Butch Ware summed it up really eloquently. These individuals are carrying out orders received from their 'masters' up top at the DNC because polling data makes it crystal clear that they're going to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and therefore the White House.
They'll try to gaslight Muslims who plan to either vote Green or sit out November 5th in two ways. The conversation will begin with the Trump angle. Fearmongering that version 2025 will be FAR worse than previous version. That Trump will be worse for Palestine (even though it's the Dems that have been COMMITTING genocide). Then it'll proceed to how Harris has used 'better language' and 'humanised' the Palestinians (while committing genocide - as if sugar coating it with some sweet nothings somehow makes it less worse), how there will be more room to negotiate with a Harris administration (who's already said out loud what every President before has - that the US will support Israel unconditionally no matter what it does).
Until and unless a mainstream party (in this case the Dems) loses an election for being 'too pro-Israel' there won't be any meaningful shift away from the current US policy. In fact, if American Muslims vote for the Harris-Walz ticket despite the genocide in Gaza, in my humble opinion, that's akin to giving them the green light to continue with business as usual in West Asia and the wide Muslim world - we won't hold you to account. It's only when you're able to show them that there's a price to pay at the ballot box for ignoring the Muslim vote that they'll start taking your voice seriously.
This is a group of people who have taken one of the two (I guess 3?) choices facing American Muslims in the upcoming election. I see these choices as:
1) Do not vote for the Democrats (I assume because you think they're responsible for what's happening in Gaza). This could look like:
1.1. Don't vote for anyone
1.2. Vote for Trump
2) Vote for the Democrats (despite what you think they might be responsible for in Gaza).
Personally, I find it strange that so many Muslims have decided that they're single-issue voters and that that issue is Gaza (let me take this opportunity to preempt any wise-guys by also acknowledging that its also relevant to people who are multi-issue voters but think that the Gaza conflict is a massive consideration). I find this single-issue voter phenomenon strange because 1) There are clearly many more things for Muslims to care about (both in the sense of personal welfare and spiritual interests) which will be affected by the outcome of the election than the US's foreign policy relating to the occupation of Palestine and 2) The occupation of Gaza and oppression of Palestinians has been ongoing for decades but this has seemingly only become a US political issue to American Muslims for the 2024 election cycle.
Moving on - let's accept that there are different moral processes that you can use to figure out how to do things, and that these are not fundamentally or necessarily in contradiction with Islamic Principals. You can be deontological about your actions and decide that you won't vote for the Democrats because they're complicit in the genocide. The issues with this are: 1) I think the idea that the democrats are somehow worse/different than the republicans would be on this issue is a farcical one, and 2) that I don't see how/why someone would be able to argue that this specific issue should just obviously override all other considerations a Muslim might look at before voting. E.g. There's nothing that makes "should I support the party that is plausibly complicit in the genocide in Gaza?" much more important than "should I support the party that consistently sends more foreign aid to poor countries?" or "should I support the party that seems much more politically stable and less autocrat-y, which is in the interest of the people who live in the country I live in?". To me this is an open question (i.e. there isn't a self-evident correct answer) and that as Muslims we should be humble enough in our beliefs to know that we shouldn't be telling other Muslims that what they're doing is haraam or anti-Islamic when its a complicated or impossible-to-know question.
You could also use a consequentialist framework, where you might say something like "I know that x party does abc things that I think are terrible, but I think the overall impact of the x party on the country and on the globe will be better than the overall impact of the y party, even though I prefer the y party's stance on issues abc.". I thin this is straight forward enough to understand. And if you think its morally reprehensible, 1) take some time to recognise that you're likely making this type of moral tradeoff multiple times a day, on issues of small and large significance and 2) recognise that there is some chance that what these people are doing is actually the morally correct thing to do, just as the deontological framework might be.
Overall I've found the way that the media, with the help of many Muslims in America, have managed to make Muslims look like narrow-minded/single-issue/'unpatriotic" voters. We have many more things to worry about Islamically than just this one issue, and if you're approach to deciding who to vote for is based on your Islamic values, then it'd be great to see people do a more thorough comparison between both parties across a wide range of issues, and then explaining how you come to your decision. Besides that, It irks the hell out of me that we're treating Palestinians like they're the most relevant Muslims on the planet. They matter just as much as the MILLIONS of Muslims suffering in China, and in Sudan, and in India etc. and I don't see anyone going "I'm defs not voting for the Republicans because their foreign policy is going to lead to hundreds of millions of Muslims being worse off."
Do you feel substantial aid to poor countries, because they are poor and not to sell weapons or because of great game politics is a priority for any party? Which one and what proves this?
Do you find it odd that American Muslims, who have their tax dollars being used to conduct genocide is more pressing a policy issue than oppression taking place the US government opposes but cannot do anything about and realistically does nothing to abet?
Should we start to equate a woman’s right to chose, and a $25,000 first time home buyer tax credit and other Democratic priorities with genocide, and the balance would end up, let’s vote Democratic?
1) I don't think foreign aid is currently a priority for either party. Historically the democrats have been more generous with foreign aid as a % of GDP, although the overall trend is that its decreased from 3% in 1950 to 0.2% in 2024. I *would* find this very important if there was something like an order of magnitude difference between the two parties.
2) I think there are two things here that I probably didn't do well enough teasing apart in my first comment:
2.1) I think its disappointing that American Muslims allowed themselves to be either pigeonholed into looking like they only care about other Muslims, or that they actually legitimately do think other Muslims are more important than other non-Muslims. I find it disappointing because the way I interpret Islam/practice Islam is that all people are of equal value so its inconsistent with my beliefs, but its also just generally bad for Muslims to be seen this way in a world were Muslims are increasingly seen as a hostile/unintegratable population.
2.2. I don't find it odd that many Muslims feel this way - I think its also the most legitimate defense of why *any* American should feel strongly about this issue compared to wars that they don't directly fund. I also want to point out that your point about tax is one of the instances where everyone seems to be totally fine with using a consequentialist framework (and I would cynically suggest its because its the framework that best serves *their own interests* in this situation) - why is nobody arguing that they should not pay their taxes, if they're so upset about their taxes being used against their will to support the genocide? I think it points to something about voting choice/the outcome of the election not actually registering as a personally expensive act compared to the legal risks of tax avoidance (e.g. "yes, my tax is being used to fund the genocide, but deciding to not pay tax could have hugely negative costs to me, whereas withholding my vote from the democrats in protest of how they're using my tax doesn't have a massive cost to me". ). This is interesting because at the same time as potentially holding this view on the cost of these different actions, one is also then asserting that their vote is powerful enough to make a difference on this specific issue, but not powerful enough to have an impact on all the other issues that I assume Muslims also care about but somehow discount as not as important to unlikely to be affected.
3) I'm not saying what anyone *should* do, I'm just pointing out that I think trying to do that type of moral calculus is a legitimate approach to trying to figure out how to do the best you can, and villainising people for it without engaging with their arguments to show how their calculus is wrong, or why consequentialism is obviously wrong (which people have failed to do for ~600 years) is a childish way to have this conversation.
The fact that you wrote extensively to try and somehow make this into a "complicated" issue and try to justify your vote for democrats says it all. It's important to recognize that one of the strongest arguments against them is the fact that during the Obama administration, a record number of bombs were dropped, resulting in thousands of innocent people killed. Additionally, we are currently witnessing ongoing genocide under a DEMOCRATIC administration.
If the issue of genocide isn't a dealbreaker for you, it raises serious moral concerns. As Rahul noted, "Until and unless a mainstream party (in this case the Dems) loses an election for being 'too pro-Israel' there won't be any meaningful shift away from the current US policy."
This situation underscores the importance of making a statement about the power of the Muslim vote in this election. By doing so, we hope to prompt both parties to reconsider their actions before committing to policies that lead to such atrocities, while still expecting support from voters like you.
1) Its weird to imply that someone being thorough and extensive is somehow a sign of dishonesty or immorality. I could have easily come and commented some 2 sentence nonsense comment like "lol they're all clowns I hope they die a painful death" but then I'd not be doing anything intelligent or constructive, which is what I try and do generally
2) I didn't say anything about if I'd vote/ who I'd vote for. And tbh what I wrote wouldn't change depending on who I was voting for, because I came to answer the question, not to launch ad hominem attacks.
I know this type of thing isn't easy. Inshallah you'll engage in good faith in future
- “The fact that you wrote extensively to try and somehow make this into a ‘complicated’ issue and try to justify your vote for Democrats says it all.” is an allusion to your interlocutor having to engage in flawed or fallacious reasoning to support their preferred conclusion, rather than addressing their arguments on merit.
- “If the issue of genocide isn’t a dealbreaker for you, it raises serious moral concerns.” is a way for you to characterise your interlocutor as morally flawed and therefore dismiss them, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.
So if a candidate supported killing 14,000 Jewish children and committing to continuing to arm the entity that did that so they can kill many more, would it be also important to have a nuanced and substantive discussion of all the good things this candidate is promising to do, aside from all the killing (which would go on the negative side of analysis)?
I agree with Kaleem. Only two people have a chance at the Oval Office, Harris and Trump. The second is clearly worse for Muslims and Palestinians alike. Sitting out or voting 3rd party indirectly aids Trump.
The percentage of Democrats who want a new policy on Israel and Palestine is significantly higher than the percentage of Republicans advocating in the same direction. It is reasonable to conclude the Democrats will get there sooner. A Trump administration would undeniably be a setback.
But don't you think Todd that despite what an overwhelming majority of the Democratic base wants (and in some cases has wanted for years), the party has been virtually non-responsive? It's not just a ceasefire in Gaza and now Lebanon (which in my humble opinion is hardly enough, although that's a separate conversation), but more broadly foreign policy that isn't based driven by the MIC and based on endless war, having the vast sums of money saved from ending this neo-imperialist foreign policy of global hegemony redeployed on improving infrastructure, investing in environmental protection, providing for greater access to healthcare, making tertiary education and vocational training more affordable. The list goes on.
At present, it looks like the Dems prefer having a GOP that degenerates further and further into far right ultra nationalism because that allows them to remain beholden to their big money benefactors and serve their interests without having to really address the systemic issues that their base really cares about (instead they can fearmonger on authoritarianism and deal with a few 'low hanging fruit' issues on the periphery to placate their base from time to time).
Until and unless the Dems pay a political price for ignoring what their base wants, the party will continue to unconditionally serve the donor/billionaire/AIPAC class. Sure the younger generation might join the party with idealistic fervour, but in good time the DNC will dangle the carrot of power and influence which is invariably very hard to resist and they'll come in line. Case in point - AOC Pelosi.
By contrast, losing is what could move the needle and make the Dems turn back to it's base (and it's a big if - although over time they'll simply have no choice the more they lose), make them dump the billionaire class, AIPAC such that they become Republican only lobby groups. And that's when the opening will be created to make inroads into the White working class with bread and butter issues and the likes.
In November, Muslim Americans have a chance to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Dems that genocide is a red line by voting Green or sitting out. That will be a watershed moment because for the first time in American history, a mainstream party will lose for being too 'pro-Israel' and it will have to reckon with its political implications. I'm under no illusions that the Dems will honestly attribute their loss to the Gaza genocide (certainly not in the short run). And I'm under no illusions that a Trump presidency will be better for American Muslims or Palestinians. But really, what's the alternative? Vote for the Dems and hope they'll throw some crumbs?
Here is a guest opinion I wrote that is scheduled to run in the Boulder Daily Camera tomorrow. It is about 650 words and i apologize for the length. It is written for the general audience, of course, as there are not many Muslims who subscribe to the Daily Camera. Please note that I am looking for a Democrat with a better position on Israel and Palestine to challenge my Congressman, Joe Neguse, in 2026.
Harris Needs a New Way Forward on Israel and Palestine
American politicians like to repeat that America’s and Israel’s interests align. But neither our interests nor Israel’s are served by arming Israel to the teeth, believing that will make Israel more secure. Instead, it has allowed Israeli governments to believe they can postpone justice for the Palestinians indefinitely. Preponderant power does not check itself.
Arming Israel to the teeth has allowed Prime Minister Netanyahu to believe he can postpone his own day of reckoning with the people of Israel by provoking a war with Hezbollah. An end to his war against the Palestinians would cool things with Hezbollah, but that is not what he and his fellow nutcases in Tel Aviv want.
America needs a president who has had enough of Israel calling the shots in Washington. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has effectively silenced too many politicians, including my Congressman Joe Neguse and my Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper.
The failure of the Democratic Party to ask a Palestinian to address the national convention delegates and its viewers last month speaks volumes. I fully intend to vote for Kamala Harris, but I am ashamed of how our Democratic president and lawmakers have, on the whole, treated Palestinians as second class to Israelis.
Before October 7, I regarded Congressman Neguse as presidential material. But his unwillingness to publicly oppose our sponsorship of Israel’s war against the Palestinians, in Gaza especially but increasingly in the West Bank as well, leaves me inclined to support a Democratic challenger in 2026.
Congressman Neguse’s colleague, Jason Crow, (D-Colo.) has demonstrated a little more nerve on this issue. Crow was the author of a May 3 letter to the Biden administration arguing that indeed Israel was in violation of the Foreign Assistance act and National Security Memorandum 20, which President Biden had issued on February 8. (Neguse was among eighty-six House members to sign that letter, but I never saw mention of it on his website and he did not seem eager for his constituents to know.) The administration did delay one arms shipment, then exonerated Israel with some cynical acrobatics.
In that maneuver, as well as the decision to not provide for a Palestinian speaker at the Chicago convention, as well as in every vote to supply offensive weaponry to Israel, the hand of AIPAC has been evident.
To repeat, the staunch support which Democrats and Republicans alike have provided Israel has not made Israel more secure.The billions America spends on Israel’s “security” would be much better spent helping to relocate West Bank settlers back to Israel proper. If all of those Jewish settlements were dismantled, Israel would still retain 78 percent of historical Palestine.
Make no mistake, Israeli leaders would like to rid Gaza of Palestinians, to make way for Jewish settlements. Those who are offended by charges of genocide ought to realize that what we have witnessed in the last year is at least an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Vice President Kamala Harris needs to make a very tough decision, given the influence of the Israel lobby. She needs to call for a freeze on offensive weapons shipments to Israel. That is the only way the Israeli government will get the message that America is finally wise to its game.
I have no illusions about Hamas. But Hamas is the logical result of the many years of neither Israel nor the United States taking the plight of the Palestinians seriously. The only way Hamas or its kind will disappear is if Democrats muster the nerve to make any and all support for Israel conditional on a political solution. In the meantime, obliging Hamas leaders by continuing the war in Gaza is utter foolishness, which can only produce more Palestinians who hate Israel.
Kamala Harris needs to articulate this new way forward today. Otherwise, she may very well lose critical Muslim, Black, and youth voters in this election.
It's a well written piece Todd. The reasons why Harris should at the very least be more circumspect supporting Israel are obvious (as you have pointed out). But it goes back to my original point. You articulate a cohrent sentiment that's widely held within the Democratic base, but which the party is ingnores (at best pays nominal lip service to). Given where we are, it is imperative that a political cost is paid for failing to respond to popular opinion. Take a page out of the GOP's playbook perhaps. As insane as Trump is, there's an appetite for what he says/does within his base.
Last election I voted for the lesser evil and got Genocide Joe. This election the Democrats and their shills are again crying from rooftops that they are the lesser evil. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Only one of the speakers does not have a subtitle, that person is the organizer. Many of the others, but not all, are actually public servants. Allah knows best what is in their hearts, perhaps they feel they are representing the best interests of the ummah, feel alone in doing so, and seek self-validation and support; or perhaps they are Democrats struggling with their own identity crisis after Harris publicly cast them out of her party. While the state of Michigan has very publicly cast 2 votes for "Uncommitted;" intends to cast Electoral College votes that way, as well; and has been signaling to Muslims across the country to follow their lead in casting protest votes for "Uncommitted" so our disdain for the system will be recognized nationally; these cats will undermine state-level leadership by trying to convince Muslims at the local grassroots level to keep kissing that backside.
A group of sellouts with no authority to endorse Kamala Harris on behalf of the American Muslim Ummah. We should consider legal action against them for calling themselves "Muslims for Harris" - there's nothing 'muslim' about this position. Shame on them, they greenlight a genocidal administration.
This has been common in all societies throughout time. Muslims are for Trump, for Modi, Putin and on and on. This is not just a Muslim thing. There were Jews that supported Hitler regardless of what he said or did
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will come tribulations in which one sitting will be better than one standing. The one standing will be better than one walking. The one walking will be better than one running. Whoever seeks these tribulations will be destroyed by them. Whoever finds a place of shelter or refuge, let him take refuge in it.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7082, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2886
Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The question is are we voting in our best interests as American Muslims or as ummati of the Prophet (sa). Unfortunately, both don't always align. When Zionist Americans vote, they don't see themselves like the average American who focuses primarily on domestic policy. They have a bigger cause.
Had we voted as ummatis, we would never have voted Biden the last time around knowing his ardent support for Zionism from the very onset of his political career. Trump was nothing of the sort.
I am not saying we should vote one way or another, just that we need to broaden our horizons beyond the borders even if it may come at a cost at home. But sacrifices always need to be made when you are driven by a greater cause.
At the same time, I will not judge anyone whichever way they vote (including uncommited) because the politics we are playing today is not all black or white.
Given the sentiments in the Muslim community and indeed among all fair minded people, after watching the unfolding holocaust in Gaza with the help of Biden / Harris - these people will not be Muslim community "leaders" after this.
To anyone in Gaza, it doesn't matter. It's like what Malcolm X said about the White conservative (the wolf) and White liberals (the fox) - both want to slaughter you (or at the very least don't really care if you get killed).
It's mostly theatrics to gaslight American Muslims into the false belief that they'll be able to 'persuade' Biden-Harris to take a more principled stand. Which is a fantasy because they've already pledged allegiance to the AIPAC with the usual talking points (right o defend itself etc.).
To comment on the state of Muslim leadership, I believe these people are realistic in supporting Harris. I believe they are acting in the best interests of Palestinians and Muslims.
American Muslims face a real predicament this election. On the one hand, both the Democratic and Republican parties have failed the Palestinians. Although more Democrats than Republicans have distanced themselves from America’s sponsorship of Israels’ “Mighty Vengeance”, the Biden-Harris administration is running the show.
Many Muslims are urging the community to abandon Harris to send the message that staunch support of Israel is a political liability.
On the other hand, many of the same Muslims understand that the Republican presidential candidate poses a unique threat to Muslims and American democracy. But they reason that having survived one Trump administration, Muslims and America can survive another. That would seem to underestimate the Trump threat.
Imam Tom Facchine has a good grasp of the nature of political power: for any group to wield such power, it must be feared or respected, not liked. And he maintains that Muslims must make sure Harris loses this November, by voting for a third party candidate. Those Muslims who choose instead to vote for Harris to avert a Trump presidency, he sees fit to call “sell outs”.
Sami Hamdi specifically urges Muslims to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and believes that together with their allies Muslims can garner five percent of the vote and thereby qualify for federal and state funding in future elections. This, Hamdi asserts, will break the two party system, and demonstrate that caving to the Israel lobby does not pay.
Hamdi has a powerful delivery which is intended to Wow us, which may obscure the merits of his argument. But he is careful not to resort to name-calling.
Tom Faccine and dozens of fellow Imams have signed a letter calling on American Muslims to reject both Harris and Trump and vote third party instead. Their concluding paragraph contains this sentence: “The Democratic Party’s ongoing refusal to show any intention of reform, even as we witness the greatest catastrophe in modern history, along with the Republican promise to only worsen this evil, leaves us no choice but to take this step.”
And yet, growing numbers of Democrats are calling for the conditioning of American military aid to Israel, and as the sentence states, Trump’s policy promises even worse. (As a sidenote, as awful as it is for the Palestinians, the on-going bloodshed in Sudan is arguably worse.)
It is notable that the Uncommitted Campaign is not abandoning Harris.
I would like to propose another strategy for Muslims and their allies who are intent on changing U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine. Let’s start challenging any AIPAC-endowed incumbent legislators we can, with credible candidates in up-coming primaries. It is not too soon to organize and announce our purpose and begin searching for articulate and studied individuals willing to get in the public eye and make the case for a balanced policy on Israel and Palestine, among other foreign and domestic topics candidates should be versed on.
Muslims don’t owe Democrats anything. But politics will remain the art of the possible, and they would be wise to exploit the growing discontent within the party, rather than voting Green this election and handing the Oval Office to an insurrectionist and mentally unfit individual.
If we need to select between a sane and mentally competent non-insurrectionist person who supports genocide against Palestinians vs a mentally incompetent insurrectionist who also supports genocide, how does one choices help Gaza more than another?
Also, if focusing on local makes the most sense, is indulging in the Presidential campaign other than “neither” just silly navel gazing?
Trump promises even worse on Palestine and Israel. And don’t underestimate the problem of electing a very insecure and mentally ill man to the most powerful office in the world.
Trump has said immigrants are poisoning our blood; he has proposed trying Liz Cheney for treason in a televised military tribunal; he has told Netanyahu to “finish the job”. I am concerned that Muslims are trying to out-do each other in denouncing Biden-Harris to prove their solidarity with the Palestinians. But what they advocate would subject the Palestinians to worse.
A whole lot of lost souls in need of finding their way. May Allah not take us all to account for what the fools amongst us do.
Butch Ware summed it up really eloquently. These individuals are carrying out orders received from their 'masters' up top at the DNC because polling data makes it crystal clear that they're going to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and therefore the White House.
They'll try to gaslight Muslims who plan to either vote Green or sit out November 5th in two ways. The conversation will begin with the Trump angle. Fearmongering that version 2025 will be FAR worse than previous version. That Trump will be worse for Palestine (even though it's the Dems that have been COMMITTING genocide). Then it'll proceed to how Harris has used 'better language' and 'humanised' the Palestinians (while committing genocide - as if sugar coating it with some sweet nothings somehow makes it less worse), how there will be more room to negotiate with a Harris administration (who's already said out loud what every President before has - that the US will support Israel unconditionally no matter what it does).
Until and unless a mainstream party (in this case the Dems) loses an election for being 'too pro-Israel' there won't be any meaningful shift away from the current US policy. In fact, if American Muslims vote for the Harris-Walz ticket despite the genocide in Gaza, in my humble opinion, that's akin to giving them the green light to continue with business as usual in West Asia and the wide Muslim world - we won't hold you to account. It's only when you're able to show them that there's a price to pay at the ballot box for ignoring the Muslim vote that they'll start taking your voice seriously.
Very well stated brother.
This is a group of people who have taken one of the two (I guess 3?) choices facing American Muslims in the upcoming election. I see these choices as:
1) Do not vote for the Democrats (I assume because you think they're responsible for what's happening in Gaza). This could look like:
1.1. Don't vote for anyone
1.2. Vote for Trump
2) Vote for the Democrats (despite what you think they might be responsible for in Gaza).
Personally, I find it strange that so many Muslims have decided that they're single-issue voters and that that issue is Gaza (let me take this opportunity to preempt any wise-guys by also acknowledging that its also relevant to people who are multi-issue voters but think that the Gaza conflict is a massive consideration). I find this single-issue voter phenomenon strange because 1) There are clearly many more things for Muslims to care about (both in the sense of personal welfare and spiritual interests) which will be affected by the outcome of the election than the US's foreign policy relating to the occupation of Palestine and 2) The occupation of Gaza and oppression of Palestinians has been ongoing for decades but this has seemingly only become a US political issue to American Muslims for the 2024 election cycle.
Moving on - let's accept that there are different moral processes that you can use to figure out how to do things, and that these are not fundamentally or necessarily in contradiction with Islamic Principals. You can be deontological about your actions and decide that you won't vote for the Democrats because they're complicit in the genocide. The issues with this are: 1) I think the idea that the democrats are somehow worse/different than the republicans would be on this issue is a farcical one, and 2) that I don't see how/why someone would be able to argue that this specific issue should just obviously override all other considerations a Muslim might look at before voting. E.g. There's nothing that makes "should I support the party that is plausibly complicit in the genocide in Gaza?" much more important than "should I support the party that consistently sends more foreign aid to poor countries?" or "should I support the party that seems much more politically stable and less autocrat-y, which is in the interest of the people who live in the country I live in?". To me this is an open question (i.e. there isn't a self-evident correct answer) and that as Muslims we should be humble enough in our beliefs to know that we shouldn't be telling other Muslims that what they're doing is haraam or anti-Islamic when its a complicated or impossible-to-know question.
You could also use a consequentialist framework, where you might say something like "I know that x party does abc things that I think are terrible, but I think the overall impact of the x party on the country and on the globe will be better than the overall impact of the y party, even though I prefer the y party's stance on issues abc.". I thin this is straight forward enough to understand. And if you think its morally reprehensible, 1) take some time to recognise that you're likely making this type of moral tradeoff multiple times a day, on issues of small and large significance and 2) recognise that there is some chance that what these people are doing is actually the morally correct thing to do, just as the deontological framework might be.
Overall I've found the way that the media, with the help of many Muslims in America, have managed to make Muslims look like narrow-minded/single-issue/'unpatriotic" voters. We have many more things to worry about Islamically than just this one issue, and if you're approach to deciding who to vote for is based on your Islamic values, then it'd be great to see people do a more thorough comparison between both parties across a wide range of issues, and then explaining how you come to your decision. Besides that, It irks the hell out of me that we're treating Palestinians like they're the most relevant Muslims on the planet. They matter just as much as the MILLIONS of Muslims suffering in China, and in Sudan, and in India etc. and I don't see anyone going "I'm defs not voting for the Republicans because their foreign policy is going to lead to hundreds of millions of Muslims being worse off."
I could go on for hours. But I'll leave it here.
Interesting and thoughtful response.
Do you feel substantial aid to poor countries, because they are poor and not to sell weapons or because of great game politics is a priority for any party? Which one and what proves this?
Do you find it odd that American Muslims, who have their tax dollars being used to conduct genocide is more pressing a policy issue than oppression taking place the US government opposes but cannot do anything about and realistically does nothing to abet?
Should we start to equate a woman’s right to chose, and a $25,000 first time home buyer tax credit and other Democratic priorities with genocide, and the balance would end up, let’s vote Democratic?
1) I don't think foreign aid is currently a priority for either party. Historically the democrats have been more generous with foreign aid as a % of GDP, although the overall trend is that its decreased from 3% in 1950 to 0.2% in 2024. I *would* find this very important if there was something like an order of magnitude difference between the two parties.
2) I think there are two things here that I probably didn't do well enough teasing apart in my first comment:
2.1) I think its disappointing that American Muslims allowed themselves to be either pigeonholed into looking like they only care about other Muslims, or that they actually legitimately do think other Muslims are more important than other non-Muslims. I find it disappointing because the way I interpret Islam/practice Islam is that all people are of equal value so its inconsistent with my beliefs, but its also just generally bad for Muslims to be seen this way in a world were Muslims are increasingly seen as a hostile/unintegratable population.
2.2. I don't find it odd that many Muslims feel this way - I think its also the most legitimate defense of why *any* American should feel strongly about this issue compared to wars that they don't directly fund. I also want to point out that your point about tax is one of the instances where everyone seems to be totally fine with using a consequentialist framework (and I would cynically suggest its because its the framework that best serves *their own interests* in this situation) - why is nobody arguing that they should not pay their taxes, if they're so upset about their taxes being used against their will to support the genocide? I think it points to something about voting choice/the outcome of the election not actually registering as a personally expensive act compared to the legal risks of tax avoidance (e.g. "yes, my tax is being used to fund the genocide, but deciding to not pay tax could have hugely negative costs to me, whereas withholding my vote from the democrats in protest of how they're using my tax doesn't have a massive cost to me". ). This is interesting because at the same time as potentially holding this view on the cost of these different actions, one is also then asserting that their vote is powerful enough to make a difference on this specific issue, but not powerful enough to have an impact on all the other issues that I assume Muslims also care about but somehow discount as not as important to unlikely to be affected.
3) I'm not saying what anyone *should* do, I'm just pointing out that I think trying to do that type of moral calculus is a legitimate approach to trying to figure out how to do the best you can, and villainising people for it without engaging with their arguments to show how their calculus is wrong, or why consequentialism is obviously wrong (which people have failed to do for ~600 years) is a childish way to have this conversation.
Three quick responses before I must run off -
(1). Genocide is not like other issues.
(2). Palestinians are not like other believers, in that they are defenders of Al-Aqsa (by their mere existence).
(3). Do you REALLY believe killing one to save 5 is morally or Islamically justified?
Three quick responses before I must run off -
(1). Genocide is not like other issues.
(2). Palestinians are not like other believers, in that they are defenders of Al-Aqsa (by their mere existence).
(3). Do you REALLY believe killing one to save 5 is morally or Islamically justified?
The fact that you wrote extensively to try and somehow make this into a "complicated" issue and try to justify your vote for democrats says it all. It's important to recognize that one of the strongest arguments against them is the fact that during the Obama administration, a record number of bombs were dropped, resulting in thousands of innocent people killed. Additionally, we are currently witnessing ongoing genocide under a DEMOCRATIC administration.
If the issue of genocide isn't a dealbreaker for you, it raises serious moral concerns. As Rahul noted, "Until and unless a mainstream party (in this case the Dems) loses an election for being 'too pro-Israel' there won't be any meaningful shift away from the current US policy."
This situation underscores the importance of making a statement about the power of the Muslim vote in this election. By doing so, we hope to prompt both parties to reconsider their actions before committing to policies that lead to such atrocities, while still expecting support from voters like you.
1) Its weird to imply that someone being thorough and extensive is somehow a sign of dishonesty or immorality. I could have easily come and commented some 2 sentence nonsense comment like "lol they're all clowns I hope they die a painful death" but then I'd not be doing anything intelligent or constructive, which is what I try and do generally
2) I didn't say anything about if I'd vote/ who I'd vote for. And tbh what I wrote wouldn't change depending on who I was voting for, because I came to answer the question, not to launch ad hominem attacks.
I know this type of thing isn't easy. Inshallah you'll engage in good faith in future
I am engaging in good faith. Didn't engage in ad hominem attack towards anyone including you.
- “The fact that you wrote extensively to try and somehow make this into a ‘complicated’ issue and try to justify your vote for Democrats says it all.” is an allusion to your interlocutor having to engage in flawed or fallacious reasoning to support their preferred conclusion, rather than addressing their arguments on merit.
- “If the issue of genocide isn’t a dealbreaker for you, it raises serious moral concerns.” is a way for you to characterise your interlocutor as morally flawed and therefore dismiss them, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.
So if a candidate supported killing 14,000 Jewish children and committing to continuing to arm the entity that did that so they can kill many more, would it be also important to have a nuanced and substantive discussion of all the good things this candidate is promising to do, aside from all the killing (which would go on the negative side of analysis)?
I agree with Kaleem. Only two people have a chance at the Oval Office, Harris and Trump. The second is clearly worse for Muslims and Palestinians alike. Sitting out or voting 3rd party indirectly aids Trump.
If both are committed to giving Israel a free hand and giving it all the weapons it wants, why is one better than the other?
Should candidates earn your vote or should voters be fatalistic about who to vote for?
The percentage of Democrats who want a new policy on Israel and Palestine is significantly higher than the percentage of Republicans advocating in the same direction. It is reasonable to conclude the Democrats will get there sooner. A Trump administration would undeniably be a setback.
But don't you think Todd that despite what an overwhelming majority of the Democratic base wants (and in some cases has wanted for years), the party has been virtually non-responsive? It's not just a ceasefire in Gaza and now Lebanon (which in my humble opinion is hardly enough, although that's a separate conversation), but more broadly foreign policy that isn't based driven by the MIC and based on endless war, having the vast sums of money saved from ending this neo-imperialist foreign policy of global hegemony redeployed on improving infrastructure, investing in environmental protection, providing for greater access to healthcare, making tertiary education and vocational training more affordable. The list goes on.
At present, it looks like the Dems prefer having a GOP that degenerates further and further into far right ultra nationalism because that allows them to remain beholden to their big money benefactors and serve their interests without having to really address the systemic issues that their base really cares about (instead they can fearmonger on authoritarianism and deal with a few 'low hanging fruit' issues on the periphery to placate their base from time to time).
Until and unless the Dems pay a political price for ignoring what their base wants, the party will continue to unconditionally serve the donor/billionaire/AIPAC class. Sure the younger generation might join the party with idealistic fervour, but in good time the DNC will dangle the carrot of power and influence which is invariably very hard to resist and they'll come in line. Case in point - AOC Pelosi.
By contrast, losing is what could move the needle and make the Dems turn back to it's base (and it's a big if - although over time they'll simply have no choice the more they lose), make them dump the billionaire class, AIPAC such that they become Republican only lobby groups. And that's when the opening will be created to make inroads into the White working class with bread and butter issues and the likes.
In November, Muslim Americans have a chance to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Dems that genocide is a red line by voting Green or sitting out. That will be a watershed moment because for the first time in American history, a mainstream party will lose for being too 'pro-Israel' and it will have to reckon with its political implications. I'm under no illusions that the Dems will honestly attribute their loss to the Gaza genocide (certainly not in the short run). And I'm under no illusions that a Trump presidency will be better for American Muslims or Palestinians. But really, what's the alternative? Vote for the Dems and hope they'll throw some crumbs?
Here is a guest opinion I wrote that is scheduled to run in the Boulder Daily Camera tomorrow. It is about 650 words and i apologize for the length. It is written for the general audience, of course, as there are not many Muslims who subscribe to the Daily Camera. Please note that I am looking for a Democrat with a better position on Israel and Palestine to challenge my Congressman, Joe Neguse, in 2026.
Harris Needs a New Way Forward on Israel and Palestine
American politicians like to repeat that America’s and Israel’s interests align. But neither our interests nor Israel’s are served by arming Israel to the teeth, believing that will make Israel more secure. Instead, it has allowed Israeli governments to believe they can postpone justice for the Palestinians indefinitely. Preponderant power does not check itself.
Arming Israel to the teeth has allowed Prime Minister Netanyahu to believe he can postpone his own day of reckoning with the people of Israel by provoking a war with Hezbollah. An end to his war against the Palestinians would cool things with Hezbollah, but that is not what he and his fellow nutcases in Tel Aviv want.
America needs a president who has had enough of Israel calling the shots in Washington. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has effectively silenced too many politicians, including my Congressman Joe Neguse and my Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper.
The failure of the Democratic Party to ask a Palestinian to address the national convention delegates and its viewers last month speaks volumes. I fully intend to vote for Kamala Harris, but I am ashamed of how our Democratic president and lawmakers have, on the whole, treated Palestinians as second class to Israelis.
Before October 7, I regarded Congressman Neguse as presidential material. But his unwillingness to publicly oppose our sponsorship of Israel’s war against the Palestinians, in Gaza especially but increasingly in the West Bank as well, leaves me inclined to support a Democratic challenger in 2026.
Congressman Neguse’s colleague, Jason Crow, (D-Colo.) has demonstrated a little more nerve on this issue. Crow was the author of a May 3 letter to the Biden administration arguing that indeed Israel was in violation of the Foreign Assistance act and National Security Memorandum 20, which President Biden had issued on February 8. (Neguse was among eighty-six House members to sign that letter, but I never saw mention of it on his website and he did not seem eager for his constituents to know.) The administration did delay one arms shipment, then exonerated Israel with some cynical acrobatics.
In that maneuver, as well as the decision to not provide for a Palestinian speaker at the Chicago convention, as well as in every vote to supply offensive weaponry to Israel, the hand of AIPAC has been evident.
To repeat, the staunch support which Democrats and Republicans alike have provided Israel has not made Israel more secure.The billions America spends on Israel’s “security” would be much better spent helping to relocate West Bank settlers back to Israel proper. If all of those Jewish settlements were dismantled, Israel would still retain 78 percent of historical Palestine.
Make no mistake, Israeli leaders would like to rid Gaza of Palestinians, to make way for Jewish settlements. Those who are offended by charges of genocide ought to realize that what we have witnessed in the last year is at least an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Vice President Kamala Harris needs to make a very tough decision, given the influence of the Israel lobby. She needs to call for a freeze on offensive weapons shipments to Israel. That is the only way the Israeli government will get the message that America is finally wise to its game.
I have no illusions about Hamas. But Hamas is the logical result of the many years of neither Israel nor the United States taking the plight of the Palestinians seriously. The only way Hamas or its kind will disappear is if Democrats muster the nerve to make any and all support for Israel conditional on a political solution. In the meantime, obliging Hamas leaders by continuing the war in Gaza is utter foolishness, which can only produce more Palestinians who hate Israel.
Kamala Harris needs to articulate this new way forward today. Otherwise, she may very well lose critical Muslim, Black, and youth voters in this election.
It's a well written piece Todd. The reasons why Harris should at the very least be more circumspect supporting Israel are obvious (as you have pointed out). But it goes back to my original point. You articulate a cohrent sentiment that's widely held within the Democratic base, but which the party is ingnores (at best pays nominal lip service to). Given where we are, it is imperative that a political cost is paid for failing to respond to popular opinion. Take a page out of the GOP's playbook perhaps. As insane as Trump is, there's an appetite for what he says/does within his base.
Us older folks remember that withholding our votes because of a single policy led to Nixon’s presidency.
May Allah SWT guide them to align themselves with people who support truth and justice instead of genocide enablers.
Last election I voted for the lesser evil and got Genocide Joe. This election the Democrats and their shills are again crying from rooftops that they are the lesser evil. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Only one of the speakers does not have a subtitle, that person is the organizer. Many of the others, but not all, are actually public servants. Allah knows best what is in their hearts, perhaps they feel they are representing the best interests of the ummah, feel alone in doing so, and seek self-validation and support; or perhaps they are Democrats struggling with their own identity crisis after Harris publicly cast them out of her party. While the state of Michigan has very publicly cast 2 votes for "Uncommitted;" intends to cast Electoral College votes that way, as well; and has been signaling to Muslims across the country to follow their lead in casting protest votes for "Uncommitted" so our disdain for the system will be recognized nationally; these cats will undermine state-level leadership by trying to convince Muslims at the local grassroots level to keep kissing that backside.
A group of sellouts with no authority to endorse Kamala Harris on behalf of the American Muslim Ummah. We should consider legal action against them for calling themselves "Muslims for Harris" - there's nothing 'muslim' about this position. Shame on them, they greenlight a genocidal administration.
This has been common in all societies throughout time. Muslims are for Trump, for Modi, Putin and on and on. This is not just a Muslim thing. There were Jews that supported Hitler regardless of what he said or did
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
Read this article as a small taste of what Harris is all about:
https://progressive.org/latest/calling-kamala-harris-a-marxist-insults-the-legacy-of-black-women-radicals-hagopian-20240919/
OMG!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will come tribulations in which one sitting will be better than one standing. The one standing will be better than one walking. The one walking will be better than one running. Whoever seeks these tribulations will be destroyed by them. Whoever finds a place of shelter or refuge, let him take refuge in it.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7082, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2886
Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Please see this video on the “uncommitted movement and emgage from Butch (Bilal) Ware
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAZiU2rS6y3/?igsh=MWQ1ZGUxMzBkMA==
Ops
These "leaders" want a seat on the table! Come on, you should know better :D
They should change the title to “Uncle Toms” for Harris . Precisely the people Malcom X warned us about
The question is are we voting in our best interests as American Muslims or as ummati of the Prophet (sa). Unfortunately, both don't always align. When Zionist Americans vote, they don't see themselves like the average American who focuses primarily on domestic policy. They have a bigger cause.
Had we voted as ummatis, we would never have voted Biden the last time around knowing his ardent support for Zionism from the very onset of his political career. Trump was nothing of the sort.
I am not saying we should vote one way or another, just that we need to broaden our horizons beyond the borders even if it may come at a cost at home. But sacrifices always need to be made when you are driven by a greater cause.
At the same time, I will not judge anyone whichever way they vote (including uncommited) because the politics we are playing today is not all black or white.
Given the sentiments in the Muslim community and indeed among all fair minded people, after watching the unfolding holocaust in Gaza with the help of Biden / Harris - these people will not be Muslim community "leaders" after this.
Does it matter that Harris has said she thinks the suffering of Palestinians is tragic while Trump would not talk like that?
To anyone in Gaza, it doesn't matter. It's like what Malcolm X said about the White conservative (the wolf) and White liberals (the fox) - both want to slaughter you (or at the very least don't really care if you get killed).
It's mostly theatrics to gaslight American Muslims into the false belief that they'll be able to 'persuade' Biden-Harris to take a more principled stand. Which is a fantasy because they've already pledged allegiance to the AIPAC with the usual talking points (right o defend itself etc.).
ilhan omar's absence speakers louder than words.
These are not leaders, they’re sellouts. Every. Single. One.
No need to call them sellouts. They and I disagree with you, but that does not mean we are sellouts.
Are there sellouts operating in the Muslim community? How would you know one if you saw one?
Also, so be clear one or more of these people don’t endorse Harris.
By this do you mean the people pictured above are fools?
To comment on the state of Muslim leadership, I believe these people are realistic in supporting Harris. I believe they are acting in the best interests of Palestinians and Muslims.
Help me follow the bouncing ball on why you came to this conclusion?
Below is my latest statement on this topic, having watched Sami Hamdi at length (1:47 minutes) and Tom Facchine. (Published here: https://getrealwithisrael.com/2024/10/07/should-muslims-abandon-harris/)
Should Muslims Abandon Harris?
American Muslims face a real predicament this election. On the one hand, both the Democratic and Republican parties have failed the Palestinians. Although more Democrats than Republicans have distanced themselves from America’s sponsorship of Israels’ “Mighty Vengeance”, the Biden-Harris administration is running the show.
Many Muslims are urging the community to abandon Harris to send the message that staunch support of Israel is a political liability.
On the other hand, many of the same Muslims understand that the Republican presidential candidate poses a unique threat to Muslims and American democracy. But they reason that having survived one Trump administration, Muslims and America can survive another. That would seem to underestimate the Trump threat.
Imam Tom Facchine has a good grasp of the nature of political power: for any group to wield such power, it must be feared or respected, not liked. And he maintains that Muslims must make sure Harris loses this November, by voting for a third party candidate. Those Muslims who choose instead to vote for Harris to avert a Trump presidency, he sees fit to call “sell outs”.
Sami Hamdi specifically urges Muslims to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and believes that together with their allies Muslims can garner five percent of the vote and thereby qualify for federal and state funding in future elections. This, Hamdi asserts, will break the two party system, and demonstrate that caving to the Israel lobby does not pay.
Hamdi has a powerful delivery which is intended to Wow us, which may obscure the merits of his argument. But he is careful not to resort to name-calling.
Tom Faccine and dozens of fellow Imams have signed a letter calling on American Muslims to reject both Harris and Trump and vote third party instead. Their concluding paragraph contains this sentence: “The Democratic Party’s ongoing refusal to show any intention of reform, even as we witness the greatest catastrophe in modern history, along with the Republican promise to only worsen this evil, leaves us no choice but to take this step.”
And yet, growing numbers of Democrats are calling for the conditioning of American military aid to Israel, and as the sentence states, Trump’s policy promises even worse. (As a sidenote, as awful as it is for the Palestinians, the on-going bloodshed in Sudan is arguably worse.)
It is notable that the Uncommitted Campaign is not abandoning Harris.
I would like to propose another strategy for Muslims and their allies who are intent on changing U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine. Let’s start challenging any AIPAC-endowed incumbent legislators we can, with credible candidates in up-coming primaries. It is not too soon to organize and announce our purpose and begin searching for articulate and studied individuals willing to get in the public eye and make the case for a balanced policy on Israel and Palestine, among other foreign and domestic topics candidates should be versed on.
Muslims don’t owe Democrats anything. But politics will remain the art of the possible, and they would be wise to exploit the growing discontent within the party, rather than voting Green this election and handing the Oval Office to an insurrectionist and mentally unfit individual.
If we need to select between a sane and mentally competent non-insurrectionist person who supports genocide against Palestinians vs a mentally incompetent insurrectionist who also supports genocide, how does one choices help Gaza more than another?
Also, if focusing on local makes the most sense, is indulging in the Presidential campaign other than “neither” just silly navel gazing?
Trump promises even worse on Palestine and Israel. And don’t underestimate the problem of electing a very insecure and mentally ill man to the most powerful office in the world.
Is there problem convincing Muslims to vote for someone because there is some unspecified horror worse than genocide?
Trump has said immigrants are poisoning our blood; he has proposed trying Liz Cheney for treason in a televised military tribunal; he has told Netanyahu to “finish the job”. I am concerned that Muslims are trying to out-do each other in denouncing Biden-Harris to prove their solidarity with the Palestinians. But what they advocate would subject the Palestinians to worse.
See this, re hero of the above article which celebrates Angela Davis…
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/angela-davis-electing-harris-will-open-space-for-more-radical-struggles/