Are we At War with Islam? Check Your Premises!

Subject: Are we At War with Islam? Check Your Premises!

Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11 have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas.

The implementations they have advocated vary from one instance: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero to many instances: bomb madrassas, hunt down and kill clerics overseas (or nuke a major enemy city, killing the ringleaders along with millions of civilians).

Their argument would not be possible without a single crucial proposition, whether explicitly stated or implied: "We are at war with Islam."

This is a misleading statement. There are two words in this proposition which should be examined. And they are not "at" and "with".

First, "Islam". If one has read a book on the Middle East and Islam, one quickly learns that there is a difference between the religion and a tiny minority of its most extreme adherents, the Islamists or Islamofascists. The Islamofascists want to impose theocracy, to declare jihad and fatwas, to murder their opponents both in their home countries and in the West. And with the terrorists among them and some of the Wahhabi sect in particular, we have clearly seen - even before 9-11 - that they mean it.

Islamofascism or "Islamism" is strongest in the Middle East from the Arab world through Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in a number of expatriate communities. But Islamofasism is not identical to Islam, nor do more than a tiny minority of muslims subscribe to it. Never in history have one billion people been of a single mind about anything.

Nor have they been willing to follow a single intellectual path, even when clothed in the respected garb of the church.

Even in Iran, the overwhelming majority of its population hates and resents theocracy, especially now that they live under one and have direct experience of what it does to their lives. After 9-11, the country in which there was the greatest number of citizens who expressed sympathy for the United States, who left massive flowers on the steps of the U.S. Embassy was: Iran.

And Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and their allies have been steadily losing support as they have murdered innocent people in their own countries, as thugs and murderers have terrorized those who violate religious strictures and as it has become clear what 'sharia' means. MOreover, elsewhere in the Middle East (with the possible exceptions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) from Morocco in the West to Turkey in the East plus Iraq and Indonesia - the largest muslim country in the world, the forces of secularism and modernization are very much at war with, and disgusted by, the bands of would-be religious totalitarians.

So those who seek to use force against us, to use terror or weapons of mass destruction are not represented by the word 'Islam', but by Islamic terrorists, by Al Qaeda and like groups, by Islamic fascists.

So the doctrine 'we are at war with Islam' is false if you mean a war involving physical attacks.

Second, this brings us to the concept of "war". To say that we are at war with Islam and thus, as in any war, we must use force against their supporting institutions is to equivocate on two meanings of the word "war". Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses and either implicitly or explicitly switching between them in some unacknowledged way within one argument. Say to someone with a Christian or anti-Islamic or secular view that we are "at war" with Islam and they will often nod their heads, yes, it's an implacable religion which wants its doctrines and theology to expand and conquer. But that is *a war of ideas* as it is against socialism or other ideas advocating expanding the power of governments at the expense of individual rights.

The use of the word war is to equivocate, to blur and eradicate the vital philosophical distinction between two very different kinds: between a war of ideas, persuasion, and role models on the one hand --- and a war of bullets and bombs and coercion on the other.

A war of ideas is not (except for the extreme group mentioned in the previous paragraph) a war in which the enemy religion and its billions of adherents is trying to use force, to develop and employ weapons of mass destruction - as opposed to ideas against the unbelievers. Persuasion is its dominant mode of advance. Whether or not there are suras and passages in the Koran which advocate such force, here is the key principle: The billions of muslims are not enlisted and are not participating in any way in jihad. They are not (except for a handful) trying to fund or hide those who have declared jihad. Most of their jihads and conflicts and strongest resentments are local and internal: Sunnis and Shiites. Pashtuns against other groups. The oppressiveness of their own government. Groups such as the powerful and corrupt vs. the poor or downtrodden.

And it is surprising and dismaying to observe some of those who claim to be against the initiation of force and who believe it is the single greatest political evil and who believe that, only in the absence of force can new ideas, the best ideas advance, and can man advance out of barbarism and into civilization. It is surprising and dismaying to see such people arguing that coercion and force, not persuasion and ideas and reasons and positive values and the hope for the future, should be used against a religion or its advocates and leadership as such.

To kill someone or blow up their church convinces no one and permanently intimidates no observer or neighbor or relative.

Rather the opposite.

Added to this there is a lesson from history which further undercuts the idea that one billion muslims today are an implacably hostile military enemy (or filled to the rooftops with nascent terrorists itching to be unleashed).

There are indeed statements in the Koran which advocate holy war and advocate the fusion of church and state. And in many ways the religion as currently practiced is more hostile to civil society, and peace, and rights than is the Christian or Buddhist or Confucian world. But those muslim scriptures existed and were studied and learned across the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. And yet, the muslim world was the peaceful world, the civilized world, the world which had great respect for the Greeks and reason and science and which revered, respected, and preserved the works of Aristotle and of science and enlightenment for those very reasons. If the muslim religion as such were the implacable problem, what about it made it more so than the Christian world of the time: The Christian world was the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages. The Islamic world was the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason.

So, it's possible to accept the religion of Islam and not be trying to exterminate the West or progress or reason or civilization. It's possible to be a practicing muslim and not be an enemy of modernity. Just like as it is possible for those who adhere to -- in full or in part, in terms of deep understanding and committment or in terms of 'lip service' -- any other religion.

Post 1

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 11:13pm

Their argument would not be possible without a single crucial proposition, whether explicitly stated or implied: "We are at war with Islam."

This is a misleading statement. There are two words in this proposition which should be examined. And they are not "at" and "with".

I'd say there are three words here that should be examined.

"We"? I'm not at war with Islam, or at war with Muslims, or even bear any ill-will to the majority of peaceful Muslims around the world. The biggest part of that "we" is a handful of government officials. When you hear collective words like "we" or "us" or "everyone", especially when used by statists, it's best to try and ask yourself, "which individuals actually compose that 'we'?" Usually it is actually only a tiny percentage of the populace, sometimes a number of people in the single digits, trying to pass off their actions as supported by everyone else.

Post 2

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 4:51am

PC wrote:

If the muslim religion as such were the implacable problem, what about it made it more so than the Christian world of the time: The Christian world was the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages. The Islamic world was the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason.

So what happened?

Answering that question would provide clues about how to get the Islamic world back into that mode -- assuming such is even possible.

Of course, if by "rule of law" you mean "Sharia Law," then your argument takes a considerably different meaning than that of the traditional English notion of "rule of law."

Post 3

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 5:29am

Verily...

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:44am

... how to get the Islamic world back into that mode. (the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason.)

As Obama suggested to NASA ... help them feel good about themselves.

Sam

WIJG?

Post 5

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 12:36pm

Nicely said, Philip. Like Jim I thought that one of those two words would be "we." The war of ideas is a theme here on RoR, metaphorical perhaps, and therefore perhaps begging for closer examination. The War of Ideas is a metaphor because we Objectivists deny the validity of compromise: win or lose; conquer or surrender; but never meet your enemy halfway. This is the war of the excluded middle: A or non-A.

Islam is clearly very similar to Christianity in many respects from both the scholastic side and ther fundamentalist. Shariah Law is known in the USA. We had "Blue Laws" in Ohio until recently, though we did not stone to death merchants who opened on Sunday. Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter is another such fable from an earlier time when religious laws dominated America. Attending public school in the 1950s, I remember reciting the Lord's Prayer, as well as the Pledge of Allegiance, and singing a patriotic song, all of that every morning. The State of Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregrational Church until 1841.

So, for now, short of an examination of what a war of ideas is or is not, and what Islam is or is not, I looked for "we."

But all of that aside, thanks for making the statement, Philip.

Post 6

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 1:59pm

What 'the' Islamic world?

A] There is the theocratic nutbag crust, the OMIR(Old Men In Robes), clinging to their gig until their fingers bleed.

B] There is the Muslim 'street', the deliberately kept ignorant masses that they lead around by the nose, with an iron theocratic fist.

C] There are the educated moderns-moderates, who have long just wanted to modern-up already, but who may not politically have enough control in their, don't ignore this, 'theocracies' to have enough influence over the 'street.' So, they are largely nervously on the side-line, waiting to see how this struggle between the OMIR, clinging to their Dark Ages gig, and the balance of modernity is going to pan out. They might even be rooting for modernity, but moot.

Leaders in secular modernity do not regard the OMIR as political threats to their power, simply by being. That is because, for example, the streets of America are not filled with millions living in squalor asking our leaders why life isn't more like it is in Bangladesh.

But the opposite is not true; Modernity is an existential threat to the OMIR in those theocracies simply by existing in the same world, because, for example, those may be hovels in Bangladesh, but they are hovesl with satellite dishes. Life in the West is not a secret to the street.

The OMIR got some 'splaining to do, and they control the narrative with an absolute iron fist, and are so far winning that PR battle. The OMIR have successfully blamed the West for the squalor and hardships on the street.

And, this is why the moderns-moderates are nervously standing by. It isn't clear to them that Modernity is going to win this battle for the hearts and minds of the Islamic street.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/22, 2:04pm)

Post 7

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 2:29pm

> If the muslim religion as such were the implacable problem, what about it made it more so than the Christian world of the time: The Christian world was the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages. The Islamic world was the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason. [me]

> So what happened? [Luke]

Excellent question.

> Answering that question would provide clues about how to get the Islamic world back into that mode -- assuming such is even possible.

I emphatically agree. From what I've read [Bernard Lewis's works, the recent book "Aristotle's Children", etc.] there was a turning point in both Christian Europe and in medieval Islam. In the first case, despite the clear danger of Aristotle and Greek ideas to religion, the decision was made to accept and try to integrate these ideas in the churches and in the schools and in discussion. But the thought leaders in the Islamic world grew more and more hostile to 'secular reason'.

In the late medieval period, Aquinas was a massively influential and respected figure in the Christian world and Al-Ghazali in the Islamic. "[Al-Ghazali] is considered a pioneer of methodic doubt and skepticism,and in one of his major works, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, he changed the course of early Islamic philosophy, shifting it away from an Islamic metaphysics influenced by ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy, and towards an Islamic philosophy based on cause-and-effect that was determined by God or intermediate angels.." [wikipedia]

Since it was a sea change in fundamental ideas that caused a sea change in two major civilizations, that supports Rand's idea that philosophy is the ultimate nuclear weapon.

But in the case of the West, the society was already starting to open up, to grow a bit, to become a bit more optimistic. I don't know if that was true in late medieval Islam.

I would suspect that more dynamic and open and optimistic societies would be more receptive to even beginning to consider such fundamental changes in outlook. Turkey for example, with self-confidence, its economic dynamism, and Ataturk legacy of secularism. It's probably no coincidence that more of Ayn Rand's books have been translated into Turkish than any other language recently.

There are no shortcuts, though. The liberation of the European world from the Dark Ages took centuries. And the decline of the Islamic world into its darkness likewise.

I've often said that if I had a billion dollars I'd be translating at least one of the major works of Rand simultaneously into each of the major languages of the world, eastern as well as western. No one could have predicted the rise of East Asia at the end of World War II. Men and intellectuals have free will. You simply can't tell where the "hidden springs" will gush forth, where men will be open, not try to squash new ideas, will use their volition to think and question and break out of their rut.

(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/22, 2:32pm)

Post 8

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 11:23pm

Phil,

Are you familiar with the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? In her books, she stresses that the Muslim culture is violent by its very nature -- that extreme violence is inflicted on family members, including children, and that this happens regularly, not only in the Middle East and in European countries to which Muslims have emigrated but also in the United States. She says that Americans are largely unaware of this.

It is not just the extremist wing of radical Islam that worships violence; the Muslim culture in general worships it, and resorts to it regularly against their own members. Is it any wonder that groups like Al-Qaeda have targeted the U.S. and the West with violent attacks? We are dealing with a violent religion and a barbarous culture. And we may ultimately have to defend ourselves against it militarily in a major war, even at the cost of many innocent lives. This is a highly irrational and dangerous form of mysticism, and it is very widespread.

Don't kid yourself. If Muslims think there's nothing wrong with using extreme violence against their own family members and their women, why would they object to using it against a "decadent" Western culture that they loath and despise? They would like nothing better than to impose Sharia Law here in the United States. They don't believe in individual rights or anything even approaching it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to pay for round-the-clock security because of the death threats against her, not because of some aberrant Muslim wing, but because of the religion's core principles. Islam demands that anyone who leaves the religion be punished by death. She notes that this constant fear of being killed is shared by all Muslims who leave the faith as well as those who practice a less strict form of it.

Post 9

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 6:42am

Yes - Islam is a political ideology in the guise of a religion, and always has been...

Post 10

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 6:48am

William:

she stresses that the Muslim culture is violent by its very nature -- that extreme violence is inflicted on family members, including children, and that this happens regularly, not only in the Middle East and in European countries to which Muslims have emigrated but also in the United States. She says that Americans are largely unaware of this.

It is not just the extremist wing of radical Islam that worships violence; the Muslim culture in general worships it, and resorts to it regularly against their own members. Is it any wonder that groups like Al-Qaeda have targeted the U.S. and the West with violent attacks? We are dealing with a violent religion and a barbarous culture. And we may ultimately have to defend ourselves against it militarily in a major war, even at the cost of many innocent lives. This is a highly irrational and dangerous form of mysticism, and it is very widespread

Largely true 'dat. Americans would largely not recognize daily public life in some places as being from the same planet or species, the acceptance of daily violence is that palpable. 'Commerce' is a larger man berating a smaller man until the smaller man hands over the goods. "Kitchen fires" are snickered at int he paper. Gangs of religious thugs summarily murdering violators of hartals in the streets get away with that with impunity, and the body count is reported in the newspapers the next day, like soccer scores. The victims of traffic accidents are descended upon by mobs in the street and dragged to the sides of the road, berated for causing a traffic accident.

When you witness such acts, you wonder "what species is this?"

That is 'the street.' There is also a minority of moderns-moderates who want nothing more than to modern-up and leave the Dark Ages. But they currently have insufficient political power and influence in their factual and de facto theocracies to be effective.

The poor 'street' is led around by the nose using the same tactics that the poor 'street' in America is led around by the nose, by our own infestation of de facto theocrats.

regards,
Fred

Post 11

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 9:52am

> If Muslims think there's nothing wrong with using extreme violence against their own family members and their women why would they object to using it against a "decadent" Western culture that they loath and despise?

Because they know we will send special forces and drones at them. People who slap their kids and wives around and get away with it are likely to think twice if they know that if they do that to someone else there are consequences.

> They would like nothing better than to impose Sharia Law here in the United States. They don't believe in individual rights or anything even approaching it.

First, backward and non-Western countries of any kind have these tendencies. That may be too blame for some of the brutality, lack of freedom, lack of civilized behavior. Not just Islam. Look at many of the non-muslim parts of Africa. How many countries respect individual rights anywhere? Not only that, but Sharia law is -very controversial- and not the ruling paradigm in many Islamic countries.

Second, I would beware of the 'they' generalization about muslims as such. I think that is a collectivist mistake of judging the group by its most extreme examples ("all Negroes tend to be...all Asians generally accept their Confucian culture...") Rather than judging people as individuals in their great variety.

Finally, it's dangerous to read just the victims of Islam and not the scholars. One needs to read the observations and arguments people who have spent their lives studying the religion and its cultures - a Bernard Lewis as well as a Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She certainly has experienced the evils in her own experience. But has she visited not just the middle east and the expatriates, but also places like Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, India?

Does she have enough knowledge or experience or scholarship to make the collective judgment about -all- muslims practice their religion, instead of giving lip service to some of the most backward provisions?

(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/24, 5:21am)

Post 12

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 9:58am

> round-the-clock security because of the death threats against her, not because of some aberrant Muslim wing, but because of the religion's core principles. Islam demands that anyone who leaves the religion be punished by death. [Bill]

Notice that the number of people who issue death threats or actually try to execute fatwas are a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the world's muslims.

I argued in my original post that any religion has a wide variance in how seriously people actually take seriously its core principles. Think of lapsed, semi-serious, confused Christians as opposed to fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible and then go on to actually try to practice it.

Religions by their nature lead to this phenomenon of lots of, often the majority, of their subscribers not faithfully practicing them. The reason is that their commandments are unreal, impractical. People skulk around in guilt because they -cannot- practice the commandments (complete selflessness is only one of those.)

So you can't argue for a syllogism which says: "1. Islam's core principles are XYZ. 2. X if implemented will detonate weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. 3. Muslims in general tend to faithfully act according to the core principles XYZ. 4. Therefore, we must use bombs and weapons of force against muslims in general."

Which is the false premise? Number 3.

(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/23, 10:06am)

Post 13

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 7:34pm

I would beware of the 'they' generalization about muslims as such. I think that is a collectivist mistake of judging the group by its most extreme examples ("all Negroes tend to be...all Asians generally accept their Confucian culture...") Rather than judging people as individuals in their great variety.

I wasn't saying that every single Muslim was prone to irrational violence. Did you think I was? I was simply saying that physical violence -- and sometimes extreme physical violence for quite irrational reasons -- is a very common feature of that culture, if one is to believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was raised in it. I don't know how much experience she has with other Muslim countries besides Somalia, but she has traveled quite extensively. She says that Western attitudes about the importance of peaceful interactions are far different from those in Muslim countries.

Also, I didn't say that this warrants the use of aggressive force against Muslims in general, but if Iran continues to act in a hostile and threatening manner against the U.S. and Israel, then it may precipitate a war in which innocent people will be killed. If you are so concerned about collateral damage that you don't believe any of it is justified, then you might as well call yourself a pacifist, because you can't fight a war without it. Any attempt to do so simply makes the war unwinnable and results in the needless sacrifice of American lives.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/23, 7:41pm)

Post 14

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 9:11pm

Phil,

In your original post, you wrote,

Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11 have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas. The implementations they have advocated vary from one instance: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero . . .

I have heard Sean Hannity say that Muslims have no right to build a mosque to promulgate their views -- in other words, no right to free speech -- because their ideas lead to violence. This wouldn't be enough to justify outlawing them. But if there is evidence that the mosque would be used to organize terrorist activities, which some of them have been, then it's a different story.

. . . to many instances: bomb madrassas, hunt down and kill clerics overseas (or nuke a major enemy city, killing the ringleaders along with millions of civilians).

Hunting down and killing clerics would be justified if they were radical activists aiding and abetting terrorists. I hadn't heard about the bombing of madrassas that weren't involved in a war we were fighting, but these "schools" are known to extol jihad and martyrdom and to justify the killing of adulterers and apostates. The only time nuking an enemy city would be justified is if it were the only way to prevent an impending attack against us or against one of our allies like Israel.

Post 15

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 5:44am

> I would beware of the 'they' generalization about muslims as such.
> I wasn't saying that every single Muslim was prone to irrational violence. Did you think I was?

Bill, not you personally, but there have been many in this debate in Oist circles who judge them as a group. And it doesn't require someone make that very extreme statement of 'every single muslim' to be making the collective judgement mistake: I don't know of -anyone- who would state it that way.

> If you are so concerned about collateral damage that you don't believe any of it is justified, then you might as well call yourself a pacifist

That's not my position. Did I say it was? It's not for reasons of collateral damage in the case of a necessary and appropriate target that I'm opposed to bombing mosques or attacking clerics. It's because non-combatant members of a religion targeted because of the religion are not a necessary and appropriate target (rather than because they are physically participating in combat by arming and funding terrorists, say].

Big difference from saying we should not attack a building in which terrorists are hiding or destroy Iranian nukes because of collateral damage.

> But if there is evidence that the mosque would be used to organize terrorist activities, which some of them have been, then it's a different story.

I agree. But that's not the case with the NYC mosque or with nuking Tehran or attacking religious institutions such as mosques and madrassas widely as has been advocated in Oist circles. My posts were not intended to deal with every hypothetical situation or any unusual situations that may occur in the future, of course, merely the inappropriate measures advocated by Leonard Peikoff, Craig Biddle, Amy Peikoff, Ed Cline in the current debate within Oist circles.

I think there was a case in the Iraq war in which a mosque was used as a hideout and weapons stockpile. People should have been told to clear out and then we should have occupied it. Or if too many casualites would have resulted, perhaps simply levelled it.

> Hunting down and killing clerics would be justified if they were radical activists aiding and abetting terrorists.

I agree.

> I hadn't heard about the bombing of madrassas that weren't involved in a war we were fighting...

It was advocated either in the "Objective Standard" or otherwise by some prominent Oists. I wish I still had the 'clip'.

> ...but these "schools" are known to extol jihad and martyrdom and to justify the killing of adulterers and apostates.

Non-military action against madrassas might include educational materials and alternative schools. But that is not the U.S. government. Private institutions. NGO's. If Saudi Arabia continues to fund Wahhabi-type madrassas, schools for jihadi indoctrination, we should tell them that will affect the willingness of the U.S. to support them.

Post 16

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 11:03am

Phil,

As for the ground-zero mosque, is the land private property for which the owner can assign a building permit to anyone he chooses? No, apparently the land is owned by the New York Port Authority and the City of New York. So, it is publicly owned, in which case, the owners as trustees of the public should exercise some discretion as to the kind of structure they allow to be built there.

Allowing a mosque, with its barbaric, death-worshipping values, to be built on that tragic and memorialized site is a shocking betrayal of the public trust. If the property were owned by a private developer and he allowed a mosque to be built there, he should be boycotted and shunned by every decent human being and ultimately forced out of business. And if a mosque is built there, the clerics who own it and those who attend it should be refused service by every business in the area.

Let us not forget that Muslims have issued death sentences against those who were guilty of insulting their religion (e.g., Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie). Well, building a mosque on ground zero is a far worse insult to life-serving values, and should not be tolerated by anyone who shares those values.

Post 17

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 2:20pm

> apparently the land is owned by the New York Port Authority and the City of New York. So, it is publicly owned, in which case, the owners as trustees of the public should exercise some discretion as to the kind of structure they allow to be built there. [Bill]

In that case, that's an entirely different matter! There is no violation of private property rights involved, no initiation of force in stopping it.

So I would certainly urge the City -not- to approve a mosque at that location. Especially since (and assuming one can trust the conservative media, which is always questionable!) the mosque leader, Rauf, seems to be soft of Hamas and on terrorism, let them build it in the Bronx. Or twenty feet offshore at Far Rockaway. :-)
(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/24, 2:21pm)

Post 18

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 5:23pm

Background info on the leaders of the Ground Zero mosque project.

http://article.nationalreview.com/438616/raufs-dawa-from-the-world-trade-center-rubble/andrew-c-mccarthy

and

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026780.php

"Here we have a support network linked to the Malaysian Jew hater Mahathir bin Mohamad. Here we have the Perdana-supported Gaza raiders. Here we have some notable servants of the Iranian clerical dictatorship, and an Egyptian property developer associated with the pro-Hamas chief of the Arab League.

And here we have Feisal Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, one of the most assiduous promoters of the mega-mosque. She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its website to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America, the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami."

Post 19

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 10:29pm