Showing posts with label Stephen Suliman Schwartz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Suliman Schwartz. Show all posts

Monday, August 9, 2010

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...

Sunday, April 13, 2008

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...