Monthly Archives: July 2005
Chiasmus is a literally art form, a form of parallelism used as a poetical structure in some ancient writings from the Middle East and Greece. The word chiasmus derives from the Greek letter chi (X) which symbolizes the top-to-bottom mirror image reflection achieved by elements of text. An example of a very simple chiasmus is found in Psalms 124:7:
We have escaped as a bird
From the snare of the fowlers
The snare is broken
And we have escaped.
In 1969, John W. Welch reported he discovery of many-element chiasms in the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith testified to have translated from plates written anciently by Hebrew descendants.
The historical record has yielded no direct evidence that Joseph Smith actually knew about chiasmus when he translated the Book of Mormon in 1829, although some other people at that time did.
If he did not know about chiasmus, then its presence in the book might be considered as evidence for the authenticity of the book as modern translation of a record written anciently by those familiar with chiastic style.
So far, here are the stats of chiasmus in the scriptures:
CHIASMS IN THE SCRIPTURES
961 chiasms have been identified in the Book of Mormon.
53% of the verses the Book of Mormon are Chiastic
72% of the small plates of Nephi are Chiastic.
33 different authors in the Book of Mormon used Chiasms.
33-Chiasms are found in the Pearl of Great Price
225 Chiasms are found in the Doctrine and Covenants
Throughout his life, the Prophet Joseph Smith lived and taught the principles and virtues of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
By his own example, he taught us:
—courage at age seven
—faith in his fifteenth year
—honesty in responding to others about his first vision
—patience as a teenager
—diligence in bringing forth the Book of Mormon
—the importance of missionary work
—obedience to law
—the importance of having a clear conscience toward God and our fellowmen
—love in offering his life
(Taken from talk by President Monson)
See the Site Map for a good overview of topics covered on this site.
Question 1: LDS often say “I know that…”, and I have not heard that from other people of faith…is it uniquely an LDS thing to so commonly have members say “I know…”?
Question 2: Has God revealed to you the truth about Christ’s divinity the same way He revealed it to Peter? If so, please elucidate. If not, please explain.
Isaiah 52: 6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.
John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Know: v. knew, (n , ny ) known, (n n) knowing, knows v. tr.
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won’t fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).
6. a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face. b. To be acquainted with: He doesn’t know his neighbors.
Jesus asked Peter, “Whom do you say that I am.” Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus then said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed that to you, but my Father which is in Heaven (meaning, via The Spirit or Holy Ghost.)”
This is extremely informative and very critical to understand. Here is Christ telling Peter how Peter came to “know” that Jesus is whom he claims to be, namely, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.”
Jesus did not say, “Well, Peter, you know because you witnessed first hand 3 ½ years of miracles, visions, raising the dead, living with with me, listen to me…”. Good as that “evidence” was, Peter’s knowing did not come from direct observation.
Peter had a better source of “evidence” than direct observation of Jesus’ life and miracles. God The Father “revealed” to his mind, soul, heart, and spirit that in fact, Jesus was indeed The Christ. The Father sent the Spirit, or the Holy Ghost which told Peter undeniably, “Peter, Jesus is the very Christ prophesied since the beginning of the world. Peter, he is The Way, The Truth, The Light, your Lord and Redeemer, and no man can come to me (The Father) expect through my Son, Jesus The Christ!”
Then and only then, did Peter “know.”
Likewise, the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost is our only way to “know” Jesus is The Christ. The ancient records we call scriptures are insufficient to bring the same level of knowing that Peter enjoyed.
Have you ever said or thought or asked yourself the following, “I wish I could have lived to observe or see Jesus with my own eyes, to hear him, to watch him do some miracle, then it might be different, then perhaps I’d “know” whether he was real or myth, man of Son of God, only then could I believe or trust…” That’s 100% incorrect.
The “proof” comes when God reveals Himself to you, just like he revealed Himself to Peter via the Holy Ghost.
Anyone can have the same experience and the same level of “evidence” or “proof” that Peter, James, John, Noah, Moses, and Joseph Smith did that Jesus is the Christ.
You can and need to have a personal revelation born of the Spirt/Holy Ghost on the matter like unto Peter. If not, you cannot truly know Jesus, who is “the Christ, the Son of God.”
An active Mormon wins the 2008 Republican primaries and his political views are inline with a Moderate/Conservative Republican platform.
1) Would you support a Mormon running for the US Presidency? If so, why? If not, why not?
2) How do you think your church would react to the potential of a US President being a Mormon? Would your church support it? Would they be opposed to it?
3) Do you think professional anti-Mormons (Tanners et al) would do all in their power to prevent the election of a Mormon to the US Presidency simply because of fact he is Mormon?
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist July 21, 2005
I spent a week earlier this month vacationing with friends in California. Because we don’t have a governor with a household name, they inquired who was running Massachusetts. ”Mitt Romney,” I replied, adding: ”He’s running for president.”
That came as news to them, and provoked this rejoinder: ”Really? But isn’t he a Mormon? Can a Mormon be elected president?”
”It’s a fascinating question,” says Alan Wolfe, director of Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. ”Catholics like to talk about anti-Catholicism and Jews like to complain about anti-Semitism. But a hundred years ago, Mormonism was the most hated religion in America. Since then the religion has changed dramatically. It’s almost like a new business taking off — it’s a quintessential American success story.”
Wolfe thinks that if Romney’s ambitions take him to the 2008 Republican primaries, he’s likely to be slimed by political operatives of the Karl Rove mold. ”I think there will be rumors spread about how Mitt Romney has six wives, all of them 14 years of age, stashed in a house in Utah. These rumors will be denied, but they will stick in people’s minds. There is some subterranean sentiment about curious practices in Mormonism.”
My Neocon quiz results: Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist.
– Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
– Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy – and vice versa
– Don’t want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
– Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
– Weigh the political costs of foreign action
– Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
– Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
– Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell
– Want the US to be the world’s unchallenged superpower
– Share unwavering support for Israel
– Support American unilateral action
– Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
– Promote the development of an American empire
– Equate American power with the potential for world peace
– Seek to democratize the Arab world
– Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
– Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
– Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan
– Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
– Trace much of today’s anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
– Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
– Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
– Oppose American imperialism
– Support international law, alliances, and agreements
– Encourage US participation in the UN
– Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world’s poor
– Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
– Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter
The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in “America first.” For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.
– Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
– Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
– Believe the US should not act as a global cop
– Support trade practices that protect American workers
– Oppose liberal immigration
– Oppose American imperialism
– Desire to preserve what they see as America’s national identity and character
– Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge
– Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan
Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
Al Qaeda = The Base, pronounced al-Ka-ee-da, not al-Kay-da
We are not at war with al Qaeda, we are at war with Militant Islam. The “War on Terror” should really be called the “War on Militant Islam.”
See this very informative and well written article, At War With Whom? A short history of radical Islam by Jonathan Schanzer Doublethink Spring 2002: At War With Whom? A short history of radical Islam by Jonathan Schanzer Doublethink Spring 2002
Dr. Pipes said, “So, the President turns to me and asks: “Tell me the next steps I must take in the War on Terror in general and in Iraq in particular,” and I reply as follows.
War on Terror: Rename it the War on Militant Islam. Just as a physician must identify a disease before treating it, so a strategist must identify the enemy before defeating it. What would World War II have looked like had FDR named it the War against Surprise Attacks?”
Dr. Leiken said, “I agree with Daniel Pipes – the war on terrorism or terror is a misleading phrase. It could lead to the conclusion that the terrorists hang together and can be counted on to cooperate – like Saddam and Osama. It could lead to the view that people become terrorists and then decide which flavor to adopt. No, terror is a tactic that has been attached to a variety of opposed ideologies: nationalist, anarchist, Communist, Nazi, fascist, Islamist etc. Terrorism like war is an extension of a specific politics. Very early Daniel Pipes wrote that the ideology and politics we should focus on was radical Islam.” Frontpagemag.com Symposium: The War on Terror. How Are We Doing? (Continued)
Not only can we as a National call it like it is, we must!
When Political Correctness is of greater value than reality, truth and National Security, then we are just being plain stupid.
I agree 100%! with Osama bin Laden’s own definition of what his al Qaeda are all about and what they ought to be called, mujahedin: jihad warriors: in other words, Militant Islam!
As Robert Spencer wrote, “Osama bin Laden and other radical Muslims around the world have unanimously stated that they are not indiscriminate purveyors of mayhem — terrorists — but mujahedin: jihad warriors. They have declared again and again that they are fighting to unify the Islamic people under a restored caliphate, and to establish the hegemony of Islamic law over the reunified umma, as well as over the non-Muslim world. In doing this, they say, they are acting in complete accord with the commandments of their religion, which mandates warfare against non-Muslims in order to establish Islamic rule. And they have declared that in this struggle, the United States is their principal foe.
Why not take them at their word? Why not acknowledge that the war on terror is a defensive action against global jihadists?”
See Robert Spencer’s article: End War on Terror. Fight War on Mujahedin:
Humaneventsonline.com End War on Terror. Fight War on Mujahedin. by Robert Spencer Posted Feb 19, 2004
You think al Qaeda is bad, check out the Muslim Brotherhood!
Humaneventsonline.com We Are Not Fighting Just Al Qaeda by Robert Spencer Posted May 27, 2004
For really fun reading, check out the official al Qaeda training manual!:
Al Qaeda Training Manual
One of my favorite quotes by Avraham Gileadi:
Today America is the “head of nations.”
It has always received God’s covenant blessings-the very ones God promised his people Israel.
The founding fathers established “one nation under God” in modern fulfillment of God’s promise.
In an endtime or prophetic sense, therefore, when Isaiah refers to “Israel,” we can just as easily read “America.”
America, too, is God’s people.
It appears the media and not Rove are to blame for the ‘Outed’ CIA Employee.
Accuracy In Media is not a partisan site. They go after all parties with equal diligence.
Subject: The Media ?Outed? CIA Employee; AIM Says Evidence Backs Jailing of Journalist – July 15, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Anne Tyrrell
July 14, 2005 Shirley & Banister Public Affairs
800.536.5920 or 703.739.5924
The Media “Outed” CIA Employee;
AIM Says Evidence Backs Jailing of Journalist
WASHINGTON — New revelations about the CIA leak case suggest that reporters “outed” Valerie Plame as a CIA employee and that Bush Administration officials merely received and passed on the information.
“The disclosures have turned this case upside down,” says Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM). “It’s clear that reporters, not the White House, are under investigation. Judith Miller of The New York Times is in jail because she may have been the real ‘source’ in this case.”
The Washington Post reports today that “there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame’s identity and relationship to Wilson — not the other way around.” The paper says not only did Bush official Karl Rove learn about Plame from journalists but that Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was “alerted by someone in the media” to Plame’s identity, and that he told Matt Cooper of Time that “he had heard about her from someone else in the media…”
“The journalistic defenders of Judith Miller have egg all over their faces,” says Kincaid. “The media called for this probe thinking they could nail Rove. But they only succeeded in jailing one of their own. By defending her, they are obstructing justice in the case.”
Accuracy In Media (AIM) is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage. For more information, please go to http://www.aim.org.
Do you believe that American citizens (not government officials) have a fundamental civic, ethical or moral obligation to try and pursuade citizens of other countries of the necessity to adopt and apply American ideologies into their own form of government? (Explain why or why not)
Yes. The principles of freedom and the maintenance of rights and privileges as found in The Declaration of Independence and The U.S.A. Constitution were inspired by God and were intended to benefit the entire world.
D&C 98: 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
And in Isaiah 2:3 is reads “for out of Zion shall go forth the law,” meaning, not only the gospel law, but the principles of law, freedom, rights and privileges as found in the U.S.A. Constitution shall go forth to bless the entire world.
The U.S.A had the first written constitution. So remarkable and majestic is the U.S.A. Constitution that it is the model of all written constitutions of which only 6 countries in the world have yet to adopt and follow in like pattern.
As God sent his Son into the world to be The Light, God also sent men inspired by Him to bring forth the US Con. to be a Political Light unto the whole world. After all, we are all His children and He has given us a great blessing in the US Con., which has blessed the entire world by its Light!
To be short, there is perfect harmony with the Pro-Life & Death Penalty issues. There is perfect harmony because it’s a principled decision; therefore there is neither conflict nor contradiction.
The four principles (at least four) are accountability & sanctity of life, & mercy & justice.
Being responsible for the choices one makes is key to LDS (Christian) theology. One is held accountable not only for actions, but words and desires, all which will affect ones status on the Judgment day.
The commandments related to chastity apply to all people, regardless of age or circumstance. If a person chooses to engage in sex a realistic outcome is pregnancy. While such pregnancy maybe unwelcome or unwanted, the sex act itself was welcomed and wanted, therefore that person by default accepts the risks (pregnancy) associated with the act. Just because a pregnancy occurred, does not provide sufficient cause or reason to abort the baby. Hence, the person who engaged in sex is accountable for the life created; they are not innocent per se; it did not “just happen”.
Further, the baby is innocent, and deserves life and protection because the baby did not choose this pregnancy; it is innocent, therefore it cannot be held accountable and nor has a voice on the matter, therefore it must be protected and nourished and honored.
Herein is all four principles played out: accountability (those who had sex should live with that decision), sanctify of life (both the sex act and a baby are sacred in Gods eyes and are not to be take lightly), mercy (life of the baby protected) and justice (law of chastity requires responsibility of all outcomes, including pregnancy).
In the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, abortion is acceptable because the person getting pregnant did not have a choice in the matter; no person chooses rape, incest or death. Here again, the same principles are in perfect harmony.
The commandments related to life/murder (thou shall not kill) and the death penalty also are in perfect harmony with the four principles (at least four) are accountability & sanctity of life, & mercy & justice.
When a person repents, he is to restore what was take or lost. A thief replaces with equal value or greater the item they stole. A liar must make amends equal to the crime committed and the harm to another. What can the murder restore? How can the murder repent? Can the murder bring back the life (accountability) of the person murdered? No!
The murderer has sealed their fate, unable to repent (restore life), therefore, mercy is robbed and the sanctity of life mocked by murder. Therefore, accountability and justice must be executed, and this for the murders soul as well; it’s part of the price of their repentance; giving up that which they took, namely, their life for a life.
Will President Bush encourge Majority Leader Bill Frist to implement the Constitutional option (better known as the Nuclear option)?
If it happens the only ones to blame will be the Dems whose filibustering effected to the negative the lives of millions as case after case becomes back logged.
Fairness Isn’t Part of the Obstructionist Playbook
As President Bush deliberates on whom to nominate to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in more than a decade, it’s worth contemplating the other side of the confirmation equation: the U.S. Senate.
For four years, liberals in the Senate tested strategies and tactics that they could employ to obstruct Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. And typically, their methods involve abusing the Senate’s traditional confirmation process. Nominees to federal appeals courts like Henry Saad, Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering have been victims of their obstruction. So have nominees to executive branch posts like John Bolton.
So with the Senate set to consider a nominee to the Supreme Court, it’s worth considering what the Senate confirmation process should look like, and it is likely to be abused.
Some people just don’t get it!
Liberals Play the Terrorism Blame Game
In the aftermath of last week’s London bombings, most Britons and Americans turned their thoughts to the victims and their families. Many liberals, however, immediately turned their thoughts to the blame game.
Within hours of the first reports from London, Leftist commentators and bloggers were attacking President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, blaming them for the bombings.
Under the pseudonym WilliamPitt, a writer at the blog Democratic Underground says, “Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair bear the responsibility.” A headline on Salon.com shrieks, “Blowback from Bush and Blair’s incompetently pursued war on terror has hit London.” And, on the very day of the bombings, leading liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas said on his blog Daily Kos, “Bush (and Blair) took their eyes off the prize … There are consequences to the mess in Iraq. And today, we’re seeing one of them.”
The Left’s attempt to blame President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for terrorism is so transparently wrong as to be absurd. Let’s be clear. The only people who bear responsibility for the grotesque attack on London are the blood thirsty killers who were behind it. They have made their pact with the devil and committed themselves to evil and death. Their campaign of murder will not end until they rid the world of all of us, or until we rid the world of them. Terrorists are the proper targets for anger and vengeance, not those attempting to eradicate them.
The Left’s attack on the President and the Prime Minister springs from the worst kind of self-deception. The terrorists would still be using any means at their disposal to try and kill us whether we had responded to 9-11 with troops in Afghanistan or impotent cruise missile strikes. And whether or not the U.S., U.K. and our allies had gone into Iraq, the terrorists would be recruiting new killers, training them and sending them to kill us. As the official report from the 9-11 Commission put it, “Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, [the terrorists] called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the ‘individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.’”
But the liberals pretend that if we would only do nothing and leave the terrorists alone, then the killers would leave us alone, and we could all, to paraphrase Merle Haggard, be eating rainbow stew together. Hedging their bets, however, the liberals suggest that the President bring home all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and post them to guard New York subway entrances. (Seriously. That’s what they said. Don’t believe it? Click here.)
All of their pleasant fiction conjures the question: What color is the sky in their world?
The President and the Prime Minister can be held responsible for many things. They are, after all, the principal leaders of two great nations in a time of war. One can fairly question their judgment and even their candor. But to argue that they are to blame for the tragic deaths of more than 50 innocent Londoners is careless and foolish. Even more unfortunate is the liberals’ obvious political motivation. Rather than mourning the dead, comforting the wounded and targeting the culprits, the Left would prefer to vent its hatred of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for daring to have the courage to stand up and fight.
In some ways, those who publish their pronouncements in the public domain are best judged by what they don’t say. For the liberals trying to use the London tragedy for their own political advantage, it’s time to take that axiom to heart.
[Posted July 12, 2005 ]
Read the following and it made me ROTFLOL!
The President Consults with Liberal Senators
(a Double Super Secret Transcript) *
“Mr. President, we want you to fire Karl Rove.”
“But he leaked that CIA hottie’s name.”
“But you promised.”
“No. Confirm John Bolton.
“Will you fire Karl Rove if we confirm John Bolton?”
“Well, uh, we want you to nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court.”
“But we need all that liberal wacko money.”
“We could share.”
“Well, uh, how about a woman?”
“Janice Rogers Brown.”
“Maybe someone, uh, a little, uh, less radical.”
“Could we have some water?”
“Would she sign autographs in her robe?”
“Please, Mr. President, some water?”
“There would be pies thrown all over the court.”
“I like mincemeat. Very good at Christmas.”
“How about firing Rumsfeld?”
“I have to ride my bike now.”
(Sound of Oval Office door closing)
“What about just suspending Rove for a few days?”
“Excuse me, gentlemen, the President is gone. I’m going to have to ask you leave the room now.”
“Mr. Rove needs it.”
“He said something about interviewing potential opponents for your Senate seats. Please take some of those prune danishes with you.”
* The Center for Individual Freedom received the above transcript from a confidential source. We will protect his identity until after lunch. To obtain our notes, please call our attorney, Norman Pearlstine.
M. Zuhdi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy wrote an Op-Ed Waking Up to ‘Islamo-Fascism’All Muslims must play a role in stopping the violence being done in the name of our faith.
When I read it I was encouraged the some Muslims are waking up to the reality of the threat Islamo-Fascism is to themselves and the world.
Copied below is the Email I recieved today from Beliefnet.com regarding Jasser’s Op-Ed.
—- —– —– —– —– —— ——- —
Beliefnet.com is running an editorial by M. Z. Jasser of AIFD (American Islamic Forum for Democracy) and CIP (Center for Islamic Pluralism) in the wake of the London bombings. The article is below. You can also find the link at
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/170/story_17057_1.html. Or at http://www.beliefnet.com/
Beliefnet.com also solicited a counterpoint response from Salam al-Marayati of MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) which can be found at
—- —– —– —– —– —— ——- —
Waking Up to ‘Islamo-Fascism’
All Muslims must play a role in stopping the violence being done in the name of our faith.
By M. Zuhdi Jasser
As we all began digesting the news of last week’s terrorist attack, most of America’s Muslim organizations issued what has become a predictable, yet empty, round of condemnations. Articulated in press releases, these rote statements are not backed up with sincere attempts to acknowledge and fix the problems within Islam. Listening to these empty pronouncements, I can’t help but ask: Where is our Muslim responsibility–our duty–to protect the world from the actions of our own?
It is time for us Muslims to take ownership of our faith by moving beyond empty condemnations and ensuring that Islamo-fascists–those who seek to create an Islamic totalitarian theocracy through the use of any and all means–have no place in our world. These fascists are Muslims who have hijacked and twisted our faith. They subscribe to a medieval code where the ends justify the means. And you can hear their rhetoric not only in the Middle East; radical imams preach in London and in many cities in the U.S. Cutting off this lifeblood and its ideology should be the focus of our collective Muslim response.
Many well-meaning Muslims react to news about Muslim terrorists by insisting that anyone who commits violent acts is, by definition, not part of Islam. But who are we fooling? The Islamo-fascists did not come out of thin air. They use our scripture, our prayers, our language, and our tradition–and they come from somewhere within our community. These killers are doing incomprehensibly evil actions across the world in the name of our religion, and because of that, my fellow Muslims and I should act now–decisively, publicly, and in tandem with our leadership–against Islamo-fascism. To argue whether they are Muslims or not–and what is a ‘true’ Islamic society–is only deflection and denial.
Every time I experience the joy and spirituality of joining with my Muslim brothers and sisters in devotional prayer, I feel a perfect harmony of thought and movement as we bow and say God’s praises together. Islam is a religion of community, and I know I can walk into any mosque in the world and join the congregation in reciting the same prayers I say at home. While my faith is very personal, without that communal energy, my religion is not complete.
But with spiritual fulfillment and community connection come responsibility. Moderate, moral Muslims–that is to say, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims–may see these Islamo-fascists as far removed from our reality; however the unforgiving truth is that we are responsible as a group for our weakest and also for our most corrupt and deranged. Islam has no formal clergy, and so it falls to the community as a whole, all of us, to take on this challenge. Denial serves nothing but the empty ego and is destined to fail. As Muslims we must help bring these barbaric Islamists to justice and assist in dismantling the systems that create them.
How many wake-up calls do we need? Most faith groups have at some point in their histories seen their compasses falter, as deviants exploited their altars. However, those same faith groups have also eventually assumed responsibility for exposing, exterminating, and marginalizing the cancers who are their own. The need for Muslims to act now cannot be overstated, for it becomes exponentially more difficult after each horrific bombing. My fellow Muslims must immediately–and in large numbers–become proactive in the war against militant Islamists, or soon it may be too late. We owe it to the nations in which we live, as well as to our truly pluralistic faith.
Many people ask what they or their communities could possibly do to counter a cancer like Islamo-fascism. But all Muslims–and all Muslim organizations–can play an active role in this battle.
What it would mean to take a true stand against terror
The immediate reaction to the London devastation should be declaration after declaration by Muslim leaders around the free world that we will immediately redirect all of our resources to combat al Qaeda and every other militant Islamist organization, in order to extinguish their barbarism. These barbarians should hear words from moderate Muslims around the globe that make them fear they will never again find a single religious haven for their ideology. As pluralistic Muslims take away from them the mantle of faith and the acceptance of their formative ideologies, they will be left with nothing but the depths of their own evil.
It’s time to build an anti-terror ethos within the Islamic community. We can publicly embarrass radical imams and organizations who preach hatred. We can publicly expose the twisted interpretations of the Qu’ran and Muslim teachings perpetuated by radical Islamists who justify killing innocent people in the name of our God. We can focus the public agenda of American Muslims on publicizing our commitment to our citizenship oath and to the American secular form of democratic government.
We need to force a public debate with the Islamists, not run from it. By constantly reasserting Muslim critiques of Wahhabism, Salafism, and other fundamentalist Islamist ideologies that feed terrorist networks, we will fight terror at its core. It is time to ensure that Islamic sermons around the world teach Muslims to dismantle terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbullah, and any group that harbors, teaches, and trains the world’s future Islamo-fascists.
In addition, we must root out all hate and intolerance from the educational texts in our mosques, which we use to teach our youth and our co-religionists. Anti-Semitism, anti-Western feelings, and chauvinism should be combated directly by American Muslim organizations.
And we need to teach our Muslim-American youth to feel a sense of responsibility to our America, which gives us freedom and liberty. Why is it that so many people from every minority in America are dying to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan and free the world from the Islamo-fascists while so few American Muslim organizations have actively encouraged military service since 9-11? We should sponsor public campaigns to encourage our community to join the military and law-enforcement agencies. What better way to ensure that enforcement of the Patriot Act does not unfairly target Muslims than to have American Muslims within law enforcement? Allegiance to our country is in fact a deeply Islamic obligation.
The war against Islamo-fascism has many fronts, and moderate Muslims need to be leading the struggle. We must always remember the Qu’ranic teachings on peace and justice, such as: “Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be against rich or poor, for God can best protect both. Follow not the cravings of your hearts, lest you swerve, and if you distort justice or decline to do justice, verily God is well acquainted with all that you do.” (Qu’ran 4:135).
At its core, “terror” is simply a barbarically evil tactic in a war of ideologies. Muslims, and only Muslims, hold the keys to the flood gates that can drown militant Islamists in their own twisted interpretations of scripture. But time is running short. Muslims must realize the challenge before us and step forward on all these fronts or risk losing our freedoms and our faith to the barbarism of Islamo-fascist terror. It is time that the majority of Muslims said, “not on our watch.”
M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Phoenix, Ariz., physician. He is chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He is also a founding board member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He can be reached at He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org