Voting in democracy
Voting has become widely practised across countries who have adopted democracy. It is used to allow people to choose their leader and to create a system that suits their wants.
Most people are ruling with other than what Allah has revealed, while creating a system for themselves in which their desires are met.
But are Muslims committing major shirk by voting for a politician who's task it is to create laws and policies for the people he represents?
- Voting for a political party is shirk
- Voting for a political party is not shirk
We hold the view that voting for a political party is not considered an act of shirk. Our arguments for this will be presented below.
Clarifying the doubts regarding this matter
Those who have stated that voting for a political party to be major shirk have expressed different arguments.
- "Legislating is an act of major shirk, so the voter encourages major shirk, which makes him a mushrik"
- "Voting is telling the candidate he is permitted to legislate, and this is major shirk, because legislating besides Allah is forbidden"
- "Voting implies istihlal of all the haram a party propogates"
- "The one who votes is rejecting the Shariah"
- "The one who votes is not fulfilling Kufr bi Taghut, thus have become a kafir"
- "The one who votes is upholding the Kufr system of democracy"
We will go through them all to clarify why we believe these arguments to be invalid.
1. "Legislating is an act of major shirk, so the voter encourages major shirk, which makes him a mushrik"
It is true that when a person encourages or allows someone to commit major shirk, he becomes a kafir by doing that.
However, allowing someone to do something that isn't major shirk like consuming alcohol or pork, won't put a person outside the fold of Islam.
A lack of disgust for shirk is disbelief, because the foundation of Islam is monotheism. No one can be a Muslim if they find nothing wrong in shirk, even partially. There must be full disgust for shirk to maintain one’s status as a Muslim.
Full disgust is not a condition of Islam regarding major sins, but it is a condition when it comes to major shirk.
If legislating were an act of major shirk, we would have to agree with those who claim, "The voter is a mushrik, whether or not he believes the politician has the right to legislate. Just as one is a mushrik if he worships a grave, regardless of whether he considers the person a god or not."
But we believe legislating isn't an act of major shirk, which means the voter doesn't become a kafir. Let's delve into the evidences.
Whether legislating is major shirk
So is legislating really an act of major shirk? Or is it major shirk only when one claims the right to make laws besides Allah?
What happens when a person legislates while acknowledging they have no right to do so? Does such a person become a kafir?
It is true that only Allah has the right to legislate. Anyone who denies this is a kafir.
Legislating while refusing lordship
Some assume that anyone who makes laws intends to override the Shariah or to claim lordship and the authority to decide what is right and wrong.
However, there are those who legislate without claiming lordship or authority like Allah.
They create laws simply to allow their desires to be fulfilled without consequences, shaping an environment that suits them.
This is like a host who invites guests and sets rules in his home according to his desires, allowing alcohol, pork, smoking, and similar things.
If you asked such a host why he permits these actions in his house, he would say it aligns with his desires, while knowing he is going against the commands of Allah.
Crucial point: the difference between allowing and permitting
Allowing something to happen is very different to permitting something. Although 'permitting' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'allowing,' this can be confusing for those who read the word 'permitted.'
Some say: "That legislator described a matter as permitted in his country, so he must also consider it halal."
However, when one looks more closely at the issue, it often becomes clear that by 'permitted,' it is meant that something is 'allowed', without necessarily being considered halal.
In Arabic, the term 'halal' is understood on the one hand as 'allowing something to happen', and on the other hand as 'permitting something'.
Therefore, making laws does not automatically mean that something is regarded as halal; it can rather be seen as allowing it to happen without declaring it halal.
For example, Islamic leaders might describe an action as permitted, while in reality they mean that it is 'allowed' in their country.
People might then say to them: "You described this and that as permitted while Allah has forbidden it." To which they respond: "Allah has indeed forbidden it, but I did not mean that it is allowed in that sense; rather, I mean that I 'allow' it in my country, knowing that Allah has forbidden it. I am sinful in this, and I acknowledge it."
Example: Host of a house, legislator of a country
This raises the question: if a host does not become a kafir by allowing his guests to commit haram, then why would a ruler become one for doing the same?
Someone may argue that a ruler makes laws while the host does not, but the principle remains the same: both are permitting haram to take place, with the only difference being the level of authority they hold.
Both the host and the ruler enable what Allah has forbidden through their actions, yet this cannot on its own be taken as evidence of istihlal.
If allowing something to happen is considered istihlal, then takfir should also be made of anyone who allows his guests to drink alcohol, or anyone who encourages his friends to smoke with him.
If allowing something through action is not istihlal, then legislating something likewise does not automatically amount to istihlal.
So what constitutes istihlal? It occurs when a person makes the haram halal in his heart—meaning, he believes it to be lawful. But since no one can see into the heart, how is istihlal recognized? It becomes apparent when a person expresses what is in his heart through speech or writing.
When someone says that alcohol is halal—intending by it that Allah’s prohibition is invalid—only then is it permissible to make takfir of him, not merely because he allows its consumption without declaring it halal.
The difficulty lies in the fact that some use the words “halal” or “permissible” without meaning that it is allowed in the religion or that Allah’s ruling is invalid. A person may simply say he permits something in his house without intending to make it religiously lawful.
A clear example of this is the verse where Allah said:
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تُحَرِّمُوا۟ طَيِّبَـٰتِ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ
O believers! Do not forbid the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.
[5:87 Quran]
In this verse, Allah instructs the believers not to prohibit for themselves what He has made lawful.
This shows that a person may acknowledge that Allah has permitted something, yet choose to refrain from it personally—without believing it to be haram. In such a case, his action is one of personal prohibition, not a belief-based prohibition.
This verse was revealed concerning two of the Sahaba who chose to renounce worldly life and abstain from women.
٧١٨ - مَعْمَرٌ , عَنْ قَتَادَةَ , فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {لَا تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ} [المائدة: ٨٧] , قَالَ: «نَزَلَتْ فِي أُنَاسٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَرَادُوا أَنْ يَتَخَلَّوْا مِنَ الدُّنْيَا , وَيَتْرُكُوا النِّسَاءَ , مِنْهُمْ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ , وَعُثْمَانُ بْنُ مَظْعُونٍ»
[تفسير عبد الرزاق – سورة المائدة آية ٨٧]
Abdurrazzaq al-San'ani mentioned:
Maʿmar, from Qatādah, reported regarding the words of Allah Almighty: “Do not forbid the good things which Allah has made lawful for you” [Al-Māʾidah: 87]. This verse was revealed concerning some Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who intended to renounce worldly life and abstain from women, among them ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān ibn Madʿūn.
[Tafsir Abdurrazzaq - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 87]
These two Sahaba prohibited something for themselves through action, not belief, yet Allah did not call them kuffar for doing so.
The same principle applies to someone who permits something through action, not belief.
An example of permitting something by action without belief is encouraging the consumption of alcohol or inviting others to join in it.
“A legislator writes down that something is allowed, the host doesn’t”
Even if a host were to write on a sheet of paper and stick it on his window saying, “In this house, alcohol is allowed, pork is allowed, smoking is allowed,” this would not mean he considers it halal.
You could enter that house and ask the host about what he wrote: “Do you consider these things halal?” He would reply, “No, Allah has clearly made them haram, but in my house I will allow anyone who does them, due to my desires. What I allow does not override what Allah commanded; it is only because of my desires.”
The same applies to a legislator. He may write, “In this country alcohol is allowed, pork is allowed, smoking is allowed,” yet that does not mean he considers it halal. He may be asked, “Do you consider these things halal?” And he would respond, “No, Allah has clearly made them haram, but in my country I will allow anyone who does them, due to my desires. What I allow does not override what Allah commanded; it is only because of my desires.”
From this we see that a legislator does not commit istihlal merely by creating laws. He only permits certain things for people, and it is only when he believes those laws override Allah’s command (meaning, he believes it is halal) that it becomes istihlal.
The Salaf Saliheen did not regard legislating to be an act of major shirk
When we look at the statements of the Salaf Saliheen like Abdul-'Aziz ibn Yahya al-Kinani or Ibn Abbas in his saying "Kufr duna Kufr", we see that legislating is not an act of major shirk in of in itself.
Abdul-'Aziz ibn Yahya al-Kinani for example, said that a ruler does not become a kafir when he partially rules with the Shariah.
This means that if he ruled with other laws besides the Shariah, he wouldn't become a kafir, unless he leaves off the Shariah completely.
وسمعت أبا القاسم الحبيبي، قال: سمعت أبا زكريا العنبري، يحكي عن عبد العزيز بن يحيى الكناني إنه سأل عن هذه الآيات، قال: إنها تقع على جميع ما أنزل الله لا على بعضه فكل من لم يحكم بجميع ما أنزل الله فهو كافر ظالم فاسق.
فأما من يحكم ببعض ما أنزل الله من التوحيد (وترك) الشرك ثم لم يحكم بهما (فبين) ما أنزل الله من الشرائع لم يستوجب حكم هذه الآيات
[تفسير الثعلبي - الثعلبي - ج ٤ - الصفحة ٧٠]
Al-Tha'labi mentioned:
From Abū al-Qāsim al-Ḥabībī, from Abū Zakariyyā al-‘Anbarī, from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī, who said when being asked about these verses: "It only applies to everything that Allah has revealed, not to some of it. So anyone who does not judge by what Allah has revealed (leaves it in its entirety) is a kafir, dhalim, and fasiq.
As for the one who rules by part of what Allah has revealed — for example: Upholding Tawheed and abandoning shirk — but then does not rule by what Allah has revealed of the laws and rulings, he does not fall under the full judgment of these verses.’”
[Tafsir al-Tha'labi - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Yaḥyā al-Kinānī understands Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44 to mean that if a ruler refuses to govern with Shariah in its entirety, that he becomes a kafir.
Al-Nakhas also acknowledges this position of Abdul-'Aziz al-Kinani, as he mentioned it in his book regarding the two views regarding ruling with other than Shariah.
وقد قيل: من لم يحكم بما أنزل الله مستحلّا لذلك. وقد قيل: من ترك الحكم بجميع ما أنزل الله فهو كافر.
[إعراب القرآن – النخاس – سورة المائدة آية ٤٤]
Al-Nakhas said:
"First view: Whoever does not rule/judge by what Allah has revealed while considering it permissible.
Second view: Whoever abandons judging/ruling by all that Allah has revealed, he is a disbeliever."
[I'rab al-Quran - Al-Nakhas - Surah al-Ma'idah verse 44]
All the statements of the Salaf Saliheen regarding this issue has been mentioned in our article 'ruling with other than Shariah', including the statement of Ibn Abbas.
Concluding: a legislator does not become kafir
When a person decides to create laws contrary to what Allah has legislated, he either becomes a kafir or remains a Muslim. The result is based on why he creates these laws.
- Legislating becomes major shirk when you want those laws to override what Allah has legislated
- Legislating becomes a major sin when you allow people to do things which are haram while acknowledging that there are no laws binding except Allah's
We can also see that a host and a legislator are the same in principle; one simply holds more power and is able to enforce on a larger scale and penalize people.
But the principle is the same, which is that both a host and a legislator allow and prohibit things under their people.
The mere allowance and prohibition is not major shirk unless accompanied with istihlal, when both say for example, “What we have decided for our people is binding and they should place us as the authority, not Allah. What we prohibit is right, and what we allow is right, and anyone who goes against it is wrong.”
This would be clear istihlal, and that is without a doubt apostasy in Islam.
"But legislators automatically claim the right to make laws"
If we acknowledge that a murderer does not claim to have the right to take life, or that a sculptor does not claim to have the right to create animate beings, then the same should be said about the act of legislating. The one who legislates does not automatically claim the right to do so.
"Only Allah has the right to legislate!", "Only Allah has the right to take life!", "Only Allah has the right to create animate images!"
We agree to all these statements. Yet we know that a person who takes life unjustly, knowing it is wrong, is not a kafir.
Similarly, a person who creates animate images is not a kafir if they acknowledge that only Allah has this right. The kufr lies not in the act itself, but in the belief or claim behind it.
So if we cannot make takfir of someone who unjustly kills another or creates animate images, why make takfir of a legislator?
Legislating—like murder—can occur from desire, pressure, ignorance, or sin, and does not necessarily indicate belief in sovereignty.
A ruler may enact laws out of personal desire, seeking certain actions to go unpunished, while still recognizing Allah as the ultimate authority. Creating laws in this way does not mean he competes with Allah; he acts out of desire, not a claim to sovereignty.
A legislator writing down that alcohol is legal in his country does not say that it overrides Allah's laws. He only states that in his country, he would not put consequences on a person who does it.
So such a legislator is similar to a host who writes down that he will allow people to consume alcohol in his house. Such action would not necessitate that the host means with it that it overrides the laws of Allah.
Therefore, the act of legislating is not major shirk in and of itself; it only becomes so when it is accompanied by claiming authority alongside or above Allah. This is what is meant by the verse:
If a person agrees that only Allah has the right to legislate and that his laws are not above Allah's, he is no different from a sculptor who makes animate images knowing only Allah has this right.
So does a voter become a kafir for allowing a politician to legislate? No. The act of legislating alone is not major shirk unless accompanied by competition with Allah or claiming lordship besides Allah.
Because if we claim that such a politician becomes a kafir for allowing what Allah has prohibited, then the same logic would also apply to a host who permits his guests to consume alcohol without objection. Both would be allowing something Allah made forbidden (by action, not belief).
Istihlal does not occur simply through allowing something by one’s actions, such as a host permitting his guests to listen to music, gossip, or similar acts. No one would claim that such a host ceases to be a Muslim merely for allowing these things.
2. "Voting is telling the candidate he is permitted to legislate, and this is major shirk, because legislating besides Allah is forbidden"
The logic used for this argument contradicts other situations. Consider the following examples:
- A judge takes bribes and rules in favor of a thief, even if the thief stole $500,000 from innocent people. This demonstrates allowance for injustice, but it does not mean that the judge is implying the thief’s act is permissible in Islam.
- Person A kills Person B unjustly, while knowing he has done wrong. The killing does not imply that the killer has the right, Islamically, to take another life.
- Two people commit zina, knowing it is sinful. Their act does not imply that they have the right to commit zina or that it is permissible.
- A host allows his guests to commit haram in his house, even initiating it. The host does not become a kafir simply for allowing haram to occur, because it does not automatically mean he considers it permissible.
These scenarios demonstrate that an action does not necessarily imply permissibility.
Therefore, it cannot be said that a voter’s action implies that he regards what the candidate does as permissible or that the candidate has the right to legislate.
"But he allows a person to make laws besides Allah, so this is istihlal!" Then why do they not say, "The host of his house becomes a kafir for allowing his guests to commit haram"?
This shows that the action itself cannot be considered istihlal. Otherwise, it would imply that anyone acting on or encouraging haram due to desires is making it halal.
By their logic, someone telling a friend to smoke or drink alcohol would be committing major kufr, as it would be considered istihlal.
It becomes clear that encouraging others to commit haram does not automatically constitute istihlal. Likewise, a voter who supports a candidate does not imply that the candidate’s actions are permissible.
3. "Voting implies istihlal of all the haram a party propogates"
Those who make this argument believe that when a person votes for a political party, he must agree with everything the party stands for.
This is not true in most cases. In reality, voters rarely agree with every position of a political party; there are always some points they may disagree with.
Voting is about choosing the option that best suits one’s needs or priorities. Therefore, it is invalid to assume that a voter agrees with everything a party holds simply because of the act of voting.
For example, some parties may support policies like legalizing transgender rights, while at the same time advocating principles aligned with Islam, such as helping the poor or improving access to healthcare.
Similarly, conservative parties may hold positions that contradict certain Islamic traditions but promote policies like making abortion illegal, encouraging family creation, and upholding traditional gender roles.
Voting for a conservative or progressive party does not necessarily imply rejection of Islamic principles. The intention and reasoning behind the vote are what matter.
About the Prophet's saying: "They prohibited what Allah permitted, and permitted what Allah prohibited, that is how you worshiped them"
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ ثَنَا أَبُو غَسَّانَ مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَابْنُ الْأَصْبَهَانِيِّ ح وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو حُصَيْنٍ الْقَاضِي ثَنَا يَحْيَى الْحِمَّانِيُّ قَالُوا ثَنَا عَبْدُ السَّلَامِ بْنُ حَرْبٍ أَنَا غُطَيْفُ بْنُ أَعْيَنَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَزِيرَةِ عَنْ مُصْعَبِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ عَنْ عَدِيِّ بْنِ حَاتِمٍ قَالَ
أَتَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ وَفِي عُنُقِي صَلِيبٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ فَقَالَ يَا عَدِيُّ اطْرَحْ هَذَا الْوَثَنَ مِنْ عُنُقِكَ فَطَرَحْتُهُ فَانْتَهَيْتُ إِلَيْهِ وَهُوَ يَقْرَأُ سُورَةَ بَرَاءَةَ فَقَرَأَ هَذِهِ الْآيَةَ {اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ} حَتَّى فَرَغَ مِنْهَا فَقُلْتُ إنَّا لَسْنَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ فَقَالَ «أَلَيْسَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا أَحَلَّ اللهُ فَتُحَرِّمُونُهُ ويُحِلُّونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللهُ فَتَسْتَحِلُّونَهُ؟» قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ «فَتِلْكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ»
[المعجم الكبير - الطبراني - الجزء ١٧ - الصفحة ٩٢]
Al-Tabarani mentioned:
ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated to us, Abu Ghassan, Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl and ibn al-Asbahānī narrated to us; and Abu Ḥusayn al-Qāḍī narrated to us, Yahyā al-Ḥimmanī said: they said, ‘ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb narrated to us, I am Guṭayf ibn Aʿyan from the people of al-Jazīrah, from Muṣʿab ibn Saʿd, from ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim, who said:
“I came to the Prophet ﷺ while there was a cross of gold around my neck. He said, ‘O ʿAdiyy, remove this idol from your neck,’ so I removed it. I then came to him while he was reciting Sūrat al-Barā’ah (Surah Tawbah), and he recited this verse: {They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah} until he finished it.
I said, ‘We did not worship them.’
He said, ‘Do they not make unlawful what Allah has made lawful, and you then make it unlawful? And do they not make lawful what Allah has made unlawful, and you then deem it lawful?’
I said, ‘Yes.’
He said, ‘That is how you worshiped them.’”
[Al-Muj'am al-Kabir - al-Tabarani - Volume 17 - Page 92]
Some argue that when a political party permits alcohol, music, or similar actions, following their allowance is equivalent to worshipping them, just as the Jews and Christians worshipped their rabbis and monks.
There is a clear distinction between these two scenarios. The difference is:
- The rabbis and monks permitted what Allah had forbidden in belief. They considered their legislation to take precedence over Allah's commands.
- Most legislators allow certain forbidden actions through practice, not belief. They do not intend to override Allah's prohibition; they simply permit what Allah has forbidden (in action) while still believing it remains forbidden (in belief).
This means one cannot say, "See? These legislators allow things, just like the rabbis and monks did, so both are equivalent."
The rulings are not the same. Those rabbis and monks declared certain things halal, intending with it that Allah's prohibition was invalid.
Most legislators do not claim Allah's prohibition is invalid (except those who are Atheists); they merely allow actions, not in belief but through their practice. It is like a host allowing guests to eat pork, without believing it to be permissible.
Therefore, the argument that following a legislator in such matters constitutes worship is invalid, because one does not believe that what they allowed is truly permissible.
If a legislator permits music and you take part in it, it does not mean you have become a kafir, as long as you maintain the belief that music is actually haram.
So returning to the main point, the claim that "voting implies istihlal of all the haram a party promotes" is invalid, because a person does not believe that what legislators permit through action is actually halal, nor that it overrides what Allah has forbidden.
The Prophet (ﷺ) spoke about certain Christians and Jews who made their leaders authoritative in legislation, believing that their rulings could override Allah's legislation. Whatever they considered permissible, they adopted in belief.
4. "The one who votes is not fulfilling Kufr bi Taghut, thus has become a kafir"
This argument is based on the belief that if a person comes close to a Taghut, he must not hate the Taghut. And anyone who does not hate the Taghut supposedly does not hate kufr or shirk, making him a kafir.
This conclusion is hastily drawn without considering the possible reasons a person might come close to a Taghut.
For example, consider Musa 'alayhi salam when he approached Fir'awn and spoke to him in a gentle tone. Did Musa 'alayhi salam become a kafir for speaking softly to a Taghut? Some might argue that speaking gently is a sign of respect, and that anyone showing respect to a Taghut does not hate him, and thus is a kafir. Clearly, this is an unreasonable conclusion.
Therefore, we should always examine the reasons behind a person's actions in situations where the action alone does not indicate a single intent.
We believe that a Muslim ruler does not become a false deity if he rules by other than Shariah, unless he intentionally competes with Allah and claims authority in legislation.
Even if one were to argue that voting for a false god to come into power is an act of major shirk in all cases, then by the same logic one would have to claim that going to a soothsayer and believing him is also major shirk in all cases.
Yet going to a soothsayer and believing him is not an act of major shirk. How, then, can one claim that merely coming close to a Taghut is major shirk? And what could be closer than believing a soothsayer?
باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به عن الملة
٩٩٤ - حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ الْكَاذِيُّ , قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ , قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ , قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ , عَنْ حَكِيمٍ الْأَثْرَمِ , عَنْ أَبِي تَمِيمَةَ الْهُجَيْمِيِّ , عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ , قَالَ: قَالَ ⦗٧٣٠⦘ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «مَنْ أَتَى كَاهِنًا فَصَدَّقَهُ بِمَا يَقُولُ فَقَدْ كَفَرَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ»
[الإبانة الكبرى - ابن بطة - الجزء ٢ - الصفحة ٧٢٩]
Ibn Battah mentioned:
Chapter: Mention of sins that lead a person to kufr, without taking them out of the fold of Islam.
...
Ishaq al-Kadhi narrated to us, saying: ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated to us, saying: my father narrated to me, saying: Waki‘ narrated to us, saying: Hammad ibn Salama narrated to us, from Hakim al-Athram, from Abu Tamimah al-Hujaymi, from Abu Huraira, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever goes to a soothsayer and believes what he says has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad ﷺ.”
[Al-Ibanatul Kubrah - Ibn Battah - Volume 2 - Page 729]
According to those who argue, "The one who votes is not fulfilling Kufr bi Taghut, thus has become a kafir," they should also declare takfir on anyone who goes to a soothsayer and believes what they say. Yet, according to Islamic scholars, this action is considered a major sin, not apostasy.
For this reason, voting for a taghut who claims to be a false deity cannot be considered major shirk if the voter does so only to choose the lesser of two evils. However, if the voter sees no wrong in the taghut, then he would indeed be considered a kafir.
This is not to suggest that every ruler who legislates by other than Shariah is a taghut in the sense of being a false deity. Legislating by itself is not an act of major shirk, unless the ruler intentionally competes with Allah.
5. "The one who votes is rejecting the Shariah"
Some argue that by voting, a person automatically rejects the Shariah. This argument is invalid.
One must always consider the intention behind the vote. If someone votes with the mindset that Islam should be abolished, only then can that person be considered a kafir.
Voting for a party that enacts laws contrary to Shariah does not necessarily mean rejecting Allah’s laws. Similarly, a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed does not reject Allah’s laws simply by acting in this way.
There are many reasons why a person might vote, and it cannot be assumed that rejecting Islam is the sole motivation. In fact, this is rarely the case.
One should be cautious and avoid rushing to conclusions. Would we say that a host rejects Islam if he allows his guests to commit haram?
Such actions require careful consideration, because there are often multiple explanations behind them.
6. "The one who votes is upholding the Kufr system of democracy, thus becoming a kafir"
This argument is based on the misconception that democracy makes people into gods besides Allah. This is not true, unless they claim to have the right to legislate.
Democracy was never built on the idea of "the people are the authority", rather, it was meant as "People get the ability to decide".
Granting the ability to act and claiming authority are two separate matters. One may allow guests to engage in haram actions without claiming the right to do so themselves.
Democracy doesn't have to be political
In its basic form, democracy is collective decision-making in which the majority opinion determines the outcome.
This principle can also apply to non-political situations, such as debates where the audience decides the winner, or fan-voted awards like "Player of the Month."
When democracy does become kufr
If a country explicitly claims that humans hold ultimate authority in legislation, in competition with Allah or in rejection of Him, then this specific structure is considered kufr.
Modern democracy, however, does not fall under this category, as it does not claim humans as ultimate authorities in legislation besides Allah. Rather, it provides people the ability to choose which laws will be implemented within the country.
In an Islamic sense, the only forms of democracy that would constitute kufr are those where humans determine for themselves what is morally right or wrong, as with the Ancient Greeks or atheistic systems. Only Allah has the ultimate right to legislate moral law.
This is no longer the case in modern democracies with religious foundations, such as Christian-majority countries, where politicians generally uphold divine moral laws and do not intend to override them, even if they allow homosexuality.
Conclusion: Voting is not shirk
It is quite clear that voting cannot be considered shirk in all cases. The majority of voters in the Islamic community do so to create a more favorable environment for Muslims, reduce Islamophobia, and support policies that benefit society.
People do not vote with the intention of changing moral laws, such as permitting zina or alcohol consumption. Rather, they vote to influence policies.
Even if one were to claim that voting is shirk, it would still follow that voting for a politician to improve foreign policy, immigration policy, or financial policy does not make the voter a kafir.
We hold the view that voting is not shirk, and that legislating only becomes major shirk when accompanied by denial or rejection of Allah’s laws.
Some rulers may legislate to create an environment that suits their wants without claiming to be god or rejecting Allah’s laws.
Once it becomes clear that voting is not shirk, it becomes obligatory for a person to correct their stance. We previously held the view that voting was shirk, but upon understanding otherwise, we adopted the stronger and more accurate position.
وَلَيْسَتْ تَدْخُلُنِي أَنَفَةٌ مِنْ إظْهَارِ الِانْتِقَالِ عَمَّا كُنْت أَرَى إلَى غَيْرِهِ إذَا بَانَتْ الْحُجَّةُ فِيهِ بَلْ أَتَدَيَّنُ بِأَنَّ عَلَيَّ الرُّجُوعَ عَمَّا كُنْت أَرَى إلَى مَا رَأَيْتُهُ الْحَقَّ
[كتاب الأم - المجلد ٧ - الصفحة ٢٨٩]
Imam Shafi'i said:
"And no pride prevents me from showing that I have changed from what I used to see to something else when the proof becomes clear in it. Rather, I consider it a duty upon me to return from what I used to see to that which I have perceived as the truth."
[Kitab al-Umm - Volume 7 - Page 289]