The apparent decision of the American Muslim Taskforce (AMT), which is comprised of 10 major American Muslim organizations, not to endorse any candidate in the upcoming presidential elections will not come as surprise to many Muslims who have already endorsed a candidate they think best serves the national interest. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Muslim organizations do not care about Muslim public opinion, which shows an overwhelming support (70% in the latest Zogby poll) for John Kerry.

Why would the AMT not endorse a candidate despite a clear preference by the Muslim electorate for a particular candidate? There are two possible answers - some Muslim leaders are fearful that President Bush will be re-elected and do not want to lose what little access they have, and others are upset that Kerry has made too few overtures to Muslim leaders.

In reality, the decision is a tacit endorsement of George Bush, because in not explicitly endorsing Kerry, they are saying that they don't consider him worthy of the Muslim vote. In other words, those who have chosen to support Kerry must rethink their decision because the leadership has not endorsed him.

However, their indecisiveness speaks volumes about their style of leadership and capacity to lead their community. Their decision will be welcomed by the Bush campaign, which has lobbied some Muslim organizations to push for a non-endorsement. The Bush campaign knows well that it would not be able to get the endorsement of Bush, so it chose the next best course of action: non-endorsement.

But more than Bush, the decision of the AMT will please the Gulf monarchs, dictators and despots of the Muslim world (including the Saudi royal family) that have quietly tried to pursuade the Muslim leadership not to endorse Kerry.

AMT's decision is nether helpful for Muslims nor for the country in general. Their indecisiveness demonstrates that they lack the leadership quality to make decisions based on their values. In other words, they have no values with which to judge a candidate or issue, and will choose a candidate on the basis of his accessibility. That was the criterion that led them to commit the biggest blunder of their political career in the last election, which was the regrettable decision to endorse George Bush in the last election.

An endorsement can be seen in two ways: either the end of a long period of negotiation, or the beginning of a relationship that will require mutual respect to continue. If an organization chooses the former, it will only work when there is muscle to back it up. If you enter an endorsement negotiation and cannot deliver the votes you promise, or cannot produce donors to contribute, then there is no reason for a politician to take you seriously. In fact, eventually they will find out and you will not be trusted again as a spokesperson for that community.

However, if you see an endorsement as the beginning of a long relationship, each side can reciprocate in small ways until there is a solid working relationship, built out of common interest and not animosity. This type of relationship, where Muslims give as much as they take, will be the one that is more likely to secure our rights and interests in the long term. There is only so far you can go by continually complaining about one candidate or another. Sooner or later, all the doors will close in your face.

There is more at stake than just Bush vs. Kerry, and more than Republican vs. Democrat. It's about choosing the party that is most willing and able to restore the basic rights that Muslims, and all Americans, have lost in the Bush years. It's about making a commitment as a community that we will join hands with other like-minded groups and work on their causes so that they will work on ours when the time comes. For too long, we've demanded access from either party without really earning it.

Despite the fact that this election offered us an excellent opportunity to organize ourselves at grassroots levels and earn our rightful place in the national politics, the national leadership misled the Muslim community by giving them the impression that a wise decision was on the horizon. However, the leadership has done little to mobilize Muslims and listen to their views on politics and elections.

Their decision, however, is irrelevant to Muslims who have already made a decision. Grassroots Muslim organizations are working quietly all across the country mobilizing voters for November 2. They are part of Democracy for American forum. They are shoulder with shoulder with MoveOn.org and they are volunteering for the Democratic Party. They are fearlessly working to make sure that Kerry carries the day on November 2. Their support of Kerry is based on their value framework. They view security, economy, education, foreign policy and health care as key issues in this election and they feel at ease with the position taken by Kerry.

The decision of Muslim leaders has only proven what was well known already: the Muslim leadership has no regard to Muslim opinion and no respect for the constituency it uses to bargain its price with national political parties.

I think you're way off base on this Dr.Abdullah. Infact, your reaction to this reminds how they were telling us all to vote for Bush 4 years ago.
Why should they endorse anybody, when it is clear that as far as Muslims are concerned the candidates are indifferent.
And if they did endorse Kerry, he wins and invades Iran and Syria, what then ? A column 4 years from now lambasting the AMT for endorsing the "wrong" candidate ? Doomed if they do and doomed if they dont.
The American system does not work folks. If it did charlatans like Bush, Kerry and the majority of Congress would be wallowing in obscurity. Muslim fools can continue to blame the "leadership" for Bush's "victory" in 2000 even after knowing the fact that he STOLE the election by removing tens of thousands of black votes from the Florida ballot.
In a country of 290 million, if Bush and Kerry are the only "choices" then to blazes with them, their phony electoral process and the idiots who think that voting accomplishes anything.
This is the kind of "democracy" being exported to Afghanistan and Iraq....no wonder the people there arent impressed or amused and want no part of it.

As-salam alaikum, I would like to respond to this essay on a number of points.

First, on a technical note, the AMT has not yet announced that there
will be no endorsement. They simply said on 10/13 that there was no
endorsement as of yet, and that the final decision would come down
this week (third week of October). The announcement also said that
the decision "will be made democratically", based on "feedback from
the community obtained through 50 plus town hall meetings." I know
that one of these took place last Friday night in Chicago.

So the bulk of Dr. Abdullah's denouncements of the AMT seem premature
to say the least. (Note that I am no cheerleader for the AMT and that
I voiced my bitter disappointment regarding the 2000 bloc vote.
However, one's criticisms must be fair-minded and based on fact.)

Moving on to the substance of the essay, I disagree with the idea that
a decision by the AMT not to endorse a candidate (if that ends up
being their decision) would necessarily be "indecisive" and an
abdication of responsibility. Although I am a committed supporter of
John Kerry and dread the possibility of a second Bush term, I believe
a non-endorsement can be the result of principled thinking. Here is
why:

Unlike 2000, the Muslim community in America is in a difficult
situation because our open support for a candidate can potentially be
used as a weapon *against* that candidate, by those who would paint
him as a "sympathizer" allied with "America's enemies". We know this
is a ridiculous charge, of course, but when mainstream Muslim
organizations have been described as extremist, terrorist-sympathizer,
and radical, by the likes of Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, this is
a risk that no presidential candidate can take. I believe that Muslim
organizations can do more good by staying out of the limelight and
focusing on grass-roots efforts to register and educate voters.
Whether or not Muslim organizations give this concern precedence over
other factors in making their decision is up to them, but they must at
least consider it and I fear that too few do.

(continued in next post)

Dr. Abdullah raises the concern that a non-endorsement will send the
implicit message that Kerry has not earned the support of the
community. While the Zogby poll does indicate that many Muslims are
looking to the AMT's endorsement for guidance, the poll's headline
figure - 76% of Muslims favor Kerry over Bush, compared to 7% the
reverse - indicate that the community is largely already on board with
Kerry. Thus, saying to Muslim voters, "you're on your own" may not be
so bad.

As Dr. Muqtedar Khan has
said(http://www.ispu.us/policy/election_policy.html), there is merit
in consciously choosing not to endorse a candidate. The Muslim
community is diverse, and striving for "unity" at the ballot box can
actually create more disunity, as 2000 demonstrated. I believe it's
more important for Muslim organizations to take principled policy
stances and educate Muslim voters on the issues, allowing them to
reach their own conclusion. Both in 2000 and in this election cycle,
I've seen little attention paid by national muslim "political"
organizations to the task of voter education, compared to the
attention paid to the question of whom to endorse. On matters of
religion as well as on worldly issues, Muslims too often seek the easy
way out by waiting for some authority to tell them what to do, rather
than educating themselves.

Many reading this will argue that this year is unique and so much more
is at stake that no effort can be spared to get Bush out of office,
and I see some merit in this position. Whether the marginal benefit of
an endorsement (i.e. the small number of pro-Bush Muslims who would
change their mind upon learning of the endorsement) is more important
than the principles outlined above is up to the reader.

In general, I think that transparency in the process is as important
as the result. If, as Dr. Abdullah suggests, a non-endorsement is the
result of pro-Bush influence from home or abroad, rather than a
legitimate decision with the interests of the Muslim community at
heart, then that needs to be uncovered and condemned in the strongest
possible terms.

Nizam Arain

After hearing VP candidate Edwards state that a Kerry administration would be an "even better friend" to Israel; and after hearing Kerry use us as the new scapegoat in a push for more gun control laws - I'm not interested in Kerry anymore.

For years Black people were the scapegoat for new anti-crime laws and new gun control laws (the two are not the same thing if you look at the fact that crime rates are highest where there are the strictest gun control laws.) Now it is our turn; and don't think for one minute that being used as the scapegoat won't harm us on many other issues as well.

Only the naive think Cameron Kerry's brother has our interests at heart.

Assalaamu Alaikum,
MashAllah you guys are on point especially driveby. I guess the muslim are the substitute for the new niggas on the block. The election process is a scam and the Bush Admin plan to do the same trick from 2000.

Kerry is a homo sympatherizer. He proved that with the last debate. And Bush is so ignorant he cannot spell terrorist.

I pray that the Ummah wake up. Before it's too late.
Khalil

Regardless of who wins, the policies in place will NOT change, especially in regards to Muslims.
Only thing I want to see is the DRAFT......with jewish extremist neocons and their kin first in line....look for a ton of proto-homer simpsons at the US-Canadian border then, and I dont mean for flu shots.

First of all for all those who had problem with AMT not endorsing any candidate today they did http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1275&page=NR

My question to my enlightened friends Khalil and Driveby, so what do you think millions of ÏMuslims FoolsÓ should do who have adopted this country as their home, also if this system is such big contradiction what is keeping you here?

>>so what do you think millions of ÏMuslims FoolsÓ should do who have adopted this country as their home, also if this system is such big contradiction what is keeping you here?
<<

I think you're very confused. Let me clear things up. I do believe Americans are being foolish if they believe voting for the "lesser of 2 evils," because at the end of the day, you've still voted for evil. If US Muslims want to make changes they will have make their community strong and unified, not pimping themselves to politicians everytime an election comes around.
Finally, where do you get off telling people that they shouldnt be critical of a FAILED system if they live in that same country ? What kind of inane right wing litmus test is this ? FYI I live in the UK, not that its any of your beeswax. You Americans claim to be a democracy, yet you tell people to shut up when they crtitique the system......its no wonder folks around the world dont want this sort of system imposed on them...I cant say I blame them.
You need to grow up and realize that speaking up against injustice and madness isnt predicated on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

As-Salaamu-Aleikum:

Actually, it's an inane left wing litmus test. Remember all those Hollywood actors who announced they'd leave if Gore weren't elected President. Unfortunately for lovers of good cinema, they're all still here.

As-Salaamu-Aleikum:

They should have endorsed Nader. A large bloc failing to participate would have had far more influence in the next Congressional elections in two years, and in the next round of Senate races, which comes up then. Also, far more impact on policy decisions in the 2008 election.

Unfortunately, we have just joined Black America as another group whose votes are taken for granted by a political party, and who can expect to receive no improvements because it is assumed we will vote for them as a choice of evils, no matter once.

The real problem with both Black America and the Muslim community is we have no long term political strategy - and you have to have one to have influence. If you look at the history of the Jewish lobby, they are not afraid to withhold endorsements and so on to achieve their goals. As an old American cowboy saying goes "Politicians are like dogs; you have to train them."

Ok, so here is a response point by point;
1. ÏMuslim fools can continue to blame the "leadership" for Bush's "victory" in 2000Ó These are your own words from your first posting what is so confusing about this quote?
o Can you explain why you painted all Muslims with a wide brush as ÏFoolsÓ?
o What makes you think American Muslims some how are inferior or less intelligent then other partÌs of the world?
2. First you blame them for being fools who followed some leadership and in your next posting you talk about unity and making community strong how do you do it without having some solid and unified leadership? I agree these may not be perfect people but you have to acknowledge they are doing something.
3. I believe criticism should always follow with a constructive suggestion, which was missing from your post, and I wanted to find out from you ÏWhat the Muslims should do?Ó which by the way you did not respond to anyway.
o Also isnÌt this called hypocrisy when you can go out and criticize anyone any way you like but when challenged you turn around and accuse people of being tool of Ïright wingÓ by the way I am neither right or left.
o If you read my post I did not ask anyone to shut up if you think you shouldnÌt be challenged and asked to follow-up on your opinion just donÌt respond.
4. Thanks again for enlightened suggestion, it will help me enormously Ïgrowing upÓ if
o You start posting stuff that is just not critical but also constructive. I guess this is what this forum is about.
o It will help if you stop labeling people Ïleft / rightÓ without knowing their views.
o Stop assuming people should have same views or priorities as yours.
Here is one more question for you my friend, if you believe we are living in a ÏFailed SystemÓ can you please provide examples of any systems which you think should be a model for US? Also what about your own country/system what do you think people do there, arenÌt they doing the same according to your own words Ïvoting for the "lesser of 2 evils,"?

o Can you explain why you painted all Muslims with a wide brush as ÏFoolsÓ?
o What makes you think American Muslims some how are inferior or less intelligent then other partÌs of the world?
<<

Theres nothing confusing about the quote. I never said ALL Muslim Americans were fools, nor did I refer to them as inferior so dont put words in my mouth. Are you hallucinating ?

>>First you blame them for being fools who followed some leadership and in your next posting you talk about unity and making community strong how do you do it without having some solid and unified leadership? I agree these may not be perfect people but you have to acknowledge they are doing something. <<
You're confused again. Muslim Americans who went rallying behind Bush were absolute fools in 2000. You'd think they'd have the good sense to do research on the guy and his backers...
However now, they need to grow up and realize that pimping themselves to politicians isnt the way. Unity and leadership comes from working WITHIN the community not outside of it. Meaning promote Muslim businesses, schools etc NOT giving hard earned cash to either of the war parties.

>>Also isnÌt this called hypocrisy when you can go out and criticize anyone any way you like but when challenged you turn around and accuse people of being tool of Ïright wingÓ by the way I am neither right or left. >>

You didnt challenge me boy, you told me essentially that I shouldnt live in the States if I criticise it. Its the kind of cheap invective I expect from some right wing moron who cant defend his arguments and falls back on "love it or leave it."
Seems like you're neither right or left, but just confused and unable to come up with independent statements to prove your point.

>>Stop assuming people should have same views or priorities as yours.
<<

I never assumed or said as such, if you cant handle my opinions thats your problem isnt it. Why are you threatened by those who disagree ?

>>Here is one more question for you my friend, if you believe we are living in a ÏFailed SystemÓ can you please provide examples of any systems which you think should be a model for US? Also what about your own country/system what do you think people do there, arenÌt they doing the same according to your own words Ïvoting for the "lesser of 2 evils,"?<<

Hmm lets see, you cant provide health care to 45 million Americans, your school system is in shambles, you attack and invade nations and steal their resources. You have the largest prison population, and you lock up people without due process. Sounds like a FAILED SYSTEM, which is why most of you dont even vote to begin with.
Plenty of third world nations do better, eg-Cuba.
As for my native Britain, of which I'm more critical that the US, we certainly arent perfect but the average briton is far more intelligent and informed than the average yank. Muslims here are unified, and dont whore themselves to the local politicians, yet are respected.
We will also be tossing out phony Tony from office. Unlike the US, where you can get arrested for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt we actually can voice our opinions without fear of reprisal,relatively speaking. Wonder why we had the largest antiwar demonstrations ?

Reread my post before responding in a knee jerk fashion.

Yeah, Cuba sure does better. It's pretty easy when all the votes are automatically attributed to "Fearless Leader" and I really like those gulags.

Never heard of anyone yet arrested for "wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt." Have heard of people arrested for trespassing who claimed that it was their T-shirt. People claim a lot of things; doesn't make them true. Run into people ejected from privately owned malls that ban haranguing who were trying to sue. Little to do with their opinions, more to do with the efforts of mall owners to maximize sales and minimize disruptions. No one wants to rent a store that has the Hare Krishnas and the KKK parked in front of it.

>>It's pretty easy when all the votes are automatically attributed to "Fearless Leader" <<

Election 2000 anyone ? I'd rather vote for a "fearless leader" than a religious fanatic who goes around saying "God told me to Iraq," and who's armed with nuclear weapons and who has more misery and death around the world than Castro could ever hope for. Atleast they dont pretend to be a "democratic" state.

>>and I really like those gulags.<<

Definetly, like Gitmo and Abu Ghareeb.

Ok so by your logic both parties are evil and there by voting is just nonsense? Read this and tell me what you would have chosen in this case

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1008-01.htm

a. Stay home and let these bunch of neo-cons take over for four more year and let them go around and beat the carp out of what little is left of Muslim nations.
b. Help elect a guy who I would say have not shown much sympathy towards Muslim causes around here but at least not surrounded by these maniacs either?
c. Vote Nader and still help Bush?

I do understand your point about a bad choice in Bush but the alternative was a staunch supporter of Zionist state (Al Gore) and a Zionist? And also what guarantee was there if these guys have acted any differently then what Bust did specifically after 9/11?

I also admit that there is are no assurances for Muslims in helping elect Kerry, that he will take care of their problems but not voting is not an answer either. I wish there was a crystal ball that could tell whatÌs in future÷.

Once again I completely disagree with your assessment of Ïpimping themselvesÓ but I do know by my own personal experience how ÏwellÓ Muslims are treated by their fellow majority Britons÷. I happen to have some family and friend there too÷

If you did not see it on BBC it does not mean it never happened I guess you are missing some facts here on purpose. As far as the war rallies go I once again disagree with you, most polls here show majority of American were and are still against the war, I personally have been to peace rallies and have seen hundreds and thousands protest against not just this war but one in Afghanistan too check this out if you still havenÌt; http://www.internationalanswer.org/

I also noticed in most of your postings that you tend to take peoples feeling and expression and turn them into pointed and sharp personal attacks;
- I did not asked nor suggested anyone to leave States in any of my postings.
- I did not challenge you, just asked your scholarly opinion since you seem to be know it all.
- I am not threatened by your views and opinion just wanted some discussion if you donÌt feel you need to respond just donÌt.
- Once again you have made lots of assumptions about me by just me questioning you, all of them wrong.

>>Stay home and let these bunch of neo-cons take over for four more year and let them go around and beat the carp out of what little is left of Muslim nations.<<

If you knew anything about neocon history you'd know that they are in both war parties. Kerry himself is a closet neocon.

>>Help elect a guy who I would say have not shown much sympathy towards Muslim causes around here but at least not surrounded by these maniacs either?<<

See above responce. What makes you think Kerry wont have his own entourage of neocons ? His voting history is highly suggestive of this.

>>Vote Nader and still help Bush?<<

Were you upset that Perot ran in 1992 also, or is your outrage aimed at only those who you see tas aking votes away from your candidate ? Obviously you feel that 3rd and 4th party candidates are a no no. Some democracy.

>>most polls here show majority of American were and are still against the war<<

Dead wrong. Which polls are you talking about? Most Americans supported the war, and a slim majority STILL believe Saddam was behind 911. Only 2 countries on the planet had majority populations supporting the rape of Iraq, Israel and the US. What a shocker.

>>I did not asked nor suggested anyone to leave States in any of my postings<<

Oh yes you did, by sarcastically asking "whats keeping you here of you dont like it" TRANSLATION = Love it or leave it.

Either way, regardless of which crook "wins" the rigged election, look out for future wars with nuclear Iran and Syria. The only thing I'm looking forward to is the return of the Draft on way or the other.

Unfortunately some people are saying that the American Muslim Taskforce
(AMT), that issued a qualified American-Muslim endorsement for John Kerry,
comprises of self-appointed so called community leaders whose organizations
are non-entities. To clear this doubt I am listing herewith names of
Muslim organizations that are part of the AMT, either as member or as
affiliate.

1. Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
2. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
3. Islamic Circe of North America (ICNA)
4. American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
5. Muslim Students Association (MSA)
6. Muslim American Society (MAS)
7. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)
8. United Muslims of America (UMA)
9. Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA)
10. Project Islamic Hope (PIH)

Now everyone can see that these are major genuine American-Muslim
organizations. About 3/4th of these organizations are really big
organizations, by any yardstick. They represent all shades of American
Muslims: The big 3 ethnic groups (Arab American Muslims, African American
Muslims, South Asian American Muslims, who together represent about 85% to
90% of all American Muslims).

The AMT endorsement is, in a very difficult and frustrating situation, with hardly any leverage, for
the American-Muslims, a very balanced and optimistic endorsement of a
candidate who it is hoped will end the rule of the incumbent president whose
administration has reduced the Muslim citizens of US into real second class
citizens. Also he has stated repeatedly that he intends staying on the same
course in the future. At the same time John Kerry has only given oblique
and indirect references to the Muslim citizens about restoring their civil
liberties. He has shied away from making clear statements to assure the
Muslim citizens in this regard. In this situation why should the leadership
of American Muslims give a full throttled, enthusiastic endorsement to
Kerry, thereby showing total disregard for their community's self-respect.
If the leadership endorses none of the candidates, they will be blamed for
being indifferent to the mood in the Muslim community. With Ralph Nader
expected to receive no more than 1% votes, it will be foolish to endorse
him. And ofcourse the leadership can not endorse President Bush.

Kaleem Kawaja

The American Muslim leadership is full of people who respond to conspiracy theories and swallow empty promises, Ya Allah.

If you really want to see what Kerry is about, compare two websites - Jews4Kerry and Muslims4Kerry. The first makes concrete promises and states that unlike Bush, Kerry will *never* criticize Israel does for "security." The second is full of vague promises to remove "NeoCons." Of course, not one person here can tell me who Kerry's point man on the Middle East is, or they'd consider Horowitz an improvement.

While our "leadership" was busy looking for conspiracies and ignoring HR10 - Cameron Kerry, the candidate's brother, was over in Israel promising Likud anything it wanted.

If Kerry gets elected, believe me, you'll be missing Bush. It would have made more sense to endorse Nader - because although Nader is expected to receive no more than 1% of the votes, both major parties - especially the Democrats who have gone to court to get them kicked off the ballot in various states - are terrified of blocs and groups moving to third parties.

Endorse Nader, have several million votes sit out the election, and watch both sides court us like crazy with real promises. Endorse Kerry, and join Black America in being ignored except at election time.

One other thing - if our leadership is so effective, how come the vast majority of Muslims in the US don't belong to those organizations, and don't even to to the masjid anymore?

I have met many people, practicing and devout, who are tired of the local masjid where conspiracy theories and screams of "we are oppressed" are the currency of the day.

For those who are terminally naive, I will mention that Bush immediately invited Muslims to the White House and stood between us and potential lynch mobs. He refused to endorse folks like the Democratic Senator from Florida who claimed that "thousands of Al-Qaeda are already here."

Now Kerry has created the image of those "thousands of Al-Qaeda" who are already here out shopping for firearms at the local gun show. For this race baiting tactic to work, his party will have to find a few dozen "Al-Qaeda" already here.

If you think Bush was bad, just wait for this dog and pony show.

Our "leadership" should have endorsed Nader. Period. Because neither major party is up to anything other than messing us over, and the Dems are worse than the Republicans, if you look at Kerry's voting record. Which our allegedly intelligent leadership obviously failed to do.