Posted on 09/23/2004 9:28:41 AM PDT by Pfesser
American Muslim voters overwhelmingly support Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, according to a new American Muslim Poll conducted by Zogby International for Georgetown University's Muslims in the American Public Square project.
By a margin of 76 percent to 7 percent, Muslims back the Democratic ticket over Mr. Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
BS .....
Anyone with a brain in his head is aware that the muslims will be supporting the man who will most easily allow them to continue their agenda.
All muslim votes should be thrown out... whether for Kerry or for Bush.
This should put an end to the myth that terrorist supporters are a tiny minority of Muslims.
I somehow doubt you'll see Kerry hyping this in an ad.
Says it all.
I would like a breakdown, someplace, of the Black Muslim vote versus the immigrant Muslim vote. Also, it would be great to know the geographic pockets this most effects, like Michigan. Lastly, it is my understanding that there are now more Muslims registered to vote than Jews. Where are the totals for that, Mr. Zogby? (Or do you think he was just asking a bunch of his friends and relatives for this survey?)
Well duh! The terrorists couldn't win without Kerry in charge! Of course they'd vote for the weakest man. Sheesh!
FReep MSNBC poll - who's best on Iraq? Could use a freeping.
Here's a chance for all the muslims who say they don't support terrorism to put their words into action.
Vote Kerry will mean voting for islamic dominance. The same so-called "religion of peace" that keeps beheading our citizens.
The NYT ran a story a couple weeks ago showing the Viet Cong of Ca Mau still support Kerry.
All a our faithful belonga to kerry.
Not surprising the Muslims in my country voted overwhelmingly Liberal.
What's the Muslim population in the US?
If this is true, it's more dangerous than I think we can imagine. And how does Bush fight it? Forget political correctness--he dare not even MENTION this proclivity unless he's ready to unleash the religious-wars theory which in turn hurts "democratization" in Iraq and other Muslim countries. Frankly, I don't know WHERE this goes . . .
Golly, I certainly hope we'll also do a survey of the Viet Cong. It would be useful to know who'd they vote for!
From http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=12128
"I have a question about offensive Jihad. Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam?
I have been reading Tafsir e Usmani for the last month or so. In it I have read that offensive Jihad (first attack) should be done by Muslims for 2 reasons. 1) For the sake of Allah (in the Way of God) 2) For the sake of subjugated people under oppression like in Kashmir, Palestine etc. Now the second reason I completely understand. But the explanation given of the first reason is "For the sake of Allah includes the propagation of Islam, the survival of Islam, the extermination of those hindrances which impede the progress and expansion of Islam." (explanation of verse 190, Surah baqara) I really don't understand this explanation. What does propagation of Islam mean here? Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam? For example, there are many countries in the world which are not enemies of Islam in any way (at least I think so). Please explain to me against which Non-Muslims, the Muslims have to do Jihad and against which, Jihad is not allowed. JazakAllah Khair.'
Answer: "You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation. Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Mufti Ebrahim Desai
And why are they voting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.