Muslim-bashing frenzy - II

We need an honest dialogue with the intent of working together. I hope they understand Islam-bashing is not the way. We are all one family and we have to work together. You can post your comments with your name, anonymously or as you prefer, it gives you the choices at:

Index:

1. A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – II
2. St. Petersburg Declaration
3. A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – I
4. Moderate Muslims spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit
5. Comments from readers prior to the knowledge

A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy – II

By: Mike Ghouse Thursday, March 15, 2007

One of the remarkable things about neo-cons is their temerity to claim a lock on the truth. I wrote a column called, “A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy” published at www.ReligionandSpirituality.com. True to its heading, the feeding frenzy has begun.

Robert Spencer made several interesting comments in his response, most of them based on the premise that the St. Petersburg declaration was ignored. A lot of questions emanated from that posit, I was not even asked if I had seen the declaration, and the whole commentary was built on the reckless assumption that I ignored the declaration, which was followed by the feeding frenzy of comments. I read the declaration after I had submitted the column for publication.

The declaration was a pleasant surprise indeed, much of which I subscribe to and some of it with enhancements. The full text of the declaration is appended at the end of this column.

Responses to Mr. Spencer’s issues in the sequence they appear;

1. In response to my question about just two Muslims in the conference about Muslims, Mr. Spencer responds “Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.” While I’m pleased to acknowledge it, that is still merely three Muslims speakers in a conference billed as Islam Summit.

2. My comment “the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims” was responded by references to the, “declaration” herein after will be referred to as declaration. When the summit was originally announced, there were only two Muslims on it (ok, three), who could be pressured to yield. One of the speakers told me he was given a slot that was not his specialty.

3. Mr. Spencer suggests “So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"? No Sir, it is not. Absolutely not. Islam bashing is loudly telling the American public "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time,” The intent is evil, and is to turn the average American against fellow Americans, terrorizing average Ali’s around the nation. That is not acceptable from a forum that calls its “Secular Islam Summit.”

4. Mr. Spencer, “Then lead it yourself… along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.” We appreciate that, we are all in it together and we need to work together. We have to adopt an approach that works. The bashing-approach of the Secular Islam Summit, the one you are defending, is counter-productive at best, which can be easily verified by the impression and reaction of the broader Muslim community in USA that is tolerant, peaceful and moderate. Muslim community in North America has been publicly and categorically condemning extremism, violence and tyranny. What you do not understand about the psychology of reform is “telling the Christians the day after the documentary Lost Tomb is shown, to accept that Jesus was married”. That is not how reform works. Condemnatory criticism does not work with you, me or any soul on this earth, no matter how rational you are. I am sure you found my direct response unpalatable, and you should expect that from every human being. The way reform works is to be with the group, to have the willingness to start from step 1, then two and three. You have to learn to climb the stairs one step at a time. If you want results NOW, then please don’t waste your time on it and blame every one for not willing. If you and I have the attitude to accept the change with grace, then we should preach every one to change at once. Many of us moderates are working on it; to be effective, one must practice patience and give room to the masses to accept and eventually own the reform.

5. The summit was blow and go. Most of the Americans heard it a few weeks in advance. Had you given the time and sincerely made the effort to really make the summit effective, you would have included many, and the reason I chose not to go was the parade of Islam-bashers coming to reform Islam from the first announcement. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen. Indeed, there are notable, practicing Islamic intellectuals, scholars, academics and leaders who represent and have respect of the broader Muslim community and who regard capital punishment for apostasy, forced marriage, etc. as un-islamic and honor killing criminally liable. There are many among them who are assertive on the issues of freedom of faith, opinion and expression. They may not agree with Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin, but they do uphold their right to express their views and they disagree and disavow any fatwa against them. But not a SINGLE such person was present at the meeting.

In another respect, this summit is major failure. While trying to grab so much attention of the American media and public, it failed to highlight the point that many conscientious Muslims, who believe in the democratic process, constitutional governments, freedom of faith and expression, women’s empowerment, are being persecuted or marginalized in their respective Muslim-majority countries – countries that are tyrannical AND are our allies, patronized by our Government.

All those who care about such reforms should join hands in fostering and facilitating it. Attacking or vilifying Islam and/or stereotyping Muslims with a broad-brush by primarily Islam bashers can’t accomplish this. This country has attracted so many Muslims from around the world, because this nation stands on the principle of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Unfortunately, our engagements have been rather consistently pandering the tyrants in the Muslim world. Often the word “moderate” is misrepresented and misused.

If by “moderate”, it is meant uncritical obeisance to our short-sighted policies and interests, then there might not be many moderates. However, if it means decent people who care about themselves, their families and communities and at the same time respect the life, honor and property of other human beings, irrespective of their background, the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam. Engaging that vast majority of Muslims is not possible through such Islam-bashing summit, but through mutually respectful dialog.

The neo-con vision of shoving their agenda down the throat of the Muslim world through unilateral interventions, as we are waking up to the rude reality in Iraq, is proving disastrous not only for this noble nation, but also it is further alienating the Muslim world and creating deeper wedge, which we must work together to reverse.

St. Petersburg Declaration

I am pleased to support this declaration with the following enhancements in parenthesis.

Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007

1. We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree. ( If secular means separation of Church and the State, I am all for it, however if it means, chasing God out of our lives, then I have no part in this document- My personal preference would be the phrase Pluralist Muslims)

2. We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

3. We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

4. We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

5. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamophobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights. (The phrase ‘Muslim practices’ would be appropriate as opposed to Islamic practices – please remember, people make mistakes, not the religion)

6. We call on the governments of the world to

a) reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; (I would substitute the phrase review Sharia instead of reject Sharia – it amounts to telling Mr. Spencer “I hate the way you smile, reject your style.” There has to be a process for the change to sustain, we cannot play with the lives of people stripping what has become the part of their lives, as the example of the Lost Tomb above. The word reject make you hold on to it very dearly, that is the case with the followers of every faith, not just Muslims. We have to understand the process of reform, if we want to embark on it, so that we don’t ruin it).

b) eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; [note: incidentally, not only none of these are Islamic practices, especially in a forced context, but also these are against Islam.]

c) protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

d) reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

e) And foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.


7. We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy. [note: “demand” by non-Muslims, ex-Muslims and Islam-bashers is hardly conducive to engage the Muslim community toward the desired reform.]

8. We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

9. We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

a) to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai’s, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens; ( Please re-state to be all inclusive; Bahai, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Jewish, Muslims, Sikhs, Shinto, Wicca’s, Zoroastrians and all other faiths – the Medina declaration was signed by leaders of all communities for fair treatment of her Citizens)

b) and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

10. Before any of us is a member of the Ummah, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves. (Again make it inclusive – Before any of us is a member of any exclusive community, we are...)

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

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme " good for Muslims and good for the world." Mike believes that if people can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. His articles can be found at http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ , http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

###############################

A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy - I

Guest Commentary
Mike Ghouse President, Foundation for Pluralism
March 14, 2007

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims. The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers.

The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

The intent of the conference was bad from the start. Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest. In its coverage, the St. Petersburg Times appropriately gave time to those who looked at the meeting with a skeptical eye, noting that Georgetown University scholar Yvonne Haddad said, "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam."

In contrast, CNN's Beck paraded these personalities on TV as if they carried weight in the Muslim world. CNN and Beck were had. In an hour-long report, Beck featured the supposed dangers the organizers faced. A woman who called herself "Raquel Saraswati" claimed she was a practicing Muslim and expressed fears about being No. 4 on a list of Muslims ashamed of being a Muslim because she used to model.

As Ahmed Bedier, an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations in Florida, said: These were folks who are "cashing and bashing." I have differences with CAIR on some points, but he was in tune with most Muslims' opinion about the summit.

Beck brought Manda Zand Ervin, founder and president of Alliance of Iranian Women, a group that describes itself as a human rights organization, on camera, and she went so far as to say that Muslims want a global caliphate in which we will throw Christians and Jews into the sea.

I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea. Beck failed to ask her tough questions to find about the not-so-hidden agenda that appears to motivate her and so many others at this supposed Muslim gathering: fear mongering.

Shame on CNN.
Shame on Beck.

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

Mike Ghouse is a home builder and activist based in Dallas. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress, organizations dedicated to peaceful coexistence. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. © copyright 2007 by Mike Ghouse.

###############################

Moderate Muslims spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit

By Robert Spencer

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015663.php

« Al-Jazeera: "The Muslim Brotherhood channel" Main The poverty/terror myth »
March 15, 2007

Moderate Muslim spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit

In "A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy" at Religion and Spirituality.com, Mike Ghouse of the Foundation for Pluralism retails several obvious falsehoods about the Secular Islam Summit. And like CAIR, he completely ignores the question of whether or not he agrees with the St. Petersburg Declaration, which enunciates principles that any moderate Muslim ought to be able to endorse.

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.
But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla.

The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.

Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.
The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

Ghouse here seems to have lost track of what he just wrote. There were no moderate Muslims? What about Hasan Mahmud and Manji, whom he just mentioned?

And as for "They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear," this is just a smear. In fact, the St. Petersburg Declaration says, "We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine..." To hear Ghouse tell it, it says, "We say to Muslim believers: disappear." Hogwash.
The intent of the conference was bad from the start.

What was bad about it, Mr. Ghouse? The affirmation of "the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience" and "the equality of all human persons"? Or was it the insistence on "the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights"? Or could it have been the call to "eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women"? What exactly do you find objectionable, Mr. Ghouse? Be specific, please.

Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"?

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

Fine. Then lead it yourself, Mr. Masmoudi. Issue an endorsement of the Declaration. Surely there is nothing in it to which you object, is there? You are allowing your distaste for the panelists to overshadow the real subject here, which is the reform of Islam. Ex-Muslims did the job, along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

This is mostly just a base ad hominem attack, but as far as Sultan's statement goes, unfortunately, the presence of a Muslim in Congress does not disprove it. The only thing that would disprove it would be a large-scale public renunciation, accompanied by actions, of the ideology of Islamic supremacism by Muslims. Mr. Ghouse offers a renunciation of this kind later in this article, saying, "I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea." I hope he will follow this up with active efforts within the Islamic community to foster the principles expressed in the St. Petersburg Declaration.

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims.

The import of what you are saying here, Mr. Ghouse, that these Muslim speakers should have been happy to appear at the Summit with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. Yet you yourself refused to go. So you're saying that others should have done what you wouldn't do yourself.

The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.

You charge them with dishonesty after writing an article like this?
Posted by Robert at March 15, 2007 08:15 AM

###############################

COMMENTS

Comments(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

Did anybody ever thing a devote Muslim would be there ? No, I don't believe there can be a devision between Muslim and State, unless you throw the Koran away.
Posted by: Jeff at March 15, 2007 08:54 AM

...effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community...

Same old, same old. Only mooselims can criticize or comment on islam, because only they understand. It seems that the secret decoder ring expires as soon as you become apostate.
As Robert rightly states, the only reason such conferences are being organized by ex-mawzlems is precisely because there is no movement for reform or change coming from within. And why? Because mooselims 'proud of their heritage, religion and culture' are unlikely to see any need to reform it are they? And if they did, within the all-encompassing, stifling conformity imposed by the imams, we know what happens to them, don't we?
They'll send you home if you're crazy - but not wanting to fly more missions means you're perfectly sane, so you're not going home.

Posted by: thomas ato at March 15, 2007 09:01 AM
This Declaration by Secular Islam Summit has turned out to be real useful even if it failure because it forces many of these so called moderate muslims to expose themselves.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 15, 2007 09:18 AM

Robert wrote:"The import of what you are saying here, Mr. Ghouse, that these Muslim speakers should have been happy to appear at the Summit with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. Yet you yourself refused to go. So you're saying that others should have done what you wouldn't do yourself."
Bingo. This supposed reform-minded gent was not happy with the format of the summit, a determination he made prior to it's occurence, and yet decided to sit it out.
So he proposed his own summit, with appropriate like-minded moderate Muslims, desiring reform, but who are proud of Islam, right?...Right?
Typical. These useful idiots will dispel the myth of the "moderate" Muslim all by themselves, faster than any westerner can.
Posted by: awake at March 15, 2007 09:27 AM

Another example of an educated Muslim who is either lying or doesn't know his holy texts.
I am convinced by the uniformity in the thinking of many Islamapologists that they can't reason about their faith. They only see the burkha that covers the dark underbelly of Islam. They know the flesh is there, but won't look because its existence must be hidden at all times. When the burkha is publicly removed, they scramble to put it back. In anger, humiliation, and confusion they resort to the rhetorical weapons of children - name-calling, exxageration, and lying. But we and they have all seen it.
We must keep making them look at the naked truth.
Posted by: bobnoxious at March 15, 2007 09:59 AM

Having been put to the most minimum of tests, Ghouse now reveals himself, in his attempt to denigrate and dismiss such people as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan, in his scornful rejection of the contents of the St. Petersurg Declaration, a noble document that he should applaud, and whose represents the absolute minimum that should be expected of any so-called "moderate" Muslim.

Doesn't Ghouse's denunciation also call into question the sincerity of the "Foundation for Pluralism," a group busy collecting grant money of all kinds, an organization whose moving spirit, Khalil Muhammad, is quite a draw -- of the "I-wants-to-make-your-flesh-creep" school, who tells his preferred audiences on the naive and sentimental synagogue circuit that "extremists" are worrisome, but never fear, Khaleel Mohammed can be trusted to give you the straight dope, and his Foundation for Pluralism is Our Only Hope (never mind those horrible people with their St. Petersburg Declaration)and he's never steer you wrong, and by the way, please give a very large contribution to the Foundation for Pluralism to keep those "moderates" going and, just as important --where's my own check -- yes, that's K-h-a, not K-a. Or if you prefer so as to keep your name out of it for seucrity reasons -- I quite understand -- cash is also welcome.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2007 10:26 AM
This isn't a "moderate Muslim" spreading falsehoods. They are falsehoods, but this is not a moderate Muslim.
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 15, 2007 10:32 AM

just another example of the bottom line in the thinking of these people....a bad Muslim trumps an ex-Muslim anytime. Their worst enemy is someone who leaves the religion.
lots of christian families have kids who have abandoned or moved beyond the faith of their parents, but the kid still has a place at the dinner table (i know there are exceptions but i'm broad brushing here). that's not so in islam.
Posted by: ed at March 15, 2007 10:57 AM

From article above:
"You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.
Mutually exclusive terms? Can a true Muslim serve in Congress?
Take a look at this link (originally provided by KAOSKTRL)
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=11180&ln=eng&txt=POLITICAL

The attitude of Islam towards deviant (political) parties and those who indulge in them.
Whoever has an understanding of Islam, strong faith, Islamic integrity, farsightedness and eloquence, and is thus able to exert some influence on the direction of the party so that it will take an Islamic direction, may get involved in these parties or with the one which is most likely to be more receptive towards the truth – in the hope that Allaah will benefit others through him and guide whomsoever He wills to give up deviant political trends and follow the just politics of sharee’ah, thus bringing the ummah together on the Straight Path. But he should not follow their deviant principles.
-Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah
According to this, Ellis has loyalty first and foremost to Allah’s cause. Something I’m sure neighboring Congressman (and presidential hopeful) Tancredo is aware of. Something the American people had better pay attention to.
-XRDC
Posted by: XRDC at March 15, 2007 11:46 AM

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.
Translation: don't assume that we support Islamic supremacy just because we are about to condemn these 'Secular-Muslims'.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.

Translation: As long as they acknowledge the supremacy of Allah/Mohammed, any calls for reform by them are okay. But only within the framework of the supremacy of Islam and Islam alone.

The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims. The intent of the conference was bad from the start.

Translation: Encouraging Muslims to violate Quranic injunctions to conflate their 'religious' life with the rest of their life is bashing Islam. Encouraging, or even tolerating, Muslims to jettison Islam, is as good as wanting one fifth of humanity to disappear. In other words, once a person jettisons Islam, (s)he is as good as dead. (Or, if (s)he isn't, (s)he should be).

Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

Translation: We Moderate Muslims only want to peacefully and 'democratically' Islamize you. (Note: If I were to use their rhetoric, I'd echo Excommie above and say that Moderate Muslims want all Infidels dead.)
In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

Translation: The injunctions that exist in the Quran (and maybe Sunnah - we haven't decided as yet whether we should include or exclude it) ain't arcane enough to fool enough Infidels, and therefore need to be re-phrased so that we can continue to implement the directives of the above without seeming to do it in a way that an observer can decipher. Only Muslims who approve of Mohammed's behavior while he massacred and slaughtered his enemies can pull this off. Only Muslims who can take pride in claiming for themselves what other cultures achieved before them can drive such an effort. Only Muslims who endorse the teachings of the Quran can participate in an exercise to reform the practices that are derived ultimately from the teachings of the Quran.

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

Translation: Condemning Mohammed's marriage to 6-year old Aisha (okay, 9, that makes it so much more acceptable), or condemning thighing of toddler girls, as Wafa Sultan did on al-Jazeera, is slamming Islam. Also, Quranic verses, such as 2:190-193, 9:5,29,111, et al, are compatible with the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, in the mind of this outstanding Mohammedan, which gets proved by the mere act of enough voters in a particular congressional district in MN electing a member of the Nation of Islam (which is, depending on the situation, either a un-Islamic cult when the spotlight is on their racism, or Islamic, when it comes to one of their members being elected to Congress).

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.

Translation: If the intent was compatible with Quran 16:105 (Only they invent falsehood who believe not Allah's revelations, and (only) they are the liars.), at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. They would then have spread the truth, which is that only non-believers in Allah spread lies (see above); since they didn't, their intent is questionable, and downright dishonest (again, use the Q16:105 definition).

Also, when Mian Ghouse offers a renunciation later in this article, saying, "I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea.", that should be parsed exactly as one might parse a Clinton quote:

I do not want a global caliphate: The only true Caliphate were the rightly-guided Caliphs of Abu-Baqr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (or for Shia, Ali, Hussein, and their successors). To avoid confusing them with Caliphs that followed, I don't want a global Caliphate. However, a local shariah based civic establishment is a perfectly good alternative.

I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea: Why should I? Look at all the money that is going to the ummah from Christian suckers, such as the US and Europe, and Jewish sucker, such as Israel. Given this goose with the golden egg, why should I be stupid enough to throw them into the sea? Let those dupes, er philanthropists pay us a Jiziya instead: all the better if they don't know it, as long as they have a military superiority over us.

Okay, I'm done with the translation exercise. The day such translations of Muslim-speak ain't needed for other Infidels, we'd have gotten somewhere.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 12:49 PM

I found it amusing in he complains the summit was supposed to be about Islam, but Muslims were not there.DUH!!!!! Where was this whiner trying to make a difference but like most Muslims sitting silent and enabling the murderers with silent applause.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 15, 2007 01:47 PM