Salaam alaykum brothers,

I agree with the goal of this post, but if I might just make one constructive critique, while it’s true that many politicians will try to minimize on points that are not advantageous to them getting into office, and many do jump this way and that on issues depending on the latest polling, your first point about Giuliani, I disagree with.

The fact that Giuliani is neither close to being a true conservative or liberal does not mean he jumps from one issue to the next to suit his own political gain. On the contrary, Giuliani’s positions have remained quite consistent between where he was as a mayor and where he stands now as a presidential candidate.

Example – his stance on abortion is pro-choice. He could have gone the Mitt Romney direction and changed position, but he didn’t, and this is perhaps the most important issue for social conservatives, and while he’s losing their vote, he remains resolute that it’s a state issue.

Please don’t misunderstand and think I’m pro-Rudy, or that I think he’s a good person, or candidate – I agree with Joe Biden’s assessment of him from the last Democratic Presidential debate in Drexel. I simply care that if we criticize, we do so justly, insha’Allah, and I don’t think that this particular criticism should be held up against him, when there are so many more that can be held against him, which are more damaging.

Or, at the very least, remove the last sentence in your summary of criticisms against him – he’s neither a true liberal or conservative. At best, he’ll appeal to the independent vote.

Siraaj

*should not be held against him (2nd paragraph, last sentence)

Hot Conflict Radio show discussing Islam media politcs and pop culture.

I have done a few nights on the Rudy Giuliani Campaign and why the conservative right is voting against their main objectives for a candidate such as Giuliani

Listen to the show weeknights.

http://www.HotConflict.com

I’m with you on Guiliani. Unless Ron Paul manages to get the Republican nomination, I’ll be voting Libertarian again this year.

It amazes me that people believe that this gang of crooks, liars, and morons can run their lives better than they can.

If you want to have a look at the AntiGuiliani, have a look at: http://ronpaul2008.com/

Salaam alaykum Amad,

I think you’re looking at this from the wrong perspective. What I’m suggesting is that you’ve weakened your argument against him by making a false claim. We’re Muslims, and when we criticize, even our criticisms should be true. In point #1, your final sentence cannot be concluded from your previous sentences. I’m simply saying you ought to correct it to make for a stronger argument. By not doing so, you’ve left your position open to attack.

One of the reasons many Muslims are contending and fighting with one another is because criticisms are taken personally. We’re human, and we make mistakes – I’m happy when someone points out a mistake, and I’m happy when someone listens when I explain why I think I didn’t make a mistake as well (if I believe so).

To discuss your sidepoint further, Giuliani, like most politicians, is simply manipulating the language for wiggle room later on. Neo-cons outright say they want to appoint judges that are pro-life, not “constitutionalists”. All he’s simply saying is that he’ll nominate someone who will objectively look at the rule of law and decide – exactly how a judge should act anyway.

But the example was not the main point – the main point was simply I saw what I perceived to be a mistake (and I’m open to being corrected on that), and I was hoping you’d make your point stronger by criticizing him with what is correct to criticize him with (or correcting my understanding).

Finally, not taking a position on a matter and taking one afterwards doesn’t turn one into someone who takes politically expedient positions, nor does it prove it. Giuliani has demonstrated that he takes and holds to his positions quite strongly, from what I have seen.

Siraaj

Thats very true iMuslim and most of the time, you’re right: candidates want to make themselves stand out. but if you’ve seen Paul’s voting record in Congress, you will be surprised b/c hes known as “Mr NO” and votes No for a lot of things. For example, he voted no to give Rosa Parks a medal of honor simply because he didnt want US citizens to be paying for it thru their tax dollars. He told the other Congressmen and women “Let’s all take out 100 dollars and pay for it ourselves” but no one agreed. Also, hes been against the Iraq war since day 1 and doesnt foster the blind following of pro-Israel like even Obama and Clinton do.

of course, at the end of the day, only Allaah knows best who is the best.

By the way, if I had to choose which candidate to attack, it would be Romney. Romney’s opinion of Muslims in America is outright nasty and in line with the likes of Ann Coulter, which is why you see a lot of religious right neo-cons in the media supporting him.

Rudy, on the other hand, while he holds the positions he holds on the “War on Terror”, has quite firmly said he believes that the Qur’aan was re-interpreted by radicals for extreme ends and that Muslims by and large are peaceful people. Doesn’t mean I like the guy, but I’d rather knock the bigoted Mormon out of the gate first, and then gut Rudy in the general election – his personal life is so full of story, his antics so full of the absurd, it won’t stand up to the scrutiny of the general election process.

Siraaj

Siraaj M, although i can’t comment on the finer details of your proposal, i really appreciate your perspective… it’s good to compare ideas, and strategies, when we each have a common goal, alhamdulillah.

Wrt Ron Paul… as i am not a US citizen, and so my knowledge of how things work for you guys is limited… how could the American Muslims, together with his other supporters, make him a stronger candidate? I mean, it’s not just enough to bring down the “bad guy” unless you place a “good guy” in his stead, insha’Allah.

Giuliani is like Bush with no pretense of religion. It’s the worst of the Republican party–all the greed, none of the values.

How I wish I had never seen such a day,
muslims debating which one they should support Abu Jahl or Utba bin Rabi’a.

Amad,

I’d offer a suggestion, but I’m not sure who your audience is for those remarks? Your latter points would appeal to Muslims only, your former appear to appeal to the American populace – my advice is simply to remove the last line.

As I recall from the mid to late nineties, we hated the Clintons as well (sanctions on Iraq, 1.5 million dead, anyone?). Everyone is buying into the hype of a lot of these candidates, but the reality is that their position will not be dictated on principle – it will be dictated by the special interest dollars that put them in power because the profiteers from death and destruction cannot do so in a stable world.

About the only hope everyone has right now is with a Ron Paul, and as much interest as he’s generated, he’s not going to win any primaries.

If Muslims want to get politically involved, then they ought to focus on an aggressive Muslim rights message along the vein of Malcolm X – unapologetic, intelligent, and in-your-face fearless, so that no matter who comes into office, the rights of the Muslim are respected.

More importantly, they need lawyers and lawmakers to help them challenge the status quo attitude towards Islam and Muslims.

Siraaj

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

The link to “Why does Norman hate America?” leads to a different Scheuer article. The correct URL is:
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670

We need to be more positive and spread the word about Ron Paul. Things may not seem to be going one way but Allah plans.

Ron Paul seems interesting. I won’t vote for Ghooliani on account that he has a fetish for dressing in drag.

I tend to agree re: Ron Paul. He seesm like a decent, sincere guy, but I think his libertarian politics are dangerous.

What can be so dangerous about his politics? The man believes you must stick to the ways of the forefathers; the constitution. He is anti the wars that have been illegally begun and any irresponsible, stupid, wars.

I think we have priorities to look at here. He is better than the majority of candidates, on both sides. There will never be a perfect candidate, but right now we need to think about the main issue that is going to be affecting so many people if an idiot president gets chosen – the issue of war! This man has the vote of the youth, people in the military, and so many more people. He is standing up against the majority, and he has been very consistent.

Who else could be up there with Ron Paul? Hillary? The woman is a hoax.

Please also remember that no matter who you vote for, even if they seem less ‘dangerous’ you really do not know who they are until they are put in office. It happened with Bush when the Muslims voted for him, didn’t it?

“New Yorker”, if “we” dont care what Muslims think, perhaps “we” should consider otherwise. Perhaps, had we listened to Muslims, we wouldn’t be in the Iraqi quagmire. It is always healthy to listen to all sides and all opinions… it can’t hurt.

In any case, sorry to burst your bubble, but none of the articles and supporting evidences I quoted was written by Muslims or from Muslim-controlled media. So, it is obvious that it’s far from just Muslims being concerned about America’s direction in the future and to protect it from more quagmires.

What’s so dangerous about personal freedom and responsibility?

As salaamu alaikum,

Brother Musa, though I respect your opinion, I would have to disagree in the fact that I don’t believe states rights has always been a race issue. The idea of states’ rights can be seen in the Founders themselves and in the earliest political debate which took place during the conception of America: between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists wanted to ratify the constitution how it already was in 1789 but Anti-Feds mistrusted authority after a long period of British hegemonic rule and oppression.

They (including people such as Thomas Jefferson, Elbridge Gerry and George Mason) believed that adding a Bill of Rights would ensure individual rights for all. Furthermore, many of them such as Jefferson promoted states’ rights over national sovereignty because of the impact small, localized communities could have on bringing out peoples’ true voices.

Although I don’t believe today America can live as a confederacy and live in small, agrarian communities like Jefferson believed because of globalization and national pressing issues, I do think states rights should be given more importance.

Instead of, for example, giving the federal government control of healthcare which may lead to a “just-get-the-job-done” attitude rather than “let’s-provide-excellence” vision, if states were given this jurisdiction then quality care could be given to citizens based on their NEEDS. Sometimes the federal gov’t generalizes the needs of citizens in states because it simply doesn’t know. Look at the No Child Left Behind Act. Though it has promoted education to a certain extent, many (including a large proportion of teachers at my school) would argue that it’s virtually useless and meddles in local affairs, just for the sake of meddling.

I think it boils down to what Muslims in America feel their current situation is. Do we care more about survival and securing ourselves in this nation right now, or do we hope to wander off in idealistic dreamland where we may promote good for all? The latter is my ultimate hope and dream, but honestly, without our own security and freedom to practice our religion and be given certain rights, I believe the latter will just be a play on words, and not substancial progress.

Allah knows best. May He keep us on His Straight Path, ameen.

What about Latin American foreign affairs? Death squads and the like?

I understand the states’ rights issue is deeper than race, but it has always been about race to some degree, and probably more so when invoked in recent history. It is often related to attacks on civil liberties which is something that is really necessary to enforce at a federal level, given that the electorate of many states may re-enact Jim Crow laws if given the opportunity.

No Child Left Behind is a busted up law, but maybe not because it is federal…perhaps because it is heavily influenced by interest groups, or reflects an uncritical faith in testing, quantitative data, etc.

By the way, Reagan was not just a disaster in terms of foreign policy. He also presided over the crackification of American cities, explosion of crime and other social ills, which was all very much related to his policies. I would prefer to have money spent ineffeciently on social programs rather than pushing people into hopelessness and desperation.

What I really hope for is when conservative social values unite with progressive social policies. To me that is the true middle path in American politics, and one well suited to Muslims. In the meantime, I will pretty much vote Democrat, since I believe their commitment to social program is more genuine than the Republicans commitment to conservative values. The fact that they are even considering Giuliani illustrates this.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

join the cause and donate