2009: Christian Plight In The Middle East / Philadelphia Bulletin

See the original of this article on the Philadelphia Bulletin Newspaper website at this link.

Thanks much,
Steve St.Clair
==========
Christian Plight In The Middle East
Joseph Puder
The Philadelphia Bulletin
Thursday, May 28, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI’s recently concluded visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, highlighted the demographic and political decline of Christian communities in the region.

Nearly a century ago Christians accounted for 20 percent of the region’s population — today they number less than 5 percent. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Christian social and political growth is taking place.

Elsewhere in the region, a dwindling Christian population is getting close to extinction as a result of Muslim intimidation and violence and, lack of economic opportunities leading to ever increasing emigration.Significantly, in preparation for the Pope’s visit, few commentators reminded us that the Middle East was once the heart of Christianity, that cities such as Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were once major Christian centers and, that the modern states of Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey were once part of the Christian Byzantine Empire.

The Jihad out of Arabia by the Prophet Muhammad’s successors forced the vast majority of Christian and Jewish populations to choose between conversion to Islam or becoming a dhimmis (a tolerated, heavily taxed and humiliated second-class citizen — manifesting itself in, for example, the invalidation of their court testimony against a Muslim’s and, the restriction against building church spires that exceeds the height of a mosque). This process of Islamization took root and through the centuries millions of Christians converted to Islam by the sword and/or for economic survival. Christian communities that survived intact were usually mountain dwellers, specifically the Lebanese Christians.

In modern times, Christianity became a small minority in the region where they once constituted an absolute majority. In the 19th century, the arrival of western Christian missionaries revived, in small measure, Christian community life.

American missionaries built universities in Cairo, Beirut and in Turkey. Catholic and Lutheran schools (grade and high schools) revived education among native Christians but not much reverse conversion occurred. The fear of death on account of apostasy prevented large scale Muslim conversion to Christianity.

The rise of Arab nationalism gave Christians a role to play in various Arab States.

Christians seeking to be accepted as equals by the Muslim majority championed various universalist movements. Men like Michel Aflaq founded the Ba’ath Party, an Arab national socialist party that drew its inspiration from European dictatorships such as Germany and Italy. Khalid Bakdash, established the communist party in Syria and Lebanon, and George Habash formed the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist Palestinian terrorist organization.

The participation of Arab Christians began to diminish in the 1970s following the Six-Day War, when Israel defeated the much superior forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq with contingents from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria and Yemen. Simultaneously, there was a meteoric rise of Islamism fueled by Saudi Wahhabi petrodollars. Millions of Egyptians and Levantines pouring into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in pursuit of job opportunities became Wahhabi devotees.

The resulting decline of Arab nationalism affected a change in the Arab psyche; an intense anti-Western attitude arose among the masses and the elites alike.

Arab Muslims wanted an authentic Arab answer to their political, social and economic plight, and Islamism became the answer. The success of the Iranian revolution also stimulated a Sunni-Islamist response. National identities retreated as religious consciousness advanced. The importation of ideas from the west during earlier decades, which pushed modernization and enlightenment in the Arab world, was gradually replaced by religious values centered on Islamic spirituality and conservatism. Political Islam became a force that attracted the young and educated.

Back in 1991, this writer interviewed Bethlehem’s legendary Christian mayor Elias Freij, who noted that 40,000 Christians had departed the area. He said, “Go to Santiago, Chile, that is where you will find the Christians of Bethlehem.” When asked why, he replied that “It was difficult for Christians here.”

Privately however Christians in the Bethlehem-Beth Sahor-Beth Jala triangle, plead with westerners to let the world know about their oppression at the hands of Fatah gangs. Palestinian Authority (PA) officials intimidate Christians into selling desired properties at undervalued prices. Christian girls are victims of harassment, rape and forced conversion, and Christian-owned businesses are often torched by PA-sanctioned gangs for non-payment of protection money.

Arab-Palestinian Christians are afraid to complain to the foreign press for fear of retribution in the form of rape of their daughters or wives, murder and beatings. Often times, they are required to make anti-Israel proclamations as an offering of loyalty to the Palestinian cause.The persecution of Christians is pervasive throughout the region.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah is likely to take over control of the government following the upcoming June elections and eventually modify the secular nature of the state that was created by the French ostensibly to accommodate Christians in the Levant.

And in Egypt, Coptic Christians, about 10 percent of Egypt’s 75 million, are feeling the brunt of the increasingly radicalized Muslim population which has drastically curtailed Christian employment in government, and reduced their once dominant role in the Egyptian economy.

Muslim violence against Christians in Egypt is ignored by the Mubarak regime. Churches are torched and young Christian girls are raped and forcibly converted to Islam. Relatives who go to the police end up being beaten and having to serve time in prison. Six years ago, the Christian population of Iraq was about 1.5 million. The deliberate murder of Christians by their Muslim neighbors and various jihadi groups has caused them to flee, reducing by half the current number of Iraqi Christians.

The apparent triumph of radical Islam in the Arab Middle East bodes ill for the remaining Christian minorities. Pope Benedict’s visit to the region should prompt the Holy See to launch a worldwide campaign that demands tolerance, religious freedom and human rights for all minorities in the Muslim world. The Pope must put aside political correctness and multiculturalism, and rally the Christian world including the European Union and the United States, to demand reciprocity from the Muslim world.

If Christianity is not allowed to exist freely in the Arab-Muslim world, then Muslims minorities should not be able to erect mosques, and enjoy full equality in the democratic west. Joseph Puder can be reached at jpuder2001@yahoo.com

2009: The NYC Bomb Plot: A Teachable Moment for American Security / Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

See the original of this very important post by M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona, on The Hill Blog at this link.

Thanks very much,
Steve St.Clair

========================

The NYC Bomb Plot: A Teachable Moment for American Security
May 27th, 2009

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

Last week’s foiled bomb plot in New York City has been widely reported and confirms that homegrown Islamist-inspired terrorism is a clear and present danger. With three of the four assailants converting to Islam in prison, no one can ignore the impact which Wahhabi Islam, the strain of Islam being promulgated in many prisons has upon the radicalization of Muslim inmates.

Predictably, Islamist groups (like CAIR and MPAC) with the aid of some non-Muslim echo chambers continue to be intransigent in their blindness. This blindness is manifest in their refusal to accept the fact we in the Muslim community have an ideological cancer lying within the House of Islam which can only be treated by fellow Muslims willing to do the hard work of reform. Blaming others or trying to say that their Islam is not our Islam while bearing some truth deflects real responsibility.

Regardless of how some may try and dismiss the accused as “degenerates”, “drug addicts”, or “criminals”, the more important teachable moment here is that the opium of the minds of these inmates was pure and simply a supremacist form of Islam which depends upon the medieval Wahhabi-Islamist interpretations of our Islamic scripture and tradition. To deflect the public from this reality is to shirk our responsibility as Muslims and more importantly as Americans.

Counterterrorism researchers have databases full with examples of speeches from Wahhabi imams (Islamic teachers) and books of Islam indoctrinating and radicalizing new and old Muslims with a part of our Islamic theology that is long overdue for reform. This reform can no longer wait. It needs a frontal attack by fellow Muslims. Let’s not let those in denial minimize the problem. This extent of radicalization may be small in proportion to the total population of Muslims.

But the series of foiled plots continues to virally regenerate itself because the ideology has not been countered by Muslim faithful in any systematic or public method. And the bigger problem of the slippery slope of political Islam towards radical Islam is also a clear and present danger. The 2007 NYPD Report on Radicalization again predictably dismissed by Islamist groups intelligently laid all this out.

The time for denial is over. In the documentary, the Third Jihad, just released by Clarion Fund which I narrate, we discuss the lethal impact which imams like, Warith Deen Umar, who formerly led Muslim inmates in the New York Correctional Services as a chaplain for over 20 years, have when they give speeches like Imam Umar’s where he said,

Brothers be prepared to fight, be prepared to die, be prepared to kill. It’s a part of the (faith) and this ain’t your brother just saying this. This is history. This is the Koran. Nobody can deny it. You think there is no terror in the Koran? It’s called irhab. Read it in the 56th sura of the Koran. There’s no lack of translation. There’s no mistranslation.

This prison imam is certainly not speaking about the faith of Islam which I and so many American Muslims know and practice, but we can no longer deny that such an ideology exists within the house of Islam which demands our national attention.

Removing imams like Umar and rooting out plots is not enough. Always playing defense will unfortunately miss the root cause of what creates these cells.

It is time to get public opinion galvanized in understanding that our nation needs a coordinated public- private partnership to develop a strategy against the political ideology of Wahhabism and more generally political Islam which carries a supremacist construct against western nations founded in freedom which will continue to fuel radicalism. We need to develop a program to foster an offense in the war of ideas led by Muslims for liberty and against the theocratic underpinnings of political Islam (Islamism).

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He can be reached at zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.

2009: Terror on U.S. Soil an Imminant Threat / Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

See the original of this article on the American Islamic Forum for Democracy website at this link.

Thanks much,
Steve St.Clair
=====================
Press Release: Terror on U.S. Soil an Imminant Threat
May 22, 2009
AIFD
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Immediate Release

Phoenix – May 22, 2009 – Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), today warned that the foiled bomb plot in New York City is a “clear and calculated warning that well-coordinated extremists are on the move within the U.S.” Four individuals were arrested Thursday in New York City on charges that they planned to detonate explosives at a Jewish synagogue and community center and shoot down U.S. military aircraft with surface-to-air missiles.

“The arrest of four individuals – three of whom appear to be U.S. citizens – confirms that homegrown Islamist-inspired terrorism is a clear and present danger,” said Dr. Jasser. “Today’s arrests should be a wake-up call to America and especially to American Muslims that we are long overdue in countering the well-coordinated and well-funded Islamist programs which exist within the United States.”

“The 2007 NYPD Radicalization Report is accurate – radicalization in U.S. prisons is an immediate threat. This recent terrorist attempt on Jewish synagogues shows the NYPD Report was right. The Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) opposed that report because as usual they were in denial about the radicalization in U.S. prisons,” said Dr. Jasser. “It’s now acknowledged that at least some of the alleged bombers were radicalized in U.S. prisons –Many Islamist imams are aggressively recruiting inmates in our prisons with ideologies that fuel ‘home-grown’ terror.”

“It’s significant that this terrorist plot was targeted against synagogues, underscoring the dangerous hatred promoted by radical imams in American prisons,” said Dr. Jasser.

“The solution begins with government rejection of Islamist apologist groups like CAIR, who are not representatives of the Muslims in America. The FBI has recently rejected them and we support that decision. We must engage the majority non-Islamist American Muslim community to reject political Islam and its fuel for radicalized Islam,” said Dr. Jasser.

Dr. Jasser, a devout Muslim and son of Muslim-Syrian immigrants, is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, physician and past president of the Arizona Medical Association. Jasser is widely known as a moderate, anti-Islamist Muslim leader featured in the PBS film, Islam v Islamists produced by ABG Films, Inc. in 2007 and narrator of the recently released The Third Jihad produced by Clarion Fund, Inc. which focuses on the threat of radical Islam to America. Jasser appears regularly in print and on national TV and radio programs.

TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW, PLEASE CONTACT SUSAN ASSADI
(800) 922-8792, susan@assadi.com

2009: Getting Real on Shariah / Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

The following commentary by Dr. Jasser appears online toay at the Huffington Post. This commentary is part of AIFD’s project and mission of publicly debating the ideas of political Islam (i.e. shariah law) with leading clerics in various venues. The link to the piece is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m-zuhdi-jasser/getting-real-on-ishariahi_b_200171.html

If you have time, AIFD asks all of its supporters to join the discussion (comments) at the Huffington Post links above on this issue and others with regards to the threat of political Islam and the need for a coherent policy against the ideology. We view this as a non-partisan issue that speaks to all

Steve St.Clair
======================
Getting Real on Shariah

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
The Huffington Post
May 11, 2009

Recently, the Obama administration released a message to senior Pentagon officials instructing that the term “Global War on Terror” is no longer to be used. It is to be replaced with “Overseas Contingency Operation” (OCO). Set aside the flashbacks to meaningless phrases employed by “Big Brother” in Orwell’s 1984, are we really now of the opinion that there is no common unifying ideology which hatches the radical Islamist groups attacking us?

Many of us have been proclaiming for quite a while that the “War on Terror” (WoT) was obviously misnamed. A nation cannot have a military engagement (a war) against a tactic. It would have been no different to have called WWII a “War on Blitzkrieg.” We were rather more clearly fighting the ideologies of Nazism and fascism.

But OCO is a major step backward from WoT. The current conflict can also be defined against an ideology. It is certainly not about random acts of violence. There are some obvious and definable common ideologies and goals of the perpetrators of radical Islamism. Their primary unifying cause is the overriding ideology and dream of Islamism — the goal of establishing the Islamic state.

Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbullah, HAMAS, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Lashkar e-Taiba, Jamaat Islamiya, Muhajiroon or the Wahhabis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to name a few, these groups all have common core ideologies driving their radical movements. The commonality of these groups is simply put — radicalized Islamism. Radical because they seek “any means necessary” including terror — “the targeting of noncombatants.” They are “Islamist” because their ultimate goal is the establishment of various forms of “Islamic states.” Thus we can no longer ignore the fact that non-radical (non-violent) Islamists who seek a peaceful means of establishing an Islamic state are also part of a global movement which stands against western secular liberal democracies.

The Islamic state is a nation-state based upon the premise that the rule of law of the nation is guided by the legal constructs of Shariah. Shariah is the body of laws of Islamic jurisprudence as interpreted and enacted by clerics and scholars (ulemaa) of Islamic law. To Islamists, societies like ours in the United States based in “one law” derived from reason and a human document are an anathema and represent the ideology of “Godlessness.”

Recently on these pages on April 24, 2009, Imam Faisal Rauf made a brief dismissive argument that somehow in his own understanding, interestingly as an expert and an imam (Arabic for “teacher”), Shariah is a benign concept that no one should fear. Sorry but as devout Muslims, my family came to the U.S. to have the freedom to choose our own religious advisors. Most Muslims actually want to steer clear of any public legal system run by clerics (Imams) who make interpretations of Shariah not for individuals but for the collective–thus imposing Shariah. He stated:

It is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is God’s law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…

What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with the moral imperative of the Shariah.

What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law. The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

One must first congratulate the imam for having the courage which few leading Muslims have had to actually raise these ideas on Shariah in mainstream media. However, his hypothesis cannot be left unanswered on this blog. To do so would be to deny the core struggle, arguably the most important element of the battle of ideas between the West and Islamism in the 21st century. This battle is only just beginning within the very soul of Islam as it is practiced by Muslims in every nation across the globe. If Imam Rauf’s brief summary of Shariah teaches anything, it reveals the depth of denial and apologetics in our Muslim faithful and especially among our clerics and their fantasies on Shariah versus the reality.

To a Muslim, Shariah is certainly by definition “God’s law.” But once it is interpreted and enacted by Muslims it becomes human law regardless of what we may call it. Rauf’s comparison to our U.S. Constitution implies some kind of synonymous balance of powers in a system based in Shariah. First, no real example exists on earth of such a codified and functional interpretation of Shariah in any governmental system. And even if there were, would Imam Rauf want to live as a Muslim minority in the United States if his rights were similarly “promised” by a Christian majority which had a semblance of balance of powers in a system guided by the religious laws of the majority? Comparing the universality of our American system based in one secular law to a legal system based in the interpretations of clerics like Rauf is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive. Not only is Shariah centuries behind such checks and balances, but no matter how “balanced,” it is still theocratic where American law is secular.

Mr. Rauf oddly dismisses imams who disagree with him as rare aberration of a “firebrand” quality. Are lay Muslims to entrust the interpretation of Shariah to the whim that clerics like Rauf will lead the interpretations rather than the “firebrand” clerics Rauf offhandedly minimizes? Actually many of the tried and true Islamist imams are not “firebrand” but rather thoughtful in their preference of the Islamist system of Shariah over the universal secular system based in reason. That is the danger of theocracy. Lay people and non-Muslims alike are left to the devices of clerical powers. In what can sadly only be described as denial, he ignores the fact that Shariah is not a secret, it fills mosques, Islamic bookstores, and madrassas (schools) across the world. His generalization of what Muslims actually believe about Shariah has not been studied empirically and may actually be true. But to whatever Muslims he is referring in his generalizations about “what Muslims want” are certainly not from the leading “Islamic institutions” or “Islamic thought leaders” around the world in Cairo (i.e Al-Azhar University) or Saudi Arabia.

It is our mission at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy to publicly counter and debate political Islam (Islamism) and the harmful integration of the political imam and Shariah into governmental law. While many Muslims may practice a “modernized Islam,” we have very little intellectual material to counter the current state of Shariah. Rauf’s assertions come out of an assumption that Muslims want to live in an “Islamic state” run by laws which are Shariah or mimic Shariah. It is quite revealing that Imam Rauf is silent on the preference of most Americans of secular law over theocracy no matter how “balanced” his version of Shariah may be. Rauf’s endorsement of Shariah runs against our own Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state — in his case “mosque and state.”

Shariah is not just a misapplied penal code as Rauf would suggest. Just review the Cairo Declaration of Human rights of 1991 and try to explain why all the so-called “Islamic” countries of the OIC insisted on signing that document instead of the truly universal United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights. The differences between the two documents are an affront to human rights of all citizens and especially the individuals living in the 57 nations of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference). The Cairo Declaration reflects not only the immorality of their dictatorships, monarchies, and oligarchies but also reflects the current medieval status of the body of laws which is Shariah in the 21st century.

Muslims living in the west may have modernized our interpretations of Shariah (God’s law) by living here and picking and choosing our own interpretations of how we may practice “God’s law”. But that is only of personal relevance. Rauf mixes public and private Shariah as if all Muslims see them as synonymous. Not all Muslims toe the line of political Islam despite Imam Rauf’s obvious avoidance of any condemnation of political Islam. Some Muslims do believe that real faith is abrogated when it is imposed by government as ‘law’.

There must be a clear demarcation between the domain of the cleric’s laws and the domain of our government’s laws — i.e. our Establishment Clause. The American Establishment clause is incompatible with any form of Shariah. Imam Rauf ignores this fact. It is no longer “God’s law” when it is interpreted into any manifestation of human law. “God’s law” is only “God’s law” within the personal relationship of an individual with God. Once a human collective interprets law if it is done in the name of religion, it is theocracy, not God’s law. Rauf’s linkage to the Declaration of Independence rings on deaf ears. No matter which way he spins it, one faith cannot create a system of laws for all humanity unless it comes from a supremacist theocratic mindset.

Rauf dismisses reform as simply being a matter of updating penal codes and customs associated with culture. He equates his own interpretation of Shariah with the ideas of our founding fathers. I am sorry but he does not understand American law. The word Christian does not appear in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. A system based “under God” is vastly different than one based under the legal tradition of one faith regardless of how “ecumenical” Imam Rauf would like us to believe his version of Shariah has become. Certainly, I would love to be referred to consensus documents and books of fiqh (human understanding of Shariah or Islamic jurisprudence) which are actually demonstrative of legal decisions which corroborate his short missive on the benevolence of Shariah. The vast majority of books on Shariah and fiqh which I have are riddled with laws and opinions incompatible with American law or any western law including rulings regarding women’s rights to name one area.

Additionally, one can academically use American law as a yard stick on a blog, but when these Shariah systems are autonomous in Muslim majority nations, they will not use American law as a yardstick and will always drift to a theocracy which does not come close to the minority rights of equality to all recognized in America. American law works because it abandoned the theocratic yardstick.

That reform away from governmental Shariah will take generations regardless of the denials and apologetics of imams like Rauf. Certainly, aside from government, a modernization of Shariah is very important and commentaries like Mr. Rauf’s demonstrate that there is certainly a profound need for real reform and in fact all Muslims have a stake in our legal tradition being updated. At the minimum we must first defeat the ideas of theocracy.

More importantly, though, is a far more significant discussion of exactly what should be the realm of operation of the clerics and their Shariah. Should it be in the mosque and universities or should it be in the public square specifically in the legislatures? This concept of a modernized Shariah which is equal and universal is impossible for a non-Muslim to accept or become a part of as a minority in Muslim majority nations — just ask the Bahais of Iran, the Ismailis of Pakistan, the Christians of Saudi Arabia (if there are any left) or the persecuted anti-Islamist Muslims of any of these nations. Minorities are not given rights by majorities as Shariah implies, they have them inalienable from God. Thus law cannot be defined by one faith — it must be derived from reason.

Certainly, for a Muslim to live with internal harmony as citizens in our nations, we must come up with a personal interpretation of Shariah which is not at odds with the laws of the land. More importantly we should have the freedom to practice the personal parts of Shariah (God’s law as we understand it) which we believe in as Muslims. But this application of Shariah should never become a platform for political activity or for government. Once it does, it becomes theocracy. Does Imam Rauf not see a difference between a nation of laws like the United States and nations of the medieval era which ran under Canon law? Or would Imam Rauf rather live under a system of Canon law with priests giving our Muslim minority dismissive guarantees that the rights of non-Christians would be guaranteed just like our U.S. Constitution provides?

Mr. Rauf, please point us to your fatwas (religious legal opinions) and sources of Shariah which contradict the laws of Shariah which guide schools in Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Syria, and Pakistan to name some of the most common sources of imams (teachers who are experts in Shariah law) globally. These schools teach ibn-Taymiyyah, Ibn -Kathir, Al-Mawdudi, and other well known Islamic scholars of the primary legal schools of thought in Islam. There are four major schools of legal thought in Islamic fiqh (hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, and Maliki) with very little significant difference between them. Many of the rulings of these schools of thought vary on some specifics of religious rituals in forms of practice but agree on most other issues. Rauf, neglects telling us which of these schools of thought he is discussing; I believe that is because it does not exist. His concept of Shariah is still in the imagination and whims of western imams sitting in the comfort of homes in the United States pretending that Islamic law has reformed without any evidence or body of rulings to the contrary.

Tariq Ramadan, a rather deceptive European “reformist” and grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, in a widely televised debate with now President Nicolas Sarkozy could not even get himself to definitively rebuke corporal punishment as still called for in Shariah law rulings rather calling for a moratorium. He instead cited a process of change which has to be approached methodically. This consensus process (ijmaa) in rulings of Islamic law, while it may ultimately begrudgingly evolve towards modernity is not ever going to be as egalitarian as western liberal democracies since it is based on one faith regardless of the utopian principles which any Muslim may paint for western audiences. Until Muslims are able to separate mosque and state, the slippery slope of Islamic supremacy will be a constant regardless of how deceptively modern the version of Shariah being presented is.

None of the legal schools of thought in Islam have abandoned laws which criminalize blasphemy, apostasy, or womens’ liberation to name a few. None of these schools of thought or classic Islamic jurists have well known established texts which contradict the political system of Shariah which identifies Christians and Jews as “dhimmis” (protected peoples) who are “given” rights by a dominating Muslim majority and pay a separately identified tax (the jizya) at the behest of the Muslim majority in control. None of these schools of thought have given women equality in inheritance or in the value of their vote in legal proceedings. None of these schools of thought have abandoned the concept of the Islamic nation state and the association of citizenship with faith identity (the ummah). A common Muslim legal text sold at large Muslim bookstores and conventions — The Reliance of the Traveler — is a widely held treatise on Islamic law which contains a plethora of legal rulings at odds with all principles of western morality and equality. There is no modern text of Islamic law to counter this. Even if these laws were modernized globally by some heretofore unseen movement of imams, that again would not abrogate the slippery slope of Islamic supremacy which is present when Shariah involves itself in governmental and public rulings which apply to an entire citizenry.

So, ultimately Imam Rauf, yes, Shariah is “God’s law” to a Muslim including myself. And yes, Muslims generally probably just want their society not to conflict with what is God’s law. But Mr. Rauf mentioned that “Muslims do not want secular laws to conflict with Shariah.” That is way too overly simplified and actually not what many Muslims believe –especially non-Islamists.

I, as a Muslim, can certainly argue for the legalization of many things which I may not want to practice or believe should be practiced as an individual or as a Muslim. But to argue that I want my secular laws to mirror my Shariah is flat wrong. Rauf is denying the fact that one can, for example, be a libertarian in mindset and believe in the minimization of the role of government in imposing its values through law while also being a devout orthodox Muslim. The two are not mutually exclusive and Rauf’s oversimplification gives Islamist groups (those who favor Shariah law in government) what they want to hear rather than to lead them in new thought which can only happen when Islamism (political Islam) is abandoned.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He can be reached at zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org

2009: Clarion Unveils New Film about the Threat of Radical Islam in America at National Press Club

I have watched this outstanding DVD presentation and agree thoroughly with its understanding of the threat of radical Islam, and the importance of Americans (and especially Latter-day Saints) understanding it. I have given let other LDS Interrfaith leaders know of my concern, and given copies of DVD to a half-dozen. If anyone else wants a copy, leave a post, or contact me via e-mail with shipping information, and I will get one to you.

Love and thanks to this group of Muslims who understand the threat of the Radical Islamists better than anyone.

See the original of this press release on the AIFD website at this link. http://www.aifdemocracy.org

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

===================

Clarion Unveils New Film About the Threat of Radical Islam in America at the National Press Club

CAIR Declines Invite to Discussion with Devout Muslim Film Narrator, who is Expected to Speak Out against Radical Islam at “The Third Jihad” Premiere

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2009
Clarion Fund
(New York, NY – May 10, 2009)

The Clarion Fund announced today that it will premiere its newest documentary film, The Third Jihad, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, May 13, 2009. In addition to the screening, several American Muslim groups have been invited to participate in a roundtable discussion where the film’s narrator, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser – a devout Muslim and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) – and its producers will speak out about the threat of radical Islam in America.

Clarion’s first documentary film, the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, communicates the global threat posed by the radical elements of Islam. The Third Jihad shifts the focus to the growth of radical Islam on American soil via “Cultural Jihad,” the use of the democratic system to transform the American way of life from within to a society governed by Sharia Law (Islamic religious law).

“Clarion Fund recognizes the propagation of radical Islam and the promulgation of Sharia Law within our borders as a clear and present crisis affecting the Muslim American community and the American public at large,” said Peter Connors, Executive Director of Clarion. “Our educational tools and media properties will serve as a platform for the American public – including Muslims – to embrace Western liberties and speak out in a meaningful way to silence radical elements in our midst.”

Among these tools is RadicalIslam.org, the foundation of Clarion’s grassroots movement. The user-friendly website was developed to spread awareness about the threat of radical Islam in America as well as to provide practical response tools. For the launch of the film, the site has been redesigned to include up-to-the-minute updates from major news sources as well as social media-driven networking capabilities.

“We are focused on educating the American public about this eminent threat to their rights and freedoms, with the goal of bringing ‘Creeping Sharia’ to a screeching halt,” explained Raphael Shore, producer of both The Third Jihad and Obsession and the founder of Clarion. “We want to expose the true intent of radical Islam in order to secure the future of the American public at large, including its Muslim community.”

Among those organizations invited to participate in the roundtable discussion is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). However, CAIR has declined the invitation, a surprising turn of events considering the group’s usual insistence that a representative of their “mainstream Muslim” staff be present at such events to offer a “balanced perspective.” In fact, since the beginning of 2009, CAIR has requested such representation in at least three U.S. events focused on radical Islam.

“We invited CAIR and they said they wanted nothing to do with this film,” said Connors. “CAIR’s response is unfortunate, as The Clarion Fund believes that the only way to address this issue is to discuss it openly and honestly with those who agree with us and those who disagree. Then, based on that education, the American public can decide for itself.”

The Third Jihad, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, centers on the FBI discovery of a Grand Jihad Manifesto calling for the destruction of the U.S. and the establishment of a radical Islamist theocracy in its place. The film features interviews with experts on radical Islam and American security specialists, including leading expert professor Bernard Lewis, as well as a first-hand account from a former terrorist. All those interviewed agree that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in America is a societal reality that cannot be ignored.

Though a shortened version of The Third Jihad has spread virally on the Internet since the beginning of the year, the Washington, D.C. screening will serve as the official launch of the feature-length version of the film.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Nancy Duncan, Clarion Fund PR
917-806-8809
media@clarionfund.org

http://www.aifdemocracy.org

2009: FBI Explains Its CAIR Cut Off / Investigative Project for Terrorism

See the original of this post on the website of the Investigative Project for Terrorism at this link.

Thanks,

Steve St.Clair

=============

FBI Explains Its CAIR Cut Off
IPT News
May 7, 2009

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not “an appropriate liaison partner” for the FBI because of evidence linking the organization and its founders to Hamas, an FBI assistant director said in a letter to a U.S. Senator.

“In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI,” Richard C. Powers, an assistant director in the FBI’s office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

Today, the FBI is unsure whether the relationship between CAIR and Hamas ever was severed, Powers wrote.

In February, Kyl was joined by fellow senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) in writing FBI Director Robert Mueller to praise the FBI’s policy toward CAIR. The senators said they believed it “should be government-wide policy,” and asked whether there were exceptions to it and whether it applied to field offices as well as FBI headquarters.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism was the first to report on the FBI’s decision to break communication with CAIR. That story cited an Oct. 8, 2008 letter from the head of the FBI’s Oklahoma City field office, who canceled a meeting of local Muslim community groups because of CAIR’s involvement.

“[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.,” the letter said.

Evidence from the Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) placed CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad in a group called the Palestine Committee. Internal documents show the committee was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance the Hamas cause politically and financially in the United States.

Ahmad and Awad are listed in a telephone list of committee members. Both men participated in a secret 1993 meeting of Hamas members and supporters. It was called in the wake of U.S. led peace efforts that led to the Oslo Accords. Participants in the meeting discussed ways to “derail” those efforts without being cast as terror supporters. They also discussed creating a new political organization to help the cause. Awad and Ahmad founded CAIR the following summer.

Internal Palestine Committee document show CAIR immediately was listed on a Palestine Committee agenda alongside other groups that had been part of the committee since its inception.

CAIR officials have cast the freeze as a residual policy of the Bush Administration and have largely ignored the evidence linking the organization to the Palestine Committee. In interviews, they claim that the FBI has never identified what the issues that prompted them to lose their access.

In his April 28 letter to Kyl, Powers made it clear that the HLF evidence was at the heart of the FBI’s decision to break off communication with CAIR:

“During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence the FBI has suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI.

The FBI’s decision to suspend formal contacts was not intended to reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization and its entire membership. Nevertheless, until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.” [Emphasis added]

The move was not meant “to reflect a wholesale judgment of” CAIR or all of its members, Powers wrote, reinforcing the emphasis on CAIR’s national leadership.

Kyl questioned Mueller about the policy during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee March 25. In their exchange, Mueller indicated there were investigations into Muslim Brotherhood activity in the U.S. He also said that, in outreach activities, “we certainly search our indices to make certain that when we meet with individuals, that they’re not under investigation and that we can appropriately maintain liaison relationships with them.”

Mueller was reluctant to speak in specifics, as the follow exchange shows:

MUELLER: We will generally have — individuals may have some maybe leaders in the community who we have no reason to believe whatsoever are involved in terrorism, but may be affiliated, in some way, shape or form, with an institution about which there is some concern, and which we have to work out a separate arrangement.

We have to be sensitive to both the individuals, as well as the organization, and try to resolve the issues that may prevent us from working with a particular organization.

KYL: Even though you’ve said you prefer not to talk about specific organizations in this hearing, I guess the question still remains whether the information that we received that this particular organization was no longer one with which you were having a direct relationship — is that information incorrect?

MUELLER: I think what I’d prefer to do, if I could, is provide that letter to you where I can be more precise in terms of…

KYL: All right, that’s fair enough.

MUELLER: … and have some opportunity to review exactly specifically what I say.

With Powers’ letter, it seems the FBI’s cards are on the table. CAIR can try to show where its leaders broke with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, or perhaps purge its leadership. Otherwise, the FBI would have a difficult time justifying any reversal in policy.

In what appears to be a coincidence, CAIR announced the retirement of founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad Thursday afternoon. No reason was given for the move.

Click here to see the FBI response and here to see the letter from Kyl, Schumer and Coburn.