Election Fever

Election Fever


On the authority of Abu Sa'id (may Allah be pleased with him), who reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

Let not any one of you belittle himself; [they said]: O Messenger of Allah, how can any one of us belittle himself? [He said]: He finds a matter concerning Allah about which he should say something, and he does not say [it], so Allah says to him on the Day of Resurrection: What prevented you from saying something about such-and-such and such-and-such? He will say: It was out of fear of people. Then He (Allah) says: Rather it is I whom you should more properly fear.

With the announcement of the British General Election to be held on 6 May 2010, it seems that ‘election fever’ has yet again gripped many Muslims. As usual the bombardment of clichés, rhetoric and bluster is hurled towards us all – not only from the British politicians, as we have become accustomed to – but from the advocates of voting. These advocates come in many guises. Some in the form of ulema, Imam’s and Muslim groups others in the form of sycophants, mesmerised by the British political system and the trappings of power. By the grace and mercy of Allah we intend to present an argument adorned with evidences against this tirade of intellectual terrorism in the hope that it will illuminate minds, allow at the very least, a little understanding of the issues involved so that an informed and reasoned debate can be had.

Prior to any detailed discussion about Muslims participating in the forthcoming British general elections, it is important to dispense from the outset with the trite comment hurled at all Islamic activists by the sycophants: ‘you lot advocate doing nothing’. It is almost a sign of just how intellectually barren thought and debate has become that it seems no one is permitted to think independently, question and formulate original ideas. For the sycophants we must all fall in line with an agenda that they have arranged in conjunction with present, previous and no doubt future governments, namely, that the each and every Muslim who lives in this country must remain silent; there cannot be any objective discussion or any independent thought; we all must follow what we are told to do without hesitation. No serious minded Islamic activist advocates doing nothing. However to imply that the extent of political activity and engagement in society begins and ends with the act of voting for non-Islamic parties is a misnomer. To reiterate, as we have done over the last fifteen years now: no serious Islamic activist is advocating inactivity. But by the same token, we assert that the mere act of voting is not the be all and end all of political action.

Our contention presented here is that the arguments detailed below that are used to encourage people to show support (by voting) for non-Islamic parties with non-Islamic policies is textually prohibited and rationally incoherent. The weight of evidence in the Qur’ân and Sunnah does not support the proposition that it is Islamically permissible, or for that matter, the corrupt and baseless statement that it is an Islamic obligation. Furthermore, there are a plethora of slogans that are used in an attempt to beguile the common Muslims into thinking that tangible benefits can and indeed are being achieved from supporting non-Islamic parties at periodic elections. Yet upon close scrutiny these slogans are nothing more than a mirage, hollow statements that reflect a very poor understanding of the political system in the United Kingdom.

The Knowledge Gap

Regretfully, the majority of the ulema are actually not qualified to pass judgement and fatawa declaring participation in the democratic process as legal or worse still, an obligation. It is quite disgraceful that far too many ulema possess little or no accurate knowledge about the particular features of the doctrine of democracy, different democratic systems or the parliamentary / legislative process. To take but one example, in the rush to declare that democracy is compatible with Islam, no acknowledgement is ever given to the actual origins of democracy in ancient Athens in the 5th and 4th century BC, or to the fact that there is a fundamental distinction between ‘classical’ democracy as practiced in its original Greek form and the system that prevails today, which in contemporary parlance is distinguished from this model and termed ‘modern representative democracy’. Robert Dahl provides an eloquent summary of this distinction:

"The idea that governments needed the consent of the governed, initially a claim primarily about raising taxes, was gradually growing into a claim about laws in general. Over an area too large for primary assemblies of free men, as in a large town, city, region, or country, consent required representation in the body that raised taxes and made laws. In sharp contrast to Athenian practice, representation was to be secured not by lot or random selection but by election. To secure the consent of free citizens in a country, nation, or nation-state would require elected representative legislatures, or parliaments, at several levels: local, national, and perhaps provincial, regional, or other intermediate levels as Well". (1)

Democracy was founded in a polytheistic (ash-Shirk) environment and its close association with polytheism is not mentioned or even spoken about. Unlike modern Western political systems where the doctrine of secularism is entrenched in public affairs, ancient Greek society had no comparative idea. The polytheistic cults that were practiced were intimately tied to the actual organs of state (2). Deities were linked to the political organisation of the Greek polis, which was a unique Hellenistic feature unknown in the ancient world. As Mogens Herman Hansen writes: “....even abstract political concepts could have divine status and be worshipped: in Athens the democracy was hypostatised as the goddess Demokratia, and the Board of the Strategeoi paid annual offerings to the goddess (3).” Hence the argument that in origin Islam is compatible with this, would be tantamount to saying that Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) have authorised or given tacit acknowledgment to the worship of idols and false deities. One need not express the conclusions to be drawn from making such a preposterous assertion. Suffice is it to say that we make total disavowal from such an argument and mention the unequivocal words of Allah the Exalted and Majestic:

And Allah has said: Take not two gods, He is only one Allah; then fear Me (and Me alone) Your Ilâh (God) is One Ilâh. But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny (the faith in the Oneness of Allah), and they are proud. [An-Nahl verse 22]

And We have placed coverings on their hearts and a heaviness in their ears lest they understand it, and when you mention your Lord, alone, in the Qur’ân they turn their backs in aversion. [Al-Isrâ' verse 46]

Rule by other than the law of Allah

Notwithstanding the origins of democracy, little analytical attention is given to the numerous textual evidences that relate to ruling as found in the Book of Allah. For the sake of brevity every single point of reference cannot be presented and discussed; we leave that inshallah to our forthcoming major work on the origins and nature of the democracy. The most obvious verses regarding this topic are the following:

• An-Nisâ' verses 65, 105
• Al-Mâ'idah verses 41 / 45, 50
• Al-An'âm verse 57, 121
• Al-A'râf verse 54
• At-Taubah verse 31
• Yûsuf verse 40
• Ar-Ra'd verse 14
• Al-Kahf verse 26
• An-Nûr verse 51
• Ash-Shûra verses 10, 21

In summary, Allah has informed us that the sole prerogative of command and legislation belong to Him, originally and exclusively. Only Allah has the absolute authority to set the parameters of what is determinable as good, bad, obligatory or forbidden. Modern representative democracy as a political system delegates the prerogative of the command / legislation to man in the form of an elected executive and legislature. As slaves of Allah we are tasked to believe in this aspect of Tawheed and adhere to the associated rulings, not to try and derogate this to others – be they individuals, scholars, Parliaments, groups etc. Neither are we permitted to rule, judge or legislate by other than what Allah has revealed. Regarding these specifics points, we cannot discern any difference of opinion or contrasting views, whether that be in the texts themselves, or amongst the understanding of the ulema, from the time of the Sahaba until the present. Therefore it is very strange that the proponents of supporting non-Islamic parties with non-Islamic policies in a democratic system completely gloss over the textual evidences that relate to Hakimiyyah (ruling and legislation) in order to declare the matter permissible. Notwithstanding this, no reference is made to the fact that Allah has explicitly ordered us to disbelieve in all Tâghût as expressed in Surah Baqarah verse 256 and has prohibited referring to the Tâghût for ruling and judgement in disputes, as per verses 60 / 61 of An-Nisâ'. With this in mind, upon what legitimate basis can our ulema declare that anyone supporting a candidate from a non-Islamic party, who is pursuing and advocating non-Islamic policies, and who will be judging, ruling and legislating by other than what Allah has revealed be something worthy of support?

A minority has recognized that there is a distinction between local and national elections. As per the constitution Parliament is the sovereign law-making body within the UK formulating primary legislation (4), whereas a large proportion of what local councils do is administrative in nature. Although no one with a serious grounding in Islamic scholarship has advocated that Muslims should be involved in formulating primary legislation – since the texts on this matter are quite explicit (for example Surah At-Taubah verse 31) - the view has been aired that the work of local councils is quite benign and does not involve legislating by other than what Allah has revealed. This point is acknowledged. However, having examined this matter in some detail we have noted that there are a number of areas where council’s will have to make judgments and in almost every actual case, we have noted that Muslim Councilors have not objected to judging by other than what Allah has revealed. The three most common areas involve licensing, for establishments that sell alcohol, adult table-dancing clubs and contracts that involve the use of interest. In all three areas we have noted actual examples where Muslim Councilors have been directly involved either in authorization or participation; they have neither abstained from acting on the basis of Islamic principles nor raised objections.

For those who are adamant in their support of non-Islamic parties, either at a local or national level, one of the most intriguing points that is never raised for serious debate is the following: shouldn’t Muslims if they are to vote, be only voting for Islamic candidate? This does not mean a candidate with a Muslim name, but rather a candidate who is either standing independently upon, and for explicit Islamic principles, or who belongs to an Islamic Party advocating these. If there isn’t such a party then why isn’t one formed to do just this task? Instead of encouraging Muslims to support the major parties whose ideas and policies are so obviously non-Islamic, why does no one advocate the formation of an Islamic Party who Muslims could potentially support and vote for? Our only qualification with regards to this would be as follows:

a. The candidate / party must explicitly adhere to and advocate policies based upon the Islamic Sharî’ah

b. The candidate / party must make explicitly clear that they will not take the oath of allegiance in Parliament

c. The candidate / party must make explicitly clear that they will not partake in drafting, formulating or actively supporting primary legislation made in Parliament

d. Lastly, the candidate / party must not engage in political horse-trading with the either the government or opposition parties.

Critics would argue that many of the aforesaid qualifications are not practical. We would point to the fact that there are examples of political parties that have worked towards achieving many of their desired political goals, but have abstained from compromising their core principles. The most notable example is that of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. A number of prominent Sinn Fein MP’s (5), although formally elected to the House of Commons, have not taken their seats, because they refuse to swear the oath of allegiance to the Crown and do not recognize British sovereignty over Northern Ireland. The reason they partake in general elections is solely to represent the Catholic nationalist community. It is surprising though that no serious studies have been conducted by Muslims about what political lessons can be learned from the experiences of Sinn Fein. Our preliminary research findings have led us to the view that having an Islamic Party contesting elections can be a viable alternative, providing the aforementioned points (a / d) are strictly adhered to.

Supporting a candidate who is favourable towards Muslims and less hostile to Islam

This line of argumentation is of relatively recent import. But it is unfortunately, another hollow statement devoid of any coherent rationale. After much deliberation upon this point, we have yet to find any coherent reasoning being advanced to show that it is internally consistent or even Islamically correct. Prospective or current MP’s from the major political parties campaign upon a proposed manifesto, namely what they intend to do in government. Each manifesto represents a proposed political programme. Judgments that are made concerning whether to support a particular candidate can be analysed as being either prospective, that is, based upon an incoming party’s agenda/manifesto, or retrospective, based upon their actual experience in government and achieved results (6). The obvious question that arises when this point is made, is how are the Parliamentary candidates from non-Islamic parties who are advocating policiesbased upon other than the Sharî’ah of Allah determined as being ‘favourable’ or not? No party is stating that there manifesto is based upon the Sharî’ah of Allah, rather they are based upon secular non-Islamic principles and ideas; if anything, the parties are at pains to state their opposition to Sharî’ah of Allah and its advocates. The judgement being made is clearly upon other than the Book and the Sunnah. The fact that each candidate is standing for policies, ideas and principles that are based on other than what Allah has revealed is demonstrative enough that one should not be supporting them in this. Regarding retrospective judgements, the current government’s policies over the last thirteen years towards the Muslims (either within the UK or internationally) speak for themselves and are hardly favourable to Islam - one need only look to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, support for Israel in its wars on Lebanon and Gaza, detention without trial, control orders, surveillance etc. How can any Muslim who is obligated to judge by what Allah has revealed argue that:

a. support should be given to the candidates from the party in government, based upon its record?

b. that any challenger who is advocating other than the Sharî’ah of Allah is worthy of support?

It is a legal obligation under British law to partake in the process and abstinence
attracts legal sanction under the law

Despite years of research upon this topic, we cannot identify where this idea has arisen from. From perusal of existing legislation enacted by Parliament, we cannot discern any specific statute that obligates citizens of the UK to support a non-Islamic party during either local government or national elections. Although our critics may not accept this as being a valid argument, we would contend that the onus is upon them to produce their proof concerning this statement, if they are truthful. More specifically, we would also require them to highlight the actual law which obligates this and when it was enacted as well as what sanctions are spelt out in that law for non-participation. Our critics often argue that if we don’t support the non-Islamic parties and their non-Islamic policies a greater calamity will befall us. It is enough that we only mention the words of Allah the Exalted to rebut this statement:

And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease, they hurry to their friendship, saying: "We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us." Perhaps Allah may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves (7). [Al-Mâ'idah verse 52]

Electoral systems

The nature of the electoral system in the UK is the first-past-the-post system which historians, commentators and political scientists recognise mitigates against any third party. Hence it is only Labour or the Conservatives who have the ability to form a government. Furthermore, elections are decided in marginal seats. Out of over 600 available seats in the House of Commons the research produced by the Electoral Reform Society estimates that over 350 seats are considered ‘safe’. Effectively this means that more than 25million voters will have no influence over the results either at a constituency or national level. Moreover, there are only a small number of seats nationally where a candidate from one of the three main parties can conceivably win (8). Without comprehending these points or giving detailed consideration as to whether Muslims even live in marginal seats, the uneducated opinion that voting for non-Islamic parties is the ‘only way to have one’s voice heard’, is devoid of any political reality. Out of a total population of 62million in the UK, Muslims constitute just over 2% of the total population and are dispersed throughout the UK; they do not reside all in one area or for that matter, form a majority in any given constituency. Therefore they do not form a religious ‘voting bloc’ like the Catholics do in Northern Ireland. It is thus inconceivable that Muslims could bring direct influence to bear upon either the main parties or the outcome of a general election by voting for them.

Demographic realities

Notwithstanding the reality of the UK electoral system, adjacent to this point is the actual makeup of the ‘Muslim community.’ The idea of a ‘Muslim community’ is just that – an idea. In reality the Muslim community is not a homogenous bloc situated in one area or locality of the country. Rather, they are dispersed and very often split along ethnic, sectarian and political divides. This is further heightened by the fact that no consensus exists concerning the role of the Muslim community or Muslims in general living in a non-Muslim society and state should be. Whilst the first generation of Muslim migrants had a definite rationale for coming to Europe (namely economic betterment), a clear and concise conception of what our role and place in this context has not been bequeathed. Worse still, there does not seem to be a willingness to seriously engage upon this topic, asking difficult questions and taking into account that subsequent waves of migration, particularly over the last twenty-years have been for very different reasons. Without a coherent understanding of what our purpose is within the UK, how can support for non-Islamic parties bring tangible benefits?

If Muslims abstain from supporting the major non-Islamic parties, the BNP will take power

The British National Party and its predecessor the National Front have never been able to win in any constituency seat at a general election to date. How they would be able to ‘take power’ is beyond any reasonable rational conclusion. At the last general election in 2005 the party received less than 1% of all registered votes; the actual number of votes totaling 192,746 was lower than even the Green Party. This was the highest number of votes ever registered for the BNP (or National Front) over the last 25 years (9). Although some may be astounded by this high figure, this must be placed in context and against the fact that more than 24 million votes were registered for the main political parties. These figures breakdown as follows:

• 9,566,618 (Labour)
• 8,785,941 (Conservative)
• 5,985,414 (Liberal Democrat)

Labour’s share of the vote was a little over 35%, which in Britain’s electoral system returned 356 seats in Parliament. Although only slightly lower, the Conservatives 32.4% only delivered 198 seats; the Liberal Democrats at 22% attained 62 seats (10). Based upon such statistical data, how can anyone rational individual conclude that if a Muslim does not support one of the main non-Islamic parties, the BNP will take over the country? Such an assertion is not merely baseless but borne out of desperation to find any ludicrous argument to justify this position.

Absenteeism causes more harm than good

Absenteeism from voting does not cause more harm than good. Having perused the turnout figures for the general elections over the last 20 years, quite a large proportion of the electorate does not vote. As a percentage this fluctuates between 20% / 30% (11).

Given that the Muslim population in the UK is just over 2%, we can accurately conclude that a far higher proportion of the native non-Muslim populace does not participate. As mentioned at the beginning of our article, this point is not marshaled to justify nonactivity.

Rather, as servants of Allah we would argue that one of our prime responsibility does not revolve around supporting non-Islamic parties every five-years.

Maslahah, duress and the ‘lesser of two evils’

Proponents of this view consider that supporting non-Islamic parties is within the public interest since it secures benefit to Muslim community and prevents harm. The use of the doctrine of Maslahah is therefore applicable because it is in conjunction with the objectives of the Sharî’ah. However this is an entirely false line of argumentation. Regardless of any famous names attributed to it, no textual authority for exists for this doctrine and even its proponents amongst classical scholars recognise that it does not constitute an authority or proof in itself, because to say as much, would be tantamount to arguing that the revelation is incomplete. Allah has explicitly stated that the Deen is complete and every issue has been addressed. Arguments and ideas based upon conjecture are inherently flawed, because conjecture can never be a substitute for truth (12). Maslahah is based upon entirely upon conjecture. In this present context it cannot be rationally demonstrated that supporting non-Islamic parties is essential. Moreover the doctrine of Maslahah does not even apply in this instance, because it is clearly at odds with established texts (13) regarding ruling by what Allah has revealed and not referring to Tâghût. How could any Muslim coherently argue that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and referring to Tâghût for judgment secures benefit and prevents harm for the Muslims? To take this line of argument would place an individual in open conflict with the words of Allah.

Arguments that are used from the point of duress are not applicable. As already mentioned, there is no requirement in English law stating that it is mandatory for a citizen to vote for a non-Islamic party, notwithstanding the fact that a large proportion of the electorate does not vote. Furthermore, there are other more accessible means of political action that can and should be exercised. Without undertaking them, the mere assertion that it is a matter of duress is not sustainable.

The need for influence

Once elected to Parliament, the vast majority of individual voters have no direct influence over how the MP behaves. They do not control his agenda or dictate what issues he / she decides to vote or abstain from. This is notwithstanding the relationship that the MP has with their wider political party and Parliamentary whips. Theoretically Parliament has a dual-function, to hold the Executive to account and also to scrutinise, approve or amend legislation. The political reality of the UK though is that the Executive controls the legislature, the Parliamentary timetable and its day-to-day business (14). Quite a number of experts on the constitution and British history, most controversially Dr David Starkey, have been particularly scathing in their criticism of the eroding of this traditional function of Parliament. The trend over the last twenty years, particularly the last thirteen years of New Labour, has seen members of Parliament rarely if ever holding the Executive to account. Parliamentary whips keep a tight rein upon MP’s of their respective party, though it should not be construed that this is always done in a Stalinist fashion – the majority of MP’s do not seek to challenge the status quo lest their chances of progression be curtailed or at the very worst, they are expelled from the party. The case of George Galloway provides ample evidence of this.

Having a serious influence upon government policy is not harnessed through voting for a prospective or current Member of Parliament. Numerous examples can be cited to show how government policy has been influenced by powerful interest or lobby groups. It should be of no surprise that with a capitalist economy, the power of big companies such as British Aerospace (BAE) and large corporate banks can have an enormous say in governmental policy. For Muslims the experience of the environmental lobby should be studied in detail. Despite not being able to have an elected MP’s, the environmental lobby has successfully campaigned over the last twenty-years and its influence is felt internationally. Through educational literature, direct action and media campaigns, the environmental lobby has succeeded in having (at the very least) each major political party being publicly supportive of its aims, especially regarding climate change. It is a pity that this style of campaigning in the service of Islam has not been given due consideration.

The credibility gap

Politicians, academics and commentators have long lauded the political ideals of the West, arguing that if the ‘developing world’ were to adopt them, they too could have honest accountable government. The scandal over MP’s expenses however has brought the entire political system into disrepute. MP’s have been exposed manipulating the expenses system for financial gain. Even worse, a number of MP’s have been exposed by investigative journalists as saying that they are ‘taxis for hire’ for the right price. From dishonesty regarding second homes, to purchasing flat screen televisions and adult DVD’s, the true face of MP’s and even Ministers has been exposed. All the major political parties have had to publicly acknowledge the corruption involved. Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg. What has yet to be exposed are the full links between MP’s and big business. Real anger has been expressed by most of the general non-Muslim public as they have realised that the vast majority of MP’s are no better than the politicians in the Third World – lining their own pockets at the public expense. It is incredulous therefore for any Muslim to think that supporting such MP’s can be considered a good Islamic act when even the majority of non-Muslims in this country recognise that British politicians are fundamentally dishonest and are so easily swayed by financial gain. Every Muslim group should be utilising this opportunity to convey the message of Islam and examples of how the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his rightly guided Khulafah conducted public affairs.

Just as MP’s have been forced to declare their expenses and what funds they receive from outside interests in the register for Members interests (these include consultancy fees from businesses, banks etc, directorships) it would be interesting to see which of the advocates of voting for non-Islamic parties with non-Islamic policies have received ‘campaign contributions’ from the major parties or even from the security services. Perhaps each independent and objectively minded Muslim should ask this question and the other pertinent points contained here to the advocates of supporting non-Islamic parties.

May the Salutations, Blessings and Peace of Allah be upon His Messenger and servant Muhammad and on his virtuous family and faithful Companions until the Day of Resurrection All success and help is with Allah and there is no power other than His.

Article By K M Hasan (Hons), BA (Hons)


References

1. Robert Dahl (1998), On Democracy, (London: Yale University Press), p.22

2. P J Rhodes (2009), ‘State and Religion in Athenian Inscriptions’, Greece & Rome, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1 / 14

3. Mogens Herman Hansen (2006), Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p.121. See also Rhodes (2009), p. 10

4. For a detailed analysis of the conception of ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ see: Jeffrey Goldsworthy, (2001), The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

5. The most famous examples are that of Gerry Adams and more controversially, Bobby Sands. Although in prison as a convicted member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Sands contested and won the seat of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 1981. This subsequently led to the Conservatives changing the law to stop convicted serving prisoners from contesting elections.

6. See: Adam Przeworski (1999), ‘Minimalist conception of democracy: a defense.’ in Ian Shapiro &
Casiano Hacker-Cordon (ed.) Democracy’s Value, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 23 / 55

7. Emphasis added. For the full context in which the verse is placed, please refer to the preceding verses – verse 50 asks is it the judgement of Jāhilīyah that is sought, and verse 51 details the order of not taking the Jews and Christians as Auliyâ'.

8. See: ‘Elections already over in nearly 400 seats’, Electoral Reform Society, http://www.electoralreform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=461

9. Michael Thrasher & Colin Rallings (2009), British Electoral Facts, (London: Total Politics). See also the data available on the Electoral Reform Society website at:
http://www.electoral-regorm.org.uk

10. Ibid

11. Ibid

12. Regarding these points please refer to the following ayat: Al-Mâ'idah verse 3, Al-Isrâ' verse 36, Al-Hujurât verse 1, and An-Najm verse 28

13. Mohammad Hashim Kamali (1997), Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society), ch. 13

14. Jacqueline Martine & Chris Turner (2006), Constitutional & Administrative Law, 2nd ed. (Oxon: Hodder Arnold). Also see: Jeffrey Goldsworthy, (2001), The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press)