Muslim Group will lead ‘March Against Terror’– Washington Times

A local Islamic group is aiming to have more than 1,000 Muslims, Christians and Jews rally against terrorism tomorrow in the District. The group Free Muslims Against Terrorism, headed by Kamal Nawash, has organized the ‘March Against Terror,’ which will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. at Freedom Plaza. March organizers said the event is the ‘front line’ in an ideological war against radical Islamic teachings See the full article at this link at the Washington Times website

Who are the Moderate Muslims?

“We realize we are in competition with extremists for the soul of Islam.” So says AEI scholar Hedieh Mirahmadi, an American Muslim woman of Iranian descent, who organized a recent conference in Jakarta described as “a chance for moderate Muslims to meet and discuss ways of moving forward.” In Cairo last fall, another small group of leading Islamic academics met to call for “confronting and refuting the visions of radical religious movements.” They urged that Muslims should be “intensifying dialogue with moderate and enlightened elements in the Western world.” Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti bemoaned to more than 2 million pilgrims during the 2004 Hajj in Mecca that Islam’s “own sons” have “spread vice on Earth, with explosions and destruction and killing of innocents.” … see the full article at The American Enterprise Institute Magazine website

Converting a tough tone

Converting a tough tone April 25, 2005 Denver Post As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he called other Christian traditions “defective,” boycotted an interfaith prayer for peace and wrote a document blamed for setting back Catholic relations with other religions. As Pope Benedict XVI, he used his first Mass to say he would continue talks with non-Christian religions and do everything in his power to promote Christian unity. “The fact that among the first things Benedict says is he wants to extend his hand in relations with other Christian churches is probably a signal that he knows he is behind the eight ball on this very issue, and similarly of interreligious dialogue,” said Diana Eck, a professor of comparative religions at Harvard University. By all accounts, one of the major challenges facing the new papacy is how the Roman Catholic Church engages an increasingly pluralistic world. Pope John Paul II, who witnessed the Nazi extermination of Jews in his native Poland, extended an olive branch to the Jewish community time and again. He apologized for Catholic misdeeds against Jews, established diplomatic ties with Israel and called Jews “beloved elder brothers.” As the reign of Benedict XVI dawns, it is not Judaism but Islam at the forefront of interreligious issues. Muslims now outnumber Catholics worldwide, the Catholic Church is in fierce competition with Muslims for African converts, and Muslim immigration from North Africa is transforming Europe. While it is too soon to tell how Benedict XVI might approach other faiths and Christian traditions, the questions he will face are well-established: squaring Catholicism’s claim to being the “one true church” with engagement of traditions that take the opposite view; weighing the benefits and limits of dialogue as the chief tool for finding understanding; and dealing with militant Islam. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger in 2000 issued Dominus Iesus, which insisted on the supremacy of Catholicism and declared all other religions “defective” by comparison. To Ratzinger, the strong tone befitted his intended audience: the bishops of his church, some of whom he believed were being too open to other paths to salvation, said the Rev. James Wiseman, professor of theology and religious studies at the Catholic University of America. That stance was a bit disingenuous, Wiseman said, considering it was not a private communiqu�. “Neither as a cardinal nor as pope is Benedict XVI going to back down on the position that there is a certain fullness of truth in the Catholic faith he doesn’t find elsewhere,” Wiseman said. “That doesn’t mean there is not truth and value in other traditions that is to be affirmed and supported.” “A new chapter” Pope Benedict indicated as much in the softer stance he took in his first Mass. He endorsed further carrying out the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, which brought the church into the modern world. One of Vatican II’s documents supported Christian unity, breaking with the church’s past hostility toward Protestants. That spirit, not that of Dominus Iesus, is what Philip Wogaman, interim president of Denver’s Iliff School of Theology, hopes for in Pope Benedict XVI. “During his tenure as cardinal it’s no secret that many of us were not pleased with his positions he sometimes took,” said Wogaman, a member of the United Methodist Church’s Christian Unity and Interfaith Relations Commission. “But that’s past. He is now Benedictus XVI, and it’s a new chapter.” How the Protestant and Orthodox Christian world responds to the new pontiff’s calls for unity depends on what he means by that, said Michael Cromartie, vice president with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. Cromartie said Benedict will find enthusiasm if he is proposing dialogue to identify common ground and understand differences. But if the idea is “some sort of massive, universal, unified church,” that would not be welcome, he said. On one hand, evangelical Christians were insulted when Ratzinger used the words “sects” to describe evangelical and Pentecostal churches making inroads in historically Catholic South America. But better that Ratzinger not sugarcoat his beliefs, Cromartie said. “If you really do believe other churches are deficient for strong theological and doctrinal reasons, better then to go ahead and say it and make your case,” said Cromartie, a conservative Episcopalian. “It’s important for people to take each other seriously. The way to do that is to state your true principles.” During a 26-year papacy, John Paul II engaged Muslims in dialogue, expressed sympathy for Palestinians, spoke out against Western materialism and opposed both U.S. wars on Iraq. Ratzinger has taken a more skeptical view of Islam. He has described the faith as being in competition with Catholicism, and he has lamented that Islam’s clarity has inspired believers in a way Christianity in the contemporary West has not. In 1986, Ratzinger skipped an interreligious prayer for peace meeting in Assisi sponsored by John Paul II, in which space for people of other religions was allotted in Catholic churches. More recently Ratzinger has fought predominantly Muslim Turkey’s application to the European Union, saying it would run “counter to history.” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said Muslims should give the new pope the benefit of the doubt and hopes Benedict will stand against militant Islam. Some commentators say the Catholic Church has been too cautious on that front, in part to protect Christian minorities in Muslim countries. “There is nothing more potent in combating militant and theocratic Islam than nongovernmental religious institutions such as the papacy,” said Jasser, a Phoenix physician. Continuing the dialogue The Vatican office at the forefront of how the church interacts with other religions is the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, headed by Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a British scholar of Islam. Speaking to reporters in Rome a week before Benedict’s election, Fitzgerald said he did not foresee fundamental changes in how the church deals with Islam, which mostly has concentrated on dialogue. “I don’t think we’re going to go to war,” Fitzgerald said. “The time of the Crusades is over. We are not to use religion in the service of violence.” Fitzgerald said dialogue with Muslims has proved difficult in part because there is no formal Muslim hierarchy. His council instead has engaged in talks with governments in Jordan, Turkey, Iran and Libya. An Islamic-Catholic liaison committee meets annually, though its mostly Arab Muslim membership does not reflect Islam’s worldwide reach. Fitzgerald said that while the question of Islam is important, it must be viewed in the wider context of how the church fits into a pluralistic world. For instance, Fitzgerald cited growing Western interest in Buddhism – not in new converts but in people adopting Buddhist practices to enhance their spiritual lives. “We see that as a challenge: What is it that people are looking for, why is it that they are going to other communities. Isn’t there something we should be doing?” he said. But therein lies another challenge. Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger once called Buddhism a religion for the self-indulgent.

Learning to Talk

The summit and similar current efforts have renewed debate among Jewish seekers of dialogue over which Muslim groups are appropriate partners – and whether dialogue is even worthwhile right now. The issue is whether Jewish organizations can expect Muslim leaders to denounce all terrorism and voice support for a Mideast peace process that recognizes the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. “We’re not looking … Go to this link at the Jerusalem Report to purchase the full article

Neo-Nazis applaud Islamofascists

Neo-Nazis applaud Islamofascists Mar. 11, 2005 01:00 PM NOT-SO-STRANGE BEDFELLOWS M. Zuhdi Jasser Phoenix physician; Chairman, American Islamic Forum for Democracy Sometimes you learn the most about a product, or an ideology, not by who is trying to sell it, but rather by the type of consumers who enjoy its consumption. advertisement Earlier this week, Jeremy Reynolds, known for his exposure of multiple radical Islamist websites, revealed a “White supremacist groups extension of friendship and support to terrorist groups on their websites. He quotes the Aryan Nations “national director” saying, “We as an organization will also endeavor to aid all those who subvert, disrupt and are (sic) malignant in nature to our enemies. Therefore I offer my most sincere best wishes to those who wage holy Jihad against the infrastructure of the decadent, weak and Judaic-influenced societal infrastructure of the West. I send a message of thanks and well-wishes to the methods and works of groups on the Islamic front against the Jew such as Al-Qaeda and Sheik Osama Bin Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and to all Jihadis worldwide who fight for the glory of the Khilafah and the downfall of the anti-life and anti-freedom System prevalent on this earth today.” This praise and joint cause of radical Islamists by White supremacists speaks volumes about the hate-filled ideology of radical Islamism. The appeal of militant Islamism’s ideology to white supremacists who know nothing about Islam, Islamism, or the Khilafah for that matter is not a great surprise. Groups like Aryan Nations are sure to gravitate toward like-minded hate-mongering Islamist groups threatening American security and American liberty and pluralism regardless of their own profound racial antagonism for Arabs or Muslims. No sane human could even imagine the result of a bizarre co-mingling of militant Islamists and White supremacists. But it stands to reason that as anti-social consumers they enjoy each others products. Their sermons of hate sing the same refrains. Their bombs of intolerance declare a common war on pluralism. When trying to understand the ideology of radical Islam look no further than these praises from the Aryan Nations. These cockroaches of humanity feed off the same vitriol of hate. Whether White supremacist fascism or militant Islamist theocracy, hate is hate. Its appeal draws from the same trough of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories. They feed their followers the same deep-seeded arrogance and false sick sense of superiority despite years and years of abject failure. This column originally appeared online in the Arizona Republic at this link.

Killers stage a rally: A farce written in blood

Hezbollah, the so-called Party of God, the terrorist Shiite Muslim Lebanese political party organized a sickening demonstration on Tuesday in Beirut. Hundreds of thousands of Hezbullah supporters gathered March 8 in the middle of Beirut cheering, “thank you Syria” and “no foreign interference.” This demonstration was clearly bolstered by the Syrian puppet Lebanese government, which comically advertised that 1.5 million of the 3.7 million Lebanese attended. Of the few hundred thousand who actually attended, many were Baathists of Syria and thousands of others bused in under Hezbullah and Syrian coercion. Finally, the world witnessed and paid attention to how the Baath, the Hezbullah and their despotic ilk have for decades run so-called demonstrations that are actually pure stage productions to wield a false sense of influence and emotion. While Assad speaks of withdrawal, this demonstration was a show of force in order to maintain control of Lebanon in Syrian absentia vis a vis Hezbullah even if his Baathist thugs retreat from Lebanon with their tail between their legs. “Sheikh” Hassan Nasrallah, the chief fascist Islamist barbarian of the Hezbullah terrorist hate group took the opportunity to spew his hate of Israel and America during the demonstration. Just a few weeks earlier, he gave a sermon to his fellow hate-mongers and followers which would make Bin Laden proud. Where is the Arab revulsion at the psychopathic hypocrisy of Hezbullah and Nasrallah’s pronouncement of gratitude to Syria? Droves of Middle Easterners have been cheering blind nauseating support for Hezbullah’s supposed influence on Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon while they now sit in complete hypocritical silence at the withdrawal of the incomparable Syrian despotism. Which part of Syrian oppression was Nassrallah thanking? Was it the robbery of billions it stole from the Lebanese people over 30 years? Was it the dictatorial suffocation of free markets and free trade in northern Lebanon and in Syria. Was it for Syria’s importation of militant Islamism and fascistic hate for non-Muslims from Iran into Lebanon? Was it for the militaristic and chaotic climate Syria’s Baathist instilled in Lebanon and thrived on maintaining? Was it the absence of elections or true Lebanese representation and imposition of a Syrian government in Lebanon he was thanking? Their demonstration spewed the tired hatred against America and Israel. Make no mistake, the masses gathered were basically glorifying all of the evil of the Syrian Baathist and Alawite war crimes committed over decades. Yesterday’s demonstration was medieval cheering for the mass murders committed by the Assad regime like that against the people of Hama in 1982. They were cheering for the Alawite Stalinist-like murder of over tens of thousands from Tadmur to Hama on and on at the hands of the Alawites. Every one of the millions of Syrians and Lebanese who have felt the pain of the decades of oppression by Assad’s thuggish regime will look upon the demonstration as an identifier of accomplices and facilitators of Alawite oppression and status quo. The status quo the demonstrators love is one of despotism, medieval autocracy, deep-seated fear, persecution, and suffocation politically, religiously, and economically. In Syria and in Lebanon, the Assad regime of the father and now the son have violated the rights of every Syrian man, woman, and child and have extended for 30 years that violation into northern Lebanon with impunity. The Lebanese have finally moved with the world at their side to get Assad’s regime out of Lebanon. But, Hezbullah wants the continuation of this history of corruption and the malignant iron hand on the Lebanese and Syrian people. This speaks volumes about Hezbullah’s pathetic so-called freedom fighting that is really veiled Islamo-fascism. It is beyond reason that in 2005 a demonstration with this much underlying illness goes on with little recoil from the world, especially the Arab and Muslim world. It is about time for parties of freedom and liberty to join with media attention at labelling Hezbullah for the farce which it is – a false representative of Lebanese freedom and in reality a representative of Islamist theocratic despotism, hate, and racism. The Lebanese people showed their true will a few days ago with rally after rally against the Syrian occupation and against true foreign intervention over the Lebanese people. We are not fooled by this stage show. Now more than ever it is obvious that these militant Islamists never cared about Lebanese independence from Israel. Someone needs to break it to them that Israel left for many reasons, none of which were related to his so-called resistance from the evil of their terrorism. The Hezbullah leadership are in fact the grandparents of suicide bombing among radical Muslims. In fact, their Al-Manar “Jihad (TV) network,” until reason prevailed and it disappeared from the airways in the U.S., regularly glorified suicide bombing and leaned on religious radicals who feed this ideology of hate. In fact, some could say one of the reasons Israel may have stayed longer than it actually desired in Lebanon was to avoid being perceived as acting in response to Hezbullah’s terror. Now in some kind of twisted logic, Nasrallah expects us to believe that he cares about the Lebanese and thus desires continued occupation from the fascists of Syria’s Baath? In the end, Nasrallah knows that his pathetic survival is dependent upon Assad, and that even if he pulls out, Assad remains his lifeline. Iran recently declared that it would stand behind Syria as an axis. The axis of Iran-Syria-Hezbullah are now well delineated. We can place them in the cross-hairs of our collective political pressure of isolation or we can watch their reign of terror continue in Lebanon. Syria appears to be leaving, however begrudgingly. Lebanon may soon be sovereign again, but this will need a concerted effort against Hezbullah by moderate Muslims and the Lebanese majority. The next step must be the marginalization of Nasrallah and the exposure of his criminality. His facilitation must cease and his fascism must be exposed by all freedom-loving Arabs and Muslims alike. Hezbullah, the Iranian government, and Syria’s Baath care only about their fascist Islamist theocratic dreams in Lebanon and around the globe. For those interested, find Nassrallah’s writings and read them. His virtual “Mein Kampf” about an “Islamic state based upon Hezbullah’s sharia in Lebanon” is well-described. His website is thankfully no longer readily available, but his writings and sermons certainly are. This column originally appeared at the Arizona Republic at this link.

Struggle for the soul of Islam

What a time in history for the Middle East! Each nation is now slowly experiencing only a prelude to their new chapters in history unfolding before all of our very eyes. The exact details yet to be revealed; no one can deny that change is afoot and President Bush’s axiom of “freedom being on the march” is right on the money. Iraq held its elections. The Palestinians and Egyptians held their own. The Lebanese puppet cabinet of Syria resigned en masse this week. Only to be followed by comments from Syria’s despot, Bashar Assad, that he may in fact be withdrawing his troops from their 15-year occupation of Northern Lebanon in the next few months. With this Big Mo, the unfortunate reality is that it is but only a humble beginning to a wholesale transformation among Arab and ‘Islamic’ nations which will need years and generations to fortify. This change is volatile and without prudence especially early on can yield to only an exchange for radical theocracies which the Arab despots have conveniently fomented in their midst. We must keep our eye on those who are against theocracy. However, the era of denial is over for many in the media and naysayers on the Iraq war. It’s about time to start focusing on those Arab groups who are moving towards freedom, those Muslim groups in the Middle East who are moderate and pluralistic, and those who have a chance at moving the majority beyond tolerance toward true pluralism. Rather than the occasional sound bite of freedom, it’s time to genuinely turn the collective media attention on the future Vaclav Havels of the nations emerging from the glasnost of the Middle East. Now is the time to fertilize the future of a moderate, secular, and pluralistic Middle East and spray the ideological pesticide on theocracy. Progress can be ahead. The media can play a vital role in turning up the heat on the despots of the Middle East. This tide of change is not a coincidence. Never underestimate the influence of seeds of genuine change within a culture. Not only is this the beginning of the possible liberation of the Arab and Muslim world, but it will be a grand step to improving our security from the scourge of terrorism. It will not be a short road, and change may not lead to toward moderation. That is the precipice over which we stand – either these nations will fall toward pluralism and openness or they will be turned over to doomed theocracies. Lebanon has a bright future with one can hope enough pluralism in faith to inoculate it from the stranglehold of religious zealots such as Hezbollah and their ilk. Egypt must foster true reforms beyond the ballot box, liberate Al Azhar from radical clerics and Mubarak’s government while rendering the Muslim Brotherhood impotent. Iran is a clinic for failed theocracy posing hope for secular liberation, but currently far from it. And Syria has been sealed so tight over the last decades that its liberation will need time and the mobilization of such networks as that generated by the Reform Party of Syria (www.reformsyria.org) or the Syrian Human Rights Committee (www.shrc.org). In the end, the greatest impact upon reform in the Middle East will come when we begin to hear and see a genuine and potent movement of moderate Muslims in America and the west openly declaring a frontal ideological war on al-Qaida and all associated militant Islamist organizations and their theological incubators. When the soul of Islam is wrested away from theocracy and toward the separation of religion and state, terrorist networks will dissolve and pluralistic democracies will grow exponentially. This column originally appeared online at the Arizona Republic at this link.

Syria’s Historic Blunder

The recent assassination of Lebanon’s highly regarded former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has brought a flurry of speculation regarding the most likely perpetrators of his horrific death. Naturally, the first place to look is at those who benefit the most from his death. The highest on that list is the Baathist Syrian government which has been getting more and more pressure to leave Lebanon with a mounting opposition of moderates in Lebanon led by former Prime Minister Hariri. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is reporting that a Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Sayassah, believes that the assassination was planned by Assef Shawkat, Assad’s brother-in-law. A plot thought possibly planned out of anger over the role Hariri played in the recent U.N resolutions telling Syria to pull out of Lebanon. The surviving Lebanese opposition leader Walid Jumblatt has since Hariri’s death become a lightning rod for the ousting of Syria and their puppet government from Lebanon. He quickly accused Syria of assassinating the former Prime Minister and said, “This is the regime of terrorists and terrorism that was able yesterday to wipe out Rafik al-Hariri … I charge the Lebanese-Syrian police regime with the responsibility for Hariri’s death.” The time is now for a continuation of the pressure to force Syria to exit Lebanon. This world pressure must also be directed at a higher order of magnitude of pressure upon the Assad regime to demonstrate genuine democratic reforms rather than the false platitudes he has instituted since his installation. The Assad regime is demonstrating that the despotic zebras running his dictatorship cannot change their stripes but are only rearranging the chairs on their Titanic. Already on Monday, in President Bush’s speech to the EU in Brussels he took the opportunity to focus on the Middle East and discuss his own “Road to Damascus” as the Times online notes. He quickly reminded Syria that the three-decade occupation of Lebanon must end. With international concern about Syria’s role in Iraq, with Hezbullah, and with Iran, the assassination of a leading Muslim moderate by Syrian intelligence (if true) in one of the few genuinely forward leaning Arab nations in the Middle East can only be interpreted as profoundly self-destructive, if not suicidal. Right after the assassination the U.S. ambassador was pulled from Syria. And the U.N. reminded Syria to pull out of Lebanon forthwith. Just the thought of Syrian regime complicity has turned the entire free world against the Assad regime in only one week. France and the U.S. now even agree. The only terror outreach to the Syrians last week came from Iran which is also diplomatically beleaguered and lonely with its own international isolation. Well, if not the Syrians, then who? How about al-Qaida? In a recent analysis, the liberty-minded Washington based think tank, the Saudi Institute pointed out the Saudi and al-Qaida connections of the possible perpetrators of the Hariri assassination. The operation had all the trademarks – a suicide bombing and a taped statement given to Al Jazeera. Ahmed Abo Adas’ taped statement stated that the Hariri killing is to avenge al-Qaida operatives killed by the Saudis. Adas was an Al-Zarqawi trainee. Cells of al-Qaida may be running to Lebanon and back to Syria after being slowly exterminated by the forces of freedom in Iraq. It makes sense that al-Qaida may have wanted to both eliminate a moderate Muslim leader like Hariri who threatens them the most while forcing Syria’s hand to become more embattled, less open, more militant, and more resistant to reform. Thus, in this assassination, al-Qaida would have made great headway in maintaining the dictatorial soil which fertilizes their cells and terrorism so well in Syria. Such is the goal of fanatical Islamists who know that their greatest enemies are Muslim moderates in Arab nations on their way to democracy. The days seem to be numbered for the Syrian regime in Lebanon and soon thereafter possibly even in Damascus. Much like Eastern European nations fell one after the other as the world turned its attention to the Soviet puppet regimes, so too may the Baathist Syrians fall soon as the world begins to turn our attention to their despotism. This column first appeared online at the Arizona Republic at this link.

Iraq’s Winds of Change: Rebirth of a Nation

The world will soon witness the rebirth of an independent Iraqi nation – soon free with sovereign elections and leaders elected by and for the Iraqi people. This Iraqi road has not and will not be smooth, but it will be free and it will be the property of the Iraqi people. Tyranny will be only part of Iraq’s history as its people join together to build a democracy from scratch. It will not be Jeffersonian, but it will be democracy. From the cathartic toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad when our troops first entered to liberate Iraq to this weekend’s historic elections, even the most cynical cannot help but feel the spirit of liberation. This spirit is new for two generations that have not felt its likes in Iraq in over 50 years. A thriving Arabic nation of independent voters will certainly influence surrounding nations that share a common language and culture. Such commonality brings a certainty in coming generation and the winds of change among the greater Arab peoples. Winston Churchill once said “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” American democracy even after our 229 years of refinement has its flaws. But to this day, the voting booth is the great equalizer. The starting place and barometer of freedom in a democratic society is that simple vote, which in act, in quality, in power, and in quantity is the same for all citizens. That singular vote is the crux of the freedom of elections for which so many in the Arab world and other places under tyranny continue to yearn. Iraq’s vote will bring a euphoric realization by many of its citizens that they will never again cast a vote out of fear. The Baath of Saddam’s old Iraq were known for tracking down those who vote against them in their sham elections. This Sunday, Iraqi citizens will cast their votes enjoying a genuine expression of life and liberty, which now carries a meaning – of representation, equality, liberty, and individuality. So many have expressed concern about Sunday’s possible turnout. Turnout in a free society often does not correlate to absolute safety but rather to the citizenry’s hunger and appetite for freedom. The price for this election has been high for the Iraqi people and for the coalition. But we should never forget the history of all free nations in the world that rejected tyranny. Never has the occasional resulting complications of democracy caused a people to reflect nostalgic on the oppressive evil of the tyranny they left behind. Sure, there will be a struggle to eliminate the enemies of freedom that continue to terrorize. They will only exploit freedom in impotent attempts to bring back oppression in the form of Islamist theocracy. But the enemies of freedom will simply begin to dissolve when their antagonists are no longer dismissible as foreigners, but rather become fellow Iraqis or fellow Muslims. Their whole mantle of conspiracy and non-Muslim hatred will disappear. We must also never forget, that there are a number of positive signs that liberty, free markets and peace will prevail for the majority in Iraq. The signs of success are there for those who care to see. The Iraqi experience will further succeed more convincingly as so many liberated nations have before it. Saddam created a cohort of terrorists who will certainly continue to throw a few remaining salvos before their death. But they are a dying breed. As we watch the returns there may well be a smattering of violence this weekend. Let us not forget that the majority who will vote and with whom the peace in Iraq lies are moderate peaceful Muslims who seek freedom and democracy and equal treatment and protection for all under the law regardless of faith, race, or creed. We will await in the weeks and months ahead the next steps in Iraq which will include among many the ratification of a new constitution by the Iraqi people. It will be possible for the majority to reject theocracy and accept secular freedoms. They need look no further than Iran to see the abysmal failure in every respect of a system of so-called ‘Islamic’ theocracy. Many Iraqi’s have discussed this failure publicly in the past few months and their desire not to follow Iran. It will be possible for the majority to embrace tolerance for all religions equally with no public preference for Islam. And it will be possible for the Iraqi populace to come to the realization that such universal tolerance and secular acceptance is at the core of Islamic practice. It will be soon clear that to most Muslims, the freedom of religion and the separation of religion and state is compatible with Islam and the Koran. It will all be possible only after this weekend’s election. This column originally appeared online at the Arizona Republic and can be found at this link at the Arizona Republic