Muslims Should Not Participate In Secular Democratic Elections

Election day in Canada is only a few days away and Imams, Masjids and Muslim organizations are in full swing asking all of us to vote. They are campaigning for candidates, volunteering at their offices, and taking photo ops. Voting is so commonplace now that Muslims in general do not even stop to wonder if doing so is permissible. Some yell, “Maslahah!” and “It’s our duty as Canadians!!” and other slogans.

In light of these circumstances, we present below some considerations one must make before going out to vote:

1. A believer needs to realize that the default rule on voting and participating in democratic elections in secular countries such as Canada, US, and the UK is haram because the electoral process does not function within the hudud (boundaries) of the Shari’ah. It would also be haram in a country like Turkey or Egypt even if the population is Muslim. Secular Liberalism, whether democratic or not is a kufri (based in disbelief) system. Such systems are not only un-Islamic, but, rather, anti-Islamic.
   Contemporary and previous scholars have expounded this at length.
2. All political parties participating in such systems do so, as a matter of course, on a platform based on secular liberal values.
1. No Muslim candidate can practically put his/her Islam first.
1. The party’s platform is first and foremost; see below for yourselves:
1. https://www.ndp.ca
2. https://www.conservative.ca/about-us/governing-documents/
3. https://liberal.ca/documents/
3. Should Muslims participate in this system?
1. The asl (default) is that participating in such a system is at the very least haram.
2. Participation should only be permitted when we have well defined tangible and measurable Islamic goals, otherwise it is futile and counterproductive as well as haram.
1. Simply stating that there is a “the lesser of two evils” to achieve does not cut it.

What would be considered “well defined tangible and measurable Islamic goals”?

If we understand that ruling by what Allah has revealed is obligatory and anything other than that is kufr, we will understand that to override the default ruling of tahrim (impressibility) requires a few factors:

1. The masalih (benefits) that one is looking to gain or the mafasid (harms) one seeks to avoid should be masalih dhururiyyah (necessary benefits) or mafasid dhururiyyah (necessary harms). So, for example, a tax cut may be a maslahah, but not a necessary one in order to justify or override something that is by default haram and in a kufri system.
   The bar is very high here where one’s ghalabah al-dhann (strong belief of likelihood) is that by protecting these masalih or avoiding these mafasid we will be, for example, protecting lives either within the country or outside it in the Muslim world; either one would be protecting the lives of people or their freedom, or their Iman (faith), for example by voting to curtail the spread of LGBTQ teachings.
2. We need to realize that these masalih need to be masalih yaqiniyah, that is, there needs to be a high level of certainty that we will actually achieve, and not be speculative. So, for example, in Canada, advocating voting Liberal on the pretext that will be good for such and such matters or supporting the Democrats in the US is in fact speculative as we are not certain that these benefits will be realized and in fact know from experience that they are not. These are dhanni masalih (speculative  benefits’) and do not even reach the level of dhann rajih (probable), or even dhann ghalib (more likely). It is simply dhann mutlaq
   (speculative in an absolute sense) – doubtful things they think they may get. There is no acceptable level of certainty or confidence that voting for this person over that person will actually and with certainty give the sought critical benefit, and so these benefits are speculative.
3. The masalih should be mundhabit (measurable) and not abstract. Muslims cannot be listing fluffy or vague masalih that everyone understands in their own way with no solid or tangible meaning that would give a ground-reality benefit to the Muslims. Things like ‘improving the quality of life’ or ‘Muslim rights’ or an ‘ethical foreign policy’ may sound appealing, but they are in reality vague and subjective. What exactly do they mean? What does ‘extremism’ really mean, for example? Conversely and as an example, the number of Muslims unjustly imprisoned is a concrete and measurable matter, as is the number of crimes committed against Muslims, and so on. Or, from another angle, the educational curriculum and LGBTQ being taught in schools are tangible matters – you either must have them in schools or you can opt out.

So unless these three conditions are met, and Allah knows best, one cannot go against and override the asl (default).

Common Objections:

1. The scholars have said that voting is based on maslahah and we should choose the lesser of two evils.
2. Some scholars have said it is wajib (obligatory) to vote.
3. If you don’t vote, it’s a vote for the other side.
4. If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.
5. Voting is the way to be engaged politically and to get our rights.

Quick non-Exhaustive Responses:

1. The proponents of the maslahah argument have not clearly listed what the masalih are that we are aiming for. They are also unwilling to discuss the mafasid that has occurred with mass unguided and unprincipled voting. They also conveniently leave out the important principles we’ve listed above that would allow overriding the default ruling of haram.
   If we were to quickly look at the last 24 years, we would see that the anti-terror laws have not gotten any better, and in fact are ever more draconian. Muslims have voluntarily worked with CSIS and RCMP to undermine the community and support aggression an warfare abroad, and support for Israel has not ceased, and this despite the fact that different parties have been elected to office. Other great evils have also emerged with the help of ‘Muslim’ MPs including the flourishing of homosexuality, their “rights”, and their da’wah to young children.
   Choosing the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and we would argue more so when the situation isn’t a dharurah. The other thing to consider is most Muslims do not even vote with the idea of lesser than two evils or Islamic masalih, but do so because it is considered a civic duty. The idea that participating in such a secular democratic election has ramifications that are detrimental to Islamic values is something that does not even cross people’s minds.
   Shouldn’t those Imams and Islamic organizations pushing the maslahah card first do a detailed analysis of the past 30+ years of what the Muslim community has allegedly gained and actually lost in participating in democratic elections? Shouldn’t they show the community in clear terms what the overriding benefits are?
2. Those that say it is unconditionally wajib will have to answer to Allah. Theoretically, it could be wajib, but that depends on the situation as we discussed above. But how could participating in picking a ruler in an un-Islamic and anti-Islamic system be unconditionally wajib? If those like Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin who mentioned this view in one of his gatherings had seen the condition of the Muslims being elected, voting, without any interest in promoting Islam, would he have still given us the same view? We doubt it. Also, we need to bear in mind that elections in Muslim nations is different than elections in non-Muslim nations. In Muslim nations there are Islamic parties and candidates that clearly call to Allah, enjoin good, and forbid evil, making Islam dominant as their ultimate goal. In a country like Canada, Muslims involved in elections and parliament do not call to Allah, do not enjoin good, nor forbid clear cut evil, and unfortunately do not even want Islam to be dominant. Even the non-Muslims would laugh at the notion that voting in such elections is mandatory.
3. This is ludicrous and we’re shocked that we’ve heard this from a shaykh in the west that is supposed to be well grounded in knowledge. This is a serious lapse in basic logic as elections in the UK and Canada are not a two-party races. Moreover, it is basic arithmetic that abstaining has a net-zero effect, even in a 2-horse race.
4. In fact, the opposite is true. If you’ve decided to participate, then you have no right to complain about the results as you casted a vote to legitimize the system in the first place. Moreover, if none of the vague benefits that you thought would materialize did not do so then it is you who have been fooled. It is by not voting due to being alienated and failed by the system that we gain the moral and logical right to protest against the results and the system. This also happens to be the view of a more than one preeminent western philosopher.
5. This is a very primitive and reductionist way of looking at things. If voting is seen as the only way to engage with society and to demand our rights, then the community has a lot to learn about da’wah, petitioning, legal actions, and more.

Lastly, the solution to the problems Muslims face is rooted in knowledge and practice. In this regard, as well as recommending that Muslims reconnect with their faith and study the fundamentals of ‘aqidah (creed), we also advise that we familiarize ourselves with the history of democracy, secularism, and democratic elections so that we can become real believers, one of whose qualities is, according to the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), that they avoid being stung from the same hole twice. And Allah knows best.