AL-HAQ
8 Shawwaal 1445
18 April 2024
IS VOTING FARDH?
Please comment on the following views of senior Muftis:
(1) “Just as giving false testimony is a sin, so too is it a grave sin of concealing testimony not to testify despite the need. Therefore, in the present circumstances in Hindustan (India) it is Waajib in terms of the Shariah to vote. Without a pressing and valid need to abstain from voting is a sin and there is the grave fear of being apprehended (punished) by Allah.”
(2) “Mufti A’zam Mufti Shafi Sahib said that in terms of the Qur’aan it is haraam to conceal true testimony (shahaadat). Therefore, if in your circle of election there is a trustworthy candidate with a correct ideology, then abstaining from voting for him is a Kabeerah sin.”
(3) “Shaikhul Islam Hadhrat Maulana Mufti Taqi Uthmani Sahib writes: “From the Shar’i point of view the status of voting is that of shahaadat and testification. Just as giving false testimony is haraam and not permissible, similarly is it haraam to conceal testimony when there is a need for it. Anyone who conceals shahaadat when called on, is like one who gives false testimony.”
According to these Muftis, voting in elections is Fardh while abstention from voting is a Kabeerah (Major) sin. Please elaborate on these views.”
(End of the corrupt views)
OUR COMMENT – THE VIEW OF THE SHARIAH
The very foundational basis of the aforementioned utterly baseless view is the absolutely fallacious premises of equating the kuffaar voting system to Shar’i/Qur’aanic Shahaadat. This basis proffered by the Muftis is fallacious. It has no Shar’i validity.
They have merely proffered a claim – a claim bereft of Shar’i daleel. It is astounding and totally unacceptable that senior Muftis have bemoaned their intelligence with such a grievous gaffe by proclaiming a system of Taaghoot to be Fardh, punishable in the Aakhirat and its denier a Kaafir. Understand well that the one who denies a Fardh hukm is a kaafir.
Thus, in terms of this fallacious ‘fardh’ view great Auliya and Ulama such as Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) and countless others are all ‘kaafir’ for not aligning themselves with the absolutely corrupt ‘fardh’ view.
The Muftis, on this issue, have failed to even take into account the Shar’i definition of Fardh which is a hukm substantiated by Daleel Qat’i (Absolute Truth) such as the Fardh Ahkaam of the Five daily Salaat, Jumuah Salaat, Nubuwwat, Jannat, Jahannam and the numerous other Fardh issues of Islam. What are their Qat’i dalaail for their hallucinatory supposition?
When even Witr Salaat is not Fardh, but is classified as Waajib, how can a system of Taaghoot ever be Fardh? And, how can abstention from Taaghoot’s system ever be a Kabeerah sin? Definitely, the muftis have miserably failed to apply their minds, and this failure stems from a subjective attitude caused by western influence and for some by the crave for dollars, hence Muftis currently are among the foremost bootlickers of the fussaaq and kuffaar government leaders.
The point of initiation of the argument for the hallucination of the ‘fardhiyat’ of voting kuffaar style, is the arbitrary premises of voting being shahaadat. It is indeed mind boggling that muftis could have committed the capital blunder of equating kuffaar voting to Shahaadat, then on the basis of this fiction elevate it to the pedestal of Fardhiyat.
The argument of voting being Fardh and abstention therefrom being a Kabeerah sin is absolutely devoid of substance since it is structured on an absolutely fallacious basis. The arbitrary claim that voting is Shahaadat is outrightly rejected with contempt. This claim has absolutely no Shar’i basis. The first hurdle which has to be overcome by the muftis is to present their daleel for this arbitrary averment. On what basis do they aver that voting is the equivalent of Shahaadat? They simply commence their argument on an arbitrary claim without basis.
Voting is a kuffaar system. It is never the equivalent of Shahaadat. The bearer of Shahaadat (Testimony) has to be necessarily a Muslim and an Aadil. The Shahaadat of a faasiq is inadmissible even for moon-sighting. In terms of the convoluted logic of the muftis, only Aadil Muslims should vote, not fussaaq since the testimony of fussaaq is not valid in the Shariah.
Every Muslim layman, male and female, can readily understand that it is never possible for a kuffaar system of politics to be Fardh, denial of which renders one a murtad. The logical conclusion of the stupid, baatil ‘fardh’ view is that millions of Muslims who deny the hallucinated ‘fardhiyat’ are murtaddeen and the millions who abstain from voting are guilty of Kabeerah sins. Some drastic derangement of Aql has induced the disgorgement of this absolutely ridiculous fatwa.
Allah Ta’ala declares in the Qur’aan Majeed: “Those who do not adjudicate according to that (Shariah) revealed by Allah, indeed they are kaafiroon.” What is the Shar’i basis for the arbitrary claim of voting being Shahaadat? Then the Qur’aan says to those who desire the law of the kuffaar:
“What, do you search for the law jaahiliyya?”
Voting is from the law of modern western Jaahiliyyah, but the claim is made that it is Fardh, denial of it is kufr and abstention from it is a Kabeerah sin. Indeed this fatwa is shockingly lamentable. Senior muftis also err and sometimes the error is of the gravest proportion as is this hallucinatory voting one which is utterly bereft of the slightest semblance of daleel.
The claim that voting for a candidate is Shahaadat is ridiculously stupid. Shahaadat is testimony. It is to testify – to bear witness for a development. Voting is simply an offer of support for a chap who is smitten by the crave for leadership. This crave by itself is haraam. The quest for leadership is the very first factor which disqualifies the candidate in terms of the Shariah. It is mentioned in the Hadith:
“We do not bestow leadership to a person who seeks
it and who craves for it.”
Presenting an extremely flapdoodle, in fact, utterly baseless ‘daleel’, the votaries of voting cite the Qur’aanic Aayat: “Do not conceal shahaadat. Whoever conceals it, verily, his heart is sinful.” This is never a valid basis for elevating a system of Taaghoot to the pedestal of Fardhiyat. The Aayat prohibits concealment of testimony. Abstention from the kuffaar system is never concealment of Shahaadat. In voting there is no concealment of evidence which could lead to the deprivation of someone’s huqooq. How can it ever be concealment of Shahaadat when voting is not Shahaadat?
The first obligation for the votaries of voting is to provide their Shar’i daleel for claiming that voting is Shahaadat.
The Mufti avers:
“Just as giving false testimony is a sin, so too is it a grave sin of concealing testimony not to testify despite the need. Therefore, in the present circumstances in Hindustan (India) is Waajib in terms of the Shariah to vote. Without a pressing and valid need to abstain from voting is a sin and there is the grave fear of being apprehended (punished) by Allah.”
Since the claim of concealing testimony is baseless, it is totally rejected. The claim of ‘sin’ is preposterous and manifestly false. Shahaadat is not being concealed by abstaining from voting kuffaar style.
The factor of ‘need’ can be taken into account. On the basis of the Shar’i principle of Dhuroorat (Dire Need), an impermissibility may be accepted for practical implementation. But abstention from haraam even in cases of Dhuroorat is not a Kabeerah sin. It is not kufr. Now, if in Hindustan due to prevailing circumstances, it is opined that there is a dire need for participating in the elections, then that is an entirely separate issue.
It is an issue for which a fatwa is required on the basis of Shar’i principles. If it is such an issue which requires the invocation of the principle of Dhuroorat, the fatwa issue on its basis is acceptable although not binding on those who reject the opinion of the prevailing circumstances demanding participation in the elections.
Tafseeq (declaring one to be a faasiq) and Takfeer (declaring one to be a kaafir) of those who reject the Taaghooti system of voting are indeed scandalous and a dark blot of disgrace on the mentality of the Mufti who venture such ghutha fatwas.
There is no consensus on the operation of the principle of Dhuroorat. While the prevailing circumstances in Hindustan are believed by some Muftis to justify participation in the elections of the kuffaar and perpetrating Shar’i violations, there are others who believe that the circumstances do not warrant the invocation of the Dhuroorat principle to validate participation in the system of Taaghoot.
The view of the latter group who denounces voting, is that the solution for the Muslim dilemma in Hindustan is Inaabat Ilallaah, that is to turn to Allah Ta’ala with repentance and obedience. Allah Ta’ala is All Powerful. He is the One who installs governments, rulers and kings. He is the One who snatches away power form governments and reduces them to disgrace and defeat.
Therefore regardless of the need perceived by the former group, it cannot be imposed on the dissenters. The furthest they may go and the maximum they may claim is that in view of the prevailing circumstances in Hindustan, it is permissible for Muslims to vote. They may not claim that this Taaghhoti system is Fardh and abstention therefrom is a Kabeerah sin.
For Muslims there is only the system of the Sunnah – the Shariah based on the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. Nothing else is valid for this Ummah. Direction must be sought from the methodology of the Sahaabah. The argument that the then prevailing circumstances having changed drastically necessitate incorporation of the systems of Iblees into the Body of the Shariah is Ibleesi deception.
If a diversion from the Sunnah was ever necessary, Nubuwwat would not have terminated. There would have been a need for another Nabi to come and make adjustments to the Shariah of the Qur’aan and Hadith. The very fact that Nubuwwat has ended, is the greatest Daleel for Muslims to adhere rigidly to this Shariah as it has been transmitted to us from the era of the Sahaabah.