Radical U.S. Muslim Group Defames Moderate, Defends Fort Hood Attack
by IPT News • Nov 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm
A New York-based Muslim extremist group known for its unabashed support for violence against Jews and others posted a link on its website Tuesday branding American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) Executive Director, M. Zuhdi Jasser, a "murtad," or apostate. Being labeled an apostate – a Muslim who renounces Islam – is a very serious accusation, often resulting in a death sentence in many places throughout the Muslim world. And while this is not a certainty in all cases and contexts, it is troubling that Revolution Muslim (RM) thought it acceptable to bestow upon themselves the license to label a pious Muslim as such.
And it's not the first time the group has slurred Jasser this way.
RM's latest attack against Jasser came in reaction to a video, originally posted by AIFD, showing him and U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) engaged in a Capitol Hill forum about Islam's internal struggle against radicalism. Rather than assessing the complete debate, RM elected to post just one segment (of nine) where, it says Ellison "gives the Murtad Zubi [sic.] Jasser a schooling." We at IPT News must have heard something completely different when we attended and reported on the forum last month.
Jasser, a Navy veteran, is a devout Muslim who challenges radical Islamists and advocates a separation between religion and political ideas such as the spread of Shariah law.
RM's radical reaction is hardly surprising considering the group's record. As noted in an October 2009 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) "backgrounder" on RM, the group has, on numerous occasions, promoted attacks against Jews, Hindus, Americans, and other non-Muslims. In one recent case, "RM posted to its Web site a poem asking God to 'kill the Jews' and listing ways Jews could be hurt, including by burning 'their flammable sukkos while they sleep' and throwing 'liquid drain cleaner in their faces.'" Fox News reports that the post was removed and replaced with a more innocuous article soon after it caught the eye of the NYPD.
Similarly, just last week, RM posted a video on YouTube in which group member Abdullah As-Sayf Jones rants on the streets of New York City to passersby about the justification for Major Nidal Hasan's wanton act of violence at Fort Hood. In an effort to show Hasan's act had the moral upper-hand as compared to U.S. military actions overseas, Jones says:
"This did not take place at a hospital. This was not a civilian target. Not a school, not a hotel, nothing else. This took place at a military base….compared to American military tactics, in which they drive drones over the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, indiscriminately killing Pakistanis. A U.S. drone does not tell the difference [between legitimate targets and civilians]…but yet, here it is, the so-called terrorist making sure specifically to target military targets."
In the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting, RM also posted a link to another controversial video – this one put out by a group called AIM Films – in which a man identified as Bilal Abdul-Kareem defends Hasan's killing spree as an act against an enemy in a state of war, rather than a criminal or terrorist act.
RM's mission, as stated on its website, includes uniting the "Muslim world…under the banner of Islam." In pursuing this mission, RM regularly pushes the limits of 1st Amendment freedom of speech protections in showing support for violence. This strategy is very similar to yet another New York-based group, with whom RM shares membership and often cooperates: the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS). ITS, "an offshoot of a British group by the name Al Muhajiroun…that supports violence in order to create a global Islamic state," according to the ADL report, has openly shown support for Al Qaeda and has spewed hate against the FBI, CIA, and others.
Reader comments on this item
Muslim Intellectuals would NEVER defend the Exremists in Islam. Islam is Pure & Simple.
Submitted by Mu, Jan 28, 2010 06:57
The Muslims, who really love and His Rasul Muhammad (pbuh), would NEVER EVER resort to Violence.
Fitna or Disorder in the Society is against the Commands of Allah in Holy Quran. Muslims must obey Allah & Rasul and can NEVER commit any Crimes including Killing of any people.
It is Shame for Afghan & Iraqi Muslims to kill their Muslim Brothers & Sisters in Islam.
The Muslims, who kill innocent people including Americans, Muslims or others, are the Real Enemies of Islam & True Muslims.
If any Muslims, who perform Five Times Salat/ Prayer Daily, can NEVER commit any kind of Crimes or Suicide Bombing etc. Such Muslims don't read, understand, follow and practice Holy Quran & Sunnah of our Prophet. These Ignorant / jahiliya Muslims are the real Enemies of Islam & Muslims, who have brought Bad name for Allah, Holy Quran, Islam, Muslims & our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Not terrorism? Then how about Treason?
Submitted by Craig in Maine, Nov 28, 2009 12:59
Given the comments:
"Bilal Abdul-Kareem defends Hasan's killing spree as an act against an enemy in a state of war, rather than a criminal or terrorist act."
Looking at Hasan as a fighter in a state of war against America, but being a member of said
American military unit, how about calling it what it is?? ------= TREASON !!!
Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/#1538
Submitted by Monte44, Nov 19, 2009 14:42
I followed the link to AIM, saw a condmenation of Zuhdi ("Zubi"!!!) and a video that defended Hasan in Fort Hood and even attacked CAIR for its statement of sympathy toward the victims.
AIFD calls AIM and CAIR extreme. AIM calls AIFD and Zuhdi Jasser extreme. Let's say that my own sympathies are in question. Why should I believe one side over the other(s)? Zuhdi says he is a devout Muslim. The AIM guy says that he and his like-minded (jihadist) group are devout Muslims and that Zuhdi is apostate. Where is the truth? What should I look for in order to decide? My question is not where to place my sentiment on Jihad; it is how to decide who is a proper, devout Muslim, one who understands Islam, and who misunderstands, who is apostate? Does it come to close examination of the Koran and other ancient and traditional sources? So be it, then. We must have this presentation/dialogue/debate. Otherwise, what is this all about?