As election day approaches, I wish to address the members of the religious community, particularly the Islamic community, in order put this election in a different perspective.  Many communities across the US, given the crisis that the US now faces, have decided that this is a pivotal election, and are debating who they should pick as the next President.

Like many people, I have also put this question to the test.  Yet, I fear that there are some people, because they are not equipped with a proper ideological guideline with which to consider the problem, will make the incorrect decision.

I have said before that liberal democracy is a form of government which only appeals to the rowdy masses and does not have any grounding in the tradition of consensus.  The argument which often comes up in a liberal democracy is not truly that of which leader would be the wisest or most capable, but which leader is the lesser of two evils.  In reality, preserving the so-called democracy is more about considering personal advantage and considering the benefit of ‘America’ than glorifying the divine, because the fact of the matter is there is no benefit in either candidate whatsoever.

Let us consider, then the history of democracy and how it contributed to European history.  Democracy has its roots in the secularist ideals of the so-called “Enlightenment”; secularism itself came from some early English humanistic philosophers and was largely spread through the secret societies of the Enlightenment such as the Freemasons.   Originally, secularists believed that the best course of civic action was through finding the common ground between the worldly and the religious.    By implication, this means that secularists believe that there is a separation of “Church and State”, and the laws of the state should generally only cover the “common ground” of beliefs between the various religious groups that might be present.  The Roman Catholic Church, however argued that all aspects of society had to be organized with the final goal of heaven in mind.

Nevertheless, religion suffered a severe setback in the European continent due to increased opposition from increasingly secularist politics.  In the same way that democracy is anti-Christian, it is also anti-Islamic, and true Muslims should entangling oneself in it.  The reality of democracy today is that it is inherently opposed to Islam, just as it is opposed to any religion.  The West in its war against Islam is offering the democratic system as an alternative to Sharia.  Therefore, if the West, which is the founder of democracy, sees as necessary to replace Islam with seclarism, Muslims should not adopt this as a political philosophy.

But, it is not only that democracy is corrupt at its core, but also that the candidates involved in the election are horrible administrators and enemies of religion to boot.  For example, how can a Christian or a Muslim say that he supports Obama, when it is clear that Obama supports things which are in a clear contradiction of the Bible and of Islamic law?  We may be told that it is a “duty” to vote, but no matter what earthly duties we have, the Divine should take precedence.  Why do we forsake our trust in Allah by putting our trust in the hands of the mushrikeen?

Jesus stated that if we are friends of the world, then we cannot be friends of God.  Likewise, the Holy Quran says that our true allies are none but Allah, the Prophet (saw), and  those who bow down humbly before God.  Therefore, we need not worship the false idol of democracy, nor to support the corrupt American system.  We need not select Barack Obama to get the approval of our peers, nor select John McCain for fear of being called “unpatriotic”.

There is, in fact, no benefit in either candidate.

2nd day of Dhu al-Qidah, 1429 AH / 戊子年癸亥月巳乙日

I think it is OK for Palin does not know what Bush Doctrine is. Come on, let us face it. This question is hush and kinda like a trap. The whole interview with Palin seems a like in a weird atmosphere. But this time, it is your fault, John McCain. Come on, wake up. Spain is in Euro not in Latin America! But they do speak spanish, lol

Here is the record

John McCain recently did an interview with a large newspaper from Spain, El Pais, and seemed to not know that Spain was in Europe. The interviewer kept asking specifically about “Spain,” and McCain kept responding about Mexico and Latin America and “the hemisphere.” McCain then refused to say whether he would be willing to meet with the President of Spain should McCain win the presidency, oddly setting down the precondition that the President of Spain would first have to embrace democracy and human rights before McCain would meet him (the president of Spain already does embrace both of those, and in fact, this past April McCain did another interview with El Pais in which he said he’d be happy to meet with the President of Spain). Huffington Post has more.

It’s clear that McCain had no idea she was talking about Spain, or the president of Spain, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was asking about “Spain” and “the president of Spain.” This isn’t a case of McCain forgetting something. He quite literally didn’t comprehend what this woman was saying. His mind was gone, he was on auto-pilot, giving pat answers because he seemingly didn’t understand what Spain was.

Last night we had the Spanish translation of the interview, but now we have the original English-language version of the interview, the original interview, that McCcain did with the paper. Reporters out there really need to listen to this. Here is a 2 minute clip of the segment of the interview dealing with Spain. And here is the exact transcript:

QUESTION: Senator, finally, let’s talk about Spain. If you’re elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I’m glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.

QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?

MCCAIN: I don’t, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he’s willing to meet with you, or you’ll be able to do it in the White House?

MCCAIN: Well again I don’t, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that’s judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.

QUESTION: Okay… what about [either "you" or "Europe"], I’m talking about the President of Spain?

MCCAIN: What about me what?

QUESTION: Okay… are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not.