“The American Muslim” - taking names, making a list
Sheila MUSAJI, founding editor of The American Muslim becomes upset when anyone confronts her with factual claims that fundamentalist Islam waging war against the non-believers is not the hijacking of Islam, but propagated by the words of the Qur’an, the Hadith and even Muhammed himself.
She becomes upset when Islamic terrorists are called “Islamo Fascists,” a term that associates Islamic acts of terrorism and the agreement with such acts by Muslims as “needlessly” associating the religion of Islam with the homicidal acts of terrorism whenever the two are indeed connected.–Douglas J. Hagmann, founder & director, Northeast Intelligence Network
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
29 October 2007: Sheila MUSAJI, the founding editor of The American Muslim (TAM web site) is at it again.
As founding editor of The American Muslim publication and web site, she has been a longtime ally with some of the unindicted coconspirators named in the recent criminal trial against the Holy Land Foundation, including but not limited to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which she describes a the “premier Muslim umbrella organization in the U.S.,” an organization deserving “to be supported by the Muslim community.”
The ISNA has been a leading organization in the hard line Wahhabi lobby American division and has many documented ties to radical Islam.
Nonetheless, MUSAJI purportedly denounces terrorism of all kinds, especially those acts committed outside of her own Islamic ideology.
She suggests that Judeo-Christian terrorism is as much of a danger as Islamic terrorism, and that Muslims in general are victims of Islamophobia, a post-9/11 PC term that has been forcibly insinuated into our lexicon by those who fail to understand our enemy.
Her contention is that Islam is benign and tolerant, except for the slimmest minority that has taken her religion hostage.
What makes MUSAJI particularly dangerous is that she is a member of the Missouri U.S. Attorneys’ Hate Crimes Task Force and is frequently invited to speak at churches, schools, service organizations and synagogues in North America about Islam and the tolerance of the Islamic ideology.
On her site, she proudly boasts that many from interfaith academia to our own homeland security policymakers frequently cite her on the topic of the “Moderate Islam,” the latter of which is indicative of the bipolar disorder the U.S. has with regard to fighting the war against Islamic terrorism.
While claiming to promote open dialogue on issues of terrorism, Islam and the “moderate Muslim,” the apparently frustrated MUSAJI appears to be unwilling to confront the inconvenient facts and issues pertaining to Islamic terrorism and ideology.
Rather than stimulating talk about pertinent issues, she instead illustrates her moral duplicity and stifles debate by publishing a list of “Islamophobes,” or anyone who dares to challenge her sickly sanctimonious and historically inaccurate claims with the facts.
The Northeast Intelligence Network has made this list by pointing out that MUSAJI exposes her irrationality and her own delusional religious intolerance by claiming that those who would attempt to identify warning signs of “militant Islam” in order to stop further attacks against the U.S. is “idiocy propogated [sic] by extremist Christians.”
You see, Sheila Musaji is a persistent purveyor of many politically correct myths about her ideology, and will be quick to point out that recent Islamic terrorism is no worse than the terrorist acts committed by Jews and Christians.
Her most recent diatribe posted yesterday There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim? is a classic example of her campaign of her religious and ideological duplicity, where she is apparently upset in part by being labeled as an “Islamist” by the Northeast Intelligence Network and this author because of her transparent and duplicitous agenda.
Hence, we have MUSAJI insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, yet actually confirms its inherent intolerance as well as her own by “listing” those who argue that Islam is an ideology of war and a religion of intolerance as “Islamophobes.”
MUSAJI apparently cannot come to grips with her own religion, which is unique among other religions as pointed out by Mr. Robert Spencer. He accurately points out Islam has a developed “doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers.”
Admittedly, it would be difficult to argue against extremism and terrorism when “warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, ‘but is repeatedly affirmed in the Qu’ran, the Hadith, the example of Muhammad, and the rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence.”
She becomes upset when anyone confronts her with factual claims that fundamentalist Islam is waging war against the non-believers is not the hijacking of Islam, but propagated by the words of the Qur’an, the Hadith and even Muhammed himself.
She becomes upset when Islamic terrorists are called “Islamo Fascists,” a term that associates Islamic acts of terrorism and the agreement with such acts by Muslims as needlessly associating the religion of Islam with the homicidal acts of terrorism whenever the two are indeed connected.
She responds by writing that any non-Muslim who wants Islamic sponsored terrorism to stop wants nothing less than Muslims to abandon their faith. While maintaining a list of “Islamophobe” and including anyone who disagrees with the principles or the ideology of Islam, MUSAJI accuses the members of this list with using “tactics and rhetoric” [that] “stirs up those who are much more extreme” [including those who want to see all Muslims dead or in internment camps].
In other words, all dialogue that includes questions about the fundamentals of her religion is considered incitement, and using the word Islam in the same breath as terrorist is not tolerated regardless of its relevancy.
MUSAJI then postulates that those who speak out about acts of terrorism by Muslims - Islamophobes in her words - “succeed in alienating and degrading all American Muslims, including those who are working to change the hearts and minds of the extremists, then they are only helping bin Laden”.
Like many other such arguments, Islamic terrorism is “our fault” and through our dialogue, we create terrorists from otherwise “moderate Muslims.”
Perhaps the best argument I’ve heard about “moderate Muslims” is taken from a recent interview of Dr. Bruce Tefft, a CIA case officer until his retirement in 1995 after 21 years, where he spent 17 years working abroad. His interview is featured on the NEIN discussion Blog here:————EXCERPT:
Like Nazism, Islam is an ideology one chooses to adhere to.
Were there “good” or “moderate” Nazis? If not, then no one can claim that there are good or moderate Muslims as they are voluntarily subscribing to an ideology that advocates murder, torture and jihad and does not permit its follower to cherry-pick which parts they believe in.
The requirement to accept the Koran as the literal word of God also carries with it the obligation to accept it all. And as you say, the Koran instructs all Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and all schools of Islamic thought instruct the subjugation of the non-Muslim world through jihad. Therefore, I do not believe it wise to attempt to create artificial distinctions between Muslims that don’t really exist as far as their attitudes towards non-Muslims is concerned.
As the prime minister of Turkey recently said: There is no radical nor moderate Islam. That is an insult to Muslims. There is only Islam.
We may wish to give Muslims the benefit of doubt, due to our humanistic and liberalized Western way of thinking. But treating the enemy as we wish they were, [rather] than as they are, will only lead to our ultimate defeat.————
MUSAJI needs to make room for more names, or adjust her current philosophy to conform to a more realistic approach to her own religion.
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee.
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.” --Robert A. Heinlein