M. Zuhdi Jasser is a physician, a U.S. Navy veteran, an American patriot, and a Muslim who does not hold with those who preach that Islam commands its followers to take part in a war against unbelievers.
The Third Jihad, a documentary film that Jasser narrated, takes a hard look at those Muslims who are waging this war — both with bombs and by stealthier means. The film had been among the educational materials used to train New York City police officers dealing with terrorism. Then, last month, the New York Timeswent on what one might call a crusade against the movie, publishing a series of articles branding it a “hate-filled film about Muslims” and calling on Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly to “apologize for the film . . . and make clear that his department does not tolerate such noxious and dangerous stereotyping.”
Advertisement
In the first of its stories, the Times charges that the film “casts a broad shadow over American Muslims.” That ignores the unambiguous statement with which the documentary opens: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”
The story quotes Jasser as saying in the film: “This is the true agenda of Islam in America.” But what Jasser actually said in the film is that jihad is “the true agenda of much of the Muslim leadership here in America.”
Jasser has long argued — and he’s hardly alone in this — that the leaders of some of the wealthiest and most powerful organizations that claim to represent American Muslims are not as moderate as they’d have you believe. Prominent among such organizations is CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which appears to have been the driving force behind the coverage in the Times and in the Village Voice before that. The Times quotes CAIR spokesmen saying how outraged and offended they are by the film.
The Times chooses not to inform readers that CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in the U.S. to date, the 2007 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation et al. The Times neglects to report that the FBIhas broken all ties with CAIR. The Times also does not mention that last year CAIR’s national organization lost its status as a tax-deductible charity after it failed to file required annual reports detailing revenues for three consecutive years as required by law. (The Times has raised pointed questions about funding for The Third Jihad. Why no interest in where CAIR’s money comes from?)
The paper never bothered to interview Jasser. Nor did the Times quote Robert Jackson, the only Muslim on the New York City Council, who told other reporters that while he “initially thought from reading about [the film] that it cast a negative image on all Muslims . . . it does not. It focuses on the extreme Muslims that are trying to hurt other people.” The Times turned down an op-ed by former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge and former CIA director (and current chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) Jim Woolsey defending the film.
The Times is crusading with Bloomberg and CAIR. At the same time, the BBC plays Cintonian semantics to deny using the word extremist. Can't stand the truth. Can't speak the truth. Can't use a picture of the truth. Can't express a truthful viewpoint. Dangerous Times.
Every so often, I think these major outlets will jump the shark once too often. On the other hand, it's much more likely that Jasser will find himself banned from Great Britain as an extremist muslim and the BBC will use those exact words in re(sup)porting that "news."
I provided a link from the first reference to The Third Jihad. That takes you to a web page for The Third Jihad. You can watch it there. And judge it for yourself.
Conservatives always ask where the "moderate muslims" are. Right here, folks, right here. They don't like the Islamist political lobbying groups or the Saudi-funded Salafist preachers either. But Jasser's struggle illustrates the problem that a lot of basically conservative, tolerant Muslims (and the rest of us) face. The left establishment is willing to use any instrument at hand to destroy our social institutions. It doesn't matter if it's unwashed protestors, destructive court cases, cramming abortion down the Catholic Church's throat, or empowering vicious salafists at the expense of American Muslims and national security. The enemy of their enemy is their friend.
It's a dangerous gamble because (1) they're betting that the Salafists can be controlled once they are no longer needed for revolutionary / destablization purposes; and, (2) the game plan of (a) wreck the institutions; (b) ????; (c) utopia! is not a terribly reliable way to produce heaven on earth.
It's not utopia that the left is after. Utopia is a smoke screen. The left is after power. The most extreme socialist countries in history, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Communist Soviet Russia and Communist China were are socialist nations predicated on the idea that they would provide equality of outcome and therefore, a utopia for their citizens. The citizens quickly became expendable in the pursuit of power in all of these nations.
The left wants power. They'll get it incrementally if they can, but the more they get power the more we lose freedom.
For different reasons Scientology and Islam should not be considered religions; they are dangerous cults that should not benefit from tax exempt status. Islam is a socio-political system with a veneer of material plagiarized from heretical forms of Christianity, Judaism and Arab pagan cults. In todays's world Imitatio Muhammadi has encouraged child abuse, discrimination against women, killing for the sake of Islam etc. Papering this unacceptable behavior over as well as rewarding it can serve no useful purpose.
The "Times" isn't fit wrapping dead fish with. A small % of 1.3 billion anything is a hugh number. The problem is that we rarely hear from the "vast majority" of the peace loving people. Why is that? Their silence is deafening.
"The problem is that we rarely hear from the "vast majority" of the peace loving people. Why is that? Their silence is deafening."
Because the Islamists will kill them. I have no doubt that the majority of Muslims simply want to be left alone. Why draw the eyes of a group of madmen willing to die just to kill you? Why draw the ire of your crazy neighbor?
