As we stand on the eve of what promises to be a very consequential election, many in our community are confused and frustrated. Who should we vote for? Will our vote matter? What is the best path forward as our growing numbers potentially give us an expanded role in both local and national politics. We do not feel it is appropriate to tell you who to vote for, especially at this late hour. We do, however, feel an obligation to provide insight and information that will hopefully help you to make more informed choices when you step into the ballot box.

Foundations for Muslim Political Participation

As Muslims, we strive to base our affairs on the direction provided us by the Shariah. Many in our community deem voting to be prohibited (Haram) based on how certain textual sources (Qur’an and Sunnah) areinterpreted, or associated analogies (Qiyas), or statements found in juridical (fiqh) texts relating to Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Kufr. It is not our purpose here to take a deep dive into these matters. For the time being, however, we will say the following: Western representative democracies that allow Muslims equal citizenship along with full participation and representation in their political systems have no parallel in the deeply sectarian premodern world. That being the case, we can generally conclude that there is no direct guidance relating to Muslims participating in such systems that we can derive from the ancient sources.

That being the case, we suggest that Shar’i principles, such as securing interests and warding off harm (jalb al-Masalih wa dar’a al-Mafasid) or choosing the lessor of two harmful things (irtikab akhaff al-Dararayn) provide us more insight into how we should approach the issue of participation in our electoral system. There are other principles, however, these two might be considered the most relevant the us in this context. These principles are especially relevant because others are using the electoral system to both secure benefits for themselves to the exclusion of the Muslims, or bring us great harm. Consider in this regard how the Zionists are using the political system to facilitate the wholesale massacre of Muslims in Gaza.

Many of our scholars have opined that if we as Muslims find ourselves in a situation where we can either secure interests or benefits for our community, or ward off some harm, it is incumbent upon us (wajib)todo so. If voting or other forms of political participation are means by which we intend to achieve those objectives, then such means become permissible based on the regulatory principle, “that by which an obligation can only be secured becomes itself an obligation” (Maa lam yatimma al-Wajib illa bihi, fahuwa Wajib). This principle and its applicability here merit a much deeper discussion, but what we mention here should suffice to give us adequate insight into the lawfulness of participating in our electoral systems here in the West.

Practical Considerations for the Upcoming Election

In the upcoming election, Muslims, like our fellow citizens are left with three viable options. Below we briefly discuss the pros and cons of each option:

The Democrats, whose ticket is headed nationally by Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris

Pros: Since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the Democratic Party has steadily come to be perceived as the party representing the interests of minorities. Johnson is related by the renowned journalist, Bill Moyers, to have said the day he signed that Act, “Well, I think we just lost the South for your lifetime and mine.” The Civil Rights Actand the legal as well as the political protection it provided for African Americans in the formerly democratic South, pushed white racists into the Republican Party.This shift was catalyzed by the Republican Party adopting the “Southern Strategy” of Kevin Phillips in the late 1960s.

The Democrat Party’s appeal to “minorities” has gradually led it, since 9/11 to advocate for Muslims domestically. This advocacy has worked to create a climate that helped to mitigate the public animosity directed at Muslims during the “War on Terror” initiated by President George W Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 events, as well as during the aftermath of the presidential campaign and subsequent presidency of Donald J Trump beginning in 2015. It also led to some high-level Muslim presidential appointments and a wave of mid and low-level appointees in several governmental agencies and bureaus. In summary, although the policy impact of the Democrats’ advocacy for Muslims can be debated, the more relaxed and open political climate resulting from that advocacy, especially during the Obama and Biden presidential administrations is undeniable.

The Democrats also have a markedly better record than the Republicans on climate issues. The Republicans, through deregulation, downsizing critical governmental agencies such as the EPA, threats to eliminate air and water protection standards, as well as an open rejection of international climate initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, place them in stark contrast to the positions taken by the Democrats in this regard.

Although they are almost as beholden to the NRA as the Republicans when it is time to vote on any significant reforms related to the sale, possession, and use of firearms, the Democrats have proven far more open to a national conversation on gun law reform and Democratic lawmakers are far more likely to propose commonsense measure that may one day serve as the foundation to stop the slaughter we now witness in our streets, schools, and homes (mostly gun related suicides) as a result of firearms.

Cons: The political impact of the Democrats’ appeal to minorities in this country has been most profoundly illustrated by its strident advocacy for the radical items on the agenda of the LGBTQIAP+ community. This includes expanding the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution to protect gay marriage, the strident defense of the right of transgender women to compete against biological females in women’s sports, and a drastic reformulation of academic curricula to force Muslim families to either pull their children from public schools or expose them to beliefs and practices, the latter oftentimes illustrated pornographically, that are totally antithetical to Muslim family values.

Democratic support for almost unrestricted abortion rights, as well as aspects of extreme feminism that undergird the advocacy for such rights, such as a female’s unrestricted bodily autonomy, an autonomy that neither males nor females enjoy in Islam, run antithetical to Muslims’ beliefs and values.

The Democrats also have the distinction of being the party in power during the ongoing Gazan Genocide. Although high ranking members of the Party, such as Harris and President Joe Biden, have recently began calling for a ceasefire to temporarily stop the bloodletting, they continue to arm the Zionist regime with most of the weapons, as well as the political and diplomatic cover needed to perpetuate the slaughter of innocent Palestinians. The Biden/Harris administration also continues giving Israel license to carry out heinous war crimes by continuous evoking her right to “defend itself.”

The Republicans, whose ticket is headed nationally by former president, Donald J Trump

Pros: The Republican Party opposes the radical LGBTQIAP+ agenda, as well as other measures and movements that have resulted in a dangerous assault on the family as we have known it. Leftist critics of the traditional family are quick to point out its problems. Some even call for its abolition, however, they offer no credible alternatives, and the early results of “alternative” family structures are not promising.

They also advocate for banning abortion, however, their stance on the issue is not totally reflective of the Muslim position. In practice, many Republicans initiated abortion bans have led to draconian policies that have denied many women access to a procedure that may in some rare instances saved their lives, or their future childbearing ability in many others. The relevant medical exemptions, in most cases, would not have contravened Islamic rulings.

The Republicans also advocate for general religious rights and freedoms in ways that in some instances may benefit Muslims, globally. This might not be readily apparent to the average observer. For example, during the Trump Administration, his push for religious freedoms led to a very strident position against the Chinese government’s genocidal campaign against the UighurMuslims. His administration also led a vigorous campaign to impose strong sanctions against officials of the Myanmar government known to have participated in the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims.

The Republicans, as a party, starting at the top of the ticket, spell the death to any reasonable environmental policies. Their “drill baby drill” ethos, as well as their near total opposition to any positive ecological policies with a significant economic price tag create grave concerns for environmental scientists, activists, and well-informed members of the public.

The Republicans continue to include opposition to “radical” Islam as a plank of the party’s platform. Although that might not be something many Muslims would consider a bad thing, rabid Islamophobes, who the party also appeals to, work assiduously to ensure that the public sees all Muslims as “radical.” The failure of any distinction between radicals and others, leads a significant number of the republicans to support the genocide in Gaza, by way of example, by claiming that all Muslims, or in the case of Gaza, all Palestinians are terrorists.
Anyone considering this hyperbolic, consider this rant by Rudi Giuliani,one of President Trump’s staunchest supporters.

The Republican Party is also a white nationalist party. It could be argued that this has been the case since it began openly courting southern segregationists as part of the “Southern Strategy,” in the late 1960s. This should have obvious implications for racial minorities in this country, although domestically those implications are often overlooked owing to factors beyond the scope of this message. The foreign implications, however, are a lot more visible. Trump’s support for the likes of Viktor Orban and other European white nationalist parties and personalities is well known. Geert Wilders, perhaps the leading European white nationalist, is known as the “Dutch Trump.” The ascendency of European white nationalist parties, many of whom Trump has embraced, threatens massive deportment of European Muslims as well as rolling back many of the advances European Muslims have made in recent decades.

Trump also threatens a more intense assault against the Palestinians, if that is humanly possible, as well as open attacks on any entity Israel deems to be her enemy, starting with Iran. Trump apologists should remember that it was Trump who moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, as well as giving the Golan Heights to Israel. These acts received the overwhelming support of the Republican Party.

The Green Party, whose ticket is headed nationally by Dr. Jill Stein

Pros: The Green Party is an instrument that allows Muslims to vote for a party that shares Muslim outrage over the ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as opposition to the war profiteering military industrial complex undergirding US policies that make that genocide possible. It also shares the ecological thinking of many Muslims who understand that climate change constitutes anexistential threat to humanity, and its most devastating consequences are being visited upon Muslim lands. The Green Party also advocates for policies that see Muslims respected as full participants in the political system of this country. This is symbolized by Dr. Butch Bilal Ware as the Green Party’s vice-presidential candidate.

The Green Party has a large slate of candidates for local elected officials all over the country. Many of these candidates have realistic chances of winning the offices they are running for.

Cons: The Green Party, in the context of the American political duopoly, has no policy-making impact. Considering the very evident centrist shift of the Democrats during Harris’ brief campaign, there is little hope that the Green Party can assume the role of Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the 2016 and 2020 elections by pulling the Dems further to the left of the political spectrum. The Green Party is certainly a progressive political institution. Unfortunately, it lacks the money and votes to begin to disrupt the system in ways done by Sanders in 2016 and 2020, or Ross Perot (with 19% of the popular vote) in 1992. In all three instances, the disruptions were short-lived.

The Green Party also has one the most draconian programs supporting the LGBTQIAP+ agenda. That agenda, if implemented into law, would include denying visas to Muslims, and others who do not recognize same sex marriages, and financial penalties for people guilty of inflicting undefined “injustices” on members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Summary

Obviously, this message is not designed to tell Muslims who to vote for. That is not the job of religious leaders at this point in the political evolution of our community. It is also too late in the game to create a strong and unified Muslim bloc vote. We would, however, encourage Muslims to vote, as a civic duty. While so doing, one should consider the theoretical points we mention above.

If one is not inspired to vote for anyone at the top of the ticket, one should consider voting down ballot as there are many viable candidates for state and municipal offices. These include state senators and representatives, mayors, city council members, school board members, and others. They will be making decisions daily that affect our cities, towns, schools, communities, and families. They will also be significant in determining how federal policies are implemented locally.

Ultimately, as a community, we will have to build our own political institutions. Unless we are willing to do just that, we will be forever forced into sacrificing some of our core values, engaging in what some of us might view as untenable compromises, or simply dropping out of the political process altogether. Building such institutions will be neither easy nor cheap. However, if we are serious about sharing some of the solutions our Deen offers to the people of this country as well as the world, we will have to do just that. If we fail to do so, we will continue to get riled up every four years, only to end up frustrated and confused.

As in all things amenable to disagreement and varying opinions, surely Allah knows best.

© 2024 New Islamic Directions ™

Photo Image: Douglas Rissing