c) The hype of participation
The main reason given behind the prohibition to vote in a non-Islamic society is participating and endorsing a man made system. HT has missed something fundamental. The vote does not endorse the system, which already exists and will continue to exist regardless of the number of participants in the general election. Therefore, the political system is independent of the number of people participating in voting.
(Yusuf) If this logic were to be followed, could someone conceivably argue that banks already exist, if we give or take interest they will still exist, therefore participation in riba should be acceptable. You may say, rightly that riba has been specifically prohibited, but so has legislating by other than what Allah has revealed.
(Yamin) No, that is not what I am saying. Look above in bold. Let me put it this way, voting is not endorsement of the system. That’s all I am saying above. Where as your (HT) argument has been ONLY voting is endorsement but obeying the laws, paying taxes etc are all excused.
(Yusuf) My argument is not about endorsement of the system, I am trying to narrow down the discussion to whether the wakaala contract between the voter and MP is valid based upon what the MP does, that is to legislate.
I would be grateful if you could answer the question?
Moreover, we are all participants by default as law-abiding citizens. By abstaining from voting, one also contributes to the election result.
(Yusuf) The point is the action of voting itself, not the decision not to vote which does not contribute to the result as far as the hukm shar’ii is concerned, but it is accepted that not voting may affect the result from the reality.
(Yamin) Again this is point about reality, not Hukm Shar’I. I am saying it is flawed to say by not voting we are not participating. You are a participant by your action of being here as a law abiding and tax-paying citizen.
(Yusuf) That is why I feel your reality standpoint is not correct, Is it permissible to obey the law as long as it’s in an area in which the hukm shar’I has permitted? Yes. Each issue should be taken on its own merits, not based upon flawed logic which conflates issues which are not the same. Your ‘participation’ line is not a strong one because it lumps together too many issues, each have their own reality and each one has a different hukm because of the difference.
....... (this bit is taken out as it discusses the issue of lobbying MPs)
But, why restrict participation to voting? On that premise, other forms of participation that makes greater contribution to the system should also be wrong. We know, real participation and endorsement of the system is done through giving obedience, and paying the taxes, which is the fuel for the system. It would collapse if the masses refused to pay tax or gave mass disobedience; in contrast, even if the entire country did not vote, it would have negligible impact on the system in place.
HT members may not vote, but for sure every single member is an excellent law abiding and taxpaying ‘democratic’ citizen, who are actively making valuable contribution to the functioning of the political system in the UK at the highest level.
To answer this inconsistency, they say paying tax is a matter of coercion. Nobody is literally forced to pay tax, one has the choice not to work, and survive comfortably on government benefit. Similarly, they can also disobey the law and go to prison, which is the best position in line with their argument of not supporting or endorsing the system, as they will make the least contribution inside a prison. Furthermore, the system will be supporting them and their families putting greater burden on it.
(Yusuf) There is no ikhtilaaf that working for ones rizq is an obligation. If taxes are therefore taken from this, how can I be culpable Islamically. The whole issue should not be boiled down to supporting or not supporting the system, this is a false premise. The issue is about the hukm shar’I of an action in its own right.
(Yamin) Up till now you attempted to answer, but now you are just screaming. Firstly you can still earn your rizq inside the prison, they will support you adequately. As long as you can meet your needs that should be enough. Secondly the argument of supporting or endorsing the system is put forward by your fellow members. Thirdly you failed to address the point about restricting participation. Fourthly do you deny that HT members are excellent democratic citizen who are making good contribution towards British Democracy?
(Yusuf) I did not respond to your example because it’s not correct. It is mubah to live here and it is mubah to earn your rizq, what is taken out of my taxes is not something I am accountable for.
Your whole premise around participation is shakey to say the least. You are the one pursuing the confidence in the system argument, it is my view this is more of an issue in places in which the system is targeted for change i.e. in the majal. As for here the main argument is around the act of voting and whether it is an acceptable contract from the standpoint of islam. The problem with logic is that it is dependent upon the initial premise and if that is incorrect the argument and conclusions which follow will likewise be wrong. I have been consistent in my argument, please try and answer that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Yamin) I feel this does not need further discussion – as you said your argument “is not about endorsement of the system” – this participation/endorsement was argued by your members on the forum, thus I mentioned it in the article. The issue of legislation and wakala etc is in the previous posts.