........ continue from the previous posting

b. The view that disallow.

 

This view believes that holding positions in the government of oppressors or non-Muslims means helping and supporting them. It also means endorsing their norms and wrongdoings. This position is based on the Quran which says:

 

“The rule is for none, but Allah.” (The Quran, 12:40).

 

“And if any who fails to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) transgressors.” (The Quran, 5:45)

 

“And incline not to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you.” (The Quran, 11:113)

 

Holding position in Islamically corrupt government could also mean assisting an unjust and despotic leader and may assist in prolonging the tenure of his government which is forbidden in Islam. The Quran says, “Help you one another in righteousness and piety; but help you not one another in sin and rancour.” (The Quran, 5:2).

 

In the case of prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the proponents of this view countered:

 

i.   The king during the time of prophet Yusuf (Joseph) may have been a pious king. Imam Mujahid mentioned about his conversion to Islam. (See also At-Tabari, Jami’ Al-Bayan Li Ahkam Al-Quran, vol 13, p. 6.)

ii. The king was only concerned about his wealth, not what was done by prophet Yusuf (Joseph) a.s. Hence, prophet Yusuf (Joseph) was not under his scrutiny. (See Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ Li Ahkam Al-Quran, vol 6, p. 215.)

iii. The king gave his orders based on the views of prophet Yusuf (Joseph) and did not oppose any of the prophet’s views. Hence, the king was the follower in this instance. (See also Az-Zamakhsyari, Al-Kasyaf, vol 2, p. 263)

iv. The behaviour of prophet Yusuf (Joseph) followed the syariah (laws) of the people before us, and therefore this cannot be used as an argument.

 

In the case of the Najasyi, they argued that Prophet Muhammad did prayers for was not the one who gave protection to the Companions who had migrated there, but for another Najasyi (Negus), who embraced the religion after receiving the Prophet’s letter of invitation to Islam.

 

Counter Arguments Against Those Who Do Not Allow Working For A Non-Muslim Government

 

The argument holding such positions need not necessarily mean an acknowledgment or an endorsement of the ruler’s corrupt practices, but it may instead be for the purpose of minimising the injustices or carrying out what the rulers will not carry out.

 

The argument that the king during the time of prophet Yusuf (Joseph) was a pious man and had embraced Islam, is not supported by any evidence.  In fact, there are numerous evidences that illustrate the opposite.  Ibn Taimiyah said that the king and his people during the time of prophet Yusuf (Joseph) were not Muslims because the Quran indicates so in 12:39-40, 76. (Ibn Taimiyah, Majmu’ Fatawa, vol 20, p. 56.)

 

The argument that the King of Egypt was only interested in his own wealth and did not supervise prophet Yusuf’s (Joseph’s) work is also not valid. The ulama point out that the king gave prophet Yusuf (Joseph) powers to prepare for the calamity that was his concern.  Surely, the king would have paid attention to his work.

 

Besides that, every king and his people certainly maintained customary norms, provision for the the king, his families, his army and his people. Not all these norms would be in line with that of the prophet and his notion of justice. Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) did not have power over those aspects, thus could not have determined everything based on the syariah. What Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) did was to strive to the best of his ability for justice. (Ibn Taimiyah, Majmu’ Fatawa, vol 20, pp. 56-57.)

 

When God permitted Prophet Yusuf to hold the position in the King of Egypt’s court (12:56), he must have accepted the position with the understanding that the king had procedures and laws that he could not change in a blink of the eye. Yet he persisted. (Ibn Taimiyah, Majmu’ Fatawa, vol 20, p. 56-57.)

 

The argument that the Najasyi (Negus) for whom Prophet Muhammad did the prayers, was not the one who gave protection to the Companions, was rejected by Omar Al-Asyqar. He writes:

 

“Indeed our study have led us to the fact that Najasyi Ashamah who believed in Rasulullah, was the same Najasyi who gave protection to the Companions when they migrated to his country.  He remained as king for 10 years without being able to implement the syariah of Allah in a country where he was in power, but he ensured protection and safety for the people who migrated there and without doubt, several of his people believed (in Islam) as he did.” (Omar Al-Asyqar, Hukm Al-Musyarakah Fi Al-Wazarah Wa Al-Majalis An-Niyabiyah, p. 77.)

 

As for the group that did not want to shoulder a minor oppression, and in so doing, cause a big oppression, Ibn Taimiyah said:

 

 “As for those who prohibit such an action in order to avoid a minor oppression, if the public accepts that opinion, oppression and harm will multiply. It is like instructing travellers who have been stopped by robbers: ‘It is not halal to give some of your wealth to robbers’. If the travellers did not make the robbers happy with the little wealth they carry, the robbers will seize the wealth anyway and then kill them. The intention was to safeguard the little that the travellers had, and forbid giving it to the robbers, but if the travellers did as instructed, they will lose everything.  Surely that will not be proposed by any good thinking person, and of course not by syariah. Indeed, Allah sent His Messengers to fulfil and protect the common good, and to hinder and reduce harm, to the best of ability.” (Ibn Taimiyah, Majmu’ Al-Fatawa, vol 30, pp. 357-359.)

 

Ibn Taimiyah also said:

 

“If, (to obtain an obligated right), it is necessary and unavoidable to commit a wrong, then this is similar (to the ruling): when something is required in performing the obligatory, then that something also becomes obligatory.  That is, provided the harm involved is less than the good derived.  In fact, if the position is not compulsory and involves tyranny to the extent that anyone who holds that position ends up oppressing, the person who takes it up with the right intention to reject or reduce the oppression, in spite of having to commit lesser evils, is commendable.  His action in committing some wrong in order to stop a bigger wrong, is good.” (Ibid, vol 30, p. 52.)

 

Sheikh Muhammad Abduh was asked, ‘Can a Muslim who works for the English government judge by English laws, which are not the laws of Allah?’.  He replied:

 

“Indeed Darul Harbi is not the place to implement the law of Islam. On this basis it is obligatory to move out from there, unless hampered by illness or for the benefit of Muslims, and in so doing, the religion is not jeopardised. 

 

For those who stay, they should work for Muslims according to their ability and strengthen the laws of Islam as much as they can. There is no other means of strengthening the implementation of Islam and safeguarding the benefit of the Muslims like obeying the norms of a particular government. This is especially so when such a government has an easy attitude and advocates justice for all, just like the English government does. As has been known, the laws of these countries are nearer to the syariah of Islam than the others, because it leaves most matters to the opinions of the judicial authority. Any good person who holds a judicial position in Islam and then later holds a judicial position in India for the right purpose and good intentions, it will be easy for him to serve the Muslims honourably.

 

It is obvious that, those who abandon this duty among the knowledgeable and able ones in the judiciary and other administrative duties, for fear of sin in carrying out its laws, will also abandon much religious and worldly benefits for the Muslims. The difficulties which befell the Muslims in India as well as the others, and their backwardness compared to the idol worshippers, has been caused by not having positions in the government.

 

On the surface, the acceptance of Muslims into the English administration in India or similar, and to judge by available laws is a form of rukhsah (exemptions), which is part of the prescription for shouldering a lighter harm for the purpose of assisting Muslims, or at least safeguarding the interest of Muslims.” (Muhammad Abduh, Tafsir Al-Manar, vol 6, p. 408.)

 

Conclusion on Holding Positions in a non-Islamic Government

 

Any qualified and capable person among Muslims may take up positions in a non-Islamic government ruled by Muslims or non-Muslims; in fact it may be obligatory based on the importance of that position, provided that;

 

He accepts the position with the intention to serve justice, to establish good, to hinder disobedience (to God) and reduce oppression. On the contrary, he cannot accept the position for the sake of status, power and wealth.

 

He should strive to avoid involvement in matters which are prohibited by the religion unless it is beyond his capacity.

 

The view that rules it as absolutely haram (impermissible) for anyone to work for a non-Islamic government and furthermore judge them as fasiq (Islamically corrupt), oppressors or disbelievers, actually strays far away from moderation and the mode of thinking which is guided by the spirit of Islam.

 

(Adaptation from Seminar Paper 2 presented in Convention of Ulama organised by The Singapore Association of Muslim Scholars and Religious Teachers (PERGAS) on 13 – 14 September 2003 which was written by and presented by me. Details analysis of the topic can also be referred to Dr. Abdul Rahman b.Mu`alla Al-Luwaihiq, Religious Extremism In the Life Of Contemporary Muslims, translated by Jamaal Al-Din M. Zarabozo, Al-Basheer, 2001, pp. 579-86)