Tag Archives: Zuhdi Jasser

Interview with Geert Wilders on Islam and freedom of speech

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and head of the Freedom Party. In 2008 he released "Fitna," a controversial film about the Koran and jihadist violence. Wilders was condemned as an anti-Muslim agitator but also hailed as a defender of Western values and free speech. In January, a Dutch court ordered Wilders prosecuted for allegedly inciting hatred against Islam. Last month he was invited to screen "Fitna" at Westminster, but the British government barred him from entering the country. He was recently interviewed by Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, who prepared the following edited excerpts:

You’ve said that England today is more Chamberlain than Churchill. Explain what you mean.

Well, Chamberlain was the biggest appeaser to a totalitarian ideology called fascism. Now we face the threat of another totalitarian ideology called Islam, at least according to me. And instead of defending our freedom, defending our values, when I was invited a few weeks ago to show "Fitna" in the House of Lords, they denied me entry to the United Kingdom.

The letter from the British home secretary said: "Your statements about Muslims and their beliefs . . . would threaten community harmony, and therefore public security, in the UK."

What really happened is that she was pressured. In the English press, there was a lot of news that Lord Ahmed [Nazir Ahmed, a British peer] threatened to have 10,000 Muslims demonstrating in front of Westminster.

If you were allowed into the country.

Yes. And this is what I meant by Chamberlain. The UK government is giving in, appeasing the enemy. They should stand up and say: We might not like the political view of this guy, but he should be allowed to come here and say it.

In the film, you show quotations from the Koran, together with video of statements and actions by Muslim extremists.

Exactly. I used reality. It was really made by radical Muslims themselves. I just combined the pictures with the source. If they don’t like the movie, they don’t like what they do themselves. At the end of "Fitna," it talks about Islamic ideology – that we should defeat the threat of Islamic ideology. For that to not be allowed in the United Kingdom, to be prosecuted in my own country, is an absolute outrage.

A few weeks ago at a demonstration in Amsterdam, people were yelling, "Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas." Was there any prosecution of that type of speech?

This is the double standard: If you are a radical Muslim imam, and during your Friday prayer – this happened in the Netherlands – they said that Shariah should be installed, gays should be thrown from high buildings, women should be beaten up – terrible things. Sometimes the prosecutors brought them to trial, but they were always acquitted, because [of] freedom of religion. Now somebody like me stands up and says, "Hey, this is wrong," and I’m being brought to court.

This month is the 20th anniversary of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Back then, the West pretty much defended Rushdie. Yet now, 20 years later, you’re banned from Britain, prosecuted in your country. What accounts for such a different response?

What’s happened is that the cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal, that Islam is just another leaf on the tree – and that everybody who says different is a xenophobe or racist. Within Europe, Muslims today have enormous political force. They all vote, and they’re represented by mostly leftist parties.

You say: "I don’t hate Muslims; I hate Islam." Is there really any difference?

I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life – economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book – but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values.

What do you say to scholars of Islam like Daniel Pipes, who argues that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution? Why should one accept what Geert Wilders says about Islam, rather than someone like Pipes?

I respect Daniel Pipes, but I fully disagree. There is no moderate Islam. It’s like the [prime minister] of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, said himself recently: There is only one taste of Islam, and that is the taste of the Koran.

But he’s an Islamist. You would expect him to say that. What about anti-Islamist Muslims, Muslims who reject the radicals?

Listen, the Koran is seen by Muslims, unlike all the other religions, as the word of God that can never be criticized. If you criticize the Koran, you are a renegade, an apostate. There are people who are moderate and call themselves Muslim. But moderate Islam is totally nonexistent. It will never have an Enlightenment as happened with Christianity.

Why not?

Because unlike the interpretations of other holy books, Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God and can never be changed.

Hold on – the New Testament today is the same New Testament as a thousand years ago. What’s different is the way that book is read and understood. A thousand years ago, one could have said Christianity was a violent, militant religion; today one wouldn’t.

Yes, there was a change in Christianity. It was possible because Christians don’t believe that the Bible is literally the word of God – not like the Koran. If you really believe [the Koran] is the word of God, it will never have room to change.

But why couldn’t there be a movement within Islam that would say, "Yes, the Koran says X, Y, and Z, and it has been interpreted violently by violent people, but we give it a different interpretation"?

Then they are not Muslims anymore.

How do you decide whether they are Muslims anymore?

I am not deciding. It’s the Koran that’s saying it.

What Christians did at the time of the Inquisition was what Christianity was then; Christianity today has become something different.

Your premises are totally wrong. Islam is not a religion. Islam is an ideology. You keep comparing it to Christianity, Judaism. It’s not. It’s an ideology that wants to dominate every aspect of society. I know billions of people believe it’s a religion. I don’t.

Is there any difference in your view between Islam and Islamism?

Islam and Islamism, it’s exactly the same.

With an outlook like this, don’t you effectively exclude any Muslim from being an ally?

I am not excluding anybody. I don’t even want Muslims from the Netherlands to leave my country. I’m not a [Jean-Marie] Le Pen. I want to help people be educated, be part of our society, get a job, respect our values. But it can never be possible on the basis of their violent ideology called Islam.

Doesn’t that contradict your defense of free speech?

Holland is not an Islamic country. I wouldn’t want to have a system like in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Their ideology [says] to beat women, to kill Jews, to kill homosexuals. You can say, "Well, isn’t that freedom of speech?" I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line – incitement of violence.

You’ve said that under Dutch law, the Koran should be banned. Were you being rhetorical, or did you mean it literally?

I meant it. But you have to know the Dutch context for that. In the ’70s, "Mein Kampf" was banned, and the left was so pleased. I am now proposing a ban on a book that is even worse than "Mein Kampf." And I’m not the first one – Winston Churchill compared "Mein Kampf" to the Koran in the 1950s.

An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn’t be banned, the Koran shouldn’t be banned; books shouldn’t be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they’re hateful ideas – the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?

I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Do you think that multiculturalism and freedom of speech are ultimately incompatible?

No, Islam and freedom of speech are incompatible. Cultural relativism makes it difficult to fight, because cultural relativism says that Islam is the same as Christianity. Europe is being Islamized very, very quickly. In our prisons, we have a mark in every cell indicating the direction of Mecca. In Holland! I can give you 500 examples. People are getting beaten up on the streets of Amsterdam and Brussels for drinking water during Ramadan. We should have a sense of urgency.

What do you say to Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser? He is an American, a former Navy officer, a doctor. After 9/11, he was so horrified by what was done in the name of Islam that he founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy: pro-American, pro-democracy, anti-violence, anti-Islamist. How do you answer Muslims like him, who say: "I love my religion. I also love freedom, democracy, Western values. I believe in separation of mosque and state. But how can I be an ally with someone who says my religion itself is evil?"

Well, I would tell him I wish there were more people like you. It didn’t happen. I would not agree with [Dr. Jasser] about Islam, but I wish there were more like him. 

 

Originally published in The Boston Globe.

ISNA’s Ingrid Mattson in her own words

Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups named as unindicted co-conspirators in the federal government’s successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for financing terrorism. Alarmingly, Mattson and her organization were given the honor of speaking at the invocation of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. Mattson’s own radical views went unremarked by both the press and the convention attendees. Here is a primer:

1) Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:

If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however, they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet’s words, in a “brotherly” fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean, however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship.

2) Mattson on the possibility that Americans may “rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation”:

The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign policy, this “idealistic” view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.

3) Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:

There’s a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well “you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans,” which of course is not true. There aren’t any sleeper cells.

4) Mattson defends Wahhabism:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

MATTSON: No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.

This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It’s not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.

5) Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that dismantled caliphates and sultanates?

MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we’re living in today is the result of that.

6) Mattson teaches the jihadists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu’l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course at Hartford Seminary – see the syllabus here.

7) Mattson praises the jihadist Mawdudi (aka Maududi):

In response to another question, “Please suggest any comprehensive work of Tafseer (Qur’anic commentary) for us Muslim youth,” she said, “There are different kinds of Tafseers. For e.g. there are ones that contain detailed interpretations of grammatical aspects of Qur’anic language. And there are others that serve to explain the general message of Qur’an, coupled with the experiences and insights of the author of the Tafseer. However, there aren’t really any Tafseers that combine the both aspects. So far, probably the best work of Tafseer in English is by Maulana Abul A’la Maududi.'”

Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9): “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic ‘Jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”

Maududi on denial of rights to non-Muslims (Jihad in Islam, page 28): “Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam.”

Maududi on Shariah Law’s precedence over any other legal system (Islamic Law and Its Introduction, p. 13): That if an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the Sharia, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws or borrow them from any other source in disregard of the Sharia, such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits its right to be called ‘Islamic.'”

8) Although she recommends and teaches Abdul ala Maududi, who advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims (see above), Mattson is highly critical of Christians who make the factual statement that texts by Muslims support violent jihad against non-Muslims — and she equates Christian critics of violent jihad with Osama bin Laden, who wages violent jihad. Mattson on critical statements by Christians about Muslims:

“These kinds of statements are really irresponsible, because they can lead to violence against ordinary people……I don’t see any difference between that and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden [using] Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans. What’s interesting is if you compare [their] statements about what Islam is and what Muslims believe, you’ll find they are almost identical, and I reject both interpretations — both the non-Muslims who are saying that Islam justifies violence against Christians and Jews, and the Muslims who are saying it. Certainly these statements have a very unnerving effect, especially when they continue, when more than one person says it.”

9) Mattson is a traditionalist on Shariah law and the legitimacy of Shariah authorities:

“As a practicing Muslim, I believe that there is a core of fundamental beliefs and practices that distinguish authentic Islam from deviations. I also believe that apart from this essential core, the task of interpreting the application of Islamic norms to human society is an enormously complicated task, which inevitably leads to a broad range of opinion and practice. I agree with ” Sunni” Muslims, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, no one has the right to claim infallibility in the interpretation of sacred law. At the same time, this does not mean that all opinions are equal, nor that everyone has the ability to interpret law. Without the intense study of Islamic texts and traditions under qualified scholars and without the presence of a stable Muslim community through which one can witness the wisdom of the living tradition, the chances of an ordinary believer arriving at a correct judgment about most legal issues are slim.”

10) Mattson is a leader in Muslim efforts to censor the right to free speech in America and especially in the United States government:

Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America, said Friday at the opening of the group’s 43rd annual convention that labeling terrorism as “Islamic” was not helpful to people of her faith.

“I’m convinced that it is not only inaccurate, but unhelpful. If our major concern is security, security of this country, this is a term that has very bad resonance in the Muslim majority world and makes us feel uncomfortable here,” Mattson said.

Bush and other Republicans have been using the term “Islamic fascism” in recent speeches. White House aides and outside Republican strategists have said the term is an attempt to more clearly identify the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups.

Mattson said her group would argue for a change in rhetoric away from “Islamic fascism.” U.S. officials are attending the meeting here, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England….

…..As an alternative to “Islamic fascism,” Mattson suggested the words “terrorism, crime, violence,” adding that she and other Muslims don’t understand why the label “Islamic” is included when Bush and other leaders talk about terrorism.

“The products that are coming from the Muslim world are not being called ‘Islamic products’ or ‘Islamic oil,'” she said.

11) Mattson denies the actual state of women’s rights under Shariah law:

         a) http://www.videosift.com/video/Ingrid-Mattson-on-Community-in-Islam

“I believe that many Americans believe that Muslim women don’t have any rights in Islam. Perhaps they see images of Muslim women being oppressed in different parts of the Muslim world and believe that that is because of their religion. But in fact we know that Muslim women have the same rights as Muslim men and virtually all the same duties and obligations.”

        b) http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19898_1.html

“One of the popular misconceptions about Islam is that women are seen as lesser figures, that they don’t have rights.

“This perception that women in Islam are oppressed is based both on misinformation as well as am amplification of certain unfortunate tendencies in some parts of the Muslim world. It’s true that people have seen some Muslim authorities using Islam as a justification for the oppression or suppression of women. That’s a reality, we can’t deny it. But we have to balance those incidents with what’s going on in the rest of the Muslim world, in which most women are participating in their societies. We’ve seen that within recent times four Muslim-majority nations have had female heads of state. In most countries that I’ve traveled to, Muslim women are involved in all aspects of society.”

        c) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/18/mattson.cnna/

“MATTSON: Muslim women have the same legal rights as Muslim men. The Prophet Mohammed’s wife was a businesswoman. In fact, he met her working for her as her agent. The legal rights of women were enshrined in Islamic law. However, cultural practices in many societies have prevented those rights from being enforced.”

12) Mattson rationalizes the actions of the Taliban against women:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Does the Taliban place blame upon women for the weakness of men in their society? Is that why they place such restriction upon them?

MATTSON: The Taliban place restrictions on everyone in their society, men and women. They’ve extended their authority over individuals far beyond traditional government in Afghanistan. In their minds, they are protecting women from other men by placing these restrictions on them.

13) Like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mattson condemns terrorism in general but avoids criticizing Hamas or Hizballah:

“That can be frustrating. I want to also make sure people understand that although American Muslims do have a responsibility to clarify their views on terrorism and violence done in the name of Islam, we don’t have control over these situations. We don’t have some sort of magic power over all Muslims in the world.”

14) Mattson apparently thinks that Evangelical Christians are more of a threat to Jews than Islamic jihadists:

“‘Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews,’ Mattson said, ‘because they [the Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews’ and enter into the alliance on the basis of fundamentalist beliefs that it would be desirable for all Jews to return to Israel. She suggested that fundamentalist Christians might turn against Jews or that there could be backlash from ordinary Americans against Jewish and fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel.”

15) Mattson is highly critical of Israel:

“The American government has not criticized sufficiently the brutality of the Israeli government, believing that it needs to be “supportive” of the Jewish state. The result is that oppression, left unchecked, can increase to immense proportions, until the oppressed are smothered with hopelessness and rage.”

16) Mattson limits dialogue:

“Thus, it is not permitted for a Muslim to maintain a close friendship with a highly intelligent person who engages him or her in stimulating conversation, if that person continuously derides the sacred (Qur’an 5:57-58). Indeed, since preserving faith is the highest priority, it is important that Muslims avoid demoralizing dependence on other faith communities for their protection and material needs….Clearly there are groups among American Christians and Jews who are so hostile to Muslims that we should not join with them even in shared concerns, lest we lend any credibility to their organizations. There are many other groups within those communities, however, who are eager to work respectfully with Muslims to further just causes.”

17) Mattson and ISNA have been criticized by those who identify themselves as American Muslim reformers and moderates:

ISNA, which URJ has accepted, apparently uncritically, as a “partner,” has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country — the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.

Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated when, in addressing the URJ’s recent convention, she declared that in the current U.S. presidential primaries, “we see candidates being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew.”

This is an inexcusably irresponsible, inflammatory charge. Although Christian affiliations have been a topic among some presidential candidates, none has been compelled to “comply” with a Christian religious test and no such criterion is reasonably possible in the American electoral process.

Many Islamic mosque congregations, Sufi orders, and Muslim personalities have called for intelligent and sincere discussion with Jewish individuals and groups, to further interfaith civility and cooperation. This noble goal, to which we as Muslims are called by our revelation and our traditions, cannot be served by flattery toward groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates.

We therefore appeal to Rabbi Yoffie and other Jewish leaders to conduct a serious and thorough survey of the situation in Western Islam, identifying authentic moderates, and enabling them as interlocutors with Jews and other non-Muslims. We do not believe that ISNA qualifies for such a role. We fear that heedless acceptance of ISNA as an ally of URJ does harm to both our communities, by legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA’s rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims.

Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress
Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation
Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Salim Mansur, Canadian director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president, International Quranic Center

Where does the fight go from here?

As President-elect Barack Obama and his administration begin the transition process from the Bush administration, anti-Islamists cannot help but be concerned. Those of us dedicated to stimulating and facilitating long overdue reform within the Muslim consciousness against the growing threat of political Islam cannot help but feel more adrift now than ever before with little legitimate "hope for change" in our policy against Islamists then we have ever had.

The long and arduous two year campaign negligently spent little to no time laying out what the policy of the Obama administration would be toward Islamists, both foreign and domestic. While the Bush administration understood the basic need to promote liberty as an alternative to oppression in Muslim lands, they were unable to translate that into an effective policy with a critical engagement of Islamists. They did not seize the opportunities they had to counter political Islam by fostering grassroots movements for freedom against Islamists. If the Obama campaign is any sign of what is in store, we seem to be headed even further back into a retreat from any perceptible contest of ideas against the ideology of Islamism.

The Obama Campaign and Islamists

While the dominance of economic issues during the final months of the campaign can certainly be understood, one major attack by radical Islamists is all that would be necessary to precipitate what could ultimately be a most devastating and crippling blow to our economy. We cannot afford to overlook this possibility. To do so leaves little room for comfort in the hearts of concerned anti-Islamists today.

In fact, looking at the Obama campaign’s inclination to appoint individuals like Mazen Asbahi to "Muslim outreach" may portend a naïve facilitative role with regards to Islamists and the ideology of Islamism. Looking at the converse, in what appears to be significant domestic and foreign support for President-elect Obama by Islamists, also portends an upcoming weaker stance – if not outright appeasement – from Washington against the ideology of Islamists. In fact, the messages from the Obama campaign (or lack thereof) concerning political Islam, were interpreted favorably by American Islamist organizations. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and their umbrella lobbying organization the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) all quickly rushed to congratulate President-elect Obama. Interestingly, the AMT pushed out an election eve endorsement on November 3, 2008, deceptively trying to "have its cake and eat it too." They stated to the Massachusetts Telegram and Gazette , "by making an ‘indirect endorsement’ but keeping it low profile, Mr. Ali said, the organization avoided two pitfalls: ‘creating problems for the Obama campaign (and) accepting exclusion from the American mainstream." In other words, the Islamists carefully avoided any possibility of having the Obama campaign account for their stance by having to accept or reject the endorsement of every American Islamist organization. Thus the twelve Islamist organizations which are represented by AMT were able to claim public and open support of Obama on November 5, 2008 while avoiding any real contest of ideas and reckoning about their own facilitation and promulgation of political Islam.

[More]Post-election day, AMT quickly rushed out a press release of the results of a poll (conducted by "Genesis Research Associates") of American Muslims, which was uncritically regurgitated by the mainstream media claiming that 89% of American Muslims voted for Obama. It also claimed a 95% Muslim voter turnout. I am inclined, for a number of reasons, to believe that these numbers are a bit inflated. This reminds us of the dire need for anti-Islamist Muslims to contract well-established polling firms in the study of the American Muslim population from an anti-Islamist perspective rather than what can be a self-fulfilling prophecy completed by Islamists.

Regardless, the general "collectivist-liberal" trend with regards to Muslim voting numbers presents an even deeper challenge to any effective effort to counter the equally collectivist ideology of Islamism – the theocratic ideology of Muslim collectivism inherent in  political Islam. By the way, it should not escape informed readers that Islamists are "hardly liberal" and are in fact "reactionary," if not medieval in their views, when it comes to their beliefs on women’s rights, minority rights, free speech laws (i.e. blasphemy laws), and corporal punishment for crimes, to name just a few areas of conflict between current day "established sharia law" and the rule of law in Western secular liberal democracies. Islamists are still very easily able to escape this whole discussion, short of being pushed into a "contest of ideas," since they are a minority in the U.S. and never have to actually account for the laws they would endorse in places where they are a majority. And if Muslim leaders claim agreement with Western secular law, one cannot help but ask where all the movements for modernization of sharia law against the current salafist interpretations are?

Identity Politics, the Left, and the Ideology of Islamism

The Obama mantra of "change" gives anti-Islamists little comfort arising out of a campaign which was negligently short on substance on the issue of radical Islamism and the threat of Islamist-inspired terrorism. One would be hard-pressed to find candidate Obama or any of his surrogates on the record once about the "contest of ideas" and what his vision, or that of his advisors, is of how that contest would play out in his administration. Sadly, when the issue of Islam and Muslims was addressed it focused far too narrowly and naïvely on identity politics and religious freedom for Muslims in America, rather than the threat of political Islam or the absence of religious freedom in "Muslim" nations. Political correctness once again prevailed against a backdrop of an ideology promoted by Islamists which still threatens our national security.

A good example was Gen. Colin Powell’s comments on October 18, 2008 on NBC’s Meet the Press. Unfortunately, Gen. Powell missed the point of the entire struggle  at the eye of the storm in the global contest of ideas. His overriding comments on Muslims, in general, were certainly laudable and long overdue in the public place in as far as they spoke to the irrelevance of a candidate’s personal faith practice. Powell’s comments asking, " Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America" did resonate with me from a perspective of religious freedom and liberty for all Americans certainly including American Muslims in the pluralism which is America.

Gen. Powell’s touching story about an American Muslim soldier who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq also resonated with me as a former U.S. Navy officer. Powell related, "…and his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey.  He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life " These comments are all well and good and may warm the cockles of the hearts of Muslims including me, but at the end of the day we are losing the meaning of why this courageous American soldier gave his life and who and what he was fighting. The fact is that we are still left with a real and existential threat of political Islam that feeds radical Islamist networks that only Muslims can defeat. As long as our political leaders demagogue identity faith politics (of Muslims) and give American Muslim leaders and their organizations more and more room to deflect their own responsibility to counter the threat of political Islam, we will not win the contest of ideas. A contest of ideas not waged cannot be won. To dismiss American Muslims and their global brethren as mere victims or bystanders in a conflict which is at its core only theirs to wage and to win against political Islam is to leave our security perilously at risk. 

Regardless of how much American Islamists reject terrorism as an act, the fact remains that all radical Islamists come out of the mindset of political Islam. Real counterterrorism can only come out of real anti-Islamism. Collectivizing Muslims in elections, as the Left is want to do, is reckless and feeds into the ideology, means, and mission of savvy Islamists who know exactly how to manipulate this. We will never defeat such an ideology which thrives upon the political collectivization of all Muslims if we continue to feed into the mindset which demagogues Muslims as a homogenous collective unit. It may be very comfortable and certainly true from a First Amendment perspective to couch commentary about personal Muslim faith practice as Gen. Powell did in the warmth of religious liberty and American ideals. God knows, my family has certainly realized this and it was one of the primary driving forces of my own service in the U.S. Navy. But Gen. Powell forgets that the same Islamist organizations which so widely disseminated his remarks have done very little to encourage military service of Muslims in the U.S. military and to the contrary take every opportunity to disseminate incidents like the Abu Ghraib story as  the representative example of American action in Iraq.

Gen. Powell’s comments are misused by Islamists because he did not make them concomitantly with comments denouncing the political ideology of Islamism and Muslim political collectivism. When the Muslim community is looked upon as a collective and as a victim with no emphasis upon responsibility in defeating Islamism, it ends up propping up Islamists substantially. In order to know understand how reckless such comments can be, one need look no further than how far and wide Gen. Powell’s comments were disseminated by global transnational Islamist movements. Leaders like Gen. Powell need to both advocate for American religious freedom domestically which includes Muslims and all faiths while also positioning such advocacy within a concurrent Muslim anti-Islamist movement. Avoiding this positioning leaves Islamists empowered and overly comfortable. One cannot help but see that the Obama campaign and its surrogates have done just that- empower transnational Islamist movements.

We need cautious and thoughtful politicians who understand the "contest of ideas" within the Muslim consciousness. We need leaders who are willing to ask Muslims and all of their organizations the tough questions – not just the easy ones about condemning terrorism which any human being should do; but rather to ask Muslims to condemn the ideology of political Islam which is always an undercurrent of radical Islamist movements.
One can only guess that President-elect Obama seems to come from the school of thought that terrorism is simply a crime problem and radical Islamists are simply a crime syndicate. Such a line of thinking is not only wrong-headed but leaves us perilously and continuously exposed to a deep existential threat. Islamist terrorism is just that- Islamist. It is fueled by an undercurrent of political Islam which is running rampant in the Muslim world and yet remains basically unopposed by western ideas.

We have had over 30 planned attacks upon our citizens that, thankfully, were prevented since 9/11. They will continue to recur unless we begin a movement from within the Muslim consciousness to counter the politico-religious ideology (Islamism) which feeds it. The Bush administration proved not to have the stomach to deal with the real ideological threat of Islamism. Instead they have often appeased Islamists domestically (MB surrogates) and globally (i.e. the MB). If we do not realistically and critically counter the ideas of political Islam we stand against a growing threat that we will ultimately be unable to counter.

Unanwered Questions: Beyond the war of ideas

Regardless of whether the Obama administration addresses the war of ideas or not, the conflict will not go away. In fact, it is set only to increase. As an aside, one cannot help but wonder what life must have been like living in the "war of ideas" of the Cold War of the 1960s against communism as the left controlled the executive branch.

Does the Obama administration on deck really feel that the threat of Islamist terror will disappear if we withdraw from Iraq? Will Obama’s transition team acknowledge that terror is merely a tactic and its threat preceded the Iraq war and runs across the deep abyss which separates political Islam from Western secular democracies?

The nonpartisan Committee on the Present Danger which includes bipartisan involvement has gathered its resources again in the wake of 9/11 to educate America to the threat of Islamism and its fuel for terror against our homeland. Is President-elect Obama ready to acknowledge this threat? If so, are we going to withdraw all substantive influence from the Muslim world and allow Islamists to make dangerous political gains? If not America, then who is going to help defend Muslim liberty movements in each nation where Islamists should meet Muslim and non-Muslim resistance alike? Is America going to live up to our own ideologies of liberty, freedom, and secular democracy by advocating for such ideas abroad? What will happen to our thus far ineffectual Public Diplomacy program? How will our Public Diplomacy program engage in the Contest of ideas? Will his administration finally have the stomach to confront the ideology of Wahhabism under the Saudi regime? Will we continue the often hypocritical and short-sighted policy in the Muslim world of making our "enemy’s enemy" into our friend? Do we understand how that perception undermines our credibility with real reformist movements? What will be the Obama strategy for countering the dangerous ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad and domestically?

As goes the foreign verbiage and engagement so goes the domestic engagement of Muslim organizations. As a relatively new immigrant population, the connections of the domestic Muslim community to the Muslim community abroad are deep, daily, and continuous, fed by a robust exposure to Arabic and Indo-Pakistani satellite news media which is most often Islamist. How will the Obama administration counter and engage that media including such outlets as Al Jazeera, MBC, Al-Arabiya, or GeoTV to name a few. 

How about a bold new mantra of "change" directed at the Islamists changing their ideas toward real religious freedom and liberty for all? But that would demand that the mantra actually have substance and be backed up by a clear strategy. So far, if the campaign season is any sign, the Obama administration policy toward Islamists and Islamism appears to be long on platitudes and bromides and short on substance and a clear strategy.


This article appeared originally at FamilySecurityMatters.org

Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.

 

The Democrats’ ‘soft’ jihadist

On Sunday, Democratic delegates convening in Denver were prayed over by representatives of various faiths.  One stood out: Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.  With this choice, Barak Obama’s campaign has committed a strategic error of the first order.

After all, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has been identified by the Department of Justice not only as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood – a global Islamist movement with the stated mission in America of "destroying Western civilization from within."  Worse yet, it has also been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the United States’ largest alleged terrorism financing conspiracy. 

Like other Brotherhood operations, ISNA’s purpose is to promote what might be called "soft jihad" – the task of steadily insinuating the brutally repressive and subversive program the Islamists call Shariah through da’wa, proselytizing and social networking.

The more one learns about Dr. Mattson and her organization, the more questions will be raised about Barak Obama’s judgment and that of his party in affording them a prominent role in the 2008 Democratic convention.  For example:

Ingrid Mattson is director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut .  Her program is used to credential Muslim chaplains for U.S. prisons and our military.   (The armed forces require its chaplain candidates to take 72 credit hours from Dr. Mattson’s program.) This credentialing was previously performed by organizations founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, once among the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives in America.  Today, Alamoudi is serving a 23-year prison sentence for his involvement in terrorism-related crimes.

A course taught by Mattson at the Hartford Seminary entitled " The Koran and Its Place in Muslim Life and Society" featured readings from texts by two of the Islamofascist ideology’s most revered figures: Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb.  She has publicly credited the former with producing "probably the best work of [Koranic commentary] in English."  As Robert Spencer has observed in his invaluable Jihad Watch blog [http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022342.php], Maududi succinctly described the Islamists’ Shariah agenda as follows:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State….Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

[More]As to Qutb, an amicus brief filed last week by the Center for Security Policy before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that his "writings expand on [Maududi’s] theme of Jihad against wayward Muslim regimes and the infidel West and the establishment of a hegemonic Shariah-based political order.  His work has been credited as a central doctrinal source for al Qaeda’s doctrine of Jihad, as well."  According to the brief prepared for the Center by two of the West’s foremost scholars of Shariah, attorneys David Yerushalmi and Stephen Coughlin (resident expert on the subject for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until he was purged by an ISNA admirer in the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England), "Da’wa is used to prepare the battle space for violent Jihad."

Unbeknownst to most Americans, such Da’wa is being systematically advanced through the Islamists’ take-over of the vast majority of U.S. mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas (Muslim parochial schools).  This onslaught is being accomplished as Saudi money flows through another Muslim Brotherhood front spun off by ISNA, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which acquires the mortgages of existing religious facilities or creates new ones.  Along with titles to these properties comes Saudi Wahhabi influence in the form of virulently Shariah-adherent clerics, textbooks and other materials. In her capacity as president of ISNA, Mattson also is an ex officio member of NAIT’s board.

Insofar as the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly seeks and is working for the destruction of our government and Western civilization more generally, it is engaged in a criminal conspiracy that constitutes treasonous sedition.  That reality has two critical implications: 

First, the Brotherhood must be formally designated a terrorist organization, putting an end to the reckless notion – promoted by, among others, the U.S. State Department – that practitioners of soft jihad are less dangerous and an effective antidote to co-religionists who are prepared to use violence immediately, rather than later on.

Second, under 18 US Code 2382: " Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to [appropriate officials] is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Senator Obama, his party, Bush administration officials and, for that matter, ordinary citizens of the United States are obliged to take steps to counteract seditious Muslim Brotherhood activities in our midst.  To do otherwise is not just suicidal.  It is a crime.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

 

Center for Security Policy Research Brief
August 23, 2008

ISNA’s Ingrid Mattson in her own words

1) Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:

If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however, they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet’s words, in a "brotherly" fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean, however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship.

2) Mattson on the possibility that Americans may "rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation":

The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign policy, this "idealistic" view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.

3) Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:

There’s a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well "you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans," which of course is not true. There aren’t any sleeper cells.

4) Mattson defends Wahhabism:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

MATTSON: No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.

This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It’s not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.

5) Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that dismantled caliphates and sultanates?

MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we’re living in today is the result of that.

6) Mattson teaches the jihadists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu’l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course at Hartford Seminary – see the syllabus here.

7) Mattson praises the jihadist Mawdudi (aka Maududi):

In response to another question, "Please suggest any comprehensive work of Tafseer (Qur’anic commentary) for us Muslim youth," she said, "There are different kinds of Tafseers. For e.g. there are ones that contain detailed interpretations of grammatical aspects of Qur’anic language. And there are others that serve to explain the general message of Qur’an, coupled with the experiences and insights of the author of the Tafseer. However, there aren’t really any Tafseers that combine the both aspects. So far, probably the best work of Tafseer in English is by Maulana Abul A’la Maududi.’"

Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9): "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic ‘Jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Maududi on denial of rights to non-Muslims (Jihad in Islam, page 28): "Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam."

Maududi on Shariah Law’s precedence over any other legal system (Islamic Law and Its Introduction, p. 13): That if an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the Sharia, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws or borrow them from any other source in disregard of the Sharia, such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits its right to be called ‘Islamic.’"

8) Although she recommends and teaches Abdul ala Maududi, who advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims (see above), Mattson is highly critical of Christians who make the factual statement that texts by Muslims support violent jihad against non-Muslims — and she equates Christian critics of violent jihad with Osama bin Laden, who wages violent jihad. Mattson on critical statements by Christians about Muslims:

"These kinds of statements are really irresponsible, because they can lead to violence against ordinary people……I don’t see any difference between that and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden [using] Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans. What’s interesting is if you compare [their] statements about what Islam is and what Muslims believe, you’ll find they are almost identical, and I reject both interpretations — both the non-Muslims who are saying that Islam justifies violence against Christians and Jews, and the Muslims who are saying it. Certainly these statements have a very unnerving effect, especially when they continue, when more than one person says it."

9) Mattson is a traditionalist on Shariah law and the legitimacy of Shariah authorities:

"As a practicing Muslim, I believe that there is a core of fundamental beliefs and practices that distinguish authentic Islam from deviations. I also believe that apart from this essential core, the task of interpreting the application of Islamic norms to human society is an enormously complicated task, which inevitably leads to a broad range of opinion and practice. I agree with " Sunni" Muslims, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, no one has the right to claim infallibility in the interpretation of sacred law. At the same time, this does not mean that all opinions are equal, nor that everyone has the ability to interpret law. Without the intense study of Islamic texts and traditions under qualified scholars and without the presence of a stable Muslim community through which one can witness the wisdom of the living tradition, the chances of an ordinary believer arriving at a correct judgment about most legal issues are slim."

10) Mattson is a leader in Muslim efforts to censor the right to free speech in America and especially in the United States government:

Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America, said Friday at the opening of the group’s 43rd annual convention that labeling terrorism as "Islamic" was not helpful to people of her faith.

"I’m convinced that it is not only inaccurate, but unhelpful. If our major concern is security, security of this country, this is a term that has very bad resonance in the Muslim majority world and makes us feel uncomfortable here," Mattson said.

Bush and other Republicans have been using the term "Islamic fascism" in recent speeches. White House aides and outside Republican strategists have said the term is an attempt to more clearly identify the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups.

Mattson said her group would argue for a change in rhetoric away from "Islamic fascism." U.S. officials are attending the meeting here, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England….

…..As an alternative to "Islamic fascism," Mattson suggested the words "terrorism, crime, violence," adding that she and other Muslims don’t understand why the label "Islamic" is included when Bush and other leaders talk about terrorism.

"The products that are coming from the Muslim world are not being called ‘Islamic products’ or ‘Islamic oil,’" she said.

11) Mattson denies the actual state of women’s rights under Shariah law:

         a) http://www.videosift.com/video/Ingrid-Mattson-on-Community-in-Islam

"I believe that many Americans believe that Muslim women don’t have any rights in Islam. Perhaps they see images of Muslim women being oppressed in different parts of the Muslim world and believe that that is because of their religion. But in fact we know that Muslim women have the same rights as Muslim men and virtually all the same duties and obligations."

        b) http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19898_1.html

"One of the popular misconceptions about Islam is that women are seen as lesser figures, that they don’t have rights.

"This perception that women in Islam are oppressed is based both on misinformation as well as am amplification of certain unfortunate tendencies in some parts of the Muslim world. It’s true that people have seen some Muslim authorities using Islam as a justification for the oppression or suppression of women. That’s a reality, we can’t deny it. But we have to balance those incidents with what’s going on in the rest of the Muslim world, in which most women are participating in their societies. We’ve seen that within recent times four Muslim-majority nations have had female heads of state. In most countries that I’ve traveled to, Muslim women are involved in all aspects of society."

        c) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/18/mattson.cnna/ 

"MATTSON: Muslim women have the same legal rights as Muslim men. The Prophet Mohammed’s wife was a businesswoman. In fact, he met her working for her as her agent. The legal rights of women were enshrined in Islamic law. However, cultural practices in many societies have prevented those rights from being enforced."

12) Mattson rationalizes the actions of the Taliban against women:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Does the Taliban place blame upon women for the weakness of men in their society? Is that why they place such restriction upon them?

MATTSON: The Taliban place restrictions on everyone in their society, men and women. They’ve extended their authority over individuals far beyond traditional government in Afghanistan. In their minds, they are protecting women from other men by placing these restrictions on them.

13) Like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mattson condemns terrorism in general but avoids criticizing Hamas or Hizballah:

"That can be frustrating. I want to also make sure people understand that although American Muslims do have a responsibility to clarify their views on terrorism and violence done in the name of Islam, we don’t have control over these situations. We don’t have some sort of magic power over all Muslims in the world."

14) Mattson apparently thinks that Evangelical Christians are more of a threat to Jews than Islamic jihadists:

"‘Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews,’ Mattson said, ‘because they [the Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews’ and enter into the alliance on the basis of fundamentalist beliefs that it would be desirable for all Jews to return to Israel. She suggested that fundamentalist Christians might turn against Jews or that there could be backlash from ordinary Americans against Jewish and fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel."

15) Mattson is highly critical of Israel:

"The American government has not criticized sufficiently the brutality of the Israeli government, believing that it needs to be "supportive" of the Jewish state. The result is that oppression, left unchecked, can increase to immense proportions, until the oppressed are smothered with hopelessness and rage."

16) Mattson limits dialogue:

"Thus, it is not permitted for a Muslim to maintain a close friendship with a highly intelligent person who engages him or her in stimulating conversation, if that person continuously derides the sacred (Qur’an 5:57-58). Indeed, since preserving faith is the highest priority, it is important that Muslims avoid demoralizing dependence on other faith communities for their protection and material needs….Clearly there are groups among American Christians and Jews who are so hostile to Muslims that we should not join with them even in shared concerns, lest we lend any credibility to their organizations. There are many other groups within those communities, however, who are eager to work respectfully with Muslims to further just causes."

17) Mattson and ISNA have been criticized by those who identify themselves as American Muslim reformers and moderates:

ISNA, which URJ has accepted, apparently uncritically, as a "partner," has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country — the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.

Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated when, in addressing the URJ’s recent convention, she declared that in the current U.S. presidential primaries, "we see candidates being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew."

This is an inexcusably irresponsible, inflammatory charge. Although Christian affiliations have been a topic among some presidential candidates, none has been compelled to "comply" with a Christian religious test and no such criterion is reasonably possible in the American electoral process.

Many Islamic mosque congregations, Sufi orders, and Muslim personalities have called for intelligent and sincere discussion with Jewish individuals and groups, to further interfaith civility and cooperation. This noble goal, to which we as Muslims are called by our revelation and our traditions, cannot be served by flattery toward groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates.

We therefore appeal to Rabbi Yoffie and other Jewish leaders to conduct a serious and thorough survey of the situation in Western Islam, identifying authentic moderates, and enabling them as interlocutors with Jews and other non-Muslims. We do not believe that ISNA qualifies for such a role. We fear that heedless acceptance of ISNA as an ally of URJ does harm to both our communities, by legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA’s rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims.

Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress
Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation
Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Salim Mansur, Canadian director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president, International Quranic Center

2007 Keeper of the Flame Award: Joe Lieberman

At the 2007 Keeper of the Flame Award dinner, the Center for Security Policy paid tribute to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Defenders of the Home Front – the men and women who work daily to keep us and our families safe here at home.

Senator Lieberman’s address to the nearly 350 attendees at this elegant black-tie dinner held at Washington’s landmark Union Station was preceded by a welcome from Mr. Linden Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics, and remarks by The Honorable Francis Fragos Townsend, White House Homeland Security Advisor. The Keeper of the Flame Awards were presented to Senator Lieberman by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and to five outstanding representatives of Defenders of the Home Front by Senators Lieberman and Kyl.

The event featured remarks by Senator Lieberman during which the Senator noted the need for vigilance in guarding against the forces that threaten American security: “…We must always listen for and look for and be attentive to the future threats to liberty and be ready with all the power we can marshal to rise in defense of our security and our liberty, because in the words of the great abolitionist and fighter for freedom, Wendell Phillips, later made famous in our time by Barry Goldwater, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’  That vigilance, that principle is obviously not a Democratic or Republican principle.  It certainly is not and should not be a conservative or liberal cause, for defending the ideals of human  liberty is America’s cause, and it is a cause we must put ahead of party or faction…”

Senator Lieberman went on to pay tribute to members of the United States Armed Forces fighting overseas: “I am greatly honored to accept this award tonight, but I want to say quite sincerely that I share it with the true keepers of the flame of liberty, and that is the brave men and women who defend our liberty on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan today. Their sense of purpose is high. Their honor is deep. Their commitment to American principles is strong, and their confidence that what they are doing is right and they can succeed in it is contagious.”

The six Defenders of the Home Front honorees were:

Special Agent John Guandolo of the Federal Bureau of Investigations:   A decorated U.S. Marine combat veteran of Desert Storm, Special Agent Guandolo has worked in the FBI since 1996 including nine years as a member of its SWAT team.  Since shortly after 9/11, he has worked in the Bureau’s Washington Field Office’s Counterterrorism Division, developing a legendary expertise concerning Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the broad subversive Islamist movement in the U.S. Special Agent Guandolo was recognized for his efforts to educate his colleagues and others in the law enforcement and intelligence communities about these subjects.

Brian Morgenstern: While working at an electronics store in New Jersey, Brian Morgenstern became alarmed when he watched the video that two men brought him to transfer to a DVD. Seeing the men in the video firing automatic weapons and shouting “Allah akbar” he contacted police. Thanks to his courageous, public-spirited action, six Islamists suspected of preparing deadly attacks at Fort Dix on U.S troops bound for Iraq, were arrested and are now being prosecuted in connection with the plot.

Captain Thomas Jones, U.S. Coast Guard, Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Research & Development Center, Groton, Connecticut. Under Capt. Jones’ leadership, the R&D Center has played a leading role in developing and providing Port Security Risk Assessment Tools crucial to protecting port infrastructure and a sophisticated software system to coordinate multi-agency response to catastrophic events and massive oil spills. These initiatives are a credit to the men and women under Capt. Jones’ command and to their leader.

A Posthumous award to Hany Aziz Iskandar accepted by his widow, Judy Iskandar. Hany was an example of one of the most unsung of heroes in this War for the Free World — those whose language skills enable them to understand, monitor and penetrate enemy organizations. He provided various U.S. government agencies incisive understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in this country and overseas. His work contributed to the successful prosecution of convicted terrorists such Abdurahman Alamoudi.

Sergeant Roy Jordan Ramsey representing the Joint Force Headquarters, National Capital Region.   Sgt. Ramsey is a combat veteran of Iraq currently assigned to the Old Guard, the Army’s fabled 3rd Infantry Division. Northern Command’s Joint Force Headquarters for the National Capital Region was created after 9/11 for the sole purpose of preventing and responding to future terrorist attacks within the Washington, D.C. area and its surrounding cities and counties. Its successes include several stymied terror plots and containing the ricin incident on Capitol Hill on February 2, 2004.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). Dr. Jasser exemplifies the sort of courageous, anti-Islamist Muslims sorely needed by this country and the world.   Dr. Jasser was recently featured on Fox News during a special built around the film produced in part by the Center for Security Policy: “Islam vs. Islamists – Voices form the Muslim Center.”

PHOTO ABOVE: Frank Gaffney, Special Agent Guandolo, Brian Morgenstern, CAPT Tom Jones USCG, Sen. Jon Kyl, Judy Iskandar, SGT Roy Ramsey, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and Sen. Lieberman pose together after the award ceremony.

 

CAIR-TV

There is no more important front in the global conflict best described as the “War for the Free World” than the struggle to determine the nature and future course of Islam.  If Islamists whose seek to impose their intolerant, repressive strain of the faith – more a totalitarian political ideology (Islamofascism) than a religion – on the rest of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike are able to prevail, we are condemned to the clash of civilizations forecast by Osama bin Laden.

If, on the other hand, Muslims who reject that ideology – the anti-Islamists – succeed in offering their co-religionists an alternative that is peaceable and allows full assimilation into freedom-loving societies like that of the United States, the prospects are very different.  We then have allies who can help us defeat our mutual foes, the Islamofascists, allies who may succeed in enlisting to our common cause the hundreds of millions of Muslims who want no more than the rest of us to live under a Taliban-style religious code the Islamists call shari’a.

Readers of this column may recall that the epochal contest between the Islamofascists and the anti-Islamists is the subject of a documentary movie, “Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center,” of which I was one of three co-executive producers.  It describes the challenges facing courageous opponents of totalitarianism perpetrated in the name of the Muslim faith in Western Europe, Canada and the United States. 

The saga of this film illustrates how the West is generally failing to understand the stakes, let alone the vital role it must play, in this momentous struggle.

To recap: “Islam vs. Islamists” was one of two hour-long films my partners at ABG Films, director/producer Martyn Burke and renowned expert on Islamism Alex Alexiev, and I produced with some $645,000 in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the Public Broadcasting Service’s “America at a Crossroads” series.  Regrettably, PBS executives and their associates at Washington’s WETA engaged in a variety of shenanigans that resulted in neither film airing as part of that big-budget, highly promoted, nationally broadcast series.

Even more troubling than the effort to blacklist Mr. Alexiev and me for being “conservatives” were the repeated attempts made by PBS/WETA effectively to suppress the voices of the anti-Islamist Muslims who were the heroes of the film.  When ABG Films refused to engage in a form of moral equivalence between those who are resisting Islamofascism and those who adhere to or apologize for it, we were told our film “failed to meet PBS standards,” was “one-sided,” “too long” and otherwise ineligible for broadcast on the public airwaves.

Interestingly, these defamatory and unfounded claims are among nine aspects of the skullduggery to which “Islam vs. Islamists” was subjected that are currently being investigated at congressional request by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Inspector General.  Thanks to an arrangement brokered by CPB with Oregon Public Broadcasting, however, the film has begun airing on roughly half of the PBS affiliates nationwide – including such major markets as Washington, Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas and San Francisco.  So much for the claim that it did not meet PBS standards. 

Meanwhile, most of the second hour, “Muslims Against Jihad,” was broadcast by Fox News several times this summer as part of a special about PBS’ suppression of the voices of these films’ moderate Muslim protagonists.  Millions of Americans have thus been exposed to the reality that all Muslims are not Islamists – and that those who are not urgently need our help in challenging those who are.

How much that help is required was on display in a half-hour panel discussion aired on August 23rd  following a broadcast of “Islam vs. Islamists” by WEDU, which styles itself as “West Central Florida’s PBS Station.”  If the composition of this panel and the content of its views is any guide, WEDU might be more accurately described as CAIR-TV.

In contrast to a separate discussion produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting and distributed along with “Islam vs. Islamists” – which featured one of the film’s anti-Islamist stars, Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix, the WEDU panel was populated entirely by those hostile to Dr. Jasser and Muslims like him.  Among the talking-heads was Ahmed Bedier, the executive director of the Tampa office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

When Bedier is not savaging anti-Islamist Muslims and the film-makers who, despite considerable adversity, brought their story to a national audience, he is denouncing the listing by federal prosecutors of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case involving an Islamist fund-raising arm called the Holy Land Foundation. 

Or, Bedier is mounting a vehement public defense of two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida, Ahmed Abda Sherf Mohamed and Yousef Samir Megahed, caught in South Carolina last month transporting pipe bombs across state lines.  Bedier’s response was vintage CAIR, portraying the arrested men as victims of racial profiling, bias and discrimination. “We believe that there’s an overreaction that [is] happening here just because of their Middle Eastern and Muslim backgrounds.”

In the past, Bedier insistently made similar claims about Sami al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor who ultimately pled guilty to providing services for the terrorist Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.  It is unlikely to be purely coincidental that Mr. Mohamed reportedly had rented a room in a house used by al-Arian to run his front organization, the World Islamic Studies Enterprise.

What is going on in Tampa, enabled in part by uncritical media outlets like WEDU, is going on all over America.  It is time we stop promoting the Islamists and their friends – and starting helping those Muslims who are ours.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s “Rosa Parks” treatment

"Islam vs. Islamists" tells the story of moderate Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

Last Wednesday, the Oregon Public Broadcasting Service announced that it had reached an agreement with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that seemed, at first blush, to represent a breakthrough:  The national Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) would no longer prevent the airing of a film CPB commissioned as part of its "America at a Crossroads" series called "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center."  Instead, PBS’s Oregon stations would make it available to the more than 350 other affiliates across the country. 

As one of the Co-Executive Producers of this film, I began to receive a number of congratulatory messages from all over the country.  Most were from people who had followed the saga of this documentary about moderate Muslims who have courageously challenged co-religionists known as Islamists – adherents to a totalitarian political ideology seeking to dominate the Muslim faith and, in turn, the world.  [More]Like innumerable editorialists, bloggers and ordinary citizens around the country, the authors of these messages had been frustrated and outraged when PBS and its Washington flagship, WETA, culminated months of efforts to alter and then censor "Islam vs. Islamists" by refusing to broadcast it, as planned, as part of the "Crossroads" series rolled out last month.  They assumed that the Oregon announcement meant national distribution was imminent.

Unfortunately, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s arrangement with the Oregon PBS means no such thing.  Far from the treatment accorded other "Crossroads" series programs – nationwide broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, in prime-time with a substantial promotional budget – "Islam vs. Islamists" would simply be "made available" to PBS stations.  Maybe some would decide to run it over the next few months.  Maybe they would do so at 3:00 a.m. or Sunday afternoons when practically no one is watching.  There are no guarantees of pick-up in any, let alone all, major markets.

Worse yet, the Oregon distributors have announced that they will accompany the film with the equivalent of a consumer warning label – a "discussion" that will provide "context" for viewers.  Presumably, this means the sort of "context" our film’s critics at PBS and WETA kept trying to impose on us: Changes that they believed would make it, in their words, less "one-sided" (read, more fair to the Islamists) and less "alarmist." 

If past practice is any guide, those recruited to provide such "balance" will likely be representatives of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).  Despite the fact that these groups are well-known Saudi-funded, pro-Islamist fronts, their views were exclusively and highly sympathetically featured in a documentary called "The Muslim Americans."  PBS seemed to have no reservations about airing this wholly one-sided film during the "Crossroads" series roll-out in April.

In short, now that widespread criticism has made it impossible to sustain PBS’ suppression of "Islam vs. Islamists," the anti-Islamist Muslims who are its subjects are to be remanded to decidedly second-class coverage.  Call it CPB’s version of the "Rosa Parks treatment." 

Recall that Rosa Parks could have gotten to her job via public transportation – as long as she "knew her place" and agreed to ride in the back of the bus.  So, too, moderate Muslims can have their stories, as recorded in a film produced with some $675,000 in public monies, shown on the public airwaves – in at least a few locations at some point in time. 

But these heroic figures must know their place, too.  And their place is not in prime time, nor national distribution.  Only Islamists and their apologists are entitled to front-of-the-bus treatment from those like Robert MacNeil (the host of the "Crossroads" series and producer – thanks to a sweetheart deal – of "The Muslim Americans" show), Sharon Percy Rockefeller (wife of one Senator and daughter of another, Jay Rockefeller and Charles Percy, respectively, and president of WETA) and the handful of others responsible for PBS’ rejection of "Islam vs. Islamists."

If ever there were a time when the American people are entitled to the most comprehensive presentation possible of information concerning the struggle for the soul and future of Islam, this should be it.  After all, last week a Pew Research poll found that roughly a quarter of the Muslim-American population thinks suicide bombing is legitimate in at least some circumstances.  An even larger percentage claimed not to believe that Arabs perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.

The particular irony is that the whole idea behind "America at a Crossroads" was that it was intended to offer the American people twenty programs featuring differing viewpoints and a variety of stories that would, taken together, help inform the public about the post-9/11 world.  This creative vision demands that the experiences and warnings of authentically moderate, pro-democratic and tolerant Muslims be treated at least as favorably as the portrayal of those in the Muslim community determined to stifle their voices.  Certainly, public broadcasting should not be party to such suppression.

A bipartisan group of legislators have called for prompt, national distribution of "Islam vs. Islamists."  They have been as impressed by the quality of the film PBS doesn’t want you to see as they are outraged by the way people entrusted with responsibility for the public airwaves have handled it and those involved in its production.  The "Rosa Parks" treatment is not what they have in mind, what the courageous anti-Islamist Muslims deserve, nor what will be acceptable to the national audience that expects to be able to view this documentary without further delay.