.bmp)
.bmp)
"Frontpage Interview's guest today is Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement."(picture on left)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.
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.)"
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.)"
To read the rest of this interview go to:
As in the days of Noah...
