Ibn Taymiyyah and Voting: A Discussion on Surah Yusuf

A respected shaykh presented Surah Yusuf, ayah 55, as evidence for the permissibility of participating in the Western electoral process. This was not the first time I came across this topic but it resurfaced for me during the voting debate in the recent elections.

To support his view, the shaykh mentioned “scholars of the olden times” generally, but specifically named Imam Qurtubi, and actually only quoted Ibn Taymiyyah. Only days earlier, I had got my hands on a PDF containing a section from Ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmoo’ al-Fatawa titled تعارض الحسنات والسيئات.

It was a very insightful read. I was quite intrigued by Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on Prophet Yusuf’s (AS) request to be put in charge over the storehouses in Egypt:

وَمَعْلُومٌ أَنَّهُ مَعَ كُفْرِهِمْ لَا بُدَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمْ عَادَةٌ وَسُنَّةٌ فِي قَبْضِ الْأَمْوَالِ وَصَرْفِهَا عَلَى حَاشِيَةِ الْمَلِكِ وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَجُنْدِهِ وَرَعِيَّتِهِ وَلَا تَكُونُ تِلْكَ جَارِيَةً عَلَى سُنَّةِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَعَدْلِهِمْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ يُوسُفُ يُمْكِنُهُ أَنْ يَفْعَلَ كُلَّ مَا يُرِيدُ وَهُوَ مَا يَرَاهُ مِنْ دِينِ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّ الْقَوْمَ لَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُ لَكِنْ فَعَلَ الْمُمْكِنَ مِنْ الْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَنَالَ بِالسُّلْطَانِ مِنْ إكْرَامِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يَنَالَهُ بِدُونِ ذَلِكَ وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ دَاخِلٌ فِي قَوْلِهِ:
﴿فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ﴾

Ibn Taymiyyah does not directly say that Yusuf (AS) carried out actions contrary to the deen of Allah. Rather he puts it more mildly by saying that Yusuf (AS) could not have done everything he wanted that he deemed to be from the deen of Allah because the people did not respond to him (his call to Islam). Rather he carried out whatever he could of justice and benevolence.

Now, that got me looking into tafsir books. I looked up Abu Su’ud, Jalalayn, Ibn Ashur, Baydawi, Shaykh Zadah’s commentary on Baydawi, Safwat al-Tafasir and Ma’ariful Qur’an. I found nothing to support the view that Yusuf (AS) might have had to enact some things not in accordance with the deen of Allah. Rather, I found explicit statements affirming the contrary. For example, Abu Su’ud says:

وفيه دليلٌ على جواز طلبِ الولايةِ إذا كان الطالبُ ممن يقدر على إقامة العدلِ وإجراءِ أحكامِ الشريعة وإن كان من يد الجائرِ أو الكافر

And, in it, there is evidence for the permissibility of seeking authority when the person seeking it is from those who have the ability to establish justice and implement the rules of the shari’ah even if the authority is sought from an oppressor or a kafir.

Before listening to the shaykh, I had not looked up Qurtubi. But because the shaykh mentioned Qurtubi alongside Ibn Taymiyyah, I thought I would find a different view to the other works of tafsir I had read. Imam Qurtubi says:

قَالَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ: فِي هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ مَا يُبِيحُ لِلرَّجُلِ الْفَاضِلِ أَنْ يَعْمَلَ لِلرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ، وَالسُّلْطَانِ الْكَافِرِ، بِشَرْطِ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ أَنَّهُ يُفَوِّضُ إِلَيْهِ فِي فِعْلٍ لَا يُعَارِضُهُ فِيهِ، فَيُصْلِحُ مِنْهُ مَا شَاءَ، وَأَمَّا إِذَا كَانَ عَمَلُهُ بِحَسَبِ اخْتِيَارِ الْفَاجِرِ وَشَهَوَاتِهِ وَفُجُورِهِ فَلَا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ. وَقَالَ قَوْمٌ: إِنَّ هَذَا كَانَ لِيُوسُفَ خَاصَّةً، وَهَذَا الْيَوْمُ غَيْرُ جَائِزٍ، وَالْأَوَّلُ أَوْلَى إِذَا كَانَ عَلَى الشَّرْطِ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ. وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ

Some of the scholars have said: “In this ayah, there is permission for a virtuous man to be employed by a corrupt man or a disbelieving ruler on the condition that the former knows that the corrupt person or ruler will appoint him over actions in which he won’t be opposed (or interfered with), so that he can rectify matters as he sees fit. But if his work is subject to the wish, desires, and corruption of the corrupt person, then it is not permissible.” Some have said: “This was specific to Yusuf (AS). It is not allowed in our times.” The former opinion is preferred on the condition that we have mentioned. And Allah knows best.

Imam Qurtubi then quotes Imam Mawardi providing more details on the conditions in which the appointment of a person to a position of authority by an oppressor is valid and when it is not.

Once again, nothing to even remotely suggest that Yusuf (AS) ruled by anything other than the deen of Allah. This does not even seem to be a debate. What they did discuss was whether it is permissible to seek authority as there are ahadith that seem to indicate otherwise and whether it is permitted to accept a position of authority under a corrupt or kafir ruler. Mufti Shafi Usmani writes in Ma’ariful Qur’an:

Imam al-Jassas, while commenting on the verse: فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرً‌ا لِّلْمُجْرِ‌مِينَ (never shall I be a help to those who sin – 28:17), has written: In the light of this verse, it is not permissible to help the unjust and the disbelieving. And it is obvious that, accepting an office in their government amounts to becoming a part of their function and providing help to them. Such help has been declared as Haram (forbidden) in many verses of the Holy Qur’an.

Here is a link to another post which discusses the prohibition of lending any form of support to the oppressors: ‘Do not incline towards the oppressors’ – Explaining Sarah Hud 113

Clearly, the issue for the scholars was whether acceptance of such a position constituted support and approval for the ruler even if one does not contravene the shari’ah themselves. To tackle this issue, a range of opinions exist, such as: the king had accepted Islam at the hands of Yusuf (AS); the Pharaoh at the time of Yusuf (AS) was just, unlike the one at the time of Musa (AS); this ruling was specific to Yusuf (AS); and, as seen above, it is permissible to accept a position if one does not contravene the shari’ah.

Such was the standard of the mufassiroon! They were clearly uncomfortable, to say the least, with anything that can be seen as lending support to an oppressor. We need to ponder on this point as many of us jump on the “lesser evil” shortcut way too casually.

Another important point that stood out for me as I was reading the tafasir was the issue of power. Yusuf (AS) had a considerable amount of power and authority. This is affirmed in the Qur’an itself and also in the ‘stories’ that are mentioned in some of the tafsir books such as Qurtubi. The grandeur and honour with which he was welcomed to the king’s court by the king himself after Yusuf (AS) came out of the prison and the ceremony with which he was appointed to his position paint a totally different picture from the relative powerlessness of the Muslim voter or even a Muslim or pro-Muslim MP or Senator. And as we have seen above, having the requisite amount of power to be able to fulfil one’s responsibility in conformity with the deen of Allah is a condition for seeking and holding a position of authority under a corrupt or kafir ruler.

Regardless of the veracity of the stories, their inclusion in some of the works of tafsir provides an indication of how the mufassiroon saw the rule of Yusuf (AS). He had complete trust and confidence of the king. And he was endowed with a lot of authority. Qurtubi explains the king’s words cited in the Qur’an – أَسْتَخْلِصْهُ لِنَفْسِي – thus:

أَجْعَلُهُ خَالِصًا لِنَفْسِي، أُفَوِّضُ إِلَيْهِ أَمْرَ مَمْلَكَتِي

I will appoint him purely for myself. I will entrust him with the affairs of my kingdom.

Before Yusuf (AS) asked for the position in charge of the storehouses, the Qur’an mentions that the king said:

إِنَّكَ الْيَوْمَ لَدَيْنا مَكِينٌ أَمِينٌ

Today you are with us well-placed, fully trusted. [Yusuf:54]

In explaining the word مَكِينٌ, Imam Qurtubi says, مُتَمَكِّنٌ نافذ القول, i.e. Yusuf (AS) was well established in authority and his words were executed.

Yusuf (AS) was not serving in a modern bureaucratic state with codified law and largely centralised legislation. While faces and parties change in the modern state, its legislative and ideological functioning remain relatively unchanged. In contrast, Yusuf (AS) had a considerable amount of autonomy in how he discharged his responsibilities. This point is beautifully summarised by Mufti Shafi Usmani as below:

According to [the majority of the scholars], Sayyidna Yusuf (علیہ السلام) had already found out about the king of Egypt that he would not interfere in the performance of his duties. He will not compel him to enforce laws contrary to his faith. He will give him full rights to act in accordance with his discretion and in line with the law of truth. With such rights and powers in hand when one is not compelled to obey a law counter to his Shari` ah, it is possible that one may serve under someone unjust and disbelieving – though, the repugnance of having to help and cooperate with that unjust and disbelieving person remains where it initially was.

The minuscule influence we might have as a Muslim minority by voting in Western elections is nowhere near the power and authority Yusuf (AS) possessed in his role under the king. The shaykh I mentioned earlier cited the example of the Prophet (SAW) moving an army of ten thousand strong to open Mecca in response to the Quraysh violating the treaty of Hudaybiyah. He said today this was done through voting. In the context of the discussion, I can’t help but think that he probably imagines that Gaza can be liberated through voting. Even if he does not, the parallel he drew between voting and the opening of Mecca is a gross overdetermination of the influence we can wield through democratic processes and institutions.

Especially, as the mass slaughter in Gaza continues, it stands as a glaring indictment of democracy, the clearest evidence of its failure (or, rather, success, if we deem it to be designed that way), and the loudest appeal for us to carve out a different political path rather than propping democracy up as the solution.

This matter is being rigorously debated elsewhere and not my immediate topic here. However, as someone interested in the Islamic sciences (and merely an interest, I admit, not a sustained study), I simply cannot critique democracy without thinking through the fiqhi implications of such critique.

Finally, one last point remains to be discussed. And that is ayah 76:

مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ

He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave), except that Allâh willed it

Some would argue that this verse indicates that the king’s law had a different punishment for theft, not enslavement. So Yusuf (AS) could not have taken his brother under the king’s law. But, because Allah created the circumstances for it, Yusuf (AS) was able to take his brother under the shari’ah of Ya’qub (AS). This implies that in other situations Yusuf (AS) must have still had to apply the king’s laws in contradiction to the commands of Allah.

Let’s look at the possible meanings of this ayah. To begin with, I would like to quote a hidden gem from Shaykh Zadah. I say “hidden” because I was mind-blown by this interpretation, yet I have not found it anywhere except Shaykh Zadah’s commentary on Baydawi.

ويجوز أن يكون ﴿إلا أن يشاء الله﴾ كلمة تأبيد كأنه قيل: ما كان ليأخذ أخاه في دين الملك أبدًا لأنه جل عن أن يُنصَبَ بمنصب النبوة عن أن يحكم بحكم الكفار نحو قوله تعالى: ﴿وَمَا يَكُونُ لَنَآ أَن نَّعُودَ فِيهَآ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ﴾ [الأعراف: 89] لأن عودهم في ملتهم ما أن يشاؤه الله أبدًا

And it is possible that “except if Allah wills” is كلمة تأبيد as if it were said: He would never have taken his brother under the king’s law — ever — because the one who has been attributed with the station of prophethood is far above ruling by the laws of the disbelievers, as in His statement, the Exalted: “It is not for us that we turn to it unless Allah, our Lord, so wills.” [al-A‘rāf: 89], for their return to their [old] religion is not something Allah would ever want.

According to Shaykh Zadah, this verse is saying that Yusuf (AS), being a prophet, would absolutely never rule by anything other than the laws of Allah. There are a few more ways of looking at this verse. For those familiar with Arabic grammar, many of the mufassiroon hold the istithna in this sentence to be muttasil. And because the istithna is occurring in a negative structure, it is actually making an affirmation.

For those not familiar with such technical jargon, all I am trying to say is this: “No one came except Zayd” actually means “Zayd is the only one who came”.

The verse translated above as “He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave), except that Allâh willed it” can be paraphrased as “It was only by the will of Allah that Yusuf (AS) was able to take his brother as a slave by the law of the king.”

Essentially, what this means is that Yusuf (AS) took his brother as a slave by the law of the king. Does that mean he contradicted the deen of Allah? Not at all. There are a few opinions on this:

والاستثناء على كل حال من أعم الأحوال وجوز أن يكون من أعم العلل والأسباب أي لم يكن ليأخذ أخاه في دين الملك لعلة من العلل وسبب من الأسباب إلا لعلة مشيئته تعالى، وأيّا ما كان فهو متصل لأن أخذ السارق وإذا كان ممن يرى ذلك ويعتقده دينا لا سيما عند رضاه وإفتائه به ليس مخالفا لدين الملك فلذلك لم ينازعه الملك وأصحابه في مخالفة دينهم بل لم يعدوه مخالفة

Lastly, the istithna could be munqati’ (disconnected), which means that Yusuf (AS) did not take his brother as slave according to the law of the king. Rather he enslaved him by the will of Allah through the circumstance that Allah facilitated. So, the law by which Yusuf (AS) took his brother is different from the king’s law and the interpretations provided in point #2 above are not required. However, Imam Alusi’s observation about the king not opposing Yusuf (AS) still holds, which indicates that Yusuf (AS) had relative autonomy to implement the laws that he deemed to be from his religion.

As you can see there are some detailed discussions regarding this ayah found in the works of tafsir. But none that I have read so far has ever entertained for a moment the possibility that Yusuf (AS) ruled by anything other than the deen of Allah in any circumstance.

Does this mean voting in a democracy is haram? This post does not answer that question. It only explores the suitability or otherwise of using the aforementioned verses as evidence for voting in a democracy based on the insights I have gained from my very limited reading of tafsir literature.

However, for me personally, I am yet to find a convincing argument that voting as a minority in Western elections can yield meaningful changes for Muslims both locally and overseas. In the absence of that, the warning against providing any form of approval or support to oppressors that was discussed above leaves me with a fair bit of unease to participate in elections and lend support to institutions built on and perpetually implicated in the oppression of innocents.