American Muslims, with us, or against us

You remember President George W. Bush's statement after September 11, 2001, "You’re either with us or against us." Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. says " the time has come to make it clear to those who are helping our enemies that they are not with us – and that there are real costs associated with being against us." He was talking about folks out there around the world. But what if we applied that same logic to people INSIDE America? A very interesting idea. We could apply that logic to Muslims inside the United States, require them to make a choice. What if we applied that logic to politicians? Now that would really be interesting.

See if you agree with the following:

First, why should American Muslims continue to accept the domination of self-appointed spokespeople from MPAC, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and other components of the "Wahhabi lobby," controlled by acolytes of the extremist and terrorist-generating sect that remains the state religion in Saudi Arabia? The MPAC-CAIR-ISNA cadres squat on the backs of American Muslims in a way reminiscent of the Soviet gerontocracy – once they gain power they never give it up. How is it that American Muslims are the first minority group in the history of the country to have produced no new leaders, almost no independent voices, and no serious internal discussion about their future?

Some naïve moderate Muslims are easily lured into the MPAC quicksand on the specious argument that such is the only way to reach “the community.” The history of community organizing in America, from the labor movement to the civil rights movement, shows the opposite: no effort against oppression can succeed by accommodating the unjust. Those who seek to mobilize American Muslims against the Wahhabi lobby must draw a firm line against it, and refuse to cross it. [snip]

When will American Muslims excel as other minorities have? Where are the American Muslim academics, authors, artists, journalists, and other exemplars such as have come from the ranks of every other minority? Why do American Muslims stay in a ghetto of their own making, taught in Wahhabi mosques and by alleged civil-rights advocates that they have no business entering the broader culture? Lawyers, engineers, and medical personnel may be well represented in American Islam, and there are many African American Muslim sports stars, but they are not enough for American Muslims to gain real acceptance, which can only come about through dedication to common principles and hard work. --Stephen Schwartz

Britain, with it's lax immigration laws, politically correct multiculturalism and no backbone when it comes to Islam, has gone over to the dark side. In fact, Britain recently banned the words "war on terrorism", and the Foreign Office told cabinet ministers and British diplomats to stop using the phrase.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. says:

Americans have a rhetorical tradition of declaring war on abstract enemies like drugs and poverty [snip] Al Qaeda and affiliated groups use a simple yet effective narrative to recruit young Muslims to cross the line into violence. [snip] it is the language of war and a narrative of battle that gives recruits a cult-like sense of status and larger meaning that leads to action. (source)

I'm sorry, it's not the 'language' we use that causes Islamic terrorists to attack us. We were not using the term 'war on terror' before September 11, 2001. That is just making excuses. That is what Britain does and that is what has allowed their situation to be so dire.

Here in the US we have called on Muslims to speak out against the terrorism. Kamran Memon here, of Muslims For A Safe America says 'American Muslims must reach out' and I agree with him, but it's not happening.

American Muslims should go beyond condemnations of terrorism and slogans like "Islam means peace," and they should address the real, post-9/11 questions that many Americans are asking.

In addition to answering America's questions, American Muslims must actively engage in the national discussion about how to make America safer. Since 9/11, American Muslims have focused more on civil liberties than on security, ...

American Muslims must remember that future terrorist attacks could kill innocent Americans of all faiths (including American Muslims) ... (source)

I think Mr. Memon is on the right track, but a few individuals calling on American Muslims to step forward and them actually doing it are two different things.

They have to be 'with us' and I don't think groups like CAIR are 'with us'. I think CAIR and similar groups have their own agenda and it is not for America's good.

What say you?

Comments

[Vol Abroad]

I think Matthew James Didier has an interesting point. I think there are reasons for legitimate dissent from "majority thinking" which doesn't mean that you are "against us". I also think that we need to stand up for people like Mr. Memon - a bit more positive reinforcement might be a good thing.

But I also think that Muslims must accept that there will be some suspicion cast in their direction. My husband is from Northern Ireland - true he's a Protestant and loyal the old cause, but he accepted that because of his background he had to have tougher security checks and that people would be doubtful.

I've lived in the UK while the IRA were still active (it wasn't that long ago that they declared a ceasefire that they finally seem to have stuck to)and I've known and socialised with many Irish people - some of whom sympathised with the Republican cause - which was about setting up a theocracy which people in the North didn't want (familiar at all?). It was too complex then for "with us or against us" then - and I'm afraid it's too complex for that now, too.

[ablur]

If no Muslim moderates are willing to step forward and denounce what is done in the name of Islam, perhaps there are none and the goals of Islam are being fulfilled.
Until a definite separation can be drawn our only possible and reasonable solution is to treat them all as the enemy and take steps to protect everyone else. Just as we used to lock up the insane to protect society as a whole, we need to take steps to quarantine Muslims from all others until such a time as a cure or line is found.

[ablur]

If no Muslim moderates are willing to step forward and denounce what is done in the name of Islam, perhaps there are none and the goals of Islam are being fulfilled.
Until a definite separation can be drawn our only possible and reasonable solution is to treat them all as the enemy and take steps to protect everyone else. Just as we used to lock up the insane to protect society as a whole, we need to take steps to quarantine Muslims from all others until such a time as a cure or line is found.

[Angel]

Great and thought provoking post Debbie....hard to trust anyone who doesnt speak out loudly against the Radicals though eh?..

Have an awesome weekend!..:)

[American Crusader]

They definitely are not with us by any means. CAIR in particular, is leading the charge in isolating Muslims from the rest of America. It seems to me that they have a completely different agenda from other minority groups in this country.
I'm not sure if they don't stand up denouncing terror because of fear from other Muslims or because they actually support terrorism.
The quiet is deafening.

[Jodi]

Matthew-

There is one key difference...Radical Islam wants world domination. Those are their words, not mine. Additionally they have called upon Muslims to befriend their "enemy". That means all non-Muslims. So the question is, can you trust any person that is part of a group of people that wants world domination and has called upon their fellow Muslims to befriend their enemy to obtain their goal? A world of sharia law, Islamic rule. Who knows? I do know that this is very different from the IRA. As far as know the IRA didn't want to take over the world. I'm not excusing IRA terrorism, I condemn all terrorists; that being said, Islamic terrorism is very different. Its an ideology for world domination, more on par with Hitler; actually I think its worse. Are American Muslims or British Muslims strategically placed or are they really peaceful? It isn't hard to come to the conclusion based upon the former when they have groups like CAIR as their spokesmen. I hope its not strategy, but even within their Mosques there is anti-west speech and calls for an Islamic world. I find it hard to believe that they want to assimilate to western culture and live peacefully. Look at the "sting" operation that the BBC did on Mosques in London. It is quite disturbing, to say the least. Look at the sting operations done in Dearborn, Michigan. Again, disturbing.

[Matthew James Didier]

I remember as a kid listening to terrorists blowing up people... even school kids. In fact, the year after some school kids were killed, we visited WHERE it happened as tourists.

It was scary as my mother and father literally "flipped out" one day while in the city where it was happening because I kicked an empty Coke can in the street... they were worried it might be an explosive device and wanted me to CLING to them until safely back in Toronto.

It was the Irish Republican Army... and the place was London in the mid-1970's.

What about the Basque Separatists in Spain? Another terrorist group operating without care to civilians...

I could go on...

We do need to "declare war" on terrorism from ANY group... but we should wonder... is it "war" or is it something else... like policing.

We all know that not all Basque-Spanish folks are bombers... and not all Irish-folks were killers either... so how do we separate the ones we NEED to be worried about from those that are not a worry?

Seems to me, the best way would be to appeal to the moderates within their ranks..

[Jodi]

American Muslims do back organizations such as CAIR and honestly, I have to ask myself, why? Is it naivety or something more sinister? Unfortunately I lean toward the latter because a good, decent person wouldn't have radical organizations representing them. This is the equivalent of having the KKK or some other radical group represent me. Hopefully I am wrong, time will tell.

[Debbie]

Yes I am the Debbie from DeMediacratic Nation. I was just making the rounds of some blogs, getting my Sunday Reading List ready.

Thanks for the comment at Right Truth. I agree with you that the name "war on terror" is not appropriate. It should be "war against Islamic terrorists", or something similar. But I bet the Brits wouldn't go for that, would they? Almost 50% of their Muslims want sharia law rather than British law. Go figure!

[Matthew James Didier]

I agree with Mr. Memon... and luckily, in my home city of Toronto, we have had just that... a recent terrorist ring was broken up... from within thanks to an young Islamic man who realised that the FIRST thing they need to do is "self police" and stop conflicts in order to have a better life.

The one issue really is, who would "speak" for all Muslims? Catholics have The Pope... Anglicans have The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Orthodox Church has the Archbishop & Ecumenical Patriarch... but is there any "centralised" body for Muslims in any state that is seen as THE go-to person?

What makes me sad also is how America was really settled on the concept of religious freedoms... and now, thanks to a small minority of extremists who would gladly crush those freedoms and want to see them banished for the "good of humanity", the right to religious and spiritual freedom is in jeopardy... and that's on both sides of the fence in this situation.

As for Britain removing the "War" on terrorism... well, to be fair, if you want more action like the young fellow who helped my country and city avoid a massive terrorist plot, you can't have him assuming that he too is the enemy thanks to guilt by association.

It's a slippery slope...

BUT YES, I agree, it is up to the Muslims of North America and Europe to stand up and be counted... and they can do so without sacrificing their faith or culture.

Let's face it, I'm a devout agnostic... and if a small group of agnostics started causing trouble in the name of "Not Being Sure" and hating whomever, I'd be standing up saying that I am an agnostic... but I'm not violent... and would not wish harm on those who are NOT agnostic too... and I do believe that anyone, regardless of race or religion, CAN live in peace and harmony... agnostic or not.

Hmmm... I wonder if there is an "Agnostic Army" or "Agnostic Militia" out there... in a comedic sense, that would be an interesting group!