After attacks in Egypt and Libya, U.S. asks: Why?

/in /by

After attacks in Egypt and Libya, U.S. asks: Why?

By Sarah Lynch, Oren Dorell and David Jackson, USA TODAY, Detroit Free Press, September 13, 2012

CAIRO — Emad El-Tohamy was lifted onto the shoulders of other Egyptian protesters Wednesday outside the U.S. Embassy here and denounced America for allowing a film that depicts the Islam prophet Mohammed in a vulgar, insulting manner.

“I see the U.S. government allowed the Web to spread this link all over the world without limiting freedom, without banning it,” said Mohammad Umma, who like many in the crowd believes that because America is a democratic nation it should censor media that insult any religion.

“America tells us they are the country of freedom, democracy and tolerance,” Umma said. “We considered America democratic, but now with what happened, we hate America.”

Attacks in Libya that left four U.S. diplomats dead — including Ambassador Christopher Stevens — and a mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, in which the U.S. flag was torn to shreds, have left many to wonder: How can people the U.S. helped free from murderous dictators treat it in such a way?

“Many Americans are asking — indeed, I asked myself — how could this happen?” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? ”

The Arab Spring was lauded in the West for bringing in rapid succession the ouster of dictators like Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen.

Although the revolutions brought democracy, they have also empowered leaders of a stringent brand of political Islam to push for changes not always in line with Western values such as freedom of expression.

And they are using anti-Islamic material from the West to stir up opposition to the West. The latest example is the use of a previously unnoticed film produced in California that depicted Mohammed as a child molester and murderer.

“The growth of democracy in the Middle East is going to bring forward a lot of anti-American sentiment that has been suppressed for a long time by dictators who were seeking friendly relations with America,” said Joshua Landis, head of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Oklahoma.

“There are a lot of people who are very resentful towards the West and believe that the West is anti-Islamic so forth,” he said. “I think we are going to see a lot more of this. They are remaking their identities, and America, the West and Islam are at the very center of how different factions are going to position themselves.”

‘A deliberate attack’

It remains unclear who was behind the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which came on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. In 2001, members of the Islamist terror group al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and killed nearly 3,000 people.

U.S. officials investigating the Benghazi killings believe it was a deliberate attack and not the result of a spontaneous riot.

Two senior administrations officials who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss details of the incident, described a harrowing, hours-long firefight between heavily armed gunmen and U.S. and Libyan security personnel attempting to defend the diplomatic mission.

Stevens, 52, a career diplomat who Clinton said fell in love with the Middle East as a young man when he traveled to Morocco as a Peace Corps volunteer, was on a routine visit to the consulate in Benghazi when the compound came under fire.

Within 15 minutes, the gunmen were in the compound. Stevens was in the building with Sean Smith, a foreign service officer and Air Force veteran who was on assignment in Benghazi. Smith also was killed.

Stevens was taken later to a Benghazi hospital. It is not clear whether he was dead at the time.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon dispatched a team of Marines to secure the embassy in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. Two warships were sent to the region.

Bacile said that his movie — which claims that the Mohammed is a fraud who approved of child abuse — was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors.

Steve Klein, who said he was a consultant to the film, said Bacile is using a pseudonym to protect his life and is proud of his film but frightened for his safety. “I don’t care if people call me names,” Klein said. “I’m not politically correct. I tell the truth. If they don’t like it, I don’t care. If they want to kill me, I don’t care.”

Terry Jones, a Florida pastor known for his virulent opposition to Islam, issued a statement on his website defending the film. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw support for the video.

Two years ago, then-Defense secretary Robert Gates asked Jones not to go through with a public burning of the Quran, the threat of which had triggered violence in Afghanistan; the public burning did not take place.

Stephen Prothero, a religion professor at Boston University, says extremists in the West and the Muslim world deserve blame. “You have people essentially shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. They know what’s going to happen,” he said.

Some in Egypt blame their own. “The movie is ridiculous; it’s an insult to one of the world’s major religions,” said Belal Farouk, 28, a poet in Cairo. “But I blame the violent reaction, too. The film doesn’t represent the views of the American people either, just a few fanatics.”

Many believe that the extremists are drowning out the voices of the majority in the region, most of whom are moderate.

“It’s extremists on both sides playing with each other,” said Said Sadek, a professor at the American University in Cairo, referring to those who made the film and the hardliners who protested. “And the victims are usually the moderates and the majority of people.”

Contributing: Jim Michaels, Aamer Madhani in Washington, D.C.; Jabeen Bhatti and Louise Osborne in Berlin; Natalie DiBlasio in McLean, Va.; and Bryan Alexander in Los Angeles.

Deadly embassy attacks were days in the making

/in /by
Deadly embassy attacks were days in the making
by Sara Lynch and Oren Dorell, USA TODAY, Detroit Free Press, September 12, 2012

CAIRO — Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others.

As the U.S. tightened security worldwide at embassies and Libya’s president apologized for the attack, details emerged of how the violence began, according to experts who monitor Egyptian media.

Christopher Stevens, 52, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was killed, along with three other Americans, on Tuesday night when a mob of protesters and gunmen stormed the embassy in the eastern city of Benghazi.

In response, the Obama administration sent an anti-terrorism detail of Marines to reinforce security at U.S. diplomatic facilities, and the Pentagon said two warships were moving toward the Libyan coast.

The killings in Libya followed demonstrations in front of Cairo’s U.S. Embassy, where protesters tore down the U.S. flag and scaled the embassy’s wall.

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar, the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor party, which holds about 25% of the seats in parliament, called on people to go to the embassy. He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans, known as Ultras, to join the protest.

On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and “defend the prophet,” Trager said.

Zawahiri justified al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks in an interview with Al Jazeera last month.

“If America attacks the Arab peoples and their regimes do not defend them, somebody who does defend the Arab and Muslim peoples should not be considered a criminal,” Zawahiri told the television network, according to a translation by MEMRI. “We have done nothing wrong.”

A U.S. official, speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly, said the Obama administration is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya was planned to mark the anniversary of 9/11.

The State Department identified one of the other Americans as Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer. The identities of the others were being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

A senior administrations official — who briefed reporters on the details but requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly — describe the assault as an intense hours-long firefight between heavily armed gunmen and U.S. and Libyan security personnel attempting to defend the diplomatic mission.

This is the official’s story:

Stevens was on a routine visit to the consulate in Benghazi when the compound came under fire from unidentified gunmen. In 15 minutes the gunmen gained access to the compound.

Stevens was in the building with Smith. About 45 minutes into the battle U.S. security personnel assigned to a nearby security annex attempted unsuccessfully to fight their way into the building but were driven off. More than 30 minutes later U.S. and Libyan security personnel tried again and were able to get into the main building. They rescued the remaining staff and hustled them to the nearby annex.

Soon after, the annex came under fire in a battle that lasted two hours. After the fighting died down, Stevens was brought to a Benghazi hospital. His body was later turned over to the Americans at Benghazi airport.

The Muslim Brotherhood on Wednesday condemned the violence.

“Just because you are against something doesn’t mean you have to kill,” she said. “I think it’s really a disaster.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), condemned the film in a statement Tuesday.

“The party considers the film a racist crime and a failed attempt to provoke sectarian strife between the two elements of the nation: Muslims and Christians,” a statement said on the FJP’s English-language website. “Moreover, the FJP considers this movie totally unacceptable, from the moral and religious perspectives, and finds that it excessively goes far beyond all reasonable boundaries of the freedoms of opinion and expression.”

President Obama on Wednesday condemned the attack and ordered stepped-up security at diplomatic installations around the world.

“There is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None,” the president said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the government” or the people of Libya. She said it should “shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world.”

“Violence like this is no way to honor religions or faith, and as long as there are those who will take innocent lives in the name of God, the world will never know true and everlasting peace,” she said.

Clinton said that Americans and Libyan security personnel fought alongside each other in an effort to defend the compound. She said Libyans brought Stevens’ body to the hospital.

Clinton earlier called on Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya.

El-Megarif described the attack as “cowardly” and offered his condolences on the death of Stevens and the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country’s close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards. “We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world,” el-Megarif said.

Stevens was killed when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try and evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

By the end of the assault, much of the building was burned out and trashed. On Wednesday, Libyans wandered freely around the burned-out building, taking photos of rooms where furniture was covered in soot and overturned. Walls were scrawled with graffiti.

The State Department identified one of the other Americans as Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer. The identities of the others were being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

Ziad Abu Zeid, the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens, said he had “severe asphyxia,” apparently from smoke inhalation, causing stomach bleeding, but had no other injuries. Stevens was practically dead when he arrived before 1 a.m. Wednesday, and “we tried to revive him for an hour and a half, but with no success,” Abu Zeid said.

Stevens was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. He was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate this year.

His State Department biography, posted on the website of the U.S. Embassy to Libya, says he “considers himself fortunate to participate in this incredible period of change and hope for Libya.”

Clinton said Stevens had a “passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people.”

He “risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started,” she said.

Sam Bacile, a 56-year-old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew and who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, Innocence of Muslims, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.

Video excerpts posted on YouTube depict the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, Bacile, who went into hiding Tuesday, remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

“Islam is a cancer, period,” he repeatedly said.

Florida pastor Terry Jones, the Gainesville-area pastor known for his virulent opposition to Islam, issued a statement on his website defending the film.

“The film is not intended to insult the Muslim community, but it is intended to reveal truths about Muhammad that are possibly not widely known,” Jones said in statement.

Wednesday morning the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin E. Dempsey, called Jones.

“In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” said Marine Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He asked Mr Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film.”

Some Muslims believe that any depiction of the prophet Mohammed, positive or negative, is not allowed.

“Depicting the prophet Mohammed isn’t forbidden but it is discouraged because deifying a human being can distract the faithful from worshiping god,” said M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of the book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.

Those who believe that you can commit violence against those who depict the prophet are considered radical groups, Jasser said. He said that the attacks in Libya are “nothing short of pure evil and in no way representative of the teachings and practices of the faith of Islam.”

“These crowds are using the movie as an excuse to wreak violence on Americans in Libya and Egypt,” Jasser said. “To most Muslims, these excuses for violence that ultimately, even if they are offending or violating a tradition of the prophet, in no way justify any of these types of activities.”

The Muslim Brotherhood burgeoned in popularity and presence after Mubarak was ousted in February 2011 and Morsi formerly headed its political party.

“Some people in the Middle East don’t understand the relationship between government and media and think the (U.S.) government controls the media like they do here,” said Said Sadek, political sociologist and affiliate professor at the American University in Cairo. “They are putting the blame on the U.S. government, which has nothing to do with it.”

Anti-American sentiments are so deep in much of the Arab world that the film that angered Egyptian and Libyan protesters should be seen “not as a cause of the protests, but a pretext,” said Shadi Hamid, director of research for the Brookings Doha Center.

In Egypt, especially, the U.S. government is seen as slow to support the uprising that felled Mubarak in February 2011, and supportive of a military-led transition, Hamid says. Egyptians know that U.S. administrations supported Egyptian dictators since the late 1970s, and supported other Arab ruling families and Israel for many decades more, he says.

Anti-American sentiments are less strong in Libya, where the U.S. helped oust Gadhafi, but unlike in Egypt, the Salafis in Libya are armed, which contributed to the level of violence, Hamid said.

Arab Muslims also “are not comfortable with the idea that freedom of speech can be used to attack religion,” he said.

Although Arab liberals rarely feel the need to join the outcry, ultra-conservative Salafists view themselves as defenders of the faith and use religion to mobilize grass-roots support, Hamid said.

“Rather than rally around the flag they rally around religion, and it works,” he said.

Dorell reported from McLean, Va. Contributing: Carolyn Pesce in McLean, Va.; the Associated Press

Respond to attacks with caution, Valley experts say

/in /by

Respond to attacks with caution, Valley experts say

by Michael Clancy – Sept. 12, 2012 04:27 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

The United States should do its best to understand what happened in attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and a consulate in Libya before it definitively reacts, according to several experts in aspects of radical Islam and conflict in the region.

It’s just too soon to respond with sanctions, military action or other steps, they say.

Chad Haines, a professor of religious studies at Arizona State University, who has worked in Pakistan and Egypt, said blame and accusations will have anti-American repercussions. Policymakers need to recognize that both Egypt and Libya are still in the midst of dramatic changes after last year’s so-called Arab Spring.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician who founded the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, said the movie is just a distraction. He describes events in the area not as an Arab Spring, but ongoing convulsions. In such reactions, “governments like ours will be collateral damage.”

“It’s a long battle,” he said. “Democracy is not a light switch you can turn on.”

While the United States should be cautious in its response, it should not withdraw altogether, he said.

Jasser, who is from Syria and has family engaged in the conflict there, said the civil war in Syria and the incidents in Egypt and Libya are all part of the same reaction to the modern world.

“This may wake us up,” he said. “The war on radicalism is not over.”

Sid Shahid, a Muslim who works with the Arizona Interfaith Movement, said the United States needs a strategy for dealing with the implications of the incidents.

“Some of these incidents are very isolated,” he said.

Matt Kuivinen, who worked as a diplomatic security officer in Afghanistan and Yemen, noted that without the host country’s assistance, there is little a security staff can do in response to mob violence.

Using sanctions, such as threats to withhold foreign aid to nations like Libya and Egypt, can help provoke a government response, he said.

Kuivinen, who runs a security consulting business in Phoenix, said most radical rhetoric never leads to violence, and that security officials cannot react to all intelligence leads.

“You can only cry wolf so many times,” he said.

Shahid, who has given numerous talks in the community about his faith, said, “This is really disturbing for Muslims in general, especially American Muslims like myself.”

Mohamed El-Sharkawy, chairman of the Muslim Community Advisory Board in Phoenix, said community members are condemning the attacks.

“This is not the way true Muslims believe,” he said. “The people who were killed were our guests, and they deserved respect.”

He said the Muslim community would hold a candlelight vigil in memory of those who were killed will be held at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at Moeur Park, Curry Road and Mill Avenue, in Tempe.

11 Years Later: Addressing Political Ideologies and 9/11

/in /by

11 Years Later: Addressing Political Ideologies and 9/11

The Voice of Russia Radio

Audio available here

President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney pulled their attack ads and did not make any campaign stops in honor of the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

While the two presidential candidates withheld politics from the matter, some believe that U.S. leaders should use the date to engage Americans in a national discussion surrounding the terrorist attacks.

Host Jessica Jordan spoke with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, about the root causes of the attacks and various ideologies involved, including American liberty and political Islam.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser said prominent American leaders should use their positions to address the root causes of the attacks and discuss various ideologies involved, including American liberty and political Islam.

Islamic radicals kill 4 American diplomats in Libya

/in /by

Islamic radicals kill 4 American diplomats in Libya

KIMBERLY DVORAK, Examiner.com. SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

Yesterday Americans peacefully remembered 9/11 with prayers and ceremonies. However, halfway around the world the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and U.S. Consulate in Libya were targeted by hundreds of Islamic radicals that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador for Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, a Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and two other U.S. embassy staffers.

Gruesome photos of Ambassador Steven’s lifeless body being dragged through the streets in Benghazi lit up the Internet, and caused seven other Middle Eastern embassies to heighten security.

The attack yesterday in Libya highlights terrorists continued hatred toward America and the fact the murders occurred on 9/11 demonstrates U.S. policy may not be working as planned. Last year Nobel Peace Prize winner,President Obama, declared war on the Libyan dictator and after a bloody eight-month engagement, the rebels, with the help of U.S. air and ground forces, captured and then murdered their brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The New York Times reports, “The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi (Libya) were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.”

The mass protests in Cairo also stemmed from a Jewish Israeli-American filmmaker, Sam Bacile (a pseudonym), who produced a movie entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently the movie depicted a derogatory view of the prophet Muhammad, something Muslim extremists find offensive.

Regardless of the rational used by Islamic extremists the breeching of the U.S. Consulate in Cairo and Libya underscores the lingering hatred for America. It’s worth pointing out that America has spent trillions of dollars in perpetual Middle East Wars, billions in foreign aid and supported unsavory rebels to topple ruthless dictators.

The politically correct statement released by the Cairo embassy did nothing to curtail or pacify the terrorists who later brutally attacked the Libyan embassy and killed four American citizens.

“Obama’s first reaction was to apologize,” said Lt. Col. Army (ret) Ralph Peters. “The Egyptian government knew it was happening. Egypt is getting billions of U.S. aid and they refused to protect the U.S. embassy.”

It was the U.S. embassy apology statement controversy and subsequent murders that dominated news outlet coverage. Ironically, the State Department’s announcement contended the clear acts of terrorism were predicated on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech.

While many pundits concluded that these attacks were an act of war, Peters disagreed and said they were a war-like act. “We are supposed to defend our Constitution not elevate political correctness. Our military takes an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution.”

Currently the elite Marine group, Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, (FAST) which responds to these types of terror-related emergencies, was on route to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Libya.

President Obama’s response

This morning President Obama began backtracking of the politically correct statement his Cairo staff released yesterday. In a Rose Garden press conference, the President insisted those responsible would be held accountable.

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward,” the President concluded.

A Muslim response

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy responded quickly to the attacks on U.S. embassies.

“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,” 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.” We must not blink in the face of this irrational reaction to the mere words of a little known filmmaker.”

Dr. Jasser said that the U.S. embassy in Egypt’s first politically correct apology statement regarding the Islamic extremist attacks was counterproductive and only justified their cause by condemning the free speech of a Jewish moviemaker. This type of terrorist tactic is nothing new. In fact, just like the mistaken Koran burning in Afghanistan, this method is a reliable propaganda tool used by Middle East terrorists.

“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,” Jasser finished.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, as American’s wake up on this September 12, the country remains at war. The 11-year battle isn’t about freedom or democracy, but radical Muslim ideology.

It’s up to Islamic protestors to determine the heart and souls of their respective countries. America may choose to play a quiet role behind the scenes, but ultimately the citizens of Middle Eastern nations must take the lead, define their governance doctrines and rebuild their nations.

With the Arab Spring quickly turning into the Arab Winter, does America’s expensive foreign policy justify the end results?

New moderate Muslim group aims anti-extremism message at youth

/in /by

Kathryn Blaze Carlson, National Post, September 11, 2012

A Muslim Canadian activist has founded a new group that will promote moderate Islam, saying there are too few progressive Muslim voices countering extremism in Canada. Raheel Raza, the Pakistan-born author of Their Jihad, Not My Jihad: A Muslim Canadian Woman Speaks Out, was once a member of the progressive Muslim Canadian Congress, but this month is formally launching Muslims Facing Tomorrow. The National Post’s Kathryn Blaze Carlson spoke with Ms. Raza to find out why.

Q: The Muslim Canadian Congress already speaks for moderate, socially progressive Muslims. Why launch Muslims Facing Tomorrow?
A: There was no fragmentation or infighting — the president of the MCC actually called this week and congratulated me. We just felt there are so many extremist voices and organizations perpetuating the whole ‘hate against others’ message. The moderate Muslim voice is very few in number and we felt that the more organizations out there doing this kind of work, the better. We have a very similar mandate to the MCC, and our goal is the same, but we at Muslims Facing Tomorrow plan to go about it in a different way.

Q: What do you mean?
A: We want to be very proactive. We want to provide an alternative for Muslim youth. It’s not just a question of slamming the extremists; it’s also about providing a different voice. We want to hold workshops and conferences — one thing that’s never been done, as far as I know, is a conference of moderate Muslims in Canada. The extremists hold a lot of conferences, so we want to host one for progressive Muslim voices. We want to be not just an organization, but more like a movement. We want to connect with like-minded people across the globe. We’ve already connected with the Center for Islamic Pluralism and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in the U.S. We’ve made connections with people in Europe, England, Pakistan. We want to link up with individuals who are working toward defining Islam in a more modern way — working toward reform or women’s rights.

Q: You have quite the diverse advisory board — anti-terrorism expert David Harris, for example, and Reuben Bromstein, a retired judge and president of Canadians Against Suicide Bombing. What’s that about?
A: We made a very conscious effort to have an advisory board of people from different faiths, who are not just in Canada and who are experts in different fields. Our mandate is not just to work with Muslims, but to work with anyone from any faith community who is interested in the safety and security of Canada, in liberty, democracy and the equality of women. We’ve always felt that our battle is not one that we can fight alone. We have to work together because the end result of standing up against extremists is in everyone’s interests.

Q: Who is Muslims Facing Tomorrow really trying to reach?
A: The youth are our main interest because they’re the future of Canada. In fact, if you were to ask me what my personal interest in this organization is, it’s the future of my children and grandchildren. What we want to do is set up workshops, panels, conferences — that sort of thing. To the best of my knowledge, the Muslim Canadian Congress hasn’t really done this. The MCC does wonderful work, don’t get me wrong. What [congress founder] Tarek Fatah has done to set the foundation of this voice against the extremists is absolutely phenomenal, and that’s why I was among the people who helped him set it up. But there comes a time when you feel it’s important to have more voices. When people ask ‘where are the voices of the moderate Muslims?’ we want to be able to say there is more than one organization working toward the safety and well-being of Canada.

Q: Do you support the Harper government’s toughened stance on immigration and public safety?
A: Yes. Islamic radicalism in Canada is not something that happened overnight. When we don’t face a problem head on and take care of it, we end up with something like 9/11 — it’s actually ironic that we’re speaking about this on September 11. [My husband and I] left Pakistan [24 years ago] to escape radicalism, and then we came to Canada to find that same ideology being promoted here.

Q: How do you think this new “voice,” as you call it, will be heard?
A: As Muslims, we’re in a better position to speak out against Islamic extremism than [others] would be because [they’d] be called racist. The word ‘Islamaphobia’ is always hanging in the air. I feel it’s our ethical and moral responsibility to expose those people whose interests are not in favour of loyalty to Canada, for example.

Q: Do you fear Muslims Facing Tomorrow will itself be labeled anti-Islam?
A: Any time anyone criticizes Muslims or Islam, they’re always looked upon negatively. We’re expecting hostility, but that doesn’t deter us. We came into this knowing full-well that not everybody would love us. But our goal is not to be popular. It’s to tell the truth.

National Post

AIFD demands an immediate retraction: Roger Anghis’ messy misspeak is defamatory – and dangerous

/in /by

UPDATE, September 12, 2012, 2:00 pm: Following a phone call from our office, Pastor Anghis has corrected the side-bar quote on his original piece. We thank him for making this correction. We ask Pastor Anghis to follow up with correcting this piece in the other places where it was published. (Here is an example.) A full retraction would also be appreciated, given the gravity of the error.

UPDATE, September 10, 2012, 1:00 pm: Pastor Roger Anghis has amended his article on “News With Views.” As of this update, he has corrected the body of the article, removing Dr. Jasser’s name. Unfortunately, the sidebar on the right-hand side of the News With Views article still attributes a treasonous quote to Dr. Jasser. Pastor Roger has also not corrected this article in the other locations where it is published, nor has he issued a public retraction and apology. We ask Pastor Roger to please make every effort to thoroughly correct this error.

***

AIFD is alarmed by a serious and dangerous error in a recent blog published by Paster Roger Anghis. In this blog, Pastor Anghis alleges that our founder, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, is the imam who was slated to appear at “Jumah at the DNC.” In what we hope is an unfortunate (though no less defamatory) misprint, Pastor Anghis attributes treasonous, anti-American sentiments to Dr. Jasser:

Screencap of comments on Pastor Anghlis' blog

“What is disturbing is one of the imams that was slated to speak, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He has called for the overthrow of the ‘filthy’ Unites[sic] States government and the installation of shariah law and for the replacing the United States Constitution with the Quran.” – Pastor Roger Anghis, here.

Pastor Anghis goes on to say that, in an effort to promote Islam, Dr. Jasser has asserted that “Muslims are indigenous to America.” Dr. Jasser has said no such thing.

Dr. Jasser and AIFD actually broke the story on Jumah at the DNC. We draw Pastor Anghis’ attention to the following videos:

Dr. Jasser on Fox and Friends on August 5, 2012, discussing who the organizers of “Jumah on the DNC” are and why we should be concerned, including Imam Siraj Wahhaj’s statement that the Constitution should be replaced with the Quran;

Dr. Jasser on Varney & Co. on August 29, 2012, about why the DNC should disassociate itself as much as possible from the radical figures spearheading “Jumah at the DNC”;

Dr. Jasser on Fox and Friends on September 2, 2012, discussing the DNC’s last-minute distancing from this event, and Jibril Hough’s anti-American, Nidal Hasan-esque comments;

Dr. Jasser on GBTV on September 3, 2012, speaking with Glenn Beck about how all Americans, especially Muslims, must speak out against the radical views of those who organized “Jumah at the DNC” and all Islamist theocrats.

Perhaps Pastor Anghis simply made a terrible mistake in his article. However, as an individual publishing articles he knows are made available globally, Pastor Anghis has a responsibility to be more cautious. Indeed, all those publishing on matters of such grave public concern run the risk of endangering others when they are as sloppy as Pastor Anghis has been here. Even if retracted immediately, damage may already be done.

Dr. Jasser has been a consistent voice against Islamism, and has been a vocal advocate for the protection of the United States Constitution through the separation of mosque and state. He has served the United States as a lieutenant commander in the Navy, and has been a leading voice against efforts to implement Sharia law in the West and even in Muslim-majority nations.

Pastor Anghis’ comments amount to accusing Dr. Jasser of treason and radicalism. These accusations are dangerous and, because they are patently false, illegal. This is deeply hurtful and as harmful to Dr. Jasser as well as the many liberty-minded Muslims who work with him. Dr. Jasser leads a team of liberty-minded Muslims who combat radical ideologies at great personal risk. We ask that those who claim to speak against Islamism not further compromise us with defamatory and dangerous rhetoric.

We further ask that Pastor Anghis retract his comments about Dr. Jasser immediately, and issue a retraction and public apology in each location where his article may have been published.

John Walker Lindh: A Terrorist Manipulating Islam, Aided by Western Islamists and their Sympathizers

/in /by
 

John Walker Lindh

John Walker Lindh, infamously serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding the Taliban, is now seeking new ways to insult the United States, including insulting the many liberty-minded Muslims who value our nation’s freedoms.

The prison where Lindh is held has had a generous policy for its many Muslim prisoners. Until they were disciplined for not responding to a fire alarm, the prisoners were permitted to gather in congregation for three of the five daily prayers. Now, the prisoners are only permitted to gather for the Friday afternoon “jummah” prayer.

Lindh is not satisfied with this accommodation of his religious beliefs and practices. He has asserted that the prison’s restriction on gathering for prayer is an infringement on his religious rights, and that he must gather with other Muslims for the daily prayers. He has even brought his case to court, suing the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the right to pray in congregation more than once per week.

Islam does not require Muslims to perform their daily prayers in congregation, and allows for Muslims to miss the Friday prayers if circumstances make attending them impossible. Imam Ammar Amonette of Richmond, Virginia has commented on Lindh’s case, affirming this widely-known Islamic guideline. Despite this, Lindh continues to insist that he receive special treatment.

This kind of arrogance is no surprise coming from a notorious terrorist convicted of numerous crimes against the United States and innocent people everywhere. It is also a hallmark of the Islamist mindset, which seeks to use the freedom and reason of the West in its quest to defeat it. Islamists relish the opportunity to demand even accommodations well outside of mainstream Islamic practice: niqabs (face-veils) in the courtroom, extra congregational prayers for terrorists. Islamists make these absurd demands with full knowledge that they act against both non-Muslims and the majority of Muslims worldwide. They view their mission as a holy war, in which they seek to defeat all people who believe in freedom and the preservation of human rights. To them, no sacrifice is too great – and those Muslims who won’t fight alongside them are primary targets.

This is not the first time Islamists in the prison system have petitioned for special privileges: in 2009, Randall T. Moyer (a former spokesman for the Muslim American Society, or MAS and member of the “Virginia Jihad Network”) was housed in the same prison as John Walker Lindh, and also sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons for additional congregational prayer rights. Louay Safi, former director of leadership development for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), backed Moyer’s request, saying that Moyer’s demands followed the “prophetic tradition,” and that Muhammad promised greater rewards to those who pray in congregation. (Read more about Safi and his career in ISNA’s leadership here and here.)

The ACLU is defending Lindh, and they may be well-intentioned in doing so. We certainly support protecting civil rights for all Americans.  By choosing to support Lindh, however, the ACLU seems to be trying to support an identity group – Muslims – but are instead supporting Lindh’s Islamist interpretation of Islam, which actually subjugates individual Muslims and restricts their rights. Islamism doesn’t value individual liberty, freedom of expression, or civil rights.

As liberty-minded Muslims, we are intensely grateful for the freedoms granted we enjoy in the United States, where we are freer to practice our faith than we would be anywhere else in the world. We believe that John Walker Lindh’s demands for greater privileges are not just unreasonable, but also dangerous. He, like other Islamists, seeks to define Islam as a faith utterly incompatible with modernity, freedom, and human rights. We urge those who may be swayed by Lindh’s argument to recognize that they may be setting a dangerous precedent by helping to advance a jihadist’s interpretation of Islam, which seeks to strip us of the very liberties that make us who we are.

**

Disturbing: a jihadi song in in honor of John Walker Lindh, aka Mujahid Sulayman al-Faris.

Syria After Assad

/in /by

Syria After Assad

Posted by   Aug 24th, 2012 , Frontpagemag

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Shekoh Abbas, the leader of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. He has joined with U.S. Syrian Sunni reformer Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser to advance the cause of Syrian democracy via the Syrian Democratic Coalition.

FP: Sherkoh Abbas, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about what might happen in Syria when and if Assad falls.

What do you see as following the overthrow of Assad?

Abbas: Thank you for having me, Jamie.

Basically if Assad goes, for sure it will be civil war, but if we wait too long there will be much more bloodshed or full-scale civil war. It has already started, in my opinion. There has been cleansing and fighting going on between Alawites and Sunni.

Compare the situation to Lebanon. Lebanon used to be a place for proxy war where the regimes would fight each other. However, the quicker we jump into an inclusive way out of what is going on, the better it is for Syrians and the international community. We see federalism in Syria as an inclusive way-out because it will address secular needs of stakeholders from Sunnis, Kurds,  Alawites, Christians and other minorities, which will accelerate regime change in an orderly way.

Syria needs to be a workable state that is inclusive of certain stakeholders, not a failed state as it is now. This is an opportunity for the West to do things right, build a successful state, and assure that Syria doesn’t move into full scale civil war. Stakeholders may include Russia maintaining a presence in the coastal area, while the development ensues of an Alawite State, Kurdish State on the north side, and Aleppo and Damascus States for the rest of Syria. This will minimize or prevent proxy wars in our view because stakeholders will not be forced to submit to a strong central government that could oppress them.

The only way to remove support from the regime is to create an Alawite region or state and to separate the Alawites and their supporters as a people from their small presence in the regime. The solution is working with all groups in an inclusive approach and by promoting support for federalism or confederation for the above states/regions. Otherwise, we see there is a full civil war that can only get worse around the corner.

Folks from the U.S. State Department, Turkey, Qatar, and Gulf countries are currently supporting Islamist groups who seek another dictatorship, but this is not an option for Syria. These folks want a strong man and one address to go to for dealing with Syria, but the best thing is to find a way out that and address the interest of the Syrians, Russians, Europeans, the U.S., and regional counties, including Israel. Furthermore, there needs to be the inclusion of the interests of all minorities such as Kurds, Alawaite, Druz and Christians, otherwise it won’t work.

FP: Do you envision a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood as in Egypt?

Abbas: The answer is not to bring Sharia Law into Syria. A dictator, theocrat, or someone who is an appointed or selected national leader is not acceptable for Syria. We can independently find our own secular leadership that allows the people to have more of a say over their states within the new Syria.

When Syria split from the United Arab Republic, the Kurds suffered under the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And now in Egypt they are trying to control people like the Coptic Christians. They are immediately trying to Arabize and convert the Copts, who deserve to have their rights protected. The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take over one institution at a time, to ultimately change things as they wish.  Therefore, since Kurds are a part of Syria, they need to have a say over their own affairs.

In Syria, all the minorities constitute a majority, like Alawites who have a lot of weapons and Russian support. With the influx of Iran, Hezbollah, and related extremist forces, there is developing violence and risk for proxy wars.

It is important for the international community to address Syria and establish a compromise. Sunnis, Kurds, Russia, Europeans, everyone should have a piece of the pie through establishing law and joint leadership like any other inter-state alliance or confederation.

The State Department should consider that Syrians should have their own rights to have states, like the United States does.  We have people on the ground who organize independently.  We need to take responsibility for our own democracy and our own human rights issues, because if Islamic extremists take control of Syria, it will be worse than what is happening now.

FP: So there is a possible democratic alternative? A separate Kurdish state in Syria?

Abbas: Historically, Kurds have been presidents, prime ministers, and top ranking generals in Syria before Baath took over more than 4 decades ago.  Looking back, Kurds have had their rights revoked, citizenship revoked, tortured, oppressed and killed. In short, we have no rights at all in Syria. We want to exercise our rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to decide for ourselves in our own area, and  bring prosperity to our people and to Syria as a whole.

We should have federalism and nothing less, otherwise there will be no government. The current arrangement under Assad is unsustainable. We just need to have a say in the future Syria.

Alawites want more than Kurds, but they are afraid to speak up, because they will suffer more if they speak out. The Druze will also suffer if they speak out.  We have been accused of being Zionist or of seeking to create a second Zionist state in the Middle East. We have learned to deal with it. Also, Iran and Turkey agree to keep Syria as a centralized state to avoid a domino affect within their own countries.

The current centralized government does not serve justice for all. We need a new form of checks and balances, where the people have their own identities and where federalism blocks Islamic extremism and dictatorships.

FP: What should U.S. policy be toward the current struggle?

Abbas: The U.S. is not taking sufficient action; it should address the removal of Iran’s influence.

The U.S. has a choice in using the international community to make a decision. It was successful in the past to lead, even during the era of the Soviet Union. Now, the U.S. does not want “regime change,” it is looking for a dictator, like the Muslim Brotherhood or a secular dictator for a continuation of a centralized Syrian government, while using Russia as an excuse.

But there is a better policy.

An easier way is to protect Russia’s interest to maintain control over their gas interests and ports in Syria, protect allies, have compromises, and bring international support for a new Syrian confederation.

FP: What are your thoughts on how the Obama administration has handled it thus far?

Abbas: The administration has failed in leadership, and failed in preventing human lives from being saved by doing nothing, and has instead enabled more violence, and has encouraged the regime to slaughter and kill more people. The regime has killed the Syrian people, and the administration should have been more proactive in supporting regime change while finding true groups that can work together and in working with Russia on protecting its interests after Assad. The Syrian regime learned that the U.S. was all talk and not action-oriented.   It is a disaster for the Syrian people.

In 2003 when Saddam was gone, Assad was so afraid of the U.S., and then the Kurds and others in Syria stood up and protested in the 2004 Kurdish uprising, while a few people were killed and injured compared to now. The Syrian people want change, and hopefully the U.S. will provide leadership. But until then, thousands of people are getting killed.

FP: Shed some light on the Obama-Erdogan Alliance and the dangers it poses.

Abbas: Obama and Erdogan show a lot of public respect for each other in Istanbul and Ankara, which promotes their concept of “moderates,” but it’s not moderate when a system is slaughtering Kurds and others. Their relationship does not serve the Kurdish people nor democracy.

The PKK is not the answer, but 25-30 million Kurds don’t have rights in Turkey. Erdogan managed to purport to Europeans that he is a moderate; he tried to use the Turkish platform, but the people deserve their rights and Kurds in Turkey have no rights and he is threatening Syrian Kurds.

Sunni-Arabs are being supported as a result of the alliance, but their interest is energy in Syria and the Middle East so that they can dictate oil or energy prices and distribution into Europe.

President Obama shouldn’t be enabling them in these areas. Obama does believe that they are moderate Muslims, but they are not. A true moderate treats fellow people right, and doesn’t slaughter minorities like Kurds.

The best thing is for the U.S. to divest from this relationship, and put down a road-map to federalism that will not show any threats to Turkey, does not support Iran, and does not support the Muslim Brotherhood. In other words, don’t subcontract American foreign policy to Turkey, instead institute a new democratic policy for Syria.

FP: Crystallize for us the problems of a unified Syria and what Syrian Kurdish autonomy would look like.

Abbas: The Syrian Kurdish region is not like Iraq, because Iraq did not solve the Kurdish problem until now. The Kurdish region of Syria is not necessarily under Kurdish control.  There are parts that have been Arabized, the northwest coastal region/Kurdish Mountain area, but should be part of the Kurdish region. If you refer to the demographic map (above), the north up to the coast is our area. We want federalism, as in a federal government of Syria involving multiple federations as Sunni, Alawite, and Kurd. The Kurds would also be part of the central government with joint leadership.

The U.S. should not falsely talk about developing a coalition, as it cannot bridge gaps by selecting Syrian leaders that Americans want. Coalition is about finding people who work together based on what they want and a workable solution. Sometimes not all sides will agree, but it’s important to see a compromise for all. If all the groups want a decentralized government, then it is important for Kurds to be vocal in support of their fellow Syrian compatriots.  We suffered too much for too long and cannot wait 50 more years to find out that we have a failed state again.

FP: Sherkoh Abbas, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Democrat National Convention welcomes radical Islamists

/in /by

Democrat National Convention welcomes radical Islamists

FTR Radio, 8/21/12

The leaders of [the “Jummah at the DNC”] event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies… M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy [describes] Siraj Wahhaj [as someone] “who I saw with my own eyes in 1995 seditiously say it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran“…