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.

>>imagine how it must be for the people living under occupation for whom it’s a life and death situation, not an academic discussion.

Uh huh. I lived in Bosnia...during the war, so I don't have to imagine anything; I know it all too well. Tell me this: Muhammad Ata's house was never bombed; Bin Ladin's family was wealthy and never did he experience oppression; my neighbor's pinky finger experienced more horrible things than I ever have and I've been through two wars, yet they *did not* blow themselves up despite being severely outclassed by the Yugoslav National Army and the Chetnik militias on every level. Why?

AS for your justifications, they are meaningless; our religion forbids suicide for any reason and forbids killing non-combatants, period, end of story. If you want to see people die, why remain sitting and cheer on others who do? Take up the struggle, then why not?

>>Maliki's regime would collapse without US protection.

That's highly debatable since even the Sadrists and the Shi'a clericial heirarchy, where power really resides, are the ones who installed Maliki and crew.

>I lived in Bosnia...during the war, so I don't have to imagine anything<

Really? Are you a Bosnian? Because if you were you wouldn't sound so non-chalant. Bosnia is not Iraq. Bosnia was late humanitarian intervention, Iraq was an aggressive war of choice to steal oil and establish a stronger American military foothold in the Middle East. Big difference.

>Bin Ladin's family was wealthy and never did he experience oppression<

Neither did Bush, whats his excuse? He's killed far more innocents then Bin Laden could dream of.

>our religion forbids suicide for any reason and forbids killing non-combatants, period, end of story.<

Your religion is pretty clear on self-defense isn't it? I don't even think one needs to find inspiration from faith when it comes to fighting invaders. Its common sense. The Iraqis had 12 years of sanctions and depleted poising before the war, so I can't fault them for fighting dirty. American soldiers and blackwater mercenary contractors are hardly non-combatants are they? They treat Iraqis like dirt and have murdered hundreds of thousands of them. They shouldn't even be in the country, which gives the locals the right to dispatch them as they wish, IMO. In fact its the invaders who have killed Iraqi non-combatants far more then any other armed group.

>If you want to see people die, why remain sitting and cheer on others who do?<

I'm not interested in seeing anybody BUT criminals, invaders and terrorists die. American mercenaries deserve nothing less for their crimes against the people of Iraq. If I was living under a brutal foreign occupation I would fight tooth and nail against it, I'd imagine you would do the same.

>That's highly debatable since even the Sadrists and the Shi'a clericial heirarchy, where power really resides, are the ones who installed Maliki and crew.<

No, the Americans installed him, fought the Mahdi army to bloody stalemate until Sadr was offered a role in the Maliki government, thats when he piped down. If that were not the case, Malaiki's government would have collapsed when Sadr fled to Iran.

BushTerrorWarForMakeBenefitGloriousNationOfIsrael

Why are you here, posting what you do? You aren't a Muslim, that much is clear. What is your objective? You are obviously bright and well read, but I don't understand the ax you keep grinding. Perhaps if you just let us all know what it is you want us to believe, we can engage in a more direct discourse with you, without the concomitant name calling and such. Just a thought.

By the way, there is a blurb in the WSJ that former Baathists are being invited to become involved in the Iraqi government. Too little too late?

I'm not Bosnian, but it was most certainly a case of "aggressive invasion". I suppose it just depends on your perspective...

>>I can't fault them for fighting dirty.

But God can, and probably will unless in his mercy, he forgives them. I believe Islam is true, and thus people who profess Islam have a *greater* responsibility to uphold the ideals of justice, integrity and having the innocent safe from thier hands. So, too do Americans have a greater responsibility to uphold law, liberalism and democracy since we profess it so deeply. It seems few people these days know how to act with gratitude for what they have or are able to live up to thier responsibilities.

So, then explain why in Iraq the insurgencies (Sunni, and heck include the Shia insurgency, too) have only killed 3,200+ Americans but 400,000 other Iraqis (according to the Lancet report)?! It seems to me that a better interpretation is that all these groups are grabbing for supreme power over the others and engage in very little combat against coalition forces. How, too would you explain insurgent attacks against Shia processions, mosques and shrines that kill dozens and even hundreds? What does that do for Iraq and its eventual recovery from our botched invasion? How does bombing the pipeline and refineries help Iraq or the average Iraqi? It doesn't. The insurgents are dumb brutes and more, far far more harm comes from them than from the West: Coalition Forces = 200,000 Iraqi casualties; Insurgents = 400,000 Iraqi casualties. Is it worth it??

>But God can, and probably will unless in his mercy, he forgives them.<

And what of the Americans? They have become so twisted by living a double standard and so believe the Prince of Peace will return to take these preachers of war and death to paradise that thinking they must sacrifice Muslim children to bring back the era of true peace.


>So, then explain why in Iraq the insurgencies (Sunni, and heck include the Shia insurgency, too) have only killed 3,200+ Americans but 400,000 other Iraqis (according to the Lancet report)?!<

More than 20,000 U.S. troops have now been wounded in Iraq, so they are out of the picture in addition to the 3200 dead. Its statistically impossible for the insurgents to have killed 400000, the numbers simply don't add up. Those kind of numbers are produced by massive bombardment ala "shock and awe." The UN estimated that 32000 Iraqis died last year due to sectarian violence(at the behest of US trained death squads thanks to John Negroponte experiments in Latin America), the highest in four years. Using that figure, the number of killed by the insurgents would be around 128000 to 144000. The majority were killed by the US. Lets not forget the million Iraqis, half under the age of five, that UNICEF estimates were killed by the US supported sanctions during the nineties (which one UN official, resigning in disgust, described as "a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide").
One can cite x and y surveys all day long, but the fact remains is that there were no insurgents, no death squads, no 1.6 million refugees, no 650000 dead and the like in Iraq before the US invasion. It was not a "botched" invasion but an illegal and criminal one based on lies. Its time Americans took responsibility for their war crimes and stopped trying to pass the buck onto the Iraqis who they've terrorized since 1991. If Milosovic can be charged for fomenting a civil war, then surely Blair and Bush can. Pleading ignorance of the effects of the invasion is no excuse.

>>no 650000 dead and the like in Iraq before the US invasion.

So, you accept the final number of the Lancet survey but reject its embedded claims as to which side was responsible for specific numbers of casualties?? My point is not to absolve the Bush Admin for its mistakes; my point is to show that as Muslims, we have much more to fear from fellow "Muslims" who would oppress us while hiding behind the name of God than we do from Western actors who act in unabashed self-interest (and sometimes hide behind high ideals of the Enlightenment). I am not affected by Bush, so I really don't cair about him.

I *AM* daily affected by uber-concervatives and Islamists who want to oppress my female relatives, cajole me towards thier materialist agenda by ausingthe Quran and forgetting spiritualism or hijack God for thier own benefit on Fridays (for example). Its sad, but its just how things work these days. I don't care whose fault it is; I care as to how and when we can fix ourselves to fulfill the mandate placed on beleivers who choose to accept what God has mandated: integrity, morals, manners, piety (taqwa, iman, ihsan, futuwwa, karamah, etc). Until we do that, all politics is futile and produces exactly what happens in these threads: discord, strife, arguments, negativity, but NO results or consensus for positive action.

Islam is not politics; Islam is not dirty; Islam is not just another liberation theology or revolutionary ideology or a legal system. It is first and foremost spirituality, knowing God and doing good to other people, animals and God's creation in general.

OmarG,

If you are more bothered by Islam, than you are by Bush, then leave Islam. If you don’t want to leave Islam, than have discussions about the interpretations of Quran and Hadeeth, under the appropriate article. But you don’t want to do that. Instead you join the discussions that are talking about politics and say that we should just discuss Islam and not politics. You not only do that here, but you did it at [url=http://www.muslimwakeup.com]http://www.muslimwakeup.com[/url]


In an earlier comment, you respond to my writing:

“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.’

by saying,

'FUNNY, I WAS THINKING THE SAME ABOUT YOU!'

I happen to be American. If you do not believe that, it is your problem not mines.

>>> as Muslims, we have much more to fear from fellow "Muslims" who would oppress us while hiding behind the name of God than we do from Western actors

Yes. There is a pride and arrogance that accompanies a self informed ignorance. COntributing to murder and chaos is alright if you can level the blame on others. Despite all the ethical constraints placed on muslims in Islam with regards to war, so called MUJAHIDEEN don't really accomodate that in their action. They are never guilty of their own actions. Ironically BTWFGMGI has made enough disparaging comments about their view of Islam to have had his head lobbed off a long time ago.. (including something about Islam being incomplete)

>>> How do you know its propaganda?

I don't know. Maybe because its an unreported rumour that happened to not have been reported by the over 20million Iraqis? When it is the UN that deploys humanitarian efforts and not the American military.

>> the numbers simply don't add up.

Only if you're counting with your emotions and not the actual bodybags and dimwitted self justifying arguments.

>> No, the Americans installed him, fought the Mahdi army to bloody stalemate until Sadr was offered a role in the Maliki government, thats when he piped down. If that were not the case, Malaiki's government would have collapsed when Sadr fled to Iran.

The Americans did everything lol .. The Americans didn't only install him and fight him .. they delivered and assemble him too. Hell .. they gave interest free terms and customer service lol. The situation is ripe because the mentality is ripe too.

>> that is your expansionist military policy and quest for global domination of energy resources

Typical ignorant comment. If the American economy didn't need resources .. most of the developed world would not exist. Hell. You take away the American economy and millions of people would start dying within weeks. You think the middle east would have any semblance of an economy if America didn't have such a high demand for oil? Sure Americans would have nothing to fight for. But at the same time, alot of the middle east wouldn't be around because of cholera. Trade, international relations, international law .. these must function on something .. a global mutualism (insurgents happen to not be interested in that) .. the end of the west doesn't make these things work. So you like others criticise the west for values you don't particularly care about.

Ghulam wrote to BushTerrorWarForMakeBenefitGloriousNationOfIsrael :

”COntributing to murder and chaos is alright if you can level the blame on others. Despite all the ethical constraints placed on muslims in Islam with regards to war, so called MUJAHIDEEN don't really accomodate that in their action. They are never guilty of their own actions. Ironically BTWFGMGI has made enough disparaging comments about their view of Islam to have had his head lobbed off a long time ago.. (including something about Islam being incomplete)”


Did it bother you when the MUJAHIDEEN fought the United States’ proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan? This helped to bring about the Soviet Union’s collapse, making the United States the number one super power.


Ghulam wrote to BushTerrorWarForMakeBenefitGloriousNationOfIsrael:

Typical ignorant comment. If the American economy didn't need resources .. most of the developed world would not exist. Hell. You take away the American economy and millions of people would start dying within weeks. You think the middle east would have any semblance of an economy if America didn't have such a high demand for oil?


You are the ignorant one. The United States doesn’t even get most of its oil from the Middle East. Its interest in the Middle East is in controlling the flow of oil and the wealth from it. Saudi Arabia invests more money in the United States than it does in any poor Middle Eastern country.

The fact that the United States consumes a disproportionate amount of the world’s natural resources is nothing to be proud about.

Randall,

>>Instead you join the discussions that are talking about politics and say that we should just discuss Islam and not politics.

I have to! Because the opinion that you champion, which is that Muslims must a) be political and b) obsessively oppose Bush has a loud voice among the left and Islamists. The silent majority don't care and just leave the political types unopposed and un-critiqued. Therefore, they have ceded Islam to the political islamists which is leading us all, whether we are silent or loud, like it or not, into conflicts none of us signed up for when we said, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His messenger."

I said that I was thinking the same thing about you because you were reflecting your own sanctimonious conduct against another poster, which I found ironicly ammusing.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you merely see us Muslims as pawns in your grudge fest against Bush. Why do I have to be pigeonholed like that just because of my religion?! Its called "Essentialism", which is also the same psychological mechanism from which stereotypes and racism and chauvenism arise.

>>Muslimwakeup.com

Yup, you really helped to ruin the atmosphere on the forums. Thanks so much.

Good points and counter arguments to ghulam, Randall.
Preposterous statements like "You take away the American economy and millions of people would start dying within weeks." place him on the same planet as Bigmo. Its funny how ghulam is sure I would lose my head to the insurgents but considers threats, intimidation and other discrepancies in Iraq's elections(under occupation) "rumors" despite being reported by major US newspapers.
Thanks for your input, Omar, but we are all affected by Bush and his policies. He is international terrorist number one responsible for far, far, more deaths then the monolithic and convenient "islamist" scapegoat all pro-US posters keep pulling out to justify and gloss over US extremism and terrorism. The word "islamist" is a Western invention, no Muslim calls themselves an "islamist" or "muhammedan", these are insults, just how "haji" is someone who makes the pilgrimage to mecca, yet it's also a racial slur when used insultingly.

>> Did it bother you when the MUJAHIDEEN fought the United States’ proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan? This helped to bring about the Soviet Union’s collapse, making the United States the number one super power.

You can't even vaguely compare the two .. because it was a proxy war. Jihadists versus both Iraqis (shia or sunni or kurd or anything that looks like it will drink a frappacino). These guys undermine every single social system that will not make them directly oppossed to the west or the US. Every single one. Whether its a functioning civil society, watching soccer, UN humanitarian efforts. All are subject to them and they are euphemistically subject only to Allah ..a thin veil meant to say they are subject to noone!

>> You are the ignorant one. The United States doesn’t even get most of its oil from the Middle East.

http://www.lookoutmtn.com/Documents/Sources_of_United_States_Oil_Supply.pdf

Not only is the oil the main reason bombs and aid flow to the region so steadily .. but I can still agree with you on the desire to control the resource. But the effect of a failed American economy on the worlds poor is disastrous!! No doubt in my mind. Like Saddams stand against sanctions .. he and his party sympathisers are equally responsible for all those children dying. This is pride and nothing else. Development and consumption go hand in hand. There is nothing wrong in admitting this.

>> The silent majority don't care and just leave the political types unopposed and un-critiqued. Therefore, they have ceded Islam to the political islamists which is leading us all, whether we are silent or loud, like it or not, into conflicts none of us signed up for when we said

How true. In dismissing a political system, people will become its victims. And what happened to the Islamic option of avoiding violence .. the option that most people are actually resorting to? Muslims are so obviously caught between two rigidly agendized forces. Teenagers who sign up with the Iraqi police aren't necessarily American traitors!! A muslim would restrain his hand. The fact is that Jihadis don't! I can't hate an American soldier for behaving unIslamically?!?! Then tacitly approve of some crazy plot to bring the world under submission of a Caliphate because muslims are involved. Thats ironic, paradoxical and hypocritical.

a lot of the foreign oil comes from Venezula (ironically). Perhaps the US is not as much as dependant on actual SUPPLY of oil coming from the arabian/persian gulf than on the POWER OF AFFECTING GLOBAL OIL PRICES that they supply generates (the top oil producer with strong US ties in the region-Saudi Arabia--is a member of OPEC).When the oil prices spiked, Saudi officially announced that it would ICREASE petroexport SPECIFICALLY to decrease global prices.That's one major reason why there still US bases throughout ME (the US base that was in Saudi moved to Qatar which isnt far away). There are multiple sides to tragedy that is becoming Iraq.Yes the US created apower vacuum through invasion,made tremendous mistakes in post-war period,spent more attention on security for oil pipelines/refinery and securing a monpoly on reconstruction contracts than say preventing looting (eg Halliburton),committed grave human rights abuses and war crimes (eg Abu Ghraib), harassed Iraqi civilians by barging into their homes,commited indescriminate warfare (eg Fallujah),caused starving and deaths of
100s of 1000s of Iraqi children and Iraqi suffering through previous sanctions, much deaths & destructions during the war partly thru "shock & awe" and so on.But these actions still don't exonerate Muslims--both Iraqis & foreigners--who exploited fallout from the power vacuum for sectarian or other personal interests,nor exonerate those Iraqi politicians/parliamentarians who also appear to play the sectarian card..Nor exonerates the Sunni and Shiite militias who attacked each others villages.Nor the insurgents or terrorists, like "Al Qaeda in Iraq" or "Islamic Army," when they target markets filled with people.Nor those who attacked the holy mosques & sanctuaries (eg the Gold Dome), nor those who attacked Shite pilgrims.Nor the terrorists or insurgents who kidnapped
international aid workers or those who kidnapped journalists.You get my point. At some point, despite the prominent contributions of US foreign policies, Muslims also have to begin taking responsibility for their actions and environment.

on islamists and others, i guess it depends on who is being specifically talked about, and how one views Islamists, Secularists, unaffiliated, conservatives, liberals, separately or vis-a-vis one another etc.i wouldnt want to rule out possibility of finding a spectrum of "Islamists"-from "moderate" to "extremist"--rather than to cast all "Islamists" or (even the "left") [whomever individuals these both groups might be] into one basket. Studies are revealing that there r more to "Islamists" or "religious Muslims" and others (or whomever! :) ) than just the typical, reductionist, stereotypical portrayals. I think that part of the task in finding and engaging "Muslim moderates" is to seek out "moderates" in all the various spectrums and groups mentioned above. Otherwise, I fear risking exclusion
of a group or individual interested in engaging in dialogue & cooperation.

Actually the line between between Iraqi security forces and death squads is very blurry. They are part of the police force," US Maj Gen Joseph Peterson of the occupation has admitted.

>The fact is that Jihadis don't! I can't hate an American soldier for behaving unIslamically?!?!<

Who invaded whom again? American soldiers aren't being picked of because of "unislamic" behavior but because of war crimes and terrorism like locking Iraqis up at random in a notorious prison of the previous 'dictator' and subjecting them to death by sexual humiliation and torture? Oh, and god help you if you're a 14 year old girl in the wrong place. You'd HAVE to be a "jihadi" to take offense to that!

>Then tacitly approve of some crazy plot to bring the world under submission of a Caliphate <

What a fantasist you are.

>> What a fantasist you are.
>> Oh, and god help you if you're a 14 year old girl in the wrong place.

You can't rewrite the actual state of the Ummah and the very real theological bent. Its as evident as the invasion if you are Muslim. It is the unspoken responsibility of some that good muslims will bring the world under muslim rule. Look up jihadist sites for yourself. It is as clear as day. Listen to the undertones of the Friday lectures in different mosques. Its not our responsibility to reclaim western civilisations motives.

Are you not upset that Islam is being hijacked for overtly selfish political agendas and national pride? Doesn't it bother you that when it comes to issues of higher integrity, that Muslims are proving inept because we're blinded by anti-western sentiments? That a few people have stolen the fikr and ehsaan of the middle nation that is supposed to be the Ummah? Islam is our responsibility first and last.

A muslim girl is attacked by an American soldier. Response "Bloody Americans". A muslim girl is killed by a car bomb while walking to school. Response "Bloody Americans". So we'll always just be driving car bombs in a market place and undermine all system of law that don't suit a selfish, Utopian idea of government? I can understand there's confusion and craziness in times like these. It is a CIVIL war (and the most uncivilised of civil wars). But the defacto and only solution, as preached by some as the Islamic paradigm (through Quraan and Sunnah), is the use of violence first, last and in between. Dealing with it requires the opposite. As Motazz pointed out, Americans are largely responsible for the situation. But what about what we're responsible for. How do WE as muslims fair at the testing situation placed before us? How have we undermined ignorance in our approach to the problem? It is not cowardice to value a life first. To use discretion and pick the nature and type of our confrontations.

What I'm trying to say is that as Muslims, we must own our situation and not be sidelined by American intentions. By the choices that we've made in resistance and approach, we are in fact making choices that suit the western programme. We say Bismillah and then resort to anger, violence and self pity. And we can, because we are muslim, because we are the best of nations.

I understand and appreciate the points you are trying to make Ghulam, but I have addressed them already in other posts in this thread. The Americans and Israelis pose the greatest threat to world peace, not these "jihadi" straw men everyone lionizes.
The Civil War is a US run operation designed to break Iraq into balkanized sectors. The Koran I believe makes it clear that fighting an aggressor is an obligation. In fact there is no difference between this and any other human beings common sense in defending his home and family.
the US's motives(not necessarily western civilization's) are pretty clear and they is a deadly and destructive. They invaded Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and tortured many more, trained death squads to kill support for the resistance, and are now trying to start a war with Iran(just violated Iran's airspace today). Like it or not, thats not going to fly(pun intended).

OmarG,

The Islamists are just the opposite. They aren’t involved in mainstream politics and they isolate themselves from those who don’t follow their harsh form of lifestyle. The silent majority is the reason why Hitler got away with what he did..

You say I ruined the atmosphere at [url=http://www.muslimwakwup.com]http://www.muslimwakwup.com[/url] ? Who stopped you from posting your own topics? Several people asked you that, but you just chose to go after me. It doesn’t seem to be you are interested in improving things for Muslims. It seems that you want to divert any discussion that involves Americans acknowledging responsibility for their government’s harmful actions.