regimes. Immediately, alarm bells went up.
Scared of Words:
Apparently, the word “liberalize” had gotten right amidst the deep insecurities of some good Muslims. “Brother!” said one very good and important Muslim voice, as some Muslim voices have a way of saying “Brother!” to some other Muslims. “We are talking Islam here, not democracy.”
“Precisely,” I replied, looking up from where I sat. “Give me democracy and I will give you Islam” I said. Whether or not I said Inshallah, I do not remember.
It was around the time Media, Culture & Society had published my fairly elaborate article on the role of politics, democracy and such other things in Islam and the Muslim world. A year or two earlier, I had presented a paper on the same topic to the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism (AEJ).
So, when I moved that resolution in that meeting at Philadelphia, I was not exactly shooting in the dark. I had spent years thinking about what I was saying. And before presenting it to the convention, I had that resolution cleared, as was to be expected, at the highest levels from the organizers of the convention.
So, the spirit and the mindset behind the rejectionist voting Fatwas – and the plethora of social, political and moral questions they raise – are not entirely new to me.
I have personally been seized of these matters for a very long time and have repeatedly turned to the Qur’an and the Hadith for guidance in dealing with them – once I had done my share of wading through the “literature” in various professional and academic fields of relevance.
I am hoping the question of voting and elections could be quieted if not entirely settled with the Aayaat I have already cited. Qur’an and Hadith should be above denigration by partisans in polemical debates.
Therefore, I really do not want to drag the Qur’an and Hadith into these discussions beyond what I have already done. Not the least because some of these arguments are so blatantly empty of sense and logic and so patently out of touch with reality.
Attempting to graft Qur’an and Hadith to such shallow and almost silly ideas is a sign of disrespect to Qu’an and Hadith.
Who Should Govern Us?
Instead, here is a commonsense approach that will hopefully spare us the need for invoking more of the Qur’an and Hadith directly in what is a fairly simple and straightforward question: Should we or should we not have a say in who governs us and how?
That is the real question. And that is the crux of the matter in this whole debate.
For, this is one of the most fundamental questions every human being must ask at some point in their life. Qur’an and Hadith should not be used to confuse and cloud this issue in people’s mind.
If some people still insist on bandying the Islamic terminology of Halal and Haram with regard to something as basic and obvious as this, I would like to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle.
Underlying Absurdities:
I would say, instead of asking whether voting and elections are Halal or Haram, and invoking the Qur’an and Hadith in support or rebuttal, let us ask some simple real-life questions and see if the resulting answers will reveal the absurdities and contradictions underlying the rejectionist Fatwa and mindset. I was about to say “logic,” but logic is not the rejectionist Fatwa’s strong suit.
In fact, logic seems to be Haram in rejectionist religion!
In fact, some of these questions – the questions I want to pose – and any answers they may produce may serve to highlight the extent to which the votaries of the rejectionist Fatwa themselves may be involved in some of the very activities that they so vociferously condemn.
Don’t forget, the real question is still this: If we can’t have a say, and if we can’t play a role, in who becomes our leader, then what is the alternative way – the other, preferred way – of doing it?
And the answer to that question is simple: The only other way is either brute and barbaric force or fooling people with things like the logic of the “divine right” – or a combination of both. That was the nonsense people used to use in the olden days: Rulers become rulers because they were divinely chosen to be rulers.
This was the kind of rubbish Islam set the world free from 1400 years ago.
As a result, if the only logical and legitimate method – and therefore the only Islamic method – of having leaders is by picking or choosing them ourselves, then the question is how do we go about picking or choosing them in practice?
From three to 3 million:
To ask that question also is to answer it: If we are three or 30 or so, naturally, we can “talk” to one anther directly – face to face or over the phone – and record their views and preferences. But if we are 30,000 or 3,000,000, then the only other way of doing it is by using an electoral mechanism of some kind – elections and voting.
What other way can there be?
Therefore, one good way of addressing this whole thing is by flipping it on its head. So instead of asking if voting and elections are Haram, we should ask if they may actually be Fard – a fundamental requirement of living Islam in this world.
And if all else – all methods of access to power other than elections and voting that ignore the will and consent of the people – could be Haram?
That means if I myself were a Fatwa-issuing kind, I might be inclined to call elections and voting, as a rule, Fard – not Halal or Haram but Fard. That is, compulsory and required, not forbidden or taboo!
That means to me, at the most basic level, elections and voting are the preferred or required ways of doing business in Islam and Muslim communities – of filling positions of power and authority in Islamic cultures and societies.
That also means that in general full, free and informed participation, involvement and representation are the basis of human affairs in the Islamic way of thinking and doing things at all levels.
Islamic Way:
Elections to me are the Islamic way. They are the path of Fitrah for human beings – the natural way.
For one simple reason: Short of utter slavery, bondage, degradation and dehumanization, there is no other right, proper and self-respecting way for human beings to govern themselves.
That means, at the most fundamental level, the way of Islam is not authoritarianism or totalitarianism or dictatorship – religious or secular.
Nor is it fascism, militarism, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy or feudalism. Nor is it rank commercialism and crass industrialism.
In the same manner, the Islamic way is not a form of religious, racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, cultural, tribal or territorial chauvinism or jingoism. Nor is it tyranny of one kind or another. Nor is it the enslavement of the body, mind or soul of any kind.
Nor is the Islamic way the way of brute force, coercion, intimidation, deceit, manipulation, falsehood, lies, trickery, mind control, propaganda, subliminization of the masses, bribery, hoodwinking, spin and confusion.
Islam is none of the above, no matter how you look at it.
On the other hand, Islam is full, free and truly informed, enlightened and willing participation on the part of everyone in the process of governing themselves and electing those who govern them. And thereafter holding the elected rulers accountable with regard to how they act in office.
That to me is what Islam is really all about, no matter who may try to distort or misrepresent it in what cynical, callous or horrible way.
Contribution to Civilization:
Therefore, the Islamic way to me is the way of freedom; of dignity; of integrity; of honesty; of honor; of consultation and participation; of free, willing and informed consent on the part of the governed; and of full responsibility, disclosure, transparency and accountability on the part of those in power.
And it is one of the greatest contributions that Islam made to human history and civilization. As such, it is part of Allah’s infinite mercy and grace upon us.
If you really insist – and I shudder to say this: for having to invoke the Qur’an directly at this point – that to me is also the way of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as I have indicated earlier. It is a part of our Islamic heritage, culture and teaching that we Muslims, sadly, have lost sight of over the years, decades and centuries.
To state it even more clearly, it is the only Islamic way of doing business in society and in life at all levels – I mean voting and elections and modifications and offshoots thereof.
Frankly, we used to be pretty good at it at one time. In fact, it is one of those blessings that Allah conferred upon the world through us. But then things changed – we changed. Some of it was beaten out of our bones, blood, culture and societies through sheer barbaric brutality.
And now we stand at a point in history where we are being asked by all kinds of Johnnie-come-lately to show our credentials at the door and produce a floor-pass to watch the game of which we may have been among the original inventors.
Human Rights:
One of Islam’s greatest contributions to human civilization was to sensitize human beings to a wide range of human, civil and political rights they never in their wildest dreams thought they possessed.
And one of the natural outcomes of conferring basic human and political rights upon people is eventual full-fledged political participation, one of the most effective and natural forms of which is voting and elections.
Democracy and Political Freedom:
So, elections and voting is our thing and they are a monumental Islamic legacy in today’s world. They are not a secular British or American innovation, even though the British and the Americans have some major achievements to their credit in this regard.
Therefore, just because the West now practices a democratic political and cultural system based on broad-based political freedom for its people does not mean Muslims should be automatically opposed to it.
There are a lot of things we invented – well, Islam gave them to us and we gave them to the world – that the world now owns. More recently – over the past few centuries – the West has systematically stolen a march over us with regard to many of those things. So, what are we going to do? Give up everyone of those things and retire to the mountains?
Reading and Literacy:
Remember Iqra’? Well, we were the ones who preached reading – 1400 ago, when no one else did? And when reading was actually punishable by death in some places? The West now reads; does more of it; does it better than we do; and has much more sophisticated and plentiful reading material than we do.
What are we supposed to do, stop reading? Or declare reading Haram, because it is such a widely prevalent Western practice? And because some of what the West reads – and produces – is sheer garbage and filth?
The Pen:
Remember Allama Bil Qalam? Well, we were the ones who made “The Pen” the basis of human life — 1400 years ago. The West now owns the world of printing and computing. What are we suppose to do, stop writing or using computers?
Clean Living:
Clean living at all levels is one of Islam’s greatest contributions to human civilization. We were the ones who invented the concept of Taharah – cleanliness: washing hands, feet, face and such – 1400 years ago. Well, the West is now becoming more and more conscious of the importance of Taharah.
In 1996 or so, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) discovered that hand washing is a good thing and launched a nation-wide campaign to get people to wash their hands. Did the ASM give us any credit? No! Did it acknowledge its debt to Islam? No!
Just like Columbus “discovered” America in 1492, even though the Americas at that time were teeming with tens of millions of people everywhere, with some American cities larger than London and Paris. So also ASM “discovered” hand washing in 1996, even though Islam had taught hand washing over 1400 years ago, and hundreds of millions of Muslims had been practicing it on a daily basis ever since all over the world.
So, what are we supposed to do now? Stop making Wudu and stop washing hands because hand washing is now fast becoming a cherished Western practice?
Human Equality:
So also, it was Islam that, 1400 years ago, taught the world the concept of human equality. After centuries of stubborn and bloody resistance against it, the West today calls it one man, one vote – especially for its own kind, within its own borders, and in parts of the world where its geopolitical and economic interests are safe and secure.
What are we going to do? Convert to Brahmanism and divide humanity into different impermeable castes and strata?
A Matter of Commonsense:
Do you see how so many of these questions are at bottom not really questions of Islam vs. non-Islam, Halal vs. Haram? Instead, they are mostly matters of common sense, understanding and logic on the one hand and of some absurd and mindless statements on the other hand?
The whole thing then becomes a question of being able to understand Islam on the one hand and at the same time being able to understand the world in which we live. For, the only understanding of the Islam that really matters is the one that successfully relates it to the reality in which it is embedded.
That means we must try to understand not only Islam as a set of abstract doctrines but also the contemporary culture, idiom and language of the Western world in which we live. And then we need to find ways to relate the two together. That means we should be able to translate and interpret it all into each other’s language, culture and vocabulary.
And that precisely is where we have fallen short thus far: in being able to make those connections and transitions between the world of Islam and the rest of the world and in particular the Western world and experience.
Shortage of Qualified People:
This was mainly because we fell short of people qualified enough to do the job for us. We did not have among us an adequate supply of individuals and institutions that straddled the boundaries and were simultaneously literate in both cultures to a point where they had a native command of each language, culture and idiom and as a result were able to interpret one culture to the other with authority, authenticity and integrity.
West’s Problem:
The West, however, had a different kind of problem in dealing with Islam and Muslims. In many ways, its ignorance of Islam would appear almost willful and deliberate. And the West appeared almost incapable of dealing with Islam and Muslims in isolation from its fixation on and lust for Muslim wealth, lands and resources.
As a result, much of the knowledge of Islam and Muslims that the West came to possess was skewed and tainted by its political, economic and even racial imperatives, urges and agendas.
Envy:
At the same time, deep down at heart, the West also seemed to suffer from a sense of envy. It appeared intimidated by the innate beauty and superiority of things and teachings Muslim and Islamic and seemed to suffer from an underlying sense of guilt, embarrassment, shame, fragility and inadequacy at its own history, background and origins.
As a result, rather than acknowledge the beauty and superiority of Islam and Muslims openly and give credit where credit was due, the West generally demurred, ducked, distorted and, at the end of the day, freely stole and plagiarized.
Flawed Understanding:
On the side of the Muslims, this vacuum was often filled by those whose understanding was flawed at both ends of the spectrum – Islam on the one hand and the West and the world on the other hand.
These people understood fully neither Islam nor the world in which it was supposed to be put into practice. For, analytically, neither can be understood fully and properly in isolation from the other.
As a result, here we are fighting, at the dawn of the 21st century – 1400 years after Islam first taught that method to us – over whether voting and elections are Halal or Haram. And over whether or not we should allow ourselves to be happily herded and driven like cattle, without ever having the right or opportunity to say yes or no about any of it.
For, in the ultimate analysis, that is what voting and elections all come down to. They are – no matter how badly they may turn out in practice at a given place or time – about people’s right to say yes or no about what happens to them.
Voting and elections are about people having the right, ability, skills, means and opportunity to say what they would like to see happen – to themselves; to their families; to their homes; to their businesses; to their cultures; to their societies; to their futures; and to their world – and who they would like to see doing it.
If all this is evil, undesirable, despicable, taboo, reprehensible – Haram that is – then maybe we just don’t know the meaning of the word Haram.
Or maybe, at a more fundamental level, we don’t know the meaning of that other word: Islam.
Wallahu A’alam! Allah knows best.
Allahumma, Aslih Ummata Muhammadin, Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam!
Ya, Allah! Straighten out the affairs of the Ummat of Muhammad, Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam!
This brings us to the end of Part III of Are Elections Haram? Says Who? And Based on What?
Inshallah, we will bring you Part IV as soon as Allah enables us to finish working on it.
But do bear in mind, however, that our manuscripts are mostly drafts in need of further revision, which often we are unable to undertake or complete due to time and resource constraints.
End of Part 3 of 8
Written, January 2001
Modified, 2004, 2005
(To be Revised)
© 2005 Syed Husain Pasha
Dr. Pasha is an educator and scholar of exceptional
talent, training and experience. He can be reached at DrSyedPasha [at]
AOL [dot] com or www.IslamicSolutions.com.