 by Moorthy Muthuswamy The recent criticism of Geert Wilders’ views on Islam by the leading lights of the conservative movement has created much indignation and surprise in certain quarters. If conservative analysts with strong national security credentials couldn’t be convinced of Islam’s threat, getting the point across to the centrist politicians who define and execute policy will indeed be even tougher. In a particularly striking criticism of Wilders, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asserts that “What he [Geert Wilders] says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. The untruth of that is obvious.” Without commenting on the merits of Dr. Krauthammer’s critique, it is pertinent to note that it is his opinion. This is true of Geert Wilder’s reasoned views on Islam as well. After all, both have not quoted any scientific study to back their assertions. If Islam is a threat as some claim, what would it take to persuade that certain fundamental attributes of Islam enshrine it a violent ideology of conquest?
The key to settling what Islam stands for is to let science, not opinion, dictate the debate. This is reality crystallized by an analogy: There was a time when a male lion was seen as an embodiment of a great and dominant hunter of a pride. This perception reflected the majority of opinions at a certain time. However, various studies conducted in ensuing years told a different story: that female lions were the real hunters of a pride. That is, statistics of female lions hunting for their pride dominated the overall hunting pattern of a pride. These statistics put to rest the specific question of who hunted the most in a pride. In fact, these statistics form the definitive scientific basis of these studies. More than a few Muslims have claimed that they engage in jihad (a religious war waged to advance the cause of Islam at the expense of unbelievers) because Islamic scriptures command them to do so.
Even nations representing Muslim communities—Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran—have taken to sponsoring jihad worldwide, on the basis of the scriptures.
There are widely varying opinions on the root cause of this—the dominant one is that the relevant Islamic scriptures have been misinterpreted. As with the discussion of the lions, a corresponding scientific query would be to find out the extent or the statistics of dislike of unbelievers and their conquest in the Islamic doctrines. Recently, Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam has carried out a groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines.
I summarize his studies by noting that about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. Moreover, about seventy five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. While there might be some subjectivity to the above analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be noted.
This overall thrust exposes the sheer absurdity of excusing the Koran-inspired terror on the so-called “selective interpretation” of the Muslim holy book or its “verses being taken out of context.” The burden of scientific or statistical evidence suggests that Islam is an intolerant religion that drives its followers toward a violent conquest of unbelievers. If such is the thrust of the Islamic doctrines, their propagation would lead to increased violence directed at non-Muslims. Indeed, rise in Muslim extremism of the past decades is directly correlated with hundreds of billions of dollars spent by government-linked Saudi charities to “propagate” Islam worldwide. Not surprisingly, even in the modern context, manifestations of Islamic supremacy and conquest are the norm, rather than the exception. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden outlined a condition for terror attacks against America to cease: “I invite you to embrace Islam.” During the past sixty years most non-Muslim minorities—tens of millions—in all Muslim-majority regions of South Asia were terrorized into leaving for nearby non-Muslim-majority lands. All of this points to conquering land and people for Islam. America’s policy approach to the Muslim world has been clouded by misrepresentations of Islam’s character. For instance, in one of the most important foreign policy initiatives of his presidency, in the now-famous Cairo speech, Obama observed that “[America and Islam] overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” We are left with the grim reality that at the fundamental level America’s policies toward the Muslim world are based on false premises—and hence, are untenable. This reality must be acknowledged widely before alternate policies can be devised. We live in the era of science that has brought unprecedented security, development, health and prosperity. Yet, we have allowed opinions to dictate debate and policy on an existential threat. The importance of letting science drive policy couldn’t be clearer on the subject of Islamic radicalism. The writer is a U.S.-based nuclear physicist and author of the book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War. His email is moorthym@comcast.net. With thanks to The West, Islam and Sharia
 Earlier today, I was lying on my gynecologist’s table in a highly exposed position when suddenly she said: “You’re probably going to think this is very politically incorrect but isn’t it crazy not to profile? I mean, isn’t it clear who’s doing what?” I immediately shot straight up and engaged this worthy liberal in a very politically incorrect conversation. (No, she had absolutely no idea what I’ve been writing about). So: Some things are becoming clear and can no longer be denied. Not even by some liberals. Jihadic terrorists tend to be Muslims. Atheists are not blowing themselves up nor are Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Ba’haii or Zoroastrians. Not all Muslims are terrorists; but these days, all terrorists seem to be Muslims. Terrorists and their handlers are not all motivated by poverty and suffering. Many are often wealthy and educated men. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian double agent who recently blew himself up along with seven American CIA operatives in Afghanistan, was a 32 year-old physician. A physician—not a madrassa trained slum dweller. He is now being linked to Al Qaeda in Pakistan. On video, he said: “ We will never forget the blood of our emir, Baitullah Mehsud. We will always demand revenge for him inside America and outside.” (Al-Balawi was shown meeting with the Pakistani Taliban/Al Qaeda and vowing revenge for the death of their leader). Our own homegrown jihadic terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, (a Palestinian-American), is also a physician, a psychiatrist in fact. He had money, independence, prestige. His massacre at Fort Hood was not motivated by illiteracy, poverty, or war-related trauma. Many Westerners find it difficult to accept that a religious war has been declared against the West; that jihadists are ready to die, wave after wave of them, in order to ensure that our way of life is destroyed.
Their ideal is Islamic supremacy (only Muslims will rule because they are “superior”) and they want to return to a seventh century way of life, albeit one with cellphones, the internet, and nuclear weaponry. Moderate, peaceful Muslims certainly exist—but how many are willing to stand up to the jihadists? For example, according to the AP, only 50 Muslims showed up for a “Muslims Against Terrorism” rally outside the federal courthouse in Detroit where the Christmas Day crotch-bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was being arraigned. Although the local Detroit press estimated that there were 150 protestors there—this is still a very small showing given that Detroit and its suburbs are also known as “Dearbornistan” and boast the largest Muslim community in the United States. How many European-Muslim leaders protested the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo Von Gogh, the character assassination of Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ore the recently attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist? How many Muslim religious leaders in Egypt protested the Orthodox Christmas Day shooting of Coptic Christians as they left church? Or protested the abductions, forced conversions, and the hastily arranged marriages of Coptic Christian female children to Muslim adult males? How many Muslim religious leaders have issued fatwas against the Islamic regime of Iran for its heart stopping persecution of Iranian dissidents? Too few, if any. The danger of not standing up early enough is that we condemn ourselves to a higher body count. If we refuse to (behavior) profile now—we must accept that more airports and airplanes will be blown up, more cities held hostage, Mumbai-style.
And, those of us who travel frequently will all have to spend a good part of the rest of our lives standing on line at the airport. And, eventually, at the boat dock, or at the train or bus station. Phyllis Chesler
 Ali Eteraz is a liberal Muslim writer who, like Barack Obama, has not waited until he was old to write his memoirs: his book Children of Dust, according to the book website, is a “coming-of-age story” in which Eteraz “captures not merely pain, but also the love, laughter, and pathos of Muslim life.” It is not surprising that such a writer would grapple with issues related to Islamic jihad violence. What is surprising is how he has done so, and what the implications of his stances are for those who are betting everything on peaceful Muslims combating Islamic jihadists within Muslim communities. Eteraz once stated feebly that peaceful Muslims should remain silent in the face of jihadist violence and supremacism, claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr., stayed silent in the face of racist oppression. That was preposterous enough, but now Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move, going from supine passivity to defiance: During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their index finger to bear witness to the oneness of God. In America today, with all the calls for Muslims to condemn every little act of violence committed in the name of their religion, Muslims should start raising up the other finger. The middle one. There is no need for one Muslim to condemn the crimes of another. Collective responsibility cannot, and should not, be accepted. Where one accepts collective responsibility one opens the door to collective punishment. Are Muslims individuals? Or are they one singular marionette that pirouettes each time its string is pulled? The core assumption Eteraz makes here is that it is an exercise in collective responsibility that diminishes Muslims’ individuality if they are asked to condemn Islamic terrorist attacks. After all, Islam is not a monolith, as we are reminded endlessly.
So if one Muslim believes that Islam teaches warfare against unbelievers and acts upon that belief, what does that have to do with Ali Eteraz, who presumably eschews such beliefs? It’s a fair question. To what extent does membership in a group make one responsible for all the other members of that group? If one Christian does some evil deed and ascribes it to Christianity, are all Christians everywhere responsible for that? Well, to a certain extent, yes.
They wouldn’t rightly share any of the blame for it, but it would be incumbent upon them to show to those who might be concerned about a recurrence of such evil deeds that the way in which the evildoer used Christianity was actually wrong, and condemnable, and that they were working against such a recurrence by teaching against such false beliefs. The point, in other words, is not collective responsibility at all. To blame all Muslims for the actions of jihadists would be asinine. But to take note of how those jihadists use Islam — its texts and core teachings — to justify violence and supremacism and warfare against unbelievers — and to ask peaceful Muslims what they’re doing to combat such teachings within the Muslim community is not asinine at all. And it is not blaming anyone for anything he didn’t do. It is simply to ask someone like Eteraz this: “The jihadis say that they’re following the authentic path of Islam. If they’re correct, the implications of this would be many and ominous, for it would suggest that all Muslims, if they decided to follow the authentic path of Islam, would become jihadis — working either by violent or peaceful means to impose Sharia upon non-Muslims. You say you’re living out an authentic expression of Islam, and reject all that. Good. What case are you making against the jihadist understanding of Islam within the Muslim community? How are you combating it?” I don’t think these are unreasonable questions. For if Muslims who profess to reject the jihadist understanding of Islam don’t fight against it, who will? And if they profess to reject the jihadist understanding of Islam but don’t do anything to stop its spread, of what ultimate value is their rejection of it? They may not be responsible for it, but since they profess Islam, shouldn’t they feel any responsibility to combat the jihadist claim to represent authentic Islam? Apparently not. In years of calling for peaceful Muslims to present a viable alternative to the jihadist understanding of Islam, one that will convince Muslims not to take the jihadist path, we have seen numerous vague assertions that the jihadis are violating Islamic teaching; some vague condemnations of “terrorism” and attacks on “innocent civilians” that don’t define either term or rule out the jihadist understanding of Islam; some transparently flimsy constructions based on selective Qur’an quoting that will convince ignorant non-Muslims but not a single Muslim; and some “reformist” interpretations of Islam that roll out with much fanfare in the mainstream media but end up being only condemnations of attacks that kill other Muslims or attacks that don’t have state authority behind them (which latter point ignores the fact that in Islamic theology defensive jihad is incumbent upon every Muslim, state authority notwithstanding, and all contemporary jihads are presented as defensive). And now we get the finger. All right. I wouldn’t expect anything else from Ali Eteraz, but I do hope that some people who have been counting upon peaceful Muslims to work against the jihadists within Muslim communities will take careful note. FPM
 There is no discussing Islam without discussing the Moderate Muslim. Like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the Moderate Muslim is often a topic of conversation, but rarely has much to say about himself. And even those who note that the Moderate Muslim is somewhat less in evidence than the Dodo or the Mammoth, turn instead to the project of reforming Islam. It is of course possible to reform Islam. It is also possible to reform a serial killer. It is however not likely, and certainly not safe to stake your serial-killer prevention strategy on letting the serial killer run free, while you try and talk to him about the virtues of not cutting off people's heads and wearing their skin.
For over a thousand years Islam has been the serial killer of world civilization, decimating entire cultures and religions, practicing ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism and endless war.
Islam is currently involved directly or indirectly in conflicts or terrorism on virtually every continent.
Modern Islamist movements have fused the modern tools of war from IED's to Lawfare to Social Media, with ancient fanatical beliefs blended with the leavings of National Socialism and Communism to create a global killing machine.
Now how do you go about reforming something like that? A rational proposal for reforming Islam must first begin by asking why proposals to reform Islam have gotten nowhere before.
The simple answer is that it's because the unreformed version of Islam is far too success for there to be much of a market for a reformed version. Al Capone wasn't interested in reform when he was shoveling in money hand over fist. The old blood and guts version of Islam is doing better than ever around the world, more so than any pale reformed versions.
The Wahhabis have shown that it's possible to live in America or the UK, get a degree as a doctor, preach terrorism and still get educated at the infidel's expense.
The infidels will then fast during Ramadan to avoid offending you, ignore your incitement to violence and look the other way when you send money to terrorists. They will draw the line when you actually open fire or set off a car bomb-- but not to the extent of looking at your mosque or at Islam itself.
If you can be an Islamic extremist while finding career success in the West. If you can be an Islamic extremist and get an invitation to the White House or 10 Downing Street. If you can be an Islamic extremist and still have liberals compete to defend you and promote your agenda-- what possible reason is there for reform?
Non-Muslims may want Islam to reform, but why would Muslims want Islam to reform? The key to answering that question is also the key to reforming Islam. Right now Muslims, particularly those in the West, have very little incentive to reform Islam.
And you can thank the Cult of Tolerance and its ugly sibling, Political Correctness for that. If anything, violence and extremism has actually made Islam more successful by intimidating and extracting more concessions from the Dar Al Harb.
 When British businessman Imran Ahmad was made redundant in January, instead of hitting the Job Centre he decided to arrange a one-man speaking tour of the United States to spread his message of peace and Muslim moderateness. "Do you think the American drone raids in Afghanistan, in which women and children are killed, are actually obstructing the movement for an Islamic reformation?" "What can be done about the alienation of young Muslim men in the UK?" "Did you learn English in England?" I've had an interesting range of questions at my speaking events in the US, but thankfully there have been some laughs with the audience too. But first things first: what am I doing with a rented hybrid car on a 12,000-mile, 40-city speaking tour of America? I'd always been grateful that Britain, the land of my upbringing, had remained remarkably tolerant of Muslims despite the shock of the 7 July bombings and continuing provocation from some extremist elements. I think there's still a good general understanding in the UK that the actions of a few do not represent all Muslims. But I wasn't sure the same could be said for the United States - a country where I'd lived for five years and for which I'd always had great affection. There had been a dreadful incident on New Year's Day this year in which nine Muslims - all US citizens, including three young children - had been removed from a domestic flight because two of them had been overheard discussing where was the safest place to sit on an aeroplane. The FBI had been called in, the "suspects" questioned and the airline had initially refused to rebook them even after they were released without charge. My own experience of the US had been formed in the years immediately before 9/11, when I'd lived there. Religion and ethnicity had never been an issue. Contrast this with the years since the 2001 attacks, when, on each visit, I'd been detained for "secondary" questioning at immigration control… sometimes for hours. I don't blame them for this, given the circumstances. But it still had made me sad. Read more here,,,, Source: BBC H/T: GH
What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical. Below is a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list. | Issue | Radical | Moderate |
| Anti-Semitism | Yes | No | | Caliphate | Pro | Against | | Criticism of Islam | No | Yes | | Deceiving non-Muslims | Yes | No | | Democracy | Against | Pro | | Dhimmitude for non-Muslims | Pro | Against | Every deed (and word) of Prophet Muhammad (according
to Ahadith) was noble and is worthy of emulation | Yes | No | | Freedom of (from) Religion | Against | Pro | | Gender equality | Against | Pro | | Gihad | Pro | Against | | Government | Religious | Secular | | Islamic reformation | Against | Pro | | Islamic supremacy | Pro | Against | | Israel | Against | Pro / Neutral | | Koran over Constitution | Yes | No | | Reaction to criticism of Islam or Prophet Muhammad | Anger / Violence | Reason / No reaction | | Religious equality | Against | Pro | | Requirement for religious clothing (burqa, veil, etc.) | Pro | Against | | Sharia | Pro | Against | | Terrorism | Pro / Neutral | Against | | Theocracy | Pro | Against | | Universal Human Rights | Against | Pro | | Use of terms such as "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamofascism" | Object | Accept | | Whitewashing terrorism | Yes | No |
Poll: Who Is a Moderate Muslim?
By David J. Rusin When eight Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets in London recently began trials of an all-halal menu, a backlash erupted from an unexpected source. Some Muslims are "boycotting the restaurants because they say the meat has not been killed correctly." Adding to the dissonance, two halal monitoring organizations are engaged in a public dispute over the matter. Besides illustrating the law of unintended consequences, the above episode underscores a vital truth: in contrast to how they often are depicted, Western Muslims do not think with one brain or speak with one voice. Much of this plurality breaks down along moderate-versus-Islamist lines, as seen in events from the past few months: - In late May, Islamic extremists marching in Luton, England, were confronted by a group of Muslims shouting, "We don't want you here!" Its leader explained that such protesters have been giving Muslims a bad name and fueling hatred. "The community decided to move them on because the police won't," he said. "We hope they get the message that the law-abiding community is sick and tired of them."
- Somalis took to Minneapolis streets in June to accuse the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of "discouraging local Somalis from cooperating with the FBI," which is investigating the trend of youths returning to Somali to take part in jihad. Days later, a CAIR-friendly crowd gathered to rebut the allegations.
- Recent calls by Nicolas Sarkozy and French legislators to outlaw face-covering veils have highlighted divisions among Muslims. While most Islamic advocacy groups quickly slammed leaders for daring to broach the topic, some prominent imams have denounced the niqab and backed a prohibition. Furthermore, Fadela Amara, a government minister and practicing Muslim, boldly described burqa-like clothing as a "coffin for women's basic liberties" and "proof of the presence of Muslim fundamentalists on our soil."
- When some Muslims in the UK started rejecting alcohol-based cleansing lotions that had been recommended to combat swine flu, even the Islamist-leaning Muslim Council of Britain sounded reasonable in comparison: "We would advise people to follow the medical advice so we would, of course, encourage people to use hand gel. People need to find ways to accommodate their beliefs."
For all concerned about the rise of Islamic radicalism, the most promising approach is clear. Rather than painting adherents of Islam with a broad brush, let us recognize the range of viewpoints exhibited by Western Muslims and stand beside moderates in the struggle against a common Islamist foe. Source: Islamist Watch
![]() DEFINIZIONE DI ISLAMICO MODERATO Cos'è un islamico moderato? Secondo il Dizionario, un moderato è una persona che si oppone a visioni o misure radicali o estreme, specialmente in Politica e Religione. Comunque, la maggioranza delle persone sembra avere problemi nella definizione di “islamico moderato”. Magari possiamo dare una mano definendo un “islamico radicale”, e quindi definendo il “moderato” come il suo opposto. Sotto una lista di caratteristiche che differenziano i “radicali” dai “moderati”. Speriamo sia d'aiuto. | Caratteristica | Islamici radicali | Islamici moderati | | Anti-semitismo | Si | No | | Califfato | Pro | Contro | | Critica dell'Islam | No | Si | | Ingannare i non-islamici | Si | No | | Democrazia | Contro | Pro | | Dhimmitudine per i non-islamici | Pro | Contro | | Ogni azione e parola del Profeta Mohammad (secondo gli Hadiths) è nobile e merita di essere emulata | Si | No | | Libertà di religione | Contro | Pro | | Eguaglianza dei generi | Contro | Pro | | Jihad | Pro | Contro | | Governo | Religioso | Secolare | | Riforma dell'Islam | Contro | Pro | | Supremazia islamica | Pro | Contro | | Israele | Contro | Pro o Neutro | | Corano sopra la Costituzione | Si | No | | Reazione alla critica all'Islam o al Profeta Mohammad | Rabbia / violenza | Ragionevole / nessuna reazione | | Uguaglianza religiosa | Contro | Pro | | Shari'a | Pro | Contro | | Terrorismo | Pro / Neutro | Contro | | Teocrazia | Pro | Contro | | Diritti Umani Universali | Contro | Pro | | Uso dei termini stile “terrorismo islamico” o “islamofascismo” | Obiezione | Accettato | | Terrorismo quale forma di censura | Si | No |
Source: MASHTranslated into Italian by FFFFF
 The incursion began under cover of darkness near Beit Lahiya near Gaza's northern border.Israel has launched a ground invasion of Gaza, sending a column of troops and tanks into the Palestinian territory to destroy Hamas rocket launchers.By Tim Butcher The incursion, which began under cover of darkness near Beit Lahiya near Gaza’s northern border, represents a significant escalation of the week-long conflict between Israel and Hamas. “This is the second stage of our operation against Hamas infrastructure,” said an Israeli defence spokeswoman on television. “It is to control the launch sites responsible for launching thousands of rockets at civilians in Israel. “We will stay as long as we need to stay to achieve our goals. The sudden move followed a day of heightened air strikes, designed to decapitate the Hamas military leadership, and an artillery bombardment intended to soften up resistence on the ground. Read more ... Source: TelegraphLet us pray for the safety of Palestinian civilians who held hostages by Hamas and the safety of Israeli soldiers. May this campaign end swiftly and may Hamas be annihilated. May moderate Muslims emerge victorious in the struggle for Gaza!
 Predictably, it's started. Europe's pro-Palestinian lobby, instinctive anti-war campaigners, Muslim extremists and the so-called Arab street have all been demonstrating against Israel's military operations in Gaza.
In London, Muslim and leftist protesters rallied raucously outside the Israeli embassy. Marchers protesting the Palestinian "holocaust" were held in Copenhagen, Paris and Madrid. A protest by the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party in the northern city of Mosul ended abruptly when a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up, killing one and wounding 16. Some might wonder why al-Qaida would attack other Sunni anti-Zionists. Plainly, the extremists' lust for chaos and bloodshed trumps all.
Pro-Hamas rallies were organized from Teheran to Beirut, and from Baghdad to Cairo. Arab citizens of Israel observed a general strike, accompanied by sporadic rock-throwing and tire-burning. An Arab minister in the Israeli government protested by refusing to attend a cabinet meeting; Palestinian youths in east Jerusalem rioted as their elders honored the strike.
We find it curious that the weekend deaths of 13 schoolchildren in Afghanistan at the hands of an Islamist bomber; the Taliban suicide attack in Pakistan, which claimed 30 Muslim lives, and the unremitting internecine slaughter in Iraq (9,000 dead in 2008 alone) fail to incense the Arab street half as much as the Jews exercising their right to self-defense.
THAT SAID, it is instructive to look beyond the mobs with their incendiary placards, shrill chants and de-rigueur burning of Israeli flags and take note of a remarkable rupture in the Arab and Muslim world.
The Arab elites, comprising statesmen, academics, journalists and businesspeople, may preface their criticism with references to Israel's "crimes," but a significant facet of this class - it would be simplistic to label them "moderates" - appreciates that Hamas is to blame for what is taking place in the Gaza Strip.
Moreover, their hearts may tell them to bankroll Hamas, but their brains tell them that the fanaticism, political intolerance and social backwardness championed by the Islamists pose a profound threat to the Arab future.
These predominantly Sunni elites - whether they sit in Cairo, Riyadh or Amman, in the Maghreb, the Gulf or in the West - don't want their societies to ape the Taliban or the ayatollahs.
HIZBULLAH leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, still in hiding two years after supposedly defeating Israel in the Second Lebanon War, has been denouncing this attitude as he seeks to salvage Hamas's fortunes - in which he and his Iranian patrons are heavily invested - by mobilizing the Arab street.
He has practically called for a revolution in Egypt. As Al Jazeera reported: "Nasrallah urged Egyptians... to force their government to open the country's border with Gaza. 'If the Egyptian people took to the streets by the millions, could the police kill millions of Egyptians? People of Egypt, you must open this border by the force of your chests.'"
What Hizbullah's demagogue in-chief pointedly neglected to tell the throngs watching him on a giant TV screen as he spoke from his bunker, was that Hizbullah and Iran were egging Hamas on to pick a fight with Israel while Egypt (and Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas) were working overtime to convince Hamas to honor the cease-fire.
Nasrallah is half-right.
Arab elites suffer from a sort of split personality disorder. Even as they are trying to pull Hamas's chestnuts out of the fire by pressing Washington to lean on Israel to back off, they know that Hamas (like Hizbullah and the Muslim Brotherhood) threatens not just their own regimes, but political development in the Arab world. If only the Jordanian and Saudi monarchs, Gulf emirs and the Egyptian president would stand up to the Islamists.
How? They should be incrementally fostering transparent government and the rule of law, and socializing their masses to the idea of tolerance and majority rule while respecting the minority. That would promote political institution-building and social stability.
The Arab elites need to offer their people an alternative to Islamist extremism. They could begin by redefining what it means to be pro-Palestinian and dissociating the Palestinian cause from anti-Israel rejectionism.
In this context, if Israel can deflate Hamas, it will be advancing an Arab interest as much as its own citizens' security. Source: Jerusalem Post
 Moderate Muslims have failed to do enough to combat the rise of extremism, a leading Islamic commentator has said.Dilwar Hussain, head of the policy research centre at the Islamic Foundation, said Muslims did not challenge sufficiently strongly so-called "preachers of hate". "Much could be said about Britain's foreign policy mistakes in stoking injustice, leading to anger and frustration," he said in a report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) "But to blame only such foreign affairs for terrorism is not nearly enough. "Muslims did not challenge strongly enough the preachers of hate and the peddlers of simplistic, yet nihilistic, solutions that were able to tap into that anger and frustration. "Nor did they create adequate religious institutions or leadership that could connect with young people and educate them in an idiom they would understand, something that could have protected them when challenged by extremists' discourse." In his essay, Mr Hussain argued for the development of a liberal brand of Islam tailored to British conditions. His remarks were made in the report Faith in the Nation, a collection of essays by leading figures from the five largest faith communities about areas such as British identity and faith. The report, with a foreword by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, includes essays by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. Co-editors Zaki Cooper and Guy Lodge, said: "Faith-based activities, that are consistent with the core principles of British democracy, can make an important contribution to the life and cohesion of communities and provide vital sources of civic mobilisation and social campaigning." Source: Telegraph
 Aijaz Zaka Syed | December 01, 2008
Watching the terror nightmare unfold in Mumbai over the past three days on TV, my children have repeatedly asked me: “Who are these terrorists and why are they doing this?” And every time I wished I could offer them a convincing answer. I was clueless why these people had taken over Mumbai and were targeting people who had nothing to do with them. I was also ashamed to tell them that the terrorists were Muslims and came from a country that was created in the name of Islam.
At work, while my colleagues went about covering the madness in Mumbai and laying out pages with the images of the Taj Hotel with its Islamic arches and domes go up in smoke, I find it hard to look at them in the eye.
This happens all the time. Every time innocents are targeted in the name of Islam around the world, one can’t face one’s non-Muslim friends and colleagues.
A distraught friend who has devoted her life to speaking and fighting on behalf of Arabs and Muslims wrote: “I’ve had it with the Arabs and Muslims and Islamic militancy. Forgive me but I am throwing in the towel.”
I couldn’t write back to her. She grew up in Mumbai and is upset. She went on to say: “The Muslims and Islam have a problem and only they can solve it. If they do not, the whole world will turn against them.”
If this is how our most loyal friends feel, imagine the sentiments and reactions of the rest of the world.
Can you blame the world if it’s turning against Muslims? What do you expect when not a day passes without the name of our faith being dragged through the mud by fellow believers around the world?
I know that Muslim leaders, including those in the highest echelons of power, have lately started speaking out against the extremists. The Darul Uloom Deoband in India, one of the oldest and most respected centres of learning in the Muslim world, issued a fatwa against terrorism at a large gathering of Islamic scholars in June. Last month, nearly 5,000 scholars backed the edict at a huge congregation in Hyderabad. The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), and Saudi Arabia have, of late, been vehement in condemning these repulsive acts of violence targeting innocents. But clearly, we need to do more to be heard.
The great irony of the Mumbai attacks is the killing of ATS chief Hemant Karkare, a brave officer trying to establish the link between Hindu extremists and the Malegaon blasts. He was killed outside the Cama hospital on Wednesday night. Obviously, some Muslims do not know their friends from their enemies.
It’s all very well for us to say Islam has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We can go on deluding ourselves that these psychopaths do not represent us. However, the world finds it hard to accept this line of argument as it sees the extremists increasingly assert themselves and take the centrestage while mainstream Islam turns into a moderate fringe.
Aijaz Syed is Opinion Editor, Khaleej Times Source: Hindustan Times H/T: LGF2
 By Douglas Murray Last month Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, admitted that he thought Islam should be treated more sensitively than other religions. As the London-based publisher of The Jewel of Medina (the novel about Muhammad and his youngest wife Aisha) could tell you, it can pay to be careful. Gibson Square had its London offices firebombed just before publication. But this is no time to accept any kind of censorship - whether self-imposed or worse. The Centre for Social Cohesion has produced a publication which details the cases of almost 30 Europeans born to Muslim parents who are risking their lives to speak out against aspects of their faith and culture. The most important rarely receive more than passing attention. But they deserve our focus. For the risks that they – and many other reformers – are taking will in the end be for us all. The individuals profiled range from cabinet ministers to journalists, writers, academics, artists and even pop singers. Most are in trouble for having criticised elements of what they see in Europe’s Muslim communities, particularly the treatment of women. Nyamko Sabuni, the Swedish minister for integration and gender equality, has been the subject of death threats since speaking out against female genital mutilation and proposing that all Swedish schools should have mandatory gynaecological examinations to discourage the practice. Read more ...Source: Times OnlineEuropean Governments
Latest recipients of The Dhimmi Award
 By Jamie Glazov Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Raheel Raza, a leading Muslim reformer, award winning writer, professional speaker, diversity consultant, documentary film maker and interfaith advocate. She is the author of Their Jihad ... Not My Jihad. Visit her site at RaheelRaza.com. FP: First, tell us a little bit about your own religious and political journey. Why, for instance, have you ended up being a moderate and not an extremist Muslim? Why you do not veil yourself etc? Raza: I was born into a Muslim family in Pakistan where I became a Muslim by rote -- i.e. without really understanding what the faith stands for and what our prayers mean because they are in Arabic which is not my first language. I grew up in a culture where women were supposed to be seen and not heard so questioning was not encouraged. However I was a rebel since an early age and did question the status quo but luckily for them, left Pakistan. I truly learnt about the beauty and depth of my faith when I came to Canada 20 years ago which is ironic when you think that I came from a so-called Muslim country to this secular land. How? Like many other immigrant parents, we were concerned that our kids might lose their faith. So we used to take them to Sunday school where they read the Qur’an (the Muslim scripture meaning The Reading) in English and studied the life of our Prophet. They were fortunate to have excellent mentors and teachers who were academics and scholars, well versed in both secular and scriptural subjects. In the process my husband and I learnt the spiritual message of Islam and discovered to our amazement, that there is great beauty and wisdom there. Our knowledge and research allowed us to shed much of our excess baggage in terms of rituals and cultural norms being passed off as faith and we were able to remove the veil on our minds and see the beauty of this spiritual message and also find much to our amazement, how similar it is to the message of the monotheistic faiths that came before Islam – Judaism and Christianity. This set me on the journey where I am now – as an interfaith advocate creating understanding and dialogue between faiths because I realize that much of the racism and hate around us is based on ignorance. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineRaheel Raza
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 By Perry Stein Prominent conservative activist and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes took the podium last night in front of an audience of more than 50 people inside the Laboratory Sciences Building with a speech titled “Vanquishing the Islamist Enemy and Helping the Moderate Muslim Ally.” Pipes’ views on the threat of Islamism—or the view that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology—have been met with controversy from people across the political spectrum. According to sophomore Caleb Posner, the events manager for the Conservative Leadership Association, which hosted the speech, Pipes’ words are always truthful. “What he says is 100 percent grounded in fact and is the product of incredible scholarship,” Posner said. “However, what he says is often politically incorrect at times.” Pipes’ address centered on what he believes is the immediate need to confront radical Islam before it significantly impacts Western democracy and the Western way of life. Pipes quickly made the distinction that not all Muslims are Islamists and that to classify all as such would be erroneous. He later did state, however, that based on his research and surveys, one in every eight Muslims worldwide is an Islamist, equaling about 150 million Islamists. Read more ...Source: Student LifeDaniel Pipes
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 When Muslims criticize Jews chances are it's Islamists. You rarely see moderate (an I do mean real moderate, not Islamists like CAIR who claim to be moderate) Muslims saying unflattering things about the Jews. So, normally, when I see the Jews do dumb things i.e., supporting an Islamist congressional candidate because of partisanship (American Jewish World's support for Keith Ellison) or providing utilities to a terrorist enclave (Gaza), I try to keep my mouth shut. For obvious reasons. But not this time. I thought I've seen everything: Cuban missile crisis, fall of Berlin wall, 9/11. Until recently, I thought that the father of modern terrorism getting awarded a Nobel Peace Prize was the most peculiar event in my lifetime. But a recent, largely unnoticed event, could take the cake in peculiarity contest. On December 15, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism (one of the largest Jewish organizations in America), gave a sermon in San Diego in front 5,000 Jews in which he announced URJ's alliance with Islamic Society of North America (ISNA - one of the largest Muslim organizations in America). As a part of the sermon, Rabbi Yoffie stated that "[ISNA] has issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation of terror, including a specific condemnation of Hizbollah and Hamas terror against Jews and Israelis. It has also recognized Israel as a Jewish state and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But has it really? The statement Rabbi Yoffie refers to reads: "ISNA rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration." While there appears to be forward progress in this statement, there are several problems with it: - ISNA does not say it condemns but says it "rejects" acts of terrorism. What does reject mean? Why not say "condemn"? Rejection is not synonymous with condemnation. - Yes, ISNA seems to be acknowledging that Hamas and Hizballah carry out acts of terrorism but nowhere do they say come out and say that Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist groups. Only the other day we saw witnesses on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas claim that Hamas can be divisible by its "military (terrorist) wing" and its "social-humanitarian wing." The failure to unequivocally condemn Hamas or Hizballah as a terrorist group is like me saying that I reject the tactics used by anti-abortion doctors who "claim to be inspired by Christianity." The use of the term "claim Islam as their inspiration" is another attempt by ISNA to deny the unequivocal fundamental Islamic basis for groups that carry out acts of terrorism. This is in line with ISNA's statement which claims the use of the term "Islamic terrorist" is racist. Now, how can one be said to condemn Hamas or Hizballah while simultaneously denying the existence of "Islamic terrorism"? ISNA's statement "condemning terrorism" from http://balancedIslam.org quotes approvingly the European Council of Ifta and Research. This is a council that has justified suicide bombings by Hamas. One of its leaders is Yousef Al-Qardawi who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of Jews (not Israelis) and Americans in Iraq. We all remember bogus fatwa issued by Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). The same FCNA whose chairman, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Gihad (PIG). Is ISNA's rejection of terrorism any different? Prior to his praise for ISNA, Rabbi Yoffie stated the following: " Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true." I am a bit confused. Does this mean that the Rabbi realizes that ISNA is an extremist organization? And if he does, why does he go on to praise it. And regardless whether or not he realizes that ISNA is an extremist organization, who in their right mind would propose to have a dialog with extremists while acknowledging that they constitute a profound threat? Why don't we sit down with bin Laden and see if we can make him stop murdering the sons of monkeys and pigs? Haven't we learned anything from recent history, i.e., providing a forum for Ahmadinejad? Doesn't the Rabbi understand that legitimizing extremists is the dumbest possible strategy (which also has a side effect of marginalizing moderates)? On January 2, 2008, several prominent moderate Muslims published a column in the Jewish Week titled " Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims" in which they expressed their dismay with the URJ's decision. These moderate Muslims explained why ISNA is anything, but moderate, and appealed to Rabbi Yoffie to reconsider URJ's association with ISNA. On behalf of Muslims Against Sharia, I also wrote a letter to Rabbi Yoffie, which was ignored by the URJ. So, let's examine what ISNA really is. Is it really an extremist organization or is it just a delusional rant of crazy moderate Muslims? On its website ISNA claims that it "was founded by Muslims in North America for the purpose of establishing ... outreach programs and fostering good relations with other religious communities", but North American Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum states that its purpose is to wage Gihad until "God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions." It claims that "ISNA is not now nor has it ever been subject to the control of any other domestic or international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood", yet the aforementioned Memorandum lists ISNA is #1 on the list of creators of North American Muslim Brotherhood. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the world's foremost anti-terrorism NGO, The Islamic Society of North America was founded in 1981 and is the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. Incidentally, Sami al-Arian of the PIG helped established ISNA. "ISNA serves as an umbrella group for hundreds of Islamic organizations in North America, some of which promote the Islamic fundamentalist doctrines of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Gihad. ISNA publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, which often champions militant Islamist doctrine, and it convenes annual conferences where Islamic militants have been given platform to incite violence and promote hatred. ... The president of Board of Directors of ISNA until 200 was Muzammil Siddiqui. ... He remains on the ISNA board of directors in addition to serving as chairman of he ISNA affiliated North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). ... In his public role, Siddiqi has built a colorful history of doublespeak - expressing seemingly welcome statements about terrorism yet praising the violent jihad waged in Israel and elsewhere. ... Siddiqui has made statements supporting the violent ideology of radical Islam and shunning the West. In glorifying the jihad in Afghanistan and its spread to other places in the world, Siddiqui wrote, "I can see there is already some impact of jihad in Afghanistan, in the intifadah movement in Palestine ... insha'allah, you will see, in a few years, we will be celebrating, insha'allah, the coming victory of Islam in Palestine. ... We will be celebrating, insha'allah, the coming of Jerusalem and whole land of Palestine, insha'allah, and the establishment of the Islamic state throughout that area. (Muzammil Siddiqui, "The establishment of the Islamic Government in Afghanistan") ISNA has assisted in the formation of a number of troubling organizations within the United States. One such was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Before it was incorporated under the name "The Occupied Land Fund" in 1989, HLF had been a subsidiary of ISNA, using the same mailing address in Plainfield, Indiana. ISNA's Islamic Horizons, which often contains anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Semitic sentiments; in has voiced support for fundamentalism in Sudan, Turkey, and Algeria. The editor is Omer bin Abdullah. ISNA and Islamic Horizons have been outspoken in their support for the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Sudan. ... ISNA's annual conferences are usually held in the Midwest. According to figures reported by ISNA, about 10,000 people participated in its September 1997 conference in Chicago, Illinois. These conferences provide fund-raising platform for radical Islamic groups. The Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and the Marzook Legal Defense Fund all have substantial ties to Hamas and have been among the groups allowed to participate in an active capacity in ISNA conferences. These conferences feature speakers ranging from moderate to radical. ISNA has brought in speakers such as Murad Hofmann, a convert to Islam and a former ambassador from Germany to Algeria and Morocco. In the September/October 1997 edition of Islamic Horizons, Hofmann denied that both Hamas and the Lebanese Hizballah are terrorist organizations: "Perceptions of 'terrorism' are just as warped when countries consider responsible for harboring, training, and financing 'terrorists' are listed, always several supposedly 'antiwestern' Muslim countries are on the list, as are such movements as Hamas or Hizballah. (Now synonyms for 'terrorism'). ... [I]n the letter published in 1997 by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook thanked ISNA for supporting him while he was in prison in the United States awaiting extradition to Israel. ISNA has defended an array of terrorists and terrorist charities. When HLF was shut down in December 2001, ISNA issued a joint statement with seven other Islamic groups: "American Muslims support President Bush's effort to cut off funding for terrorism and we call for a peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict. These goals will not be achieved by taking food out of the mouths of Palestinian orphans or by succumbing to politically-motivated smear campaigns by those who would perpetuate Israel's brutal occupation. ... We ask that President Bush reconsidered what we believe is unjust and counterproductive move that can only damage America's credibility with Muslims in this country and around the world and could create the impression that there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam. ... Confounded by Sami al-Arian, ISNA has employed an array of individuals who have been indicted on terrorism-related charges, such as former HLF head Shukri Abu Bakr, and even a terrorist operative - Abdulrahman Alamoudi. ISNA's funding is highly suspect. ISNA provided $170,000 in start-up capital to the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), which the US government shut down in October 2004 for funding Hamas and al Qaeda."(Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, 2002; Steven Emerson, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US, 2006; IPT Profile: Muzammil Siddiqi. On August 28, 2007, just a few months prior to Rabbi Yoffie's announcement, members of Congress Pete Hoekstra, a former chairman of House Intelligence Committee and Sue Myrick, a founder of Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus sent a letter to DOJ about ISNA. They wrote: "[W]e believe it is a grave mistake to provide legitimacy to an organization with extremist origins, leadership and a radical agenda. Establishing a partnership with ISNA is exactly the wrong approach at this critical juncture in history, setting a precedent that radical Jihadists should be the conduit between the U.S. government and the American Muslim population". Justice Department officially labeled ISNA "as a branch of Muslim Brotherhood in the United States ... Almost every single Sunni terrorist organization, including Al Qaeda and Hamas, is derived from the Muslim Brotherhood. The evidence naming ISNA as a leading branch of the American Muslim Brotherhood is overwhelming and its links to U.S. fundraising efforts on behalf of Hamas are equally strong." According to Stephen Coughlin (the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, who was recently fired for refusing to succumb to pressure from Hasham Islam, a Pentagon official who demanded that Mr. Coughlin softened his position on Islamist extremism), Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to subvert the United States using front groups. One of the identified front groups is ISNA, the same ISNA which URJ is so eager to embrace. Evidence submitted in HLF trial shows the connection between ISNA and American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group (that includes ISNA, ISNA Fiqh Committee, ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and 26 other Islamist groups, some of them shout down on terrorism charges) In North America" reads: "Establishment of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state [caliphate] wherever it is." Paragraph 4 of the Strategic Goal is the most revealing: "Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The Process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." If this is not the plan for Islamic takeover, than I don't know what is. "Mary Jacoby and Graham Brink, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, describe ISNA as "subsidized by the Saudi government" and the "main clearinghouse for Wahhabism in the U.S." ... ISNA previously invited Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to speak at its conferences, even though he is well-known for having created the "theological" justification for suicide bombing that appears on the Hamas website. That justification is titled "Hamas Operations Are Jihad and Those Who [Carry it Out and] Are Killed are Considered Martyrs." Al-Qaradawi has issued numerous justifications of suicide bombings as well as a fatwa directing the "faithful" to kill American soldiers and civilians in Iraq (except for the very few who may have lived there before the war.) ISNA has also sponsored Rashid Ghanushi, the exiled leader of the Islamic Tendency Movement in Tunisia, as a speaker. Ghanushi has referred to Jews as a "cancer" and "Satans." ISNA sells his books on their "ISNA Media Store page." On this web page, al-Qaradawi is described as an "outstanding scholar." Al-Qaradawi-penned books for sale by ISNA are: -Fiqh az-Zakat: A Comparative Study, a 600-page book -Priorities of Islamic Movement -Islamic Awakening Between Rejection and Extremism, published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) described as "extraordinary work of analysis and advice is highly recommended for students of Islam and activists." -The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam which "presents the wisdom of Islamic rulings behind everyday issues faced by the contemporary Muslim" -The Scholar and the Tyrant." ( Sherrie Gosstett, American Daily) I could go on for another twenty pages providing evidence of ISNA's ties to terrorism and extremism or describing ISNA's plans for Islamic takeover. The Investigative Project's website, among other places, contains tons of it, but I don't want to bore the reader. So, the aforementioned column written to URJ's president doesn't look like a delusional rant of paranoid moderate Muslims, does it? Then I want to repeat my initial question; "What's wrong with today's Jews?" How is it even possible that a major Jewish organization would support Islamic extremists? Does this mean that every single Muslims who belongs to the ISNA mosque supports terrorism or rejects it because the use of Taqiyya is more effective than the use of violence? No. Just as not every single Jew who belongs to the URJ synagogue supports alliance with ISNA. Muslims Against Sharia urge every Reform Jew to contact Rabbi Yoffie (Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, Union for Reform Judaism, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6778, P. 212.650.4150, F. 212.650.4159, PresURJ@urj.org, http://urj.org/) and to ask him to sever all ties with Islamic radicals of ISNA. And if Rabbi Yoffie wants to have a dialogue with Muslims, there are moderate Muslim organizations to choose from. And if Rabbi Yoffie has difficulties determining which organizations are moderate, we compiled a handy guide that would make his task a lot easier. | Issue | Radical | Moderate |
| Anti-Semitism | Yes | No | | Caliphate | Pro | Against | | Criticism of Islam | No | Yes | | Deceiving non-Muslims | Yes | No | | Democracy | Against | Pro | | Dhimmitude for non-Muslims | Pro | Against | Every deed (and word) of Prophet Muhammad (according
to Ahadith) was noble and is worthy of emulation | Yes | No | | Freedom of (from) Religion | Against | Pro | | Gender equality | Against | Pro | | Gihad | Pro | Against | | Government | Religious | Secular | | Islamic reformation | Against | Pro | | Islamic supremacy | Pro | Against | | Israel | Against | Pro / Neutral | | Koran over Constitution | Yes | No | | Reaction to criticism of Islam or Prophet Muhammad | Anger / Violence | Reason / No reaction | | Religious equality | Against | Pro | | Sharia | Pro | Against | | Terrorism | Pro / Neutral | Against | | Theocracy | Pro | Against | | Universal Human Rights | Against | Pro | | Use of terms such as "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamofascism" | Object | Accept | | Whitewashing terrorism | Yes | No |
I would like to personally thank Steven Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism staff who gathered majority of the evidence used in this article. K.M.Eric Yoffie
Union for Reform Judaism
Latest recipients of the Retarded Rabbi Award
 Updates 'Kill the Jews' statements from ISNA websiteIslamic group coming to Columbus in August hosts Pakistani terror leaderMore on the subject: Sleepwalking into enslavement (Spectator, January 7, 2008)
Another example of American Jewish Dhimmitude. A few hours after the attacks on Sept. 11, Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles, was asked on a local radio talk show about suspects. His response, according to a transcript provided by several Jewish organizations: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."
Yet "Progressive Jewish Alliance" wants to see Salam Al-Marayati as a friend. Source: Progressive Jewish Dhimmi Alliance
 October 12, 2008
By Mike Gonyea
November 4th will be historic not only because the U.S. will elect its first black president or its first female vice president, but also because Pope Benedict XVI will convene the most important interfaith conference in recent history.
Responding to his controversial 2006 speech at the University of Regensburg -- in which he seemed to imply that Islam is inherently violent and irrational -- 138 Muslim leaders sent an open letter to Benedict and the heads of other Christian denominations titled "A Common Word Between Us and You." The letter said, in effect, "We need to talk." The Vatican subsequently announced the formation of a new Catholic-Muslim Forum. Its first meeting will be held on Election Day.
Islamica magazine explained the letter's significance from a Muslim perspective: "All eight schools of thought and jurisprudence in Islam are represented by [its] signatories. In this respect the letter is unique in the history of interfaith relations."
According to the "A Common Word" website, "138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam."
For better or worse, absent in Islam are the established hierarchies found in Christian religions. As a result, many in the West have complained that it's impossible to know where the Muslim middle stands on any given issue. The fact that representatives of a broad swath of Islam will come together for the first time to speak to Christianity with a unified voice is, at the very least, encouraging.
While there are countless similarities among the Abrahamic faiths, there are also important differences. Without a basic understanding of these differences productive interfaith dialog can't happen, and common solutions to taming religious extremism will remain elusive.
Both Islam and Christianity hold that God is immanent; that he exists within humanity as he exists within everything he created. They differ fundamentally however on one key aspect of his nature. Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists beyond humanity's capacity to comprehend him. Christianity holds that God is all knowing and all powerful, but that he is also interactive, that man can come to know God, even if imperfectly.
Christian scholars have at times argued that because Muslims believe that God is transcendent there's no place for reason in the practice of Islam. To wit, Australian Cardinal George Pell has declared: "In the Muslim understanding, the Koran comes directly from God, unmediated. Muhammad simply wrote down God's eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be changed, and to make the Koran the subject of critical analysis and reflection is either to assert human authority over divine revelation (a blasphemy), or to question its divine character."
Islamic scholars argue that although Muslims don't interact directly with God, they do interpret his perfect word and apply it in their daily lives in different ways. An overwhelming majority of Muslims read the Koran fully. In the case of the Koran's various references to jihad, they believe it is both an ongoing spiritual struggle for the eternal soul and a physical war that is justifiable only in self-defense. Their belief that God is transcendent in no way precludes reasoned faith.
Modern Islamic scholars interpret the Koran through an historic lens that takes into account the language, the customs, the society, and even the archeology and geology of the time. There is a rather large rift within Islam between forward-looking progressives who accept the Koran as God's perfect word but believe it must be interpreted in context, and backward-looking fundamentalists who believe the word of God as conveyed to Muhammad in the 7th century and recorded in the Koran is, as Cardinal Pell said, "eternal and immutable". This rift is proving to be difficult for Muslims to reconcile.
Benedict knows full well that Islam is neither inherently violent nor irrational, that most fundamentalists, or strict literalists as some have called them, are peaceful. When read fully the Koran offers more than enough scriptural evidence for the Muslim middle, progressives and fundamentalists alike, to know that Islam is first and foremost a religion of peace.
Among Islamic fundamentalists however are extremists who are both violent and irrational. They teach a selective version of the Koran, and they use the concept of God as absolutely transcendent to fend off anyone who might question them. What Benedict seems to find most troubling is that those doing the twisting are among Islam's learned -- its clergymen, scholars, professionals and the like.
The extremists' pitch goes something like this. The Koran contains God's perfect word. Violent jihad is a sacred duty. God is unknowable. To question his perfect word is blasphemous. Do as he has [we have] commanded and heaven will be yours. The extremists cherry pick the parts of the Koran that support their violent cause -- a cause that many think is more political than religious -- and ignore the parts that don't. Benedict no doubt finds these sophists to be entirely unreasonable.
Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, most Muslims are still in a quandary. They are angry that their peaceful religion has been co-opted by a small number of violent extremists. They are fearful because these extremists have shown a willingness to kill anyone who opposes them. And they are frustrated because they've been forced to defend their religion to Westerners who have condemned it without first attempting to understand it.
In the middle of a war they did not start and have no desire to participate in, peaceful Muslims are caught in the crossfire. The instinctive human reaction when faced with such a threat is to duck. Having done so, the peaceful Muslim majority has lost its voice.
If in the upcoming forum a broad cross section of Muslim leaders can be self-critical, if they can condemn the extremists, not for being un-Islamic as they have often done, but for using the Islamic belief that God is transcendent to sell their twisted interpretation of the Koran as his unquestionable will, Christians will embrace them.
Benedict is singularly positioned to lead all people, despite their important differences, to agreement on what it means to be faithful to the God of their choosing. The world will be well served to follow his lead. Source: American Thinker
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Moorthy Muthuswamy
Posts
