As CIA Director Brennan needs to rethink his position on Islamist ideology/in AIFD Press Releases/by AIFD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
As CIA Director Brennan needs to rethink his position on Islamist ideology
American Muslim organization concerned by terror experts history in the fight against Islamist extremism
PHOENIX (February 14, 2013) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith” issued the following statement on behalf of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) in the wake of the delay of the likely confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director.
“The American Islamic Forum for Democracy is concerned about the direction that the CIA will be steered under the stewardship of John Brennan who is likely to be confirmed in the coming weeks. Today’s hearings highlighted several important issues, but failed to focus enough on Mr. Brennan’s position or lack thereof on the ideological root cause of Islamist extremism.
The CIA is on the front lines of the byproduct of an existential war against the ideology of political Islam (Islamism). It’s byproduct includes Al Qaeda and the global array of radical Islamist organizations and nation-states. It is by far and away the greatest threat posed to the national security of the United States in the 21st century. Of all people in our government, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency whose operatives engage in counter-intelligence across the world needs to fully and unapologetically understand and be engaged in the war of ideas against this ideology.
AIFD has been critical of Brennan in the past for comments and apologetics he has proffered as the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism point person. His involvement in the creation of the toothless National Strategy for Counterterrorism and his remarks at New York University in 2010, highlight serious concerns about Brennan’s dedication to this fight against Islamism.
In the National Strategy, the guiding document for the U.S. government’s counterterrorism strategy, Brennan’s report uses the term “ideology” over 20 times, but fails to identify political Islam or any ideology for that matter as the ideology we need to defeat. His report does not name jihad, salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other derivative of the global movement of Islamism. If we cannot name the threat, how can we defeat it? In his remarks at NYU Brennan seemed more concerned with offering apologies about the U.S. and downplaying if not denying the prevalence of Islamist extremism for what he emphasized as “the actions of our own government [that] have at times perpetuated [ignorance, prejudice and discrimination].”
The Obama Administration has been completely absent in the battle of ideas against political Islam. If confirmed, Brennan is poised to take over a CIA which has among other portfolios –The Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program. Mr. Brennan has demonstrated no acknowledgement let alone desire to lead or expand such a vital program with the CIA under his stewardship. If he is unable to comprehend the central ideas of Islamism which threaten Americans across the world today, is he the best choice for CIA director? With the growth of Islamist leadership throughout the Middle East the threat is becoming more significant. If confirmed, as Director at CIA, AIFD implores Mr. Brennan to rethink his position regarding political Islam and refocus the agency commitment to winning the battle of ideas for liberty and against Islamism. Our commitment to American principles is the key to victory in this war.”
About the American Islamic Forum for Democracy
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD’s mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at http://www.aifdemocracy.org/.
MEDIA CONTACTS: Gregg Edgar
Gordon C. James Public Relations
2/19/13 Dr. Zuhdi Jasser joins The Voice Of Russia to discuss the crisis in Syria and the UN’s recent report/in Video/by AIFD
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Testifies Before House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee/in AIFD Press Releases/by AIFD
AIFD President and Founder, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, gave remarks today at the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. The hearing was titled “Anti-Semitism: A Growing Threat to All Faiths.”
Dr. Jasser’s written testimony is available here.
For a PDF version e-mail Norma@aifdemocracy.org.
Islamist Censorship Charges On/in AIFD in the News/by AIFD
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 4:00 A.M., National Review Online
Islamist Censorship Charges On
Now sharia advocates are trying to stop the use of the word “Islamist.”
In just the latest episode of censorship in the prophet’s name, Muslim activist groups now want reporters to stop using the word “Islamist.” “Islamist” is an important and useful word — it identifies the politically motivated Muslims who are intent on injecting sharia into Western law and culture, and distinguishes them from other followers of Islam.
There is no question that sharia is anathema to the American sense of individual liberty and civil rights, so actual Islamists must hide behind Muslims who have no interest in bringing Muslim Brotherhood–style regulations to America. Uninhibited discussions of the conditions in Western Europe’s sharia enclaves evoke instant rejection of similar arrangements here in the U.S. Thus, the conversation must be stripped of frank terms such as “Islamist.” Those who seek to promote sharia are anxious to bypass debate on the matter on the way to cultural domination.
If it can happen in London — as it has — it can happen anywhere in the civilized world. Caving to Islamist demands and criminalizing public debate as hate speech set the stage in Britain for Islamist vigilantes to accost Londoners who violate sharia’s rules on modesty, alcohol consumption, and homosexuality. Days ago, CNN’sOutFront covered the most recent manifestations of Muslim gang tyranny in Britain, Denmark, and Spain. The feature also showed Islamist bands demanding that Britain’s sharia courts, now merely endowed with civil authority, expand to prosecute criminal actions, including “un-Islamic behavior in Muslim areas.”
Two recent video recordings – removed by YouTube, then reposted at alternate sites — show Islamist “patrols” staking out turf in areas of London while declaring, “This is not-so-Great Britain, this is a Muslim area. We are vigilantes implementing Islam upon your own necks.” A collective Western “Brava!” goes out to the women who responded, instead of meekly complying, “I cannot believe it!” and “I am so appalled, this is Great Britain.”
Islamists certainly do not want the American public to consider the current international campaign to make inspection of Islamism a crime. In January, journalists and journalism students were invited to a conference in Istanbul where Turkish deputy undersecretary Ibrahim Kalin announced that the Turkish government “has been working on projects to have Islamophobia recognized as a crime against humanity.” Prime Minister Erdogancommitted the Turkish government to “immediately start working on legislation against blasphemous and offensive remarks” and bragged that “Turkey could be a leading example for the rest of the world on this.”
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s secretary general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, ispushing for new “legal instruments” to deal with Islamophobia and plans “efforts to mobilize international support to deal with the issue.” In apparent coordination with efforts in the U.S. to suppress speech he “wants to mobilize the highest possible political support not only from OIC countries but also from the West.” At last week’s Twelfth Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, in Cairo, Ihsanoğlu commended“the adoption of Resolution 16/18 [the Istanbul Process] which condemns discriminatory practices against Muslims,” and he claimed that “the OIC has come to a crossroads in its search for radical solutions to hatred based on religion and belief” (emphasis added).
After the recent “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube controversy and the resultant Muslim riots, I visited a Southern California mosque and had a conversation with the chairman of its board. When I inquired as to his position on free speech he replied that the criminal punishment for offending Muslims should be equal to that for burning a mosque.
So far, America’s institutions have chosen to defer the moment that the culture must be defined and defended. Islamists have stepped into the void. For instance, at Islamists’ behest, the DOJ, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security have purged from counterterrorism manuals references to the connection between Islamic radicalism and jihadist terror. Many city- and county-level agencies have followed suit. If our law-enforcement agencies cannot stand up to the threat, how can we expect the media to?
Those who doubt the need to identify and engage this activist element should consider the words of Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim civil-rights leader whose family emigrated from Syria in pursuit of American liberty. In his autobiographical book, A Battle for the Soul of Islam: A Muslim Patriot’s Battle to Save His Faith, Jasser writes:
For the Islamists, total power is the ultimate goal. They will feign respect for “democracy” (e.g., elections), but ultimately their path is one that seeks to change the rules of the game to an Islamocentric system rather than one centered in reason, under God, with unalienable rights for all.
Caving to demands for speech codes dangerously skews political arguments and makes the voices of the censors only louder. When one side of the argument is censored or restrained, conspirators are allowed to perpetrate a fraud on the majority. This is exactly how Islamists have been selling Americans on the idea that sharia is soft, socially just, and not a threat to the American way. By maligning the use of the word “Islamist” and thereby suppressing inspection of Islamism, sharia advocates hope to dismiss as racist any who would challenge them.
It is not too late to frame the debate and press American Muslim leaders for honesty. Unapologetic and public conversations are key to defending American constitutional standards, and they demand clarity of terminology.
— Karen Lugo is co-president of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Why Syria’s Islamists Are Gaining/in Foreign Policy Issues/by AIFD
Why Syria’s Islamists Are Gaining
By J. MALCOLM GARCIA
Published: February 14, 2013
A YOUNG fighter for the Free Syrian Army sat at a checkpoint on a couch taken from an abandoned house. He cradled his Kalashnikov and waited on the empty street for a car to inspect, or a pedestrian to pat down. If only the future of Syria would reveal itself to him as easily.
The rebels in the Free Syrian Army don’t doubt that they will drive President Bashar al-Assad from power — eventually — but they have no idea what will happen afterward: Democracy? An Islamic republic? An Islamic dictatorship? The fighters I met on a recent visit here were unable to articulate any long-term political vision.
While the young rebel sat at his checkpoint, and while Americans continue to debate whether to intervene in Syria or just look the other way, Islamist militants are exploiting the uncertainty here. They have a clear mission: imposing an Islamist state in place of Mr. Assad.
“The people who believe in a strict Islam will do anything, fight anybody, do anything for Islam,” a barber who recently reopened his shop told me. “They are like the U.S. Special Forces. They like death more than life.”
The grass-roots supporters of the Islamists whom I spoke with were a mixture of devout fundamentalist Muslims, returning merchants struggling to make ends meet, parents of dead fighters for the Free Syrian Army, and some of the fighters themselves.
They insisted that they wanted only a “pure” Islam, not a Taliban-style government, to replace the Assad family’s regime, which has ruled Syria since 1971. But they offered examples of purity that sounded Talibanesque: Women must cover their entire bodies. Everyone must pray five times a day. Dancing should be prohibited. Differing interpretations of Islam would be tolerated, they say, as long as those beliefs remained “a secret” — a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
What the Islamists conveyed most clearly, however, was a firm sense of direction. They also managed to deliver much-needed social services in the rebel-held parts of Aleppo.
Perhaps their determination and efficiency were meant to silence qualms about their ultimate goals; if so, the tactic seemed to be working. Just as Afghans welcomed the Taliban in the 1990s — not for its harsh interpretation of Islam, but for the prospect of respite from decades of dislocation — some Sunni Muslims in this ancient, multi-sectarian city are now embracing Islamists out of sheer exhaustion from the conflict, which is nearly two years old.
“I had a shop,” one man told me, “but when the revolution came to Aleppo I couldn’t stock it, so I sold everything. Islamic youth organizations now give us flour. We need bread, at least, just to live. We support the Free Syrian Army, but the Islamists let us eat.”
If the West and moderate Arab nations want to prevent a Taliban-style dictatorship from replacing the current Baathist regime, it’s time for them to offer Syrians more hope. The Syrians I met here seemed ready to support anyone, or anything — except negotiations with Mr. Assad — that could restore normalcy to their lives.
The United Nations recently reported that record numbers of Syrians have poured into Jordan and Lebanon. But as of late January, the United Nations fund for Syrian refugees had collected less than 20 percent of the $1.1 billion it had sought from donor nations to care for the refugees. And even that money would not begin to address Syria’s shattered cities and ruined economy, even if the war were to end today.
So Syrians feel abandoned and increasingly skeptical of Western expressions of concern.
“Why did America go into Libya and not Syria?” asked Abu-Mohammad al-Husen, a Free Syrian Army commander. “In my opinion, America wants to maintain the war so Al-Assad won’t have a huge army to attack Israel. America only cares about Israel. That’s why we say only Allah and the jihadists support us.”
The Free Syrian Army soldiers, meanwhile, seem content with fighting a war with no clear end in sight.
One afternoon, I stood with a rebel commander as he rocketed a building that housed government soldiers. After he and his men fled the area shouting, “God is great,” he returned to his wife and children and considered watching a “Lord of the Rings” DVD. He had no firm plan to follow up the assault. “Possibly tomorrow,” he told me, “when they won’t expect us.”
His strategy embraced a skewed kind of logic, I suppose. Why rush? Without war, without guns, many of these fighters would most likely be unemployed or back at school. Their bravery and passion can’t be denied, but the longer the war lasts, the longer they have a purpose. “I don’t know what will happen when the war ends,” Akran Ahmed, a 16-year-old rebel, told me. “I just have my gun.”
The belief that the enemy of my enemy is my friend has allowed the Free Syrian Army and the Islamists to cooperate — but only for now. Disappointment about American disengagement seemed to grow by the day. “Nobody there cares,” Khaled Sandah, 49, whose son, a rebel, was killed in the fighting. “They just talk and talk.” He added: “We will keep going with our own power and our guns and Allah. We will make victory ourselves and have freedom and an Islamic country.”
Moderate Muslim Calls for Battle With Jihadists/in AIFD in the News/by AIFD
WND EXCLUSIVE, February 19, 2013
MODERATE MUSLIM CALLS FOR BATTLE WITH JIHADISTS
Says all citizens are equally protected ‘under God,’ not ‘under Islam’
Editor’s Note: Three American scholars, two Christians and one Muslim, spoke to WND about the threat of political Islam. They say there will be further trouble unless Americans understand the threat and learn how to resist it. This interview with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, is the third part of the series of a three-part series. In part one, Robert R. Reilly of the American Foreign Policy Council said America is hurting itself by working with U.S.-hating Muslims. In part two, Catholic psychologist William Kilpatrick warned Islam calls for the subjugation of Christians.
“Freedom-loving Muslims must help America and the free world fight against Islamists and jihadists.”
That comes from a Muslim, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of the book “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.”
It’s his appeal to Muslim Americans and all Americans to fight political Islam.
“The only way for Islamists to abort their dream of a theocracy under their version of Islam is for them to be overwhelmed with a better vision – a better interpretation – of an Islam and our Quran based in liberty: an Islam that articulates and defends pluralism, tolerance, free speech, free markets and all the other fruits of a free society where all citizens are equally protected ‘under God,’ not ‘under Islam’ – an Islam that rests at home with the freedoms that Americans claim as their birthright and will defend at all costs,” he told WND.
Jasser’s mission is in striking contrast to that of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which has established aggressive operations in the United States to infiltrate government and school systems. Jasser’s work isn’t kindly regarded by terrorists: In January 2012, al-Qaida threatened him on one of its websites.
In addition to meetings with religious leaders and government officials both here and abroad, Jasser testifies before Congress. Last June, he spoke to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security at a hearing on “The American Muslim Response to Hearings on Radicalization within Their Community” and praised lawmakers for the public discussion.
“My last testimony to Congress lays out what I feel are the problems and what America’s course should be,” he told WND.
Essentially, he warned against the Islamization of America and cautioned: “One of the most profound results we have seen from this national discussion is the important recognition that American Muslims are not a monolithic community that shares one set of values and one single voice. American Muslims are very diverse in our ideological structure and many, if not most, of us do not support the victimization and denial mantra that has been defining our communities for decades.”
However, Jasser believes Muslim citizens and immigrants are highly susceptible to Islamist propaganda. He’s deeply concerned at Al Gore’s sale of his Current TV network to “anti-American” Al Jazeera, which broadcasts to its Arabic-speaking audiences the “Shariah and Life” show hosted by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim cleric who calls for the crucifixion of those who leave Islam.
To Congress, Jasser explained: “If you witness the public response of Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in the United States to these hearings you will see the lengths they go to in vilifying anyone who dares address the threat at its source – Islamism. An observant Muslim becomes labeled by the Muslim Public Affairs Council and Council on American-Islamic Relations as ‘astro-turf’ or ‘Uncle Tom.’ The term ‘Islamophobia’ is used incomprehensibly against devout Muslims as a battering ram to shun us within our own local faith communities for having the audacity to say that we have a problem and they are contributing to it. These groups wrap themselves in the blanket of my faith and imagined civil rights abuses in an attempt to deny Muslims like me a voice in this argument.”
Jasser, medical doctor and former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, takes his oath to uphold the Constitution and defend America seriously. Therefore, he urged Congress and the Obama administration to stop the “political correctness” and set up an effective counter-terrorism strategy. He cited the failures in dealing with terrorist Maj. Nidal Hasan and Army Pvt. Naser Abdo, who attempted to imitate Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre.
“The crucial and difficult question a Muslim soldier needs to be asked is this: ‘Do you have any sense of loyalty to the ummah and its Islamic state?’ Those who answer in the affirmative pose a problem,” Jasser told Congress. “The Army’s approval of [Abdo’s] status as a conscientious objector deeply damaged the perception of Muslims in the military because it implicitly validated Islamism as a protected belief system synonymous with being Muslim.”
Jasser’s faith and reason
Like many Christians and Jews, Jasser accepted the religion of his ancestors. He believes Muhammad is the true and last prophet, yet his understanding of human rights seems to mirror Christian doctrine. In keeping with his ancestors’ method of study, a classically Western method, Jasser believes in natural law and personal responsibility.
Jasser’s family tradition of faith and reason puts him in the minority of Muslims, if Ash’arite Kalam is the school of theology embraced by 85 percent of the world’s Muslim population, as Islam scholar Robert Reilly states. This school denies God has the power of reason and also denies the human powers of reason and free will.
When asked for his positions on offensive Quran verses about Jews, other non-Muslims and the premise that everyone must convert to Islam, Jasser replied in extensive detail.
He noted that he has addressed these questions at length in his book, “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.”
Jasser said that while “scholarship and reason are a central and very important component to an analysis of normative Islam and its theology, most Muslims that I have known throughout my life do not believe in a ‘central authority’ that defines what is and what is not Islam.”
“While the president of Turkey and other Islamist demagogues may say that ‘there is no moderate Islam, there is only one Islam,’ the reality on the ground is that most Muslims that I know, as I was raised, believe that our relationship with God and our scripture is very personal, and ultimately our manifestation of free will is being judged by God individually for that interpretation with no one else being responsible for our interpretation, including our parents.”
He pointed to quotations cited frequently since 9/11 to argue that the Quran is anti-Jewish.
He said the website prophetofdoom.net translates Quran 2:64 as: “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”
“This is the entirety of what is quoted. My father spent over 10 years translating the Quran, and based on his translation and explanations on his knowledge of the classical Arabic … he felt that it stated: ‘Even after all that, you still abandoned your obligations and if it were not for God’s favor to you and mercy upon you, you would have been lost.’ Quite a difference from ‘lost losers’!” said Jasser.
“After that, he follows with ‘You know those among you who violated the Sabbath, and We made them disgraced apes,’ and then follows with ‘We made their ending an example for those who lived with them and those who lived later and an appropriate reminder for those who are pious.’
“The point here is not whether my father or my grandfathers, each of whom was a scholar in his own right, had the street cred to offer Islamic exegesis,” said Jasser. “I believe they did, but history will judge how what they taught me fits into Islamic modernization. The point is that my father’s lifetime of rational work and daily conversations with me about our scripture, my grandfather Zuhdi Jasser’s Islamic defense and advocacy of secular Western principles for democracy in Syria, and my other grandfather Subhi Sabbagh’s modern leadership and interpretations of Islam from the bench of the supreme court in Syria, empowered me to use my own free will and cognitive skills to complete my faith narrative and interpretations.”
Jasser said that as a Muslim and also as a Navy veteran, he reads such passages in their historical context.
“That Muhammad, just like any military commander, had to spur on his troops when they were at war does not mean that I am obligated to go and slay the ‘unbeliever’ wherever I may find him,” he explained. “If wholesale war was formally declared on all Muslims everywhere, I would certainly have an obligation to defend myself and my family, but that is not the case in Phoenix where I live or in the United States or in the world at large, despite what the Islamists and the jihadists may claim.
“Nowhere in the Quran does God tell Muslims how to establish and run their governments,” Jasser said. “Nowhere in the Quran does God tell Muslims that they must repeat and thus emulate the Prophet Muhammad’s role and actions as a military or governmental leader. Nowhere in the Quran does God tell Muslims that they must impose their beliefs, practices and rituals upon others. And most certainly, nowhere in the Quran does God tell myopic automatons to instigate murderous, terrorist actions against civilians and other noncombatants who, by definition, are incapable of causing them harm.”
Jasser said his interpretation of the Quran “has always included the overriding idea that the Prophet Muhammad’s example, spiritually and morally, is for all times – but that his political and military actions were an example that cannot be taken out of the context of the times in which he lived and its specific conflicts.”
He and other Muslims say the Arabic language is very complex and translation is key. Unlike Wahhabi and Salafist translators, Jasser finds a “merciful” Allah in the Quran.
“Choosing the wrong [meaning] can completely change the context of what is said,” Jasser explained. “Add to this the far more complex issue of explanation and interpretation (tafsir) based upon the history and context of the passage’s timing and revelation and one can see how easy it can be for an oppressive global network of well-funded petrodollar tribal theocrats to manipulate and push forward a dominant literalist (Wahhabi or Salafist) version.”
For Muslims, he said, “the authenticity of the Arabic script of the Quran revealed to the Prophet Muhammad has the same sort of divine status as the Prophet Jesus has for Christians.”
“My understanding is that in our belief, this was the language chosen by God in which to reveal the Quran because this language was the one perfectly suited for it, a language of a pagan community that had not yet been exposed to God’s revelation,” he said.
“So, essentially this is more evidence that Islam was not revealed to convert Jews or Christians to Islam, but rather to pagans as an updated version of the message from the God of Abraham,” said Jasser. “It was not only one of the most complex and rich languages in the world, but was a language through which God’s message had not yet been revealed.”
Jasser said it’s also important to know that for Muslims there is a significant theological difference between the Hadith – the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad – and the Quran, especially with regard to authenticity.
“So many of the passages portrayed as ‘authentic’ hadith are actually rather ‘weak,’ and, many Muslims believe, were never the actual words of the Prophet Muhammad but rather were fabricated by theo-political power interests to advance a supremacist agenda of some kind,” he said. “It saddens me to see so much in the public space about Islamic scriptural guidance that is driven by certain hadith that most Muslims intellectually dismiss in our daily lives as being false.”
Jasser’s organization calls for a “separation of mosque and state,” but he clarified this when questioned by WND.
“I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that America is not a secular nation and the Founders did not call for a total separation of church or mosque and state, but did explicitly call for the prevention of the establishment of one religion through government and its law,” said Jasser. “That is the premise of my book, that in fact European-style – anti-religious – secularism will not defeat Islamism. It actually makes it thrive. I essentially believe that only an American-like understanding of religious liberty will defeat political Islam.
“My biggest concern for the United States is that we continue down this blind path of neglect toward Islamism. The Islamists are ascending globally while our nation is either asleep or actually helping the Islamists and their enablers ascend.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the USCCB, has been holding dialogues and conferences with Muslim organizations and leaders since 1996. In 2012, they collaborated with the Islamic Society of North America.
Since the presidency of George W. Bush, Jasser has warned that the federal government is collaborating with the wrong Muslim groups – groups such as ISNA who are hostile to America and hostile to individual liberty. Jasser believes Christian leaders such as the USCCB and evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren are misled and misleading their flocks. Considering that Christians are the majority of American voters and many voted to re-elect Obama despite his Islamist agenda, apparently Islamist propaganda has consequences.
Jasser said: “Most interesting is this position of the Catholic Church [USCCB] in the U.S. because of how out of step it seems with Pope Benedict’s understanding of the challenges Muslims have in confronting societies based in reason as articulated, for example, in his Regensburg speech.
“While as a devout Muslim I may not agree with all of Pope Benedict’s points in that lecture, the essence of the conflict between Islamism and reason is very important and one entirely ignored by this unfortunate relationship between Catholic leadership and ISNA,” he said.
“They are simply reaching for the lowest hanging fruit to represent Muslims,” warned Jasser. “They are ignoring their ideologies and trusting their superficial condemnations of terrorism and the ideologies that feed it.
“I dissect ISNA in my book and my own experiences with their conventions and leaders, like when I saw Imam Siraj Wahhaj call for the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the Quran in his keynote address to their annual convention of 1995,” explained Jasser.
He said Islamists, for example, are silent on the plight of Christians in Muslim-ruled nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt.
“What they say in a free nation like the U.S. about interfaith beliefs does not matter. What matters is what they believe the law should be in nations where they would be a majority.
“ISNA, MPAC, CAIR and other so-called leading Muslim groups are silent on the crimes against humanity committed by Islamists in so many Muslim majority nations,” said Jasser. “Try to find a statement by ISNA condemning the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their desire to eradicate churches. They refuse to call Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat Islamiya terrorist or radical groups and are entirely silent on political Islam.”
Anita Crane is an independent writer who enjoys contributing to WND. She has a B.A. in Catholic Theology from Christendom College. In November 2012, she was honored when the first interview she ever conducted was re-published in “A Spiritual Autobiography” by Venerable Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who is up for canonization and prefaced the interview by saying, “Anita Crane drew statements from me that I have never made before.” Anita’s background includes working as a network TV producer and magazine editor. She’s also contributor to and editor of the book “SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch” by Ron Miller. To contact Anita, visit anitacrane.com.
To achieve our mission we need your help, together we can lead the conversation and movement
We need your financial support to continue confronting the ideologies of political Islam
© Copyright 2016 American Islamic Forum for Democracy