Islamic Leader’s Message to Fellow Muslims

(Shared By Nasik Elahi with comment: I disagree with some of his positions, but he also makes some good points)

Zuhdi Jasser, a conservative author, activist and the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), has a message for Muslim Americans: Step up to the plate and work diligently to combat Islamism and extremism. Jasser spoke with TheBlaze this week about his reaction to the Boston Marathon terror attack and his views on steps that should be taken within Islamic circles to prevent further extremism.

When asked how he believes Muslims should be reacting to the terror attacks, the faith leader noted that he has been disappointed by the response thus far. He claimed that many Islamic leaders have simply not done enough and that more is required of the community as a whole.Click to link for full news article;


17 thoughts on “Islamic Leader’s Message to Fellow Muslims

  1. Agree with almost everything said in this article. The only thing i disagree with is that it says we can counteract the “islamists” by engaging them. how can you engage whole masses of irrational people? The only thing these people understand is force. By using force they either kill(and in their convoluted thinking, go to heaven) or get killed(and in their convoluted thinking, go to heaven).

  2. With due respect my dear friend Shoeb, if force was the solution, this problem would have been solved by now. Force is being used in many places and the problem is worse. In frustration, Mr. Obama has even lowered the threshold to use the Drones in military activity area and all military-age males could be considered enemy fighters regardless their ideology (NYT). The problem is far from being resolved. The Boston Bombing is showing a new breed and new pattern. I think suggestions by Imam Muhammad Abbasi on Friday’s Sermons and Comments by Nasik Elahi are important in this regard. I think the solution is to stop the use of force in Muslim lands, and the Muslims to clean their own house. Off course, it is just a dream!
    Link to Friday’s Sermons
    Link to comments by Nasik Elahi


  3. dr sheikh and i think akike on almost 99%+ of issues. but here i have a few disagreements. first of all it might be wrong to say that force has not worked. it may not have eradicated terrorism but it certainly has kept it in check. all the prisons and torture and death penalties over human history has not eradicated crime; it never will, but punishment is a partial deterrent. so with terrorism; we will never make it go away. but show of force and drone attacks has the terrorists on the run. the backlash against drones is b/c it sometimes targets innocents. but i think it’s a perfectly ok tool to use to take out the bad guys. and force on a consistent basis has been used to fight terrorism only for the past 11-12 years; we may need a more sustained effort to make a dent.
    i know use of force is not the ideal tool to fight terrorism, but between 2 bad choices – engagement and use of force – the latter is the better choice. i am sure you have seen the tsarnaev parents on tv; how do you “engage” such people and they are not even the worst of them. more disagreements later.

    as regards imam abbasi and trying to change from inside, he’ll stay an “insider” only as long as he tows the

  4. My friend, I hope you are right, but comments sound like White House briefing or old Pentagon’s briefing on Vietnam war. Every thing is rosy until the bottom falls out.

  5. The Ismaili Assassins, claiming Nizam al-Mulk their first victim on 16 Oct 1092, were the first terrorists who planned systematic and long-term use of terror as a political weapon. They targeted only the Sunni establishment–bureaucratic and religious, political and military. They created terror against the mighty Seljuks until in December 1256 Hulegu Khan put each and every one of them to sword and thus the terrorists’ period of 164 years was brought to an end with the mighty power of savage Mongols. Therefore, use of power has its role–where carrots don’t work, sticks are the only alternative.

    Mirza Ashraf

  6. The only answer to terrorism is to pay back in the same coin. To think that such small minds (who become terrorists) can be engaged in a dialogue other than negotiating terms of our defeat and their victory) is like hiding our head in the sand like an ostrich. We Muslims aren’t going to like it but Israel has shown the whole world how to pay back in the same coin…where is Intifada now, why no more suicide bombings there now – because they pursue the terrorists relentlessly and with ten times the force. The countries that fail in countering terrorism by force are the countries who are coward, incompetent and lack resolve. America is another example, with all the tall claims of “Jihad” all these terrorists could do was two pressure cookers at a marathon in twelve, thirteen years, that too not by professional Jihadis but a couple of twisted misfit brothers.
    Here is another example, Sri Lanka, where are Tamil Tigers now? When I say use of force I don’t mean putting sand bags on a street corner and sitting in there a scare crow, I mean a rapid response with full force, erasing the whole area into smithereens, better they mourn their collateral damage than us. A speedy trial and on the spot firing squad dispensing justice. Whimpering is not use of force. Cancer is not treated with aspirin.
    Pakistan army has let us down, presenting ill equipped, badly supported check posts that rag tag cave men could haul and cut throats….American are there too since a decade, how many of their check posts got captured, none, why because Americans make them carry their dead instead of carry their own. Yes, Americans suffered casualties but did not make themselves a joke. Like crimes, terrorism can never totally end but to let it spread like it has, is surrender to barbarians and only failed countries have failed in controlling it. No need to call terrorists as Islamist, scholars need to disassociate the two,
    terrorists are criminals and animals at the most, sub humans.

  7. Very thoughtful and great perspectives. The consensus seems to be the force used aggressively and ruthlessly to eliminate the scourge of terrorism without worrying about collateral.It is obvious the America will not complete the job when it leaves Afghanistan as Mr. Babar and Mirza Sahib convincingly laid out. Presently the most of the terrorism has shifted within the Pakistan. The Pakistani Army has many Islamists within its own ranks. There are terrorists in other countries. Boston Bombers came from Chechnya. If terrorism is confined to one area, like Sri Lanka , it is understandable to eliminate it with ruthless force, but if it is a Global phenomenon how one eliminate it unless Armies of all the countries are on the same wavelength with the mindset as USA’s Army.

    Half the efforts are counterproductive which leaves only destruction and pain,and no real gains to show to the public, who can accept the collateral damage if it receives security. In my judgement, Drones are half the efforts to reduce America’s own causalities and keep the terrorists on the defensive to protect USA territory. but it is counter productive at local level as is happening in Pakistan. Terrorists just moved from North to other areas in Pakistan and might go back to Afghanistan after USA leaves.

    These half the efforts might do the job for USA,but most of the time these governments assume the USA will do the whole job for them also and as well take the blame.They either go on sideline or do minimal involvement, a far cry from what Babar is suggesting. USA do not want to leave them completely so that they can stand on their own, because USA do not have confidence in them and do not want to take a risk. So these half efforts will continue.


  8. who knew that babar mustufa and i would have something we agree on. i was hesitant to mention the correctness of israel’s to response to terrorism against innocent civilians, but it’s true; IT IS acting as a deterrent. now i am not saying everything israel does is right, ONLY IT’s RESPONSE TO terrorism. re. dr sheikh’s last comment, i didn’t want him and others to think that all wars -like the vietnam war and the iraq war – were justified uses of force. i don’t believe in random use of force. even in afghanistan, our only objective should have been to topple the taliban govt, kill or capture those responsible for 9/11 and leave; with a threat that if they ever repeat that again we’ll come back with overwhelming force. so my difference of opinion with dr sheikh is a very narrow one, just on how to deal with terrorists, be it muslim or others. engaging subhumans is not a winning strategy.

  9. i guess each country has to fight it’s own terrorism. sri lanka has to deal with the tamil tigers in it’s own way. america should deal with only the terrorists that actually (not possibly, as in iraq) harm america and americans. it is b/c we sometimes get involved in what should be other peoples’ businesses that we get bad name for our use of force.

  10. I agree with your these comments;

    “our only objective should have been to topple the taliban govt, kill or capture those responsible for 9/11 and leave; with a threat that if they ever repeat that again we’ll come back with overwhelming force.”

    This is what I wrote at the end of my first comment.

    “I think the solution is to stop the use of force in Muslim lands, and the Muslims to clean their own house. Off course, it is just a dream!”

    Here I was talking about USA forces to leave Muslim lands, and Muslim countries to clean their own houses. Somehow discussion moved to in general use of force against terrorism.

    The USA should hold those countries accountable if they do not clean their houses and use whatever means necessary to hold them accountable. The non-state players who commit terrorist acts, hold those countries accountable wherever they live.

    I strongly believe American Force’s long term involvement in Muslim countries is counter productive to control terrorism. It producers anger in public, makes local governments complacent and all blame is shifted to USA. America should hold local governments responsible to eradicate this menace by whatever means these governments wants to use and measure it by results.

    Terrorism is a menace no matter where it takes place. Palestinian acts to target civilians is terrorism and so are Israel’s indiscriminate killing of civilians and keeping the whole Palestinian locked in occupied lands.


  11. I agree with Fayyaz Sahib and Shoeb Sahib that force must not be used to achieve ulterior motives with an excuse of countering terrorism but where dealing with terrorism, each sovereign country must clean their own Augean Stables. If the countries (with terrorism menace) fail to flush these stables then Heracles (USA) need not labor repeatedly. As Mirza Sahib also gave example of Hulagu Khan once cleaning the stables as well, the evil must be dealt with ruthlessly, no half hearted effort will yield results.
    Pakistan army used force in the real sense only in Swat and South Wasirastan and cleansed extremist animals (I don’t want to use the word “Islamist”) and USA wouldn’t use drones if Pak army could even go there.
    In case someone got the impression that I support Israel against Palestinians then it is not what I meant. I was referring to the killings of innocent Israelis and I condemn the killings of Palestinians by Israel as well. The slow bleeding of Israelis was only stopped by brutal force, such is the reality.
    The stigma of terrorism on Muslims as a whole is the failure of Muslim scholars and intellectuals for not countering the terms like Islamic Bomb, Islamist, Islamization and
    most of all for sitting arrogantly and relishing the label of Jihad until the word jihad became a curse. Propaganda is very useful tool and Muslims could learn a few things from the Jews here too – they (Jews) don’t collect all the Nobel prizes for nothing.

    • well said, babar sahib. i think some muslims feel ambivalent about how to treat muslim terrorists b/c the “muslim” part of the muslim terrorist may be of some importance to them, out of a feeling of “brotherhood”. we should start considering them criminals(first and foremost), who unfortunately happen to be muslims. there is no brotherhood between them and us.

  12. the way i remember it, i had commented on something on “the islamic leader’s call to fellow muslims”, which stated that we should “engage islamists” and i said that was nonsense and you seemed to disagree but then somehow your comments went to the vietnam war and the lies from the pentagon.. the only discussion i wanted to have is how to deal w/ terrorists, be they muslims or non muslims. if the terrorism is sponsored by a muslim country, we have all the right to go in and use force. to make myself clear, i disagree w/ american policy vis a vis iran. even if they are trying to acquire nuclear weapons, so what. it’s their right and many other countries have them. BUT, when they acquire them AND use them against us, we have all the right to do whatever. again, i agree that we have gone to more muslim countries than we should but i would not refrain from going to a muslim country if they do us harm. leaving it to the local country authorities is essentially to do nothing.

  13. The reference to Vietnam War was about bloated claims of success the Pentagon was making during the Vietnam War and many believe same is true about the Drone attacks.By our Government, under the new doctrine, all military age men in military activity area are considered enemy regardless whether they are civilians or terrorists. When White House or Pentagon announces 10 militant or terrorists are killed by Drone, they are using above criteria-some or all of them could be civilians. One of my close friend’s family lives in that military activity area. Their military age male relatives could be a fair Drone target. I was just referring to possible bloated claims of success of Drone attacks, somehow it did not come out that way.


    • re. the first part i have no disagreements. re the second part, what you say is what partly exhibits the ambivalence we sometimes feel. you being originally from pakistan, obviously you don’t want your innocent pakistani brethren to be killed by drone attacks; certainly not your family members. being indian i have thankfully never faced that dilemma; i don’t know how i would feel in the same situation. i am more looking at it from an american point of view; most of us are american citizens. if you and i as americans are attacked by people who happen to live in a country of our birth (with whom we willingly severed legal ties with, but with whom we may continue to have emotional ties); if that country does not take of the terrorists or shows no will power to do it and furthermore does not allow american soldiers on it’s territory, then what is the attacked country supposed to do? just wait until the next attack? i know it is a complex issue and you cannot completely leave the emotional side of the issue out of the equation. NOBODY wants innocent civilians dead, nobody thinks america is carrying out drone attacks just to kill innocent muslims; they just become collateral damage(hate that word). if i had to put it very bluntly i personally would rather have innocent civilians in my country of birth than the country in which i live in now and of whom i a current citizen(given the situation described above) be killed, b/c someday those innocent civilians could be me and you.

      • I think I opened a Pandora’s box. I am also looking at it as American and American point of view with no emotional point of view, and it is shared by many. I was just making a point that the claims of success of Drone attacks are being bloated by the administration, just like the bloated claims of success were being made during Vietnam War. Mention of civilian deaths were to make the same point- they are including civilians as terrorists/ militants when they report how many terrorists were killed by a Drone.Those numbers are misleading. Ambassador Munter resigned in frustration for some of the same reasons.

        In general, I believe killing of innocent civilians is deplorable, no matter where, no matter what the circumstances and no matter who is responsible.

        I am paraphrasing someone said , “As Americans, when we start compromising our principals and values in exchange for security, we get neither”


        • i understand your point of view more clearly now. yes, you right. the two of us have hashed this issue to death. it’s time for someone else to comment or just close this trail.

Comments are closed.