Maybe they can help out a soldier as well

Soldier shoots Muslim attackers:
The next CAIR publicity stunt
By Michelle Malkin · March 19, 2007 12:43 PM
My prediction: The Council on American-Islamic Relations will be hounding this American soldier and milking this incident for every last "Islamophobia"-mongering dime they can raise (via the AJC and hat tip: Laura Mansfield):

Spc. Craig Perkins' uniform made him a target in Baghdad - and, he believes, again in an apartment complex near Clarkston.
Perkins, who returned last summer after almost a year's duty in Iraq, shot a man outside his apartment March 9 in what he says was the culmination of months of insults by some of his neighbors from the Middle East. Spc. Craig Perkins says he shot a Mideastern college student last week in self-defense.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007114.htm

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 21, 2007 2:50 PM

"...and they'll know that we are Christians by our love."

Interesting song. Interesting too is the fact that no Christian or Jewish groups have made a similiar offer.

In general I try to steer clear of Christians although if I have to pick a God it would be Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament.

The problem with Christians and Jews in my life experience is that when a choice must be made between cash and their God; God is usually thrown under the bus along with his commandments.

As much as I detest islamics; they will part with the cash rather than with allah.

Here I believe is an example. Good islamic - Bad islamic.

They will part with the cash and make inroads among the infidel for the sake of allah

Posted by: witness at March 21, 2007 2:56 PM

While I believe the offer is in their own self-interest, I do appreciate the move.
We need to meet CAIR head on.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 21, 2007 3:00 PM

"He said anti-Muslim "backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."

Translated as...the infidels must be allowed to go back to sleep?????

I'm very put off by the fact that this isn't about principle, it's about public relations TO BENEFIT THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY.

Posted by: treehugger at March 21, 2007 3:09 PM

Witness, I believe we are in the End Times and the Church has not only lost it's "first love" it is "lukewarm".

(1) Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) - the church that had forsaken its first love (2:4).

(2) Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11) - the church that would suffer persecution (2:10).

(3) Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) - the church that needed to repent (2:16).

(4) Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29) - the church who had a false prophetess (2:20).

(5) Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6) - the church that had fallen asleep (3:2).

(6) Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13) - the church that had endured patiently (3:10).

(7) Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) - the church with the lukewarm faith (3:16).

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 21, 2007 3:11 PM

Call me a cynic, but this reminds me of a joke from the Sopranos:

Young Bull (CAIR): Lets run down this hill and ____ a sheep.

Senior Bull (AIF): How about we walk down this hill and ____ them all.

Posted by: pez at March 21, 2007 3:16 PM

Rallies:
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/rally.htm

Please support these rallies, its easy to talk.... Here is an opportunity to take some action....

Posted by: adobe at March 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Treehuggers get it.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 21, 2007 3:33 PM

American Islamic Forum for Democracy???

I thought Islam forbade rule by the will of the people - only the will of Allah as expressed in the Kor'an and in the life of Allah's last prophet Muhammad was permitted!

Posted by: Shahryar at March 21, 2007 3:36 PM

"...and they'll know that we are Christians by our love."

Interesting song. Interesting too is the fact that no Christian or Jewish groups have made a similiar offer.

-Witness

Interesting thought, Wit. Christians and Jews tend not to be really big on making high-profile symbolic gestures of this type towards political ends, or to manipulate public opinion. I don't want to Characterize the AIFD's actions in this way because I do believe they have good motives here, I'm thinking more of the $5000 CAIR gave to the catholics when the Muslims went on a rampage worldwide after the Pope's speech last summer, killing nuns and burning churches. Then they spent half a million bucks putting out news releases and making appearances on national television to advertise their largess and tolerance toward Catholics. We were overwhelmed.

Your comments indicate that you think highly of Jesus as a model. One of the things he said was, when giving alms, don't have a couple of trumpets go before you to draw attention to your acts -- don't even let your right hand know what your left is doing. If Christians and Jews loudly advertised everything they gave to help others in need, what would you think of them? I suppose you'd think much more highly?

Well, it's not as if what we do for others is completely hidden. If you wish to make comparisons between religions, then the information is there. Consider the number of Christian organizations that do genuine relief work in third world countries, regardless of religious background of those who benefit?

I support a child through World Vision, for example, one of the largest such agencies. (Argh! you got me showing the left hand what the right is doing! Exactly what do you expect here?)

World Vision spends over a billion dollars annually on relief, the vast majority of this in areas dominated by Islam -- because that is where the need is. Although the rich Saudis, Iranians, etc pour lots of money into "missions", it is mostly to support Da'wa, Jihad, madrassas and mosques; only a tiny trickle (loudly trumpeted) goes into actually addressing people's basic human needs.

World Vision is not, as you might think, basically an evangelistic "crusade" that uses food and relief as a hook to get a captive audience. This mistaken impression is probably reinforced by the fact that Franklin Graham himself is at the helm. Evangelicalism, believe it or not, is about much more than just "winning souls". Stereotypes die slowly...

Indeed, in most countries, World Vision employees are expressly forbidden from proselytizing. Look it up.

As for our sponsored child -- he is in a muslim-dominated area and he attends a Koranic school. This is partly supported through our givings, which also supply him with clothes, food and go into development in the community: basic infrastructure like wells and medical attention. I'm not particularly keen on subsidizing the Koranic school system, but if it's a choice between that and saying "let these kids starve their way into hell", well, what's the "Christian" thing to do? Jeez, Wit ... what exactly do you expect of us?

If you want a real comparison between Islamic and Christian/Jewish givings, go to the registry at give.org and do some searches on terms like "islamic", "muslim", "arabic" versus "christian", "jewish" and so on. Then ask:

How many Islamic charities are devoted to relief in non-muslim lands? For that matter, how many in islamic lands? For that matter, how many are registered here in the first place?

What's the point of having a profile at give.org? It is a Better Business Bureau division for financial accountability for Charitable organizations. Thus when you CLAIM, for example, that you are doing a certain thing with the money, like feeding hungry kids, there is some level of confidence that the money is actually used for what you are claiming it is used for. How few Islamic organizations are prepared to even attain this level of scrutiny! Of those there, how many are compliant on the same level as Compassion, World Vision, MCC or Samaritan's Purse (or the various Jewish agencies) in terms of their indicators of accountability?

Then ask, how many Jewish and Christian charities have been closed lately because of claiming to feed hungry children, while arming illegal militias to kill innocent people? (note: these are not non-existent, it's just a little easier to count on the fingers of one hand than the Islamic equivalent.)

check it out.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 21, 2007 3:41 PM

Zhudi Jasser was a physician (Lieutenant Commander) in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps. He is now a physician in Phoenix, and is the chairman of the following site:

American Islamic Forum for Democracy
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

He was on Cavuto yesterday addressing the CAIR lawsuit. He is critical of CAIR and has written several relevant articles.

Here's one:

Not All Muslims Support CAIR Plan To Sue Us Airways On Behalf Of Six Imams
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=805143

Posted by: PRCS at March 21, 2007 3:41 PM

The problem with Christians and Jews in my life experience is that when a choice must be made between cash and their God; God is usually thrown under the bus along with his commandments.

I am not sure why that was necessary, except that it seems par for the course that many atheists cannot resist the chance to take a cheap shot at Christianity. Although in this case it’s an equal opportunity cheap shot as you have also included the Jewish faith in your remarks. FYI, two notable groups standing up for Christians are the Thomas More Law Foundation and the Catholic League.

As much as I fear islamic radicals, and I do, many of you secular types would give them a run for their money in their hatred of Christianity… The proof is in the pudding. I can't help but notice that many of the posts by self labeled atheists seem to relish the chance to take a swipe at Christianity, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox...

I often wonder if atheists and secular liberals took as much time and effort with the same zeal trying to explain away, mock and diminish islam as they did Christianity, what the outcome would be. However, I suspect many liberals see islam as a way to defeat Christianity, which is why so many ot them support it.

However, getting back to you main point, I see little in the way of secular groups coming to the legal aid of those John Does. In fact, I imagine the crown jewel of the secularist movement, the ACLU, would be more than happy to assist CAIR...

Posted by: adobe at March 21, 2007 3:46 PM

I thought Dr. Jasser was the kind of person we've been looking for since 9-11--an American who happens to be Muslim and who is willing to stand with us against the hate.

Posted by: Whistling Dixie at March 21, 2007 3:50 PM

Evangelicalism, believe it or not, is about much more than just "winning souls".

And what would be the profit if you gained the whole world and lost this one?

However, getting back to you main point, I see little in the way of secular groups coming to the legal aid of those John Does. In fact, I imagine the crown jewel of the secularist movement, the ACLU, would be more than happy to assist CAIR...

I unfortunately must agree with this point.

Christians may do a lot to help others, but I have never seen much evidence that they try to help their own.

Jews at least do help their own.

Cheap shots? Maybe, so then love one another as your founder commanded you.

You can start by coming to one another's defense when attacked by the islamic enemy that would destroy you both!

Posted by: witness at March 21, 2007 4:18 PM

U.S. Islamic group offers to defend passengers being sued by Flying Imams

Bravo. I'm sure there are many Muslims who have figured out the number of Gaultier Ibrahim Hooper and the CAIR-American Bund, just as there were many German Americans in the 1930's who had the number of the American Nazis. The German American-Bund, in a manner similar to CAIR, had foreign money support. (They were surprised when German Americans rejected them.) Maybe history will repeat itself with the CAIR liars and CAIR's Jew-hating Nazis. (CAIR-if you don't like what I say...that's tough..you are Nazis and Jew-haters. But I always look for the good in people and will keep looking for it with CAIR.)

Posted by: Frank at March 21, 2007 4:25 PM

Witness, I think you need to re-examine your prejudices.

Take this report from the Canadian Government on giving and volunteering.

http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/pdf/reports/Religion.pdf

From

http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/reports.asp

Page five of this report states "There is a clear relationship between religious commitment and donating (Table 3). Those who attend religious services regularly are more likely to donate than are other Canadians."

Since it can be proven that 74.6 percent of Canadians consider themselves Christian, where as only 2% consider themselves Muslim, it stands to reason that the statistics from the giving and volunteering report for the most part reflect the Christian population, and not Muslim.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51630.htm

I challenge you to find anyone in the Muslim world that compares to the Christian philanthropists like Mother Teresa, or organizations like the Salvation Army.

Posted by: Lorgan at March 21, 2007 4:30 PM

The proffered help should of course be taken, and with thanks. But such help, offered for whatever motive (self-interest, apparently, intelligently defined, that in this case trumps solidarity with the umma given the outrageousness of the imams's behavior and the need to mollify American public opinion), should not change one's understanding of the texts, of the duty of Jihad, of the loyalty to the umma and to Islam, of the centrality in Islam of the division of the universe between Believer and Infidel. If there are some Muslims who choose to ignore this and be bad Muslims, fine. But Americans must make life-and-death decisions - not only physical life and death, but the life of their legal and political institutions and social arrangements, and the continued support for free and skeptical inquiry, and unlimited means of artistic expression, on grounds other than sentimental delight in this or that act by a good -- i.e., a "bad" -- Muslim. One must not be influenced by the behavior of a quite unrepresentative, unusual person, the Muslim who tales the side of Infidels, not because it is a matter of protecting the image of Muslims (why, even or especially Tariq Ramadan could do that, in order to keep things calm and Infidels unwary until it is too late). but out of unfeigned outrage at the behavior of other Muslims. In this case one would have to know more to figure out what is going on.

But even if it turns out to be entirely a proper taking of the right side (and that is certainly the minimum one should expect of other Muslims, rather than not expect it and be so very grateful when, from some, such behavior is forthcoming), one should be careful not to let this influence, any moree than the seducitve gaze of Tariq Ramadan should be allowed to influence the judgment of a female reporter (but see the gush of Julie Orr, who fell hook, line, and ikhwan sinker), or that nice Pakistani owner of a rug company, who always asks about your children, and is so soft-spoken, with such a kindly expression on his face, should be allowed to sway you from certain home truths about the doctrines and practice, over 1350 years, of Islam.

Lucidity -- the kind that one associates with a crisp, cold, no-nonsense morning in late fall, in Vermont -- is what is needed.

Posted by: Hugh at March 21, 2007 4:38 PM

However, M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told the Times his group will raise money for the unnamed peoples' defense.

He said anti-Muslim "backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."

Not to be an arm-chair ingrate, but I question the motives of this group~they seem to be more interested in deflecting what ever fallout these prosecutions will have on the Muslim population than in the real reason for reporting suspicious behavior in the first place.

I would be suspicious of quality and type of defense they will be buying. Remember Troy, and be wary of bringers of gifts.

Posted by: Shakey_Premise at March 21, 2007 4:43 PM

Hugh, you have beaten me to the punch, and said it far better than I have (or could!).

Posted by: Shakey_Premise at March 21, 2007 4:45 PM

He mentions his fear of an anti-Muslim backlash, is that what motivates him?

Posted by: Elephant at March 21, 2007 4:57 PM

Label me a skeptic. I see him as a smart man who is well aware that ciar does more damage than good. One group openly backing an islamist agenda, the fast jihadists, a second group seeking to counter the first group while appearing to be on our side, the slow jihadists? Which type of American are you looking for?
From their mission statement,
“We recognize the fact that there are no clergy in Islam and we accept the Koran as our main reference for discussions regarding our faith.”
Isn’t this what the islamists use as their main reference point as well?

“We as a group in recognition of democratic principles believe that each Muslim is equally entitled to their opinion concerning the religion of Islam.”
The islamists have an opinion of their own and it seems to be more common than the doctors.

They are talking about it all over the radio. Desperately seeking moderates. Troubling.

Posted by: tgusa at March 21, 2007 4:59 PM

I really want to believe that the group means well, but my head tells me that ummah stays w/ ummah. I would be cautious of the offer as an attempt to smoke the John Doe out into the open.

Posted by: squire at March 21, 2007 4:59 PM

Zuhdi Jasser appears to say what we want to hear, but understand, he’s no lawyer, rather, he is a physician. As a follower of a doctrine at perpetual war with the 'other', I wouldn't characterize him as a moderate since the doctrine hasn't moderated. At best, he is a secularist.

The “John/Jane Doe” aspect of this particular case is far too sensitive to breach with any secular or moderate muslim affiliated offers for legal or financial assistance.

These Jon/Jane Does must be very selective and beware of motives behind offers of legal assistance.

IMHO, I would send a gracious 'thanks, but no thanks' letter of acknowledgement and seek a very small law firm with a verifiable good reputation and lack of ties to muslim interests.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at March 21, 2007 5:06 PM

Listen to Mark Levin on the 6 flying Muslims and the suit being filed by CAIR.

Key on the speaker icon Under Not All Muslims Support CAIR Plan to Sue U.S. Airways…

Then listen to his chat with M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy , visit the next speaker icon down.

http://marklevinfan.com/?cat=11

Posted by: Mackie at March 21, 2007 5:32 PM

A Muslim group wants to raise funds to help John Doe's. Wonderful! But are there any conditions attached to this funding. Will the Muslim group demand to be involved in the attorney "selection" process? Or perhaps try to garner "other" conditions to this funding?

Posted by: tblab at March 21, 2007 5:56 PM

However, I suspect many liberals see islam as a way to defeat Christianity, which is why so many ot them support it.

+++I'm an Atheist and I have to agree with you.

Having said that I'm very pleased with the muslims who have come out against cair's suit and of course all the lawyers who are willing to take on the john doe cases for free.

Posted by: Desdinova at March 21, 2007 6:02 PM

witness,

While the ACLJ does a lot of legal work for Christians and their causes, I can't see them or any other Jewish/Christian groups getting involved in this directly.

It would be too polarizing to make this seem like it's about one religion versus another. It's really the case of Islam v. Infidels.

Can't you see the field day that would ensue if it was discovered that the "Zionists" were bankrolling the defense?

Posted by: Cheeky Human at March 21, 2007 6:03 PM

This Muslim group looks "plugged in". By that I surmise their funding is coming from the Saudi Royal coffers as the royals do understand and do will to keep relations with America at ease and secure.

Whatever the source, thank God there is a group actually in Islam doing a positive American reaction in being American and not Muslim in process.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 21, 2007 6:07 PM

While this seems to be a nice gesture, the fact is that the damage may have already been done.

The passengers not only need to win this suit, the Imams need to be successfully counter-sued to make it abundantly clear that this kind of intimidating lawsuit will not be tolerated.

Otherwise the "chilling effect" will occur. The fear of a lawsuit alone, even one that is probably winnable, will silence many.

Posted by: Cheeky Human at March 21, 2007 6:10 PM

This is may seem somewhat off-topic, but I'll bring it back on course towards the end, I promise.

From a quick look at the website I posted above, it looks like the ACLJ is nothing like the Christian equivalent of a group like CAIR, for those whose first reaction might be suspicion.

Here they are supporting free speech in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. (Oh, and they also support Israel.)

For me, the true test of the authenticity of a group like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy would be this: would they do the same thing if that banner had read "Bong Hits 4 Mohammed"? If so, their motives would be nearly unimpeachable in my book.

Posted by: Cheeky Human at March 21, 2007 6:33 PM

He said anti-Muslim "backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."

As usual, and entirely predictable, this is not about a concern for freedoms of citizens but simply a tactic to prevent a so-called backlash against Muslims in America.

Posted by: DP111 at March 21, 2007 6:51 PM

The vast majority of Christians are sticking their heads in the sand concerning Islam [I'm not one of them]. Because most of us Christians are not relating God's ultimate victory prophesied over this world to how we should respond to human evil HERE AND NOW.

Jesus commanded us to be salt & light HERE AND NOW.

Light exposes everything for people to see [the good AND the bad]...salt keeps it from rotting & we should be preserving some semblance of sanity and order in civilization until the time of the final harvest.

"The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

I don't believe Christians should form armies against Islam, but victorious spiritual battle should produce some results we can see. So we need to motivate some Christians to help these people.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 21, 2007 7:04 PM

On the surface, it is a refreshing and much needed gesture. Unfortunately, when dealing with those from the "camp of Islam", one must be cautious, as Robert pointed out in his last radio debate with Mr. "he-who-need-not-be-mentioned-here-any-longer"

Until further notice, Islamists are suspect until trust is established by their words, and more importantly, their actions.

After that, continue to be suspect because it's probably just well-oiled taqiyya and token actions. A sad state of affairs, yes, but sorrily, all too true.

Posted by: awake at March 21, 2007 7:15 PM

Thanks, Lorgan, those are great links you posted. From the American Government site tracking religious tolerance in Canada comes this very interesting item that speaks volumes:

In June 2004, the Government released a pilot survey of hate crime incidents compiled from 12 major Canadian police forces. The survey revealed that of 928 hate crime incidents during 2001 and 2002, religion was the second most common (43 percent) motivation for hate crime, after race or ethnicity (57 percent). Overall, Jews were the number one target of hate crimes, with 25 percent of the incidents, while Muslims ranked third, with 11 percent. The survey also found that 15 percent of all hate crimes during the 2001-02 period were associated by police with the events of September 11, 2001, with 30 percent of that subset involving actions directed against Muslims and 27 percent against Jews.

No surprise that, regardless of how loudly CAIR and Co. howl, Muslims, who now outnumber Jews by over 2:1, are the target of far fewer hate crimes than the Jews, who are more often victimized than other groups and receive twice as many attacks as muslims in total, and therefore abour 4 times as many per capita.

A couple more observations:

1. One must remember that crime and rights abuse statistics are generally skewed by how they are detected and reported. One needn't look farther than CAIR's action alerts pleading for muslims to keep an eye out for hate crimes for them to report, to see how they can contend that antiislamic hate crimes are on the increase...no -- the number of REPORTED antiislamic incidents is on the increase, because Islamic groups are actively promoting the reporting of them.

At first I wondered, "where are the hate crimes against Christians in these numbers?" I've seen vandalism, bullying on campus, churches in North America burnt down,...??

But the answer is obvious, is it not? In North America it is not a crime to hate Christians ... well, it's not a crime in Saudi Arabia either, apparently. And, yes, the beancounters probably reluctantly include some church burnings as hate crimes.

What passes for polite conversation about Christians and Christianity in my workplace on a daily basis would be dragged into a federal court by CAIR if someone replaced "christian" with "muslim" throughout. Why don't I make a fuss, being a christian and all, well, it has a bit to do with turning the other cheek, something we Christians are "supposed to do". But it has an awful lot to do with the fact that it would be laughed out of court. You just don't report that stuff as a hate crime; it's all part of Western self-loathing (as if "Christian" = "Self" in this secular culture of ours), and condescention to the point of idiocy toward other cultures and religions.

At some level this may be the most significant aspect of this jaw-dropping cozying-up that many liberals do to Islamists: They may hate the intolerance of Islam, but that is nothing to their extreme distaste for all things Christian, and maybe giving moral support to the Islamists just might take the Christians down a few more notches. All in the name of "tolerance", of course...dirty, filthy, intolerant Christians!

Maybe Dinesh DeS., who seems fascinated with the way the liberal agenda incites jihadism, could make himself useful by working on a solution to this problem...and while he's at it he might figure out how to quell the liberal antisemitism (or, maybe they are part of the same problem.)

2. I'm not sure how the beancounters and police managed to decide which hate crimes were associated with 9/11 but the role of those crimes in these figures is telling. Taken at face value they say that there are MORE 9/11 associated hate-crimes than antiislamic hate-crimes, with about equal numbers targetting jews (oh, yes, aren't they responsible? /sarcasm) and muslims. It appears that this accounts for almost 50% of the hate incidents targetting muslims.

THIS MAKES OSAMA BIN LADEN THE LEADING CAUSE OF ANTIISLAMIC HATRED IN CANADA! Chew on that one for a while, CAIR. We're still waiting for the Fiqh Council to add a pronunciation of Takfir against OBL to their much-touted "Antiterror Fatwa"... Just how committed are these guys to fighting islamophobia?

Most interesting is that 43% of 9/11-related attacks are directed at NEITHER Jews nor Muslims. Hmmm, let's see, who else can we blame? Those nasty athiests who flew planes into buildings?

Oh, wait a minute..."9/11-related" does not necessarily mean RETALIATION for the attacks ... it might mean incidents in SYMPATHY with them. So: What group, do you think, is hitting on Jews and non-Jews in "9/11-related" attacks? The numbers don't say...could be anyone....

I bet it's those bloodthirsty, jihad-minded Amish!

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 21, 2007 8:09 PM

At first glance I had the same immediate impression as other posters about the primary self-interested motivation to protect Muslims against a backlash but after reading several of the links provided by other posters, this guy strikes me as the real deal:

From the link posted by herroyalwhyness: "Zuhdi seems to be that moderate Muslim voice that people have been waiting to hear," said Phil Boas, the Republic's assistant editorial-page editor.”

And “Growing up in the United States, Jasser became a "Jeffersonian Muslim," a believer in a clear separation of religion and state. His belief in secularism - that the mosque should devote less time to politics and more to spiritual discussions about relationships with God - causes perhaps the greatest disagreement with the established Muslim groups.”

At the bottom of the link provided by PRCS: “The organized Muslim community should instead be working on developing a strategic plan to counter militant Islamism within the Muslim community. That would do a lot more to change public opinion than suing the airlines who are merely trying to keep Americans who travel safe.”

And of course that latter statement is precisely what this site has called on Muslims so many times to do.

That said, of course Hugh is absolutely right that basically 'one swallow does not a summer make'. Although Jasser does appear to me to indeed be the real thing (the elusive "moderate Muslim") its also very clear that he stands well outside the mainstream.

I can imagine the criticism though to some of the comments above that react with suspicion to this gesture. We're always calling for real moderate Muslims to show up and when one appears to - nobody trusts their motives. But this is precisely why a real ethical system would never endorse lying (taqiyya)for the purpose of benefiting one's self-interests. Because such a thing destroys mutual trust between people. The poster Frank has hammered that point repeatedly. So the distrust that posters who now understand Islam as an ethical system feel towards Muslims is not the fault of the posters but the fault of Islam. You reap what you sow. Islam is indeed a self-interested ideology that takes "war is deceit" as an ethical principle. As Jasser appears to be a genuine moderate, it is too bad that he personally will have to reap what Islam has sowed but that's life. This is one of the fundamental things that shows that the "religion" of Islam is false and that Muhammad was a false prophet. "You shall know them by their fruits". Well besides violence, one of the obvious "fruits" of Islam is distrust between human beings because Islam sanctions lying, and one of the consequences of lying is the creation of distrust. So ordinary Muslims are just going to have to accept the consequences (including permanent distrust on the part of infidels) for belonging to the Islamic faith, including Muslims who now live in the west and actually have the real choice of leaving Islam altogether, no matter how personally challenging that might be.

Posted by: Caroline at March 21, 2007 8:18 PM

I'm in complete agreement with the skeptics about Mr Jasser's motives. I heard him on Mark Levin's radio talk show, where he sounded so convincing, so smooth, so likeble that Mark had a meltdown. So desperate is the search for the "moderate Muslim" that even the most clerheaded people lose their common sense.
Jasser's web site speaks about extremists having "hijacked" his religion. That was enough to raise the red flag for me.
Furthermore, nowhere in his mission statement or what his organization is about can you find one single criticism of Islam's core beliefs. On the contrary, he claims they are all compatible with Western values, including separation of church and state, democracy, and gender equality, which, he says, are all based in the Quran.
That did it for me. The guy is an undercover Jihadist.
Don't spend a dime on this guy's organization.
There already are--and there will be--a whole lot of firms/pro bono lawyers defending the Joe Does in the suit.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 21, 2007 9:08 PM

Jasser is a smooth guy, but I do think he is a sincere secular Muslim---someone who is more American than Muslim.

While we are smart to be skeptical, the best way to take on CAIR is through people like Jasser and the people at the Tampa conference.

Certain people will not be labeled Islamophobic, and we should welcome their assistance---while remaining vigilent.

Posted by: JSobieski at March 21, 2007 9:15 PM

Anyone who claims that Islam is compatible with the legal and political institutions of the United States, or indeed of any advanced Western democracay, is either ignorant of Islam, or unwilling to confront the incompatibility of the two, or knows perfectly well the truth of the matter but for his own reasons, which may not be sinister, may merely reflect either filial piety or deep civilizational embarrassment, cannot alas be trusted. Even if he fits the former categories and not the latter, he is engaged in misleading Infidels. And Infidels are far too misled as it is. I suspect a blend with this fellow -- if he is intelligent, and he probably is, then there is a clear element that is not to be trusted, and one should not, in the world today, give such people -- not when there are Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- the benefit of any doubt.

Sorry. No can do.

Posted by: Hugh at March 21, 2007 9:41 PM

Hugh - I don't know enough factually about the fellow but what if he is a Koran-only Muslim? If one strips away the hadith is there enough in the Koran itself to justify the claim that Islam is possibly compatible with democracy? Of course, as Islam currently exists, that is impossible and is not in fact Islam. But still, from a Koran-only perspective, are there any grounds for separation of church and state (as this man appears to advocate) if one discards the Sunnah altogether? Oh, where is Archimedes with his link to his Koran-only rebuttal? It's not in the handbook. It's buried at islam-watch somewhere and I can't find it and I am ashamed to say that I haven't memorized his arguments.

Posted by: Caroline at March 21, 2007 10:00 PM

Caroline-

I happened to surf in and saw your comment because my name is in there-LOL. Isn't it funny how my eye goes to what impacts me.

As I read your comment, Regan's "trust but verify" came to mind. I think its a Russian proverb he used in conversation with Gorby, who got a kick out that since Reagan said it in Russian. It's good advice. Trust and verification make communication possible, even with people with very divergent interests and different points of view on things.

I think trust and earned respect are the glue of authentic human communication and all that is real community. On a personal level, we can never love anyone we do not trust and respect. At best we may pity liars and frauds, or we may be cold and indifferent to them, but often we must hate them. That hate is a natural wall of defence and defiance, a psychological barrier, a determination to resist what inspires distrust and fear.

Fear produces fight or flight or submission or death. Islam inspires fear. That's all it will ever inspire. It will only produce fight or flight or submission or death.

Islam cannot inspire trust because its founder recommended deception. It cannot inspire love or respect based on any open hearted directness on the part of true Muslims. On the contrary, Islam is full of the emptiness of deception and a false sense of self-importance based on rationalizations (butressed by rituals) that the Koran is the last word for word dictation of God. As per Islam, God permits deception with the unbeliever.

Islam is deception and self-deception. If Jesus was right when he said that "all deception comes from the evil one", then Islam's author is not in heaven, but in hell and hell is a place without trust or reason, a place where there must be deception and consequently violence.

Deception is war.

Posted by: Frank at March 21, 2007 10:03 PM

It's quite an eye opener to understand Islam's permissions to deception. For someone brought up with Christian teachings, it's like meeting someone from Mars. Even if we do not always practice the teachings of Jesus, even if we don't believe in Jesus, so many are influenced by those teachings. Jesus gave no permission to lie or be a hypocrite to anyone. It's a very hard teaching of Jesus. It can often make one feel like a real scumbag. But maybe we should feel like scumbags when we deceive and are hypocrites. I guess if one wants to lie with a clean conscience, Islam has some benefits.

But Muslims should not be surprised by Kuffirs looking at them like they have two heads when it comes to deception. Islam permits deception. That's reality.

Posted by: Frank at March 21, 2007 10:20 PM

Frank - you do indeed speak eloquently on the central consequences of the fact that Islam endorses lying - not only in terms of the psychological consequences for human relations but also as evidence for the basic falseness of the faith. The violence gets a whole lot more attention in that respect but I am in wholehearted agreement with you that the deception (including self-deception) and the lying to others deserves a great deal more attention. The lies that Muslims have to tell themselves (the self-deception), the refusal to allow open inquiry, the lies they tell others, the murder of anyone who openly questions Islam - it's all critical evidence as to the falseness of the faith. It's all a lie, in short, and lies require violence to perpetuate themselves. As to your "trust but verify", I don't think we should go so far as to say "trust" up front. I happen to agree with the way JSobieski phrased it - "we should welcome their assistance---while remaining vigilent".

"Welcome their assistance" is a bit different than "trust". We need a new phrase to describe the needed attitude. "Remain vigilant" would certainly be central. I'm just not sure what would replace "trust" because I see no possibility for letting one's guard down enough to really constitute "trust". I can only see the endless necessity for remaining "vigilant", which is the very opposite of the utterly relaxed mode conveyed by the word "trust".

Posted by: Caroline at March 21, 2007 10:24 PM

This group issued a statement condeming the lawsuit by the "lying" Imams the day after it was filed.One of the reasons was the backlash such a suit would create against Islam. The group also seperated itself from CAIR.

The actions of this Muslim group remind me of a post I saw at LGF about an Australian Lebanese group urging Imams to become "lifeguards" and "firefighters". The group said the actions of some Muslims were causing Muslims to become hated in the West.That Muslims are becoming the new "Communists".The silly requests for Imams to become "lifeguards" was seen as a way for Muslims to show they want to be a part of Western society. It seems that some Muslims are waking up to the danger that CAIR and other Islamists pose not just to infidels but to Muslims in Western society.People are starting to ask if Muslim don't want to fit in what the h**l are they doing here? If all Muslims bring to the table are violence and chaos why do we want them here? The attempt by CAIR and the lying Imams to sue passengers on airlines is just the lastest example of CAIR and Muslims shooting themselves in the foot.What will CAIR do if a thousand lawyers step up to represent the passengers pro bono in the lying Imam case? CAIR settled its suit against antiCAIR after they came up against a very skilled pro bono lawyer.

Posted by: Roxane at March 21, 2007 10:26 PM

Hugh:

Doesn't your viewpoint on Muslim-Muslim confrontations extend to the domestic front? I understand the perspective that some infidels will be lulled into a false sense of security, but isn't there also some value to having cultural/secular Muslims take on organizations like CAIR.

If CAIR were to go after such groups in the US, I think more infidels would wake up to what CAIR is about. The fact the people think of CAIR as a civil rights group is a tremendous danger to the US.

If I could fund a media campaign against Jihad, I would include all of the apostates you mentioned, but I wouldn't be against selectively and catiously using Mr. Jasser as well.

If the West is going to win this war, we need to win the home front. In my view, CAIR is in some ways more dangerous than Iran with a nuke because they are subverting our system from the inside, something most do not even notice.

One wouldn't expect the CIA to turn down assistance from traitors to the Iranian regime because they are unwilling to renounce Islam. In turn, I do not turn down assistance from Mr. Jamal in taking on CAIR for his failure to renounce Islam. In war, you use what you can, including those from the other side who do not see things as their leaders do.

Of course, one always has to be careful that a turncoat isn't really a double agent . . .

Posted by: JSobieski at March 21, 2007 10:29 PM

Caroline-

I agree with you that the permissions to deception need more attention. Deception comes before the violence. It's the foundation of Islam. "War is deception". Deception is war. It's all one thing. Islam will always be violent to somebody because it will produce a culture of distrust and fear.

I do not want to deceive on this matter. I too have deceived, but I never thought God permitted that. That's unique. However, since Muslims don't study other religions (as C. Hitchens said they like "one way multiculturalism") they don't know how unique they are in their permissions to deception. They should try two-three-or four way multiculturalism and find out what other belief-systems think of deception.

There is no way around it: Christ absolutely condemned all deception-hypocrisy. It's had a powerful influence (Honest Abe, Washington not lying about the cherry tree, Harry Truman, etc.) on our ideal of an ideal man or woman. Few live up to the standard (10 comandments, teachings of Jesus), but it's something to reach up to.

Posted by: Frank at March 21, 2007 11:03 PM

Frank: "Deception comes before the violence. It's the foundation of Islam."

I agree completely. The lie comes first. The violence is only necessary to support the lie so the violence is basically secondary to the most important thing, which is the lie. We all have to die somehow, often in not pretty ways. But to be forced to live one's whole life as a lie - that is not acceptable. They always say that they love death while we love life. But the lies that they live with are the equivalent of death. They're already dead. Maybe that's why they don't really care if they die. If you're already dead, why would you really care if your physical body dies too?

Posted by: Caroline at March 21, 2007 11:25 PM

"Flying Imams"....sounds like the circus is in town. Do they jump through rings of fire? Hope they don't get burned.

Posted by: champ at March 22, 2007 12:49 AM

Another real, true, 'moderate'. Does Jasser seek to modify Allah? What Allah has made no man has a right to modify. What Allah has said no man has a right to alter. What Allah has written, no man has a right to change. We all know what Allah has made, said and written. He/it is often quoted here. What muslim will stand up, look Allah in the eye (there's only one) and say, 'I dont like what you made, said, and wrote, so I will change it. Instant apostacy and probably instant death...no one messes with Allah and survives...Look out Jasser...Allah is watching, he has a big stick in his hand and and a mean look on his face...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 22, 2007 12:50 AM

I, too, have reservations about Dr. Jasser's goal of separating religion and politics in the American Islamic community.

In short, given what relevant Islamic texts actually state, I don't know how he can pull that off. But he's not an ignorant man, and I'm sure he's considered the appropriate obstacles he will encounter along the course he's chosen.

That aside, his conversations with Cavuto and Levin, along with his many articles critical of CAIR and similar groups and their tactics are, to me, honest expressions of disgust with the true nature and intent of those groups and his desire to expose them to news ourganizations, the public, and our clueless elected officials.

More power to him.

Here's a list from the AIFD website of some his articles and media appearances:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/media-focus.php

And here's one, too:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014395.php

Even Daniel Pipes has written about him:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/603

Here's his bio:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/members.php

Posted by: PRCS at March 22, 2007 1:22 AM

Lovely gesture but I became suspicious when I read that they said, "He said anti-Muslim "backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."...

Muslims do not consider non Muslims innocent???? and if they were really against what thousands of their own are doing world wide then they would join peace marches in the many thousands along side non Muslims, but I am afraid that this would make them feel sick, to have to march along side people who the Quran says is beneath them and are pigs and monkeys, the scum of the earth..

treehugger said..
Translated as...the infidels must be allowed to go back to sleep?????
Spot on treehugger and yes they will to... there will be millions die just because our world politicians dont want to know...

Posted by: Gaye at March 22, 2007 7:41 AM

Caroline-

To live in a place where one can never study other belief-systems, where one cannot reject all deception as evil(I'm not talking about deceptions based on our petty vanities-that's just being human), to not openly reject the inhuman tricking of "the other", to live in fear of being oneself, in fear of rejecting Islam, is to live in Dar-al-Islam. To live in a place where there is no open directness of thought and opinion, of the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, is to live in true Islam. Islam is a rationalization system, buttressed and supported by the habits of ritual, that cripples the mind.

Posted by: Frank at March 22, 2007 8:54 AM

Whenever someone outwardly charming, thoughtful, an outspoken "moderate" Muslim comes along, in order to prevent oneself from the natural desire to believe, to hope, to trust, I simply turn to the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. And I read some relevant passages. And I ask myself: can someone who still identifies himself as a Muslim, who does not apparently feel horrified at what is contained not only in the immutable texts, but at the natural result, in acts committed, of those texts taken in by primitive minds (and there are far more primitive minds taking in Islam than there are those at the level of, say, Mithal al-Alusi, or Magdi Allam). But then there are those Mithal al-Alusis and Magdi Allams, who do not call themselves apostates. They call themsleves "cultural Muslims" and refer to their Muslim upbringing. They elide the matter, and hope you will too.

And of course one agrees to do so, in their cases (but not in many more), because one understands that they have chosen, that they have thought best, for their own safety, and even in order to make the case better (Mithal al-Alusi among what remnants of a thinking elite he can find in Baghdad, Magdi Allam in his efforts to warn Italians).

If, that is, one is firmly convinced that the "moderate" Muslim in question is in fact a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, who cannot quite make the break, or finds it professionally useful not to do so (if the profession consists of being a "moderate Muslim"), then, and only then, should one, careful and wary as one must always be -- dealing with Islam and Muslims causes some -- causes, for example, Bernard Lewis, to suffer a kind of professional deformation, one where Aesopian language, and allusiveness, substitutes for straightforward talk, lest the thin-skinned (and Islam teaches Believers to take quick offense) react badly.

Those who suggest that Muslims become "lifeguards" in Australia or to help pay for the "John Does" being sued by CAIR and those imams, are not necessarily one's friends. They have a different goal. They want to make the West safe for Muslims. I think that Islam and the West are immiscible, and that the 1350-year history of Islam and the treatment of non-Muslims, in and out of Dar al-Islam, by Muslims, is sufficient evidence, if more than that of the texts were needed, to show that a large-scale presence of Muslims anywhere in the Infidel lands guarantees trouble, great and ever-increasing trouble, for those indigenous Infidels, their legal and political institutions, their uninhibited speech, their physical survival. I don't think a chance should be taken.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2007 9:07 AM

One islamist group seeks to intimidate witness’s ala organized crime, and another group shows up to help out the witnesses with any court costs. The fact that the witnesses are being intimidated at all is what needed to be addressed not funding to fight it. So we embrace the moderates and for awhile everything may seem fine, but in twenty years they start with the same garbage all over again. So what some are suggesting is let’s pass on the problem to our grandchildren. Real brilliant. The islamists behead young teen girls and are referred to as militants, they get a slap on the wrist for their crimes. Make no mistake, the only reason those beheaders of young girls are not receiving an award is the govt. there doesn’t want the west to realize the truth of the matter. Doctor, your attempt is perhaps honorable, but it is the youth that are radicalized and I highly doubt they will listen to you. These islamists have radicalized an entire generation of youth toward hatred, murder and everything in between. Just ask the school teacher in Nigeria recently set upon and beat to death for her touching of the koran (the book they idolize). Any who want to find middle ground and pass on the misery to the next generation in my opinion are fools on a fool’s mission. If they resolve their problems and turn peaceful, after about twenty years maybe I will begin to trust their motives.

Posted by: tgusa at March 22, 2007 10:52 AM

Currently, when American politicians and news media want "the Muslim comment on the issue" the "go-to guys" are CAIR.

The AIFD wants to be the "go-to guys" instead.

Americans must have made it clear that the only group that can take CAIR's place has to be a more moderate one.

Let's keep demanding more moderation. Apparently it works.

Posted by: freedomschool at March 22, 2007 11:09 AM

I understand the concerns expressed and have similar reservations about Dr. Jasser.

To borrow from Ronald Reagan:

Trust but verify.

And wouldn't that apply to Tashbih Sayyed, too?

Posted by: PRCS at March 22, 2007 12:51 PM

"I don't think a chance should be taken".-Hugh

Your main virtue is Prudence, the result of your mind. If we are virtuous, one of the four virtues usually dominates.

Posted by: Frank at March 22, 2007 4:55 PM

I am in complete agreement that a chance should not be taken in terms of letting any more Muslim immigrants into the west. Because obviously Jasser is way on the fringe. Where he is useful though is in dealing with the several million Muslims who are already here. If he and others similar to him can steer the Muslim population already living here in a pro-American direction, if he really believes in separation of church and state and perhaps justifies this in his mind by jettisoning the Sunnah altogether and if he can influence other Muslims already living here towards assimilation, towards rejecting political Islam, then terrific.

Hugh raises the crucial question of whether Jasser states this position because he really believes it or whether he states it because he wants to make the west "safe for Muslims". In order to sort that out, it would seem that we need to start asking these "moderate Muslims" how they feel about Muslim immigration to the west. Because it seems to me that any genuinely moderate Muslim ought to call for a moratorium on such immigration. A truly moderate Muslim would have to recognize that liberal Muslims living in the west would actually stand to lose given widespread Muslim immigration into the west. They end up losing control to the "real" Muslims who obviously outnumber them, which jeapordizes their own personal situation. So I would imagine that a genuine moderate would want to slow down the immigration, to create a safer climate for those who genuinely desire to reform the religion if nothing else. But if the supposed moderate appears disposed towards and eager for more immigration, claiming his own obviously fringe position to be widely shared, then his true colors as a dissembler would obviously be revealed.

So there is my litmus test for now. I think the genuine moderate Muslim would agree with a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the west for the time being while a dissembler would desire more immigration, all the while claiming that he in fact represents the mainstream Muslim. Haidon, for example, appears to openly admit that he is fringe. I could be wrong but I don't get the impression that he is gunning for more Muslim immigration to New Zealand. So he appears to pass that sort of litmus test. I don't have enough information about Jasser to draw any conclusion in that respect. Someone should ask him.

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2007 10:18 PM

Caroline,

Here's part of an email I sent him, along with his reply:

I don't know how you can possibly separate governance and faith in Islam.

Thank you for your kind comments...
As we build our think tank we are hoping to build the body of thought which
demonstrates that separation clearly. I have practiced my faith my whole
life that way and I understand my faith and practice it devoutly. I believe
in the preeminence of the US Constitution and that the Koran is a document
between me and God to stay at home like all our holy books. Certainly the
Prophet of Islam mixed religion and state, but that was then and no where in
the Koran does God tell Muslims how to run government. Like all holy books
it only comments on principles....

What do you think?

Posted by: PRCS at March 23, 2007 1:48 AM

Here's his column at today's Family Security Matters website:

Treason by any other Name
http://familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=827550&PHPSESSID=e0b83ff3d0506047c83c900a53af9b0c

"Of additional interest to the story here in Phoenix is that this accused traitor’s public relations defense campaign was taken up by the local Arizona chapter of the national Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) when the story initially broke in August 2004. The CAIR-AZ executive director at the time, Deedra Abboud, jumped at the opportunity to act as spokeswoman for the accused Abujihaad, who now stands arrested for providing aid and comfort to our enemies."

Definately worth a read.

Posted by: PRCS at March 23, 2007 3:25 AM

PCRS - sounds like he's a Koran-only practitioner (at least with regards to political matters - I am curious as to whether he otherwise cherry-picks the Sunnah). But since you've already started an exchange with him, I would ask him if he considers himself mainstream in his opinions or if he could estimate what percentage of American Muslims would agree with him about dispensing with the sunnah. I would also ask him whether, given what we see in Europe, where the increasing numbers of Muslims alone have caused them to increasingly flex their political muscle in terms of creeping sharia law, if he would agree that we ought to limit Muslim immigration to the United States in order to avoid a similar outcome here, at least until more reformation within the religion has occurred.

Posted by: Caroline at March 23, 2007 7:06 AM