Q: If the ruling jurist is considered to be the person who makes the final and definite decisions with regard to selecting the administrative body of the state (according to the theory advocating the rule of the jurists); why then carrying out elections?
A: Because the jurist might find it useful to consult people about the cases which are tightly connected to their lives. He might discover in people’s opinions the crucial elements of the cases he wants to deal with. Indeed, it is natural that people would be asked for their opinions and proposals with relation to the cases that cut to the heart of their lives. For this particular reason, Islam regards consultation as a defining feature of the Islamic society; it also went to the extent of asking the Prophet (p.), who needs the advice of no one, to consult people and to judge accordingly. Therefore, the theory of jurists’ rule does not mean that the jurist acts and behaves according to his own thoughts and convictions. Actually, the last word would still remain his after consulting people with respect to their affairs through polls and elections might turn out to be one of the ways to.

Q: Can the majority and unanimous vote give legitimacy to whoever receives it?
A: If the majority expresses what is right and fair, this does not mean that it represents legitimacy. However, when the purpose is to discover people’s opinions and public interest lies in taking people’s decisions into consideration, the majority might prove to be the best choice in the absence of another alternative.

Q: Do you think that the issue of vote and election resembles the pledge of allegiance in the Islamic law?
A: It might not be a pledge as to the conventional meaning of the pledge because pledges were traditionally undertaken in favor of a certain leader who was about to handle a caliphate, a presidency, an Imamate, or a prophecy. Indeed, it is not about a person trying to occupy a position in the legislative body to approve and ratify people’s laws, pacts and treaties with others. According to the elector, election resembles a proxy where candidates assume the role of the agent who represents and manages the affairs of those who authorize him. Nevertheless, although it is like a proxy, it also embraces the meaning of a pledge because whoever pledges absolute allegiance to a person, he would be authorizing him to handle the absolute rule. So, when the elector authorizes the candidate to manage the rule unconditionally; he would be then authorizing him to make, on his behalf, all the decisions he deems necessary and to sign whatever treaties and agreements related to people’s public life.

Q :There is an Islamic opinion claiming that elections are illegitimate because they undervalue the right of the minority which might reach 49%. What do you say about that?
A: Some people regard democracy as the less defective regime and not as the best of all. Democracy is based on the majority, which very likely could happen to be ignorant, deviating or backward against an aware, educated, and honest minority. Consequently, the outcome of democracy will not be that of establishing justice and pursuing the best public interest. If some people say they can fix democracy by the means of democracy; well, this might not lead to the decisive and desired results in this respect. Hence, as Muslims, we reject democracy theoretically given that its idea of representing legitimacy is based upon the concept that the majority endows legitimacy on lines, beliefs, politics, laws, and so on and so forth. And we do all know that the Islamic legitimacy in all its perspectives and aspects sets from the inspiration of God and from the words of his Prophet (p) and those are what we call the revelation of Allah, the most Exalted, and the Sunna of his Prophet (p).
On this basis, we do not believe that democracy is the basis of the Islamic legitimacy with respect to the legal issue of legitimizing it. However, the majority can play a major role in electing a leader, a ruling jurist when jurists become numerous, or a president for the state… etc­ .Elections could actually make an effective solution when a problem arises and we could find no practical means but to resort to identifying the majority. Thus, sometimes, we can turn to the majority for help in dealing with a problem considering that majority could be a confirmation of consultation, when it acts under some specific conditions and within a specific scope, and not that it represents right and justice.
Democracy is not an Islamic line at the level of making and deciding on laws and rules. Actually laws and rules must be discussed with the extollers of God and the religious authorities who have the right to discretions, to deliver interpretive judgments. ­ Nevertheless, when it comes to some public affairs related to the election of rulers, presidents or members of the consultative council, it would be acceptable to carry out elections not because elections have legitimacy in this respect but because it would represent the best feasible means to maintain public order.


Q What is the alternative proposed by those who reject the principle of elections from a legitimate perspective, in case those who run for presidency, consultative councils… etc­ became numerous?
A: We said that this question involves two points. First of all, we have the question of legislation; that is, the promulgation of laws and such matter cannot be settled by making allowance for the majority who has no experience in jurisprudential issues. The question must rather be handled by experts in this regard. In case such experts were numerous, a person or a group of people must be appointed to deal with this task by means of consultation which, in order to decide on the issue, adopts either election or designation. If a dispute emerges between the people of consultation; the answer would be carrying out elections. While if the best interest requires designation; the results of consultations turn to be proceeding by designation. Thus, this question must be submitted to people of expertise.
As for the executive or procedural aspect of the question, we can approve the recourse to the majority - which must be furnished with some elements that confer on it the attribute of consultation - in order to decide on the state’s ruling body or person or the people who assume the function of implementing the different paragraphs and clauses of the executive legal matters and others.

Q: It is known that in democratic regimes the Parliament has a legislative role, which might not abide by the laws that God revealed.­ How does this conform to the Islamic regime? And what is the role of the parliament in an Islamic state?
A: The role of the parliament in an Islamic state could be that of investigating the factual information that might be needed to carry out the codification of laws and rules wherever gaps are occurring. This is what the martyr Sayyid al-Sadr said when he spoke about those who entrust the people of expertise, the Extollers of God, or the jurists to manage their affairs. The parliament could, furthermore, enjoy the role of finding out the appropriate law that applies to this or that case as well as working toward reaching the ground rules and regulations. Therefore, there must be a kind of interaction between the consultative council, the council of experts, and the council in charge of protecting and preserving the constitution. Indeed, this is what has been implemented in the Islamic Republic of Iran where the “Majlis “ a single-chamber parliament - enacts certain legislations which might be rejected by the Assembly of Experts if those legislations prove to be incompatible with the constitution that is based on Islamic jurisprudential principles.

Q: If a Muslim wants to join the parliament of a secular state that does not comply with Islam in its ruling system; can we justify this legally?
A: In such case, the Muslim must find out if his presence in the said parliament could redound to the supreme Islamic interest. He must learn if the Muslims who live in that region need someone to represent them, to look after their affairs, to pursue their cases and to make sure not to allow the enactment of any legislation that could constitute an element that thrust persecution upon them, etc­ So, if there is a supreme Islamic interest in having a person or more in that parliament, his participation would be justified.
Nonetheless, when the Muslim becomes a member of such parliament, he must observe God’s law in all the laws he is approving and voting for or the laws he opposes and endeavors to preclude. Being a member in a non-Islamic parliament does not justify the fact that a Muslim votes for and supports a rule that God does not deem legitimate. So, according to the general binding interest governing his behavior in that parliament, he could renounce a certain law, he could refuse to vote, and so on and so forth. And it ought to be mentioned that he won’t be held responsible for the non-Islamic legislations that are enacted by that parliament without him voting for it.

Q: Are candidates authorized to prompt voters to elect them through material and seductive means such as offering services? And how would the electors of those people be legally regarded?
A: The people who face such temptation should never give in to it if they do not believe in this person. If a candidate has strong faith in himself, this does not mean that others should believe in him too. Each voter must be seriously aware of his responsibility and examine the issue away from any tempting material or spiritual benefits offered to him. He must be concerned with whether or not the said candidate possesses the enough competence that enables him to acquire the legitimacy of occupying such position. If the elector concludes that this candidate meets the required competence; then, there would be no problem in accepting the offerings and services presented to him although we do not prefer that. Actually, taking into account some considerations and regards; sometimes, this act would be forbidden. As for when the voter finds the elector incompetent for the position in question; he must not choose him under the influence of temptation, neither should he take any money given to him; especially if he knew that the candidate is spending money on him with the purpose of gaining his vote while, inwardly, he had already made up his mind not to elect him; verily, in such case he would be collecting money illicitly.
As for the candidate who wants people to elect him; we advise him to stay away from such tempting means given that they involve immoral aspects and forms in order to attain the desired objective, even if in his opinion those means were honest and noble. Any candidate should nominate himself rightly; that is, by announcing his political program, and revealing his goals and principles through which he could make people believe in him and his program. As for having recourse to offering money and services; those are not rightful means. However, we do not see that offering money, helping people, especially poor and needy people, and satisfying needs and demands could be legally prevented, even if all of these actions redounded to the benefit of the candidate. In fact, what we hope for is that this candidate would keep on helping people out after elections regardless of whether he wins or loses. Then again, we would not have a case here if the candidate does not find in himself the legal competence and the capability of pleasing God as he occupies this position.

Q: But can’t we consider this way of giving money a bribe disrupting public order?
A: We do not want people to get used to be receiving money in order to choose the moral and rightful thing to do because whomsoever gets used to expect money in exchange for saying what is right, he would be easily dragged into supporting what is wrong. However, from a jurisprudential angle, we face no problem of legitimacy if the candidate has competence and wants to protect people from undergoing the pressure or the temptation of other people. In this case, he won’t be forbidden from bestowing money on his advocators in order to strengthen his relationship with them; and the money as well as his election would be considered licit.

Q: Is it permissible to participate in an illegitimate election under an unjust government or an oppressive rule, if refusing to participate endangers the human being for it is regarded as a contravention?
A: It is permitted if elections was carried out through the ballot voting system, and the human being should cast a blank ballot as much as this proves to be feasible.

Q: Do these elections and polls that we are witnessing today give their elected presidents the legitimacy to be in their ruling positions?
A: They would be legitimate rulers if they meet all the required conditions; and amongst these conditions we have Islam, experience and faith. In other words, the simple acquirement of the majority of votes is not enough to give legitimacy. Some legitimate standards must be found in the ruler with regard to the human qualities that qualify him for such position, because there is no legitimacy but for the one that God had furnished with legitimacy.

Q: When electors consent to support a particular candidate and decide to proceed with a campaign in his favor; does this give rise to a legitimate problem or negatively affect the legitimacy of elections?
A: If the candidate fulfills the requirements of a legitimate ruler; it is allowed to elect him even through cooperating or working together according to a specific plan. Actually, the nature of elections follows this pattern of deliberations and consensus between voting parties on a particular candidate leading consequently to his election.

Q: What usually happens during elections is that most of electors have no clear and sufficient idea about candidates; they rather embark on electing urged by their relatives and acquaintances. Does voting in such case fulfill legitimacy?
A: When we look into the question of elections, we find that when electors vote for candidates, they grant them an absolute authorization with no binding conditions. On this basis, electors must carry out careful and thorough investigation with regard to the ideological line adopted by the candidate, the legitimate commitment to him, and the political approach both interiorly and exteriorly. Likewise, the elector would be held accountable for all the actions, negative or positive, carried out by the candidate if the latter had won due to his vote. Hence, we deduce that people should not vote for a person that they do not really know. They must accurately verify the legitimacy of his intellectual, jurisprudential, political and economic line embraced by this candidate. People, moreover, must not elect a person or a council that can legitimize a rule contrary to the elector’s abidance by Islam in its rules, policies, economy, social standards, and so on and so forth. So, the human being must meticulously and comprehensively examine all the aspects of the issue and consequently opens up to whomsoever devoted to God; and with regard to the enemy of God, he must save himself the effort when he stands before Allah, the most Exalted ; the Day when {every soul will come up struggling for itself} when, appearing before the Lord of the Worlds, people will be called to make out an account of all their deeds and their choices between good and evil.
Electoral lists

Q: Electoral lists might involve some kinds of forgery or deception because they might lead to the victory of some persons who wouldn’t have won if not being included in this list while causing the defeat of other persons, who might be a lot more competent, just because they were not on that list. What do you think about this?
A: We must shed light on a very important point with relation to this issue. When people embark on elections; they are actually, as a Nation, playing an important role. Therefore, votes given for this person or that and the nature of the vote’s movement are essential matters that must be considered carefully. Electors must know that they have to take responsibility with regard to the choices they make in this respect. They must be able to chose; and when they do, they must define the basis upon which they made their choice. Furthermore, they must realize that the coalition between their party and another one does not justify their support for the other party if they had no legitimate standards that allow them to support it. Hence, the fact that candidates establish blocs between each others is one thing; and the fact that people elect candidates is another. People must not elect but the person who proves to be representing the best interest of the Nation and who adheres to the line he believes in. On that account, we find that the issue is mainly related to the elector; his assessment of his vote’s legitimacy, his attitude, and his position with regard to all of this.