Now wait, I know what you’re thinking. This article is ludicrous, unthoughtful and dangerous and the only reason you’re here is to discover why any sane person would say such a thing. But there’s a logic behind the madness and all will be explained.
Donald Trump, who will be referred to as DT for the rest of the article because it hurts to write his name, is clearly one of the worst, if not THE worst, candidate to have ever run for presidency in the United States. He has a history of bad business practises, which have led to multiple law suits being filed against him and declarations of bankruptcy. He is not as successful as he portrays. It has actually been worked out that if the “small loan” of $1 million dollars his dad gave him had been put into a savings account, his net worth to this day would be greater than what it is due to savings from compounded interest rates (I guess he was trying to be halal and stay away from ribba (usury)). In addition to this, he has a history of being a womaniser and has even been accused of rape on multiple occasions, even from his ex-wife. Let’s not forget, he also has a relationship with racism which would make the Grand Wizard of the KKK proud. All of these are reasons as to why we need him as president.
Nelson Mandela’s autobiography suggests that a similar thought process occurred when the ‘coloureds’ were faced with a similar situation during apartheid in South Africa. In 1948, South Africa faced a general election, which led to the placement of the National Party’s leader, D.F. Malan, as the president of South Africa. The incumbent government, the United Party, were a more moderate party (for those times anyway), whereas the National Party ran on a mandate of apartheid and ensuring safety and prosperity for whites only. Mandela and his organisation, the ANC (African National Congress), were in favour of the United Party’s president Jan Smuts as they believed coloureds would be treated better under his rule. When Mandela found out about Malan’s victory, he was shocked, as were most, apart from his friend Oliver. In his autobiography, Oliver states “I like this. Now we know exactly who our enemies are and where we stand.”
Malcom X also alluded to a similar point in his autobiography; while JFK was making progress with civil rights, he questioned whether a leader who was moderate was better than an extreme leader. A moderate leader provides enough justice to oppressed minorities to keep them quiet, however, an extreme leader forces minorities to join together and fight because the conditions implemented on them are worth dying for, as illustrated in South Africa. Malan’s victory created a huge turning point for the ANC. The party was forced to create a viable opposition against the government.
They joined forces with the Indians, who were also being oppressed, and quickly organised boycotts and protests around the country standing against apartheid. While the struggle continued for many more years, the question is: would the progress that has been made in South Africa have happened if there were moderate leaders in government? If Smuts had won instead of Malan, would the ANC have worked as quickly and effectively to organise itself into a viable threat against the government?
We have a similar situation on our hands now.
On one hand, we have Hilary Clinton, the “moderate” leader who is covered in scandals, has a known reputation to lie and change her mind on policies, depending where the wind blows her. But, if elected as president, she will make enough “progressive” changes to keep minorities quiet and fighting amongst themselves and pretend to be a helping hand, just like Obama. In an interview on The Breakfast Club, Dr Umar states that Obama has done less for the black minorities, compared to other minorities, than any other president before him. Obama can get away with it because the black population is less likely to criticise its first black president. That is one of the key reasons he was put into office, because he can keep the black minority at bay while they are being shot down on the streets.
DT, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. We are in a unique situation where we know what will happen if he is elected as president, he’s made that quite clear. There will be a clear oppression on minorities ranging from Muslims to Hispanics, not just from his policies but also from the people that voted for him. Therefore, this provides us with a brilliant opportunity to unite together. It is under someone as careless and dangerous as DT and his supporters that we can put aside our differences and come together to ensure our freedom and rights are upheld. This is not just the unity of Shias with Sunnis, but also a more holistic unity where all minorities come together to fight one cause. A Hilary Clinton presidency, I’m afraid to say, will not bring that. It will just keep us divided and oppressed for much longer.
I am under no illusion that a DT presidency would be tough and hard on all minorities, but when is change easy? Was it easy for Rosa Parks to stay in her bus seat even when threatened with imprisonment and death? Was it easy for Mandela to give up his degree and family to spend 27 years in prison in the fight against apartheid? No. But was it worth it? Yes.
While this article has looked to justify a DT presidency, it comes under the assumption of a two-party system. While it may seem contradictory, DT is not the best candidate within these elections, Jill Stein is. But many Americans still view democracy as a two-party system, Democrats vs Republicans. Therefore, if it is a choice between Clinton & DT, I say DT. If it were a choice between Clinton, DT and Stein, the latter would have my vote with no questions asked. Therefore, if there are any Americans reading this article I urge you to research Jill Stein and vote for her based on her policies. She seems like the only candidate, after Bernie Sanders, who offers a chance of real change that is based on actually helping minorities and not just keeping them quiet.
Democracy and politics works when you vote for the candidate that you believe in and not because you believe they have the best chance of winning. If you vote Clinton over Stein, it should be based on one reason and one reason only, that you agree with Hilary’s policies more, not because “she has the best chance of winning.” Either way, these elections are about to get interesting.
“It is better to have an enemy who slaps you in the face than a friend who stabs you in the back.”