The Blue Muslim Wave: American Muslims launch political campaigns

Singularity

Elite Member
Messages
309
Reaction score
5
Gender
Male
Religion
Christianity
Excerpt:

https://infoglitz.com/malaysia/the-...paigns-and-hope-to-bring-trump-sweet-justice/


The Blue Muslim Wave: American Muslims launch political campaigns and hope to bring Trump "sweet justice"
April 16, 2018 World 7 Views


SAN DIEGO – Fayaz Nawabi never met President Trump. But he attributes to the president that he convinced him to run for office.


Nawabi, a 31-year-old San Diego City Council candidate, supports almost everything Trump rejects: He's an affordable housing, eco-friendly, pro-immigrant and pro-refugee. That makes him part of the blue wave of new liberal candidates driven by Trump's choice and politics.


But Nawabi is also part of a notable subgroup: the Blue Muslim Wave.


More than 90 American Muslims, almost all of them Democrats, are running for public office throughout the country this year. Many are young and politically inexperienced, and most are long-shot. But they are collective gambling: voters are so disgusted with America's least popular president that they are prepared to vote for members of America's least popular religious minority.


Although their numbers appear small, the candidates mark an unprecedented rise for the country's diverse Muslim community, which is typically underrepresented in American politics.





More than 3.3 million Muslims live in the United States, but Muslim Americans have only two of the 535 seats in Congress. And the turnout of the Muslim community is fading compared to the general public.


[A year after the Women’s March, new activists take anti-Trump message into midterm elections]


The rise of Muslim candidates coincides with the growth of the predominantly immigrant population and an internal party shift that spanned over a generation. In a 2001





poll of American Muslims, 42 percent said they voted in favor of Republican George W. Bush in last year's presidential election, while 31 percent said they voted for Democrat Al Gore. Last year, just 8 percent of American Muslims said in a Pew poll that they voted for Trump, while 78 percent said they voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton. While Clinton's campaign never reaped widespread enthusiasm from Muslim communities called for the monitoring of mosques and a ban on Muslims entering the United States – delivered a shock on election night that some American Muslims compared with September 11, 2001.
"It woke everyone up," Nawabi said.





Now, Muslim candidates are running for a variety of offices across the country, from local school boards to the US Senate. Some make their Muslim identity central to their campaigns.


"When you put somebody in a corner and are in survival mode, they tend to come out and talk more about their beliefs," Nawabi says he considers himself an "unruly Muslim" who uses the Qur'an of memory and moonlight as " Freelance Imam ".


In Michigan, where 13 Muslim candidates stand for election, the doctor Abdul El-Sayed hopes that voters will elect him he was the first Muslim governor in the United States and has his religion in campaign ads against Republican front-runner Bill Schuette supported by Trump .


"Donald Trump and Steve Bannon would be pleased to have right-wing radicals like Bill Schuette voted in Michigan," reads a Facebook ad for Sayed, which faces a Democratic primary in August. If you chose a 33-year-old Muslim instead of Bill Schütte, send a message and help choose the first Muslim governor in America. "


A New Generation of Leaders


Half a century ago, a small population of black Americans adopted Islam as a road to political empowerment and civil rights. Today, their descendants are US military personnel, police officers, city councilors, and civil servants.


But in the immigrant community the experience is newer. About two-thirds of American Muslims are immigrants or children of immigrants, and activists say that cultural fear or mistrust of the government can accompany those who have fled authoritarian regimes and hindered participation in the political process.


"Many feel" I'm just going to earn my money, lower my head, "said Nawabi, whose family came to Afghanistan from Afghanistan as a toddler.


They feel politically committed" sets a goal on their backs because of that meant where they came from, "he said.


A small number of Muslim and Arab stakeholders, such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Emgage (formerly Emerge USA), and the Arab American Institute have had it for years spent training young political activists, tracking down emerging politicians, and campaigning, especially in immigrant communities, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks unleashed an anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic attack -Arab counter-reaction.





[Muslim, millennial and single: A generation struggles to find love]


But Trump's policy has the urge to Political activism in the diverse community intensified.There was the travel ban, the access to persons from several Muslim countries and to refugees. There have been Trump's calls to monitor mosques and his appointment of cabinet members and political advisors who have vilified and ridiculed Muslims. There were comments and tweets that regarded Islam as inherently dangerous and called into question Muslim patriotism.


Emgage, a nonprofit organization promoting Muslim political engagement, interviewed registered Muslim voters after the 2016 presidential election, finding 53 percent "less sure."


"But the answer was civic participation," said Wa & # 39; el Alzayat, the director of the organization. "I am one of the people who are optimistic about the long-term effects."


A considerable generation of American-born Muslims and Arabs are in their 20s and 30s, their school years are 9 years old / 11, and their comfort and familiarity with the American political system far exceeds that of their immigrant parents.


"They are ready," said James Zogby, a longtime Democratic activist and president of the Arab American Institute funding and mentoring for several candidates. "Both communities have reached a degree of maturation."





Nawabi, a self-described "typical millennial" and avid surfer, never cared for politics until Senator Bernie Sanders (Vt.) Drew his attention during the 2016 presidential campaign. But the day after Trump's election, Nawabi decided he had to act.


This morning, he went to the local Islamic school, where he taught and imagined how the parents of his students "could try to explain to their children that there is a fanatic in the White House, a racist."


But when he came to the classroom, he realized that his second graders were already thinking about it.


"They talked about where they were I'll go now that Trump was president," Nawabi said. "That really touched me."


[Explaining Islam: A mosque starts a ‘Know Islam’ booth at a farmers market]


Soon he was a member of the California Democratic Party, which he attributed to his ability to mobilize 200 Muslim voters. He gave sermons in mosques that were mainly visited by immigrants, the importance of seeing himself as part of the American political system, and he founded a Muslim American Democratic Club in San Diego.
 
So you have Muslims running as liberals which suggests you have to tote the Democrat Party line by agreeing with beliefs that are contrary to Islamic Law and involve themselves in the political process of the kuffar. I want to see someone ask one of these candidates this question: "You are a Muslim and Islam forbids homosexuality as an evil practice. Do you also believe that? Do you believe that people should be governed by Shariah or by Democracy?" And see what kind of answers he gives. He will make kufr upon himself is what he will do. You can't serve two masters. You will end up contradicting one over the other.
 
Last edited:
A Muslim running as a Democrat is making a cynical deal with the devil

Who do you think operates and funds the Democratic Party in the US? Leftist, Zionist, Jews --the billionaires, oligarchs, financial moguls, etc. They may be "pro-immigrant", or "pro-refugee", but they hate religion, and Islam in particular.

You don't hear what these people say behind closed doors --I have.

Now the GOP isn't much better, as Sheldon Adelson and other Jews fund them too, but the Dems are even worse. I live in Illinois, where we have a Jewish mayor in Chicago, a Jewish governor, dozens of Jewish alderman and congressional representatives. They are all tied up with AIPAC and other pro-Israeli groups.

They have created laws to legalize gay marriage, put men into women's bathrooms (transgenderism), publicly fund abortion, and to allow parents to subject their children to gender "reassignment" (and ultimately sex-change operations). They have tried to outlaw homeschooling, have put restrictions on religious schools (including Islamic), and want to tax churches and mosques. They want to brand political speech against Israel or Jewish leaders as "hate-speech" or "Holocaust denial", and fine or arrest people who engage in it. The same Jews who run the adult film industry (pornography) and own the degenerate Hollywood entertainment apparatus are the ones that fund and support this party.

Guys like Sam Harris, who is a lifelong Democrat who is involved in fundraising, etc., and who calls Islam the "motherload of bad ideas"

Please run for political office, but do not do it as a Democrat. It is a trap.
 
A Muslim has no business involving themselves in the political process of the kuffar regardless of any party affiliation. Like I said, you can't serve two masters.
 
So you have Muslims running as liberals which suggests you have to tote the Democrat Party line by agreeing with beliefs that are contrary to Islamic Law and involve themselves in the political process of the kuffar. I want to see someone ask one of these candidates this question: "You are a Muslim and Islam forbids homosexuality as an evil practice. Do you also believe that? Do you believe that people should be governed by Shariah or by Democracy?" And see what kind of answers he gives. He will make kufr upon himself is what he will do. You can't serve two masters. You will end up contradicting one over the other.

False dichotomy is false. Shariah isn't a government, it doesn't automatically apply itself, it needs humans in charge to carry out the implementation. Since it ultimately requires that, the human factor might as well be democracy. There is only an issue if one practices democracy on the (completely unnecessary) premise that the will of the majority is a source of moral legitimacy.

Neither does sharia have an answer to every possible public issue, of which there are an infinite number of potential ones. If you disagree, care to, for example, show how sharia provides an answer to how many lanes a highway should have and what speed limits each of them should have?
 
Neither does sharia have an answer to every possible public issue, of which there are an infinite number of potential ones. If you disagree, care to, for example, show how sharia provides an answer to how many lanes a highway should have and what speed limits each of them should have?

Sorry for derailing. I am interested in only this part. Sharia is simply ruling according to Quran and Sunnah. Quran says to use your mind quite many times. So we can find the speed Limits of each lane by simply using our minds (our intelligence) and this would be perfectly an Islamic method and according to shariah.
 
Last edited:
False dichotomy is false. Shariah isn't a government, it doesn't automatically apply itself, it needs humans in charge to carry out the implementation. Since it ultimately requires that, the human factor might as well be democracy. There is only an issue if one practices democracy on the (completely unnecessary) premise that the will of the majority is a source of moral legitimacy.

Neither does sharia have an answer to every possible public issue, of which there are an infinite number of potential ones. If you disagree, care to, for example, show how sharia provides an answer to how many lanes a highway should have and what speed limits each of them should have?

Shariah is law by which the Creator wants us to live by. You apparently think Democracy is synonymous with Shariah which is blatantly false. Man cannot govern himself without being oppressive because he will rule by his whims and desires. Which is why societies based on kufr are corrupt, bankrupt, immoral and oppressive. And you need to be careful about how you say things such as, "neither does Shariah have an answer to every public issue" nonsense because you are flirting with kufr. Maybe living in Finland for so long has gotten you deceived and deluded.
 
Sorry for derailing. I am interested in only this part. Sharia is simply ruling according to Quran and Sunnah. Quran says to use your mind quite many times. So we can find the speed Limits of each lane by simply using our minds (our intelligence) and this would be perfectly an Islamic method and according to shariah.

It was a ridiculous example of his to make a point.
 
Salaam

A Muslim running as a Democrat is making a cynical deal with the devil

Who do you think operates and funds the Democratic Party in the US? Leftist, Zionist, Jews --the billionaires, oligarchs, financial moguls, etc. They may be "pro-immigrant", or "pro-refugee", but they hate religion, and Islam in particular.

You don't hear what these people say behind closed doors --I have.

Now the GOP isn't much better, as Sheldon Adelson and other Jews fund them too, but the Dems are even worse. I live in Illinois, where we have a Jewish mayor in Chicago, a Jewish governor, dozens of Jewish alderman and congressional representatives. They are all tied up with AIPAC and other pro-Israeli groups.

They have created laws to legalize gay marriage, put men into women's bathrooms (transgenderism), publicly fund abortion, and to allow parents to subject their children to gender "reassignment" (and ultimately sex-change operations). They have tried to outlaw homeschooling, have put restrictions on religious schools (including Islamic), and want to tax churches and mosques. They want to brand political speech against Israel or Jewish leaders as "hate-speech" or "Holocaust denial", and fine or arrest people who engage in it. The same Jews who run the adult film industry (pornography) and own the degenerate Hollywood entertainment apparatus are the ones that fund and support this party.

Guys like Sam Harris, who is a lifelong Democrat who is involved in fundraising, etc., and who calls Islam the "motherload of bad ideas"

Please run for political office, but do not do it as a Democrat. It is a trap.

When I was naive I would of leaned towards the liberals but when you read more and gain more experienced you realise they are not what you expected.

Both political parties are controlled opposition, both funded by the oligarchs, globalists (pick your favourite label).
 
It was a ridiculous example of his to make a point.

Well I wouldnt call it that way. I know him in net from long time ago. He is a native Finn and convert to Islam too like you by the way. I dont think he underestimates sharia. He has intelligent points on intricate subjects of Islam and Muslims most of the time. I think what he means is not to think from a narrow angle.
 
Shariah is law by which the Creator wants us to live by. You apparently think Democracy is synonymous with Shariah which is blatantly false. Man cannot govern himself without being oppressive because he will rule by his whims and desires. Which is why societies based on kufr are corrupt, bankrupt, immoral and oppressive. And you need to be careful about how you say things such as, "neither does Shariah have an answer to every public issue" nonsense because you are flirting with kufr. Maybe living in Finland for so long has gotten you deceived and deluded.

And you evidently fail at reading comprehension if you think I said that democracy is synonymous with sharia.

Care to actually answer the question? Saying that it's a ridiculous example proves nothing. If you think sharia is in itself the answer to everything, you should be able to demonstrate how it works in any situation, no matter how banal. Not just how many and how fast lanes the highway should have, but also what kinds of interchanges it should have, and how government contracting to build it should be carried out. Except that apparently there shouldn't be any government, because apparently sharia is somehow capable of ruling on its own. Nevermind that such a thing has never existed in history. Not even during the time of the Sahaba. Sharia didn't magically implement itself (and magic would be haram anyway), both the Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs had actual governments of actual humans in charge of ruling.
 
A Muslim has no business involving themselves in the political process of the kuffar regardless of any party affiliation. Like I said, you can't serve two masters.

but Muslims need to figure out a way to live within western countries that are not governed by Shariah

One option is to simply refuse to engage in politics on any level, or even civil discourse. I don't think that is practical or desirable.

Another option is to try and create parallel legal systems: one for Muslims, and the other for everyone else. Again, I don't think that is practical, as what happens if a contract between a Muslim and a Christian is violated, or if one murders the other? This creates inconsistency and chaos.

The Muslims where I live operate within the given legal and social framework: they vote, run for office in some cases, finance politicians, etc. They are moderate Sunnis. But as I mentioned earlier, when Muslims get involved with political parties that have objectives and ideology that are clearly against Islamic teachings and theology, it creates big problems. Look what happened to the Catholics when they became tied up with the Democratic Party (the liberal party in the US)--these people sacrificed their value system and theology for political expediency, and the church has seen a dramatic decline in membership and influence ever since.

If a Muslim wishes to run for office in the US, I would say that it should be done as a third-party candidate or independent.
 
And you evidently fail at reading comprehension if you think I said that democracy is synonymous with sharia.

Care to actually answer the question? Saying that it's a ridiculous example proves nothing. If you think sharia is in itself the answer to everything, you should be able to demonstrate how it works in any situation, no matter how banal. Not just how many and how fast lanes the highway should have, but also what kinds of interchanges it should have, and how government contracting to build it should be carried out. Except that apparently there shouldn't be any government, because apparently sharia is somehow capable of ruling on its own. Nevermind that such a thing has never existed in history. Not even during the time of the Sahaba. Sharia didn't magically implement itself (and magic would be haram anyway), both the Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs had actual governments of actual humans in charge of ruling.

A Khilafah that established Sharia would not interfere or hold back technological innovation to help society advance and make living easier. In fact that is in the spirit of the Sharia. No law could implement itself and nobody here suggested that. But Sharia was implemented throughout the history of man by Muslims under a Khilafah or King. And that form of government wasn't Democracy, Socialism, Communism or any other man made ism. And Islam is a complete religious, social, economic and political way of life governing all facets of man's interactions on earth. Allah Azza wa Jal didn't just give man a law regulating man's soul and let him do what he wants without guidance in other areas of his life. Let's not marginalize the Deen. There is no such thing as "separation between church and State" in Islam.
 
Man cannot govern himself without being oppressive because he will rule by his whims and desires.

But Sharia was implemented throughout the history of man by Muslims under a Khilafah or King. And that form of government wasn't Democracy, Socialism, Communism or any other man made ism.

So, man cannot govern himself, but kings and caliphs are somehow special? Monarchy and caliphate are man-made forms of government too. Islamic history has no shortage of inept, immoral and whimsical kings and caliphs.

And Islam is a complete religious, social, economic and political way of life governing all facets of man's interactions on earth. Allah Azza wa Jal didn't just give man a law regulating man's soul and let him do what he wants without guidance in other areas of his life. Let's not marginalize the Deen. There is no such thing as "separation between church and State" in Islam.

So, what is the proper Islamic number of lanes and speed limits on a highway?
 
You don't get what I'm saying. When those kings and caliphs were corrupt it wasn't because of Shariah it was because they contradicted it with their whims and desires. You know I get the impression that you don't believe in the obligation to rule by the Law of Allah. That you are content with Democracy as a form of government or what Finland has as a government. And that would make you a kaffir. As I said before and what anatolian has said, Islam and Shariah does not hold back technology or innovation to make life easier for humans. So you can stop with your stupid flaccid point about lanes of a highway.
 
salaam

we have to remember that historically the Caliph or ruler didnt have a say on what the Jurist and Qadis ruled, They were an independent wing and the caliph had to rule by the law - if he didn't then the Jurist could go against him - the great scholars like Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik are good examples of this.

In The past the ruler didnt have that much power that states do today, Historically it was impossible to control the masses. Sharia and Islam isnt just a form of politics and Law by one man the caliph - its a communal effort - putting a caliph or creating a caliphate whilst the majority of Muslim are not even aware of Islamic duties isn't going to solve any problems - You have to start ground up - teach people to be and act like Muslims first before you think top down. Educate people on Islam, including professionals, traders, politicians, artisans and then you'll get a stronger Islam, Just like the prophet Muhammad pbuh in Medina.

Muslims should also engage in politics where ever they are, not because they like the system but out of necessity, there are plenty of anti Islamic and nasty people that would push all sorts of horrors (Liberals and so called conservatives), Muslims need to be vigilant on that front.
 

Thats the American or generally modern capitalist version of democracy. It is ok in the country but a colonial empire abroad. Islam teaches one world country.
 
Last edited:
You don't get what I'm saying. When those kings and caliphs were corrupt it wasn't because of Shariah it was because they contradicted it with their whims and desires.

And yet, sharia didn't prevent them from doing so. It didn't create a government free from the human element and the consequent possibility of misrule. Thus, your argument against "man made isms" would apply equally to every government that has ever existed.

You know I get the impression that you don't believe in the obligation to rule by the Law of Allah. That you are content with Democracy as a form of government or what Finland has as a government. And that would make you a kaffir.

And I get the impression you're a knobhead who thinks accusing others of kufr is an actual argument for anything.

As I said before and what anatolian has said, Islam and Shariah does not hold back technology or innovation to make life easier for humans. So you can stop with your stupid flaccid point about lanes of a highway.

I quite agree that sharia doesn't hold back techological development. How, though, does that answer the question? I asked you to show how, if sharia is the answer to everything, it works in a specific, concrete situation, and you have failed to answer it.

So how is it, how many lanes and what speeds? If a particular highway design is fard, or some are halal while others are haram, go ahead and show how to derive such a conclusion from the Quran and the Sunnah. If you cannot, then it follows by default that all highway designs are halal, in which case there is nothing unislamic about a human government making the decision, whether it's the Vizier of Infrastructure of the Caliphate, or the Anarcho-Communist Highway Cooperative.
 
False dichotomy is false. Shariah isn't a government, it doesn't automatically apply itself, it needs humans in charge to carry out the implementation. Since it ultimately requires that, the human factor might as well be democracy. There is only an issue if one practices democracy on the (completely unnecessary) premise that the will of the majority is a source of moral legitimacy.

Neither does sharia have an answer to every possible public issue, of which there are an infinite number of potential ones. If you disagree, care to, for example, show how sharia provides an answer to how many lanes a highway should have and what speed limits each of them should have?

One of the most sensible posts I have seen thus far in this board!
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top