Friday, November 27, 2009

Letters to the Davis Enterprise

The Davis Enterprise published a provocative letter today by Noreen Mazelis, in which she scolds local Islamic leader Hamza El-Nakhal for his Veterans Day remarks.
Unlike the representatives of the other religions who spoke that day, Mr. El-Nakhal chose this occasion to perform another one of his infamous 'we Muslims are the real victims and you'd better not forget that' routines.

... He went on and on about this 'incomprehensible' event - that's the massacre at Fort Hood by Islamic terrorist Army Maj. Hasan, which is 'incomprehensible' to all but the morally flatulent and the willfully blind. Then he read several passages from the Quran to show how 'tolerant' Islam is, citing chapters and verses. Thus he managed to insult and proselytize the living while desecrating our dead. Not a bad day's work!

I don't disagree with Mr. El-Nakhal, that his version of Islam is tolerant and is a religion of peace. I've interviewed him and found him to be a reasonable man. However, if he said the Fort Hood massacre is not a reflection of Islam and that it is incomprehensible to him as a Muslim, Mr. El-Nakhal is ignoring reality.

The reality is that a fast-growing percentage of Muslims in countries all over the world -- including some Muslims in Mr. El-Nakhal's congregation in Davis -- have been radicalized, and in their version of Islam there is no tolerance for other faiths. Radical Islam is not a religion of peace.

What Mr. El-Nakhal and other moderate Muslims need to do is face up to the facts about this other Islam and stop pretending it is some infinitesimally tiny fraction of Muslims. Moderate Muslims everywhere need to fight back against the radicals and treat them as enemies. They need to stop holding hands with the radicals when that is convenient.

For far too long, the moderate Muslims have sided with the radicals. They nod their heads in concurrence about their hatred of Israel and their hatred of American foreign policy. They continually have blamed others (never themselves) for the rife problems in Muslim countries and the dictatorships which govern them.

Moderate Muslims never hold protest marches against Hamas or Hezbollah when those groups commit atrocities in the name of Islam. When was the last time Muslims in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere else for that matter had a large protest against al-Qaeda? Outside of Iranians themselves, when was the last time any Muslim group protested against the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Yet if Israel or the United States ever attacked innocent Muslims the way radical Muslims continually are attacking Muslims, Jews and Christians, the moderate Muslims would join together with their radical coreligionists. Literally tens of millions of Muslims the world over marched against the publication of a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Yet not one Muslim group has ever organized a protest against the hundreds of atrocities committed in the name of Islam against Jews. Did they march against the Islamic radicals who target daycare centers and pizza joints in Israel? Did they hold a vigil in opposition to the blowing up of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires? Did they condemn radical Islam when the radicals began murdering Jewish innocents in Tunisia? American Muslims protested in large measure against the misguided U.S. invasion of Iraq. However, they have been entirely silent every time radical Muslims, in the name of Islam, have slaughtered innocent Iraqis, blown up Shiite mosques or terrorized Kurds.

With rare exceptions -- like Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- moderate Muslims have sat on their hands. They will on occasion condemn a brutal atrocity committed by terrorists. But they then turn around and falsely claim that Islam does not countenance such terrorism. And therefore the attack does not represent Islam.

But of course to the terrorists and to tens of millions of Islamists and to everyone else but moderate Muslims, Islamic terrorism does represent Islam. That is why the only answer for defeating radical Islam is for non-radical-Islam to wake up and face facts and fight back against the global jihad.

Ms. Mazelis also references a letter by George Rooks to The Davis Enterprise which went after Mr. El-Nakhal for his association with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR):
Hamza El-Nakhal's recent 'American Muslims Condemn Attack' letter is the same public relations statement trotted out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations every time an event similar to the Fort Hood murders takes place.

The CAIR strategy is to condemn the murderer and then conclude by warning Muslims to 'take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.' CAIR always shifts the focus away from the terror that has happened to offenses that have (thankfully) not taken place. ...

Regarding suicide attacks, it is particularly ironic that Mr. El-Nakhal would use a statement by CAIR. In January 2009, the FBI cut off contacts with CAIR because of the group's roots in the 'Holy Land Foundation' network supporting Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization noted for its reliance on suicide bombers.

Why doesn't the local Islamic community specifically renounce CAIR, renounce Saudi Arabian funding of American Islamic institutions, and renounce Wahhabism? It is easy to denounce such events as the Fort Hood murders after they occur; it requires courage to work actively against the incitement that causes such atrocities.

I agree with Mr. Rooks.

Until Muslims of Mr. El-Nakhal's stripe go on the offensive against radical Islam, his message that "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace" will ring hollow.

No comments: