Exposing The Myth Of Moderate Muslims

From Creeping Sharia:

Exposing the myth of ‘moderate’ Muslims


Posted on September 5, 2010 by creeping

via Gabriel and Rogers: Exposing the myth of ‘moderate’ Muslims
Washington Examiner.



In an October 19, 2001, article by The New York Times, supposed moderate Muslim Anwar al-Awlaki was praised, “…as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” He is now the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.



Sami Al-Arian, a former tenured professor at the University of South Florida, was thought to be a moderate Muslim bridge-builder and won the friendship of prominent leaders of both political parties.



It is now known that Al-Arian was the head of Islamic Jihad in America, who pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a specially designated terrorist organization.



Most recently, the ongoing Ground Zero Mosque controversy again highlights the failure of government, academia and the establishment media to distinguish between a “moderate Muslim” and a “radical Muslim.”



Why the misjudgment?



Almost certainly, the vast majority of these people don’t understand the role “taqiyya” plays in the advance of radical Islam. “Taqiyya” is sharia-sanctioned deception, patterned after Mohammed’s use of it to advance Islam against his enemies. Today radicals, under that same sanction, lie to advance their real agenda.



As a result, many in government, academia and the media fail to do their due diligence to ascertain what these supposedly “moderate” Muslims really believe and what their true intentions are.



This failure has produced an abysmal track record.



Muzzamil Hassan, during a report on December 9, 2004 NBC News with Brian Williams was described as “…a banker, who [is] disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11.”



The news story documented Hassan’s venture to create “Bridges TV,” ostensibly to improve relations between the Islamic world and the West by countering negative stereotypes of Islam.



Turns out this “moderate” beheaded his wife and, after calling the police, proudly explained why: She insulted his Muslim honor by filing for divorce.



Another is Abdurahman Alamoudi. The Washington Post touted him as “a pillar of the local Muslim community.” His organization, the American Muslim Council (AMC), was described in 2002 by a spokesman for FBI director Robert Mueller as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.”



Today Alamoudi is serving a 23 year federal prison sentence for terrorism-financing.

Repeatedly, American leaders have been duped by radicals like Alamoudi and Al-Arian, but this pattern need not continue. Embedded within doctrinal Islam is a political ideology that motivates what we call the “Islamist,” and anyone who subscribes to this ideology, whether violent or not, is by definition “radical.”



Our government, the media, and academia need to cease defining an Islamic “radical” as only those who engage in violence. No longer can they so quickly believe any Muslim who says the right things and hasn’t killed people is a moderate. They need to stop dismissing evidence of Islamist ideology when it surfaces simply because it doesn’t fit their moderate sensibilities.



Terrorism is but one tool Islamists use to impose Islamic sharia law, ultimately on all peoples. When Muslims make statements about their ultimate intentions, they should be taken seriously. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is held up by many as moderate and “mainstream.”



Yet here is what its founder, Omar Ahmad, had to say in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”



Does Ahmad’s desire for a theo-political state sound moderate or radical?



It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. How many more Alamoudi’s must we suffer before the insanity ends?