The NYPD once again finds itself in the crosshairs of the New York Times. On Tuesday, theTimes resurrected a year-old story from the Village Voice about the showing of my documentary film The Third Jihad to officers participating in an NYPD training program. What was the new smoking gun that warranted a trifecta of an above-the-fold report from Michael Powell on January 24, an editorial (describing it as a “hate-filled film”) on January 25, and yet another report in theTimes on January 25 — all amplified across the mainstream media by an AP rehash?
The Times was apparently impressed by new and supposedly devastating information that it was over 1,500 police officers who viewed the movie. Never mind that there are almost 35,000 officers on the force.
Powell’s report on Tuesday was shoddy and biased, and ignored central facts presented by the movie. There was no analysis of the film’s ideas or the content that the officers actually viewed. The article instead simply channeled the scattered ramblings of the victimology of the opponents of the movie. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism noted last year that “the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ protest that the documentary The Third Jihad smears Muslims reveals more about CAIR’s desire to hide its record than any concern for the civil rights of Muslim Americans.”Now, again, in following CAIR, the Times reveals its own exploitation of American Muslims in order to score political points.
Powell’s premise is that the film is discriminatory against American Muslims because it presents all Muslims as radicalized. Yet if Powell, a journalist, believed the film to be an affront to Muslims, wouldn’t he have felt a duty to speak with the devout Muslim who narrated the movie, to see why he was involved in its making? Powell made no attempt to discuss the film with me, or indeed with any other Muslims who sympathize with the film’s view. (The AP, on the other hand, did contact me and placed a one-sentence response from me in its otherwise sympathetic rehash of the Times piece.) I’m an observant American Muslim, one who has chosen to take on a “jihad against jihad” as an act of love for my faith, in order to help protect our children from the inherent separatism of political Islam. Times readers would have been well served by being given my perspective.
In 2007, the NYPD released a landmark report titled “ Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” a seminal piece of research on how radicalization occurs. I embraced it as a blueprint that could help American Muslims confront the threat to our religion and to our country. Groups like CAIR, on the other hand, saw it as an opportunity to drive a wedge between American Muslims and law enforcement. The attacks by the Times upon the NYPD have everything to do with the efforts of CAIR to use American Muslims as a tool to suppress dissent and frame our communities as victims of American society.
The Third Jihad is not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. If it were, I would not have been a part of it. To this day, when it comes to Muslim diversity and the battle of ideas within Islam, it remains utterly bewildering why a major newspaper like the Times ignores anti-Islamist Muslim reformers. They essentially have no use in their political agenda for devout Muslims who maintain the courage to publicly take on the dominant American Islamist establishment from within.
— Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim, is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of the forthcoming book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith (Simon and Schuster, June 2012).
Sir, Goddspeed to you in your efforts to protect children from the ULTIMATE abuse of having explosives strapped to their torsos.
Rest assured, the folks who work at the NYT are too concerned with Catholic priests who abuse children sexually to care about Muslim clerics who abuse children by killing them.
The reason for that is the folks at the NYT suffer from a sociopathic worldview that informs them that illegal, dangerous, murderous behavior is okay so long as the abuse to be advanced has merit from a socialist socio-economic perspective.
So, their friends Susan Sontag, Bill Ayres, and Bernadine Dohrn were justified in trying to kill people and blow up the trappings of authority, because the goal of changing the authority's behavior justifies any level of bloodshed.
Never mind that they cannot be bothered ever to defend the right of western societies to defend themselves (we're only allowed to use our military for purely humanitarian efforts to save the lives of others, not ourselves).
They hate western civilization. The people at the NYT hold to a worldview that informs them western society is to blame for every single problem that human beings experience.
So, you are dealing with the deepest sociopathic self-hate ever witnessed in the annals of human behavior.
But, you'll have to ask them why, in light of their hatred for Caucasian humans from western societies, they seek to mimic European Caucasians in the organization of our society.
I think the answer is that they wish to destroy western civilization, and have concluded that the Europeans are on the right track, in that regard.
The irony, of course, is that Maureen Dowd would be the first person in a western nation to receive the IED treatment by her ideological distant cousin, the jihadist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. You keep getting crazier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere are the rules. If you criticize President Obama's liberal policies, you're a racist. If you call people who come into this country illegally illegal immigrants, you're a bigot and if you mention that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were Muslims, you're an intolerant Muslim-hater.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is what a moderate Muslim looks like. Many of my friends in Israel do not think it is possible to be a moderate Muslim. In the Middle East environment I think they are right because there is not enough favorable climate factors for moderate Islam to blossom. But in a Western democracy that does not kowtow to politically correct Islamist sensitivities, I think it is possible for moderate Muslims not only to exist, but to flourish and multiply. I'm not saying anything about religion right now but strictly speaking of the need in the U.S. to recognize the difference in a Muslim like Dr. Jasser and the Trojan Horse posers like CAIR.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, a moderate Muslim is moderately Islamic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhereas an extremist Muslim is extremely Islamic.
Dr. Jasser, please post again come book release in June if not sooner. Always worth knowing the thoughts of a muslim labeled by The Times as discriminatory becasue he opposes radicalizaton.
The mainstream press also leads one to question what they support if they attack your muslim position. If only they would think to ask that of themselves and answer honestly about the harm harbored there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Jasser, you are to be commended for your vigilance. Keep up the good work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse