For all those who said no, I have one question:
Islam is incompatible with our ideas of democracy, Islam codifies gender inequality and discrimination against non-Muslims. If elected it would his (under Islam Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." so it wouldn't be a woman) duty to force Islam onto the country, with all the laws that go with it. So as a cleric Sufi Muhammad, recently put it, "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy."
This is an interesting answer. But I wonder if you would also still consider voting for a follower of Christianity or Judaism considering not only are both of those religions closely related to Islam, but they also codify slavery and stoning in the Old Testament (among other outdated and unpleasant things).
Given that most, by most I mean over 80+%, of Christians and Jews, don't follow the Bible or the Torah and just pick and choose what parts they do follow, it's not that big of a problem. But if the candidate was standing up saying how they would return the US to the bible, etc I would NOT vote for them.
Would you therefore be willing to vote for a Muslim who didn't follow the ideology you have highlighted in your original reply? I imagine there are plenty of Muslims who do not follow those teachings, but would you still refuse to vote for them based solely on their religion?
Is a person a Christian if they don't follow the bible or Jewish if they don't follow the Torah? I say no, so if a Muslim isn't following the Quran, then are they truly Muslim? Like I've said in this thread, if a Christian were to stand up and say I'm a Christian and we need to return to the bible, I wouldn't vote for them. Odds are if they aren't following the Quran they won't say they are Muslim. So basically no problem. But the question is "Would you consider voting for a Muslim to be the president of your country?" Which to me means the person is following their religion and is claiming to be Muslim.
Well in your previous response you did characterise Christians and Jews who did not follow their respective religious texts as still being Christians or Jews. But then I suppose we have to make the distinction between textual or modernised interpretations of each text, which I would say would allow someone to remain part of their religion but not as strong an adherent as many more traditional members. What I know of the Muslims I know is that they often take a less textual approach and still call themselves Muslim when asked what their religion is. Would you say that people like that would still not be getting vote?
At best they would have to explain the quran at every press conference, remember we're talking presidential election not local and all the pundits would be taking shots. He's a muslim and this is what the quran says. What I was trying to point out, badly perhaps, is that just because a person calls themselves a Christian or a Jew, if they don't follow their religion are they really a Christian or a Jew? Like I've stated several times If a Christian or a Jew for that matter would to say we need to follow this book and all the law contained within, I wouldn't vote for them either.
All reasonably fair, but my point is would you still be unwilling to vote for a Muslim candidate for President even if they had been shown to neither believe nor follow the extracts of Islamic text that you oppose? If you were willing then surely your opposition would be along ideological grounds, rather than religious.
Islam Bukhari is Hadith, not Quran. Many Muslims disagree about what elements of Haddith are binding doctrine and what parts are mere cultural tradition that is free to change with the times. A parallel from Christianity would be the Law of Moses, which many Christians argue is no longer binding on modern Christians.
You're confusing one Muslim ideology with the whole of Islam. If a Muslim candidate explicitly endorsed democracy and equality of the sexes and denounced Hadiths that say otherwise as non-binding, would it change your perspective about that candidate?
Christians, as I pointed out above, in general don't follow that bible that closely. And given that, in the polls, 51% of Muslims think that the Quran should be the ultimate law, and even a greater percentage think that if the Constitution and the Quran are in conflict that the Qu'ran should take precedence Now you claim that Islam Bukhari is Hadith that is authentic words and teachings of the prophet Muhammad, are you saying that the Quran, is not the un-corrupted word of God?
Even if a Muslim candidate explicit endorsed democracy and equality and denounced Hadiths, doesn't the Quran exempted are those who lie about their religion if they are forced to do this to avoid persecution? So if the Quran allows a person to lie to avoid persecution, how can anything take their word that they truely are for democracy and equality?
Do your polls say how many American Muslims follow Hadith with the same loyality as the Quran?
And, to be clear, no, the Quran does not say that deceit in the name of Allah is justified. That, to, is Hadith, and a relatively obscure Hadith that most Muslims ignore unless it is to save their lives. The USA offers Muslims more freedom of religion than most nations, which pressure residents into secularism or the official state version of Islam. America, rather uniquely, does not treat religious people as intrensicly less desirable than secularists and allows Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Wahabis equal religious freedom of expression. Many American Muslims live here precisely because they value that.
Unless we're persecuting them (like, say, by blaming them all for terrorism and 9/11, even while they issue fatwas against the sacrelige of the terrorists), we have no reason to fear deceit.
Whether I like it or not, I live in a Catholic country, Christianity is a part of its history and tradition.