Wednesday, October 06, 2010

AIFD: Friends of America and Freedom

Many thanks to Anestos Canelides for the following interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.


The American Islamic Forum for Democracy — Friends of America and Freedom

by Anestos Canelides


Looking at current events and terrorism throughout the world, it’s easy to believe that all Muslims are a danger to our freedoms, and categorize them as evildoers who threaten us with carnage. This belief is erroneous; the fact is that many Muslims in the United States do not agree with the radical Islamist agenda.

I spent time in Turkey, and was very impressed by how well-treated I was by the largely Muslim population. As their religion grows in the USA, we will see more cultural conflicts between them and the jihadist imams. Realize this — there are many Muslims in America who are very patriotic. They not only support pluralism but oppose Islamic supremacy. Not only is it important to acknowledge the truly moderate Muslims, but we should see them an important asset in the fight against an oppressive religious ideology.

One such group found on the Internet, via Jihad Watch, is the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) or www.aifdemocracy.org

Zuhdi JasserIn an email interview I asked Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the chairman of their Board of Directors, some key questions about their organization and his answers speak volumes. In this war of ideology we must not only acknowledge who the enemy is, but also who our allies are. I consider AIFD an important asset in our struggle to protect the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights from those who would replace it with Sharia law. It is my desire that more Americans become aware of great organizations like the AIFD, and help them to obtain their goal, which is to stop the jihadis by educating both Muslims and non-Muslims about the real threat.


Q: Who is AIFD?
 
A: The American Islamic Forum for Democracy is a non-profit think tank and activist organization I founded along with other Muslims in the Phoenix area in March 2003.
 
Q: What is your purpose?
 
A: We had long been aware that radical Islam and its militant manifestations in Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbullah the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations was not simply related to ‘terror’ — a tactic — but rather more deeply related to the ends all these organizations sought- some form of the Islamic state based in their versions of shariah law (Islamic jurisprudence). Ultimately, we formed AIFD to counter the supremacist theo-political ideologies that fuel radical Islam. We believe that the threat of radical Islam will not dissipate until the “Muslim” consciousness goes through an ‘Enlightenment’ process that separates mosque and state.

Ultimately, while Al Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups have used attacks against American and Western interests to collectivize Muslims and drive away Western influence upon Muslims through attempting to stimulate an American isolationism, the primary targets of terror groups have always been moderate Muslims who do not toe their theocratic Islamist line. Victory against radical Islam is contingent upon how the civil war of ideas within the “House of Islam” plays out in this next generation.

Much like the classical liberalism of the Western nation state evolved out of the European Enlightenment that marginalized the role of the Church in government, so too can classical liberalism drive the marginalization of Islamists from governments where Muslims are a majority. Our purpose is the advocacy of these ideas of liberty and freedom against political Islam, but from within the devotional Muslim consciousness.
 
Q: What are your goals in educating Americans about both radical Islam and tolerant Muslims such as yourself?

A: Our goal is to awaken America to the need to develop a forward strategy against the ideas of political Islam by enabling the advocates of liberty from within Muslim communities domestically and abroad, while marginalizing the advocates of political Islam.

If the faith of Islam inherently taught terrorism and militancy, I think the world would have perished long ago since it is a faith practiced by a quarter of the world’s population. I personally have never met a Muslim that believes in terrorism or that the “ends justifies the means”. However, the tactic of terror is employed by Islamists or those who advocate political Islam and its prescription for society and government.

It is that prescription that America has yet to engage critically. In fact many in our government and media feel that as long as Islamists advocate non-violent means for the advancement of their causes then they are not a threat. We hope to continue to educate Americans at every opportunity that even lawful non-violent Islamism which may not advocate terror is also a threat to our way of life in the West and in the United States.

Islamists even argue that they follow the laws of the lands in which they live. But that implies that if Muslims are a majority, they would advocate for a system different from this one and that is certainly the case for Islamists that believe in the Islamic state over our constitutional republic. So far most studies show that Islamists are a plurality but not a majority of Muslims; however, while the rest are non-Islamists or anti-Islamists the ideas of freedom and liberty have yet to take hold, since the experience of most Muslims has been colored by secular despots and oppressive tribal monarchs who have not given their populations opportunities to discover the ideas of liberty.

We hope to educate Americans that the mission to bring Muslim ideas into modernity is not only a Muslim problem. Ultimately Muslim advocates for liberty will need the help of like-minded Americans of all faiths who realize that this battle of ideas within the “House of Islam” has yet to be waged fairly and the result will impact greatly our national security at home and abroad. It is time for Americans to understand that taking sides in this war of ideas is long overdue, and that our absence at best and facilitation at worst of Islamists over the past century has given the transnational movement of political Islam a great head start that has put Muslim freedom advocates at a great disadvantage.
 
Q: Do you believe in pluralism in America, and how are you fighting the Islamic supremacists?
 
A: Absolutely, that is one of the primary reasons I founded AIFD. American pluralism is a reality because of the ideas of our founding fathers that came to fruition in our constitutional republic based in the principles of liberty and equality for all. While I am a devout conservative Muslim, I am, however, strongly against the so-called “Islamic state” based in “shariah” law. I believe our American form of government and legal system based in reason and with our Establishment Clause is the best way to guarantee the human rights of all citizens “under God”. I believe that my faith practice is no longer a choice and thus no longer a faith if the clerics, imams, or mullahs enact their own interpretation of Islamic laws on behalf of God.

America was formed on the idea that the separation of Church and state was necessary for devout Christians to have the freedom to practice their own interpretations of their own faith and keep the Church out of government and Canon law out of the governmental legal systems. Similarly, even if Muslims are able to modernize shariah law and make it compatible with principles of human rights honored in the West, I still would want it kept out of government, since by definition pluralistic systems need to have equal access by all citizens blind to faith. I have never had a conflict in the practice of my own interpretation of Islam and the principles of pluralism in America, and it is that ideology that I seek to promote in our reform efforts at AIFD within the Muslim consciousness.

We are fighting Islamic supremacism by being in the frontlines in the war of ideas inside the “House of Islam” wherever possible at the many intersections of the ideological conflict between the ideas of political Islam and the ideas of liberty (Western secular liberal democracy). I feel that what has been missing in the war of ideas has been any offense. The U.S. has been playing defense against the spread of political Islam, as witnessed in the continued spread of hundreds of offshoots of groups that came out of the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood globally. While a plurality, their Islamist ideas are not found in a majority of Muslims, and yet the non-Islamist Muslims have yet to mount a palpable ideological counter-offensive against them in mosques, universities, government, NGO’s, and media.

AIFD’s mission is twofold. One is to educate non-Muslims to the importance of supporting liberty-minded Muslims as a solution to this conflict. The other is the engagement of Muslims in this open discussion about political Islam and its slippery slope toward radicalization and militant Islamism. I have engaged leading imams and mosques in Florida, Ohio, and Massachusetts in public debates and discussion available online about these very ideas. I have taken these ideas to Muslim and non-Muslim students at a number of universities around the country and continue to seek more opportunities to do that in order to plant the seeds of change in their minds about the true nature of this conflict. I do believe that when given a fair opportunity the ideas of liberty will always win over the ideas of political Islam without anyone able to say that liberty-minded Muslims are anti-Islam or “Islamophobic’- a preposterous concept to be levied against a devout practicing Muslim.

Interestingly, after a briefing I did to members of congress on October 1, 2009, about the threat of political Islam, a fellow Muslim, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) had the audacity to do exactly that in rebuttal to my comments. Without refuting any of my ideas, he levied ad hominem attacks and called me a hatemonger and said I would be to blame for hate crimes against Muslims. He all but called me “an Uncle Tom.” The Islamic Society of North America then had the temerity to publish a review of the debate on Capitol Hill with a headline in the Islamic Horizons magazine, “Ellison chides hatemonger”. When a Muslim wrote in and questioned their integrity of writing such libelous claims about our work they printed a retraction apparently crafted by lawyers but, typical for Islamists, did not run my Muslim colleague’s letter.
 
Q: How are you involved with both the Muslim and non-Muslim community in making us aware?
 
A: To add to what I discussed above, I am taking our ideas of change and our platform based on our mission to separate mosque and state to all of the venues that create a culture of change within the Muslim consciousness. That includes Muslim and non-Muslim venues. If I limited it to Muslim venues, my life has proven over and over again that the stimulus for reform is not great enough to effect real change within the Muslim communities.

But as the greater American community becomes aware of the need for Muslim reforms toward modernity, the stimulus for real change and modernization of theology against political Islam will grow exponentially. Without pressure from the non-Muslim community in America and globally, I don’t see the necessary critique and reform of political Islam and its legal instrument of shariah ever happening. So that is why we take our ideas and respond to the issues of the day through the lens of a mission to separate mosque and state from within the House of Islam. I take these ideas to media, government, academia, NGOs, faith-based communities, civic organizations, and think tanks. All are integral in ultimately helping create an offensive movement for change against political Islam.

We are developing a Muslim Liberty Project that we will hopefully roll out in 2011. It will use booklets that discuss the ideas of liberty in a way that presents an alternative for Muslim youth, and allows them to identify with American society and our government and become inoculated against being attracted to the political ‘ummah’ (Muslim community) while maintaining their Islamic faith and personal relationship with God.
 
Q: How do you work with other faiths to promote real tolerance vs. the liberal lie about tolerance?
 
A: The reason we take our mission to Muslims and non-Muslims is that the entire foundations of American pluralism and “real tolerance” are threatened by the growing morphing platform of political Islam. In fact, I frequently discuss the fact that American pluralism is a far more egalitarian principle than the one promoted by so many Islamists of “tolerance.” In fact many so-called Muslim reformers are more accurately pushing forth a concept of “Political Islam 4.0” rather than any of the needed reforms against the entire foundations of political Islam vis-à-vis the separation of mosque and state.

For the Islamist, tolerance is about “giving non-Muslims the right to practice their faith and laws but doing so separately not as one equal community with equal access to government, the legal system, and an equally valid path to God. They tolerate other faiths but still feel that they need da’wa (or Muslim evangelism) in order to live more righteously. I find those ideas repulsive and hypocritical, especially for those of us living and benefiting in a society that gave us equal rights and access to all levels of government and society. There is a condescending notion within the concept of “tolerance” that they tolerate non-Muslims or even non-Islamist Muslims rather than believe that they are equal and have equally valid interpretations of God’s message and society.

These are the ideas I promote and find every opportunity possible to engage those who disagree in our quest at AIFD to open and broaden the public understanding and discourse on theo-political Islam and its reach.


Previous posts by Anestos Canelides:

2010 May 29 The Last Empire
  Jun 18 The Muslim Devastation of India
  Aug 20 Are They Lying to Us?
  Sep 28 Devshirme: A Muslim Scourge on Christians

19 comments:

bartholomewscross said...

Dr Zuhdi Jasser wrote,

"There is a condescending notion within the concept of “tolerance” that [the Islamists] tolerate non-Muslims or even non-Islamist Muslims rather than believe that they are equal and have equally valid interpretations of God’s message and society."

Dr. Jasser says that he is a "conservative, devout Muslim" but he apparently also believes any decent Muslim will hold that all creeds are "equal and have equally valid interpretations of God's message and society".

But that's impossible. The creeds contradict one another. It's as if I had two people, Person A and Person B, in front of me, each saying, "I am telling the truth. The other guy is lying." I can say to Person A, "I believe you, but not Person B", or I can say to Person B, "I believe you, but not Person A", or I can say to them both, "I don't believe either one of you." But the one thing I cannot say is "I believe you both.".

Yet, that's exactly what Dr. Jasser says. I can only conclude from this that man has either no idea what Islam (or any other religion) teaches about the nature of truth or no idea what Absolute Truth means (which each creed claims to have).

How can a spokesman for "enlightened Islam" not understand the basic claims of his own faith? How can a spokesman for Islamic ecumenism not understand the basic claims of other faiths? And how can any scholar of religion not understand the concept of divine (Absolute) truth?

doxRaven said...

While I am a devout conservative Muslim, I am, however, strongly against the so-called “Islamic state” based in “shariah” law.

I would be interested in understanding why he thinks he is a devout Muslim. Maybe he can highlight which part of the Koran and Hadith he rejects. Just saying he does not want shariah is not enough to be credible.

Egghead said...

In my opinion, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a big fat fake, and anyone who sends him money is nuts....

Practicing Muslims need to realize in their own mind, heart, and soul that they CANNOT have it both ways. Practicing Muslims cannot accept and imitate the words, ideas, and deeds of the EVIL psychopath Mohammed - and then claim to be rational human beings with an intact moral compass.

Here are my rebuttals to a few of his statements:

“If the faith of Islam inherently taught terrorism and militancy, I think the world would have perished long ago since it is a faith practiced by a quarter of the world’s population.”

First of all, a quarter of the world does NOT practice Islam - the number is inflated. Also, the declaration that the world would have perished long ago if Islam inherently taught terrorism and militancy needs exploring. To wit, the reason that Islam has grown to encompass one fifth of the world's population is because Islam violently conquered cultures which indeed did perish long ago due to militant Islam.

latté island said...

If the faith of Islam inherently taught terrorism and militancy, I think the world would have perished long ago since it is a faith practiced by a quarter of the world’s population

No, the world didn't perish because non-Muslims fought back and won. Dr. Jasser seems in denial about how Islam was spread--by terrorism and militancy. That said, he seems sincere, and I accept all sincere allies, even if they're shaky on a few details.

BTW, I traveled through Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan as a teenager, and I was very impressed by the good manners and hospitality of the Muslims I met. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with politics, so having good personal experiences with certain people, doesn't preclude their turning into enemies. I have good manners, too. The Muslims I come in contact with every day have no idea I want to deport all of them.

Egghead said...

“I personally have never met a Muslim that believes in terrorism or that the “ends justifies the means”.”

I find it very easy to prove this statement to be patently false. To wit, if Jasser has debated Islamicists or attended a CAIR-sponsored event or attended one of the 80% of American mosques that actively support the concept of violent jihad, then Jasser has indeed PERSONALLY met a Muslim who believes in terrorism. Really, all Jasser needs to do is to attend the Arab festival in Dearborn, MI, or participate in a pro-Palestinian march in any USA city. What a fake Jasser is!

“I have never had a conflict in the practice of my own interpretation of Islam and the principles of pluralism in America, and it is that ideology that I seek to promote in our reform efforts at AIFD within the Muslim consciousness.”

No one - least of all any Saudi-sponsored imams - is even remotely interested in Jasser's "own interpretation" of Islam. Islam is Islam - and is easily found in the "PERFECT UNCHANGEABLE REVEALED" Koran and its hadiths. Jasser's opinion is irrelevant to Islamic theology except where it would show him to be an apostate under ummah-wide death threat. If there is NO fatwa ordering Jasser's death for apostacy, then Jasser is simply is useful tool to create confusion for non-Muslims.

“If I limited it to Muslim venues, my life has proven over and over again that the stimulus for reform is not great enough to effect real change within the Muslim communities.”

Right. Muslims have ZERO impetus to change Islam because Islam benefits Muslims as a favored class in a VICIOUS WORLDWIDE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Different Muslims benefit in different ways: some men enjoy pedophilia; some men enjoy polygamy; some men enjoy being slave owners; etc.

Egghead said...

“Without pressure from the non-Muslim community in America and globally, I don’t see the necessary critique and reform of political Islam and its legal instrument of shariah ever happening.”

So, non-Muslims are supposed to pressure Islam to change, whereupon non-Muslims are called Islamophobes, xenophobes, racists, paranoids, haters of poor people, misunderstanders of Islam.

Oh, and non-Muslims are supposed to pressure Islam to change without criticizing the utter EVIL of Mohammed and excessive moral depravity of his followers over the past 1,400 years.

Yes, and all Islamic denial of its EVIL will kick into high gear when the UN passes the anti-hate speech resolution barring anyone from ever criticizing Islam anywhere in the world.

“There is a condescending notion within the concept of “tolerance” that they tolerate non-Muslims or even non-Islamist Muslims rather than believe that they are equal and have equally valid interpretations of God’s message and society.”

Indeed. Inherent in his statement is the idea that Jasser plans that non-Muslims will believe that Islam is equal and has an equally valid interpretation of God's message and society.

Wrong, Jasser, wrong, wrong, wrong.

ISLAM = EVIL

MOHAMMED = WORLD HISTORY'S MOST EVIL HUMAN & ADMITTED PEDOPHILE RAPIST

Decatur said...

"Not only is it important to acknowledge the truly moderate Muslims, but we should see them an important asset in the fight against an oppressive religious ideology."

Sorry but I disagree completely with this statement. I believe that the 'moderate' muslims, the ones who live peacefully amongst us are knowingly or unknowingly engaging in the Jihad. Their presence is meant to reassure us that not all Muslims are radicals,that in fact they're not much different from us.

But they are different, very different, they follow the teachings of a man who was a monster; whose 'holy' books encourages mistreatment of unbelievers & whose purpose in life is to (re)establish Islam worldwide.
And how well it works, the reassuring presence of so many moderate and harmless folk. But just imagine for a moment if the moderates were not living amongst us in their millions, if the only Muslims we knew of and interacted with were the terrorists, the radicals, the head lopping, whip wielding extremists. These people know that they'd be on their way in a heartbeat. We would not tolerate them; it is the very presence of the 'moderates' that forces us to appease the radicals, they use our tolerance for human rights to remove our liberty.

These moderates are part & parcel of their infiltration. They can tsk tsk all they like but until they're marching in the streets en masse against the radicals in the mosques I won't accept their presence as reassuring.

ENGLISHMAN said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

ENGLISHMAN --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

----------------------

ENGLISHMAN said...

So we are back to the "moderate muslim" b******t.There are NO moderate muslims,there are those who keep a low profile,steadily undermining our cultural values,get wealthy on unemployment benefit with several wives and a football team of children,buy houses with the proceeds of thier fraud,because whoever wins this clash of reason against intollerance,they will be on the winning side,then there are those who push thier aims through violence,because they are not prepared to wait to enslave and degrade the kuffr,and it beats working for a living,while dwelling in thier very own "che" dream of freedom fighting fantasy,either way if we do not begin a robust defence of our right to our way of life,our little tollerant heads will roll all the same,personally i would rather live on my feet and make them die on thier knees,for there can be no compromise.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Maybe he can highlight which part of the Koran and Hadith he rejects.

Yes. I want to know this.

bartholomewscross said...

Egghead wrote,

"Oh, and non-Muslims are supposed to pressure Islam to change without criticizing the utter EVIL of Mohammed and excessive moral depravity of his followers over the past 1,400 years."

Very well said, Egghead. It's as if Jasser and his sort think "pressure" is some magical potion that liberals can smear over Muslims to neutralize their "radicalism", like some kind of voodoo ritual.

These liberals--and that's what Jasser is, actually--really do have a strange way of thinking. They treat abstract notions like "pressure" and "radicalism" or "terrorism" as if they were tangible evils. And they treat tangible, actual people and things (like the actual person of Mohammad or Hizbullah's suicide vests) as if they were meaningless and not worthy of discussion. And if you disagree and actually talk about real people and real actions, they call you a delusional "racist/bigot/islamophobe/etc.,etc." and treat you like a leper.

Way to call him out on that, Egghead.

EscapeVelocity said...

"Not only is it important to acknowledge the truly moderate Muslims, but we should see them an important asset in the fight against an oppressive religious ideology."


This is true. But what is even more important is to limit the public space for Islam on this planet. The West should be a Jihad and Shariah free zone.

We should most certainly lavish funding and support for liberal Muslims as they fight to reform/subvert/undermine Islam, within the 57 Muslim majority nations on this planet.

EscapeVelocity said...

We shouldnt fight the Islamic Reformation in our neighborhoods, cities, and on our streets. But in Cairo, Jakarta, Ankara, etc. Subjecting ourselves to massive Islamic violence is masochism.

Personally, I think that conversion to Christianity is a much more effective strategy. The Spaniards had it right.

LAW Wells said...

Yikes! I know we're in a cultural war to the death, but this is getting a little overheated. Many Muslims do just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity. They're human, with the same wants and needs as the rest of us. Don't deny them that, and don't pretend that somehow we can win at present without help.

With that said, I do understand, what with the doctrine of taqqiya, the scepticism around this man. But he is right when he says that I believe that my faith practice is no longer a choice and thus no longer a faith if the clerics, imams, or mullahs enact their own interpretation of Islamic laws on behalf of God. I was baptised a Catholic, but i didn't really get it and choose to learn about it until about six months ago (though the stirrings had risen inside for some time previous). I chose to participate.

In Islam, there is no choice. Many Muslims are Muslim because they were born into it (and that's hardly their fault). Yes, he's being foolish in suggesting that the West needs to change Islam (even Tony Blair says that this plays right into the hands of the violent jihadis). But the people who are Muslim and do desire peace are the ones who are the most disenfranchised. In short, we're talking with the wrong people.

Surely, if we were to bring into Islam questions and doubt, we would deprive them of their present unity, much as the Reformation sundered European Christendom. Is this not to our advantage in this present clash of civilisations? We need to empower and talk to those who, though we disagree with some of what they say and have many other questions for them, will aid is in preserving our culture, intentionally or not.

EscapeVelocity said...

I agree with that Law.

But I believe that this shouldnt have to take place in Europe and the Anglo nations, or India for that matter.

This should take place within Muslim controlled lands. Similar to how discord/subversion was sowed by the Soviets....they funded groups in the West, namely the New Left and all grievance minority groups.

The difference is that Classically Liberal Christian Democracies, were easier to operate in, because they were Christian and Liberal and Democratic. They had their own ideals and principles to uphold. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals spells out the use of holding the opponent to his own principles. Islamic principles are much more intolerant and aggressive.

We need to clear the West AND support these liberal Muslims, within Muslim majority nations. Make it very profitable to be a Muslim Leftist, support them with massive funding of subversive groups, Feminists, minority grievance groups, etc.

Think global strategy. Limit the public space for Islam, then focus on its internal divisions...promote radical reformation of Islamic Civilization using all the Leftist tactics that we have worked so well in the West. No need to rewrite the playbook.

mark E roberts said...

I think some posters are missing what I believe is Dr. Jasser's true identity: He is a quite liberal Muslim. I use "liberal" in the sense used within Christian theology. Dr Jasser is willing to revise historic Islam to fit the (post?)modern context, wishing for Muslims their version of an Enlightenment, which has shaped much of modern Christianity, especially theologically liberal Christianity. I wish him well. I believe he is sincere. I do not know what are the odds of such a Muslim Reformation, because Christianity was able to evolve into western disestablishmentism largely because its founder, Jesus, as remembered in the Gospels, was quite ambiguous about the relationship between the life of devotion to God and to the State. Unfortunately for black-letter Muslims, Mohammed had no such ambiguity; and much of Islam today is a political ideology wrapped in what looks to westerners like religious robes, and that's what confuses us. But Islam has ancient history on its side in this regard: Nowhere in western antiquity do we find anything like religion and civic life clearly distinguished. Even the great classic Greek tragedies were written for and performed at religious festivals. Church v state is a thoroughly western invention, one I believe is rooted in (thought not entailed in) Jesus of the Gospels.

rjog said...

I have followed Dr Jasser for a while now and I think he is the real thing. I do not agree with everything he says but then I don’t agree with everything anyone says (especailly religious people)

“Without pressure from the non-Muslim community in America and globally, I don’t see the necessary critique and reform of political Islam and its legal instrument of shariah ever happening.”

I think what he means here is our government and media need to quit appeasing islam….i.e. the koran burning …with our military and our president speaking out against the burning of a book? This is a FLAGRANT violation of our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and seperation of church and state… jihad at its finest

@Decatur - “These moderates are part & parcel of their infiltration. They can tsk tsk all they like but until they're marching in the streets en masse against the radicals in the mosques I won't accept their presence as reassuring.”

You have a good point here Decatur……maybe Dr Jasser would be kind enough to address this issue?

I am more interested in this Keith Ellison who, according to his wiki page, was (?) a supporter of Louis Farrakhan and “he purportedly suggested the creation of a separate state for black residents.” He said he“"did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed."…lol..right right…

rjog said...

here is another example of jihad that is infeceting our media

Just Say Nothing: Is the American Press Afraid to Talk About Radical Islam?

"Yep – just days after the FBI sent Molly Norris up the stream without a paddle following the threats from Islamic militants bent on killing her for an idea (where is George Orwell now?), the Washington Post refused to publish a cartoon in which the word “Mohammed” was used, even though – catch this – there was no actual image purporting to be of Mohammed"

rjog said...

here is another example of stealth jihad that is infeceting our media

Just Say Nothing: Is the American Press Afraid to Talk About Radical Islam?

"Yep – just days after the FBI sent Molly Norris up the stream without a paddle following the threats from Islamic militants bent on killing her for an idea (where is George Orwell now?), the Washington Post refused to publish a cartoon in which the word “Mohammed” was used, even though – catch this – there was no actual image purporting to be of Mohammed"