‘Moderate’ Muslim myth

By Hal Lindsey

In November 2001, as the remains of the World Trade Center were still smouldering in New York, the U.S. State Department hosted a widely criticized Ramadan dinner for leaders of the American Muslim community. Among the invited guests were prominent American Muslim leaders Muzzamil Siddiqi and Abdurahman Alamoudi.

The tradition of hosting the first night of the Ramadan feast dated back to 1996, when first lady Hillary Clinton drew up the first guest list, which included Alamoudi.

Alamoudi had long enjoyed an open door to the White House, dating back to the early years of the Clinton administration. He was the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim Council and the American Muslim Foundation. As its executive director, Alamoudi had had repeated high-level contacts with the Clinton White House in late 1995 and early 1996.

According to a Wall Street Journal article by Steve Emerson, on Nov. 9, 1995, Alamoudi met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore at a meeting with 23 Muslim leaders at the White House. Shortly thereafter, Alamoudi was chosen by the Clinton administration to train and certify chaplains for Pentagon’s newly-created Muslim military chaplain corps.

On Dec. 8, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake met at the White House with Alamoudi and several board members of the American Muslim Council. On Feb. 8, 1996, Mrs. Clinton wrote a newspaper column based on talking points provided by Alamoudi.

In all, Abdurahman Alamoudi has been an Islamic affairs adviser for the Clinton administration, an official appointee of the Pentagon in charge of choosing Muslim chaplains, and a State Department-selected goodwill ambassador to Muslims.

Alamoudi is a textbook case of how deceptive some perceived “moderate Muslims” can be. It also spotlights how criminally ignorant most of our political leaders are to the true nature of Islam.

Alamoudi has been convicted as a terrorist with indirect links to Osama bin-Laden. He was just convicted in a plot to arrange the assassination of Crown Prince Abdullah.

Lawrence Auster of NewsMax reported Nov. 6, 2000:

When Abdurahman Alamoudi, friend and sometime adviser on Islamic affairs to Hillary Rodham Clinton, stood before a Muslim crowd in Lafayette Park across from the White House this week and passionately declared his support for the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, he was revealing the true face of “moderate” Islam. He was also revealing the blindness, or rather the willful complicity, of America’s political elites, particularly the Clintons, who have welcomed these Islamic “moderates” into our midst and helped raise them to important positions of influence in American life.

This insight was given 11 months before the 9-11 attacks. No one took heed of the warning. The mistakes and failures of the Clinton administration in identifying and dealing with these threats to America were dumped in the lap of President Bush.

Western culture does not understand that Islam teaches that it is proper to deceive and pretend friendship with an enemy until it gains military superiority. Western minds especially do not understand how Muslims truly do not believe that their acts of extreme terrorism are terrorism. They see them as just actions in pursuit of spreading Islam to the world. It is all a part of Islamic “evangelism” by the sword.

Here is an example. A spokesman for the Islamic Committee for Palestine in Tampa, Fla., in 1995, told an interviewer that:

… his group had no alliance with terrorists. But when asked about Sheik Abdel-Rahman, the blind cleric who organized the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and who also had spoken at a conference sponsored by this same Tampa group, the spokesman replied that Sheik Rahman was not a terrorist, but a “conservative.”

Abdel-Rahman first attempted what the 19 “conservative” Muslims completed on 9-11. But according to the “moderate Muslim” spokesmen, the 19 suicide attackers of 9-11 were not terrorists, they were “conservative” Muslims.

The Koran demands loyalty to Islam as a political entity. An attack against political rulers, like the Afghan Taliban or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is an attack on Islam, say the Muslim fundamentalists.

Nobody in the United States is alleging the 9-11 attacks are an attack on Christianity. The attacks, the United States says, were aimed at American economic targets, not churches or Christian institutions. It is the terrorists who claim Christianity is the target.

The Islamist argues that the response to the attacks is really an attack on Islam by Christians and Jews. Does that mean American agnostics, atheists and secular humanists are not targets?

One cannot be loyal to both Islam and a national government without violating the teachings of Islam.

The absurdity of the situation is summed up by the contention that exposing Islam’s core teachings is considered hate speech, whereas genuine hate speech, supporting terrorism, terror groups and the replacement of our national government with an Islamic nation is simply worshipping God in a different way and worthy of honor.

Is anybody out there listening?