A Vote for Democracy

Category: Americas, World Affairs Topics: Elections Views: 2501
2501

So many times election day arrives and the media declares the winner before the first ballot is cast. It's called polling, and it has diminished motivation for voting A 30-40% turnout in an election in America is considered a good voting day. That might be a good batting percentage in baseball or a shooting percentage in basketball, but it's bad for the future of democracy. Causes for such low turnout are rooted in cynicism with the political process and dissatisfaction with the choices of candidates.

In the debate among democratic presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, the congressman from Ohio, was asked why he was still running if he reportedly had no chance to win the nomination of his party for President. He answered, "Because I believe the people should decide who will be President not the media." That pithy answer led to a roaring applause from the audience. In this election, as we have witnessed in several elections in the past and will experience in the future, talking heads on television networks will tell us who will likely win. The underlying message is why bother voting at all. 

For Muslims, that concern is amplified when we see politicians courting the Muslim dollar and the Muslim vote, but when the candidate is elected and is tested on issues of civil liberties and accessibility to the government, we do not see as much progress as we desire. We must, therefore, look beyond the candidates and the ballot measures. 

Voting, therefore, is pursued not only for the desired effect of choosing someone for office that we as a people collectively empower. Voting must be viewed as an act of preserving our democracy. For without the vote, the party in power runs the country without the consent of the people. And without the vote, the alternative is government by coercion, i.e. a dictatorship. 

The greatest feature of a democracy is its most peaceful exercise, the transition of power. Without the vote, that transition is more violent and more destructive. When a new governor or a new president is inaugurated, there is no questioning of the process, even if their is disgruntlement over the results. The constitutional process in America has been tested so many times, and it has passed each and every one of those tests to date. When African Americans and women were denied voting, movements for redressing grievances forced our country to correct the injustices through a political process. Preserving our constitutional rights through voting is a fundamental means of purifying an imperfect system. 

The Quran says: Obey God and His Prophet and those with whom you have entrusted authority. The key to this verse is not to equate the authority with obedience to God, but to identify the process of entrustment as a Divine Will. As in politics, religion is typically viewed through the lens of who is the authority without engaging in the process of determining legitimate means of gaining authority from illegitimate means. When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died, his supporters elected a successor. That election process, with all of its shortcomings due to nature of a tribal society at that time, continued for decades. It was the first electoral process in history. It preceded the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. In part, this sacred process of entrusting authority, and not simply blindly following rulers with military might, led to the rise of a great Islamic civilization. 

Now in America, the Islamic exercise of self-governance is realized again, and it cannot be taken for granted. Perhaps the choices are not ideal, and indeed our voice is weak in the malaise of modern politics. But voting does matter, and voting today will shape a better path for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. 

It has been reported that American Muslims vote at a rate above the average of other ethnic and religious groups. Several studies have indicated that at least two-thirds of our community votes. That's good because political parties and the media take us more seriously as a result. We should continue to encourage ourselves, our friends and our families to get out the vote on election day. 

After the Presidential election is over, no matter who wins, the challenges of preserving our democracy will continue and the challenge of advancing US-Muslim world relations for a more peaceful future falls primarily on our shoulder. No one can change that responsibility. And no group other than American Muslims can play a vital role in such a noble endeavor. Get out the vote.

Salam Al-Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington, D.C.


  Category: Americas, World Affairs
  Topics: Elections
Views: 2501

Related Suggestions

 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
The slavery a certain individual refers to is not the same as the "slavery" he refers to in the Qur'an in limited circumstances. Today, we know this as Prisoners of War (P.O.W.).

Try again
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Although it encourages emancipation of slaves, Shariah does not prohibit slavery in all circumstances. If it did, then slavery would not have existed during the days of the Caliphate/Khilafah. In fact, slavery is acknowledged in the Quran under very limited circumstances, like in the case of war captives.

As for Shariah ADR in North America, no one has claimed that it would allow slavery because as I have often said, such ADR would comply with the laws of the land.

I rest my case.
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
I quote the individual who posted previously who undermined Shariah:

I can assure you that slavery is now prohibitted. (Of course, that can always change in the 1 in a million chance that Sharia becomes our law.)

This one individual believes that Shariah does no prohibit slavery. The negative connotations this individual holds rae embedded in his personality. I rest my case.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Akbar Khan:

Once again, you expose your own unwillingness to read my comments closely. Ask Hudd what I think about Shariah ADR.

It's careless comments like this that remind me not to take you seriously at this time.
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
This is what MLK Jr. had to say about Vietnam:

*I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: *Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

If MLK Jr. can take such a position against war, then what of you to say against war...if MLK Jr. can take such a hard line, straight forward position, how come you cannot?

The bottom line is, if MLK Jr. were alive today, he would be one of the most hardline voices against the invasion of Iraq...it has been nothing but an anglo-Western invasion of the land where civilization found its footing...if you are against the war, why do we not hear your solidarity with Muslims in this regard?

Just like the unnecessary destruction of the peace process via Israel's assasination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin that will further fuel terrorism, your constant generalizations and condemnation of Muslims (who are not Americans) will only lead to you marginalizing yourself and disconnecting you from the rest of the world. If you truly feel that Muslims are the greatest threat to the USA, I ask you, based on what? What you have been told, or based on some personal experience...? The more your condemn a people, the more you separate yourself from making peace with them.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Well Akbar Khan, while your complaints would have been valid many years ago, I can assure you that slavery is now prohibitted. (Of course, that can always change in the 1 in a million chance that Sharia becomes our law.) I live in the here and now, and that's what matters to me. We have a tradition of non-violence that started with MLK (not Malcom X) and that's just how it is.

No need to get "rosy", just stating how it is.
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
The tradition of non violence in American culture you talk so highly of Nick Cameron, had brother Martin Luther King Jr. assasinated, and brother Al-Hajj Malik Al-Shabazz (Malcolm X) assasinated as well.

Your non-violent culture oppressed black Americans for 400 years until they demanded their rights to exist as equals...something that many anglo Americans deny all types of non-anglo Americans even up until this day, suffering unjust punishment, detention, and violation of their privacy.

Please do not paint a rosy dreamworld of a picture when you talk about America, as if it is paradise where everyone is sane, and supposedly better than non-Americans. North of the border as you can see, the slave trade never took place here with African-Americans...this does not mean that Canada did not have, and does not have its unpeaceful elements in society though. Unlike yourself I can admit that.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Peace Ahmed Asgher!

I think you make a number of presumptions about me without basis. For example, you claim that I have sworn "blind allegiance" to George Bush. You also seem to believe that I make some kind of strange distinction between equal wrongs if committed by different parties. Finally, you seem to imply that I'm a neoconservative. Considering that you've never asked me what I think about these issues, It makes me wonder where you acquired your information. Anyways, since you're not asking me about these things I will not address them at this time.

As far as my supposed ability to "weave positive" about the MLK incident, I don't need to do such things. For while George Bush may have been hypocritical as you claim, from where I stand the incident demonstrates the value of MLK's accomplishments and his importance to our culture. Therefore, it proves my point to you about America's tradition of non-violence.

I agree that this discussion has run its course.

Peace out!
()

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
Nick - Peace

When I say YOU i mean the system that you support and speak so highly of. By trying to defend your government/ system you are guilty by association.

Try reading the many postings by many Muslims here who often criticise their own governments, including myslef. Just because you have an elected president - this one chosen by acourt - it does not mean you have to have blind allegiance to him Sadly this is anorm in the US that you must support your president or the army just because they are doing their 'duty' even when almost all the world knows that war on Iraq was planned by the neocons long b4 911.

Sure you can tlak rehtoric and weave excuses but at the end of the day wrong is wrong, wheather done under legislation or by OBL. Dress it the way you want but you can't take away the smell.

By the way, Bush visiting MLK's grave for political expediency. Well, there is a word for it. Hypocracy. How amazing you can weave positive into this - they should hire you to write speaches for Bush, especially when David Frum has been given the boot.

Lets just drop this subject and thanks for enlightening me. Peace man.
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
My point exactly Nick Cameron...both of your "sources," those books are written by Westerners, Europeans. I have read many books by Westerners villifying Muslims in history, all the while ignoring the vast majority of the injustices being committed elsewhere. It is very typical of someone like Francois Gautier, a Westerner do talk about Muslims in such a negative light. On the other hand, you should probably bother to read the works or even listen to speeches by Swami Agnivesh, you addresses the crimes of Hindu Fundamentalists and Fascists, such as those in the government today. His great analysis of Muslims under siege in Gujurat, as the rioting Hindus burned Muslims alive was described in great, accurate, accountable detail...he addresses how in CURRENT TIMES, how sad it is that the entire Muslim community of India (over 150 million) is abandoned by the rest of the country. The evils of Indian society are never discussed by Westerners who prefer to villify Muslims all the time. Gautier himself has had to accept Hindu extremism and its presence against Muslims for centuries..I guess the evidence was just stacked up against him. Still he attempts to put a spin on it as if Swami Agnivesh only helps those who believe in monotheism. A nice way to avoid the truth and avoid criticizing Hindus for their crimes.

Just so you know, Konraad Elst was one of those who supported Brahmin dominance in India, the one group of idol-worshippers who oppressed and took away the livelihood of the lower caste Hindus of India even up til this day, ever since they assumed power over the nation. This is the way of things NICK. Unlike yourself, I have relied on the accounts of those who are Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc., and not just foreign Western writers from France and Belgium.

My first class of International Relations grouped Nazism, Fascism, and Islamic Fundamentalism together. From that day, I have never trusted the fallace writings of Westerners.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Peace Ahmed Asgher!

I am not "naieve" [sic] as you claim; I'm well aware that Bush was just paying lip service. But the fact that he felt the political need to do so in the first place demonstrates the importance of MLK's legacy of non-violence to our culture. That's my point as far as that goes.


And yes, I maintain that under our laws American citizens are not the same as foreigners. Whether or not you think that's fair, this is a true statement of the current state of our laws. As far my opinion of the wisdom of U.S. policy regarding the Gitmo prisoners, that is for another discussion. As you will note from my other comments, I haven't told you where I stand on that, mostly because I haven't been asked. In any event, I do not lock people up as you like to claim. (Do you really believe that I'm that powerful?)

Peace out!
___________

Note: The above comments were posted elsewhere by mistake. That may have been my fault.
()

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
Nick,Peace.

you are more naieve than I thought my friend. Bush visiting MLK's tomb is nothing short of being p.c. he will do anything to get votes. If you fall for that line, then your head must be deeeeeply buried in Arizona sand.

This is another gaff what you just said: "The prisoners at Gitmo are not the same as the Japanese-Americans during WWII because they're not U.S. citizens."

What a loud of rubbish. So, you just pick on people in the streets after you illegally invade a country and stick them on a far way land which is under your military control. Some smart lawyer says Yeh, they have no rights there because they are "unlawful combatants" - a new term invented! Are you out of your mind? or playing with words?

Whilst you attack muslims and islam you seem to condone your own governments atrocities carried out purely for lust and greed and control of far away people and their resources. Places that you could not even spell properly let alone find them on the map!

So, by the stroke of a bullet and with a great amount of cunning you just take away a person's right and lock them. Forgotten! Where is your human rights record? Don't you read those?

By the way the US had released a 72 years old man plus a couple of young boys below 16 years old not very long ago. Wonder if Rumsfeld was blind to report that "these were amongst the most violent terrorists in the world". and we are supposed to believe him. 72 years old and a few young boys against the might of the US army!!

Check it out. Do a google search for guantanamu and read about the ill-treaments of the recently released 5 Brits .

Granted, there are many good people in the US including Jews who speak against such atrocities and I communicate with a few myslef directly. Sadly, they are minority. Question is: Why aren't you taking their lead? Why do you have to justify yourself and your government as if it is the best thing since sliced bread! Drop this holier than thou at
()

ADAM IBRAHIM MUHAMMAD FROM NIGERIA. said:
To Csaba Cere,

Sorry may due to lack of space I did'nt make myself clear. But at least I hinted that the three ways were demonstrated by these groups whom we follow their ways till the last day Vis; the prophet(SAW), the four Caliphs, other Sahabas, the tabi'un and the tabi'u-ttabi'un.

The case you mention was the third, about coup. An example on this was the coup by Mu'awiyah. So you see the coupist(s) must be part of either the deen or the ummah. Not coup by agression and wanton destruction of a whole civilisation by an external evil force("the US Army led coalition"). I hope you get it.

Bissalam.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Akbar Khan you've already made clear that you are not interested in what I think, so I will make my comments brief and leave you to your own thoughts.

Start your research by translating the word "Kush" from a Persian dictionary. You will see that it means "slaughter". From there, do a search for a book by Francois Gautier called "Rewriting Indian History" as well as Konraad Elst's "Negationism in India". These books cite a number of reputable sources, like Encyclopaedia Britannica. You'll discover all that you'll need, if Truth is your goal.

The Moghuls were just like their Mongol predecessors who sacked Bagdad, and conversion to Islam did not change them for the better. That's just the way it happened.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Peace Ahmed Asgher!

You're right, I don't get your point. Yes, you're right that MLK was a Black man. Yes, you're right that white people have committed acts of violence. But remember that the NAACP, a civil rights organization that stood with MLK in his struggle for equality, is an organization that was founded by WHITE JEWS. And like I told you before, MLK's non-violence has inspired a tradition of non-violent dissent by Americans of ALL races and religions. Are you aware that during the weeks that preceded the recent war in Iraq, tens of thousands of Americans demonstrated against the Bush Administration? Yes some of the demonstrators were violent, but the vast majority were peaceful. And they weren't just Black people; they were white, brown, yellow, Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shia, Hindu, Atheist, and yes even *Jewish*. Moreover, this was not at all unusual. Most people in America who dissent, no matter their background, do so through non-violence. Even George Bush, the chosen "enemy" of the Muslim world, honors MLK and even visited his tomb during MLK's holiday. Whether you accept it or not, non-violence as a means of dissent is a permanent part of America's culture.

As far as me "generilising" Muslims, once again I dispute this. I challenge you to quote exactly where I said Muslims generally sponsor suicide bombers. In any event, I do not accept Israel's behavior as a legitimate excuse for Palestinian behavior. If one act is wrong, then responding the same way is also wrong. Human nature or not, God has made clear the laws of appropriate behavior towards other human beings. And He has never said that the requirements of a good life is contingent upon the good and evil of others. So while I accept that Palestinians feel angry, I do not accept anger as justification for murder. As far as allowing angry Palestinians to have a venue, I naturally don't oppose this.
()

H.A. FROM YATHRIB said:
I would like shove "democracy and freedom" down the ____ of those who are "Bushy" minded, war-mongers and of those who are "CRAWFORD OIL-STEALERS".





()

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
Hi Nick

you still don't get it. the non-violent movement you mention originated from a black person against the terror of the white. indeed mlk is admired because of his non-violent stand pretty much as ghandi and mandela are admired. remember the latter had access to power when he did so.

by contrast ia ma yet to hear of a white person in power who espouses non-violent policy? can you please name me one?

you again generalise that muslims sponsor suicide bombers. pls understand that most of us and islam in particular considers suicide per se as a sin. BUT when a collective people of palestine have nowhere to take their case, no court, no state takes their claim seriously even when UN resolutions are so many in their favour but no one cares to even mention them - and when they fight such an immense army like IDF then it is natural for them to resort to whatever means they have to fight this vicious occupation and anything that belongs to the occupiers then becomes a target, especially soft targets. This is not to be associated with Islam but it is a universal stuff - you and i would do the same when faced with such brutal opposition for over 50 years with our homes and dignity taken away by force. except i personally would never hurt the innocent, no matter what, but i have no experience of being subjugated like that, and human beings can turn like an animal when confronted as such?

point is give them a venue to vent their grievances and see to it that justice is upheld then you will not see them use terror. simple as that if you really want to believe in it, otherwise no amount of words can convince you. besides muslims feel for their brehtern worldwide, so naturally they will support the orphans, homelss, dispossed, etc. whilst your government does not even care for such folks even when the IDF grazes their homes. Such tactics coming form a Christ loving people?
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
Nick, I thought that after you started to talk with some civility to Muslims, you would stop putting up rudiculous statements that villify Muslims in history as the worst offenders of equality, and the way you talk sounds like you have no concept of any other group of people who have murdered people in the world. Take for example the ethnic cleansing of The United States of America by your forefathers, the absolute disintegration of Native people, and much evidence of their existence even from where you presently occupy. Then look at how your forefathers after slaughtering hte native populations, brought over tens of millions of Africans during the slave trade, of which more than a recorded 30 percent of those Africans were MUSLIMS...please refer to the movie ROOTS as a prime examlpe of a African Muslim who was brought over durign hte slave trade and was subject to cruel and despicable punishment by the American slave traders. I am not going to sit here and post a silly number like 100 million aboriginals and Africans were killed by the British colonialists when they came to America, and continuously point out these wrong doings the way you do. But if I were to do that, I would at least go and do some substantial research on this topic before I would post rudiculous statements like, "100 million Hindus were killed by the Mughals" the way you have. By the way, your search on Google of this, is found only on websites like, Hindunet.org....why am I not surprised that they don't mention the number 100 million as well, and the fact htat there is no viewpoint from Muslim sources, makes me think that the view you rae defending is based on information from the Internet. I suggest that you please go and read the many books and physical accounts of hte region instead of depending solely on Internet sources. That is pretty sad I didn't think you'd stoop down to that level of using Internet gobbledeegook again to defend your opinion.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Peace Ahmed Asgher!

I acknowledge the atrocities committed by Europeans, but I do not accept guilt for them. Although my country was founded by Europeans, I am not a European. In truth, I'm an Asian who emigrated to this country as a baby and eventually became an American.

Regardless, I never claimed that the atrocities against indigenous peoples are part of our tradition of non-violence. On the other hand MLK is. I credit MLK's acts of courage in the face of state-sponsored prejudice for ensuring that my rights as an American citizen, in spite of my Asian ancestry. And these acts of courage did not consist of sponsoring suicide bombers to kill white people. On the contrary, his courage was his willingness confront his political enemies (who were almost invariably white) and respond to their hatred with brotherly love.

THIS, my friend, is the origin of our tradition of non-violent resistance in America. And by the way, in my state the indigenous tribes are rich casino owners today. ;)

Peace out!
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Shuja:

Muslims did not "civilize" the Hindu Cradle. The Hindus had civilization before the Moghuls conquered it. And once again, if you do not believe what I say then I refer you to the World Wide Web so that you can research the history of Hindu Kush, which as I said before means "Slaughter of Hindus".

I do not deny the compelling nature of Islam. However, I acknowledge that the history of those who practice it is not pure. In any event, what matters is not what happened many years ago so much as what has happened in recent times. Fact is that many in the West are afraid of Muslims. Not because of the religion they follow but because of the behavior of their extremist brethren. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge this, it is the way things stand today.
()

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
Nick, don't forget that ML King was a black man fighting for the rights of the black people who were subjugated by the whites. History of slavery in America can not be denied by referring to MLK's peaceful struggle for human rights. Indeed he is to be admired.

Then take a close look at how the invading Europeans wiped out the indigenous population of the natives. They were slaughtered, yet many faught bravely but because of numbers and superiority of the invading European, they were eventually annihilated. Their most fertile lands were taken away from them. Even today they are confined to reservations with minumum resources, languishing in prisons with alcholosim and petty crimes. I would not be proud of such records.

If this sort of history you call non-violence and makes you proud then we must come from different planets.

Remember John Wayne and the cowboy movies. These were made in my lifetime. Poor Indians were always the evil ones and the cowboys always the goodies. Hunt them down and they were cheered. May be you are still stuck on those movie scripts. Today, people know the truth of the native Indians, a once proud and spiritual people whose history in that land extends to 1200 years. Where are they now and what has befallen them? Yet in like fashion, Holywood has turned its attention to Arabs/Muslims as the evil ones. Cowboys will always need Indians. The mentality must change.

That is America built on the blood of the innocent, yet no one doubts that from the ashes rose the pious and the brave at heart who created a constitution worthy of anyone's pride. But hey watch out! This lot in the current admin. are chipping at it fast. PATRIOT Act indeed!!

My friend, with power comes immense responsibility. Exercise it well and be admired. Abuse it and be damned. Peace be upon you
()

YAHYA BERGUM FROM USA said:
Salaam. The following is a comment from another site, which I modified (slightly) before submitting it for this article. The original comment was posted at www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2&discussionID=304467 where it was message # 6.


Bismillah.

In the Qur'an we read about the Prophet Yusuf (peace be upon him) serving in the position of treasurer in the court of an unbeliever -- thus there would appear to be no general Qur'anic prohibition against Muslims serving in "non-Muslim" governments. And like the example set by Yusuf, Muslims serving in such positions should try to set the right example by performing their jobs with honor, honesty, and competency.

Traditionally, it has been considered poor form for a Muslim to actively seek positions of leadership. Muslims in the West considering to participate in roles of government leadership should ask themselves what are their intentions, what are the limits set by the religion, and what would they hope to be the result of their participation.

Peace and guidance.
()

CSABA CERE FROM USA said:
To: Adam Ibrahim Muhammad

Governments in Islam come to being through three basic ways:
3. Through coup

So, Adam, in your opinion, is the Iraq war justified, then? It was certainly a coup. Does might make right in your Islam? Can the West simply roll across the Middle East, performing coup after coup? I don't think so. I believe that you should take another look at Islam.
()

SHUJA FROM TORONTO, CANADA said:
Nick: I am born and raised in India. Muslims civilized India. Both Hindus and Muslims lived like brothers until British entered into the picture and adopted the policy of divide and rule. When Muslims entered India, there was no religion called "Hindu". The word Hindu was given by Muslims. Hindu Kush is a place, not an incident. India was always divided between the small kingdoms ruled by Jains, Marwaris, Rajputs, Marhathas until Muslims had unified the country. By the time British entered, India was under the Muslims, the greatest producer of Iron and Steel. If I accept your baseless analogy, then how come today 90% people are Hindus in India. I came from a place where Muslims were the rulers for 400 years. The place was a jewel to the rest of the nation because of its universities, ponds, hostpitals, rivers, dams, road network, telephone system etc.... Islam is the victim of the false propaganda because of its capability to withstand the system of deception. But the same propaganda is indirectly servicing the cause of Islam because it is getting popular day after day. Muslims of today (including me) have failed to live up Islamic teachings. However, like Qur'an itself has claimed that the enemies of Islam will serve the purpose of Islam. The more you deny Islam, the more it becomes popular. After massaccring 3 million Muslims in Baghdad and destroying all the Islamic civilization for 100 years, the same murderers had accepted Islam and served it. Whether you are a conquerer or subjugated, once you get into touch with Islam, you cannot escape its beuaty. By the way, we are not cry babies. We don't build cry museums, monuments, false history in honour of those Muslims. History is history. We should learn to live today instead of dwelling in the past.

Shuja
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Mohi, I never clamed that they were "barbaric", though they were clearly tyrants. But like I said, the past is beside the point. The atrocities of the Moghuls are as irrelevant as any nonsense about WWII, because what matters today is that terrorism coming from the Muslim world is a threat to global security. The recent Al Qaeda atrocity in Madrid should serve as a reminder to all about the evil that we must oppose. No more excuses, for now is the time to act against terror.
()

ABDULLAH K. FROM USA said:
Very very well said Mr. Al-Maryati, I couldn't have agreed more. Voting is not an option anymore for the Muslim masses. It is incumbent upon every one who is able to register and vote to do so. They are the vessel, the hope, for the rest of the Muslims the world over; no matter how much they realize it or admit it.
()

MOHI FROM BANGLADESH said:
Nick,
if the Moghul muslims were as barbaric as you protray them to be, then there should not have been any Hindus left in India over the 600 years of their rule...
()

BRYAN FROM US said:
Abdul, just ignore SheikAbdul. It's some guy who claims to be Muslim, but never puts his real name, and always makes comments not worth listening to, so just don't waste your time with him.
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
Nick...Hindu Kush is a mountaineous area that stems over Afghanistan and Pakistan. The word Hindu is not in the Hindi language, it is a Farci word. It means the region between the Himalayas, and the province of Sindh. Hence you have this word created by Brahmin elitists who overtook the country and surpressed the massive lower caste population majority of Hindustan. Please do not guess about Hindu Kush being a mountanous region where idol worshippers were slaughtered by Muslims. I respect the fact that you have opened dialogue here, but please refrain from presenting such false statements as 100 million Hindu's were slaughtered by Muslims. Please just do us all a favour and correct yourself by stating your mistake of saying 100 million Hindu's were killed by Muslims at Hindu Kush. The Rajputriya of Hindustan has always been an example of a small group of people who ruled the people. Whether or not each particular Raja or Emperor of Hindustan was just or unjust, you should take a look at people like Akbar Baadshah who ruled Hindustan for 53 years from Burma, to Afghanistan. He was raised in a Rajput family while his father Humayun was fighting in Afghanistan and his Moghul dynasty was very weak. Akbar at the age of 14, claimed his father's throne, but being raised in a Rajput Hindu family, he gained hte qualities and honour of Rajputs...Hindu and Muslim worked together to bring about unity in the region. Akbar Baadshah married a Hindu woman, he had many wives in fact...this was not Islamic of course, but it is just an example I am using to show to you that even the greatest Raj of India who ruled for the longest time, DID NOT slaughter Hindus the way you say that Muslims did. I think you are confused b/c first you said that 100 million Hindus were killed "during decades-long their reign," and then you said: "100 million Hindu deaths did not occur overnight. It took place over a period of many years, perhaps even centuries." (continued)
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Shuja:

The 100 million Hindu deaths did not occur overnight. It took place over a period of many years, perhaps even centuries. I think you need to research the region known as Hindu Kush (which means "Slaughter of Hindus") so you will know the truth.

God rewards Truth, not denial.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Well Bryan, I'm not sure how your comments relate to my point. Even though there's a lot of crime in Detroit, I doubt seriously that someone who lives there will go to the trouble to travel to where I live just to kill me with a suicide bomb.

On the other hand, I can't say the same for the extremists who live in Muslim countries. There are people over there who would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the opportunity to kill me and my family. And they would do it in the name of "jihad". And unlike extremists here in the U.S., fanatic terrorists from Muslim countries would have a million supporters cheering them on afterwards. (If you don't believe me, then ask a vendor in a Muslim country how popular UBL T-Shirts became shortly after 9/11.)

So from where I stand, it does not "balance out". Not by a long shot.
()

SHUJA FROM TORONTO, CANADA said:
Nick: I did not realize before that I am talking to a brainwashed person. I had just put the figures. Let me put the record straight. When Mughals entered India, the total estimated population of India was not even 50 million according to Nehru the first Prime Minister of India. With superior techniques, Babur, the first Mughal having only 5 thousand men defeated the army of Rana Sangha of 100 thousand at Pani Pat. The population of India when British left was only 400 million. When British entered India, the total population of India was not even 250 million. So, what you are talking is nonsense. And don't forget, when Chengiz Khan massaccred Iraqis, 3 million people had lost their lives and Baghdad were completely destroyed, and that was about 800 years ago. The fact of the matter is I don't support any Muslim country of today. I also beleive that Muslims are living in a bunch of dictotarial systems. America is definately a pluralistic society, and I personally respect that. However, at the same time, Americans have more blood in their hands than they pretend. Neither America was an innocent country on Sept. 11 nor was it at Pearl Harbour. Strangulation of all Japnese supplies lead to Pearl Harbour. Oh' it was not only Hitler, in my opinion Chruchill and Trueman were bigger criminals to continue the WWII even though Germans were ready for reconciliation. Had not Britsh bastards and French Cowards imposed unreasonable conditions on Germany, WWII would not have taken place to begin with. The financers of WWII were nobody but American banks. That is how Israel came into existence. By the way, how come Americans look the other way when Israel possess 400 nukes. Shame.

Shuja
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Why have my comments disappeared?

Anyways, to Shuja:

If you want to talk about historical casualty rates, I remind you that the Moghuls killed 100 million Hindus during decades-long their reign. This alone is more than the total of America's alleged wrongdoing. Anyways, that's beside the point, since the fact is that the most dangerous external threats to American civilians today (not 20 years, 100 years, or 1000 years ago) comes from the Muslim world. That is the way of things.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
Oops Abdul, I think I made a mistake. My comments were meant for Shuja.
()

NICK CAMERON said:
BNAK:

Yes, I'm sure what I said about America's tradition of social justice through non-violence is correct. If you doubt it, then do a web search on "The Civil Rights Movement". Alternatively, look up "Martin Luther King Jr.", one of the greatest American heroes of the 20th Century.

I believe this tradition influences many other civil rights organizations in America, including those who advocate on behalf of Muslims in America. Still don't believe me? Then write to CAIR or AMC and ask them what they think of Martin Luther King Jr.
()

KIRAN FROM USA said:
I definitly do agree with the article about how democracy has passed it's own test in history.
Yet nowadays the canidates in the US are arguably the same whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. It is definitly a popularity contest and I feel I can't partcipate in such a race.
No matter who wins this year. The US will still be after the Muslim States and who knows Iran can be next to be attacked regardless who wins the Presidential race.
()

BNAK FROM USA said:
Response to Nick:

You said:
"After all, our own history demonstrates the power of non-violence in bringing about social justice."

Are you sure the above statement is correct? If you believe so much in the power of non-violence why were there two gulf wars? why Vietnam war? why the Afghan war?

You are generalizing that all muslims outside of the USA accept and support suicide bombing as a means of conflict resolution whereas suicide bombing is concentrated mostly in the Middle-East region and that too in Israel-Palestine region. And, there are millions of muslims living peacefully outside the Middle-East and not involved in so-called terrorism. So, please get your facts straight before making such childish and irresponsible statements. Even otherwise, what choice do people whose land has been snatched away have? What choice do people who are living a miserable life in their own land have? What choice do people who are faced with such a powerful enemy have? What choice do people whose children are starving to death have?

When will you wake up and realize that all these problems are a source of American Foreign Policy of expanding bases in the Middle East Region to usurp it's resources and it's blind and unjustified support of Israel? Why don't you resolve these two issues justly and peacefully and see how the so called terrorism disappears from this planet? Or why don't you just follow the advise of brother Akbar and just arm the Palestinians appropriately and let them fight Israel? Then I can assure you that there will be lasting peace in the region. Peace to all!
()

BRYAN FROM US said:
Depends on your definition of terrorism. To me, terrorism is anybody who kills, unless you're defending someone. If you're killing someone, you're terrorizing them and their family. I've been to the middle east also, and the neighborhoods were quite peaceful, no one killed each other. On the other hand, for instance in Detroit, people are being killed everyday. I think the numbers balance out when you look at the overall big picture instead of a few major events.
()

ADAM IBRAHIM MUHAMMAD FROM NIGERIA. said:
I feel ashame whenever a muslim talks of voting and democracy as the only means. For the avoidance of doubt democracy or voting a goverment has no basis in Islam. Where the circustances, as in the USA, warrants and there is nothing anybody can do about it we take it as it is, but only just.

Governments in Islam come to being through three basic ways.

1. When a leader is chosen by his predecessor. Like in the case of Abubakr(RA) and the Prophet(SAW).
2. A leader determine by Shura( a group of stakeholders of 5,7 or more as the case may be). Once the leadre is determine the people accept him.
3. Through coup. If a somebody took power by force, and trying to topple him will cause more blood shading in the ummah, then it is mandatory to allow that person to continue and finish his tenure.

Beside these ways, any other way could not be tenable as each one of the above was done at one stage or the other by either the prophet(SAW) or the Sahabas, the tabiun or the tabiu-ttabiun.

The reason against majority carries the day in Islam is simple. A majority is not ALWAYS the best in terms of deen, behaviours, ethics, etc. So how can we accept leaders chosen for us by such people?

May Allah open our eyes to see the best(the way of Islam) and abide by it, ameen.
()

AHMED ASGHER FROM BAHRAIN said:
My experience of the US is limited to early eighties, but I have had a couple of decades of living in the West to be able to contribute to this forum, I feel! and offcourse as a Muslim.

I think Muslims living in America or any other Western democracies should vote for a candidate that they see best serving unviversal justice. If they can not find such a candidate then they should work together to promote one of their own who has enough political profile to be able to be assimilated into Western-style politics but still hold Islamic values that promote universal justice. After all you guys live in that society and if you want to fashion the political landscape then you should vote and get involved.

No good sitting on the sideline and pretending to be the victims when you do not take part in any election.

Truly those who honestly believe that they want to change the whole of America to suit their thinking then perhaps it is best for them to live in a Muslim country since by being there, they are faced with constant internal conflict. Face it the majority is not of your ilk but you do have a responsibility to show Americans that not all Muslims are fanatics and shun their host country. Best to be open and assimilated. It does not mean you loose your identity. To the contrary: You can be like that little drop of the black ink in the ocean. Many such drops will eventually change the colour of the ocean. Allah works in mysterious ways and we are all his instruments of change.
()

H.A. FROM YATHRIB said:
I think Nick Cameron is getting a free ride here. I am becoming allergic to his "frog" talking.

It is time someone runs an American made tank, which is bought by zionists, through the comments he posted here, then he'll know who the real criminals that target and kill civilians. You may also destroy the alphabets of his passage/comment he has posted here by tagetting missiles from an Apache helicopters to further brighten the face of the real baby killers.

Let me, quote Nick Cameron...

"...Many Muslims outside the U.S., on the other hand, seem to think that justice comes about by specfically targetting killing non-combatants..."

I do NOT know what is person is drinking, but he is obviously brainwahsed with "BUSH PILL". Does he NOT see that American taxpayers have killed 3000 innocent Palestinians in just two years?

What about Iraqi civilians? Again, the Americans have killed > 20,000 Iraqi civilians to take out just 1 person, that is Saddam. Who was the best buddy of U.S. gov't 10 years ago? Again it is Saddam.

It is really hard to argue with people who do not know history and just came out of the amniotic fluid.

The UBL's supporters were called FREEDOM FIGHTERS just 15 years ago by U.S.the public and by the U.S. gov't when they were tagetting USSR. Now they are called terrorists!!!. How stupid!!! How do terrorists get freed from Guantanomo Bay? Just 5 of them are being released and set free. Now! people can see the real abusers and oppressors of innocent civilians.

No wonder I, H.A., recommend bulldozing people like Nick Cameron out this site and vehemently support the creation of an apartheid wall around his site so that it takes 10 days to post CIVILIAN NICK CAMERON's commment. Then he'll wake up and realize the real abusers, killers, and oppressors of civilians.
The bottom line is that the people of the WEST are hate mongers. They were born to hate others. Just read the history...However,we,Muslims, must hug them and
()

ABDUL FROM USA said:
Response to SheikAbdul.

I am not sure what kind of Sheik or Muslim are you. Thank to Allah that we are not under your rule in this country. "It is my way or the highway" mentality. First of all I really doubt that you are even a Muslim, but even if you were, no surprise there. Typical ignorant Muslim who live for the love of putting their fellow Muslims down.

To show how ingorant you are, what does not having an Islamic country any where has anything to do with the issue of election in U.S. ?? Idiots like you cannot even stay with the subject matter at hand.
All I mentioned is my view and what we as Muslims are commanded to do according to the Quran and the Sunnah. Sadly too many "Muslims" like you who do not have an ounce of knowledge about their religion are roaming around and like to speak out of Muslims and Islam. I would highly suggest you go learn your religion if you are a Muslim at all before trashing others and showing your hate of Muslims.
()

SHUJA FROM TORONTO, CANADA said:
Nick: Here is my analogy:

1) 80 million people were killed in WWII (mostly Christians, Gypsies, Jews). They killed each other.

2) Two million Vietnamese, thousands of Americans, Chinese, Russians were killed in Vietnam war. No Muslim was involved there.

3) In korean war, more than 2 million Koreans and thousands of Americans and foreigners were killed. Not single Muslim soul was involved.

4) Who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

5) Who invaded South American countries?

6) What was Bay of Pigs?

7) Who supply arms to Israel if the problem resolution is suppose to be through talk?

8) Who attacked Iraq two times?

9) Who attacked Afghanistan?

10) Who bombed the checmical plant in Sudan?

11) What happened in American Civil War?

12) Where are those millions and millions of Red Indians?

13) Who conducted African slavery trade for 400 years?

14) By the way, did you see The Passion of Christ? Go and check the Jewish Barbarians.

You know what? Muslims are picnic when compare to the above. We are not even in kindergarden when compare to the above.

Shuja

()

L. ALAHEM FROM USA said:
Salaams,

It is most important that we, as muslims, register and exercise the vote in the US, as well as elsewhere in the world. Those who do not vote are not only providing tacit permission for the questionable policies of the current administration, but continuing to perpetuate the fallicy that Muslim Americans are not to be considered in the political aims of the country. Don't you understand? People all over the world are literally taking their life into their hands to exercise this most fundamental civil right, and we, Americans in general and Muslims in particular, are "too busy" or "it doesn't mean anything". It won't mean anything unless we rise up and vote our conscience. Brothers, sisters, do not be fooled into buying this. Vote! You want sharia concepts in the government? Vote! Why do you think the christian right got so powerful? Because THEY VOTE! and so should we!
Vote in the municipal, county, state elections. Vote in the Presidential and Federal elections!
You don't like the policies of this country but didn't vote? Don't come complaining to me! Until you fulfil your responsibility, you have no right to complain.

Salaams, and may Allah guide your hearts.

L. Alahem
()

AKBAR KHAN FROM CANADA said:
Assalaamu'Alaiykum Bryan!

Jazakum'Allah Khairun - May Allah reward you for the good you have done! I agree with you and commend you for being so reasonable. I want to say thank you for being of the many Americans who are wise and not otherwise. Now it's becoming very clear, that we have ignorance on both sides, from reading SheikAbdul's comments it is clear that he has no idea of Islamic history in the past 1400 years. His generalizations are something that sadden me very deeply. He has no idea about what happened in the last 1000 years on Earth, how can he sit there and say that the US Government is hte closest thing to an Islamic government in the last 1000 years? I think he is suffering from dillusions. Sheik Abdul needs to realize that he is over dramatizing the opinions of Muslims, and he said something very stupid, telling Muslims to get the hell out of the USA...HEY, I have a problem with the US Government's bureacratic nature and its' ideology when it comes to sidelining the rights of Muslims and anyone else, that includes Cubans, Mexicans, African Americans, and all other ethnic groups whose rights are sidelined every day. One of hte greatest elements of Islam is the ability of Muslims to have differences of opinions and be okay with their differences. If only you could see that Americans like Bryan stand by Muslims, and I stand by Americans who strive for what is right, against might.

Muslims don't want to get out of America, they are being forced out and deported, maybe that is what you want Sheik Abdul. Have you been alive for 1000 years? Islam works for all times, and all places, and you have not been alive for 1000 years so don't judge history because you are angry. I would like to remind you also that whenever you mention the Prophet, you should say Sal'Allahu'Alaiyhi wassalam afterwards, for Muhammad Mustafa (saaw) himself said that whosoever does not say this after saying my name is cursing himself/herself.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Bryan, when I say "many" I do not mean an actual estimate. But IMO, even if only 1% believes in terrorism then it's an unacceptable risk. And personally, I wouldn't be surprised if 1% turned out to be a conservative estimate.

P.S. I was born in a foreign country, and I've lived in a Muslim country, so I'm not sure how your comment about Americans' ignorance applies to me.
()

BRYAN FROM US said:
Nick, do you say many as in the majority, millions, or a few thousands? I honestly think one problem with our country's ignorance is that no one travels to foreign countries and just accepts all that the media has to say/puts on TV. There's problems like this with every group, but it's being magnified on Muslims because of 9/11.
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Response to BNAK:

For me, whether all Muslims, American or not, are united in one "Ummah" is beside the point. What matters to me is the approach that people take when seeking conflict resolution and remedies for perceived injustice. Muslims who have been Americanized generally understand both the value and morally supported approach of non-violent dissent. After all, our own history demonstrates the power of non-violence in bringing about social justice.

Many Muslims outside the U.S., on the other hand, seem to think that justice comes about by specifically targetting killing non-combatants. I cite the millions of supporters and admirers of UBL, Abu Sayaff, Jemaah Islamiya, and Hamas as examples, so as always I stand by my words.
()

YAHYA BERGUM FROM USA said:
I think that a Muslim might (alternatively) wish to consider making certain attempts to encourage other people in the same country where she or he lives to do what is correct according to the Quran. It might be worth noting that many of the those who do not call themselves Muslims believe that they themselves are supposed to do much of that which Muslims believe that Muslims are supposed to do. Just offhand, how would you imagine that the "people's wisdom" might be counted -- while avoiding a reliance on anything that resembled a "modern" political process?

Also, it is not necessary to win an election in order to influence public policy, later on. It can however be beneficial to necessitate, by those who DO win the election, the adoption of one or more positions of their political rivals (at least to a greater extent than they would have otherwise adopted). One way of achieving this is to oppose one's political rivals vigorously -- for instance, earlier in the political process and within smaller "political districts."

If you don't wish to get involved in America's political process then I would suggest you not even give it a second thought. After all, the majority of America's non-Muslim population doesn't seem to, either.

Wassalam.
()

SHEIKABDUL FROM USA said:
Salaam-

Muslims LOVE to say "govern according to the shairah or the book of Allah." all else is unjust.

I know I'm a Muslim.
There has not been ANYTHING close to an Islamic government ANYWHERE in the muslim world since the Shia Suni split.

If you look at EVERY "muslim country" they have currupted the teachings, laws and traditions of Prophet Muhammad to create societies that benifit the insecure males and the rich thieves that have everlasting power.

Muslims like Ahmed and abdul need to go live in one of these "muslim countries" and get out of the US...which makes one wonder why they are here in the 1st place.

The US gov, currupt and evil as it is, is the clostest thing to what any Islamic government anywhere on this PLANET for the past 1000 years.

Muslims, specifically Arabs and Pakis, will never admit this...but they jump the 1st boat to run here from the opression and slavery that goes on in their "muslim homeland"

As a Muslim, I'd like to say to everyone who has a problem with the US and it's gov.

GET THE HELL OUT. YOU ARE NOW WELCOMED. GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE THERE....see how long your lift lasts.

()

BNAK FROM USA said:
Bravo Bryan! Well said! Kudos to you!
()

BNAK FROM USA said:
To Mr.Nick Cameron:
What kind of unease do you have Nick against muslims outside of America and what is that unease based on? Can you please elaborate?
Your last statment in your comments is divisive of muslims. All muslims whether they are in America, Iraq or Palestine or in any other country are part of ONE ummah (community). And, American Muslims are indeed concerned about their Muslim brothers and sisters in other parts of the world and shall inshaAllah use their voting right to select a leader who is at the least, a lesser evil than the current administration; though they are probably hoping against hope that some day some one who has concern for his fellow humans in general, a concern that is not discriminatory based on a people's faith or race will come to power and ease their suffering.

By your statement:

"I believe that most Muslims in America would agree with him 100%. It's in stark contrast with many Muslims in other parts of the world who would have tried to rationalize suicide terrorism to "resist" the Bush Administration."

you are undermining the cause of people who struggle in their day to day life against tyranny and barbarism and resort to such extreme measure when they are left with no other choice, faced with a much stronger enemy. Though I am completely against suicide bombings, especially when innocent civilians are killed, it still inflicts lesser damage than the so called 'Collateral Damage' that kills thousands and your government doesn't even care to count the bodies. And, because of suicide bombings, you are getting an excuse to kill more people in the guise of killing militants, so why do you complain? why are you at unease?
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES said:
Quick response to Bryan:

Nowehere did I say that all of the 1 billion Muslims in the world try to rationalize suicide bombings. My exact words were, "It's in stark contrast with *MANY* Muslims in other parts of the world who would have tried to rationalize suicide terrorism to "resist" the Bush Administration." [emphasis added] And when I say "many", it's the same as saying "a lot but not all". Please re-read my comments for further context, because I stand by these words.
()

BRYAN FROM U.S. said:
Well written article and I did hope for Kucinich to win, but that won't be the case. On the other hand in response to Nick, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, 300 million in the middle east, and millions of Palestinians. To say that a billion other people solve problems or try to rationalize by suicide bombings is not well thought out. There have not been millions of suicide bombers, probably hundreds, and those who try to rationalize using that is not much either. Also, the Muslims worldwide do not enjoy the liberties the ones in the U.S. do, and no matter where you are, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc, if you're oppressed, you're angry, which can lead to extremism esp. when the world turns its back. Look how many Neo-Nazis/skin-heads there are in Russia, just because they're ignored doesn't mean they cease to exist. It would be wrong to classify all Christians world-wide because of the actions of a few, and it's the same for every religion and every person.
()

YASEEN BIN IMTHIAZ AHMED FROM INDIA said:
As Salaam Alaikum,
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I am against the said article because i think it is unislamic to vote for a ruler who does not govern according to the shairah or the book of Allah.
I have to say that to whomever we vote in such a kind of democratic support nothing good is going to happen to muslims or non-muslims also.
In Islamic Democracy or Caliphate a Caliph was chosen by "counting the wisdom of the people" and not the "number of people".
In todays democratic setup "only people are counted and not there wisdom" that is why we have dishonest, and useless leaders for whom power is everything.
For the 5 rightfull Caliphs (Abu Bakr(RAD), Umar (RAD), Usman (RAD), Ali (RAD), Hussain (RAD)) ruled for doing service not for accumulating power.
Today we need leaders who like to do Service rather then to gain power.
So please brothers and sisters, don't get carried away by the fitnah of today's new systems.
Jazak Allahu Khair,
Wa Salaam Alaikum,
Yaseen Bin Imthiaz Ahamed
()

ABDUL FROM USA said:
Muslims do not have any business in participating in such elections. These elections are all fraud and a facade. They are manipulated by big corporations and rich guys, regardless who is the running candidate, whether Democrate or Republican. Plus, as a Muslim, I do not see it appropriate to vote for some one who is not going to rule by the book of Allah (swt), and that is the criteria for Muslims to elect and to obey any leader who they elect. None of these candidates meet that criteria. I know a lot of Muslims will not agree with this view, but how many of them really are following the Quran and the Sunnah.

Muslims in a non-Muslim land are to focus on making dawah and help the needy rather than try to be like the non-Muslims. All of these elections are built on lies and compromises that are totally against the laws set by Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saa).
()

NICK CAMERON FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said:
The author of this article, who is an Muslim American, promotes a non-violent way to fight for change. I believe that most Muslims in America would agree with him 100%. It's in stark contrast with many Muslims in other parts of the world who would have tried to rationalize suicide terrorism to "resist" the Bush Administration. This is the reason why my unease with the Muslim world does not extend to Muslim Americans.
()

AHMED FROM UK said:
Kucinich is a visionary, which is why he wont be selected as president. There is no way a man of principle, honor or morals can become the US president. Just at look at Bush and his predescessors. I think the record speaks for itself.
()

ROMESH CHANDER FROM US said:
Does voting matter? Yes and No.

In our elections, person who gets the most votes gets elected. In close elections, votes of a small minority (in a particular locality/state) do matter. However, where election is not really close, the votes of a minority may not be of much significance.

In Florida, it mattered because, the elction was extremely close; out of millions of voters in Florida, Bush, presumably, won by only 534 votes out of a total of 5 million votes. If the difference was about 200,000, then votes of a minority would not have mattered at all (considering some members of the minority would have voted either Bush or Gore, and hence would have been split by both parties).
()