“The Right Kind of Jihad”

/in /by

by Karen Lugo, Gatestone Institute, October 17, 2012

‘Even though the Syrian-American artist was disinvited and the award cancelled, his parents in Homs, Syria, were beaten and their home was later ransacked. Jasser points to extortionist campaigns to force on Americans policy that does not have popular support and calls on liberty-minded Muslims publicly to criticize such tactics.’

The Iranian Green Revolution had brave Neda Agha-Soltan, and the Pakistanis have the stubbornly courageous Malala Yousufzai. At fourteen, when the Taliban tried to assassinate Malala for promoting education for girls, she had been defying the Taliban for years. Whether these girls are catalysts for sustained revolutions may well depend on how many in the West champion their heroism.

Russian dissident Natan Sharansky tells Westerners that demonstrators would rush to the streets for minutes, risking the gulags, in hope that “at least one foreign journalist was present so that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.” The Russian dissidents knew that a vocal response from the West would lend a megaphone to their cause. How devastating it would have been if President Reagan and Americans had failed to rally with them.

One of the insistent voices currently calling on Americans to champion liberty in the face of aggressive “Shariahites” — Shariah is hardline religious code whether pushed under Shia, Sunni, Salafist, or Wahhabist banner — is self-described devout Muslim, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser. At a time when the West is asking how to identify and trust moderate Muslims; wondering what to do about insular Islamist communities that are burrowing into city surrounds; and, calculating how to block Islamist political infiltration, Dr. Jasser suggests that moderate Muslims can play a pivotal role in exposing and discrediting the Islamist agents.

In his first book, A Battle For The Soul Of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith, Dr. Jasser demonstrates that his devotion to preserving American ideals against aggressive Islamism has required that he pledge of his own sacred honor as did the founding-era freedom fighters. Close observers would say he has also committed much of his life-energy and fortunes to speaking, writing, and organizing for the cause of American-style individuals’ rights.

Dr. Jasser was born to immigrant Syrian parents in Canton, Ohio. His parents, taking stock of their recent flight from Hafez Assad’s oppressive regime, taught Jasser reverence for the American model of consensual government based upon the rule of law created by elected representatives of the people. He wrote that he also learned what he calls an “intense love” for the American military and the symbolism of democratic alliances that the troops represent around the world.

Jasser’s maternal grandfather was head of the Syrian Shariah Supreme Court from 1975 to 1985; and his paternal grandfather was a journalist-turned-dissident, who ultimately lost his business and his home as exaction for his outspoken criticism of Baathist fascism. Inspired by his grandfathers, Jasser spent many hours with his father re-interpreting Islamic text to provide contexts based on reason and a modern perspective.

The record shows that Jasser, in a society that offered opportunities, excelled in scholarship, and served with distinction in the US Navy. Trained as in internist, he served as a physician on a Charlie-class amphibious cargo ship. Although the Black Hawk Down debacle occurred at this time, Jasser was not singled out as a Muslim for persecution or “hate” messages. He says he comported himself as “an American officer who happened to be Muslim.”

Before entering the private sector with a medical practice in Phoenix, Arizona, Dr. Jasser’s public service culminated with his selection to the highly competitive position of Attending Physician for Congress and the Supreme Court.

Dr. Jasser’s character was most vividly revealed — they say that adversity does not create character, but simply reveals it — in 1995 when he confronted an Islamist “Muslim brotherhood legacy group” head on. After presenting a paper at a medical convention, Jasser stayed an additional day for the opening of the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention to see what 15,000 Muslims — some in military uniform — had gathered to discuss. One of the headliners, Imam Siraj Wahhaj made claims about replacing the US Constitution, a suggestion that enraged Lt. Col. Jasser to the point where, in his dress whites, Jasser took to the microphone at the close of Wahhaj’s tirade to confront the sedition-like statements. Jasser encouraged military personnel who were in the audience to leave. However, even the most supportive of those who approached Jasser told him he was overreacting.

Americans ask why there are not more Zuhdi Jassers speaking out against outrageous Islamist pronouncements and plans generated by mega-conventions and mosque co-operatives. One reason, often overlooked by those impatient to see greater anti-Sharia-law activism coming from the moderate Islamic community, is the monitoring by “minders,” who threaten economic and physical retaliation against family members back in the homeland for what is said by Muslims in America.

The U.S. has been complicit in this coercion: it has created conduits between petro-dollar rich Middle Eastern power centers and American universities, publishers, media outlets, mosque developers, and community groups. With just one example, Dr. Jasser illustrates how efficiently American interests can be influenced: in 2011 a Syrian-American classical pianist and composer was selected for an Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee award; but the honor was withdrawn when the honoree refused to change song selections in deference to demands that Syrian freedom lyrics were provocative. Even though the artist was disinvited and the award cancelled, his parents in Homs, Syria, were beaten and their home was later ransacked.

Beyond these syndicate-like controls, Jasser explains, residual tribalism is an even stronger force. For many Americans this is a tough sell, as it is all but impossible to imagine a community morality so restrictive that everything familial, social, and political is judged according to generational customs. Although Dr. Jasser does not ask Westerners to accept this mentality as an excuse for passivity in the face of Islamist oppression, this real syndrome does handicap efforts to reform Islamic thinking — including Muslims who are substantially Westernized, such as Jasser’s own family.

The question is whether, in light of the Muslim reluctance to defy establishment Islamists, it is worth making overt efforts to recruit Muslims to the campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political activists. If Dr. Jasser calls these passive, or currently undeclared, Muslims “indispensible to countering Islamism,” then what do Americans have to lose in standing with them?

If the number of Muslims congenial to American constitutionalism does indeed constitute a sizeable majority, it makes good sense to try to understand their predicament and to engage them as allies in the cause of liberty. Complaining that there are not enough moderate Muslims to make a difference is self-defeating; this is resignation before a sound strategy has even been developed. In fact, the very assertion that a certain number is required before the effort is credible discounts the value of leaders capable of reaching this community from within and it deprecates the courageous efforts of current reformers.

Some doubt the fidelity of so-called moderate Muslims to American constitutional standards of equal rights for women, uncensored speech, freedom of religious choice, and separation of civic life from religious oversight. On these issues Dr. Jasser asks Muslims for clarity to the degree that they note and oppose politico-religious codes. Citing examples of the “lawfare” tactics — the use of subversive lawsuits to create privileged status for Muslim rights in the courts — behind stunts such as the “flying imam” demonstration and the teacher who demanded excessive time off to go on a hajj, Jasser points to extortionist campaigns to force on Americans policy that does not have popular support and he calls on liberty-minded Muslims publicly to criticize such tactics.

Modern Muslim reformers such as Irshad Manji, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and now young Malala Yousufzai are looking for more dissidents to join them in the public square and they also desperately need the material aid and support that freedom-loving Westerners bring to the cause.

Dr. Jasser recently spoke for the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia where a reporter summarized that Jasser’s “American Islamic Forum for Democracy is engaged in the right kind of jihad.” This columnist said that Jasser’s organization “deserves the support of anyone worried about what kind of American Muslims emerge to lead that community.” The writer closed with this simple and prescient warning for the West: “Their jihad is our jihad.”

Stu Bykofsky: American Muslims ‘uniquely qualified’ to sell moderation

/in /by

link to story at Philadelphia Daily News

Stu Bykofsky, Daily News Columnist
Philadelphia Daily News

October 15, 2012

AMERICAN MUSLIM Zuhdi Jasser is a jihadist.

A veteran of 11 years in the Navy and a medical doctor, Jasser is on a jihad for democracy, the American-style democracy he has enjoyed since birth as the son of parents who fled Syria.

I believe immigrants – especially those coming to freedom from dark lands of terror and oppression – appreciate America more than most native-born Americans who don’t know how good they got it. Jasser was born here, and his parents taught him to honor both his faith, Islam, and America, with its faith in freedom and democracy.

The Muslims who have trouble with the West are those who do not believe in separation “between mosque and state,” Jasser says. Intheir Islam, state and mosque are intertwined, but that is not the way of America or the West.

Jasser argues the West is not effectively defending its values, and recently told a luncheon meeting with members of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum that “political Islam” is the biggest threat to world peace. The antidote is “moderate Islam,” a product that American Muslims are “uniquely qualified” to sell.

Jasser is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which he founded with eight other Muslim-Americans in 2003, in response both to 9/11 and to what they felt was inadequate denunciation of the attack on America by U.S. Muslims.

Since its founding, five of the original members have left AIFD, the result of “tribal pressure,” Jasser tells me in a later private sit-down. He is not usually confronted openly by Muslims – with one big exception – but is pressured “behind the scenes” to “stop airing dirty laundry.”

The exception is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which Jasser says sows “victimization” among Muslims and is slow to condemn terror.

The compliment is returned by CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper. He says both accusations are “complete fiction” and Jasser is a “sock puppet for Islam haters and Muslim bashers.”

To counter the charge of being slow to condemn terror, Hooper says CAIR, a civil-rights organization, put up a reward for the capture of an arsonist who set a Toledo mosque ablaze. (A suspect has been arrested.)

Tellingly, Hooper’s response focused on terror committed against Muslims, omitting terror committed by Muslims, which is far more common worldwide.

Jasser is as politically conservative as he is religiously liberal, even though he says he is devout and prays five times a day.

Perhaps his most incendiary luncheon statement was that of 3 million American Muslims, 5 to 7 percent are potentially dangerous. Supporting his opinion, he points to a 2011 Pew Research poll stating 8 percent of U.S. Muslims think suicide bombing and other violence against civilians is often or sometimes justified.

Condemnation of his extremist co-religionists is no different than Christians blasting the hate-spewing Westboro Baptist Church, but they are not called anti-Christian, while he is painted as an Islamophobe.

I don’t believe he is an Islamophobe. His American Islamic Forum for Democracy is engaged in the right kind of jihad. He deserves the support of anyone worried about what kind of American Muslims emerge to lead that community.

Their jihad is our jihad.

Jasser, Pipes win debate with argument against “Better Elected Islamists than Dictators”

/in /by

Oct. 5, 2012, 3:32 p.m. EDT

Intelligence Squared U.S. Audience Does Not Agree “Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators”

 Oct 5, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Daniel Pipes and M. Zuhdi Jasser Win Debate Over Reuel Marc Gerecht and Brian Katulis

Debate Will Air on NPR Stations Nationwide and Telecast on WNET/Thirteen on November 3rd at 3 PM

NEW YORK, Oct. 5, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Intelligence Squared U.S. continued its Fall 2012 season with a sold out debate and a victory against the motion “Better Elected Islamists than Dictators.” In the final tally, Daniel Pipes and M. Zuhdi Jasser won the Oxford-style debate by convincing 16% of the audience to change their minds and oppose the motion. After the debate, 47% of audience members agreed that elected Islamists would not evolve Middle Eastern political systems, up from 31% pre-debate.

Watch the full debate here:

Arguing for the motion, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Brian Katulis sought to prove that elected Islamists, rather than dictators will lead to the dissolution of violence and radical ideologies of groups like al-Qaida that threaten the West. But at the end of the evening it was Daniel Pipes’ and M. Zuhdi Jasser’s arguments that elections will not influence centuries-old Islamist supremacist beliefs that convinced the audience to vote against the motion.

This latest intellectual match up was IQ2US’s 64th debate and was streamed live on WSJ Live.

Key Excerpts For the Motion:

REUEL MARC GERECHT:

“The only way you’re going to get a more liberal order in the Middle East is through people of faith. It is through the fundamentalists participating in the system that you’re actually going to develop the jousting ethic that is going to allow liberals to have greater chances. It’s only through them participating that you’re going to have people become responsible for politics.”

BRIAN KATULIS:

“Elected Islamists, not dictators, will defeat the radical ideologies of groups like al-Qaida. …al-Qaida, over the last three decades, essentially, has tried to build its ideological platform on two core pillars. Number one, tapping the popular discontent with dictators. Number two, anti-Americanism. That’s a combustible mix, and breaking that, and having the people in the region break that, I think, is extremely powerful. The fact that al-Qaida and its affiliates had virtually nothing to do with the removal of leaders in places like Egypt and Tunisia and the widespread calls for political reform and the battles that are still going, I think, is telling. The fact that Ayman Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaida, wrote a book attacking the Muslim Brotherhood for actually participating in democratic politics is telling. Looking ahead, it seems that al-Qaida’s popular appeal, I think, will remain low, given that many of the protesters are out there supporting democratic reforms. People are going to the ballot box, the very thing that radical jihadists are opposed to.

Key Excerpts Against the Motion:

DANIEL PIPES:

“Expect the worst of the Islamist regimes. These are people who are not going to let go of power. One man, one vote, one time or maybe two times is what you can expect. And therefore I say, better the greedy dictators that we can push around that we can change than the Islamist dictators who are our deepest enemies who we cannot change, who will be there for decades to come, who will do enormous — inflict enormous damage on their own populations, be aggressors toward their neighbors and deeply mired in anti-Americanism.”

M. ZUHDI JASSER:

“I’ll tell you, as a Muslim, I’m insulted at people who believe that Islamism is progress for me as a Muslim, that somehow the theocrats and those with robes that memorize their scripture, that somehow know how to run democracy, when, in fact, it’s an illusion. I think one of the things our opposition hasn’t even begun to tell you is how they can trust one word that the Islamists tell them. They’re deceptive theocrats who will do anything to monopolize and control our societies. This is far more dangerous than a simple dictator…. And once you understand that Islamism is no different than what our Founding Fathers fought against when we fought against theocracy in this country, you’ll realize that fighting against theocracy is the only way to achieve liberty.”

Before the debate, the IQ2US audience voted as follows:

* 38% of audience agreed with the resolution

* 31% of audience against the resolution

* 31% undecided

After careful consideration of the points by the audience, Daniel Pipes and M. Zuhdi Jasser won the debate: the team that moves the most votes at the end of the evening is determined the winner.

* 44% of audience agreeing with the resolution (+6%)

* 47% of audience against the resolution (+16%)

* 9% undecided (-22%)

To learn more about the debate and review a detailed breakdown of how the audience voted pre- and post-debate, please visit us at: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/762-better-elected-islamists-than-dictators&tab=2

The showdown at Kaufman Center in New York City puts the leading public intellectuals in the limelight in front of a live audience for nearly two hours of heated debate.

WHY DO THEY HATE US? IT’S A PRETTY LONG LIST…

/in /by

Tiffany Gabbay, The Blaze, September 21, 2012

  • TheBlaze consults experts to glean insight into why Islamists and even a contingent of secular Muslims across the Middle East harbor such animus for America
  • The reasons cited include: Anti-Semitism, U.S. drone attacks, slandering Islam, different views on personal freedom, a belief that America sides with dictators (i.e. late Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a belief that America is raping the Middle East of its natural resources and is trying to take over the region.  

With the turmoil in the Middle East reaching a fever pitch, everyday people in the U.S. have, at one point or another, likely found themselves wondering: “Why? What do Muslims abroad really have against us? Why do they hate us?”

There could hardly be a one-size fits all answer to a question (and topic) so deeply textured, but for the sake of this exercise TheBlaze has attempted to delve into what Muslims abroad claim are their key grievances against America.

Interestingly, both Islamists and secular “men on the street” in Islamic countries harbor varying degrees of resentment for America and the West, each for their own distinct reasons. Below is an examination of the most prevalent issues concerning Muslims abroad.

Power plays and Arab nationalism 

For Daniel Pipes, scholar and founder of the Middle East Forum (MEF), it boils down to one simple reason: Islamists hate America because “they believe Muslims should be in charge” and they, simply, “are not.”

The resentment, according to scholar, while most “acute” for fundamentalists is actually widespread even among Arab seculars.

Another motivation cited by experts is anti-Semitism. Take, for instance, the Palestinians. Both Hamas and Fatah have routinely waged terrorist acts but have not done so for the purpose of religious extremism. Rather, their animus is intended to justify their Arab nationalism and prop-up various acts of aggression against the Jewish State – land they seek to claim as their own.

Islamists outside the Palestinian territories will often join the anti-Israel bandwagon for purposes of Islamic solidarity and Arab unity. Again, leaders of Fatah and Hamas, while also vying for power within their own ranks, still present a unified front to the world when it comes to blaming the West and Israel for all their woes.

Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center agrees.

“Even secularists there [across the Middle East] will be anti-Israel.”

He explained that a lifetime absorbing anti-Semitic, anti-Western propaganda has shaped an entire culture’s world view.

“You can’t be born and raised in the Middle East and not be anti-Israeli,” the historian told TheBlaze in an exclusive interview.

“There no sense of responsibility. You can even talk to the most secular, intelligent, suit-and-tie guy and that is still his mentality.”

He added that Arab nationalism has “quickly morphed into an Islamist thing.”

“It’s the same hatred.”

“When something goes wrong it’s always – even when it comes to a secular Arab mentality – an Israel-U.S. ‘conspiracy.’”

Ibrahim, a Coptic Christian whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Egypt, also explained that while not every secular Muslim in the Middle East will rise up in violence, they consider themselves above all to be Arab nationalists, thus will collectively turn a blind eye to the carnage being leveled by their more radical counterparts.

 

A series of U.S. “blunders?”

Salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), spoke to TheBlaze about Muslim perceptions of the West. He claims that a strong contingent of Muslims harbor a belief that U.S. policy is definitively “anti-Islam” and that Americans are protective of Christian and Jewish communities exclusively while remaining silent in the face Islamophobia.

Al-Marayati — perhaps best known for equating jihad with Patrick Henry’s stance on “give me liberty or give me death” — explained that Muslim views are shaped around what they consider a series of U.S. foreign policy “blunders,” including a belief that:

  • The U.S. consistently supports Middle East dictators
  • The U.S. “sanctions” anti-Islam propaganda
  • Has controlled the natural and industrial resources of Muslim countries
  • “Blindly” supports Israel against the Palestinians
  • Kills Muslim civillians indiscriminately in drone attacks
  • “Destroyed Iraq” in both 1991 and 2003
  • Maintains a military presence throughout the Middle East

Raymond Imbrahim, a Coptic Christian best known for his translations of jihadist propaganda material in his book, The Al Qaeda Reader, also pointed to several factors that sway anti-American sentiment among Muslims, among them is a belief that:

  • The West hates and is hostile towards Muslims
  • The West wants to take over Middle East
  • The West is stealing Islamic countries’ oil

Whether their beliefs are founded or not is irrelevant, as they are perpetuated by Muslims local and national governments and across state-run media.

A bad PR campaign?

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), believes Arab-Muslim perceptions of America and the West are a direct result of how America is packaged in their media.  He said that Muslims across the Middle East ironically still desire living in the U.S. and enjoy certain elements of Western culture but “hate American policies as they have been portrayed in the media.”

For the former U.S. Naval officer, it is “all about perceptions.“ He believes America needs to do more ”to promote ourselves and values in the Middle East” and refrain from appointing statesmen who he considers a “failure at…advancing a freedom agenda.”

“For a country that spends billions on campaigns inside the country, we’ve done virtually nothing to promote ourselves in the Middle East,” Jasser told TheBlaze pointedly. Otherwise, “we have been played for a fool by the Islamists” and their well-engineered, “Soviet-style” propaganda campaigns.

A “blame America” attitude, even for internal poverty

It is perhaps prudent to note that governments of Muslim countries are no stranger to corruption, relegating their citizenry to live in a perpetual state of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. For instance, reports indicate that the illiteracy rate in the Arab world hovers at around 35.6 percent compared with a global rate of 18 percent. Likewise, the youth unemployment rate across the Middle East is 25 percent, exceeding that “of any other region in the world,” the International Monetary Fund said in its April 2011 regional outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia. J

When the people’s discontent boils over, rather than assume responsibility, political and religious leaders across the Middle East attempt to deflect blame, thereby pointing a finger at the West. to claim that America is the genesis for all of their country’s societal ills.

Experts consulted by TheBlaze for this article claim Islamic operatives will cite any number of “reasons” to blame the West for their countries’ stagnant economies and poor living conditions, including telling the public that America has even “stolen its oil and other natural resources.”

“If you are leading a movement anathema to Western ideas and to freedom and liberty,” Jasser said, leaders in the region “must develop grievances against a common ‘enemy’ to deflect attention away from themselves.”

He said the practice engaged by Islamic leaders in countries currently experiencing upheaval is by all means “Machiavellian,” adding that the best way to prevent proponents of human rights (i.e. the U.S.) from having a voice is by discrediting them.

“They shifted the discussion from ideology to grievances,” Jasser said.

 

Foreign and domestic policy

According to Pipes, of the many grievances aired by Islamists, insults to their Prophet Muhammad ranks at the top of all that is verboten, followed by “Western sexual freedom” and other liberated social practices concerning faith, speech, dress, personal relationships and so on.

Pipe’s assertion echoes statements made by one of North America’s most influential clerics, Imam Mohammad Qatanani, during an interview with TheBlaze. The prominent Islamic scholar confirmed that slandering the “final” prophet will in no uncertain terms, “ever be accepted” by Muslims.

The cleric’s strong words on slander do not only apply to Islamists. Islamism, for instance, may be much more prevalent in countries like Pakistan than it is (ironically) in Iran, but mocking the Prophet Muhammad appears to be universally taboo across the Islamic world, whatever the level of a religious observance.

U.S. answerable for all Western nations? 

While both cultural and religious differences have fomented hatred for the U.S. among Muslims across the Middle East, so too has American foreign policy. Pipes, author of an array of books on Islam, dates the “tipping point” for U.S. policy to 1989 and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict against “The Satanic Verses” author Salman Rushdie.

The novel was said to have been inspired in part by the Prophet Muhammad and the title drew from a phenomenon in Islam dubbed the “satanic verses,” an alleged compilation of Quranic verses allowing prayers to be offered to three pagan goddesses. Polytheism is expressly forbidden in Islam, thus Islamists considered Rushdhie’s work blasphemous.

Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa — an Islamic mandate calling for a specific person to be killed — on the Indian novelist. Ironically, the argument used by Islamic clerics at the time claimed that Rushdie misused his “freedom of speech.” The author has lived under threat of death ever since and TheBlaze reported that the bounty on his head has recently been increased to $3.3 million.

“Had the West been firmer in that and the many succeeding examples,” he began, “I believe Muslims would see that they cannot intimidate us and the furor would calm down.”

How America is responsible for an Indian author who was not even in the U.S. at the time of the Satanic Verses’ release remains unclear. Still, when it comes to “blaspheming” against Islam, it seems the deeds of the entire Western world fall under America’s purview in the eyes of Islamists.

To befriend or not to befriend (despots, that is)

Another reason a contingent of Muslims resent America, according to experts consulted by TheBlaze, is that the U.S. has “hugged…kissed and befriended” many of the world’s “worst oppressors.” While not a consensus opinion, Jasser, considered a voice of Muslim moderation, believes that referring to Hosni Mubarak as a “close friend and ally” does naught to endear Americans to Muslims abroad.

He said America can no longer operate with a mindset of choosing the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to leaders in the Middle East.

“It can’t be a linear choice between the Shah and the Ayatollah,” he said.

In terms of where America has botched its foreign policy in the Middle East, Ibrahim countered Jasser’s point, immediately condemning President Obama for throwing our “staunch ally” Mubarak under the bus. Unlike Jasser, Ibrahim believes Mubarak was an important counter-balance to Islamists in the region and explained that one of the reasons the late Egyptian president was so loathed at home was specifically because of his close ties with the U.S.

“We empowered Islamists,” Ibrahim declared. ”Same thing with Libya. Gahdafi was terrible but what’s the alternative? The same people are now attacking Americans. It is ironic to me that Libya and Egypt are the ones retaliating in such a vicious way.”

Ibrahim also noted that if America were to step in and aid any Middle East uprising, it should have been Iran’s Green Revolution as it comprises mainly pro-Western students and other seculars seeking to free themselves from the grip of their hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

“We could have publicized it [Green Revolution] in the way that our media publicized the Arab Spring. I don’t remember media being fixated on the Iranians. Obama was silent. It’s so amazing, the question is ‘why?’: Why did we help the Brotherhood and not the seculars?”

He answered his own question: “Because the Islamists have infiltrated American government.”

While condemning the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is now being engaged at the White House, Ibrahim believes there is still a window of opportunity for the U.S. to side with the secularists and other pro-West groups.

What should the U.S. do differently? 

TheBlaze also spoke with Larry Greenfield, a Los Angeles-based senior fellow at the American Freedom Alliance, who shared his thoughts on America’s current foreign policy as it relates to Islamic countries and what the U.S. should be doing differently.

“The left has adopted an approach of appeasement,” Greenfield, a former Naval Intelligence officer, told TheBlaze.

“Obama’s policies toward radical Islam have been to deny its existence, fail to name it or fight it effectively.”

Greenfield intensified his onslaught, criticizing “Obama the weak” for failing to condemn the murderer of Neda Agha-Soltan — a young Iranian woman who was shot to death during a dissident protest in Iran, and for his failure to respond to the protesters’ plea: “Obama, Obama, are you with us or our tyrants?”

“Obama’s entire foreign policy of sorrow for American strength and historical global leadership for freedom has invited danger. He has dithered in Afghanistan , bowed to the Saudis and betrayed allies like Britain, Hondurus, the Czechs, Poland, and Israel and emboldens bad actors.”

In closing, Greenfield asked if the president would like to return the Nobel Peace Prize bestowed upon him “now that it is evident his strategy of appeasement has collapsed.”

The idea Greenfield put forth is that by kowtowing to those who live outside the U.S., yet who demand Americans live in accordance with their Islamic ideology — even if that ideology is anathema to American values, laws and beliefs — extremists will only become more emboldened. Thus, a foreign policy that takes a more authoritative stance when dealing with extremists who shed American blood in the name of Islam might better serve U.S. interests.

Can America do anything right?

At the end of the day, Muslims are not a monolith. Their views vary from country to country, sect to sect, culture to culture. But history would seem to indicate that, at least where Islamists are concerned, if they are not upset about one set of American, or further, Western “transgressions” they will in short order be upset about another.

Whether it is demanding the release of the “Blind Sheik,“ or insisting that the Pope apologize for 2006 comments in which he criticized past Islamic ”tyranny;” a Danish cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad, or America’s support for Israel, there may very well continue to be a thorn in Islamists’ side no matter how often America apologizes for itself or the entire Western world.

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates “Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators” at Kaufman Center, October 4th

/in /by

September 20, 2012, Wall Street Journal Market Watch

 

NEW YORK, Sep 20, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — On October 4th, Intelligence Squared U.S. (IQ2US) will continue its fall season with a debate on Arab democracy, “Better Elected Islamists than Dictators.” The popular uprisings of the Arab Spring have left a leadership void that Islamist parties have been quick to fill. A longtime supporter of former strongmen like Egypt’s Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali, the U.S. now faces the uncomfortable result of Arab democracy–the rise of Islamist parties that are less amenable to the West than their autocratic predecessors. Will the Islamists, which once embraced violence, slowly liberalize as they face the difficulties of state leadership? Or will it mean the growth of anti-Americanism and radicalization in the region?

Reuel Marc Gerecht, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former Middle East specialist at the CIA’s directorate of operations and Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress will argue in support of the motion. Daniel Pipes, one of the world’s foremost analysts on the Middle East and Islam and president of the Middle East Forum with M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy will argue against the motion.

Intelligence Squared U.S.’s fall season debates are streamed live on WSJ Live. Debates also air on more than 220 NPR stations nationwide and are televised nationally on the WORLD channel and in the New York area on PBS Channel Thirteen, WNET, WLIW, and NJTV.

WHAT: Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates “Better Elected Islamists than Dictators”

WHEN: Thursday, October 4, 2012 / Reception 5:45-6:30 / Debate 6:45-8:30 PM

WHERE: Kaufman Center/129 W. 67th Street (bet. Broadway and Amsterdam)/New York, NY 10023

TICKETS: $40 ($12 for students w/ID) To purchase, visit www.iq2us.org

The debate will take place in front of a live audience at Kaufman Center in New York City. Audience members will vote to decide the winning team in this provocative debate.

ABOUT INTELLIGENCE SQUARED DEBATES (IQ2US)

Named One of “Five Podcasts that Will Change the Way You Think” by Forbes, Intelligence Squared U.S. was founded in New York City in 2006 by Robert Rosenkranz, and has grown into an internationally syndicated series heard and watched by millions. The debates have attracted some of the world’s top thinkers including Paul Krugman, Karl Rove, Malcolm Gladwell, Alan Dershowitz, Peter Thiel and Arianna Huffington.

Based on the highly successful Oxford-style debate program originated in London, Intelligence Squared U.S. has presented over 60 debates on a wide range of provocative topics including global warming, the financial crisis, the marketing of organic foods, and the death of mainstream media. The Rosenkranz Foundation initiated the Intelligence Squared U.S. Debate Series and continues to provide major support. ABC News correspondent John Donvan is the moderator, and the executive producer is Dana Wolfe.

Sept. 11 terrorist attacks awakened us to a ‘battle for the soul of Islam’

/in /by

Guest Voices–Other Views on Faith and Its Impact on the News

The Washington Post 9/18/12

By M. Zuhdi Jasser

 

Link to story at The Washington Post

For Americans, the iconic face of terrorism has become the devastation of the Twin Towers. For many American Muslims the attacks of Sept. 11. 2001 were an awakening to the urgency of the long festering struggles deep within our faith communities. Radicalism does not spontaneously arise out of thin air. Al-Queda, Hamas, the Taliban, or Hezbollah are but symptoms of a far more pervasive ideology that has both violent and non-violent components. “Violent extremism,” as some like to call it, is only one terminal end point of an insidious ideology that provides a conveyor belt with many endpoints. Liberal Muslims know that none end in genuine liberty, and all end in some form of theocratic supremacy.Enjoying a deep love of God and the role which Islam plays in my own soul and conscience, I have long known this central conflict to be a deeper more nuanced one between political Islam (Islamism) and liberty (liberal democracy). Many of us had already long begun to confront the deep seeded elements within various Muslim mindsets and institutions of political Islam (Islamism) and its incompatibilities with modernity and American freedom.
But Sept. 11 shook me and many of us to the core, out of our old complacency to defer change to future generations. It catapulted me into the realization that we had a unique responsibility or calling both as Americans and as Muslims to lead that change now.
The U.S. gives us a unique laboratory to engage in the debates within Islam that only we as Muslims can wage. And we should not squander that opportunity. After all, American Muslims are uniquely positioned to counter Islamism globally and thus turn the tide against radicalism. In fact, devout, God-fearing Muslims are the only ones with the credibility and the inherent self-interest in the faith legacy we leave our children and country necessary to effectively take on the root cause of Islamist inspired terrorism.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks we established the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (https://aifdemocracy.org/)  with a mission of lifting up the ideas of liberty within the Muslim consciousness and identity.
We have an obligation to the families that lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks to speak truth to power. While many Muslims living comfortably in the U.S. may have reformed and brought our personal practice in line with modernity, the theological power structures in our faith community are generally still far from needed reform and critique against Islamism and its progeny.
The obstacles to this work have been too numerous to count. We have sadly since found our nation for the most part generally unwilling to engage with Muslims in a “tough love” toward open reform.
In a post-Sept. 11 world predominant beltway politicians and news media who only see the world through partisan polarity have simply reserved discussion of Muslims to a convenient minority checkbox that is invoked when politically expedient. Both sides have been complicit at times. One using Muslims to falsely paint the other as “bigots”, and the other using Muslims to highlight their mastery of national security. Both are losing site of the core problems and solutions that the attacks highlighted for us.
Meanwhile, many Muslim groups claiming to speak for Muslims in America, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups (CAIR (http://www.cair.com/) ,ISNA (http://www.isna.net/) , MPAC (http://www.mpac.org/) , or MAS (http://www.masnet.org/main/) , i.e.) derive their fuel from those very forces that insist upon looking at us Muslims as one collective. That has given them all the room they need to deny reformists ideological diversity, to deny the need for reform, and to deny the link of Islamism to radicalization. These groups have thrived in the victimization mantra, fear mongering, and pigeon-holing of Muslims in order to circle the wagons, stifle debate, and perpetuate denial within.
The strategy of Islamist groups in America has only stoked the flames. Deference to political correctness has also suppressed debate.
In the end, there can be no better way to ebb the tide of fear of Muslims in the West than for Muslims to demonstrate that we are the most important asset in defeating the very ideologies that attacked us 11 years ago. This requires an embrace of a public critique of our faith leaders and institutions. All other approaches have been proven failures. The deep seeded reform needed against the idea of the “Islamic state”, the political ummah and its inherent public instruments of shariah (not the personal pietistic shariah but that in government) will do more to normalize relations with Muslims than any other strategy .
The massacre at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009 steeled my resolve more than ever that we needed to trace back and publicly dissect every component of the separatist ideas that drove Maj. Nidal Hasan to hate his nation and commit his act of terror and kill 13 of our fellow soldiers. We can no longer compartmentalize domestic threats from foreign ones. We need a Liberty Doctrine (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6187)  in our approach to Muslims.
The central problem remains the same whether it’s Sept. 11 or Hasan or “Green on Blue” attacks in Afghanistan. Until American Muslims can lead the long overdue journey away from Islamism and towards modernity and actually begin to wage A Battle for the Soul of Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Soul-Islam-American-Patriots/dp/1451657943) through the separation of mosque and state, the threats we all face at home and abroad will only grow.
M. Zuhdi Jasser (http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/)  is the author of the recently released book, “A Battle for the Soul of Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Soul-Islam-American-Patriots/dp/1451657943) ” and is president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (https://aifdemocracy.org/)  based in Phoenix. He is also a commissioner on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (http://www.uscirf.gov/)  (opinions posted here are his own).

Zuhdi Jasser: America in ‘Cold War 2.0 with an Islamic flavor’

/in /by

Zuhdi Jasser: America in ‘Cold War 2.0 with an Islamic flavor’

By , The Daily Caller,  9/17/12

During Saturday’s broadcast of “The Big Show” on ABC Radio’s Washington, D.C. affiliate WMAL, American Muslim activist and media contributor Dr. Zuhdi Jasser blasted the lack of leadership from President Obama, Washington and the West since the Arab Spring.

“What we’re seeing now I would basically look upon as Cold War 2.0 with an Islamic flavor,” said Jasser, the founding president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. ”We have let them define who we are. We have let their media define that America is the enemy and everything is to blame on the West and that has allowed them to avoid fixing their own condition.”

“And yet, when they do try to fix their own condition, like the Syrians and the Egyptians and the Tunisians have, we have gone and helped the wrong people — the [Muslim] Brotherhood, the Islamists.”

Jasser, the author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith,” criticized President Obama for recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood during a 2009 speech in Cairo as “legitimate.” Most Muslims, Jasser insisted, do not recognize the brotherhood as legitimate political leaders, but as theocrats.

“One of the biggest reasons we do not have credibility in the Middle East is they see us as allying with their enemies, with the dictators and with the theocrats. We have not been allying with the people on the ground,” said Jasser.

He also said President Barack Obama missed an important opportunity to address the Muslim Brotherhood’s dishonesty.

“The brotherhood was saying one thing in Arabic, cheering on the crowds; and on their English website, saying how they condemned it. And I would love to have seen President Obama call them on that. He didn’t.”

Jasser also characterized the anti-Islam video allegedly responsible for the violent Middle East uprisings as a “complete distraction.” Egyptian state-run media, he said, deliberately broadcast the trailer in an attempt to “consolidate their base by using a common theme: demonizing the West.”

“The Middle East has been torn between two fascisms: one of secular fascism of Mubarak, Gaddafi and the Assad’s of the world, and the other is theocratic fascism of radical Islam,” said Jasser. “This relationship between two heads of the same snake we are now seeing continue.”

“A Battle for the Soul of Islam”

/in /by

“A Battle for the Soul of Islam”

Bronson Stocking, 9/14/12, The Foundry

With violence erupting throughout the Arab world, it was a fitting time for Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser to stop by The Heritage Foundation to discuss his book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.

As a Muslim who is also a first-generation American and an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, Jasser’s aim is to spark a debate in the Muslim community about key questions, such as living out one’s faith in a pluralistic society. In his remarks, Jasser highlighted the absence of a separation between “mosque and state” in the Arab world and argued that this absence helps explain why Islamists fail to reconcile their religious faith with concepts of individual freedom—like the freedom of speech.

This bond between the mosque and the state is crucial to understanding the Islamist threat, Jasser warns. It is the politicization of Islam, he says, that creates secular forms of Islam and radicalizes many of the religion’s followers. Reflecting on the recent events in Libya and Egypt, Jasser recalls that Egyptian talk shows were awash in political discussions about “Islamophobia” just one day before violent mobs began their assault on U.S. embassies.

Just how the Muslim community can resolve this politicization is a discussion that Jasser hopes Muslims will soon have. But at the same time Jasser is calling for constructive debate, he is being attacked for his views at home. Abroad, others, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), are seeking to establish the mosque-state connection as a matter of international law; since 1999, the OIC has been pushing the United Nations to pass “anti-blasphemy” resolutions, effectively stifling the freedom of expression.

While at The Heritage Foundation, Jasser also appeared twice on the Istook Live! radio show, a product of Heritage Action for America.

Watch Jasser’s talk here.

Bronson Stocking is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

Conservative Muslims Respond To Islamist Violence Over Anti-Muhammad Film: ‘Islam Needs To Come Into Modernity’

/in /by

Conservative Muslims Respond To Islamist Violence Over Anti-Muhammad Film: ‘Islam Needs To Come Into Modernity’

Billy Hallowell, The Blaze 9/12/12

The tragic events that unfolded on Tuesday in Egypt and Libya perfectly illustrate the ongoing stalemate between the West and much of the Middle East. The stark reaction to an anti-Islam film that was produced and shot in America led to violent protests and the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Now, conservative Muslims here in America are responding — and very vocally — to the events that unfolded.

TheBlaze spoke with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, author and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Manda Zand Ervin, president of Alliance of Iranian Women. Both individuals expressed their dismay at the violent actions taken and called upon politicians and Muslims, alike, to step up to prevent such behaviors from unfolding in the future.

Earlier today, TheBlaze also provided in-depth analysis about the film that sparked the Middle Eastern rampages. Despite claims that the movie led to the violence, some officials suspect that the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks was chosen well before the violence unfolded. Regardless, an anti-Muhammad and anti-Islam film called “Innocence of Muslims” — a project that was written and directed by a U.S. real estate developer named Sam Bacile – is being dubbed the catalyst for the attacks.

While Jasser hadn‘t yet watched the film’s 13-minute trailer when we interviewed him, Ervin finished viewing it just moments before we spoke. The Muslim-American admitted that it was certainly poking fun at Islam, but she dismissed it as mere comedy. She told TheBlaze that we live in the 21st century and that people need to realize that, with free speech sometimes comes unpleasant commentary.

“The way I looked at it — it was a comedy. It didn’t make any sense and so what,” she said of the movie in question. “I am a Muslim, but I am also an American and I have come to this country because of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly — all the freedoms that the 21st century is providing. Especially in this country.”

Modernity was a theme throughout her commentary, particularly when it came to the violent Middle Eastern response. Ervin lambasted the actions taken oversees and said that it showcases how the West is “failing to bring the Islamic world into the 21st century by catering to the lowest denomination.”

“I call it ‘cultural imperialism’ — that many, especially the left in this country, are catering to the lowest denomination,” she said, going on to claim that liberals don’t expect Muslims to understand free speech, so they end up protecting extremists and allowing the backwardness to continue.

“I think the attitude needs to be changed,” she added, giving her views on how to fix the situation. “Not catering to the worst, but helping and supporting the best — like us, the ones who are saying, ‘My religion is my religion, but I’m living in the 21st century.’”

Jasser shared similar views, seemingly agreeing with some officials’ statements that these protesters were looking for an opportunity to lash out – and that this film merely gave them an excuse.

“They’re looking for reason to have riots,” he said, also highlighting the fact that Islamists may be teaming up with old forces in the Libyan regime. “There’s a lot of evidence that the Libyan riots were stoked by former Gaddafi loyalists [and that the Egyptian media stoked tensions too]. What Americans need to realize — even though Islamists have been at odds at Gaddafi types and secular fascists — Gaddafi was very closely involved in the Pan Am bombing and other acts of terror.”

Jasser distinguished the violent interpretation of Islam that has become so pervasive with the peaceful one he was brought up with. He told TheBlaze that he was taught about a Muhammad who would never use violence to spread his message. Jasser then called for an era of modernization for Muslims.

“As much as I believe my family and so many who escaped the Middle East — as much as I believe we escaped it — Muslims have not gone through reform and modernization,” he explained. “You’re dealing with a population that has 50 percent illiteracy. They use religion because it’s a very easy visceral tool to use.”

Jasser called the battle one that is for the very soul of Islam. Considering the reaction to the film, sadly, he didn’t seem surprised. “It’s not too hard to make a bunch of Islamists upset and radicalize,” he contended.

The continued theme of pushing the religion into modernity, though, was present throughout his words as well. ”Islam needs to come into modernity,” he told TheBlaze.

“Muslims need to realize that we have a responsibility to not only say that our Islam is peaceful, but to dissect why the Islam of Salifisiam and Wahhabism is wrong…that‘s what’s not happening,” Jasser proclaimed. “So many of the Islam groups in America are in denial and preaching apologetics.”

We‘ll leave you with the full statement that Jasser’s organization put out about the incidentfollowing our interview:

“The American Islamic Forum for Democracy sends its prayers and condolences to the families of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and those who lost their lives in this senseless and brutal attack on the United States. Our prayers are also with their colleagues in the Department of State who by all accounts have lost an ardent defender of freedom and human rights in the Middle East. 

The actions of the mob in Libya and the clear interventions of the former regime are nothing short of pure evil and in no way representative of the teachings and practices of the faith of Islam.

At this time of grief it is important that we steel our resolve against this evil.  We must not blink in the face of this irrational reaction to the mere words of a little known filmmaker.  Apologies from our government to this absurd mob are ridiculous and counterproductive to establishment of true human rights within this region. 

It is clear that Islamist leadership in Egypt and the remnants of the fascistic Gaddafi regime in Libya are using this movie as a tool for their own agenda as they have done countless times before. 

We need a bold strategy in this region to foster the liberty minded Muslims in these countries to work against these elements of hate and anti-Americanism.  We need to help the people of these countries to go through a reformation and step into modernity and away from these irrational actions. 

That process begins today by our government stepping away from the typical politically correct language that forgives these attacks and justifies their cause by condemning the free speech of the moviemaker.  There is no justification for the actions of this mob.  Any act of contrition on our part is essentially an acceptance of the OIC’s “insult to heavenly religions” and an affront to the principles that built the United States.”

How to fight ‘their Islam’

/in /by

Stu Bykofsky: How to fight ‘their Islam’

Stu Bykofsky, Daily News Columnist
Philadelphia Daily News, September 14, 2012

THIS WEEK’S Islamic eruptions in Cairo and Benghazi came (coincidentally?) on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

In Cairo, crowds were ignited by a defamatory movie about Muhammad. Meanwhile, “film critics” also attempted to storm our embassy in Yemen on Thursday.

In Benghazi, Libya, militants apparently used civilians protesting the film as cover for a pre-planned attack to mark 9/11.

Not a whole lot has changed since crowds in the Arab world danced in the streets on 9/11, despite President Obama’s overtures, which even go so far as to ban from official use the name of the enemy: radical Islam. So what we saw this week was a pesky “overseas contingency,” rather than terror by Islamists who do not believe in free speech or democracy because they find neither in their Islam.

I say “their Islam” because American Muslims stand on a bridge they built between their god and their culture. They can be good Muslims and good Americans.

Such a man is Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. “We need to help the people of these countries to go through a reformation and step into modernity and away from these irrational actions,” he said.

The seeds of this week’s work – call it offspring of the Arab Spring – were planted on Nov. 4, 1979, when government-supported Islamists seized America’s Iranian embassy and President Carter let them get away with it for 444 days.

This time an amateurish film ridiculing Muhammad, promoted by dim-bulb preacher Terry Jones, of burn-the-Quran fame, lit the fuse in Cairo.

Cairo was the curtain-raiser: Damage was done, but no deaths. Benghazi was the main feature, with the death of our ambassador and three others. Then Yemen. More to come?

In each case the governments in power (with U.S. support) did not sponsor the attacks.

Time‘s Bobby Ghosh said that there is an “extremist industry” that combs the Web looking for anything even vaguely anti-Muslim that they can harness into anti-American and anti-West blowups.

It is not Islamophobia to say that hate is a byproduct of fundamentalist Islam. So, what should our response be, as a democracy, a world leader and a nation tired of being hammered by bloodthirsty extremists?

The Arab world has no tradition of freedom of speech, and Islam does not tolerate inquiry, let alone anything seen as belittling the prophet, or even depicting him. That’s why Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by an ayatollah in 1989 after his Satanic Verses was published, why worldwide riots followed the publication of cartoons in Denmark in 2005, why Christians and other “unbelievers” are murdered and why our diplomats were killed this week.

The “Arab street” is driven by a toxic brew of rumor, lies and disinformation. To this day, a majority of Arabs believe that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the Pew Research Center.

It’s hard to overcome generations of ignorance, but there are some things we can do.

First, ramp up operations of the Voice of America, which can be harnessed to dispense “our side” across a broad range of media – radio, TV and, importantly, the Internet. It will take a long time, but we can use our ingenuity to crack open those closed minds a bit. It’s a smart use of soft power.

Second, having tried apologies and outreach, our government must proclaim American values, such as free speech, from which Muslims get no special immunity. No more acts of contrition. That’s moral power.

Finally, financial power. Cut off aid to any nation that does not support us. Buying friends? It beats funding enemies.