Anti-Islamist Muslim vs Pro-Islamist Muslim: The USA's First Public Debate

[CheckList]

The War of Ideas
Finally, a debate occurred between an Islamist and an anti-Islamist Muslim

"Is the Establishment of the Islamic State a Clear Ideological Threat to the United States?"

Affirmative: M. Zuhdi Jasser
Negative: Mohamed Al-Darsani

Part One of Two
April 11, 2008

M. Zuhdi Jasser

A public debate between two devotional Muslims occurred on April 5, 2008 at Edison College in Naples, Florida. We shared deeply conflicting ideas on Islam, political Islam, terrorism, and morality. Arguments so far seemingly relegated to "Muslim vs. non-Muslims" debates due to the Muslim activist predominance of the Islamist mindset were finally debated from a position deep within a Muslim consciousness.

Already a tired phrase, call it what you will, "the battle," "the war," "the contest" of ideas between the West (secular democracies) and the Muslim world (Islamist theocracies) remains an elusive target for many of us in the thick of the fight. As an American, the concept of debate and intellectual argumentation runs to the core of who I am. So many other anti-Islamist Muslims and I can imagine no other method of getting our ideas across to the "other" side whether discussing the political, religious, legal, social, or spiritual realm. But when it comes to our current target – the threat of political Islam within the devotional Muslim consciousness – leading Islamist figures in the U.S. have remained slippery targets, unwilling to engage anti-Islamists openly in the public square.

These elusive Islamists include a host of "political imams" (imams who use their pulpit to preach an Islamist domestic and foreign policy agenda) who are apparently a majority of imams in mosques around the U.S. Not only are political imams in the majority of mosques but the salafist orientation seems to predominate mosques also. This is augmented in the public place with their supporting and collaborating Islamist organizations which include ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MAS (Muslim American Society), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MSA (Muslim Students Association), the North American Imams Federation, The Assembly of American Muslim Jurists, and the MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) to name a few. That, in and of itself, is telling. However, the obvious nature of their avoidance behavior in engaging anti-Islamists is not enough or even a start in the effort to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims.

The entirety of mosques and Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslim organizations do not represent all American Muslims. Most American Muslims are actually unaffiliated with any element of the organized Muslim community. Some, if not most, are unaffiliated simply because they separate religion and politics. In fact, statistics would show that only a small minority of American Muslims maintain membership in any "Muslim" organizations.

The ideas expressed in this debate will possibly expose why. Most Islamist organizations and imams have little to no moral leadership or credibility when they espouse apologetics and excuses trying to convince the world that moral imperatives have exceptions. Hopefully the mainstream media, government officials, and the average non-Muslim American will begin to see that "Islamists" are in no way synonymous with "Muslims." The "battle for the soul of Islam" between Islamists and anti-Islamists needs to be forged expeditiously or the Islamists will assiduously continue their grand scheme of eventual and total domination.

Since its inception, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was created by anti-Islamist Muslims upon a foundation that our guiding ideologies simply need to be heard in the Muslim community. Then, let the chips fall where they may. With that public hearing, or "forum," we will begin to openly challenge the ossified precepts of salafism, Wahhabism, Islamism, and various pre-modern identifications of eastern Muslim culture. With that challenge we pray that an awakening – possibly very similar to the modernization of the West, which ushered in "enlightenment" – may occur within the consciousness of Muslims everywhere, forever separating spiritual Islam or the domain of God (faith) from the domain of government and the state (reason).

It is direct forays between Islamists and anti-Islamists which highlight the profound areas of disagreement. For example, when AIFD sponsored the nation’s first Muslim rally against terrorism in 2004 entitled "Standing with Muslims Against Terrorism" and invited the local Islamist Politburo (also known as the "Valley council of imams") to join us in a universal unqualified condemnation of terrorism, they explicitly refused citing a host of morally defunct explanations. As a group, they refused to make a public moral imperative without qualifications (apologetics) about American foreign policy as an excuse for terrorism. They not only stayed home from the rally despite repeated public calls to join us, but the imams have also repeatedly refused to go on record regarding AIFD’s mission of ideologically engaging Islamism, let alone directly engage anti-Islamists. In fact in the 2007 controversial documentary by ABG Films Islam v Islamists, local imam, Ahmed Shqeirat described our work as "liberal extremism."

The debate this week against an imam in Naples proved that these apologetics are apparently and most unfortunately common across the nation (from Arizona to Florida) in many imam circles as a litmus test for Islamists who believe in political Islam and the Islamic state. Make no mistake: my opponents in the clerical realm try to brush off our work as "anti-imam" or anti-scholarship in Islam. A cartoon in a local Islamist publication tried to portray just such propaganda against me in 2005. The reality is quite the contrary. Many humble scholarly imams have provided the intellectual underpinnings for our anti-Islamist Muslim precepts at AIFD. In fact it is the persona of the morally corrupt imam who has been the greatest liability for the real scholars of Islam who are the anti-Islamist, anti-Wahhabi imams of virtue which are so marginalized in the American public square.

This challenge of opening this debate and even acknowledging its existence is no small undertaking, considering the number of Islamist forces working within the Muslim community against such an awakening. Further challenges include tendencies of the general public to accept minority and identity politics in the U.S. and the inherent Islamist exploitation of that in order to further tribal behavior and foment divisiveness in America. By doing so, they craftily avoid self-critique, not to mention the collaborating forces outside the Muslim community (mainstream media and many U.S. Government officials) that are all too ready to accept Islamist ideology as the de facto consensus of the orientation of the faithful.

Yet, frustratingly, many anti-Islamist Muslims have been standing alone ready to challenge the Islamist position within the Muslim community, unable to gain any traction against the conventional wisdom that Islam is Islamism and Islamists are the only devotional Muslims. Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, Ayaan hirsi Ali’s Infidel and other expressions exposing radical Islamist ideology are able to conflate Islam with political Islam and militant Islam because they have been almost inarguably unable to find a palpable debate within the Muslim community concerning the ideas they critique. Islamists often whine in an oversimplified denial immersed in pathetic victimology, while anti-Islamist Muslims remain unheard and unable to find a forum.

Certainly, many anti-Islamist Muslims have been writing and speaking out all over the world. But we have generally been "preaching to the choir" and past the Islamists and their collaborators who disagree with us. Why have we have often ended up speaking "past" them? The answer is their unwillingness to engage openly in a debate over our central differences on Islam and the Muslim consciousness. Theirs is a strategy cloaked in deliberately ignoring the debate and deliberately clouding Islam with Islamism – much to the chagrin of the average non-Islamist Muslim.

The Islamists conveniently call internal challenges to their theology a manifestation of a societal ill which they equate with "division" (fitna in Arabic). They feel that their moves to politically collectivize the Muslim community, or the "ummah," can never be challenged. They ignore the fact that the political collectivization of Muslims runs contrary to the national interests of our collective nation and our citizenship. For the few who do accept the challenge they do so only on their terms, privately, within the community, away from media and away from any accountability to the greater American community.

This blind collectivism is the exact reason the Muslim mind in so many mosques and activist organizations is hopelessly and cowardly paralyzed in apologetics and victimization. The Islamists are thereby easily able to muster the courage of their faulty convictions enough to champion political Islam and secure its stranglehold upon the public manifestation of the Muslim consciousness.

There is no better way for Muslims to generate credibility and speed up our growth than to encourage and participate in an open public debate. Once anti-Islamist and pro-Islamist Muslims intellectually engage one another, the rest of the world can finally see that the most effective means to counterterrorism is a devotional Muslim counter to political Islam and the religious validity of the Islamic state. The determination of whose version of Islam is closer to the central message of Islam is vital to countering the visceral drive of militant Islamism.

By avoiding debate, the Islamists are not only ignoring the Prophet Mohammed’s tradition of intellectual engagement with all those who disagreed with him inside and outside the faith community, but they are falling lockstep with the fascist precept that supremacist ideologies have to be superior by virtue of their own standing and should never be challenged by other non-conforming Muslims.

Engagement can be a tenuous and possibly dangerous endeavor. Many Islamists by virtue of their apologetics for terrorism and facilitation of the Islamist ideology end up associated (if not hatched from) international and often militant Islamist organizations like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. But debating them is still quite helpful and infinitely revealing.

The most important element to be underscored is that debate and confrontation cannot be equated with endorsement and facilitation. It is far more dangerous to ignore these organizations and Islamist thought leaders and hand them the intellectual reins of the Muslim community unchallenged than to engage them and highlight the ideas which put them at odds with reason, spirituality, and modernity.

Recently on February 23, 2008, while I was participating in a panel on radical Islam’s threat to the West in Naples Florida, a local imam, Mohamed Al-Darsani of the Islamic Center for Peace challenged my ideas and cast me out with little substantiation as being "outside the mainstream Muslim community." It seemed that my orthodox adherence to traditional Sunni Muslim worship and spiritual devotion made little difference to him. His charge about my position in the Muslim community was made concerning my stand on terrorism and political Islam.

I immediately responded with an open challenge to engage him in a debate on the threat of Islamism (the desire to form an Islamic state) to American security. To my surprise (and thanks to the Florida Security Council), he agreed.

With the tenacity of the local Florida Security Council, within six weeks, I had an official debate with Imam Mohammed Al-Darsani, with Michael Cromartie of the Center for Ethics and Public Policy moderating. We agreed to debate the question: "Is the Establishment of the Islamic State a Clear Ideological Threat to the United States?" I debated the affirmative and Mr. Al-Darsani the negative.

The two-plus hour long debate covered a lot of ground. Most poignantly, it highlighted the great chasm between the corruption of Islamist apologetics and the struggle to renew the moral truth of spiritual Islam separated from Islamist demagoguery. A review of the debate demonstrates the wide abyss which separates so many faithful anti-Islamist Muslims from Imam Al-Darsani and other similar Islamist apologists. One has to give the imam credit for showing up and having the courage of his convictions. Sadly, it is those very convictions which are the primary fuel for terrorism worldwide. Once we understand the relationship of political Islam and its various permutations from Wahhabism to salafism to deobandism to militant Islamism and its terror, we will be able to effectuate and progress a global anti-Islamist movement.

Debates like the one which occurred last week in Florida are the beginning of a "contest" of ideas which will herald either the victory of post-modern Islam over theocratic Islam or the converse. Global security and the continuation of American society as we know it hangs in the balance.

The debate was videotaped by both sides – ours (AIFD) and theirs (Imam Al-Darsani and the Islamic Center for Peace of Fort Myers, Florida). Our copy is in production and will not be available for a while. A Muslim member of Mr. Al-Darsani’s mosque, Greg George, has posted the entire debate online in six parts. He is apparently also a documentary producer and an unconventional (to say the least) candidate for Congress in his district. I refer you to his video links of the debate which he posted. But that is certainly no endorsement of Mr. George or Mr. Al-Darsani and his Islamic Center for Peace.

Watch the debate at these links at Google Video.

[Part 1 (Introductions and Al-Darsani Opening)]

[Part 2 (Jasser opening, Rebuttals]

[Part 3 Cross-Examinations]

[Part 4 Audience Q+A]

[Part 5 Audience Q+A and Al-Darsani Closing]

[Part 6 Jasser Closing- End of Debate]

As you watch the debate, know that this is one of the first of its kind publicly that I know of in the West between two devotional Muslims over the topic of political Islam and terror.

Human beings may often err as we engage in the confrontation of ideas. But to err is human. The only thing worse than an occasional misstep or misspeak in the public contest of ideas is the apathetic indifference and avoidance of any challenge to our own ideas. Such avoidance comes from individual weakness and the inability of many Islamists to muster the courage of their convictions. Those unwilling to withstand a public challenge to their ideas deserve neither the respect of their convictions nor the leadership of the communities which they purport to represent. In fact, their failure to do so points to a murkier Islamist plot of silencing discourse and stifling criticism to evade accountability, not only to Muslims, but to America as a whole.

In Part II of this column I will review my own perceptions of the obvious ideological demarcations made in the debate between the Islamist (Al-Darsani) and the anti-Islamist (Jasser).

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.

He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org
read full author bio here


If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Other Articles by M. Zuhdi Jasser...

The War of Ideas Finally, a debate occurred between an Islamist and an anti-Islamist Muslim Part One of Two

Lessons for American Muslims from the Conviction of Abujihaad

Slouching Toward Sharia

In War against Islamism, We Must Listen to the Words of Our Enemies

Challenge to the American Pakistani Community: Make a Difference for Freedom

With Friends Like These: CAIR Reaches Out for a Setup

Begin the Debate: Nine-Point Guide to Discern Islamist from Non-Islamist Schools

Islamism on Trial

What Ramadan Is Really About: Atonement and Renewal

Ideological Standards Needed to Confront Militant Islam: What Are They?

[vinod]

Looks good. Got to take a look at the debate.

[haulpak]

I have just spent the last two hours watching all 6 episodes of the 'debate' on GoogleTube.

Dr M. Zuhdi Jasser deserves serious accolades. I have never ever seen or heard the "Muslim" position being delivered with as much clarity and exergesis.

My only concern is, given the politicisation issue and the need for the theocrats to justify and protect their position, whether or not a FATWA (a.la Rushdie) will be issued or if some 'radical' will be used to get rid of the good Doctor simply because he poses a significant threat to those who thrive on Politlisation and the Theocrats.

I could not help but sit here watching Dr Jasser in awe! If ALL Muslims were like Dr Jasser what a wonderful world this would be!!

What I found particularly striking was Dr Jasser's comments about Prophet Mohammed and that (as I have always thought) Islam needs to meet the today (21st Century) and recognise that Mohammed bought a better governance to the Arab Pagan Society but that it is no longer an appropriate model of governance for the Here-and-Now (21st Century). That a Pluralist Society is the essence of Piety, where the Moral Fibre of Society is clearly defined and understood by all who live in it and not open to 'exceptions' or deviations.

Dr Jasser is someone who I definately have a LOT of time for. I only hope that there are many Muslims who use this forum take the time and watch each of the 6 clips in the Debate and 'get out of the box'.

Great Stuff Checklist, my most appreciative Thanks for providing the links.

Hauly.

[Al-Boriqi]

could some one explain what the hell is an anti-islamist muslim

that is like saying an anti-muslim muslim

there is
1. a muslim. and by default of being a muslim is one accept and beleive in all that islam calls for, as the religion of islam commandsthat whcih is good, and forbids that which is evil
or
2. a non muslim, which non of the above applies

there is no third aspect.
well
yes there is
3. a deemed "muslim" but who does not suscribe to the tenants and principles explained in the first group i.e. muslims.
that means, as a reality, and as Islam had dealt with before, such a people are what Islam calls, munaafiqeen (hypocrites)
where they profess faith, but in reality do not beleive in the faith that their claim dictates to them, so therefore, instead of becoming muslims (linguistically, muslims are calls muslims because they submit from the root word islama, submission) meaning submitting themselves to Islam, they rather Islam submit to the new inventions of whatever their minds dictate what is right and wrong just as the original munafiqeen of the prophet's time use to suggest rules and ideas they wanted to be done RATHER than the judgment of the Messenger.
this third category in reality falls within the second category (non muslim) with the garment of the people of the first category

[vinod]

1. a muslim. and by default of being a muslim is one accept and beleive in all that islam calls for, as the religion of islam commandsthat whcih is good, and forbids that which is evil
or
2. a non muslim, which non of the above applies

there is no third aspect.
well
yes there is
3. a deemed "muslim" but who does not suscribe to the tenants and principles explained in the first group i.e. muslims

All the neat classification begs the question that there is nothing in Islam where muslims cannot disagree. For an outsider viewing the debate within muslims, even the core issues in Islam that the traditionalists assert are not subject to difference of opinion, are in reality fiercely debatable.

FYI, 'Islamist' is one who calls for the establishment of Sharia viewing it as antithetical to democracy.

[Al-Boriqi]

All the neat classification begs the question that there is nothing in Islam where muslims cannot disagree. For an outsider viewing the debate within muslims, even the core issues in Islam that the traditionalists assert are not subject to difference of opinion, are in reality fiercely debatable.

FYI, 'Islamist' is one who calls for the establishment of Sharia viewing it as antithetical to democracy.

thank you

1. the mere fact that debate can come about does not make legal the core matters that are undebateable

what the term "undebatable" means with the confines of orthodoxy is that it is so deeply rooted in our religion that it is not even questioned. Thus the one who questions it is non other than a fool, and the one who denies it apostazises from the religion, and this is something that has been dealt with in detail within the books of jurisprudence. quite frankly, if Allah Himself, the aqeedah of a muslim was questioned by the early munafiqeen (the philosophers) then Im sure the wretched and corrupt are willing to debate what is lesser than that, from the subsidarary aspects of the religion.

2. secondly, by that definition, every one who claims belief in Allah and the last day is by default an Islamist. And the one who does not desire what emaan necessitates in his heart (implementation of sharia) is not a muslim at all regardless of his claimed faith, for such a desire is unfit, or it nullifies the meaning of muhammada rasulullah and what it necessitates in the heart.

[vinod]

what the term "undebatable" means with the confines of orthodoxy is that it is so deeply rooted in our religion that it is not even questioned. Thus the one who questions it is non other than a fool, and the one who denies it apostazises from the religion, and this is something that has been dealt with in detail within the books of jurisprudence. quite frankly, if Allah Himself, the aqeedah of a muslim was questioned by the early munafiqeen (the philosophers) then Im sure the wretched and corrupt are willing to debate what is lesser than that, from the subsidarary aspects of the religion.

For a person looking from outside in, all those labels - 'apostate', 'fool', 'wretched', 'munafiqeen' etc - don't carry any weight at all. What matters is the text presented and the arguments advanced with those texts. Those labels are merely instruments of power manipulation that serve no purpose in getting to the truth of a matter for an objective observer.

2. secondly, by that definition, every one who claims belief in Allah and the last day is by default an Islamist. And the one who does not desire what emaan necessitates in his heart (implementation of sharia) is not a muslim at all regardless of his claimed faith, for such a desire is unfit, or it nullifies the meaning of muhammada rasulullah and what it necessitates in the heart

The above is premised on a certain scope of the meaning of Muhammad Rasulullah and that of the Shariah. Once again, the scope is derived from interpretation of texts and is subject to debate.

[Al-Boriqi]

oh

thirdly

the entire run down on the debate, whoever reported it, is not only misguided, but does not have a clue what the hell is going on. It seems to me whoever did the reporting, only ran with the conventional wisdom

here is a primary proof of that

These elusive Islamists include a host of "political imams" (imams who use their pulpit to preach an Islamist domestic and foreign policy agenda) who are apparently a majority of imams in mosques around the U.S. Not only are political imams in the majority of mosques but the salafist orientation seems to predominate mosques also. This is augmented in the public place with their supporting and collaborating Islamist organizations which include ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MAS (Muslim American Society), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MSA (Muslim Students Association), the North American Imams Federation, The Assembly of American Muslim Jurists, and the MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) to name a few. That, in and of itself, is telling. However, the obvious nature of their avoidance behavior in engaging anti-Islamists is not enough or even a start in the effort to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims.

1. salafi do not predominate mosque. in fact there are whole cities who do not even have 1 salafi, or, they only have a handful. so i don't know where
the hell they got this from
2. and whatever minute pulpits salafis actually do dominate, the central theme and subjects presented by the salafis are
1. tawheed
2. adaab
3. husn adhaan
4. purification of the hearts
5. calling to the prophetic sunnah and livelihood
6. calling to seeking knowledge

basically, the entirety of the salafi call is summed up into two spheres

at-tasfiyyah wa tarbiyyah

purification and cultivation

I never went in my entire life as a muslim, and a salafi muslim where the imaam was salafi, and was talking about politics. never.

seconly, salafis don't collaborate at all with the above aforementioned groups in no way, shape, or form. I have no idea where the hell did this reporter or reporterette got this notion from.

[vinod]

'Salafist orientation' refers to a certain attribute and not to a salafi(s).

[Al-Boriqi]

'Salafist orientation' refers to a certain attribute and not to a salafi(s).

that attitude is not a salafists attitude, it is simply an islamic attitude

the incoherence of this thinking is rooted that just because I agree with what Lumumba agrees with, that somehow makes me an ash'aree, or a madhaabee, or if he agrees to the same principles I agree, that equates him being a salafi. that makes no sense whatsoever. the matter is, what is unanimously agreed as the religion is the religion of Islam i.e. salafiyyah, and everyone who disagrees thereby negates their salafiyyah i.e. islam in that subject.

what your essentially sounding like is that someone who ask you (vinod) if someone can become a MUSLIM WITHOUT SAYING THE shahada, and by you saying "no, he cannot become a muslim except by saying it" then such a person would deem you a salafist, by the mere fact of this belief being an Islamic belief from the get go.

in conclusion, one does not call the optimism a muslim is to have of his religion a "salafist orientation". such kalaam can only be said by none other than the munafiqeen.

[vinod]

While you may hold a broad encompassing meaning to the word 'salafi', perhaps stemming from the literal meaning of the word, it's application, in checking off (or not) against individuals who call themselves 'muslim', sociologically gives it a meaning which is different from what you assert and much more narrower. A fly on the wall onlooker will not necessarily accept your definition of Islam (as equal to salafiyyah). He may have a definition that is much wider than yours and is still rooted in the texts.
I think you must take the effort to see where the writer/speaker comes from in using various words. You need to work on placing yourself in their shoes if you want to be able to understand what they are saying. You seem to be getting lost in semantical differences.

[Al-Boriqi]

While you may hold a broad encompassing meaning to the word 'salafi', perhaps stemming from the literal meaning of the word, it's application, in checking off (or not) against individuals who call themselves 'muslim', sociologically gives it a meaning which is different from what you assert and much more narrower. A fly on the wall onlooker will not necessarily accept your definition of Islam (as equal to salafiyyah). He may have a definition that is much wider than yours and is still rooted in the texts.
I think you must take the effort to see where the writer/speaker comes from in using various words. You need to work on placing yourself in their shoes if you want to be able to understand what they are saying. You seem to be getting lost in semantical differences.

i don't think I am being lost.
Im going to call it what it is

it is the efforts of the antagonists of Islam to redefine and reshape terminology to give a certain perception they wish peple to see.
Im sorry, but I do not bend to the will of their distortion of terminology

the definition of salafiyyah/salafi is and will always be the definition the orthodox muslims gave it for 14 centuries. I refuse, and Im sure everyone else will, refuse to accept a 21st century american lexical definition for something they are trying to steer the muslims away from, which means Islam.

This is the problem with your im sorry to say, defeatist approach. The point is, we are not going to accept the premise of the kuffar simply because it is wrong form the get go. instead of appeasing their beliefs in definitions they invented, we are hte ones that needs to clarify to them the realitys of terminology and the material information of our religion. failure to comply with this will only result in the long run, the alterization of our religion from people who are not from it.

let me educate you briefly on what I am talking about
this is taken from the book of the site below
http://islamicbookstore.com/b6633.html

and some parts of it are online here

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/extremists

but the above link is like merely 15 percent of the whole book. i suggest buying it, for All muslims, regardless of theological affiliations, as it is a proper method in how to deal with, and understand the situation we are in

Introduction: Importance of the Shareah expression and Islamic terminology

"the knowledge of the reality of things and correct perceptions are considered fundamental openings to the lessening or removal of difference of opinion. That is true because one rarely finds a difference of opinion except that behind it there is either a difference in perception, an unsound perception, or an ignorance concerning the reality of the thing concerning which there is a difference of opinion. Ibn Taymiyyah said 'Many of the disputes of people are due to unclear words and ambigious meanings. It gets to the point that one can find two people arguing and disputing over a meaning of a word or denying its implication while, if each were asked the meaning of the words they are saying, they have no clear perception of them, not to speak of what the words actually indicate'.

People's evaluation of thoughts or of others goes back to the perception. It is narrated from the statment of the early scholars, 'the judgment concerning something is derived from how it is perceived'
Muslim scholars have paid great attention to Shariah terms and Islamic terminology. They have been keen on this point for a number of reasons, most important of which are

1. In order that those terms and wordings could not be relative terms, not specifically defined, used by every sect in a way that pleases them, according to what their whims desire and their false teachings lead them to. They tried to avoid this because this actually ocured in our Islamic history. The ahlu-sunnah were branded with contradictory, non-compatible tags. For example, those who denied the attributes called the ahlu-sunnah "anthropomorphists" while the actual anthropomorphists considered the ahlu-sunnah as being "mu'atillah" (deniers of the attributes). In reality, ahlu-sunnah is between both of these extremes, upon a straight path, that is not repudiated by their desires.
2. In order that those shariah terms are not understood to mean the newly intorduced understandings of a people or large sector of a population. [In other words] a group of people may begin to use a term in a specific way and then they note that such term appears in the shariah texts or in the words of a scholar. They therefore beleive that the meaning of that term in those texts is the same as the meaning thathas become common among the people while in reality while in reality the shariah meaning is something different'

i would like to pause right here and highlight some current realities that further validate the truth of what teh shaykh speaks above
1. we have a current people redefining jihaad in Islam. it is mainly the kuffar. And then because of their mass distortion of what jihaad actually is and their fierce onslought of it and calling anyone who belives in it as a "jihaadist" then we have anothere group of people, who in the methodology of appeasement, give forth their meaning of jihaad, both groups distorting the actual nature, requisites, realities, and shariah perspectives on what jihad actually is rather than how both the kuffar and their modernists sympathizers among the muslims perceive it to be
2. likewise, the idea of salafiyyah as "salafist" and then linking "salafist" with "jihadist" and all of these other "ists" that these kuffar are inventing that have no meaning in and of themselves, and are giving them meanings that in relaity have no basis in any sense, Islamic, or otherwise.

now lets get to the meat of the matter
the shaykh continues

"Another aspect that highlights the importance of the shariah terms and Islamic terminology is that they have become tools in intellectual and cultural warfre. The enemy pays close attention to ideas or principles of the others in their ideological warfare. They then do their best to distort the true meanings of those principles and terms. This way they are able to conceal the truth about them.
this action of their centers on two main pivots:
First, the constantly bring up, in reference to the ideas or thoughts they oppose, reprehensible words and terms to drive the people away at the very sound of them-not to speak of keeping them from their true meanings or what they may contain of truth. This was one of the ways which the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihi wa sallam) was opposed. 'One of the toughest strategies used by the enemies of the Messenger of Allah to drive people away from him was the use of offensive terms and demeaning expressions [used when refering to the prophet]. They would use terms that were reprehensible to the people and those who listend to them would be decieved and fooled, such that these reprehensible terms permeated their hearts and kept them away from the prophet. In fact this is the way of everyone who tries to befuddle the truth' (he quotes Ibnul-Qayyim in Sawa'iq al-Mursalah on this quote)

If you were to look into the lives of the prophets, you will find that they were called insane, ignorant, misguided and so forth. All of this was done in order to mislead the people and make the messengers hated. An example of this strategy as a tool of ideological warfare can clearly be seen in the history of the Islamic sects. The other sects called the ahlu-sunnah wal jama'ah a number of names and terms in order to drive people away from it and its adherents (kinda like how they are now called incoherent and rigid traditionists)

Second, another strategy they implement is to use terms and slogans that are clean and good and they take them as slogans of what their opponents dislike of them. They do this so that they can easily penetrate and spread their beliefs and thoughts without anyone fleeing from them or disliking what they say. An example of this nature form the history of ideological disputes in Islam concerns the word tawheed. "tawheed, which is in reality the affirmation of the attributes of perfection for Allah and negation of what is contrary to them, as well as worshipping Him alone without ascribing any partner to Him, was used as a term by the people of falsehood (he's talking about the mutazilah) to mean a pure denial of the attributes. Then those people called others to "tawheed" and they were able to decieve those who did not know what they meant by the term tawheed

(that is tawheed according to the mutazilah was that by stripping Allah of His Attributes, and making Him attributeless, they were thereby affirming tawheed, for affirming an attribute meant affirming another god along with Allah, therefore shirk. so that means, according to them, that stripping Allah from His attributes was true tawheed)

the author continues

An example from the contemporary ideological warfare is in relation to the arabic word for secularism (al-'almaniyya). In reality, secularists seperate religion from life, but they clothe themselves in a garment of "science" and attach themselves to it to make easier for them to enter the muslims lans

(that is because the arabic word "al-Ilmaniyya refers to science and knowledge of sciences. But as the scholars have explained, secualrists are the most ignorant of people, therefore they are called as in reality alamaaniyya i.e. worlditers or people who seek the life of this world alone)

I cease to cite the ending as my point is amply put foward. that is that

1. we see this clearly, how the kuffar are redefining our religion from under our noses
2. how they redefine extremism with fundamentalism and they do so because of their own hsitorical information
3. how they redefine a good muslim as "moderate" when in reality the "moderate" muslim they have in mind is not a muslim at all. for example, in all of their talk shows, the moderate they bring forth to speak on behalf of Islam are none other than secularists or regressives (which they call themselves progressives).

When my shaykh, dr. Saiful-Islam ABdul-Ahad had a debate with that idiot Robert Spencer, he asked spencer what was his definition of a "moderate muslim"

spencer replied

"one who does not take the quran or the hadeeth as a source of guidance in all affairs"

my shaykh replied back,
"thats not a muslim at all"

and another example which is rooted in the shaykhs point on the second pivot, is the term the kuffar like to use,
"freedom" mainly freedom of expression and choice
while this is their slogan,in reality we know that the freedom they are really defending is the freedom of heresy, corruption, zeena, khamr, an the list goes on

again that stems from two different ideological thoughts, the world thought, and then the western thought
1. the world thought being thst eveyone pretty much knows that one reeps what they sow
2. the western thought is "we can say what we want without any repurcussions"
i could continue with this bu, for time constraints i mainly point out that this is what is going on, they are redefining what a muslim ought to be in their eyes, rather than how Allah and His Messenger cultivated them on how to be, simply because they view us as a threat to their societal de-evolution which again is called "the age of advancement and prosperity"

so when you say this

A fly on the wall onlooker will not necessarily accept your definition of Islam (as equal to salafiyyah). He may have a definition that is much wider than yours and is still rooted in the texts

i say this is absolute preposterousness because our terminology is not defined by them, it is defined by us, just as we do not take the audacity to redefine what a christian means, or this or that, or the other.

and no it is not rooted in the text. just because something can be found textually does not mean that is the correct fahm, fiqh, understanding of the matter at hand, which means, we, have to correct, what they mistook, and not stand by and allow them to say what they have to say and accept the premise of their argument

ALlah says, and you know, in the quraan how we must bear witness to the truth and speak out against falsehood.

if we know what they say is faslehood and distortion, isn't it a basic principle among us to change it, or are we just alloow for them to have a field day in redefining our terminology, and in the process, our values.

please ponder over the above message
asalamu alaikum

[vinod]

Very fancilful thinking.

[Al-Boriqi]

and what does that suppose to mean