NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PDF Here

American Muslims show support for NYPD counter-terrorism programs

American Islamic Leadership Coalition gathers at One Police Plaza to stand with NYPD in its efforts to counter Muslim radicalization

NEW YORK (March 5, 2012) – Representatives of over 20 Muslim organizations and activists affiliated with the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) will gather on Monday, March 5, 2012 at One Police Plaza in New York City to demonstrate their support of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The event starts at 10:00 AM EST and will be joined by Congressman Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security.

Since the 2007 release of its Intelligence Division’s landmark report, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” the NYPD has come under a systematic and coordinated assault by highly-politicized Islamist organizations and their enablers, intent on dismantling the NYPD’s successful counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization programs. These groups would prefer to see American Muslims shackled to a mindset of victimization, and thus alienated from American society at large, rather than confront the very real issues we face in our communities, including the threat of extremist ideology.

It is important to note that published NYPD documents clearly and appropriately distinguish between the religion of Islam, and the highly politicized ideology of hatred, supremacy and violence characteristic of political Islam (i.e., “Islamism”), and especially the subset thereof known as “jihadi Salafism.” Significantly, since the attacks of 9/11, the NYPD has displayed far greater courage in acknowledging and addressing the ideological factors that cause radicalization among Muslims, than have the majority of federal agencies explicitly tasked with defending our nation and its people.

The AILC deplores the widespread tendency of government officials, journalists, academicians and activists to assume that Islamist organizations historically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, Wahhabism and Salafism represent mainstream American Muslims or our concerns.

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition recognizes and regrets the widespread fear of Islam and Muslims that has arisen in recent years in North America and Europe. However, we ascribe this rise of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes primarily to the actions of Muslims themselves (i.e., Islamists), whose efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate, an Islamic state, and/or to impose an antiquated and falsely-divinized human understanding of Islamic law upon others by force, dominate our daily headlines, and inevitably generate a strong sense of disgust-and visceral mistrust-among many of our fellow citizens.

Any and all efforts to conceal the Islamist agenda, or render its discussion beyond the pale of acceptable discourse-by branding such talk as “Islamophobia” or “hate speech”-threatens not only our common freedom and security, but the very future of Islam itself. For the Islamists’ prime goal is the silencing of Muslim opposition, and of any voice in the Muslim world that would challenge their monolithic, sterile and shallow understanding of Islam, which lacks the spirituality that enables religion to serve as a true path to God.

A campaign of vilification waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies against the NYPD has reached new heights over the past six weeks, with no less than eight separate stories having appeared in the New York Times from January 24 – February 15, 2012, including an editorial from its editorial board and a page one feature, which concern the screening of a film entitled The Third Jihad to some 1,400 NYPD officers while they waited for a training program.

In light of the swirling controversy over the New York Police Department’s counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization practices, we feel it is our civic, moral and religious duty to publicly address a number of issues raised by this controversy.

We have viewed The Third Jihad, and regard the information presented therein to be both factually accurate, and important for our fellow Muslim and non-Muslim citizens to understand, debate and address. The Third Jihad is narrated by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an AILC founding member, and a devout Muslim, physician and former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. At the very outset of the film Dr. Jasser states, “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of ‘radical‘ Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

The Third Jihad explicitly distinguishes between the religion of Islam, and the highly politicized ideology of religious hatred, supremacy and violence characteristic of Islamism. While the film does not examine the pluralistic, tolerant and spiritual traditions of Islam that lie at the heart of our own understanding thereof, this does not imply that the film is inaccurate in its depiction of what it specifically terms “radical Islam,” as exemplified by movements such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Wahhabism (aka “Salafism”) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Notwithstanding Islamist claims to the contrary, we believe there is nothing inappropriate about the NYPD or other security agencies using the film The Third Jihad to help their staff understand and recognize the ideology that underlies and animates Islamist terrorism.

In recent weeks, other media outlets have targeted the NYPD for its community policing, and its monitoring efforts on college campuses, alleging that these constitute religious discrimination and profiling.

The AILC affirms that all inhabitants of the United States are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of race, ethnicity and religion. However, there is a major distinction between alleged religious profiling and sound law enforcement. As Mayor Bloomberg stated recently:

“We cannot repeat the mistakes we made after the 1993 bombing and slack in our vigilance…Reacting after the fact is not enough…We do not target individuals based on race or religion…We follow all possible leads wherever they take us.”

The issue at hand is not “improper surveillance.” Rather, it is the responsibility of the NYPD to know the communities it must serve and protect, and to anticipate any terrorist threats thereto, including those that arise from the ideological indoctrination of Muslims with a “jihadi-Salafi” mindset. In regard to the legality of the NYPD’s activities, we note that according to the modified Handschu guidelines, “[f]or the purpose of protecting or preventing terrorist activities, NYPD is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally.”

To our knowledge, no NYPD counter-terrorism cases have given rise to departmental abuses of power. Nor have any of the scurrilous attacks directed against the NYPD cited specific legal improprieties known to have occurred. We find it particularly disturbing that while seeking to undermine public confidence in the NYPD through innuendo-and issuing calls for “oversight,” “corrective training” and “participation” by the “Muslim community” (i.e., Islamists!) in all counter-terrorist programs initiated by the NYPD-none of these reports have cited a single case in which the NYPD has been admonished by executive or judicial authorities for the tactics it employs to prevent terrorist attacks.

Unlike those who dream of establishing an Islamic state or caliphate, members of the AILC are dedicated to the separation of state and religion and the defense of our constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and the right of all individuals to worship as they see fit.

Thus, we come to New York City as a coalition, to proclaim that American Muslims are not monolithic, and that a broad spectrum of Muslims support the courageous work of the NYPD to defend this city, and our nation, from attack.

About the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC)

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is a diverse coalition of liberty-minded, North American Muslim leaders and organizations. AILC’s mission advocates for defending the US Constitution, upholding religious pluralism, protecting American security and cherishing genuine diversity in the faith and practice of Islam. AILC provides a stark alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to speak for what are diverse American Muslim communities. For more information on AILC, please visit our website at http://www.americanislamicleadership.org/.

###

MEDIA ADVISORY

WHO: American Muslims under the leadership of the The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC),representing over 20 North American Muslim organizations and activists will come together in New York City to demonstrate their support of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The event will feature remarks fromDr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Tarek Fatah, Founder of theMuslim Canadian Congress; Manda Zand Ervin, Founder of the Alliance for Iranian Women; C. Holland Taylor,Chairman and CEO of the LibForAll Foundation; andCongressman Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

WHAT: A press conference by a diverse, broad based group of American Muslim leaders who have come together to address recent controversies surrounding the counterterrorism programs of the NYPD. The public discourse concerning Muslims and NYPD has been dominated by a perception that American Muslims feel targeted. This press conference will give voice to a large coalition of American Muslims who feel otherwise and reject Islamist representation of their voices. AILC stands with the NYPD in its belief that the best way to fight terror is to identify its roots causes and address them head on.

WHEN: Monday, March 5, 2012, 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

WHERE: 1 Police Plaza, New York City, NY

MEDIA: Open Press

ABOUT AILC: The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is a diverse coalition of liberty-minded, North American Muslim leaders and organizations. AILC’s mission advocates for defending the US Constitution, upholding religious pluralism, protecting American security and cherishing genuine diversity in the faith and practice of Islam. AILC provides a stark alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to speak for what are diverse American Muslim communities. For more information on AILC, please visit our website athttp://www.americanislamicleadership.org/.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Gregg Edgar
Gordon C. James Public Relations
gedgar@gcjpr.com
602-690-7977

Permalink: http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=7495

Syria: Arguing for U.S. Inaction

by Daniel Pipes
February 25, 2012
updated Feb 26, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

Zuhdi Jasser responds:

“The only way to Defeat Islamism in the Region – a Muscular Liberty Doctrine backed with action not just words”

Dr, Zuhdi Jasser.

Dear Dr. Pipes,

Beyond my own biases due to my intense personal familial attachment to Syria, I found your recent position statement to be quite surprising. While reflexively I can understand some of your sentiment especially after the “burnout” related to Iraq and Afghanistan, your push, I believe, heads our nation in a perilous path of disengagement rather than engagement. And I am not calling for boots on the ground. First here is a comprehensive press release and recent statement from the emerging Syrian Democratic Coalition on what we wish the US would do in Syria yesterday. Next here are some of what I believe to be constructive criticisms of your position:

1- American soft power is all but disappeared, and if we do nothing the Syrian people will long remember that Islamist nations (KSA, Gulf states, Turkey et al.) helped them when we did not. If we help them beyond just words, it will give us credibility with the Syrian street beginning to correct their perception that we always just pick the worst of two evils and end up fueling their oppressors.

2- Your argument is essentially an isolationist one and that somehow we should leave Syria alone to its internal strife. That would be understandable more so if Syria was in a vacuum but it is not. Thus American isolationism with Syria translates into surrender to Russia and Iran and China (to a lesser extent). They are heavily involved from billions and sanction circumventions to weapons to actual forces. Our inaction is basically surrendering Syria to that side of the equation and giving them unfettered access to allow Assad and his genocidal military machine to continue killing. Stemming the killing, preserving some semblance of a Syrian civilization against these power structures could not be more in our interest with regards to our influence and moral standing in the region and on the ground.

3- Lincoln described the US as the “last best hope on earth”. In disagreement with your position, and having served in the Navy, pretty much every officer I ever knew in our military does feel that we have been blessed with freedom and there is a moral need to do our best to stem killing fields when they occur and at least give balance against evil in the world, not only for American interests but for the interests of individual rights and liberty. Will Al Qaeda have a hand up? Maybe. Will Islamists maybe. Maybe. They’ve all had a head start and fueling by these very dictators who claim them to be their enemies. These radicals came out of this tyrannical environment and we cannot defeat them militarily. Assad’s machine only understands force and we Syrians long knew that since the late 50’s. But Islamism’s defeat needs moral transparency and it starts with our approach to tyranny. That was how I approached the defense of our occupation in Iraq. If we defeat Islamists globally , it will be only in the marketplace of ideas; which your approach hands over to Islamist nations who engage while you suggest disengagement. They hypocritically are helping the opposition but clearly are doing so for the advancement of Islamism. Our work at AIFD and elsewhere cannot work in an autocratic, corrupt environment. So if you want liberal Muslims to succeed we need to stand with them and take sides. Generational change will need the building blocks of democracy and will be a mess. Fouad Ajami in the WSJ and elsewhere has been articulating this pretty well also.

4- We need a consistent moral transparent approach to our positions on regime change or else American soft power will not only wane further but we will be perceived as ineffective hypocritical moral arbiters and only selfish Americans. “Letting them kill each other” (to paraphrase what you’ve written) is what my family struggled with when Hama, Palmiyra and other massacres happened as the West sat silent. In today’s age, the excuses of 1982 no longer exist for America. Now we ignore it with eyes wide open.

5- Lastly, the most important argument to me is the “moral obligation” argument. I do believe we are all accountable for how use the gifts God has given us to repair the world no different than “Tikun Alum” in the Jewish tradition. For the US to sit back and squander our gifts while this inhumanely imbalanced war rages on now for almost one year I find to be inconsistent with the my own understanding of our nation’s and my own moral obligations.

6- I am also finding it hard to get my head around how your position puts you in agreement with some of the regime apologists of the world like Ed Husain who are advocating for an “Assad-lite” because otherwise Syria will be run by sectarian violence, Al Qaeda, or chaos and thus the West pragmatically needs to side with evil; just the lesser of two evils. I know that is far from your position, and I know you have written extensively especially on Hafez Assad and you understand the evil that is the Assad regime, but this position puts you in line with the regime apologists is not consistent with what we did in Iraq, the Bush Freedom Agenda, and some of the core philosophies of neo-conservatism.

Thanks for your time,

M. Zuhdi Jasser

Founding Member, Save Syria Now!
(a member of Syrian Democratic Coalition)
Feb. 26, 2012

Daniel Pipes responds:

Dear Dr. Jasser,

I respect your courageous and intelligent stand on important issues and you make good points here. My replies:

1- You assume that the Syrian people will appreciate American efforts to liberate them. I note how little Iraqis and Afghans remember what the U.S. government did and am arch skeptical.

2- Genocidal military machines exist around the world and the U.S. government does not fight them. Indeed, the Syrian one is minor compared to such horrors as in the Congo, where many millions have perished. I am in principle ready to intervene abroad – preferably using some form of foreign legion – but I am reluctant to do so in Syria, where our intervention will likely bring an enemy Islamist government to power.

3- I share your admiration for the United States and your wish to have our government stand up for individual rights and liberty. If I thought there were a good chance of an intervention in Syria leading to positive results, I would endorse it. But the Islamist future that looms ahead dissuades me.

4- If one followed the logic of your approach, (1) the U.S. military would no longer serve American interests but would become a full-time savior and (2) to be consistent, one would need to deploy it in the very worst humanitarian situations; according to one listing of failed states, there are 47 countries worse off than Syria, starting with Somalia, Chad, the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti.

5- My two main points again: I fear intervention in Syria hastens Islamist rule and there are plenty of worse cases.

6- As you correctly note, I despise the Assad dynasty and its works. Yes, some unsavory types share my views on intervention. But others share your views: to take just one recent example, Hamas recently came out against the Assad regime. If you don’t tar me with Ed Husain, I won’t tar you with Hamas.

However worrisome the prospects, I hope that the killing ends in Syria, the Assad regime falls, and a responsible, modern government takes its place.

With best wishes,

Daniel Pipes
Feb. 26, 2012