Muslim Pros and Cons for President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole

By Abdurahman Alamoudi

As a Muslim, I believe President Clinton has made some positive contributions from the Muslim Perspective in the following two areas:

Bosnian rearmament: As the Iranians armed Muslim-led Bosnian government forces, the president looked the other way. That is something which we, as Muslims, greatly appreciated. We have always believed the arms embargo is an unjust way to handle the Bosnian problem, since it tends to penalize disproportionately the Bosnian Muslims and render them helpless in the face of relentless Serbian attacks.

Recognition of Islamic religion in the United States: The president’s recognition of the mosque as an American place of worship in his weekly radio address is also of great importance for the Muslim community here. By making that statement, he indicated his awareness of our legitimated presence in the American mainstream and demonstrated his willingness to educate the pubic on mutual tolerance. This is something commendable.

As a Muslim, however, I find many difficulties in casting my vote for President Clinton, for the following four reasons:

Gays in the military: One of the president’s first initiatives upon taking office was an attempt to eliminate the ban on gays in the military. Confronted with stiff opposition from his own military brass, he finally agreed to a compromise based on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” concept. However, this compromise still grants tacit approval to homosexuals serving in the military. As a Muslim, I cannot accept this.

Bosnian peace: The president supported the Bosnian Muslims, yet he allowed the agony to continue through his inability to take a firm decision. He seemed fearful of committing the United States to a strong position of international leadership on the issue. In the meantime, thousands of innocent Muslims were slaughtered. In the end, the administration brokered the Dayton agreement to stop the bloodshed, but it came much too late.

Palestine and Lebanon: The president’s stance on Palestine has been far from impartial as a result of the extraordinary influence of the Israel lobby which he has allowed to take root inside his administration. We believe this is most irresponsible of him as a holder of high political office. While I support the peace process, his extreme partiality toward the Israeli side against the Muslim Arabs in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and in the region as a whole give a deep pause. Clinton’s strong support for Israel’s brutal pounding of Lebanon earlier this year and his unsympathetic reaction to the resulting tragedy of Qana were despicable. The blind eye he has turned to the Israeli siege against the Palestinian population in West Bank and Gaza imposed by the closure demonstrates his complete indifference to the fate of our people there and Israel’s direct responsibility for their suffering. Clinton’s embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his hard-line positions only confirms his earlier motives.

Terrorism: We are all against terrorism and other forms of aggression, committed by whatever party. We support president Clinton’s determination to stand against it. However, the way in which he chose to do so threatens not only our constitutional freedoms, but those of all Americans. His executive order prohibiting legitimate fundraising act punishes Muslims for their natural attachment to their countries of origin, and helping their people there. And while we are not against an anti-terrorism bill in principle, the anti-terrorism bill that Clinton sponsored and signed plays havoc with constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process and freedom of expression. We are deeply troubled and concerned by what appears to be the president’s placement of special interest politics ahead of the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold for all Americans.

The Pros and Cons for Candidate Bob Dole

On many issues, Bob Dole traditionally has been better for the Muslim community. The following are his main strong points:

Bosnian embargo: As the opposition leader in the senate, the Republican candidate has supported the Muslims in Bosnia. While Clinton was willing to allow others to circumvent the arms embargo, Dole was honored by the American Task Force for Bosnia as a champion of the campaign to lift it entirely. It is unclear if he would take the same position upon assuming office. If Dole becomes president, he will face the same international constraints and responsibilities as Clinton does now, and this may prevent him from following through on lifting the embargo.

Family values: Bob Dole’s social conservatism and straightforward personal history probably is more appealing for Muslims than the socially liberal bill Clinton. The Appeal of the Republicans to family values and religious belief, as well as their strong stand against crime, seem to be more consistent with the socio-cultural priorities of Muslims than are the priorities and positions of the Democrats.

However, in recent months Bob Dole has become increasingly negative on some of our core policy concerns.

On many of our core issues there is bipartisan hostility.

Palestine: Candidate Dole’s war embrace of the likes of Netanyahu and Dole’s promise to be even friendlier to Netanyahu’s Israel than President Clinton has been to the Israel of Shimon Peres is indeed a frightening prospect. Bill Clinton has already been called the most pro-Israeli president in U.S. history, and Dole is now threatening to outdo him. This change was foreshadowed by Dole’s strong support for the bill to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, the eastern half of which still is illegally occupied by Israel. These initial moves should be understood as signs of the future under a Dole presidency.

Terrorism: The inclusion of many legitimate types of political activity under the heading of “terrorism” has unfortunately become a bipartisan failing. It is unlikely that Muslims will be able to look to Bob Dole for relief from the recent measures that have been taken against their politicalactivities by the sitting president. Muslim pressure will be needed at the bipartisan level to assert the rights of all citizens to participate in American political life, and to protect Muslims and Arabs in this country from unwarranted, collective FBI harassment. Muslim institutions must be allowed to function normally in America and not be subject to persecution under the otherwise laudable banner of fighting terrorism.

For Whom Should Muslims Vote?

In light of the above assessments, for whom should the Muslims vote? Muslims eventually should be able to agree on enough of the core issues to make it possible for us to vote as a bloc in future American presidential elections, and we will strive to unify our positions in that direction. However, at the present time, we must focus our energies on increasing the percentage of Muslims who are registered to vote, so that the future bloc we are constructing will be large enough to make a difference.