Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Thursday, April 26, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
The First Islamic University By: Ryan Mauro
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, May 26, 2009

If all goes as planned, the first four-year, accredited Islamic college, Zaytuna, will be created. The two Muslim scholars leading this effort are Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir. Both men have made bold statements against terrorism, the targeting of civilians and the use of violence to establish Islamic law. But both have also voiced comments reflecting hateful and intolerant attitudes.


Sheikh Hamza Yusuf has been described by The Guardian as “arguably the West’s most influential Islamic scholar.” He received considerable attention due to his role as an advisor to President Bush after the attacks of 9/11, which Yousef described as “mass murder, pure and simple” and un-Islamic. He’s also favorably compared the treatment of Muslims in the United States to that of some Islamic countries. On October 8, 2001, Yusuf was quoted as boldly saying, “Many people in the West do not realize how oppressive some Muslim states are—both for men and women…I would rather live as a Muslim in the West than in most of the Muslim countries, because I think the way Muslims are allowed to live in the West is closer to the Muslim way.”


Imam Zaid Shakir likewise has taken a stand against those justifying attacks on civilians. Although he was harshly critical of the Israeli offensive into Gaza, he warned against reacting with extremism. On Jan. 8, 2009, he wrote, “…the Muslim blogosphere is filling up with angry calls for the indiscriminate murder of Jews…such calls for indiscriminate killing have nothing to do with our religion.”


In one of his articles, Shakir writes to a reader that Muslims are not to target innocent civilians or non-combatants. He says that Islamic law prohibits even attacking those providing logistical support to forces fighting Muslims, saying only those directly engaging in combat are legitimate targets. He also rejects the notion that non-Muslims born on occupied Muslim territory are acceptable targets, seemingly ruling out attacks on Israeli civilians.


Despite these comforting statements, Yusuf and especially Shakir have made comments that should disqualify them from being described as “moderate” Muslims.


For example, in the same answer to the above question, Shakir says that “I did not nor have not said that Islam forbids fighting occupiers.” Based on his characterization of U.S. involvement in Iraq as an “occupation,” one must assume he believes that attacks on U.S. soldiers there are justified. His opposition to attacking Israeli civilians also does not equate to opposition to Hamas. Although he described Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli towns as “ill-conceived,” he says Hamas “was never given a chance to prove its commitment to the peace process.” He then quotes from an article arguing that Hamas is a force that can be dealt with diplomatically.


Shakir also appears to embrace 9/11 conspiracy theories, describing the attacks as having “occurred under dubious circumstances that have yet to be thoroughly examined.” Yousef, to his credit, has rejected such beliefs, saying “Many Muslims seem to be in deep denial about what has happened. They are coming up with different conspiracy theories and don’t entertain the real possibility that it was indeed Muslims who did this.”


Sheikh Yousef has his own history of hateful comments. In 1995, for example, he expressed his contempt for Judaism, describing it as “a most racist religion.” However, he later said in September 2006:


“I was not raised as an anti-Semite. My sister converted to Judaism, is married to a Jewish man. I have nephews that are Jewish. I was not raised with any prejudice at all. But I was infected when I lived in the Muslim world. I lived in the Arab world for over 10 years, and I think I did get infected by that virus for a period of time. But I grew out of it and realized that not only does it have nothing to do with Islam, but it has nothing to do with my core values.”


Yousef has also been vocally hostile to the very foundations and principles of the United States. In 1996, he stated:


“[The United States is] a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.”


On September 9, 2001, he spoke at a fundraiser at UCLA for Imam Jamil Al-Amin, who had been arrested and was later convicted for murdering a police officer. His remarks, which included defending Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who helped orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, included this rhetoric:


“They [Americans] were ungrateful for the bounties of Allah, and so Allah caused them to taste fear and hunger. That is one reason, and I would say, that this country is facing a very terrible fate. The reason for that is that this country stands condemned…This country unfortunately has a great tribulation coming to it.”


Both Muslim scholars voice their beliefs that the U.S. is imperialist and seeks to dominate weaker countries.


Sheikh Yusuf has accused the U.S. of seeking to “unite the world” so everyone adopts America’s corrupt way of life and “Everybody will have the same banal perspectives on the world.” He’s also criticized the “dominant world order, which is a capitalistic, western world order.”


Imam Sharif goes a few steps further, stating his belief that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by the military-industrial complex. He admonishes the “pattern of demonization, destabilization, and the invasion of hapless Third World nations” by the U.S., saying that such aggression is always carried out under the guise of national interests. Among those he lists as being “demonized” and victimized by the U.S. are Hugo Chavez, Manuel Noriega, Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and most shockingly, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. He also mocks those who warn of the growing threat coming from Somalia, putting quotation marks around the word “radical” when describing the Western media’s characterization of the Islamic militants that control large parts of that country.


Shakir also has a clear habit of downplaying the threat from radical Islam. He dismisses the possibility of another 9/11 happening, saying it is “unlikely to be replicated and did little lasting damage to this country. This illustrates the overblown threat of the ‘Islamic Fascist’ enemy.” In another article dated October 24, 2007, Shakir says that President Bush’s agenda “shares far more with the fascist movements of the 20th century than any of the Islamic groups or states he and his political allies seek to condemn.”


He took particular issue with the film Obsession, which used clips of radical Islamic preachers and terrorists to warn the West of the severity of the threat. He described the film as “anti-Islamic” and “black propaganda.” He has been especially incensed by attempts to equate radical Islam with Nazism. He writes that comparing Bin Laden and President Ahmadinejad of Iran to Hitler and Stalin is “totally baseless.”


Shakir further distorts the nature of radical Islamic terrorist groups, saying they do not fit the “Islamic Fascist” label and characterizing them as nationalists fighting occupation and oppression. This quote from one of his articles provides insight into how he sees such terrorists:


“Hamas calls for the liberation of Palestinian lands not the physical elimination of the Jews. Al-Qaeda calls for the end of Americans strategic presence in the Middle East and not the destruction of America. The Iraqi resistance calls for the end of the American occupation of Iraq and not the end of America. The various Jihadi groups in Kashmir call for the termination of the Indian occupation of Kashmir and not the termination of India. The Chechen resistance calls for the end of the brutal Russian occupation of their lands and not the end of Russia.”


Both men agree that terrorism is caused by U.S. policy, failing to see the ideological component that threatens us. When asked where Muslim anger comes from, Sheikh Yusuf answered “If you had one word to describe the root of all this rage, it’s humiliation…It’s everywhere. You don’t think it’s humiliating to have a foreign force come into your land?”


Yusuf and Shakir do not acknowledge that the enemy is ideologically-motivated and the actions of the U.S. would not change their goals of establishing a Sharia-based state in the Middle East and eventually, the world. They fail to notice that other parts of the world that oppose U.S. policy, such as Europe and Latin America, don’t react by attacking American cities and civilians, and that an ideology justifying and glorifying such acts must exist in order for them to take place.


Shakir is also not a fan of separation of mosque and state. The New York Times reported in June 2006 that “he said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law,” although he said he did not want this to be brought about through violence. The key thing to note here is that he isn’t merely proselytizing his faith, as followers of other religions do, but he is calling for Sharia-based governance. The fact that he says he doesn’t support using violence shouldn’t take away from the fact that his goal is the same as that of Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists.


Since 9/11, Sheikh Yusuf has significantly changed his tone. He has acknowledged that he has made some incendiary comments in the past. “September 11 was a wake-up call for me. I don’t want to contribute to the hate in any shape or form. I now regret in the past being silent about what I have heard in Islamic discourse and being part of that with my own anger,” he said in October 2001.


Both Imam Shakir and Sheikh Yusuf have made comforting comments, but each have also made comments indicating a softer, more subdued form of extremist belief. Imam Shakir in particular seems to disagree only with the tactics, and not the political and religious goals, of terrorist groups and radical Islamists. If the Zaytuna College gets off the ground and competing beliefs are not presented, we may have to deal with the proliferation of such soft extremist beliefs for years to come.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the Director of Intelligence at IWIC. He’s also the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com