Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Where Are The Muslim Moderates?

The radical muzzies and their allies in the left wing media are on a bender attacking the NYC police for their counterterrorism operations. So where are the moderate Muslims in all of this? They are in NYC for a counter-demonstration in support of the NYPD. This is all part of a much larger fight for the future of Islam. The American Islamic Leadership Coalition, AILC, released the following statement on this issue:

Since the 2007 release of its Intelligence Division's landmark report, "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," the NYPD has come under a systematic and coordinated assault by highly-politicized Islamist organizations and their enablers, intent on dismantling the NYPD's successful counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization programs. These groups would prefer to see American Muslims shackled to a mindset of victimization, and thus alienated from American society at large, rather than confront the very real issues we face in our communities, including the threat of extremist ideology.

It is important to note that published NYPD documents clearly and appropriately distinguish between the religion of Islam, and the highly politicized ideology of hatred, supremacy and violence characteristic of political Islam (i.e., "Islamism"), and especially the subset thereof known as "jihadi Salafism." Significantly, since the attacks of 9/11, the NYPD has displayed far greater courage in acknowledging and addressing the ideological factors that cause radicalization among Muslims, than have the majority of federal agencies explicitly tasked with defending our nation and its people.

The AILC deplores the widespread tendency of government officials, journalists, academicians and activists to assume that Islamist organizations historically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, Wahhabism and Salafism represent mainstream American Muslims or our concerns.

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition recognizes and regrets the widespread fear of Islam and Muslims that has arisen in recent years in North America and Europe. However, we ascribe this rise of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes primarily to the actions of Muslims themselves (i.e., Islamists), whose efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate, an Islamic state, and/or to impose an antiquated and falsely-divinized human understanding of Islamic law upon others by force, dominate our daily headlines, and inevitably generate a strong sense of disgust-and visceral mistrust-among many of our fellow citizens.

Any and all efforts to conceal the Islamist agenda, or render its discussion beyond the pale of acceptable discourse-by branding such talk as "Islamophobia" or "hate speech"-threatens not only our common freedom and security, but the very future of Islam itself. For the Islamists' prime goal is the silencing of Muslim opposition, and of any voice in the Muslim world that would challenge their monolithic, sterile and shallow understanding of Islam, which lacks the spirituality that enables religion to serve as a true path to God.

A campaign of vilification waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies against the NYPD has reached new heights over the past six weeks, with no less than eight separate stories having appeared in the New York Times from January 24 - February 15, 2012, including an editorial from its editorial board and a page one feature, which concern the screening of a film entitled The Third Jihad to some 1,400 NYPD officers while they waited for a training program.

In light of the swirling controversy over the New York Police Department's counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization practices, we feel it is our civic, moral and religious duty to publicly address a number of issues raised by this controversy.

We have viewed The Third Jihad, and regard the information presented therein to be both factually accurate, and important for our fellow Muslim and non-Muslim citizens to understand, debate and address. The Third Jihad is narrated by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an AILC founding member, and a devout Muslim, physician and former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. At the very outset of the film Dr. Jasser states, "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of 'radical' Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical."

The Third Jihad explicitly distinguishes between the religion of Islam, and the highly politicized ideology of religious hatred, supremacy and violence characteristic of Islamism. While the film does not examine the pluralistic, tolerant and spiritual traditions of Islam that lie at the heart of our own understanding thereof, this does not imply that the film is inaccurate in its depiction of what it specifically terms "radical Islam," as exemplified by movements such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Wahhabism (aka "Salafism") and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Notwithstanding Islamist claims to the contrary, we believe there is nothing inappropriate about the NYPD or other security agencies using the film The Third Jihad to help their staff understand and recognize the ideology that underlies and animates Islamist terrorism.

In recent weeks, other media outlets have targeted the NYPD for its community policing, and its monitoring efforts on college campuses, alleging that these constitute religious discrimination and profiling.

The AILC affirms that all inhabitants of the United States are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of race, ethnicity and religion. However, there is a major distinction between alleged religious profiling and sound law enforcement. As Mayor Bloomberg stated recently:

"We cannot repeat the mistakes we made after the 1993 bombing and slack in our vigilance…Reacting after the fact is not enough…We do not target individuals based on race or religion…We follow all possible leads wherever they take us."

The issue at hand is not "improper surveillance." Rather, it is the responsibility of the NYPD to know the communities it must serve and protect, and to anticipate any terrorist threats thereto, including those that arise from the ideological indoctrination of Muslims with a "jihadi-Salafi" mindset. In regard to the legality of the NYPD's activities, we note that according to the modified Handschu guidelines, "[f]or the purpose of protecting or preventing terrorist activities, NYPD is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

To our knowledge, no NYPD counter-terrorism cases have given rise to departmental abuses of power. Nor have any of the scurrilous attacks directed against the NYPD cited specific legal improprieties known to have occurred. We find it particularly disturbing that while seeking to undermine public confidence in the NYPD through innuendo-and issuing calls for "oversight," "corrective training" and "participation" by the "Muslim community" (i.e., Islamists!) in all counter-terrorist programs initiated by the NYPD-none of these reports have cited a single case in which the NYPD has been admonished by executive or judicial authorities for the tactics it employs to prevent terrorist attacks

Unlike those who dream of establishing an Islamic state or caliphate, members of the AILC are dedicated to theseparation of state and religion and the defense of our constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and the right of all individuals to worship as they see fit.

Thus, we come to New York City as a coalition, to proclaim that American Muslims are not monolithic, and that a broad spectrum of Muslims support the courageous work of the NYPD to defend this city, and our nation, from attack.








Read More...

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Conscience Of An Excommunicated Heretical Leftie



There are two things the modern left cannot tolerate. In second place is dissent from their opponents. The modern left - i.e., the outgrowth of the 60's radical left - wholly jettisoned intellectual honesty and a desire for free and fair debate long, long ago. Any fact that does not support their side is ignored and every effort made to delegitimize the person speaking (Media Matters and the White House war on Fox is a classic example.) The modern left's playbook calls for shutting down debate as soon as possible.

The only thing the modern left hates more than dissent from their opponents is a heretic - one of their own who crosses the Democrat's plantation boundary and thinks for themselves. Yet that is what happened to independent film maker Eric Allen Bell, a man sufficiently far left that he was, at one time, a prolific diarist on Kos. Yet over the past year, while doing research on opposition to a new Mosque in Tennessee for what he intended to be his latest documentary - (more specifically, it was intended to be about racist Christian Islamaphobic yahoos). But Bell had an epiphany. He discovered that the vast majority of modern structural Islam - the mosques, the front organizations, the polemicists - they do not share his values. Indeed, it would be fair to say that he found that their values were wholly antithetical to his own.

As Bell began to sound the alarm in the left wing blogosphere, he ignited a firestorm of debate there.

Heh. Just joking.

His facts were ignored, he was labeled an Islamaphobe and quickly excommunicated from the left. You will find his fascinating story told in detail here. I'd like to highlight one point that he makes:

[O]ne thing Horowitz did say that came through with stunning clarity was an assertion that there was an unholy alliance between the Left and Islam, with radical Islam using the Liberal media to create a smoke screen for it – a place where radical can appear moderate and receive Liberal support. He also went on to say that in many universities across America that students were being radicalized, indoctrinated into the far Left. And I remembered something. Nearly all of the organizers for the college aged activist group who demonstrated in favor of the new mosque in Murfreesboro were either Socialists or Communists. These were kids and they all seemed to share one Professor in particular who was something of a mentor to them, a Socialist who always seemed to be hanging around their college parties, infiltrating into their social scene, taking the smarter and more articulate ones under his wing as their campus group called simply “Solidarity” grew in numbers – in fact recruiting quite a few students while organizing in favor of the mosque. Yikes.

There is a reason the socialist left is willing to make this tactical alliance with the Islamicists. The Muzzies help in pursuing what has been a, if not the, central goal of the socialists since their very inception, the destruction of Christianity and Judaism as the basis for our nation. And in that, Islam is the perfect momentary ally. The radical Muzzies make no secret of the fact that they seek to conquer Israel and to drive out Judaism and Christianity from all areas under their control. The left's faustian bargain with the radical Muzzies really is like the Hitler-Stalin pact, as the only thing the radical Muzzies hate more than the Jews or Christians are the godless - at least once the Muzzies have lost their use for them.







Read More...

Thursday, July 3, 2008

For Every Action, There Is An Equal & Opposite Reaction


The title is a statement of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. But it applies in many ways to society where imposing tyrannical acts against the will of the majority will cause a reaction over time. And so it is in Britain, where the Labour government and chattering class have opened the flood gates to immigration - and particularly to immigration from Islamic countries - and where the British are watching their nation being changed against their will and without their say. Indeed, to criticize immigration, multiculturalism, or Islam leads inevitably to being demonized by the socialist echo chamber - if not prosecuted by the state. The British people are incredibly slow to act, but act they are. Melanie Phillips writes that it is showing today in support for the British National Party, a party with deeply racist roots.
_______________________________________________________

This from Melanie Phillips:

It is a source of great concern that far too many otherwise decent British people now refuse to believe that the British National Party is what it is -- a bunch of viciously racist and anti-Jewish bigots. The recent debacle in the Henley by-election, where the BNP did better than either the Labour party or UKIP , shows that it is now tapping into a disturbing level of support.

This is for two reasons. First, like all far right parties it opportunistically seizes upon genuine grievances that mainstream politicians will not address. At present these centre around the deliberate erosion of British national identity through unlimited immigration and a refusal to tackle the growing Islamisation of Britain. Mainstream liberal opinion holds that even to identify this as a problem is racist or ‘Islamophobic’. The result is that the truly racist BNP (which uses concern about Muslims to camouflage its real animosity against all Asians, people of colour and Jews) has seized upon these issues – with the further result that because it has done so, this ‘proves’ to the liberal classes that these issues are indeed racist. Which, of course, they are not. The idea that the only alternative to cultural and national suicide is neo-fascism is ludicrous. Yet that is precisely what liberal opinion, which demonises all attempts to uphold national identity as racist, holds.

The second reason is the fact that the BNP set out to sanitise its image of such unfortunate connotations of bigotry -- going so far as to brandish support for Israel against Hezbollah, for example, to underpin its claim to be an entirely respectable party backed by Jews, black people and other minorities, all united in the mainstream cause of defending British national identity and western values against attack.

. . . And so on, and rabidly on. So much for the supposedly sanitised BNP. When it comes to bigotry, it’s just more of the same old same old.

To repeat: fascists and neo-fascists have always exploited genuine grievances which have been ignored by mainstream politicians. As the Muslim Tory candidate Ali Miraj points out, it is the fact that our current mainstream political class has either ignored or actually caused the destruction of British national identity and is now busily appeasing the Islamists who seek to colonise the ruins which has created a powder keg among the indigenous British community and given the BNP its current opportunity. The two are symbiotically linked.

Who is to blame for the rise of the BNP? Labour’s zealot nation-destroyers and the feeble hand-wringers of the Conservative party.


Read the entire article. The BNP may be an odious organization, but they are touching ever greater mainstream grievances that not only have the chattering classes demonized, but Labour has sought to suppress with the police power of the state. To give you a feel for just how oppressive the Labour party is in silencing free speech and intolerant of any dissent, here is a short recounting of the BNP prosecution:



In 2004, the BBC surreptitiously filmed a speech by members of the British Nationalist Party (BNP). Caught on film were BNP members who described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and who said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole". The Crown used the Public Order Act of 1986 to prosecute the BNP members for stirring up racial hatred. After two lengthy trials, the first of which ended in a partial hung jury, the BNP members were acquitted. Their attorney argued at both trials that the speech was a part of legitimate political discourse. Gordon Brown commented after the trial:

Laws protecting Britain's ethnic and religious minorities may be tightened after the leader of the British National Party was cleared of trying to stir up racial hatred, Chancellor Gordon Brown said last night.The Chancellor promised a fresh look at the law in the light of the decision of a jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday to clear BNP leader Nick Griffin and his fellow activist. . . Mr Brown said: "Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made. Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. And I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes."

Does that take your breath away - trying to convict someone and sentincing them for up to seven years in prison for "offending" "mainstream opinion?" PM Gordon Brown will never be confused in the history books with Voltaire. It is both amazing and telling that Brown's statement raised not a hue and cry in Britain. . . .

Read the entire post. It says much that the electorate of Britain are turning to the BNP as their only outlet as they watch society being deconstructed around them. That this will all come to a head at some point is inevitable.


Read More...

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Conversions From Islam To Christianity


Every action causes a reaction at some levels, and the rise in radical Wahhabi Islam, infecting as it has other strains of Islam, from Deobandi to Khomeinist Shiaism, is no exception. It rose on Allah's promise of world domination. Yet, as the radicals are failing on the battlefields of Iraq, many Muslims are rebelling against the Dark Ages fanaticism and turning secular - or converting to Christianity, despite the threat of death. Indeed, the most visible event in this vein was the baptism of one of Italy's most well known Muslims into the Catholic faith. The baptism was carried out during Easter Service at St. Peter's Basilica by the Pope himself.

This from an exceptional article in Pajama's Media by Andrew Walden:

Pope Benedict’s choice to publicly baptize the most prominent Muslim in Italy, Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, highlights a quiet worldwide exodus from Islam. In recent years, millions have moved on. With this high-profile action, Pope Benedict demonstratively blesses this massive conversion from the highest levels of the Church.

Interviewed by al-Jazeera in 2006, Ahmad al-Qataani, leader of the Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, explains the decline:

Islam used to represent … Africa’s main religion . . . [T]he number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was in the beginning of the last century.

On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed.

Allam’s public baptism came just ten days after the body of Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul, Iraq, was found in a shallow grave after being kidnapped by al-Qaeda February 29. The ceremony came just three days after an al-Qaeda tape threatening the pope and condemning cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims who convert to other religions or abandon religion entirely are subject to a standing order of death for apostasy. The baptism of Allam is an act of defiance in the face of Islamic threats.

The baptism of Allam also comes in the midst of papal “dialogue” with Muslims. The dialogue began unpromisingly with the catcalls from Islam and its secularist allies which greeted the now-famous September 20, 2006, papal address at the University of Regensburg. In October, 138 Islamic leaders presented the pope with “A Common Word Between Us and You” — nailed by critics as a craftily written call for conversion. On March 4, Pope Benedict approved formation of a permanent “Catholic-Muslim forum” scheduled to meet in November. And now he has thrown his own call for conversion into the discussion. Islam’s secularist allies were quick to echo Muslims, calling the baptism “provocative.” While accepting the Islamic death penalty for apostasy as a given, they complain the pope’s action could set back dialogue.

While the secularists wring their hands, Allam writes that his mind “has been freed from the obscurantism of an ideology that legitimizes lies and deception, violent death that leads to homicide and suicide, blind submission to tyranny, permitting me to join the authentic religion of Truth, Life, and Liberty. … I realize what I am going up against but I will confront my fate with my head high, with my back straight, and the interior strength of one who is certain about his faith.”

Allam, author of numerous books and deputy editor of Milan’s Corriere della Sera, joins a list of converts from Islam which includes many other public intellectuals and millions of average people from all over the world. This is more than the normal flow between two large religious communities. Islam can point to little in the way of recent conversions. Its claim to be the world’s fastest-growing religion stems mostly from the high birth rate in Islamic countries, whose infant mortality rates have been cut by the introduction of Western medicine. Christian growth is based on adult conversion. As leading Christian evangelist Wolfgang Simpson writes, “More Muslims have come to Christ in the last two decades than in all of history.”

Although al-Qataani points to Africa, there is another phenomenon based on repulsion from Islamist dictatorship, corruption, and terrorist violence. In Iran as many as 1 million people have surreptitiously converted to Evangelical Christianity in the last five years. Pastor Hormoz Shariat claims to have converted 50,000 of them through his U.S.-based Farsi-language satellite ministry. He contrasts the upswing to the efforts of evangelical missionaries in Iran between 1830 and 1979, whose 149 years of work built a Christian community of only 3,000. One Iranian religious scholar believes youth are abandoning Islam because it is identified with the corrupt Iranian government. Now the Iranian Majlis (parliament) is debating the death penalty for conversion.

After years of al-Qaeda war on Iraq, a similar phenomenon is growing. The New York Times March 4 reports: “After almost five years of war, many young people in Iraq, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.” A high school girl tells Times reporters: “I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us. Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don’t deserve to be rulers.” A 19-year-old man says: “The religion men are liars. Young people don’t believe them. Guys my age are not interested in religion anymore.” A Baghdad law professor explains that her students “have changed their views about religion. They started to hate religious men. They make jokes about them because they feel disgusted by them.” A 24-year-old female college student says, “I used to love Osama bin Laden. Now I hate Islam. Al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are spreading hatred. People are being killed for nothing.”

In southern Russia the same pattern is emerging. According to Roman Silantyev, executive secretary of the Inter-religious Council in Russia, freed from atheist control, two million Muslims converted to Christianity. Repulsed by bloody terrorist attacks, those living in areas such as Beslan have converted to Christianity in the greatest numbers of all. As many as 100,000 have converted to Christianity in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan.

After decades of Islamist war, evangelicals report thousands of sub-rosa converts in rural areas of Kashmir. Says one churchgoer: “I am interested in this religion. I hate violence. I hate fundamentalists in Islam. I come here to seek peace.” An Indian newspaper headline reads: “Urban Muslim Youth Out to Junk Faith.”

Following decades of terrorist rule, Palestinians are being quietly converted, holding in-home services to avoid detection. Says one evangelist: “I’ve been working among these people for thirty years, and I promise you I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Islam is also losing adherents in areas where Islamist harassment is heavy on the streets. The London Times estimates 15% of Muslims living in Western Europe have left Islam — 200,000 in the UK alone. Those who leave often face harassment, threats, and attack.

The mufti of Perak, Malaysia, estimates about 250,000 people have abandoned Islam, making formal application for apostasy to the state — a right allowed to Malaysian citizens who are not ethnic Malays. Says he: “This figure does not include individuals who don’t do solat, doesn’t fast and breaks [sic] all the tenets of Islam.” Borrowing from the communist playbook, Malaysia operates “reeducation camps” for any ethnic Malay found guilty of apostasy. Unsurprisingly, ethnic Malays are at the bottom of the economic ladder in Malaysia.

In a letter published in Corriere della Sera on Easter Day, Allam points out the pope “sent an explicit and revolutionary message to a church that until now has been too cautious in the conversion of Muslims … because of the fear of being unable to protect the converted who are condemned to death for apostasy.

“Thousands of people in Italy have converted to Islam and practice their faith serenely. But there are also thousands of Muslims who have converted to Christianity who are forced to hide their new faith out of fear of being killed by Islamist terrorists.”

Allam describes Islam as a system for taking and holding power. Threat of violence is its enforcement mechanism. Allam also points out: “Beyond … the phenomenon of extremists and Islamist terrorism at the global level, the root of evil is inherent to a physiologically violent and historically conflictual Islam.” So it is not coincidental that Muslims are abandoning the faith as U.S. and coalition soldiers smash al-Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Islamist terrorists and street thugs are beginning to look impotent.

Appeasement-oriented opinion explains Islamic violence as a response to Western policy. For them, reality is incomprehensible. But in a 1998 ABC News interview with John Miller, Osama bin Laden explained his motivation: Allah had given the jihadis victory over one superpower (the USSR) and Allah would grant them victory over the other. But a decade later it is not coming to pass on the battlefield. The defeat of the Islamists puts the lie to the claim that Allah will cause the infidels to desire submission. As a result, the Islamists’ ability to intimidate their captive populations is weakened. More and more it is Muslims who no longer desire submission to Islam.

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Monday, March 10, 2008

Multiculturalism's Early Obituary


Canadian Muslim columnist Salim Mansur writes the obituary for multiculturalism, though I think he is being far too optimistic on that point. Nonetheless, he does give an exceptional critique of this socialist paradigm.

___________________________________________________

This from Salim Mansur in the Toronto Sun:

Future historians of the phenomenon known as "multiculturalism" that the West bone-headedly adopted towards the end of the second millennium will note the precise time when it was dealt a mortal wound.

It was at 8:46 on Tuesday morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the first of the four commercial airliners hijacked by Islamist terrorists -- all of Arab origin -- struck the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

Since that time other western cities -- Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Toronto, Paris, Washington --have been targets of successful or failed attempts by Islamist terrorists determined to spread random death and destruction.

Those involved in the planning and execution of such terror are immigrants or born of immigrant parents belonging to the rapidly growing Muslim population in the West over the past 40 years. I happen to be a part of this wave of immigration to the West.

This western Muslim population, with its ethnic diversity reflecting the vastness of the Arab-Muslim world -- stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa -- could have given some timely ballast to multiculturalism by unambiguously and unapologetically defending the West against barbarity.

This was the minimum Muslims in the West owed to the civilization where they sought refuge, and where they found security, prosperity, freedom and self-fulfillment of the like denied them in their native lands.

Instead Muslim-based organizations, at first having offered denial, followed with an unending volume of polemics condemning the West for past sins. By exploiting the West's post-colonial guilt they held it responsible for the conditions in the Arab-Muslim world that breeds the politics of terrorism.

These bald-faced polemics are sheer nonsense, and yet they resonated in much of the West that went limp with the anodyne of wishful multicultural thinking.

The idea that all cultures are equal in merit and deserving respect, an idea devoid of any historical perspective, could be seriously proposed and adopted only in western liberal democracies. And logically such an idea meant only one thing, the diminution of the West and its achievements in comparison to other cultures. . . .

Read the entire article.

Unfortunately, I think that multiculturalism is inextricably intertwined with socialism and a world view that holds in contempt traditional western values. It forms the paradigm for far too many of our elite and academics to be jettisoned at this point, despite the clarity of the evidence of multiculturalism's suicidal fatuity. Multiculturalism will not die until socialism itself begins to wane in the world.


Read More...

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Interesting News & Posts - 17 February 2008

Interesting news and posts of late from across the blogosphere, all below the fold.










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Patrick at Ankle Biting Pundits: "Eventually, the shine will come off of Sen. Obama’s vapid and puerile campaign. Eventually, someone in the press will ask him a challenging question. When that day comes, this messiah business will evanesce and left standing there will be just another liberal politician."

And RightTruth has the story on Obama’s attempt to pass some seriously costly legislation. Its Obama’s plan to feed the world with fish and loaves – and our tax dollars. The water to wine bill is still in committee.

From the Jawa Report: When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious." Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum. I quibble with the label "liberal" as the modern left has left classical liberalism in the dust. I think it more accurate to refer to the folk described above as progressive.

And you can see the progressive mind amply demonstrated at Red Alerts in the story of Bernie Ward, liberal lion and vociferous critic of our troops.

I have been saying for years that there is nothing of "classical liberalism" in the modern "progressive"left. You only find classical liberal principles valued and upheld on the conservative side of the house these days. From the left, you get "intellectual terrorism." Some thoughts on this at Covenant Zone.

See Blonde Sagacity’s Blog Rollup. There are pics from the Berkley City Council protest, the Top Ten Economic Myths of 2007, funny chicks, and much, much more. And at Iris Elk, an eclectic roll-up, from Chavez’s favorite capybara recipe to musings upon whether a Catholic can be a Democrat.

Seraphic Secret has more on the complex operation that was the Mughnieyah hit, and a suggestion that Mughnieyah was killed to forestall future terrorist operations in Europe. And from MK, the BBC apparently cannot distinguish who the bad guys are. Here is a rule of thumb, the folks described by Crusader Rabbit who kill innocents or threaten to do so in order to get their way – they are the bad guys. And insane bad guys at that. Perhaps they might try viagra before going straight to the beheadings for witchcraft.

Over at Political Insecurity, the animals are on the loose. Muslim students in Nigeria attempt to lynch a Christian student because they were angry at the Mohammed Cartoons. They ended up rioting, killing several people and burning a police station.

And at Shield of Achilles, the animals are on the loose in Denmark. Is anybody watching? Sheik Yer Mami informs us that the problem in Denmark is actually global warming. The multiculturalists are fiddling while f*** Rome burns.

And at Lionheart, the animals are on video on the loose in Luton.

It has been apparent for years, with leak after leak finding its way onto the NYT, that our intelligence agencies are out of control and seeking to influence policy. As Michael Rubin reports, these rogue acts reached their zenith in the drafting of the NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program – an NIE that even our spy chief Mitch McConnell admits was inaccurate.

Multiculturalism is destroying Britain. Will it destroy America. Ask the Velvet Hammer.

Its nice to see someone on the right who finds Ann Coulter as tedious and ridiculous as I, though I admit to laughing at the "coherent tax policy" line. And while I had considered Lieberman as a running mate to McCain – and I happen to greatly respect Lieberman – I think that someone with strong economic credentials, such as Romney, might be a better choice.

Sometimes, fiction is stranger than . . . well, fiction.

All laws come with unintended consequences, though many are foreseeable. Though, I have to admit, I did not see this one: How long will it be before some enterprising American plaintiff . . . files a complaint alleging that calls for affirmative action at his or her institution have created a hostile working environment?

Painting: The above painting is "Leonidas at Thermopylae" Jacques-Louis David, 1814.

Read More...

Saturday, February 2, 2008

More On The Bishop of Rochester & "Anti-Islamic" Problems In The UK

British Muslim Shiraz Maher weighs in at the Times on the validity of the Bishop of Rochester's assertion that multiculturalism is responsible for the success of the Wahhabi / Salafi / Deobandis in radicalizing Britain's Muslim population and that there are Muslim fiefdoms in Britain.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This from the Shiraz Maher in the Times about the radicalization of Britian's Muslim population highlights the insanity of Labour's head in the sand position (the Orwellian practice of now referring to the acts of radical as "anti-Islamic") and their continued embrace of multiculturalism. It also highlights how Labour's policies are assisting the radical Salafi / Wahhabi / Deobandi's while they terrorize the British Muslim population that would challenge their actions. It is truly the worst of all worlds:

Perhaps it had to be someone like Michael Nazir-Ali, the first Asian bishop in the Church of England, who would break with convention and finally point out the elephant in the room.

His comments last week about the growing stranglehold of Muslim extremists in some communities revived debate about the future of multiculturalism and provoked a flurry of condemnation. Members of all three political parties immediately clamoured to dismiss him. “I don’t recognise the description that he’s talked about – no-go areas and people feeling intimidated,” said Hazel Blears, the communities secretary.

A quick call to her Labour colleague John Reid, the former home secretary, would almost certainly have helped her to identify at least one of those places. Just over a year ago Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen in Leytonstone, east London, during a speech on extremism, appropriately. “How dare you come to a Muslim area,” Izzadeen screamed.

That picture is mirrored outside London. One of our country’s biggest and most deprived Muslim areas is Small Heath, in Birmingham, where Dr Tahir Abbas, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Culture, was raised. With a dominant Asian monoculture, low social achievement and high unemployment, Small Heath is precisely the kind of insular and disengaged urban ghetto Nazir-Ali was talking about.

Reflecting on his experiences there, Abbas is critical of his peers who don’t stray beyond their area. “They haven’t seen rural Devon, a stately home or Windsor Castle,” he says. That refusal to engage with anything beyond the community is suffocating young Muslims by divorcing them almost entirely from Britain’s cultural heritage and mainstream life.

And their feelings of separation have been further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (of which I was once a senior member) have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them. In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.

Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fundamentalists thrive off,” he says.

The point was underscored last summer when Kafeel Ahmed, whom I once knew, was arrested after a Jeep laden with explosives crashed into Glasgow airport. I think Ahmed was first radicalised in Cambridge, where I saw his views become increasingly intolerant, even though the city has a negligible Muslim population. After being exposed to the Islamist culture of separation and confrontation there, he didn’t need to be living in an actual ghetto. He was already sectioning himself off, by giving up his nonMuslim friends and eventually socialising only with those who shared his world-view.

It raises a compelling point that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have largely tried to ignore: while the moral ambiguity of multiculturalism means Britain no longer knows what it stands for, our enemies are not just growing ever surer of themselves but are also winning the debate.

For almost three decades now, the witless promotion of cultural relativism under successive governments means that our national identity can simply be reduced to the theme of a courtroom sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – anything goes. Measuring the extent to which this ambiguity has affected perceptions within Britain’s already insular Muslim communities, Abbas told me he surveyed schoolchildren in Small Heath by asking them how many Muslims they thought lived in Britain.

“We had answers around 30m to 50m,” he says, with more than a hint of despondency in his voice (the true figure is 1.6m).

Moghal blames the mosques for this, saying: “They promote a conscious rejection of western values.” He has a point. In many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard.

Muslim groups have already reacted with predictable intemperance to the bishop’s comments. “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, while Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain said the church should “take serious action”.

Their anger vindicates him entirely and in many respects demonstrates that Nazir-Ali’s observations not only are valid, but don’t go far enough. The Glasgow bombings proved that the kinds of no-go area extremists are creating don’t always have to be physical locations.

Muslim attitudes are now so hyper-sensitive that anyone who dares to criticise Islam or Muslims has to think twice – and then some more – before doing so. Publishing a simple cartoon is enough to provoke a serious diplomatic crisis, the ransacking of embassies, mass global protest and at least several deaths.

But it’s not just nonMuslims for whom extremists reserve their hatred. After I wrote about the way British Islamists celebrated Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last month, a number of threats quickly appeared on the internet. “If I meet him I’m going to paste him in his face,” wrote Abu Junayd from Slough on a chat forum. Another commentator said I should “suffer severe punishments in this life and the hereafter”.

Their attitude springs from the Takfiri mind-set, which, in its most extreme forms, underwrites Al-Qaeda’s philosophy by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Islamism (the extreme, politicised form of Islam) is a legitimate target for attack.

As if to emphasise the point, a statement released on a known Al-Qaeda forum last week specifically called for attacks on moderate Muslims in Britain. Citing the opinions of Muham-mad Ibn Alb al-Wahhab, whose followers are known as Wahhabis, it branded moderates as “aides of the crusaders”.

Seven years after the Cantle report first revealed the extent to which Britain’s different communities are living apart together, it’s still impossible to engage politicians seriously about the future of multiculturalism.

After being heckled by Izzadeen in Leytonstone for “daring” to visit a Muslim area, the home secretary told him: “There is no part of this country that any of us is excluded from.” The knee-jerk reaction to the bishop’s comments suggests we’re still a long way from realising that vision.

Read the article.


Read More...

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

"The Civilized World Ought To Recognize The Immense Danger That Salafi Islam Poses"

The title of this post is a quote from Dr. Tawfiq Hamid. Dr. Hamid is a Cairo born physician who eventually became a practitioner of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, a jihadist, and a member of the terrorist organization Jamaah Islamiyah (JI). JI was an organization led by Ayman al-Zawahiri that later merged with al Qaeda as Zawahiri became Osama bin Laden's executive officer. What follows is Dr. Hamid's autobiographical story. It is a condemnation of Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam being exported across the world today with billions of petrodollars. And it chronicles Dr. Hamid's own belief that the Koran can and should be reinterpreted to promote equality and non-violence. I have mentioned Dr. Hamid several times before as one of those brave men who seeks to evolve his religion at great personal risk. And here is his story:

What occupies the mind of a jihad-driven Muslim? How is such fervor planted in young and impressionable believers? Where does it originate? How did I - once an innocent child who grew up in a liberal, moderate and educated household - find myself a member of a radical Islamic group? These questions go to the root of Islamic violence and must be addressed if free societies are to combat radical Islam. To further this aim, I will explore the psychological development of a jihadi's mind through my own firsthand experience as a former member of a Muslim terrorist organization.

I was born in Cairo to a secular Muslim family. My father was an orthopedic surgeon and an agnostic at heart; my mother was a French teacher and a liberal. Both considered Islam to be, primarily, an integral part of our culture. With the exception of my father, we would fast on Ramadan. Even though my father was not religious, he understood our need to fit into the community and never forced his secular views on us. He espoused diverse philosophical ideas but encouraged us to follow our own convictions. Most importantly, he taught my brother and me to think critically rather than to learn by rote.

I never had any doubt, however, that we were Muslim - that Allah was our creator, Muhammad his messenger and the Koran our book. I believed that if I performed good deeds, I would be admitted to paradise where I could satisfy all my personal desires. I also knew, alternatively, that my transgressions would be punished by eternal torture in hell. I absorbed these beliefs largely from the surrounding environment rather than from my parents; they were shared by most children around me.

. . . When I was nine, I learned the following Koranic verse during one of our Arabic lessons: "But do not think of those that have been slain in God's cause as dead. Nay, they are alive! With their sustainer have they their sustenance. They are very happy with the reward they received from Allah [for dying as a shahid] and they rejoice for the sake of those who have not joined them [i.e., have not yet died for Allah]" (Koran 3:169-70).

It was the first time I was exposed to the concept of shahid (martyr), and naturally, I began to dream of becoming one. The thought of entering paradise very much appealed to me. There I could eat all the lollipops and chocolates I wanted, or play all day without anyone telling me to study.

What made the concept of shahid even more attractive was its power to quell the fear I experienced as a young boy - for we were taught that if we were not good Muslims (especially if we did not pray five times a day), a "bald snake" would attack us in the grave. The idea of dying as a martyr provided a perfect escape from the frightening anguish of eternal punishment. Dying as a shahid, in fact, was the only deed that fully guaranteed paradise after death.

In secondary school I watched films about the early Islamic conquest. These films promoted the notion that "true" Muslims were devoted to aggressive jihad. While jihadi seeds were thereby planted in my mind, they did not yet seriously influence my personality or behavior. . . In my early years of high school, I was also - as many teenagers are - preoccupied with sex and hobbies. A variety of religious and cultural constraints made it virtually impossible to experience sexual activity, however.

During my last year of high school, I began to ponder seriously the concept of God while reading about the molecular structure of DNA in a biology book.

These thoughts prompted me to learn more about Islam and to devote myself to serving Allah. I remember one particularly defining moment in an Arabic language class when I was sitting beside a Christian friend named Nagi Anton. I was reading a book entitled Alshaykhan by Taha Hussein that cited the Prophet Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah.'" Following the reading of this Hadith, I decisively turned toward Nagi and said to him, "If we are to apply Islam correctly, we should apply this Hadith to you." At that moment I suddenly started to view Nagi as an enemy rather than as a longtime friend.

What further hardened my attitude on this matter was the advice I received from many dedicated Muslim fellow students, who warned me against befriending Christians. They based their counsel on the following verse: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Koran 5:51).

In view of this verse and the previous one, I felt obliged as a Muslim to limit my relationships with my Christian friends. The love and friendship I once felt for them had been transformed into disrespect, merely because I wished to obey the commandments of my religion. The seductive ideas of my religious studies had diluted the influence of my secular upbringing. By restricting my contact with Christians, I felt that I was doing a great deed to satisfy Allah.

My high test scores enabled me to gain admission to the medical school at Cairo University in the late 1970s. At the time Islamism was proliferating rapidly. This was due in part to the money and textbooks Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi sect donated to promote Salafi Islam, but, more importantly, Islamism gained adherents because Egyptians attributed the growing wealth of Saudi Arabia to its strict practice of Salafism. We enviously lamented, "Look how Allah has blessed the Saudis with money and oil because they apply Shari'a." We believed that our economic problems would be solved if we did the same - just as Allah had blessed the Saudis, He would bless us.

At medical school I met members of Jamaah Islamiyah, an Islamic organization then approved by both the Egyptian government and the university, though later classified as a terrorist organization. Jamaah built a small prayer room in our medical school that later developed into a mosque with an associated library. The mosque was behind the physiology and biochemistry departments, and members of Jamaah came there daily before science classes to lecture us on Islam. They warned us about the punishments awaiting us after death if we did not follow Islam strictly and were effective in advancing Islamism among many of the students, including me.

Our fear of being punished after death was exacerbated by our work in the cadaver room, where we dissected dead bodies. Seeing death regularly during anatomy and physiology courses made us feel that the life of this world was meaningless compared to "real" life after death. Jamaah Islamiyah impressed that idea on us by citing the following Koranic verse: "Those who desire the life of the present and its glitter, to them we shall pay [the price of] their deeds therein, without diminution... [yet] it is they who, in the life to come, shall have nothing but the fire - for in vain shall be all good things that they have done in this [world], and worthless all that they ever did" (Koran 11:15-16). Indeed, the preachers used a range of verses to warn those who did not follow Muhammad and Islam rigorously that they would suffer in hell forever.

. . . The rising power of Jamaah Islamiyah inside the medical school was another critical factor in fostering my religious zealotry and that of my fellow students. Once Jamaah Islamiyah became influential, it prohibited such social events as listening to music, which it deemed un-Islamic. Female students were separated; they were not allowed to sit with males. Students were afraid to defy the group's hostile decrees. Its control reached the point where Christian professors were threatened. I will never forget when they attacked an anatomy professor, Dr. Edward, because he asked Jamaah leaders to end their "mandatory" daily sermon so that he could start his anatomy class. Jamaah Islamiyah's control of our medical school gradually limited our rights. Its members exploited the lack of restrictions on their conduct to deprive everybody else of freedom.

During my first year of medical school, a Jamaah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization. Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph) - a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic caliphate or amir almomenin (prince of the believers). I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah's mosque for noon prayers. On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.) He told me, "Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside." By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam.

Initially, I thought that I would experience an ordinary prayer session like those in other mosques. But before the prayers began, the participants were required to stand shoulder to shoulder and foot to foot. The leading cleric, Muhammad Omar, personally checked our arrangement for 15 minutes to make sure that there were no gaps between our shoulders or feet. The reason for this exercise became apparent when Omar recited the following verse: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure" (Koran 61:4). This militaristic attitude during prayers was the first step in preparing me for the concept of jihad against "the enemies of Allah," the non-Muslims.

Following the prayers, members of Jamaah welcomed me and introduced me to a "brother" named Magdi al-Mahdi, who advised me to start reading Salafi books. I followed his advice and became immersed in those texts. After a few months of listening to Jamaah's belligerent religious sermons and reading the materials they recommended, my personality was utterly transformed. I started to grow my beard. I stopped smiling and telling jokes. I adopted a serious look at all times and became very judgmental toward others. Bitter debates with my family ensued. My behavioral and intellectual transformation greatly alarmed my father. My mother was also concerned; she said that the Koran should be understood in a more moderate manner and advised me to stop reading Salafi materials.

Salafi teachings expressly forbid acting on sexual desire. They prohibit a man from touching any woman or even looking at one. Speaking to a woman on a personal level is not permitted. To be alone with a woman without relatives present, it is believed, would "invite Satan to be the third person." Women became for members of Jamaah, therefore, forbidden creatures. But while relations with women were strictly proscribed, the erotic passages in Salafi writings simultaneously aroused in us a powerful sexual desire. This dilemma led us to conclude that dying for Allah provided our only hope for satisfying our lust, because that lust could be satisfied only in paradise. It is not surprising that Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders sent letters to their suicide murderers that described to them the hur, or white ladies awaiting them in paradise.

In addition to its severe prohibitions governing sexual conduct, Salafi Islam also strictly limits most artistic expression, which it considers to be satanic. Music involving string instruments is haram (forbidden). Songs, especially romantic ones, are prohibited as well. It is haram to listen to a woman's singing voice. Even drawing is restricted. Such harsh prohibitions suppressed my ability to appreciate beauty and prepared my mind to accept the inhuman elements in Salafi doctrine. By way of contrast, it is interesting to note that Sufi Muslims enjoy music, singing and dancing, and they rarely, if ever, engage in terrorism.

Unfortunately, I followed Salafi Islam. My hatred toward non-Muslims increased dramatically, and jihadi doctrine became second nature to me. My goal of being a physician and healing the sick grew tainted, infected by my strong wish to subjugate non-Muslims and impose Shari'a.

At one afternoon prayer session, an imam I had never met before gave a sermon. He was one of the fiercest speakers I had ever heard. His passion for jihad was astonishing. He advocated complete Islamic dominance, urging us to pursue jihad against non-Muslims and subdue them to Shari'a - the duty of every true Muslim. His rhetoric inspired us to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah. He particularly condemned the West for the freedom of its women. He hated the fact that Western women were permitted to wear what they pleased, to work and to have the same opportunities as men.

He dreamt of forcing the West to conform to a Taliban-style system in which women were obliged to wear the Islamic hijab, were legally beaten by men to discipline them and were stoned to death for extramarital sex. After the imam's speech my friend, Tariq Abdul-Muhsin, asked me if I knew this speaker. When I said I did not, Tariq told me that he was Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and, because I was a new member of Jamaah, offered to introduce us.

Zawahiri was exceptionally bright, one of the top postgraduate students in the medical school. We called him by his title and first name - Dr. Ayman.

He came from a well-known, highly-educated and wealthy family. As was customary for Jamaah members, he wore a beard and dressed occasionally in the Pakistani style of the Taliban. He disapproved of Egypt's secular government; he wanted Egypt to follow Shari'a law and Coptic Christians to be made dhimmis - second-class citizens submissive to Islam. To disparage secular Arab governments, he cited the following verse: "For they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, infidels" (Koran 5:44).

When I met him, Zawahiri welcomed me affectionately. He spoke quietly, gazing intently at me through his thick glasses. With a serious expression he placed his hand on my shoulder and said, "Young Muslims like you are the hope for the future return of khilafa [caliphate or Islamic global dominance]." I felt a great sense of gratitude and honor. I wanted to please him by contributing to his "noble" cause. Throughout my membership in Jamaah, I would meet with Zawahiri on six more occasions. He did not have much time to spare, however, for he was deeply involved in several Islamist organizations.

One of Zawahiri's significant achievements was to personalize jihad - that is, to have transformed it from a responsibility of the umma, the Islamic collective, to a duty of Muslim individuals. His goal is to spread the empire of Islam through the actions of individual radical Muslims, each of whom is incited to wage a personal jihad. This allows young Muslims to carry out suicide bombings without the endorsement of the collective body.

Zawahiri and his fellow jihadis base their philosophy on the verse that states, "Then fight in Allah's cause - you are held responsible only for yourself - and rouse the believers [to fight]" (Koran 4:84).

Within several months I was invited to travel to Afghanistan to join other young Muslims in training for jihad. It was fairly common to be recruited after the end of Friday prayers. Volunteering to train in Afghanistan was very simple: I only needed to register my name in certain mosques, and organizers would carry out all the logistical and financial arrangements. I was excited to go because I believed that I would be fulfilling "the command of Allah" to wage jihad. It seemed the easiest way to guarantee my salvation in the afterlife and to attain my purpose in life.

We viewed both the Soviets and the Americans as enemies. The Soviets were considered infidels because they did not believe in the existence of God, while the Americans did not follow Islam. Although we planned to fight the Soviets first, our ultimate objective was to destroy the United States - the greatest symbol of the infidel's freedom. My personal dream was to be an Islamic warrior, to kill the enemies of Islam, to smite their necks in accordance with the Koranic verse that read, "When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks" (Koran 47:4).

We considered the Prophet Muhammad to be our role model. The Koran commanded us to follow in his footsteps: "Ye have indeed in the messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct] for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the final day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah" (Koran 33:21).

Salafi Islamic texts demonstrate Muhammad's uncompromising nature. They encourage devout Muslims to emulate the prophet's deeds and to accept and defend his actions in even the harshest passages. When confronted by outsiders, however, these same Muslims insist that such stories are misinterpreted because they are taken out of context - though they rarely, if ever, provide the context. This self-protective denial effectively paralyzes further criticism by the West. Meanwhile, these texts are taught and understood in a very literal way by both the young members of Jamaah and many other Muslims.

I was not allowed to question any established teaching of Salafi ideology. The Salafists consider any criticism of Islamic texts as redda (apostasy) punishable by death and eternal damnation. Out of simple fear, then, I attempted to idolize Muhammad and to emulate him as he is portrayed in the Sunna. The fear of such harsh punishment deters most other Muslims from criticizing Salafi teaching as well.

I increasingly felt at ease with death because I believed that I would either defeat the infidels on earth or enjoy paradise in the afterlife.

Jihad against non-Muslims seemed to me to be a win-win situation. The following verse, commonly cited by Jamaah members, validated my duty to die for Allah: "Allah has purchased the believers, their lives and their goods. For them [in return] is the garden [of paradise]. They fight in Allah's cause, and they slay and are slain; they kill and are killed... it [paradise] is the promise of Allah to them" (Koran 9:111).

I passed through three psychological stages to reach this level of comfort with death: hatred of non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims, suppression of my conscience and acceptance of violence in the service of Allah. Salafi religious indoctrination played a major role in this process. Salafists promoted our hatred for non-Muslims by emphasizing the Koranic verse that read, "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the last day loving those who resist [i.e. do not follow] Allah and His messenger" (Koran 58:22).

Salafi writings also helped me to suppress my conscience by holding that many activities I had considered to be immoral were, instead, halal - that is, allowed by Allah and the prophet. My conscience would normally reject polygamy, for example, because of the severe psychological pain it would cause my future wife. Salafi teaching encourages polygamy, however, permitting up to four wives as halal: "Marry women of your choice, two or three or four" (Koran 4:3). I accepted such ideas - ideas that contradicted my moral outlook - because I came to believe that we cannot negotiate with God about his commandments: "He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned [for theirs]" (Koran 21:23).

Once I was able to suppress my conscience, I was open to accepting violence without guilt - the third psychological stage. One Salafi method of generating this crucial attitude is to encourage violence against women, a first step in developing a brutal mentality. Salafists emphasize the following text: "Men are superior to women because Allah has given them more preference than to women, and because they financially support them. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear that they do not obey you, admonish them, avoid making sex with them [as a form of punishment], and beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means [of annoyance]: For Allah is most high, great [above you all]" (Koran 4:34).

A mind that accepts violence against women is much more likely to be comfortable murdering hated infidels and responding to the verse that reads: "O prophet, strive hard [fight] against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them. Their abode is hell, an evil refuge indeed" (Koran 9:73). It is clear that the three psychological stages in Salafism that I have described are deeply interconnected.

. . . It is unfortunate and disastrous that the theological underpinnings of Salafism are both powerful and prevalent in the approved, traditional Islamic books. These texts teach, moreover, that the Koran's later, more violent passages abrogate its earlier, peaceful ones. This concept, called nasikh wa-l-mansukh, has effectively diminished the influence of the peaceful verses.

When I discussed the implications of the violent passages with a few Sufi clergy, they suggested that one "should be good and peaceful to all mankind" and that "the understanding of the violent verses will be clarified on the day of judgment." These views were not based on rigorous Islamic eschatology, however, or on an objective analysis of the religious books.

They merely embodied a desired perception of Islam. My secular parents offered the same tolerant perspective, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. But for me both responses were unsatisfactory because they suffered from the same problem - they were not theologically grounded. My difficulty was not resolved, and I continued to live with a complex dilemma.

My crisis of conscience was mostly internal, but I did share some of my doubts with my mother. On one occasion a fellow medical student named Abdul Latif Haseeb started a conversation with me about religion. We discussed whether it was right to kill apostates or stone women to death, as well as whether Muhammad could be considered a pedophile because he married the seven-year-old Aisha. We weighed the merits of declaring war on non-Muslims to spread Islam and agreed that it should be rejected because it is condoned only by supplemental Salafi books rather than by the Koran itself.

Haseeb belonged to a sect known as Koranist, which strictly adhered to the teachings of the Koran but rejected other writings. This opened my eyes. I was impressed that my new friend disagreed with many Salafi teachings. I also realized that Haseeb was not alone in his beliefs; his father and several mutual acquaintances shared the same ideas. They relied on new interpretations of the Koran and spurned the traditional Salafi textbooks.

They accepted and tolerated different views within Islam and, in most circumstances, had a peaceful analysis of the verses.

Haseeb invited me to join the sect, and I accepted his invitation in order to examine the Koranists' ideas more thoroughly. Though not without problems, the sect possessed at least some rigor and was more moderate than Salafism. It provided me with a protected sanctuary that allowed me to keep my identity as a Muslim while giving me the flexibility to reinterpret Koranic verses in a nonviolent way. The group counted among its members the liberal peace activist Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, whom I met on one occasion.

Mahmoud was later murdered in Sudan by exponents of Salafi doctrine for the crime of "apostasy" because his teaching clashed with theirs. I eventually built on the Koranists' ideas in developing a fresh understanding of the Koran that is compatible with the values of human rights and modernity.

By immersing myself in Salafi ideology, I was better able to judge the impact of its violent tenets on the minds of its followers. Among the more appalling notions it supports are the enslavement and rape of female war prisoners and the beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy and pedophilia. It refers to Jews as "pigs and monkeys" and exhorts believers to kill them before the end of days: Say: "Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]" (Koran 5:60). Homosexuals are to be killed as well; to cite one of many examples, on July 19, 2000, two gay teenagers were hanged in Iran for no other crime than being gay.

These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West.

Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation of the Koran.

My reformist approach naturally challenges well-established Salafi tenets, and leads Muslims who follow Salafi Islam to reject me. Why? I have not altered the Koran itself. My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent. I have added these inline interpretations to key Koranic passages and examples of the commentary are freely and easily available.

For over 15 years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West - who insist to outsiders that Islam is a "religion of peace" and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts - have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims.

Even though radical Islam began to reassert itself in the 1970s, it did not become widely pervasive until quite recently. In the early 1990s many people were intrigued by my ideas, and only a few militants threatened me with violence. One day, after I gave a peaceful Friday sermon, I walked home with a friend. To my surprise, several men ran up and threw stones at us from behind to intimidate me from returning and speaking in their mosques. As time has passed, this violent and threatening behavior has become more common: Dr. Wafa Sultan in the US, Abdul Fatah in Egypt and many others have received and continue to receive death threats. Recently, Dr. Nawal al-Sadawi, a liberal Muslim thinker and women's rights activist, was forced to flee Egypt because of her public statements. Dr. Rashad Khalifa was murdered in the United States after he published his own reinterpretation of the Koran which was less violent than was traditional.

In Egypt, Dr. Faraq Fuddah was shot to death after publishing condemnations of Jihadists. Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Najib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck for writing his novel, Awlad Haretna, perceived by Salafists as blasphemous. The list goes on. Still, the majority of members in many Muslim communities have adopted the violent teachings of the Islamists.

Salafi indoctrination operates through written words and careful coaching. It is enormously seductive. It rapidly changed me into a jihadi. Salafi sacred texts exert a powerful influence on millions of Muslim followers throughout the world, and terrorism is only one symptom of the Salafi disease. Salafi doctrine, which is at the root of the West's confrontation with Islamism, poses an existential threat to us all - including Muslims.

Indeed, Salafism robs young Muslims of their soul, it turns Western communities against them, and it can end in civil war as Muslims attempt to implement shari'a in their host countries. A peaceful interpretation of Islam is possible, but the Salafi establishment is currently blocking moderate theological reform. 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.

Read the article.


Read More...