Discerning the Straight Line from the Crooked
Some specific information which I managed to record and attempting to share.
HT Member Ahmed Daour entering elections in Jordan in 60's
A member of HT, Ahmed Daour (may Allah have mercy on him) ran for the Jordanian Assembly in the 60's as an independent candidate and won due to having the leadership of his community. On day one, he made a lengthy speech launching a devastating attack on democracy, the regime, its then relationship with Britain and the harm it was designed to do to the Ummah, which consequently led to the regime dissolving the Assembly.
Questions were raised around this subject and information and clarity provided on an online forum, from which I quote here:
· There is no such thing as a party policy of taking part in elections at any time.
· Ahmed Al-Daur ran as an independent and not on behalf of, or in the name of, the party for the non-legislative Assembly with the sole objective of attacking the regime, exposing colonialism and promoting Islam.
The Ummah did respond positively as the venue provided a deep reach into the society for the party and its ideas. The negativity wass promoted many decades later by the kuffar via their agents and those contaminated by them through groups with current and past historic links to regimes like Saudito hinder the progress the of the Party, whose success ultimately results is their demise.
There is a difference of party activity and activity of the party. The former is decided by the party and binding on the members while the latter is is undertaken at the initiation of the Member towards the party objective.
· In either case, Party activity or activity of the party, the criteria for adopting styles to undertake these is 1) The most appropriate style must be adopted to achieve the objective of the action and 2) It must be permissible.
· Al-Daur’s actions of being able to enter the Assembly and use its national platform to engage in political struggle by adopting the interests of the Ummah and exposing the plans of the colonialists met both criteria above. He did not give an oath to the King or any other symbol of kufr. There was no participation in governing or ruling or any prohibited function, in fact it was a non-legislative Assembly; he rather was vociferous and uncompromising in his attack on the regime providing no legitimacy or inclining to the Government in any way whatsoever to the regime which saw the dissolution of parliament and his ultimate removal. In short, no haram was committed and the Party
· To further illustrate with an example: attending a conference on Furthering Democracy in the Muslim World organized by the Secular Islam movement at its headquarters in order to attack democracy and expose its incompatibility with Islam. This would be a permissible style for any member to undertake and it would not be providing legitimacy to Democracy nor the organizations involved in promoting it simply entering the organisation’s HQ and by attending this event.
· This is not comparable with actions in which legitimacy to kufr and their organizations and institutions is provided. An organization appealing to a Human Rights organization, a government, the UN or NATO to aid them legitimizes them, especially when they are not accompanied by the vociferous attack on their kufr colonial nature. This would apply to seeking assistance in the dawa from these in other forms such as funding.
· In conclusion, Ahmed Al-Daur’s winning a seat in the Assembly did not equate to taking part in governing or approving since he engaged in no prohibited matter related to governing and to the contrary vociferously attacked it.
Questions were raised around this subject and information and clarity provided on an online forum, from which I quote here:
· There is no such thing as a party policy of taking part in elections at any time.
· Ahmed Al-Daur ran as an independent and not on behalf of, or in the name of, the party for the non-legislative Assembly with the sole objective of attacking the regime, exposing colonialism and promoting Islam.
The Ummah did respond positively as the venue provided a deep reach into the society for the party and its ideas. The negativity wass promoted many decades later by the kuffar via their agents and those contaminated by them through groups with current and past historic links to regimes like Saudito hinder the progress the of the Party, whose success ultimately results is their demise.
There is a difference of party activity and activity of the party. The former is decided by the party and binding on the members while the latter is is undertaken at the initiation of the Member towards the party objective.
· In either case, Party activity or activity of the party, the criteria for adopting styles to undertake these is 1) The most appropriate style must be adopted to achieve the objective of the action and 2) It must be permissible.
· Al-Daur’s actions of being able to enter the Assembly and use its national platform to engage in political struggle by adopting the interests of the Ummah and exposing the plans of the colonialists met both criteria above. He did not give an oath to the King or any other symbol of kufr. There was no participation in governing or ruling or any prohibited function, in fact it was a non-legislative Assembly; he rather was vociferous and uncompromising in his attack on the regime providing no legitimacy or inclining to the Government in any way whatsoever to the regime which saw the dissolution of parliament and his ultimate removal. In short, no haram was committed and the Party
· To further illustrate with an example: attending a conference on Furthering Democracy in the Muslim World organized by the Secular Islam movement at its headquarters in order to attack democracy and expose its incompatibility with Islam. This would be a permissible style for any member to undertake and it would not be providing legitimacy to Democracy nor the organizations involved in promoting it simply entering the organisation’s HQ and by attending this event.
· This is not comparable with actions in which legitimacy to kufr and their organizations and institutions is provided. An organization appealing to a Human Rights organization, a government, the UN or NATO to aid them legitimizes them, especially when they are not accompanied by the vociferous attack on their kufr colonial nature. This would apply to seeking assistance in the dawa from these in other forms such as funding.
· In conclusion, Ahmed Al-Daur’s winning a seat in the Assembly did not equate to taking part in governing or approving since he engaged in no prohibited matter related to governing and to the contrary vociferously attacked it.