b) Voting is haram, but what about the application of non-Islamic laws?
Following on from the above argument of the obligation to rule by the divine laws implies that the anti-Voting groups should only resort to the application of non-Islamic laws out of necessity or duress. Yet, they are now seeking to overturn a ban1 imposed in Germany by going to the German courts and seek judgement from non-Islamic (Kufr) laws. This is far from a life and death situation, it does not even constitute duress or hardship. The boycott imposed on the Prophet and his companions created very harsh conditions, yet, they did not seek judgment in the tribal courts of the pagan Arabs.
(Yusuf) As far as I am aware the basis for the permissibility of going to a non-Islamic court is that you can if the subject matter of the judgment is a right that the shariah has allowed. If a judgment is being sought on a right that the shariah does not recognise, then it would be prohibited to seek judgment of the courts of kufr. Therefore it’s the subject matter not the court.
Going to a court to provide a judgment on a right that the shariah recognises is one thing, but asking an MP/government minister/parliament to legislate a new law is a completely different thing.
Do you disagree there is a difference?
(Yamin) When you seek your rights by going to the non-Islamic courts, it means you are subjecting yourself to non-Islamic laws. This is an admission that Sharia laws permits in certain situation like ours to seek judgment from non-Islamic laws. If you consent to the point that you can go apply non-Islamic laws for your rights; then surely you can also participate to ensure that non-Islamic courts are favorable to you, thus to do that you need to have a say or try to influence in the formulation of the laws. This is what you are doing for example by lobbying the MPs and trying to prevent the ban on HT. This is a form of legislation. Thus, my position is consistent.
In contrast, you are saying we keep away from voting – but we should try enjoy its fruits. I am telling you that if you want to enjoy the fruits you better look after the tree too!
(Yusuf) A distinction needs to be made between legislation which is the domain of parliament and the executive and the judiciary which implements laws.
The Judiciary implements these laws, they do not legislate.
If I take someone to court on a right which the shariah recognises, this is not the same as asking for men to make laws. lawmaking and judgment are two different things both in the general definition and from the perspective of Islam. Your use of the rational evidences and logic is causing you to conflate the two. If you ask someone to make a law for you this is part of legislation. Going to a court to seek a right that the shariah has recognised and permitted is permitted and speaking to an MP in order to convince him about a matter which is permitted is hardly legislation. Please clarify why you think it is?
After lecturing the Muslims in the UK with the verses like “Judge by what Allah has revealed” they are now seeking judgement from non-Islamic courts. A vote may or may not lead to someone being elected, then it may or may not led to the person legislating, but actively seeking remedy by non-Islamic laws for a non-essential issue is a more severe violation of the principle of not judging by what Allah has revealed.
(Yusuf) Please refer to the above statements, the point is that the action should be judged its own merits devoid of the emotiveness a particular reality may evoke.
(Yamin) That is not the point I am making – look above.
(Yusuf) Read my point about the distinction between judgment and legislation.
And the claim of a non-essential issue is not relevant to the issue at hand. The criterion is based upon whether the case taken to a court is a right recognised by the shariah.
So your whole argument hinges on I can do this because you are doing this and my action is not as bad as yours. This is not the correct basis, take the issue on its own merits rather than based upon what HTB are doing. This is not proof, this is logical deduction where the premise is flawed.
(Yamin) Highlighting the difference between legislation and application of the laws legislated in the courts does not answer the point. Laws are legislated, so that they are applied in the courts where you seek your judgment; the two are inexorably linked, unless you think people legislate for academic reasons.
As you say, Sharia gives you right to seek judgment for your rights in a non-Islamic courts, then you have a duty to ensure that those courts will uphold those rights and that they are not being eroded. How will you ensure this? Your answer is let the courts and legal system erode in this country as the MPs can legislate as they want and we don’t want to get involved, and all you will do seek those rights in the courts regardless. That is irrational.
I repeat again as you failed to address this in the previous post by highlighting the difference between legislation and execution of the laws (executive and judiciary).