 Leaders of several national Islamist organizations held a news conference Wednesday to broadcast their role in encouraging the families of five D.C.-area students now detained in Pakistan to report their children's disappearance to law enforcement. That the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thought it was news that they and others cooperated with law enforcement is an interesting statement in itself.
But it was more interesting to see CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad acknowledge "that there is a problem" of American Muslims turning to jihad at home and abroad. In an effort to combat the trend, Awad announced his organization would "launch a major campaign of education to refute the misuse of where are verses in the Quran or the misuse of certain grievances in the Muslim world." This acknowledgement by CAIR and fellow Islamist groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) comes after at least nine cases of homegrown Muslim extremism in 2009 and the disappearance in 2008 of about 20 Somali men from Minneapolis who returned to Africa to fight with the Al-Shabaab terrorist group. It also follows their collective insistence that religious motivation be kept out of the discussion of Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting spree at Fort Hood last month. These past actions followed a pattern, in which CAIR spearheaded efforts to dismiss any concern about radicalization in America. That denial was on full display in 2007, after a Pew survey found a quarter of Muslim American men under age 30 found suicide bombings justifiable. In a television appearance, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper bobbed and weaved to avoid confronting the question. "I think it's wrong to focus on a couple of questions to put forward an agenda that goes against the bulk of the findings," he said. When host Tucker Carlson cited a finding that 61 percent of the respondents expressed concern for rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., a number Carlson thought was too low, Hooper made it clear he was not among them: "I don't foresee a rise in religious extremism in the Muslim community." Similarly, MPAC spokeswoman Edina Lekovic cast the support among so many young American Muslim men for suicide bombings as a distraction: "When we look at the statistic about suicide bombing, it is indeed a disturbing one. But taken out of context, it's even more frightening. You know, the University of Maryland did a poll just in December where they found that 1 in 2 Americans support, sometimes--with the same wording--they find it at least sometimes justified for innocent civilians to be targeted by bombings or attacks. I think that any sort of support, no matter what side it comes from, is absolutely outrageous." None of the organizations launched any programming at that point to combat the ideology. That failure helps create a mindset that leads five young students with promising futures to give it all up to jihad, said M. Zuhdi Jasser, executive director of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser's organization tries to counter the Islamist hue of the "mainstream" national organizations by advocating a strict separation between faith and public policy. Groups such as CAIR and MPAC have spread a message that America has been at war with Islam since 9/11, he said, rather than emphasizing the country's efforts to improve life for Muslims. "Unless they're going to do a 180, saying American soldiers are in Afghanistan liberating Muslims ... unless they change the narrative then this thing they're going to do is useless," Jasser said. More at IPT
 par David J. Rusin
Après avoir discuté de la réaction inepte du gouvernement au massacre commis par l'islamiste radical Nidal Malik Hasan, nous rassemblons ici les commentaires éclairants sur la réponse des musulmans américains et de ceux qui prétendent les représenter :
- Steven Emerson, de Investigative Project, note de quelle manière certains musulmans peuvent devenir plus musulmans que d'autres lorsque des groupes de pression islamistes parviennent à les dépeindre comme des victimes. Pièce à conviction A : différences entre le traitement du massacre de Fort Hood et la mort, une semaine auparavant, de Luqman Ameen Abdullah, un imam radical tué dans une fusillade avec le FBI. Interrogé sur l'idée toujours répétée selon laquelle « Luqman a été tué parce qu'il était musulman, mais jusqu'à plus ample informé la religion n'a rien à voir avec Hasan », Emerson répond que le « Conseil sur les relations américano-islamiques (CAIR) veut jouer la victimologie... Du coup, quand cela cadre avec leur objectif, ils identifient la [prétendue victime] comme islamique, comme dans le cas Luqman... mais quand il s'agit du meurtrier [p.ex. Hasan], alors il n'a pas de religion ». Lire la suite...
Source: Islamist Watch (Traduction par Poste de veille)
 Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six "honor killings" in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes. "There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we're going to see it more and more in the United States," says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam. Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family.
Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization. Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly. In the USA, police allege the latest "honor killing" was that of Noor Almaleki, 20, who died Nov. 2 after she and her boyfriend's mother were run over in a Peoria, Ariz., parking lot. Prosecutors charged Almaleki's father, Faleh Almaleki, with murder, saying the Iraqi immigrant was upset that his daughter rejected a husband she married in Iraq and moved in with an American. "By his own admission, this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family," says Maricopa County prosecutor Stephanie Low, according to The Arizona Republic. Many Muslim leaders in the USA say that Islam does not promote honor killings and that the practice stems from sexism and tribal behavior that predates the religion. "You're always going to get problems with chauvinism and suppressing vulnerable populations and gender discrimination," says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Not all agree. Zuhdi Jasser says some Muslim communities have failed to spell out how Islam deals with issues that can lead to violence. "How should young adult women be treated who want to assimilate more than their parents want them to assimilate?" asks Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which advocates a separation of mosque and state. "How does an imam treat a woman who comes in and says she wants a divorce ... or how to deal with your daughter that got pregnant, and she's in high school?" Phyllis Chesler, who wrote about honor killings in her book Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, says police need to focus on the crimes' co-conspirators if they wish to reverse the trend. Before 2008, there were six honor killings in the USA in the previous 18 years, according to her research. "It's usually the father, brother or first male cousin who is charged with the actual shooting or stabbing, (but not) the mother who lures the girl home," Chesler says. "The religion has failed to address this as a problem and failed to seriously work to abolish it as un-Islamic." Jasser says his community needs to address how to treat young women who want to assimilate. "Until we have women's liberation ... we're going to see these things increase." USAToday
 As a U.S. representative, Keith Ellison's primary responsibility is to represent his constituents in Minnesota's 5th congressional district. The first Muslim elected to Congress, Ellison, a Democrat, also seems to feel an obligation to be the voice of Muslim Americans in Washington.
That alone would not be an issue. But in his two terms, he has established a disturbing record of promoting and defending radical Islamists who hide beneath a veneer of moderation. When those organizations are criticized, Ellison often jumps to their defense. He also travels the country to raise money on their behalf. In 2009, Ellison spoke at three fundraising dinners for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and provided videotaped remarks at others, including the CAIR-Sacramento Valley dinner last weekend. He also appeared with CAIR officials at events on health care reform and celebrating the Muslim Eid holiday. Last month, Ellison took to the House floor to rebuke four colleagues who called for an investigation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and whether it was targeting offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security and intelligence to place interns. According to the book Muslim Mafia, internal CAIR records show the group sought to infiltrate those congressional offices. "These charges smack of an America 60 years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified," Ellison said in his floor remarks. "The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to take part in the U.S. political process." The four Republican officials never asked that Muslim interns be investigated. Their concern focused solely on CAIR and cited internal CAIR documents published in the book. CAIR deserves special scrutiny because of documented proof that it was founded by members of a U.S.-based Hamas support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is an Egyptian religious/political movement which aims to spread Islamic law throughout the world. The Hamas support by CAIR founders documented in the terror-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development prompted the FBI to cut off communications with CAIR in 2008. CAIR's access reportedly could be restored if it pledged not to support Hamas. CAIR officials have rejected that pledge. More at IPT
 A New York-based Muslim extremist group known for its unabashed support for violence against Jews and others posted a link on its website Tuesday branding American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) Executive Director, M. Zuhdi Jasser, a "murtad," or apostate. Being labeled an apostate – a Muslim who renounces Islam – is a very serious accusation, often resulting in a death sentence in many places throughout the Muslim world. And while this is not a certainty in all cases and contexts, it is troubling that Revolution Muslim (RM) thought it acceptable to bestow upon themselves the license to label a pious Muslim as such. And it's not the first time the group has slurred Jasser this way. RM's latest attack against Jasser came in reaction to a video, originally posted by AIFD, showing him and U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) engaged in a Capitol Hill forum about Islam's internal struggle against radicalism.
Rather than assessing the complete debate, RM elected to post just one segment (of nine) where, it says Ellison "gives the Murtad Zubi [sic.] Jasser a schooling." We at IPT News must have heard something completely different when we attended and reported on the forum last month. Jasser, a Navy veteran, is a devout Muslim who challenges radical Islamists and advocates a separation between religion and political ideas such as the spread of Shariah law. RM's radical reaction is hardly surprising considering the group's record. As noted in an October 2009 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) "backgrounder" on RM, the group has, on numerous occasions, promoted attacks against Jews, Hindus, Americans, and other non-Muslims.
In one recent case, "RM posted to its Web site a poem asking God to 'kill the Jews' and listing ways Jews could be hurt, including by burning 'their flammable sukkos while they sleep' and throwing 'liquid drain cleaner in their faces.'" Fox News reports that the post was removed and replaced with a more innocuous article soon after it caught the eye of the NYPD. Similarly, just last week, RM posted a video on YouTube in which group member Abdullah As-Sayf Jones rants on the streets of New York City to passersby about the justification for Major Nidal Hasan's wanton act of violence at Fort Hood. In an effort to show Hasan's act had the moral upper-hand as compared to U.S. military actions overseas, Jones says: "This did not take place at a hospital. This was not a civilian target. Not a school, not a hotel, nothing else. This took place at a military base….compared to American military tactics, in which they drive drones over the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, indiscriminately killing Pakistanis. A U.S. drone does not tell the difference [between legitimate targets and civilians]…but yet, here it is, the so-called terrorist making sure specifically to target military targets." In the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting, RM also posted a link to another controversial video – this one put out by a group called AIM Films – in which a man identified as Bilal Abdul-Kareem defends Hasan's killing spree as an act against an enemy in a state of war, rather than a criminal or terrorist act. RM's mission, as stated on its website, includes uniting the "Muslim world…under the banner of Islam." In pursuing this mission, RM regularly pushes the limits of 1st Amendment freedom of speech protections in showing support for violence.
This strategy is very similar to yet another New York-based group, with whom RM shares membership and often cooperates: the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS). ITS, "an offshoot of a British group by the name Al Muhajiroun…that supports violence in order to create a global Islamic state," according to the ADL report, has openly shown support for Al Qaeda and has spewed hate against the FBI, CIA, and others. Counter Terrorism Blog
 They were just five words, but they swept through the Muslim world like a brush fire nearly four years ago, launching a scorching backlash that endures to this day. “Be quiet. It’s my turn,” the Syrian-born American, Wafa Sultan, said in February 2006 to a Muslim cleric she was debating on Al Jazeera. A woman interrupting a man? In public? In Islamic societies, particular in the Arab world, a Muslim woman could be killed for such behavior, for it challenges the very nature of relations between the sexes. Nor can such a woman, even a highly educated psychiatrist like Sultan, live in safety just by escaping the Middle East. Today, facing death threats, Sultan lives in hiding in the United States. The drive behind Sultan’s outburst, and the years-long anger that fueled it, is chronicled in her controversial new book, A God Who Hates.
In it, she tells her life story of professional success but personal humiliation in an Islamic society, and she describes Islam as an inherently destructive ideology, that keeps its adherents in backwardness and its women and children in slave-like conditions. Her book is not only riveting but important, for it forces attention on an issue of great debate – what is the essential nature of Islam, and how should the West respond to terrorism and the ideologies that drive it? On one side are those who believe that Islam is a moderate, mainstream religion, little different from Judaism and Christianity, one that can live in peace with, and thrive within, modern Western society. Key adherents of this view include Irshad Manji, who lives as an openly gay and feminist Muslim in Canada, lectures and writes widely, runs the Moral Courage Project at New York University and is author of the provocative book, What’s Wrong with Islam Today; M. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician who earned his medical degree on a Navy scholarship and is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; and Zainab Al-Suwaij, a women’s rights advocate who is co-founder and executive director of the American Islamic Congress. On the other side are those who believe that Islam is inherently aggressive and anti-Western, that it demands anti-Jewish and anti-Christian violence and that it’s not really a religion at all but a political ideology. Along with Sultan, leading subscribers to this view include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali native who fled to the West, served in the Dutch Parliament, now serves as a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, requires round-the-clock protection, and is the author of two heartrending books about her life, The Caged Virgin and Infidel; and Brigitte Gabriel, the Lebanese-American journalist, founder and president of the American Congress for Truth and author of two books that urge the West to confront Islam, Why They Hate and They Must be Stopped. This unresolved debate over Islam shapes the disjointed response of Western governments to attacks on their people and property that seem motivated by religion. Some officials blame Islam, some blame a radical perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion and some studiously avoid any notion that Islam has connections to violence, pointing instead to social pathologies or the personal demons of the perpetrators. It’s a debate that has played out this year over, for instance, the Fort Hood massacre, allegedly perpetrated by a Muslim Army psychiatrist who praised suicide bombings and ranted about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the ongoing saga of Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old Ohio daughter of Muslim immigrants who converted to Christianity and fled her family out of fear that they would have her killed for abandoning Islam; and the recent beheading in Buffalo of a Muslim woman allegedly by her husband, a prominent local Muslim leader from whom she had filed for divorce. This debate over Islam is tough and explosive, and I admit to uncertainty about which way to lean. The Koranic verses, the “hadiths” (sayings) of the Prophet Mohammad, and the “fatwas” (opinions) of Islamic scholars that Sultan and others cite in tying Islam to violence are compelling. So, too, are the Islam-based justifications for death and destruction by terrorists around the world. But, equally compelling are the examples that Manji, Jasser and Al-Suwaij have set in reconciling Islam with modernity, peace and human rights and in confronting the perpetrators of violence in the name of Islam. It is a debate in which the West must engage more openly, however uncomfortable that might be. To put it bluntly, only if we know what we’re facing will we be able to confront it effectively. North Star National
 by Rod Dreher
Phoenix physician Zuhdi Jasser was particularly stung by the Fort Hood massacre. Like him, Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan is a Muslim, a son of Middle Eastern immigrants, a doctor and a military man. But there's a key difference: Hasan appears to have succumbed to the radical Islamist ideology that Jasser spends his time as Muslim activist fighting.
Jasser is shunned by mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations, in part because he insists that they're really cover organizations for the same kind of political Islam that poisoned Hasan's mind. Jasser spoke by phone last week to Rod Dreher. As a Muslim and a Navy veteran, what lessons do you think the Fort Hood massacre teaches us? Some have incorrectly tried to connect this to Columbine and other random shootings. How many events and terrorist incidents like this do we need before we realize that there's a common ideological threat?
Over and over, we see that the common thread is political Islam. It's an ideology that brings Muslims down a slippery slope. That slippery slope can claim a gentleman that, horrifically, reminds me of my path. My family came from Syria. I was taught about the values of America and decided I wanted to join the military. I went to medical school on a military scholarship. This gentleman, similarly, was on a military scholarship. He wanted to serve his country as a physician. Ultimately, though, what infected his mind was a violent form of political Islam.
The question is: why was he susceptible to this, but I wasn't? The difference is that I was blessed to have parents who taught me that I'm an American who happens to be Muslim, that my faith identity is important for my relationship with God, but my community identity is primarily related to being an American and having a faith and loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and our system of government. Never in my home did we refer to Syria as home, or say that our government was inferior to sharia law or the Islamic state. I joined the military because I felt a deep-seated obligation to give back to the country that gave me freedom that no other country gave. I was taught the value of liberty. I saw no conflict between the fact that I prayed five times a day and that I would be prepared to give my life to protect the freedom of every citizen of this country, whether they're atheist, Christian, Jewish or otherwise.
I'm confident that that's not the way or the reason that Dr. Hasan entered the military. In your activism, you've explained how political Islam dominates mosques and institutions of the American Muslim community. Would somebody like Hasan find an ideological home there? Absolutely. And this is the part that is so difficult to explain, but to me as a Muslim is so easy to understand. Political Islam is an outgrowth of modern secular fascism. In the Middle East, the mosque was the only place you could discuss politics safely, where the government wouldn't touch you, so Islam became politicized. That's the model that the Muslim Brotherhood followed and brought to the United States. They were the ones who built mosques. This has been a frustrating thing for me as a Muslim activist. Many Muslims disagree with political Islam, but they're not pressured to take on the mosque leadership. So you have discussions in the mosque going far beyond theology and the example of the Prophet; imams use the pulpit, or minbar as it's called in Arabic, to discuss politics. I've sent this over and over again in mosques I've attended. At the largest mosque in Phoenix, the imam took a picture that CAIR distributed, and made a poster – we think it was doctored – showing an Iraqi lady holding a sign next to an American soldier, saying, "I was knocked up by this soldier." The imam held that up in front of 500 people in the mosque. I later said to him, "Not only is that very offensive to me, but do you realize what you've just done to the minds of students here at Arizona State University by showing them that picture?" And you wonder how Hasans are created! They go to mosques, they open themselves spiritually to have a conversation with God. And that becomes infiltrated by a deeply anti-American sentiment.
This is where you get a guy like Hasan, a very intelligent guy, starting to make the connection between his identity as a Muslim and standing against America. It's no different than Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in the Marines becoming a Marxist.
You can't deny that his Marxism played a role in his hatred for this country. Read more here at Dr. Jasser's site
 At a Capitol Hill forum Thursday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) demonstrated how Islamists use slander and distortion in an effort to silence Muslim reformers. Ellison delivered a tirade in which he falsely accused Dr. Zuhdi Jasser - one of the United States' most prominent Muslim reformers - of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists. Jasser, a Phoenix, AZ doctor who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, came to Washington to brief members of Congress and their staffs about the dangers posed by "political Islam" as practiced by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He also invited Ellison to discuss the issue of Islamism after Ellison spoke at two recent CAIR fundraisers in Arizona and California. U.S. Rep. Trent Franks and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation wrote to Ellison urging him not to go to the CAIR function. The letter cited damning evidence linking CAIR's founders to a Hamas-support network and the FBI's decision to cut off communication with CAIR. Read more ...Source: IPT NewsDr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
A Muslim congressman has lashed out against a fellow Muslim on Capitol Hill.Congressman Keith Ellison denounced Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, for warning that political Islam has a militant strain that's used to justify terrorism.
Jasser told a congressional briefing that terrorism won't be stopped until his Islamic faith goes through its own Reformation to separate mosque and state.
Ellison responded by accusing Jasser of giving people a "license for bigotry."
The Minnesota Democrat said every religion has its violent extremists, and told Jasser, "I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot, because you give them freedom to do that."
But Jasser declared, "This is an Islamic problem and it needs an Islamic solution." Source: Fox NashvilleKeith Ellison
Latest recipient of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
 by M. Zuhdi Jasser
Read part one of this article here. On July 26, 2008, our American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) was kindly invited to the Noor Islamic Cultural Center (NICC) in Hilliard by their director, Hany Saqr, to give a talk on any subject we wished. I asked to speak to them about "Upholding our Islamic Responsibility: Countering the Ideologies that Fuel Terrorism."
Take a look at short video excerpts (Part I, Part II) of my talk to the Noor mosque, selected with some relevance to the subject of reform and apostasy. While our hosts were very cordial, polite, and gracious, we first found it very interesting that there was virtually no publicity about our visit – which was in stark contrast from previous speakers.
They also completely avoided any media acknowledgment of our visit and message. AIFD worked to generate our own publicity of the event with an extensive pre-interview with the Columbus Dispatch.
But interestingly, despite the reporter's keen interest, the Dispatch never attended the talk or published any parts of the interview only posting an announcement of our visit. One cannot help but be suspicious of what influenced their absence particularly for a newspaper which has in the Bary case given more than adequate inches to the Noor Center's and CAIR-Ohio's side of the story. Interestingly, the Dispatch itself has had epiphanies about CAIR as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) recently pointed out on the floor of the House: CAIR has waged a campaign to intimidate and silence anyone who raises alarms about the dangers of Islamic extremism. CAIR's rationale is that discussions of Islamic extremism lead to animosity not just toward those who twist Islam into a justification for terrorism but toward all who practice Islam. CAIR's concern is understandable, but its response is unreasonable. The group acts properly when it hammers home the point that only a small number of Muslims support religiously motivated violence and that targeting law-abiding Muslims is wrong. Where CAIR errs is in labeling anyone who discusses Islamic terrorism a bigot and hatemonger, an Islamophobe, to use CAIR's favorite slur. Also note that even in Mr. Saqr's introduction of me there was no real endorsement of our ideas but rather, a statement about the value of debate.
In fact, opening a debate on reform with Muslim communities is our intention but before, during, and after our visit, there was absolutely no acknowledgement on their website or in their mosque literature about our visit. It was almost as if they checked the box of inviting an anti-Islamist and could go back to the comfort of their foundational Islamism and promotion of the likes of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. In fact, in direct feedback from some who attended the talk, I was told "that the new Islamic ideas of modernity were a welcome outlook but I should have refrained from direct criticism of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, since he is so respected by many of the congregants."
And some Muslims wonder what the real impediments to reform are? If these global Muslim Brotherhood icons cannot be criticized frankly and openly as I did in my visit to Noor, reform will never become a reality.
The work of Patrick Poole locally has exposed documentation of NICC leadership connections to official Muslim Brotherhood leadership structure in the West and to Al-Qaradawi. These speakers at Noor have previously raised concerns of their ideological mindset: Salah Sultan, Ahmed Al-Akhras, Christopher Paul, Khalid Yasin, Siraj Wahhaj, and Wagdi Ghoneim. If Muslims cannot acknowledge as I did, publicly with the Noor audience, that Qaradawi and these other contacts of theirs are examples of deep seated moral corruption in the highest order, then Islamic scholarship will continue to be driven into the ground by Islamist apologists.
Islamists will always compromise real moral clarity for an Islamist set of ethics in which the ends justifies the means (terrorism) and the Islamic state takes precedence over the secular system (Muslim supremacism). Read more here,,,,, Source: M. Zudhi Jasser
 By Cinnamon Stillwell It was often said after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that everything had changed. And for a few years afterwards, indeed it had. After decades of denial, America and its allies went on the offensive against Islamic terrorism, both militarily and morally. Most importantly, there was no hesitancy to name the enemy or to condemn his inhumanity. ... There are those trying to call attention to the threat of radical Islam, but increasingly they are voices in the wilderness. Either that or they persecuted under the aegis of "Islamophobia." Defying this characterization, Muslim and Arab reformers are forthright about the conflict raging within Islam and the religious nature of the ideology fueling the jihadists. An inspiring show of opposition came from Mumbai's Muslims, who refused to bury the dead terrorists and who marched against their hate and violence. While such demonstrations are few and far between in the Muslim world, they should be broadly recognized and supported when they do occur. Similarly, reformers in the West such as M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Ali Alyami, executive director of the Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, and former Dutch parliamentarian and women's rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, should be supported as modern-day dissidents. But instead, they are hardly household names and in some cases face castigation, even as they risk their lives to tell the truth. Perhaps the problem is the world is not ready to hear the truth. Read more ...Source: SF GateH/T: Gramfan
By M. Zuhdi Jasser At the center of the Rifqa Bary case is more than the plight of one teen. While we all like for our courtroom dramas to begin and conclude in a one hour timeframe including the commercials, the real world is not black and white. For this reason, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) has been very deliberate in our response to this case. Let us begin by saying that within some Muslim families and communities, belief in some type of punishment for apostasy is a very real threat.
It may be dressed differently or given a different name, but it is still intolerance for apostasy. But also significantly, in my lifetime as a Muslim, I have not met Muslim parents who personally countenance punishments for apostasy. But I have met Muslim clerics who do (Islamists). That being said, as a father, the thought of anyone – let alone the courts – usurping the place of the parents in the decisions of a teen is chilling. If we take religion out of the mix in this a priori discussion and hypothetically state that the girl was a younger teen who had run away from her family to pursue an abortion, I believe we would be having a much different discussion.
Rifqa's legal case is, however, particularly compelling in her favor due to her reports of prior abuse, verbal threats, and how close her age is to the age of majority of 18. Addressing the issue of apostasy is a very real concern for AIFD and has been since our inception. I believe that the Bary case should be used as tool to bring to light many questions that Muslims should ask themselves. While I have never heard a Muslim directly or personally justify violence against another Muslim for the act of apostasy, there is a significant amount of pathology in the way many Muslims deal with apostasy from almost every level – from the familial to the tribal to the intellectual levels.
What I will show here is that the preponderance of the intellectual evidence shows a systemic intolerance and, in fact, there is strong evidence for legal (Shar'iah-based) underpinnings for the intolerance, abuse, discrimination, and even at its worst, direct countenance of murder of apostates.
I will also show that, thankfully, there is a disconnect between rational, moral, lay Muslims (the majority) and authoritative Islamic law as defined by the ulemaa (the theocratic scholars) who still, unfortunately, drive the ideas of a significant minority of Muslims in the West.
This problem, as evident in Afghanistan's Rahman case of March 2006 is magnified manifold in Muslim majority nations where there is far less influence of Western ideas of religious freedom upon Muslim interpretations of Shar'iah law and their treatment of apostates.
But the evidence will show that even in the West, the majority of Islamic scholars still endorse some sort of Islamic punishment for apostasy with various and sundry apologetics. Some scholars provide the absurd qualification of "only under an Islamic state" or "only as apostasy is a war against Islam," which somehow makes that all right.
And we will see that other texts in the West still basically endorse the death penalty. Fathima Rifqa Bary Many aspects of the Bary case are beyond troubling. From media reports, Fathima Rifqa Bary of New Albany, Ohio is the daughter of Sri Lankan immigrants Mohammed and Aysha Bary, who reportedly came to the U.S. in 2000 seeking medical care for Rifqa. According to some reports, "Rifqa, a high-school junior, had been questioning her faith for several months, her father said. She attended one church with friends from school and later attended services at another church, Xenos Christian Fellowship, a megachurch that emphasizes small groups meeting at home." She then apparently joined a Facebook prayer group and connected with the Lorenzs and their Global Revolution Church (GLC) in Florida online. She vanished from New Albany, Ohio on July 19, 2009. Her parents filed a missing person report with the local police in Columbus, Ohio. Hopefully further court proceedings will clarify Rifqa's whereabouts from July 19th to August 9th and why there was a delay in connecting her with the Ohio missing persons report.
Her whereabouts became known on August 11, 2009 after an interview with Rifqa surfaced and Pastor Lorenz of GLC reported her struggle. According to Fox News she testified in a custody hearing in Orlando on August 10, 2009 "that she'd recently changed religions and is worried her relatives will do something drastic, according to WFTV in Orlando and Central Florida News 13." Her parents denied the allegations. Going on only what they knew to be the truth from the 17-year-old Rifqa, the Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF) then quickly placed Rifqa with a foster family.
A recent report from The Tampa Tribune on September 5, 2009 reviewed some of the more salient facts and accusations in the case.
While there is no denying that many of the blogs and news stories have been sensationalized from both sides of this issue, there is no escaping the fact that the pleadings of Rifqa Bary must be given the benefit of the doubt and due process. Regardless of the implications true or false to the community to which she belonged, thankfully individual rights trump those of the community in the United States. As Herb London recently discussed, our Constitution and religious freedoms which our government officials are sworn to uphold demand this.
Another hearing took place on August 21, 2009 with the coalescing of a legal and media firestorm. Rifqa's parents were present and Judge Daniel Dawson ruled that his court does have jurisdiction and more time was required to gain more facts until the next hearing. In this specific case with Rifqa Bary, the courts will surely demonstrate whether the physical threat to Rifqa is real. If there is any doubt whatsoever, I pray that she be protected.
We must surely take Rifqa at her word in her television interview that her father "would kill me or send me back to Sri Lanka…where they have asylums where they put people like me."
Rifqa also said that after learning of her conversion to Christianity, her father said, "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you're dead to me, you're not my daughter." She has said that "They have to kill me…I don't want to die," noting her fear of being a victim of honor killings. At this point in the case we also need to remember that America is founded upon the premise that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Read more here ... Source: M. Zudhi Jasser
 As an American Muslim, the terror inflicted on America on September 11, 2001 struck me on many levels. The terrorists hijacked planes and my religion to attack my country and killed over 3,000 of my fellow Americans in the process. For me, it quickly matured my life-long mission to preserve the principles that founded the United States, and it made far more urgent the need to demonstrate to my fellow Muslims that the tenets of genuine liberty and freedom as they exist in America are integral to our faith. Now, eight years after the attacks we, as a nation, continue to ignore the writing on the wall only to fall further and further behind in the contest of ideas. There seems to be a spreading denial over the threat and yet, it is obviously not going away. Just in the past few months, we have seen homegrown terror cells arrested in North Carolina and New York. And, over 30 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 – all of which have only one thing in common- the ideology of militant Islamism which fuels the radical Muslims who plotted them. Read more ...Source: FSMH/T: Gramfan
 To commemorate the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, the producers of the stunning new video documentary "The Third Jihad" are making the 72-minute-long exposé on radical Islam's infiltration and subversion of America viewable online, in its entirety, for free. For one week only, from Sept. 9 through Sept. 15, the feature-length video will be streaming on the website, TheThirdJihad.com. "It is important to remember the motivations behind the worst attacks on American soil since the Civil War," says Raphael Shore, the film's executive producer, "and to recognize that these same motivations remain eight years later.""The Third Jihad" is the sequel to the sensational and influential DVD documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." "The Third Jihad," narrated by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim American physician who has cared for U.S. Congressmen and Supreme Court justices, opens with the following statement: "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them." "The Third Jihad" documents the ongoing, multifaceted efforts of radical Islamists, driven by a religiously motivated rejection of Western values, cultures and religion, to subvert and ultimately take over the Western world. In contrast to the use of "violent jihad" and terror to instill fear in non-believers, "The Third Jihad" introduces the concept of "cultural jihad" as a powerful means to infiltrate and undermine American society from within. "Almost a decade after the 9/11 attacks, radicals continue their fight with persistent attacks on our freedoms and democracy," says Shore. "These attacks take place daily in our courtrooms, our press, our banks, our prisons and even in our children's schools. "Tens of thousands of concerned citizens have already seen this important film," he adds. "Together we need to educate thousands more if we are to stand up and mobilize against the threat of radical Islam in the U.S." The producers are also advertising that the free streaming video can be embedded onto websites, blogs, Facebook and other social media platforms. Furthermore, special screening kits are available at TheThirdJihad.com for those who wish to screen the film to family, friends and communities. "The Third Jihad" includes interviews with New York City's mayor at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Rudy Giuliani, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and several others, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel" and named by Time magazine in 2005 as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. It also features an interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who serves as the current chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "It is definitely here," Lieberman says in the film, referring to a cultural jihad by Islamic radicals in the U.S. "I don't want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism." "We all know about terrorism," the film's trailer states. "This is the war you don't know about." Source: WND
 September 9 | By M. Zuhdi Jasser | President, American Islamic Forum for DemocracySometimes, under the right light, the least obvious can become the most revealing. With all the national attention to health care policy, as if there were not enough organizations weighing in on the health care debate, recently the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) sent out a position statement admonishing the American public and their Muslim members that the, “Health care debate impeded by intimidation and the politics of fear.”What is remarkable and at issue here, is certainly not the right of MPAC’s leadership to have a personal opinion on health care policy. But what is most telling is how these Islamist organizations have a way of finding a way to worm themselves and their Islamization agenda into every political issue related to government under the name of Islam and Muslims. As is typical of Islamists, they exploit Muslim faith based organizations and their often unsuspecting supporters and members for their own very specific domestic and foreign policy agenda of the day. This agenda clearly and malignantly crosses the line of mosque and state in an aim to impose the Islamization of every topic related to the domain of government and public policy upon the Muslim community and ultimately the greater American community. Does this ring a bell? It’s the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). They are a well known political party in Egypt with a specific political platform that has now metastasized around the world into hundreds of splinter groups ..... Read more here ...Source: Hudson New York
 Steven Emerson 12 Aug 2009 This week's arrest of seven North Carolina residents, including Daniel Boyd and his two sons, on charges of supporting terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder abroad, showed how the problem of homegrown Islamic terrorism is far more rampant than the media or the public is aware of. Just look at the major cases in the past year alone: The Boyd case in North Carolina proves that radical Islamic ideology transcends economic class problems as has been claimed by pointy-headed sociologists. The Boyd family was white, had a middle-class existence, and had the economic opportunities afforded all Americans — just like most of the terrorists cited above — and yet chose to engage in jihad to the point that Daniel Boyd was willing to send his two kids on suicide missions to Israel. That the FBI stopped all these plots is amazing, but they will never continue to bat a thousand. One of these days, the jihadists will succeed. In the end, the mainstream media refuses to recognize that the "mainstream" Islamic groups are actually radical organizations that teach and imbue their followers with a hatred of the United States and Israel.
These groups front as civil-rights groups, but in fact are radical Islamic groups whose constant message disseminated to the millions of Muslim followers is that the U.S. is an evil country engaged in a war against Islam.
Once that message takes hold — and after all, these groups control the mosques, the Islamic newspapers, the Islamic schools, and the Islamic leadership from which American Muslims and converts get their ideas about the world — it is not a huge leap for some of them to become committed to violent jihad. We are talking about a situation that is far more rampant than government leaders want to admit because the Islamic groups routinely throw the term "racist" at anyone who claims there is radicalism in the Muslim community.
Two years ago, a poll was taken of American Muslims: 29 percent of young Muslims approved of suicide bombings. And those 29 percent are the ones that admitted their views. How many more would not tell the pollsters what they really thought? The U.S. is becoming more like Europe, where homegrown Islamic terrorist plots get stopped (or sometimes succeed) nearly every week. It's because of the message that today's Islamic religious leadership hammers home: that the West is the enemy of Islam, that Christians and Jews are involved in a conspiracy to subjugate Islam. And so what is the logical result of these teachings? Many young Muslims hate the West. And of that number who hate the West, a certain smaller percentage — like the Boyds — are willing to take matters into their own hands and carry out jihad. Read more here,,, Source: IAN
 By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Actively seeking a Caliphate in the USA.
On July 19, 2009, Hizb ut-Tahrir ("Party of Liberation"; HT) held a recruitment conference at the Hilton Oak Lawn hotel just outside Chicago, Illinois The event was entitled the Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islamand reportedly garnered 300 attendees.While 300 attendees may not make a movement, the meeting is significant and its occurrence should sound warning bells in the Chicago Muslim community and for all Americans. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a harbinger of much deeper efforts to convert Muslim children to an ideology that is rooted in a belief that is contrary to the liberties and ideals that Americans hold dear. While Hizb ut-Tahrir may be new to most Americans, its roots in the United States date back over a decade to Southern California and Chicago. The organization was first founded in 1953 by a Palestinian qadi or shari'a judge, and today is a global Islamist network with hundreds of thousands of adherents from England to Indonesia. It actively seeks to create a Caliphate based in shari'a law. Hizb ut-Tahrir's platform lies at the center of the contest of ideas and what it means to be a Muslim. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir use the entire faith community, or ummah, of Muslims for a specific global political agenda to give susceptible youth an identity that takes precedence over what it is to be American, and our inherent allegiance to the Constitution and its legal system. Western governments created by the people and for the people are in direct conflict with an ideology that proclaims law comes directly from the hand of God and has only one form - their theocratic form. Islamist organizations like the Council for American Islamic Organizations (CAIR) and many local mosques in Chicago often dismiss Hizb ut-Tahrir and claim that their ideas are "separate" and "marginal" from their own. However, they have made no attempt in these protestations to advocate for the separation of mosque and state. It is our contention at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) that there is no version of political Islam for American Muslims which can coexist with America's founding principles and our Establishment Clause. To discuss this conference and avoid discussing the dangers of political Islam is to miss the "elephant in the room." HT may condemn terrorism, but Islamist groups like theirs and others often become gateways for the radicalization of youth. Terrorism is merely a tool that Islamists use to reach their goal of a shari'a-law-structured government. Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the worst offenders amongst them. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is actively denouncing Hizb ut-Tahrir's efforts and its ideologies, and calling on Muslims to denounce efforts by HT to gain a foothold in the American Muslim community. The movement to establish the Islamic state will always generate groups like HT until we, Muslims, can truly separate spiritual Islam from the agenda of political Islam. AIFD maintains that a separation of mosque and state affords Muslims a better opportunity to practice their faith in freedom rather than under the theocratic oppression of Islamists. All American Muslim organizations, including CAIR and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), need to be on the record that Hizb ut-Tahrir's actions, ideologies and the overriding mission of political Islam are unacceptable to their organizations both as Americans and as Muslims. Anything less is a tacit acceptance of the overriding goal of Islamism. Source: INN
Latest recipients of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
 (Washington, DC) – Leaders from eight moderate Muslim organizations met on Monday with US Agency heads, Members of Congress and congressional staff at the US Capitol. These meeting were part of an historic Moderate Muslim Summit organized by US Representative Sue Myrick (NC-09). The summit was a first of its kind because it assembled the largest group of diverse Muslims in the US Capitol to discuss issues and policy impacting Muslim communities and societies.
At the summit, Muslim leaders were able to meet with representatives from the State Department, USAID, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in order to emphasize the importance of having a diverse Muslim voice when addressing Muslim communities and societies. They shared their thoughts and opinions on US foreign policy and aid, and how the US government can do a better job at reaching out and hearing from a more diverse group of Muslims rather than just the largest Muslim organizations who represent a minority opinion in the Muslim community.
“I’ve been working with many of these leaders for several years now,” said Rep. Myrick. “They give us valuable input on policy and provide us with new ideas on how to stamp out extremism in their communities and societies around the word. We set up this summit so we could introduce them to other Members of Congress and US agencies in hopes they will use them as a resource as well. It was very successful and I believe this summit was the first step to empower these leaders so that they will be a strong force in helping our government in combating radical Islamists and extremism”.
Leaders from the following organizations were present at the Summit:
Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi- President World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE)
Dr Zeyno Baran- Director for the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute
Farid Ghadry- President of the Reform Party of Syria
Manda Zand Ervin the founder and director of the Alliance of Iranian Women
Dr. Ali H. Alyami- Executive Director, The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Omran Salman- Arab Reformists Project, 'Aafaq (Arabic for “horizons”).
Dr. Zudi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Karim Bromund, Director of Inter-Religious Affairs for the Islamic Supreme Council of America
Dr Walid Phares, Senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and academic advisor to the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, moderated the summit. "This first summit of ideologically moderate Muslim American NGOs and leaders held in the US Congress is only a first step in a new direction so that an alternative voice would be added to the debate within the community and about the issues related to foreign policy, defense, national security, and radicalization," said Phares. "This meeting is a sample of the forthcoming initiatives and projects that the NGOs have in mind. Future summits will include a wider circle of leaders and groups. But note that even at this early stage, the Myrick sponsored summit included representatives from various backgrounds: Sunni and Shia, Arab and Iranian, American and foreign born, religious and secular, etc."
Phares added: "the issues discussed with representatives from the State Department, the Defense Department, and US Aid covered a wide range of concerns from terrorism, counter radicalization, humanitarian assistance to community participation in national perception of Muslim public affairs." Phares said that the initial idea, as raised by Representative Myrick who serves as co-chair of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House, "is to help diversity grow in the debate among Muslim Americans and within the national community on issues important to all citizens." He said that the voices of democracy and pluralism seeking Muslim Americans should be heard by legislators, the Administration and the public." Source: Walid PharesNote: American Media could not be bothered to comment on the Moderate Muslim Summit. Hon. Sue Myrick
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Leaders of several national Islamist organizations held a news conference Wednesday to broadcast their role in encouraging the families of five D.C.-area students now detained in Pakistan to report their children's disappearance to law enforcement.
Posts
