(Please watch this video in which a moderate Muslim defines moderate Islam:
— DM)
[T]he West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.
***********************
♦ According to Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, the first loyalty of radicals is to Islam while the first loyalty for moderates, regardless of their religion, is to the state. Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
♦ Radicals, Khadr charges, also marvel that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims unacceptable.”
♦ If true — and disturbing polls certainly indicate that Khadr’s findings are prevalent — the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.
After his recent electoral victory, it emerged that Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms” — a racial slur used against blacks perceived to be subservient to whites, or, in this context, Muslims who embrace “moderate Islam” as, in his view, a way of being subservient to the West.
One of Iran’s highest clerics apparently shares the same convictions. After asserting that “revolutionary Islam is the same as pure Muhammadan Islam,” Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad recently said:
“Some say our Islam is not revolutionary Islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything…”
“Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad stated that revolutionary Islam is this same Islam. It is the Islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that Islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of Islam.”
How many Muslims share these convictions, one from a Sunni living (and now governing) in London, the other from a Shia living and governing in the Middle East?
According to an Arabic language article, (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr in 2011:
“Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘moderate Muslims’ is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islam’ has no basis in Islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.
Khadr goes on to note the many ways that moderates and radicals differ. For instance, radicals (“true Muslims”) aid and support fellow Muslims, especially those committed to jihad, whereas moderates (“false Muslims”) ally with and help Western nations.
This sounds similar to Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad’s assertion that “non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies [“infidels”] and be kind and compassionate toward each other.”
Among the major distinctions (translated verbatim) made in Khadr’s article are:
Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad — peace and blessing upon him — with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
Radicals respect and revere every deed and every word of the prophet — peace be upon him — in the hadith; moderates do not.
Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].
Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this [assumption].
Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this [response].
Radicals reject the status of women today and think that the status of women today should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates oppose that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
Radicals agree to clitorectomies; moderates reject them.
Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
Radicals reject the terms “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic fascism”; moderates accept them.
Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept them.
Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West; moderates support it.
Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.
According to Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, the first loyalty of radicals is to Islam while the first loyalty for moderates, regardless of their religion, is to the state. Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
Khadr makes other charges outside his chart, including that radicals want religion to govern society, while moderates believe religion has no role in public life, that it must be practiced in private; that radicals take the text of the Koran and hadith literally, while moderates rely on rationalism, and that the first loyalty of radicals is to Islam — a reference to the Islamic doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity” — while the first loyalty for moderates, regardless of their religion, is to the state. Radicals, he charges, also marvel that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims unacceptable.”
Khadr’s conclusion is that, to most Muslims, “moderate Muslims” are those Muslims who do not oppose — and who actually aid — the West and its way of life, whereas everything “radicals” accept is based on traditional Islamic views.
If true — and disturbingpolls certainly indicate that Khadr’s findings are prevalent — the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.
Islamic apologists routinely claim that violent Qur’an verses have no validity beyond Muhammad’s time, but this story illustrates that this is not the mainstream view in Islam. The persecution of Mouhanad Khorchide also shows the uphill battle that genuine Muslim reformers face: branded as heretics and/or apostates, they’re often shunned (or worse) by the very community that needs their ideas the most.
“Opinion: A German Islam must be liberal, self-critical,” by Susanne Schröter, DW, May 23, 2016:
When the theologian Mouhanad Khorchide, who teaches at the University of Münster, published “Islam Is Compassion” in 2012, he received a variety of diverse reactions. Many non-Muslims celebrated the work as the revelation of a humanistic Islam: an Islam that no one needs to fear. This feeling arose in part because the author created a picture of God that is not “interested in the labels of Muslim or Christian or Jewish, believer or nonbeliever.”
Korchide threw out the idea that Koran verses that appear violent or hostile toward women or non-Muslims may be valid for all eternity. He wanted them to be viewed as the words of a bygone era.
It seemed that the professor, with the swoop of his pen, managed to brush aside all those reservations that made people wonder whether Islam really “belonged to Germany,” as former President Christian Wulff said famously in a 2010. One might even have thought that Muslims would offer Khorchide a pat on the back.
On the website for DITIB, Germany’s Turkish Islamic union and the country’s largest Muslim organization, one can read that Khorchide’s statements were a “rejection of the teachings of classical Islam” and an “insult to Muslim identity.” For this reason, the professor was removed from his post at the university. As if that weren’t enough, the coordinating body of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims (ZMD), a cooperative made up of a number of large organizations, produced a nearly 100-page assessment document to discredit him further, but luckily was not able to get far with it….
“Jihad,” when used in the sense of a real war, is a term that is used in the Koran and in Islamic heritage. There are clerics who claim jihad is an appropriate instrument for avenging insults to the Prophet Muhammad – such as an act of revenge for a nation’s foreign policy. These clerics are even lent the pulpit at some mosques, though the official leaders of the houses of worship issue apologies to the community if religious youths clamor after extremists. But Salafism is a youth movement, and it draws in so many teenagers and young adults that the psychologist Ahmad Mansour speaks of a “Generation Allah.”
Mansour isn’t only referring to those youths who join radical groups and potentially fight in such places as Syria, but also those whose beliefs vacillate between extremism and orthodoxy. “Generation Allah” refers to youths who find meaning in life by subjecting themselves unquestioningly to God and his rules, who ask constantly what is halal (allowed) or haram (forbidden) because their perspective is that they can be winners in paradise. I have spoken to such young men. Living in contemporary German society is dangerous for these young men, full of sin, and as a result they reject any relationships with so-called unbelievers. They go beyond what is normally required of their faith.
Some Muslim organizations encourage such segregation. Nearly every mosque has soccer teams that play against other sides from other mosques. Islamic day care and cultural centers are being founded; Islamic NGOs are working with underprivilileged [sic] people and youth. Parallel structures are being developed that would allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims from the cradle to the grave….
Yazidis injured in Germany after being reportedly attacked by Chechens (Photo: Twitter)
A group of Muslims migrants from Chechnya allegedly ambushed a group of Yazidi refugees in Germany, leaving many injured Yazidis, a number needing hospitalization. Although initial reports from Germany called the incident, which involved more than 100 people, a random fight, an organization named Yazidis International says that the fight was a setup, with the Chechens lying in wait for the Yazidis with knives and baseball bats.
Only Yazidis were injured. One Yazidi suffered a skull fracture, another a head injury and at least one other a serious stab wound.
Although there were threats of revenge, police kept the two groups apart and are considering ways to continue to do so in the future.
Reports out of Germany show that many non-Muslim refugees have been subjected to violence and other abuse from Muslim migrants.
The numbers rose from 270 in January of 2015 to 497 today.
In addition, the agency is also following 339 additional Islamists who the police feel are sympathetic to or capable of assisting terrorists.
In Austria, intelligence officials are also warning of a rise in suspected Islamists in the country, particularly with individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Dr. Jasser is a Muslim, active in efforts to reform Islam. — DM)
♦ With his March 25 Facebook post, CAIR’s Dawud Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments.
♦ It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.
Dawud Walid is the longtime executive director of Michigan’s chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). His Twitter profile currently bills him as a “human rights advocate and political blogger,” and his blog sells him as an imam who lectures on topics such as how to maintain your manners when dealing with hostile people (the irony of this will soon become abundantly clear), and how to address the very real problem of anti-Black racism within the Muslim community.
To anyone less familiar with Walid’s persona — especially online — he could easily appear to be a champion of civil rights, a man before his time in terms of addressing intra-community problems as well as hostilities between Muslims and non-Muslims. A more comprehensive review of his activities — or even just a cursory review of his commentary on one of the days he has chosen to lash out at anyone with whom he disagrees — reveals a more sinister, even cruel, man. Further, his true aim seems not to be civil discourse and community cohesion, but rather the furtherance of a particularly malignant, vicious strain of political Islam.
I have seen Walid demean, bully, and slander other Muslims for years. He has actively worked to silence discussion of critical issues, by working to shut down screenings of Honor Diaries, a film addressing the mistreatment of women in the name of “honor” culture; instigating online hate campaigns and witch hunts against dissidents — women in particular — and pushing Muslims to ostracize those with whom he disagrees. While this behavior has been abhorrent and has brought significant distress and even potential danger to those he has targeted, the broader public has paid little mind.
His most recent tirade on social media, however, may — and should — wake the public up to his real agenda.
On March 25 of this year, Walid took to social media to talk about the Easter holiday, and how he believes Muslims should treat Christians on this day. Rather than using the opportunity to offer best wishes to Christians and condemn the slaughter of Christians by ISIS, Walid urged Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” His comments were at best hateful, at worst incitement. His is the kind of thinking that leads to attacks such as the one against Christians in Pakistan over Easter, or when the Pakistani Taliban blew up a crowd of mostly women and children of Ahmadi Muslims, or when Asad Shah, stabbed 30 times, was assassinated recently in his store in Glasgow, Scotland, for wishing Christians a Happy Easter.
On March 25 of this year, Dawud Walid (left), executive director of Michigan’s CAIR chapter, posted in Facebook, urging Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” This kind of thinking leads to attacks such as the stabbing murder this year of Asad Shah (right) in Glasgow, Scotland, who was killed by a fellow Muslim who claimed Shah “disrespected” Islam by wishing Christians a Happy Easter.
Dawud Walid wrote in a now-deleted Facebook post:
“Being respectful of others’ rights to observe and practice religious holidays doesn’t mean welcoming or celebrating them.
“‘Good Friday’ and Easter Sunday symbolize the biggest theological difference between Christians and Muslims. The belief of ‘original sin’ needing a human sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) who is believed by Christians to be the son of Allah the Most High is blasphemous according to Islamic theology.
“There’s no original sin for humans to atone for since ‘no soul bears the burden of another’ according to the Qur’an. Regarding the crucifixion, ‘they killed him not’ and it was only a ‘likeness of him’ is stated in the Qur’an. And of course, ‘He begot none, nor was He begotten’ meaning Allah didn’t have a son is also a primary belief of monotheism articulated in the Qur’an.
“Be respectful, and don’t pick theology debates with your Christian family members and friends this weekend. However, avoid wishing them ‘Happy Easter’ greetings.
“Avoid giving the remote appearance of passively affirming shirk [polytheism] and kufr [disbelief].”
In the above post, Walid is referencing blasphemy — a crime in places such as Pakistan, where Christians and even minority Muslims are marked for death under archaic “blasphemy” laws, perceived insults to Muhammad or Islam. He further suggests that he believes Christianity to be a polytheistic religion, again asserting his belief in the doctrine of blasphemy. Finally, he instructs Muslims to self-isolate from both family and friends, by not extending the normal human kindness of a “Happy Easter” greeting, lest they seem to be affirming “shirk” (idolatry, polytheism) and “kufr” (disbelief; related to kafir, often used to mean “infidel”). Where blasphemy laws exist, and where this mentality takes hold, the punishment for what he calls “kufr” is death — sometimes by the state, sometimes by mobs tacitly endorsed by the state.
With this post, Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments. The above post could have been written by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam who preached violence. In fact, when blogging about Awlaki’s long overdue assassination by an American drone in 2011, Walid’s few comments were not reserved for the opinions of Awlaki, who had radicalized countless Muslims who have massacred countless innocent Americans, but instead he referred to yours truly as “the lone wolf.”
For years he has advocated for every radical Islamist he could get away with defending. For example, Detroit’s radical Islamist imam Luqman Abdullah has long been the focus of Walid’s innumerable grievances against local police and FBI. He continues to this day to portray this armed militant imam, who led a separatist “Ummah” (or Islamic State) group (long before ISIS), as the “victim” of an overly aggressive FBI shooting, despite every investigation having shown otherwise and despite Abdullah’s core anti-American separatist militant ideology.
It should raise many alarms that his social media posts, such as the one this Easter (which he deceptively took down), was written not by a known radical in Yemen, but by a man employed as a leader of the self-appointed “representative” of American Muslims, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in one of the regions of the United States most densely populated by Muslims. It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.
Radical threats require radical solutions involving measures that hurt, such as the police operations enabled by the current state of emergency. The French government’s soft, long-term strategy indicates ideological weakness and the absence of a will to fight the enemy. The enemy is global political Islam and not just a few thousand deviants that need to be neutralized or rehabilitated.
*********************
In April 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that a Salafist minority was “winning the ideological and cultural war” for control of Islam in France.
“Salafists account for 1% of Muslims in the country, but all you hear about is their message, the messages on social media,” Valls declared in a closing address in Paris to a conference on the populist exploitation of Islamism in Europe.
“There is an activist minority of Salafist groups that is winning the ideological and cultural war,” he added, endorsing the claim of his Urban Affairs Minister Patrick Kanner that “around a hundred” French neighborhoods presented “similarities” to the Molenbeek district of Brussels, reputed to be a jihadist enclave, although deeming that “comparisons are not easy to make.”
The Prime Minister had earlier stirred controversy by speaking of “geographical, social and ethnic apartheid” after the January 2015 attacks in Paris. He reckoned that in some districts in France “an essential job of reconquest of the secular republic” was needed.
The latest figures on operations enabled by the state of emergency show that these words are finally being translated into action: 3,549 police raids, 407 people placed under house arrest, 743 arms caches seized, 395 arrests and 344 people placed in detention.
One of the mosques closed was described by Interior Minister Bernard Cazenuve as “a hotbed of radical ideology.” The closure of the Lagny-sur-Marne mosque by administrative decree in December 2015 was confirmed by the Council of State, France’s highest court, in February 2016.
The mosque, 20 miles east of Paris, had been frequented by around 200 people. During the raid, police discovered a handgun, documents on jihad and a clandestine Koranic nursery school. Nine members of the congregation were placed under house arrest and 22 more were barred from leaving France.
The mosque was run by the local Muslim Association, which managed to overturn the Council of State ruling on a technicality. The government responded by initiating proceedings to dissolve the Muslim Association, claiming it was promoting radical Islamic ideology and organizing travel for jihadists to Iraq and Syria. Mohamed Hammoumi, the 34 year-old Salafist Imam who ran the mosque until his departure for Egypt in 2014, continued to direct operations from there and acted as a go-between for the jihadists travelling from France to the combat zones.
French law enables the government to dissolve by decree, i.e. with no legal proceedings, associations whose activities are considered as amounting to a combat unit, a militia or a group agitating against the French Republic. The decision rests with the Council of State.
The role played by Muslim associations and mosques in the nationwide ecosystem of radical Islam is not just a recent discovery. The problem is that up until the 2015 attacks, nothing was done to stamp out these vectors of terror, and the few public figures who spoke out about the danger were branded as fascists, racists and Islamophobes.
At the same time, the criminals who transitioned from crime to jihad benefited from the lenience of French courts.
Ismaël Omar Mostefai, one of the Bataclan jihadists, had eight criminal convictions between 2004 and 2008 but never did any time in prison. In 2010 he was registered on the French anti-terrorism database for radicalization. He was a regular attendee at the Lucé mosque next to the historic town of Chartres. In 2004 the construction of this mosque led to demonstrations by local residents. A comment made at the time by Philippe Loiseau, a municipal politician, has turned out to be prophetic:
“I fear that this mosque will be a hotbed of radicalization that will pose a dangerous risk for the population.”
Twelve years and hundreds of deaths and injuries later, the French government has rolled out its strategy to tackle the existential threat that radical Islam poses to the country. Prime Minister Valls unveiled a new plan at a cabinet meeting on May 9. It consists of 30 existing and 50 new measures focused on six areas:
1. Prevention and detection of youth radicalization
2. Creation of deradicalization centres
3. Enhanced surveillance in prisons
4. Life sentences for perpetrators of terrorist attacks
5. A central administrative command to co-ordinate local actions against jihadism
6. Suspension of welfare payments for jihadists who travel to combat zones
The 30 existing measures incorporated in this new plan were rolled out at a cabinet meeting in April 2014 by Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve. The stated objectives were to prevent French citizens from leaving to wage jihad abroad and combat the radicalization of French Muslim youth. Two years later, these measures have proven to be ineffective. Time will tell if the 50 new measures will eradicate the threat, but it may be a case of locking the stable door after the horses have bolted.
The notion that “deradicalization,” whether in the form of prevention or rehabilitation, will stem the tide of radical Islam sweeping through France seems rather naïve. It is like telling young people not to use drugs or putting a junkie through rehab in the hope that he will never shoot up again. Half a century of measures to fight drug addiction have not solved that problem and these measures designed to combat radical Islam are likely to be as ineffective, what they really need is to check www.taylorrecovery.com to find a solution.
Radical threats require radical solutions involving measures that hurt, such as the police operations enabled by the current state of emergency. The French government’s soft, long-term strategy indicates ideological weakness and the absence of a will to fight the enemy. The enemy is global political Islam and not just a few thousand deviants that need to be neutralized or rehabilitated.a
“Before I get started, I just wanted to say that we are meeting on stolen indigenous people’s land. That’s really important to acknowledge.” So declared San Francisco State University race and resistance studies professor Rabab Abdulhadi, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Seventh Annual International Islamophobia Conference in April.
Abdulhadi’s seemingly disjointed declaration was typical of the post-colonial, “intersectionality”-driven jargon of the entire conference, which sought to link the mythical plight of America’s prosperous, content Muslim population, with the struggles of every oppressed minority known to man. It was also an opportunity for two academic centers at opposite ends of the country to join forces and promote what was euphemistically referred to at the 2015 UC Berkeley conference as “Islamophobia studies.”
While UC Berkeley Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP) director and conference convener Hatem Bazian gave the opening remarks, John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) and project director of ACMCU’s Bridge Initiative, “a multi-year research project that connects the academic study of Islamophobia with the public square,” was the undisputed star.
Esposito was introduced by Munir Jiwa, director of the Center for Islamic Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, who, after noting that one of the scheduled speakers on the same panel was unable to attend, added with a smile, “I’m sure Dr. Esposito will be happy to take up the time.” Esposito did not disappoint, delivering a long, rambling talk filled with humorous asides and one-liners to which the audience responded with hearty laughter. He clearly reveled in being the center of attention and joked at the outset about his family, “They think I’m a humble person; my wife will tell you that I’m faking it.”
Musing on his experiences in academe regarding Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, Esposito claimed that prior to that, “there was no Islam unit in the American academy” and thus, “no jobs when I finished my degree.” He later returned to the subject: “The first half of my career, people treated me like an academic, which means they ignore you. You’re in the Ivory Tower, who cares? The Iranian revolution changed that.”
Esposito lamented that the “lens through which Islam and Muslims came to be seen was people chanting, ‘Death to America,’” and, blaming the U.S. instead of Iran’s bellicose theocracy, concluded, “The danger was that we’re looking for a new global threat” and “Islam was the only global ideology.”
Presenting “Islamophobia” as an empirical fact, Esposito wondered aloud that there are “still those who want to say it does not exist.” He criticized “the mainstream media” for promulgating this alleged bigotry beginning with the Ground Zero Mosque controversy and, after announcing that “media coverage of Islam hit an all-time high” in 2015, conceded that “the causes are fairly obvious and some of them are good reasons to be concerned: international terrorist attacks.” Yet, he accused the media of “hyping the threat in America and Europe” and insisted, referencing the April 19 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, that the “main terrorist threat is from white, anti-government, also often Christian-identity type movements. That has to come out.”
Turning to the “anti-Islamophobia” movement, Esposito praised reports from biased, complicit sources such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR)—a conference cosponsor—and the Center for American Progress for exposing a “cottage industry” and funding “for these kinds of things,” before directing the audience to the Bridge Initiative website. He said nothing about the conflict of interest in Bridge’s substantial Saudi funding, instead focusing on the initiative’s efforts to “set up alternative narratives,” “penetrate social media,” and achieve “search engine optimization,” before deducing, “It’s the storytelling.”
Clearly, that “storytelling” has had its intended effect in Western academe, for, in a revealing statement, Esposito pointed out that, “As someone who speaks at a lot of conference and universities, the last few years, ninety percent of my invitations [in the U.S. and UK] have to do with Islamophobia.”
It’s little wonder that “Islamophobia studies” appears to be proliferating. IRDP is certainly doing its part with its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal, and by linking this year’s conference with the Bridge Initiative and by extension, the East Coast with the West.
“Islamophobia studies” may be in its infancy, but the growing number of national and international conferencesdevoted to the subject indicate a disturbingly bright future for this anti-intellectual endeavor. And why not? Given the politicized, pro-Islamist nature of Middle East studies and victimology’s pride of place in contemporary academe, it’s a Faustian bargain for our time.
The Clarion Project has been in contact with a woman who grew up within Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a cultish Sufi Islamist terrorist group that now goes by the name of Muslims of the Americas.
She has agreed to anonymously come forward with her heartbreaking story. We have removed details for her safety. She provided photographs and specific facts that are unavailable in the public sphere that we subsequently confirmed.
The following is her testimony provided to Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro. It is one of the very few first-hand testimonies from someone who was inside Jamaat ul-Fuqra when it committed terrorism under that name:
I still know many Muslims and I know that Jamaat ul-Fuqra is nothing like them, but there are violent ones who will take issue with what I say and do. They believe you should be killed if you decide not to be Muslim or practice Islam the way they do because, to them, it’s “apostasy,” and that’s a capital offense under Islam. I do believe some of those violent Muslims may attempt to kill me.
From my point of view as a kid in Michigan, everything was great even though my mom and dad got a divorce and I was living with my mom. My first introduction to X [a Fuqra member] was when he hit me for breaking rules I knew nothing about. My name was also changed to be Islamic.
We lived at 52 Ferris Street in Highland Park, Michigan, a three-story building with six apartments on each floor. The entire building was occupied by black Muslims, some who came from Detroit. Non-Muslims were not allowed to move in. Armed guards were at the front entrance.
Living in the building was like living in a Muslim country. We didn’t go outside much because they didn’t want us to be influenced by non-Muslims. Us kids didn’t have any friends outside of the building. We were very poor and slept on the bare floor with no beds. Sometimes we didn’t have heat or hot water. We didn’t have any furniture whatsoever. We ate on the floor out of large platters with our fingers. Food was also sometimes scarce.
Once my mother was making the only food we had in the house: Beans and rice. As she was seasoning, she mistakenly poured the entire bottle of salt in it. I watched her break down crying because this was the only food she had to feed her children. Someone told her to use a potato to suck the salt out of the food so we could eat it.
The building was like a house of horrors. Some of the kids were tortured by their parents or beaten by the “brothers” in the building. There was one kid in particular I remember who was treated really badly. He would be beaten severely for little things like taking food from the refrigerator for himself. He and some others would sometimes not be allowed to stand up and forced to hop around like a bunny for days on end. They’d make him run errands throughout the building, hopping up three flights of stairs.
He was also starving and I remember him coming to our door begging for food. There was a fire set by one girl who was also known to be beaten badly and kept separate from the rest of the kids. Years later, I met the boy again and he just broke down crying. It was heart-wrenching. He wanted to know why no one helped him.
There were exercise classes in the basement. The brothers were training for whatever Muslim war they continuously told us was coming. Our schooling was irregular and not formal. There were no science classes and math was deficient. Mostly we learned to read and write English and Arabic. I learned later about the gaping holes in our education. Sometimes there was class once a week, sometimes not at all.
We were not allowed to listen to music or watch commercials. They didn’t want us to be influenced by them. There were some odd rules like the children couldn’t have cabbage patch dolls. They were called “evil.” The Smurfs were considered demonic.
This was true of my entire time with Fuqra. There was a tape recorder that I’d use to secretly record kids shows on the TV like Kids Incorporated. I only learned the pop songs from that time by hearing them sung on that show. I didn’t even hear Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” until much later in life. I’d try to memorize the songs in a closet because I couldn’t be caught listening to them.
Growing up, I thought all Muslims were like us. Later, I realized these were just the odd rules of our Muslim cult and that most Muslims did not follow most of the same rules as we did. Just like most Muslims are not terrorists and some Muslims don’t wear full coverings, every sect is different.
We would hear all kinds of fearful messages. I was told that in my lifetime the Muslims would have to fight the kafiroons (non-believers) and I would have to make sure I was on the right side of the war.
The females, including myself, wore what we called jilabias; a head-to-ankle length traditional Muslim garment. We usually made them ourselves. We sewed our own clothes when I was a kid, which was fun. We had different colored jilabias.
It was also common for men to have several wives. I was molested by one man, who I know also molested another girl. It causes feelings of shame that can affect you the rest of your life. It changes your brain chemistry.
The leader of our community was a man known as “Imam Musa.” It’s important to note that we were not Nation of Islam Muslims. In fact, we were taught that the Nation of Islam members aren’t really Muslims.
One day, there was a lot of commotion and we were told that a sheikh from Pakistan was coming to visit our little community inside the building. His name was Sheikh Mubarik Ali Gilani. They said he was a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. It was all anyone talked about and some said he was coming to the U.S. seeking recruits for jihad in Afghanistan.
Everyone in the building was about the sheikh. Every disagreement was deferred to the Sheikh. The Sheikh and his wife would even name his followers’ babies.
When the sheikh arrived, I met him very briefly because I had a weird dream about the Prophet Mohammed. I couldn’t really remember the details. It was supposed to be a big honor to meet the sheikh. The leaders of our community met with him and some changes were made.
One of the first things that happened is that the sheikh married one of the girls who was around 14 years old and he was probably in his 40s. The marriage was supposed to combine our community with the sheikh’s community in Pakistan. It was the kind of marriage that reminds me of ancient times where a father would marry his daughter off to someone important in order to have a treaty with that community. She left to live with him in Pakistan and her father became the new leader of the community.
The sheikh renamed our community at this point to be “Jamaat ul-Fuqra,” which means “community of the impoverished.”
His followers in America are primarily African-American converts to Islam, but I believe our community was the first, or one of the first, he visited in the United States. Several of the “brothers” from the building went to Pakistan to meet with the sheikh, and when they returned, they were even more militant and religious than before. It was as if they had been hypnotized.
We were told that they prayed a lot and had mysticism circles. I vaguely remember something about them praying and going up to see Prophet Mohammed. They carried out small “missions.” Various sources on the Internet said that Fuqra carried out various terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 1990s across the U.S. I heard about one of them.
There are press reports about Fuqra members bombing a building that housed a cleric. I knew one of them and that he had gone to visit the sheikh in Pakistan. Somehow, during the attack, the door to the basement got locked behind them and they died in the ensuing fire. The rumor in our community was that the CIA locked the door and trapped them inside. The men who died were considered “martyrs for the cause of Allah” in our community.
When we were there, one day I overheard people saying something about the FBI watching the building in navy blue cars outside. I looked out the window and, sure enough, there was a navy blue four-door sedan sitting out there. After that day, I noticed it was out there all the time.
In the 1990s, I heard several rumors. I heard that Sheikh Gilani was barred from entering the U.S. because he was suspected of being involved in a terrorist attack involving an airplane. I heard that Sheikh Gilani lives in a luxurious compound in Pakistan and that his family is extremely wealthy. His wives have expensive jewelry and servants and even their own seamstress.
I don’t know if these rumors are true first-hand, but supposedly there is a big dichotomy between how luxurious the sheikh and his family live and how poor his followers in the United States live.
Not long after the sedan was noticed, the sheikh sent an order from Pakistan that all Muslims in the building had to disperse across the country. This was devastating for me because I couldn’t see my friends anymore. I was very lonely. The community members went to California, Washington D.C., South Carolina, Georgia, New York and maybe other places.
I knew that Fuqra had bought land in rural areas of New York and Georgia for followers to settle at where they could follow strict religious codes. A group of us went to New Orleans in Louisiana and we didn’t have to wear our jalabias because we had to be incognito.
We lived in a two room shack behind someone’s house. The leader drove a cab. We moved frequently. I suspect that when they couldn’t pay the rent, they’d get evicted and move. In between moves, we’d live with other families and that was fun because we could play with other kids. I remember seeing scary and loud fights between the women married to the leader. A knife was pulled one time and another time a pregnant woman was kicked.
We drove to Brooklyn to hear the sheikh speak in a large mosque during one of his trips to America. His wife was there in a private room and she was revered in the community. I’ll always remember the shoes she wore. They looked like shoes that a genie would wear; gold and curled at the tip.
During that visit, I saw something that left a lasting impression on me. All the females were called to the basement of the mosque. There had to be 30-40 of us in a circle on the floor. They brought a chair out and put it in the middle of us. Then they brought out Y [a Fuqra member] and she had to sit backwards in the chair with her back facing the crowd. A woman came out with a big stick and gave her 10 lashes while the crowd of women said “shame on you!” with each lash.
At first, she just winced in agony. Eventually she was crying pretty hard. The entire scene was traumatizing for me and I felt bad for the children seeing it. She didn’t immediately go back to New Orleans, but did after some time.
The leader of the New Orleans community continued to be abusive and beat kids. I remember him beating one boy for peeing standing up. I guess Muslim men are supposed to sit down when they used the restroom. It really upset me.
One time I walked into the living room and saw one of the boys getting beaten. He looked at me with pain and fear in his eyes. I immediately screamed for the leader to stop hitting him and then I started shaking with fear. No one talked back to him. He told me to leave a room and continued the beating with a belt as the boy hunched and crawled into a corner. I felt helpless. It was the catalyst for me deciding to leave.
I took some pocket change and ran away. I didn’t know where to go, so I just walked up and down random neighborhoods and ended up at an outdoor mall. Eventually, I was falling asleep and had to go back home. My mom was crying when I walked in and I told her I wanted to go live with my dad.
I ran away again only days later and was hit with a belt when I came home. This time, I fought back and began screaming for someone to call the police. It made him give up and walk away in a huff. I later ran away again and got to a pay phone where I called my dad in Michigan. He had tried to take me away when I was growing up but was stopped by guys with guns. I knew he’d rescue me.
He called a cab to bring me to the airport and I sat there and waited for hours. Then I saw my grandpa come out of the airport and he paid the taxi that had been waiting forever. We flew back to Michigan.
After I left, most of the Muslims left the New Orleans site and went to other Fuqra places. I know some did not move to other Fuqra communities and I suspect that some of them stopped being a part of Jamaat ul-Fuqra.
It was time to start my life over in Michigan but I still suffer a lot from all I experienced to this day.
What are Muslim-American children being taught in private Islamic schools? We can learn about some of it by looking at the I Love Islam series used to teach elementary-level Muslim-American children about Islam. This series consists of five textbooks, each with a corresponding workbook and teacher/parent guide. It is published by the Islamic Services Foundation (ISF). According to the introduction to the series, its purpose is to gradually introduce Muslim students “to the essentials of their faith” by bringing “to light the historic and cultural aspects of Islam.” And according to the ISF website, the I Love Islam series “is one of the best-selling Islamic curriculums in the US and Canada.”
So what does this series teach?
It’s Palestine, not Israel
When it comes to showing the State of Israel, this series takes two approaches in depicting maps of the Middle East.
In the first approach, the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel are shown, but Israel is not named. The first example of this is on p. B7 of I Love Islam 1. Here states such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt are named; but there is no such mention of Israel. An interesting addition is found when this same map is used again on p. B2 of I Love Islam 2. On this map, the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel are now labeled “Palestine.” On p. A24 of I Love Islam 4, there is another map titled “Map of Palestine”; it includes the geographical boundaries of the State of Israel. This map shows the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, which is labeled “Occupied by Israel”; this is the only mention of Israel on that map.
With the second approach, Israel is mentioned on other maps used in this series. However, these maps are noticeably different from the maps mentioned above, in that these latter maps have more details and the print can be much smaller. The nature of these maps is so different from the ones used in the first approach that they appear to have been taken from some type of geography book. So if one looks closely (a magnifying glass helps), the name “Israel” can be found on the following three maps: I Love Islam 2, p. D13 (a map focusing on Egypt); and I Love Islam 4, pp. F8 and F24 (maps focusing on the African continent). But the small print and the extensive details on these maps would most likely deter the average elementary school-age student from examining them closely.
So in reality the Muslim-American children are being taught that the State of Israel does not exist. And, correspondingly, throughout this series the location for the city of Jerusalem is repeatedly stated as being in “Palestine”.[i]
Christians are in the “lowest status”
The Muslim-American children are taught this about Christians:
Many Christians believe that God has three parts:
God the father,
God the son, or Jesus Christ
God the Holy Spirit
In Christianity this is known as the Trinity. It says that the one God consists of three people. AstaghfiruAllah![[ii]] This is also a major form of shirk. As Muslims we know that God is the only Creator of the Universe. God or Allah does not have a father or a son and cannot be divided into two or three parts.
I Love Islam 5, p. A41
Shirk is the worst sin in Islam. The Muslim-American children learn that those who commit Shirk fall “from a very high status to the lowest one,” and are “forbidden” to enter Heaven.[iii] So Christians have fallen to “the lowest status” and are forbidden from entering Heaven.
The Muslim-American children learn that a person who commits Shirk is called a Mushrik.[iv] And the plural form ofMushrik is Mushrikun, so Christians are Mushrikun.
But why does it matter if Muslim-American children are being taught that Christians are Mushrikun? Because they are also being taught to learn and practice the teachings of the Koran.[v] So what does the Koran say about Mushrikun?
Here are some verses dealing with Mushrikun from a popular, authoritative translation of the Koran: Interpretation of The Meanings of the Noble Qur’an:[vi]
9:5 – Muslims are commanded to kill Christians unless the Christians convert to Islam:
Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk(polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
9:28 – Christians are impure and forbidden from entering Mecca:
O you who believe (in Allah’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year…
9:33 – Islam will be superior to Christianity, even though the Christians don’t like it.
It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).
9:113 – Muslims are forbidden from asking Allah to forgive Christians who die as Christians:
It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allah’s forgiveness for the Mushrikun ((polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief).
15:94 – Muslims are to shun Christians.
Therefore proclaim openly (Allah’s Message – Islamic Monotheism) that which you are commanded, and turn away from Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, and disbelievers).
98:6 – Christians are among the worst of creatures (there is a double-tap here).
Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun, will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
So the I Love Islam series ultimately teaches that Christians commit the worst sin in Islam; they are impure and forbidden from entering Mecca; Muslims are to shun them and not pray for them, but rather are to fight against them; that Christians are among the “worst of creatures”; and Islam is to be superior to Christianity.
The Example of Muhammad
Rasoolullah [Muhammad] was the best Muslim ever, and his job was to show all the Muslims the best way to do things. If we follow him, we will have a better understanding of how to practice Islam.
I Love Islam 4, p. C19
Throughout this series Muhammad is continuously lauded as the perfect role model to be followed if one wants to become an excellent Muslim. And it is specifically mentioned that the Sira (Seerah) of Muhammad “is there for us to learn lessons from.”[vii] The Sira is the authoritative biography of Muhammad, titled The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah).[viii] Here are some of the examples of Muhammad found in the Sira that “show all the Muslims the best way to do things”:
Muhammad ordered adulterers to be stoned to death – pp. 266-267, 652, and 684.
After a tribe was defeated, Muhammad would distribute some of the captured women and children among the Muslim warriors, and sell others of the captives – pp. 466, 511, and 791, n. 914.
Muhammad possessed and gave away slaves – pp. 499, 511, 576, 593, and 677.
Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured Jewish males – p. 464.
Muhammad said that Muslims could beat their wives, “but not with severity” – p. 651.
Children, try your best to be like the Prophet, to think and act like him. This is why it is so important for us to learn the Seerah!
I Love Islam 2, p. B46
Conclusion
Elementary school is where children really start learning about the world around them. Beliefs and attitudes can be formed that may be difficult or impossible to later change. This brief overview of the I Love Islam series gives us an insight into what many Muslim-American children are being taught about Israel, Christians, and proper conduct in their lives. These “essentials” of Islam should not be comforting to non-Muslims.
____________________________
[i]I Love Islam 1, p. D47; I Love Islam 1, Teacher/Parent Guide, p. 115; I Love Islam 2, p. D28; I Love Islam 3, p. D63; I Love Islam 3, Workbook, Unit D, Chapter 6, Exercise 2; I Love Islam 4, pp. A21 and A24; and I Love Islam 4, Teacher/Parent Guide, p. 24.
[ii]I seek forgiveness from Allah! – An expression of shame or disapproval.
[vi]Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007).
♦ The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
♦ “[W]e have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism… Britain’s liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. … There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides… We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little — and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims.” — Trevor Phillips, former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission.
♦ The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in Britain allows them to do whatever they want.
Many British Muslims do not share the values of their non-Muslim compatriots, and say they want to lead separate lives under Islamic Sharia law, according to the findings of a new survey.
The poll — which shows that a significant part of the British Muslim community is becoming a separate “nation within a nation” — has reignited the long-running debate about the failure of 30 years of British multiculturalism and the need for stronger measures to promote Muslim integration.
The survey was conducted by ICM Research for the Channel 4 documentary, “What British Muslims Really Think,” which aired on April 13.
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.
Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.
The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.
Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.
In an essay for the Sunday Times, Trevor Phillips, the host of the documentary and a former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned of a growing “chasm” between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain that “isn’t going to disappear any time soon.”
Phillips wrote that the poll reveals “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future.” He added: “I thought Europe’s Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better.”
Phillips was referring to his rather ignominious role in commissioning the 1997 report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All.” Also known as the Runnymede Report, the document popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain and had a singular role in silencing criticism of mass immigration from the Muslim world. Twenty years later, Phillips now concedes that he has had a change of heart.
“There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides.
“Four per cent — the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims — told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice. Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police.
“There is one truly terrifying finding. Muslims who have separatist views about how they want to live in Britain are far more likely to support terrorism than those who do not. And there are far too many of the former for us to feel that we can gradually defeat the threat.
“Liberal-minded Muslims have been saying for some time that our live-and-let-live attitudes have allowed a climate to grow in which extremist ideas have flourished within Britain’s Muslim communities. Our politicians have tried to reassure us that only a tiny minority hold dangerous views.
“All the while, girls are shipped off to have their genitals mutilated, young women and men are being pressured into marriages they do not want, and teenagers are being seduced into donning suicide vests or becoming jihadi brides.
“We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little — and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims.
“In my view, we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism.”
“Muslims want to be part of Britain — but many do not accept the values and behaviors that make Britain what it is; they believe that Islam offers a better future. And a small number feel that these sincerely held beliefs justify attempts to destroy our democracy.
“Britain’s liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. The complacency we’ve displayed so far is leaving them to fight alone, and putting our society in danger. We cannot continue to sit on the fence in the hope that the problem will go away.”
The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in the UK allows them to do whatever they want.
Some British Muslims have rejected the conclusions of the survey, which they say uses a flawed methodology because it was conducted in areas where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, compared to 5.5% overall. They say the survey results are skewed because they are indicative of Muslims in these areas and not of British Muslims as a whole.
In an interview with CNN, however, ICM Director Martin Boon said that more than half of all British Muslims live in areas that are more than 20% Muslim and that the survey findings are sound. “In my view, this is the most rigorous survey of Muslims outside of the largest and most expensive surveys conducted by the UK government,” Boon said.
The president of the British Polling Council, John Curtice, told CNN that ICM had followed standard methods of polling ethnic minorities in the UK.
Unlike many other surveys of Muslim opinion, which have usually been conducted by telephone or online, ICM used face-to-face, in-home research to question a representative sample of 1,081 Muslims across Britain.
The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2015 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.
In a statement, the Muslim Council of Britain (which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) claimed the poll lacks “academic rigor” and warned it would “do nothing but harden attitudes on all sides.” It continued:
“Many British Muslims will find it bemusing that commentators and the media have constantly tried and failed to paint a picture of British Muslims at odds with the rest of the country. The way this poll has been formulated and presented in this climate of fear against Muslims is most unfortunate.”
In an opinion article for the Guardian, Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, argued that Philips “lacks nuance” and has a “distorted interpretation of the UK’s diverse Muslim communities.” He wrote:
“Discussions and proposals to promote integration and cohesion are always welcome. But the starting point should not be that Muslims are the problem, not quite British enough, and must be civilized into a pre-existing notion of Britishness.”
By contrast, Sir Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot, said:
“Three cheers for Trevor Phillips. I think he is absolutely right. There’s an element in the Muslim community which reject our values, while enjoying our tolerance.
“We are a tolerant nation because we are routed in the Christian faith, which is a tolerant religion. As our own religious observance declines, a vacuum is being created into which the hardline Islamist community is stepping.
“We have been a very complacent society.”
Allison Pearson, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, called for an immediate ban on all Sharia courts in Britain and called on the government to ensure that all citizens are subject to British law. She summed up the British predicament:
“This is serious. Unless we succeed, the live-and-let-live attitude which makes Britain such a great place could end up being its death warrant.”
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Is a meaningful reformation of Islam possible? Probably not soon, but there have been indications that it may eventually come.
The first video in this article features an attractive Saudi television hostess opining that Islam has everything to do with terrorism and that adherents to the “religion of peace” should be ashamed.
Please note the absence of traditional Muslim female garb — on a Saudi television program.
Saudi journalist and TV host Nadine Al-Budair recently criticized the “hypocrites” who say that the terrorists “do not represent Islam or the Muslims.” After the abominable Brussels bombings, “it’s time for us to feel shame and to stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity,” she said, in an address that aired on the Saudi Rotana Khalijiyah TV on April 3. “Why do we shed our own conscience?” she asked. “Don’t these perpetrators emerge from our environment?” [Emphasis added.]
In 2014, Reporters Without Borders describes the government as “relentless in its censorship of the Saudi media and the Internet”,[1] and ranked Saudi Arabia 164th out of 180 countries for freedom of the press.[2]
Might recognition of the Islam-terrorism nexus be a step toward the moderation of Islam?Apparently, the censors let Ms. Al-Budair message get through. Why?
asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair . . . wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes,
Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.
She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.
Self-criticism in Arab world
Ms. Al-Budair is not the only Muslim in an Islamic nation calling for recognization of the Islam-terrorism nexus and arguing that change is necessary.
In an article titled “We Have Failed Indeed,” the editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, Ghassan Charbel, attacked the Arabs and Muslims for sowing destruction and fear in the very same European countries that had agreed to take them in after they had fled their failed countries. Charbel argued that the Arabs and Muslims had not managed to build states and citizens that could integrate into the modern world, and that they must recognize their failure and start from scratch. He wrote: “Are we [the Arabs and Muslims] simply part of this world, or are we perhaps an explosive charge implanted in [this world’s] entrails? Are we a normal neighborhood in the global village, or are we maybe a neighborhood of suicide bombers in [that village]? Are these massacres that move [from place to place] aimed at annexing the Arab and Muslim communities in the West to the lexicon of slaughter and suicide? Are we part of the world’s present and future, or are we a dark tempest that seeks to send [the world] back to the caves that it abandoned when it chose the path of progress and human dignity? [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
“This is the truth that can no longer be concealed or condoned. We have failed at building a normal state – a state that lives within its borders. a state of institutions that strives its utmost to obtain progress and development and provide its citizens with work opportunities and involvement, a state that cooperates with its neighbors and the world without being panic-stricken or fettered by spite. We have also failed to build a normal citizen, [one] who belongs to the current stage of development in a rapidly developing world. [Emphasis added.]
Another:
Tareq Masarwa, a writer for the official Jordanian daily Al-Rai, criticized how some Arabs are attempting to justify terrorist attacks by claiming that European countries are racist and marginalize Muslims. He wrote: “… [According to] some analyses [of the Brussels attacks,] the terrorists grew up in the outskirts of European cities and were angry at being marginalized! We hear these same excuses here. However, other analyses responded [to these claims] with a wise comparison: They [the Muslim terrorists in Europe] chose terrorism. Otherwise, why aren’t there millions of [South] American terrorists in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, since they too are poor and grew up in the outskirts of big cities?! According to another analysis, Europe does not give immigrants from North Africa, and specifically from Africa itself, the same opportunities that it gives European immigrants. This constitutes a justification of terrorism, since Europe gives the immigrant the opportunity for a free education, and thousands of Jordanians have attended French and German universities for free… and had an easy time becoming citizens of those countries… How are France, Sweden, Germany, and Belgium expected to promote immigrants who are illiterate? And under what social conditions can a 10-person Arab or African family [hope to] exist?! [Emphasis added.]
“It is shameful that we demand that the world treat us justly as we drive away our sons by killing them, imprisoning them, or failing to provide them with proper education, healthcare, and employment, and with a dignified life. The sight of people flocking to Europe’s borders, including Syrians, Iraqis, Kurds, Afghans, and Iranians, is heartbreaking, especially when they are carrying their children or pushing them in front of them – but all we do is curse the Europeans as racists who hate Muslims and foreigners, and consider it our right to murder them in their airports, trains, and theaters. [Emphasis added.]
“Did the Europeans take over our countries? Yes. But they left over 50 years ago, and we now call on them to bring down our tyrants, and accuse them of dragging their feet [on this issue].
“Terrorism is a crime, and justifying it is an even worse crime. What is happening in the cities of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, and Tunisia is terrorism, and we are responsible for its formation,its arming, and its funding. It is pointless to justify the murder of Europeans and Americans out of a desire to justify our own crimes.”[3] [Emphasis added.]
Another:
Kuwaiti writer and author Khalil ‘Ali Haidar wrote in the Bahraini daily Al-Ayyam that the Muslims are not doing enough against terrorism and are shirking their responsibility for it. He wrote: “What are we doing here in our countries, or in Western countries in Europe and America, while these terrible blows of terrorism land on us and them, one after the other? … In fact, we do not know how to act against these terrorists. Is it sufficient that following each of these terrorist actions, which take place in merciless rapid succession and are all perpetrated by young Muslims… that we say ‘they aren’t Muslims’ and ‘they do not represent true Islam’ and are misguided khawarij[4] and apostates? And will the world be satisfied with [such statements]?
“Is it normal that while terrorism succeeds in recruiting hundreds and even thousands of Muslims, we are satisfied to persuade ourselves that their numbers ‘are still negligible’ compared to the global Muslim population? Must the number of terrorists swell to tens or hundreds of thousands before we realize that a thunderous pounding torrent [is headed] towards us, and that this means that we must stop, convene, and give intellectuals the freedom to examine the reasons [for this] and the freedom to publish the results of their studies? [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
“The religious culture of the Islamic world during this era is afflicted with innumerable ills. We turn the world upside down over various matters, such as an article that offends us, or issues regarding the niqab, Halal meat, Christians using the word Allah – which Muslims in Malaysia, for instance, claim as their exclusive right. [Furthermore,] many leaders of Pakistani and other immigrant [groups] expend all their efforts in the sectarian campaign against the Ahmadi movement, to the point where they have no time to examine this terrorist urge among their young people, including among the educated, engineers and [other] experts. [Emphasis added.]
“Unfortunately, the Muslims do not yet unanimously condemn ISIS. Some Muslims praise them [ISIS members], think the media wrongs them, and join them at the first opportunity, and even carry out the first suicide mission they are offered anywhere in the world!
“One reason for the immaturity of Muslim young people in Britain, France, and the U.S. is that the leadership of the religious institutions, and all religious activity, still remain in the hands of Arab, Pakistani and other activists and leaders who have fled to the West [and continue to] support political Islam parties. These leaders may not [themselves] carry out terrorist attacks, but they also do not truly take a stand against the terrorist religious culture. Moreover, most of their writings, ideas, and strategic positions regarding an Islamic system and the caliphate state share [this religious culture]. [Emphasis added.]
“We say that ‘terrorism has no religion and no homeland.’ But we must confront the fact that most terrorist attacks in the Arab and Muslim world itself are not carried out by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Ahmadis, or Baha’is – but by Muslims and the sons and daughters of Muslims. Some are not satisfied with carrying out their crimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia, but carry them out in Western countries. And even if they believe that terrorism in Europe and the U.S. is justified because of [these countries’] ‘colonialist past’ and ‘hostile positions’ against the Arabs and Muslims – of what crimes are the Egyptians, Iraqis, Afghans, and Nigerians guilty? Do those countries also have shameful colonialist pasts?”[5] [Emphasis added.]
Islam in Obama’s America
There are also Muslim and former Muslim critics of Islam and its unfortunate teachings in Obama’s America, but their voices tend to be drowned out by Obama’s CAIR-Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood-linked friends. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, is perhaps the best known.
I have written extensively about her and her quest for an Islamic reformation, most recently here. Here is one of the Honor Diaries videos of which she is the executive producer. It deals with the Islamic concept of Honor and how it constrains women.
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.
And here is a video about the White House reaction to the “folks” in the video embedded immediately above.
When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”
While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.
Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that. [Emphasis added.]
But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore . . . he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
“If we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country — we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths.”
Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion. Donald Trump hasn’t called for that; nor has Ben Carson or any serious analyst. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (a representative of which accompanied Obama to the mosque Wednesday) and other Islamic advocacy groups have consistently charged that counter-terror efforts and attempts to restrict the political, supremacist and authoritarian aspects of Sharia that are at variance with Constitutional principles were tantamount to restricting Muslims’ religious freedom. [Emphasis added.]
Now the President of the United States has endorsed their false narrative, which will only further stigmatize initiatives to understand the jihadis’ ideology and counter it effectively.He further criticized those who dare to suggest that Islam might have something to do with Islamic terrorism by criticizing those who say that the U.S. is at war with Islam: “That kind of mind-set helps our enemies,” he intoned. “It helps our enemies recruit. It makes us all less safe.” [Emphasis added.]
In Heretic, Hirsi Ali stated that there is a unique role for the West in the reformation of Islam.
Whenever I make the case for reform in the Muslim world, someone invariably says: “That is not our project— it is for Muslims only. We should stay out of it.” But I am not talking about the kind of military intervention that has got the West into so much trouble over the years. For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network— the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis— as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Why the Tide Is Turning
Three factors are combining today to enable real religious reform:
• The impact of new information technology in creating an unprecedented communication network across the Muslim world.
• The fundamental inability of Islamists to deliver when they come to power and the impact of Western norms on Muslim immigrants are creating a new and growing constituency for a Muslim Reformation.
• The emergence of a political constituency for religious reform emerging in key Middle Eastern states.
Together, I believe these three things will ultimately turn the tide against the Islamists, whose goal is, after all, a return to the time of the Prophet— a venture as foredoomed to failure as all attempts to reverse the direction of time’s arrow.
. . . .
In November 2014, an Egyptian doctor coined an Arabic hashtag that translates as “why we reject implementing sharia”; it was used five thousand times in the space of twenty-four hours, mostly by Saudis and Egyptians. In language that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, a young Moroccan named Brother Rachid last year called out President Obama on YouTube for claiming that Islamic State was “not Islamic.”[Emphasis added.]
Here is the referenced video:
Finally, here’s a video of a Hirsi Ali interview shortly after the San Bernardino attack.
Among other key teaching points she elaborated upon in the video is the Islamist concept “don’t ask questions. Don’t ask why Mohamed wants us to do or to refrain from doing certain things. To question is evil. Just obey.” Only when she went to the Netherlands did she encounter the concept of critical thinking. What can we, in the United States, do to promote critical thinking among Muslims? We are doing little, if anything, now. Indeed, Obama’s America discourages it by affiliating with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood related groups.
Meanwhile, the Islamic University of Minnesota is among the American “academic” institutions promoting age-old, “radical” Islam.
It is run by a man who used a recent sermon to invoke a Hadith commonly espoused by Muslim terrorists to kill Jews for causing “corruption in the land.” Waleed Idris al-Meneesey also has written that Muslims should place sharia law above “man-made” law.
. . . .
“The Prophet related that in the Last Days his Umma [people] would fight the Jews, the Muslims East of the Jordan River, and they [the Jews] west of [the Jordan River] … Even trees and stones will say: O Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, kill him, except for Gharqad trees, the trees of the Jews. Because of this they plant many of them…” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Al-Meneesy, the IUM’s president and chancellor, also serves as an imam at a Bloomington, Minn. mosque where at least five young men left the United States to fight with terrorist groups al-Shabaab and ISIS.
. . . .
IUM also professes to serve as the official representative of Sunni Islam’s most important institution – Al-Azhar University, which has grown increasingly radical – in the U.S. and Canada. Al-Azhar officials have refused to condemn the Islamic State (ISIS) as apostates and heretics. According to Egypt’s Youm 7, IUM’s curriculum, offered to American students, endorses many practices used by ISIS. These include: “[K]illing a Muslim who does not pray, one who leaves Islam, prisoners and infidels within Islam [those who do not have a clearly specified creed or sect]. [It also allows] gouging their eyes and chopping off their hands and feet, as well as banning the construction of churches and discriminating between Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab [Christians and Jews], and insulting them at times.” [Emphasis added.]
Al-Azhar University was where Obama delivered a major address on the beauties of Islam in 2009. The text of His remarks is at the link.
Conclusions
America should be in a good position to promote an Islamic reformation. Europe has descended deep into the realm of multiculturalism and until she comes to her senses, it won’t happen there. It isn’t happening in Obama’s America due to the reluctance to associate Islam with terrorism and numerous human rights violations. It most likely won’t as long as Imam Obama remains in office. It’s futile to expect or even to hope that it will.
Due to Obama and His people, America is not safe from Islamic terror.
Cox Washington News Bureau reported that there were no fewer than 73 airport workers with possible terror ties, working at airports including Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Logan Airport in Boston, Orlando International Airport in Florida, Memphis International Airport in Tennessee, and others.
Fear not!
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson this week set the record straight: “It’s not that they’re suspected terrorists. It’s that they hadn’t been vetted through all available databases. We have since corrected that problem and the cases have been resolved.”
There are just a few little problems:
Presumably Johnson and his team have consulted their extensive database of card-carrying Islamic State members, and have diligently compared it to their list of airport employees, and have removed those who appeared on both lists. The only problem with this scenario, of course, is that there is no such database, or anything comparable to it. There is simply no database that Johnson could consult that would enable the Department of Homeland Security to remove everyone with terror ties from airport jobs. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[T]he Obama administration is bound as a matter of policy to ignore and deny the terrorists’ motivating ideology – so how can it vet for it? This goes back to October 19, 2011, [when] Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates, wrote a letter to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the CAIR, ISNA, MAS, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and MPAC. [Emphasis added.]
The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam,” and emphasized that this was an issue of the utmost importance: “The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated, and we request that the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem, with a fair and transparent mechanism for input from the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, including civil rights lawyers, religious leaders, and law enforcement experts.”
Mr. Brennan saluted and said “Yes, Maam!”
Brennan assured Khera that all her demands would be met: “Your letter requests that ‘the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem,’ and we agree that this is necessary.” He then detailed other specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive—that is, any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence. Brennan assured Khera that he saw the problem just as she did, and that remedies were being implemented quickly. . . . [Emphasis added.]
Some Muslims in Arab countries have been candid about the Islam-terror nexus. So have some reformist Muslims and former Muslims in America. Donald Trump also has a realistic perception of the Islam-terror nexus and might provide support for those seeking its reformation. I hope he has a chance to do it.
According to Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, the first loyalty of radicals is to Islam while the first loyalty for moderates, regardless of their religion, is to the state. Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments