The Ground Zero Mosque & Our Government's Mishandling Of "Islamic Radicals"

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area — though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.

Andy McCarthy, NRO, Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble, 24 July 2010

Islam presents America and the West with a unique challenge. One of the founding principles of our nation is freedom of religion. Yet at least a portion of the Muslim population seeks to use that freedom - along with the rest of our freedoms - to attack our nation both from within and without. Call them Islamic radicals, political Islamists, or what you will. The flip side of that coin is that the majority of the Muslim population is benign, they have no desire to be at war with America, nor do they desire to live under the heavy hand of Sharia law. Distinguishing between those two sets of Muslims is, for most Americans, impossible thanks to our government's refusal to educate America and identify our enemies.

As it stands today, Obama is pretending that nothing about Islam is implicated in the terrorist attacks against us. It is a risible canard that invites disaster. It is not fooling any American with a pulse. Unfortunately, while Americans can understand that some Muslims are in a religious war against us, most are in no position to distinguish anything beyond that. As Muslim reformer Dr. Zhudi Jasser recently stated, it is past time for our government "to take sides" and stop treating Muslims as a single entity.

With that in mind, we have today a series of mosques proposed for building throughout America, the only one of which should be controversial is Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf's Cordoba Initiative to build an Islamic Center overlooking ground zero. Polls today show that a vast majority of New Yorkers - a majority that crosses all religious, ethnic and ideological lines - do not want that mosque built. And indeed, many Muslims are also speaking out against this proposal - see Zhudi Jasser, Stephen Schwartz and other Muslims, including those who lost family members in the 9-11 attacks. As Robert Avrech points out at Seraphic Secret, the Mayor, the left, and Islamic supremicsts who want to see the Islamic Center built are attacking their opponents by labeling them religious bigots. It is not but a variant on the race card used to delegitimize opposition. And like the race card, it is not working now. But it is raising the ire of all fair minded Americans who oppose the Islamic Center not on grounds of bigotry, but on grounds of decency and a refusal to be subservient.

Unfortunately, the proposal to build that mosque has raised public ire that is not just being directed at the Ground Zero project, but is also overflowing into opposition to the building of mosques throughout our nation. In what could be a very bad turn of events, some Americans are striking out against Islam generally, not discriminating between radical or political Islamists and those who are benign. If this is not addressed, it will be of far more importance than the Ground Zero Islamic Center. It is a problem our government needs to address with honesty.

Almost from my first post on this blog, I have repeatedly said that our government needs to identify our enemies within the Islamic world and differentiate them from the rest of the Islamic world. The reasons are fourfold.

One, we as a nation need to understand the nature of the threat so that we can recognize and defend against its danger. This is so obvious that it borders on the criminal that our government still refuses to do it. One cannot cannot treat a cancer if one refuses to diagnose cancer as step one.

Two, identifying the threat will allow us to harness the greatest force our republic can muster, public opinion. It will allow our nation to collectively shine a light upon - and bring pressure for reform to bear upon - those in the Islamic world who practice forms of Islam that give give rise to religiously inspired violence and terrorism. Indeed, if Americans fully understood some of the incredibly racist and violent dogma of Salafism, they would be horrified and moved to action. Or to restate it in the words of former Salafi terrorist Dr. Tawfiq Hamid:

The civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology.

Three, defining the threat would allow us to identify and support those in the Islamic world who seek to reform their religion. There are many, but they are voices in the wilderness today, lacking large scale support and up against all the petro-dollars of Saudi Arabia. Theirs is an existential battle for the heart and soul of Islam.

Fourth and lastly, if we fail to identify our enemies, then we lump into the same camp with our enemies those who would reform Islam and those who do not embrace "political Islam." This virtually insures that we will be misled by those who seek to forward the cause of political Islam, that we will make enemies of the majority of Muslims otherwise predisposed to supporting our nation, and that we will wholly undercut those who would reform Islam.

To be specific, our "enemies" are the practitioners of the veleyat-e-faqi in the Shia world, and in the Sunni world, practitioners of Salafi / Wahhabi schools and other schools of Islam influenced by Wahhabi / Salafi dogma, including Deobandi Islam. And unfortunately, Wahhabi / Salafi Islam is coming to influence many of the other schools of Islam. I document these realities in detail here.

Having said all of that, it is surprising that Feisal Abdul-Rauf, the man driving the Cordoba Initiative, is nominally a Sufi Muslim. Sufism is a mystical sect of Islam and largely benign. But Rauf certainly shows attitudes unusual for a Sufi, including his embrace of Hamas, his belief that America was to blame for 9-11, and a long association with Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is all the more surprising since Sufis are hated by ideologically pure Salafists and, indeed, were recently the subject of brutal attacks at the hands of Salafists in Pakistan. Author Steven Schwartz, himself a Sufi Muslim, noted in a recent article in the NY Post that none of these traits displayed by Rauf are in keeping with Sufism.

As Andy McCarthy states, in the quote at the top of this post, the case against Rauf's Ground Zero Islamic Center has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with facing down an existential threat to our way of life. For Bloomberg and the left to jam this down the throats of New Yorkers in particular and Americans as a whole - including American Muslims - is a boundless display of left wing arrogance and criminally negligent ignorance about the threat we face.

With the rise of the Ground Zero mosque issue, there has also been a significant growth in opposition to the building of mosques throughout our country. Dr. Zhudi Jasser addresses that anomaly in a recent article. Before going to his article, let me tell you about Dr. Jasser.

Dr. Jasser is a patriot. The son of immigrants from the Middle East, he has served our country as an officer in the military. He is a devout Muslim who has embraced the freedoms of America. He is also an articulate and implacable opponent of Sharia law and political Islam. When I speak of Muslim reformers, his is the first name that comes to my mind. He regularly engages Salafists and other proponents of "political Islam" in debates in order to educate Americans. Indeed, if you have not seen one of his debates, by all means, go here. It is a debate all Americans should see in full. Dr. Jasser has also established an organization, the American-Islamic Forum For Democracy, to push for reform of his religion and to fight against "political Islam." He was quoted in a recent AP article on the rise in general anti-Islamic feeling directed at Islam as whole in respect to the building of mosques in various parts of the US:

Muslims trying to build houses of worship in the nation's heartland, far from the heated fight in New York over plans for a mosque near ground zero, are running into opponents even more hostile and aggressive.

Foes of proposed mosques have deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims holding prayer services and spray painted "Not Welcome" on a construction sign, then later ripped it apart.

The 13-story, $100 million Islamic center that could soon rise two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks would dwarf the proposals elsewhere, yet the smaller projects in local communities are stoking a sharper kind of fear and anger than has showed up in New York.

In the Nashville suburb of Murfreesboro, opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer. They are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

"They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group," said Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area. . . .

In Temecula, Calif., opponents brought dogs to protest a proposed 25,000-square-foot mosque that would sit on four acres next to a Baptist church. Opponents worry it will turn the town into haven for Islamic extremists, but mosque leaders say they are peaceful and just need more room to serve members. . . .

Mosque leader Essam Fathy, who helped plan the new building in Murfreesboro, has lived there for 30 years.

"I didn't think people would try that hard to oppose something that's in the Constitution," he said. "The Islamic center has been here since the early '80s, 12 years in this location. There's nothing different now except it's going to be a little bigger."

Bagby said that hasn't stopped foes from becoming more virulent.

"It was there before, but it didn't have as much traction. The larger public never embraced it," he said. "The level of anger, the level of hostility is much higher in the last few years." . . .

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a nonprofit that advocates for reform and modernization of Islam, said opposing mosques is no way to prevent terrorism.

Neighbors didn't want his family to build a mosque in 1979 in Neenah, Wis., because they didn't understand who Muslims were.

"If the Wisconsin mosque had not been allowed to be built, I, at 17, might have put up walls and become a different person," he said. "If we start preventing these from being built, the backlash will be increased radicalization." . . .

If that doesn't frighten you, it should. The war of ideas is the most important battlefield in the war against Islamic extremism. Unless we engage in and help reformers to win the war of ideas, our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be fighting this war - and likely doing so at great cost in blood and gold. And indeed, it is only the reformers who can ultimately win the war of ideas. We can only help them or hurt them.

Unfortunately, the craven tack of our government in its treatment of Islam is starting to show predictable results. Americans are not fools, and when they feel under attack, as they have been since 9-11 and now with the Ground Zero mosque, they will push back - hard. Unable to distinguish the good from the bad, it is no surprise that some are doing so indiscriminately. If we begin to lose the young Zuhdi Jassers of our nation, then we will have completely lost the war of ideas against radical Islam. That would be an existential disaster.

Update: DO WATCH THIS VIDEO. It is from a moderate Muslim who does not merely come out against the Ground Zero Islamic Center, but who notes how efforts at reform in Islam are being harmed by the left who throw their support to radical Islamic elements. She highlights most of the points I was attempting to make above.



(H/T Hot Air)

Update: And then there is Fox's Greg Gutfeld who feels that if Rauf can show magnanimous tolerance, so can he.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bang That Drum, Dr. Pipes

Step one to defeating an enemy - identify it. This is a drum I've been beating in this "war on terror" for years. Indeed, as I wrote six months ago, "Western governments are failing in their duty to define 'radical Islam.'" It is in the ideological battlefield that we will ultimately defeat radical Islam - or face the prospect of being ever threatened by it. There are a lot of individual Muslims and small groups who have joined that fight and are today in an existential contest for the heart and soul of their religion. Arrayed against them are the Salafists, Deobandis and Khomeinists - the radical Islamists - funded with near unlimited oil wealth. By failing to acknowledge this struggle and identify our enemy, we have yet to even join the fight - one equally as important to our security as Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Daniel Pipes weighs in on precisely the same topic.
____________________________________________________

This from Dr. Pipes:

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

. . . In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari‘a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

Read the entire article. To see the ideological struggle for the heart of Islam in stark relief, I suggest that you watch Parts II and III (at least) of Dr. Zhudi Jasser's debate with a Salafi Imam that I have posted here. Step one for our government to insure Dr. Jasser wins is for the U.S. to join the ideological battle. We fail to do so at our peril.

Read More...

Summary only...

A High Squealing Noise & A Voice Of Sanity

Recently, our Senate Homeland Security Dept. issued a bi-partisan report on the dangers of home-grown Islamic terrorism, identifying as did the NYPD of two years ago the fact that Salafi-jihadism is the driver of virtually all Islamic terrorism in the West. That high squealing noise that you hear is emenating from the major Salafist Groups in America who are doing all they can to stop this report's statement of the obvious from becoming accepted and known by the U.S. public. The voice of sanity that you hear comes from Muslim and former U.S. Navy Officer Zhudi Jasser who point out, "To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd."
_______________________________________________________

It is no secret that Salafi-Jihadis want to see Western freedoms eroded and the triumph of Islam in the West through the imposition of Sharia law. Towards this end, these Salafist organizations whitewash Salafism and spend incredible sums of money lobbying Western governments to adopt the position, in whole contradiction to the tons of unambiguous evidence, that Salafism is not associated with terrorism and that terrorism itself is not associated with Islam.

Many in the West willingly drink that highly poisoned kool-aide, whether for votes (Pelosi/Conyers), money (academia), a "can't we all get along" fantasy (Homeland Security), a desire not to upset the Saudis who pump our oil (Bush), pure naivete (Pentagon/Hesham Islam), or simply out of marxian multicultural ethos that deems all cultures superior to our own and beyond judgment (Britain). Thank God for the few voices in government, such as Rep. Sue Myrick and Senator Joe Lieberman, and for the "moderate Muslim" stalwarts outside of government, such as Tawfiq Hamid, Zhuddi Jasser, Ibn Warraq and the Center For Islamic Pluralism, all of whom stand firmly and unflinchingly against this Salafi menace. And, of course, there is Dr. Bernard Lewis, the man who predicted the explosion of Salafi terrorism before 9-11, the man who coined the phrase "clash of civilizations" half a century ago, and the man who described the nature of Saudi Arabia's Salafism to America in his books by likening it to the most virulent sub-group within the KKK.

What set off the high squealing noise you hear was Sen. Joe Lieberman's release of a report by his committee on Homeland Security, Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat. The report relies heavily on a prior work by the NYPD which analyzed how terrorists are made in the West - i.e., a several step process, the common thread at each step being exposure to Salafist/jihadia philosophy and propaganda.

The Senate Report is a bland but fair examination of the problem and the heretofore uncoordinated efforts in America to address it. In acknowledging the role of Salafi Islam as being at the core of Islamic terrorism in the West, it does nothing more than state the obvious. But the obvious is a message the Salafist organizations do not want America to hear - and CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, joined by the rest of the usual Salafi suspects, is in high squeal mode. They have drafted a letter to Senator Lieberman, in essence equating following the evidence of terrorism back to Salafi Islam as being the equal of profiling. You can read the letter here, or you can just read the response of Zhudi Jasser, Chairman of AIFD. It is so eloquent and articulate, I include it here in its entirity:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) announced today that it congratulates the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the release of its timely and insightful Report on "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.

"The report lays out insightful research of the majority and minority staff and clearly lays out the reality and the vulnerability of the United States to Homegrown Islamist Terrorism citing several credible examples. "

AIFD has previously not only agreed with the conclusions of the NYPD Report upon which this Senate Committee report builds, but AIFD has also previously called upon American Muslim organizations to begin the work of countering the ideologies which feed homegrown terrorism," M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D, founder and Chairman of the Board, The American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The Senate Committee report cites many examples of homegrown terror threats. For example, AIFD has commented on the local Phoenix case of Hassan Abujihaad recently convicted of treason in federal court after a raid in London discovered that he was providing a terror cell with classified information on the whereabouts of his U.S. Navy ship to aid an act of terror against American troops.

The report's description of 'the path to radicalization', 'the terrorist internet campaign' and 'the virtual terrorist training camp' is an especially valuable contribution in the setting of mounting evidence of the threat of cyberjihad. The committee's investigation and identification of ways in which the Internet campaign can play a significant role- from 'pre-radicalization' to 'indoctrination' to 'jihadization' to 'the Lone Wolves' is also a particularly valuable contribution to the body of knowledge available today on this subject.

The report's description of the vulnerability of the U.S. and the potential of Islamists to "erode the effectiveness of our national defenses" should provide a particular warning to Americans to step-up our efforts at counter-radicalization.

AIFD would like to highlight the report's recognition of the need to coordinate a communications strategy against the homegrown threat- especially that flourishing on the internet. We would especially bring forward, the report's comment that "no longer is the threat just from abroad, as was the case with the attacks of 9-11; the threat is now increasingly from within, from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live. One of the primary drivers of this new threat is the use of the internet to enlist individuals…"

AIFD is especially flabbergasted and chagrined as Americans and as Muslims by the scurrilous attacks upon this report and the Senate Committee under the leadership of Sens. Lieberman (CT) and Collins (ME) by the signatories to a letter of protest. This letter of protest does little other than expose the obstructionist techniques of the signatory organizations and their refusal to openly address necessary areas of ideological reform necessary in the Muslim community. If these Muslim organizations are unable to grasp the central ideological theological root causes of Islamist inspired terror, they are either participating in a grand denial, protecting the Islamist mindset, or simply obstructing the contest of ideas against political Islam.

Americans should ask - why isn't the work this committee completed not being done by Muslim NGO's? Rather than address the problems which reports like this address, many American Muslim and Arab organizations prefer to exaggerate their own victimization and ignore their own responsibility in countering the movements which this report fairly exposes.

It is particularly alarming that four of the largest Arab-American and Muslim-American advocacy organizations in the U.S (CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates) are discounting this valuable report and actually attempting to impede and delegitimize any honest attempt by Americans to dissect the 'real' causes and threats of homegrown Islamist terror. They cite the NYPD Report as "controversial" and "widely disputed" and "discredited" without any supporting evidence or credible sources for such an ad hominem assertion. By brushing off the N.Y.P.D. Report as "shoddy" and "now discredited" by "counter-terrorism experts and federal law enforcement officials … who have [privately} rejected the report's content and methodology" they operate in the typical Islamist fashion of using 'private' 'unnamed' unidentifiable sources with no substantive ideological counter arguments.

Where is the personal responsibility and regard for American security of these Muslim organizations that rather than focus their efforts on counterterrorism recklessly state: "so far … any potential terrorist threat involving Muslims has failed to materialize here in the United States …" They are entirely discounting the tireless and dedicated work of our intelligence and security agencies that have thwarted some thirty plus attacks against America. It seems that the facts in the report they criticize are of no use to them. If our Homeland Security had this type of lackadaisical attitude of denial, we would have most likely seen catastrophes greater than 9-11. When will Muslim organizations become part of the solution against militant Islamism rather than obstacles in any legitimate effort to study and understand its causes? To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd.

These four Arab and Muslim American advocacy organizations allege that there are sharp contrasts between integration and radicalization levels in the U.S. as opposed to Europe. Do they not realize how lack of integration and radicalization are gradual processes that take years to reach boiling points? While Muslims may be more integrated in the U.S., the growing examples of homegrown terrorism which continue to virally spread demonstrate that the only difference with Europe may be our trajectory toward radicalization. The end may be the same, but just delayed due to factors unique in America versus Europe.

How can studying a radical political ideology which cloaks itself in religion and which is separatist, violent, and theocratic be an act of discrimination? To us at AIFD, it's a noble necessary act of science, societal analysis, and of national security.

The N.Y.P.D. Report on Homegrown Terror before this Senate report was also a timely wake-up call to all Americans, and particularly to truly moderate Muslims who need to accept ownership and responsibility of this growing threat to Islam and to America.

Press releases and letters of complaint like that submitted by CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates on May 14, 2008, actually further the entrenchment of Islamist ideology on behalf of Muslims in the public square. Rather than distance themselves from Wahhabism, salafism, and other Islamist ideologies which feed the radicalism that this report illustrates, these organizations are acting in denial which only obstructs real reform and makes Muslims appear to be in support of these backward ideologies.

In their joint letter these organizations persist in their fear mongering, victimology, and divisiveness stating that the report is, "inaccurately labeling American Muslims as a suspect class …" when referring to the N.Y.P.D. Report's noble aims of protecting all Americans – Muslim and non-Muslim. In fact, if there is any appearance that Muslims are a suspect class, which has yet to be proven, it is most often because victim oriented organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates stay silent against the ideologies which threaten U.S. security. If Muslims were to lead the charge to reform our community and counter Islamist ideology no such label could ever stand in the court of public opinion.Rather than moving toward accepting Muslim responsibility and ownership of the issue, and becoming the Muslim frontline to terror, the focus of these four large Muslim organizations, within the Muslim community, is on stifling all criticism of political Islam, squelching all contradictory ideas, and most of all permitting no dissention. They prefer to label the critic of Islamist movements as outside what they set as the de-facto Muslim mainstream which in reality leaves them outside the American mainstream.The only area of agreement we have in their entire rant concerns American Muslim input into the Senate report. Certainly, it is also our hope that these types of investigations and reports solicit more Muslim input in order to get as many Arab and Muslim American organizations on record as possible about these central ideological issues. It is more important now than ever to get Muslim organizations on record regarding their stances on Wahhabism, Islamism, Salafism, governmental sharia and Caliphism, to name a few. "AIFD would also finally recommend that Muslim input to such investigations include anti-Islamist and anti-Wahhabi Muslims ready to ideologically counter the real sources of Islamist radicalism," adds Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

For more information about the American Islamic Forum for Democracy please see http://www.aifdemocracy.org/null.

Well said, Dr. Jasser. Dr. Jasser's cause is an extremely worthy one, to take back his religion. When you hear someone ask "where are the moderate Muslims," point them to Dr. Jasser and ask them to give their full support, both in time and money. Better to give one's dollars to Dr. Jasser than to have it recycled through the oil wells of Saudi Arabia only to come back in support of CAIR and the cause of Salafi triumphalism.

Read More...

Summary only...

CAIR Seeks Repudiation of NYPD Report Tying Terrorism to Salafism

Most of the allegedly "mainstream" Muslim organizations that the average person will have heard of are anything but mainstream. They are not representative of the typical Muslim in America. Instead, they are organizations that are largely, if not wholly, funded from the coffers of Saudi Arabian billionaires, the Muslim Brotherhood or other foreign radical organizations or individuals. Their mission is to further the political goals in the West of the radical ideologies they both represent and misrepresent. The latest effort comes from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and their target is the NYPD, who last year identified Wahhabi / Salafi Islam as the driving force behind radicalization and terrorism by Sunni Muslims.
__________________________________________________________

Some time ago, the intelligence division of the NYPD published a document called Radicalization in the West. If you have not read it, you should do so. You can find it here. The document was notable for being the first governmental publication to my knowledge to fully document the relationship between Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and terrorism. The NYPD authors merely looked to prior terrorist attacks in the West and found Wahhabi Salafi dogma - and indoctronation in that dogma - to be the common thread. This was merely stating the obvious to anyone familiar with Islam's history over the past century.

This finding, documented by the NYPD, is so clear as to be beyond any reasonable argument. Indeed, for but one other example, I would recommend that you read, in conjunction with the NYPD document, this autobiographical skectch from Tawfiq Hamid, a former terrorist in an al Qaeda type organization, who details how he was seduced by Salafi Islam into becoming a terrorist. If you have not read it, do so. His concluding paragraph is an appropriate warning on this issue of identifying the cause of terrorism:

The civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology.

I have also posted repeatedly on the critical importance of shining a bright light on Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, such as here, as have various "moderate Muslims, including the head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Zhudi Jasser (see the video of his recent debate with a Salafi imam), terrorism expert Walid Phares (see his interview here), and Stepehn Suliman Schwartz, head of the Center for Islamic Pluralism - an organization whose site contains a dedicated "Wahhabi Watch." Their voices are clear - but nowhere near as loud as those many organizations funded by billions in petrodollars and tasked specifically to muddy the waters and further the political goals of the Salafists in the West. Zhudi Jasser explains the situation in his essay that I have blogged below:

“[P]olitical imams” (imams who use their pulpit to preach an Islamist domestic and foreign policy agenda) . . . are apparently a majority of imams in mosques around the U.S. Not only are political imams in the majority of mosques but the salafist orientation seems to predominate mosques also. This is augmented in the public place with their supporting and collaborating Islamist organizations which include ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MAS (Muslim American Society), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MSA (Muslim Students Association), the North American Imams Federation, The Assembly of American Muslim Jurists, and the MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) to name a few. . . .

The entirety of mosques and Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslim organizations do not represent all American Muslims. Most American Muslims are actually unaffiliated with any element of the organized Muslim community. Some, if not most, are unaffiliated simply because they separate religion and politics. In fact, statistics would show that only a small minority of American Muslims maintain membership in any “Muslim” organizations. . . .

Read the essay here.

The degree of infiltration of these Salafi organizations in the West is significant. Equally concerning is their effectiveness in misrepresenting Salafism in the West and their resort to claims of Islamaphobia or some other sort of improper act whenever a light is shown upon their bloody, violent and highly racist version of Islam. The latest is CAIR's attempt to squelch the NYPD's report, "Radicalization in the West." They must not be allowed to succeed.

This from Stephen Suliman Schwartz writing in the Daily Standard:

LAST YEAR THE New York Police Department (NYPD) issued a clear-sighted and path-breaking document titled Radicalization in the West: The Home-Grown Threat. Prepared by Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt of the NYPD Intelligence Division, the report was serious, well-researched, and articulate. It traced radical Sunni Muslim activities in non-Muslim countries to the "jihadi-Salafi" ideology, better known as Wahhabism, created in Saudi Arabia and supported by major extremist resources in Pakistan (the jihadist movement of Mawdudi) and Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood). It was posted on the internet by Republican congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan . . .

Radicalization in the West met with enthusiastic approval from anti-extremist, moderate Muslims, but with predictable condemnation from the "Wahhabi lobby" represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies. On November 23, 2007, as disclosed in documents made available to me, a statement was composed, in the name of the "Muslim community," protesting against the NYPD's release of the report. Employing the typically arrogant, peremptory, and militant idiom of the Islamist movements, the statement called on New York police commissioner Raymond W. Kelly:

* "To cease distribution of the report to other jurisdictions' law enforcement agencies while the NYPD carefully responds to and corrects the report's misconceptions and errors;

* "To clarify what policies have been adopted by the NYPD as a consequence of the report, and in particular respond to concerns expressed in [a] Community Statement submitted by diverse Muslim community representatives;

* "To issue a public statement to the effect that the NYPD is working with members of the Muslim community of New York on developing a sound, rights-respecting policy on 'radicalization' that will not lead to religious or racial profiling;

* "To commit NYPD to a regular schedule of ongoing dialogue to address the issues."

The Wahhabi lobby activists in New York then completed their "Community Statement." It consists of little more than nitpicking over the sources and conclusions of the NYPD report, notably rejecting any association of Wahhabi "Salafism" with jihadism. But more important, the defenders of Wahhabism arrogated to themselves the right to decide what the city's police should do in response to the challenge of radical Islam. The extremists would set the NYPD's overall agenda, forcing Commissioner Kelly and his personnel to work according to Wahhabi guidelines and at the Wahhabis' convenience.

The radical Muslim response to the NYPD report predictably employed the pretexts of alleged "profiling" and "inappropriate" criteria. But the report did not embody "profiling;" rather, it was an academic-style work based on open source documents and serious expertise, and utilized a case study approach drawing on terrorism incidents abroad. These included the March 2004 Madrid metro massacre, in which 191 people died and some 2,000 were injured, the November 2004 murder of Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, the July 2005 London transport attacks, with 52 commuters killed and 700 hurt, and thwarted conspiracies in Australia and Canada.

But for Islamists in America, charges of "profiling" and "inappropriate" methods are the preferred reply to critical discussion of almost all significant matters. Those who investigate Wahhabism are accused of "profiling" Saudis, even though numerous Saudi subjects hate and reject Wahhabism. Questioners about radicalism in Islam are alleged to "profile" all Muslims, notwithstanding the recognition and repudiation of extremism by millions of ordinary Muhammadan believers. According to the radicals, they themselves represent the Muslim mainstream, their practices and beliefs are harmless, and any questioning of them amounts to persecution. Unfortunately for the extremists, many Muslims disagree with them, considering them a deviant phenomenon, their habits and views distorted, and their worldwide quest for domination worthy of decided opposition.

This month, the Wahhabi lobby plans to drop its manifesto of grievances on Commissioner Kelly, on April 17. In minutes of a meeting held in New York on March 3, officials of CAIR present included Faiza Ali, Aliya Latif, and Omar Mohammadi, joined by Islamist agitator Syed Z. Sayeed, religious adviser to the Saudi-backed Muslim Students Association at Columbia University. They noted that the NYPD had asked for a detailed reply to the report. The participants at the March 3 get-together also observed that while they would prepare such a response, CAIR itself has financed and is working on a more thorough text designated its "long-term analysis/alternative model of radicalization." . . .

Here is a preferred outcome for this absurd contretemps:

* The New York Police Department should be congratulated, not assailed, for publishing a serious analysis of radical Islam in the West.

* The Islamist organizations should accept that if they disagree with the views in the NYPD document they should do so in a polite, respectful manner, without issuing self-righteous demands or irresponsible charges. Of course, they won't agree to such a thing. One might even argue that the NYPD and the anti-Islamists, not the Islamists, have been "profiled"--by the radicals. . . .

* And, finally, New York police commissioner Raymond W. Kelly should inform the aggrieved extremists, with maximum politeness, that he will spend a minimum of time listening to them. He should then file their laborious plea in favor of extremist ideology where it belongs.

Read the entire article. There are many people who are unable to differentiate between the vast majority of Muslims and those Muslims who are imbued by the Salafi ideology and its variants in Pakistan - and Iran, for that matter. But such differentiation is necessary if we are ever to win the war of ideas for the heart and soul of Islam. And the first step along that road is to educate the populace as to the nature of the beast. That is what the NYPD did with their report. And this is why CAIR and other Salafi Islamists want to see the report repudiated.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dr. Jasser On The War of Ideas In Islam

M. Zhudi Jasser, the chairman of American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), engaged in a debate (video here) with a Salafi imam, discussing radical Islam and alternative interpretations of the Koran. It is the penultimate battlefield for the soul of Islam between the radicals and the "moderates." In his essay below, Dr. Jasser discusses the debate within the larger context of this war of ideals.


_______________________________________________________

This from Dr. Jasser at AIFD:

A public debate between two devotional Muslims occurred on April 5, 2008 at Edison College in Naples, Florida. We shared deeply conflicting ideas on Islam, political Islam, terrorism, and morality. Arguments so far seemingly relegated to “Muslim vs. non-Muslims” debates due to the Muslim activist predominance of the Islamist mindset were finally debated from a position deep within a Muslim consciousness.

Already a tired phrase, call it what you will, “the battle,” “the war,” “the contest” of ideas between the West (secular democracies) and the Muslim world (Islamist theocracies) remains an elusive target for many of us in the thick of the fight. As an American, the concept of debate and intellectual argumentation runs to the core of who I am. So many other anti-Islamist Muslims and I can imagine no other method of getting our ideas across to the “other” side whether discussing the political, religious, legal, social, or spiritual realm. But when it comes to our current target – the threat of political Islam within the devotional Muslim consciousness – leading Islamist figures in the U.S. have remained slippery targets, unwilling to engage anti-Islamists openly in the public square.

These elusive Islamists include a host of “political imams” (imams who use their pulpit to preach an Islamist domestic and foreign policy agenda) who are apparently a majority of imams in mosques around the U.S. Not only are political imams in the majority of mosques but the salafist orientation seems to predominate mosques also. This is augmented in the public place with their supporting and collaborating Islamist organizations which include ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MAS (Muslim American Society), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MSA (Muslim Students Association), the North American Imams Federation, The Assembly of American Muslim Jurists, and the MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) to name a few. That, in and of itself, is telling. However, the obvious nature of their avoidance behavior in engaging anti-Islamists is not enough or even a start in the effort to win the “hearts and minds” of Muslims.

The entirety of mosques and Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslim organizations do not represent all American Muslims. Most American Muslims are actually unaffiliated with any element of the organized Muslim community. Some, if not most, are unaffiliated simply because they separate religion and politics. In fact, statistics would show that only a small minority of American Muslims maintain membership in any “Muslim” organizations.

The ideas expressed in this debate will possibly expose why. Most Islamist organizations and imams have little to no moral leadership or credibility when they espouse apologetics and excuses trying to convince the world that moral imperatives have exceptions. Hopefully the mainstream media, government officials, and the average non-Muslim American will begin to see that “Islamists” are in no way synonymous with “Muslims.” The “battle for the soul of Islam” between Islamists and anti-Islamists needs to be forged expeditiously or the Islamists will assiduously continue their grand scheme of eventual and total domination.

Since its inception, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was created by anti-Islamist Muslims upon a foundation that our guiding ideologies simply need to be heard in the Muslim community. Then, let the chips fall where they may. With that public hearing, or “forum,” we will begin to openly challenge the ossified precepts of salafism, Wahhabism, Islamism, and various pre-modern identifications of eastern Muslim culture. With that challenge we pray that an awakening – possibly very similar to the modernization of the West, which ushered in “enlightenment” – may occur within the consciousness of Muslims everywhere, forever separating spiritual Islam or the domain of God (faith) from the domain of government and the state (reason).

It is direct forays between Islamists and anti-Islamists which highlight the profound areas of disagreement. For example, when AIFD sponsored the nation’s first Muslim rally against terrorism in 2004 entitled “Standing with Muslims Against Terrorism” and invited the local Islamist Politburo (also known as the “Valley council of imams”) to join us in a universal unqualified condemnation of terrorism, they explicitly refused citing a host of morally defunct explanations. As a group, they refused to make a public moral imperative without qualifications (apologetics) about American foreign policy as an excuse for terrorism. They not only stayed home from the rally despite repeated public calls to join us, but the imams have also repeatedly refused to go on record regarding AIFD’s mission of ideologically engaging Islamism, let alone directly engage anti-Islamists. In fact in the 2007 controversial documentary by ABG Films Islam v Islamists, local imam, Ahmed Shqeirat described our work as “liberal extremism.”

The debate this week against an imam in Naples proved that these apologetics are apparently and most unfortunately common across the nation (from Arizona to Florida) in many imam circles as a litmus test for Islamists who believe in political Islam and the Islamic state. Make no mistake: my opponents in the clerical realm try to brush off our work as “anti-imam” or anti-scholarship in Islam. A cartoon in a local Islamist publication tried to portray just such propaganda against me in 2005. The reality is quite the contrary. Many humble scholarly imams have provided the intellectual underpinnings for our anti-Islamist Muslim precepts at AIFD. In fact it is the persona of the morally corrupt imam who has been the greatest liability for the real scholars of Islam who are the anti-Islamist, anti-Wahhabi imams of virtue which are so marginalized in the American public square.

This challenge of opening this debate and even acknowledging its existence is no small undertaking, considering the number of Islamist forces working within the Muslim community against such an awakening. Further challenges include tendencies of the general public to accept minority and identity politics in the U.S. and the inherent Islamist exploitation of that in order to further tribal behavior and foment divisiveness in America. By doing so, they craftily avoid self-critique, not to mention the collaborating forces outside the Muslim community (mainstream media and many U.S. Government officials) that are all too ready to accept Islamist ideology as the de facto consensus of the orientation of the faithful.

Yet, frustratingly, many anti-Islamist Muslims have been standing alone ready to challenge the Islamist position within the Muslim community, unable to gain any traction against the conventional wisdom that Islam is Islamism and Islamists are the only devotional Muslims. Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, Ayaan hirsi Ali’s Infidel and other expressions exposing radical Islamist ideology are able to conflate Islam with political Islam and militant Islam because they have been almost inarguably unable to find a palpable debate within the Muslim community concerning the ideas they critique. Islamists often whine in an oversimplified denial immersed in pathetic victimology, while anti-Islamist Muslims remain unheard and unable to find a forum.

Certainly, many anti-Islamist Muslims have been writing and speaking out all over the world. But we have generally been “preaching to the choir” and past the Islamists and their collaborators who disagree with us. Why have we have often ended up speaking “past” them? The answer is their unwillingness to engage openly in a debate over our central differences on Islam and the Muslim consciousness. Theirs is a strategy cloaked in deliberately ignoring the debate and deliberately clouding Islam with Islamism – much to the chagrin of the average non-Islamist Muslim.

The Islamists conveniently call internal challenges to their theology a manifestation of a societal ill which they equate with “division” (fitna in Arabic). They feel that their moves to politically collectivize the Muslim community, or the “ummah,” can never be challenged. They ignore the fact that the political collectivization of Muslims runs contrary to the national interests of our collective nation and our citizenship. For the few who do accept the challenge they do so only on their terms, privately, within the community, away from media and away from any accountability to the greater American community.

This blind collectivism is the exact reason the Muslim mind in so many mosques and activist organizations is hopelessly and cowardly paralyzed in apologetics and victimization. The Islamists are thereby easily able to muster the courage of their faulty convictions enough to champion political Islam and secure its stranglehold upon the public manifestation of the Muslim consciousness.

. . . Once we understand the relationship of political Islam and its various permutations from Wahhabism to salafism to deobandism to militant Islamism and its terror, we will be able to effectuate and progress a global anti-Islamist movement.

Debates like the one which occurred last week in Florida are the beginning of a “contest” of ideas which will herald either the victory of post-modern Islam over theocratic Islam or the converse. Global security and the continuation of American society as we know it hangs in the balance. . . .

Read the entire article. And show your support for AIFD. Arrayed against AIFD are the vast petrodollars that have built thousands of Wahhabi mosques in the West and populated them with clerics trained in the Wahhabi / Salafi ideology to which Dr. Jasser stands opposed. If you wish to make a difference, give of your time and money to AIFD.

Read More...

Summary only...

The War of Ideas in Islam - The Debate

If you want to understand the war of ideas that is ongoing between the Wahhabi / Salafi vision of Islam and the many Muslims who stand opposed to that vision, you would do well to watch the following debate. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are necessary stop gaps to slow the aggression of the radical Islamists. But they will only be completely defeated in the realm of ideas. Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser, former U.S. Navy officer and the chairman of American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is truly the most eloquent voice in America of a devout Muslim steadfastly opposed to ideals of radical Islamists.

On April 5, 2008 at Edison College in Naples, Florida, Dr. Jasser engaged in a formal debate over those ideas with a Salafi imam who advocates seperatism, the imposition of sharia law and the creation of an Islamic state. It is very educational and very much worth the time to watch. The theme of the debate was "Is the Establishment of the Islamic State a Clear Ideological Threat to the United States?"

NOTE: Part I is quite slow. You might want to start watching at Part 2.

Part I




Part II



Part III



Part IV



Part V



Part VI

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 26 January 2008

According to PM Maliki, "We defeated al Qaeda, now there is just Nineveh province where they escaped to, and Kirkuk," And as a new offensive is aimed at al Qaeda, it looks as if it may be an all-Iraqi operation.

In the world of hypocritical politicians, Charles Krauthammer thinks that John Edwards makes other hypocrites looks like pikers.

The Democrats are still refusing to reauthorize the Protect America Act. This is the law that corrects FISA to allow for eavesdropping on foreign communications without the necessity of a warrant. Even Time’s resident leftie Joe Klein thinks this is nuts.

There is a real possibility that Denmark will become the first Muslim country in Europe. This is a particularly troubling post.

Crusader Rabbit ponders why males are the happier gender.

Seraphic Secret discusses the ramifications of the Hamas foray into Egypt.

Bookworm Room seems to be taking a bit of sadistic delight in Andrew McCarthy’s shredding of the NYT.

Soccer Dad has an exceptional post that hits the nail on the head. "Islamist hatred of the West is not a grievance we can address. Attempting to accommodate the demands of Islamists only encourages them. For there to be peace between Islam and the West, there needs to be a change of heart in Islam. Anything else is useless." I couldn’t agree more, and have said so previously.

Do read CAIR’s action letter urging an end to the "illegal blockade of Gaza" by Israel. Not a word about rockets or attacks on Israel. And let’s not forget the Muslim Brotherhood’s chapter here in the US, the MAS, or the radical Deobandi organization, the MCB in Britain. Personally, I would support a blockade and far more – aimed at Gaza, CAIR, MAS and the MCB. I am just not feeling a whole lot of compassion for terrorists and their enablers these days.

Nor do I support "victory over those who disbelieve," or feel the need to ask God for "protection from the great Satan." I suspect most Iowans would agree, but that is a bit unclear at the moment.

The American Islamic Congress has launched a new Anti-Suicide Bombing Campaign. They have my support.

The FBI has given its Community Leadership Award for 2007 to M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD. "Dr. Jasser is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander. He is the founder and Chairman of the Board of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), based in Phoenix, Arizona. AIFD seeks to address the central ideological conflict in the war on terror." It is an award well deserved.

The Center for Islamic Pluralism has a fascinating textually based analysis of the appropriate punishment for those who chose to leave Islam or commit other acts of apostasy. It is a stinging criticism of the "oil jurists" of Salfi Islam.

Read More...

Summary only...

Counter-Jihad: Zhudi Jasser at the NRO

Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser is a physician, a former U.S. Naval Officer, a Muslim reformist and the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He and others like him, devout Muslims, are doing all they can to wrest control of Islam from the Salafi juggernaught that is being funded through billions of Saudi petrodollars and used to control the teaching and politics of Islam in the West. Those masses of funds go to build Mosques, to train orthodox Salafi clerics, to fund academics at our universities and to fund organizations such as CAIR as the "political voice" of Salafi Islam. Against these seemingly endless resources, Dr. Jasser is the lonely voice in the wilderness. But it is a voice whose importance cannot possibly be underestimated, because if Dr. Jasser succeeds, Salafism and radical Islam end.

It is not enough for we who are not Muslims to criticize the brutal excesses of Salafi Islam, nor is it enough to take up arms against radical Islam in foreign lands, for as long as the poisonous ideas that define Salafi Islam are the dominant interpretation within the Islamic community, than shall we always be faced with the spector of radical Islam. Ultimately, the best counter to an idea is, itself, an idea. And that is what makes Dr. Jasser's work so critically important to all people who believe in freedom. Dr. Jasser seeks to push Islam to evolve through its period of "Enlightenment." That means changing the accepted interpretation of a religion of a billion or so people - a daunting task. He will not succeed alone. We owe him our support in all facets.

That said, Dr. Jasser appears this week in a three part interview at National Review Online in which we learn a lot more about his impresive background, his philosophy and motivation. Part One is below. Parts Two and Three are linked at the end.

. . . Kathryn Jean Lopez: You’re a medical doctor, aren’t you? Do you still practice? When did you start talking about Islam and terror?

M. Zuhdi Jasser: Yes, I’m a physician in solo-practice specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona. My primary dream and most of my days are spent in the practice of medicine and in dedication to the primary care of my patients and the medical profession in Arizona. I just finished my term as president of the Arizona Medical Association in June 2007, and I chair the bioethics committee of a large downtown Phoenix hospital. I graduated from the Medical College of Wisconsin in 1992 on a full U.S. Navy medical scholarship and completed my specialty training in internal medicine at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. in 1996. I served operational tours of duty on the USS El Paso as medical department head participating in Operation Restore Hope, and I also served a tour of duty as an internist at the Office of the Attending Physician for the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court Justices from 1997-1999.

A native of Wisconsin and the son of Syrian immigrants, joining the United States military was natural. I was raised to appreciate American freedom which guaranteed my right to life, liberty, and the practice of my personal faith of Islam, like in no so-called Muslim country. My grandfather used to talk about how the devastation of Syria brought by the military coups . . .

I have always been a devout practicing Muslim maintaining a central personal spiritual relationship with God in my life. I have also held true to the importance of spiritual practices in my life including fasting, daily prayer, scriptural recitation, charity, community worship, and personal integrity. As a result, I have often been asked by the local communities in which I have lived, to speak about Islam, its role in my life, and my understanding of its history. Well, before 9/11, in the 1980s, as I found myself frustrated by the politicization of many but not all of the Muslim communities in which I participated, I began to focus on the main problem I experienced — the harmful impact of political Islam upon the practice of Islam in America. I slowly began to absorb as much information as I could about Salafism, Wahhabism, and its associated extremist ideology. I looked into the history and workings of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and realized that at some point anti-Islamists were going to need to take them on to rescue our faith from their clutches.

While I have never heard violence preached in any mosque I attended, I did hear conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and radical politics which often predominated instead of a focus on spirituality, humility, and moral courage. This led to a regular struggle with many, but not all, of the clerical leadership in many of the Muslim communities in which I have lived and participated. My refrain for decades has been to them, “why do you impose your Islamist agenda upon the congregants of your mosque who come to worship God, atone, and learn God’s scripture. Most of us don’t come to mosque to blame the world for our own maladies or to listen to your own political agenda.” I tried to intellectually counter them from within the community, but did so to no avail. For who was I to question clerical authority and interpretations? Who was I to take away their bully pulpit for Islamism?

After 9/11, it was immediately clear to me and a few other close friends in the Muslim business community in Arizona, that the Islamist agenda was the root cause of terrorism and Muslim radicalism. It was obvious to me that the only treatment of this cancer within was for devout Muslims who love America and love the spirituality of Islam to reclaim the mantle of faith from the Islamists. Our faith needed an expression which can be brought through an enlightenment process which separates mosque and state or separates the affairs of God and spirituality from the affairs of this world and our government. We formed the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in the Spring of 2003 as the early mitotic divisions of an institution which over the following years and decades we hoped would be a leading anti-Islamist force pushing for that separation, modernization, and counter-jihad.

While I don’t have a degree in Islamic law or Islamic affairs, I believe that a lifetime of internal political struggle and spiritual and theological investigation has prepared me quite adequately to take on Islamists intellectually and publicly as we struggle for the soul of our faith. It seems that at this point, the lifetime theologians or ulemaa (scholars) of the Muslim community appear to be the problem more than the solution.

I just couldn’t take any more local or national interviews from Muslims who espoused apologia and victimization while espousing Islamic supremacy and anti-American vitriol. I was moved to write an occasional column for our local Arizona Republic on Islamic Affairs after their reporters printed a few post 9/11 stories which quoted some local Muslims and imams defending the USS Cole bombing, and invoking conspiracy theories about 9-11, to name just a few of their offensive comments said on behalf of all American Muslims. My columns began my anti-Islamist foundation. I wrote about the synergy of being Muslim and believing in American ideas of pluralism. That platform led to a growing audience of readers starving for alternative Muslim viewpoints. AIFD then decided to sponsor and organize America’s first major Muslim rally against terrorism held in Phoenix on April 24, 2004 — Standing with Muslims Against Terrorism. That was just the beginning…

Lopez: Have you found that to be a dangerous thing to do?

Jasser: The power of minority politics to cloud the judgment of the masses cannot be overstated. One of the great achievements of classical liberalism and Western Enlightenment of our Founding Fathers was the appreciation of the need for our communities to always lift up the rights of the individual over that of the community. Western freedom is maintained in a tradition which questions authority, and rejects collectivism and tribalism. That tradition, while occasionally threatened and violated by various obvious political interests in the U.S. is still a central part of our behavior and character as Americans.

Our liberty-culture will turn itself upside-down to help one child, one victim who immediately captures the hearts of Americans. This mindset is the greatest antidote to Islamist tribalism and collectivism. With my work since 9/11 in combating political Islam, I would have been much less concerned about my safety and that of my family if only the vast majority of my Islamist enemies would simply address the ideas which I raise and debate me in an open respectful forum. However, endemic tribalism, corruption, and often fascism drive a political propaganda machine which would much rather demonize its adversaries than actually address the substance of the issues raised. When they are not demonizing me and other anti-Islamists, or portraying false exaggerated associations, Islamists prefer to just run and hide from open respectful debate about the issue of Islamism. Islamists would rather continue wallowing in denial. They prefer to project responsibility for terrorism upon everyone else in the world, rather than placing the responsibility upon the ideology of political Islam and the toxicity of the dreams of an Islamic state. They would much rather debate non-Muslims or former Muslims, because they can change the debate focus to Islamophobia, rather than the central issue of Islamism.

While I often receive disgusting hate mail, it is far outweighed by the volumes of gratitude and appreciation from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So many in America have been hungry to hear about devotional Muslims unafraid to build institutions which are leading a counter-jihad. America is hungry to hear Muslims condemn apologetics for terrorism, identify terrorists and their organizations by name, and lead the effort to deconstruct the religious legitimacy of the Islamic state.

This is why I founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. We are not only “at home with American liberty” but, we recognize that our nation is under God and we are all American first and everything else second. We refuse to accept Muslim, Arabic, or any minority collectivism. We look at ourselves as Americans who happen to be Muslim rather than Muslims who demand to be Americans. Our political activism is not about being Muslim, but is guided by the platforms of our individual political party affiliation — not by the agenda of clerics who seek a theocracy. For these beliefs, the Islamist activists ignore real debate and prefer to call me an ‘Uncle Tom’, ‘a sellout’, or a ‘tool of some made up conspiracy theory.”

I’ve never been threatened physically. But if I allow such frivolous attacks or fear of them to modify the intensity of my work, I would dishonor the freedoms which our serviceman and women are fighting to preserve and I might as well take my family back to their motherland of Syria where there are no freedoms and the masses are silent out of fear of the ruling despots. If I stay silent I would no longer be an American.

Lopez: What do you think of the word Islamofascism?

Jasser: I find the term “Islamofascism” to be quite accurate when defining the ideological goals of Islamist militants. Yes, as a devout Muslim who believes that Islam is a faith from the God of Abraham, and could never be fascistic, the existence of Islamofascism saddens me. But it is not the term that saddens me but rather the Muslim supremacist organizations who employ fascism in the name of Islam. They are real and their Islamofascism is real whether I deny it or not. The longevity of this term will depend upon how long moderate Muslims continue to sit on their hands rather than fight the real fascists Muslims — like the Wahhabis, the Taliban, al Qaeda, or a host of other militant Islamist organizations and ideologies.

My love for my faith should drive me to wage a counter-jihad, and not blame the messenger (users of this term) and demand that the term be stricken so that I can live in denial. These thugs spread an evil in the name of a warped version of the faith they believe is Islam. However, I become like “al Qaeda” if I refuse to call them “Muslim” and commit takfir (determining who is and who is not a Muslim) by saying they are not “Muslim.” Their Muslim or Islamic identity is between them and God as it is for every Muslim. Once we open the door to debate who is and who is not a Muslim it empowers a theological hierarchy which will purport to speak for the faith community. I will never subscribe to that. As a moral human being and as an American, it is obvious that their actions are evil and barbaric and we should do everything we can to destroy them and defeat them wherever we find them.

A moral, pluralistic, spiritual Islam is the only way to defeat Islamofascism. We saw with the London plots this summer, perpetrated by Muslim physicians, that this ideology utilizes terror as a tactic to achieve fascistic political ends blind to the professional training or level of education of the individual foot soldiers. The ends which these militants seek, is a warped, utopian dream of a caliphate or some form of so-called Islamic state, which imposes their despotic theocratic interpretation of Islamic law upon citizens. The Nazis had physicians and professionals of all walks of life helping them to commit genocide against the Jews through a supremacist dehumanization of their enemies — true fascism. So too do militant Islamists dehumanize their enemies (anti-Islamists) and exact their barbaric punishments upon innocents in an evil torn right out of the pages of every fascist regime in history.

This is why the anti-Islamist work of organizations like AIFD is so vital. The only way to destroy the Islamofascists is to de-link their theological interpretation of the supremacy and exclusivism of the Islamic state over every other form of government. This de-linking will take some real work. Once devout Muslims can deconstruct the goal of the Islamic state and prove to our fellow co-religionists that the most pious form of society is one where government and religion are separate and faith practice is allowed only to be judged by God in a laboratory of free will, Islamofascism will die in the dustbin of history.

I will finally add a caveat that my only fear is that many exposed to the term will have little prior knowledge of Islam or contact with Muslims and will carry away a belief that Islam as a spiritual faith is fascistic in its ideology. That cannot be further from the truth of the Islam which I teach my children and so many of the vast majority of Muslims teach their families. But that should stimulate Muslims to even more actively defeat the Islamists who have hijacked our faith for their own political agenda. In fact we can also cannot forget that the Islamofascists are a subset of a much larger ideological threat to the west of the Islamists. The Islamists include all those who believe in political Islam from the fascists of Al Qaeda to the rank and file political Islamists who believe in democracy, elections, and parliaments but still hold tight to a theocratically exclusivist Islamic state.

Dr. Jasser addresses the nature of Islam and what he hopes will be the basis for its Enlightenment in Part II of his interview. Of note in this interview:

There is no doubt that Muslims need to build American institutions, which flood the public space after every evil pronouncement from militant Islamists with a counter-jihad interpretation — — a jihad against jihad. Nonviolent re-interpretations of the passages in today’s context to counter Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda’s twisted injunctions to war against the west are very prevalent in the Muslim community, but unfortunately, difficult to find in the theological academia since that was abandoned by the pious masses around the 14th century. It should be the work of organizations like AIFD to respond directly to Bin Laden, the Wahhabis, salafists, deobandis, the Taliban, and other extremists when they interpret our scripture in a way that is violent or incompatible with our citizenship pledge or loyalty to our nation.

Dr. Jasser addresses non-Muslims, our politicians and what's at stake the War in Iraq in Part III of his interview. Of note is his assessment that:

By focusing on a tactic or ‘counterterrorism’, we miss the far more lethal and insidious threat to America and the west of the political Islamic state. . .

It is long overdue for all those in the public sphere whether media or government or otherwise to clearly understand that the root cause of terror is political Islam and the national aspirations of Islamists.

Do read the entire interview. Almost a year ago, having immersed myself in an obsessive study of Islam and its history for a period of years and before I had the opportunity of knowing of Dr. Jasser's existence, I wrote a fairly lengthy essay. That essay, which you can find here, was on the need for Islam to go through its period of Enlighenment and was composed in response to calls from Islamists at the UN to shut off all criticism of Salafi Islam. My knowledge of the situation is far from complete, but all that I see in Dr. Jasser seems precisely the prescription for Islamofacism / political Islam / Salafism / Wahhabism or whatever other "-ism" you choose to label the poison of radicalized Islam. For all that non-Muslisms can do to counter the threat, it is ultimately Dr. Jasser's ideas that will extinguish it. Do give him your full support.

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Islamist Foxes and British Chickens

One could analogize the utter insanity in Britain this week to putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, but that comparison falls far short of reality. The only danger of that fact pattern is that the farmer is out a few chickens. One needs instead to analogize to a fact pattern where the foxes radicalize the chickens and establish a heniphate on the entire farm.

The background to this story is that Britain has the most radicalized Muslim population west of the Danube. The reasons for that are fourfold. The UK is being innundated with Wahhabi Salafi Islam via countless sources; Britain's multicultural ethic forestalls any reasoned criticism of Islam; Britain has made criticism of Islam potentially criminal by passage of the Hate Speech laws; and, Britain's permissive immigration laws have allowed "radical" Islamists into the country. Polls taken last year show that “nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.”

In a country that has a Muslim population of almost two million and growing, that is a real problem. There needs to be reform. But things break down right there for Labour. What will they reform? The multicultural ethos will not allow the chattering classes to analyze the problems presented by Islam and make critical judgments. Labour assumes that the problem cannot be systemic to Islam – because by default the culture itself must be equal to Western culture - and therefore must be the result of some anamoly. Thus unable to identify why their population is becoming increasingly radicalized, Labour has acted out of sheer, suicidal ignorance.

What I am refering to is yesterday's launch in Britain of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB). This highly influential group created by the government is supposed to help Labour get a handle on its Mosques. Specifically, MINAB is tasked with advising the government on the “suitability of Imams and scholars coming from abroad for employment in the UK” and producing the Islamic religious educational “standards.”

So who does Labour appoint to lead MINAB?

Two of the four organizations appointed to the MINAB are the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). They are the Islamic foxes just set down amongst the British chickens.

The MAB was founded by Dr Kamal Helbawy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself a “Salafi jihadist organization” and the precursor to al Qaeda. The differences between the Brotherhood and al Qaeda are not in philosophy, goals, or objectives, but rather just methods (Walid Phares, Future Jihad, p. 64-65). Dr. Helbway is one of many Islamists Britain has welcomed with open arms whom the U.S. will not allow to enter the country. As to the leader of the MAB today, it is Dr Azzam Tamini. He is an equally qualified person to preside over all of Islam in Britain. He is a proponent of Hamas who has praised suicide bombings.

The MCB is no better. It is run by Dr. Mohammed Bari, a man about whom I have blogged recently for his outrageous remarks in an interview published in the Telegraph. His organization actively seeks to keep Muslims from integrating into British society and he is a proponent of implementing Sharia law in Britain, to include outlawing the public sale of alcohol and the stoning of adulterers. Moreover Dr. Bari and the leadership of the Muslim Council are linked to conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world and in particular Pakistan's Jamaat-i-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by sharia law. Jamaat-I-Islami is itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood (Phares, Future Jihad, p. 65).

And these are the people that Labour has just put in charge of the nation’s Muslims in an attempt to stop the process of radicalization? The sheer insanity of this is mind boggling. The only way to make the MINAB more of a radicaling force would be to add bin Laden to the board.

What the Labour government is missing is that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The issues that are "radicalizing" a substantial minority of the British Muslim population are systemic to the dominant forms of Islam. They are not anamolies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talked about this recently, and it is perhaps the most critical point our leadership on both sides of the pond needs to understand. When asked about “moderate” Muslims in a recent interview, she said:

‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’

Read the interview. I believe that is true, at least in as much as her observations pertain to Salafi Islam and Khomeinist Shia'ism. If you talk to "moderate" Muslims - the people you want as your friends and neighbors - they invariably talk about the "essence" of Islam as being both good and positive. I believe them completely. But it is clear that they are looking to the generalities and ignoring many of the orthodox interpretations. The black letter of the Koran and methods of interpretation of Salafi Islam go beyond this "essence" and lead directly back to 7th century Arabia. As I have written extensively here, if the systemic issues are ever to be addressesd, Islam must evolve and go through its period of Enlightenment.

Assuming the polls are accurate, the good news for Britain at the moment is that a majority of her Muslims fall into that category of “partial Muslims.” But putting the MAB and MCB in a position to influence Britain’s Muslim population is a sure guarantee that there will be no evolution of Islam in Britain, but there will be an ever growing population of “good Muslims.”

There are Muslims in the world today like Tawfiq Hamid and Zuhdi Jasser, voices in the wilderness at the moment, who are trying to evolve their faith. They need our full support. And they need to be the people who are appointed to MINAB. What Labour has just done is compound its problems with Islam exponentially. A few more decisions like that and, well, it may be time to get sized for that burkah.

Update: Robert Spencer makes a point similar to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in this article.

Update: And Ed Husain, a former member of Jamaat-i-Islami and friend of terrorist spiritual leader Omar Bakri, makes a similar point in an essay written in the Guardian stating:

. . . in Muslim scripture there are some unpalatable references. But these are to be seen in the context of their time. What remain valid are the eternal truths that Shatibi, Locke and others enunciated. Our humanity must transcend adherence to scriptural literalism, especially if it leads to mayhem and loss of innocent lives. . .

Read the article here. I do not know if Husain's suggetion of just ignoring parts of the Koran is workable, altough that is precisely what the "partial" or "moderate" Muslims do today. Those who seek a true evolution of their religion seek to do it through a formal process of ijtihad.

Update: And here is yet another article speaking to the problem of Koranic interpretation. This from the Washington Post about a young cleric in Egypt who is challenging the traditional interpretation of the Koran:

Masoud advocates adherence to prayer five times a day, peace toward all and abstinence from alcohol, sex outside of marriage and violence. Beyond those principles, he said, Islam is suffering from a "crisis of interpretation."

Read the article.

Read More...

Summary only...