By M. Zuhdi Jasser
Douglas Farah gives an excellent review yesterday of the domestic fallout from the Mazen Asbahi resignation. From the story reported by Glenn Simpson at the WSJ to the predictable Islamist response of victimology and obfuscation, this cycle has become all too familiar. A prominent Muslim is scrutinized on his ideologies related to political Islam and the ideologies of American Islamist organizations, only to have the American Islamist organizations and their apologists respond with exaggerated claims of Islamophobia and silence on the central question of ideology.
In all that has been written or said about the Asbahi resignation - few Muslims have commented on where the appointee actually stood in reference to the agenda of political Islam and Islamist organizations. Probably because few people know or are willing to address ideology when it's a lot easier to address victimization.
Back in October 2007, our American Islamic Forum for Democracy laid out simple ideological benchmarks for government appointees about whom Americans have concerns about ideological ties to Islamist organizations. At the time, similar concerns were levied against Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society after he was appointed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kane. Omeish had a long history of support of transnational Islamist organizations (i.e. HAMAS) and membership in the MAS which multiple reports connect directly to the Muslim Brotherhood (see this extensive 2004 investigative report from the Chicago Tribune). Similarly, the media at the time generally ignored what are legitimate ideological concerns of Americans (including many anti-Islamist Muslims) over Islamists and their legal and transnational agenda. Instead they focused on exaggerated claims of Islamophobia. Gov Tim Kane of Virginia appropriately accepted the resignation of Esam Omeish from his commission. Read more ...
Douglas Farah gives an excellent review yesterday of the domestic fallout from the Mazen Asbahi resignation. From the story reported by Glenn Simpson at the WSJ to the predictable Islamist response of victimology and obfuscation, this cycle has become all too familiar. A prominent Muslim is scrutinized on his ideologies related to political Islam and the ideologies of American Islamist organizations, only to have the American Islamist organizations and their apologists respond with exaggerated claims of Islamophobia and silence on the central question of ideology.
In all that has been written or said about the Asbahi resignation - few Muslims have commented on where the appointee actually stood in reference to the agenda of political Islam and Islamist organizations. Probably because few people know or are willing to address ideology when it's a lot easier to address victimization.
Back in October 2007, our American Islamic Forum for Democracy laid out simple ideological benchmarks for government appointees about whom Americans have concerns about ideological ties to Islamist organizations. At the time, similar concerns were levied against Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society after he was appointed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kane. Omeish had a long history of support of transnational Islamist organizations (i.e. HAMAS) and membership in the MAS which multiple reports connect directly to the Muslim Brotherhood (see this extensive 2004 investigative report from the Chicago Tribune). Similarly, the media at the time generally ignored what are legitimate ideological concerns of Americans (including many anti-Islamist Muslims) over Islamists and their legal and transnational agenda. Instead they focused on exaggerated claims of Islamophobia. Gov Tim Kane of Virginia appropriately accepted the resignation of Esam Omeish from his commission. Read more ...
Source: Family Security Matters
Posts
