Reclaiming The American Spirit: What Obama Should Have Said – Dr. Jasser Rewrites #SOTU

/in /by

It is the evening of his final State of the Union address, and the president stands at the podium, surveying the crowd.

The camera pans to the faces of those gathered. People of every race, religion and background are waiting for the president to speak to the state of our union. This year, in recognition of their immense sacrifice, some of the most powerful in the nation have given up their front row seats to members of America’s armed forces. Seated with them are Syrian refugee children, dissidents like Saudi Arabia’s Raif Badawi, whose freedom was secured through effective use of diplomatic muscle. Also joining them are people like Saeed Abedini, the Christian pastor who had been jailed in Iran for his faith. Seated in the crowd as well are Muslims who have spoken out against groups who undermine American values – Muslims who have been at the forefront in the struggle against radicalization and for universal human rights.

The president begins speaking – about the struggles the country has faced economically and in other ways. He speaks about violence in the streets and the need for change both among communities and political and leadership systems.

This year, the State of the Union address is unconventional: the president has dedicated the bulk of it to foreign policy and addressing the most pressing threat to global security today – radical Islam. He names it, “Islamism,” and distinguishes it from the personal faith practice of Islam.

“Let me be clear: Islam, as a personal faith practice, has been a part of the American fabric since our nation’s founding. We know that some of the very first hands to till American soil and to build our nation belonged to Muslims who were brought to this new land as slaves. Ultimately, these men and women became free, and some retained their faith. Over time, countless Muslims have come to our great country to seek a better life. They have fled dictators and theocrats, have started families, businesses and legacies here in the United States. Many of these families felt the assault of 9/11 in a very specific way: they saw that what they fled in their ancestral homelands had followed them Westward, and now endangers the land they call home.

Many of these Muslims – those who advocate for secular governance, who support full gender equality and don’t fail to address problematic individuals and strains of belief within their own community – are our number one allies in the fight against Islamism. My administration vows to support these Muslim heroes in the face of any and all hostility they may face. We know who their antagonizers are, and have taken steps to ensure that these individuals and organizations are no longer welcome at my administration’s functions. The FBI, DHS, and police departments around the country will be working to address Islamism head on, including purging their ranks of trainers and advisors who are associated with Islamist groups.

Further: my administration has been briefed about the very real and rampant issues of honor-based violence, female genital mutilation, and forced marriage in our country. I will be introducing legislation to address these crimes specifically, and to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest and most severe extent possible under law. This legislation also provides funding for a network of safe houses, emergency response teams and services for individuals who are in fear of or who are fleeing from these crimes.

Make no mistake: issues of radicalization, gender-based violence and Islamism will continue to be a national discussion. In fact, it will be a more robust national discussion than ever before. My administration will not back down, and will not be intimidated by any actor, foreign or domestic, who seeks to silence this discussion. We also stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies abroad, who are fighting this same evil. Our hearts ache for the women of Cologne who suffered sexual violence at the hands of apparently organized gangs. We support artists, cartoonists, and writers who continue daily to express themselves even in the face of what is now almost certain death.

On the international stage: we must not downplay the problem of radicalization, of terror, and of more subversive yet ultimately equally dangerous threats to our values – censorship, blasphemy laws, and the persecution of minorities in Muslim-majority societies. The United States stands with the Christians and atheists of Pakistan, the Shias of Saudi Arabia, those held in what is effectively modern day slavery building the ostentatious skyline of the United Arab Emirates, the women of Egypt who face daily harassment and mutilation, and countless others who seek only to live free and safe in their homelands.

My administration will begin building a roadmap to address our country’s troubling and dangerous relationship with Arab theocracies and dictatorships. We cannot both proclaim our commitment to freedom and human rights and then bow to the House of Saud. To continue doing so is to leave a legacy of hypocrisy rather than a legacy of liberty. Our country is better than this.

Nor will we back down in the face of terror: Iran must be held to task for its own brand of regional terrorism.

Which brings me to Syria: we – I – have failed in Syria. The blood of the hundreds of thousands of murdered Syrians is, in part, on my hands. I have called on both democrats and republicans to convene, and, for as long as it takes, work together to draft a plan to address the genocide in Syria. This solution must include the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, whose family legacy is one of tyranny, terror and death. Along with him we must also see the dissolution of his entire military killing machine and the Ba’ath Party, whose reign of oppression and misery has robbed the Syrian people of countless loved ones, as well as progress and joy. We have let this go on too long. I acknowledge that my own administration is tainted; in this era there is no use in denying that our own John Kerry has enjoyed a warm relationship with this fascist killer…”

WHACK!

“DAD! HE DID IT!”

What was that?! I reach up and rub my temple. A Lego helicopter, my children have learned, does not actually fly. I rub my eyes and see my older son pointing his finger at his baby brother. Sighing, I get up. “Kids…what did I say about throwing things in the house?”

It was a dream. President Obama is on television, placating the bad guys and cracking jokes. Twitter is talking about Michelle Obama’s dress. Business as usual.

CAIR Inventing a Crisis, Again – and Landing Muslims on the Unemployment Line

/in /by

As American Muslims, we at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are particularly grateful for our country’s commitment to protect the inalienable right of each of us to freedom of expression and religion. We are grateful for the opportunity to secure the protection of our most basic rights in workplaces and in the public arena.

It is true that there is a vocal and troublesome minority who wish to see the religious rights of Muslims restricted or even eliminated altogether – but these individuals do not represent the broader American public and cannot find their position supported by the Constitution or Bill or Rights. Thus, we continue to see our existence as patriotic Americans and faithful Muslims as a blessed one, one in synergy and not in conflict.

Unfortunately, some of our fellow faithful not only disagree with us, but are doing their very best to amplify tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims at what is already a trying time for our country and the world. Further, these individuals seem to be actively encouraging Muslims – particularly those in especially marginalized communities – to perceive the United States as anti-Muslim.

Cargill Meat Solutions, a meat processing plant in Colorado, is located in an area with a large Somalian population. The plant employs a significant number of Somali Muslims, who have, according to reports, been able to take breaks for prayer in the company’s two “reflection” rooms. Details of the story are a bit vague, but sources say that a group of 11 employees wanted to take a prayer break together last month. A supervisor wanted to ensure that production would not be impacted, so asked the employees to break up into smaller groups to take their prayer breaks. The employees complied, but later resigned. Later, nearly 200 Cargill employees refused to come to work. They were terminated, per Cargill’s policy of terminating any employee who does not show up for work for three days without legitimate reason.

So, what is going on here? Naturally, CAIR is capitalizing on this story, asserting that Cargill is denying their Muslim employees their right to adequate space and time for prayer. That claim, however, is suspect: the supervisor reportedly agreed to let employees pray. They were simply asked to break up into smaller groups. What many unfamiliar with Islam may not know is that this is actually perfectly legitimate: while it is indeed considered a good thing to pray in congregation, it is not actually a requirement for all five daily prayers all week long. Further, a “congregation” can be a very small group of two or three. It is also acceptable to stagger the prayer time a bit – Muslims will not “miss” the entire prayer time by delaying by a few minutes (though Islam does have a way for Muslims to offer and/or address the issue of missed prayers). Further, Islamic prayers don’t actually take very long – thus employees don’t need a very long break to complete them, and employers can be fair without infringing on productivity. An employer allowing for short breaks for small groups, and offering a space in which prayers can be offered, is being reasonable. While all details of the case are yet to be clarified, we at AIFD suggest that well-intentioned individuals pause before assuming CAIR’s position is valid or well-meaning.

Why are we suspicious of CAIR’s position? If the employer did indeed allow for employees to pray together in smaller groups, CAIR would necessarily be demanding something unreasonable by asking for more. For example, if CAIR demands that the Cargill plant allow all 200 or so Muslim employees to be able to hold prayers at the same time, they are insisting that the plant halt productivity and even secure bigger prayer spaces. (The plant currently has two small rooms for prayer and reflection.) An additional point to consider is that two to five Muslims can do ritual ablutions (washing) in a standard bathroom in just a few minutes. Two hundred Muslims? This would take a very long time. That is, unless, the next demand is for large specialized rooms for this purpose. This would simply be asking too much.

CAIR also has a tendency to prey on those Muslims it can make into national stories regardless of the consequences to them. Here, CAIR is using Cargill’s Somali Muslim community – a group with multiple marginalized identities – to push a broader agenda nationwide. The Somali Muslim community is already vulnerable in many ways. Now some two hundred people who had stable work are potentially left without a way to provide for their families. Will CAIR ensure their security – whether by making up for lost wages or making sure they secure new employment if a deal cannot be reached? CAIR’s message is not one of constructive paths forward – but seeks instead to prove that America is hostile to Muslims and that Muslims. Through this, CAIR is stoking tensions between immigrant communities and the broader population, between people of color and their employers, and between Muslims and non-Muslims. If the civil rights of Muslims are truly infringed upon, they must certainly be defended, and boldly. However, CAIR is notorious for its opportunistic use of matters of faith and minority rights to carry out its nefarious goal of advancing an interpretation of Islam and Muslim existence which rejects pluralism, rejects diversity, and promotes hostility against dissidents, reformers, and those who truly support civil and universal human rights. We ask both Muslims and non-Muslims to not be fooled.

11/10/2015 AIFD Affirms its Commitment to a Just Peace in the Middle East

/in /by

We at AIFD have been watching the continued tensions and violence in Israel with heavy hearts and increasing concern.

AIFD has always been committed to a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which would grant all parties dignity, peace, and a safe homeland. As we’ve watched the latest rise in violence unfold – including horrific stabbings, incitement, and street violence – we join many in struggling to maintain hope.

Many organizations avoid the topic of Israel altogether to avoid getting into the often toxic dynamic that results when individuals are not able to engage with reason. At AIFD, we have been clear in our support for a solution resulting in meaningful coexistence and lasting peace. An integral part of this position is a commitment to recognizing the State of Israel, and encouraging our fellow faithful to do the same.  Further, we believe that all forms of radicalism and violence must be opposed – and the kind that has resulted in the targeting of Israeli civilians by radicalized individuals yielding knives is no exception.

The State of Israel was created as a result of one of the most horrific crimes in human history – the genocide of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. In 2015, anti-Semitism remains rampant: from stabbings to attacks on synagogues and attacks on visibly religious Jews, anti-Jewish sentiment is far from extinguished. We, as faithful Muslims and fellow citizens, understand and respect the need for the State of Israel, and hope for the day when Israelis and Palestinians can truly live side by side in peace.

As Americans and as Muslims, we must recognize this: what happens in Israel may ultimately find its way here. Indeed, we have already seen attacks on religious Jews in New York City, and a stabbing attack in California. While the motive in the California attack is still being investigated, even the possibility of a “copycat attack” inspired by stabbing crimes in Israel is of grave concern.

All who are rightly worried about the advance of groups like ISIS and their supporters should take special note of this rise in violence: not only have ISIS supporters tweeted support for the attacks in Israel, they’ve also expressed support for the stabbing attack just last week in California. While social media has the capacity to organize people – including youth – for positive change, it is also one of the key tools used by radicals to recruit people of all genders, ages and backgrounds. Stabbing attacks in particular have been encouraged – from both ISIS and radicals in the West Bank and surrounding areas. In the words of Palestinian cleric Muhammad Salakh: “Restrain the victim while others attack him with axes and butcher knives…do fear what will be said of you…next time, attack in a group of three, four, or five. Attack them in groups. Cut them into body parts.” This sermon has been widely distributed. The “Intifada of the Knives,” as it is called, has been bolstered by the likes of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood movement worldwide, and ISIS – who launched a campaign called “Project Behead the Jews.” Videos distributed by the group and by Hamas include titles like “Lovers of Stabbing.”

In California, Faisal Muhammad carried out an attack initially reported as something fueled by minor inter-personal frustrations. Alarmingly, the autopsy of Muhammad’s body revealed that he had written a manifesto – and that while the catalyst for his violence seemed to be a conflict with other students, he did use religious language in his promises to kill. Would he have lashed out at other students regardless of current events in the Middle East? Maybe. But is it also possible that his method and level of vitriol were inspired by what is happening in Israel and everywhere radicalization takes hold? Very possibly, if not likely.

AIFD condemns, in no uncertain terms, the violence perpetrated against Israeli citizens, and acts daily against the anti-Semitism behind the venomous attacks on Israel. We invite you to watch our video blog, “We are not post anti-Semitism” by clicking here. We also continue to work steadfastly at combatting the ideology of groups like ISIS, with the solemn and urgent awareness that without a firm and consistent strategy against these groups, we will all find ourselves in increasing peril.

09/11/2015 AIFD Remembers 9-11

/in /by
Dear Friend of AIFD,

 

We at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy would like to extend our love and ongoing prayers to all of those who lost friends, colleagues and loved ones in the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. We would also like to express our continued gratitude to our armed forces and first responders, and all those who risked their lives to save others on that day and afterward. We are in awe as we bear witness to your courage.

AIFD was founded in the wake of that horrific attack on our nation and values. As we joined our fellow Americans in grief, we recognized that day as a call to action: we as American Muslims saw that we must do more to combat radical Islam.

Fourteen years after that day, the threat remains real – and grows. ISIS continues its rampage, and too many of our fellow Americans – Muslim and non-Muslim – still refuse to take a stand against Islamism.

Today and every day, we vow to you our steadfast dedication to the cause of liberty and universal human rights. While we have made strides in our mission to advance reform within the Muslim community, we know that our work is far from over – and is more urgent than ever before.

As we remember September 11th and honor those lives lost, we must also continue to focus our attention on America’s vital role in global security and human rights. This week, Dr. Jasser addressed the Syrian refugee crisis and America’s role in the world in an important interview with Fox Business. Click here to view the interview on MSN. For all of Dr. Jasser’s recent media appearances, please visit our YouTube channel.

 

We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome our Arizona and Oklahoma-based friends to our upcoming events where AIFD will be a featured in your area:

Saturday, September 12 (tomorrow) from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Arizona Association for Conflict Resolution, Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law (Tempe). Islamic Reform and Conflict Resolution. with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Courtney Lonergan. Click here to learn more and register. Registration is required, and will close at midnight tonight Arizona time.

Thursday, September 17, 7:00 p.m.: Annual Constitution Day: A Conversation on Islam, Modernity and Liberty with M. Zuhdi Jasser, Northwestern Oklahoma State University and the Institute for Citizenship Studies, 709 Oklahoma Boulevard in Alva, OK.

Sunday, September 20, 4:00-6:00 p.m. “Anti-Islamism Update: The Iran Deal, American Muslim opinions, Radicalization, and ISIS” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD, sponsored by Americans for a Safe Israel, hosted at the Jewish Community Center, 12701 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, AZ. Room 101

We look forward to seeing you at these events if you are able to make it.

 

Yours in liberty,
Team AIFD
 

Another radicalized youth, another “shocked” community: the case of Starkville

/in /by

We at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy have for years been at the forefront of warning both our own Muslim community and the broader American community about the threat of domestic radicalization. We are joined by morally courageous individuals like Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali leader in Minneapolis who has dedicated his life to fighting radicalization within his own community; and individuals and groups from across Muslim-majority societies and the diaspora who are engaged in the vital, dangerous, and daily labor of combating extremist elements who prey on our own.

For our efforts, anti-radical Muslims are branded as “Uncle Toms,” demonized, excluded from community functions and gatherings – and at the very worst, executed or tortured for dissenting with the radicals.

In the United States, we are in a uniquely privileged position to speak out – and we must, as our community is in no way immune to the threat of radicalization. This has, unfortunately, proven itself to be true over and over again.

Indeed, we have seen numerous attempts by groups like ISIS to steal away our nation’s youth for their cosmic war and perverse agendas.

Most recently, it’s another “small town”, another pair of “easy going” and “good kids” who “baffled” their community by becoming radicalized. The New York Times declared the case to be “perplexing,” and declared that friends and strangers “could not imagine two less likely candidates for the growing roster of young, aspiring American jihadists.”

Now, we do not believe that every Muslim youth is susceptible to the likes of ISIS – indeed not. We instead encourage both other Muslims and the broader American community to be attune to concerning signs, like a rapid change in a youth’s commitment to religion (more than a passion for faith, they become fixated on rigidity, extreme religious dogma, etc), an obsession with the narrative of America as anti-Muslim; rhetoric from the pulpit and on mosque websites that stems from Islamist sources, extremely patriarchal and controlling dynamics in the family, and so on.

In the case of Jaelyn Young (19) and Muhammad Dakhlalla (22) of Starkville, Mississippi, some alarming signs do fit, eliminating again the excuse for the community to act surprised.

Jaelyn fits the profile of a young woman who fell in love with and may committed her life to someone (Dakhlalla) whose particular interpretation of Islam may not have been as pluralistic as his well-meaning peers seem to have thought it was.

Dakhlalla’s father, Oda Dakhlalla, has been known to offer sermons at the Islamic Center of Mississippi (ICM). One quick glance at the mosque’s homepage reveals troubling endorsements of pieces like this: an article from the website “IslamiCity” which condemns freedom of speech but not those who carry out attacks like that against Charlie Hebdo. It reads, in part:

“But for the Muslims, the issue should be quite clear: Islam does not allow the adoption and propagation of ‘Freedom of Speech’ as propagated by the west since this would include the promotion of such ideas that clearly contradict Islam, such as usury, obscenity under the guise of entertainment and separation of Islam from life’s affairs……The question that needs to be asked is, ‘What was it in the Muslim world that had fostered such tolerance, authenticity, creativity, and human flourishing?’ It certainly was not the current notion of freedom that is prevailing in today’s world but rather it was the result of the implementation of Islam on society.”

This excerpt clearly calls for the implementation of a certain type of Islamic jurisprudence over a society, barring freedom of speech and entangling religious law with every aspect of life.

Let us not forget the words of Muhammad Yousef Abdulazeez on own blog, days before his terror spree in Chattanooga on July 16: “We ask Allah to make us follow their path. To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.” Abdulazeez killed four marines in his effort to establish his brand of Islam on society – and people are surprised that the product of a mosque harboring the exact same goals was radicalized?

Any Muslim tuned into the problems plaguing our community today, and who would be honest about how radical ideas take root, would be alarmed not just at this article, but that it would be promoted by an American mosque. (It is also important to note that the mosque’s website links to HUDA TV, an Islamist satellite broadcasting service known for its Wahhabist bent.)

Is this the Islam of Oda Dakhlalla, preached in the Islamic center of Mississippi and passed down to his son Muhammad? If so, there really lies no question as to how this young man could have come to see America as his adversary, and ISIS as his natural allies. It has also been reported that Muhammad still lived at home and was supported by his parents. We hope that there will be a thorough investigation into the ideology Muhammad was exposed to.

The fact that a son of an imam is once again at the center of such a story, and that a young woman was lured into his trap – should cause Americans (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to once and for all gather the resolve that radicalization is a problem within the “House of Islam,” rather than some obscure problem of “violent extremism.” Islamism as embraced by Muhammad Dakhlalla is a theopolitical ideology bolstered from pulpits and around dinner tables. This problem takes root well before an individual signs up to join a group like ISIS: seeds are planted earlier, as Western values and universal human rights are treated as a threat by those propagating a supremacist version of Islam. Once an individual has been influenced in this way, a final slide toward violent extremism can happen over the course of just weeks or months – and tragically, they often take along more naïve parties like Ms. Young.

Dr. Jasser spoke to Judge Jeanine Pirro about this case on Saturday, August 15. Please click here to see the video.

08/06/2015 Debate Report Card for the First Republican Primary Debate

/in /by
We at AIFD view our mission as non-partisan. Islamism, or radical Islam, runs counter to the universal human rights all American political parties claim to espouse. Islamism is opposed to truly free market principles, to women’s rights, to racial equality, and to individual liberty.
This year, Dr. Jasser has decided to watch the primary dates with an eye toward grading the candidates on their positions, clarity and vision with regard to militant Islamism, counterterrorism and foreign policy strategy.
AIFD endorses no candidate or party. These are Dr. Jasser’s personal observations of the Republican primary with an eye only towards our non-partisan issues. He will also grade the Democratic candidates on these most important issues after their debate.
“I have given each candidate a letter grade based on their responses to questions and discussion related to the issue of Islamism, and related foreign policy. This ‘report card’ has not considered their other statements or history on issues related to Islamism, Islam, or Muslims. I am well aware of problematic statements and positions by some on these issues. Here, my feedback and grade is based solely on this debate on Thursday, August 6, 2015.  Fair or unfair, candidates who made no comment on the threat or the issue are given an F even if they were not asked a direct question on this issue since it is the most important issue in our foreign policy if not in this entire election and it makes quite a statement if they never found an opportunity to weigh in at all. These are in alphabetical order. The second tier debate is not covered save a couple included worth mentioning.”– M. Zuhdi Jasser
  1. Bush: C
Domestic: Bush was silent on the issue domestically.
Foreign policy: Bush’s comments were unclear as to what is at stake both in Iraq and in the entire region, particularly in the wake of the “Arab Awakening.”
  1. Carson: F
Domestic: Carson was silent on the issue.
Foreign policy: When Carson was asked about Syria and chemical weapons, he dodged the question and didn’t take the opportunity to address the real threat.
  1. Christie: B
Domestic: Christie was clear on the need for robust monitoring of potential threats, but he was not able to clearly define the threat or engage in a discussion of it.
Foreign policy: He identified the need for a strong military, but gave no policy vision or plan.
  1. Cruz: A-/B+
Domestic: While Cruz was not as specific as he should have been about what the threat is (he said “radical Islamic,” but did not provide more detail).
Foreign policy: He was somewhat clear on identifying the enemy.ruz’s endorsement of Egyptian dictator Al-Sisi is problematic. While some people understandably  find al-Sisi’s rhetoric about Islamism (ala Muslim Brotherhood) appealing, Cruz should revert to his previous, more measured position on Al-Sisi.
  1. Fiorina: A-/B+.
Domestic: Did not use the word Islamism, but she gave a far clearer vision for the region and security than most.
Foreign Policy: Fiorina identified the enemy, was clear on Iran and how to do strong diplomacy. Though this is not a complete review of the early second tier debate, she stood out on these issues.
  1. Huckabee: B
Domestic: Silent
Foreign policy: very strong on Iran. Needs more vision for the region.
  1. Jindal: B+
Jindal did mention the need to ally with anti-extremist Muslims. He was light on specifics and vision.
  1. Kasich: F.
Silent on the issues.
  1.  Paul: F. 
His rambling  conversation on the 4th Amendment, the NSA, and overly myopic comments on “giving arms to ISIS” demonstrated no ability to identify actual solutions or viable policies for the protections of our liberty domestically; nor any vision for advancing liberty globally in a messy world dominated by Islamist movements and dictators.
  1. Rubio: A-/B+
Rubio began to provide some vision for the role America plays in the world, but he could have been clearer on Islamism and the ideology of our enemies.
  1. Trump: D-
Other than a vague promise to be ‘tough’ on Iran and his criticism of the #IranDeal – only to be followed by an odd (perhaps a joke?) request that Americans should buy stock in Iran – Trump provided no details about what he would or would not do when it came to Iran. He also had no plan for addressing militant Islamism worldwide. He never mentioned Islamism or the ideological threat, even when pressed.
  1. Walker: B+
Walker was one of the only candidates to link the Iran deal to our failed strategy against ISIS, demonstrating a better understanding of the region and of Iran’s importance in the battle against against radical Islam. He was was strong on Iran, but otherwise rather silent to vague on policy specifics.

Happy Fourth of July from AIFD

/in /by

This Fourth of July, AIFD wishes you and yours a happy, safe, and powerful day in celebration of our great nation.

It is only because of the sacrifices of those great patriots – our founding fathers and mothers, who came to America in search of a new freedom – that we have the liberty to speak, think, believe and live as openly and as honestly as we do today. Ever since then, those freedoms have been protected by patriots both on and off the battlefield, to whom we owe our most sacred gratitude.

As the enemies of this freedom show themselves in obvious ways: ISIS rages on, calling vulnerable Americans to join them; and while peddlers of hate continue their attempts to divide our great nation, we are rightly inspired to act. Yet we must also remain vigilant in the face of seemingly benevolent actors, whose efforts also compromise our movement against Islamism – and even more so because many remain blind to their true intentions.

Take this tweet, from none other than Bill Gates: he declares the “philanthropic” efforts of Saudi’s Prince Waleed  bin Talal “an admirable milestone.” Does Gates really believe that a man whose wealth is a result of his membership in the House of Saud – which imprisons and tortures dissidents, oppresses women and exported the very ideology behind the 9/11 attacks is capable of “admirable” efforts against the very essence of who he is?

Unfortunately, Bill Gates is not alone in his naivete (or worse). Supposedly well-meaning individuals are blinded to the ways that the likes of Waleed bin-Talal spend their extraordinary wealth – on foundations, for example, that fuel Islamist apologia and damage real reformist efforts like ours. “Benevolent Islamists” like Waleed bin-Talal continue to be the bankrollers of radical Islam’s growth over the past half century.

As we liberty-minded Muslims take this month of Ramadan, and this Fourth of July, to reflect on how to better serve our country and humanity, Bill Gates’s celebration the Saudi regime is a slap in the face.

If Prince Waleed bin-Talal really wanted to serve humanity, he would counter the establishment in his own country, demonstrating moral courage and sincere dedication to reform.

At AIFD, our Muslim Liberty Project inoculates American Muslim youth against the “charm offensive” of nonviolent Islamism. Our youth believe first and foremost in American values, and in the protection of them against malignancies like ISIS and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism.

Last weekend, Dr. Jasser spoke to Uma Pemmaraji of Fox News about the wave of attacks in France, Kuwait and Tunisia. The attacks, carried out by Islamist radicals possibly connected to ISIS, have marred another Ramadan with bloodshed. To watch this video, please click here.

While these attacks mark the bloodiest form of Islamism, they are supported by those individuals who see our faith of Islam not as “God-centered,” but “ego-supremacist” – and this form of Islamism is part of what empowers both the theocracy of Saudi Arabia and the viciousness of ISIS.

This Fourth of July, we at AIFD continue to dedicate ourselves to the fight against Islamism in all its forms, and hope you will join us in those efforts. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter; and for those who are able, please make a tax-deductible contribution today by following this link.

 

Ramadan Kareem from AIFD

/in /by
Ramadan wallpaper6

This week, Muslims around the world will begin our observance of the holy month of Ramadan. During this month, all who are physically and mentally able to do so will abstain from both food and drink from sunrise until sunset.

This fast is not one of sorrow, but of thankfulness: Ramadan reminds us to give thanks for our blessings, while keeping the suffering in our prayers and doing what we can to help them.

Each Ramadan, we at AIFD are keenly aware of the sanctity and safety of this great nation which we call home, and which gives us the comfort and freedom to sincerely engage in the humble spiritual renewal that is Ramadan.

This Ramadan, just as we do every year, we also reaffirm our commitment to advocate for those persecuted on the basis of their faith or their choice to reject religion; those suffering from gender and honor-based violence; and to take action to end these injustices. We remain committed to ending the suffering of those who remain suffering in Syria, and in other places where the diseases of fascism or of theocracy keep innocents oppressed.

We honor and hold sacred the fact that Ramadan symbolizes equality among Muslims. For all those who fast out of free will and with sincere intention, we find common goodness and reward in it.

We are blessed to take this opportunity to wish Muslims worldwide a blessed and safe Ramadan, and a spiritually fulfilling fast.

The U.S. Must not let Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Sympathizers Dictate our Justice System

/in , /by

When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 counts associated with the terror attack he helped to carry out at the 2013 Boston Marathon, we at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) joined the nation in feeling that the verdict opened the door to at least some level of closure for all affected. While the horrors of that day can never be erased, there is healing in bringing one of the monsters responsible to justice.

The verdict has also spurned a debate our country has been having for quite some time: is it right to put a criminal to death? This time, however, the criminal is a terrorist, acting in support of a global ideology which seeks the demise of all who do not submit to its whims; and the debate on whether or not to execute Tsarnaev has raised the question: should the United States not sentence Tsarnaev to death because it might inspire further acts of terror?

While supporters of AIFD and anti-Islamist reform may espouse a range of views regarding capital punishment as a general matter, it is important to address the question of Tsarnaev as “martyr” in the eyes of Islamists and would-be terrorists the world over. It is imperative to refuse, with conviction, and without apology, to make any decision in our American justice system based on how they may or may not react. Islamists will never be defeated by appeasement or negotiation. A strong, sound defeat is the only answer.

If Tsarnaev is sentenced to death, will radicals the world over treat him as a martyr? Absolutely. (By the way, Rolling Stone helped to guarantee this.) Will they use the sentence to rally their base and gain new supporters? Without a doubt. Should this certainty impact the punishment chosen by our courts? Definitely not. Why? Because the simple fact is that he and other radicals are and will always be treated as martyrs and heroes by those who wish us harm. Even those not sentenced to death, like Aafia Siddiqui (“Lady Al-Qaeda”), Tarek Mehanna and others have inspired campaigns from the U.S. to Pakistan, with supporters ranging from well-intentioned but naïve university students to violent Islamists. Individuals like Siddiqui and Mehanna, despite being very much alive, are treated as martyrs and heroes by the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. ISIS even demanded the release of Aafia Siddiqui when it proposed a prisoner exchange, claiming that they’d release journalist Steven Sotloff.

Changing how we sentence criminals because it might upset terrorists who already hate us doesn’t just fail to keep us safe. It is part and parcel of the lax behavior that led to ignoring the obviously dangerous intentions of Nidal Hasan and his inspiration, Anwar al-Awlaki. (Awlaki was rightly recognized as an enemy combatant, but well after he had already incited murderous violence.) In this war, our security was better served with Imam al-Awlaki dead than alive, and the same would go for both Hasan and Tsarnaev.

Allowing terrorists to dictate our justice system is an appeasement that is far more dangerous to American security and values than the ephemeral risk taken by carrying out justice against those who have attacked us. As Americans, we must insist that we not change the strength of our sentencing standards in order to appease those who seek our destruction. Instead, we must demand that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – and all who carry out acts of terror – be punished to the very fullest extent of the law.  American Muslims should be at the forefront of efforts demanding this. The only antidote to the global ideology of the Tsarnaevs, ISIS, Mehanna, and Siddiqui is the empowerment of liberty-minded American Muslims. It is only through firm conviction and consistent dedication to our values that we will defeat the victim mantra and murderous ideology that was behind the horrific attacks of April 15, 2013.

Pot, meet Kettle: UAE Designates CAIR, MAS as Terrorist Organizations

/in /by

The United Arab Emirates has reportedly named a number of Muslim organizations as militant or “terrorist” organizations. Among them are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS). Both of these are Islamist organizations we have criticized heavily and with whom we have been engaged in an ongoing battle of ideas. CAIR in particular merits heavy scrutiny as one of the leading Islamist groups in the country, and which engages in dishonest, malicious smear campaigns against any Muslim who dissents with their ideas or their methodology. CAIR and their ilk are undeniably problematic, standing in direct opposition to the principles of pluralism and individual liberty upon which this nation was founded.

Ideally, the UAE’s move would cause individuals associated with these groups and broader American society at large to see these organizations for what they really are: purveyors of Islamist apologetics and the malignancy of supremacism.

Unfortunately, however, this list will do no such thing. Rather, it places CAIR in exactly the position they most enjoy: that of the victim. When an oligarchical Islamist monarchy such as the UAE targets a populist Islamist group like CAIR, CAIR’s ability to prey on both Muslims and non-Muslims by claiming victim status is strengthened. CAIR is put in a position where it can both claim persecution in the United States and abroad; endearing to its cause those who simply don’t know to read between the lines. CAIR has already responded to the UAE’s move by demanding clarification and to be removed from the list entirely, as well as claiming shock that they are named at all.  Could this be a case of organizational amnesia? Surely CAIR knows of its own ties to Islamist movements, its connection to imams who praise Yusef Qaradawi, its historical connection to Hamas and the outright support many of its chapter heads demonstrate for the Muslim Brotherhood?

As tempting as it may be for anti-Islamists to applaud the UAE’s recognition of CAIR and their ilk as malignant and terrorist, we caution against doing so. It is important to remember that fascists – from genocidal Bashar al-Assad in Syria to Mubarak and now al-Sisi in Egypt – have attempted to push underground those groups with whom many of us take issue; but not because these fascists value liberty and freedom. Rather, they do so in order to advance their own tyrannical agendas whilst empowering Islamist groups behind the scenes. Mubarak’s decades-long tryst with the Muslim Brotherhood is now no secret to the world; and finally people are beginning to see that continuing to allow Assad to remain in power has boosted groups like ISIS, not challenged them. Simply put, the UAE is only fueling populist Islamism and its progeny, not defeating it. The UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies advance core Islamist beliefs but just want a single tribe to control the Islamist government rather than a populist movement. Like every other fascist government, the rulers of the UAE stand in direct opposition to individual liberty, women’s rights, freedom of conscience, equal rights for minorities and all other human rights we who stand on the right side of history consider to be inalienable. We should not be fooled into thinking that the UAE has our security or our values in mind when it purports to seek an end to extremism.

While it makes perfect and responsible sense to know who these groups are, we must also remember that by simply declaring them “terror groups,” we are not defeating their ideas. In order to prevent their ideas from leading to violent extremism, we must defeat them in the open arena of free speech or else they will garner even more support by indoctrinating Muslims with the lie that secular governance is about autocracy rather than about religious liberty. This includes dissuading those in positions of power from advancing their ideology out of sympathy for them as “victims,” and being smarter than to think their fascist brethren are ever on our side.