The Muslim community is politically mobilising in response to the genocide in Gaza, and it is far deeper than just a humanitarian reaction. It is a mobilisation driven by Islam itself, by the divine connection Muslims feel to their Ummah, to their Deen, and to the sacred lands under occupation.

While many around the world, including non-Muslims, are shocked at the immorality and brutality in Gaza, Muslims feel an even deeper anguish. Our hearts bleed because the victims are not just human beings but they are Muslim believers. It is the Ummah that is being crushed, and it is our Holy Lands that are being desecrated.

The response from Muslims will always be distinct precisely because of our Islam. This response has the potential to impact not just Gaza, but the entire Middle East, which is why the West is seeking to dictate how Muslims respond through a mix of the carrot and the stick.

We already saw the worst of the stick under twenty years of the War on Terror. Want to resist Western colonialism by deed? Then expect occupation and destruction. Want to resist Western colonialism by word? Then expect proscription and jail sentences. Want to resist just in principle? Then expect suspicion, surveillance and state intervention.

The carrot is no better, aiming to achieve the same ends through more tempting means. Elections are one such example.

The Islamic Critique of Secular Democracy and Elections

Elections offer us the illusion of political control, where we are told our votes get to ultimately shape political outcomes.

For Muslims, the central question behind every action is its permissibility in Islam. The parliament is an institution whose primary function is one of legislation. To determine what is law and what is policy. In Muslim speak, that means defining the halal and the haram. This is clearly a problem for Muslims given we believe only Allah (swt) has the right to legislate.

Ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed is at minimum a great sin, He SWT said:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْكَـٰفِرُون
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the Kaafiroon (disbelievers) [5:44]

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the dhaalimoon (wrongdoers) [5:45]

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَـٰسِقُونَ
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the faasiqoon (rebellious) [5:47]

Voting in a parliamentary election is voting for candidates who will assume the role of legislator. If legislation by humans is not allowed in Islam, then nominating somebody to undertake such a role is equally wrong. This is precisely what occurs in secular elections. The act of voting is an act of delegating (wakaalah) someone to rule on your behalf.

As mentioned earlier the political system in liberal democratic systems do not take the Islamic texts as their reference point. Instead, rules and laws are derived through majority rule or the majority in the representative assembly. The reference point for these rules are man-made in origin and can be motivated by a variety of factors, including perceived benefit for the masses, benefit for the party, previous political deals, human logic and the like. Allah (swt) rebukes taking the whims and desires of man as a reference point, He swt said:

وَأَنِ ٱحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَآءَهُمْ
And rule between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires [5:49]

Submission Over Pragmatism: The Mu’min’s Duty in Upholding Halal and Haram

The role of the Mu’min is to understand the rulings (ahkaam) that came through revelation and to adhere to those rulings believing that Allah (swt) knows best for His servants. Adhering to the halal (permissible) is in itself beneficial and avoiding the haram (prohibitions) will in itself ward off harm.

The point, of course, is that as Muslims, it is not our role to judge the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), or to rationalise them away, or to insist I know better and persist in disobedience. My role is to submit, having absolute belief that Allah (swt) knows better than me.

Pragmatism, when pursued at the expense of the halal and haram, is a very slippery slope. In effect, we are calculating there is more benefit in disobedience or more harm in obedience. But how exactly is this harm and benefit measured anyway? The problem is, nobody can really tell you, and everybody you ask has a different opinion!

Advocating for Gaza and The Ummah Through Halal Means

If we want to advocate for Gaza, or the Ummah more broadly, or the community more locally, then we most definitely should. But we should do so in the halal ways, that will earn the pleasure of Allah (swt).

There is no shortage of options available to us in advancing our Islamic causes. Options that are vastly more numerous than what is offered through elections, and as we will argue in forthcoming posts, infinitely more effective.

The issue of simply following the halal and haram may seem simplistic at times. But what we sometimes forget is the inherent value in restricting ourselves to such commands.

We want to advocate for Islamic causes, to uplift the community, and speak for the Ummah at large. But we want to do it in a particular way that demonstrates the sublimeness of Islam and protects our identity as Muslims.

Adhering to the halal and haram in this regard prevents our values from melting away and being replaced by pragmatic politics. We are not a people who engage in underhand dealings and practices. We are not a people that put profits before principles. We are not a people that accept a greater harm (in disobeying Allah swt) in pursuit of a lesser perceived benefit.

We are a proud and principled people, whose faith is our strength, and we should never accept anything that compromises our beliefs or our capacity to confidently and independently express it.

Muslims have rightly turned away from the major political parties because of the silence or complicity in the Gaza genocide. The Muslims have made this sound judgement by looking at the terrible policies of these parties, then measuring these policies against our values and foundational beliefs.

We see death, destruction, massacres and ethnic cleansing and we ask ourselves how do these sit with my Islamic beliefs and principles? Without question, we conclude that we will never associate with nor enable anyone who adopts these unjust policies.

We must use this same sound methodology of judgement towards the system itself. The system within which all politicians and parties are born, exist and operate. So we must not only abandon the parties but the system itself.

But what is the system and why would we abandon it?

In a word, a system is a whole setup that includes different parts that work together to achieve a purpose – most importantly it includes the fundamental idea or doctrine behind that setup.

A political system refers to the organisation, structure, values and guiding principles through which a society governs and organises itself. It includes various institutions and processes that manage power, authority, and decision-making within a community, and of course it includes the foundational idea or creed from which this system emerges.

In a secular political system we find that the system emerges from the fundamental idea of secularism where man or people decide how to govern themselves away from any religious or spiritual influence. You would have heard the phrase, “the separation of church and state.”

The constitution provides the guiding principles and values of the system. Again it is people that record and legislate these principles according to their own idea of how to organise society. You would often hear politicians cite national interest as a guiding principle for policies and laws they enact.

The elections are a process in the political system to appoint people into power as per the agreed social contract between the people and those they elect.

The government, or those elected to parliament, are those elected to legislate and enact laws. And so on…

One should be able to see some very problematic issues when we compare it to the Islamic political system.

The Islamic political system emerges from the Islamic creed, the fundamental idea that Allah (swt), the creator of the Universe, exists, has sent Muhammad SAW as the messenger to humanity and that the Quran is the speech of the creator to His SWT creation. And that these are the sources from which Humankind organises itself.

Elections may be used to select a single ruler over the Muslims. He is then contracted into the position through a bay’ah of contract on the condition that he rules by the Quran and Sunnah.

This ruler (the Khaleefah) is the one who adopts the Islamic ahkam to be implemented, he appoints the governors and his assistants. He is effectively responsible for the implementation of Islam on the whole society. He consults and is held to account by elected representatives of the different provinces and sections of society. And so on…

The two systems are very different, even at this cursory glance.

For the Muslim Ummah, Islam is the only valid system by which humanity can organise itself. The Islamic texts are the only legislative sources from which laws can be derived.

How can it be then that we delegate someone, through a vote, to govern society by non-Islam? Does this not go against our very convictions? Does it not go against the very purpose of why Allah (swt) revealed Islam to humanity?

What kind of message do we send as Muslims when we validate this system with our vote?

A system that is run by exploitative corporations that place profits before welfare,
A system that favours the strong, rich and powerful,
A system that destroys nations in the name of national interest,
A system that controls the media in favour of the capitalist class,
A system that destroys human moral values,
A system that is primarily concerned with the generation of wealth and not in its balanced distribution.

Did not Allah (swt) refer to the Ummah as the best Ummah raised for humankind?

Judge the system according to its fundamental idea of secularism and the damaging laws and policies that naturally follow, the same way we have judged the major political parties for their unjust policies.

So let’s be the just witnesses over humanity as Allah (swt) described, by not only abandoning the parties, but to also abandon the system and offering the mercy and justice of Islam.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ أُمَّةًۭ وَسَطًۭا لِّتَكُونُوا۟ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ ٱلرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًۭا ۗ
“And so We have made you an upright Ummah so that you may be witnesses over humanity and that the Messenger may be a witness over you” [Quran 2:143]

There has been an important shift in the thinking of Muslims following the Gaza genocide. For 18 months, the world looked upon in silence whilst untold horrors were rained upon the people of Gaza.

Desperate for action, any action, Muslims looked everywhere for somebody to come to the aid of Palestine. In both the East and the West, we found nothing but silence or complicity.

In the West, there was a realisation that on the issue of Palestine, there was no difference between the major parties. It made Muslims realise that not only could these parties not be relied upon, but that the problem ran much deeper. All major parties, of all persuasions, were equal in their support for the genocide in Gaza.

What started as shock soon turned to anger. Muslims had had enough – enough of being taken for granted, enough of being played for fools and enough of our lives being rendered meaningless. The community thus sought to organise itself to best express this anger. The most obvious starting point was to punish the major parties for their support of the Zionist occupation.

But the shift in thinking went further. Muslims realised that turning away from the major parties is only a first step. Deep down there is also a realisation that on the issues that matter most to Muslims globally, the problem is not just the major parties or even the minor parties – it runs much deeper. There is a growing understanding that what the Ummah aspires to, and how the West responds to those aspirations, are fundamentally incompatible. This stems from the fact that the Islamic worldview and the worldview of the capitalist West are in direct opposition

And this isn’t just a moral disagreement; it is a deeply political one. The differences are compounded by the entrenched nature of capitalism itself – a system whose institutions always come together to produce injustices and tragedies like Gaza.

So how do we respond to this reality, where the problem is now no longer who is Prime Minister, or which party is in government, or even which country we reside in? Because Gaza has taught us none of this matters anymore as it is always more of the same.

The answer lies in the example of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

The Prophet (saw) was a native of Arabia and a descendant of Quraysh. After wahi, the Prophet (saw) took hold of a message that was fundamentally at odds with what existed amongst the Quraysh. This contradiction was recognised in the earliest days of revelation when the leaders of Quraysh sought to demonise what the Prophet (saw) had brought.

The problem the Prophet (saw) faced, just as we face today, is that he (saw) lived amongst the very people, and very institutions, that he (saw) sought to challenge. Similarly, in our time, we are subject to the forces of Capitalism wherever we live, even if we don’t live in the West.

The Prophet (saw) and companions (ra) still had to live in Mecca. They still had to trade in Mecca. They still had to raise a family, bury their deceased, pray, read Quran and do everything else required of them as Muslims in Mecca.

But they were still living under the authority of Quraysh, and with hostility.

The Prophet (saw) met the leaders of Quraysh even though he (saw) opposed them. The Prophet (saw) visited the Ka’ba even though it was a house of shirk. The Prophet (saw) still traded despite the cheating of the Quraysh.

What you will not find in the seerah is the Prophet (saw) accepting to engage in shirk, or haram, a’authobillah. What you will not find is the Prophet (saw) blurring the lines of iman and kufr, halal and haram. What you will not find is the Prophet (saw) legitimising the authority of Quraysh by partaking in their decision-making processes, despite him (saw) meeting them. What you will not find is the acceptance of haram despite its prevalence. What you will not find is the Prophet (saw) accepting to remain silent over one crime to justify the removal of another.

Yet after all this, the Prophet (saw) still accepted the protection of his (saw) uncle, a non-Muslim noble of Quraysh.

In all these instances and more, there are important lessons.

• The first is that the Prophet’s (saw) existence in Mecca is not a legimisation of Quraysh, nor was it a condition of his (saw) continued existence there.
• The second is that one can exist in a land and still be at odds with it. In fact, Islam demands as much.
• Thirdly, the Prophet (saw) demonstrated that we can seek our rights, i.e., the rights Islam allows, from a place or a people who not only do not share our beliefs, but are even hostile to it.
• Fourthly, the Prophet’s (saw) model of engagement, such as challenging the leaders of Quraysh, condemning the burying of the infants, exposing the cheating of the scales, and calling society to the justice of the Islamic alternative, starkly contrasts with the compromises and constraints that come with participating in democratic systems. The Prophet (saw) was independent, principled and not beholden to the powers of Quraysh. We can’t say the same if we choose to enter parliament.
• Lastly, the struggle against Quraysh was not against every individual Qurayshi. It was against its leaders, its institutions and those who were complicit in its crimes.

The same goes for us today. When we say we must abandon not just the parties but the system that underpins them, we are asking Muslims to recognise where the source of the problem is located.

We are asking Muslims to realise that the problem is not with the faces or the parties. We are asking Muslims to make the connection between the problems we all see and their ideological roots in Secular Capitalism today. We are asking Muslims to understand that Capitalism functions not just as a set of ideas, but as a collection of globalized institutions that impose themselves upon us politically, culturally, economically, judicially, military and in so many other ways. The primary problem is not with the operators, but in the machine they operate.

This realisation should ensure we never again turn to these institutions to help in the globalised Muslim affairs. The opposite is true, we must confront them given they lie at the heart of Muslim disturbances everywhere.

In the meantime, we advocate for the community as much as we advocate for the Ummah. But as the life of the Prophet (saw) demonstrated, these are two distinct matters with different realities. As a community, we advocate for our rights and advance our interests in ways that are halal, even if the gains are small, and even if we recognise the problematic nature of what exists before us. But as part of the Ummah, our role is to challenge these very institutions head on and present the very unique and just alternative for humanity that is within Islam.

The classical Ulema’ (scholars) who adopted the principle of “the lesser of two harms/evils” only apply it when there is no way out of avoiding or preventing multiple harms or evils and that a choice must be made to carry out one of the prohibited actions. Here the lesser harm is chosen, and it is the sharia that also determines which is the lesser harm and not the human mind. The Ulema’ give many examples, such as the loss of one life being less harmful than the loss of two lives. Other examples from the scholars follow:

Imam Ash-Shatibi said in Al-Muwafaqat: “Souls are respected and preserved and must be saved, if a decision has to be made between preserving a soul which results in the loss of wealth, or the killing of a soul and keeping the wealth, then preserving the soul takes precedence.”

Imam al-Ghazali and Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam, may Allah have mercy on them, also illustrated how the principle of “the lesser of two evils” is to be used. Al-Izz said in his book “Qawa’id Al-Ahkam Fi Masalih Al-Anam”: “If multiple evils come together, if it is possible to prevent them, we will prevent them. If it is difficult to prevent all the evils we prevent the most harmful followed by the most harmful after that and so on….” for example “If a person is coerced to kill a Muslim, and if he did not do so it would mean that he will be killed. In this case, he must avoid the harm of killing (another Muslim) by having patience and choosing that he be killed, because being patient in the loss of one’s own life is less harmful than carrying out the killing (of another Muslim) …”

This is how the classical scholars applied this principle. If one can avoid the harm/evil altogether, then it must be so.

Some have used this principle to justify voting for those who do not rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed. It is thus agreed that ruling by kufr is an evil, however, it is said that the less harmful candidate must be chosen and so they justify participating in the election of a candidate that will rule by kufr. However, if the principle was applied the way it was intended, then not participating in the elections at all should have been the course of action. This is because delegating a person to rule by Kufr on one’s behalf is an evil, and the avoidance of this evil is achieved by not actively voting for that person. So refraining from the election of either candidate is within one’s ability.

In recent times however, some have avoided this principle because of the admission that all candidates would rule by Kufr, and this is a harm/evil. Instead, they say that it is about choosing the better of the options, and that it becomes a duty for the Muslim to choose what is better for the community. However this is the same argument, albeit reworded. The “better option” or “the lesser evil” are the same thing.
The “better option” can only be engaged in if the options themselves are halal or there is no way of avoiding the harm/evil. Here we revisit the clear texts that indisputably prohibit anyone from ruling by anything other than revelation:

ٱتَّخَذُوٓا۟ أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـٰنَهُمْ أَرْبَابًۭا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلْمَسِيحَ ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَآ أُمِرُوٓا۟ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَـٰهًۭا وَٰحِدًۭا لَّآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ
They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate (with Him)! [9:31]

The Messenger (saw) explained to ‘Addi b.Haatim that the meaning of taking them as lords is to obey them when they allowed what Allah (swt) had forbidden and prohibited what Allah (swt) permitted.

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْكَـٰفِرُون
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the Kaafiroon (disbelievers) [5:44]

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the dhaalimoon (wrongdoers)[5:45]

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَـٰسِقُونَ
And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the faasiqoon (rebellious)[5:47]

إِنِ ٱلْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِيَّاهُ
Verily the rulling is to none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him [12:40]

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا۟ فِىٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًۭا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا۟ تَسْلِيمًۭا
But no! By your Lord, they will never be (true) believers until they accept you (O Prophet) as the judge in their disputes, and find no resistance within themselves against your decision and submit wholeheartedly. [4:65]

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى ٱلَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ ءَامَنُوا۟ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوٓا۟ إِلَى ٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوٓا۟ أَن يَكْفُرُوا۟ بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَـٰلًۢا بَعِيدًۭا
Have you (O Prophet) not seen those who claim they believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They seek the judgment of Taghut (false judges), which they were commanded to reject. And Satan (only) desires to lead them farther away. [4:60]

أَفَحُكْمَ ٱلْجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ حُكْمًۭا لِّقَوْمٍۢ يُوقِنُونَ
Is it the judgment/ruling of ignorance they seek? Who could be a better judge than Allah for a people who have firm belief?[5:50]

We have already mentioned the numerous clear cut verses regarding the obligation of ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed. However, some use the Prophet’s (saw) praying upon Najashi, when he (saw) was informed of his death and acceptance of Islam in the 7th year Hijri, as justification for ruling by Kufr. They claim that he was the same Najashi whom the Muslims migrated to in the 5th year after revelation and that he ruled for many years as a Muslim until his passing.

The Prophet (saw) described the Najashi that the Muslims first migrated to as a fair/just king who does not treat anyone under him unfairly (with oppression). This description or praising of some characteristics of an individual non-Muslim does not at all endorse their rule or the system they rule by. This is similar to the Prophet (saw) describing Banu Shaiban in Jahiliyyah (before Islam) as “honourable” however this did not mean he endorsed their ruling. On the contrary, he fought against Jahiliyyah strongly. Likewise, Ja’far (ra) took a principled and uncompromising stance refusing to offer any flattery in front of the Negus (Najashi) and his patriarchs when he declared that his deen is Islam and that they reject the claim that ‘Issa (Jesus) was a god. No praise for the system and its beliefs where given.

Further, this Najashi was not the same Najashi whom accepted Islam. The word “Al-Najashi” is the tittle given to an Abyssinian king and is not specific to one king. It becomes clear that there were three different Najashis whom the hadith speak of.

At the end of the sixth year of Hijrah , in Dhul Qa’dah, the Prophet sent invitations to accept Islam to various kings including Chosroes, Caeser, and Negus (Najashi). In Sahih Muslim it mentions on the authority of Anas (ra):

أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَتَبَ إِلَى كِسْرَى، وَإِلَى قَيْصَرَ، وَإِلَى النَّجَاشِيِّ، وَإِلَى كُلِّ جَبَّارٍ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللهِ تَعَالَى»، وَلَيْسَ بِالنَّجَاشِيِّ الَّذِي صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيُّ
“ ’The Prophet (saw) wrote to Chosroes, Caeser, Negus, and to every tyrant (leader) calling them to Allah (swt)’ and this was not the Negus that the Prophet (saw) prayed for.”

This hadith indicates that this Najashi was not the Najashi whom the Muslims migrated to. The first was described as fair/just and this Najashi is described as a tyrant. Also, because the Prophet(saw) invtied him to Islam along with other tyrants, shows that he was not a Muslim some 13 to 14 years after the first event.

Now moving onto the reports about the Najashi that was a Muslim. The Prophet (saw) prayed upon him in Muharram of the 7th year. Which is only a month or two after the previous Najashi. The Prophet was Informed of his death and Islam on the day Najashi died.

Bukhari reported from Abu Hurayrah (ra) that “Allah’s Apostle informed (the people) about the death of An-Najashi on the very day he died. He went towards the Musalla (praying place) and the people stood behind him in rows. He said four Takbirs (i.e. offered the Funeral prayer).”

In another narration the Prophet (saw) said to his companions: “Ask forgiveness for your brother.”
Bukhari reported from Jabir bin Abdullah (ra) saying that the Prophet (saw) said: “Today, a righteous man died, so gather to pray for him”.
And
“Today, a righteous man died, so gather and pray for As’hama (Negus’s name)”

This Najashi (As’hama) only ruled for a short period (1 to 2 months) and his acceptance of Islam was also shortly before he passed away. He accepted Islam in secret and did not reveal his Islam because of being under duress and ruling over a people who believed in a different deen. This is completely different to a Muslim willingly and openly entering into a ruling system of kufr. What happened to As’hama (the righteous Najashi) is an exception and should not be taken as a license to willingly rule by Kufr, nor delegate someone on your behalf to rule by kufr through the process of voting.

Instead, our example should be that of the authentic narrations about Ja’far Al-Tayyar (ra) regarding his principled stance of honour and steadfastness without any compromise. He did not take into consideration whatsoever any perceived interests/maslaha. He (ra), and the Muslims with him, decided firmly to face head on without fear or favour the delegation from Quraysh, the Negus’ questioning and the intimidation from the patriarchs. He(ra) explained to them Islam and who the Prophet (saw) was and confronted them all with the truth about the Prophethood of ‘Issa/Jesus (as) in accordance with Islam. Ja’far (ra) is indeed a great example when he and the Muslims with him resolved that “ We shall say, by Allah, what our Prophet (saw) had taught and commanded us, and whatever happens, happens!”

We too must resolve to say what we have been commanded to say:

إِنِ ٱلْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
“Verily the ruling is to none but Allah”

It is said that the companions who migrated to Abyssinia wished and made Dua for the victory of Al-Najaashi when a rival king challenged his authority in a war and the Sahabah rejoiced when he was victorious. It is said that this incident is evidence for the permissibility for participating in parliamentary elections, and for the voting for the lesser of evil parties.

Firstly it is important to note that in the quest for the Shariah ruling on any matter, the Mujtahid after understanding the reality of the matter, must look for the evidences in the Shariah texts, and then deduce the Shariah ruling on the matter, after considering the relevant evidences. It is incorrect that he issues an opinion on the matter and then looks for evidences to support the opinion, because the Shariah requires that Islam is made the reference, i.e. the ruling is taken from the evidences, and not from the opinion of the Mujtahid first, followed by his search for supporting evidences for his opinion. Such an approach would place one’s whims before the Islamic texts.

Reviewing the Seerah books, there are many narrations that refer to the position of the companions towards the issue between Al-Najaashi and his enemies. The narrations are very similar. Here we mention the narration of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad :

“… And we stayed with him in the finest house, and he was the best neighbour. She said: By Allah we remained so until he was fought for his throne, by Allah the grief that befell us was more severe than any grief we knew, we feared the defeat of Negus, and his replacement by a man who does not know our rights like Negus. She said Negus marched to the battle and the Nile separated between us, she said the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Who will go and witness the Battle of the people and then bring the news? She said, Az- Zubair bin Awam said: I will, she said: he was from the youngest in the group, she said: they inflated a sack which he attached to his chest and then swam, till he came out from the other side of the Nile, where the meeting place of the opponents, he walked until he found them. She said: We prayed to Allah to give victory to Negus, and his empowerment in his own country, and he was victorious, he elevated us in the best rank, until we returned to the Messenger of Allah (saw), where he was in Mecca.” End Quote.

It cannot be concluded that it is permitted to participate in the election of a ruler who governs with Kufr and the election of parties or individuals to enter parliament and legislate in the place of Allah (swt). There is no mention that the companions participated in any supportive physical action, e.g. fighting (even though they could have), or that they were decision makers. Rather they were vulnerable and all they did was send the youngest man amongst them to track the news and to find out who will win the war.

All that this incident shows is that the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) wished for the victory of Al-Najaashi over his enemy because he was a just king who does not oppress people as they were told by the Prophet (saw) and as they witnessed themselves, and in fear that the enemy will be victorious and will not be as just towards them as Negus.

Thus there is no relevance to the election of a ruler who governs by Kufr or to the election of parties in the parliament who do not legislate with what Allah (swt) has revealed. The companions simply wished, loved, and prayed to Allah (swt) to grant victory to Al-Najaashi over his enemy, who may not be just to them. The companions did not participate in anything that suggests electing someone to govern with Kufr or to legislate by Kufr laws.

Rather, the evidences for the rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed are definite texts with definite meaning. We repeat some of this evidence for clarity:

Allah (swt) says:
(وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ)
“And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you.” [Al-Ma’ida: 49]

(إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ)
“The rule is for none but Allah” [Yusuf: 40]

( فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا)
“But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.” [An-Nisa’: 65]

(أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حُكْمًا لِقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ)
“Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith]” [Al-Ma’ida: 50]

Along with other verses.

Also the Quraysh had offered the Prophet (saw) that he rules over them with their laws and not Islam, however he (saw) refused:
According to the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, “As-Siyar Wal Maghazi”: (from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas that ‘Utbah and Shaybah son of Rabi’a and Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, and Nadr bin al-Harith brothers of Bani Abd Ad-Dar, and Aba Al-Bukhturi, brothers of Bani Asad, and others… They met, or those who met amongst them after sunset behind the Kaaba, some said to each other: Summon Muhammad and speak to him, and discuss with him and make up with him. They called him and said to him: O Muhammad, We have sent for you to make up with you … If you came with this talk (Islam) to ask for money, then we will collect it for you from our wealth, so that you be the richest among us, or if you demand honour we will give you power over us, if you want leadership we will make you our leader… The Messenger (saw) said:

«ما أدري ما تقولون، ما جئتكم بما جئتكم به لطلب أموالكم، ولا الشرف فيكم، ولا الملك عليكم، ولكن الله بعثني إليكم رسولاً وأنزل علي كتابا، وأمرني أن أكون لكم بشيراً ونذيراً فبلغتكم رسالة ربي، ونصحت لكم فإن تقبلوا مني ما جئتكم به فهو حظكم في الدنيا والآخرة، وإن تردوا علي أصبر لأمر الله حتى يحكم الله بيني وبينكم»،
“What are you saying, what I brought to you is not for the sake of money, honour over you, or leadership over you, but Allah sent me as a messenger to you, and sent down to me the Book, and ordered me to be the bearer of glad tidings to you and be your guide, so I delivered to you the message of my Lord, and advise you, if you accept what I brought you, it will bring you the good in the world and the Hereafter, but if you refuse then I will wait for the order of Allah to judge between me and you,”

They also offered the Messenger of Allah (saw) to share power on alternate years, i.e. they worship his Lord for a year and he worships their God for a year, but he (saw) refused and wanted Islam alone to rule:
According to Tafseer At-Tabari, “Jami’ Al-Bayan” of Surat Al-Kafiroon:

“on the authority of Ibn Abbas: that Quraysh offered the Messenger of Allah (saw) … ‘we offer you one matter, it will be yours and it is good for us. He said: «ما هي؟»‘What is it?’ They said: ‘Worship our gods for a year: Lat and ‘Uzzi, and we worship your God for a year’, He (saw) said: «حتى أنْظُرَ ما يأْتي مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبّي» ‘I will wait and see what my Lord decrees’, then the Revelation came from Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooth: (قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ)“Say: O disbelievers” [Al-Kafiroon: 1]” End Quote.

The example of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) is not a justification to rule by non-Islam nor to actively partake in a kufr system. Some argue that Prophet Yusuf (as) lived in a society dominated by jaahiliyyah (ignorance of divine guidance), where shirk (associating partners with God) and moral corruption were widespread. Despite his innocence, Yusuf (as) was imprisoned due to societal injustice. When the King recognised Yusuf’s honesty and gift for interpreting dreams, he appointed him to oversee the storehouses, a form of ministerial responsibility under a kufr system. Yusuf (as), therefore, operated within the legal and political framework of the King, which conflicted with the divine law of Bani Israil.

Proponents of this interpretation argue that Yusuf’s (as) actions are not unique to his case and can be seen as guidance, since prophetic actions are meant to be emulated unless proven otherwise.

However when studying the texts and their explanations it becomes clear that Yusuf (as) did not rule by non-revelation.

Firstly, the Prophets are the pure ones chosen by Allah (swt) from His creation. He (SWT) selects them to spread His deen. They are the example and model for their people. They are the true examples of subservience and adherence, since they undertook His command in the best way. Allah (swt) has protected them from sins and temptations, and made them firm on the truth and granted them His Help. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) is from this chosen group. Allah (swt) has praised him and gave him a brilliant commendation in more than one ayah.

For example He (swt) said;

وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُۥٓ ءَاتَيْنَـٰهُ حُكْمًۭا وَعِلْمًۭا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ
“And when he (Yusuf) attained his full manhood, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, thus we reward the Muhsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:22]

In addition to this, Allah (swt) describes him as a da’ee (carrier of da’wah) to Allah (swt) of the highest type. The Qur’an mentions that when his companions in prison asked him about the interpretation of their dreams he said;

يَـٰصَـٰحِبَىِ ٱلسِّجْنِ ءَأَرْبَابٌۭ مُّتَفَرِّقُونَ خَيْرٌ أَمِ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ
مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَسْمَآءًۭ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَءَابَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَـٰنٍ ۚ إِنِ ٱلْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ ۚ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِيَّاهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْقَيِّمُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
“Are many different lords better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, but only names that you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]

He was also protected from the accusations of the wife of Aziz.

It becomes unfathomable to suggest that someone of such status to whom Allah (swt) bears witness, and who was not accused by anyone that met him that he judged by anything but What Allah (swt) had revealed.

There is nothing, not even a single indication in the Qur’an – that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King. There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except one ayah that is;

قَالُوا۟ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ مَن وُجِدَ فِى رَحْلِهِۦ فَهُوَ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ
“They (Yusuf’s brothers) said: “The price will be (the enslavement of) the one in whose bag the cup is found. That is how we punish the wrongdoers.” [TMQ 12:75].

This rule was according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as).

There is also no indication that he ruled by something other than what Allah (swt) had revealed. Though some use the following ayah:

مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ
“He could not take his brother by the deen of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76].

The Tafaseer (explanations) of the Quran precisely explain the meaning of this verse.

Before we refer to the tafaseer, we must point out that according to the majority of Usuli scholars, the Sharee`ah of those before the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) such as Yusuf (as), is not considered to be a Sharee`ah for us to follow. Those who do adopt this usuli principle place the condition that so long as the previous sharee’ah of the prophets has not been abrogated by the sharee’ah revealed to Muhammad (SAW). They said:

شرع من قبلنا شرع لنا ما لم ينسخ
“The Sharee’ah of those before us, is a Sharee’ah for us, so long as it is not abrogated”.

We have already shown previously the many ayat and ahadith that clearly show the prohibitions of ruling by what Allah (swt) did not reveal.

Secondly, Prophet Yusuf (as) was simply set in-charge of collecting and storing the harvest of Egypt, which included guarding over the store houses. This is an administrative post, not a ruling post. Ibn Katheer expresses this opinion in his tafseer of the ayah saying that the Prophet Yusuf (as) was “…responsible for the harvest storehouses, in which they would collect produce for the years of drought which he told them would come. He wanted to be the guard, so that he could dispense the harvest in the wisest, best and most beneficial way” (ibn Katheer v5, 179). This opinion does not suggest in any way that Yusuf (as) ruled by Kufr or even partook in any ruling. Rather, it means that he (as) simply participated in an administrative post.

Returning to the verses of the Quran that are used today to justify entering into a non-Islamic ruling system or participating in it. Allah (swt) says:

قَالُوا۟ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ مَن وُجِدَ فِى رَحْلِهِۦ فَهُوَ جَزَٰٓؤُهُۥ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ
“They (Yusuf’s brothers) said: “The price will be (the enslavement of) the one in whose bag the cup is found. That is how we punish the wrongdoers.” [TMQ 12:75].

مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ
“He could not take his brother by the deen of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76].

When we refer to the tafaseers such as Ibn Katheer, Tabari and Qurtubi. They state that Yusuf (as) took his brother as per the law of Bani Israil (the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub). Some who explained the verse say that the law of the King was the same as the law of bani Israil and others said it was not. In either case Yusuf(as) was able to get his brothers to agree on enslaving the one who stole the cup. Thus Yusuf was able to keep his brother Benyameen according to the sharee’ah of Ya’qub.

Abu Ja’far a’-Tabari (ra) concludes that all the interpretations (of “deen al-Malik”) are close in meaning: whether called rule, judgment, or authority, they all mean that Yusuf would have needed the king’s consent, which he did not have. So he instead got his brothers to convey and agree on their own laws, the law revealed by Allah (swt).

To conclude, the example of Yusuf (as) can not be used to justify ruling by kufr nor participate in the delegation of someone to rule by kufr because:

1. Yusuf (as) was an infallible prophet who clearly said that “verily the Hukum is only for Allah”. It is not conceivable that a Prophet go against the revelation.
2. Yusuf (as) was in an administrative post with regards to the storehouses and not a ruling post. He was given full authority by the king to dispose of this matter as he wished.
3. Yusuf (as) kept his brother Benyameen according to the law of Bani Israil and not that of the King’s. The law was suggested and agreed to by the brothers themselves.

During the Prophet’s (saw) dawah in Makkah, the Quraysh attempted to compromise with the Muslims. They offered the Messenger (saw), among many things, to be a ruler over them on condition that he does not implement Islam. This is similar to how the current Secular Liberal systems operate. Anyone can be a ruler so long as the secular system is upheld – whether one gains power and enters the system, or one actively votes for a candidate who has accepted to be bound by the secular framework. The Quraysh even went further and offered that the Prophet (saw) rule by Islam on alternate years, and yet he rejected. This offer was much more than any of the positions and benefits that many chase in the current systems. The Quraysh approached the Messenger (saw) and said:

“Come follow our religion and we will follow yours. You worship our idols for a year and we worship your Allah the following year. In this way, if what you have brought us is better than what we have, we would partake of it and take our share of goodness from it; and if what we have is better than what you have brought, you would partake of it and take your share of goodness from it”.

He (saw) responded: “Allah forbid that I associate anything with Him”,

And then Allah , exalted is He, revealed Surat Al-Kaafirun.

Despite the Prophet (saw) living under a non-Islamic system, he did not accept to undertake any action which actively authorised the ruling of anything other than what Allah (swt) revealed, no matter what the perceived benefit may have been.

Furthermore, upon migration to Abyssinia, the Muslims were placed on the spot when the King called for the Muslims to be brought in front of him to explain this new religion of theirs and what they say about ‘Issa (as). The Muslims resolved that they would only say that which was revealed to the Prophet (saw). The king also questioned as to why they had not bow to him like the other priests did when he entered. Again, the Muslims only acted and answered in line with the Islamic rules. Despite the risk of an unfavourable outcome for the Muslims, the Sahabah (ra) who migrated to Abyssinia did not entertain the thought of compromising on their Islamic principles because they were living under or brought before a non-Islamic ruler.

Conversations in the community are always a blessing, irrespective of where one sits on any given issue. They are teaching moments, especially when underpinned by genuineness and sincerity.

There is so much to consider on the question of democratic engagement, so many angles to cover, made even more difficult given the stakes are so high.

One of the main dividing lines in this conversation is the question of engagement v non-engagement. It’s mostly an artificial question, given the world doesn’t really give us this choice. It’s probably more accurate to rephrase the question as ‘how do we engage’, instead of ‘whether we should engage’.

But what does ‘engagement’ mean’? What do we mean when we say, for instance, ‘we should engage the system’ or ‘we shouldn’t engage the system’?

The lack of clarity leaves many of us with the attitude of ‘well, we live here anyway, so we’re already engaging the system whether we like it or not’. And with that logic, give ourselves a free pass to ‘engage’ every aspect of Australian political life.

But is this the right attitude, and more importantly, is this is the example of the Prophet Muhammad (saw)?

Did you know the Quraysh tried to make a similar argument with the Messenger (saw)? The Quraysh tried to undermine the Prophet’s message by pointing to an apparent contradiction. If Muhammad (SAW) was truly a Messenger of Allah (swt) sent to change society, then why did He (saw) walk their streets, eat their foods and deal in their markets, why was an Angel not sent with him as his co-warner? Why was he not given a treasure or garden from his lord?

Surah Al-Furqan mentions the Qur’aysh saying:

وَقَالُوا۟ مَالِ هَـٰذَا ٱلرَّسُولِ يَأْكُلُ ٱلطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشِى فِى ٱلْأَسْوَاقِ ۙ لَوْلَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَلَكٌۭ فَيَكُونَ مَعَهُۥ نَذِيرًا
“Why does this messenger eat the food and walk in the markets? If only an angel had been sent down with him to be his co-warner” [Quran 25:7]

And Allah (swt) responds:
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِنَ ٱلْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّآ إِنَّهُمْ لَيَأْكُلُونَ ٱلطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشُونَ فِى ٱلْأَسْوَاقِ
“and we did not send before you any of the Messengers except that they ate food and walked in the markets” [Quran 25:20]

Meaning, he was a human like all other messengers, living amongst a people, eating of their foodstuff, walking the same marketplaces, does not make one a part of the ‘system’. It is Allah (swt) that determines the sending of a human messenger to a human community. Such a messenger shares their feelings, experiences, hopes and sorrows. He knows their aspirations, needs and limitations. Thus, he understands their weaknesses, taps their strengths, and leads them along the way, step by step, knowing their motivations and reactions. After all, he is one of them, guiding them towards God’s pleasure, supported by His revelation and guidance. He becomes a true timeless example for us all in dealing with the contradictions in society.

In his Tafseer Imam Qurtubi mentions:
“Entering the markets is permissible for trade and seeking livelihood. The Prophet ﷺ would enter the markets for his needs, to remind people of God, and to call them to His message. He would present himself to the various tribes there, hoping God would guide them to the truth through him.”

This highlights that there are rules of engagement when living in such a system. Rules that the Prophet (saw) embodied, that provides a model of engagement for us, who would not eat except halal, who would not be loud in the markets, and who, by the same token, never accepted the legislative authority of the Quraysh.

So, we understand there are things the Prophet (saw) accepted, things that the Prophet (saw) rejected, and things the Prophet (saw) rejected but could not prevent its occurrence.

We’ve already discussed the first category. Those things the Prophet (saw) approved of and which he (saw) undertook within the limits of Islam, like eating, walking, marrying and trading with the Quraysh.

The second category, which the Prophet (saw) rejected and refused to undertake, are things like idol worship, burying the daughters and cheating the scales. Importantly, it also included refusing to share in the ruling with Quraysh, who in one instance offered to alternate the ruling between Him (saw) and Quraysh, and in another, offered to place him (saw) as their leader on condition he (saw) abandons the Islamic mission.

In this category, the Prophet (saw) refused to personally engage in these things and instructed the Muslims accordingly. These were matters in which the Muslims had a choice, and we are instructed to choose to reject these things.

In the third category, there are things the Prophet (saw) rejected in principle, but could not manifest in action, because the Prophet (saw) did not possess the political authority to enforce such things. The opposite was in fact true. These are matters where the Prophet (saw) was beholden to the authority of the Quraysh, and who imposed their will against his (saw) wishes.

This includes things like the oppression meted out against the Prophet and Companions, the boycotts, displacement, torture and even death. These are examples of things being imposed upon the Muslims, against their will, due to their powerlessness at the time.

In the same way, if there are matters imposed upon us today, against our will, to which we have no capacity to resist, then the responsibility on us is to continue to reject these things in principle, and work towards building capacity where one day we can more adequately respond to these things.

Things like unjust taxes imposed upon us, or laws that discriminate against us, or decisions of the parliament that result in bombs raining over us. In all these instances, our responsibility is to be clear these are things done to us, not by us. We are not sinful for the things done to us; we are in fact its victims. But the opposite must hold true; which is that we cannot, at any point, be accepting of these things, let alone, share in their responsibility.

When we consider all this, it’s amazing how we realise the Prophet (saw) is talking directly to us, 1400 years later. It’s humbling to know the Prophet (saw) foresaw a time where Muslims would be forced to migrate to foreign lands, live under foreign systems, and be pressured, for whatever reason, to want to give in to what exists in front of them.

Yet the miracle of the Prophet’s (saw) life continues with us today, providing light where darkness almost took over. A blessing from Allah (swt), and a reminder that what we face today was faced by the Prophet (saw), and indeed every Prophet before him.

Every election season, the question comes up again and again: “If we’re not voting… then what are we supposed to do?”

Before we list some practical action points that can be taken locally and globally, we will list some examples from the seerah during the Prophet’s (saw) struggle in Mecca. The Meccan period best represents the situation the Ummah finds itself in today, without state power and subjected to Kufr systems.

1. Advocacy for Justice built upon Tawheed

• Public Call to Monotheism (Tawhid): The Prophet (saw) openly invited people to worship one God, directly opposing the Qurayshi polytheistic traditions and calling for a spiritual and social revolution.

Surah Al-Muddathir (74:1-3) and Surah Al-A’raf (7:158) where the Prophet (saw) is commanded to proclaim the message openly.

• Condemnation of Idol Worship: The Prophet (saw) criticized the Quraysh’s idol worship, undermining both the religious authority and economic interests the Quraysh held, especially as custodians of the Kaaba.

 Surah Al-Kafirun (109), which categorically rejects the idol worship practiced by the Quraysh.

• Promotion of Equity and Justice: He advocated for the dignity of all people, regardless of social status, gender, or race, challenging the hierarchical and class-based system upheld by the Quraysh elite.

Surah Al-Hujurat (49:13), emphasizing that all humans are created equal and distinguished only by piety.  

Hadith: “People are equal like the teeth of a comb” (Ibn Majah).

• Support for Vulnerable Populations: By defending the rights of slaves, women, and the poor, the Prophet (saw) pushed against the norms that marginalized these groups. He publicly supported individuals like Bilal and Zaid ibn Harithah, former slaves who became prominent companions.

Surah Al-Ma’un (107), condemning those who neglect the rights of orphans and the needy.  

Hadith: The Prophet (saw)  famously supported Bilal and other vulnerable converts, as seen in Sahih al-Bukhari where he said, “The strong is not the one who can overpower others.”

• Support for Emancipation of Slaves: The Prophet (saw) advocated for the freeing of slaves and supported individuals like Bilal, a former slave. This message contradicted the Qurayshi economic model, which depended on slave labor and social stratification.
  

• Abolition of Tribal Privilege: By preaching a message of universal brotherhood, he aimed to remove the tribal privileges that gave the Quraysh power over other tribes and peoples.
  

• Call for Ethical Commerce: The Prophet (saw) condemned cheating and dishonesty in trade, a widespread practice in Mecca, advocating instead for fair dealing and trustworthiness, which threatened the profit motives of influential Qurayshi merchants.

Surah Al-Mutaffifin (83:1-3), condemning fraud and dishonest business practices, common among the Quraysh.

• Condemnation of Economic Exploitation: His message included condemnation of usury (interest), a common practice among Quraysh elites who profited by lending money to the poor at exorbitant rates, thus serving to challenge the economic structures upheld by the Quraysh, alienating him from the economic elite, and set a precedent for fair trade practices that would be enforced under Islamic rule.
  

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:275), which condemns usury, a key economic practice among the Quraysh elite.

2. Refusal to Compromise or Recognise Quraysh Authority

• Declining Offers of Wealth and Status: When the Quraysh offered wealth, marriage alliances, and political power to dissuade him from preaching Islam, the Prophet (saw) refused, insisting on his message’s integrity and rejecting the Quraysh’s attempt to co-opt his influence.

Recorded in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, where the Quraysh offer him wealth and leadership in exchange for abandoning his mission, and he refuses.

• Rejecting a Compromise on Worship: When the Quraysh suggested that he worship their gods in exchange for their acknowledgment of Allah, he rejected their offer outright, emphasizing the exclusivity of monotheism and refusing to legitimise polytheism.
  

Surah Al-Kafirun (109), a rejection of worshiping other gods even as part of a compromise.

• Rejecting Qurayshi Arbitration on Religious Matters: During disputes, the Prophet (saw) refrained from seeking Qurayshi arbitration, refusing to recognise their spiritual authority over religious issues and maintaining the distinctiveness of his monotheistic message.

In Ibn Hisham’s Seerah, the Prophet (saw) rejected several attempts by Qurayshi leaders to negotiate or arbitrate religious practices. 

• Refusal to Hide Early Followers’ Conversion: Despite Qurayshi persecution, the Prophet (saw) did not conceal the conversions of prominent figures like Umar ibn al-Khattab and Hamza, making Islam’s growth a public matter, challenging the Quraysh’s control over public life.

The conversion of Umar ibn al-Khattab, narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, was openly celebrated, and Umar’s declaration challenged the Qurayshi authority. 

• Refusal to Cease Public Preaching: Even when the Quraysh threatened him, the Prophet (saw) persisted in his public preaching at gatherings, defying their authority and insisting on his right to deliver the message openly.
  

Surah Al-Hijr (15:94) directs the Prophet (saw) to proclaim the message publicly and ignore the threats of the Quraysh. 

3. Peaceful Resistance to Qurayshi Oppression

• Suffering Persecution with Dignity: The Prophet (saw) and his followers endured physical and social persecution without retaliation, highlighting the Quraysh’s cruelty while maintaining moral authority.
  

Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim report many hadiths where the Prophet (saw) and his companions endured persecution, yet he continued to preach peacefully.

• Enduring the Quraysh’s Social and Economic Boycott: During the three-year boycott imposed by the Quraysh, the Prophet (saw) maintained solidarity with his followers and tribe, showcasing resilience and exposing the Quraysh’s oppressive tactics.

The three-year boycott against Banu Hashim is detailed in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, showing the Prophet’s patience under dire conditions.  

• Refusal to Retaliate with Violence in Mecca: Despite being attacked, mocked, and persecuted, the Prophet (saw) refrained from resorting to violence, showing the moral contrast between him and the Quraysh, who often used violence to maintain order.

Surah Al-Furqan (25:63) describes the qualities of believers who respond peacefully to hostility.  

Sahih al-Bukhari reports the Prophet’s patience, as he refrained from retaliating even when he was mocked or harmed.  

• Forgiveness After Insults and Attacks: The Prophet (saw) continued to show patience and forgiveness even after attacks from prominent Quraysh figures, reinforcing his principled stand and undermining Qurayshi attempts to portray him as a threat.

Sahih al-Bukhari records the Prophet’s patience and forgiveness toward Qurayshi aggressors.  

• Public Prayer at Kaaba Despite Intimidation: The Prophet (saw) and his followers prayed openly at the Kaaba despite harassment, asserting their religious rights and showing resolve against Qurayshi intimidation.

Reported in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, the Prophet (saw) and his companions, including Abu Bakr, prayed openly despite harassment. Classical scholars cite this as a powerful statement of faith in the face of Qurayshi intimidation.  

• Public opinion as a counter to power: Good people of Quraysh campaigning to end the boycott, a product of strong ground connections and effective propaganda efforts (ie, victim/aggressor). Similar to Trump with his anti-war speech, speaking not just to Muslims, but broader ground opposition to genocide and other enduring conflicts.
  

• Establishing new loyalties: Formulating new political alliances with Pledge of Al-Aqabah, that would ultimately undermine the authority and control of Quraysh, by announcing the birth of a new political order outside the control of the Quraysh.

4. Building a Distinct Muslim Community

• Establishment of Dar al-Arqam as a Meeting Place: The Prophet (saw) established a private house (Dar al-Arqam) as a safe meeting place for Muslims, building a community in secret and countering Qurayshi surveillance and suppression.

Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat notes that the Prophet (saw) used Dar al-Arqam as a meeting place to organise early followers and protect their unity. Al-Tabari mentions this strategic choice as a means of safeguarding the community from Qurayshi interference.

• Encouraging Early Muslims to Emigrate to Abyssinia: The Prophet (saw) arranged for persecuted Muslims to migrate to Abyssinia, securing their safety and bypassing Quraysh control, weakening their hold over the Muslim community.

Sahih al-Bukhari details the Prophet’s guidance for early Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia, escaping Qurayshi persecution. Scholars, including Ibn Hajar, explain that this emigration protected the community and allowed Islam to spread independently.  

• Emphasis on Brotherhood and Unity: The Prophet (saw) fostered a strong sense of brotherhood and unity among early Muslims, creating a distinct community identity that contrasted with the Quraysh’s tribal divisions and rivalries.

Surah Al-Imran (3:103) encourages unity among believers, forming a distinct community under Islam’s values. Ibn Kathir interprets this verse as a command to maintain unity, which helped define a Muslim identity against Qurayshi tribalism.  

• Use of Qur’anic Revelation as a Source of Strength: The Prophet (saw) recited and circulated Qur’anic verses that critiqued Qurayshi society and encouraged believers to remain steadfast, fostering a community with unique values that rejected Qurayshi materialism and idolatry.

Surah Al-Asr (103) and other verses emphasized patience and truth, reinforcing resilience among early Muslims.

When considering the following action points, it is vital to keep in mind that these actions are done in the service of the overall Islamic objective to resume the Islamic way of life globally and to facilitate connecting the local community to the global Ummah in this endeavour:

1. The first is to build strong community organisations, that are independent and self-funded, that focus on social welfare, legal assistance, and advocacy. Such institutions can address issues within the Muslim community, offering services without needing to rely on mainstream political structures. The Prophet (saw)

2. The second is to establish professional associations, that draws on community talent, to provide resources, mentorship, and representation to amplify Muslim voices on issues affecting the community.

3. The third is to invest in Islamic education, strengthening Islamic schools and community centres, to help Muslims make informed decisions and stay true to Islamic principles while navigating life in a secular society.

4. The fourth is to develop civil literacy, by teaching the community about civic rights, legal protections, and how to advocate within legal frameworks, enabling Muslims to navigate the system without necessarily engaging in its political processes.

5. The fifth is to foster strategic engagements with legal and human rights groups, and other minority communities, to access organisational support and tap into our collective experiences.

6. The sixth is to establish independent media outlets, that allows Muslims to present Islamic perspectives on issues, control their narrative and reach wider audiences.

7. The seventh is to mobilise existing charity and volunteer initiatives, that provide relief to both Muslims and non-Muslims, fostering goodwill, building a positive image for the Muslim community, and strengthening our position in society without political involvement.

8. The eighth is to foster community activism, by organising peaceful protests, petitions, and community events to address issues affecting the Muslim community. Grassroots mobilisation can put pressure on local authorities and policymakers to address concerns without formal political engagement.

9. The ninth is to develop alternative economic structures within the community, by building genuine Islamic financial institutions and fostering entrepreneurship and investment. This not only creates economic resilience within the community but also strengthens its bargaining power when addressing issues with authorities or the private sector.

10. The tenth is to pursue legal pathways to protect our rights. We need to know and assert our legal rights, develop community based legal clinics, and fully exploit the weaponisation of the law in the pursuance of our interests.

11. Lastly, we need to influence society through social capital and thought leadership. We need to encourage excellence and thought leadership in every field, that influences society and its policies, by developing prominent figures that are influential inside and outside the community, and who shape policy as respected members of society, not political actors.

But all the above is just the starting point. There is so much we are already doing as a community, so much we should doing and even more we absolutely must be doing.

Channelling our energies through the farce of elections is mythical and suicidal. We must be investing in those efforts that drive real change, build real community capital, and deliver real community independence. Only then can we even begin to dream of asserting ourselves Islamically.

There is so much we should be doing for the Ummah. But we need to first take a step back to realise the seriousness of what this means.

Let me ask a question – are we Muslim first or are we Australian first? Some of us might already have a definitive answer, some of us might be a little more ambivalent. But why is this question important?

Because the question is far from academic, and it points to the heart of how we choose to see ourselves, and our role in this country and in the wider world.

Let me ask a second question – as inconceivable as it is today, if one day Australia passes a law that criminalises the five daily prayers, would we follow that law? Remember, we are citizens of this country, bound by its laws, and even if we disagreed, are subject to its violence.

Of course we might say this will never happen. We might say, even if this did happen, we would vigorously lobby for its reversal. And that may or may not happen.

Remember, only a few years ago, it was illegal to offer any kind of support to our brothers and sisters in Syria. Seeking to fly there was criminalised, seeking to send money there was criminalised, seeking to offer any form of humanitarian assistance was criminalised. Even emotional encouragement was criminalised. Just as we have also seen with the genocide in Gaza over the last 18 months.

So, whilst the prayer question might be hyperbole today, we have already been forced to compromise on key aspects of our deen, in this case, the obligation to help Muslims in need. We may have been unhappy with these laws, but we ultimately submitted to them, in the process, choosing the comforts of this country over the disruption resistance would have entailed.

So, deciding whether we are Muslim first or Australian first influences, firstly, whether our activism extends beyond the borders of this country, and secondly, what form this activism should take. The community needs to make a strategic choice – do we seek to build our power as Muslim minorities and the powerlessness this represents, or do we seek to build power through and with the Ummah at large?

Let’s ask another question – before solutions, how do we even look at the problems of the world anyway? Is the premise an acceptance of the current world order, such that we don’t have a problem with its whole, only its problematic parts? Or is the current world order THE problem, despite its good parts?

Do we have a problem with colonialism or just some of its manifestations? Do we have a problem with capitalism or just some of its exploitations? Do we have a problem with nationalism or just some of its divisions? I hope these questions are only considered rhetorically given the obviousness of their answers.

In this light, lets now consider what needs to be done to aid the Muslim world and confront the current world order.

1. The first is to not reinforce the current world order by seeking solutions through it. We are all rightly angry over the genocide in Gaza. But our anger cannot be limited to the occupation, for it was born and continues to be sustained through the womb of Western colonialism. The horrors may be committed in Palestine, but their instructions originate in Washington and London.

2. The second is to pursue an activism that seeks to shape the reality on the ground in the Muslim world, not the halls of power in the West. Policy is formulated in response to realities, and what Muslims control the most, is what happens on the ground. Think about it … the whole world is talking about Palestine now, not because of some decision from Washington or London, but because of the actions undertaken by the people of Palestine in Palestine.

3. The third is to resist as a collective, not as individuals. We must connect with independent political actors in the Muslim world, especially, Islamic resistance efforts. This may seem unnatural to us in the West given the extent of individualism here, but the work to confront the current world order can only happen through deeply connected, organised and committed group work.

4. The fourth is to hold governments to account, both in the Muslim world and the Western world. We have a unique ability to organise and mobilise in the West, and therefore, a greater responsibility, to hold governments to account. There is no shortage of halal ways in which this can be done.

5. The fifth is to strengthen the Ummah through education and raising awareness. Purposeful education, to both Muslims and non-Muslims, with a Muslim centric focus. Advocating truthfully, around Muslim narratives of politics, economics and history.

6. The sixth is to elevate and amplify independent Muslim voices. Scholars, journalists, and activists who are not affiliated with Western governments or institutions. By funding them, platforming them and fighting for them.

7. The seventh is to support grassroots initiatives and boycott co-opted ones. Political parties, Islamic associations, labour rights movements, environmental justice groups, and local economic initiatives. We want to empower local autonomy and economic independence.

8. The eighth is to promote authentic cultural and religious awareness. We need to hold events, exhibits and discussions where we can speak confidently and truthfully about the richness of Islam and Muslims. To build bridges, counter narratives, and showcase alternatives. There is no greater gift we can give the world than an undiluted view of Islam.

9. The ninth is to engage in economic support and ethical consumerism. We see some of this already with the BDS movement, but we need to take it further. We must support businesses and industries in the Muslim world, help alleviate some of the pressures of repressive Muslim states, and establish direct trading relationships with independent Muslim actors.

10. The tenth is to encourage intellectual and theological independence. To promote independent scholarship free from the influence of Western institutions. We must collectively reject discourses that align Islamic values with Western political agendas or present a diluted understanding of Islam to appease Western institutions.

11. Lastly, we must mobilise ourselves politically, even if it risks our comfort or security. There is no shortage of halal means to engage in protest, resistance or acts of solidarity. The suppressed voices in the Muslim world are relying on it.

If we consider all the above … deeply, sincerely, … we get the smallest realisation of the magnitude of the work in front of us. Do we then think, for even a second, that this work can be replaced by a single vote? And if it could, that the murderous, genocidal, colonising West would allow it in the first place? This should tell us all we need to know about the futility of voting.

We need a new activism, globalised in nature, that centres Muslim independence and challenges Western hegemony. We need to lessen the control of repressive Muslim states over Muslim populations, and foster greater economic and theological independence in the Muslim world.

The Ummah is waiting for us. They have struggled and endured for decades, laying bare for us the path to true liberation. It is time to join them and play our part too.