It's understandable that attention this week is focused on the mistrial declared in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) Hamas-support case. The government failed to persuade jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the foundation and its officials deliberately routed money to Hamas through a set of Palestinian charities.
With the exception of Mohammed El-Mezain, the defendants find themselves exactly in the same position they were in when this case was indicted in 2004. El-Mezain was acquitted on all but one count against him. But that count, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, is no minor threat to his freedom.
But more importantly, we know much more about HLF and its leaders today than we knew when the trial started in July. And what we learned about what had been America's largest Muslim charity and many of its allies is not pretty.
While most analyses of the court case dub it a government failure, there is a public service in exposing secrets about a group or its leaders that they'd prefer you never know. That's what happened here. And that's what HLF and its allies are hoping you'll forget in the fog of the mistrial.
We know HLF officials lied about their support of Hamas, both informally and to U.S. courts. And we know defendant and former HLF CEO Shukri Abu Baker believes in deception as a means to an end.
We've seen this before. Post-mortems on the HLF trial invariably invoke the 2005 trial of former University of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian. He was accused of leading an American support cell for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Jurors in his trial acquitted him on eight counts and hung on nine others. He later pled guilty to providing goods and services to the PIJ.
That trial saw retired FBI agent Manny Perez testify that, in a 1991 meeting with him, Al-Arian denied having anything to do with the PIJ. Three months later, Al-Arian spoke at a Cleveland mosque, exhibiting no reaction when the imam introduced him as the head of PIJ's "active arm."
Other evidence showed Al-Arian served on the PIJ governing board.
Like he did with Perez, Al-Arian spent the next 12 years lying to anyone else who asked about his PIJ affiliation. He lied to me during an interview for the 1994 documentary “Jihad in America.”
Emerson: Would you say you support the Islamic Jihad factions?
Al-Arian: No, we don't support any political groups at all.
At one point in the interview, Al-Arian even feigned ignorance about what the initials PIJ stood for. Earlier that year, FBI surveillance tapes show, he battled with PIJ founder Fathi Shikaki to keep the group together after a financial crisis threatened Iranian support.
He lied to his bosses at the university when questions came up about his think tank's relationship to PIJ. In 1995, he lied to Florida reporters, again denying any relationship to the PIJ, especially when a researcher who ran Al-Arian's think tank emerged as the new PIJ commander following Shikaki's assassination.
Ramadan Abdullah Shallah was less than six months removed from Tampa when he became the PIJ secretary general. He remains in that position today.
In 1995, Al-Arian claimed to have no idea Shallah, who had been a director at the World and Islam Studies Enterprise, was connected to the PIJ. In fact, Al-Arian said that he "never heard that name, ‘Shallah'" and anyway he was not responsible for Shallah coming to America. During his trial, prosecutors showed the INS petition for Shallah's work visa that Al-Arian signed in 1993.
"We were never associated with Hamas to start with to distance ourselves later on. We never associated with Hamas anyway."
Baker's own credit card bills show he and other HLF defendants repeatedly covered travel expenses for Hamas leaders, including Mohammed Siyam and Mahmud Zahar, in the early 1990s. The men spoke at HLF fundraisers in the U.S. and South America that generated tens of thousands of dollars.
True, that travel occurred before the 1995 executive order banning transactions with and support for Hamas, but stands in direct contrast with Baker's public denials.
In 2001, he signed a sworn declaration submitted in HLF's court challenge to a U.S. designation of HLF as a terrorist group. In it, Baker claimed to "reject and abhor Hamas, its goals and its methods. I reject terrorism by anyone. I do not believe it accomplishes anything and I believe it to be morally wrong."
Yet Baker actively participated in a secret 1993 meeting of Hamas members and supporters in Philadelphia. The entire transcript of that meeting, secretly recorded by the FBI, is in evidence. And nowhere in it does Baker reject the group's ideology or call for it to temper its violence.
Called just weeks after the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn in 1993, finding ways to "derail" the deal was the meeting's stated purpose. Those at the meeting expressed concern the Islamist Hamas would be marginalized by the PLO's ascent to power and acknowledged they opposed any deal that left Israel intact.
In fact, Baker sits silently while a speaker identified as Abdul Rahman suggests that "the most important thing we can provide in this stage is to support Jihad in Palestine. I believe it is the only way if we want to bring the goals of the [peace] accord to fail."
On that point, on page 7 of Government Exhibit 16-57, he and others discuss ways to talk to Americans without showing their true objectives.
"But I cannot approach them through my strict Islamic address. I can't tell him I demand the '48 borders," Baker said. "No way, no way on earth, okay? No, I approach it through humanitarian suffering, refugees' rights and issues which the Americans will agree with you on."
Details about the Philadelphia meeting remain the most significant disclosures of the entire HLF investigation. They show that the foundation played a role in a larger Muslim Brotherhood network aimed at organizing Hamas support in America among other things. The Palestine Committee included HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a think tank called the United Association for Studies and Research and, later, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR's creation came after the Philadelphia meeting, which we also learned through the trial, was attended by CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and current executive director Nihad Awad.
Ahmad, CAIR's original chairman, convened the meeting on page 10 of Government Exhibit 16-47. "This meeting was called for by the Palestine Committee," he said, "in order to have a seminar or a meeting to the brothers present here today in order to study the situation in light of the latest developments on the Palestinian arena, its effects and impact on our work here in America."
And Palestine Committee founders made it clear on page 14 of Government Exhibit 16-53, they were opposed to peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's why they didn't like Oslo.
Omar Ahmad: We've always demanded the 1948 territories. I mean, we demanded …
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, but we don't say that publicly. You cannot say it publicly. In front of the Americans…
Omar Ahmad: No, we didn't say that to the Americans.
That may be why so many are trumpeting the mistrial as exoneration. The hope seems to be that the more noise made about the verdict, the less people will remember these disclosures and inquire about them.
"The case against HLF was a political witch-hunt that had nothing to do with America's security," wrote Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chairman Parvez Ahmad on his blog Wednesday. "The closure of HLF appears to be an attempt to block humanitarian assistance to some of the most impoverished people in the world - Palestinians living under Israel's Apartheid-like occupation."
Similarly, DePaul University law professor M. Cherif Bassiouni penned a CAIR fundraising letter calling the trial "one of the great abuses of the American legal process."
What is additionally outrageous in this case is the fact that the Department of Justice named 306 individuals and organizations as un-indicted co-conspirators in the case. The exhaustive list includes several major American Muslim organizations in this country."
Such intimidation and harassment leveled against American Muslims and their religious, civic and charitable organizations by this administration is yet another manifestation of the recent erosion of American constitutional freedoms.
The fear-mongering campaign opted for by many in this administration – and supported by avowedly anti-Muslim groups - has created a climate of Islamophobia that is contrary to the basic values of this otherwise tolerant country.
So major American Muslim organizations were named unindicted co-conspirators, but Professor Bassiouni didn't name any. CAIR, of course, is one, and the Philadelphia transcripts and Palestine Committee records give us a good sense why. CAIR has blamed that designation – announced in June – for a drop in fundraising that dates back years.
All of this informs us about current debates involving CAIR's genuine agenda and similar debates about whether to unquestioningly accept denials about radicalism despite evidence to the contrary.
Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, would have us believe his praise of Palestinians who "have known that the Jihad way is the way to liberate your land" is not a call for violence, even if he said it as the second Intifada flared in 2000.
Similarly, MAS Freedom Foundation Executive Director Mahdi Bray claims it was all a big laugh when he pumped his fist joyously as American Muslim Council founder Abdurahman Alamoudi asks the crowd at a rally how many of them joined him in supporting Hamas and Hizballah.
Maybe. Maybe not. Remember that MAS leaders acknowledge the group was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the U.S. MAS wasn't on the HLF trial's unindicted co-conspirator list. But the group was tasked in a Palestine Committee "confrontation work plan." The plan, hatched in the wake of the Oslo accord, was designed for "we who own the cause of Palestine and Islam." Organizers feared their visceral rejection of Oslo could isolate them as extremists and radicals. MAS was to "educate the brothers in all work centers, mosques and organizations on the necessity of stopping any contacts with the Zionist organizations and the rejection of any future contacts."
Failure to do so could "break the psychological barrier that the Arabs and Palestinians have so that they accept the Jews and their country."
Islamofascism: In a monumental nod to political correctness, the Empire State Building is to be lit up green in honor of the Muslim holiday Eid. The separation of Islam from terror is officially complete.
Six years ago, Islamic terrorists screamed "Allah is Greatest!" as they slammed fuel-laden jumbo jets into two other New York skyscrapers. Six years ago, New Yorkers were worried about the Green Menace.
Now, for the first time, New York's remaining famous skyscraper will be aglow in green — the color of Islam — to mark the end of Ramadan, a month of intense Islamic renewal. Officials say it'll be an annual event, in the same tradition of the yearly skyscraper lighting for Christmas and Hanukkah.
What's next, Ground Zero festooned with crescent moons and stars?
Political correctness is running amok. Last week, the White House held a Ramadan dinner for Muslim leaders and activists, even though we are still waiting for them to condemn Islamic terror groups by name.
To their delight, President Bush praised, and even suggested we all worship Allah. "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian or any other religion, prays to the same God," he said, adding "I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."
A nice sentiment. But militant Muslims believe peace cannot be attained until Islam dominates the globe. And they make up much of the Muslim establishment in America. We know this by the words they've been caught on tape mouthing to Muslim audiences. We know this by their radical associations.
But more damning, investigators recently uncovered smoking-gun documents revealing that many founders of the major Muslim groups in the U.S. were involved in a secret plot to take over the U.S. by using our religious and political freedoms against us.
They call themselves Americans, but they view our system of government, our way of life, as an abomination to Allah. They've devised a scheme to sabotage our "miserable house" from within and dismantle it piece by piece, replacing it with "Dar al-Islam" — the House of Peace.
Then, and only then, will there be the kind of peace the president believes Islam represents today.
Ignorance and blind tolerance only make it easier for the Islamists to make inroads. Inch by inch, sharia is creeping into our society. We see it:
• At airports, where authorities have agreed to Muslim taxi drivers' demands to build footbaths in public restrooms for Islamic washing and praying.
• On college campuses, where trustees have agreed to demands by the Saudi-tied Muslim Student Association to add Islamic holidays, prayer rooms and footbaths.
• In Congress, where officials have set aside a room for a growing number of Muslims to meet and pray inside the otherwise high-security Capitol building.
• At Quantico, where Marine brass have agreed to build an Islamic center at the request of a former Gitmo imam who previously insisted on Islamic meals, Qurans, prayer beads, oils and other amenities for the terrorists held there.
• At West Point, where Army officials have followed Quantico's lead and set up their own mosque for Muslim cadets.
• In Brooklyn, where school officials agreed to provide local Muslims and Arabs with their own publicly funded madrassa.
• In Detroit, where city planners have caved to demands to let mosques broadcast the call to prayer in Arabic five times a day, including the early-morning hours, noise ordinances be damned.
And on and on . . . until we, too, resemble Eurabia.
The "survival of the world" is at risk if Muslims and Christians cannot make peace, leaders from across the Islamic community have warned.
The prediction came in an open letter signed by 138 prominent Muslim scholars in a bid to defuse inter-religious tensions.
The letter, which was sent to Pope Benedict, The Archbishop of Canterbury and other Christian leaders around the world, calls on Christians "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spells out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.
It goes on: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The missive, organised by the Royal Aal al-Bayed Institute for Islamic Thought, notes that Christians and Muslims make up over a third and a fifth of humanity respectively, "making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world".
"If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace."
It also refers directly to the wars that Muslims and Christians are involved in around the world.
"With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake."
"And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony."
The message closes with a quote from the Koran: "So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works."
Signatories include Shaykh Sevki Omarbasic, Grand Mufti of Croatia, Dr Abdul Hamid Othman, adviser to the Prime Minister of Malaysia and Dr Ali Ozak, head of the endowment for Islamic scientific studies in Istanbul, Turkey.
A spokesman for the Institute, a non-governmental organisation based in Amman, Jordan, said the letter was "an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour".
"It is hoped that the recognition of this common ground will provide the followers of both faiths with a shared understanding that will serve to defuse tensions around the world."
The letter was welcomed by the Bishop of London, who called for a meaningful response from the Pope in easing inter-religious tension.
Bishop Richard Charters said the letter could lead to a deepening of ecumenical relationships between the two religions and the Vatican's response would be "pivotal".
Professor Aref Ali Nayed, one of the signatories, said that neither the Pope's failure to respond to an open letter from 38 signatories last year nor the politics of relations between the Islamic and Christian worlds should deter people from all faiths from "connecting".
He said: "The only way to overcome our cynicism is to keep talking to each other.
"When you lose balance, the most important step is that first step you take in regaining your balance."
It makes no difference to me whether or not you like Islam. I believe in God and I believe in the after life where you and I will be standing in the same line; not Line 1 for Jews, Line 2 Christians and Line 3 for Muslims. It is about Our God. If you do not like Islam, it is my religious duty as an authentic Muslim to tell there can be many ways of practicing faith but there is only one God.
According to your own statement made to me in your e-mail “This is Islam, not anything extreme or radical but pure Islam.”
· That effectively denounces 1.2 billion people as ignorant radicals. Please do not preach what you don’t know.
· You have given me part of an Ayah “Qur'an 9:29 and Sahih Muslim 4294” If you want me to explain something, you need to give me Sourah’s name, Verse and Ayah. I will consult both Shiah and Sunni religious experts to research the background and context of the verses that are troubling you. Islam does not allow unprovoked attack. Islam doesn’t practice offense. It only allows defense. You cannot just assume the meaning of a verse without understanding it.
You have pronounced all Muslims guilty until proven innocent and then you want to deny authentic Muslims an opportunity to present their side of the case.
Your knowledge is based on your interviews with so-called “born Muslims” who, fed up the barbaric treatment they received in the name of religion, are now only carrying the name “Muslim” and hating Islam with passion.
Your knowledge is based on an English translation, which is someone’s translation and interpretation. If you have read anything about me, you know that I wasn't Muslim for about a year as a teenager. I did and said exactly what your friends are telling you until I was literally forced to make my hajj to Mecca. When I entered the house of God, I realized, people have incorporated despicable culture into religion. Much of religion being practiced is not the divine order of God, although we always assume so.
What am I doing to change it? I am trying to modernize Islam with the help of Shiah, Sunni and open-minded Christians and Jews. The kind of Islam portrayed on TV is no longer about the true religion but has become a political religion. As an authentic Muslim I need to take the religion from people’s mind and place it into their hearts.Religion of the heart is sacred. Religion of the mind is for business people and is for sale and trade.
I understand the dilemma which causes women to turn against Islam, I myself was one of those women. In Middle East countries, too many men, most of them Muslim, although they may be Arabs of a different faith, behave horribly. There is no question of that and they get no pity from me. However, you’re “born” Muslims who turn against Islam are not doing any favor for the little kids being taught to hate.
Islam is not all violence. Customs evolve and, when permitted, people practice what pleases them. Most of the practices that non-Muslims and many Muslims consider objectionable are not religious but cultural.
Example: Burying girls alive in Jordanian and Pakistan on finding the girl had a boy friend. According to real Islam, if she likes him she should be given to him but that is not what families practice. If they don’t like the boy or if he is not of their tribe or type, they feel no compunction about killing her. He, of course, survives; even though it is almost always the man pursuing the woman because a woman can’t pursue a man. That is just a cultural fact.
Rape is taboo in Islam. Nevertheless, countless women in Islamic countries and abroad are raped by men in their family or people close to them. Does the real Islam promote or allow it? Absolutely Not. The Koran says the man will go to hell. In fact, it says if you find a man raping a woman you should kill him. However, many men do it repeatedly without fear of punishment, enlisting the purchased blessing of a mullah to dance around the religious rules. Does that make it OK? Hell, No!
The Koran instructs men to be gentle and treat their wives, mothers and females of the family with kindness. Most men in the Muslim world beat the hell out of their women. If a woman doesn’t follow his orders, even so far as to become a suicide bomber, he will make her life miserable and may put her in her grave while alive. This barbaric practice, which survives in many parts of our world today, has nothing to do with Islam. Islam declared this obscenity taboo 1400 years ago.
I can show you a video from Kurdistan Iraq of a young girl being stoned to death by her family as US forces watch with anguish because they were afraid of getting into a religious war with Kurdish men. YouTube title is: Unbelievable gore violence Kurdish Girl Stoned to Death.
I am half Kurd myself. Do I think this is right? Hell, No! It should have been stopped.
4. In Saudi Arabia a young girl was raped by 15 men. She received 90 lashes but her rapists got off unpunished. I personally attended a protest of this miscarriage of justice by a group of wonderful American activists in front the Saudi Arabia Embassy in Washington, DC. Is this Islamic? Hell No! They should be in jail for many years for the crime they committed against her. http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/GO030907.php
5. In Iran, women are stoned to death for allegedly consorting with men, solely on the basis of a husband’s, or anyone else’s accusation and the testimony of two men who purport to have witnessed the offense. Is this Islamic? According to your e-mails, you might say, “yes.” I say, no. Prophet Mohamad, peace upon him, taught and Ali, the first Imam of Shiah, practiced true Islam; not the Islam promulgated by men like Bin Laden or your contacts. Witnesses must undergo extensive interrogation. They can’t just say they saw it. That is not good enough for God; yet is practiced and accepted by many as Islam. A lot of us don’t accept it.
None of the examples above have to do with Islam. They are related to ignorance and culture, abetted by the fact that women don’t bring up their daughters to be strong minded. They turn them into unquestioning followers until the girl decides she can take it no longer and becomes anti-Islam. Even though it is considered an insult, I can cite my own mother as an example.
You might ask, “Why are men doing this in the name of Islam?” It is because they can, because money and power allow them to, because they have always done so and will continue to do so for eternity unless educated people stop them or, at least, don’t help them. Men practice the kind of Islam they want to. Women have no choice but to follow. Women who speak up are often ostracized by their family.
To aggravate our pain, women like you organize the events for magazine front pages, bringing three anti-Muslim women to pronounce, without objection, that this is the real Islam. Ms. Levy, you slap our faces when you allow abusive, radical men to say, “Thank you, Ms. Levy, for helping us to be the kind of abusive authorities we want to be in the name of Islam. Thank you for giving us a podium and the legitimacy to repress women and kill more Americans and Israelis in the name of Islam.” You are doing the abusive men that we as Muslims despise a great favor. Your intention may be to hurt such men but, either willingly or unknowingly, you are helping them by refusing to wake up to reality.
There is a Farsi parable about a flying eagle hit by an arrow. When he looked at the arrow, wondering how it reached him so high, he saw one of his own feathers attached to it and said, “It is one of our own who will bring us down.” Only a woman can bring another woman down and you are that feather.
Your message of anti-Islam makes the job of authentic Muslims job extremely hard, if not impossible. Ignorance is a dangerous thing for the minds of innocent Muslims kids who are being indoctrinated by the Islamists.
You said there are no good Muslims. I quote “For us to trust that a Muslim is indeed a "good" Muslim, we are essentially putting a gun to our heads with one bullet in the chamber.” As to your decree damning all Muslims, I demur that such omnipotence is reserved for Our God
My concern about the message of your conference is: You push authentic Muslims aside; giving hard core radicals an opportunity to point at you as representative of Americans, instead of the millions of golden hearted Americans that I know are out there. You will ignite a hate crime against America that the American people don’t deserve. From what I have observed, you either want us to be anti-Islam Muslims or refuse to believe we exist. What is it with the American media which keeps asking “Where are the “good” Muslims? Why don’t they speak up?” We are trying. Either you recognize and accept us or don’t. You can’t have it both ways. If you want our help, you can have it but clearly you don’t want it. So please stop saying Muslims don’t come forward to help America.
You said “Clearly, we are not on the same page. Regrets-- Janet Levy” Perhaps not but there is no reason we cannot be.
You also said “The religion hasn't been "hijacked, this is the religion.” If that is your verdict, why are you even convening a panel to discuss it?
I don’t understand how you expect us to be your friends when you don’t even acknowledge that we have a right to our religion or that we, as practitioners of this religion, know it has been hijacked.
With your un-warranted pre-conceived condemnation of our faith, how do you expect us to stand up to the radicals that we know exist when you insist all Islam is radical? Contrary to your assertion, Islam does not teach terrorism and all Muslims are not terrorists
From were I sit, your point of view is geared toward war rather than peace. Is it because war stories make more news and money?
Peace is what people in this country, in the Middle East, in Israel and around the world want and need.
We don’t have to love each another. We don’t even have to like one another but we do need to respect each other. Regrettably, I don’t find any respect in your statements.
You have your First Amendment right to go on with your message of hating Islam. Just remember: Governments and powerful people do; the average folks pay.
I feel a duty, as a member and lover of our dysfunctional human family, to tell you that spreading hate based on one’s own judgment of a religion does not make one a patriot, a peace lover or a good and faithful practitioner of any faith. This is not about Blue or Red America, it is about America and the peaceful survival of future generations of children around our.
The only way for all of us to bring hardliners, radicals and terrorists down and stop them from indoctrinating children to become future terrorists is to work together to educate children instead of infighting and bad-mouthing all followers of a faith with which we don’t see eye to eye. Obviously, you don’t agree now but history will reveal who was your friend and who was your enemy. You may not like them because of their faith but Muslims struggling and willingly placing themselves in danger to reach out a hand, in America and abroad, are the difference between peace and war for this country and for the Middle East.
Qur'an 9:29 and Sahih Muslim 4294 specify that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims. This is Islam, not anything extreme or radical but pure Islam.
I knew the redoubtable Oriana Fallaci and visited her several times in her apartment in New York during her last year of life. She contended that although there may be secular or moderate Muslims, the religion itself is toxic. Having read the Koran and seen the actions of modern day Muslims, I agree with this assessment. The religion hasn't been "hijacked," this is the religion. The chance for ijtihad is slim to none as this hasn't been allowed since the 900's A.D.
Read Ibn Warriq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim."
Clearly, we are not on the same page.
Regrets,
Janet Levy
-------------------------- I hope this e-mail finds you well. I am not sure you received my reply to your telephone message. I am sorry I couldn't answer you right away. I was on a radio show in TX when you called. By the time I got back to you, I understand you were on the way to L. A.
Since we didn't get a chance to talk, I think it is important for you to see the situation through a Muslim's eye. I was just relating to Bill Wright an incident about Dennis Miller making a Ramadan "joke" on Bill O'Reilly's TV show. I have been on Bill's show and have great respect for him. I think Dennis is a good guy too and I know he was trying to be funny but his lack of knowledge of Islam makes me think a lot of radicals can use his 'funny' comments to hurt America.
Sometimes we need to switch places to see one another through the other's eyes. May I ask you to be a Muslim for 30 seconds? This is what you would experience see from my perspective.
I understand that you and your colleagues believe that Islam is the problem because so many evil people have committed crimes in the name of Islam. You are not half as upset about that as I am because this is my Faith that I love that has been defamed by the crimes of these heretics. If you are sincere when you say, “Where are the decent Muslims who will speak out against the extremists?” then I should be part of your discussion. I am a faithful Muslim willing to speak out. I represent authentic Islam, not some debased political heresy.
I love the United States and Israel, as well as my Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters, and I want to rescue the dignity and beauty of my own beloved religion from the fanatics who have distorted it. However, I can't do it alone. If you really want constructive dialogue with genuine Muslims, then you should include me on your panel. If you prefer to disparage Islam, that is your privilege but it would seem the wiser course to cultivate some Muslim friends than to write off one-fourth of the human race.
We are on the same side and should be allies in the struggle against radical Islamists.
You are now free to go back to Christianity again (smile).
Greatest Regards,
Ghazal OMID
------------------------------- Dear Ms. Levy,
I was taken aback by your wholesale denunciation of Muslims, reminiscent of the 19th Century frontier adage, "The only good Injun is a dead Injun", which leaves me puzzled as to why you would invite me to join the "Women in Islam" panel.
However, instead of taking offense at being convicted in absentia, I feel obligated to defend myself and millions of "good" Muslims. As suggested by a good Christian friend of mine, I prefer the term "authentic, instead of “good” or “moderate."
“Good” is know only by God and "Moderate' is a term coined by the media.
The term "moderate Muslim" has become a media catch phrase for non-radical Muslims, many of whom are indeed secular or uneducated in the Koran. I assure you there are devout Muslims who know and follow Koranic precepts that do not advocate the maniacal slaughter of innocents. I am as horrified as anyone by the horrendous atrocities committed by deranged murderers calling themselves Muslims. These animals are the truly uneducated Muslims in their warped 8th century interpretation of selected verses of the Koran.
"Infidel" does not mean all non-Muslims. The word is given to anyone who uses religion to advance his mission, whatever that religion might be. Bin Laden, Khomeini, Khameni, Al Zarqawi and their ilk, Muslims all or they call themselves, in my opinion they are/were infidels. Hitler, a Christian, and Stalin, an Atheist, earned the title infidels for their senseless slaughter of millions of innocents. The often quoted Koran verses condemning "infidels" refers not exclusively to Christians or Jews, both of whom God has called "People of the Book.", but to Arabs who were the scourge of Arabia at the time.
I am an advisor to CMIP.org, an Israel based group studying text books, that is dedicated to eradicating the teaching of hatred of all things non-Muslim to Iranian children.
I was born Muslim but personal abuse caused me to lose my faith until a Jewish rabbi family friend paid my way to make my Hajj to Mecca. I do not teach or practice hate of any religion or no religion.
I do not propose a New Koran, a la New Testament. I do advocate educating Muslims and non-Muslims in a contemporary understanding of the context of the Koran when it was delivered.
I don't want to judge God and I sincerely ask you to reconsider thinking of all Muslims as barbarians.
I believe in OUR God, Creator or Heaven and Hell. I believe in Moses and Jesus. I believe in Human Rights for all. I believe blind hatred breeds blind hatred.
Thank you for the invitation. Whether I accept will require a better understanding of the agenda and format of the panel. I will not sit quietly as a convenient pre-judged "whipping boy.
I will be happy to receive your call in the early afternoon.
May Our God Bless you,
Ghazal Omid
-----------------------------
I'm happy to call you at a convenient time.
As far as my perspective is concerned, I'm in agreement with people like Robert Spencer (I work with him) and Ibn Warriq. I believe that there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. (Islam being what is defined in the Koran). That being said, I know that there are secular and moderate Muslims. These are people who may not be aware of the contents of the Koran or choose not to follow Koranic precepts. What is problematic for the West is the Koranic requirement of taquiya with kuffars. For us to trust that a Muslim is indeed a "good" Muslim, we are essentially putting a gun to our heads with one bullet in the chamber. I don't hold out a lot of hope for ijtihad as I believe it closed in about 900 A.D.
You can read some of my articles at FrontPage magazine:
Recent Articles
• Banning the Flag in North Carolina Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2007
• Think No Evil Published: Friday, July 27, 2007
• The Al-Qaeda Reader Published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
• My Trip to Gitmo Published: Monday, April 02, 2007
• Pakistan: Friend or Foe? Published: Monday, February 19, 2007
• CAIR's Censorship Agenda Rolls On Published: Thursday, February 01, 2007
• The Gym Jihad Published: Thursday, December 07, 2006
• The Minneapolis Six Sabotage Airline Security Published: Tuesday, November 28, 2006
• "Compromised" Intelligence Published: Friday, September 29, 2006
• Terror's Trojan Horse Published: Thursday, September 14, 2006
• Bush Did Not Lie Published: Friday, June 16, 2006
Janet Levy
--------------------------
It sounds very interesting. I would like to receive more specific information on this. I do know about Wafa Sultan. She does not consider herself a Muslim. Are you denouncing all Muslims and Islam or trying to make a difference and modernize it, if I may ask?
I will appreciate knowing more. And, I would like to speak with you on the phone rather than e-mails.
My political views are on www.omedia.org www.globalpolitican.com
---------------------------
From: Janet Levy Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:33 PM To: Ghazal Omid Subject: Re: LivingInHell.com Info Request
The Following Request for Information was Submitted on September 30, 2007, 5:00 pm from www.livinginhell.com
Name: Levy, Janet
Email:
Country: United States
Question: Are you available to speak on a panel "Women in Islam" for the David Horowitz Freedom Center (see FrontPage magazine at www.frontpagemag.com) in Florida on November 17th? Panelists will include Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish and Rosine Ghawji.
"Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that islam is the enemy. Period." The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."
But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is! Now, comes an uneasy task of weeding out false moderates. Hopefully, with a clear definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' that task could be a lot easier. Coming back to the title of this post. Muslim community as a whole is not the enemy. Part of it is. A large part. But not all of it. The next time you ask yourself a question "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims?" don't trust their assurances; look at their record. No matter how well false-moderate Muslims such as CAIR or MPAC polished their facades, they have a record. Whether it is their support of terrorism or advocating Islamic supremacy, any Islamist group or figure who's been around long enough, at one time or another has shown its/his/her true face. Just because some government official or some talking head declares someone to be a moderate Muslim, it doesn't make it so. There are several counter-terrorism and Islam experts who keep track of Islamists. Most of these experts happen to be non-Muslim, but there is also a list of moderate Muslims who could be used as trusted sources for these inquiries. The list of those prominent Muslims is posted at the upper right corner of our blog. So now, my non-Muslim friends, when you have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims, you can no longer use your ignorance as an excuse to declare that Islam is the enemy.
Very recently, I had a rather heated exchange with the members of Mideast Youth, a blog claiming to be a "network dedicated to eliminate extremist ideologies from the Middle East." Sounds great, right. But are the people who run this blog really interested in eliminating extremist ideologies or do they have another agenda? Ray Hanania wrote a good article called Don't have to wear a silk veil over your head to have a closed mind, which raises many interesting issues. So I decided to ask a question about the following sentence: "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck - the loser hate-mongers that they are, continue to promote extremist responses to false issues." For the record, I do not consider either one of those individuals to be loser hatemongers, but I can see how some people who use indirect sources would. I, myself, am guilty of considering Limbaugh an extremist scumbag, that of course before I heard HIM, not what was said ABOUT HIM. I owe Limbaugh a debt of gratitude for teaching me how silly it is to rely on secondary sources without considering primary. But that's besides the point.
The question that I posted was "What exactly makes them hate mongers? Their hate for Islamists? Hannity and Beck promote moderate Muslims every chance they get. I hate Islamists more than Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck ever will. Does this make me a hate monger?" In less than an hour, the following message was posted: "Oh God now I really know you're a neo-con shill. You're nothing but a fake-ass. Shame on you." I was slightly taken aback by this type of response coming from a "network dedicated to eliminate extremist ideologies." So, I responded: "Why am I not surprised? When someone is too stupid to discuss the issue, they have the urge to discredit the messenger. If you ARE the Mideast Youth, our future looks pretty bleak." If you want to read the whole back-and-forth that includes a couple of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, go to that blog and read it. I suggest you do it sooner rather than later before other items get deleted.
At some point, one of the moderators, who doesn't choose his own language very carefully wrote: "Any personal attacks from this point onwards will be deleted." He also wrote "you whine like a baby" in the same post, which I guess is not a personal attack.
A few posts later there is another post stating "MAS got pwned by Ali Eteraz so there's no need to respond to the degenerate."
Well, according to the moderator, "Any personal attacks from this point onwards will be deleted." Apparently not. So I wrote the following message suggesting that the moderator should have qualified his statement by stating that "Any personal attacks from this point onwards (unless they are directed at people whom I disagree with - oh, did I mention that me and the moderator do not see exactly eye-to-eye) will be deleted."
As you can see, the post has "Your comment is awaiting moderation" line.
Then, it gets deleted.
Then, when on of the more reasonable posters, but a 9/11 conspiracy theorist nonetheless, asks me to have a dialogue, I suggest we continue it on our blog, because of my replies being censored. And then comes something that I love so much about Islamists, their inability to control their pathological compulsion to lie. "Oh please, none of your comments have been censored here. ... it's VERY doubtful that anyone is going to fall for your outright lies."
Now, is it important that an Islamist, who is supposed to utilize Taqiyya, got caught in a lie? Not really. Is it important that this illustrate their Modus Operandi? Absolutely!
K.M.
PS If you have problem reading the text on the images, we can provide a link to higher resolution images.
One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.
If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.
In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.
Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.
Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:
* Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations; * Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”; * Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals; * Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law; * Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims; * Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers; * Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities; * Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”; * Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements; * Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world; * Balancing international objectives with local flexibility; * Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant; * Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions; * Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam; * Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation; * Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution; * Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals; * Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West; * Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”; * Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support; * Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims; * Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination; * Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them; * Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine; * Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement; * Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.
At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.
In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.
The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”
One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:
The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.
As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.
Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).
Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.
As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.
For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.
If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.
"Who are the moderate Muslims, and why do they not speak up?" After being asked this question over and over again since 9/11, particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we decided to propose the following Muslim Manifesto: Recently, the disrespectful cartoons about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) published in Jyllands-Posten resulted in an extreme reaction among many Muslims worldwide. While we understand the feelings of our co-religionists, we strongly urge them to refrain from rage and violence.
A zeal for Allah is rightful only when it is expressed in an enlightened manner, since Allah himself has ordained a restrained response. When the early Muslims were mocked by their pagan contemporaries, the Koran ordered not a violent backlash, but rather a civilized disapproval: "When you hear Allah's verses being rejected and mocked at by people, you must not sit with them till they start talking of other things." (Koran 4:140) The Koran also describes Muslims as "those who control their rage and pardon other people, [because] Allah loves the good-doers." (3:134) Therefore all demonstrations against the mockery of Islam should be peaceful. All critiques of Islam should be countered not by threats and violence, but by rational counter-argument.
We also believe that terrorist acts can never be justified or excused. None of the challenges Muslims face, such as oppression or military occupation, can justify attacks against non-combatants. In the Holy Koran, Allah orders Muslims to "never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice." (5:8) The true Islamic sense of justice is well-established in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); even in time of war — let alone peace — Muslim soldiers should never "kill the old, the infant, the child, or the woman." Those who do so are not martyrs, but cold-blooded murderers.
Supported by the Koran's affirmation that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), we cherish religious liberty. Every human has the right to believe or not to believe in Islam or in any other religion All Muslims furthermore have the right to reject and change their religion if desired. No state, community or individual has a right to impose Islam on others. People should accept and practice Islam not because they are forced to do so, but because they believe in its teachings.
We support and cherish democracy — not because we reject the sovereignty of the Almighty over people, but because we believe that this sovereignty is manifested in the general will of people in a democratic and pluralistic society. We do not accept theocratic rule-not because we do not wish to obey Allah, but because theocratic rule inevitably becomes rule by fallible (and sometimes corrupt and misguided) humans in the name of the infallible God.
We accept the legitimacy of the secular state and the secular law. Islamic law, or sharia, was developed at a time when Muslims were living in homogenous communities. In the modern world, virtually all societies are pluralistic, consisting of different faiths and of different perceptions of each faith, including Islam. In this pluralistic setting, a legal system based on a particular version of a single religion cannot be imposed on all citizens. Thus, a single secular law, open to all religions but based on none, is strongly needed.
We believe that women have the same inalienable rights as men. We strongly denounce laws and attitudes in some Islamic societies that exclude women from society by denying them the rights of education, political participation and the individual pursuit of happiness. Like men, women should have the right to decide how they will live, dress, travel, marry and divorce; if they do not enjoy these rights, they are clearly second-class citizens.
We believe that there is no contradiction between religious and national identities. Any Muslim should be able to embrace the citizenship of any modern secular state while maintaining feelings of spiritual solidarity with the umma, the global Muslim community.
We regard Christianity and Judaism as sister faiths in the common family of Abrahamic monotheism. We strongly denounce anti-Semitism, which has been alien to Islam for many centuries but which unfortunately has gained popularity among some Muslims in recent decades. We accept Israel's right to exist, as well as the justified aspiration of the Palestinian people for a sovereign state and hope that a just two-state solution in Israel/Palestine will bring peace to the Holy Land.
In short, we strongly disagree with and condemn those who promote or practice tyranny and violence in the name of Islam. We hope that their misguided deeds will not blacken our noble religion — which is indeed a path to God and a call for peace. We encourage Muslim political, social, community and business leaders to contact us at infor@muslimmanifesto.org to sign onto the Manifesto so that the authentic peaceful and civilized message of Islam will be heard.
This article first appeared in NRO and was co-written by Mustafa Akyol
Zeyno Baran joined Hudson Institute as Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson’s Center for Eurasian Policy in April 2006.
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
"Who are the moderate Muslims, and why do they not speak up?" After being asked this question over and over again since 9/11, particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we decided to propose the following Muslim Manifesto:
Posts
