Muslim reformer articulates dangers of Islamism, which candidates 'get it'

September 29, 2015

Editor

On radio Tuesday, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, joined Glenn to discuss what is being done to confront radical Islamism. As a Muslim himself, Jasser offered a very unique perspective on the situation.

"Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent," Jasser said, adding, "We need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

When Glenn asked the most pressing question of how to tell the difference, Jasser left no room for confusion in his response.

The difference is: Those who have allegiance to the Islamic State (be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity, and with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it).

Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

Later in the conversation, Glenn shifted to presidential politics, asking if there is a candidate that Jasser thinks "gets it." Here is what he said:

Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

Listen to the segment or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Good friend of the program. Great American. I believe he was a captain in the Navy. Zuhdi, correct me if I'm wrong.

ZUHDI: No. Lieutenant commander.

GLENN: Lieutenant commander.

ZUHDI: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Great to talk to you. Zuhdi, you're really, truly one of the good guys and a guy that I always look to as one of the first real heroes of my lifetime standing up and doing the dangerous things when it really counts. I mean, I think, after September 11th, the world changed. And people began -- regular people began to risk their lives. And you have done this now for 15 years. You were doing it before. But you were ringing the bell and trying to get, you know, the rest of the world to stand and up see the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Zuhdi, I want to play some audio here and get your reaction as a Muslim.

There is this debate going on on whether a Muslim should be president of the United States. And I think Ben Carson is answering this inartfully, but I think if I understand him right, I think I agree with him. And I want to see -- I kind of want to do a bigot check here on me. Not on him. On me. And make sure that I'm seeing things the proper way. Here's what he said to Jake Tapper.

JAKE: I think one of the things, you are a member of a church that there's a lot of misinformation about, the Seventh Day Adventist church. You're an African-American. You know what it's like for people to make false assumptions about you, and you seem to be doing the same thing with Muslims.

BEN: In which way am I making a false assumption about them?

JAKE: You're assuming that Muslim Americans put their religion ahead of the country.

BEN: I'm assuming that if you accept all the tenets of Islam, that you'll have a very difficult time abiding under the Constitution of the United States.

VOICE: This interview is over.

GLENN: Okay. Stop there.

So here's the thing, Zuhdi, and I don't know whether this -- whether Sharia law would be classified as a tenet of Islam. I know it's a tenet of Islamists. Would you agree with him there or not?

ZUHDI: Well, I certainly -- you know, listen, as you said, the reason I'm doing all this work is our community has been so silent that, you know, it's no wonder most Americans that are doubly as fearful of Islam today as they were after 9/11. Because Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent.

Now, having said that, if you want Muslims to be in that time in history that Christianity was -- as our Founding Fathers were, where they were not Christianists, they were devout Christians that rejected theocracy. If we're going to make that stand, which I think is the most important stand in the world today, is this battle within the house of Islam. Then we need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

And, by the way, it's not just about being president. It's about security clearances. It's about every position in government, whether you take that oath as the president, or oath as a military office, or oath in Homeland Security. If you're an Islamist, you should not be getting those clearances. But if you're a Muslim, who is anti-theocratic, you are not only an essential patriot, you're probably one of the most important ideologues on the planet today in order to defeat this threat.

GLENN: So here's the problem, Zuhdi. And we're seeing this overseas. We're seeing this with the people who are coming out of the Middle East, the, quote, refugees out of the Middle East. You don't know how to tell the difference between an Islamist who is lying to you and just saying that they're a Muslim and a Muslim, who is actually -- because a Muslim, as I define a Muslim, compared to an Islamist -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Zuhdi, but I write about it in my book, that a Muslim by definition in today's world is a reformer of Islam and an Islamist is somebody who believes in all of the tenets of the Koran and the Hadith with Sharia law as it's understood in the Middle East. So how do you know what the difference is?

ZUHDI: Well, the difference is, those who have allegiance to the Islamic State, be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity. And with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it. Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

So those people coming here, they're coming here because they're part of a jihad. They're our enemy. If they're coming here seeking freedom like my family did, then they're not only allies -- and that's why we have to be careful. There's ISIS already in all 50 states. But yet the refugees coming here for the most part and see that narrative that the West stands for their only solace against the two evils of political Islam or Islamism and secular HEP atocracy of Assad and other dictators of the Middle East -- so we can't change who we are, what our Statue of Liberty stands for. Yes, we should vet the refugees. But if we say we're not going to take anyone, remember, most of the jihadists that attacked us, are -- might be kids of immigrants. But they certainly aren't new refugees for the most part. I'm not saying there aren't any threats there, but we can't change who we are, because otherwise we become the Russias and the Saudi Arabias of the world and take nobody.

GLENN: But here's the thing. I have gone off -- and I know this is a controversial stance. But I don't know -- I'm not qualified myself to do this. And we're having the United Nations do all of our vetting for the refugees, which I think is a tremendous mistake. But I look at the refugee status and say, "Look, Saudi Arabia and everybody else, they have plenty of room for refugees who are Muslim, and they're more qualified to figure out which one is which. Good guys and bad guys. We're not. We won't even admit that there are bad guys in that mix." So we've got to take care of the Christians who cannot be taken care of in the Middle East. They're not going to find a friendly home -- you know, you're not going to bring your Bible into Saudi Arabia. They have to get out of there.

Meanwhile, all of the Islamic nations in the Middle East are not taking refugees. They're expecting -- they're expecting the West to take all of them. How, Zuhdi, would we possibly know -- what's a litmus test that you would think would even work on who the good guys and the bad guys are?

ZUHDI: Well, remember, our country has fought so many wars. In the Vietnam War, World War II, we took in refugees, and we had ways to tell who were the Vietnamese that were with us and who were fighting against us. And yet we didn't say, "Well, no refugees because there may be some communists in those that we take in." Yes, there is a problem, yes, with an administration that won't even say the word "Islamist" as the president caters to the blasphemy laws of all Islamic states and doesn't even identify Islamism as a threat. We'll have major difficulties. But in the Cold War, we were mastering the fact that Soviet War Theory, Communist war Theory was our enemy.

GLENN: Yeah, but we admitted it at that point.

I mean, Zuhdi, honestly, if I'm president of the United States, I go and I find people like you and say, "Okay. Help us weed the good guys from the bad guys." But that's not what our administration is doing. That's not what the last administration was doing. They refused to even look at it as if Islamists even exist.

ZUHDI: That's why we have to thread this needle, where if we have leaders -- I'm getting whiplash where now we've had six and a half years of an administration that caters to the Islamist. And now we're finally having courageous candidates that are identifying that there's a problem in the house of Islam, but we need to thread the needle and say, "You know, it's not a battle between Islam and Christians or Islam and Christianity or the West. It's a battle between liberty versus the theocrats. And we have to bond with those Muslims." We have a coalition of reformers that you know many of. Including Kad Ahmed and Assir Nomani and Zani BelHEP. And so many who could help our administration vet the jihadist versus the non-jihadist. And yet we can't even set foot in the White House because he wants to have a coalition to fight al-Qaeda. It's like having a coalition against drug violence and inviting the meth distributors into the White House to help you fight drug violence. It just doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: You're exactly right. So yesterday at the United Nations, the president spoke. And then Rouhani spoke. And then Putin spoke. I don't know. Did you see any of the speeches?

ZUHDI: I did. Yes.

GLENN: Did any of those make sense to you?

ZUHDI: They make sense if you have a new unraveling of the world order, where the Islamists are filling in a vacuum where you had an opportunity in Arab wakening that could have seen the ushering in of a change where Islam is going through that time in history, that the West went through between the 15th and 18th century. But now what makes sense is, we've aggregated that to the Russias and the Irans of the world. We're handing Iran $150 billion to help Assad.

I don't know what's happening with the meeting between Putin and Obama. But the bottom line is, a genocide against the Sunnis in Syria is turning against genocide against minorities. And we're seeing ISIS fill that vacuum. And now Iran is going to homogenize the Middle East. The world order is unraveling. The refugees are one symptom of it. And if we don't take sides within the house of Islam and get candidates that can articulate that Islamism is the problem and we're going to take the side of liberty and not alienate a core of the world's population, but yet realize that we have friends within this revolution happening.

GLENN: Have you had any candidate on either side reach out to you and talk to you about the Islamic world?

ZUHDI: We have had a few candidate conversations. And I think you can tell some of them that are able to be articulate on this issue and those that aren't. But I -- I want to be careful.

GLENN: Have you seen anyone -- yeah. I don't want to put you -- you feel free to say no. Because I don't want to put you in a spot because you need all the allies you can get.

ZUHDI: Yes.

GLENN: Is there a candidate that you see that you say, this guy gets it. Even if he doesn't get anything else, he gets this -- or she.

ZUHDI: Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

GLENN: Zuhdi, what can we do to help you? I'm starting to just be much more action-oriented. I'm tired of just talking about things. And I'm looking to support the people that are out on the front lines. What can somebody do that is listening to you and is like, I want to help. I want to be part of the solution. What can people do? How can they help you?

ZUHDI: When we have these conversations, to realize a think tank like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and our coalition, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, should be playing an active role publicly in media, in government, in universities.

Yale just had a center bought by another Wahhabi petro-dollar HEP Saudi who spent $10 million for a center on Sharia. Georgetown has one. Harvard does. I mean, if you wonder where the moderate voices of Islam are, we're being drowned out by the petro HEP Islamists that are spending millions to make sure that we don't have a voice. And, you know, we need to be at the table. And then you'll realize that there's a diversity within the house of Islam, and we're not all -- and this is why candidates are confused. Because the moderate voices are shut out by the institutions that are making us less and less relevant. And your listeners and Americans can make sure we have a seat at the table. No different than the Founding Fathers did in that battle against against theocracy.

GLENN: Zuhdi, always good to talk to you, my friend. Stay safe. God bless you.

ZUHDI: Thank you. God bless.

GLENN: You can find Zuhdi. His website is AIFdemocracy.org. That's AIFdemocracy.org. Truly one of the good guys. And a guy who risks his life every day to stand up against Islamists as a Muslim himself.

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.