Radical Islam is Growing in the USA

March 04, 2008 01:00 PM EST

Harlingen, Texas, February 29, 2008: It is very difficult to understand why Americans are not enraged at the thought of any radical Islamic movement, particularly in the United States. But, being unconcerned seems to be an understatement, for Islam is rapidly expanding in this country, and there is already evidence that from evening prayer to the teachings of Islamic schools the tone is anti American and anti Christian.

We have already seen the growth of the Muslim faith in Europe. Even in England there are already calls for the country to adopt the edicts of Islamic Law.

Most have not taken the time to even learn what Islamic or Sharia Law would mean, if it became embedded in our society.

For men, radical Islam means a ban on listening to music, watching movies, television or videos. There would be a ban on celebrating any non-Muslim holiday. All people with non-Islamic names would be required to adopt an Islamic name. All men and boys would be required to have traditional haircuts and when able, they must grow beards. Prayers at mosques must be attended five times daily. They are banned from having birds. No kite flying is allowed. Anyone found with objectionable literature can be executed. No hand clapping is allowed at sporting events. The use of the Internet is banned accept by government permission. Non-Muslims must where distinctive identifying badges.

For women, all of the above apply, except for beards. In addition women are banned from working outside the home, except for selected female doctors. Women cannot leave the home unless accompanied by a male relative or husband. They cannot drive a car, deal with shopkeepers. Male doctors cannot treat them. Women must where undecorated clothing that covers them from head to foot.

A woman can be whipped if her ankles show in public. She is banned from shaking hands, laughing loudly, wearing high heeled shoes, playing sports, speaking on radio or TV, riding a bicycle or motorcycle, must not wear perfume. The woman’s clothing cannot resemble a man’s clothes. Their shoes cannot make a sound when they walk. They cannot talk to men other than family and when they do talk it must be in a very low voice. They must not look at strangers.

For a woman, the breaking of any of these bans can result in punishment. For example, in Saudi Arabia a woman found to have nail polish on her fingers, had the fingertips cut off. More severe infractions can result in a death sentence.

Granted, we are addressing the rules of radical Islam. But from where did it originate and why haven’t the so-called moderate or peaceful Muslims done something to stop these extremes? But, why be concerned. This could never happen in America. Right!!!

For those who think there should be no concern about the rapid expansion of the Islamic faith in the United States, consider the following:

In 1960 we had 20 mosques in the United States. By 1994 that number had grown to 962 and in 2000 there were 1,209. Today an estimated 2,300 mosques, plus storefronts, meeting rooms and student centers are spread across the country. These mosques and centers are used as a form of political and social mobilization, under the cloak of religion.

More than 90% of Muslim leaders say they should be involved in the political process, and it should be noted they are increasingly assuming positions within the public arena.

For some strange reason, when viewing the growth of Islam in the United States, Americans are about as complacent as they are relative to most political activities.

Though reported on back in 2002 by World Net Daily that “Every time you fill up your tank you may be helping to finance an Islamic mosque in America” and that “Some of the largest mosques and Islamic Centers in America are funded by the royal government of Saudi Arabia, which gets most of its revenue from oil exports”, we have still continued to ignore the fact that we are facing a serious problem.

Our government keeps telling us that Saudi Arabia is our friend. This flies in the face of undisputed facts including 15 of the 19 highjackers who crashed aircraft into New York and Washington D.C. were Saudi citizens. It also ignores the fact that the Saudi government continues to finance the advancement of “Wahhabism”, one of the most violent strains of Islam and that most Saudi citizens adhere to this anti American sect.

In the past 33 years the Saudi government has poured more than $87 billion into expanding the Muslim faith in America. There are an estimated 6 million Muslims in the United States today and many of them were converts from Christianity or had no prior religious preference. It is estimated that up to 90% of the converts are African-American.

While 64% of Saudis have an unfavorable view of the United States, 57% of the black Muslims in America look upon this country as an immoral society. A full 70% of our “American” black Muslims believe the United States brought about the attacks of 9-11.

This is not random speculation. Homeland Security has conducted an undercover survey of mosques and Islamic schools across the United States. It has found that 3 out of 4 mosques preach anti west extremism, widespread radicalism and all things anti American.

Undercover counterterrorism agents who speak Arabic and understand the culture have now conducted reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and centers in every state of the union. Though the study has not yet been made public, again, according to World Net Daily, “the vast majority are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti western literature, videos and textbooks.”

However, when members of the media, or political candidates bring up the subject of this growing threat, they are branded as practicing racial profiling, anti Muslim or unpatriotic. Government officials keep telling everyone that the Muslim world is friendly, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The majority in congress tell force the nation into Arab oil servitude, by refusing to allow serious drilling in our own country and spending more time trying to make the enemy out of “Big Oil”, instead of mid eastern threats.

All of this will continue to unfold, from the American advancement of Islam to the flow of more mid east money to advance terrorism…and all because Americans spend their time being angry at our own politicians and have little or no concern about an ever increasing threat being imported from abroad.

First They Came for Piglet
Excessive deference to Islam.
National Review
By Mark Steyn

M y favorite headline of the year so far comes from The Daily Mail in Britain: "Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'Anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."
Her Majesty's government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity" Britain's home secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."
Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" - in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity." But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a five-year-old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen.

Still, it should add a certain surreal quality to BBC news bulletins: "The Prime Minister today condemned the latest anti-Islamic activity as he picked through the rubble of Downing Street looking for his 2008 Wahhabi Community Outreach Award. In a related incident, the anti-Islamic activists who blew up Buckingham Palace have unfortunately caused the postponement of the Queen's annual Ramadan banquet."
A few days ago, a pre-trial hearing in an Atlanta courtroom made public for the first time a video made by two Georgia Tech students. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee went to Washington and took footage of key buildings, and that "casing video" then wound up in the hands of Younis Tsouli, an al-Qaeda recruiter in London. As the film shot by the Georgia students was played in court, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee's voice could be heard on the soundtrack: "This is where our brothers attacked the Pentagon."
"Allahu Akbar," responds young Ahmed. God is great.
How "anti-Islamic" an activity is that? Certainly, not all Muslims want to fly planes into the Pentagon. But those that do do it in the name of their faith. And anyone minded to engage in an "anti-Islamic activity" will find quite a lot of support from leading Islamic scholars. Take, for example, the "moderate" imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who once observed that "we will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawa" - i.e., the non-incendiary form of Islamic outreach.
What could be more moderate than that? No wonder Mr. al-Qaradawi is an associate of the Islamic Society of Boston, currently building the largest mosque in the northeast, and also a pal of the present mayor of London. The impeccably moderate mullah was invited to address a British conference sponsored by the police and the Department of Work and Pensions on "Our Children, Our Future." And, when it comes to the children, Imam Qaradawi certainly has their future all mapped out. "Israelis might have nuclear bombs," he said, "but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation." As Maurice Chevalier used to say, thank heaven for little girls, they blow up in the most delightful way.
The British home secretary would respond that not all moderate imams are as gung-ho to detonate moppets. Which is true. But, by insisting on re-labeling terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam as "anti-Islamic activity," Her Majesty's government is engaging not merely in Orwellian Newspeak but in self-defeating Orwellian Newspeak. The broader message it sends is that ours is a weak culture so unconfident and insecure that if you bomb us and kill us our first urge is to find a way to flatter and apologize to you.
Here's another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some "excellence in education" award on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues" and, as a result, the judges "had concerns for the Asian community" - i.e., Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians - Hindus and Buddhists - have no "concerns" about anthropomorphized pigs.
This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh's porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin Niemöller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" and bring the nightmare to an end.
Just for the record, it's true that Muslims, like Jews, are not partial to bacon and sausages. But the Koran has nothing to say about cartoon pigs. Likewise, it is silent on the matter of whether one can name a teddy bear after Mohammed. What all these stories have in common is the excessive deference to Islam. If the Three Little Pigs are verboten when Muslims do not yet comprise ten percent of the British population, what else will be on the blacklist by the time they're, say, 20 percent?
A couple of days later, Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's Green party (the fourth-largest political party), spoke out against her country's continued military contribution to the international force in Afghanistan. "More ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage," she said, "will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a jihad." As it happens, Canada did not send troops to the Crusades, mainly because the fun was over several centuries before Canada came in existence. Six years ago, it was mostly the enemy who took that line, Osama bin Laden raging at the Great Satan for the fall of Andalusia in 1492, which, with the best will in the world, it's hard to blame on Halliburton. But since then, the pathologies of Islamism have proved surprisingly contagious among western elites.

You remember the Three Little Pigs? One builds a house of straw, and another of sticks, and both get blown down by the Big Bad Wolf. Western civilization is a mighty house of bricks, but who needs a Big Bad Wolf when the pig's so eager to demolish it himself?
© 2008 Mark Steyn

Muslims Against Sharia

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

FP: Khalim Massoud, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Massoud: Thank you.

FP: Tell us why it is necessary for you to wear sunglasses in the picture you gave us to use of you.

Massoud: As you might imagine, Islamists are not particularly happy with our group. According to our poll, over 20% of Muslims want us beheaded. I am perfectly content with my head not being separated from my body and I'd like to keep it that way for as long as I can.

FP: Sounds like a good idea.

Tell us what Muslims Against Sharia is about.

Massoud: Our organization is created to give voice to moderate Muslims who are virtually ignored by governments and media and to expose the radicals masquerading as moderates. Our goals are

* to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed.

* to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists).

* to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror.

FP: Why do you think moderate Muslims are virtually ignored by governments and the media?

Massoud: Most of American mosques are financed and run by Wahhabis. Wahhabi imams are anything but moderate, hence most of religious leaders are radicals. So-called "civil rights" groups, i.e., CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, MAS, etc. that comprise Muslim establishment are nothing more than offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and fronts for Hamas and al-Qaeda. They are very well financed and are extremely skilful manipulators of the media. And most of the people in government and media truly believe that those groups are moderate, because they are either too lazy to do research or they choose to ignore terrorist ties.

As a result, when either the government or the media needs an Islamic point of view, Muslim establishment groups are go-to "experts" by default. With the "expert" seat being filled, moderate Muslims are left out.

Another problem with moderate Muslims is they are scared and not organized. They are scared because they cannot speak up in mosques for fear of being kicked out and there are virtually no organizations that represent their views. They are not organized, because, unlike the radical, they do not receive tens of millions of dollars in financial support, therefore they have to work for a living.

FP: Why do radical Muslims masquerade as moderates? What are their strategies in doing this? Are they effective in doing so? Who have been some of the radicals that have been exposed?

Massoud: Radical Muslims are masquerading as moderates because they have no control over the military and police. Yet.

They cannot openly proclaim their agenda of Islamic domination in front of Western audiences. They are gradually taking over the West. Some countries in Europe (France, Britain, Germany, etc.) are partially ruled by Sharia law, and even up in Canada, there is talk about Sharia courts for Muslim communities.

Their strategy is very simple. They constantly claim that they are peaceful and moderate, and Western media is more than happy to repeat that nonsense. They do not praise terrorism in public, but they justify it by playing the Muslim victimhood card. And they are very effective at it.

Many radical organizations have already been exposed by counter-terrorism researches like Steven Emerson, John Loftus, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Joe Kaufman, Paul Sperry, Zeyno Baran, and many others. The proof that the Muslim establishment is anything but moderate is widely available. However, the government and the media either for political reasons or out of sheer stupidity completely ignore it.

FP: Is it possible to give a simple answer to this question: what exactly is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? Where is the fine line that separates them?

Massoud: Absolutely. The determining criteria is the belief in Islamic supremacy. Radical Muslims believe in Islamic supremacy, which makes them religiously obligated to wage Jihad for world domination, using both terrorism and gradual subversion of host societies. Moderate Muslims consider their religion a private matter and believe in religious equality.

FP: What are some of the dangers presented by Islamic religious texts? If you are a Muslim, then how can you reject these texts and remain a faithful Musilm?

Massoud: Most of the dangers are presented by passages based on Islamic supremacy doctrine. The Koran contains verses that command us to subjugate or murder non-Muslims in order to create Islamic rule. On the other hand, the Koran teaches preciousness of human life. How can a logical person believe that those diametrically opposed concepts came from the same source? How could Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be the source of "kill [infidels] them wherever you find them"? The only logical explanation is that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original.

FP: I would like to touch on your intriguing point that “the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original. “ Is there any textual support for such a notion? And doesn't this notion run counter to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection of the Qur'an, which insists that the Qur'anic text is the same as it was in the time of Uthman? In light of these considerations, do you think you will gain much support in the Islamic world?

Massoud: We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries. However, there is some circumstantial evidence supporting our point. First, if you take two English Korans translated by two different people, the difference could be very substantial. Substantial to the point that the same verses could have completely different meaning. Case in point: a recent arrest of Ghows Zalmay, who, according to the fundamentalists, misinterpreted some verses in the Koran.

Based on these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that when the Koran was copied many times over, the mere mortals who did the copying might have "adjusted" the texts to reflect their personal views, or the views of their superiors.

Second is deductive reasoning. The Koran contains verses that represent mutually exclusive concepts, i.e., human 'life is precious' vs. 'kill the infidels wherever you find them' or 'respect the People of the Book' vs. 'do not take Jews and Christians for friends'.

Allah is infallible and cannot contradict himself, which means that some of those verses are not the literal word of Allah. Also, how can Allah, who is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be a source of "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

The only logical explanation is that the Koran we have today was significantly altered.

As for gaining much support in Islamic world, we believe that education is the key. Our experience shows that if we present our view to an open-minded sceptic, chances are we'll gain a supporter.

FP: How and why must Islam be reformed? Is this really possible? Some would argue that if you take the Islam out of Islam, it will no longer be an Islam. What would you say to that?

Massoud: Islam in its present form is incompatible with modern society, that's why it needs to be reformed. The first step is to abandon the doctrine of Islamic supremacy and remove passages from religious texts that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as calls to violence. We believe it is possible. Muslims, just as all other people, are human beings. If Christians could abandon the Inquisition, Muslims can abandon Jihad. Taking violence out of Islam is not the same as taking Islam out of Islam. It is a historical fact that major religions like Christianity and Judaism have undergone reformations on more than one occasion. Islamic reformation is no different.

FP: I very much appreciate your position and your goals are truly admirable. I would just like to say that the Christian reformation and the potential Islamic reformation are different. Christians easily abandoned the Inquisition because the Inquisition was un-Christian and had no foundation in Christian texts. The key is that when Christians have behaved in aggressive or intolerant ways, their acts were not based on Christian teachings; their acts were un-Christian. But the same cannot be said for Muslims when they engage in aggression and intolerance, since such behavior is a fulfillment of their theological mandates. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the umma to subjugate the non-Muslim world through jihad.

But in any case, it is all of our great hope that Muslims such as yourself can succeed in the reformation you wish to engender in Islam. The key though: isn’t there a belief among Muslims that the Koran is the literal world of Allah and that it cannot be tampered with?

Massoud: The original Koran is the literal world of Allah and should not have been tampered with. The Almighty God, whether you call him Yahweh or Allah, is infallible. Since modern versions of the Koran contain contradictions, they cannot possibly be the literate word of God. Therefore, the belief that the modern Koran is untouchable is based on ignorance. God gave people free will, and unscrupulous people who were supposed to safeguard the Koran corrupted it instead. Now, we must change it back.

I also do not believe that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Ummah to subjugate the non-Muslim world through Jihad, i.e., Sufism.

FP: I am a bit confused as to who can arrogate to themselves the authority to be the arbiter of what the “original” Koran actually said. What if some Muslims argued that they need to “change it back” to get rid of all the peaceful messages that the Koran has in it, on the premise that the violent passages represent the real Koran? Wouldn’t this make more sense since the historical Mohammed was himself a military man who waged war, captured slaves, preached war against unbelievers, etc.? He led by example did he not? If this is not true, then how exactly do you argue that Islam is meant to be peaceful if Mohammed was himself a man of war?

It also appears from your words that you reject the idea of abrogation, as delineated by Qur'an 2:106. If so, how do you propose to distinguish between the original Qur'an you are saying existed and the interpolated passages, since there is no textual evidence for such an original Qur'an?

Also, what do you make of the fact that the Qadari movement, which upheld free will, was declared heretical by numerous Islamic authorities and eventually wiped out?

I would also like to touch on the point of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. In terms of Sufism, for example, it remains a bit of mystery why this sect of Islam is constantly portrayed as being non-violent and tolerant when the history of the Sufis is actually one of violent jihad. The jihad in Chechnya is a prime example.

Also, Sufism is an order, a way of mysticism, not a school of Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, the pioneering Sufi, Al-Ghazali, was clear that his Sufism did not negate his support for Islamic supremacism. Andrew Bostom has published this quote from Al-Ghazali:

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.)"

What are your thoughts on these realities?

Mr. Massoud, please do not misunderstand by questions and arguments here. I am in full support of you and your organization and it is obviously the West’s and the world’s prayer that Muslims will follow people like you. I am only asking these questions to clarify matters and to crystallize if the possibility of an Islamic reformation is truly a genuine hope and can be based on strong and realistic foundations.

Massoud: We do not claim to have authority to be arbiters of what the original Koran said. What we do, is put forth our arguments why we believe that the modern Koran is not the same as the original. It is up to the Ummah to judge the validity of our arguments and whether accept or reject them.

The notion that violent passages represent the real Koran is contradictory to the notion that Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, therefore, we believe it is incorrect. The issue of the Prophet Muhammad is very complicated. On the one hand, he was a human, and, therefore, imperfect. On the other hand, it is impossible to know how much of the historical accounts of that time are true and how much is fiction. If the Koran could have been changed over the centuries, so is the version of events surrounding Mohammad's life.

The idea of abrogation would run contrary to the idea of Allah's infallibility. We cannot with absolute certainty distinguish between the divine and 'man-made' verses. But we can do the best we can by using common sense. As for the Qadari movement (which I am not familiar with), not every reform movement achieves its goals, but that does not mean that we shouldn't even try.

Sufism may have its dark aspects, but in today's world it is as close to our idea of Islam as it gets. Sufi Islamic Supreme Council of America is the only real Islamic religious authority in the North America that does not advocate ideas of Islamic supremacy. Jihad in Chechnya is not indicative of Sufism. The remnants of Sufism that survived 70 years of Soviet rule are dominated by Wahhabism. Calling Chechen mujahideen Sufi is just as misleading as calling CAIR moderate.

Mr. Glazov, there is no reason to qualify your questions. They are legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter and nobody should be offended by honest and direct questions about 'sensitive' subjects. Failing to ask those questions is what got us where we are today in the first place.

FP: Can you talk a bit about how moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic terror?

Massoud: Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of Black Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Algeria: more than a hundred thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Iraq: tens of thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya. Any place where there is conflict that involves Muslims, moderates are being murdered by radicals. Radical Muslims wage Jihad to kill infidels, and many of them consider moderate Muslims as infidels. This is a DHS-type threat level table that illustrates my point:

FP: Earlier you noted that a poll your group did revealed that roughly one-fifth of Muslims think that Muslims like you should be beheaded. What is your interpretation of this fact?

Massoud: Muslims like us present the biggest danger to the Islamists because we are destroying the myth of moral authority of the fundamentalism. When non-Muslims point out flaws in Islam, the radicals dismiss them as Islamophobes. When Muslims talk about problems with Islam, they are not as easy to dismiss. Moderate Muslims are the best antidote to Islamist venom and Western governments are being very unwise to choose radicals over moderates.

FP: So what is the most effective way we can help moderates and reformers such as yourselves?

Massoud: You, meaning non-Muslims, must stop living in your PC fantasy world, stop worrying about offending Muslims, and start calling things what they are. You must draw a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists, between Islam and Islamism. Muslims will not be offended at the term "Islamofascism" as long as it is clear that the term applies to Islamists, not Muslims in general. You can no longer afford to pretend that there is no global war between Islamists and the rest of the world. You must pressure the government and the media to stop whitewashing (and cut all ties with) Islamists. Just because Islamists claim to be moderates, that doesn't make it so.

You must stop financing radical Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but sending billions of Petro-Dollars to the Persian Gulf. You must provide political (and should provide financial) support for moderate Muslim groups, i.e., American Islamic Forum for Democracy. There are plenty of moderate Muslims who would join the fight against Islamism, given the chance. It must be made absolutely clear that terrorism is a military issue and terrorism cases, i.e., HLF or al-Arian, have no place in civilian courts. When Islamists praise bin Laden, march with "Hizballah is our Army" posters, or desecrate the American flag, you call it freedom of speech. But when a counter-terrorism researcher protests against events organized by Islamists, he is charged with harassment and gets a restraining order. And when another counter-terrorism researcher sheds light on Islamist-al Qaeda ties, she is sued for libel.

FP: Are you optimistic that non-Muslims and moderate Muslims that want to preserve Western civilization and liberty will be able to defeat the force of radical Islam?

Massoud: Yes, if the West wakes up before it’s too late. Unfortunately, at this time, the West seems to be more interested in Left vs. Right rather than Freedom vs. Slavery & Death.

FP: Khalim Massoud, thank you for joining us and thank you for your courage and for your noble fight to spawn an Islamic reformation.

Massoud: Jamie, thank you for having me and giving me a forum to present our views.

Reference