Muslim Noise...and Eerie Silence

Tech Central Station via FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 5/18/04 | Stephen Schwartz

[kattracks]

I had intended to follow my last TCS column, on the growing crisis of American Islam -- i.e. on the problem of extremist domination of the American Muslim community -- with some long-developed reflections on the silence of the American Muslim community about the extremist threat to America's security, and to the situation of American Muslims. Unquestionably, the continued extremist dominance of Islamic discourse within the U.S. and globally -- and Muslim passivity in the face of it -- threatens American Muslims even more, in some respects, than it does non-Muslim Americans.

Non-Muslim Americans simply cannot be blamed for interpreting Muslim community silence at the atrocities of Wahhabi and other Islamist extremists as acquiescence, if not support for such horrifyingly brutal acts as the videotaped decapitation of Nick Berg, whose case is now so well-known it needs no further description or elaboration. Of course, I cannot deny that when actions like the Berg murder occur, "official" Islamist groups in the U.S. and elsewhere often condemn them, in pro forma statements. There are, of course, exceptions. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), for example, has apparently never gotten around to condemning its former representative, Randall Todd Royer, for his extremist activities, which resulted in a 20-year federal prison sentence. "Muslim silence" is not, however, defined by formal declarations, but by community action, and the awareness, on the part of non-Muslim Americans, that effective Muslim mobilization in defense of America, of democracy, of pluralism within Islam, and of interfaith civility, and in real opposition to extremist terror, remains absent.

But before proceeding with a discussion of Muslim silence -- and its counterpart, Muslim radical noise -- I want to thank a reader, who shall remain nameless, for pointing out a gap in my previous column, wherein I discussed the phenomenon of "new Muslims," or American converts to Islam, who willingly participate in terrorist conspiracies. I failed to mention the infamous Mark Fidel Kools, the soldier who murdered an officer and injured 15 more members of his U.S. Army unit at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait, at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kools had also been a member of the Saudi/Wahhabi-controlled Muslim Students Association and attended a Saudi-run mosque in Los Angeles. I reported on his case at the time.

 

But my topic now is Muslim discourse, not Muslim action.

 

Muslim Discourse

 

Muslim silence in the face of extremist atrocities is not difficult to understand. First, immigrant Muslims in the U.S., until very recently, seldom expected to find American Islam operating under the thumb of the "Wahhabi lobby." Indeed, most Arab and Indo-Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants to the U.S. came for normal and rational reasons -- to gain economic success, as well as better educational and other opportunities for their children. Saudis excepted, they came from Muslim societies where, notwithstanding corrupt political rule and extremist religious influence, the battle for the future of Islam had yet to be decided. Most of them knew an Islam in which Saudi-backed Wahhabism sought to make inroads, but encountered considerable resistance from traditional Islam.

 

When they got to America, they discovered a fact that I have mentioned on television and radio countless times -- that Islam is completely dominated by Wahhabism in only two major countries in the world: Saudi Arabia and the U.S. (Qatar, a minor country, officially adheres to Wahhabism but its rulers have domesticated its Wahhabi clerics to a considerable degree, although it remains the headquarters of al-Jazeera television and the residence of the obnoxious Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the worst agitators in the Islamic world.)

 

Finding that 80 percent of the main mosques in America are controlled by Saudi-Wahhabis is a pretty big shock to the average Muslim immigrant. The first reaction is: how did the CIA or FBI, which "the Arab street" believes to be omniscient and omnipotent, allow this to happen? The second is: how did I go from bad to worse, in religious terms? Back home, from Morocco to Malaysia, the ordinary Muslim could attend a normal mosque and avoid Wahhabism. Here in the U.S., Wahhabism and its variants seemed to be shoved down the believers' throats.

 

Then, in times of crisis, the Muslim immigrant watched television, and what was shown there? Islam after September 11 has been represented almost exclusively by extremists and apologists for extremists, ranging from Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the grotesque Hussein Ibish of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Ibish himself is a radical leftist who hates all religion, yet is regularly invited on to American talk shows to represent Muslims. Some of the worst Arab advocates seen on our airwaves, defending extremist violence, are not even Muslims, but are Arab Christians. American Shia Muslims who support the Coalition in Iraq are almost never interviewed by the major networks; nor do their names appear in the newspapers. Bosnian and Kosovar Albanian Muslim clerics who feel deep gratitude to America are unknown to the U.S. media public. And the non-Arab, non-Muslim academics, privileged to comment to mainstream media audiences on Islam, in most cases are strident supporters of Arab extremism.

 

In such a situation, the pro-American Muslim immigrant, who wants his religion to live up to the claim that it is a religion of peace, feels lost and lonely. If one speaks up in a Wahhabi-controlled mosque, dire consequences may result -- including even death. Some major American mosques were built decades ago by immigrants from Pakistan and India, who hated Wahhabism. But after the passage of a generation, they have been taken over by Saudi-funded Wahhabis. When anti-Wahhabi factions organize to take their mosques back, violence or the threat of it is often the result. Few Muslim immigrants want their children to come home and tell them the other kids' parents have denounced them as "Zionist stooges." And finally, Arab governments, led by the world's worst liars, who rule Saudi Arabia, avoid condemning extremism, as was so despicably demonstrated in the wake of the Berg murder.

 

The only remedies for Muslim silence in the U.S. are, first, to empower and defend those Muslims willing to publicly declare their adherence to the classic, and long-established Islamic principle of obedience to any government that "does not interfere with the call to prayer;" i.e. does not prevent Muslims from reading Qur'an, praying, or teaching their religion. On this basis, Muslims owe allegiance to the government of the U.S., which has never prevented them from observing their faith.

 

Second, Americans of all faiths must pressure the media to abandon its addiction to the black-white versions of the Muslim story, both the liberal version, which depicts hegemonic America and victimized Muslims, and the conservative version, which portrays Islam as demonic. Real journalists need to get the real facts about Islam.

 

Muslim Noise

 

But then there is the problem of Muslim noise. While pro-American Muslims remain silent, radical Muslims and their Arab enablers fill the media void. An especially egregious example came recently, between the uproar over prison abuses by U.S. personnel in Iraq and the horror of the Berg case.

 

Hussein Ibish's ADC and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) issued a statement on the Iraqi prison investigation that was a model of mendacity. As previously noted, ADC has no standing as a religious body. And both ADC and MPAC would protest loudly at being associated with Wahhabism. But ADC and MPAC did not hesitate to act together, and radically: they told America they had found the source of the Iraq prison crisis. According to them, it wasn't a matter of imperfect discipline and training, or bad orders from above, or wartime confusion, or the pressure of working in a prison in a torrid, foreign country, subjected to constant rocket attacks. Rather, the incidents at Abu Ghraib were caused by a "culture of hate" in America. The culprits: Hollywood, Islam expert Daniel Pipes, and such periodicals as The Weekly Standard!

 

The first thing that has to be said bluntly is that for any Arab group to complain of a "culture of hate" allegedly existing in the U.S. represents nerve almost beyond description. Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, flourish in America -- indeed, Arabs live much better in the U.S. than in, for example, France, which now issues oceans of crocodile tears over America's so-called "dirty war" in Iraq. The perpetrators of abuse at Abu Ghraib are about to go on trial, while most of the French officers responsible for torture in Algeria more than forty years ago have yet even to be publicly criticized! Muslims also live better in America than in Britain or Germany, where they are typically crowded together in ghettoes.

 

But if there is anyplace in the world known for a "culture of hate" it is the core of the Arab world, from whence such practices as videotaped beheadings of utter innocents originate. Videotaped beheadings were first seen, in the recent era, during the Bosnian war, when Arab "volunteers" produced some, showing the execution of Serb and Croat Christians. Bosnian Muslims, to their credit, stopped the practice from continuing. But the war in Chechnya, which has been infiltrated by Saudi-Wahhabis, has produced some 400 separate videos of the beheading of Russian soldiers, which remain on sale right here in the U.S.

 

So before ADC, MPAC, or its counterparts in the "Wahhabi lobby," such as CAIR, complain of a "culture of hate," they should act to clean up their own environment.

 

If it weren't for the hideous hypocrisy of their arguments, and their lies, the ADC-MPAC line would be laughable. The ludicrous claim that "America hates Arabs because Popeye cartoons and antiterrorist movies show 'reel bad Arabs'" -- an argument put forward by Jack Shaheen, an otherwise obscure academic -- is nothing more than a second-rate exercise in behaviorist psychology. Lots of Americans who as kids watched camel-riding Arabs swinging scimitars in cartoons, or who sat through movies featuring Arab villains, had the opposite reaction. That's how real human beings are.

 

But even more ridiculous is the claim that the incidents in Abu Ghraib were caused by Dan Pipes' exposure of Islamist extremism, or articles in conservative journals and websites. Of course, there are commentators biased against all Arabs, or who blame Islam as a whole for the threat of a "clash of civilizations." I don't put Pipes or The Weekly Standard, for which I write regularly, in either class. But the probability that the guards in an Iraqi prison took their cues from Arab-baiting or anti-Islamic commentators in America is almost nonexistent.

 

ADC and MPAC tried to exploit the real disgust and disappointment of ordinary Americans at the problems in Iraqi prisons to advance their own agenda. That roster of demands includes calling on the federal authorities to blacklist from "faith based" charity spending Christian groups which, for better or worse, have a theology of their own to defend, and which, rightly or wrongly, see Islam as counterposed to their faith. Pushing to exclude such organizations from federal programs is a lot more un-American than some individual, no matter how high in responsibility or widely heard on talk radio, popping off about Islam.

 

ADC and MPAC actually want debate about Islam ended altogether in the media. Their version of the religion is the only suitable one for dissemination, according to them. This naked attempt at censorship is also un-American.

 

ADC and MPAC further, with supreme arrogance, poor grammar, and a touch of cognitive dissonance, want the U.S. authorities to "stop making comments that suggest that the [Iraq prison investigation] demonstrates the virtue of the American democracy." According to these agitators, "any lauding of our democratic systems… in the context of this scandal, taints our democracy and will only foster greater resentment and anti-American sentiment." Oh, and they also want the U.S. to get out of Iraq in a hurry.

 

ADC, MPAC, CAIR and the rest of the extremist enablers live in an upside-down world where America represents a culture of hatred and the Arab world a culture of virtue. Such nonsense is no more legitimate or valuable than the ignorant comments and claims they supposedly wish to oppose; it mirrors them. ADC and MPAC have no standing to order the U.S. authorities how to handle the Iraq prison situation. Those who did wrong at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere will be punished, which is to the credit of our culture, traditions, laws, and military, and we will continue to take pride in that fact.

 

In Qur'an, the Islamic scripture, we read: "truth stands forth from falsehood." In this context, the same may be said. America will cleanse itself of the stain of prison abuse in Iraq, because America's culture rejects hatred and cruelty. Let ADC, MPAC, CAIR, and the rest work on cleansing their culture of the stain of Nick Berg's blood -- to name but one victim. Otherwise, at the present time, Muslim silence might be preferable to Muslim noise.

---

Stephen Schwartz, an author and journalist, is author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. A vociferous critic of Wahhabism, Schwartz is a frequent contributor to National Review, The Weekly Standard, and other publications.

[Theo]

Ping for later reading ...

[Barney Gumble]

I don't think you can equate Moslems with Nazis. That's really not fair. Perhaps try equating Moslems with Germans in 1942. Some were Nazis, many remained silent to atrocities, and some tried to escape. Well I can't say it any better than Winston Churchill did in 1899:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

[John O]

The non-Wahhabist Muslims need to speak out more. They can't sit quietly by as their religion is hijacked by extremists or their silence will be heard as acceptance

What you are missing is that the Wahhabist extremists practice a much truer form of islam than the non-wahhabists do. The only truer form of islam to exist is the taliban. Their scriptures command them to be terrorists.

The war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem

[John O]

Wholesale renunciation is about the only thing that I see as evidence of loyalty

Wholesale renunciation IS NOT evidence of loyalty.

Their scriptures command them to lie if they can gain advantage by it.

The only trustworthy moslem is a dead moslem. Unfortunate but it's determined by their scriptures.

The war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem. Even if they convert (And I sincerely pray that they do) they can't be trusted.

[Sabertooth]

Second, Americans of all faiths must pressure the media to abandon its addiction to the black-white versions of the Muslim story, both the liberal version, which depicts hegemonic America and victimized Muslims, and the conservative version, which portrays Islam as demonic. Real journalists need to get the real facts about Islam.

Here's a test for Stephen Schwartz:

What are the real facts about Islam's founder, Mohammed?

What are the real congruencies between Mohammed and Muslim terrorists?

In Qur'an, the Islamic scripture, we read: "truth stands forth from falsehood." In this context, the same may be said. America will cleanse itself of the stain of prison abuse in Iraq, because America's culture rejects hatred and cruelty. Let ADC, MPAC, CAIR, and the rest work on cleansing their culture of the stain of Nick Berg's blood -- to name but one victim. Otherwise, at the present time, Muslim silence might be preferable to Muslim noise.

Since about all we get from Muslims is noise or silent acquiescence, let's look at what else we read in the Koran, according to Mohammed:

"Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly." (Sura 4:90)

"Fight them until Islam reigns supreme." (Sura 2:193)

"Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12)

"Allah threatens the Muslim who does not make war on the "unbelievers" with death." (Sura 9:39)

[Barney Gumble]

The war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem

Come on, that’s silly. The war on terror should end without killing all Muslims. There just need to be a more un-sophisticated mentality with defeating the terrorists. Negotiations don’t work. You will never be able to negotiate with Al-Sadr. The US will have to start acting a bit more strongly in Iraq by putting down rebellions instead of being wishy-washy and political. The US needs to show who is dominant. The only thing that will stop terrorists will be a gut-wrenching fear of non-PC massive American retaliation upon a grand scale.

Think of bullies at school. If you try to be nice, you get bullied. If you hit back weakly, you still get bullied. If you beat the ever-living-snot out of a bully, he, nor, his friends will ever ever both you again.

Besides the Old Testament says some pretty nasty stuff too, but Jews seeem to have the ability not to follow every verse literally to find the deeper message and meaning. So you could be saying that all Jews aren't practicing a true form of Judaism. (By contrast there is nothing dodgy in the new Testament.)

[MissAmericanPie]

"Indeed, most Arab and Indo-Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants to the U.S. came for normal and rational reasons -- to gain economic success, as well as better educational and other opportunities for their children."

Their desire for these things is not a good enough reason to allow them to "migrate" to our nation. The only reason to allow anyone to migrate to the US is because they are in some way an asset, and/or mainly that they embrace our constitutional form of government and reject any other. Muslims have no business here. Arabs should only be welcome, as long as they are not Muslim.

The very act of being a Muslim reveals an ambition for only a theoracy form of government. That is not welcome here and it is past time for our government to start representing the American citizen living here, rather than looking at all of humanity as an American waiting to happen and representing them instead of us.

[wita]

Allow me to graciously disagree with your comments vis-a-vis renunciation. I personally believe they are incapable of renunciation. I would agree that wholesale renunciation is not sufficient evidence of loyalty, but it is a start, and trust can begin later, after the long term proof. I believe they are capable of learning the truth and accepting it as much as the next person blinded by darkness for over 1000 years, but first the renunciation, or they are outta here, all of them by the numbers, rich, poor, adults, children, the whole lot.

Or, internment, and they can feed themselves, If the various groups funding terrorism were taking care of a few million islamic refugees in various countries, that might just slow down the terrorism expenditures. I do not believe in allowing terrorist nests to exist under the banner of freedom called the Constitution of the United States of America, thus, Mosks would be history, yesterday. A little judicious oil drilling where ever companies can prove there is oil worth drilling for, would also be a start at slowing the billions islam has to fight the infidel.

If we really want to get radical we can start rationing fuel until the drilling and building of new refinaries has boosted domestic production to the extent we are self sufficient, and then we would be able to keep our oil workers and engineers home instead of them supporting the enemy oil production.

[nuconvert]

I don't see that Huntwork article as a rebuttal. He and Schwartz agree.

[nuconvert]

P O N G !

" If one speaks up in a Wahhabi-controlled mosque, dire consequences may result -- including even death."

"The only remedies for Muslim silence in the U.S. are, first, to empower and defend those Muslims willing to publicly declare their adherence to the classic, and long-established Islamic principle of obedience to any government that "does not interfere with the call to prayer;"

LONG, but VERY GOOD, PONG !

[John O]

me->The war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem

you->Come on, that’s silly. The war on terror should end without killing all Muslims. There just need to be a more un-sophisticated mentality with defeating the terrorists. Negotiations don’t work. You will never be able to negotiate with Al-Sadr. The US will have to start acting a bit more strongly in Iraq by putting down rebellions instead of being wishy-washy and political. The US needs to show who is dominant. The only thing that will stop terrorists will be a gut-wrenching fear of non-PC massive American retaliation upon a grand scale.

It's been said that the moslem is either at your feet or at your throat. Lets say we do what you say and respond in overwhelming crushing force (which I think is a great idea) but we don't kill the last moslem. Islam remains.

At some point in the future (when a democrat or some other enemy of America is elected president)the surviving islamics will rise up again and retunr to terrorism. They can't help but do it AS THEIR SCRIPTURE COMMANDS IT

The time between our crushing them and their resurgence is merely a brief cease fire, not the end of terrorism. Terrorism only ends when islam is no more and that requires the death of the last moslem. (since we can't trust their conversion as they are commanded to lie to gain advantage)

Think of bullies at school. If you try to be nice, you get bullied. If you hit back weakly, you still get bullied. If you beat the ever-living-snot out of a bully, he, nor, his friends will ever ever both you again.

Unless he thinks he can bully you again. When you are weak or not paying sufficient attention. When he thinks he has the upper hand he will attack again. The moslem is either at your feet or at your throat

Besides the Old Testament says some pretty nasty stuff too, but Jews seem to have the ability not to follow every verse literally to find the deeper message and meaning. So you could be saying that all Jews aren't practicing a true form of Judaism.

No Jew is practicing a true form of Judaism. Of course it's beyond their control right now as they don't have a temple. They can't do the sacrifices that are commanded. etc. The best they can get is partial Judaism.

(By contrast there is nothing dodgy in the new Testament.)

Nothing that I know of.

[John O]

I personally believe they are incapable of renunciation. I would agree that wholesale renunciation is not sufficient evidence of loyalty, but it is a start, and trust can begin later, after the long term proof.

Long term proof. That's the issue. How long is long enough? A moslem may truthfully convert but how long do we wait until we trust him?

We really can't count the war on terror as over until the last moslem (even converted moslems) dies. This may be 60-70 years after the ending of open hostilities but until islam is totally dead we must remain at war with it

[kjvail]

I was thinking about this this morning. What exactly is a Muslim 'moderate'. Is this the equalivalent of the Christian 'moderates' we have in our societies?
You know those people that attend church a few times a year and profess a faith in Jesus Christ but wouldn't know the Gospels if they were beat over the head with them?
Is this the type of Muslim we are counting on to change the international face of Islam?
Christian 'moderates' are irrelevant to the inter-denominational dialogue we have - they are too self-absorbed, apathetic and ignorant of their own faith to contribute in any way.
I would imagine there are Muslims of the same stripe - someone called them M.I.N.O (muslim in name only) which would be appropriate if they are similar to our C.I.N.O. (christian in name only).
It occurs to me that this is just one more angle of the secular media to assert the only good person of religious faith is one that doesn't actually live it.

[wita]

Based on their beliefs, we must agree.

[nuconvert]

"What exactly is a Muslim 'moderate'?"

Well, I think everyone has their own take on this term. Sometimes, I think it's used to differentiate all those who aren't radical fundamentalists. I think C.A.I.R tries to pawn themselves off as 'moderate'. That's a Joke!

Who will change the face of Islam? Muslims who care about their religion and don't like seeing the radical fundamentalists, and terrorists bastardize the Koran and use it for their own gains.

I don't know if I agree with your definition of "Christian moderates". To me, they represent the majority of people who say they're Christians - they may not go to church every Sunday, or open their Bible very much, but they send their kids to church, and they try to live by the Ten Commandments and know the names of the first 4 books of the New Testament. They're the middle-of-the-road Christians. I don't see them as apathetic, though they can be self-absorbed.
To me, the C.I.N.O. people, are the ones who don't make any real effort to live by the Ten Commandments, and generally dislike everyone who is a little different than they are, have little capacity for love, but still have the nerve to call themselves Christians. Also in this group are the people who believe in all the left-wing causes, and still profess to be Christians.
So, I suppose it comes down to semantics.

[Valin]

I recall reading that there are 10,000 Muslims now serving in the armed forces.
For what it's worth here's one

http://omarmasry.net/
Iraq 2.0
Omar Masry Civil Affairs Sergeant US Army Baghdad, Iraq
Spring 2003. In one decisive moment, a statue would crash in the center of Baghdad and a war, fraught with controversy, would pull the most powerful military on earth into a race to win the peace. 25 million Iraqi's are now witness to one of the most dynamic changes in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I'm not sure if he's still in Baghdad, as his last entry is Thursday, January 29, 2004

[Valin]

Finding that 80 percent of the main mosques in America are controlled by Saudi-Wahhabis is a pretty big shock to the average Muslim immigrant.

Islamic Extremism: A Viable Threat to U.S. National Security
An Open Forum at the U.S. Department of State, January 7, 1999

(snip)
Moreover, what we are interested in in the United States. I’d like to say that there have been many non-profit organizations established in the United States whose job is only to collect money and to send it, as you know – most of you know – to send it to extremists outside the United States. This is a big dilemma that is facing us here, because you don't know where the money is going, and it is more than hundreds of millions of dollars that have been sent to extremist parties in the Middle East and the Far East, as well as Afghanistan and the Caucasus now. Our sources say that many, many millions of dollars have been collected and sent. They send it under humanitarian aid, but it doesn't go to humanitarian aid. They say that it is to help the people of this country or that country, and they show on television and on their flyers that they are delivering it to help homeless people or poor people. Yes, some of it will go to homeless people and poor people but the majority, 90 per cent of it, will go into the black markets in these countries and buying weapon arsenals.

I know this from my home country of Lebanon where we used to receive a lot of aid from the United States and United Nations. As soon as the aid arrived in Lebanon, you could see a little bit go to the public and the rest would be sold in the black market. For a box that costs more than $100, you can go and buy it in the black market for less than $20. All this money, that came under humanitarian aid, they resell so you cannot trace it, they go back and buy weapons with it to fight and to spread extremism under the name of Islam.

The second issue that United States has to look on within, for security, is the fact that there are many Muslim organizations that claim to speak on behalf of the Muslim community but that in reality are not moderate, but extremist. They hijacked the mike, or they were elected because they are good speakers, but they give a wrong idea about Islam. Always we see them in the media criticizing and complaining and sending action alerts and media alerts and showing people that we do not accept this or we reject that.

Like, for example, with the recent issue of Iraq. The Islamic Supreme Council sent a statement that there are victims in Iraq and there is bloodshed in Iraq, but it is a matter of national security to stop Saddam Hussein from running the country, and it is not a Muslim issue. When everyone was saying from the Muslim community that it is a Muslim issue, we stood fast and we stood alone to say that it is not a Muslim issue but that it is a political issue. Saddam Hussein is a communist in his background. He is of the socialist Ba'ath party, which does not believe in religion. It is secular and does not believe in religion. Anyone who has a beard or anyone wears a turban will be put in prison within a day. This is the mentality of this kind of regime. So it is not a Muslim issue, it's a political issue. It's a Muslim issue when you are hurting the people, and you are hurting a whole community as if we were to say that we are fighting the Iraqi people. But the policy was not to fight the Iraqi people. The policy was to fight a tyranny that was running Iraq. That's a big difference. So we stood up and we said this and we have received a lot of criticism from the Muslim community. But we want to advise the American community and we want to advise our government, our congressmen, that there is something big going on and people are not understanding it.

The third major problem that is now going on is that you have many mosques around the United States and there is not an organized government or policy to look over the mosques like in Muslim countries where you cannot open a mosque by yourself, and you cannot open a charity by yourself. It has to be done according to the structure of the Islamic religion. That's why in the Muslim countries, you cannot find extremist ideology. As soon as you find the extremist ideology they kick them out and bring in traditional Islamic scholars. The extremist ideology comes from the street so the extremists don't know what they are talking about. So they form small circles in different homes or different basements or in different areas and they begin to brainwash the people. That's why we find this kind of movement is becoming big now, especially when the idea is that we have a struggle between us and the United States. "United States is not supporting us," "United States is supporting someone else," they find that United States is not supporting Afghanistan, as Congressman Rohrabacher said. The United States supported Pakistan, the United States supported Egypt, the United States supported PLO and the peace treaty, the United States supported Saudi Arabia, the United States supported Kuwait. The United States is supporting whomever they can, but sometimes it is out of reach that they can support everyone. So they cannot be blamed. The United States cannot be blamed for something that they cannot control.

The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques, that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States – like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok – but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US.

So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it. But mostly the youth and the new generation do because they are students and they don't think except with their emotions and they are rebellious against their own leaders and government. This is the nature and psychology of human beings. When we are students in university or college we always fight the government, whether they are right or wrong, we have to attack the government. This is how they have been raised.

In this way we see that the extremist ideology, and this is the fourth danger, is beginning to spread very quickly into the universities through the national organizations, associations and clubs that they are establishing around the universities. Most of these clubs – they are Muslim clubs and the biggest is the national one – are being run mostly by the extremist ideology that they do not understand other than to say that America is wrong and they are right. You can find this on the Internet; you can find it everywhere on homepages and websites that they are against the United States. This is where we don't know how far it goes, and how far it is out of hand. This might affect the whole university system in the United States. Through the universities there will be the most danger. If the nuclear atomic warheads reach these universities, you don’t know what these students are going to do, because their way of thinking is brainwashed, limited and narrow-minded.

This is what I want to say to you, to present to you from within the Muslim community. We want to tell you that the Muslim community as a whole is innocent from whatever extremism and extremist ideology is being spread around the world. I don't know if there is time or not, but I know that to go in detail on how extremism evolved would take a lot of time, so I’ve tried to summarize as much as possible. I'd like to tell you that extremism , when a person has been brainwashed, demands that a person doesn't think, even if his father or his mother or his brother tells him to stop, he has to go to do what he has been asked to do. That's why there are 5000 suicide bombers being trained by bin Laden in Afghanistan who are ready to move to any part of the world and explode themselves. They are very sophisticated, they can buy anything they need locally and then put it on and explode themselves.

The problem of extremism is a big danger, and it can be solved if the West better understands Islam and builds bridges with the moderate Muslims, the traditional Muslims. This way, the Muslim community will eliminate the extremist threat from within. Otherwise, media, television, newspapers, and the leadership will not understand that there is a difference between extremists and Muslims. They have to begin a dialogue with Muslims from around the United States, and they have to have good advisors. What I am seeing, unfortunately, are those that are advising the media, or advising the government are not the moderate Muslims. Those whose opinion the government asks are the extremists themselves. Those that have been quoted in the newspapers, in the magazines, in the television, in the media are the extremists themselves. You are not hearing the authentic voice of Muslims, of moderate Muslims, but you are hearing the extremist voice of Muslims. That's why they are getting a wrong idea, because the extremists are very well supported, are very well affiliated with outside regimes that have sponsored them with billions of dollars to be active in the United States. They have been successful in doing that so the media does not listen except to them. I am even hearing that there are advisors to many congressmen, to many senators, to many organizations that are supporters of extremism and not moderate Muslims.

[Valin]

Sorry forgot the link.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=content-extremism_inamerica_unveiling010799

[Valin]

"The very act of being a Muslim reveals an ambition for only a theoracy form of government"

Malaysia's 'Gentler' Leader Gets Strong Mandate, Trounces Islamists
Cybercast News Service Mar. 22, 2004

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105468/posts
Posted on 03/26/2004 8:04:46 AM CST by nuconvert


Malaysia's 'Gentler' Leader Gets Strong Mandate, Trounces Islamists

By Patrick Goodenough/ CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief

March 22, 2004

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - A resounding victory for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in Malaysian elections has dealt a significant blow to the country's radical Islamic party. By drawing a line under the Mahathir Mohamad era, it also clears the way for a less prickly relationship between Kuala Lumpur and Washington.

Unofficial results in Sunday's election gave the ruling coalition, dominated by Abdullah's United Malays National Organization (UMNO), a healthy majority in the federal parliament, and also ended opposition Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) rule in at least one, and possibly both, of the two states it has controlled.

The results constituted a clear response by Malaysia's Muslim Malay majority to PAS vision of an Islamic state under shari'a law. PAS had also sparked controversy during the short campaign by claiming that its supporters would go to heaven while other voters would go to hell.

PAS has controlled Kelantan state since 1990, and in elections in 1999 seized control of another state, Terengganu, where its attempts to introduce shari'a punishments such as stoning and amputation ran into federal roadblocks.

It went into the election saying it planned to add another one or two of Malaysia's 13 states to the list of PAS-ruled regions.

Instead, PAS has lost Terengganu, and looks set also to be defeated in Kelantan, too.

Adding to the routing, PAS leader Abdul Hadi Awang, who was also chief minister of Terengganu, also lost his seat in the federal parliament.

Abdullah, a mild-mannered 64-year-old who comes from a line of religious scholars, was hand-picked as successor when Mahathir retired last year after 22 years' in power.

The large mandate he has received not only leaves Islamic radicals drastically weakened, but gives him the ability to emerge from the shadow of Mahathir, whose rule was characterized by grandiose projects, charges of corruption and cronyism, and a testy relationship with the West.

Mahathir's often provocative statements - with the United States, Australia and the Jews among his most frequent targets - drew widespread condemnations.

Days before his retirement last October, he said in a speech to Islamic leaders that the Jews ruled the world "by proxy" and urged Muslims to learn from their Jewish enemies in order to defeat them.

He was so controversial that, when Mahathir remarked in an interview last week that Democratic contender John Kerry would make a better president than President Bush, the Kerry camp quickly put out a statement rejecting the endorsement and any association with "an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable."

Despite Mahathir's confrontational style, the U.S. did praise him in the post-Sept. 11 period for his actions to clamp down on Islamic extremists, including members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated network, Jemaah Islamiah (JI).

'Clean sheet'

Southeast Asia specialist Dr. Greg Barton of Australia's Deakin University said Monday that Abdullah was "not so very different from Mahathir in concrete policy terms, but a world away in terms of his line of rhetoric, and that's critical."

"[Abdullah] Badawi is much more straight forward. Mahathir became so tangled up in the detritus of history that he couldn't really break free, whereas Badawi starts with a clean sheet."

Barton said the election result was mostly positive for relations with the West and cooperation in the war against terrorism.

It was also good news domestically with the routing of PAS, although the absence of a viable opposition coalition did perhaps leave Malaysian democracy weakened.

Barton attributed PAS' poor showing to several factors, including the fact Mahathir was no longer on the scene and so likely to be the object of a protest vote - as occurred in 1999, when PAS tripled its representation in parliament and won its second state.

Also, UMNO succeeded in taking the center ground in Malaysian politics, leaving PAS constrained to the narrow, single issue of Islamic politics.

"In this age of terrorism, people were increasingly uncomfortable with PAS and its rhetoric. Even if they didn't take it literally, it struck them as highly unrealistic and foolish," he said.

"The majority of support for PAS had come from people who were social conservatives rather than Islamic radicals. They have concerns about public morality and the place of religion in society, but don't want to turn things upside down."

Those "social conservatives" had returned to UMNO, both pushed away by PAS rhetoric, and drawn to Abdullah, whose father and grandfather were both Islamic scholars.

Islamists 'on the back foot'

Prof. Clive Kessler of the University of New South Wales in Sydney said Monday that any changes to Malaysian foreign policy under Abdullah would be slow and incremental rather than dramatic.

"He's going to be a far more constructive, less abrasive in his manner," he said, adding that Abdullah would protect Malaysian interests, but do so in "a far gentler," way than his predecessor had.

Kessler said while the trend in the election had been predictable, the scale of the shift was surprising.

Events since 9/11, especially the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, had put the Islamists "on the back foot," and made Malaysians less likely to support PAS simply as an anti-UMNO protest vote.

Nonetheless, Kessler said he did not believe Islamic politics was over in Malaysia.

"The underlying sources of discontent are still there," and Abdullah would have to try to minimize them, by making changes in UMNO and the way in which it governs, especially with regard to nepotism and corruption.

"At least he now has the mandate to do so."

Among smaller opposition parties, the Parti Keadilan Nasional (National Justice Party) of the jailed former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was wiped out, according to preliminary results, while the secular, ethnic Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party did well, winning at least seven seats (with several recounts pending).

Anwar was sacked by Mahathir in 1998, and later convicted of corruption and sodomy, charges his supporters said were trumped up. PAS' strong showing in the 1999 election was, in part, attributed to Malay anger at Anwar's treatment.

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 23 million population are Muslim Malays, while ethnic Indians and Chinese are significant minority groups.

Southeast Asia's other Muslim state and the world's largest Islamic country, Indonesia, holds elections next month.





"Arabs should only be welcome, as long as they are not Muslim."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[LS]

I know there are Muslims in the U.S. armed forces. My point was that in previous "loyalty" wars, the group with questionable loyalties (the Germans in WW I, the Japanese in WW II) enlisted in disproportionate numbers. Now, to be fair, the Japanese security issue in WW II made it impossible for high percentages of them to enlist, and they didn't have to fight other Japanese, but were sent to Italy. That is one problem in that American Muslims would likely be sent to fight other Muslims. But that's not a big problem if you view it from a religious standpoint: the WW I Germans after all were "Christians."