The letter comes as polling within the Muslim American community shows a major departure from the Democratic Party over the Biden-Harris administration’s unfettered support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which they along with rights groups and legal experts view is a genocide against Palestinians.

The letter calls on Muslims to instead vote for any of the third-party candidates, including the Green Party’s Jill Stein whose support has swelled among the Muslim American community in recent weeks.

“We want to be absolutely clear: don’t stay home and skip voting. This year, make a statement by voting third party for the presidential ticket,” the letter said.

“Equally important, vote all the way down the ballot for candidates and policies that stand for truth and justice, ensuring your voice is heard at every level.”

The letter, written and released in collaboration with the Abandon Harris campaign, was signed by more than three dozen religious leaders from all around the country, including Dawud Walid, Dr Shadee Elmasry, Imam Omar Suleiman, Dr Yasir Qadhi, and Imam Tom Facchine.

The imams who have signed the letter say the calls for Muslims to uncritically support Harris is fear-mongering.

“None of this is an endorsement of Donald Trump’s vile, racist agenda, which includes advancing the apartheid and genocidal interests of a foreign state while falsely claiming to put America first,” the letter said.

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Uncommitted Campaign, a movement that gained media attention for its call to withhold votes from President Biden during the primary elections over the war on Gaza, released a statement earlier this month saying that while it could not officially endorse Harris, voters should not cast their ballot for any other candidate but her.

    How’s that not an offical endorsement?

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I guess it could be interpreted like that if someone want it very much, in such case why they didn’t said it straight: do what you want.

    • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      They don’t like her but can admit the current alternative will be much more terrible. They do not want to endorse a “lesser evil.” Option A will hurt, option B is likely to take a limb.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, it do not mean liking something. Endorsement is an act of acceptation and/or support. Saying “voters should not cast their ballot for any other candidate but her” is an explicit endorsement.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Except that the people saying this are making a distinction between the two. Do you want to interpret what they are trying to say or do you wanna play word games? Disingenuous.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yeah sure, they want to eat cake and still have it. That’s a gutter level sophistry nobody would ever eat except people wanting hard to believe it like you. And you call me disingenous, lol.

            Also that cake is shit with poison topping, so bon apetit.

          • GarbageShootAlt2
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            How in the world does the original statement not count as disingenuous word games to avoid saying “we support blue genocide”?

            • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              By specifically acknowledging that no matter the choice, the genocide will continue and purposely putting that concept at the front while also acknowledging between the two options, one will be better than the other. I mean, your currently providing GDP toward genocide. If it was so all encompassingly important to you, you would be more radical than to argue on Lemmy. Put your life on the line soldier, or accept that there is only so much us western haters of genocide can do in this specific case at this specific point in time.

              • GarbageShootAlt2
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You see communists on lemmy argue constantly that political action can and must extend far past voting, this isn’t the own you think it is, though your position of “Oh, you think genocide is unacceptable? Go die for it while I do nothing” has been noted as your not at all convenient conservative position.