[Fishman]

What do you think?

 

[noodles]

I voted for the first because in my opinion we can't just sit here and say that "Oh no, the Shariah can't be established until Mahdi comes and thereby any form of government is corrupt"

Of course it is my belief is that corruption stems from the government and not the people. (Yes, they may be good citizens and also bad citizens in a certain country, but in most cases compromise is necessary.) And thus we must strive to adhere to the laws of the land, because after all it is their lands and they have rights over it.

Sure, if the country was ruled by a Muslim leader, he would be expected to follow and adhere to laws that go against the very Islamic teachings, but that very well can be taken in any case where non-muslims are present (in minority or majority)

It'd be a great benefit, no doubt. [though in the end, I'd say like most politicians do, they end up becoming corrupt themselves, instead of benefitting others]

Anyway, these are simply my beliefs.

 

[MTAFFI]

If this thread is supposed to be directed at Muslim leadership in the West, the poll is impossible to answer with the choices given, since the west is basically entirely secular. The religious background of the candidate for presidency or PM should be of no relevance and shouldnt provide any influence over their position as leader of any secular society. At best it could be used to get votes but shouldnt and wouldnt have any influence over the candidates political agenda.

But to answer the poll
1) It would solve nothing in the mid-east because any muslim in any position of power would immediately be considered as a "moderate" or "liberal" Muslim and the west would continue to be hated upon

2) Obviously the leader couldnt rule with Shariah law, since the societies are secular

3) Again the societies are secular, not Christian countries. Just because the dominant religion is Christianity does not make it a Christian country

 

[vpb]

the problem is that the poll does not define what type of muslims leaders !!! we have many types of muslim leaders nowdays .

 

[Keltoi]

MTAFFI pretty much summed it up from a Western perspective. The religious beliefs of a politician work to get votes, but in a secular government the constitution is the guiding principle involved.

 

[wilberhum]

I did not vote because I think Muslims should run for office if they think they would be an asset to there country. Given any other reason, they would not be an asset to there country.

 

[guyabano]

I choosed to live in a country which is ruled by laws made by men and women. Nobody else knows better what is good for the people since we make part of it. No God can ever do that better. We all decide together for our future.
And what did this bring us: We are one of the richest countries on this earth, have the highest income per capita, one of the best helthcare system around.

But the best is, we have no army and live in total peace with all our neighbours.

So, I said NO! No muslim leaders in any western country., at least, not yet !
Once they understand, that a country must be led by people and not by a god

 

[Sinbad]

Good luck getting westerners vote for a muslim president/PM.

Maybe in 50 years when the immigrants have had ther 5 children while the westerners have gotten to old.

 

[Muezzin]

Good luck getting westerners vote for a muslim president/PM.

Maybe in 50 years when the immigrants have had ther 5 children while the westerners have gotten to old.

Hmm, hopefully they will have learned how to spell 'too', too...

Anyway, we need more Muslim politicians - imagine if all the people whining about a lack of diversity in Parliament actually went out and tried to become a politician. There's a thought.

 

[NobleMuslimUK]

Well I hate to burst the bubble but Islam clashes with the modern day politics, since politics is full of liars and corrupt people, Islam is to eliminate any such injustice, corruption or falsehood. So I dont think we can have a muslim president in US, to run the country the way its being run because he will be indulging in a lot of kaafir actions that go against Islam. Parties for one, where drinking and mixing of the sexes is involved, lying to the public making false promises or just hiding stuff in the name of national security, following man made laws etc...
First the country has to become majority muslim to be able to follow a muslim leader. Although this said the countries that are majority muslim havent been able to follow this then why blame westerners. So called muslim countries not a single one following Shari'ah Law, wow what a shame.

 

[Muezzin]

Well I hate to burst the bubble but Islam clashes with the modern day politics, since politics is full of liars and corrupt people, Islam is to eliminate any such injustice, corruption or falsehood. So I dont think we can have a muslim president in US, to run the country the way its being run because he will be indulging in a lot of kaafir actions that go against Islam. Parties for one, where drinking and mixing of the sexes is involved, lying to the public making false promises or just hiding stuff in the name of national security, following man made laws etc...
First the country has to become majority muslim to be able to follow a muslim leader. Although this said the countries that are majority muslim havent been able to follow this then why blame westerners. So called muslim countries not a single one following Shari'ah Law, wow what a shame.

We all know the problems facing the world today. If merely identifying a problem solved it, the world would be perfect.

But it ain't. So that's why I take the stance that, instead of complaining about how bad things are, we should actually go and do something, even if it's just presenting a pleasant image of Islam by being good, polite citizens.

 

[Keltoi]

Perhaps if more Muslims were more involved in the political process, the non-Muslims citizens would come to understand that Muslims have just as much concern and have just as much at stake as non-Muslims with the state of whatever nation they are living in.

 

[Muezzin]

Perhaps if more Muslims were more involved in the political process, the non-Muslims citizens would come to understand that Muslims have just as much concern and have just as much at stake as non-Muslims with the state of whatever nation they are living in.

Zis eez, 'ow you say, 'BINGO'.

 

[Sami Zaatari]

its good to have a muslim president, let him make martial law, throw the consititution out, and establish sharia law MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA lol that sounded nice thats what robert spencer and fox news would love to hear. they would screammmmmmmmmmm seeeeeeeeeeee look!

 

[S_87]

the muslims wouldnt make it like saudi because there are enough muslim populated countries, but really? are they muslim governments? no, so we should get the already muslim countries in order first.


my vote with the way current situations are no-they would be making man made laws.

 

[Keltoi]

This also points to the problem. When Muslims themselves talk about a "Muslim president" or politician, they automatically think "Sharia Law". When a non-Muslim hears this they cringe. It is going to make it extremely hard for a Muslim to be elected to high office in the West unless they can show their intention to be a person of faith following the rule of law, and not simply a person of faith who wants to dictate new law.

 

[guyabano]

Now my question would mainly be' If a muslim leaser would be elected to such a high position in a western country, WHAT would he change and HOW will he do it?
I see, most people voted for this point in the poll, but nobody said what and how?

I say, nothing will change. As Keltoi mentionned already, as long as a muslim will not learn to adapt 'laws made my men', he would never be elected. Oh, except maybe muslims would gain majority in western countries, but then again, this will never happen also. Sharia and Democracy , this is not compatible. So back to inital point: No, a muslim leader will not be eleted. But who knows what the future brings in a few generations.

 

[KAding]

Define 'Muslim'. If we define it broadly: the majority of Muslims in the West don't wan't to introduce Islamic laws and abolish Western democratic systems. A Muslim like that could actually get a fair amount of votes, there are many of these active in traditional parties already in Western Europe.

If a Muslim is by definition someone who wants to introduce Islamic Law, well, then we have a problem. I don't even know if it would be legal for someone to run who aims to overthrow the liberal democratic system of government. I think such a candidate or party would generally be banned from running in most countries. Even if they would run they would be shunned by other parties and get votes from only a small section of the Muslim population.

 

[MTAFFI]

Define 'Muslim'. If we define it broadly: the majority of Muslims in the West don't wan't to introduce Islamic laws and abolish Western democratic systems. A Muslim like that could actually get a fair amount of votes, there are many of these active in traditional parties already in Western Europe.

If a Muslim is by definition someone who wants to introduce Islamic Law, well, then we have a problem. I don't even know if it would be legal for someone to run who aims to overthrow the liberal democratic system of government. I think such a candidate or party would generally be banned from running in most countries. Even if they would run they would be shunned by other parties and get votes from only a small section of the Muslim population.

From what I understand a true Muslim is always someone who is trying to accomplish Shariah Law

 

[Goku]

From what I understand a true Muslim is always someone who is trying to accomplish Shariah Law

To my knowledge Shariah Law has to be voted for by the majority of the population and would work best if the majority is Muslim.