I have tremendous respect for Wisdom of Crowds and it is one of my go-to venues to learn more about lots of things. I, too, am appalled by the violence of the Israeli response and hope that the peacemakers will prevail. I would have much more respect for this exchange, however, if I heard even one iota, one smidgen about the suffering of the hostages, or the evil and barbarity of Hamas, or, perhaps the Muslim world owning up to this and seeing that its world needs a Reformation of its own. I look forward to more exchanges. Thanks.
I haven't heard the argument about the Muslim world needs a Reformation since the heady days of the War on Terror and likely for good reason. There's several very glaring problems with such a proposal, including its ahistoricism, general irrelevance to the moment, and the implicit bias inherent within it. I'm not saying that was your intention per se, but it might be instructive to consider the assumptions in the suggestion--Islam needs a Reformation!--if we are indeed interested in getting beyond talking points
First, the bias: The idea that Islam needs a Reformation suggests the Muslim world is where the West was in the 1400s; in other words, at an earlier stage of civilization. While that's not only commonplace in colonial, imperial and racist rhetoric, it's also very strange, because it makes absolutely no sense. After all, the conditions that pertained in the 15th century and 16th century in Europe hardly pertain in the Muslim world, neither back then nor now. For example: In this scenario, who plays the part of the Catholic Church?
This would be like a Muslim saying, "If only America had experienced the consolidation of competing madhahib, we would not have constitutional originalism as a powerful force in our politics." How would one even begin to make sense of this statement?
Second, the October 7th attacks had rather less to do with a Reformation or lack thereof (say, almost nothing at all), but rather more to do with seventy-six years of ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid, siege, and the power politics of many regional actors (plenty of which, from Iran to Hezbollah to KSA, are hardly models of humanitarian compassion). Incidentally, all of that context happened after the Reformation, which raises the question: Does the Reformation ipso facto make the world a better place?
For despite having a Reformation (whatever that means in this case, I'm not sure), Europe still had slavery, colonialism, imperialism, Communism, fascism, the Cold War, concentration camps... down to this moment, when we have the purportedly liberal party in the American election refusing to condemn what is clearly an indiscriminate war against civilians, meaning that the Reformation did not produce a better world for many. My point being, human nature being what it is, historical processes do not offer the panacea we think they do
Finally, it's widely known that the Ottoman Caliphate strategically supported Protestant rebels, allied with Protestant separatists, and helped the Reformation survive a Catholic Counter-Reformation as part of (purely worldly, secular and contingent) historic calculations, meaning that the Reformation was not a pure product of an unadulterated West, waiting to be shipped out to the benighted natives, but a product of a global history. (With the following addendum: There was a close analogy to the Reformation in 18th century Wahhabism.)
One of the largest, saddest consequences of this current war is that, for much of the world, all the Western language of human rights, international law and enlightenment appear to be so much hypocrisy, a shameless and unconvincing cover for land grabs and violent racism, a redux of past hegemonies in new language. That's one more reason why this war is so dangerous, not least because it drains our country's moral capital, undermines our global position, and makes it harder to advance our values, many of which, I dare say, are quite good... like democracy.
Hello Haroon - You read far too much into my comment. Perhaps I should have spelled that charged word with a small "r" for reformation, in lieu of inviting any error in placing it in within the context with the large "R" of Reformation that has led to such a history lesson. You are correct, this war is beyond dangerous, and I, far from having any knowledge of the complexity of it that would fill anything more than a thimble, take to task the authors point of view that from my perspective ignores the atrocities and extremism on both sides.
I'm a Jew with many branches of my family tree snuffed out by the Holocaust who believes the moral history of the existence of Israel is more complicated than many Muslim Americans represent but agree that Israel is a reprehensible apartheid state that should be treated by the international community like 1980s South Africa. I would support the US governement treating Israel like Iran (as in massive economic sanctions, barred from meaningful international engagement, obviously no military support, etc) until, say, every settlement were torn down and Palestine became a state on the '67 borders.
But Haroon's argument about the American election is... appalling. We're Americans. This year we're voting whether we want to maximize the risk of the end of our own republic or not. Abstaining and justifying it with moral statements about a war on the other side of the world where inertia and *overwhelming* voter preference (only among under 30 democrats is greater sympathy with the Palestinians than Israelis even a plurality, among no group is it a majority opinion) lead to both parties clearly being in the wrong is fucking embarrassing. And the candidate that would clearly be less bad on that is also the non fascist *American* election candidate! You sound like all the American Jews I can't talk with anymore who have blockade themselves into their sanctimonious fantasy world where Israel is the beleaguered and morally superior land fighting threats and hatred everywhere where everything they've ever done is right.
I, personally, think that American Muslims have every right to sit out this election. I also believe that Democrats have built a coalition that is hard to manage, and they need to cull some of their extreme fringes. Liberal Jews have been a mainstay of the Democratic party since at least the 60s. The moderates and conservative African Americans are other two key factions of the party. I would say all other factions must be ignored. This will allow Dems to have a more consistent positions on a range of issues that are mainstream and enjoy a broad appeal amongst the electorate.
The question I have for American Muslims is this: let us say you sit this election out and help elect Trump; what is the strategy going forward once Dems write-off the Muslims as extreme and untrustworthy partner? The liberals who stood with American Muslims in 2021 against the Muslim ban: don't expect them to show up again when Trump implements a draconian law aimed against the Muslims (could easily happen if there were a terrorist attack on US soil carried out by Muslim terrorists). Furthermore, I am shocked at how much hate there is amongst conservative Americans towards Muslims in general. They absolutely look down upon Islam as barbaric. How does cosying up to Trump going to help them in the future?
The answer is that we become like many other religious groups. Catholics are not a reliable vote bank for anyone, both parties need to compete for their vote. I'd rather the parties compete for my vote than take me for granted. And if Democrats can't be relied on to stand for the human rights of people who don't vote for them, they were never serious about human rights to begin with. (Of course, everything we've seen in the last year makes that amply clear anyway.)
In the long run we'll be better off if conservative Muslims vote Republican and liberal Muslims vote Democrat.
On the specific issue of Israel, there are actually quite a few Republicans who don't like shoveling billions of dollars are Israel, and they can and should be useful allies.
I 100% agree with you. Effectively, you are advocating for American muslims to not try to stick together to get maximum leverage from a particular party, and therefore less able to influence middle east policy, which they cannot anyways.
Haroon, why would you abstain from voting for President. You have a choice in voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West. They may be extremely long shots, but our faith teaches us that the results are in Gods hands, ours is the effort.
"Allah helps those who help themselves..." This is an old Protestant ethic at the core of Western secularism and humanism. I can't imagine the hubris of a mere mortal 'knowing' the full extent of the 'Will of Allah' particularly in secular political decisions. No, the results are not in God's hand's but the duty of mere mortals. That is the core dynamic of democracy. We are not voting for Allah, but a flawed human such as ourselves. Pick the person with the most integrity and compassion and then turn it over to Allah.
I would suggest that the term "Muslim American" is the core of the problem. 'Muslim' is a religion - American is a nationality. The U.S. is based on a separation of church and state. I don't hear others describe themselves as "Hindu American" or "Catholic American", or even "Atheist American."
Israel and the U.S. is not engaged in a religious war in Gaza, but an existential war against Islamic extremism dedicated to eradicating Western influences in the Middle East. Islamic fascism is still fascism and fellow Muslims need to bear the responsibility of eradicating the fascist elements within Islam just as the West had to do with Christian European fascism during WWII.
Trump, MAGA GOP, Project 2025 are all, as Harris and others recognize it, fascist. Being a Muslim does not make one immune to fascism and denying this only makes one more susceptible to its contagion. There is nothing special about being Muslim. Just be a good human being and vote for candidates of integrity and compassion. What small groups of Islamists and Zionists do in the Middle East is an example of what can happen when religion and politics combine. Be a good American and keep them separate.
I am not sure of your point, but the discussion is if Muslim-Americans should abstain from voting because of American support of Israel's draconian response to the October 7 attack. I do not see any articles about if American Jews should remain uncommitted to their American nation.
Jewish Americans are generally fully assimilated and fully embrace Western liberalism (Harris' husband is secular Jewish). By simply asking the question of noninvolvement by Muslim-Americans indicates Islam has a lot of assimilating to do.
I actually don't see the problem. Since America is a nation, and moreover a secular nation, which gives citizens the freedom to pursue our own ethical visions (within generous limits), then religion and nationality aren't only not at cross-purposes, but mutually reinforcing. Nobody here has proposed enforcing any moral code on anyone else; indeed, America all but requires citizens pursue value systems and debate these, meaning that actually what you identify as the core of the problem is, in my opinion, at the heart of American democracy: That our religion and our nationality can exist in harmony.
But since nobody argued for what you're proposing, as in this is actually a debate about democracy and the individual conscience, might it be possible this comment was posted in response to a different post?
The discussion was whether "Muslim Americans" should abstain from voting since this single issue of military support for Israel in confronting anti-Western, anti-democratic Islamists. American democracy is not a single issue proposition and collective functioning of the nation requires citizen participation on a broad range of national priorities not just personal concerns.
Hamas is not 'Palestine' but a proxy of Islamist Iran. The same goes for Hezbollah and the Houthis. This is an ugly and brutal situation, but it was precipitated and initiated by Islamists and according to brutal Islamist rules of war. Yes, a lot of innocents are being killed, but to Hamas, this is a feature not a flaw.
As a religion, Islam has fundamental clashes with Western democracy. It only recognizes the religious over the secular rather than the reverse at the core of democracy.
"Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers.
Allah has told us in the His Book that legislative authority belongs to Him alone, and that He is the wisest of those who issue rulings and judge. He has forbidden the association of anyone with Him in His authority, and no one is better than Him in ruling.
So the judgement is only with Allah, the Most High, the Most Great!”
Yes, a democracy is messier than a religious autocracy, but if you're going to be an American, then either get with the local program or relocate to a like-minded Muslim country probably ruled by an autocrat. That is the fundamental choice so pick one and quit acting like spoiled children. If you really care about the fate of fellow Muslims in the region, then actively help with your wealth and time to aid those caught in the murderous rhetoric of radical Islam. Neither the U.S. or Israel can force the eradication of radical Islam and bring about a long overdue reformation and modernizing of Islam to align with the realities of a globalized secular world.
I basically agree, minus the inflammatory language. I believe the reference to the Reformation in this thread was intended to speak merely of the demotion of religious authority in favor of broader sociopolitical systems for negotiating and ensuring shared visions and plans for moving forward.
Well said. My harsh rhetoric was intended for its shock value to startle one from socialized illusion to the reality of the here and now. Christianity had its Reformation resulting in the Renaissance and humanism at the core of Western liberal secularism. Judaism had its reformation with most of its modern leaders being secular Jews. It was reformed Jews who established democracy in Israel, an abnormality in the Middle East even today. The Muslim world seems stuck in its passive obedience to religious orthodoxy and, rather than reforming, seems determined to regress away from modern humanism. Mixing religious orthodoxy with politics leads to failed states such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. The spell must be broken. “Insanity is repeating an action and expecting different results.”
John, your statement about “the Muslim world” remaining stuck is an example of what I mean by inflammatory language. The present alarming currency of the notion of “reclaiming” a Christian nationalism among prominent US politicians underscores the ongoing importance of unfailingly distinguishing between those of us who hail from Christian, Jewish, and Islamic heritages who seek a tolerant and respectful cultural pluralism and those others who do not.
Fundamentalists of any flavor are poisonous. As I mentioned, Judaism and Christianity have experienced reformations pushing religious orthodoxy into the background. Islam has not experienced that yet which is why the Muslim World remains primarily autocratic.
I am not convinced that "tolerance" is effective in countering religious orthodoxy certainly of the Islamist ilk. A distinct and clear intolerance of merging religion with politics must be maintained and enforced. Currently it is a muddy mess in the Middle East and the West needs to inoculate itself from the contagion of religiosity in our society. It takes two to tango. The West can be respectful of cultural pluralism when that "respect" is equally returned. "Death to the Great Satan and Israel" is not very respectful or tolerant of cultural pluralism.
Is Trump not likely to be much worse for Palestinians than Harris?
Is Harris held to a higher standard than Trump because she’s a democrat?
Is there an underestimation of the amount of long-term damage Trump and MAGA could do to our democracy and institutions after being energized by an electoral victory?
I think Shadi Hamid had the better arguments but I agree with Haroon Moghul more. But he should vote for third party of his choice over not choosing to vote.
OK. Well fuck this bullshit. The "atrocities in gaza" were caused by hamas. The invasion of Lebanon was hezbollah. Israel wanted peace but the nazi colonizers decided that they needed war.
And we have two nazi assholes agreeing that Israel is evil and genocidal because it goes to war with groups that raped and committed mass murder.
Of course they want Trump to win. Trump is a dictator like putin and the zi. So a natural ally to the "antizionist" nazis.
Hamid--"I just can’t vote for a party led by a man who tried to overturn an election and still refuses to say he’d accept the democratic outcome if he loses. So, if a Trump victory would heighten polarization, undermine democratic institutions..."
Two things. BOTH parties have attempted to overturn elections. That's the POINT of the certification by the Senate. It's right there in the constitution, if anyone would read it. Trump did nothing illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented on Jan 6. Quit believing everything Nancy Pelosi tells you.
As for refusing to accept election results, throw Hilary Clinton into that group. I know nobody listens to her anymore but she, and a LARGE cabal of democrats, insist that Trumps stole the 2016 election. No good citizen trusts their government. It is our responsibility to constantly question and demand accountability. Anyone who ever says "Trust us" is someone that I immediately distrust. Honest people have no problem with having to substantiate their claims.
A bipartisan Congressional Investigative Committee found otherwise...
"The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (commonly referred to as the January 6th Committee) was a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives established to investigate the U.S. Capitol attack.
After refusing to concede the 2020 U.S. presidential election and perpetuating false and disproven claims of widespread voter fraud, then-President Donald Trump summoned a mob of protestors to the Capitol as the electoral votes were being counted on January 6, 2021. During the House Committee's subsequent investigation, people gave sworn testimony that Trump knew he lost the election. The Committee subpoenaed his testimony, identifying him as "the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power". He sued the committee and never testified.
On December 19, 2022, the Committee voted unanimously to refer Trump and the lawyer John Eastman to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. The committee recommended charging Trump with obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and attempts to "incite", "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection. Obstruction and conspiracy to defraud were also the recommended charges for Eastman."
Bipartisan my ass. The deck was stacked. Nancy Pelosi is a vile, horrible person who has no sense of veracity whatsoever. She did not allow McCarthy to seat his choice of republicans. Pelosi sat republicans of her own choosing. In other words, it was another Pelosi kangaroo court.
How would you feel if you were on trial, but the prosecution got to choose your defense lawyer and the judge, and you weren't allowed to call rebuttal witnesses.? Would you call it a fair trial? No? Then why do you allow yourself to believe that what Pelosi has done is legitimate? You have made my point for me, that the progressive left is made up of close-minded people who hate first, and think later.
Remember, Pelosi's claim that there was an insurrection is a flat-out lie. That is established.
Did you bother to read my link? Are you prepared to refute any of it? Are you prepared to claim that there is never any fraud in any election? If not, then how much is there? How much fraud was there in 2020? Give evidence, not hyperbole.
p.s. You must be that I guy heard about that thinks Wikipedia is an impartial source.
Better a democrat kangaroo court than one dedicated to exonerating Trump rather than exploring justice. Also, it wasn't a 'trial' but a Congressional investigation which referred the evidence to Congress and the courts for further action. Yes, there are a lot of cases pending in Federal and State courts about obstruction of elections and interference with election officials.
No, I didn't read your link and, yes, I would probably refute all of it. I did watch the Congressional Investigation and was impressed not only by the sheer volume of evidence but how clearly it was documented and presented.
Yes, I am prepared to claim there was no fraud in the 2020 election and multiple courts collaborate my opinion. Pelosi was there at the insurrection and had to be escorted to a safe room to prevent harm. She spent the time calling military and law enforcement agencies to plea for assistance against the violent intruders. What was Trump doing during the siege?
As for the progressives "hating first and thinking later," I witnessed a lot of hate expressed by Trump and the insurrectionist mob he encouraged. Many of us are still asking what Trump was thinking when he attempted to disrupt the certification of a fair election and to urge the crowd to storm the Capitol? Yes, I will admit hatred towards those who violate the tenets of democracy and violate the sanctity of the U.S. Capitol.
WOW! I don't need to make my point; you're making it for me. You have proclaimed to everyone that you are willfully ignorant and uninformed, and that hate is your primary reason for living.
Oh, we know who is "willfully ignorant". I am very specific with the target of my hatred and the moral and existential reasons for it. We're done here.
I have tremendous respect for Wisdom of Crowds and it is one of my go-to venues to learn more about lots of things. I, too, am appalled by the violence of the Israeli response and hope that the peacemakers will prevail. I would have much more respect for this exchange, however, if I heard even one iota, one smidgen about the suffering of the hostages, or the evil and barbarity of Hamas, or, perhaps the Muslim world owning up to this and seeing that its world needs a Reformation of its own. I look forward to more exchanges. Thanks.
I haven't heard the argument about the Muslim world needs a Reformation since the heady days of the War on Terror and likely for good reason. There's several very glaring problems with such a proposal, including its ahistoricism, general irrelevance to the moment, and the implicit bias inherent within it. I'm not saying that was your intention per se, but it might be instructive to consider the assumptions in the suggestion--Islam needs a Reformation!--if we are indeed interested in getting beyond talking points
First, the bias: The idea that Islam needs a Reformation suggests the Muslim world is where the West was in the 1400s; in other words, at an earlier stage of civilization. While that's not only commonplace in colonial, imperial and racist rhetoric, it's also very strange, because it makes absolutely no sense. After all, the conditions that pertained in the 15th century and 16th century in Europe hardly pertain in the Muslim world, neither back then nor now. For example: In this scenario, who plays the part of the Catholic Church?
This would be like a Muslim saying, "If only America had experienced the consolidation of competing madhahib, we would not have constitutional originalism as a powerful force in our politics." How would one even begin to make sense of this statement?
Second, the October 7th attacks had rather less to do with a Reformation or lack thereof (say, almost nothing at all), but rather more to do with seventy-six years of ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid, siege, and the power politics of many regional actors (plenty of which, from Iran to Hezbollah to KSA, are hardly models of humanitarian compassion). Incidentally, all of that context happened after the Reformation, which raises the question: Does the Reformation ipso facto make the world a better place?
For despite having a Reformation (whatever that means in this case, I'm not sure), Europe still had slavery, colonialism, imperialism, Communism, fascism, the Cold War, concentration camps... down to this moment, when we have the purportedly liberal party in the American election refusing to condemn what is clearly an indiscriminate war against civilians, meaning that the Reformation did not produce a better world for many. My point being, human nature being what it is, historical processes do not offer the panacea we think they do
Finally, it's widely known that the Ottoman Caliphate strategically supported Protestant rebels, allied with Protestant separatists, and helped the Reformation survive a Catholic Counter-Reformation as part of (purely worldly, secular and contingent) historic calculations, meaning that the Reformation was not a pure product of an unadulterated West, waiting to be shipped out to the benighted natives, but a product of a global history. (With the following addendum: There was a close analogy to the Reformation in 18th century Wahhabism.)
One of the largest, saddest consequences of this current war is that, for much of the world, all the Western language of human rights, international law and enlightenment appear to be so much hypocrisy, a shameless and unconvincing cover for land grabs and violent racism, a redux of past hegemonies in new language. That's one more reason why this war is so dangerous, not least because it drains our country's moral capital, undermines our global position, and makes it harder to advance our values, many of which, I dare say, are quite good... like democracy.
Hello Haroon - You read far too much into my comment. Perhaps I should have spelled that charged word with a small "r" for reformation, in lieu of inviting any error in placing it in within the context with the large "R" of Reformation that has led to such a history lesson. You are correct, this war is beyond dangerous, and I, far from having any knowledge of the complexity of it that would fill anything more than a thimble, take to task the authors point of view that from my perspective ignores the atrocities and extremism on both sides.
I'm a Jew with many branches of my family tree snuffed out by the Holocaust who believes the moral history of the existence of Israel is more complicated than many Muslim Americans represent but agree that Israel is a reprehensible apartheid state that should be treated by the international community like 1980s South Africa. I would support the US governement treating Israel like Iran (as in massive economic sanctions, barred from meaningful international engagement, obviously no military support, etc) until, say, every settlement were torn down and Palestine became a state on the '67 borders.
But Haroon's argument about the American election is... appalling. We're Americans. This year we're voting whether we want to maximize the risk of the end of our own republic or not. Abstaining and justifying it with moral statements about a war on the other side of the world where inertia and *overwhelming* voter preference (only among under 30 democrats is greater sympathy with the Palestinians than Israelis even a plurality, among no group is it a majority opinion) lead to both parties clearly being in the wrong is fucking embarrassing. And the candidate that would clearly be less bad on that is also the non fascist *American* election candidate! You sound like all the American Jews I can't talk with anymore who have blockade themselves into their sanctimonious fantasy world where Israel is the beleaguered and morally superior land fighting threats and hatred everywhere where everything they've ever done is right.
I, personally, think that American Muslims have every right to sit out this election. I also believe that Democrats have built a coalition that is hard to manage, and they need to cull some of their extreme fringes. Liberal Jews have been a mainstay of the Democratic party since at least the 60s. The moderates and conservative African Americans are other two key factions of the party. I would say all other factions must be ignored. This will allow Dems to have a more consistent positions on a range of issues that are mainstream and enjoy a broad appeal amongst the electorate.
The question I have for American Muslims is this: let us say you sit this election out and help elect Trump; what is the strategy going forward once Dems write-off the Muslims as extreme and untrustworthy partner? The liberals who stood with American Muslims in 2021 against the Muslim ban: don't expect them to show up again when Trump implements a draconian law aimed against the Muslims (could easily happen if there were a terrorist attack on US soil carried out by Muslim terrorists). Furthermore, I am shocked at how much hate there is amongst conservative Americans towards Muslims in general. They absolutely look down upon Islam as barbaric. How does cosying up to Trump going to help them in the future?
The answer is that we become like many other religious groups. Catholics are not a reliable vote bank for anyone, both parties need to compete for their vote. I'd rather the parties compete for my vote than take me for granted. And if Democrats can't be relied on to stand for the human rights of people who don't vote for them, they were never serious about human rights to begin with. (Of course, everything we've seen in the last year makes that amply clear anyway.)
In the long run we'll be better off if conservative Muslims vote Republican and liberal Muslims vote Democrat.
On the specific issue of Israel, there are actually quite a few Republicans who don't like shoveling billions of dollars are Israel, and they can and should be useful allies.
I 100% agree with you. Effectively, you are advocating for American muslims to not try to stick together to get maximum leverage from a particular party, and therefore less able to influence middle east policy, which they cannot anyways.
The trouble with sticking to one party is when they're out of power you are out in the wilderness. And they take you for granted when they are.
Better to slowly build power and influence among both, and at least be heard some of the time.
Haroon, why would you abstain from voting for President. You have a choice in voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West. They may be extremely long shots, but our faith teaches us that the results are in Gods hands, ours is the effort.
"Allah helps those who help themselves..." This is an old Protestant ethic at the core of Western secularism and humanism. I can't imagine the hubris of a mere mortal 'knowing' the full extent of the 'Will of Allah' particularly in secular political decisions. No, the results are not in God's hand's but the duty of mere mortals. That is the core dynamic of democracy. We are not voting for Allah, but a flawed human such as ourselves. Pick the person with the most integrity and compassion and then turn it over to Allah.
I would suggest that the term "Muslim American" is the core of the problem. 'Muslim' is a religion - American is a nationality. The U.S. is based on a separation of church and state. I don't hear others describe themselves as "Hindu American" or "Catholic American", or even "Atheist American."
Israel and the U.S. is not engaged in a religious war in Gaza, but an existential war against Islamic extremism dedicated to eradicating Western influences in the Middle East. Islamic fascism is still fascism and fellow Muslims need to bear the responsibility of eradicating the fascist elements within Islam just as the West had to do with Christian European fascism during WWII.
Trump, MAGA GOP, Project 2025 are all, as Harris and others recognize it, fascist. Being a Muslim does not make one immune to fascism and denying this only makes one more susceptible to its contagion. There is nothing special about being Muslim. Just be a good human being and vote for candidates of integrity and compassion. What small groups of Islamists and Zionists do in the Middle East is an example of what can happen when religion and politics combine. Be a good American and keep them separate.
American Jews/ Jewish-Americans is pretty common, I don't think Muslim-American is that exceptional
I am not sure of your point, but the discussion is if Muslim-Americans should abstain from voting because of American support of Israel's draconian response to the October 7 attack. I do not see any articles about if American Jews should remain uncommitted to their American nation.
Jewish Americans are generally fully assimilated and fully embrace Western liberalism (Harris' husband is secular Jewish). By simply asking the question of noninvolvement by Muslim-Americans indicates Islam has a lot of assimilating to do.
I actually don't see the problem. Since America is a nation, and moreover a secular nation, which gives citizens the freedom to pursue our own ethical visions (within generous limits), then religion and nationality aren't only not at cross-purposes, but mutually reinforcing. Nobody here has proposed enforcing any moral code on anyone else; indeed, America all but requires citizens pursue value systems and debate these, meaning that actually what you identify as the core of the problem is, in my opinion, at the heart of American democracy: That our religion and our nationality can exist in harmony.
But since nobody argued for what you're proposing, as in this is actually a debate about democracy and the individual conscience, might it be possible this comment was posted in response to a different post?
The discussion was whether "Muslim Americans" should abstain from voting since this single issue of military support for Israel in confronting anti-Western, anti-democratic Islamists. American democracy is not a single issue proposition and collective functioning of the nation requires citizen participation on a broad range of national priorities not just personal concerns.
Hamas is not 'Palestine' but a proxy of Islamist Iran. The same goes for Hezbollah and the Houthis. This is an ugly and brutal situation, but it was precipitated and initiated by Islamists and according to brutal Islamist rules of war. Yes, a lot of innocents are being killed, but to Hamas, this is a feature not a flaw.
As a religion, Islam has fundamental clashes with Western democracy. It only recognizes the religious over the secular rather than the reverse at the core of democracy.
"Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers.
Allah has told us in the His Book that legislative authority belongs to Him alone, and that He is the wisest of those who issue rulings and judge. He has forbidden the association of anyone with Him in His authority, and no one is better than Him in ruling.
So the judgement is only with Allah, the Most High, the Most Great!”
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/98134/concept-of-democracy-in-islam
Yes, a democracy is messier than a religious autocracy, but if you're going to be an American, then either get with the local program or relocate to a like-minded Muslim country probably ruled by an autocrat. That is the fundamental choice so pick one and quit acting like spoiled children. If you really care about the fate of fellow Muslims in the region, then actively help with your wealth and time to aid those caught in the murderous rhetoric of radical Islam. Neither the U.S. or Israel can force the eradication of radical Islam and bring about a long overdue reformation and modernizing of Islam to align with the realities of a globalized secular world.
I basically agree, minus the inflammatory language. I believe the reference to the Reformation in this thread was intended to speak merely of the demotion of religious authority in favor of broader sociopolitical systems for negotiating and ensuring shared visions and plans for moving forward.
Well said. My harsh rhetoric was intended for its shock value to startle one from socialized illusion to the reality of the here and now. Christianity had its Reformation resulting in the Renaissance and humanism at the core of Western liberal secularism. Judaism had its reformation with most of its modern leaders being secular Jews. It was reformed Jews who established democracy in Israel, an abnormality in the Middle East even today. The Muslim world seems stuck in its passive obedience to religious orthodoxy and, rather than reforming, seems determined to regress away from modern humanism. Mixing religious orthodoxy with politics leads to failed states such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. The spell must be broken. “Insanity is repeating an action and expecting different results.”
John, your statement about “the Muslim world” remaining stuck is an example of what I mean by inflammatory language. The present alarming currency of the notion of “reclaiming” a Christian nationalism among prominent US politicians underscores the ongoing importance of unfailingly distinguishing between those of us who hail from Christian, Jewish, and Islamic heritages who seek a tolerant and respectful cultural pluralism and those others who do not.
Fundamentalists of any flavor are poisonous. As I mentioned, Judaism and Christianity have experienced reformations pushing religious orthodoxy into the background. Islam has not experienced that yet which is why the Muslim World remains primarily autocratic.
I am not convinced that "tolerance" is effective in countering religious orthodoxy certainly of the Islamist ilk. A distinct and clear intolerance of merging religion with politics must be maintained and enforced. Currently it is a muddy mess in the Middle East and the West needs to inoculate itself from the contagion of religiosity in our society. It takes two to tango. The West can be respectful of cultural pluralism when that "respect" is equally returned. "Death to the Great Satan and Israel" is not very respectful or tolerant of cultural pluralism.
Is Trump not likely to be much worse for Palestinians than Harris?
Is Harris held to a higher standard than Trump because she’s a democrat?
Is there an underestimation of the amount of long-term damage Trump and MAGA could do to our democracy and institutions after being energized by an electoral victory?
I think Shadi Hamid had the better arguments but I agree with Haroon Moghul more. But he should vote for third party of his choice over not choosing to vote.
OK. Well fuck this bullshit. The "atrocities in gaza" were caused by hamas. The invasion of Lebanon was hezbollah. Israel wanted peace but the nazi colonizers decided that they needed war.
And we have two nazi assholes agreeing that Israel is evil and genocidal because it goes to war with groups that raped and committed mass murder.
Of course they want Trump to win. Trump is a dictator like putin and the zi. So a natural ally to the "antizionist" nazis.
https://marlowe1.substack.com/p/happy-sukkot-and-shemini-atzeres
Hamid--"I just can’t vote for a party led by a man who tried to overturn an election and still refuses to say he’d accept the democratic outcome if he loses. So, if a Trump victory would heighten polarization, undermine democratic institutions..."
Two things. BOTH parties have attempted to overturn elections. That's the POINT of the certification by the Senate. It's right there in the constitution, if anyone would read it. Trump did nothing illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented on Jan 6. Quit believing everything Nancy Pelosi tells you.
As for refusing to accept election results, throw Hilary Clinton into that group. I know nobody listens to her anymore but she, and a LARGE cabal of democrats, insist that Trumps stole the 2016 election. No good citizen trusts their government. It is our responsibility to constantly question and demand accountability. Anyone who ever says "Trust us" is someone that I immediately distrust. Honest people have no problem with having to substantiate their claims.
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-honest-elections?r=z324w
A bipartisan Congressional Investigative Committee found otherwise...
"The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (commonly referred to as the January 6th Committee) was a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives established to investigate the U.S. Capitol attack.
After refusing to concede the 2020 U.S. presidential election and perpetuating false and disproven claims of widespread voter fraud, then-President Donald Trump summoned a mob of protestors to the Capitol as the electoral votes were being counted on January 6, 2021. During the House Committee's subsequent investigation, people gave sworn testimony that Trump knew he lost the election. The Committee subpoenaed his testimony, identifying him as "the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power". He sued the committee and never testified.
On December 19, 2022, the Committee voted unanimously to refer Trump and the lawyer John Eastman to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. The committee recommended charging Trump with obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and attempts to "incite", "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection. Obstruction and conspiracy to defraud were also the recommended charges for Eastman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack
Bipartisan my ass. The deck was stacked. Nancy Pelosi is a vile, horrible person who has no sense of veracity whatsoever. She did not allow McCarthy to seat his choice of republicans. Pelosi sat republicans of her own choosing. In other words, it was another Pelosi kangaroo court.
How would you feel if you were on trial, but the prosecution got to choose your defense lawyer and the judge, and you weren't allowed to call rebuttal witnesses.? Would you call it a fair trial? No? Then why do you allow yourself to believe that what Pelosi has done is legitimate? You have made my point for me, that the progressive left is made up of close-minded people who hate first, and think later.
Remember, Pelosi's claim that there was an insurrection is a flat-out lie. That is established.
Did you bother to read my link? Are you prepared to refute any of it? Are you prepared to claim that there is never any fraud in any election? If not, then how much is there? How much fraud was there in 2020? Give evidence, not hyperbole.
p.s. You must be that I guy heard about that thinks Wikipedia is an impartial source.
Better a democrat kangaroo court than one dedicated to exonerating Trump rather than exploring justice. Also, it wasn't a 'trial' but a Congressional investigation which referred the evidence to Congress and the courts for further action. Yes, there are a lot of cases pending in Federal and State courts about obstruction of elections and interference with election officials.
No, I didn't read your link and, yes, I would probably refute all of it. I did watch the Congressional Investigation and was impressed not only by the sheer volume of evidence but how clearly it was documented and presented.
Yes, I am prepared to claim there was no fraud in the 2020 election and multiple courts collaborate my opinion. Pelosi was there at the insurrection and had to be escorted to a safe room to prevent harm. She spent the time calling military and law enforcement agencies to plea for assistance against the violent intruders. What was Trump doing during the siege?
As for the progressives "hating first and thinking later," I witnessed a lot of hate expressed by Trump and the insurrectionist mob he encouraged. Many of us are still asking what Trump was thinking when he attempted to disrupt the certification of a fair election and to urge the crowd to storm the Capitol? Yes, I will admit hatred towards those who violate the tenets of democracy and violate the sanctity of the U.S. Capitol.
WOW! I don't need to make my point; you're making it for me. You have proclaimed to everyone that you are willfully ignorant and uninformed, and that hate is your primary reason for living.
Oh, we know who is "willfully ignorant". I am very specific with the target of my hatred and the moral and existential reasons for it. We're done here.