This is a letter to Dr. Jasser from a decent, concerned American.
December 26, 2007
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
c/o AIFD
Dear Dr. Jasser:
I am a non-religious yet spiritual individual who has for many years endeavored to educate people about the dangers of radical Islam (or Islamism, as it is now often called), which I consider to be the greatest extant threat to mankind. Since learning about your website a few months ago, I have read most if not all of your articles. While I admire your courage in acknowledging the serious problem we all face from radical Islam, I can’t help but feel that your articles are at best misleading, at worst deceptive. Before justifying my position I would like to state in all sincerity that I believe you to be a moral and righteous man. But now to the matter at hand.
A recurring theme in many of your articles is to blame terrorism and radical Islam on “political Islam.” To the best of my knowledge, you have never explicitly defined this term, nor described what precisely it encompasses. Do you consider the following to be caused by political Islam?
hatred of Christians and Jews women’s subjugation people crashing airplanes into buildings
acceptance of the hatred literature which permeates Mosques in the United States
physicians attempting to blow up airports “honor killings” by men of their daughters and/or wives
In my opinion these actions and beliefs are not the result of political Islam, or at least not solely so, but instead have their origins in Islam itself. But even if, arguendo, one conceded that they are attributable to political Islam, one would still have to ask why there exists political Islam, but not political Christianity, or political Judaism, or political Hinduism, or political Buddhism. In at least two of your essays you have stated that people get the governments they deserve, but you have never taken this to its logical conclusion. Simply put, political Islam exists because of the very essence of Islam itself.
I am not a religious scholar, but virtually every author I have read, both Moslem and non-Moslem (I almost wrote “infidel’) alike, agree on two points: First, that Islam is more than just a religion but rather, a set of rules that regulate almost all aspects of life, and second, that Islam teaches that religion and government are inseparable. As such, political Islam is an integral part of Islam.
You seek to reform/modernize Islam, specifically advocating the practice of that which is peaceful and applicable to a modern society, and rejection of that which is not. At the risk of trivializing a serious - - deadly serious - - situation, when I read your articles I am reminded of the old saying “if my Aunt had a mustache, she’d be my Uncle.” All religions need to grow and adapt but what you are advocating is in essence, a complete re-structuring of Islam. What you apparently fail to consider is that such a religion would cease to be Islam; you might as well call it “Jasserism.”
I apologize for being so forthright, especially as we have never met, but there is no way for me to make my point by tap dancing around the issues. With all due respect Doctor, you have become an apologist for Islam. Each time I read one of your articles I feel I am reading the words of a desperate man, one who is trying with every fiber of his being to convince others, and ultimately himself, that Islam is good and moral, when everything he sees tells him otherwise. No matter how you and others may try to give it a positive spin, the facts as best we can determine them, are that Islam - - literally from its inception - - has been characterized by violence, aggression, dominance and subjugation. I am not a big fan of any organized religion, but Islam seems to truly be in a class by itself. Are there other religions in which the prophet of God killed, either by his own hand or by his commandments, those who opposed his teachings? Are there other religions which teach methods of warfare? Are there other religions which so specifically divide the world into believers and non-believers? Are there other religions which explicitly teach that non-believers be subjugated, and forced to pay a special tax? Are there other religions which advocate death for apostasy? And last but not least, are there other religions which promise the rewards of heaven for killing those of different faiths? I am not aware of any. This is the reality of Islam.
In closing, I would like to repeat something I said earlier, namely that I consider you to be a moral and just human being. But I would now like to add something that I truly hope you will consider: Your morality stems not from your being a Moslem but occurs only because you reject so much of Islam. If you adhered strictly to the teachings of the Koran, you would be a very different man. You consider yourself a devout Moslem yet most Moslems would probably classify you very differently. The significance of this cannot be overstated. There are many paths to God, yet you hang tenaciously to Islam, despite recognizing what it has brought to the world. Alas, there are no more difficult bonds to shed than those of religious indoctrination. For what it’s worth, I daresay any other religion would be proud to have you as a member.
Sincerely,
L. B, Ph.D.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Inside the Ring
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/NATION04/410150204&template=printart
Article published Jan 4, 2008Inside the Ring
January 4, 2008 By Bill Gertz -
Coughlin sacked Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.
He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.
Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.
Article published Jan 4, 2008Inside the Ring
January 4, 2008 By Bill Gertz -
Coughlin sacked Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.
He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.
Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Where Are The Americans?
Where Are The Americans
by Michael D. Shaw
Amil Imani, an ex-pat Iranian now living in the US, recently posted an interesting article to the American Thinker website.
His premise is that the current theocratic and despotic rulers of Iran are not true Iranians in the sense that they do not portray the ancient traditions started by King Cyrus the Great. This Cyrus II, besides founding Persia by uniting the Medes and the Persians, conquering Babylon and liberating the Jews, also wrote the very first Charter of Human Rights.
Exhibiting qualities that were not exactly common in his era, Cyrus respected the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of other races, earning him the devotion of all his subjects.
Imani holds that the real descendants of Cyrus are those people—scattered throughout the world—who adhere to Cyrus' Charter: Free humans with human beliefs. Noting that even racially different humans have precious little genetic variation, he contends—and I must agree—that what makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them.
Are there any lesson here for Americans?
We first have to pin down our origins...
Ethnically, the founders of our country were primarily of Anglo-Saxon extraction. Religiously, some were devout, many were not. And, some who were overtly religious, such as John Jay, were paradoxical in their concurrent anti-slavery and anti-Catholic activities.
Although most were from privileged backgrounds, some, including Alexander Hamilton, certainly were not. In any case, all distinguished themselves in their professional lives, demonstrating the qualities of industry, charity, and self-sacrifice.
Few of the founders would fit the stereotype of a "rebel," yet, rebels they were. And, it was this very rebellion against an overarching imperial power that would unite men whose professional and commercial interests were disparate enough to cause a civil war a mere 85 years later.
But, if we want to look at the "software" that ran these men, the legacy is our Constitution. Originally written in the summer of 1787, it would not be until May 29, 1790 that the last holdout (Rhode Island) would ratify the document, and then only barely. Still, if this Constitution defines America, or is at least one way of defining America, it is at once simple—and sobering—to hold our leaders to this standard.
Since the colonies came together voluntarily, and secession was always on the table, the very notion of a War Between the States was a hideous affront, a bloody travesty, and a supreme betrayal. No American could advocate this, and few outside the leadership class actually did. Indeed, a goodly number within the leadership class protested vigorously. Even this cultural blasphemy would not be enough to destroy the Republic, but it did change it.
The way was paved for a Federal Leviathan, orders of magnitude beyond what was imagined by the most ardent Federalists of the 18th century. Power-hungry career politicians could now build their own personal empires in a manner that would have disgusted all the founders.
Massive classes of victims would be created, to justify ever more expansion of the monster. Neither these victims, nor their political pimps bear any resemblance to the American ideal, even if they dominate political discourse. And all the while, the Constitution is relegated to little more than ceremonial status, since more than 90 percent of what goes on these days is neither mentioned, nor even remotely anticipated by this document and its amendments.
Of course, appearances are kept up, with fatuous bloviating about "Constitutional Law," a branch of law that has become little more than a trivial pursuit of the dubious—if devastating—rulings of a Supreme Court, that has sadly become a Supreme farce, aided and abetted by an increasingly feckless Legislative and Executive Branch. None of this, I would remind you, is faintly American.
Somewhere, though, within our 300 million souls, the original fire is burning; only don't bother looking for it in the hearts of our leaders.
—12/19/06
[Discuss This Article.]
by Michael D. Shaw
Amil Imani, an ex-pat Iranian now living in the US, recently posted an interesting article to the American Thinker website.
His premise is that the current theocratic and despotic rulers of Iran are not true Iranians in the sense that they do not portray the ancient traditions started by King Cyrus the Great. This Cyrus II, besides founding Persia by uniting the Medes and the Persians, conquering Babylon and liberating the Jews, also wrote the very first Charter of Human Rights.
Exhibiting qualities that were not exactly common in his era, Cyrus respected the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of other races, earning him the devotion of all his subjects.
Imani holds that the real descendants of Cyrus are those people—scattered throughout the world—who adhere to Cyrus' Charter: Free humans with human beliefs. Noting that even racially different humans have precious little genetic variation, he contends—and I must agree—that what makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them.
Are there any lesson here for Americans?
We first have to pin down our origins...
Ethnically, the founders of our country were primarily of Anglo-Saxon extraction. Religiously, some were devout, many were not. And, some who were overtly religious, such as John Jay, were paradoxical in their concurrent anti-slavery and anti-Catholic activities.
Although most were from privileged backgrounds, some, including Alexander Hamilton, certainly were not. In any case, all distinguished themselves in their professional lives, demonstrating the qualities of industry, charity, and self-sacrifice.
Few of the founders would fit the stereotype of a "rebel," yet, rebels they were. And, it was this very rebellion against an overarching imperial power that would unite men whose professional and commercial interests were disparate enough to cause a civil war a mere 85 years later.
But, if we want to look at the "software" that ran these men, the legacy is our Constitution. Originally written in the summer of 1787, it would not be until May 29, 1790 that the last holdout (Rhode Island) would ratify the document, and then only barely. Still, if this Constitution defines America, or is at least one way of defining America, it is at once simple—and sobering—to hold our leaders to this standard.
Since the colonies came together voluntarily, and secession was always on the table, the very notion of a War Between the States was a hideous affront, a bloody travesty, and a supreme betrayal. No American could advocate this, and few outside the leadership class actually did. Indeed, a goodly number within the leadership class protested vigorously. Even this cultural blasphemy would not be enough to destroy the Republic, but it did change it.
The way was paved for a Federal Leviathan, orders of magnitude beyond what was imagined by the most ardent Federalists of the 18th century. Power-hungry career politicians could now build their own personal empires in a manner that would have disgusted all the founders.
Massive classes of victims would be created, to justify ever more expansion of the monster. Neither these victims, nor their political pimps bear any resemblance to the American ideal, even if they dominate political discourse. And all the while, the Constitution is relegated to little more than ceremonial status, since more than 90 percent of what goes on these days is neither mentioned, nor even remotely anticipated by this document and its amendments.
Of course, appearances are kept up, with fatuous bloviating about "Constitutional Law," a branch of law that has become little more than a trivial pursuit of the dubious—if devastating—rulings of a Supreme Court, that has sadly become a Supreme farce, aided and abetted by an increasingly feckless Legislative and Executive Branch. None of this, I would remind you, is faintly American.
Somewhere, though, within our 300 million souls, the original fire is burning; only don't bother looking for it in the hearts of our leaders.
—12/19/06
[Discuss This Article.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)