GAFFNEY: Democrats' 'soft' jihadist

Any course being taught entitled "The Koran and Its Place in Muslim Life and Society" should cover all major views, authours and publications on the Koran and the commentaries made on it; regardless, whether one agrees or disagrees with the points of views given. Not presenting all major perspectives would be just irresponsible and not academically acceptable. So the argument against using readings from Syed Abul A'la Maududi and Sayyid Qutb is doesn't hold any water. Last year Washington Times reported: "U.S. sponsors Islamic convention", in which it was noted The Justice Department is co-sponsoring a convention held by the Islamic Society of North America, even though it raised some concern from a few of it's lawyers. It is not a clear and cut case that The Justice Department sees ISNA as a threat to America as is implied in the article. The arguments against ISNA in the article are about 20 years out of date. At one time ISNA received most of it's funding through Saudi money and thus the Saudi's had quite a bit of influence over ISNA, but now ISNA has strong roots and supporting structures in America and Canada. ISNA is now a independent mainstream Muslim organization and not merely a pawn of Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood directives, policies or beliefs. The article does make a good point about confronting extreme ideas of Wahabis and extreme elements of Muslim Brotherhood but this should be reflected in the overall U.S. policies and in who U.S. chooses to support overseas.

I would be skeptical of any two points Mr. Gaffney attempts to draw a straight line between. It is unlikely to be very straight. I would also immedietly assume any article written wit the intent to create the impression that Dems want to destroy the US deserves a severly skeptical reading. Before anyone just takes what is written here as 'truth' i suggest the following lines of thought suggested by the article itself. 1. The US army apparently has vetted Ms.Mattson's course and requires it for its islamic chaplans. 2. Ms. Mattson's course would not be the first nor certainly the last to use books by authors who are criminals. My Russian histoy courses contained books by Lenin, Marx and Kruschev. At no point was it intended to create communists. I hated islamic studies so have no points of reference but Mr. Gaffney isn't supplying any either other then to hold them out as bad. This is always to be held suspect. 3. He goes to great lengths to expound on what Msrs. Qutb and Maududi have to say about islam but next to nothing about Ms. Mattson has to say on the subject. He seems to imply there is a straight line between the two. However he never says so. Usually used as a rhetorical device to escape culpability if he's completely wrong while saying what he really intends to say without saying it. Also always to be held suspect. 4. Points out that Saudi Arabia is funding most of this work. How is it Obama is the object of this article and not the guy who I saw walking arm in arm with the Saudi Prince in Texas a couple of years ago? Or is a foolish consistancy the hobgoblin of little minds like Mr.Gaffney's? A few things to keep in mind when reading these types of articles. I doubt much of this will be taken to heart but as Jane Marple once observed, Good advice is seldom taken but that isn't a reason not to give it."

kc - My little mind managed to see Gaffeny admonishing the "Bush administration officals" in addition to Obama and his party. How did a mentat like you manage to miss that?