[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I don't think there's going to be a major difference in overall US foreign policy no matter who is in charge. Bill Clinton was the sweet-talking blue-eyed Democrat sweetheart, but the overall US objectives were still pursued, albeit with a slightly different facade.

Precisely. Thats why I think its ridiculous for American Muslims to have this hidden notion that they can redesign American influence in the Middle East. It has less to do with politics and more to do with economic interest. Assuming our population grows exponentially, the anti-majoritarian checks embedded within the Constitution would still prevent us from making a long-term influence. By the time Muslim's developed the economic tools necessary to make real change in the US political system and change foreign policy, American hegemony would have declined.

Thats why, in my opinion, we need a global Ummah wide strategy that plans around the collapse of American hegemony, which is inevitable and will probably happen within a century or so.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sak01

I don't think American Muslims are even aware of the full extent of American Foreign Policy and how little the present candidates differ in this regard. If they are, then I don't understand how they can get excited over the current elections.

Oh, there's a perfectly acceptable reason why they get excited over current elections: its because they're morons. They think voting is a source of empowerment without realizing exactly how power operates in America.

Voting gives them the opportunity to make positive photo ops with the American flag. They're tripping over each other trying to prove to those in power that Muslims are a viable voting bloc when most politicians would prefer to turn the cheek and run in the opposite direction.

Muslims in America have a severe inferiority complex and will kiss anyone and everyone's butts to get acknowledgment. This type of prostitution is going to backfire in the future.

There may be a few differences in healthcare, taxes, immigration, protectionism etc etc but if you balance that against the opression and slaughter of Muslims directly or indirectly through tyrannous regimes around the world and the fact that this will continue no matter who is elected, then I don't see what there is to be excited about.

This is not to say don't vote, because there may be specific domestic, economic etc policies you want to see in place, but don't get too enthusiastic about it.

A litmus test could be policy with regards to Israel. Not that it automatically means the candidate is the one to go for, but every candidate knows full well the American sponsored oppression that goes on over there and if they're not prepared to do anything about it for the sake of their political career then it doesn't say much about them as a person.

Israeli hegemony and oppression is never going to to be challenged through the American political system.

The amount of energy it would take to do that would be enough to restore the Caliphate and to do it directly.

[zakk]

Romney Expected to End Presidential Bid
By LIZ SIDOTI,AP
Posted: 2008-02-07 12:48:16
Filed Under: Elections News
WASHINGTON (Feb. 7) - John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney prepared to tell conservatives.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney will say at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America."

McCain prevailed in most of the Super Tuesday states, moving closer to the numbers needed to officially win the nomination.

Overall, McCain led with 707 delegates, to 294 for Romney and 195 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at this summer's convention in St. Paul, Minn.

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," Romney said.

Romney's departure from the race came almost a year after his formal entrance, when the Michigan native declared his candidacy on Feb. 12, 2007, at the Henry Ford Museum of Innovation in Dearborn, Mich.

Over the ensuing 12 months, Romney sought the support of conservatives with a family values campaign, emphasizing his opposition to abortion and gay marriage, as well as his support for tax cuts and health insurance that would benefit middle-class families.

"We need to teach our children that before they have babies, they get married," he told voters at his campaign events.

But he was dogged by charges of flip-flopping, a criticism that undermined the candidacy of another Massachusetts hopeful — John Kerry in 2004. In seeking to unseat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 1994, Romney said he would be a better advocate for gay rights than his rival and he favored abortion rights.

Throughout his campaign, Romney was questioned by voters and the media about his Mormon faith. Hoping assuage voters skeptical of electing a Mormon president, Romney gave speech on Dec. 6 in College Station, Texas, that explicitly recalled remarks John F. Kennedy made in 1960 in an effort to quell anti-Catholic bias. He vowed to serve the interests of the nation, not the church, if elected president.

In early voting Iowa, Romney sought votes by casting himself as the guardian of the Reagan-era conservative triad — a three-legged stool, as the candidate put it — of a strong national defense, strong economy and strong families.

Fueled by what would grow to more than $35 million of personal donations, his campaign hired top-notch staff in the early voting states, and Romney scored an early win when his organization topped the field at the Iowa Straw Poll in August.

By that time, the national front-runners, McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, had virtually ceded the lead-voting state to Romney.

Instead, McCain focused on New Hampshire, second on the calendar, while Giuliani employed an untested strategy of waiting out the early primary contests and instead staking his candidacy on a strong showing in the Jan. 29 Florida primary.

Romney's goal was to score back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, clearing the field and creating momentum to roll through Florida — where he enjoyed the support of top aides to former Gov. Jeb Bush — and seal the nomination in the Super Tuesday contests.

Instead, Romney was beaten Jan. 3 in Iowa by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister who received an unexpected outpouring of support in the caucuses from voters identifying themselves as evangelicals.

Five days later, Romney suffered a second consecutive defeat in New Hampshire, when McCain won the primary in part with the support of independents attracted to his self-styled maverick campaign.

Romney, who headed the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, tried to cast each defeat in competitive terms, saying his second-place finishes amount to "silver medals." He also highlighted the "gold" he won in between and in the little-watched Wyoming caucuses.

Nonetheless, Romney took a cue from Huckabee's win, as well as Democrat Barack Obama's Iowa upset of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a sign voters wanted change in Washington.

On the stump, he retooled his speech to harken back to the theme he broached in Dearborn, that America's future, and that of its government, were dependent on innovation. His campaign also hung new banners reading, "Washington is Broken," as well as a to-do list Romney would complete as president.

Romney and McCain went head-to-head in the Jan. 13 Michigan primary, and Romney won, in part by highlighting his background as a business consultant and venture capitalist. When McCain acknowledged what seemed to be obvious, that not all of Detroit's lost auto industry jobs would be recovered, Romney pounced.

He accused the senator of pessimism, outlining a $20 billion industry recovery package and telling audiences in economically ailing Michigan, "I will fight for every single job."

Romney also tweaked his stump speech to criticize McCain for stating that he was more familiar with foreign affairs and military matters than economic issues.

Highlighting his 25-year business career, he told audiences, "Senator McCain says the economy is not his strong suit; well, it is my strong suit."

As the calendar progressed, however, McCain picked up a big-ticket win in the Jan. 19 South Carolina primary. Romney instead focused on his victory in the Nevada caucuses the same day.

Ten days later, the two squared off again in the Florida primary, where McCain scored a major upset after winning endorsements from the state's two top elected Republicans — Gov. Charlie Crist, a popular figure who had previously said he planned to remain neutral in the race, and Sen. Mel Martinez.

McCain also retaliated for the negative ads that Romney aired against Huckabee in Iowa and him in New Hampshire. In a state with a large population of active-duty military and veterans, the former naval aviator accused Romney of favoring a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Romney denied the charge, and the April 2007 interview McCain cited as justification for his criticism made no such clear declaration, but the senator ended up beating Romney in the primary. Most telling, he outpolled Romney among voters saying the economy was their most important issue.

The following day, Giuliani dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain. A day later, popular California Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneger announced his endorsement of McCain, reflecting a coalescing of Republican support behind the senator as he approached a Super Tuesday showdown with Romney.

Romney's final pitch was to label McCain a liberal like Clinton and Obama, a charge tantamount to heresy in the GOP. He was backed by conservative media voices like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, as well as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

"We want the leader of our party to be somebody who stands up for Republican principles, who lives in the house that Reagan built, who makes sure our future stays bright," Romney said Monday.

[Sugarberry]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Precisely. Thats why I think its ridiculous for American Muslims to have this hidden notion that they can redesign American influence in the Middle East. It has less to do with politics and more to do with economic interest. Assuming our population grows exponentially, the anti-majoritarian checks embedded within the Constitution would still prevent us from making a long-term influence. By the time Muslim's developed the economic tools necessary to make real change in the US political system and change foreign policy, American hegemony would have declined.

Thats why, in my opinion, we need a global Ummah wide strategy that plans around the collapse of American hegemony, which is inevitable and will probably happen within a century or so.

Not to say i dont agree with you...but an Ummah wide strategy is not realistic.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Oh, there's a perfectly acceptable reason why they get excited over current elections: its because they're morons. They think voting is a source of empowerment without realizing exactly how power operates in America.

Voting gives them the opportunity to make positive photo ops with the American flag. They're tripping over each other trying to prove to those in power that Muslims are a viable voting bloc when most politicians would prefer to turn the cheek and run in the opposite direction.

Muslims in America have a severe inferiority complex and will kiss anyone and everyone's butts to get acknowledgment. This type of prostitution is going to backfire in the future.



Israeli hegemony and oppression is never going to to be challenged through the American political system.

The amount of energy it would take to do that would be enough to restore the Caliphate and to do it directly.

So its safe to say you dont believe in the American poltical system?...isnt pursuing a law degree a belief in the system ...at least at some level?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Sugarberry

Not to say i dont agree with you...but an Ummah wide strategy is not realistic.

The issue isn't whether its realistic, but whether its necessary. The Ummah is suffering due to hegemony, that hegemony cannot be corrected by the system that it advocates since it will only end up reinforcing its own power. You would have to work to develop an alternative system.

How isn't an Ummah wide strategy realistic? Voting in a bunch of elections when you're 1% of the population is more realistic?

So its safe to say you dont believe in the American poltical system?...isnt pursuing a law degree a belief in the system ...at least at some level?

Define "belief". Do I believe it exists? Yes. Do I believe its a good legal system and probably better off than most Muslim countries? Yes. Do I realize that it has limitations such as racism that treats people of different religions and colors differently than mainstream peoples? Yes.

I understand the limitations of what I'm getting into. I'm not going to bite into all of the propaganda about how "great" this country is when its really not all that different from previous hegemonic states and the source of its greatness has a dark history.

[MossadConspiracy]

any ideology that has elitism as a central tenet is almost always bound to be wrong in its core beliefs. Whenever you hear somebody saying that most people are stupid, or that most people are duped and manipulated by others it should set off alarms. The reason is that this description of most people tends to serve as a contrast in an argument that's being made. Most people are stupid, but some small group of people is not stupid. Usually the one who makes the argument includes him or herself in the group that is not stupid, despite the fact that in most cases they are ordinary people like anyone else. And this small crowd that has insight that is lost on all the legions of stupid people has some mandate to lead others and make decisions for them since they dont know what is best for themselves. Its a feature that is seen in all the ultra nationalist right wing parties, all of the far left radical marxist movements, all of the islamic extremist factions, etc. The reason is that the elitism isnt just arrogant, it is also a marker for opaque decision-making, autocratic methods, and so on

[GOTFIVEONIT]

so romney's out LOL YAY! what a total moron. however listening to his exit speech today, he said something that he was right about. that it is a national tragedy at the number of children born out of wedlock. and that's hillary's problem, with her whole stupid slogan 'it takes a villiage to raise children' no it takes parents, both of them, a mother AND a father. and in this age of quicky divorces let me say, if you have children involved, and your marriage is on the rocks, guess what you do? YOU WORK IT OUT, for the sake of your children.

the latest delegate tally


OBAMA - 855

HILLARY - 861

2,025 delegate votes needed to win the party nomination in the august party convention.

McCain seals GOP nod as Romney drops out

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Romney's decision leaves McCain as the top man standing in the GOP race, with Mike Huckabee and Texas Rep. Ron Paul far behind in the delegate hunt. It was a remarkable turnaround for McCain, who some seven months ago was barely viable, out of cash and losing staff. The four-term Arizona senator, denied his party's nomination in 2000, was poised to succeed George W. Bush as the GOP standard-bearer.

Commenting on his front-runner status — a title he had and lost last year — McCain told the conference, "This time I now have that distinction and I prefer to hold onto it for quite a while."

McCain and Romney spoke by phone after Romney's speech, though no endorsement was requested nor offered, according to a Republican official with knowledge of the conversation.

Within hours of Romney's speech, former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman endorsed McCain and urged all members of the GOP to back him.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

any ideology that has elitism as a central tenet is almost always bound to be wrong in its core beliefs. Whenever you hear somebody saying that most people are stupid, or that most people are duped and manipulated by others it should set off alarms. The reason is that this description of most people tends to serve as a contrast in an argument that's being made. Most people are stupid, but some small group of people is not stupid. Usually the one who makes the argument includes him or herself in the group that is not stupid, despite the fact that in most cases they are ordinary people like anyone else. And this small crowd that has insight that is lost on all the legions of stupid people has some mandate to lead others and make decisions for them since they dont know what is best for themselves. Its a feature that is seen in all the ultra nationalist right wing parties, all of the far left radical marxist movements, all of the islamic extremist factions, etc. The reason is that the elitism isnt just arrogant, it is also a marker for opaque decision-making, autocratic methods, and so on

I'm presuming this was directed at me, so I'm going to address it.

Firstly, my comments weren't directed at people in general, but American Muslims and I primarily described them first and foremost as naive and then I described them as having delusions of grandeur for thinking that, being only 1% of the population with very few financial resources, they could alter US foreign policy which is the branch of government thats furthest from the few democratic institutions that are set up by the Constitution.

Secondly, the mode of government I would ideally follow is the establishment of a Caliphate which is a communal obligation. The specific mode of government is not something I'd be qualified to describe because it requires knowledge of fiqh. Nonetheless, decision-making in such a system would be anything but opaque or autocratic. While I do not necessarily believe it is possible to establish the Caliphate at such a time, it is important to discuss it nonetheless in order to prepare people for the coming of the Mahdi whose major actions will include the restoration of the Universal Caliphate.

Thirdly, I would also describe Muslims in general of being ignorant of the philosophical foundations of contemporary political, ethical, and economic theory and, in general, enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought. Rather than engaging Western philosophies and ideologies in a critical manner, they accept the supposition that it is universal, inevitable, and beyond criticism. Ignorance of a specialized field of knowledge exists for a variety of disciplines.

Am I justified in calling them "idiots"? No. However, when they have the notion in their head that they can waltz into a hostile environment and manipulate power without offending anyone or facing real challenges or lacking political and economic resources to effectuate such decision making, I think it would be accurate to describe such people at the bare minimum as being naive and at the maximum of being idiots.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by sak01

I tend to agree but maybe for different reasons.

I believe that a great nation is built on great communities and great communities are built on great families which in turn are built on great individuals.

At the moment on the individual level, there are so few solid pious Muslims that it's difficult to do anything beyond the family stage. I believe the focus should be on individuals.

The counter-argument is that the only way to deal with public vices, which infect and spread corruption in communities is for the government to rule by the shariah (ie a caliphate) to ensure that corruption doesn't take hold. (By force if necessary)

This is true and some people tend to believe that the obstacle in establishing such a state is American global hegemony and it's effect on Muslims right down to the individual level.

I personally believe that the biggest obstacle is Muslims themselves being so weak in Imaan and so immersed in sin and in the dunya, that there is no way they can carry out such a task because what it entails is complete reliance on Allah(swt) and being solid in your deen no matter what the dunya throws at you. There's too few people at that stage and not enough in any region to do anything beyond the community level.

Can those few people make a difference? They can and do because you can never underestimate the effect of one good Muslim and the hidden blessings his or her actions bring and the effect they have on the people they interact with(Muslim and non-Muslim alike). At the end of the day we will be judged as individuals and our real home is in the akhira so we should strive to be the best we can in the face of any difficulty. To do this we must seek the very best Muslims we can find in the world and try to benefit from their company and teachings.

ps. As an aside, we live in a unique era where many Muslims don't even want to live in a society based on the principles laid down by Rasulallah (sallalahu alaihi wasallam)
and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. In fact, they would and will actively fight against it (and this is probably out of the scope of this forum but they will be the ones that first fight against Imam Mehdi. The munafiqoon)

do you include yourself as part of that 'sinning' dunya? cuz i sure would!

whenever someone starts spouting a holier than thou attitude, is when i say people like yourself, should be highly scrutinized, because frankly folks like you who speak like this to be complete total hypocrites. would you be willing to hand over your hard drive for inspection to make sure that we dont find porn on it? and if not, what do you have to hide then?

what people's morality is and do, is none of your concern, as your sins are no one else's concern, that lays between you and god.

my problem isnt with the rules in itself, my problem is with its interpretation, and the very people enforcing it.

people who use our great faith to rule, use it so they can rule with an iron fist and do it forever without anyone ever questioning them.

they say they are doing so in the name of islam, so silence all critics, if you disagree with them, then you are not a really truley 'believing' muslim.

and a perfect example of such abuse of power, is a case in afghanistan. theres a political journalist who writes on political affiars, and his brother is now facing executing by people who claim he defamed the prophet of islam. now this person in question is a muslim himself, so why would he do such a thing? the entire episode is highly political and its no coincidence that his brother is a journalist who has been critical of politicians in the past.

you should worry more about your own morality, instead of others, after all your only human, with all your faults. just because you dont take part in certain activities, doesnt mean your the most pious of all people around, who can go around preaching to others left and right.

not only that, since when should the government interprete islam for everyone else?

should we start having government appointed imam's in mosques now, like they do in egypt, and saudi arabia?

should the government be telling imams what they can and cannot say in thier friday sermon khutbahs?

the fact is, politics is a very dirty game, and even the most pious person can get caught up in it. you can ask your buddies in pakistan's jamaat islami about that. all politicians are crooks and thats a fact, the only way to limit them is simply to limit thier power, and handing over our religion to any government, or any politicians is just plain wrong.

the government has no business in the mosque, and should stay out of mosque affairs.

why on earth would you put your whole trust into any government? the smaller the government, the better off we all are.

islamic revivilism occured in many secular arab countries, without the need of any government backing.

a person has a choice to do right from wrong, and you can only hope that they do right thing if they are given the right knowledge.

you have plenty of Muslim's living in the west, who refuse to take part in activities that they find immoral. many Muslim's living in the west dont drink alchohol, pray namaz and fast - because they choose to. and many Muslim's who dont do any of those things and do drink and other things, so what does that say about the Muslim's who dont take part in those activities?

It just shows that they dont need any form of government intereference in thier lives, and they certainly dont need yours sak.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'm presuming this was directed at me, so I'm going to address it.

Firstly, my comments weren't directed at people in general, but American Muslims and I primarily described them first and foremost as naive and then I described them as having delusions of grandeur for thinking that, being only 1% of the population with very few financial resources, they could alter US foreign policy which is the branch of government thats furthest from the few democratic institutions that are set up by the Constitution.

Secondly, the mode of government I would ideally follow is the establishment of a Caliphate which is a communal obligation. The specific mode of government is not something I'd be qualified to describe because it requires knowledge of fiqh. Nonetheless, decision-making in such a system would be anything but opaque or autocratic. While I do not necessarily believe it is possible to establish the Caliphate at such a time, it is important to discuss it nonetheless in order to prepare people for the coming of the Mahdi whose major actions will include the restoration of the Universal Caliphate.

salam

it was kind of directed at you but the elitist thinking popped up earlier too with ron paul supporters and so on.

To clarify, i wasnt only referring to those who think that all human beings in the world are stupid. Of course most ideologies and political movements and groups have some local character. So it could be a description of russian workers and peasants as enslaved, stupid, and manipulated. or American muslims as morons in the sense that you described them. By the way, if you are using these terms and descriptions just as rhetorical devices to make a point, then obviously the whole elitism thing doesnt apply to what you were saying. Calling people morons and deluded in a facetious manner is different from actually believing it.

As for the stuff you wrote about the caliphate and what have you, i wasnt making a point about your particular views which are not my concern, just the connection between elitist systems of thought that place a small clique above the mass of people and extremism. The two really do seem to be very closely linked and are coincident in nearly every extremist or radical group in the world.

To comment very briefly on the other stuff, I dont think the Prophet Mohamed SAW or his companions were elitists, they didnt consider other people to be stupid or themselves to be above anyone else, and they established Islamic society with humility as one of its fundamentals.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'm presuming this was directed at me, so I'm going to address it.

Firstly, my comments weren't directed at people in general, but American Muslims and I primarily described them first and foremost as naive and then I described them as having delusions of grandeur for thinking that, being only 1% of the population with very few financial resources, they could alter US foreign policy which is the branch of government thats furthest from the few democratic institutions that are set up by the Constitution.

Secondly, the mode of government I would ideally follow is the establishment of a Caliphate which is a communal obligation. The specific mode of government is not something I'd be qualified to describe because it requires knowledge of fiqh. Nonetheless, decision-making in such a system would be anything but opaque or autocratic. While I do not necessarily believe it is possible to establish the Caliphate at such a time, it is important to discuss it nonetheless in order to prepare people for the coming of the Mahdi whose major actions will include the restoration of the Universal Caliphate.

Thirdly, I would also describe Muslims in general of being ignorant of the philosophical foundations of contemporary political, ethical, and economic theory and, in general, enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought. Rather than engaging Western philosophies and ideologies in a critical manner, they accept the supposition that it is universal, inevitable, and beyond criticism. Ignorance of a specialized field of knowledge exists for a variety of disciplines.

Am I justified in calling them "idiots"? No. However, when they have the notion in their head that they can waltz into a hostile environment and manipulate power without offending anyone or facing real challenges or lacking political and economic resources to effectuate such decision making, I think it would be accurate to describe such people at the bare minimum as being naive and at the maximum of being idiots.

your right about one thing, its not realisticly possible at this point of time. you are talking about a Muslim version of the pope. and given that there are 72 sects, regardless if whatever you want to banter, thats a reality, and they are not all going to follow one calipha, history has proven this with previous rival caliphas in egypt, syria, iraq and turkey.

now as for the u.s. elections, given how close so many of these races are in different states, even 1% can make a huge difference on who wins and who loses in this winner takes all contests, and even in the primaries given how close these races are. in missiouri alone, the difference between obama and hillary was only 1%, the same total population of Muslims in america.

if these elections were a blow out then i would agree with you, that the 1% cant really do anything, but in close races it means the difference bewteen winning and losing.

and the only reason our community is so underfunded, is very simply. people are cheap, plain and simple.

the only people you find contributing to campaigns, are the community show offs you find running your mosques, who want thier pictures taken with politicians so that they can be later published in community newspapers, such as urdutimes, or pakistan link.