Voting=Shirk? Please Clarify

[Goswami 246]

 

I have come across a debate between some Shias recently. Most of them were  usooli. However, there were some who belonged to Akhbari school of thought. Akhbari community claimed that voting in a democratic system is tantamount to shirk. Usooli community didn't concur with this narrative. Nevertheless, usooli community failed to defend their stance in my opinion. I believe they could have adduced better arguments but they couldn't and many arguments of the Akhbari community were left unanswered. Equating voting to shirk is something very very odd to me. I believe it is a very regressive approach. No rational person will agree with this stance in my opinion. To this reason, I am putting forward the main arguments of Akhbari community that were left unanswered. I hope knowledgeable brothers and sisters will clarify this issue in detail. Following are the main points of their arguments.

1- Voting in a democratic country and allowing a person to rule over you is shirk. It is because according to Shia school of thought only God has the right to choose a leader and a leader is Divinely appointed. People have no right to choose a leader for them. Role of an Imam and a President is same I.e. to rule over people. Only the titles are different. How it is different from the incident of saqifah where people denied rulership of a Divinely Appointed Imam and selected a fallible leader for themselves by themselves.

2- l-Fudail reported that Imam As-Sadiq (a.) said, "He who claims leadership even though he is not one of its owners is an infidel." [Al-Kafi of Al-Kulaini, Volume 1 Page 372 Hadith 2]

3-Sawrah Ibn Kulaib reported that he asked Imam Al-Baqir (a.) about the verse: "And on the Day of Resurrection you see the faces of those who lied against God turning black. Is there not in hell a abode for the arrogant?" (39:60) He said: "He who says, "I am an Imam". And he is not an Imam." I said: "Even if he is a descendant of Ali (a.)". He said: "Even if he is a descendant of Ali (a.)". I said: "Even if he is a son of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.)". He said: "Even if he is." [Al-Kafi of Al-Kulaini, volume 1 page 372 Hadith 1]

4- In Wasail ul Shia there are traditions which say that Government is only for a Divinely Appointed Imam. Therefore, by voting you and electing a fallible leadership you are going against the teaching of Imams.

5- A Shia should only vote if government of the area uses oppression and forces people to vote otherwise it is shirk.

6- No Hadith or Verse of Qur'an says that we are obligated to obey the Laws of Land. 

 

@Qa'im @SoRoUsH @Ibn al-Hussain

[Abu Hadi 8,753]

Salam. When we vote, we are not giving our Bayyat (allegience) to the government. Also, we do not consider them to be our leaders. If you vote with the Niyyat that this XYZ National Government is your leader, like the Imam(a.f.s) is your leaders, and you accept all their policies, then you shouldn't vote. Most people don't vote with this Niyyat. 

The rational Muslim and follower of Ahl Al Bayt recognizes that they live in a country where they only way you can have a say in what happens in the country is if you vote. So they vote so that they can have a voice. That is why I encourage all the brothers and sisters who are able, and able to have the correct Niyyat when they vote, to vote. That way, as Muslims and as followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) we can affect the policies of the country where we live. If you don't vote, you have no voice and no say. That is the reality. So we shouid vote for that reason.

[AmirioTheMuzzy 407]

Our religion puts huge emphasis on contributing to society... so...

[Mahdavist 947]

I abstain from voting altogether because I can never endorse or support something that is not purely Islamic and this can only be guaranteed by an infallible Imam.

Wallahu a'lam 

[Goswami 246]

59 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Our religion puts huge emphasis on contributing to society... so...

I understand but the point is they adduce some Ahadith which say that Fallible has no right to form government. How to understand those Ahadith?

[aaaz1618 1,748]

I have heard both sides of the argument, I vote sometimes, but very rarely and I won't vote for parties I know don't have the interests of Muslims and minorities at heart.

[Mohammadi_follower 1,502]

1 hour ago, Goswami said:

I understand but the point is they adduce some Ahadith which say that Fallible has no right to form government. How to understand those Ahadith?

I understand that but we don’t need some form of government anyway for ruling society ?

[notme 18,791]

1 hour ago, Goswami said:

I understand but the point is they adduce some Ahadith which say that Fallible has no right to form government. How to understand those Ahadith?

So then what? Anarchy? That is unsustainable. 

If the people don't at least try to choose who will serve as government, tyrants and kings will take over. 

We know it will be imperfect - actually very, very far from perfect - but we have to try. 

[Mohammadi_follower 1,502]

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I abstain from voting altogether because I can never endorse or support something that is not purely Islamic and this can only be guaranteed by an infallible Imam.

Wallahu a'lam 

I am partially agree with you because I think some religious scholars could also help to build a good Islamic society even if that would be less good than a society guided by an infaillible Imam.

[Goswami 246]

1 hour ago, notme said:

So then what? Anarchy? That is unsustainable. 

If the people don't at least try to choose who will serve as government, tyrants and kings will take over. 

We know it will be imperfect - actually very, very far from perfect - but we have to try. 

I agree completely with whatever you are saying but I am seeking the context and understanding of the Ahadith which say that fallibles are not allowed to form any government. Some Akhbari people say if we fallible people will form any government then we are no different than Abu bakar and Umar who were the first to deny infallible rulership and were the first to lay the foundation of fallible leadership through vote of masses. 

[Goswami 246]

4 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I abstain from voting altogether because I can never endorse or support something that is not purely Islamic and this can only be guaranteed by an infallible Imam.

Wallahu a'lam 

No system can be purely Islamic in the absence of an Infallible Imam be it democracy , autocracy or monarchy . Let us suppose I live in India . So can I vote for Congress in order to stop BJP from coming into power because they are oppressive toward Muslim community provided the fact that the policies of Congress itself are also not Islamic ?

[notme 18,791]

2 hours ago, Goswami said:

Some Akhbari people say if we fallible people will form any government then we are no different than Abu bakar and Umar who were the first to deny infallible rulership

There is a difference between rebelling against the ordained infallible Islamic government and attempting to maintain order in the absence of incorruptible leadership. 

[Mahdavist 947]

2 hours ago, Goswami said:

No system can be purely Islamic in the absence of an Infallible Imam be it democracy , autocracy or monarchy . Let us suppose I live in India . So can I vote for Congress in order to stop BJP from coming into power because they are oppressive toward Muslim community provided the fact that the policies of Congress itself are also not Islamic ?

I can't say much about this brother, I don't have sufficient knowledge on how the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) have addressed such issues.

Personally I could never vote for Congress, Labour, Democrats, Socialist parties in Europe or any other party in the world that my fellow Muslim brethren perceive as 'the lesser of two evils' 

As a side note, the popular Muslim view that left wing parties are more Muslim friendly is itself a flawed concept because these parties are often the ones pushing legislation that goes against our religious laws.

Wallahu a'lam 

[Follower of Ahlulbayt 260]

I think voting is mostly justified with the concept of "lesser of the two evils"

[Goswami 246]

2 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I think voting is mostly justified with the concept of "lesser of the two evils"

Are we allowed to opt the lesser of the two evils according to the teachings of Ahlul Bait (عليه السلام) ?

[Follower of Ahlulbayt 260]

3 minutes ago, Goswami said:

Are we allowed to opt the lesser of the two evils according to the teachings of Ahlul Bait (عليه السلام) ?

Its more of a rational concept I think. Haven't seen any narrations on it.

I've seen Sunnis argue for the permissibility of voting with this concept.

[Goswami 246]

1 minute ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Its more of a rational concept I think. Haven't seen any narrations on it.

I've seen Sunnis argue for the permissibility of voting with this concept.

They don't argue in support of this by this logic. They vindicate it using verse of Shura in Qur'an 

[Reza 10,490]

11 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I abstain from voting altogether because I can never endorse or support something that is not purely Islamic and this can only be guaranteed by an infallible Imam.

Wallahu a'lam 

There are many arguments people use to not vote, but the one you’re giving doesn’t make sense. 

You’re conflating concepts and comparing apples to oranges here. 

[Goswami 246]

1 hour ago, Reza said:

There are many arguments people use to not vote, but the one you’re giving doesn’t make sense. 

You’re conflating concepts and comparing apples to oranges here. 

Brother what is your take on the OP ? 

[Reza 10,490]

31 minutes ago, Goswami said:

Brother what is your take on the OP ? 

I agree with Abu Hadi.

[Revert1963 407]

During Friday prayers in the mosque I went to yesterday, they actually showed a commercial for two different candidates from two different pro Muslim parties that they recommended that people vote for in the up coming elections. This mosque actually has a policy of encouraging people to vote. In a country where Islamophobic parties is on the rise it is important that someone stands up for the rights of Muslims. (It's is a 12'er mosque)
It isn't so that the opinions referred to in the OP isn't present though. On the mosque's social media page a video was shared the other day with a young girl who apparently was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir or relaying some of their views, claiming that it was haram to vote in elections because it is against Allah's prerogative to rule. The video was mostly met with claims that she was brainwashed and that this is not Saudi-Arabia.

[Goswami 246]

Is the following Hadith talking about electing a Divine leader or any leader? @Cake @Ibn Al-Ja'abi


Imam Mahdi ((عليه السلام).), when Sa’d b. ‘Abdillah al-Qummi asked him the reason why people cannot elect an Imam for themselves, replied, ‘Would he be a righteous man or a corrupt man?’ I said, ‘Righteous.’ He said, ‘Is it possible that the selected individual be actually corrupt, for no one really knows what passes through another’s mind, in terms of their righteousness or corruption?’ I said, ‘Yes’. He said, ‘That is the reason why.’[Nur al-Thaqalayn, v. 2, p. 76, no. 283]

 

Edited June 1 by Goswami

[Reza 10,490]

Voting is one mechanism of giving influence (which is small). So are voicing opinions, using media, and donating/spending money. Or really just existing and exerting that existence. And like @Abu Hadi said, none of this should not be confused with bayyat. And why is voting being singled out as different from the other things? 

Government in a nation-state is no different than electing board members for a mosque, non-profit, or school board. They are all organizations with heirarchies, needs for leadership, and have a set of specific (although important) responsibilities. And as far as I know, none of them claim any role equivalent to Imamate (which we know is beyond simple administrative rule, but is much deeper), nor are they in competition. Meaning there’s no conflict. 

If people refuse to vote in a government election, then that could extend to not giving consent towards anything else as well, if that’s the principle. Your family votes on who should pick up dinner, and you say, “No, I trust only an infallible Imam to know what food is best, so I’m not voting”. 

So I’m confused about the “I don’t vote because there’s no infallible Imam” argument, because this is propping up a false dichotomy. Also sounds more Jehovah Witness than Islamic. 

[Ashvazdanghe 6,183]

Salam 

Seven reasons of akhbaris

The seven reasons are as follows: The first reason for opposition to the Islamic Party is the lack of a message. They say that for the present day, we have no reason from Quranic verses, nor from narratives. Therefore, there is no basis for religious legitimacy.

The second reason is that the Qur'an has always referred negatively to a party, group, cult, and so on, and has considered it a factor of division.

The third reason is that the party is in conflict with the jurisprudence of the Velayat-e faqih and it is in conflict with the practice.

The fourth reason for the Akhbari scholars is that they say: the favor of the interests of the party, it is preferable to the general interest, and according to the Qur'an's view, "each faction boasting about what it possessed ."

The fifth reason for them is that the party is destroying the freedom and will of the members.

They argue on the sixth basis that party affiliation eliminates the meritocratic system,

the seventh reason is that party with all these shortcomings and disadvantages, if it has few benefits,it  is not preferred (morally corrupted)

http://fa.abna24.com/news/ابنای-شهرستان-ها/مهاجرنیا-کسانی-که-در-چارچوب-نظام-قرار-می-گیرند-را-داخل-احزا_752579.html

استاد مهاجرنیا  رویکرد دوم مخالفت با تحزب اسلامی را به برخی از شریعت گرایان اخباری مسلک نسبت داد و دلایل هفت گانه آنها را به شرح ذیل بیان کرد:  دلیل اول‌ برای مخالفت با حزب اسلامی فقدان نص است. آن‌ها می‌گویند که ما برای حزب امروزی نه از آیات قرآن دلیلی داریم و نه از روایات. بنابراین تحزب پایه مشروعیت دینی ندارد. دلیل دوم این است که قرآن همیشه از حزب، گروه، فرقه و... به‌بدی یاد کرده است و آن را عامل تفرقه دانسته است. دلیل سوماین است که حزب با ادلۀ ولایت فقیه تعارض و در مقام عمل تزاحم دارد.دلیل چهارم اخباری مسلکان  این است که می گویند: در تحزب منافع حزبی بر منافع عمومی ترجیح داده می‌شود و بر اساس دیدگاه قرآن « کل حزب بما لدیهم فرحون» است.دلیل پنجم آنان این است حزب باعث سلب آزادی و اراده از اعضا می‌شود. آنان در دلیل ششم می گویند که وابستگی حزبی نظام شایسته‌سالاری را از بین می برد، هفتمین دلیل  آنان این است که تحزب  با این همه کاستی و معایب اگر مزایای اندکی هم داشته باشد، مرجوح هستند.

http://fa.abna24.com/news/ابنای-شهرستان-ها/مهاجرنیا-کسانی-که-در-چارچوب-نظام-قرار-می-گیرند-را-داخل-احزا_752579.html

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/30:32

Edited June 2 by Ashvazdanghe

[Follower of Ahlulbayt 260]

On 6/1/2019 at 5:37 AM, Goswami said:

Are we allowed to opt the lesser of the two evils according to the teachings of Ahlul Bait (عليه السلام) ?

Although I still haven't come across any explicit and direct report which says "opt the lesser of the two evils", it has just occurred to me that this is definitely from the teachings of Ahl al-Bayt. 

How? Well, we know the Imams (a) taught the concept of Taqiyya and they practised it themselves. What is Taqiyya? It is literally an instance of the concept of "lesser of the two evils". Yes, lying for no good reason is evil, but when you are faced with another option which is more evil, then lying becomes permissible. The Imams would not even publicly announce their own Imamah if their lives would be at risk. Yes, not announcing their Imamah is evil. But when the preservation of their life is at stake, then they must "opt for the lesser of the two evils"

Although, for voting it is lot less clear for me. 

One political group may be kinder to Muslims and not racist. Although, they allow gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia. 

The other group, completely is against Muslims and completely racist, although they don't allow gay marriage, abortion or euthanasia.

Which one is the lesser of the two evils? 

[Reza 10,490]

47 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Which one is the lesser of the two evils? 

Why are we assuming there’s only two choices? 

[Follower of Ahlulbayt 260]

2 minutes ago, Reza said:

Why are we assuming there’s only two choices? 

I guess it doesn't have to be only two evils. 

Basically, if you are faced with many evil choices, then you should go with the least evil decision. 

Edited June 2 by Follower of Ahlulbayt

[notme 18,791]

3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Which one is the lesser of the two evils? 

Hatred is always the greater evil. 

[Vindemiatrix 726]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Goswami said:

1- Voting in a democratic country and allowing a person to rule over you is shirk.

They do not rule over you. Saying that is idiotic. 

On 5/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Goswami said:

"He who claims leadership even though he is not one of its owners is an infidel."

Which leadership? They just take responsibility for some legal matters.. I don't "follow" them and they have no control or legal power over me... They too are citizens... 

On 5/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Goswami said:

6- No Hadith or Verse of Qur'an says that we are obligated to obey the Laws of Land. 

Again we must use our brain here. If a law goes against Islam you disobey unless it puts your life in danger. If if doesn't argue with Islam where is the problem in obeying to avoid unnecessary punishment?? 

On 5/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Goswami said:

Government is only for a Divinely Appointed Imam.

The key word being government. It must mean the government of the Imam meaning that in the end there will be the one and only government or that the Imams government is the true government, but his government is not currently established (May Allah hasten the establishment). 

On 5/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Goswami said:

5- A Shia should only vote if government of the area uses oppression and forces people to vote otherwise it is shirk.

See above (it's not Shirk)