Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people.

Thus it is contrary to
Islam, because rule is for Allah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give
legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is. Allah Himself tells us:
Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is
the correct religion, but most of the people do not know. [Quran 12:40]
Contrary to popular belief, when voting in the UK we are not just choosing a leader, we are in fact
choosing someone to legislate on our behalf, to make laws on the basis of their own whims and
desires, which inevitably differ from those laid down by Allah and His Messenger. As Allah tells us,
we should refer back to the Quran and sunnah, rather than our own desires, for judgement:
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you
[the Muslims]. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should
believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. [Quran 4:59]
So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And
whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the disbelievers.
[Quran 5:44]
When someone selects or aids someone to perform a sin, they take their own share of the blame for
what they do.
And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear
Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. [Quran 5:2]
For example, when the Quraishi leaders came together and chose one man from each tribe to team
up and kill Muhammad ( )whilst in his bed, do we think they were blame free? In the case of
voting, this shared sin is not a minor issue. The MPs are taking partners with Allah in his role as
legislator, this is major shirk, the only sin Allah has promised He will never forgive.
No scholar has said it is Halal to elect someone to implement other than Islam. All opinions are in
unanimous agreement that it is Haram, as it is known in the Deen by necessity. But those who say it
is permissible offer exceptions to the rule. And since these exceptions are the basis for why they
deem it permissible to vote in secular democratic elections, we need to look at these exceptions one
by one. If they are valid, then it is permissible to vote in this system, and if they are invalid, then we
fall back to the default ruling of impermissibility.
Lesser of two evils: This is a principle used in Fiqh to assist Muslims in navigating situations
where it is impossible to choose a Halal option. The primary condition for this principle is that there
must be absolutely no Halal option. Therefore the premise of the lesser of two evils does not
apply in the situation of voting in a secular democratic system, since there is a completely Halal
option available: to not vote.
Necessity: The principle of necessity in Islamic Fiqh offers an exception for Muslims to
undertake an action that would normally be considered Haram in order to remove a serious harm.
But this principle has strict requirements. The 1st requirement is that it must be an Islamicly
legislated necessity taken from the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, and not some want based on

human desires. The 2nd requirement is the existence of the necessity must be immediate and certain,
not simply possible. The 3rd requirement is that the solution chosen must directly and most likely
remove the harm, and certainly cannot be something that has been repeatedly proven to not remove
the harm. Therefore, the excuse of necessity does not apply to this situation, as the political
parties have shown aggression to Muslims regardless of who is in power, and voting has proven
itself to be totally impotent in removing their oppression.
Aims of the Shariah: The classical scholars discussed the topic of the aims of the Shariah,
referring to the fact that Islam aims to protect specific aspects of our lives, including the protection
of the Deen, the self, the mind, lineage, and wealth. It must be understood that these aims are
determined by Allah and not by the human mind. It is incorrect to start with these aims,
sidestepping the texts of the Quran and Sunnah entirely, and use our human perception of what
needs to be protected in order to determine the ruling of Islam, as doing so would mean using our
own wisdom of how to protect these things, rather than the wisdom and guidance of Allah.
Therefore, the higher aims of the Shariah are not a basis to make Haram into Halal, because the
fact that something is Haram is itself how Islam protects us. To override the legislation of Allah is to
remove that protection. We are reminded in the Quran:
And it may be that you dislike something and it is good for you, and it may be that you like
something and it is evil for you; and Allah knows and you do not know. [Quran 2:216]
Minority Fiqh: This Fiqh was invented recently to identify the fact that Muslims live as
minorities in the West, and are therefore offered certain permissions due to this reality. The problem
with this is that Muhammad ( )and the Sahaba, as well as the later generations, all lived as
minorities in many circumstances, yet no Ayat or Ahadith were revealed regarding it, nor was any
Fiqh for minorities ever formed related to it. The laws are determined by the strongest evidences
found in the Quran and Sunnah, regardless of minorities or majorities. Therefore, this newly
invented minority Fiqh is invalid and cannot be used as a basis to override the clear texts of the
Quran and Sunnah.
Yusef's (AS) and the system of the king: The example of Prophet Yusuf (AS) and his participation
in the system of the king is presented as an example of participation in an un-Islamic system, where
he became an advisor to the king and was placed over the storehouses of the land. We find no
evidence that he took a position of legislator. Yusuf (AS) says:
Appoint me over the storehouses of the land. Indeed I will be a knowing guardian [Quran 12:55]
This is clearly a position of resource management, not legislation. Yusuf (AS) also mentions twice
that:
The right to legislation belongs exclusively to Allah [Quran 12:40 & 12:67]
In conclusion, it should be clear that none of the above exceptions override the clear
impermissibility of electing, appointing, or delegating someone to legislate or rule by other than
what Allah has revealed. And we must remember that this world is a minefield of tests. It is not a
place of seeking our personal comforts at any cost, especially not at the cost of abandoning the
instructions of the Quran and Sunnah.
Do people think that they will be left to say, We believe and they will not be tested? [Quran
29:2]