Muslim Extremists seeking to foster One Islamic World

The Hill ^ | February 24, 2003 | David Keene

[Seeking the truth]

Muslim extremists seeking to foster one Islamic world

President Bush has come under some criticism recently for his outreach to the U.S. Muslim community because administration officials have apparently met with some groups that have ties -- direct or indirect -- with extremist groups here and in the Middle East.

Still, and in spite of the criticism he continues to reach out.

The president's position is understandable and even commendable. He doesn't want to do anything to make it appear that he's leading an anti-Muslim crusade because this would drive millions of Muslims into the extremist camp with Osama bin Laden and his buddies.

The problem is that the ideology driving the terrorists is in fact religion-based. Wahhabism is more than just the state-sponsored religion of Saudi Arabia. It is a branch of Islam that is warlike, anti-Western and bent upon our destruction. These folks hate us as well as any Muslim that doesn't dance to their tune. They have been responsible, in fact, for the slaughter of literally millions of their fellow Muslims in their drive to remake one of the world's major religions in their own image.

If the Wahhabis restricted their activities to the Middle East, it would be bad enough, but they're also active here. Thanks to their Saudi sponsors, they have leveraged resources to recruit followers on our college campuses, to create a virtual base in our prisons, and establish cells wherever Muslims gather. They control well over half the mosques in this country and virtually every organization that purports to speak for Muslim interests.

Make no mistake about it ; these people are our enemies. To deny this would be foolish and to empower them in any way is a mistake of the first order because doing so legitimizes their claim to speak for all Muslims.

The problem is that moderate Muslims control few organizations and have virtually no voice. Most of them, in fact, know better than to challenge the Wahhabis.

Non-Muslim experts know too that challenging the Wahhabis'; extremist view of the world can be dangerous. Anyone who even remotely threatens the Wahhabis can expect to be denounced by supposedly mainline Muslim organizations and their friends as anti-Muslim and a religious bigot to boot.

These groups are, in the main, acting as de facto defenders of the sponsors of extremist terrorism. Those who would defend this country are not lumping all Muslims together. It is the Wahhabis and their fellow travelers that see the Muslim population as a homogeneous sea in which they swim, hide and operate.

I have run into these zealots twice in the last six months or so. On both occasions their targets were recognized experts on Islam and terrorism who they denounced as "racists"," "bigots" and men "who know absolutely nothing about Islam or the Middle East."

In both instances they sought veto power over who should or should not be allowed to discuss the extremist Muslim connection to world terrorism and in both instances they were rebuffed. Having failed to keep the objects of their enmity from speaking, they then proceeded to denounce publicly in the press and on the Internet the sponsors of the events at which they spoke as, you guessed it, "bigots and racists."

So who were these ignoramuses whom the Islamists see as mere bigots running around the country slandering an entire religion?

You've probably heard of both of them. One is Terry Emerson, a prize-winning journalist, who produced a major television report on the influence of Muslim extremists in this country. His "Jihad in America" aired on PBS, that hothouse of religious extremism and bigotry, and won him recognition as a leading journalistic expert on terrorism. He writes and lectures extensively on the subject and is called upon for analysis by the networks and the government, among others.

The other is Dan Pipes. Formerly of the Chicago and Harvard faculties, Pipes is currently director of the Middle East Forum. He has published at least 10 books including Militant Islam Reaches America, which has been widely praised for its analysis of just this problem.

I think I know why the Wahhabis hate these guys and will do anything they can to silence them. It's not because Emerson and Pipes are kooks, bigots or racists. And it's certainly not because they don't know what they're talking about.

Rather, it's because they know exactly what they're talking about. Neither man has ever said that all Muslims are the same and neither has ever tried to blame either mainstream Islam or its millions of followers for the war in which we are engaged.

The only people who have argued that no distinctions can or should be drawn among Muslims are the Wahhabis and their apologists and that should tell us all we need to know about both.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a D.C.-based governmental affairs firm

[snerkel]

I apologize. I will try to word my response so I don't offended anyone. Even though I am a Christian, I have a very bad habit of being brutally honest where Christian history is concerned and I always offend Christians who are not able to accept our history. I also have a bad habit of preaching (getting on my soapbox) when I have a very strong opinion about a subject. :)

~~

I have seen so many people (more Christians than not) make statements similar to yours "I believe it to be the basic Koran teaching that muslim Extremists and non extremists are seeking to foster One Islamic World". Christians have the same commission and some Christians have taken it to the extreme just like the Muslims.

I feel they have forgotten the the time when Words of Christ found in Matthew 28:19-20 were used in the same exact manner

"Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days (perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of the age. Amen (so let it be)."

Christians will also loudly proclaim that "we were NEVER like the Muslims, but we were, and some still are today. They will claim "real Christians" were not involved in such things as: the Inquisitions, slavery, knowingly giving blankets to natives contaminated with smallpox, the time when it was claimed that women were witches and burned or drowned (almost everyone of those women were Christian)...the list goes on and on. But Christians were involved and history shows this.

Were all Christians involved in those things? No. Should all Christians take personal responsibility for those things? No. But all Christians and even non-Christians should be honest enough to admit that those things did occur "in the name of God", that the Christians of that day were responsible, and that the Bible was used during those times to justify their actions.

Now, I did not state those things to start an all out war. I stated those things to make a point (a point that will offend, so prepare yourselves), they are no different from us.

If you look at the timeline of Christianity, the things that I mentioned happened from 1100 A.D. to the present (probably some things before that too). We were just a little over 1000 years into our beliefs. If you look at the what is going on with the Muslims right now, they are a little over 1000 years into their beliefs. WOW! Does this justify their actions? NO. Does this justify the actions of Christians who had/have the same mindset? NO.

So, in my opinion, this is nothing more than history repeating itself. Two different religions (Chrisian/Muslim) with two different "weapons" (Bible/Quran), but the same mindset with the same goal.

End of sermon. Your attacks may now begin. LOL

:)

[happygrl]

I think that the corrective to these actions was the scriptures themselves.

The Great Commission did not call for conversion by the sword. Where that was implemented, as in the Inquisition and the Conquest of the New World, Christians themselves have condemned it as contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

I believe that the concern with Islam is that it is the words of the Prophet himself which condon violence and conquering by the sword.

[evad]

I believe that the concern with Islam is that it is the words of the Prophet himself which condon violence and conquering by the sword.

Happygrl has hit it on the head and illustrates the whole point of objection about Islam...IMO. You don't hear any voices of objection to the murder and mahem of the extremists...it's as though they're all one big happy family. For that reason, I say that it's not an extremist view with that group.

I'm talking about all of the heirarchy and leadership here..I understand that this doesn't necessarily carry all the way down to Joe Mus on the street. It's as though the average practicing muslim is truly afraid or unwilling to speak up, for whatever reason.

I would love to see a ground swell of muslims that rise up and denounce what is going on by the extremists. It's what the "world" needs right now.

AS a side note, I have no arguement whatsoever with your views on the historical badness of organized religion...and you can certainly count the Jewish Bible in this category too. In many ways I think organized religion has proven to be the bane of human existance.

[snerkel]

I think that the corrective to these actions was the scriptures themselves.

The Scriptures were also used by those Christians to support their actions. That is the point that I am attempting to make.

The Great Commission did not call for conversion by the sword. Where that was implemented, as in the Inquisition and the Conquest of the New World, Christians themselves have condemned it as contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

No, the Great Commission alone did not call for conversion by the sword. Yes, it is contradictory to Jesus' teachings. However, those actions were not condemned while they were on going. It has only been recently (past 100 years) that Christians have stated that the actions were contradictory to Jesus' teachings. Some Christians will go so far as to claim those who were involved were "not real Christians", but that is only denial of our history.

I believe that the concern with Islam is that it is the words of the Prophet himself which condon violence and conquering by the sword.

I'm going to play devils advocate here, so bear with me. I am going to take several verses out of context to offer a glimpse into the mindset of one who will do anything to please Jesus and fulfill the Great Commision. Also, what I am doing is irrelevant to the Muslim stand of wacking anyone who is not Muslim. I'm dealing strictly with Christians on this. :D

From the New Testament:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"

"And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

This is what happens when people take verses out of context. I am not saying that is what the Muslims are doing, I don't know since I have not read the Quran. I have seen the verses quoted just like everyone else, bits and pieces, but I would like to see the verses in context of how they were written before I write off all of Islam as being a blood-thirsty group. JMO

[Revelation 911]

wear it like a badge threadkiller !

[snerkel]

I want you to know I had to clean up my computer. ROFLMBO

[Salem]

"'The Neglected Duty, The creed of Sadats Assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East.'"

Is it available in the mainstream bookstores or is it a university press publication that has to go through the mails? Thanks for the post and the info!

[tet68]

I found it in a used book store.
It is published by Macmillan,
and is ISBN 0-02-916340

It is hard reading, lots of Arabic names and words, but
is very enlightening.
There is a struggle in Islam but the extremists are holding sway because they influence the schools. Sort of like leftists in American universities.

Only on page 42 so far.

[Bob J]

NOW on RadioFR! Brent Bozell (Media Research Center), Scott Hogenson (CNSNews.com), Bill Federer (author and ex US Congressman), Tygh Bailes (Leadership Institute)and Gary Nowlan (Libertarian Party Prez Candidate)!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[Frankie Fiveangels]

Is this the same David Keene of the ACU who has been one of the LEADERS of the coalition of gropus trying to defang the patriot act and the son of patriot act -- the very same thing gaffney and others have alleged is treason and only for the purpose of allowing terrorists to operate in safety inside the united states? is that the same guy?

[Skatergal]

David Keene has such great expertise on this issue and respect for the scholarly work of Steve Emerson that he doesn't know his name is not Terry. And that no one ever refers to Daniel Pipes as Dan.

David Keene's main goal in all of this is to make sure that the darts are all thrown at Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan, Ali Tulbah, or anyone who isn't him because of the big problems at CPAC with the bumper stickers and the bigoted statements made on the panels. Those problems started this whole discussion and he has slithered right out of that net by making it sound like Norquist, Khan and Tulbah have control over the Secret Service and the Oval Office.

Incidentally, My colleague was at Grover's meeting last week and said that Keene and Norquist seemed to be getting along fine. Probably because Norquist has refused to engage on the issue and have a public fight with Keene.