Muslimanët Amerikan dhe Politika e Votimit në Bllok

[PrInCiPiEl]

American Muslims and The Politics of Block Voting

M. A. Muqtedar Khan


In the coming Presidential elections, the stakes are very high for American Muslims. If George Bush can be defeated, there is hope that many of the unconstitutional practices instituted by the USA Patriot Act will be revoked by his successor, Muslim organizations will be spared undue hardship and America may be less likely to invade Muslim countries under dubious circumstances. The community will be able to relax and focus its energies on not only restoring Islamic and Muslim institutions in America but also on winning back the hearts and minds of the rest of America.

Political mobilization within the American Muslim community is more intense and more widespread than ever before. Everyone who can vote is determined to vote and many will vote against incumbent. National and local initiatives have expedited voter registration and a strong desire for change promises a high voter turn out.

While the mood in the community is strongly anti-Bush, there are pockets of support for the current regime. Iraqis, particularly the Shiite community is very happy with the Bush administration and it will break ranks to support George W. Bush. The Shiites of South Asia see the invasion of Iraq as a just war against oppression. They will not only vote for Bush but will also contribute heavily to his war chest.

Finally politically conservative Muslims will come out in support of Bush. There are individual Muslims like Mori Husseini, CEO of ICI Homes who have become rangers (those who raise more than $200,000). Dr. Malik Hasan who told the New York Times that he “adores the President’s accomplishments” is a pioneer (raised over $100,000) and there are many more like them. There is a diversity of political opinions within the American Muslim community which will ensure that in spite of strong anti-Bush sentiment, the President will get some support either for his pro-democracy rhetoric overseas or for his social conservatism at home.

The American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections 2004, an official umbrella organization of many American Muslim Organizations, has made Civil rights its main concern, they call their strategy “Civil Rights Plus.” They have identified American Muslim concerns as (1) Civil Rights, (2) domestic issues and general welfare and (3) Global peace with justice, war prevention and US relations with the Muslim World. This group is essentially the same group that under the name American Muslim Political Coordination Committee endorsed George W. Bush and, according to them, delivered 78% of American Muslim votes to him in 2000.

Dr. Aslam Abdullah of the Muslim Electorate’s Council of America (not a member of the taskforce) reports that a national study conducted by his organization reveals that there are 2.7 to 3.0 million potential Muslim voters today, but only 60% are registered reducing the possible number of votes to 1.6-1.8 million. Even if there is a high turnout of Muslims in November 2004, we are looking at about 1-1.25 million votes. This can be a significant number in a close election and American Muslims could play a pivotal role.

Can American Muslims really make a difference in 2004? If George Bush does lose by a million votes in 2004, then can American Muslims actually claim that they made the difference? Will it then teach American politicians not to mess with Muslim civil rights and Iraq? American Muslims hope that they can make a difference and make a point.

In the elections of 2000 the community felt that its most important goal was to announce that it was willing to participate in mainstream politics and that it was a force to reckon with. Voting as block, was therefore of great strategic importance to American Muslims then. But now things have changed. American politicians fully understand and recognize the strengths and limits of the community.

If American Muslims played the block vote politics again by endorsing the democratic candidate the potential gains through a democratic victory needs to be balanced against the dangers of another Bush victory. What the Democrats are willing to do to restore civil rights in America and reign in American military; they will do even if American Muslims do not vote for them. But if American Muslims endorse Kerry and Bush wins, then we will find out if the Republicans bear grudges and how far they are willing to go to teach a lesson to those who try to teach them lessons.

My advice to American Muslims is to stop having an instrumental relationship with the American system. It is time the community went way beyond one or two defining issues and started integrating with the challenges that America faces at large. We must allow our community members to find causes that they care for and let them vote their conscience. Voting blocks are antithetical to the spirit of democracy; they involve an undemocratic imposition of agenda defined by the elite on all members of the community. If American Muslims must find an authentic expression to their citizenship, then they must follow their conscience and vote for a better America based on self-interest and personal-judgment.


M. A. Muqtedar Khan is Director of International Studies and Chair, Political Science Department at Adrian College. He is a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (2002) and Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Politics (2004). He writes and maintains www.ijtihad.org.



Source : http://www.ijtihad.org/Muslimvote2004.htm
Accessed : 2 September, 2004

[Albo]

Ne zgjedhjet e 2000 presidenti Bush mori nje shumice votash nga komuniteti musliman ne Amerike dhe nje numer te vogel votash nga komuniteti hebre ne Amerike. Komuniteti hebre, tradicionalisht voton per partine demokratike dhe komuniteti musliman nuk mund te votoje per te njejten parti qe mbeshtet ne mase komuniteti hebre. Por ne keto 4 vjet, shume gjera kane ndryshuar.

Bush gezon nje mbeshtetje te madh nga komuniteti arab ne SHBA, kryesisht elita intelektuale dhe biznesmene te suksesshem. Ai nuk gezon nje mbeshtetje te madhe nga arabo-amerikanet qe jane ndikuar nga propoganda e Bin Laden dhe grupeve qe predikojne urrejtje dhe xhihad ndaj SHBA. Keta jane kryesisht te rinj ne moshe qe nuk e shohin veten te integruar ne shoqerine amerikane.

Tre jane pikat e politikave te Bush qe apelojne mbeshtetjen e komunitetit musliman ne Amerike:

1. Fakti qe pas 11 shtatorit, ai beri te qarte ne cdo fjalim te tij qe lufta kunder terrorizmit nuk eshte nje lufte kunder Islamit, por lufte kunder atyre grupeve qe mundohen te marrin peng kete fe per qellimet e tyre politike. Ai e quajti islamin fe paqesore. Ne menyre qe te c'tensiononte situaten post-11 shtator, Bush beri shume takime publike ne Shtepine e Bardhe me klerike muslimane ne SHBA per ti percjelle mesazhin e tolerances publikut.

2. Bush eshte presidenti i pare amerikan ne historine e Amerikes, qe beri thirrje perpara keshillit te sigurise se OKB-se, per nje zgjidhje te konfliktit Izrael-Palestine mbi bazen e dy shteteve. I pari president amerikan qe pranon hapur shtetit palestinez dhe e vendos kete ne tavoline pa filluar ende diskutimet. Plani i tij i paqes qe u sponsorizua edhe nga OKB, BE dhe Rusia, ishte nje plan i detajuar qe implementonte formulen e dy shteteve ne krah te njeri-tjetrit. Ai ngeli ne vend numero, me rrezimin e kryeministit Abu Mazen nga Arafat.

3. Ndryshimi i politikes se jashtme amerikane ndaj Lindjes se Mesme. Nese deri ne 11 shtator 2001, SHBA si priroritet te politikes se saj te jashtme ne rajon kish RUAJTJEN E STABILITETIT, sot prioriteti kryesor i saj eshte AVANCIMI I DEMOKRACISE edhe ne ate pjese te botes. Per gati 50 vjet, SHBA negocioi dhe mbeshteti diktatore, monarke qe mbajne te shtypur e nen presion popullsine e tyre. Kjo krijon nje pakenaqesi dhe mungese shprese ne rradhet e popullsise se thjeshte. Ne pamundesi per ta drejtuar kete urrejtje ndaj diktatoreve dhe monarkeve dhe ne pamundesi per te sjelle ndryshim ne shoqerite e tyre, kjo urrejtje kanalizohet ne drejtim te Izraelit dhe SHBA. Keto shoqeri jane ne vetvete edhe burimi i vertete i terrorizmit. Avancimi i demokracise, sjellja e lirive dhe te drejtave humane edhe ne kete pjese te botes, jane prioritet jo vetem i amerikaneve por edhe atyre emigranteve qe kane ardhur ne Amerike nga ajo pjese e botes, qe kane pervetesuar keto liri dhe te drejta ne jeten e tyre. Lufta ne Irak dhe vizioni i presidentit Bush per nje Irak me nje qeveri demokratike, jane rreze shprese edhe per ate pjese te komunitetit musliman ne SHBA qe kerkon te shohi reforma demokratike ne vendlindjen e tyre.

Ajo qe do te jete interesante ne 2 nentor, do te jete % e komunitetit musliman dhe atij hebre qe do te votojne per Bush. Shume analiste dhe njerez qe merren me sondazhe kane folur mbi mundesine e prishjes se nje tabue: hebrejte dhe muslimanet e Amerikes mund te votojne per Bush ne mase. Hebrejte do te votojne per Bush pasi ai eleminoi nje prej kercenimeve me te medha te shtetit te Izraelit ne Lindjen e Mesme, Sadam Husein. Kurse komuniteti musliman, pasi Bush ka marre nje inisiative qe te sjelle ndryshim ne ate pjese te botes qe nuk ka mundur te ndryshoje dot vete ne me shume se 80 vjet.

Albo

[PrInCiPiEl]

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004:
What Should American Muslims Do?

M. A. Muqtedar Khan Ph.D.

The American Muslim community has traveled far on the path of democratization [i] . This time in the year 2000 the community was still debating the Islamic permissibility of participation in the American political system. While Muslim political activists were expounding the virtues of voting – particularly block voting – the intellectuals were busy establishing the compatibility of Islam and democracy and convincing Muslims that it was not only in their interest to exercise their franchise but that it was also a good Islamic practice to participate in the Shura (the deliberations) that determined who and how this country was governed [ii] . Fortunately, this no longer appears to be an issue today.

Overwhelmingly, American Muslims recognize the validity of the democratic process and are eager to participate in it to shape the political environment in which they live [iii] . Recent surveys about political attitudes within the community have clearly indicated that American Muslims will participate quite vigorously in the coming Presidential elections and will also engage the political process at multiple levels. For example a recent study of Detroit Muslims showed that over 93% Muslims surveyed were determined to vote [iv] . A survey by the Washington DC based Council of American Islamic Relations found that 93% of its respondents were registered to vote; of them, 92% were determined to vote [v] .

The present election has, however, raised another important debate within the Muslim community: whether American Muslims should formally endorse a candidate or not. The issue is a very important one; arguably, it is a constitutive issue and the manner in which it will ultimately be resolved will have a long-term impact on the identity, interests and politics of American Muslims [vi] .

As elections approach, community leaders are confused over this issue. Many of them recognize that there are advantages to using the block vote as a political weapon, but they also recognize that picking the wrong candidate (if their choice is defeated) may backfire and further undermine the community’s interests. They are also wary of criticism from those who were opposed to their choice in 2000, and fear vocal rebellion from ordinary Muslims if they endorse a candidate without fully understanding the community’s orientation.

The issue of official endorsement essentially captures several key issues that are driving the community’s development and internal politics, the most important question of these being political unity: whether the community, in spite of ethnic and doctrinal diversity, sufficiently united politically to warrant a single endorsement. In the 2000 election cycle, African Americans were particularly upset that American Muslim organizations (i.e. those generally instituted by the immigrant majority) had endorsed the republican candidate without regard to their opinion and interests. They were also justifiably angry that immigrant organizations assumed that they could dictate the agenda of all American Muslims and expect others to follow them even if they were not consulted.

In the past two years, it has become readily apparent that there is not only ethnic but also political and interpretive diversity in the community. In the past, this author has described the American Muslim community as a community of communities- a description valid now more than ever before. There has been a surge of alternatives to the standard orthodoxy emerging within the community. Liberal Muslims are becoming increasingly vocal and are taking leadership positions within mainstream organizations. They are giving birth to new institutions that also seek to interpret Islam differently. Most importantly, alternate voices are gaining greater currency within the community and in the mainstream American culture.


The emergence of loud alternate voices has made the national organizations a bit hesitant in their presumption that they can speak for the entire community. In the past, the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) took leadership in the political process. It continues to mobilize Muslims, but is less presumptuous in its posture. A correlation exists between community perception and the financial support received (minimal) from the community. The Los Angeles based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) continues to engage in policy, rather than political, issues. It devotes its energies toward a grassroots campaign against terrorism, but it is a member of the taskforce, and it remains to be seen what MPAC will do if the majority of Muslim organizations in the taskforce decide to endorse a candidate.

CAIR, however, has resorted to alternate means of endorsement via the use of surveys; its recent effort on the political attitudes of CAIR membership is a defacto negative endorsement of the incumbent, George W. Bush. The survey suggests that only 2-3% of CAIR members will vote for Bush, while over 50% will vote for John Kerry. The rest are either undecided or leaning towards Ralph Nader (26%). The release of this data is essentially a proclamation that CAIR members who had overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000 (72%) are now determined to vote him out. The survey provides a safe and clever way making such a declaration.

The national organizations, now banded under the American Muslim Task Force, need to exercise caution in their endorsements, if and when they decide to make them. While it appears obvious that a significant majority of Muslims will vote for John Kerry, it is yet unclear whether the community will categorically support the national organizations’ endorsement of the Democratic candidate. An examination of the pros and cons of block voting for this election is essential and warranted.

The Advantages of Block Voting

1. In a close election, a community can play a decisive role in determining the outcome. The American system is based on the principle of “winner take all” and hence, newly emerging voting blocks that can make a significant difference and can exert influence beyond their small numbers by voting as a block.
   
   
2. In close elections, voting blocks can actually coerce political parties to change their electoral platforms. The US today is deeply divided- nearly equally- along party lines. Vacillating voting blocks can elicit more concessions from the party they have traditionally supported or gain new concessions from the other party. While there is much talk about the American Muslim vote block, it seems that the American Jewish community has already gained favors from both parties. Republicans have continued to support Israel, despite stiff international condemnation of the Jewish state, while John Kerry is trying hard to look more pro-Israeli than Bush. The Republicans are trying to court the American Jewish vote in their favor for the first time, while the Democrats are trying to retain it. Traditionally, the American Jewish vote has gone about 80% Democrat and 20% Republican- a reversal of this tendency is greatly coveted by the current White House.
   
   
3. If the politics of block voting were correctly applied, it could help unite the community. American Muslim politics are strangely compartmentalized. There are many Muslim groups that lobby for their former home nations, such as the Palestinian lobby and the Pakistani lobby. These groups have not only succeeded in mobilizing sections of the American Muslim community in pursuit of ethno-nationalistic political interests, they also have used financial resources and other resources of the community. Unless the interests of all such sub-communities can be aligned, the effective exercise block voting is not possible. It appears as though leaders of American Muslim organizations are more interested in projecting, to the mainstream media and the two political parties, the potential for a Muslims block vote rather than its actual execution. Such action is dangerous because it runs the risk of exposure. If the Muslim elite can unite on a common platform and work toward consensus building, such union may have both tactical and strategic benefits for the community. The American Muslim Task Force believes this may be accomplished by its civil rights agenda; however, there is no indication that there is consensus for the support and/or prioritization of this issue by the various Muslim sub-groups (e.g. Indian Muslim Council, etc.).
   
   
4. Block voting gives American Muslim Organizations and leaders greater influence and access in mainstream politics. Politicians and the media will seek them if they think these leaders are capable of manipulating and delivering the “Muslim Vote.”
   
   
5. One symbolic advantage of block voting is the recognition of the community as a whole being an important political player. It gives recognition and awareness to their leaders, organizations and issues. Sometimes, the media attention to these issues can be dangerous, while on other occasions, it can be salutary. American Muslims achieved this in 2000; its necessity in 2004 is debatable.

The Risks and Dangers of Block Voting
While the advantages of block voting have been pervasively discussed within the community, especially given its prominence as an issue in the 2000 elections, the negative aspects of block voting are less studied and comprehended.

1. The biggest danger of block voting is the likelihood of endorsing the eventual loser. In American elections the probability of doing so is 50%. By officially endorsing a single party or candidate, the community effectively alienates itself from the other party/candidate and in a way declares its opposition openly. In the eventuality of the defeat of the endorsed candidate, the community will then be vulnerable to reprisals or isolation from government access. If, for example, American Muslims officially endorse John Kerry, vote for him in huge percentages (92-93% as CAIR’s membership survey indicates) and George W. Bush still wins, the community could face further difficulty, given current administration attitudes toward American Muslims.
   
   
2. Think long-term. Will the political parties develop deeper relationships with a community that oscillates its support? Trust in politics is a rare commodity, but also a very important asset. The community must learn to develop long-term and meaningful relationships with the two parties. Coercion and threats of mass exodus are not always beneficial devices. Recent months have seen two parallel developments: American Muslim leaders’ rhetoric about the existence of a Muslim vote block and its use to vote against George W. Bush. They do this to intimidate the politicians. These leaders also like to talk about how there are 6-8 million Muslims in America. According to studies conducted by Aslam Abdullah, the editor of Minaret Magazine, there are only 2.7 to 3.0 million total potential Muslim voters. [vii] In addition, the Bush administration’s unwillingness to do anything on the Palestinian issue until the elections are over – except protect Israel from International condemnations and sanctions – has become copiously noticeable. The impetus for such a posture may be due to a realization that since American Muslims are not going to support the Bush-Cheney ticket, the Republicans may as well solicit- or manipulate- the American Jewish vote by appearing to be extremely pro-Israel. Block voting also allows the political parties to manipulate communities. It is tragic that the Palestine issue divides the Muslim and Jewish communities into adversaries even though the two communities have identical interests on most domestic issues, such as defending America’s secular ethos by protecting it from the rise of Christian fundamentalism, strengthening the welfare state and the civil rights environment.
   
   
3. An additional risk for American Muslims if their leadership insists on block vote politics is the possibility of (a) exposing the absence of political unity within the community and (b) actually exciting existing minor fissures into becoming major cleavages [viii] . The marginalization of the African American Muslims through the endorsement of George W. Bush in 2000 likely led to the establishment of Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), an organization that seeks to represent indigenous Muslim interests. The creation of MANA serves as an expression of a vote of no-confidence by indigenous Muslims in the legitimacy of the national organizations established and managed by immigrant Muslims [ix] .
   
   
4. American Muslims must recognize that the overall philosophies and political agendas of the two parties are pretty stable and enduring. Republicans stand for reducing taxes for the rich, pushing religiously motivated political goals – such as abortion; whereas Democrats seek to pursue social liberalization and strengthen the welfare state. If American Muslim values are stable then they too must have a long-term relationship with one party. Or there must be Muslim factions aligned with each party. The entire Muslim community cannot be Republican in one election and Democrat in another. It is difficult to imagine that American Muslim values and philosophical assumptions change so dramatically every four years. The disparity between consistent values and mercurial electoral practice must hinge on only one or two issues; yet, the American Muslim community cannot sustain itself as a political force if it can be swayed by policy shifts on a mere handful of areas of focus. A major political shift occurring once in a few decades may be understandable, if prompted by extraordinary events such as the passing of the Patriot Act, which practically eliminated the Bill of Rights for Muslims. That American Muslims could allow block voting to become their staple strategy is, however, a cause for concern.
   
   
5. Excessive pontification about the power and impact of the Muslim voting block on American politics and policies may cause more anger, resentment and distrust within the general American population. Block voting is comprehended to be a Machiavellian strategy that enables political groups to exercise far more influence than their size and contribution. Many American Muslim leaders have over the years expressed their negative impression about America, its culture, its politics and its society. Recent surveys of Muslim attitudes towards American society are full of sanctimonious condemnation of American culture and society [x] . Condemnation of America and manipulation of its politics could actually engender widespread Islamophobia.
   
   
6. The issue of endorsement also presupposes the ability of the so-called national organizations to set the agenda of all American Muslims. Many American Muslims are very distrustful of the national leadership. Jamshed Bokhari, a Muslim political commentator associated with the conservative Muslim American Society, has penned a less than flattering opinion of the Muslim leadership, writing [xi] :
   
   
   • If there were any subject upon which the members of the American Muslim “leadership” can be said to be complete and inarguable experts, a field in which they would reign unchallenged – even to the point of being solicited to produce academic treatises – it would be “How To Make Yourself Politically Irrelevant.” Admittedly, the charge is a bit harsh, but it is, unfortunately, an accurate assessment.
   
   
   Jawad Ali, associated with the progressive Muslimwakeup.com writes and the new avatar of American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPCC), American Muslim Task Force (AMT) declared: [xii]
   
   
   • However, new name or not, traditional US Muslim leaders still seem to be asleep at the wheel, denying any change in direction and ignoring trends among their rank and file.
   
   
   Whether leaning to the political left or right, the American Muslim leadership does not seem to inspire much confidence in its flock. While Bokhari’s assessment may appear too harsh, it reflects the frustration of American Muslims for the tendency of their leaders to make decisions without consultation. Bokhari is also frustrated at the lack of political influence of the community itself and chooses to unleash his angst upon the leaders. If the community and leaders are so out of synch, block voting could cause more internal harm. Jawad Ali, however, is somewhat hopeful, adding, “The traditional Muslim leadership is starting to wake up to which way the wind is blowing … some of them are even rushing to adopt the ‘Progressive’ label.” His reference is to MPAC.
   
   
7. American Muslims have learned many lessons from their past experience at block voting. They endorsed George W. Bush and played a decisive role in the key constituencies in Florida, but with little in exchange for the effort. Ultimately, President Bush decided to push aside the community and play it politically safe. The attacks of September 11th understandably “changed everything,” (notwithstanding the President’s maintenance of a conservative economic policy), but in the process, rendered useless the efficacy of a block vote where the beneficiary would not stand by his supporters in moments of dire need. President Bush’s attitude toward Muslims is proof of the shallow impact of block voting [xiii] .
   
   
8. Block voting is a reflection of a superficial, instrumental understanding of, and attitude toward, democracy. Participation in democratic processes should not be viewed as a partisan engagement in a zero-sum game. Thinking such as, “If we have more influence, then Jews will have less, and US policies instead of being unjust in favor of Israel, can now be “just” and in favor of Palestine,” are narrow, bigoted and strategically counter productive. If American Muslims seek to become a community of the noble, who seek to enjoy good and forbid evil, then they must rise above partisanship and pursue politics from the perspective of realizing the moral good for all people. American Muslim participation should be a public good that benefits all: the nation, its people, and all those whom Americans can help. But of course, American Muslims can also choose to become a selfish group that seeks to milk all opportunities to pursue only parochial objectives. Given the character of the community and the vast majority of its members, the latter is an unlikely scenario.

Policy Recommendations For the Muslim Community

1. The American Muslim Community as a community should abstain from endorsing any candidate or any party. Individual organizations and associations can and should be encouraged to pick sides as long as there are some prominent organizations that may go the other way. Placing all eggs in one proverbial basket is always risky and injudicious.
   
   
2. The community must recognize that it is not united and may never be. American Muslims should leverage their internal diversity. To put it plain and simple, they must work to develop close and influential relationships with both parties. This is neither Machiavellian nor in any way immoral. It is basically a safe and cautious way to hedge all bets. They should not be dependent on one party, or one individual to safeguard their interests. Close relations with both parties will ensure that American Muslim interests are served regardless of election outcomes.
   
   
3. African American Muslims have special relations with the Democratic Party. The community must help and encourage them to develop and nourish this relationship further. Muslim organizations had developed links with the Republicans during the 2000 campaign. The community must renew and strengthen those links. It should avoid ridiculing or condemning those Muslims who may choose to work with the Bush campaign or the Republican Party. Pure selflessness is a rarity. The influence gained by Republican Muslims, even if acquired through selfish pursuits, can be helpful to the community. Surely there will also be those who will campaign against Bush for selfish purposes, using the cover of the community’s mood to advance their standing in the community while pursuing self-serving politics; such behavior is a sine qua non in politics. Communities that can balance self-interests with public interests well, do well; others will suffer. Muslims must avoid perceiving motivations as being solely self-centered or solely divine, with no accommodation for middle ground.
   
   
4. American Muslims must stop obsessing over policy outcomes and start focusing on the process itself. There are no quick fixes; thus, the community must engage the process as deeply and completely as possible. This can only be achieved by maximizing political contributions to both candidates between now and November, so that both parties know they can always rely on American Muslim financial support. Despite much rhetoric, American Muslims have proven to be very miserly when it comes to spending money to realize their political goals. Contributions to Congressional candidates in 2000 are a prime example; Both Arab American and American Muslim PACs combined to give only $113,881, whereas the pro-Israeli PACS donated $2,044,606, [xiv] constituting a 1:18 disparity. It is beyond debate that significant financial contribution translates into greater political influence.
   
   
5. Avoid third parties. They are a waste of time, money and vote. Some Muslims argue that both the main parties have similar platforms (especially those who think that Palestine is the only issue for American Muslims) and therefore they must vote, as a form of protest, for third candidates such as Ralph Nader [xv] , In the American system, this is a waste of resources and has no bearing on policy. During the party nomination battles, it is sensible to support candidates such as Dennis Kucinich- this helps to expand the electoral platform of the eventual winner- but in the Presidential race, third-party candidates can hurt. In 2004, every vote for Ralph Nader will be a vote for George W. Bush. That Republicans are working hard and spending their own money to get Nader on the ballot in some key battleground states affirms this probability. Muslims who vote for Nader will be voting for Bush; the fact that they are not directly voting for him or contributing to his campaign is immaterial.

Final Thoughts
Participation in the American democratic process is a form of Ibadah (worship) as well as Dawah (dialogue) for American Muslims. By engaging in the affairs of our times they become part of the Shura (deliberations) that shapes our present and future. By taking positions that are informed by a desire to enjoin good and forbid evil and by advocating maslaha (public interest) they are also partaking in a constructive dialogue with mainstream America (Dawah). In pluralist societies, where people of many faiths have agreed to live together in harmony, the Islamic thing to do is to pursue universal values and universal public goods. In addition, it is important to remember that this game is not a single iteration model. There will be many more elections to come and American Muslims must not act as if this is the only shot they have at making a difference. American Muslims are here to stay; the impact of their presence must be slow, steady and continuous [xvi] .

American Muslims must stop having an instrumental relationship with the American system. It is time the community went far beyond one or two defining issues and started integrating with the challenges that America faces at large. It must allow community members to find causes that they care for and let them vote their conscience. Voting blocks are antithetical to the spirit of democracy; they involve an undemocratic imposition of agenda defined by the elite on all members of the community. If American Muslims are to find an authentic expression to their citizenship, they must follow their conscience and vote for a better America based on self-interest and personal-judgment.

*******************
END NOTES
1 I am grateful to Farid Senzai of Oxford University and a
Fellow at ISPU, Mir Ali Raza of William Paterson University,
and Dilnawaz Siddiqui of the Association of Muslim Social
Scientists, Kamran Bokhari of Stratfor.com and Zahid
Bukhari of ICNA and Saeed Khan of ISPU for their insights
in preparing this Policy Brief. While the document has
definitely benefited from their suggestions, for its
weaknesses and for its politics, I take full responsibility. I
also want to use this opportunity to congratulate ISPU for
helping expand the American discourse and for providing a
platform for multiple voices.
2 Muslim scholars also got into the debate; while some like
Jamaal Badawi hedged around the issue a bit, others like
Sheikh Taha Jaber Al-Alwani came out strongly in favor of
participation. See Jamaal Badawi’s position stated in an
interview to Sound Vision on the World Wide Web:
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/politics/badawi.asp. See
Sheikh Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, “The Participation of Muslims
in the American Political System,” on the World Wide Web:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/P.../1/Article7.sh
tml. For debates on the subject see M. A. Muqtedar Khan,
“Refuting the Isolationist Arguments,” American Muslim
Quarterly, 2, 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 60-69. Also see M. A.
Muqtedar Khan, “How can Muslims Impact American
Politics,” IslamOnline.Com, November 04, 2000, on the
World Wide Web:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/P.../1/Article3.sh
tml. Also see Mahdi Muhammad, “Refutation of Dr. Khan’s
article: “How Can Muslims Impact American Politics,” on the
World Wide Web: http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/khan.html.
3 See reports by CNN and MSNBC. “American Muslims
Seek Electoral Clout,” CNN (February, 4, 2004);
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/elec04.musli
m.voters.ap/
and also see **** Huus, “Getting Out the Muslim Vote,”
MSNBC (February 02, 2004);
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4137092/.
4 See Ihsan Bagby, “A Portrait of Detroit Mosques: Muslim
Views on Policy, Politics and Religion (Clinton, MI: Institute
of Social Policy and Understanding, 2004). Available at
http://www.ispu.us/reports/the_detro...que_study.html
5 See CAIR-Net Survey of American Muslim Political
Attitudes (Washington DC: CAIR, June 2004);
http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/ju...-surveyresults.
pdf.
6 See Muqtedar Khan, “Putting the American in American
Muslims,” The New York Times, September 7, 2003;
http://www.ijtihad.org/NYTimes1.htm.
7 See Aslam Abdullah, “Muslim Votes and 2004 Elections,”
http://americanmuslimvoters.com/arti...slimvotes.html.
8 For an excellent analysis of the diversity within the
American Muslim Community vis-à-vis political participation
see Aminah Beverly McCloud, “Muslims in American:
Identity and Participation,” (Chicago: International Strategy
and Policy Institute, 1999). On the World Wide Web:
http://www.ispi-usa.org/policy/policy5.html. For an analysis
of how identity politics in the American Muslim Community
shapes political participation, see M. A. Muqtedar Khan,
“Collective Action and Collective Identity: The Case of
Muslims in America", in Amber Haque (ed.), Muslim Issues
in North America, (Washington DC: Amana Publications,
August, 1999).
9 See M. A. Muqtedar Khan, American Muslims: Bridging
Faith and Freedom (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications,
2002).
10 For example see M. Amir Ali, “American Political Scene
and Muslim Americans” (Chicago: The Institute of Islamic
Education and Information, 2000);
http://www.iiie.net/Articles/AmerPolScene.html. Notice the
use of the term Muslim Americans and not American
Muslims. This is often indicative of negative attitudes
towards America.
11 Jamshed Bokhari, “How to Make yourself Politically
Irrelevant” http://www.masnet.org/views.asp?id=871.
12 See Jawad Ali, The Failure of Muslim Leadership in North
America,” muslimwakeup.com, June 26, 2004;
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000909.php.
13 For a more detailed reflection on the decision to endorse
Bush see M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “By George! Was
Endorsing Bush a Mistake?” The Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs, July 2001, p. 67; on the World Wide
Web: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/july01/index.htm.
14 Hugh S. Galford, "Pro-Israel and Arab/Muslim-American
PAC Contributions to 2000 Congressional Candidates," The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 2001,
pp. 49-54; On the World Wide Web:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/may-june01/0105048.html.
15 The CAIR Survey suggested that nearly 26% of their
members preferred Ralph Nader. I hope this preference
does not translate into wasted votes.
16 I also encourage readers to read similar and well
articulated arguments by Dr. Hajjaj, President of the
American Islamic Information Center. See Anwar Hajjaj,
“Why Muslims Should Vote and be Involved Politically,”
IslamOnline.com;
http://www.islamonline.net/english/P.../1/Article4.sh
tml.

*******************
*******************

Source: http://www.ijtihad.org/American-Muslim-Votes.htm
Accessed: 2 September , 2004

Shënim :
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Adrian College in Michigan. He is a Visiting Fellow at Brookings Institution and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic Political Thought, from Georgetown University in May 2000.

[D&G Feminine]

[QUOTE=Albo]

2. (Bush) I pari president amerikan qe pranon hapur shtetit palestinez dhe e vendos kete ne tavoline pa filluar ende diskutimet. Plani i tij i paqes qe u sponsorizua edhe nga OKB, BE dhe Rusia, ishte nje plan i detajuar qe implementonte formulen e dy shteteve ne krah te njeri-tjetrit. Ai ngeli ne vend numero, me rrezimin e kryeministit Abu Mazen nga Arafat. [Quote]


lol Albo, shkrimet e tua duhet te futen andej nga humori... Clinton, jo Bush, eshte Presidenti i pare qe jo vetem propozoi shtetin palestinez, por dha me detaje pikat e mareveshjes ndermjet 2 shteteve qe u pranuan nga Baraku por jo nga Arafati. Arafati pas ca vitesh e pranoi qe ky ishte gabim fatal dhe se duhet ta kishte pranuar marreveshjen, dhe e kerkoi me te njetat kushte, por nuk ia ofroi me njeri.

Sa per demagogjine lerja Bushit se eshte usta per ato pune!

Habitem si ka shqiptare republikane, aq me teper first-generation!

[Albo]

D&G Feminine, kur eshte ashtu sic thua ti, perse nuk me gjen nje citat te nje presendenti amerikan qe nga 1947 e deri ne janar 2001, qe ka bere thirrje ne publik per nje shtet te pavarur palestinez?

Albo

P.S Presidenti Klinton dhe Akordi i Oslos nuk benin fjale per nje shtet demokratik palestinez, por Autoritet Palestinez. Hape fjalorin qe te kuptosh ndryshimin.

[bond james]

Albo ,
Mendoj se ky opinion yti ska lidhje të bëje me realitetin e gjërë publik në SHBA, AZI, dhe EUROPË, në komunitetin musliman,së pari Xhorxh Babushi është nji politikan më i dështuar dhe i pari që ka çrregulluar kartën e Kombeve të bashkuare në çdo aspekt, juridiko-luftarak, dhe sbesoj se nji mysliman në botë dot të votonte për kët çifut i përbetuer anti islamik,edhe në europë gjith komuniteti europian, përveç qeverisë italiane dhe britanike (por jo edhe popujt e tyre ) kanë qenë rresht me politikën e Bushit .
Ju këto gjërra që i shkruani këtu janë nji mendim privat dhe pro Amerikan agresiv dhe anti musliman për fat të keq për ju.
Smundet askush e as Amerika me i çrregullue për nji qejf të tyrin gjith kët sistem botërror të kombeve të bashkuara sepse politika Amerikane e nxitur nga politika çifute Izraelite tja u plotsojnë dëshirrat e nji populli dhe tja u mohojnë të drejtat popujve të tjerrë, siq janë popujt arab-palestinez etj në azi.

Përshëndetje

[D&G Feminine]

Albo, nuk behet fjale per akordin e Oslos!

Behet fjale per bisedimet ne Camp David ne dhjetor 2000-janar 2001. Barak ishte kryeminister i Izraelit ne ate kohe dhe ra dakort me propozimin e Klintonit per nje shtet palestinez. Nga ana e palestinezeve Arafati e hodhi poshte, mgjs Abu Mazen ra dakort. Kur Sharon u be kryeminister ne shkurt 2001 nuk pranoi me te diskutohej shteti palestinez. Lexo librin e Klintonit "My life", faqet 940-950 i ke te gjitha keto.

Sa per te lexuaren time te fjalorit per ndryshimin ndermjet shtetit dhe autoritetit palestinez, ne nje fare menyre ke te drejte. Kam thene qe nuk diskutoj politike me amatore sepse jo vetem nuk kane njohurite e duhura po as kulturen politike per te pasur nje debat brenda rregullave te miresjelljes per keto ceshtje. Ja qe po e bej nje perjashtim per ty si founder i ketij forumi!

[Albo]

Behet fjale per bisedimet ne Camp David ne dhjetor 2000-janar 2001. Barak ishte kryeminister i Izraelit ne ate kohe dhe ra dakort me propozimin e Klintonit per nje shtet palestinez. Nga ana e palestinezeve Arafati e hodhi poshte, mgjs Abu Mazen ra dakort. Kur Sharon u be kryeminister ne shkurt 2001 nuk pranoi me te diskutohej shteti palestinez. Lexo librin e Klintonit "My life", faqet 940-950 i ke te gjitha keto.

Barak ishte kryeministri i Partise se Punes se Izraelit, qe u zgjodh me ndihmen e keshilltareve te presidentit Klinton te cilet kontrolluan fushaten elektorale ne Izrael. Ta them kete qe te te bej te kuptosh se sa i implikuar ishte presidenti Klinton ne kete konflikt. Ai eshte edhe arsyeja perse Arafat, nga nje terrorist ne rruget e Libanit dhe Bregut Perendimor, fitoi edhe cmimin Nobel per paqe. Nga status terroristi nderkombetar, Klinton e ktheu Arafat ne "burre shteti".

Presidenti Klinton dhe administrata e tij mbajten nje politike "hands on" ndaj konfliktit, jo vetem se e diktonte konflikti, por sepse presidenti Klinton ishte i fiksuar me deshiren e tij per te lene nje "legacy" ne histori si presidenti amerikan qe solli paqen ne nje konflikt 50 vjecar. Kjo eshte arsyeja qe edhe ne ditet e fundit te presidences se tij, Klinton ndermori edhe nje perpjekje te fundit per ti bere palet qe te nenshkruajne nje plan paqe.

Ne dhjetor 2000 ne Camp David ne SHBA, Arafati kish filluar intifaden 3 muaj me pare dhe nga ana tjeter negocionte paqen. Kurse Barak ishte ne Camp David pasi qeveria e tij ishte nen nje presion te madh politik si nga opozita e Partise Likud edhe nga opinioni publik izraelit qe po perballej me sulmet e njerezve bombe te intifades. Ai shikonte tek arritja e paqes ne Camp David nje shans per te qendruar ne qeveri, nje shans per tu shitur popullit izraelit nje plan paqeje.

Plani qe u vu ne tavoline ishte plani me i mire qe palestinezet kane patur ndonjehere qe adresonte te gjitha shqetesimet e palestinezeve, perfshi ketu edhe kufirin para luftes te 1967. Barak beri leshime te medha te njeanshme, aqsa kur detajet e planit qe po diskutohej dolen ne mediat ne Izrael, opinioni publik izraelit u shokua. Arsyeja persa Arafat rrefuzoi paqen ishte problemi i refugjateve te zhvendosur. Arafat kembengulte ne rikthimin e tyre ne tokat e meparshme, qe sot jane nen shtetin e Izraelit, edhe pse e dinte shume mire qe nese Izraeli do te lejonte ate numer refugjatesh te ktheheshin, atehere i binte qe ne shtetin e Izraelit te jetonin me shume palestineze se sa izraelit, qe perbente kercenim per sigurine dhe demokracine izraelite. Presidenti Klinton nderhyri duke ofruar 20 miliard $ si forme kompesimi per pasurine e humbur per rrefugjatet, por Arafat e refuzoi edhe ate. Shumica e delegacionit palestinez u shpreh pro nenshkrimit te mareveshjes se paqes, por Arafat i vetem e hodhi poshte ate, edhe pse ishte plani me i mire i paqes qe ata do te arrinin ndonjehere. Arsyeja perse e beri kete nuk kishte te bente me ate qe diskutohej, por me implikimet e imazhit te nje Arafati qe nenshkruan paqe me Izraelin, kur gjithe bota arabe vjell vrer per Izraelin. Arafat kish frike per jeten e tij jo nga palestinezet por nga diktatoret e rajonit qe e perdorin kete konflikt per te kanalizuar urrejtjen e shoqerive te tyre te shtypura.

Nga te gjitha perpjekjet e parreshtura qe presidenti Klinton beri ne 8 vjet per te sjelle paqe, kur ai la Shtepine e Bardhe ne janar 2001, konflikti ishte pikerisht atje ku ai filloi 8 vjet me pare, ne vend numero. Asnje president amerikan nuk ka qene aq i investuar personalisht si presidenti Klinton dhe per kete ai ka meriten e tij. Presidenti Bush dhe administrata e tij si mesim te deshtimit te politikave te presidentit Klinton ne ato 8 vjet nxorri pikerisht:

1. Arafat nuk mund te sherbeje si negociues paqe pasi ai nuk eshte i interesuar per paqe por per te mbijetuar vete dhe mbajtur pushtetin e tij.

2. Politika e "hands-on" qe Klinton ndoqi eshte e deshtuar. Amerika nuk mund te sjelle paqe ne ate konflikt pa marre parasysh sa e impenjuar dhe angazhuar eshte, per aq kohe sa vete palet nuk e kerkojne paqen.

Duke qene se je nje lexuese e mire e librave por nje diplomate amatore, po te bej te qarte qe te gjitha detajet e diskutimeve ne Camp David u mbajten sekret, bile edhe sot e kesaj dite nuk ekziston nje protokoll zyrtar i ketyre bisedimeve, ekzistojne vetem deshmi e atyre qe moren pjese ne te. Protokolli zyrtar do te ekzistonte nese palet do ta nenshkruanin mareveshjen. Presidenti Klinton asnjehere nuk beri thirrje per nje shtet palestinez ne publik, pasi shtetin palestinez nuk e mbeshtet shumica e elektoratit hebre ne Amerike qe eshte tradicionalisht elektorat demokrat. Presidenti Bush e ndau vizionin e tij per zgjidhjen e konfliktit jo ne takime koke me koke ne Camp David, por perpara gjithe shteteve te botes ne OKB.

Albo

P.S Shiko se mos gjesh ndonje liber qe ti shpjegon te gjitha keto dhe hajde prape e me meso ndonje gje te re per politiken amerikane apo konfliktin e lindjes se mesme.

[AsgjëSikurDielli]

Arafat kembengulte ne rikthimin e tyre ne tokat e meparshme, qe sot jane nen shtetin e Izraelit, edhe pse e dinte shume mire qe nese Izraeli do te lejonte ate numer refugjatesh te ktheheshin, atehere i binte qe ne shtetin e Izraelit te jetonin me shume palestineze se sa izraelit, qe perbente kercenim per sigurine dhe demokracine izraelite.

And this is precisely the point you miss!

Nese kthehen refugjatet, dmth ata kane jetu aty ne tokat e veta, nese kthehen ata, do te ndryshoje perberja etnike aq sa cifutet do te jene pakice ne te ashtu-quajturin Izrael. E ku na con kjo? Tek argumenti palestinez se cifutet jane PUSHTUES. Nuk mund te jesh pronar toke ne nje territor ku je pakice e vogel. Logjike eshte kjo, jo fjale qe i merr era si gjithe keto paragrafe qe i shkruan thua se din shume se cka ndodh mes Clintonit - Arafatit - Barakut, kur ne nje ane shkruan se s'ka protokoll zyrtar te shkruar ne leter, e ne anen tjeter thua se ekzistojne vetem deshmi per ato qe ndodhen, e ketu i jep ligjerata "diplomateve amatore" sikur te ishe ti vete Presidenti Clinton, e ti dije gjithe detajet e bisedave te tyre. Kunderthenie me te madhe s'ka ku te kete me.

Arafati eshte njeri i nderuar nga Akademia me prestigjioze ne Bote, ajo qe jep cmimin Nobel. Ai morri cmimin Nobel per paqe, jo se Clintoni na paska dashur keshtu, po se ai ka deshmuar dhe ofron deshmi se eshte per paqe, demokraci, dhe liri. Liria qe ai e kerkon eshte per Palestinen, territorin e saj, dhe popullin e saj qe dita-dites terrorizohet. Cmimin atij nuk ja dha Partia (Rednecks) Republikane, po ajo Akademi qe nderon shume personalitete te ndryshme, mes te cileve edhe Nenen Tereze. Nuk mund ne njeren ane te krenohesh se Nena Tereze morri cmimin Nobel e ne anen tjeter te thuash se ajo Akademi ja dha cmimin nje terroristi. Se atehere i bie qe te gjithe qenkan terroriste, perfshire Nenen Tereze.

Ne fakt, terroristin e ke te ai majmuni 450 Kg-sh Sharoni, krimineli i luftes i GJYKUAR per krime lufte ndaj REFUGJATEVE gra dhe femije, ne Sabra dhe Shatilla. Fol pak per te, lum diplomati i axhes, jo per "vizionin" e nje njeriu qe shprehet per luften ne Irak si "catastrophic success". Ha! As gramatiken nuk e di "vizionari i madh" dhe "shpetuesi" i Botes, katunari i Teksasit qe kurre nuk e ka pa asnje vend pervec Teksasit para se t'ja ulte bycen ne Air Force 1 babi i tij Georgy bashke me miqte e tij te meshes se diele ne Supreme Court e kurorezuar me katunarin tjeter governer te Florides qe dy dite para zgjedhjeve "garantonte" se do te zgjidhej vellau i tij; dhe ashtu u be, po ne menyren me te piste e me te ulte qe e njeh ky shtet, e ky komb.

[Labeati]

Ironia me e madhe eshte se muslimanet urrejne Bushin dhe republikanet te cilet ne fakt jane me afer interesit te tyre, dhe perkrahin demokratet te cilet ne fakt jane te kontrolluar e financuar nga lobi hebre.

Shembuj: Sekretarja per politiken e jashtme te Klinton M.Albright ishte hebre, zevendes kandidati per president i kaluar ishte Lieberman qe kandidoi me Al Gore etj.

Bushi dhe klani i tij kane qene e jane kryesisht te lidhur me klanet e Arabise saudite (muslimane) dhe kane shume investime te perbashketa.

Bushi dhe admionistrata e tij po i demokratizojne shtete qe kurr skane pa nji dite lirie si puna e Irakut a Afganistanit, qe te bahen njerez se gjithe jeten jane trajtue si kafshe.

Po ne fakt sheikeve e mullaheve nuk u intereson Bushi se u humbet pushteti mbi "bagetite" kane frike se u hapen syte njerezve e lexojne edhe gjana te tjera e mandej ubububbu kiameti.... si po na del edhe ne kete forum

Pra indirekt muslimanet e USA duke votuar per Kerryn do votojne per Sharonin


Prandaj jo me kot ai studiuesi musliman ne krye te ketij shkrimi u keshillonte bashke-muslimaneve te vet qe te votojne per ate qe e shofin se u intereson, vetes, familjes, llojit te punes a biznesit, interesit te qytetit ku banojne, e ta lene politiken nderkombetare se nuk dihet kush e luan lojen.