The top two political contenders for the 2016 Presidential election presented at the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference. AIPAC is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to Congress and the Executive Branch of the United States. Every Presidential candidate who is the nominee for their party shows up to this massive event to show their loyalty and upmost commitment for Israel.
Muslims in America will be instructed by their masjids to go and vote this year, and to choose between Clinton and most likely Trump. Any sane Muslim who is aware of these two candidates can easily distinguish that when it comes to the blessed land of Palestine there is no difference. Hillary who has been active in the political scene since 2000 has been an active American Zionist as a US Senator from New York that even voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. She defended Israel on the senate floor, even when the majority of the world was outraged over the numerous cowardly acts by Israel from its bombing of civilians from Gaza to Beirut.
As Secretary of State she was caught surprised as the Ummah was fed up with the western backed dictators that have been terrorizing them for decades. She defended Hosni Mubarak during the start of the revolution in Egypt, and she is famous for saying
“I really consider Hosni Mubarak to be friends of my family” [Politico]. Yesterday on the floor of AIPAC she said:
“Candidates for president who think the United States can outsource Middle East security to dictators, or that America no longer has vital national interests at stake in this region are dangerously wrong.”
The hypocritical stance of Hillary and the party that is supposed to bring mercy for the Muslims is a joke. If elected President she will continue to support the dictators in the Muslims land who fulfill US interest in the region. The likes of Sisi, Karimov, Assad, and so on will continue to get material and moral support from President Hillary.
Hillary Clinton’s Stance
Stealing of Palestinians land by settlers:
“And let me be clear — I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council.”
America’s commitment to Israel:
- “The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.”
- “I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.”
- “It’s also why, as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.”
- “The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats”
- “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House.”
- “That’s why I feel so strongly that America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival.”
The lesser of two evils argument is what many Muslims hear when they confront the masjids about why they should vote for candidates that are so open about their positions that hurt the ummah or against the Shariah. If Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal were running for president these Islamic groups that use the logic of “lesser of two evils” could justify that Abu Jahal would be the better president, because he never bothered the Prophet while he we was praying unlike Abu Lahab and his wife. As ridiculous as this may sound this is what Muslims are presented with.
On the authority of Anas bin Malik, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whoever helps an oppressor in his oppression, comes on the day of judgement, written on his head “despairing of the mercy of Allah.” Narrated in the book al-Firdos bima’thoor il-khitaab
