Is it permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in the lands of non-Muslims?

The Reality of al-Albaanee's Position on Voting
Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee
Reference: Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #284 starting at approx 54mins. and continuing on tape #285
Category: Contemporary Issues


Some students of knowledge issued a verdict permitting voting for the best of the available Christian candidates based on the premise that this is from choosing the lesser of two evils. Is this permissible?

In addition, isn’t this considered to be increasing their numbers which may in turn have a negative effect on the public's opinion of Muslims?

Shaykh: I have been asked this question on more than one occasion, and I believe that it is incomplete. So if you want to complete this unfinished question by bringing further clarity [then do so]...

Questioner: What is the permissibility of voting for the best available candidate, particularly if they are Christian?
This question is incomplete just as it was when presented by other than you. I will now say what I think is intended by the question.

In the event that there are a number of Christian candidates who are imposed upon the Muslims, meaning that one of them has to be elected whether the Muslims like it or not, the previously mentioned principal is applied: namely, choosing the lesser of two evils. For example, there are four Christian candidates in a certain country and it is inevitable that one of them will be the winner (elected).

Hypothetically speaking, if it were only the Muslims voting [for these candidates] and no one else - not even one other person is voting - such that if the Muslims refrained from voting they wouldn't be elected, then it is not permissible to vote for them.
Is it clear up to here?

Questioner: Yes

Shaykh: However, if the situation is contrary to this, and this is what I think the question is referring to, then one of them must be selected due to the electoral process established today. It is upon you to know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever…[The Shaykh then begins to explain some of the ills of democracy and the harm of giving power to someone who requests it, in contrast to the beauty of the Islamic shooraa]...
Discussing these issues is lengthy. However, the point is that it has been forced upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is forced upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians.

If the Muslims do not choose between them, then their own people will choose. In either case, one of them is going to be elected. But as we said earlier there may be four or five candidates. The Muslims in that country must consider it like this: The first candidate is a Baathist and a non-Muslim, the second is a communist and a non-Muslim, the third is an atheist and a non-Muslim and so on. The last is a practicing Christian who does not harbor animosity (enmity) towards the Muslims. If there is no way around the fact that one or two of them are going to be elected, then what should the Muslims do? Should they say, "We are not going to get involved? They are Christians. Let them fight each other." No, this is not the case, because two of these candidates will be elected regardless.
So O Muslims, O you who have sense, is this principle to be applied in this scenario or not? I say yes, because the Muslims in this case are between two evils. Similarly, this is the case if the candidates were Muslims, since amongst the Muslims are Communists, Baathists and so on. Okay, do we just sit back and watch or should we choose the one whose harm is less???

Translator: Tahir Wyatt, Abu Abdur-Razzaaq
Date Published: Friday, 09 February 2007

The Reality of al-Albaanee's Position on Voting

Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

Questioner: Some students of knowledge issued a verdict permitting voting for the best of the available Christian candidates based on the premise that this is from choosing the lesser of two evils. Is this permissible?

In addition, isn’t this considered to be increasing their numbers which may in turn have a negative effect on the public's opinion of Muslims?



Shaykh: I have been asked this question on more than one occasion, and I believe that it is incomplete. So if you want to complete this unfinished question by bringing further clarity [then do so]...

Questioner: What is the permissibility of voting for the best available candidate, particularly if they are Christian?

Shaykh: This question is incomplete just as it was when presented by other than you. I will now say what I think is intended by the question.

In the event that there are a number of Christian candidates who are imposed upon the Muslims, meaning that one of them has to be elected whether the Muslims like it or not, the previously mentioned principal is applied: namely, choosing the lesser of two evils. For example, there are four Christian candidates in a certain country and it is inevitable that one of them will be the winner (elected).

Hypothetically speaking, if it were only the Muslims voting [for these candidates] and no one else - not even one other person is voting - such that if the Muslims refrained from voting they wouldn't be elected, then it is not permissible to vote for them.

Is it clear up to here?

Questioner: Yes

Shaykh: However, if the situation is contrary to this, and this is what I think the question is referring to, then one of them must be selected due to the electoral process established today. It is upon you to know that this system is not Islamic in any way whatsoever...[The Shaykh then begins to explain some of the ills of democracy and the harm of giving power to someone who requests it, in contrast to the beauty of the Islamic shooraa]

Discussing these issues is lengthy. However, the point is that it has been imposed upon the Muslims living in that particular country to choose a candidate just as it is imposed upon them that some of the elected politicians be Christian. Why? Because there are Christian citizens. The government takes into account the percentage of Christian citizens in the country and makes calculations. They compare, for example, the ratio of Muslims to Christians. Do they consider the Jewish citizens in this process? I'm not sure. Based on these calculations they conclude that the country should have, for instance, two Christian politicians.

If the Muslims do not choose between them, then their own people will choose. In either case, one of them is going to be elected. But as we said earlier there may be four or five candidates. The Muslims in that country must consider it like this: The first candidate is a Baathist and a non-Muslim, the second is a communist and a non-Muslim, the third is an atheist and a non-Muslim and so on. The last is a practicing Christian who does not harbor animosity towards the Muslims. If there is no way around the fact that one or two of them are going to be elected, then what should the Muslims do? Should they say, "We are not going to get involved? They are Christians. Let them fight each other." No, this is not the case, because two of these candidates will be elected regardless.

So O Muslims, O you who have sense, is this principle to be applied in this scenario or not? I say yes, because the Muslims in this case are between two evils. Similarly, this is the case if the candidates were Muslims, since amongst the Muslims are Communists, Baathists and so on. Okay, do we just sit back and watch or should we choose the one whose harm is less???

Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #284 starting at approx 54mins. and continuing on tape #285

Translator: Tahir Wyatt, Abu Abdur-Razzaaq

Is it permissible for Muslim minorities to vote in the lands of non-Muslims? - 2

Shaykh Waseeullaah Abbaas

The following question, from America, is about voting for those it is believed will benefit the Muslims.

Questioner: We are not asking about a Muslim entering into an election as a candidate, nor are we concerned about Federal elections. Rather, the question is about voting in local elections for those who have the authority to delegate plots of land to the Muslims, abandoned buildings, and other such benefits. If the Muslims don't vote for them, other groups will and, therefore, acquire these benefits. So, may Allah reward you well dear Shaykh, do you have any advice in this matter?

Shaykh: That which appears correct to me, insha'Allah, is that if some good is anticipated as a result of voting, then we vote. We vote for the candidate as long as he is presently benefiting the Muslims or promises to benefit the Muslims in the future, even if he is not a Muslim. It would be inappropriate for the Muslims to refrain from voting for this individual, especially if the leader of the Muslims can dictate terms, conditions, and other stipulations on him as a result of the Muslims voting. For example, the leader of the Muslims says, "We will vote for you on the condition that you support our interests, mention them to your superiors, etc." And this applies in any country where the Muslims are a minority, not just in America.

By voting the Muslims may gain needed influence over politicians and other authorities. In return, these politicians and authorities may do something that will benefit Islam and the Muslims. This is especially the case in local elections where, as you have mentioned, the one who wins may have the authority to give away plots of lands on which schools can be built. I am familiar with this because it is even practiced in India. In this instance, it is not befitting in the least for the Muslims to hesitate or delay voting for these candidates.

The Muslims should not hesitate to vote because withholding their votes will not harm these candidates in the least. They will win by the votes of non-Muslims regardless if the Muslims vote or not. For this reason, the Muslims should use their vote as a favor to these candidates. As a result, the Muslims will be placed in an advantageous position of influence over these candidates. When they feel that they are indebted to the Muslims, the Muslims can benefit from their empathy and their sympathetic views and understanding of Muslim causes. This is a general Islamic benefit required by the Islamic public interests. This is our belief.

This is also the verdict given by our Shaykhs in India. Even Shaykh Bin Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him), from what we have heard, used to rule with the permissibility of participating in elections. And for this, insha'Allah, we hope from Allah a good future for the Muslims in every land. If this affair brings good to the Muslims then it's not befitting to hesitate.

Questioner: May Allah reward you with good. In order to bring about further benefit, dear Shaykh, for those who say that this action includes assisting one who rules by other than what Allah revealed...

Shaykh: This doesn't assist the one ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in view of the fact that if we don't vote, the [non-Muslims] will win by their own votes. They will be elected without a doubt. They will come into power by their own accord whether or not we isolate ourselves from them or from the entire world… Thus, this does not assist them in establishing non-Islamic laws. They are the rulers and the ones in authority in those lands whether we vote for them or not. As a result, we should make an effort to influence them in a way that will be beneficial to Islam and the Muslims, insha'Allah.

Questioner: May Allah reward you with good dear Shaykh. Please excuse us for taking so much of your time.

Shaykh: May Allah reward you with good. I mention this with a clear conscience because we have heard our shaykhs give this verdict, especially when it benefits the Muslims. This is also the case in India; some of the idol worshipers in the Parliament speak on behalf of the Muslims and their interests...and it is possible that Allah will aid the deen by using a disbeliever.

Recording done with the Shaykh's permission on January 24th, 2007 (5 Muharram 1428)

Translator: Tahir Wyatt, Abu Abdur-Razzaaq

Can someone change the title? It isn't just Sheikh Albaanee's opinion being shared here.

The Distinction Between Voting for the Lesser Harm and Running in Elections

Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

After being asked general questions pertaining to elections, the last specifically related to local elections, al-Allaamah Nasiruddin al-Albaani said,


Elections emanate from a non-Islamic principle. In fact, they stem from a Zionist principle, namely, the ends justify the means.

However, I distinguish the issue of a Muslim who runs for office from the issue of voting for one whose harm in that office may be less than others.

The distinction between the two issues is essential even in the major elections. Jamaa'atul-Inqaadh in Algeria sent me a question about elections so I wrote them a detailed clarification. I mentioned to them, as I have mentioned previously, that elections and Parliaments are not Islamic and that I do not advise any Muslim to nominate himself as a representative in Parliament because he will never be able to do anything for Islam. Rather, the movement will overcome him just as it has happened with all of the existing governments in the Arab countries.

Even with that being the case, I noted that in all of the Muslim lands, regrettably, there are Muslims who nominate themselves to Parliament claiming that they will reduce evil. We can not forcefully prevent them from campaigning; all we can do is advise, clarify, and convey [the truth]. Hence, if a Muslim is going to nominate himself as opposed to a Christian or Communist, whether it be for major or minor elections (according to your terminology) then we vote for him.

Why? Because there is an Islamic principle upon which I have based my answer. If a Muslim is placed between two evils he chooses the lesser of the two evils. There is no doubt that having a Muslim as the president (mayor) of local government is less harmful - and I don't say better - than having a mayor that is a disbeliever or an atheist.

However, this politician destroys himself without even realizing it. When he nominates himself with the claim that he desires to lessen the evil - and he may do so - he doesn't know that he is being burnt from another angle. His example is that of the scholar who does not act according to his knowledge. The Prophet said, "The example of the learned one who does not act according to his knowledge is like that of a lamp [lit. a burning wick]; it burns itself while providing others light."

For this reason we differentiate between voting and campaigning. We do not campaign for office because we will burn. As for the Muslim who insists on burning himself, be it mildly or severely, by running for office, then we vote for him as opposed to the disbeliever or the atheist using the principle of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil.

Questioner: Our Shaykh, I understand from this that as it relates to Parliament and even local elections that if a there is a Muslim candidate it is permissible to vote for him.

Shaykh: Yes, however based on the principle, and memorize what I am saying, based on the principle of repelling the greater evil with the lesser evil; not because he is better.

Silsilatul Hudaa wan-Noor (Series of Guidance and Light), Tape #660 starting at approx 20mins. 40secs.

Translator: Tahir Wyatt, Abu Abdur-Razzaaq

Something to balance it out.

Regarding Present day Elections
Shaykh Saalih ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan

All praise is due to Allaah, lord of the worlds, and may the Salaat and Salaam be upon our prophet Muhammad, his family and companions.

Amma Ba’d.

Indeed there have been a lot of inquires recently concerning elections and demonstrations on the basis that they are novel affairs and were acquired from non-Muslims, so I say, and Allaah is the granter of success:

The issue of elections needs some elaboration:

Firstly: It is permissible for Muslims to elect the grand Imaam (ruler of the Islaamic state) if they need to, but with the condition that Ahlul Hil wal ‘Aqd of the Ummah (the leaders of the Mulsim Ummah in knowledge and status) do so, and the rest of the Muslims are represented by them. Just as the Sahaabah did, may Allaah be pleased with them, when Ahlul Hil wal ‘Aqd amongst them elected Abu Bakr as Sideeq, may Allaah be pleased with him and pledged allegiance to him. Subsequently this pledge was binding upon the rest of the Muslims. This also took place when ‘Umar ibn al Khattaab appointed the remaining six of the ten companions who were given glad tidings that they would be in Jannah, to appoint a ruler after him. They chose Uthmaan ibn ‘Afaan, may Allaah be pleased with him. They pledged allegiance to him and therefore this pledge was binding upon all the Muslims.

Secondly: Concerning positions of leadership that are below the central leadership, appointing people for such positions is the authority/responsibility of the ruler. He is to choose those who are apt and trustworthy for such positions and appoint them. Allaah the Elevated said:

(Verily, Allaah commands that you render back the trusts to those whom they are due to, and that when you judge between people, you judge with justice.}

This verse is directed to the rulers, and the ‘trusts’ here, are the posts of authority in the country. Allaah has made them a trust over the ruler, and this trust is carried out by choosing apt and trustworthy people for such positions. Just as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), his companions and the Muslim rulers after them used to do, they chose people who were fit and suitable to assume such positions [of authority] and would carry out their duties in a legislative way.

As for the elections that are known to take place in different countries in present times, such elections are not from the Islaamic system. Disorder, personal agendas, greed and personal relationships get drawn into them. Tribulations and the spilling of blood are also caused due to them, and they do not attain the intended objective, rather they become an arena for bids, trade and false claims.

al-Jazeerah Newspaper: #11358