Creepy American muslims - what they really think...

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

This was found on a blog written by an average american muslim - who takes the benefits of civilized society - and dumps them in the toilet...


Yeah, so they recently had the elections in Britain, and Muslims were having these debates all over the Internet and elsewhere about whether voting is permissible or not. They're still having the debates on a bunch of message boards. So I feel as though I need to throw in my two cents, even though I'm pretty late.

Anybody that knows me, knows that I side with the opinion that voting is shirk (wrong). But what's different about me is that I prove my argument from a different angle than other people who also hold the same opinion. In other words, we come to the same conclusion (that voting is shirk), but with a slightly different angle. But what I find strange is that I don't think I've ever seen anybody else present this angle for this opinion. Usually, the argument that they use goes something like this:

"Democracy is a system based on shirk because it gives the absolute right of legislation to someone other than Allah (that is, to the parliamentarians). Agreed? So when you vote, you are voting in another legislator instead of Allah, and since legislation is exclusively a right of Allah, it's almost as though you are voting in another god (or object of worship) instead of Allah. And since you took part in voting him into the parliament, you are therefore partly responsible in the crime."

I may not be wording it the best, but it goes something like that. If somebody could correct me or word it better, I'd be more than happy. It's a strong argument I think, but I think that my angle of argument is somewhat better. My argument goes something like this:

"Democracy is a system based on shirk because it gives the absolute right of obedience to someone other than Allah (that is, to The People). According to this system, ultimately, anything the people want should be implemented, in the absolute sense. We believe that such a right only belongs to Allah. And we believe that the vehicle through which we determine what our object of worship (ilaaha/deity/god), Allah, wants from us is through revelation. On the other hand, the vehicle through which they (the parliamentarians) determine what their object of worship (ilaaha/deity/god), The People, want from them is through voting. So, in a way, when you vote, you are willingly accepting their worship of you, The People. Even though that thing which you may be telling them to do is in line with Islam, they won't be doing it because Islam said so or because Allah said so, but rather, they'll be doing it because you said so. In other words, they won't be doing it out of worship of Allah, but rather, they'll be doing it out of worship of you."

Does that make sense to you? Allow me to give the following analogy:

Suppose there are five of you in a group. And suppose that one person comes to you and says that he will obey you in the absolute sense, no matter what you tell him to do. He says he will implement the majority vote. Meaning, if you tell him to pray five times a day, he'll do that. If you tell him not to drink, he'll do that. If you tell him not to commit adultery, he'll listen to you. On the other hand, if you tell him to do the opposite of any of these things or to do anything in disobedience to Allah at all in general, then he'll listen to you on those things also. God is not an issue here. In other words, like I said before, he agrees to obey you absolutely. So then he comes up to you one day and asks you all to "vote" on a certain issue. Let's say the issue is something that has a bearing in Islam, like drinking. So would you vote "No, you should not drink" (knowing that he would only be doing so out of complete submission and worship of you)? Or would you say to him "Why are you asking me as though I am some moral criteria for you to determine what's right and what's wrong?! Why are you taking me as an object of worship?! You shouldn't care about what I say or don't say, but rather, you should look to what Allah has already revealed in the Qur'aan, and you'll find that he has forbidden drinking and that is what you should really consider!".

Do you see what I'm trying to say and the point that I'm trying to make? There's a difference between absolute obedience (At-Taa'a), which is supposed to be only for Allah, and between regular obedience (Taa'a), which can't be considered worship.

At the same time, I want to clear a common misconception that some people have when they hear somebody say that something is shirk. Just because I consider voting to be shirk does not mean that I do takfeer (declare as a disbeliever) of every single Muslim who votes. In fact, I find that this is the point many people give to disagree with this opinion that voting is shirk, from the beginning of your discussion with them til the end. They'll say, "Yeah, but I just can't see how it would make sense to accuse a huge Muslim population of shirk, so I just can't agree with that view". In this regard, Shaykh Abu Muhammad a-Maqdisi writes the following in his book, This is Our Aqeedah! (Haadhihi Aqeeduna!):

Having said that, we do not declare as Kuffār, the generality of people who participate in the elections, for not all of them seek legislating lords in their participation in it. Rather, from them are those that seek to choose representatives for worldly services for living. In this matter the tribulation has spread far and wide. And the motives of the candidates for election differ - among those that do not directly take part in or practice legislation, such as the representatives. For that reason, we do not proceed to pronounce Takfīr of the individuals among them as we do with those that directly perform clear Kufr such as legislation and its likes.

And we say: taking part in legislative elections is an action of Kufr and we do not make general Takfīr. Rather, we differentiate between a persons performance of an action of Kufr, and placing the ruling of Kufr upon him, of what that implies of establishing the evidence if the affairs become confused and the matters become mixed up, as well as the consideration [given to] the motives in the likes of these issues.