The examples cited in my post are historically correct and not simply words from an anti-Islamic site.Ignoring the truth and attacking the messenger is a typical response to try to censor debate.

The examples cited in my post are historically correct and not simply words from an anti-Islamic site.Ignoring the truth and attacking the messenger is a typical response to try to censor debate.

It's amazing to me how many non-Muslims seem to know just enough about Islam to be extremely wrong.

Lecturing an Imam on some of the finer points of Shariah is rather laughable, if you spend a moment or two to think about it - especially when one's total knowledge of Islam obviously comes from anti-Islamic sites.

Here's the deal:

The Imam who wrote this article is sincerely stating what he knows to be true. His views aren't at odds with the information some of you already have because he is wrong, but rather, because that other information is wrong.

Consider: he's a Muslim Imam; a full-time cleric in the religion. The other information comes from non-Muslims with a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look bad.

Who is more likely to speak or write accurately about Islam?

Moderate Muslims such as Imam Magid are the allies of other peaceful people everywhere; they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Bigotry is every bit as blind and violent no matter who wields it.

Ignorance can, and often does, manifest as bigotry.

Example: Islam did not "expand at the point of a sword" from the 7th century on, in terms of the religion. Politically, yes - just as "Christiandom" engaged in quite a bit of violent, political expansion that wasn't because of Christianity.

When Muhammad marched on Mecca with an army of ten thousand, what happened?

Exactly.

Everyone was allowed to go free, in peace, and no one was required to convert.

"Conversion" didn't even compute, during Muhammad's lifetime, especially to Muslims. Islam, Judaism and Christianity were viewed more as different denominations than different religions, especially by Muslims - all three Abrahamic faiths are comprised of 'Ahl al-Kitab - People of the Book - to Muslims.

All the violence, forced conversions and perverted interpretations of Shariah came along centuries after Muhammad's lifetime - and as with every religion, when egoic people with power make the decisions - bad things happen.

More importantly though:

Saying, as Americans, that we want to hear moderate Muslims speak out -- and then jumping down their throats when they do -- is probably not the best way to help create the peaceful world that we'd all like to see.

Fear builds walls.

The solution we're seeking comes from tearing walls down, not building more of them.

This isn't a dress-rehearsal.

World Wars have started over less tension than exists, politically and in terms of religion, today, around the globe.

These discussions about Islam aren't just part of determining what kind of world we'll have in the twenty-second century -- they're part of determining if we'll have a world in the twenty-second century.

And so, I'd suggest it's time for the most powerful weapon of all.

Peace itself.

Peace to all.

Second the world needs to understand that Islam was not spread by sandal shod mendicant mullahs preaching from the Koran but by mounted scimitar wielding jihadists as described in "Dhimmitude for Dummies" By Victor Sharpe in which the following is found:
"But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation? For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude .

This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated, non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second class citizens in order to avoid enslavement or death. These peoples and populations were known as dhimmis , and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax or tribute, called the jizya , was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis .

Dhimmitude is the direct outcome of jihad, which is the military conquest of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples. These rules were based upon jihad , which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.

Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda, writing, or subversion against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread, mission, or sovereignty over them and their land.

Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible and uninformed western media in pursuit of their aims of world domination."

It wasn't only Churchill who observed and understood the true nature of Islam but also Thomas Jefferson.
Sorry folks, but there were no Muslims on the Mayflower as is inferred at every opportunity by the President. Thomas Jefferson did possess a copy of the Koran which Keith Allison, our first Muslim Congressman, used to make his oath of office. But what was Jefferson opinion of Islam? Did he believe the Muslim religion represented a calming influence in world affairs? Far from it. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with the Barbary Pirates based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

“...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Jefferson had it right. The Marines were sent to Tripoli to put and end to Muslim piracy.
Today's experts, including Imam Magid ignore the historical past violent record of Islamic conquests.
And then there is Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington whose book "Clash of Civilizations," described in detail the clash between Islam and the West, that "Islams Borders are bloody and so are its innards"
Mohammed is recorded as dying, on or about, 632 AD. And what followed was not an "under seige" mentality. Wars for enrichment followed.
Islam had its own agenda long before the Crusades. If peaceful -- what were Muslim armies doing in Europe 300 years before the Crusades? And hundred of years thereafter?
Seventy-seven years after Mohammed's death, in 711 AD -- some 300 years prior to the first Crusade -- it was Muslim military forces who crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from North Africa into Spain and in less than a decade crossed the Pyrenees.
In 732 AD , the Muslim forces under the command of Abd-er- rahman, were decisively defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers [Tours].
Nine hundred years later, in September 1683 AD -- Ottoman Empire Muslim armies led by the Turkish commander Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha were at the gates of Vienna.
They were defeated by a combination of Austrian, German, and Polish armies.
If peace was Mohammed's message -- a subtle proposition at best -- his adherents missed the point then and miss it now.

Where is the moderate Muslim outrage, the condemnation, or even issuing fatwas by peaceful Muslim mullahs against the " the few terrorists today" who take hundreds if not thousands of lives, many other Muslims, Jews, Christians and other innocents with suicide bombers and attacks by heavily armed terrorists. Why ignore or hide the truth? Is there a conspiracy of silence? Or fear that some radical mullah will issue a fatwa against any Muslim who objects to violence against both believers in Islam, but not followers of the right sect, or any non-believers.
It is up to the peaceful moderate Muslims to stop the carnage carried out in the name of their god.
Obviously Imam Magid needs to refresh himself on the history of Islam and to the writings on Islam by noted observers and academics. One could start by reviewing the words of Winston Churchill on Islam from The River War (1899), his account of the Sudanese campaign. Winston Churchill was a man whose prescient warnings about Hitler were ignored by the world.
Here is the full text"
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful
fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Imam Magid picks and chooses his history of Islam by which he whitewashes its true nature from Mohammad's conquests until today's terrorists bombers.
It is incomprehensible that our liberal politicians continue to bow before and support a "religious" cause that can work its followers into violent anti-American rage with threats of death and destruction to Americans everywhere over the burning of a book, the presence of a painting or a cartoon but not only condones but supports suicide bombers, the stoning to death of one of its followers, the subjection of non-believers and women and Saudi Arabia's banning of the Christian Bible, Jewish torahs and religious houses of worship.
Isn't there something wrong with demanding tolerance for those who show no tolerance for others?
How difficult is it for supposedly intelligent experts in their field to fail to understand that the American people who have accepted Muslims for years are finally being exposed to the true nature of Islam a total command and control governmental operation with religious overtones.
Who and where is the authoritative voice of Islam? Actually no one Muslim or Muslim organization speaks for Islam, not even Imam Magid.
An organization whose mullahs and imams have failed to condemn or speak out against terrorists, those who slaughter innocent Muslim and non-Muslims, those who behead captives live on TV , fly planes into office buildings all in the name of Allah. No condemnation of mullahs who issue fatwas, an Islamic license to kill, on anyone for any perceived slight of Islam, the Prophet or whatever reason he thinks justifies a death sentence. In the real world, issuing an order to or soliciting for someone to kill another person is a criminal offense and subject to arrest and trial but political correctness allows Muslim clerics to order killings without fear of punishment and the Western world cringes at the idea that a fatwa or a threat might be issued for an author, comedy show, publisher, movie director, actor, historian, museum or even a University, the Metropolitan Museum and Yale are the most recent examples along with Comedy Central that have and so practiced self-censorship and political correctness under or to avoid threat or actual attacks from Muslims.
Until the first arrest order is issued for a mullah who declares a fatwa against anyone for any reason, the rest of the world is under the control of radical Islam.
Where are the "moderate Muslims against sharia" marches and protest groups, the "Muslims against fatwas" protest groups, the 'Muslims against suicide bombers protest groups, the "Muslims against car bombs in Times Square, markets, assemblies of job seekers and other crowded places'" protest groups.

I submitted two well documented, factual,historically correct reviews of the history of Islam from the 7-8 centuries to today with quotes from two of history's most respected men,Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill. To date neither has been posted. Should I resubmit.

BS. Islam is a violent religion responsible for most of the senseless violence in the world. You propagandists can say whatever you want in friendly venues like the Washington Post but we now have access to a free and independent method of checking the lies the media continue to push. The Internet has made it over for liars who continue to deny the basic tenets of Islam. We are on to you. Your so called religion does not permit reform nor does it allow association with any other religion but Islam. It punishes non believers and renders them Dhimmini's-a form of Jim Crow which is incompatible with western traditions and governments. It is only natural that violence is the result when your basic tenets require persecution of women, homosexuals and non believers. How else would you enforce your hate filled rules? After all, if it is a rule it must be enforced. If you do not believe in the basic tenets then you are not a good Muslim. Good advice for you is to leave and go to a country where the basic tenets of your religion do not conflict with the laws of the nation and where the general outlook is not 7th Century based. You will not be missed.

I just don't understand why the all powerful Allah needs to use people who are obviously emotionally disturbed to advance His agenda for this world.

Mr. Majid you said,

Public Discourse: Extremists ignore Islam's history of calling for open discourse to address issues, and ignore the lessons of American history in how past mistakes were corrected through open political discourse. The ability to resolve issues that faced the African American and the Jewish American communities, and others, clearly show the efficacy of the civic political process.

Really Islam calls for open discourse? Then please explain to me how come in each and every muslim majority countries 54 of them, penalty for apostasy is death? First of tell me why should there be any penalty for apostasy in the first place. Sir, you are a reasonable man and I assume you are quite smart as well. So if you rely on the Islamic theology to make your point you will loose every time even before the argument starts. If you wish to keep your credibility you don't go the the scripture. There is a 1300 years of history working against you. You want to make a winning arguments you need to make your appeals based on the humanity and human values which are not based on any tribal traditions. The fact that all muslim countries have very repressive laws concerning the non-muslims should be a big clue to any thinking person. This is not a coincidence. For you to claim that your interpretation of Islam is the right one does not stand the smell test. By your claim you are telling all those Imams, Mullahs, Muftis that they are stupid, illiterate and liars.

Well, I'm not going to nit-pick the imam's points one by one. I'm willing to believe that he's a decent, peaceful man of good will. Nothing that he writes above makes me believe anything else.

And anyway, the imam addresses violent extremism, which should not concern us in any case unless we are in law enforcement. To ordinary Americans in their everyday lives, the risk of being affected by terrorism is very, very low. Terrorism is like shark attacks: they strike fear way out of proportion to their real risk.

We have much more to fear from Islamization, the process through which peaceful Muslims demand acommodation after acommodation, until their surroundings could just as well be Istanbul, although they actually are in East London.

Islam has already changed Europe in a way that should be unacceptable to Americans. In the Netherlands -- of all places! -- a man stands criminal trial for saying what's on his mind, even though it incited no one to violence. In Britain, forced marriages are such a problem that the London Constabulary has launced the FMU (Forced Marriage Units, of course), units that specialize in handling forced marriages and their victims. Europeans accommodated Islam, moving over again and again, until they realized Islam was taking over. Now they have to go through the unpleasantness of banning burqas and minarets.

Let's not let that happen to America. Oppose Islamization from the beginning. All Muslims are welcome to practice their faith privately and behind closed mosque doors. But nobody, regardless of religion, is welcome to take away our freedoms in the name of their religion.

VoiceOfReason:
"My dispute with AKafir is that you deride the Imam for not being able to stop the violence, but give no credit for his efforts to speak out. Instead of condemning him as essentially too weak and insufficiently "forceful" to stop these lunatics (who pretend to be motivated or guided by Islamic principles), why not applaud his efforts and encourage others to join them?"

You don't get it. I don't blame you because Islam would not be as successful as it is if it was not extremely good at hiding its evil. I am not condemning the Imam for not being forceful or being too weak. The arguments that Islam needs to bring it into the modern world do not exist as yet. The imam does not have at his disposal the arguments that can confront the jihadists on their theological ground. The jihadist have the Quran, the Hadiath, and the 1000 years of writings of the Imams on their side. All those writing support what they are saying. The argument the imam is offering are not new at all, but have been voiced by many other moderate imams in the muslim world but they have lost because they are unable to connect their arguments to the massive Islamic literature of the last 1000 years. The arguments of the moderates appeal to the authority of "natural law", to human rationality and logic, and that is something that Islam has been rejecting since the ninth century. If the Quran says, as it does in places, that evil is good then that is the law of Allah and no amount of rationality can win the argument.
Example: Quran sanctions marriage and sex with very young girls. Muhammad's example of marrying a young girl sanctified paedophilia. The moderates in Islam have tried to stop that practice and appeal to science and medical facts to show the harm that it does physically and psychologically to the girls. Many muslim countries have even passed laws prohibiting the practice, but they all have never won the argument Islamically and the religious zealots have all refused to comply with the attempt. Simply see how many of the imams and Muftis in the Islamic world have young children brides. Imam Khomenii of Iran had couple of four year old girls for mutah marriages lasting a few months.

I will not participate in the charade that the arguments that Imam Majid gives have a chance of winning over the "hearts and minds" of any religious muslim. The one who will listen to the Imam need no encouragement, and those who should will not buy into the Islamically discredited argument that the Imam posits.

VoiceofReason11:

"who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you"
does not mean
"contracting party has not violated that contract".

"if they fail you in aught (ANYTHING) or aided any one against you" means that Muhammad was the sole decider what anything or aiding anyone meant. Regardless of the substance of the contract, Allah had given permission to Muhammad to abrogate that contract at his personal discretion.

Please explain your logic how you read "failed you in anything" to mean "violated the contract", and please do not go into the apologetics of the convoluted Islamic history of which contract was under discussion at the time for even that at close examination does not support a notion of justice by Muhammad.

My goal is not to refute (or refudiate) point by point - this is not the Debate Society. I know I am never going to convince AKafir or most likely anyone else who expresses such views - they are too ingrained to ever accept reason. And if AKafir is truly a former Muslim, he has already decided that he is right and "they" are wrong, and nothing will remove the bitterness from his heart. But that does not make his arguments any the more valid.

Let me give just one example. He states that "All contracts with the Kafirs stand automatically null and void...." but then quotes the Koran which in his own words clearly states "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."

This means that contracts - with pagans or anyone else - are to be honored so long as the other contracting party has not violated that contract. This is simple contract law, or Common Law, or any other kind of Law. If one party to a contract violates the terms and conditions of that contract, it typically is nullified, and the aggrieved party usually has the right by that contract to seek redress - and certainly to break the terms of the contract.

Where then is the negative in this? You can certainly make the argument of what exactly is aggression, and do the actions of the USA constitute such aggression and therefore do they truly break that contract. That is perfectly valid - on both sides. But does this justify violence? Not according to Imam Mohamed apparently, or to those many others like him who have repeatedly rejected violent responses.

The point however is not (as I said above) to see who can score more debating points - while Muslims and non-Muslims alike are at threat of violence from misguided people (if they can truly be called people in their own inhumanity) on both sides.

My dispute with AKafir is that you deride the Imam for not being able to stop the violence, but give no credit for his efforts to speak out. Instead of condemning him as essentially too weak and insufficiently "forceful" to stop these lunatics (who pretend to be motivated or guided by Islamic principles), why not applaud his efforts and encourage others to join them? You actually seem to want the same result as the Imam, yet you are upset that he has no magic wand that can make the situation better. Is it not better to have someone speaking out, in hopes that others will hear him and join their voices to his?

VoiceOfReason11:

The argument that the Imam Majid gives to the muslim immigrants that they should refrain from Violence is
"Betrayal: Their call to law-abiding American or European Muslims to turn their back on our societies is actually a call to betrayal. Muslims are religiously obligated to uphold any contract they make. Immigrants and naturalized citizens effectively sign "contracts" with their adopted country, and violating that is a betrayal - and a grave sin."
What "contract" binds an american born muslim like Adam Yahiye Gadahn to being loyal to USA? Do you know the Sharia about contracts when Islam is under threat? All contracts with the Kafirs stand automatically null and void. So Imam's Majid argument feeds into the paranoia of the young muslim who is being told that it the American and Western Kafir who is the aggressor. Do you what is the basis of nulling all contracts with Kafirs?
Quran 009.004
YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

You see Muhammad was allowed to break any treaty with any non-muslim tribe if he felt that they had "aided any one against him or failed you in anything". When the Kafirs are accepted as the aggressors then muslims do not have to honor any contract with them. That is not my argument but the argument that I have heard many a times from Muslims.

Understand that Imam Majid is using a language that appeals to the ignorant Kafirs, but the muslims who are susceptible to Al-Qaeda's message have counter arguments all lined up to dismiss the good Imam's message without much effort.

VoiceOfReason11:

I am not trying to fan the flames of hatred.

I am trying to get the Imam to honestly face the arguments that a muslim encounters from those who do not accept the Imam's pablum without any grounding in Islamic "theology". The argument I laid down for the Imam is not mine, but standard fare in islamic literature. I am merely repeating the argument that a young muslim hears from his peers when they denigrate the Kafir society and tell each other that their loyalty is to Islam, Allah, and the ummah, and not to their nation, or to their tribe, or to their family. Don't you think it should be fairly easy to come up with a forceful argument to counter that?

Your argument boils down to that Christianity and Judaism are hateful too and see that they can live with peace, and so why worry about Islam. Not very comforting considering how long and how hard it was for the jews and christians to marginalize their "nuts".

I do not for a second think that Imam Majid is lying, but I think he is totally ineffective in addressing the real issues of hate for the non-muslims within Islam that is propelling the fervour of the young muslims towards hating the kafirs around them. I am trying to challenge him to come up with an effective answer for what SAAD1 has written.

Read what SAAD1 writes. That is the grievance that Muslims claim when they are justifying violence. That is the argument that people like Michael Moore, and other accept and tell us that all we have to do is to withdraw into a cocoon because we are the aggressors and we are the evil ones and the jihadis will leave us alone.

Do you think we are evil? Do you think we are the aggressors? Do you know how to answer in a way that resonates with the muslim jihadists so they understand and not hear you as grovelling apologetic and essentially accepting their arguments, and hence the next step is talking about what compensation is due to them? How much jiziya are you willing to pay to buy a second class human status for yourself and your children?

Voice of Something pontificates thus:
“Akafir is fanning the flames of hatred.”
Hogwash! Those flames were there since the advent of Islam. He is an ex-Muslim who knows too much about Islam that he opted out and escaped as far as he could away from his Muslim dominated society. He is very loyal to his adopted country of USA and do not wish to see it become more and more like the one he escaped from. He is simply educating us about Islam by answering all those claims made by those who are using taqqiya (Sharia sanctioned deception) to promote their agenda of dominating and oppressing the Kuffar (infidels). That is us ; you and I and everyone else who do not subscribe to that 7th Century Arabian desert ideology.

The keepers of the two holy cities carry intolerance to a fair extreme in their secular laws. According to Imam Magid, they are not mainstream but extreme.

The comments of AKAFIR clearly show how little he knows of Islam. If you substitute the word "God" for his use of "Allah", his comments lose all their force and negative context. As the Koran also states (to paraphrase), "tell the Christians and the Jews that their God and our God are the same". This is not a Muslim view - this is the accepted opinion of all serious religious scholars, from all Abrahamic faiths.

For example, if you change the passage quoted by AKAFIR to:
"God has decreed: "It is I and My messengers who must prevail": For God is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will."

Is this not the same message as in the Bible? This is the more accurate translation - Allah simply means "God" in Arabic, the same as "Dieu" means God in French. Does he think French Christians worship a different God, simply because they use a word in their own language?

God's messengers, according to Islam, include Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, and even Jesus Christ (who is mentioned repeatedly in the Koran), and even the Virgin Mary, the only woman to have a chapter of the Koran devoted to (and named after) her.

Even his other quote loses the pejorative quality when properly translated: "Those who resist God and His Messengers will be among those most humiliated." No Christian or Jew should find that a different message from what the Bible teaches us.

I am frankly tired of the refusal of people like AKAFIR to try to find any common ground. The history of Christianity is equally bloody (and maybe even more so) to the history of Islam; both sides are guilty of using God and religion to justify heinous acts. We castigate Muslims for not being peaceful, and yet we equally castigate those Muslims who are trying to promote peace.

I am simply ashamed of people like these who spurn every effort of Muslims like Imam Mohamed to try to extinguish the fires of hatred. We accuse Muslims of promoting hate - yet the views and comments of people like AKAFIR or EddietheInfidel are doing exactly what they criticize Muslims for - spreading hatred and misunderstanding.

They do not represent mainstream Christian or Jewish thought, and their views should be seen as what they are - hate preachers of the same ilk that Imam Mohamed is so eloquently fighting in his religion.

Saad1

I take it from your response that you support Islamic terrorism. So, why be offended when it is called the name that it is? Isn't that being hypocritical? For whatever reason, you support the sneaky, backstabbing methodology of those snakes in the grass who call themselves Muslims.

You are part of the problem. Islam has no central authority that even pretends to say what Islam is. It only has a community of consensus. But in the West, especially, you are not bound by theis consensus, but you can strike out on your own, and say that Islam is anything, according to your own personal predjudices and whims; the dictates and meaning of Islam is open to your personal caprice of the moment.

Islam is melting down, into nihilsm. Soon, your people will not need any tortured Islamic excuse to commit any attoricity upon mankind, but just do it because you feel like doing it; that will be you new Islam, your new religions.

Imam Majid,

Saad1 is pushing Al-Qaeda view of the world. In that view Islam's deep hate for the non-muslim, it bloody history, it evil laws for the non-muslims do not exist, but that is the view of the majority of muslims.

You and your friend Imam Johari Abdul-Malik are pushing a version of Islam that is not real. Islam is not peaceful, and it cannot live in peace with the non-muslims. It may temporarily but the inherent conflict between the Islam's Iman and the Kufr cannot be hidden for long. That message is on practically every page of the Koran, and practically in every action of Muhammad. A muslim has to be of the Ummah, and not of the nation, or tribe, or family.
Your Allah tells you
058.020
YUSUFALI: Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated.
058.021
Allah has decreed: "It is I and My messengers who must prevail": For Allah is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will.
058.022
YUSUFALI: Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity.

You see your non-muslim fellow Americans do not believe in your Allah, and they commit shirk by going to church and bowing to Jesus, or going to Temples and praying to Yaweh, or going to Mandirs and praying to many Gods and Goddesses, etc.
So as a good Muslim you who are told not to love your own father or brother who resist Allah, how do you feel about total strangers who insist on associating all kinds of beings with Allah? I really would like to hear how you reconcile being a loyal citizen of a nation to being a faithful muslim and a member of Muhammad's Ummah. Saad1 has clarity. He is a muslim and he is of Muhammad's Ummah. Where are you?

I would respectfully submit, Imam Magid, that you are fighting an uphill battle. It is unfortunate for you and the muslim community that for every rational thinker such as yourself, there are two or three "respected" imams that continue to preach jihad against the infidel west and cite justification for it in the core texts of islam.

You say, "They preach their perverted messages without the checks and balances of rational debate." The problem is that many of your fellow islamic leaders reject any and all debate or criticism of islam in any form, and invariably react to any criticism of islam with calls to violence.

Their argument is that it is only complete submission to islam, and by extension, complete submission to the teachings in the quran, hadith and sunnah that define a "good muslim". It appears that by using this tactic, they are finding many willing recruits to their cause among members of the American muslim community.

Your column in the Washington Post is misplaced; we non-muslims don't need further convincing of how wrong islamist extremists are in their beliefs; rather it the islamists themselves that need this message. Perhaps if you relly wanted to make your message clear to the people who need to hear it, you'd place your column in Cairo's Al Akhbar or Riyadh's
Al Jazirah arabic language editions.

Just to play devil's advocate, the neo-kharijites would argue that you (the traditional scholars of Islam) have decided to take a backseat in addressing the injustices faced by Muslims around the world. And as a result, the neo-kharijites have taken it upon themselves to defend the Muslim cause (by any means necessary). In addition to condemning terrorism, do you feel you should also, perhaps, fulfill your role as a leader of the Muslim community to condemn the crimes committed by the Western governments against innocent Muslim women and children (and men) in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Mindanao, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? After all, the more you continue to avoid condemning American state-sponsored terror, the more you will be forced to condemn Muslim stateless terror. Salaam.