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

What is the ruling on ablution without istinja' after sleep?

The sleep of one whose buttocks are not firmly seated on the ground invalidates ablution. Whoever wakes up and wants to pray must perform ablution only. Istinja' is not a condition for the validity of ablution, because it is for removing impurity from the private part. If there is no impurity on the private part, then istinja' is neither obligatory nor recommended. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

There are olive trees within the precincts of the mosque, and my father covers the costs of electricity, water, and other needs of the mosque. Is it permissible for him to take the olive harvest?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If trees and fruit-bearing crops are planted in a mosque for the mosque itself, they may only be spent on the mosque’s interests. If they were planted for the public way (musabbalah), that is, for the general public, then any Muslim who enters the mosque may eat from them. If the planter’s intention is unknown, they are treated like those dedicated for public use, wherever custom has so run.
It is stated in Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/p.295): “The fruit of a tree planted for the mosque within it is not freely permitted without compensation. Rather, the imam spends its equivalent value on the mosque’s interests. The tree left its planter’s ownership here without any verbal declaration because of the evident indication. The case of planting it for the mosque excludes planting it as musabbalah, in which case eating from it without compensation is permissible, and likewise if his intention is unknown, where custom has so run. The tree may be uprooted from the mosque if the imam sees fit. Indeed, if he makes the plot a mosque while a tree stands in it, the imam may uproot it, even if the endower included it within the endowment (waqf).”
The father is a donor (mutabarriʿ), so he is not entitled to take anything in return for his donation to the mosque.
The Ministry of Awqāf is the body that supervises the affairs of endowments, so it must be consulted and the Sharīʿah and administrative instructions regulating such matters must be considered. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Which is better for a traveler: fasting or breaking the fast?

Fasting is better, unless it causes hardship—in that case, breaking the fast is better.