Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Balanced View on Shabe Bara’at (15th Night of Sha’baan)

By Shaykh Abdur-Raheem

A significant feature of the month of Sha’ban is that it consists of a night which is termed in Shariah as “Laylatul-bara’ah” (The night of emancipation). This is the night occurring between the 14th and 15th day of Sha’ban.

Does this night have any basis in the shariah or is it’s reverence an innovated practice worthy of being discarded?

This article aims to clarify this issue.
There are certain Hadith which prove that Laylatul-bara’ah” is a meritorious night, in which the people of the earth are blessed by special Divine mercy. Some of these traditions are quoted as follows:

1. Ummul-Mu’mineen ‘Aishah, Radi-Allahu anha says, “Once Rasulullah Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, performed the night Salah (Tahajjud) and made a very long Sajdah until I feared that he had passed away. I searched for him (in the darkness). My hand fell on his sole while he was in sajdah and I heard him saying: ‘I seek refuge of Your forgiveness from Your punishment, and of Your pleasure from Your wrath, and I seek refuge in You from Yourself. I cannot praise You as fully as You deserve. You are exactly as You have praised Yourself.’

Thereafter, when he finished his salah, he said to me: ‘Aishah, did you think that Allah and His Prophet would be unjust to you?’ I said, ‘No, O Prophet of Allah, but I was afraid that your soul was been taken away because your Sajdah was very long.’ He asked me, ‘Do you know which night is this?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ He said, ‘This is the night of the half of Sha’ban. Allah Almighty looks upon His slaves in this night and forgives those who seek forgiveness and bestows His mercy upon those who pray for mercy but keeps those who have malice as they were before, (and does not forgive them unless they relieve themselves from malice).’”

2. In another Tradition Sayyidah’ Aishah, Radi-Allahu anha, has reported that Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, has said, “Allah Almighty descends (in a manner He knows best) in the night occurring in the middle of Sha’ban and forgives a large number of people more than the number of the fibers on the sheep of the tribe, Kalb.”

Kalb was a big tribe the members of which had a very large number of sheep. Therefore, the last sentence of the hadith indicates to the large number of the people who are forgiven in this night by Allah Almighty.

3. In yet another Tradition, she has reported Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, to have said, “This is the middle Night of Sha’ban. Allah frees in it a large number of the people from Fire, more than the number of the hair growing on the sheep of the tribe, Kalb. But He does not even look at a person who associates partners with Allah, or at a person who nourishes malice in his heart (against someone), or at a person who cuts off the ties of kinship, or at a man who leaves his clothes extending beyond his ankles (as a sign of pride), or at a person who disobeys his parents, or at a person who has a habit of drinking wine.”

4. Sayyiduna Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Radi-Allahu anhu, reports that Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, has said: “Allah Almighty looks upon all those created by Him, in the middle Night of Sha’ban and forgives them, except the one who associates partners with Him or the one who has malice in his heart”.

There are also many other narrations mentioned in mishkaat ul masaabeeh page 115.

Although the chain of narrations of some of these traditions suffers with some minor technical defects, yet when all these traditions are combined together, it becomes clear that this night has some well founded merits, and observing this night as a sacred night is not a baseless concoction as envisaged by some modern scholars who, on the basis of these minor defects, have totally rejected to give any special importance to this night. In fact, some of these traditions have been held by some scholars of hadith as authentic and the defects in the chain of some others have been treated by them as minor technical defects which, according to the science of hadith, are curable by the variety of their ways of narration. That is why the elders of the ummah have constantly been observing this night as a night of special merits and have been spending it in worship and prayers.

Imam Ibn-Taimiyyah rahmatullahi alayh was asked about the importance of the 15th night of Sha’ban. He replied:

ﺍﻣﺎﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺭﻭﻯ ﻓﻰ ﻓﻀﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻭﻧﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺼﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺼﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺳﻠﻒ ﻭﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﺠﺔ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ – ﻛﺘﺐ ﻭﺭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﻓﺘﺎﻭﻯ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺗﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺝ : 23 ﺹ : 132

As for the 15th night of Shabaan, there are many narrations and Athar (quotes from the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) regarding its virtue. It has been reported of the salaf that they prayed in this night. Therefore, praying alone on this night, having precedence in the salaf, is sufficient evidence and something of this kind surely cannot be denied.

Allama Ibnu-Taymiyyah is a scholar notorious for refuting such things, however he accepts the virtue of the night of Baraat, he says,

“So many Ahaadith and reports exist regarding the excellence of the fifteenth night of Shabaan that one is compelled to accept that this night possesses some virtue”. Some of the pious predecessors used to specially devote this night for Salaat. [Faydhul-Qadeer. vol 2., pg 317].

Moulana Abdur Rahman Mubarakpuri, writes in the commentary of Tirmidhi,

“The sheer number of Ahaadith regarding this night serve as proof against those people who refute the excellence of this night”. [Tuhfatul-Ahwazi. vol 2. pg 53].

The Ahaadeeth relating to the virtues of this night have been narrated by 10 different Sahaaba (Radhiyallahu Anhum),

Al-Albani has classed the Hadith of forgiveness in laylatunnisfi min Sha’abaan as Saheeh.

He has narrated it on the authority of 8 sahabah. Their names are as follows.

Abu Bakr siddique
Muaaz ibn jabal
Abu Tha’labah al Khushani
Abdullah ibn Amr
Abu Musa al Ash’ari
Abu hurayrah
Awf ibn Malik
Aisha Siddiqah
radhiallahu anhum ajmaeen.
After giving references he wrote:

ﻭﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﻼ ﺭﻳﺐﻭﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺄﻗﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﺳﺎﻟﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮﺍﻟﺸﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ، ﻓﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﺹ١٠٧ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺢ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺼﺢ، ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ . ﻭ ﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻖ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﺈﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻭﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺮﻉ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺪ ﻟﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳﺪﻳﻚ ‏( ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﻪ ﺹ ١٣٨ / ٣ )

“The summary of our research is that this Hadith, with its collective chains, is without doubt saheeh. Whoever classed it as weak did so due to his hastening and his lack of effort in grasping all the chains of narrations, in the manner in which you have seen in the research before you’
(Silsilatul Ahaadeethis Saheehah p138, vol 3).

What Should be Done in this Night?

In order to observe the Night of Bara’ah, one should try to remain awake in this night as much as he can. If someone has better opportunities, he should spend the whole night in worship and prayer. However, if one cannot do so for one reason or another, he can select a considerable portion of the night, preferably of the second half for this purpose, and should perform the following acts of worship:

(a) SALAAH: . Salah is the most preferable act to be performed in this night. There is no particular number of Rak’at but preferably it should not be less than eight. It is also advisable that each part of the Salah like qiyam, rukoo’ and sajdah should be longer than normal. The longest surahs of the Holy Qur’an one remembers by heart should be recited in the Salah of this night. If someone does not remember the long surahs, he can also recite several short surahs in one rak’ah.

(b) Tilawa. The recitation of the Holy Qur’an is another form of worship, very beneficial in this night. After performing Salah, or at any other time, one should recite as much of the Holy Qur’an as he can.

(c) Dhikr. One should also perform as much dhikr as possible.
Kalima Tayyebah 100x
Third kalima 100x
Astaghfaar 100x

One should also recite Salawaat (durood) on Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, as many times as he can. Dhikr can also be done whilst walking, lying on bed, and during other hours of work or leisure.

(d) Dua. The best benefit one can draw from the blessings of this night is prayers and supplications. It is hoped that all the prayers in this night will be accepted by our Lord, insha-Allah.

Prayer itself is an ‘Ibadah, and Allah Almighty gives reward on each prayer along with the fulfillment of the supplicator’s need. Even if the purpose prayed for is not achieved, one cannot be deprived of the reward of the prayer which is sometimes more precious than the mundane benefits one strives for.

The prayers and supplications also strengthen one’s relation with Allah Almighty, which is the main purpose of all kinds and forms of worship.

One can pray for whatever purpose he wishes. But the best supplications are the ones made by Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. These are so comprehensive and all-encompassing prayers that all the human needs, of this world and the Hereafter, are fully covered in the eloquent expressions used in them. Actually, most of the prophetic prayers are so profound that human imagination can hardly match their greatness.

Several books in various languages are available which provide these prophetic prayers, and one should pray to Allah Almighty in accordance with them, whether by reciting their original Arabic text or by rendering their sense in one’s own language.

(e) There are some people who cannot perform any additional Salah or recitations for any reason, like illness or weakness or being engaged in some other necessary activities. Such people also should not deprive themselves completely of the blessings of this night. They should observe the following acts:

To perform the Salah of Maghrib, ‘Isha’ and Fajr with Jama’ah in the mosque, or in their homes in case of their being sick.

They should keep reciting the dhikr, particularly the one mentioned in para (c) above, in whatever condition they are until they sleep.

They should pray to Allah for their forgiveness and for their other objectives. One can do so even when he is in his bed.

(f) The women during their periods cannot perform salah, nor can they recite the Qur’an, but they can recite any dhikr, tasbeeh, durood sharif and can pray to Allah for whatever purpose they like in whatever language they wish. They can also recite the Arabic prayers mentioned in the Qur’an or in the hadith with the intention of supplication (and not with the intention of recitation).

(g) According to a hadith, Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, went in this night to the graveyard of Baqi’ where he prayed for the Muslims buried there. On this basis, some of the fuqaha hold it as advisable in this night to go to the graveyard of the Muslims and recite some Qur’an, and pray for the dead. But this act is neither obligatory nor should it be performed as regularly as an obligatory act.

One should also try and fast the three illuminated days (13,14,15 of lunar month). If it’s hard fast for at least the 15th of sha’baan.

May Allah give us Tawfeeq of worship, and the ability to put into practice whatever we learn.

May Allah forgive us and have mercy upon us.
May Allah be pleased with us.
May Allah help us to get ready for Ramadhan.

Further Read: The “Daleel” (Proofs) for the Virtue of the Night of 15th Sha’ban

Some Points about the Crucifixion

By Bilal Muhammad

Christian Contention:- “The crucifixion of Jesus was a historical fact that was not challenged in the first century.”

Some of our polemical texts will highlight ambiguities in the crucifixion story as narrated in the Bible, for example:

(1) Contradictions on who carried the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, and John).

(2) Contradictions on what was written on the cross. (Mark 15:26, Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38, John 19:19)

(3) The lack of a clear resurrection story in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was probably the earliest Gospel.

(4) The witnesses of the crucifixion depend on the Gospel: some women from afar, or Mary and an apostle up close. (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25)

(5) Contradictions on what hour Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:25, John 19:14-15)

(6) Contradictions on what Jesus’ last words were. (Mark 15:34-37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30)

(7) Contradictions on the number of angels or witnesses at the grave of Jesus.

(8) Questions on the original sin: its place in Judaism, why God would need blood to forgive, how a sacrifice can account for future sins, why God would need to wait thousands of years before sending Jesus to alleviate the original sin.

(9) John the Evangelist was seemingly quelling doubts about crucifixion by including a spear thrust into the side of Jesus, to make sure he was dead, which was not mentioned in the three earlier Gospels. (John 19:34)

(10) The Sanhedrin trial of Jesus has no record besides the Gospels, and the trial breaks tens of rules and procedures that are typical of a Sanhedrin trial.

(11) Pilate offered to free one of two men: Jesus, or a rebel by the name of “Barabbas” – in earlier manuscripts, his name was “Jesus Barabbas”, meaning, “Jesus the son of the Father”, it would be funny if the wrong “Jesus” was crucified.

(12) Belief in the crucifixion would basically negate his prophethood in Judaism, according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, and this was probably by the Jews wanted Jesus crucified rather than simply assassinated.

(13) Jesus’ descent into Hell would negate his Godhood; and is probably taken from Greek hero myth.

(14) A mass resurrection of saints in Matthew 27:51-53 is mentioned in 3 verses, but the account does not appear anywhere else, neither in the other Gospels nor in other texts, even though such a thing would’ve been notable enough to record; at least more notable than Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem.

(15) According to the Synoptic Gospels, all of Jesus’ apostles and family members forsook Jesus and never attended the crucifixion.

(16) In Mark 16, on the Sunday, the women went to anoint Jesus’ buried corpse with spices – this was not a practice, as in Judaism a tomb is not re-opened after it is closed unless there is reason to believe that the person in it is still alive – so there is a subtle implication that these women believed that the one in the tomb was still alive, and needed to be sought for treatment.

(17) Jesus supposedly prophesied that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights, but he was only in the tomb for 1 day and 2 nights.

(18) In Matthew 12:40, Jesus compared his three day burial to Jonah’s three days in the whale; but Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale and not dead.

(19) In Luke 4:10-12, Jesus quotes Psalm 91, which if you read in full, suggests that the Messiah will be saved by God and lifted up.

(20) Sacrifices were never crucified.

And Allah knows best.

Who Should We Follow??

QUESTION: Whom should we Hanafis follow when there is a conflict of opinion among our Ulama? For example Mufti Taqi Uthmaani says that Islamic banking, digital pictures, etc. are permissible whereas the Mujlisul Ulama refutes this view. So how does a layman make a choice?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

If two medical doctors or two lawyers give conflicting opinions on the same issues, who will you follow? How will you decide whom to follow? Use the same criterion in the event of conflicting opinions of the Ulama.

In the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala reprimanding the masses (the laymen) of Bani Israaeel, states: “They take their Ulama and their Mashaaikh as gods besides Allaah.” Now why does Allah Ta’ala criticize and reprimand the ordinary people for following the rulings of their learned men when it is incumbent for the laity to follow the rulings and guidance of the Ulama? In reality, the ordinary people who love to follow their nafs, and the easy way, do understand what is Haqq and Baatil. Thus, they quickly follow such rulings which satisfy their nafsaani desires whilst deep down in their hearts they know that they are following baatil. For such miscreants and slaves of the nafs, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “In fact, man has awareness of his nafs even though he puts forth excuses (to justify his haraam, nafsaaniyat and shaitaaniyat).”.

Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to insaan a treasure called Aql (Intelligence) which the Mu’min is required to utilize constructively with ikhlaas (sincerity). Then he will arrive at the correct opinion, and follow what is the Haqq.

The Shariah also emphasizes abstention from doubtful issues. The Deen also instructs us to choose the option in which there is ihtiyaat (caution). Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Shun that which plunges you into for that which does not cast you into doubt.” Two glasses of water are placed in front of you, and it is said that one glass contains pure water while the other glass of water contains a few drops of urine or a drop of a lethal poison, but it is not known which glass of water is pure and which one is the contaminated one. In this situation of conflict, which glass will you opt for? If someone, regardless of his elevated status, suggests that you opt for any one of the glasses, or take the one on your left or on your right, etc., will you take the chance? We are certain that you will shun both and opt for caution.

Now when one Aalim says that ‘this meat is haraam carrion’, and the other one says that it is ‘halaal’, why should you dither and be in doubt as to the option you should adopt? In Deeni or spiritual matters, people throw caution aside and blindly follow their bestial nafs presenting the hollow pretext that a certain Aalim says that it is permissible irrespective of the lasting spiritual damage which consumption and participation in the haraam cause.

If one Aalim says that a picture is not a picture, and the other one says that a picture is a picture, then you the layman, is required to use the Aql bestowed to you by Allah Ta’ala so that you do not come under the scope of the above-mentioned Qur’aanic aayat of Divine Reprimand. You are not expected to debase your Aql by enslaving it to your carnal instincts. Your intelligence will be sufficient to convince you that the one who says that a digital picture is not a picture resorts to skulduggery and propagates what his nafs orders him, not what his Aql demands.

Similarly, if one Aalim says that the so-called ‘dividends’ of a so-called ‘Islamic’ bank are riba, and another Aalim says that it is not riba, then even the layman whose brains are not welded to stupidity, will understand that it is in his best Deeni interests and for his Aakhirah to abstain from such a dangerous sin as riba. The principle of Ihtiyaat (Caution) and abstention from doubt should be adopted in every conflict, namely, adopt caution and for practical purposes act on Ihtiyaat and abstain from doubt, and utilize your Aql. You will then be on Rectitude, and there will remain no doubt in you as to what and who is the Haqq.


By Mujlisul Ulama

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem



Our response to an article on this issue by certain Ulama

Having carefully perused the article compiled by the Ulama-e-Kiraam it isquite evident that the fatwaof permissibility to vote in the forthcomingelections has been based on two factors:

One, Hazrat Mufti Shafee sahib’s {Rahmatullahi alaihi) exposition on the issue of voting, as published in Jawaaharul Fiqah, and two, the practices of some of the Akaabir Ulama-e-Deoband when the British were ousted from India in 1947.

Let us pursue the matter on the basis of these two factors.

Firstly, the above-mentioned article of Hazrat Mufti sahib (rahmatullahi alaihi) is no doubt a very expert and professional exposition of the matter under discussion, in which the entire issue was brought under the scrutiny of Shar’ee principles. Truly, a task which only Hazrat Mufti Sahib was capable of (may Allah fill his qabr shareef with noor). However, the context of Hazrat Mufti sahib’sarticle differs from the circumstances that prevail in our political scene. Hazrat Mufti sahib’s article was directed at an electorate which consisted entirely of Muslims. The candidates for governmentwere all Muslims. Under these circumstances it would be Islamically true and correct to apply the usool which Hazrat Mufti sahib evolved, whereby we could testify or intercede on behalf of, or be represented by, Muslim leaders, some of whom even had quite sound Islamic morals and background. It should also be born in mind that according to the hadeeth shareef of Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam if the Imaam that has assumed control of the country is a faasiq, it will be completely lawful for Muslims to give him the pledge of allegiance (bay’at). In other words, a Muslim will be supported in spite of his fisq, but kufr cannot be tolerated. [I’laa-us Sunan 12:618 of Hazrat Moulana Zhafar Ahmed Thanwi rahmatullahi alaihi, quoting from Muslim Shareef and Naylul Owtaar.]

So the article written by Hazrat Mufti Shafee sahib rahmatullahi alaihi is applicable in a Muslim country where all candidates are Muslims and there exists the strong possibility that certain candidates, should they come to power, would implement Islamic rule.

In the South African elections this of course would not be the case. There are no Islamic parties, and Muslim candidates. In our context these terms refer to parties and candidates who stand for the Shariah. The meaning here is not Islamic and Muslim merely in names. Above all, the whole constitution of this country is based on western, non-Muslim law. Therefore, the article of Hazrat Mufti sahib rahmatullahi alaihi should not be used sweepingly in our political context. At this juncture, we could do one of two things: we could either use the general principles laid down by Hazrat Mufti sahib as regards to voting and see if their application in a non-muslim political set-up is permissible, or we could deal with this matter from an entirely different angle.

Lets consider the first. According to Hazrat Mufti sahib, voting constitutes one of three Shar’ee principles:

Testimony (Shahaadat), Intercession (Shafa’at, or Representation (Wakaalat). Shahaadat in the form of a vote means that the Muslim voter testifies to the credibility of the non-Muslim candidate. He bears evidence that the non-Muslim candidate has ‘the capabilityand qualifications to govern and rule. Surely such evidence, in our elections, would be false, since the first requisite of leadership is Islam, which is, obviously not found in a non-Muslim. In addition, adaalat is also a requisite for a leader (Reference for this will appear further on insha-Allah). Evidence of this nature is therefore tantamount to Shahaadat-uz-zoor, which is haraam in the Shariah.

It should be noted here that Islam regards leadership of a country to be thehighest post granted to an individual in this world and such government infact acts in the capacity of Almighty Allah’s vicegerent, being the authority responsible for the administration of the Divine Shariah. Hence Islam, along with adaalat is a pre-requisite for such a high post.

Intercession through voting means that the voter earnestly wants leadership of government (in this particular case) to be granted to the non-Muslim candidate. This entails tacit approval of whatever type of law or government the non-Muslim will implement, including all unjust, un-Islamic forms of legislation. This is without doubt shafa’ate sayyi-ah as described by The Quran-e-Kareem. One whose intercession is for a good cause receives his share of the reward for that good, and by the same token one whose intercession occurs on behalf of evil-doers who will perpetrate injustices and rule in conflict fill the Law of Quran will also carry the blame for such wrongdoing. (See Qurtubi 5:295 and Ma-aariful Quran 2:498)

The same could be said about representation. The Muslim voter appoints aparticular non-Muslimparty as his/her representative to act on his/her behalf. The agent (wakeel) is of course one who acts on behalf of his principal (muakkil). The wikalat in the context of voting is of a general nature (mutlaq) by virtue of which the wakeel has the right to act as, how and when he deems it appropriate and necessary. Here too, the Muslim voter has in essence given the non-Muslim candidate and his party an open mandate to implement the form of government they feel appropriate and expedient. For a period of five years thereafter the voter has no choice but to stand by and witness the wrongs perpetrated by the party of his choice. The Muslim is therefore guilty of awarding implicit consent and agreement to all un-islamic policies enacted by the non-Muslim government. The similitude of this in fiqah is like a muakkil appointing a wakeel to commit a haraam act, either explicitly or implicitly when he is aware that his wakeel is prone to commit that particular unlawful act. Clearly such wikaalat is haraam in Islam. It should also be remembered that basically Kufr is one millat, and all parties involved are bound by a constitution totally foreign to Islam.

It is therefore clear that the principles so expertly devised by Hazrat Mufti Shafee Sahib rahmatullahi alaihi must essentially be applied to Muslim candidates and parties in an Islamic state, which is the original context of Hazrat’s treatise.

We now study the question of casting votes for a non-Muslim party from an entirely different viewpoint. Voting in a general election (which is the subject matter of our discussion) is actually the process of electing a government. And this is by no means new to Islam, as any student of Deen will testify. The process of electing a leader has been very clearly defined and expounded by The Shariah. Whereas in Shariah the bay’at or pledge of allegiance is offered verbally and practically by the clasping of the hands, in the method invented by the West this pledge is expressed through the ballot. The votes in an election process represent the approval and consent of people to have the candidate as their leader, and by placing a cross next to his or her party’s name they are actually indicating their full support and allegiance to that leader. The ballot has come to be used as a means of expressing approval and allegiance to a particular party or candidate. In short, voting is merely an innovative way introduced by non-Muslims, of electing the head of state.

Once this fact has been established, it is quite obvious that Islam has devised its own method of electing a leader, a method which can be proven from categoric proof (nusoos) and which has been employed by all our great pious predecessors (salf-e-saaliheen). Since Islam has its own alternative to the practice of the ballot it goes without saying that Muslims are bound by the Shariah to adopt the methodology and system of Islam. If Muslims are in a position to implement the Islamic electoral procedure, it becomes wajib upon them to do so. Where only the system of the kuffaar exists and no need or exigency exists to indulge in such a process, it devolves upon them to abstain therefrom. (About this need or expediency more will be said later on Insha-Allah.) Though we are quite sure the Ulema-e-kiraam are well acquainted with these aspects of Islamic political theory, we shall however cite a few noteworthy points from some of the books of fiqah on this subject.


The election of a leader (or Khilaafat) in Islam is not merely a mashroo’ act, it is infact an injunction accorded the status of wujoob. And that too, among the important waajibaat of Islam, so much so that it even takes precedence over the burial of the former leader. The Books of Aqaaid and Fiqah are quite clear on this issue. Since this is a wajib institution in Islam, it will necessarily be accompanied by a prescribed method and procedure, like all other wajib and fardh injunctions, such as salah, zakah, hajj, etc. There are conditions and regulations attached to this important duty, and these are mentioned very elaborately in the books of fiqah.

The Fuqaha have described leadership of state as Imaamat-e-Kubraa (Raddul Muhtaar (Shaami) 1:548), the major imaamat, in contrast to Imaamat-e-Sughra or minor Imaamat which applies to salah. This type of Imaamat has been ordained by Allah as a representation of the office of Nubuwwat as regards to the safeguarding and management of all Deeni affairs. The establishment of such an office in the Ummat is wajib according to Ijmaa’ or the consensus of all Ulema. However, the wujoob here is alal kifayah, so if a few assume and subsequently fulfil this responsibility, the rest will be absolved. [(Al-ahkamus-sultaniyyah of Allama Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad Mawardi (d.450) page 5)]


In the institution of Khilafat or Imaamat two groups play an important role: one is the Ahlul Ikhtiyaar or those who will elect the Imaam or head of state. In modern day terms we could refer to this group as the electorate or constituency; the other is the Ahlul Imaamat or the candidates; those who will be chosen for this office. There are conditions which have to be present for each group before they can be considered eligible to fulfil their respective tasks. For the ahlul ikhtiyaar the following conditions are compulsory:

1. Adaalat- Moral uprightness and integrity, as explained in the booksof fiqah.

2.Knowledge- whereby one is able to discern the qualifications andrequisites for Imaamat in a candidate.

3. Wisdom and experience in political matters. [Al-Ahkaam p.6]

The above three conditions are unique in that they ensure all-round protection for the Ummah. In adaalat it is ensured that the “voter” will be qualified to elect a leader and will do so with utmost sincerity, with the interests of the Ummah at heart. Ilm enables one to establish the credentials and qualifications of a candidate and thereby ensures that a suitably qualified man is placed at the helm of this Ummat’s affairs. Experience and wisdom in politics ensure worldly or material benefit.

Conditions for Imaamat

According to the unanimous decision of the Ulema, the one being elected to Imaamat must be: A Muslim, adult, male, free person (not in bondage), sane, knowledgable on Islamic matters, experienced and prudent in political affairs, courageous and brave, in possession of all faculties of physical perception, sound and healthy in body and limb. [Shaami & Durre Mukhtaar 1:548; Al-Ahkaam p.6]

Some have stipulated the condition of adaalat or uprightness in character and morals. However, according to the Ahnaaf Ulema if a faasiq is appointed to this post, such an appointment is valid, but to do so without a Shar’ee reason is a major sin. If the removal of that faasiq from the post of imaamat does not result in fitnah (strife, anarchy and breakdown of law and order) then it becomes wajib upon the ahlul ikhtiyaar to dismiss him and appoint someone fit and qualified for this position. Otherwise, such a fasiq’s rule will be tolerated in the interests of peace and security in the country.

It is thus very clear that Islam has its own elaborate procedure of electing a leader of state. When we compare the above-mentioned Shar’ee procedure immediately with the voting system of non-Muslims we immediately realise the great difference between the two. The Shariah has meticulously defined certain conditions for one who “votes”, or elects a leader. In the western system of voting none of these conditions is found. In the ludicrous democracy of the kuffaar, any person, of whatever state of mind and moral disposition, can vote a candidate into parliament, even if he does not have the faintest notion as to the ability and qualification of that candidate. Merely on the basis of pecuniary gain, or some short term benefit, political parties are given the vote. The gravity and far-reaching consequences of such an ill-conceived system have not yet sunk into the minds of people. The whole situation has developed into a major farce, the ill effects of which are being witnessed daily, worldwide. It is not conceivable that such a system would be allowed to operate in a true Islamic state, and our understanding of the fiqhi rulings on this matter militates against its acceptance or adoption.

Glancing at the conditions which apply to the candidate, the disparity between the two systems appears even more glaring and conspicuous. At the very outset Imaamat cannot be established in favour of a non-Muslim (I’laa us Sunan 12:618). As explained earlier, the ballot signifies the voter’s approval for the party next to whose name he puts his mark. This means that should that party win the elections by a clear majority, the voter has put its leader into power. Voting therefore entails election of a leader. We do not see how it is Islamically legal or lawful for a Muslim to bring into power, through the medium of his vote, a non-Muslim party and its leader.

Similarly, a woman cannot be elected to the post of Imaamat. Compare this medium of to the policy of so-called democratic governments in outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion and sex. A more thorough study of such policies will reveal many other ideas or practices which conflict with our Shariah.

The election of an Imaam (head of state) is an important task in Islam, upon which rests the function of all major departments of the Deen. It has to be looked at in this light.

There are two ways in which an Imaam is elected to power:

1) By nomination and/or appointment of the outgoing or former head of state, such as was done by Sayyiduna Abubakr Siddeeq radhiyallahu anhu  when he appointed Hazrat Umar radhiyallahu anhu as his successor, and by Hazrat Umar radhiyallahu anhu when he nominated the committee of six (Uthman, Ali, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Talha, Zubair and Sa’d bin Abi Waqqaas radhiyallahu anhum) from whom his successor was to be elected. [Al-Imamah Siyaasah by Allama Ibni Qutaiba rahmatullahi alaihi (213-286) p.24]

2) By election of Ahle Hall wa Aqd (earlier referred to as Ahlul Ikhtiyaar). [Shaami 1:549].

If a leader usurps power through force, such as a coup d’etat, and his rule and law are implemented throu ghout the country, such leadership automatically recognised as valid and authentic, and it is then the duty of all to pledge allegiance to him. [Ibid]

Here again it must be noted that a non-Muslim’s rule over Muslims is not recognised in Islam and is therefote invalid. This is proven from the following verse of The Holy Quran:

“And never shall Allah grant power, domination to the unbelievers over the believers”

A faasiq’s rule and domination are recognised, in spite of being unlawful, as explained earlier on.

Ahle hall wa aqd refers to such members of the Muslim community who are prominent in Deen, experienced in political matters and upright in character. It is not a condition that they be Ulama in the technical sense of the word, but they must possess that amount of knowledge which is fardh. The number of such a group does not matter much. According to most Fuqaha they must be at least five in number, and this is based on the practice of Hazrat Umar radhiyallahu anhu when he nominated six people who will mutually select one of them for the khilaafat. [Al-Ahkaam pp.6, 7]

Some Fuqaha are of the view that even one aadil, pious person can select the man of his choice for khilaafat, and if the selected person is fully qualified, such a selection will be valid. The basis of this is the sole induction by Hazrat Umar radhiyallahu anhu of Hazrat Abubakr radhiyallahu anhu to the khilaafat at a time when the Sahaaba were still busy discussing the issue in the Saqeefa Bani Saaida. Upon Hazrat Umar taking the initiative, the rest of the Sahaaba followed suit. Hazrat Umar’s practicew as thus supported by the consensus of the Sahaaba radhiyallahu anhum. [Ibid]

This is in stark contrast to western democracy where elections are decided only through majority vote, and that too, the ignorant masses. The western system of democracy is just not compatible with the Divine system of Islam.


Undoubtedly this is a valid and well known principle of fiqah which needs no explanation. Whether this principle applies fully here is, in our opinion, debatable for the reasons that follow.

The term baliyyah or ibtilaa signifies an unavoidable crisis, wherein one is faced up with one of two options. If such a situation develops that a Muslim is torn between two evils, both of which are unavoidable, and as such he is forced to choose between either one then most certainly this fiqhi principle will apply. In the coming general elections of this country the Muslim is not facing a situation where he will be compelled to select either of two evils. If the elections will be truly democratic, as is claimed, then the right to vote is to vote. So the question of the prerogative of the individual. No one is forced to vote, so the question of ibtilaa does not apply. By opting not to vote, one is merely exercising one’s democratic right. Here there exists an alternative, the option to abstain, which is what this article intends to present to the readers. It may be argued that the factor of ibtilaa does indeed exist due to the danger that becomes imminent should the party ‘hostile’ to Islam win the elections and not the party sympathetic to our cause. In answering this we firstly need to be explained the nature of this hostility or danger. Does there indeed exist such danger which will allow us to adopt a practice alien to Islam? Secondly, we would like to point out that the leaders and hierarchy of certain political organisations have given clear assurances that they would allow religious freedom, that “islamic personal law” would be incorporated into the judicial system of their government, etc. Since the major parties contesting the elections give pious assurances of upholding the concept of freedom of religion, the issue of baliyyatain (two evils) does not arise. We have not been placed in a situation compelling us to choose the “lesser evil”. When such a situation develops, the need will arise to firstly determine which party is the “lesser evil”.

If these assurances are regarded as hollow utterances merely intended to woo voters and to appease the electorate then let it be said that through The Grace and Mercy of Allah the Muslim Ummah in South Africa has never ever been dependent upon such promises of compromise and condescension. Such levels of recognition has never yet been accorded to the ahkaam of Islam in the past, yet the Deen of the Ummah continued to thrive and no fear existed in the hearts of the believers. This has been proven through experience. So even if any future government fails to introduce such measures as recognising our personal law, etc. it will not change the status quo that has existed in the ummah for the past centuries.

Hence, there are no grounds upon which the principle of ibtilaa or “opting for the lesser of the two evils” could operate. There does not seem to be any  dhuroorat or necessity whereby an unlawful act may be legalised in the Shariah. Furthermore, for the above usool to be freely operable the impending “evils” or “dangers” must be thoroughly defined and spelt out. These should not remain only as a figment of our imagination. Only then can we justifiably adduce proof for the permissibility of voting from verse 28 of Surah Aal e Imraan, where Almighty Allah makes the exemption: “….except if you fear from them some danger.” We have pointed out above that voting represents election of a leader of state or government, and Islam, the eternal Deen of Allah, has given us a clear and specific method of electing a leader, thus precluding us from adopting any other system or method.

If any fear does exist in our minds, it is the breakdown of law and order, civil strife, etc. in the country that may follow the elections. This fear exists even in the hearts of non-Muslims, and will even affect them too, and is not subject to whether we vote, or for whom we vote. For this we have to implement a stringent program of tableegh and taleem to urge Muslims to turn to Allah and seek His Divine Aid, for only this can save us from the punishment that has ravaged and destroyed other nations and communities throughout the globe.

Along with Inaabat ilallah (turning in repentance and remorse unto Allah) we should also encourage Muslims towards physical preparation and defensive awareness, since the world is aalamul asbaab where material agencies have to be utilized in accordance with the Guidance of the Shariah. We are sure all will realise that such a terrible situation is not regulated or directed by voting or abstention. May Allah protect us through His Infinite and Divine Aid, Ameen.

The above points are logical and religious reasons for Muslims abstaining from the elections. A further logical argument to prove that our voting remains politically insignificant is the fact that we are a very small minority, and this minority is exacerbated by the deep divisions in the community. A large percentage of Muslims are inclined towards the ANC, Muslim while many others may vote for the NP. (This article was written at the advent of the transformation of the political system from one system of kufr to another system of kufr). Some may have other allegiances. It is therefore quite clear that our votes will not have any bearing on the outcome of the elections. Looking at the matter strictly from a worldly or political standpoint, this seems even more so because of the overwhelming numbers favouring one particular party.

Be that as it may, we come back to our main theme, which was to prove that besides voting being an un-Islamic practice, it is not permissible for Muslims to participate in the law-making process of the non-Muslims, which is what elections are all about. Muslims should therefore be encouraged to abstain.

This, in our opinion, is an incumbent Islamic duty, as is the shunning of any act or practice which does not conform to Islamic teaching and doctrine.

The permissibility of Mudaaraat, Muaamalaat (subject to certain conditions) and Muwaasaat is in no way affected or impinged upon by the views  expressed in this article. All these types of Islamic behaviour could and should still be maintained even if Muslims abstain from casting their votes. On the other hand, the permissibility of these factors can in no way be construed as license or Shar’ee permission to participate in voting, or electing a non-Muslim government. Looking at the ahadeeth of Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam we find a unique comparison between what the Noble Messenger of Allah taught to his Sahaaba and the situation in which we find ourselves today. We quote the relevant hadeeth shareef here.

Hazrat Huzhaifa bin Yamaan radhiyallahu anhu narrates a hadeeth wherein Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam discussed the evil and corruption that will bedevil this Ummat in latter times. He says: I then said: ‘What do you advise me to do should these evil times overtake me, O Prophet of Allah?’ The Holy Prophet of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam replied: “Cling fast to their Imaam.” I then asked: ‘And if they do not have the Muslim jama’at and any jama’at nor an Imaam?

He said: “Then disassociate yourself from all those parties, even if you have to cling fast to the root of a tree, until death overtakes you whilst you are in this state.” [Bukhari Shareef 2:1049 (Kilabul Fitan)]

The application of this hadeeth shareef in our times is very appropiate. It is as if the Holy Prophet of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam had foreseen the arrival of circumstances wherein Muslims would be tempted to join parties who in some way or other would be the cause of great fitnah (evil, corruption and anarchy). There is absolutely no ambiguity in the guidelines presented to sallallahu alaihi wasallam in this hadeeth shareef. The Imaam mentioned us by Rasoolullah in this hadeeth means the Muslim ruler, and the jama’at refers to those who have united under the  leadership of such an Imaam. [Fathul Baari of Allama Ibni Hajar rahmatullahi alaihi, 13:37]

In the light of this interpretation, the proper import of the hadeeth becomes apparent. In other words, in the absence of a Muslim political ruler and his following, Muslims are ordered by Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam to break entirely away from other political parties, all of whom have served to fragment and disunite the Ummah.

Imam Ibni Jareer Tabari, commenting on this hadeeth, says: “When there exists no Imaam (leader) among Muslims and people have broken up into factions and parties, one should not follow any of these factions. Instead, one should remain aloof from all of them if possible, for fear of evil.” [Ibid]

Allama Ibni Hajar comments: “A lesson to be taken from this hadeeth is the to condemnation of people who invent a basic principle for Deeni practice which is contrary to the Quran and Sunnah, and then make both these scriptures subservient to that fabricated principle (i.e. they expound the laws of Quran and Sunnah according to their concocted reasoning).” [Ibid]

These evidences establish the stance we have adopted of non-participation and total abstention in the political arena.


We now proceed to examine the second basis for the fatwa of permissibility to vote in non-Muslim elections. Undoubtedly the situation here in South Africa at present very closely resembles the state of political affairs in India at that time. However, just as we quote the statements and practices of those who participated in the Congress Party’s movement against British Colonialism, we must not lose sight of the fact that there were prominent Ulema who also vehemently disagreed with the actions of these Akaabir, solely on the basis of Shar’ee Dalaa’il. Looking back at the events that unfolded in India during that critical period of its history, there are some invaluable lessons to be learnt. We narrate here two malfoozhaat (sayings) of the late Hazrat Moulana Maseehullah rahmatullahi alaihi in connection with the political situation in India at that time.

Malfoozh no. 1:

Someone once said to Hakeemul Ummat Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi rahmatullahi alaihi: “Why do you not participate in the struggle, when your pious predecessors stood up and fought?”

Hazrat Hakeemul Ummat replied without hesitation: “You saw them standing up, but I saw them sit down (and refrain from such politics)!”

This indicates that eventually there came a shift in the policy of even those who initially stood up against the British. We believe this shift of policy surely must have some Shar’ee significance and basis.

Malfoozh no. 2:

Some months after India gained independence, its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, along with some of his Cabinet Ministers, came to Deoband  to visit Hazrat Moulana Husein Ahmed Madani rahmatullahi alaihi. During their struggle for freedom Nehru had great respect and admiration for Moulana Madani, both of whom were key figures in the All India Congress party. When they arrived at Hazrat Maulana’s residence in Deoband, they sought permission to enter. One of the aides of Hazrat Madani brought him the news that Nehru and his party had come to see him. Moulana Madani gave him the following message to convey to Prime Minister Nehru: “Tell him I do not wish to see the face of a Munaafiq (hypocrite)!”

The Prime Minister, obviously taken aback by this scathing remark, made several further requests for an audience with Hazrat, but each time the reply was the same. Eventually Nehru and his party had to go back dejected and scorned, with this stern retort still ringing in their ears.

This episode should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the major shift which occurred in the policy of the very Akaabir Ulama who were embroiled in the struggle for independence, towards participation in non-Muslim politics. We do not intend reviving the debate as to which group among our akaabir was justified in the stance they adopted, nor do we wish to go into the details of this ikhtilaaf. All these great people are our seniors whom we respect and revere. Suffice to say however, that in spite of the Muslims joining the Congress party and aiding them to evict the British, at the end of the day they (the Musalmaan Ummat) had to suffer the worst brutality and cruelty ever in the history of India. The very day of independence the Muslims experienced the one of the worst outbreaks of violence. Muslim blood was literally flowing in the street gutters. According to Hazrat Moulana Maseehullah rahmatullahi alaihi, one of the Ulama who was in the forefront of the political struggle alongside the Hindus had to flee Delhi and barely managed to avoid the murderous Hindu mobs on his way to Deoband. When these Hindu savages were reminded by their Muslim victims that: “We too were with you in the struggle for freedom”, the answer they shouted back was: “Yes, certainly, but after all you people are still Muslims!”

This resultant bloodshed proves what The Holy Quran has time and again warned Muslims of:

“O people of Iman! If you will follow the unbelievers they will turn you back on your heels (i.e. away from your Deen) and then you will return as losers. Instead, Allah is your Friend and He is the Best of Helpers.” (Aale Imraan, verses 149, 150.)

“O people of Iman! Do not take bosom friends besides your own (believers). They (the unbelievers) will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of your destruction. They desire that which will harm you. Hatred has already become appare nt from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is even worse.” (Aale Imraan, verse 118)

It is unfathomable how, under such traumatic circumstances, could it be claimed that these great Ulama freed the masses from the shackles of tyranny and oppression, when the tyranny and violence only really started after independence. By the same token, it is difficult to comprehend how Ulama who are presently members of the Congress party could claim to be safeguarding Islam and the interests of Muslims in India when this decade has seen some of the most violent scenes of carnage and destruction perpetrated on Muslim communities. When experience has time and again shown that occupying such positions is pointless and futile, what Islamic or for that matter, worldly justification is there for further participation?

Furthermore, participation of the Ulama in hindu politics does not constitute a Shar’I daleel. We are not obliged by the Shariah to offer Taqleed to the opinion of the Ulama who had participated in the politics of the idol-worshippers. To say the least, it is insipid and childish to counter our Shar’I dala’il with the acts and opinions of Ulama who had deemed it expedient to throw their lot with the mushrikeen of India.

As regards to the Ulama who fought in Shaamli and other areas, we would prefer calling their struggle a Jihad, which it truly was, rather than a fight for freedom and justice. Furthermore, that jihad was not in collusion with Hindus; instead, it was based strictly on Shar’ee principles to establish Allah’s Law.

With reference to the Fataawa cited in the article we would like to point out that all these fataawa have based the permissibility of involvement in politics on the hope and/or assurance of benefit, aid and stability being granted to the Muslims by the party for which they have voted. One might ask: Were these benefits and ideals forthcoming under the new Hindu leadership in India?

On hindsight we say without fear of contradiction that it certainly was not. The above citations are enough proof of this gruesome reality. In fact, the  Muslims were in an infinitely better position under the British domination  because the latter constituted the “lesser evil”.

In the context of South African politics, we fail to see what benefits of significance, without which we may suffer in Deen or dunya, will accrue to the Muslims in voting for one party or another.


Voting in a general election is a method devised by non-Muslims to elect a government. Our Shariah has, through the agency of Rasoolullah Sallallahu alaihi Wasallam ordained its own singular system of electing a leader of state or Shar’ee government and this issue has been discussed at length and in much detail in the books of fiqah. It therefore behoves a Muslim that, the path alien or foreign to his religion should be avoided at all costs in order to earn the Pleasure of Allah.

The Quran-e-Kareem declares: “What, do they seek the alien or foreign to his law of Jahiliyyah? And who can be superior to Allah in Law, for a nation who has yaqeen.” (Surah Maaidah)

We concede however, that on the basis of the fiqhi rule “Necessity legalizes unlawful acts”, should there exist a valid Shar’ee necessity to vote (such as the presence of an Islamic party who would be able to implement some form of Islamic leadership upon coming to power) then voting would not only be lawful, but encouraged. It has yet to be conclusively proven that the necessity to vote exists to such a degree whereby a non-permissible act can become lawful, or that some valid, tangible benefit will accrue to Muslims as a result of their vote. As explained above in detail, we have an option through which we can avoid invo lvement in the non-permissible act, and that is to abstain from voting. As regards can to the fear of harm befalling Islam or Muslims, should such fears materialise, the cause of it can in no way be attributed to abstention from voting.

We seek Allah’s protection, but should there occur a breakdown of peace its effects will ripple through communities who voted as w and stability in the country, ell as those who abstained. We once again emphasise the importance of encouraging the sleeping Ummah to awake from its slumber and embark on both a spiritual and a physical state of preparedness and awareness before it is too late. Rather this, than debating the issue of whether Muslims should vote and whom should they support in the coming elections.


A malfoozh of Hakeemul Ummat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi rahmatullahi alaihi:

A man once asked Hakeemul Ummat the following: “Hazrat, if there is a person who is an expert in political affairs, but he is a non-Muslim, what is wrong if we follow him in purely political matters?”

Hazrat replied: “The example of this is exactly like that of a non-Muslim who is well versed. So, will it be permissible to follow him in salah? The basis of the misunderstanding here is that people do not regard politics as Deen. This alone is a major error and gross ign orance of Deen. Politics is also Deen. Having such ill-conceived notions is tantamount to claiming that Islam does not teach politics. What a great fabrication in Deen this is! So how can it be possible to follow a nonMuslim in Deen? Furthermore, is this (following a non-Muslim and urging other Muslims to do so) not humiliating to Islam and Muslims? Can what, is there no such person among Muslims who is versed in politics? Yes, it will be permissible to join the unbelievers and work with them in such a manner that they always remain subservient and obedient to the Muslims.” [Islaahul Muslimeen p. 181].



The Holy Quran declares:

“Most Certainly, the earth belongs to Allah. He grants it to whomsoever of his servants He wishes.” (Surah A ‘raaf aayat 128)

The earth belongs to Allah Ta’ala. The appointment and dismissal of rulers and governments are by The Decree of Allah Azz a wa Jall, The Sovereign of the universe. The rise and fall of political kingdoms and empires are by The Command of Allah Ta’ala. This is part of Islamic belief with which no Muslim has the right to differ. He also says in The Quran Majeed: ” Say (O Muhammad): O Allah! Master of Sovereignty, You grant dominion (political power) to whomever You wish and You snatch away dominion from whomever You wish.” (Surah Aala Imraan, aayat 26)

Since this is the belief which Islam propagates, the Muslims should understand that they have no choice in the matter of the appointment of a government in this non-Muslim state inhabited by the handful of Muslims.


The fear and anxiety which are gripping many in the community are the consequences of having turned away from Islam. In the wake of transgressions of Muslims, fear has been divinely imposed over them. The overriding fear is: What will happen after the elections? The fear which Muslims have nowadays for worldly governments is much greater than the fear they have for even Allah Ta’ala. In fact, their gross disobedience to the laws of Allah Ta’ala indicates that they are entirely devoid of fear for Allah, hence they violate the Shariah without compunction. In consequence of their rebellion, they are becoming enslaved to the political systems of the kuffaar. They do not know who the rulers will be tomorrow, therefore, they dwell in a state of fear and uncertainty. Will it be a white kufr government or a black kufr government? This is their concern. Their concern is not to gain the pleasure of Allah Ta’ala.

Muslims fail to understand that no matter how they endeavour to woo and appease the political party of their choice, such a party cannot protect them from the Punishment of Allah Ta’ala.


When the Decree of Allah’s punishment is issued, no political party will be able to stave it off. In fact, Allah’s Athaab at times assumes the form of Zulm manifested at the hands of the kuffaar rulers. When Allah Ta’ala has decided that a certain government shall execute His Punishment, so shall it be. The fact that Muslims had voted for that government will not avail them. But, on account of extreme weakness of Imaan, Muslims fail to perceive and comprehend this reality which The Quran and Hadeeth propound.


Everyone seems to have lost their Islamic bearings, hence Muslims fail to understand simple Islamic facts. Why are the forthcoming elections in this country befogging the thinking of Muslim? Why are they so much concerned about the future government which will assume power? The concern is plainly fear which is the result of an extremely slack bond with Allah Ta’ala. Whomever Allah Ta’ala install will be the government of the day. We have no choice in the matter. In this country there were many elections which were none of our concern. There is no need to ask: ‘For whom should we vote?’

Muslims should understand that they will not be asked to appoint an Islamic government. A non-Muslim political system is in conflict with the Shariah. The laws which will be promulgated by any non-Muslim government will necessarily be un-Islamic and in conflict with the Shariah. Muslims cannot be a party to any such government.

The system of voting, especially for a non-Muslim government, is un-Islamic. It is haraam for Muslims to vote for kuffaar and even Muslims who are fussaaq. All Muslims who are presently  occupying prominent governmental positions are fussaq, communists, atheist or  neo-atheists – the likes of the Wadis, Kathradas, Meers etc. Voting should therefore not be of any concern to Muslims. As far as elections and the politics of non-Muslims are concerned, we should remain detached. We have no share in the appointment of a non-Muslim government or even a government operated by fussaaq Muslims.


Abstention from kuffaar politics is a religious requirement. It is not motivated by any ill designs for any of these parties. But abstention from participation in their politics does not preclude dialogue with whoever constitutes the government of the day. We cannot escape the fact that we are living in this country ruled by non-Muslims. Discussing and having dialogue with the government to secure better rights and concessions for Muslims are permissible. Such dialogue is not participation in non-Muslim politics in the same way as trading with non-Muslims is not participation in non-Muslim economics. Should Muslims indulge in Riba and in all the baatil trade practices of the kuffaar, then such action will be participation in and adoption of kuffaar economics.

Similarly, talking to a non-Muslim government in an endeavour to safeguard the welfare and the interests of Muslims, is not participation in their politics. But, voting for a non-Muslim government will be part of the law-making process and is clearly participation in kuffaar politics, which is not permissible.


Islam does not condone the system of government known as democracy which in reality is mob-rule. Nevertheless, the votaries of democracy should have no squeals when Muslims abstain from voting because in terms of their own conception of democracy, every citizen has the democratic right of abstention. If voting is by intimidation and coercion, the system will cease to be democratic. In a democracy the individual is supposed to be free to vote or abstain. Our abstention is ordered by Deeni demands which a government professing the policy of freedom of religion should respect. The fears which Muslims therefore have are baseless and spawned by their flagrant violation of Allah’s Commands. In consequence Allah Ta’ala has filled our hearts with the fear for this one and that one.


When non-Muslim governments change, it is simply a substitution of one system of injustice with another system of injustice. No non-Muslim government will accommodate Islam nor is this expected of them. Muslims have to order their lives according to Islam in a non-Muslim country as best as they can. As long as Muslims refuse to transform their spiritual and moral lives of decadence, they will witness their self-oppression and injustice materializing in the form of oppressive non-Muslim governments. If Muslims wish to change their worldly condition for the better, it is imperative that they change their own moral and spiritual states of corruption and walk the path of Divine Pleasure by offering their full submission to the Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Allah Ta’ala will then do the rest for us.

With our present state of moral an d spiritual degeneration we cannot hope for our worldly status and condition to change. We must expect to be trodden on and abused by others. The Holy Quran declares:

“Allah will never change the condition of people as long as they do not change what is within themselves.” (Surah Ra‘d, aayat 11)

If Muslims persist to maintain their internal state (moral and spiritual) in corruption and decadence, they should not expect Allah’s aid to come in our support. They should not expect Allah’s  protection against the atrocities which a cruel and oppressive government will unleash. Muslims should become alert and heed what is happening to Muslim communities elsewhere. There exists a conspicuous link between the brutality they are suffering at the hands of non-Muslims and their own state of moral depravity. In short, the zulm of the kuffaar is a form of Allah’s punishment for a people who have gone beyond the confines of no return. When Muslims destroy their Imaani fibre by participation in and adoption of non-Muslim ways of life, sinning flagrantly and justifying their life-style of corruption, then the Ghadhab (Wrath) of Allah becomes halaal for them.


The solution for the ills of Muslims is nothing other than the complete adoption of Islam. With moral and spiritual elevation will come divine aid which will infuse power into the weakened hearts of the Muslims. Submission to Allah’s Law will kindle the dormant Noor of Imaan and wonders will happen Everything is in Allah’s power and control. For Him nothing is wonderful. All forces of creation operate by His direction. It is only for us to engage ourselves in our Islaah (moral reformation). This should be our concern, not voting and not participation in kuffaar politics. Should we refuse to do so, then a time will come when heeding will be too late. The Holy Quran states:

“And turn to Allah in repentance and submit fully to Him before there comes to you the (dreadful) punishment. Then you will not be aided. (Surah Zumar, aayat 54)

There is no other way for Muslims but this Quranic prescription of obedience to Allah, everything else will be in vain. If Muslims are not prepared to accept the Quranic solution, but seek protection behind the skirts of some nonMuslim political organization, they will soon be sorely disappointed. It is Allah Ta’ala who sends oppressors against us to inflict His punishment on us.

The Glorious Quran states:

“When the first of the two promises materialized, We sent against you (O Muslims) such of Our servants who were powerful and cruel. Thus they penetrated the homes (of Muslims). And that was a Decree which had come to pass.” (Surah Bani Israel, verse 5)

When the Ummah during the times of the Bani Israel flagrantly disobeyed Allah Ta’ala, He sent against them powerful and cruel kuffaar armies which ravaged, plundered and pillaged the Muslims and their homes. This very same Sunnah of Allah Ta’ala can be observed even today in a number of places all over the globe where Muslims are suffering under kuffaar zulm and brutality. It is impe rative that Muslims wake up from their miserable slumber of evil.


What doubt can Mu’mineen entertain regarding the Divine Promise of aid? The Qur’an says:

“Most certainly Allah will aid those who aid Him In other words,” (Surah Hajj, aayat 40)

In other words, those who aid Allah’s Deen by adopting Islam as their way of life, will most assuredly be aided by Allah Ta’ala. But, our wanton disobedience has cancelled Divine Aid. We wonder why Allah Ta’ala is not aiding Muslims suffering under kuffaar oppression. But we do not wonder over our own state of corruption and moral decadence. We are not concerned with our own rebellion against the Shariah. When haraam, fisq, and fujoor have become our way of life, how can we expect the Nusrat of Allah Ta’ala? Allah Ta’ala declares with emphasis in the Holy Quran: “In fact, Allah is your Protector and He is the best of Helpers.” (Surah Aala Imraan, aayat 150)

When the Mu’min has Allah on his side as his helper, what fear is there which is deranging the mind and causing an imb alance in the heart? But, the fear will be perpetuated as long as our transgression continues. As long as the Muslim lives in emulation of the kuffaar, he will never develop yaqeen in the promises which Allah makes in the Quran Shareef. He then looks askance to the kuffaar hoping against hope for the protection of aliens, but, he will be rudely shocked into realization. He will understand the reality when it will no longer avail; when it is too late for amends. We have made them our leaders, hence Allah has made them our rulers.


Muslim power and Muslim domination are not dependent on numerical superiority nor on the possession of an abundance of superior technology. Muslim might depends on the obtaining of Allah’s Pleasure which could be achieved only by climbing the spiritual ladder. When Muslims have attained the desired degree of moral and spiritual elevation, then Allah’s promise of aid will materialize. The Glorious Quran says:

“Soon will your Rabb destroy your enemies and install you as rulers in the land. Then will He see how you behave.” (Surah A ‘raaf aayat 129)

When Muslims learn to behave Islamically, they will see the change which they wish for. How a small and insignificant community can acquire political dominance should not be our worry. That is left to Allah Ta’ala. He enacts every episode on earth and elsewhere in the creation. The Holy Quran says: “There were many small groups who vanquished large armies with the permission of Allah.” (Surah Baqarah, aayat 249)

Thus the need is to purify and build our Imaan. The need is not to worry about voting. The need is not to participate in the systems which stand in conflict with the Shariah. Our direction to follow is not hazy. Siraatul Mustaqeem is a clear path for Muslims to follow. The verdict of the Shariah is clear: Do not participate in alien politics-politics which conflict with Allah’s Shariah. Turn to Allah Ta’ala. Reform your moral life. Develop yourself spiritually. Become an embodiment of virtue and see the transformation wh ich Allah Ta’ala will effect.

May Allah Ta’ala remove the blindness from our contaminated hearts and souls, Aameen yaa Rabbal aalameen.



Nabi Yusuf alaihis-salaam and Fir’oun’s government:

Among the spurious arguments used by certain modernist organizations to justify participation in non-Muslim politics, one is the one is the appointment of Nabi Yusuf alaihis-salaam as Administrator of the country’s Treasury and resources under the leadership of the Fir’oun of his time.

The proponents of non-Muslim politics argue that since Nabi Yusuf alaihis-salaam accepted a post in the government of Fir’oun without waiting for the Egyptian people to denounce paganism and embrace Islam, it follows that Muslims should not be hesitant to involve themselves in non-Muslim politics. They further claim that Nabi Yusuf s “seizing of the most important post in Fir’oun’s government” was designed to establish an Islamic state.

Our reply:

The postulations made in this claim are really devoid of any substance. In fact they are laughable. Firstly, it must be noted that the term Fir’oun was a title used for all Kings of Egypt in the past. There were some 34 Kings of Egypt that bore this title. The King in the time of Nabi Yusuf alaihis-salaam was not the same Fir’oun who ruled in the time of Nabi Moosa. For this reason, some Ulama aver that the Fir’oun of Nabi Yusuf was a pious person who had embraced the Deen of Islam. [Al-ahkaamus sultaniyyah p.75; Ma-aariful Quran 5:91] In that case, the whole argument of political involvement in a non-Muslim government falls flat on its face.

Secondly, on the assumption that this Fir’oun was a pagan or non-Muslim, the Ulama say that Nabi Yusuf had a completely free reign in managing and administrating the finances and food supplies of the country. He could act independently, and was not under any obligation to the Fir’oun. As a result of such freedom and control, no law of the Shariah of that time was flouted. Nabi Yusuf was at liberty to manage the affairs of his department in total conformity to his Shariah as revealed in that era. [Ma-aariful Quran 5:92; Qurtubi 9:215.] This is a far cry from the present political dispensation in non-Muslim governments. They have their own man-made constitutions, based on kufr policies, and all who serve in their governments are compelled to abide by such policies. We therefore fail to understand how this appointment of Nabi Yusuf alaihis-salaam could be used as an analogy for participation in non-Muslim government and politics.

In fact, it was due to Nabi Yusuf being able to fulfil his official tasks andduties in accordance with his Shariah, that proved his ability and competence to rule and later on earned him the entire Kingdom of Egypt.

In today’s age of spiritual decadence, it is indeed very remote in fact highly impossible to find a Muslim who can enter the field of non-Muslim politics and at the same time keep his Deeni principles intact, let alone effect an Islamic evolution in such governments. Hence, we have no hope of emulating the divinely orchestrated achievement of Hazrat Yusuf alaihis-salaam. No matter how great the feeling a Muslim may have for his Deen, under non-Muslim rule one is always heavily restricted in applying the Islamic concept of politics and government. Should such a situation develop today where a Muslim will be allowed to operate any governmental department in accordance with his Shariah then it would not only be permissible, but wajib for a Muslim to secure such a post. This however, is mere wishful thinking, as experience has shown.

The Holy Quran has given us clear guidance on this matter. It says:

“And whosoever does not rule according to what Allah has revealed, such people are unbelievers . (Surah Maa-idah)

In the next two verses such people are described as “oppressors and transgressors.”

“And when you dispute in any matter, its decision lies with (the Law of) Allah.” (Surah Shoora, aayat 10)

“And whatever the Rasool of Allah brings to you, grab hold of it; And whatever he prohibits, abstain therefrom;” (Surah Hashr , aayat 7)

“And when it is said onto them: ‘Come towards that which Allah has revealed and towards (the teachings of) his Rasool’, you see the hypocrites turning completely away from you.” (Surah Nisaa, Aayat 61)

Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said:

“There is no obedience to the creation in disobeying the Creator.” [Faizul Qadeer by Allama Manawi 6:433]

“What is wrong with people, they stipulate conditions and clauses which are not found in The Book of Allah! Any condition not found in the Book of Allah is null and void, be there a hundred such conditions. The Law of Allah takes precedence (over any other Law), and the conditions stipulated by Allah are most perfect (for practice).” [Bukhari Shareef vol.1 p.377 (Kitabush Shuroot)]

Whatever the circumstances may have been under which Nabi Yusuf accepted a post in a non-Muslim government, the fact of the matter is that we, the Ummat of Nabi Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam, are fully obliged shareef. to follow his Shariah, comprising of the Quran-e-Kareem and hadith shareef. Upon the advent of Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam all former Shariahs were abrogated, as the above citations amply demonstrate.

Al halful fadhool:

Another argument in support of political participation under non-Muslim government is the pact known as Al halful Fadhool. This was a pact taken during the period of jaahiliyyah, about fifteen years before nubuwwat. This pact came about as a result of an incident in which a trader from Yemen, of the Zubaid tribe, came to Makka to sell his wares. Aasi bin Waail, a businessman of stature and influence among the Qu raish, purchased his goods but refused to forward payment. The Zubaidi trader tried his utmost to extract his due from the Quraishi nobleman, but to no avail. When all efforts to secure payment had failed and he was in danger of losing all his wealth, the Zubaidi trader went up onto Mt. Abu Qubais from where he raised a hue and cry, calling out to the people of Makka for justice to be done. Senior members of the Quraish tribe came out to investigate the matter. Eventually these chiefs prevailed on the Quraishi business, who then effected immediate payment. This incident however, was quite disturbing to the Quraish chiefs.

They subsequently gathered in the house of one Abdullah bin Jud’aan and formed a mutual agreement, declaring solidarity with each other in securing the dues of people and aiding those whose rights have been withheld in the manner just witnessed. Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam, who was at that time about twenty five years old, was also among them and pledged his support for this pact. Several years later, alluding to this incident Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam remarked:

I witnessed (at that time), in the house of Abdullah bin Jud’aan, a pact which was dearer to me than the most beautiful of camels. And if I have to be invited to such a pact in Islam, I would most certainly respond. [Seerat Ibni Hisham, Rowdhul Unuf 1:90; Al Ahkaamus-sultaniyyah p.79; Al bidayah, Ibni Katheer 2:270]

The proponents of non-Muslim politics claim that just as Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam, in the course of this pact, aligned himself with the Quraish, who were kuffaar at that time, to sta oppression and injustice, mp out so is it permissible for Muslims to participate in the politics of the kuffaar. Moreover Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam expressed his inclination towards such an alliance even during the Islamic period.

Our reply:

The analogy employed here is wholly incorrect. The pact referred to was an event which transpired prior to the revelation of Allah’s Religion, Islam. At a time when the Arab world was plunged in darkness and oppression Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam was only too willing to participate in a venture which would ensure the fulfilment of huqooq or rights of people whom were wronged. This was the natural inclination of Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam since childhood. In fact, as he grew up in the surroundings of Makkah Mukarrama Nabi Muhammad Sallallahu alaihi wasallam earned a reputation of being one who cared for the poor and needy, helped the oppressed, and so forth. This great act of aiding the needy and extending help to the oppressed is the cornerstone of Islamic A’maal, hence Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam applauded this pact so highly many years later. It should be noted here that in his praise Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam was not referring to the act of participating in a joint venture with the kuffaar. Instead, his compliments were directed at the contents of that Noble pact, which, per se, were deeds of great virtue. For this reason The Messenger of Allah Sallallahu alaihi wasallam expressed his readiness to respond to a pact of that nature in Islam. This clearly means that he would prefer Muslims to initiate and organise such a pact, rather than joining kuffaar.

The basis upon which this pact was founded is in essence pure Islamic teaching. The entire pledge known as hal ful fadhool was based on practices totally in conformity to Islam. How then can we use this as a basis to justify participation in a system which is in total conflict with our Shariah? How can we as Muslims participate and become party to a lawmaking pr ocess which will enact laws and ordinances that Islam will have no hesitation in condemning as open zulm and usurpation of rights, such as the un Islamic institution of Ribaa, haraam taxation, expropriation of property, etc.? Whether the present regime remains in power, or an entirely new government is elected, the fact remains that none of either would represent the law of Islam, nor can this be expected of them. Any subsequent government will represent the law of kufr, over which no alliance or pact is Islamically permissible.

The halfhul fadhool never represented an agreement on any un-Islamic practice, whilst participation in non-Muslim politics is an alliance based on  anti-Shariah policies and law. Upon the perfection ofthe Deen of Islam, Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam upheld the good and noble practices which  existed in the times of jaahiliyyah, hence he states in one hadeeth shareef:

“Those who were the best among you during the jaahiliyyah era are the best during Islam, provided they obtain fiqah (of Deen).” (Bukhari, Muslim – Mishkaat p. 417)

Today, should the need arise for such a pact which is based on practices conforming to our Shariah, it would be entirely lawful for Muslims to enter  into such a pact with non-Muslims as long as no law of the Shariah is flouted and our Islamic identity is retained. Forging an alliance in which un-Islamic and anti-Shariah practices will occur is condemned in the following verse of the Quran-e-Kareem:

“And aid each other in good and piety, but do not assist each other in sin and transgression” (Surah Maaidah, verse 2).

The hijrat of Sahaaba to Abyssinia:

Another argument in favour of political participation in a non-Muslim government is the hijrat of the Sahaaba-e-Kiraam to Abyssinia where they sought and received asylum under the wing of King Najaashi (radhiyallahu anhu). The supposition here is that Najaashi was a non-Muslim (of the Christian faith) and the Sahaaba emigrated there to seek political asylum. Hence, participating with nonMuslims in a politically motivated venture or scheme becomes lawful.

Our reply:

Such superficial and shallow argumentation does not really warrant a reply. The fallacy of the argument presented here is selfevident and glaring. What has politics to do with this emigration, which was solely to escape the persecution of the Quraish in Makka and be able to practice their faith? The Sahaaba were not political figures. They were not involved in a political struggle against the Quraish of Makka. Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam time and again reminded the Quraish that he had not come to usurp power from the leaders.

The Sahaaba’s migration to Abyssinia and their request for protection in that country was not due to any political reasons. Taking refuge in Abyssinia was the lesser of the evils. The first evil was to live under a cruel, oppressive mushrik government in Makkah and be subjected to persecution and torture. In addition, they could not perform even Salat in public. They had to conceal their Deen.

The other “evil” was to live under the protection of a benevolent, pious king of the Ahl-e-Kitaab who accorded them honour, respect, protection and the full freedom to practice Islam.

It should be abundantly clear that the presence of the Muslims in Abyssinia was not participation in kufr politics. Rather, it was seeking refuge in a friendly country without participating in its politics. Since they knew of the noble reputation of King Najaashi, Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam felt the best course to avoid the persecu tion of the kuffaar was to seek the protection and sanctuary of his kingdom. For this reason the Sahaaba never became embroiled in the politics of his country, nor even in the battles that Najaashi waged against his enemies. Take the following example:

Hazrat Ummi Salma radhiyallahu anhaa (who was among the people that had migrated to Abyssinia) narrates: “When we had settled comfortably in Abyssinia, we found ourselves in a good land and in good company. We could worship our Lord in peace, until one day enemy forces arrived to confront King Najaashi and his people.

We had never yet experienced a bigger threat than this. We said to each other:- ‘If the opposing King defeats Najaashi, he (the enemy) will not grant us the same rights as were accorded to us by Najaashi’. We then all made sincere dua that Allah grant victory to Najaashi.  When the battle commenced Hazrat Zubair bin Awwaam radhiyallahu anhu volunteered to act as an observer and bring us the outcome of the conflict. In the meantime we all continued our supplications in earnest before Allah. After some time we noticed a rider splashing across the river Nile waving a cloth. It was Zubair bin Awwaam. As he approached he shouted out to us: “Good news! Allah has granted victory to Najaashi, and has destroyed his enemies, and Allah has once more established the rule of King Najaashi over Abyssinia.” [As-siyarul Kabeer of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan Shaibani rahmatullahi alaihi, vol.4 p. 14-24]

Furthermore, for argument’s sake, even if w e do accept political participation in this hijrat, the historians are unanimous that Najaashi had embraced Islam during the period that the Sahaaba were under his protection. Therefore, whatever support the Sahaaba gave to King Najaashi was based on the Deen of Islam. This should amply demonstrate that this incident can in no way be used to prove political participation by the Sahaaba in a non-Muslim government. Living under the rule and shelter of a non-Muslim government. Living under the rule and shelter of a non-Muslim government (as we find ourselves here in South Africa) cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed as participation in the political policies and legislation of the government of the day.

Does voting represent approval for the policies of a non-Muslim government?

Some have argued that voting for any political party does not constitute approval for the religion or beliefs of that party, nor does it signify that the voter has aligned himself with all the policies of that party. So, on this basis there should be no harm in voting.

In response to this we say:

While voting may not denote acceptance or ratification of any party’s aqaa-id (beliefs) the same cannot be said with regard to political policy and legislation. The electoral process entails voting into power a government that would enact and implement laws which are in direct conflict with the Shariah. When a Muslim therefore votes he automatically becomes one of the contributors to the political cause of the party for whom he has voted, a cause that is founded on anti-Shariah principles. Through the medium of his vote he has aided and abetted a non-Muslim Muslim party in its rise to state authority. Moreover, by casting his vote for a particular party the Muslim has actually vested in that party legislative rights, on the basis of which it (the party) would enact laws of kufr, should it come to power. It is therefore evident that the Muslim’s vote definitely  signifies blessing, support and backing for that party and whatever it stands for on the political front. In fact, Hazrat Mufti Shafee’ sahib rahmatullahi alaihi states in his tafseer Ma-aariful Quran (vol.2 p.498) that the sin incurred through intercession on behalf of evil is not dependent on the acceptance of such shafa’at or intercession. Even if the intercession was not effective at all, the mere act of voicing support for evil, or displaying willingness to support evil, is a sin in itself. This will not be the case however, should the Muslim have a valid Islamic motive, or pressing need (as defined by the Shariah) to vote for any particular party. We have explained earlier on, in the first section of this article, that there does not exist any expediency or exigency for a Muslim to participate in the political processes that are being evolved in this country.

Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud radhiyallahu anhu narrates that Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: “Whosoever increases (or adds to) the number of a people, is (regarded as) one of them.” [Al-Maqaasidul Hasana of Allama Sagaawi, p.667; Fathul Baari 13:37.]

According to Allama Badrud-Deen Aini, this hadeeth will even apply to a person who unintentionally or unwittingly enlists himself in a group thereby causing their numbers to swell.




Q. Is it permissible to allow non-Muslims into a Musjid? In response to this question, the Darul Ifta of Azaadville said:

If entering the Masjid is permitted for a Kaafir as explained above, there is no harm in them viewing the Masjid particularly when done with the Niyyah of giving them Dawat towards Islam. Obviously, giving them Dawat means that we simply invite them towards the oneness of Allah and the Risaalat (prophethood) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and not to engage in any sort of interfaith dialogues as has become rife in various places. (End of Azaadville’s fatwa)

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

In several articles have we explained the impermissibility of allowing non-Muslims into the Musjid. These articles are available on our website. It will suffice here to say that the Darul Ifta has erred in its view. Da’wat to the kuffaar is never reliant on inviting them to the Musjid.

Although the Mufti Sahib says: “not to engage in any sort of interfaith dialogues as has become rife in various places”, he has portrayed short-sightedness and lack of wisdom.  Shaitaan is a cunning ustaadh. He initiates his plot with permissibilities, in fact, with even masnoon acts. Only purified Aql fortified with the noor of Taqwa is able to detect the subtle snares of Iblees. To save people from zina, Allah Ta’ala commanded them to abstain from such permissibilities which lead to zina, hence the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Do not come near to zina.”

The Mufti Sahib has not applied his mind in his fatwa. Non-Muslims entering the Musaajid in our era are not rare occasions or isolated acts. They are nowadays invading the Musaajid with the consent of the trustees, the ulama-e-soo’, and short-sighted Muftis, in droves.  Tourist buses bring droves of kuffaar wallowing in janaabat and kufr, and dressed lewdly – men and women – to do some sight-seeing in the Musaajid. The molvis in the Musaajid dupe themselves with their ‘dawah’ stupid argument. The male musallis stare lustfully at the kuffaar women dressed immodestly. The entire atmosphere in the Musjid is polluted with fisq, fujoor and najaasat.

The first step in the plot of Iblees was to convince the molvis and muftis with the ‘dawah’ chimera. Gradually, it developed into interfaith dialogue right inside the Musjid. Then the situation deteriorated. Instead of giving them da’wah, the kuffaar give da’wah of Christianity to Muslims right inside the Musjid. This was recently a shaitaani accomplishment in a Musjid in England.

Degenerating further into the cauldron of kufr, the priest ridiculed the Qur’aan Majeed and denigrated Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) right inside the Musjid which had a full-house of musallis, all listening attentively to the kufr preachings of the priests and the insults to Islam. Not a word of protest escaped the lips of a single musalli on that vile occasion created by the Imaam of the Musjid.

The situation has deteriorated further. Now Muslims in New Zealand, drunk with bootlicking and fearful of their own shadows, have invited Christians to sing hymns of shirk and kufr right inside the Musjid. And, the situation is set to deteriorate further when actual cross-worship by Muslims will take place inside the Musjid. Anyone who denies this reality is a kaafir because this is Rasulullah’s prediction. Qiyaamah is in close proximity of our era.

We have today reached this deplorable state of kufr and shirk being accepted inside the Musaajid as a consequence of zig-zag and downright baatil fatwas issued by moron muftis and the ulama-e-soo’ who have their own pernicious agendas. In fact, they are without Imaan. They have absolutely no fear for Allah Ta’ala. Thus they fear their shadows and bootlick the kuffaar.

It is indeed lamentable that Muftis, even sincere ones, of this era are so disgracefully short-sighted to fail to discern the danger in issuing fatwas based on just any permissibility. They lack the ability of applying the mind, and that is because they have hitherto failed to understand the meaning of Taqwa for themselves. Today, branding carrion as haraam, is a ‘taqwa’ not fatwa for these muftis who have lost the Path – Siraatul Mustaqeem.

Once when Hadhrat Shah Abdul Aziz (Rahmatullah alayh) was giving a bayaan to his mureeds and some Ulama, two persons from the public entered and sought a fatwa. The one said: ‘Today my friend drank water which was the left-over of an Englishman. What is the fatwa?” Hadhrat Shah Sahib adopting a very sombre attitude said that since this issue was extremely delicate, it will take time to search for the fatwa. He told them to return for the fatwa after a couple of days. The audience consisting of Ulama, was surprised. The fatwa according to the Shariah is simple. If the kaafir’s mouth was paak (taahir), the water remains paak, hence there was no concern. If his mouth was impure due to liquor or haraam food, then obviously the water was impure. Why did Shah Sahib adopt this strange strategy? But no one had the courage to question him.

On the appointed day, the two chaps came for their fatwa. Shah Sahib said: “The fatwa is Tajdeed-e-Imaan (i.e. renewal of Imaan. By implication he had become a murtadd); Tajdeed-e-Nikah (renewal of his marriage).” Shah Sahib furthermore prescribed some penances to be performed as an expiation (kaffarah) for having drunk the water which had touched the lips of the Englishman. The two persons being sincere, were satisfied. They left and observed the prescription and the penalty.

When the surprised Ulama questioned Hadhrat Shah Sahib, he responded: “By this measure, I have saved their Imaan.”

Muftis should reflect, apply their minds and not acquit themselves like morons enslaved to the nafs. The objective of fatwa is not to ruin the morals of Muslims and to open the avenue for fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. A Mufti should be far-sighted. He should be able to fathom the one who poses a question and not pander to the vagaries of people. But bootlicking has become an ingrained disease in the Ulama of today, in even the sincere ones, hence they all are in line for Allah’s Athaab. About them, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“Beware of such a punishment which will overtake not only the transgressors among you.” It will overtake and utterly destroy even the molvis and the buzroogs who excelled in bootlicking and accommodating baatil.

The muftis who have legalized entry into the Musaajid for kuffaar wallowing in janaabat and kufr are the culprits who are laying the foundation for cross-worship in the Musaajid.


By Mujlisul Ulama


Several Brothers have made queries regarding our silence on the New Zealand massacre of Muslims. In a nutshell, their query is:

Numerous Muslim organizations have commented on and condemned the carnage which took place in two Musjids in New Zealand. However, The Majlis has adopted an unexpected silence. What is the view of the Shariah on the carnage which has taken place in New Zealand. It is an issue of great importance affecting the Ummah. The silence of The Majlis is mystifying. Please comment.


We are not a member of the Bootlicking liberal and modernist groups and mudhil ulama-e-soo’. It is not among our traits to jump onto stupid bandwagons and participate in stupid circus shows churning up dust and making vociferous howlings emanating from uncinated brains convoluted with the kufr of liberalism.

Insha-Allah, we shall publish the Shariah’s view regarding the New Zealand massacre in our own time when all the stupidities disgorged by silly brains have settled. We shall do so, Insha-Allah, when everyone has forgotten the tragedy. Now currently, liberal and modernists Muslims and deviated molvis are all issuing bootlicking statements which have no validity in the Deen. All of them fail to take into account the decree of Allah Ta’ala.

“And He is aware of what is in the ocean and on the land. And not a leaf drops (from a tree), but He is aware. There is not a seed in the darkness of the earth nor anything moist or dry, but it is recorded in a Clear Book.” (Qur’aan)

Da’wah Carriers are not ‘Angels’!

By Abu Yusuf

There is this persona that those who carry the da’wah have to be almost sinless!?

They have to be Brave like Khalid bin Walid (radhiyallahu Anhu), Knowledgeable like Ayesha (radhiyallahu Anha), Wise like Abu Bakr as-Siddique (radhiyallahu anhu), Generous like Uthman ibn Affan (radhiyallahu anhu), Pious like Abu Dhar al-Ghifari (radhiyallahu anhu), Firm like ‘Umar al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu), Genius like Ali ibn Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu), Astute like Salman Farsi (radhiyallahu anhu), Fearless like Bilal ibn Rabah (radhiyallahu anhu)…

Let me make it very clear there’ll never be da’wah carriers like that of the Prophets’ (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) companions!

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says about them, “And (as for) the foremost (as-sabiqoona), the first of the muhaajireen and the ansar, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; that is the mighty achievement” [TMQ 9:100]

Todays da’wah carriers will sin more and seek to repent, will do more mistakes and learn from it and will continue the da’wah despite their shortcomings for Imam at-Tabarani (rahimahullah) reports a sound hadith in his ‘Aswat’ that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “…you should command others to do ma’ruf even if you do not do it all and you should forbid from the munkar even if you do not abstain from it all”

So do not seek to belittle them, put them down or humiliate them! If you wish to advise them then seek to make them better da’wah carriers not cease their da’wah! They carry this da’wah as an amanah, wish goodness for this Ummah and seek to please their Rabb Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.

And yes, they do not make their weaknesses an excuse but desire to rectify it for they have aspirations to be counted amongst the mujajdideen, al-ghurabah, al-awliyyah, at ta’ifah al mansoorah and to be with their imaam al-muttaqeen, as-sayeed al mursaleen, khaatim al-ambiyah Muhammad ibn Abdullah sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam.

Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) reports a sound hadith in his Musnad that Rasulullah (saws) said: “I would love that I could see my brothers.” The sahaba (radhiyallahu Anhum) asked: “Are we not your brothers?” He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied: “You are my companions, but my brothers are those who believe in me and have not seen me.” in another narration, “They are not from us and they are not from you. You are my companions but they are my beloved”