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

In the year 2000, American Muslim organizations set out for the first time to empower a “Muslim voting bloc.” They formed the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee-PAC that included major national Islamic organizations. On the heels of their endorsement of then-Gov. George W. Bush, they along with many other American voting blocs, went on to claim credit for President Bush’s victory. Now, in a whole new world after 9/11, many of these same American Muslim organizations, along with some new ones, have formed the American Muslim Task Force-PAC. This coalition of 10 major American Islamic organizations endorsed Sen. John Kerry on Oct. 21 via their PAC. They cite a Georgetown/Zogby poll claiming that 81 percent of American Muslims will support the Muslim PAC endorsement and 76 percent happen to also support Sen. Kerry. The question in all of this is – is it healthy for a secular democracy to have religious voting blocs? It is certainly natural for a minority community to unite, circle the wagons, and affect democracy – many certainly do. But, faith-based voting blocs blur the line between religion and state far too much. How can a secular democracy remain secular if voters divide into blocs based upon faith? Doesn’t this fly in the face of our nation’s principles that led to the tax exemption status for religious organizations? If co-religionists can unify their cause behind a candidate, does he become beholden to that faith’s leadership? What if a majority faith in the United States votes en mass? Is this not one step closer to the theocracies that we in the Middle Eastern community have left behind? The Moral Majority died a slow death in the 1980s after it became clear that it was harming more than helping the cause for which it stood. In addition this development also led to internal corruption which fractured several large evangelical organizations. The development of faith voting blocs can create a quasi-multiparty system. In the Israeli democracy due to the number of parties and the need for a coalition to govern, often small blocs can wield significant influence. This certainly explains the impact that the minority Jewish orthodoxy has had upon instituting orthodox religious elements into Israeli law. While I applaud the engagement of my co-religionists in the American political system, I cannot understand the focus on faith from within the political arena. American Muslims are in no way monolithic. Yet a voting bloc reinforces the stereotype that we are tribal. When we vote for President, we assess issues both domestic and foreign. From economics and immigration to security and the general role of government, the religious doctrine cannot fit into a single point of view. In majority Islamic nations, religious political parties are often the norm. These religious parties have long sought to institute various forms of Islamic theocracy under the pretense of democracy. This is not the reported motive of AMT. But it is certainly a step in the wrong direction for Muslim reform and for the health of our American democracy. Only Muslims can articulate a response that resonates to the fanatical global philosophy of theocracy that threatens our American security. American Muslims who feel the time is now to only circle their wagons need ask themselves just one question-how relevant would their voting bloc be if American Christians voted en bloc in the 2004 elections? M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Phoenix physician and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.aifdemocracy.org). He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org This column originally appeared online at the Arizona Republic and can be found at this link at the Arizona Republic

Yesterday’s headlines rang with the not-so-profound revelation that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had now declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The world heard about al-Zarqawi’s call for “unity against the enemies of Islam”. He reported communicating with bin Laden and joining the strategy of al-Qaida with that of his own fascist “Tawhid and Jihad.” The real question is who actually believes this to be a new revelation? This coverage yesterday appears to lend credence to the fact that much of the media establishment remained under gross denial of the obvious link between the Iraq war, al-Qaida, and Islamo-fascist terror. The denial cannot last much longer. It is only a matter of time. The terrorists will remain bent on explicitly proving their associations no matter how slow the world coverage is on the uptake. It is going to become increasingly difficult for contrarians to the Iraq war to revel in the denial of linkage as al-Zarqawi and his fellow thugs make their associations clear and their obsession with Operation Iraqi Freedom clear for all to note. The Islamo-fascists came to us on 9/11 on the heels of Clinton’s foreign policy. We have now taken the fight to them in Iraq and Iraq seems to be infested with them. As Dennis Prager noted last week, “what would Zarqawi be doing today if he weren’t in Iraq today?” He is the head of a snake that has long been waiting to poison America. Taking the war to him and al-Qaida to liberate Islam from the true enemies of Islam and freedom will prove in the future to be a prescient foreign policy approach. Similarly, today will most likely yield little verbal responses from international Muslim leaders about al-Zarqawi himself being the greatest enemy of Islam. Perhaps someday soon, whether by ‘fatwa’ or a more modern pronouncement of a call to action of the moderate faithful, Muslims worldwide will declare their own clear disgust and intentions to lead the war against al-Qaida, al-Zarqawi, and their ilk – the real enemies of Islam. For until they do, the nauseating religious pronouncements of crazed zealots like al-Zarqawi will continue to be tacitly accepted by the world media on face value without criticism. Without massive worldwide immediate Muslim response and calls of action to defeat al-Zarqawi, he and al-Qaida will continue in their hijacking of the faith. A few countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are beginning to “get it.” In the setting of autocratic regimes in the absence of reform their motives will remain questionable, but time will reveal what role moderate Muslims will take in stepping up to the plate to defeat their own greatest enemy, the real enemies of Islam – Islamofascists. This column can also be found at this link at the Arizona Republic.

Yesterday’s tragic bombings and murders in the Sinai demand that we more closely reflect upon the warped motivations of our enemies especially as we enter our elections. An Egyptian hotel is an unfortunately obvious target. Many analysts have cited the primary short-term goal of al-Qaida being the removal of the American and western presence from Iraq. Many correctly note that the removal of Saddam and the installation of democracy in Iraq and possibly in the greater Middle East brings with it an antidote to the influence of organizations like al-Qaida. The first step to understanding their motivations is understanding that they are incubated from the belly of theocracies and dictatorships. Charles Krauthammer points out that in Spain and near the Australian embassy in Indonesia the goal was influencing their elections so that the challenger can win and withdraw troops from Iraq. He then points out that the motivation with the recent escalation of guerilla terrorism on soft targets throughout Iraq is to increase the price of the war and break the American resolve and support of President Bush, much like the Tet offensive in Vietnam prior to the 1968 elections in America. The bombings in Egypt yesterday appear to be along the same lines of derangement. Al-Qaida appears to be banking on the premise that an increase in global terrorism against American interests, allies, and tourists will break the will of the U.S. in fighting this war against militant Islamo-fascists. The militant Islamists are doing everything possible to remove American presence in the Middle East which threatens their existence and their dreams of theocratic government. The hotels and tourism of Egypt are not only traveled by westerners, but its crippling sends a message to Arab and Muslim nations that depend upon America’s economic resources. Threatening American security, increasing global terrorism and stifling American-Muslim interaction are all goals of al-Qaida, which despises secular freedom and capitalism. In WWII, FDR returned to office with commanding mandates when he stood for liberty, identified our enemies, and pledged American leadership in a resolve to defeat the enemies of freedom. To interpret Iraq and the recent rise in global terrorism in any other way is to ignore the obvious. While the cockroaches of terrorism are being exterminated, their activity will unfortunately increase. To walk away from their infestation in Iraq and beyond is to yield to them the world which led to 9/11 and to yield American security to only a prayer that another attack on our soil or our citizens will not happen “as long as we leave the terrorists alone.” Their ideology of hate will not conform to this and appeasement will only allow their growth and rebuilding. This column appeared in the Arizona Republic PluggedIn weblog at this link

Finally, in the wake of the barbaric killing of innocent children in Russia, the blinders that have kept the Muslim world from seeing the cancer within its midst are coming off. The killers at the children’s school in Beslan were not Chechen “separatists.” They were not Muslim “militants.” They were “Islamo-fascist killers,” pure and simple. Such killers revel in death. They pick the times when they can kill the most people on the subways, in their offices, in restaurants, in schools or on buses. They slit throats, shoot children in the back or blow themselves up, trying to create as much blood and carnage as possible. We must call them by their true name, but that alone is not enough. More is required. Across the Muslim world the past several weeks have finally seen a clear and long overdue change in Islamic _expression. There is a realistic introspection unseen before. Abdulrahman al-Rashed wrote in an editorial titled, “The Painful Truth: All of the World’s Terrorists are Muslim” in the pan-Arab daily, Asharq Al-Awsat: “Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.” Russian Muslims – granted, aided by state-controlled media assistance and a workers union endorsement – impressively brought out upwards of 40,000 Muslim faithful to a Rally Against Terror in Moscow. But as we know here in Phoenix, rallies are only a start in creating a new consciousness. Every time I have the privilege of praying with my Muslim brothers and sisters in devotional prayer, I feel a perfect harmony and solace of thought and movement as we bow and say God’s praises together. While my faith is very personal, without that group energy, my religion is not complete. But with spiritual enjoyment and fulfillment comes equal responsibility. Moderate, moral Muslims may see these Islamo-fascists as far removed from our reality; however, the unforgiving reality of this world is that we are responsible as a group for our weakest as well as our most corrupt and deranged. These killers are committing incomprehensibly evil acts in the name of my religion across the world, and because of that, I and my fellow Muslims should atone for their actions. I think it would be totally fitting for Muslims to erect a monument to stand eternally in memorial like that which was done for all those who lost their lives in Vietnam and other wars. On it would be the names of every man, woman and child who has lost their lives due to Islamo-fascism. The only tie that would bind the lives memorialized therein would be the fact that they were all lost at the hands of Islamo-fascists. A memorial is more lasting over generations in its impact than any editorial, speech, sermon or rally. With our effort, we could show the world and ourselves that those names from all around the globe are not forgotten. They would be remembered and honored as innocent souls whose lives were snuffed out by barbaric, un-Islamic – in fact, anti-Islamic – cruelty. The memorial would remain as living testimony to the search for forgiveness from the non-Muslim world of the Muslim faithful for the actions of its deranged criminal few. Denial and blinders are checked at the door, with atonement gained within. This column originally appeared in the print version of the Arizona Republic on September 26, 2004 [M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Phoenix physician and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org or at www.aifdemocracy.org]