Articles

The Participation in Elections is a Trust and a Constitutional Right
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 11-11-2020

 

The Participation in Elections is a Trust and a Constitutional Right

 

Participating in parliamentary elections is legitimate, in addition to being a constitutional right, a national duty and a trust, which a citizen should preserve and deliver properly. It is also a testimony for which he/she will be called to account before Almighty Allah since He Says (What means): "Their testimony will be recorded and they will be questioned." [Al-Zukhruf/19].

 

A voter should be keen on electing the strong and trusty candidate because Allah Says (What means): "Said one of the (damsels): "O my (dear) father! engage him on wages: truly the best of men for thee to employ is the (man) who is strong and trusty...." [Al-Qasas/26]. Consequently, whoever votes for a non-eligible candidate betrays the trust of Allah and His Messenger and misappropriates knowingly things entrusted to him/her. This is attested to in the verse where Allah Says (What means): "O ye that believe! betray not the trust of God and the Apostle, nor misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you." [Al-Anfal/27]. 

Members of parliament who have these traits are expected to perform the duties for which they are elected.

 

Elections provide a legitimate way for the people to elect members of parliament (MPs) and it is one of the Shura mechanisms acknowledged by Sharia, as indicated by extensive evidence from the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah. Not only that, but the companions had applied this mechanism at the beginning of the history of Islam. Earlier, members of parliament used to be known as "Urafa" (Headmen). The Prophet (PBUH) used to check with them about people`s opinions on public issues where he (PBUH) used to say: "Go back so that your 'Urafa' may submit your decision to us." [Bukhari].

 

We also remind everyone to follow the health directives in terms of wearing masks, keeping social distance during the electoral process, and following other protective measures to preserve lives and safety of everyone because it was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm."

 

 

 

 

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it valid to perform the obligatory prayer while sitting?

 

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Standing (Al-Qiyam) while having the ability to do so is one of the pillars (Arkan) of the prayer; the obligatory (Faridah) prayer is not valid without it. However, whoever is unable to stand may pray sitting down. As for voluntary (Nafilah) prayers, it is permissible to pray them sitting even if one is able to stand, but the one sitting receives half the reward of the one who prays standing. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.