• IN THIS SECTION

Senior Intelligence Officials: Attempted Terror Attack "Certain"

The five senior leaders of the U.S. intelligence community told a Senate panel they are "certain" that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months.

If true, why do you think the jihadists feel emboldened?

The Obama administration is seen as weak against terrorism.
Its continued backlash against the policies of the former Bush administration.
Not sure.

View results

May 22, 2008

Florida Mosque Smears Distinguished ‘Moderate’ Muslim

Sid Shahid

Now we know what happens to the voice of moderate Muslims who confront the Islamist establishment. This weekend we witnessed yet another exhibit of the personal invective which comes out of some mosques against pious Muslims who decide to publicly engage these mosques on their two-faced stances.

On May 17th, 2008, the Islamic Center for Peace (ICP) in Fort Myers, Florida, posted a laborious, poorly written, tangential tirade in response to Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser's recent commentary entitled "The war of Ideas: Revealing the Moral Weakness and Hypocrisy of the Islamist Imam (Part 2 of 2." (also note Part I of this commentary here). The ICP mosque posted this, it would seem, out of their anger at Dr. Jasser and the results of the April 5, 2008 event in Naples, Florida, where their Imam debated Dr. Jasser over the Islamic state's ideological threat to the U.S.

Dr. Jasser's commentaries noted above review the debate.

Normally, this mosque's angry posting would not even be worth addressing since it is more of an empty sharp personal attack than an intellectual defense of Imam Al-Darsani's ideology. However, in this instance, it is particularly necessary since it shows the continued disingenuousness of the Islamist mindset, and moreover, of the prevailing philosophy at the Islamic Center for Peace. A look at the techniques used - personal attacks and invective - to dismiss AIFD and Dr. Jasser's positions can be highly educational in understanding the tribal mentality involved in using a mosque and a faith community to stifle much-needed debate.

As an AIFD research fellow, I found it especially educational to look at the mind behind the anonymous posting at the home page of what purports to be a "respected mosque in Florida." It is indiscernible who wrote this particular rant since it is unsigned and starts by referring to Imam Darsani in the third person and ends with what appears to be Imam al-Darsani himself speaking in the first person. I'm not sure that anyone would want to take credit for this work if he didn't have to. For those able to complete the entire missive, the following points are particularly illustrative:

1. The posting is not written on any academic level but rather on a low brow level, chock full of ad hominem and personal attacks on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD President, who committed the offense of disagreeing publicly with ICP's Imam and identifying his ideas for what they are: slippery, two-faced, and not far from being morally contemptible. While Dr. Jasser focused on the Imam's ideas and the corruption they represent, the ICP and its "fatwa" (religious opinion) of sorts prefer to focus on reckless slandering and ad hominem against Dr. Jasser himself, one of the few courageous Muslims willing to stand up against political Islam.

2. The writer claims that the Imam clearly condemned terrorism, but to the contrary, the Imam's apologetics tried to both condemn and explain the "occupied situation of the terrorists." (The quotations are available in Dr. Jasser's last column and the full debate is available online.) The writer thinks that comparing barbaric terrorists who target noncombatants to Patrick Henry and George Washington is not only morally appropriate but also is a clear condemnation of terrorism. Any rational human being not mired in Islamist duplicity and deceptiveness would call that at best apologetics and at worst corruption.

Further, how is it possible to misinterpret the Imam's statement when pressed about the moral legitimacy of terror: "Absolutely not for everyone, if I have nothing to fight with except my body against occupation, absolutely. (inaudible) and see what happened to these guys after the movie..(inaudible) killed in front of you , you are willing to give your life especially when you are trying to help."

3. This mosque's "fatwa" of sorts claims that Dr. Jasser needs to retract this and that. If anything needs retracting, it is this: the libelous, un-Islamic immorality of likening a pious family and community-oriented Muslim to a brutal Nazi, Hitler's right hand, Hermann Goering - as they did. "One can only assume that he is of the Herman Goering school of thought." Goering was Hitler's second-in-command of the Third Reich and executed the Holocaust, where six million Jews were systematically tortured and murdered. Such hyperbolic libel and slander seems to be the very nature of Islamist style in their propagandizing and defamation of anyone who dares to speak against them.

The brutal nastiness of this invective should illustrate the stakes in this conflict and how low some Imams and mosques will stoop to smear their opponents who try to expose their immoral ideologies.

4. The Naples debate concerned the goal of the Islamist terrorists, and more generally the Islamists who are not themselves terrorists but give moral cover and excuses to them, assisting the terrorist endgame: the establishment of the Islamic state. Dr. Jasser argued that there is no better way to diffuse the stimuli for terror than to delegitimize the Islamist goal of establishing the Islamic state. To this end, Dr. Jasser spent the majority of the debate stressing that a free secular democracy is in fact better for all faiths, including Muslims, who are more free to practice spiritual Islam, in a manner of their choosing, than any place else. Imam Darsani and the ICP 'fatwa' of sorts did not address this central point.

5. The one place where the mosque writer says anything about the constitutional issue is at the very end, "One may be shocked or surprised to see that it mostly echoes the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet." The Imam said this uselessly generalized and incorrect comment during the debate and then proceeded openly to defend "dhimmi status" for Jews and Christians, and apostasy laws of death for those who leave Islam. This is hardly the U.S. Constitution or the Islam I was taught.

Certainly, Imam Al-Darsani appears to be a political Imam. He believes in the Islamic state, governed by clerical interpretations of sharia law when Muslims are a majority. His website is clearly a political pulpit. The tirade against Dr. Jasser now posted on the mosque's homepage is Exhibit One of the politicization of his position. It is chock full of politics and virtually devoid of spirituality or academia.

6. The "fatwa" titles itself as "Exposing Dr. Jasser." Why and for whose purposes? Just because Dr. Jasser holds certain truths to be self-evident? Certainly, he is well exposed on his own website for people of all faiths including all Muslims to see. He does not hide behind anything when denouncing blatant acts of terror in the so-called "occupied territories." The anonymously-written invective calls Dr. Jasser "arrogant ... egotistical ... ultra neo-conservative ..." demonstrating no real engagement of any serious ideas ... just ad hominem and vile personal attacks.

7. According to the phantom writer, Dr. Jasser remains "a loose leaf floating around in a world that has refused to accept him." The opposite, in fact, is true. Dr. Jasser was recently honored by the Phoenix Field Office of the FBI with the 2007 Community Service Award for outstanding service to the community as a Muslim. Dr. Jasser was recently invited to the Netherlands by the U.S. State Department and our American Ambassador as a moderate Muslim to engage the Dutch Muslim youth. He is such a loose leaf that the Dutch Muslim Broadcasting company covered the visit in a detailed report (Part 1, Part 2). Just six months ago, Dr. Jasser delivered the Templeton Lecture on "Americanism vs. Islamism." As a prominent moderate Muslim leader, Dr. Jasser was also invited to participate in a discussion at the Hudson Institute with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen last December. I would point out to the phantom writer that this is not "refusal to accept," but rather a rush to embrace.

8. An assault is also made on Dr. Jasser's qualifications to empower moderate Muslims to question the Islamists' agenda in defense of our home - America - and its wonderful ideology of pluralism and freedom. Citing limited knowledge of the Arabic language and lack of Islamic training (whatever that may mean), the argument is made that Dr. Jasser is blind and those who listen to and approve of him are blind as well. So, a graduate degree in another field for which he is greatly respected and a lifetime of practicing a faith with intellectual discovery leaves one unable to engage the ideology of Islamism? Herein lies their case for establishing Islamic tribal elitism and clergy who alone must determine and dictate to other "lesser" (moderate) Muslims what the true Islam is.

The "fatwa" ends with a statement by someone (possibly the Imam): "I feel that we as a nation must work to weed out self proclaimed experts who sneak through the cracks and gain the trust of unsuspecting otherwise honorable citizens..."

Is that a threat? This is not the Islam I was taught. I was taught an Islam where reason prevails and where God has made spiritual Islam easy and flexible for its adherents ... where every human has a direct connection with God ... and on judgment day God (not the Islamist Imam) will ask about my deeds or my "iman" (strength of belief). He will ask me and judge me individually and relentlessly. So I must know my faith and be able to personally defend its ideas.

What is flabbergasting is that Imam Al-Darsani himself believes that his credentials are adequate to be considered an elite scholar worthy of representing the world of Muslim theology. He openly declares his mentor to be Sheikh Kiftaro who was quoted publicly in 2004, "I call on Muslims everywhere to use all means possible to thwart the aggression, including martyr operations against the belligerent American, British and Zionist invaders. . . . Resistance to the belligerent invaders is an obligation for all Muslims, starting with (those in) Iraq." Sheikh Kuftaro was a known collaborator with the Syrian government for decades and was considered the spiritual adviser to President Hafez Assad who much more appropriately can be compared to Goering. Kuftaro is a prime example of an Islamist tool of a dictatorship...hardly a source of moral learning.

I have heard Dr. Jasser speak at many events. He has repeatedly stressed the need for a contest of ideas between spiritual and political Islam. He has welcomed a debate between himself and any Imams who were up for it, even before the Naples event was conceived. Dr. Jasser places the responsibility on Muslims and Muslims alone for embracing spiritual Islam and moving away from a corrupting political Islam. We challenge the Phantom Writer, the ICP and Imam Darsani to focus on this main problem facing our great country: the endgame of the Islamists- the root cause of terror - Islamism and those who carry its water, the Islamists.

Finally, it is comical that Imam Al-Darsani denies being a "political Imam," yet posts on his webpage the following written by what appears to be himself: "Without a doubt America above all other nations, currently allows its citizens the most freedom to practice their faith and to live their lives the way they desire. However, we as American Citizens have allowed Government officials to hijack our Government and to pervert the rule of law that defines our freedoms. We need to take control and demand that irresponsible leaders are swiftly removed and replaced. Dr. Jasser serves as a tool for those same elected representatives who use his views to justify their positions."

What is significant here is the distinction between a voice of reason, Americanism and moderation, and a voice of apologetics, victimology, political rhetoric and discord. For those willing to see it, there is a clear distinction between someone who wants to sound out the debate within the Muslim community and someone who wants to stifle it. We at AIFD will not be threatened by those who want to "weed" us out or who slander us in the Muslim community. We will forge ahead toward an honest hearing of the ideologies in conflict.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Sid Shahid is an AIFD Research Fellow. He has a long and distinguished career in Federal service, an undergraduate degree in Political Science and History from the University of Denver and a graduate degree in Management from Webster University.

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer orthis article, please email your request to mailto:pr@familysecuritymatters.org

Note - The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)

Print This E-mail This

Share It: