If you haven't heard of Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, you probably will soon. Unlike many of the talking heads and dubious Islam experts that you see on the evening news, Gartenstein-Ross claims a unique perspective - that of someone who experienced life as a conservative Muslim and found himself in the company of a group of Muslims suspected of links to extremist groups abroad. With many accusations against American Muslims and their supposed dual loyalties now losing steam, some readers may fear that Gartenstein-Ross provides (willingly or not) the latest fuel for the ongoing fire of suspicion about Muslims in the West with a book about his experiences entitled My Year Inside Radical Islam. In the upcoming issue of Islamica Magazine, Andrea Useem writes that Gartenstein-Ross' book, "though less sensational than some might like, offers a window into a more commonplace but no less important experience: that of conversion to Islam today. He reveals how ideologically vulnerable a convert can be; in that first flush of excitement and devotion, almost anyone claiming Islamic authority can dramatically imprint the convert's faith." It is this same "flush" that allowed now-infamous converts such as Richard Reid (whom you can thank for having to remove your shoes each time you fly), John Walker Lindh (aka the "American Taliban"), and José Padilla (the citizen "enemy combatant") to have kept company with more extreme elements in the Muslim community. Unlike these other converts, however, Gartenstein-Ross managed to stumble out of his association with conservative Islam, and then Islam altogether. He is now a terrorism analyst, and feels he is uniquely suited to look into the mind of Muslim extremists, having been one himself, albeit for a very short time and without any actual violence involved. But many on both sides of the terrorism debate are skeptical - anti-terrorism advocates may not be happy with his insistence that there is a peaceful wing of Islam that can prevail, and many Muslims are wary of his current associations with people and organizations whom they perceive as unwilling to differentiate between extremist Muslims and the Muslim masses. Will Gartenstein-Ross, as he hopes, become a bridge between the two that can help forge a common ground where respect for Muslims and abhorrence for terrorism share the same stage? Or will he find himself in a no-man's-land where his words are tuned out by both sides? Altmuslim Associate Editor Zahir Janmohamed recently sat down with the author in Washington DC and asked him about his journey from a hippie Jewish family in Oregon to a charity with alleged links to Al-Qaeda and finally to Christianity, and how he feels his work will impact the "war on terror" and the average Muslim.

Your book throws out a lot of terms. How do you define the following terms: "radical Islam", "moderate Islam", "conservative Islam"?

In doing a word search through the book manuscript, I find that I use these terms less frequently than the question presumes. The book (quite obviously) uses the phrase "radical Islam," which in my mind begins at the point the believer thinks that coercion is appropriate to enforce his religious views. So three radical ideas that I encounter in the course of the book are the idea that warfare should be used to topple non-Islamic states and replace them with sharia law; the idea that apostates from the faith should be killed; and the idea that individuals with "deviant" beliefs should be killed.

My book uses the term "moderate Islam" only once: in the final chapter my friend al-Husein Madhany describes himself as being a "moderate Muslim," and I agree that this is what he has grown into. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the phrase "moderate Muslim," but I will continue to use it until I'm struck by a better term. When I use the phrase, I'm generally referring to Muslims who believe in pluralistic values such as those that predominate in the United States.

My book doesn't use the term "conservative Islam," but it does refer to me accepting more conservative views over time. Here, I mean a more literalistic, rules-based practice than the Sufi views that I initially embraced: my decisions to grow a beard and to stop listening to music were manifestations of greater theological conservatism.

If part of your goal was to stimulate discussion within the Muslim community about the dangers of "radical" Islam, why then allow the publisher to use this title? How do you respond to accusations that you are simply trying to cash in on your admittedly short stint with "radical" Islam?

I believe that the title of my book accurately reflects the content, and that in a vacuum it wouldn't repel a Muslim audience. I think one reason Muslims have suspicions is that in recent months a number of titles with a similar "edge" have been published which do argue that Islam itself is the problem. I couldn't have foreseen this a year ago when I settled on the title for my book project.

As to accusations that I'm trying to "cash in" on my short stint with radical Islam, I have two responses. The first is that I was established as an analyst in the counterterrorism field long before my story was made public. This was purposeful, as many people have parlayed intriguing biographies into lifetimes of mediocre analysis. The second answer is that although my stint with radical Islam was short, there is value to my description of the radicalization process that some Western converts go through. Too little is known about this process, and I believe that my book helps to fill in this important gap.

You are a national debate champion and what impressed me about the beginning of your book is how methodical you are in analyzing an argument before you internalize it. But as you drifted more into "radical" Islam, I found it odd that you were convinced by arguments by Muslim religious leaders that seemed far below your intellectual level. I was just not convinced that you would buy them.

Before I began to take radical arguments seriously, the way in which I approached these questions shifted drastically. Initially, when radical arguments were made, I would look at the end result of those argumentsthe obligation to undertake jihad against non-Muslim societies, for exampleand seeing the absurd conclusion, would reject the argument. My book details the process by which I embraced a more legalistic and rules-based interpretation of the faith. In this way, I began to look at these questions not by examining end results, but by examining only the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the opinion of scholarsand ignoring any external evidence. I came to believe that my own conscience was not just irrelevant, but that I should in fact distrust it.

Approached through this more legalistic lens, I'm not sure that these arguments are as weak as the question presumes. One radical argument I became convinced by was the obligation to undertake jihad to replace non-Islamic government with Islamic rule, as Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid outlines in his lengthy essay "The Call to Jihad (Holy Fighting for Allah's Cause) in the Qur'an." He argues that there are three phases of jihad historically: it was initially forbidden by Allah, then permitted, and finally made obligatory "(1) against them who start the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah." He bears out this point by noting Muhammad's initial non-violent response to the Quraish tribe's oppression, followed by the revelation of verses 22:39-40 making jihad permissible in certain circumstances, and finally verses 2:190 and 9:29 making jihad compulsory. While I have seen sound responses to bin Humaid's argument, I haven't seen a "clean kill" that would cause me to write off this argument as below my intellectual level.

Likewise, another radical argument I accepted was the permissibility of killing those who convert out of Islam. I was persuaded by this view on the basis of a single hadith, a fact which dovetails with the tendency of some Muslims (sometimes new converts, sometimes very strict and constrained individuals) to read the ahadith in the same way they read Qur'anic verses, and to drawn very broad conclusions based on a line or two in the ahadith. A number of Muslim writers have attacked the punishment of apostates as un-Islamic (for example, former Pakistani chief justice S.A. Rahman does so in his book Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, and Ali Eteraz has done so on his blog). That being said, I can't say that A.A. Maududi's book The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law makes arguments that are below my intellectual level.

Obviously, I strongly and unreservedly reject the arguments of bin Humaid and Maududi in this regard. But I think it's important not to underestimate the intellectual draw that radicalism can hold for some.

At times in your book, I felt that you were using your past experiences (and errors) to self-aggrandize your new, post-(radical) Islam enlightenment. Looking back at your experience as a Muslim, is there anything that you cherish about that experience? Anything that you perhaps miss?

There is much that I cherished about my experience as a Muslim. My time within the faith prior to starting work at Al Haramain was a happy and fulfilling time spiritually. There are certain things that I do miss about Islamic practice. I used to really enjoy getting up at dawn for fajr prayers. I appreciated having a universal greeting that any other Muslim could understand, regardless of what language he spoke. And the mosque tends to be a far more communal institution than the church. In converting out of Islam, I didn't conclude that the faith is inherently radical; I didn't conclude that it has nothing of value.

That being said, I'm happy with my current religious life, and derive a sense of fulfillment from my worship as a Christian.

The book seemed to be less about the dangers of "radical" Islam and more about the zeal of converts and where that zeal often leads them. Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Pretty much. The book isn't so much an expos of radical Islam as a description of the inner journey that can lead one to embrace extremism. The outward expos has been done time and again; much less has been written about the inner journey.

What struck me about your book is your very sympathetic and even complimentary views of Islam and Muslims. This is a departure from other pundits who argue that Islam itself is the problem and "moderate" Muslims aren't following it correctly. What are your thoughts on how conservative commentators on terrorism portray the Muslim community?

I believe there is a need for a more objective and fact-based assessment of the Muslim community. I support exposing Muslim organizations or leaders who are promoting an extremist agenda. But in a forthcoming op-ed, I argue that there are three negative tendencies that arise when commentators discuss Islam in America. The first is constant criticism of the Muslim community that isn't counterbalanced by compliments or discussion of progress within the community. Criticism can produce a skewed view when it isn't balanced by positive news. Talk radio hosts frequently ask me why moderate Muslims don't speak against extremismas though all moderates are cowed into silence while jihad is openly extolled from mosque pulpits. Commentators would do well to acknowledge important moderate voices like Islamica Magazine and altmuslim.com even if they don't always agree with the political views in those publications.

This brings us to the second negative tendency, the conflation of political disagreement with theological radicalism. After a recent talk I gave, I was told that Islamica is a "radical Islamist publication" because of an article that objected to the Department of Homeland Security's revocation of Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan's visa. My interlocutor may have disagreed with the article's conclusion, but should have realized that it was not a radical article, nor did it make Islamica a radical publication.

Third, there is an impulse to attack Muslim figures but never to defend them. Commentators would do themselves a favor by occasionally weighing in when some Muslims are unfairly branded as radicals. But a necessary first step is getting to know people in the Muslim community well enough that you're comfortable going out on a limb to defend someone against charges of radicalism.

As a final note, it's my hope that if these steps are taken, the Muslim community will in turn become less defensive about commentators' legitimate criticisms.

Even though you are in the counterterrorism field now, your book says very little about how your experiences connect to your present work, and what you think your experiences mean about the nature of "radical" Islam or Islam as practiced in the United States. Why is that?

I chose to keep the book non-polemical in order to allow the reader to reflect and reach his own conclusions. Often reality cannot be tied into a neat bow, and some authors cheapen otherwise valuable stories by clumsily attempting to do so. Different people will draw different lessons from my story, and I think this is a good thing.

In a recent Slate review of your book, Holly Lebowitz Rossi writes: "There was nothing particularly radical about Gartenstein-Ross' experience with Islam in the first place, except for a few alarming opinions that he briefly subscribed to in his mind as a very young man... The book would be better titled My Yearlong Internship at a Charity That I Had No Idea Was Funding al-Qaida." Your response?

I think Rossi's review is a dishonest piece of writingand I do not say this lightly. The passage you selected happens to epitomize the reason for my conclusion. Halfway through the review Rossi asserted that my job at Al Haramain was an internship, and then referred to it that way five times, including in her made-up title for my book. Rossi's editors decided, rightly, to issue a factual correction since the job was not, in fact, an internship. The line you quoted now reads "The book would be better titled My Yearlong Job at a Charity That I Had No Idea Was Funding al-Qaeda" which is nowhere near as good a laugh line as her original one.

In fact, a careful reading of Rossi's review shows that her problem isn't really with my book, but rather with a) the book's title, b) the fact that the book is popular with a conservative audience, and c) the way some conservative commentators have framed my book. As I said above, the book is more about the inner journey rather than an expos of radical Islam. And, for the most part, the Muslim audience with whom I have discussed my book has found my exposition of the inner journey far more valuable than did Rossi.

In your book, you show a clear affinity for many of your Muslim friends. Has it been difficult to maintain those friendships throughout the process of writing this book?

Interestingly, the process of writing the book has rekindled some of those old friendships. I have said before that this book is, among other things, a chronicle of my errors. The biggest error that I made when I left Islam was cutting myself off from most of my Muslim friends, including my dear friend al-Husein Madhany. I did this for a reason: when I was at Al Haramain, our literature and visiting scholars taught that death was a proper punishment for leaving the faith. I didn't think that al-Husein or other Muslim friends would try to kill me, but I assumed that the fact I was no longer Muslim would prove an insurmountable barrier to friendship. I should have given many of these people far more credit than I did. The most valuable outcome that has come from publishing this book, hands down, is that I got back in touch with al-Husein during the process of writing itand in doing so, a friendship that I once thought was lost has been rediscovered.

Certainly, my attempt to straddle the Muslim and counterterrorism communities isn't easyand I'm sure I'll make people unhappy on both sides of that divide. But I believe that everybody gains if we can have more of an objective and reasoned discourse about Islam: one that takes into account both the great strengths of the Muslim community and also its flaws.

Do you believe in such a thing as "Islamophobia"?

Yes. The term is often misused to fend off legitimate criticismsjust as legitimate criticisms of Israel are sometimes described as "anti-Semitic"but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as "Islamophobia." (Incidentally, like the term "moderate Muslim," I'm not wholly comfortable with this termbut will use it until I can come up with something better.)

One of the most depressing responses to a column I wrote came a couple of years back, when a woman e-mailed to remark that "on Fridays when I happen to drive by [a local mosque] while they're walking from the parking lot to the mosque for their Friday worship, I can't help but give them the birdie as I'm driving by. You'd die laughing if you could see the looks on their face." I'm not thrilled by the fact that she thinks she's fighting the same battle I am by driving around and flipping off Muslims.

Do you see yourself as a bridge between the Muslim community and also the world of other terrorism/Islam pundits since, unlike the others, you seem to have an audience on both sides? If so, what are some of the challenges?

That's something that I aspire toward, but wouldn't describe myself that way at present. Some of my recent writing has begun to take a different look at the Muslim community than has done before by pundits on my side of the fence. But I don't think that I have yet reached the point where I serve as an effective bridge.

The challenges are numerous. A major challenge is that I see a "bunker mentality" developing on both sides, with real hesitation to give ground or admit to mistakes or wrongdoing. There are legitimate reasons on both sides for the bunker mentality, but it nonetheless serves as a barrier when part of building bridges involves encouraging self-reflection. There is also mutual mistrustagain, with both sides having legitimate reasons. Some in the counterterrorism field feel that they have been burned by faux moderates in the past, while many Muslims feel that they have been unfairly attacked or suspected.

If Muslims are reluctant to address the problem of "radical" Islam, perhaps it's not because they deny its existence or its threat but because discussions of "radical" Islam are often politicized, negate legitimate dissent (on Palestine and Iraq, for example), or are tied up to a perceived neo-con agenda. How do you suggest that Muslims speak about extremism within their faith and still avoid having their voice appropriated for a cause that they never endorsed or stifling their legitimate right to dissent?

In general, I think there is too much fear (and not just by Muslims) of having one's voice appropriated. Attempts to appropriate any and all evidence that may fit certain agendas are made by people on all sides of the political spectrum. But if you have a genuine voice and speak for yourself, that makes it difficult for people to use you to advance an agenda with which you disagree. I have often said with respect to radio and television that there are far more bad guests than there are bad hosts: that is, if a host is trying to use me as a tool to make his own political points, I'm not shy about letting him know when I disagree. That's why I don't have any hesitation about doing interviews with a variety of media: on the right, on the left, Christian media, Muslim media, etc.

The bottom line is that it's better to have a voice than not. And if people try to use your words to advance an agenda that you find objectionable, you're not a passive agent who has no choice but to be manipulated. You can speak up.

There are many data points to illustrate a rise in anti-Islamic sentiment and attacks post-9/11. Are you, unwittingly or not, contributing to the view that all Muslims are a threat?

I don't think so. Radicalism within the faith is an important issue, and one about which many non-Muslims and Muslims have serious and legitimate concerns. The reason that I don't think I contribute to the view that all Muslims are a threat dovetails with the reason that I don't think Muslims should worry so much about their voices being appropriated: if somebody is misusing my words and ideas, I can correct them. For example, I frequently correct or debate with radio hosts whom I believe have too negative a view about Muslimsand I have gotten Muslim guests booked on shows when I feel the host would benefit from learning more about current trends in the moderate Muslim community.

There is a need for balance and objectivitya need for commentators to be conversant in the various contemporary manifestations of Islam, ranging from liberal to conservative to extreme. And I think I provide that balance.

The field of lapsed Muslims who speak critically of Islam includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali and now yourself. What are your views of how other former Muslims discuss contemporary Islam?

I prefer not to draw broad conclusions about other former Muslims' ideas of Islamparticularly because, in following their conscience, many of them have taken far more risks and sacrificed far more than I have. That being said, I am obviously less critical of contemporary Islam and more interested in alliances with moderate Muslims than many other former Muslims in the public sphere.

Earlier, I outlined the need for conservative commentators to be more self-critical in the way they write about the Muslim community. I think the Muslim community would benefit from greater awareness of the way former Muslims are treated. I wrote an article for Commentary a couple of years ago that delves into the problem of apostasy in Islam. This is a real problem: conversion out of Islam is illegal in at least thirteen Muslim countries, and punishable by death in at least eight of these. Although it's hard to get precise figures, we know that a number of converts out of Islam are killed every year for following their conscience, and many more are completely cut off from their families. This is an important human rights issue, religious freedom issue, and issue involving freedom of conscience.

I have interacted with a broad range of former Muslims. The former Muslims who have a less negative impression of Islam are those who, like me, had to pay less of a price for leaving Islam. Those who have been cut off by their family or who have been threatened for leaving the faith tend to have more problems with particular governments or with the Muslim community's interpretation of Islam. By and large, former Muslims lack collective power: I think it would make a difference if more Muslims were willing to stand up for their rights, and their human dignity.

Many Muslims might criticize us for giving you space to articulate your thoughts, perhaps only because of other well-known former Muslims or Islam critics who use the media as a soapbox to attack Islam and its followers. In this environment, why should Muslims listen to you?

I think a good test about whether someone is worth listening to involves three factors: fairness/integrity, knowledge of the subject matter, and the way the individual processes that knowledge. I think those factors are more important than whether I agree with someone's conclusions: I often derive the most value from reading someone with whom I disagree, but who is knowledgeable, applying that knowledge in an incisive way, and being fair in his arguments. I believe that, based on these three factors, I'm worth listening to if you're willing to give me a fair chance. But ultimately, that's a question that each reader can decide for him or herself.

You are missing my point. There are Muslims that are rejecting "the Imams who claim indiscriminate killing is morally justified and teach violence as an ideology."

But you do not know this because the mainstream media does not give moderate Muslims the same attention they give to the extremists.

- Posted by RandallJones

Have there been any demonstrations by Muslims against suicide bombings? If so, where are they? It is up to us to exercise our power as consumers and demand mainstream media carry these stories, with print, video, and network news coverage. That is how the story of the German judge citing the Koran came out--the plaintiff's attorney made a stink with the media there.

We can talk all we want amongst ourselves about the silencing of moderate voices. Let's do whatever it takes to get those voices heard.

RoseofSharon,

I wouldn't know if there have been any demonstrations against suicide bombings, if there were, the mainstream press would not report on it.

I know there have been organizations and individuals that have condemened it. But the mainstream media will give disproportanate attention to the Muslims who says they approve of it.

In addition, I have seen people demonstrate aginst the Iraq war (genocide) but it hasn't changed anything. What happened to using the democratic processed to prevent these war crimes from occuring. Saddam Hussein has been put on trial, why haven't any of his Western collaborators been put on trial. What's the point of have a democratic government if you are not using it.

By the way those Muslims who live and benefit from living in the West, there main focus should be condemning and stopping their Western governments from engaging in regime changes and supporting brutal dictatorships who do their bidding.

By the way those Muslims who live and benefit from living in the West, there main focus should be condemning and stopping their Western governments from engaging in regime changes and supporting brutal dictatorships who do their bidding. RandallJones

The problem is that the government in Iraq cooperating with the US was elected by Iraqis based on sectarian and ethnic calculations. The same with Afghanistan. So obviously it is the hatred for the US that is fueling this anti iraq war and not support or grievance for the Iraqis or Afghans since it is they who wanted the Americans there.

Muslims are a strange lot, they are actually angry at themselves but don't know it. Nobody is denying the US is biased and many ways oppressive, but i will place that at the way they treated the Palestinians but not Iraq or Afghanistan since it was supported by the respective populations.

Both of these societies voted for sectarian parties who do not believe in democracies and freedom and bloody warlords. Their own hands filled these ballots and not the US. The Sunnis in Iraq were marginalized by a governemnt their fellow Iraqis voted for and they resorted to violence to get their right. Can you imagine jews doing this to other jews?

The US was wrong to assume Iraqis will support a democracy that respects individual rights and equality under the law. Muslim's are the cause of their problems, Israel then takes advantage of these and the US then follows Israel because of the power of the Israel lobby.

If you bend over people will jump on your back. So rather than talk about what the US should do, maybe for once we should talk about what Muslims should be doing.

Thanks bigmo for proving that you indeed have an agenda besides cheer leading the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The critiques you've linked to are orientalism defined. Sorry my friend, but your little Abbasid Caliphate gone wild theories are real as Bush's WMD lies.
I also noticed that RoseofArielSharon is up to her usual polemics, this time feigning outrage at suicide bombings while her country's military rain weapons of mass destruction upon a populace which did them no harm. As Rumsfeld said "You fight with what you have, not what you wish you had." As loathe as I am to quote a war criminal, he's correct. Suicide bombing is a weapon of the weak. Asymmetircal warfare is hardly exclusive to Muslims, and has used my Japanese Kamikazi and Tamil Tigers long before.
If RoseofArielSharon were sincere, she would rather ask why is a person willing to take their life, against the Koranic prohibition of killing oneself? According to Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on suicide terrorism and expert on suicide bombers, ninety-five percent of such attacks in recent times have the same specific strategic goal: to cause an occupying state to withdraw forces from a disputed territory. Take a look at Israel occupied Palestine, US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and its clear why.
If you are against suicide bombings then give the people fighter jets, tanks and submarines. Ah, but countries which have the ability to defend themselves don't get attacked and invaded do they?
Randall is absolutely right about the hypocrisy and duplicity of western governments.

Bigmo, you are living in a pro-American fools paradise and continue to spread misinformation and simplistic propaganda.
Tell me, how is it the fault of the Iraqis that their country was invaded? What did they do to deserve getting tortured, raped and mutiliated and becoming refugees in their own country?
No amount of your sick white washing will absolve the US in its role as the primary destabilizer in the Middle East, with its junior partner Israel.
Iraq's government is a US puppet client regime no different then the other autocracies in the region. There is NO such thing as a free democratic election under a brutal foreign occupation.

BigMo,

You are making excuses for the United States. It was the Untied States that helped put Saddam Hussein into power and supported him when he was committing his worst atrocities. Osama Ben Laden was a CIA asset and Afghanistan fought the United States’ proxy war against the Russians, which helped to bring the downfall of the Soviet Union. This made the U.S. the world’s number one super power. Afghanistan was left in ruins with millions dead and the United States did not help with its reconstruction.

What proof do you have that the Iraqis and Afghanis want the Americans in their countries?

Muslims are indeed a strange lot if they want to be under occupation. In Iraq it was the United States, Britain and its allies that
--bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
-- rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
-- makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
-- benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
-- can break into jails to release prisoners against the Iraqi's governments wishes. (Remember when two British men where caught disguised as Arabs carrying explosives and weapons in their car? Their fellow British soldiers broke into the jail they were in and helped them to escape)
see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089

Bigmo if you are not living in Iraq or Afghanistan, than it is not for you to tell them what to do; they are suffering enough without having to listen to your sanctimonious preaching and insults.

Besides, why not set the example for them. Show them how free speech and the democratic process works in the West by getting the military occupation off their backs and putting on trial those in our government who have committed war crimes.

Bigmo,

I am surprised of what you have written here when you had written under the article "The State Of Islamic Reform In The West" at http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1873_0_25_0_C (the second comment)
that:

The real reformist are not in the west, they are in the muslim world. They are Gamal Al Banna and Zaid Abu nasr and Ahmad Subhi Mansour and Dr Abdul Sabour Tantawi .

They are talked about in this article:

http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3351

Who voted for these parties that are alligned to the US. Its the Iraqis shias. Who voted for the kurdish parties also alligned with the US. Who do you think voted for them. Were not the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan fighting side by side with the uS forces. Was not the forces of Ahmad Shah Masood supporting the US against the Taliban.

Was not Ahmad Chalabi and Sistani supportive of the US. Face it Muslims have more internal rivalry than their rivalry towards the US and the uS knows that.

Yes there are no real reformist of status here in the west as i do not consider Khaled Abou Fadl as a real reformist.

Real reformist don't subscibe to the sunni doctrine and consider Quran as their guiding source.

They are not the same as the Quran alone crowd here in the US as these people do not even accept the established Sunna such as the 5 daily prayers or Tawwaf around the ka'ba and so on. They are extremist.

Although there is some material from the middle east trickling down slowly to the west. Muslims in the west follow what the middle east follows but 10 years behind.

A good place to start regarding the mew muslim reform you can start here:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=223

Bigmo, you're not going to get any traction repeating the same old tired lies and misinformation. Get this through your head : Iraq's government is a US puppet client regime no different then the other autocracies in the region. There is NO such thing as a free democratic election under a brutal foreign occupation.
Turnout was said to have been 60 percent of registered Iraqis voters, which would appear to vindicate the U.S.-administered process. However, rumors prior to the election warned that those who did not vote would lose their vital food rations. With a doubling of child malnutrition since the U.S. invasion and even reports of starvation, this was no small threat.
Iraqi election officials apparently decided that the election motto should be “vote or starve.” The Washington Post confirmed that some officials circulated rumors deliberately to “try to lure voters” to the polls. Khalaf Muhammed, the electoral commission official in charge of a polling station in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, said: “Even though we spread a rumor in the city saying anyone who doesn’t vote will be deprived of their food ration, only 10 people voted…mostly old men.”
These threats made little difference to U.S. media cheerleading. Typical of the post-election headlines was one in the Chicago Tribune: “Iraqis defy insurgents, turn out in droves.” But this is inaccurate at best. Kurds, 95 percent of whom are Sunni, turned out overwhelmingly. Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq’s population, turned out in large numbers too. But if only 60 percent of Iraq’s 14.2 million registered voters cast ballots, this means many more Shiites rejected the polls along with the vast majority of Sunni Arabs, who comprise about 20 percent of the population. Many Sunni Arabs who spoke to reporters said they were opposed to an election held under occupation, a sentiment echoed by Shiite followers of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. Many Sadr supporters also cited a lack of basic services as the reason why they sat out the polls.

>Real reformist don't subscibe to the sunni doctrine and consider Quran as their guiding source.<
>They are not the same as the Quran alone crowd here in the US <

These are amazingly contradictory statements. Who(please don't tell me Irshad Manji) and what exactly do these "real reformers" of yours believe which most Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims don't? My readings on Islam give the complete opposite impression. Sounds like you have a sectarian axe to grind.
Can some Muslim clarify this, because I have a feeling bigmo is fibbing again.

BTW you got a big mouth and an IQ of a frog.

I gave you the link and its self explanatory. Read for a change, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Who is Irshad Manji, she is just a product. She does not have knowledge.

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/jafelif986.html

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=223

Read and undertsand and stop talking nonsense. All this infighting in Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia and Palestine is not the US cause. Its the imtellectual and political culture that still dominates many muslim lands who are not capable to form a decent modern government and don't have an understanding of how to get along and settle there differences.

Notice in each case the Islamist are the main point of trouble, including Afghanistan.

Stop ranting!

Another example of reformers:

http://www.cihrs.org/prog_Activity_details_en.aspx?act_id=47

>>those Muslims who live and benefit from living in the West, there main focus should be condemning and stopping their Western governments from engaging in

Why? There is more to life than politics and foreign policy. If you think foreign policy is a crime, what about drugs on our streets and drunk driving?? They kill similar numbers of people each year a just in the US, alone. Why is not our responsibility as "Muslims in the West" (I'm indigenous to the West, BTW!) to solve drunk driving or drugs?? I think its more logical to solve the near problems first before going after the far problems.

How about this, too:

"those Muslims who live and benefit from living in the East, there main focus should be condemning and stopping their religious parties and governments from engaging in *inhumane practices and radicalism is the name of the Almighty*"

Agree with that? Responsibility goes both ways...what objective factor(s) makes one more worthwhile than the other??

Randall,

>>Bigmo if you are not living in Iraq or Afghanistan, than it is not for you to tell them what to do; they are suffering enough without having to listen to your sanctimonious preaching and insults.

FUNNY, I WAS THINKING THE SAME ABOUT YOU!

BTW-yadayada,

>>Bigmo, you are living in a pro-American fools paradise and continue to spread misinformation and simplistic propaganda.

Aren't you doing the same to bigmo that I did to you and later apologized for?? Hmm...

>BTW you got a big mouth and an IQ of a frog.<

Oh wow, do you have any links on the intelligence of frogs in contrast to chameleon geniuses like you? You have no one but yourself to blame for being caught in your own web of deceit.

>Stop ranting!<

Stop lying and pulling the "islamist" rabbit out of your hat whenever the role of the US global conflicts is highlighted. The devil lies in the details. You've made way too many false and misleading statements to be taken seriously. In the meantime stop trying to be something you are not, you are not given to an ounce of sound reasoning, and cling to a joke of a world view. You are a cog in a bankrupt system, and the only time you will awaken at this point is when you face the last challenge in life (if then).

>Aren't you doing the same to bigmo that I did to you and later apologized for?? Hmm...<

No I don't think so. Bigmo's "analysis"of Iraq is just so devoid of facts and figures, he ought to join the local FOX affiliate.

BTW, let me explain my discomfort with this discourse. The same stuff I'm hearing from both you and Randall about coming down hard on the US and the West in general while whitewashing what some of our coreligionists do is precisely the stuff that is spouted in too many mosques. It used to be very common before Sept 11 and even today I occaisonally hear these things from people who sympathize with terrorists, insurgents and are generally inhumane practitioners of Islam. It is precisely such people I and many other muslims want to see gone from our mosques. Can you imagine the discomfort your rhetoric produces when it so resembles in content and style the rhetoric of uber-conservative and over-politicized islamists who advance authortarian interpretations of inhumanity and distortions of the Quran and Sunnah? Can you imagine it?

Randall,

>> “You are missing my point”

No I’m not... I acknowledged your point and agree with it. What I was saying back is that it doesn’t matter if the Western media started raving about how good Muslims are; it wouldn’t stop the fact that terror plots are being planned

BTWFMBGNOI,

>> “that is your expansionist military policy”

Wow, that’s very generous of you to attribute a world super-powers foreign policy to me, a no-name graduate on the other side of the planet (I’m not from the US). I can’t say I feel right taking all the credit for it though, ill leave that to their Republican party.

>> “the real crux of the problem”

Invading foreign countries undoubtedly plays a strong part in motivating terrorist actions, but you are underplaying or ignoring the role of culture and (the abuse of) religion. Remember September 11 happened before either invasion. So what makes someone commit a terrorist act? And by terrorist act I’m not just talking about those in Iraq or Afghanistan, I’m talking about Bali, Madrid, London, Jakarta and Mumbai etc Its not purely a reaction to the West, most of the victims of terrorism are Muslim by far! The seed for an atrocity is planted when a young Muslim hears non-Muslims referred to disparagingly as ‘Book people’, pigs, apes etc, then hears suicide bombers referred to as Shahid/martyr etc etc Its just hypocritical to ignore the influence of this and only focus on what the West has or hasn’t done.

>> “You would never train our children to kill and die for your BELIEFS. You train our children to kill and die for your government's LIES ... and for other people's OIL”

I don’t really understand what this means, but I don’t want anyone to die for any reason! I was and am passionately opposed to the Iraq war – but I’m also opposed to hatemongering and the promotion and justification of violence through a thin veil of religion, which is something you are ignoring.

If you feel the discourse is uncomfortable, imagine how it must be for the people living under occupation for whom it’s a life and death situation, not an academic discussion.
As I've explained before, having a tomahawk missle slam into your living room is all the incentive it takes for a survivor to take up arms against the aggressor, regardless of personal philosophy, religious or otherwise. Blaming mosques is a red herring. It was Bush who spoke of crusades and "God told me to attack Iraq." Muslim extremism is miniscule compared to organized messianic militant American Christianity and Zionist Judaism. "Inhuman practices" does not begin to describe the US vicious invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Resistance is a non-negotiable human right, and you’ll be seeing much more of it if you make the neocon(true terrorists) blunder of going into Iran.
American's didn't deserve to die on 911, but they sure as hell deserve to die in Iraq. And bury the lies that go along with them. I have zero sympathy for a country that rapes and slaughters children and carries on like nothings wrong.

>>> Muslims are a strange lot, they are actually angry at themselves but don't know it.

So freaking true. About me at least.

>>> Iraq's government is a US puppet client regime no different then the other autocracies in the region.

Thats obviously wrong on so many levels. Even if only half true. You have to balance this with the factual background of the situation. These men risk their lives and the lives of their families as democratically elected leaders to mediate the current situation. Not only have terrorists made the situation untennable for the imperialists, but they've made it impossible for well intentioned MUSLIMS too. Arabs, Moroccans, Syrians, Egyptians fly in to sabotage that mediation - yes its a sweeping statement ... but no less than yours. Our Nabi (SAW) mediated with people who designed to kill him on more than one ocassion .. yet some people remember only the wars and not the humble diplomacy that prefaced that.

>>> rumors prior to the election warned that those who did not vote would lose their vital food rations.

Thats propoganda and you know it. Iraqis didn't have arms to exercise their right to self determination. Many exercised a vote. Why can't insurgents use words and instead of arms .. maybe because they hanker after glory .. soldiers instilled with the power of their self belief.

>> Its the intellectual and political culture that still dominates many muslim lands who are not capable to form a decent modern government and don't have an understanding of how to get along and settle there differences.

Can be said of ALL developing nations. Within the confines of a secular understanding .. I believe that democracy is the practical resort of an economically and socially empowered populace .i.e. its not a moral government.

>Thats propoganda and you know it<

No I don't. How do you know its propaganda?

>These men risk their lives and the lives of their families as democratically elected leaders to mediate the current situation.<

Theres no such thing as a free election under a foreign occupation. Maliki's regime would collapse without US protection.

>Why can't insurgents use words and instead of arms<

Why should they? Its their country, under a foreign military occupation. They have every right to take up arms against those who invaded their country, kill and torture its citizens, seek to balkanize it and steal its resources.