• The ongoing genocide has intensified Muslim American grief. The community is divided among three options: abstaining from voting, backing Harris- the “lesser evil,” or supporting Jill Stein- a symbolic rejection of mainstream candidates.
• While some view abstaining as a political strategy, Islam prohibits participating in systems that legislate outside Allah’s laws.
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, Arab and Muslim Americans face a difficult set of choices, marked by shared grief and political frustration. The ongoing genocide in Gaza followed by the subsequent military invasion into Lebanon, which have resulted in more than 43,000 deaths in Gaza and nearly 3,000 in Lebanon, have transformed this election into a moment of reckoning for many. For Arab Americans in battleground states like Michigan, which boasts one of the largest concentrations of Arab and Muslim voters, the choices between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump present an especially painful dilemma.
A Community in Mourning
Over the past year, the Arab American community has described their shared experience as living through a “collective funeral.” Layla Elabed, an influential figure in the Uncommitted Movement, expressed the profound disillusionment felt by many. The wars in Gaza and Lebanon, combined with a lack of clear commitment from either presidential candidate to end the violence, have left voters feeling betrayed and deeply frustrated.
This sentiment is amplified in Michigan, a key swing state where Arab Americans helped secure President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. Back then, Biden garnered over 80% of the vote in predominantly Arab precincts in Dearborn. Now, however, Harris is struggling to inspire the same support. Her unwavering stance on supporting Israel militarily, coupled with her association with figures like Dick Cheney, has alienated many who once aligned with the Democratic Party. Even high-profile Democratic figures such as Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib andDearborn’s Mayor Abdullah Hammoud have hesitated to openly support Harris, further illustrating the rift within the party and the community it has long relied on. On the other side, Trump’s record of anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, including the notorious Muslim travel ban and strong support for Israel, makes him an unattractive option for most in the community.
The Psychological and Social Toll
Beyond political calculations, the collective trauma among Arab Americans adds another layer to this electoral conundrum. Wissam Charafeddine, an activist in the Michigan area, captured this by describing the atmosphere as one of shared trauma. Families have lost relatives, friends, and homes; even those not directly impacted by the violence have been deeply affected by witnessing the ongoing devastation through media and personal stories. This trauma has reinforced feelings of alienation and skepticism toward the political system, intensifying the urge to seek alternatives outside the current power structure.
The emotional weight has also led to public expressions of grief and defiance. For instance, in Dearborn—dubbed the “Capital of Arab America”—Palestinian flags outnumber political signs for Harris or Trump.
Diverging Voting Strategies
Faced with “impossible choices,” Arab and Muslim American voters are split on how to participate in the upcoming election:
• Abstaining or Leaving the Ballot Blank: For many, abstention has become a means of protest. Activists like Elabed have stated that they cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who does not prioritize ending the violence against Palestinians. By leaving the presidential section of their ballots blank, voters hope to signal their discontent with both parties’ positions on the Gaza genocide and human rights.
• Backing Harris as the “Lesser Evil”: Despite widespread disappointment, some Arab Americans see Harris as the more palatable choice when compared to Trump. Democratic activist Ali Dagher, who signed a letter endorsing Harris, pointed out that while her stance on Israel is a “tough pill to swallow,” her policies on human rights, civil liberties, and environmental issues are still preferable to Trump’s. This group argues that maintaining a Democratic presidency could help limit damage and provide opportunities to push for policy changes.
• Support for Third Parties: The Green Party’s Jill Stein has emerged as a potential alternative for voters disillusioned with both major parties. Jill Stein’s vocal opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel and her call to end involvement in foreign conflicts resonate with those who prioritize Middle Eastern peace. However, her far-left stance raises concerns within the Muslim community, as it conflicts with traditional and cultural values. Stein’s platform, though attractive on single-issue grounds, does not align comprehensively with the broader beliefs of many Muslim voters. With that said, however, the aim of supporting a third party is not so much to secure a Green Party victory, but rather to weaken the Democratic Party’s electoral chances at reelection, signaling that the Arab and Muslim vote cannot be taken for granted. Such a strategy might push Democrats to reevaluate their stances in future elections.
The Case for Strategic Abstention
While voting for a third party might seem like a viable protest, abstaining can serve the same purpose with added clarity. Voting for the Green Party, led by Jill Stein, could signal dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, but it also risks being interpreted as support for the broader liberal agenda she represents—one that can conflict with Muslim values. Abstaining, on the other hand, highlights that Arab and Muslim Americans refuse to be pigeonholed as single-issue voters. This approach emphasizes that while Arab and Muslim Americans reject Trump’s overt hostility and Harris’s inadequate stance on the Middle East, they also do not align with far-left platforms that oppose key aspects of their beliefs.
By choosing abstention, the community sends a powerful message: it will not be taken for granted or cornered into lesser-evil voting. This strategy reflects a call for broader political representation and a commitment to seeking leaders who genuinely align with Muslim values and priorities. It serves as a reminder that while elections come and go, maintaining integrity and advocating for long-term change is critical. Supporting one “lesser evil” to avoid another could lead to further compromises that do not serve the community’s best interests.
The Challenges with Third-Party Politics
The U.S. political system is dominated by a “winner-take-all” framework, leading many voters to believe that casting a ballot for a weak third party is tantamount to “wasting your vote.” Historically, Jill Stein has not garnered more than 1% of the vote in any election, making her candidacy symbolic rather than impactful. The Green Party’s limited organizational support compounds this issue. Unlike the Democratic Party, which can draw on extensive resources, endorsements, and media coverage, the Green Party lacks the infrastructure to compete effectively. This means that most voters are unaware of Jill Stein or her platform, further undermining her candidacy.
Stein’s representation of a small faction of far-left progressives means that her views resonate only with a niche audience. For Muslim Americans, supporting a candidate whose broader platform directly conflicts with Islamic values is not just problematic—it is a moral transgression. Islam emphasizes adherence to divine laws, and aligning with candidates who promote secular legislative agendas contradicts this commitment. Voting for leaders who legislate by human-made laws rather than those ordained by Allah risks endorsing taghut—false authorities or systems opposed to monotheistic worship, as warned against in the Qur’an. This perspective stresses that participating in such a system may compromise the integrity of faith itself.
The Spiritual Implications of Supporting Secular Platforms
For Arab and Muslim Americans, endorsing a candidate whose policies and ideals stand in direct opposition to the laws ordained by Allah goes beyond political difficulty—it is an outright violation of foundational Islamic principles. Islam calls for aligning both personal and collective actions with divine guidance, making it essential to scrutinize any political involvement through the lens of faith. Supporting candidates who promote legislative agendas and ideologies grounded in secular values breaches Islamic teachings and poses grave violations of religious obligations. This extends beyond practical politics to questions of spiritual integrity.
Democracy, defined as a system of ‘rule by the people for the people,’ inherently conflicts with the Islamic belief that ultimate legislative authority belongs solely to Allah, the Most High. Granting legislative rights to any human being challenges this fundamental tenet. Engaging in such systems risks aligning with falsehoods, or taghut, compromising the commitment to uphold divine law above all else.
However, All Forms of Protest Have Limits
While strategic political abstention can serve as a form of political protest, it is essential to acknowledge that participating in or abstaining from elections—whether through voting for a third party or leaving the ballot blank—still involves engaging with a system that contradicts Islamic teachings. Thus, the ultimate intention for abstention should align with religious adherence: refraining from supporting systems that legislate by laws other than what Allah has ordained. The act of abstaining serves as a declaration of loyalty to religious principles, emphasizing that political decisions must respect the sanctity of divine guidance over human-made laws.
Upholding Faith Over Political Engagement
The 2024 election serves as a reminder that for Arab and Muslim Americans, participation in the democratic process should not be a matter of strategic alignment but one of religious adherence. In Islam, the ultimate legislative authority belongs solely to Allah, and any system that rules by laws other than His stands in contradiction to fundamental Islamic beliefs. Engaging in such a system—whether through voting for candidates or abstaining for political strategy—poses a direct conflict with the teachings of the Qur’an, which warns against supporting taghut, or false authorities that deviate from monotheistic worship and divine principles.
Thus, Muslims should abstain from participating in the election not because it may serve as a strategic political statement but because it is prohibited by their faith. Abstention accentuates a commitment to uphold the sanctity of divine law over human-made systems, preserving the integrity of religious practice. This approach reinforces the notion that political engagement must align with the unyielding principles of Islam, prioritizing spiritual and moral obligations above all else. By choosing abstention, Muslims affirm that their allegiance lies not with political entities but with the divine commands of Allah.
