The central argument against voting is based on the premise that Islam forbids the believers (Muslims) to legislate, this is the sole right of creator, numerous Quranic verses and Hadiths clearly supports that position. Whereas in a democracy, the people are sovereign, they are represented by the elected MPs in the Parliament who make the laws on their behalf. Thus, they argue Muslims cannot participate in the legislative process directly as MPs or indirectly by voting for any candidate, thereby endorsing a non-Islamic system.
However, this is a simplistic viewpoint as it overlooks the fundamental difference between a Muslim society and a non-Muslim society. The textual evidences obliging the Muslims to rule by Islam is addressing the believers collectively, where they have power and authority. This has to be the case rationally, because to implement the laws, one has to have the ability to do that in the first place.
Therefore, to apply the verses, HT should lead by example and try to acquire power in the UK, or migrate to a Muslim country where it is more practical to do that. But, HT members will do neither! Moreover, HT has specifically stated many times that they are not seeking to establish an Islamic government in the UK to apply those evidences. If you are not willing to do that, then how can you demand from others to do this here? This is an inconsistent position.
(Yusuf) There is a lack of clarity here, which I would welcome some clarification on:
The texts related to sovereignty belonging to Allah alone are general and not specific to a place or time, whatever the reality it is therefore forbidden for man to legislate or to allow another to this on your behalf, as in the form of a wakaala contract. If you are prohibited from doing something, by the same token you cannot delegate someone to do so on your behalf.
Therefore where an individual is concerned, the texts oblige them to refer to the hukm shar’ii and not to engage in contracts that involve haram.
Can you therefore clarify why it is necessary to draw up a distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim country? What specifies the text to specific actions or specific places?
(Yamin) Firstly, it is only forbidden for Muslims to legislate, for non-Muslims the Sharia laws are not applicable. Secondly, I never denied the generality of the text; I was referring to application of the text and the conditions for it. The issue of acquiring power to implement the Islamic Rule is self-evident.
(Yusuf) It is not about the applicability of shariah laws upon the individual actions of non-Muslims, it is about whether it is permitted to contract with someone upon what we are forbidden to do, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. So if I cannot lie, I cannot get a non-Muslim to lie on my behalf. This is not related to the non-Muslim, but our actions. Can we delegate an MP to contribute to lawmaking on our behalf?
(Yamin) By voting you are not authorizing the MPs to legislate – that system already exist and you are trying to function as best as you can within it. If you don’t vote, the process of someone legislating on your behalf will still take place. You authorize this legislative process not by voting but by your PRESENCE and OBIEDIANCE to the system. As I said, every single HT member is an excellent democratic citizen who is peaceful, law-abiding, and tax-paying – all are making valuable contribution to the democratic system in UK. This you cannot deny.
The distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim country stems from common sense, and also in the classical law, thus you have Dar-ul-Islam and Darl-ul-Harb etc. Your party also makes this distinction as only Muslim countries are suitable for the Caliphate, the more extreme HT members says only the Arab world is suitable!
(Yamin) – If you looked below your response you would have seen that I clarified the point of contract. The contract is NOT established through votes. It is already established by your conduct, as you live as a law abiding citizen, you agree for the Parliament to legislate on your behalf, otherwise you would rebel!
The process of legislation is independent of voting. If 90% of the people do not turn up, they will continue to legislate on your behalf. The voting merely (or may) allow you to decide who will be the executor and may allow them to carry some of their promises – It allows you to have say in the process which you have already CONTRACTED to!