http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../DN-mas_11edi.ART.State.Edition1.3d859b9.html Daveed Gartenstein-Ross: Extremists among us? Yes: Behind its moderate face, the Muslim American Society has deep ties to radical Islam 06:18 AM CST on Sunday, December 11, 2005 Each Islamic terror attack inevitably prompts calls for Muslim groups to speak out against the killers. And many do, to the relief of non-Muslims of good will eager to be reassured that mainstream Muslims reject violence in the name of their religion. However, a recent case shows that you can't always take the word of these organizations at face value. This past summer, the Muslim American Society (MAS) announced that, prompted by the second wave of bombings to rock London in two weeks, it would launch a campaign to combat terrorism. The group issued a news release explaining that it planned to build youth centers to keep young Muslims "away from the voices of extremism" and to work with imams and Islamic centers to promote a moderate interpretation of the faith. In October, MAS petitioned the Richardson City Council for a special permit to build one of these youth centers, which it likened to a YMCA, in an area zoned for industrial use. After the council said it would need to learn more about the organization first, MAS withdrew the petition. Islamic YMCAs to steer young Muslims away from extremism sound great, right? This past July, Mahdi Bray, the executive director of MAS' Freedom Foundation, appeared on Fox News and stated that MAS wanted to "inoculate our young people by making sure they're actively and constructively engaged in positive activities that reflect the main views of their faith tradition, as opposed to someone who would want to influence them into extremist points." Given the radical indoctrination that occurs even in the United States, this kind of work is necessary – and one would naturally like to believe that MAS can play a constructive role. Unfortunately, a look beneath MAS' current rhetoric into the organization's connections, teachings and prior public statements reveals that extremists founded MAS and that, despite efforts to clean up its public image, the core of its teachings remains unchanged. A 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation revealed that, after a contentious debate, U.S. leaders of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood decided in 1993 to begin calling themselves the Muslim American Society. The Muslim Brotherhood is an international Islamist group that largely operates underground. The Brotherhood's goal is to spread the rule of Islamic law throughout the world. Key Muslim Brotherhood ideologues, including founder Hassan al-Banna, have endorsed violence as a means of doing so. Today, MAS' leaders admit that the group was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, but claim that MAS has evolved since then. For example, former MAS Secretary General Shaker Elsayed told the Tribune, "Ikhwan [Brotherhood] members founded MAS, but MAS went way beyond that point of conception." If true, perhaps MAS could help counter extremism, despite its radical origins. However, the available evidence suggests that MAS has not moved away from the Brotherhood's extremist principles. MAS has an internal educational curriculum consisting of literature that Muslims must read in order to advance to a higher membership class – a syllabus that gives the group's game away. MAS' national Web site does not outline this curriculum, but it was posted on the Minnesota chapter's Web site until an article I wrote for the Weekly Standard exposed it. According to the Web site, goals for "active" members include "building the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in Message of the Teachings by Imam al-Banna." Message of the Teachings is a theological tome written by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. While MAS claims in its current anti-terror campaign to eschew "the dualistic concept of 'us' and 'them,' " this duality lies at the heart of the late Mr. al-Banna's teachings. Not only does he think that all governments must become Islamic, but he also implores his followers to "completely boycott non-Islamic courts and judicial systems" and to "dissociate yourself from organizations, newspapers, committees, schools and institutions which oppose your Islamic ideology." Message of the Teachings also endorses violence as a means of spreading Islamic rule. In the book, Mr. al-Banna encourages his readers to "always intend to go for jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can." In addition to Mr. al-Banna, all MAS members – even adjunct members, the lowest membership class – are required to read prominent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb's book Milestones. Mr. Qutb is discussed at length in the 9-11 Commission Report because he is one of Osama bin Laden's theological inspirations. Fully embracing the "us vs. them" duality, Mr. Qutb, who was hanged as a revolutionary by the Egyptian government in 1966, argued that Islam and disbelief were locked in a mortal struggle, that all people must choose between the two and that Muslims must take up arms to fight this battle. In Milestones, Mr. Qutb writes that jihad is not purely defensive, as some Muslim scholars have argued, but instead that a legitimate goal of the jihad is "to establish God's authority on earth" or to "arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God." In other words, violence is an acceptable means of spreading Islam. Mr. Qutb is also praised in MAS' magazine, The American Muslim, in which an article described him as a "martyr" and expressed its hope that he will "live in eternal happiness in the heaven he deserves." Indeed, The American Muslim provides a snapshot of where MAS really stands on terrorism. The March 2002 issue includes a fatwa endorsing suicide bombings against Israelis, which states that "martyr operations are not suicide and should not be deemed as unjustifiable means of endangering one's life." The fatwa goes on to say that in suicide bombings, "the Muslim sacrifices his own life for the sake of performing a religious duty, which is jihad against the enemy." MAS' founding, teachings and public statements about terrorism stand in marked contrast to its conciliatory statements about its new anti-terrorism mission. In the end, MAS is right that extremist ideology matters and that young Muslims should be shielded from radicals who wish to turn their faith into an instrument of hate. Unfortunately, MAS has a track record of trying to clean up its image without cleaning up its act – particularly when it believes that non-Muslims aren't looking. For years, groups like MAS have felt confident that the American public wouldn't look beyond their moderate face to see what they actually represent. MAS' anti-terrorism plan is to serve as the watchman of Islamic ideology. But MAS' own words and teachings show that this watchman must be watched. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a Washington, D.C., counterterrorism consultant and attorney. You may e-mail him at dgr.feedback@gmail.com. WHAT EXTREMISTS LIKE TO READ The April 2001 issue of The American Muslim, the Muslim American Society's magazine, provides a list of "essential books" that the organization believes all Muslims should have in their home libraries to "help in the understanding of Islam in a comprehensive way." These recommendations tell an interesting story. MAS recommends four books by Sayyid Qutb, a radical Muslim theoretician who is discussed at length in the 9-11 Commission Report. Among MAS' recommended books is Milestones, which violently rejects the notion of jihad as a "defensive war" and claims that it is the "duty of Islam" to "annihilate" alternative models of social organization. A number of books by leading Islamist A.A. Maududi are recommended. Mr. Maududi was a reactionary who argued for purging Islam of "foreign influences" in preparation for a jihad that would subject the world to a caliphate. By Mr. Maududi's own admission, this caliphate would "bear a kind of resemblance to the fascist and communist states." Several works by Hassan al-Banna grace MAS' list. Mr. al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, reduced Western civilization to "apostasy, lust, indulgence, unrestricted freedom, usury and greed," while imploring God to grant him and his followers "the death of martyrs and those who have striven in jihad." MAS recommends books by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who once said of the Jews that "there is no dialogue between us except by the sword and the rifle." Sheikh Qaradawi has called for the killing of homosexuals and those who convert from Islam to another religion, and he wrote in favor of wife-beating in a 1984 book. MAS recommends Shamim Siddiqui's Methodology of Da'wah , which argues for an Islamic takeover of America because Washington's "treacherous hands" allegedly intervene whenever Muslims are on the verge of establishing an Islamic state. Mr. Siddiqui states that society will polarize between Muslims and non-Muslims "in every walk of life" as Muslims gain power, but that if Muslims are careful, there will be a general "Rush-to-Islam" that can make the faith dominant in the U.S. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
The problem with this article is that it cites examples of many years past. None of the material presented is shown to be cited in 2005 or even 2004. Times have changed, and so have people, and so have religions.
Extremists among us? Absolutely! America is riddled with extremists (name a major ethnic/racial group and you can easily find a few extremists among them). Is the MAS a terrorist group? No, and no evidence is available to the contrary nor have they been tried/convicted with such a crime. Heck, we elected extremists to our government, we have 'ayatollahs' that issue public 'fatwas' for assassinations, and we have extremists in the business world who want to profit at all costs, even if it means war. It's really easy to find extremists anywhere you look.
I think extremists walk the corridors of power in the Republican Party. Those in power now bear no resemblance to the Republican Party of the past, not even to the Republican Party of the Reagan era. Republicans need to take back the soul of their party. Keep D&D Civil.
Liberal extremists = wackos Republican extremists = dangerous and rich "You're crazy! You're ****in' crazy! "NO! Poor people are crazy, Jack. I'm eccentric."
Comparing American leaders to terrorist leaders and religious fascist dictators is a strained analogy at best. Sure you can find similarities, just like you can compare Hitler to anyone you dislike. But it isn't very convincing. I agree there are extremists in the Republican party, but that kind of extremist is quite different than an Ayatollah.
of all the muslim groups in america, this guy goes after MAS. MAS does so many good events for the youth. If you wanted to know what MAS was about, you would have gone to the conference in HOUSTON, that took place during thanksgiving. but ofcourse some people just like to post every possible allegation thrown towards muslims.
No, terrorists are criminals, so a terrorist is not just someone who holds extremist views; an extremist can be peaceful and even passive, but a terrorist can't...so big difference. Fascists and Ayatollahs are extremists or not depending on your views, and they vary from one group/culture to another. Extremism, is also subjective, so what might seem extreme to me might not be so to you, etc.
Oh no! Extremists? Where? WHERE? Anyway - Christian fundamentalists in this country have believed for years that they have a covenant with God to rule the United States. They also want to install Christian documents in public courts (Ten Commandments) and want Christian creationism to be taught in public schools. I would be all in favor of them just boycotting it all instead. My point is not that Islam extremism is better than Christian fundamentalism, but that neither is good. If this (as quoted above) is extremism, then we've been living with extremism for a long time already. Why not just discourage all of it? I suppose the crux of this extremism is the call to violence. Sure, that's bad. But Christians are called upon to be charitable and forgiving, doesn't seem to influence the majority of them very much. All extremism is stupidity. The threat of violence is implicit in all extremism as well. Once you have a sufficient number of people behaving like sheep behind a mass ideology, it's to be expected that the so-called authorities of that ideology will try to utilize the brainwashed masses for their own power. Jerry Falwell has shown himself to be in favor of mass catastrophe because it's "God's Will" to punish the people of the United States for living in ways he doesn't agree with. You can say that Falwell doesn't represent the majority of Christians, and that may be true. But then I'll say that islamic extremists don't represent the majority of muslims. It may also be worthwhile to examine the credibility of the source of this particular paper. He's trumpeting his own accomplishments quite a bit.
I assumed the Ayatollah/fatwa comparison was to Pat Robertson, who publicly issued a call to assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. This is an apt comparison, IMO. And like it or not, Pat Robertson does qualify as a politcal figure, as his Christian Coalition has been and is a very powerful force in our American "secular" democracy.
What? No they don't? Install? How about keep them there. They were "installed years before anyone thought it un "P.C" - and in and of themselves are generally accepted as good guidelines to law, the world over. Creationism in school? Never heard that in school. Did you? It is different than "intelligent design" if that's what you were thinking about. And there are plenty non-Christians that have no problem with it, and even support the thought of expanding young people's education and offering up more food for thought. In order to understand evolution btw, it could actually help to have an alternate point of view taught. Afraid more kids might choose against evolution? I doubt it if it makes more sense to them. Don't assume you, or anyone else for that matter has the right to tell a kid what they can or cannot learn, or even desire to know. I bet you would. Down with expanding a world view! Down with more choices! Down with books... err, well you get what I'm saying. Ruling out one to lift the other is exactly what you're declaring the other is doing. It makes you the same. So, blowing up people for your cause while yelling "die infidels" is better than someone truly living in a non-violent (as in Dr. MLK, Jr. -as in Christ Himself, etc.) life that seeks to help the less fortunate? Strange. You do know what you're saying don't you? Extremism cannot be equivocated to fundamentalism. Extremism is the KKK. Fundamentalism is Billy Graham... HUGE, huge difference. Pushing someone off a horse to make the rope snap their neck is much worse than then preaching that people need to live right according the Bible... I think you miss the meaning of the terms. Sure extremists can come in all forms, but that level above "whacked out" is a fundamentalist. Which merely means that someone is sincerely living by a set of spelled out fundamentals. Not that they will bomb a clinic or blow up a subway. Now you're just showing your ignorance. Preachers in church do not stand behind pulpits and emplore people to kill others who do not believe as they do. The opposite cannot always be said about Islam. Notice I did not say 100% of imams or clerics instruct their listeners to violence, but Muhammed did... and Jesus NEVER did instruct it. I can fully agree with these well informed, well put thoughts. When has Falwell said, "Hey, I'm in favor of God using mass castastrophe."?? Expressing an opinion that he felt that God may have allowed something to be a wake up call is one thing. But never have I heard Falwell, or anyone for that matter relish in a tragedy. Scripture has several records of God allowing these things on His own chosen people... so making a comparison is what preachers do. It is a pattern in scripture, something in God's nature revealed time and again... a FUNDAMENTAL if you will. God may or may not have been judging the USA in part (is what I believe Falwell was meaning.. I believe he did say that he "believed" such). Fundi-preachers stir thought processes encouraging individual soul searching. If you're refering to comments after the 9/11 attacks (which I've obviously assumed, Thadeus), you've mistaken the context (whether you link to it or not, the reports are still twisting his words.. I know, I saw it live.) However, there is no mistaking the dancing in the streets we saw in the Arab world on that same day, spurred on no doubt by EXTREMISTS. Agreed... but that doesn't make him an extremist with the intent of causing more harm, or encouraging others to take similar action as the Islam extremists would. And btw, as a believer in Christ, there have been several things I've heard JF say that I wouldn't dare speak, and many times don't agree with - he's still not teaching kids at Liberty University to go kill those who disagree with the Bible. That would be extreme. You can say that, and it's fair. Just be advised that it is in their teaching as a whole, to destroy infidels. Something as a concept that is alien to Christianity. Christ teaches that vengeance is his, that the wrath of God will be handled by Himself... and not to fight the physical with physical. Couldn't agree more. And I'd also advise you to not lump fundamentalists into the category of extremists. ----- Fundamentalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Fundamentalist) Jump to: navigation, search In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions. In some ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship. Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable. vs. Extremism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Extremist) Jump to: navigation, search Extremism is a term used to describe either ideas or actions thought by critics to be hyperbolic and unwarranted. In terms of ideas, the term extremism is often used to label political ideology that is far outside the political center of a society. In terms of actions, the term extremism is often used to identify aggressive or violent methodologies used in an attempt to cause political or social change. Political radicals are sometimes called extremists, although the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a problem. "Radical" is a somewhat less negatively-connoted label sometimes used by people or groups to label themselves. In terms of the use of violence, the terms "extremist" or "radical" are generally used to label those who use violence against the will of the larger social body, rather than those who believe in violence to enforce the will of the social body. The terms "extremism" or "extremist" are almost always applied by others, rather than a group labeling itself such — the term connotes using illegitimate means such as subterfuge or violence to promote one's agenda. For example, there is no sect of Islam that calls itself "Islamic Extremism"; there is no political party that calls itself "Right Wing Extremist" or "Left Wing Extremist". The idea that there is a philosophy of extremism is thought by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several scholars who study (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term "extremist", which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as "extremist" is often a technique to further a political goal--especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. Rather than labeling themselves "extremist", those labeled such tend to see the need for extreme actions in a particular situation. John Fitzgerald Kennedy paraphrased Dante by saying "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" (from Dante, Inferno, The Divine Comedy). Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention. It is a common saying that "One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'." Extremism is perceived through the mainstream beliefs of the time. History and the mainstream beliefs of a later time may tell a different story. Ideologies that are classified as extremist by critics include: * Nazism * Fascism * Communism * Anarchism * Zionism * Islamism * White Supremacy ---- Please notice you will find "Christianity" nowhere in this list Thanks.
Please notice that these terms were made up by Westerners, so no surprise 'Christianity' isn't on the list. Just so you know, the term 'fundamentalism' was coined in the early 1900s to describe Christian ideology right here in America, and not Muslim fundamentalism.
i believe this dude writes for the frontpage mag etc. right wing nuts among us. firstly the muslim brotherhood operates underground because in egypt they are tortured banned and all that other good stuff. it would be nice for them explain the reasoning which causes the situation instead of making them mafia like. secondly whenever you throw groups underground obviously there will be radicals among them. just because 'key muslim brotherhood ideologues' said something doesn't mean the entire movement believes in it. this slandering of al banna is ridiculous. qutb perhaps i could understand. but hassan al banna just wasn't that bad. secondly the problem is both with MAS and with this article. firstly hassan al banna's teachings were for the early 20th century in egypt when it was basically controlled by the brits. boycotting non islamic courts etc was a way of fighting colonialism. it was simply nationalism that all colonies go thru. it doesn't apply to folks here. because muslims in america aren't being colonized. again. nationalist ferver. certainly could be falsely interpreted. but so could reading dante's inferno and seeing the prophet of islam in hell. so should we ban that from schools? firstly islam isn't the catholic church. scholars are allowed to have any opinion they want as long as they are legitimate scholars who followed legitimate juristic methodology at arriving at the said 'fatwa'. secondly fatwas aren't binding so no fatwa has to be followed (in sunni islam which all these folks prescribe to). thirdly believing that its allowed doesn't mean endorsement and fourthly the quotes never justify terrorism. they never said if its only allowed against military personnel or not. it never shows if its allowed against civilians. dont tell religions and religious organizations what to do unless they are explicitly endangering the lives of people.
