As the world witnesses Muslims frequently embracing “Islamic” political parties in the Middle East, many ominously foresee this trend as an inevitable threat to “the West.”

This contentious issue anchored last week’s prestigious Doha Debates moderated by veteran BBC journalist Tim Sebastian in Qatar, which hosts controversial topics in front of a diverse, engaged audience of 350 people. The motion “This House Believes that Political Islam is a Threat to the West” was defeated by 51% to 49% following a vote from the passionate audience, which included several members from the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow conference who were invited to observe and participate.

In support of the motion, Maajid Nawaz, a former leader of the radical Hizb ut-Tahir who has since totally renounced his affiliations, stressed that Muslims and Islam are not inherently undemocratic or extremist, but rather the modern politicisation of Islam creates a dehumanising ideology soaked in separatism and violence. As he told me after the debate, “Political Islam is an ideology. They believe in exporting this divisive ideology to Muslims in the West… terrorists emerge from these parties. They don’t believe in our same democratic values.”

However, Shadi Hamid, a research fellow at Stanford University debating against the motion, disagreed: “With the exception of Hamas or Hizballah, every single mainstream Islamic party has renounced violence.”

Hamid’s debating partner, Sarah Joseph, Editor of the Muslim lifestyle magazine Emel, won over the audience by vocalizing her frustration at the nebulous and generalized definitions of "the West” and “political Islam.”

Meanwhile, Yahya Pallavicini, an Italian Imam and government adviser, argued for the motion lamenting the misuse of religion by Islamist political parties who selfishly hijack theology to “legitimise violence” and demonise women.

The debate highlighted a glaring problem when discussing this powder-keg issue. Namely, these conversations routinely obfuscate the highly complex and diverse citizenry of the world by carelessly lumping them into simplistic categories, such as “the West” and “Political Islamists,” purely for the sake of rhetorical convenience and ideological propagation.

Following the debate, I asked Maajid Nawaz to clearly define “the West.” He replied: “By ‘the West’ I mean America and Europe.”

It must be comforting for some to know that the late Samuel Huntington’s antiquated model parcelling the world into fictitious, neatly carved regions is still the hallmark for enlightened debates on global relations.

To be fair, the side arguing against the motion did not articulate the complex variety of “political Islam” either. Instead, they spent an inordinate amount of time on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as a model of non-violent Islamism.

Without nuance, one can never understand the difference in the mindset between mainstream, practicing Muslims engaging the political arena, such as Muslim Americans for Obama, as opposed to certain “political Islamists, ” such as Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood. After the debate, Hamid offered clarification: “For the latter, Islam is the primary motivator for their politics. They want to see Islam and Islamic law play a larger role in public policy.” They are unlike the former who merely vote like other Americans citizens based on their candidates’ respective platforms, instead of a passionate desire to implement Sharia.

Sadly, many incorrectly equate the vastly different intentions of both groups merely due to their tangential nexus of being identified as “Muslim.”

Moreover, right wing, xenophobic political ideologues, especially in the United States and Europe, recklessly connect all versions of political Islam with Al Qaeda as a dire warning to those who dare let such political parties gain influence and popularity. Haroon Moghal, Director of Public Relations at The Islamic Center at New York University, underscores the key differences: “Al Qaeda has no real political goals. Its main interest seems to be in killing lots of people… men, women, children, Muslim or not.” Mona Al-Oraibi, a British-Iraqi Muslim journalist, concurred and like many in the audience, both Muslim and Non-Muslim, lamented over the fact that “all Islamic political expression is lumped into 'terrorism' and 'extremism.”

Also, if all "political Islam" is defined as those who use the democratic system to exalt a polarizing and violent version of Islam inspired by Sharia, then how do we explain Turkey’s successful AKB party: a pro-Western, democratic party that won the popular vote due to its adherence to conservative, Islamic values.

Although Islamist extremists used terrorism in Bali [2002 Hard Rock Café Bombings] and home-grown British citizens committed the atrocious 7/7 bombings in London, those acts should not be wholly imputed to the vast majority of diverse Muslim citizens worldwide committed to peacefully promoting their religious values by proactively engaging the democratic system.

Indeed, if the United States and UK truly embrace the democratic ideals they preach, they must eventually respect the wishes of a voting Muslim population, even one that freely elects hard-line Islamist parties, such as Hamas. The U.S. must engage them – at least diplomatically– as to not commit an affront towards the fundamental principles of free democratic elections or to the Muslim citizens that participate in them.

Furthermore, by supporting repressive regimes such as Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s royal family - instead of democratically elected Islamist leaders - the U.S. reveals its glaring hypocrisy and double standards in dealing with the Middle East. This shameful Machiavellian foreign policy follows a disturbing legacy in which U.S. has deliberately circumvented Middle Eastern democracy for its owns selfish initiatives; most notably in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq in favor of the brutal tyrant, Muhammad Shah Pahlavi, in 1953. Mosaddeq’s crime? His desire to nationalize his country’s most important resource, oil, and wrest it from U.S. and European control and exploitation.

However, observing the debate with the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow and hearing their diverse range of opinions, one should emerge hopeful that the bulwark of reactionary, monolithic thought [whether it be “Islamic” or “Western” – whatever you wish those terms to mean] will be stifled by this emerging generation. As Hussein Rashid, a PhD candidate in Harvard University's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, remarked, “One thing to keep in mind is that ‘Islam doesn't speak, Muslims do.’ It is Muslims who define what Islam says and does, within broad parameters. The new generation is engaged, informed, and articulate. It scares the Islamists, because [the new generation] won't fall for the ideologues.”

Ultimately, the debates highlights the utter complexity and inter-connectedness of the modern, globalized terrain; one where simplistic talking points no longer suffice to have meaningful discussions about political Islam’s relationship with itself and the world. As with any political ideology and process, the threat or benefit is ultimately derived from its adherents who must wield the power to use it proactively as a moderate, enlightened shield of self-determination rather than a poisonous, lacerating sword of intolerance and separatism.

(This article was previously published in shorter form in The Guardian, Comment is Free)

"The west" even defined as the US and europe is still far too nebulous and vague. Is so-called "political Islam" a threat to the geographic safety and wellbeing of average American citizens? Or is it a threat to the global aspirations of colonializing corporate entities that seek to forecibly expand markets for their products and services? No one seems interested in making this distinction,a nd it is the central crux of the matter. Americans need to wake up and realize that they are suffering by this continuing global colinization as their jobs as disappearing and being fubbelled elsewhere. Unless the US plans strategically to completely dismantle it's own middle class workforce, as far as possible, and transform it into a military workforce.

Doha Debate is as much a western anti-Islam propaganda forum as MEMRI. It's main object is project the western puppet regimes in the Middle East as the so-called "moderate and progressive", while any Muslim group which resists western domination is termed as "extremist" or "Fundamentalist".

If someone study the world history not written by Jewish Orientalists like Daniel Pipes or Bernard Lewis - one will find that it's the West which has posed threat to the Muslim world and not the other way around. Muslims never colonized any European country or brought White slaves in tens of millions to be treated like animal as the western did to Africans.

To sum it up - the western philosophy in large is "Thou shalt not say the truth"

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/thou-shalt-not-say-the-truth/

With the increased 'mongrelization' of culture and racial identity, 'The West' could ultimately end up morphing from a White-Christian set of nations into a club of nation-states that believe in certain core principles that may or may not include:

- 'rule of law' for all citizens within their own borders
- exploitation of a 'third world' by tried and true 20th century means
- 'freedom of speech' or some form of media commercialization.
- corporatism or capitalism or whatever you want to call it being at the heart of it all.

This is likely to leave vast chunks of humanity perpetually in poverty in a 'third world' with a few nation-states over time managing to develop enough from the 'third world' into the West and some Western states falling into the 'third world' out of mismanagement.

Given this reality, ideologies are going to arise that try to unify large chunks of the third world into a 'cohesive club of its own' whereby everybody is collectively better off by being freed of slavery to the West and by working for each other instead.

Infact, some may argue that this has already happened in the form of Communism in the 20th century. And perhaps tts collapse may have been a result of its inherent faulty mechanisms or maybe instead its overarching ambition. In this resulting vaccum, its not surprising that some Muslims are advancing the idea of a Political Islam, or Pan-Islamism, or even some form of a Caliphate. An ideology that could provide an alternative to 'the West'. A model that incorporates personal spirituality into public life and various other sundry mechanisms that come with it.

Some Muslims, like the Hizbees, claim that this is part of the Islamic religion itself and a duty for Muslims to implement. Others acknowledge that Political Islam is entirely a man-made system, based on Islamic ideals, but necessary as an alternative to the vagrancies of 'the West'.

Certainly with the expiation of the oil economy 40-50 years down the line, when the entire Muslim World will end up as a large economic ghetto, the case for a Caliphate will certainly become more credible. But with Gulf oil financing the current middle class across the Muslim World, there is little incentive for Political Islam. Most of what is there at the moment being rage against Kashmir, Paestine, Bosnia and similar tragedies.

Western Reaction to Political Islam has been cold to say the least. Is it a threat? What a dumb question for God's Sake. Of course it is a threat, Political Islam operates in the third world and threatens the hemogeny of Western powers over that region. Its akin to someone trying to unionize the slaves in your plantation. Are you threatened? Duh! Nah. Really.

Now the wormy, wimpy, softy, mongrelized "Muslims in the West" are naturally also threatened by this "Political Islam". Their lifestyle and "Heaven on Earth" is ruined by "backward brethren" experimenting with this pointless exercise in statescraft, that only makes them look bad 'at home'. "And whats the point anyway? When we have 'Democracy' and 'Capitalism', things that work just fine, why drag the pure and pristine Deen down into the mud of politics. Allah has given us "the Deen", so pure and holy it looks beautiful sitting on the mantle atop the fireplace in our suburban castles, or in the air-conditioned palaces we call "Islamic Centers" or at worse on our heads and on our chins. What, what is the need to drag it into the filth of third world politics???" the average Muslim in the West asks with complete bewilderment. "If they don't have food or water, why don't these people in Palestine and Egypt and Afghanistan just eat Oreos and drink Pepsi instead??"

This article highlights an important point, namely, that political Islam is never clearly defined, which makes a lot of these debates rather pointless.

Sure, someone mentioned implementation of shari'a as a distinctive marker that would divide political islam from non-political islam, but there are two problems with this.

1) the shari'a is essential to Islam, and therefore must be implemented in the observant Muslim's life in some capacity; this is likely to be reflected in the law governing Muslim countries to some extent

2)implementation of the shari'a can be wildly different. I mean just compare the Taliban to present day Iran, both of whom claim or claimed to implement Shari'a. In one country universities are more than 60% women, in another women were often forbidden from education. Despite some restrictions on speech in Iran, it still manages to have a much larger intellectual output than most other countries in the Muslim world. Elections occur regularly with a high popular participation and a smooth transfer of power.

So the point is, simplistically saying democracy is good, political islam is bad is silly. First off, democracy and political islam aren't mutually exclusive. If we again take the case of Iran, we have a blending of "political islam," if you will, with democracy, and though it has it's share of failings, it's done better than many cases of secular democracy in the Muslim world.

One must ask this question when discussing democracy. If in the best representation of liberty and democracy (let us say its America, for arguments sake), gross militarism cannot be restrained, why should it be the bar to which we constantly measure ourselves?

So the point is, simplistically saying democracy is good, political islam is bad is silly>>>

Good point. However we have to be fully aware of the knee-jerk emotional power that such branded jingos effect on people and the intent to condition unthinking response when they are used, particularly in the media, to effect behavior and acceptance of policies. Increasingly in the US, the vast portion of the populace is being conditioned only to respond to such jingos with prepared and acepted reactions and behaviors. What has been called the "dumbing down" (another jingo) of the American intellect is a reality as people increasingly take their history, education, and news of current events from headlines on blogs and other prepared soundbytes that stimulate these conditioned nerves. "Political Islam" us used int he US to provoke a near hysterical Chicken Little's sky is falling reaction when Politicized Islam has been around and growing for over a century and has many different goals and agendas depending on the school of thought and ideologues the individual parties follow. Doesn't matter. "Political Islam" has become, for people in the US, the equivalent of an evil Disnelyand ride or the dark spectre of Darth Veder. We hear and we obey those who invoke the dreaded names of fear.

This is not the first time the "Doha debates" consisted of such Orwellian nonsense. Majid Nawas of the neo-Orientalist "Quilliam Foundation"? Are you kidding me?

http://www.quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/

Politics has always been a part of Islam. The “West” is not a geographical construct but a religious and racial one. Afterall, Tunis is further “west” than Rome and Timbuktu is further “west” than Paris; yet, Tunis and Timbuktu are never called “Western” countries.
Recently, I saw a program on Muslim Spain, and the narrator said something to the effect: “Muslim Spain was far more advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages.” Well, you can’t get much further “west” in Europe than Spain, but yet, Spain was not considered part of Europe at the time. The only reason was because it was governed by Muslims.
The better and more realistic question is : Is Zionism and its western enablers with its ravenous appetite a threat to the rest of the world. Hell yes.

mohammed husain >>> So the point is, simplistically saying democracy is good, political islam is bad is silly

Well you find many Muslims making the reverse assertion too which is equally stupid.

But fundamentally what is missing on both sides of the "you bad me good" dialogue, is that respect for indviduals choices that do not undermine any other individuals human rights and dignity, are a pre-requisite requirement for just governance. You cannot govern or ban peoples private pursuits. And whether you love or hate the Salafi/Zionist brothers ideas, they are as much his right to have as are yours.

DrM >>> Is Zionism and its western enablers with its ravenous appetite a threat to the rest of the world. Hell yes.

This is reinventing the jewish conspiracy as the basis of world politics. Its just ethically wrong and factually incorrect too. But you did refer to what the world recognises as the political west.

mohammed husain
"I mean just compare the Taliban to present day Iran, both of whom claim or claimed to implement Shari'a."

Xxx The two examples of countries that have implemented Sharia, in whatever form, are, as you said, noticeably different.

However, even though they present different views of the same ideal, is either one a political system that anyone would want to introduce where they live.

The Taliban, really, enough said. If there are any defenders of that brand of Shari'a, let them speak up (and then go there to live. That should change anyone’s mind).

Iran is held up as the other example but who really wants a theocracy where an unelected head decides who can appear on the ballot?

In addition, the rule of law seems somewhat less than perfect, with a vast number of hidden executions taking place.

Regardless of the Qur’an saying that Shari'a is a necessity for Islams, based on how its being applied, and is likely to be applied in any state, does anyone really want that after taking a closer look at how it works?

The “West” is not a geographical construct but a religious and racial one.

Xxx Actually its much more than that and bears little relationship to race, other than that the majority of nations adhering to “Western Culture” are European based.. The “West” refers to the Western cultural tradition of secular government, primacy of the individual, personal rights, rule of law that improves with the times to promote fairness,

Core ideals and values, include individualism, rights, capitalism, science and technology, humanity-glorifying visual art and literature, and music of harmony and melody.

Australia and New Zealand can hardly be described as “west” but most certainly are “Western”.

Here is a posting from a truly moderate Moslem. This is perhaps the best piece that Dr. Jasser has ever written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following commentary by AIFD President, M. Zuhdi Jasser, appeared online yesterday for IPT News and is included below. It can be found at this link. In this comnmentary, Dr. Jasser provides a draft of a speech President Obama should deliver to the Muslim world during his announced intended visit to a Muslim capital during his administration's first 100 days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama's Message to the Muslim World: Walk the walk and then we'll talk the talk
by M. Zuhdi Jasser
For IPT News
January 23, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/982



Recently, President Obama's transition staff announced that he would like to deliver a speech in the first 100 days of his administration in an Islamic capital to improve America's image in the Muslim world. The best venue for this speech is certainly Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The following is the speech President Obama will never give to the Muslim world. But it never hurts to dream…

President Obama:

Thank you. As we begin to lay the groundwork of my administration, I have been looking forward to this, my maiden voyage as President of the United States into the Muslim world. As the son of a Kenyan immigrant to the United States, I cannot help but understand the plight of minorities in the Muslim world and the desire of so many who live in Muslim majority nations to flee to the United States in order to live in freedom. I have fond memories of my childhood years in Indonesia but still thank God every day for my family's desire to live in the land of freedom in the United States.

But I know we can see a day when Muslim-majority nations can be lands of freedom. Yes we can. But first we must usher in change. Change from the despotism and militant Islamism which has ravaged the human rights of those living in Muslim nations. But the first step is doing away with denial. On my inaugural I said, ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." I am here to extend a hand to all of your citizens and especially those who believe in freedom.

The Saudi royal family has certainly been generous to our universities and Presidential libraries. But it is not a surprise how little criticism of Wahhabism or political Islam comes out of those universities. How can we be a beacon of freedom for your people, for the world, when our human rights standards vary with the highest bidder? The opportunity I have had in America to become President is the sign of a nation which honors the rights of every citizen equally before the law.

Yes, you can see a day where every Saudi, every Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, and Pakistani has the same opportunity. But that needs real change, real education, real human rights. It is time for the Muslim world and its nations to honor the rights and opportunities of every one of its citizens who happen to come from outside the tribes in control.

Every human being living in Saudi Arabia should have the right to build a house of worship, not only Muslims. Theocrats have enabled a shar'ia based legal system which is an anathema to liberty and basic human rights –all in the name of the religion of Islam. Your Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has tried to make any discussion in the United Nations on this subject illegal by pretending to just want to protect the name of Islam through what are clearly blasphemy laws. I will not stand idly by as the OIC turns the UN into an Inquisition. I am here to tell you that I will do what I can to stop U.S. funding of the U.N., which dishonors its charter and what Eleanor Roosevelt and her colleagues in 1948 described as "the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all people."

Dr. Jasser's letter Part 2
----------------

I will also remind you of another warning uttered by Eleanor Roosevelt, "we must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle."

Many of you have lost faith in the United States because we have in fact been hypocritical to our ideals of freedom by catering to the oppressors of so many Muslim-majority nations. We will no longer abandon dissidents in nations of the OIC because of fear of diplomatic or economic repercussions. Abraham Lincoln described the United States as the "last best hope on earth" because so many had fought valiantly for the ideals of freedom which founded our nation. From the victims of the genocide in Sudan to the female victims in Saudi Arabia, to all those victims of oppression in the liberty-deprived nations of the OIC, I will dedicate my foreign policy strategy to letting the world hear your voices, while we no longer cater to the voices of your oppressors. I am putting them on notice that until they walk the walk of freedom, we will listen first to the talk of those who want freedom from them.

My administration will hold every nation in the Muslim world accountable globally for the human rights in their nations. It saddens me that, according to Islamic legal experts of fiqh, I should have been tried in an Islamic court for apostasy when I chose to be Christian early in my life rather than choosing the faith of my father--Islam. I will not countenance the barbarity of laws of apostasy by ignoring them. By ignoring them I am tacitly supporting them now from the bully pulpit of the U.S. Presidency.

After the Cold War ended in 1989 and we witnessed the fall of communism, it became obvious to many of us that we had to abandon our hypocritical support of Islamists. Our enemy's enemies will no longer be our friends unless they first share our ideas of liberty or can demonstrate a genuine desire to liberalize their society for all citizens. In a bipartisan American spirit, I recall the words of former President Reagan and envision liberation and "peace through strength."

We will no longer compartmentalize our interactions with Muslims and non-Muslims in the world, where we ask for vastly different standards of human rights depending upon the nation and our fear of oil prices or of Al Qaeda. From this time forward, faith is irrelevant. What matters to me as President of the United States is the human rights of every individual in your countries. Full diplomatic relations will be predicated upon a respect for your citizens' freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom from blasphemy laws, freedom of assembly, freedom from apostasy laws, and equality of the sexes.

I am told by my predecessors that my idealistic dream of freedom and liberty for the citizens of the Muslim world is laudable but simply impossible. I was told that your influence upon the cost of oil makes your apologetics for terrorism and the Wahhabi-Salafi inspiration of that terror immune from criticism. I cannot live with that hypocrisy, and neither should you.

King Abdullah's recent interfaith initiative in New York was good enough on the surface of American soil, but until the women of Saudi Arabia have equal rights on your soil the window dressing of interfaith work will mean nothing to us. Reform your laws, reform your treatment of minorities and then I'll begin to believe that there is some truth in the King's interfaith work.

Walk the walk and then we'll talk the talk.

I have spoken to many Muslims who dream of someday making their pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca in what is the most spiritual journey for a Muslim. But their bright spiritual dream is constantly overshadowed by the fact that their dream takes place in a nation in which not one of them would ever want to live or work. The abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia is so great it makes the most holy of sites for their faith an anathema to them. It is truly sad for any human being of faith to find that their most holy site to visit is not even close to being their most holy of places to live.

Dr. Jasser's Obama speech Part 3
--------------------------------
I hope I am not being too forward. But when I spoke of change - I meant real change and not a veneer. I am talking about the type of change in which the standards we set for our citizens inside the United States are the same we advocate for all human beings outside the United States. Our foreign policy for decades has been too much about short-term gains and not enough about the long term. I will not be another President in the long line of those who come to the Middle East and do photo opportunities with leaders, only to stay silent to the inhuman injustices perpetrated by your governments. Almost three generations have been lost since World War II. We need change before the fourth.

Terrorism is just a tactic. We are fighting an enemy who cannot be defeated on the battlefield alone, but must be combated with ideas. We must marginalize and defeat the ideas of political Islam which ultimately drive the dreams of militant Islamists. They seek a theocratic Islamist state. I truly believe that change will not come from democratic reforms alone which will only usher in a government of the majority- a ‘mobocracy.' But real change will come when, in addition to democracy, we see the ushering in of the ideas of minority rights and of equality of all before the law.

I believe there is an innate human preference of liberty over Islamism. Yes, you heard me correct—Islamism. I will be canceling the administrative policy which bizarrely prohibited the use of that term and other appropriate terms like jihadist or Salafist by our governmental personnel. We will never win a contest of ideas against an ideology we cannot name. If you disagree, begin the debate, but don't kill the debate. I truly believe that you will welcome this change since the majority of Muslims in your nations, if left to their own devices, would not want to live under political Islam. Most people want to live under governments based upon reason and the rule of law, rather than under theocracies based in oligarchy.

It is time for the United States through my leadership to usher in a new Marshall Plan for the Muslim world - ‘a Jefferson Project,' if you will. We will no longer sit idly by as the Muslim Brotherhood spreads the ideologies of political Islam across the Middle East and into the West with little to no competition - no counter-project. I hope the legacy of my administration will be a global movement to counter political Islam. I know this will gain bipartisan support in the United States since the vast majority of Americans can ultimately appreciate the dangers of shar'ia and its driving theocracy.

Just as you have pumped oil and Wahhabi literature into the West, we will begin an initiative to share equally with our Muslim global neighbors the ideas and scholars of liberty. Every diplomat will now begin handing out translated versions of classics books on liberty written by Bastiat, deTocqueville, Hayek, Rand, Jefferson, Madison, Freidman, or Adam Smith. We will translate book after book of ideas which carry the ideals of liberty, and reverse the project which the Brotherhood has tried to spread to the west. We will find your leading anti-Islamist and liberty-minded reformers and give them every opportunity to spread their ideas.

Dr. Jasser's Obama speech Part 4 of 4
----------------------
We will begin women's rights and equality programs in every nation and lift up those leaders as icons of your next generations. We will begin translating many western liberty minded websites and videos for distribution in the Muslim world. We will also begin to help all the political dissidents who are prisoners of conscience and not leave them to forgotten diplomacy.

Domestically, I am going to ask American Muslim organizations to make their thoughts clear on where they stand regarding the ideology of political Islam and its impact upon radicalization and its obvious conflict with secular liberal democracies. We will no longer cater to apologists unwilling to join us in this ideological debate on the side of liberty. I will ask them to unequivocally condemn the freedom deficits in their motherlands from Libya to Pakistan, while also calling out terror groups, networks and individuals by name.

Having listened to Reverend Jeremiah Wright for many years, I know too well the impact of a fiery minister who mixes religion and politics. I will call for all interfaith work to be predicated on our imams, rabbis, and priests coming together to call out hate, intolerance, Islamism, and violence in Muslim sermons around the world. I will call for Muslim leaders around the world to begin the painful process of creating a post-modern Islam not at odds with modernity.

The OIC has had an American Muslim representative for a little over a year now, and I am committed to making that position more meaningful and representative of real change. It will no longer just be a ‘listening' post. I call upon the OIC to repudiate laws which restrict freedom in the name of Islamic law--sharia. I call upon the OIC members to declare unequivocally that they reject the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and reaffirm their signatory status to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. The two are inherently incompatible.

The security of all free-minded nations and their citizens demands that our greatest minds and strongest personalities come together and counter the daily dose of despotism, monarchy, tribalism, corruption, conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism and political Islam which has become a staple for so much of the "Muslim" media. If I, as a minority in the United States who now stands before you as President of the United States, cannot advocate for real religious freedom and liberty for everyone who lives in your nations, then who can?

Yes, you can change. Yes, we can all change and defeat Islamism, the greatest threat of the 21st century, together.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a community activist, and a physician in private practice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mohammed Husain (see above) says: "First off, democracy and political islam aren't mutually exclusive."

Well, this all depends on the definition of both "democracy" and "political Islam". Defining "political Islam" is easy: it's the Islam based on the Sharia and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

If you mean by "democracy" only elections, then "political Islam" can tolerate that because, in "political Islam" the ONLY purpose of the elected legislators is to implement the Sharia, God's Holy Law. In "political Islam", only Allah has the authority to determine what is right and what is wrong. In the "western" concept of democracy, on the contrary, the elected representatives themselves are permitted to determine what is right and what is wrong. So, we see the purpose of elected legislators in political Islam is, indeed, incompatible with the purpose of legislators in a "western" democracy.

But there is another crucial element of incompatibility. The word "democracy" in the Western sense includes equality before the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, separation of religion from state affairs, and gender equality. All of these are prohibited by "political Islam" as defined by the Sharia which is based on the Koran and the Hadith.

Therefore, when we define our terms, instead of just using a word which is understood differently by different people, we see that "democracy" in the non-Islamic sense of the word is totally incompatible with "democracy" in the Islamic sense of the word.

>> Core ideals and values, include individualism, rights, capitalism, science and technology, humanity-glorifying visual art and literature, and music of harmony and melody. <<

Plus some other not so palatable ideals like: porn, gambling both lotto style and as an economic system, weapons of mass destruction and exporting off them to non-democratic regimes, and mega public debt, as in like, mega mega mega. And oh, speaking of glorification, adultery.

Montedoro,

Stop flooding the comment section with your non-sense. Your analysis is incredibly simplistic.

The shari'a is not a the equivalent of a civil code, that's all ready to go and simply requires implementation.

What is with this site, and the islamophobes it attracts?

I suppose that Mohammed Husain considers al-Banna, Qutb, Maududi and Qaradawi to be "Islamophobes". Surely he knows more about Islamic theology and law than they do. Or than all of the most respected Islamic religious authorities in all 57 Islamic countries, including the sheiks and professors at al Azhar University, that support the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. I guess they are all "Islamophobes", too!

It is so typical of folks like Mohammed Husain to indulge in intellectually dishonest name-calling ("Islamophobe"!!!) instead of dealing with facts and logic.

If any reader would like to learn what Mohammed Husain really believes, see his article here:
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2009/01/78639393-need-for-unifying-islamic.html
A non-Moslem who said what he says would be called an "Islamophobe"!

Wonderful commentary by Montedoro. Worthy of being read and re-read.

Comments for this article have been archived and no further comments are allowed.