I feel that a Muslim candidate can very ably represent the interests of the Muslim community. Although, one
should keep in mind that a non-Muslim candidate can also, very ably, represent the community’s interests. In
fact, in most pluralist societies today, we see Conservative Muslims, Liberal Muslims, Socialist Muslims etc. No
specific Muslim candidate, Conservative, Liberal or other can say they’re the ONLY ones representing the
Muslim community. As you indicated, these candidates may choose to stand for any platform they want, the
community, however, is responsible for choosing its representative.

It goes without saying that we must be wary about what label these political parties or candidates operate under. The community must look past the metaphorical ‘wrapping’ and check the ‘ingredients’ of their prospective choice. Taking socialism as an example, many political movements originating in Muslim countries have used the label of socialism. So has Zionism in the Jewish world. As had the Nazis in Germany. Each of these philosophies embraced some supposed variant of socialism, yet they are all antithetical to each other.

I guess I’m very cynical about the misleading hype and marketing that comes naturally to politicians and seek the actual, real policies and substance beneath the applied label. I cannot stress the dangers involved if a society becomes complacent in choosing its representatives. One example of this trend is in Zionism where the philosophy gained acceptance as a socialist movement for the traumatised Jewish population of post-war Europe but today mainly exists to provide blanket justification for any action taken by the state of Israel. It is this hijacking of a philosophy, and, thereby, of a society’s rights that is the main result of a complacent and uninformed or uninterested electorate.

when we want to critique something in the Muslim world, pious Muslims refer to it as a “Muslim” problem as opposed to an “Islamic” one (which we do not believe can ever occur).

That is why nobody here believes that the dysfunction in large parts of the Muslim world is an “Islamic” problem

I would begin by saying that I agree with most of what you say. The totalitarian systems of government in large parts of the Muslim world are not a function of those countries being Muslim nor do they have any intrinsic basis in Islam (although some have Islamic embroidery to cover them), Rather they are a function of poor eduction, post colonial structures and very poor systems of economic and social policy. It is common throughout the developing world and not specific to the Muslim world.

The Muslim world is dysfunctional because it is part of the developing world and not because it is Muslim. If you believe that unfair associations are being made between Islam and the dysfunction of Muslim societies then I could not agree with you more.

As a Muslim I feel this pressure more than perhaps you do. It was one of the reasons we have this site.

I also agree that candidates should be judged on their policies and not as the “Islamic” or “Jewish” candidate. As a broader point I don’t think that a Muslim candidate should be a partisan for the Muslim community, rather they more correctly fulfill their religious obligation by governing in the interests of all society and not just narrow sectional interests.

If you read through the archives of this site you will see where we have demonstrated moves to align Islam with a particular western political philosophy (socialism) with which it is almost completely antithetical. Although you say it should not be permitted, I say it should be debated and Muslims will generally decide correctly if given the opportunity to do so.

However I do believe that Muslim societies do have a totalitarian forms of government. These systems of governance are not a result of being Muslim as they occur elsewhere. In Muslim societies it is paradoxically the secular modern forms of government (socialism and its variants) that are the most totalitarian. There are two exceptions only to this rule.

Australia is a democracy and it is positive to have open debate and allow people to express their views.

I will say that the other candidates Barabara Perry (ALP) is a strong Chistian and Le Lam (Unity) a Buddhist and no mention has been made of their religion. I am a Muslim, an Australian and from an English speaking background so therefor can say I can represent people on a broad range of issues. I am also a mother and an environmentalist ( I have a law degree and have studied some environmental law). I am happy to enter the mainstream political arena as a Muslim as I hope it will help the general population understand that people can follow a religion whether it be Christian, Buddhist or Muslim and participate incommunity the same as everyone regardless of religion or cultural background.

I am a Muslim, yes, but I am running on The Greens platform of social justice and environmental sustainability. I am happy to represent Muslims because I am a Muslim and understand the issues and lobby for equality. I do however stand for all people in my community, regardless of their religion. Australia is a pluralist society where we can wear scarves, have beards and dress how we like, whether that be covered or the opposite. Many Muslim countries do not allow mthese freedoms.

The Green’s platform for Auburn includes reducing Greenhouse gas emissions with the use of renewable energy and fuel; promote grey water and water recycling; offering more services for the community including more ESL teachers in schools and NESB education and settlement services for migrants and refugees to help settle in Australia; a good public transport system to reduce car use and better support and education services for women and children.

If you look back through our archives you will find that we believe that democracy is a very good thing. A large part of the dysfunction of contemporary Muslim societies can be attributed to their totalitarian forms of governance.

As for Amir’s point, I think he was trying to say that whilst Islam is pro environment there is no single Islamic environmental policy. A wide variety of environmental policies may all be “Islamic”.

As for your second query, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. If you’re questioning the concept of whether a political aspirant should be allowed to choose their specific political platform, then yes, absolutely. In a democracy that is truly representative, a political candidate must make his/her views, values and beliefs clear on a variety of subjects (conservation, civil rights, gun control etc.). It is then left to the electorate to vote and, thereby, indicate either their support for, or opposition against, these said views.
Should these rights be denied to candidates who state their views are based on an “Islamic platform”? I see no reason why.

On the other hand, if you’re asking whether these same candidates can benefit from the support of an established political party, then, again, absolutely. If I was a political aspirant and I felt my views were broadly reflected by the Liberals, I see no reason why I shouldn’t join that party. The stigma that is currently assocoated with the word “Islam”, specially in the political spectrum, is one that must be challenged, for the sake of democracy.

Based on my views and beliefs, I would probably be classified as a conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. The fact that I’m Jewish isn’t the overriding factor in my political standpoint. Nor should it be. I should and will judge each issue on its own merit when I vote. I cannot just blindly vote for any “Jewish” candidate or any “pro-Israel” cadidate, as I do not support all things that bundled under the “Jewish” label nor am I pro-Israel on all issues.

Similarly, voters who are Muslim must also ensure that the candidate they vote for accurately represents their views, regardless of his/ger religion or supposed platform.

this site discussing the council in some detail
http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com/

this is a photo with the leader
http://photos1.blogger.com/blo.....hisham.jpg

he is also the spiritual advisor to the homocidal “Islam Karamov” of Uzbeckistan who wanted to name January after himself.

But after seeing a photo of “Sheikh” Kabbalah I can only think of his immense white beard.
somewhere in the Arctic circle there is a slightly bewildered Polar bear walking around with bare buttocks.

Baybers: “But the hotly contested award for the most dysfunctional Muslim political intervention in a western country goes to:
Drum roll please…….

Muslims for Bush”

This group is different from others because it isn’t doing it for money…I think, and is not really influentional and laughingly mocked at
as it should. These bunch of Muslims, on the other hand, have earned profitable contracts:

http://secularislam.org/blog/p.....3/Speakers

The Sufi Muslim Council is another money-grubbing self-appointed Muslim neocon group that has a peculiar habit of supporting war and sanctions against those damn “Wahabbis”, the scapegoats for everything that is wrong with any Muslim person or country and the bearers of innumerable myths about what the propagandist Bernard Lewis may refer to as “Muslim rage” against Western modernity.

About the sisters running for Parliament, way to go!

Amir, what do you think is the best solution to the “rentier state” problem in the Middle East?

Well, it’s a difficult problem because, for most of these countries, their comparative advantage lies in oil production. Therfore, taking a Ricardian view of international trade, this is what these countries should be focused on. As such, it’s very easy to end up a rentier state because they simultaneously attempt to offer their constituents a defacto welfare state but without the taxation which usually accompanies it.

Obviously, there isn’t much incentive for these countries to change their model but it seems one of the issues is that oil production and export is government-controlled. Therefore, the government is the sole recipient of these resource rents and then redistributes a portion of that through the provision of its various services (services which might otherwise have been funded by taxation). This isn’t, in itself, a massive problem but where it becomes problematic is because the model lends itself well to authoritarianism because it means governments are neither accountable to their population through the ballot box or through taxation.

So, I think, one part of the solution has to be the privatisation of oil production and a liberalisation of that sector. This has flow-on effects, of course, in that the government would either need to start taxing its citizens or start winding back some of its overt and covert welfare programs (an example of a covert program being the bloated and inefficient public service). Naturally, I would prefer the latter