Joel Mowbray notes the tepid-to-hostile response from Kamal Nawash's fellow Muslim leaders to Nawash's Free Muslims March Against Terrorism -- especially an unsurprising dose of venom from the egregious Hussein Ibish. From FrontPage:
In the first of its kind for an event organized by a major national Muslim organization, Kamal Nawash and the Free Muslims Coalition (FMC) recently held the Free Muslims March Against Terrorism. Not surprisingly, the leaders of every other major Muslim organization shunned the march and declined to take a public stand against terrorism and extremism.Noticeably missing from the list of over 80 sponsors Nawash rounded up was any of the Muslim groups that claim to be moderates, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Though these groups pay lip service to opposing terrorism, they couldn't put their money where their mouth is and bring themselves to stand side-by-side with the Free Muslim Coalition.
The reasons for the absence of the major national Muslim groups are obvious. The empirical evidence has clearly demonstrated where the true loyalties of organizations such as CAIR and MPAC lie. In this particular case, it is anathema for many Muslim groups to identify themselves with the unambiguous message of the rally. Nawash is among the few Muslim leaders-and certainly one of the very few leaders of the overtly political Muslim groups-to explicitly confront the real threat, the real root cause of terrorism: radical Islam.
This is worth monitoring from Nawash. It will be interesting to see if he really discusses the jihad passages of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the legal superstructure they inspired, and tries to formulate a response that Muslims will find compelling.
Where most prominent Muslim leaders prefer ambiguity and moral equivalence, Nawash stakes out an unmistakable position, not only opposing just violent jihad, but the doctrines of Wahhabism and political Islam, as well. Nawash is, without exception, against the creation of Islamic states-anywhere. The other major Islamic organizations simply can't take this position. Their refusal to back even Nawash's message exposes their true sympathies...If there's one thing that Nawash hopes to accomplish, it is to encourage other Muslims to speak up just as he has. Notes Nawash, "People who might want to speak out want somebody else to go first. Nobody wants to be a lone voice." Though not exactly a lone voice, Nawash must feel like one some days-especially when he looks at his colleagues at the other national Muslim organizations.
Read it all.
Joel Mowbray notes the tepid-to-hostile response from his fellow Muslim leaders to Kamal Nawash's..
Mowbray is muslim?
I suppose he means Nawash's fellow muslims.
Kamal Nawash has the courage to stand up and be counted. I applaud him for his efforts and his courage.
Regrettably, the Free Muslims Against Terror turn out was dismally small, a clear statement on Muslim main stream thinking.
Now we must ask ourselves, in light of the evidence to date, do the Saudi funded national Muslim associations and Mosques constitute a Clear and Present danger?
I've made my decision, and you will have to make yours.
Our freedom is under attack by Muslim appologists like Rep John Conyers, the closet Muslim.
Patrick henry said it best and I trust you know what he said.
But not everyone knows what John Quincy Adams had to say about Islam:
"…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God."
Here's something a little stronger and more to the point, historically, and no pussyfooting:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_our_islamic.html
Imperialistic Islam must be restrained, contained and encouraged to grown a brain.
Islam is the same world over.
It has perfected the art of war down to 'a tee'.
It fights both physically AND mentally (via Double Speak). The Koran does this also, it says "peace" then "Kill" (although the "kill" outnumbers the "peace" verses hands down.
As a result, even Muslims with the "best" of intentions cannot be trusted.
After all, anyone who follows the preaching of a self confessed (but not via conscience) pedophile, SHOULD NOT be trusted.
Anyone who follows a man/person who violated an innocent child, IS NOT A MAN OF PEACE> NEITHER ARE HIS TEACHINGS.
Hence no Muslim who accepts Mo's deeds as lawful, should be trusted WITH THE LAW.
Mowbray calls Ibish's article on MWU a "rambling smear job", but does not address a number of his central accusations, namely:
(a) that no trace could be found of some of the organisations listed
(b) that some of the sites were apolitical (including a clothes shop in Arizona and a job-finding website)
(c) that some of the organisations were groups which want to gain power for themselves
(d) that some of them were anti-Muslim rather than just anti-terror
Also, he doesn't mention that FMCAT were so desperate for supporters that they allowed a "group" whose name included the words "Nawash sucks" backwards to be included in the list of sponsors.
My dear "Yusuf Smith":
I have now perused your site, and I see that your attachment to accuracy and truth is tenuous at best -- particularly in your attacks on me. (I did appreciate, however, your observation that my statements on hadith were more accurate than Khaleel Mohammed's.)
It was no surprise, therefore, that I didn't find any reference to "Nawash sucks," either forwards or backwards, either in the FMAT endorsers list or in Ibish's articles.
Or are you contending that both Nawash and Ibish expunged all evidence of this embarrassing incident?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer