Author: drjamorrow

“Transnational Muslims made a major strategic mistake in the West”

John Andrew Morrow

Crescent International

Rajab 14, 1439 2018-04-01

This is the second part of our interview with author, scholar, and activist Dr. John Andrew Morrow. He is best known for his Covenants’ Initiative that aims to create better understanding between Muslims and Christians in the world today.

CI: You have taken a public stand against celebrity “shaykhs” with ties to networks that in turn are tied to Gulf monarchies. It is no secret that Wahhabi networks have bought their way into masjids in Western countries, often with the blessings of Western regimes and normalized the regressive and parochialized understanding of Islam. What could Muslims in the West do in practical terms in order to reduce the influence of petrodollars and their socio-political agenda?

Since the passing of the Prophet (pbuh), and the end of relatively righteous rule, Muslim scholars were compelled to make decisions: to side with those in power or to operate independently on the basis of principle. From the Umayyads to the Ottomans, Muslim rulers were of many kinds. Some were corrupt, to varying degrees. Others, however, were relatively benign. It was long determined, in both Sunni and Shi‘i circles, that collaborating with governments, and even joining military forces, was permissible, so long as one was not directly involved in any evildoing and the rulers one served were operating, to a reasonable degree, within the limits of the legal and the illegal. Unfortunately, a clerical class developed that served the people in power regardless of their orientation and actions. Rather than “promote the good and forbid the wrong,” these court clerics legitimized the rule of wrongdoers and endorsed their evil deeds in the name of Allah (swt), the Prophet, and Islam. They are those who sold the signs of Allah for a miserable price (3:187). They are merchants of religion and hypocrites of the highest order who trafficked Islam for money, power, and influence.

The greatest scholars of Islam were not court clerics but independent thinkers and actors who supported the authorities when they acted according to the best interests of humanity and reprimanded them when they acted nefariously. After the disintegration of the Ummah, and the dark days of occupation, many court clerics turned to the service of Western powers. They called upon Muslims to submit and collaborate with the colonialists and when the spark of independence started to shine, they strove to snuff it out. Although the imperialists were driven out physically, they continued to control the Muslim world by means of puppet regimes that continued the campaign to secularize and Westernize the Islamic world. Understanding that non-Muslim orientalists had limited legitimacy in Muslim eyes, Western powers set out to create a class of “Muslim” authorities — lackeys of imperial powers — who could advance their ideas on their behalf. Hence, the rise of the Muslim academic, professor, and cleric who was trained directly or indirectly by non-Muslims and thoroughly saturated with contagious ideas that would contaminate the Islamic faith. Whether they wear a suit and tie or a turban and a cloak, these scholars for dollars spread STDs, namely, spiritually-transmitted diseases, among legions of Muslims.

How is consciousness shaped? By means of think thanks that produce policy papers. By means of universities and intellectuals. Academic freedom? There is no such thing. It exists only in appearance and in a limited and controlled scope. Think tanks, funded by the real rulers of the world, the billionaire elites, set the objectives. Long gone are the days of overthrowing governments and imposing an ideology on a people. That was not sufficiently sophisticated. The occult emperors of the New World Order set out to change the thought patterns, beliefs, values, and worldviews of entire populations. If you change the way people think, over the course of a few decades, they will not even notice that they have been overthrown.

Judaism and Islam strongly dislike and disapprove of divorce unless there are extenuating circumstances. It is so serious that the Throne of God trembles when it takes place. The Catholic Church, however, is adamant that divorce is prohibited unless properly annulled. In the 1980s, it was still taboo to get divorced. Teachers would whisper to each other that the parents of such and such a child were divorced. It was shameful to speak about it. The establishment determined that divorce would be normalized as a means of weakening the traditional family network. Within a few decades, they succeeded. It was decided, long before the 1960s, that fornication, adultery, illegitimacy, and other forms of sexual immorality, perversion, and debauchery, would be normalized to weaken the moral and ethical fabric of Judeo-Christian and Islamic society. And succeed they did.

Psychological programming is a reality. Since most people are like livestock, nay, even more astray (7:179), namely, content to follow blindly, they are relatively easy to reprogram over time. Only people with strong spirituality, deep convictions, and a sharp intellect can resist the process of brainwashing. The spread of radical Salafism, Jihadism, and Takfirism, produced by Western powers and supported by Eastern lackeys, is simply one example of how people with power, money, and influence can hijack, redirect, and redeploy a religion. It was no easy feat. When the Wahhabis took power in Arabia in the late-18th century, they represented less than 1% of the world Muslim population. By the 20th century, they were dominating Muslim discourse. It took two centuries for takfiri ideology to saturate the Ummah. Most of the damage, however, was done during the second half of the 20th century.

This Great Theft took billions of dollars. It took state support. It took embassies and attaches. It took thousands of masjids and schools. It took foundations of all sorts. It took a network of national and international organizations. It took universities around the world. It took endowed departments and chairs in East and West. It took hundreds of thousands of full scholarships for students. It took publishing houses and distributors. It took grants and scholarships. It took academic journals. It took dozens of television stations. It took billions of dollars in support to extremist groups. It also involved domestic and foreign policy along with diplomacy not to mention billions in investment in foreign countries to convince them to open their doors to takfiri influence. This is how radical Salafism was spread.

To avoid being tools of the enemies of Islam, both internal and external, Muslims should strive to maintain their independence from foreign and domestic governments. We must reject interference in our religious affairs. We should neither be lackeys of the East or West. We should not do their bidding. We should feel free to criticize the governments in both the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world. Does this mean we should not accept foreign funds? Not necessarily. We can accept financial support so long as no strings are attached. The funds need to advance our interests, as western Muslims, and not the interests of some foreign nation. Does this mean we should not accept domestic, tax-payer funds? Not necessarily. So long as it serves our interests as western Muslims and not the interest of governments that wish to make Muslims more malleable so that they can shape them into secularists, reformists, liberals, or terrorists as the political climate calls for. We, western Muslims, those who have been here for centuries, and those of us who are of immigrant origin, must call the shots: end of story. Our survival depends on our sovereignty, not our submission to domestic and foreign forces. We are western Muslims and proud of it. Unlike transnational Muslims who left the land of Islam to enrich themselves materially in the West, we western Muslims wish to enrich the West with Islam.

Muslim immigrants made a major strategic miscalculation when they started to move to the West in the 20th century. They appealed to the authorities. They presented themselves as pliant, obedient, and loyal citizens who were patriotic and simply wanted a piece of the material pie. There have been Muslims in the West since the time of slavery. The most massive repression of Muslims took place in BahSa, Brazil, in 1835. Unlike others, this rebellion was entirely planned, executed, and directed by Muslims. The fact that Muslims could plan such a powerful revolt, under such horrific and subhuman circumstances, is testimony to the power of Islam. Although there were organized communities of African, Hispanic, and Caucasian Muslims in the West in the 1920s and 1930s, Muslims from abroad opted, not to join, support, and help strengthen the existing communities; rather, they decided to create institutions catering to their own racial, cultural, ethnic, national, linguistic, and sectarian origins. While American Muslims were acting independently and associating Islam with uplifting people of all colors, immigrant Muslims sought the patronage of foreign powers and their petrodollars. African Americans, who represent 50% of American Muslims, were largely left in the lurch except for a token few leaders who cast their lot with Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, and Iranians.

Rather than build masjids where there were already African American Muslims, transnational Muslims made a conscious decision to construct them in white, middle-class suburbs, making them essentially inaccessible, not only to blacks, but to poor Muslim immigrants and refugees. They sought the good graces of various governments, humbly professing that they were moderate Muslims. They invested in brick and mortar, which is important, however, they stopped there. They failed to engage publicly in society. They did not build alliances. They did not buy radio and television stations. They did not invest in newspapers. They overlooked the importance of volunteerism and giving back to the community. They created charitable foundations, but only to help people in their countries of origin: not Americans irrespective of race, gender, or class. Until recently, they demonstrated little concern for issues such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, child neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Transnational Muslims rarely, if ever, expressed solidarity with the struggles of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans, among others. And to this day, immigrant Muslims virtually never foster or adopt children, even when they are Muslims. What is more, many transnational Muslims hold fast to cultural traditions that are incompatible with Islamic values and principles.

Transnational Muslims acted as if Islam in the Americas commenced with immigrants. They failed to acknowledge that many of the rights and freedoms that they enjoyed were earned through the blood, sweat, and tears of African American Muslims. They usurped the authority and leadership that rightfully belonged to western Muslims and then treated them like their mawali or servants. Regardless of how many generations they had been practicing Islam, and regardless of how much Islamic knowledge they had acquired, westerners were viewed as second-class Muslims since they belonged to the wrong races and spoke the wrong languages. Rather than join the western Muslim community, immigrant Muslims created communities that were replicas of their homelands, bringing all sorts of negative baggage in the process: racism, tribalism, classism, patriarchy, misogyny, sectarianism, elitism, corruption, and despotism. They imported and imposed a version of Islam, typically Salafism and Wahhabism, that views the West and westerners with hostility, scorn, and contempt. Immigrant Muslims also tend to view themselves morally and intellectually superior to westerners due to their education and cultural origins. While they bring much that is good from their rich cultures of origin, transnational Muslims also import conflicts that have no place in the Western world. And, rather than assert their independence as western Muslims, immigrants pledged religious and political allegiance to foreign-nation-states.

Although Muslims of foreign origin have prospered in the West, they have little to no power or influence in society unlike their Jewish brothers and sisters in humanity who, at 1% like Muslims, exert considerable influence. Jewish conspiracy? Far from it. Call it brains and long-term strategic thinking. It was all accomplished openly in the light of day. Jews have made fortunes and have put their money to good use. They give back to the community. They build hospitals. They build community centers. Jews are active in politics. Jews fund think tanks. Jews operate public relations firms. They run strategic information centers. Jews have well-funded political action committees. Jews are represented in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Regardless of who is elected, Jewish interests are protected. Muslims can learn a lesson or two from the Children of Abraham. Call me a “Jewish agent” if you wish; however, the Jews of Spain survived the re-Conquest while the Muslims of Spain did not. The Jewish people know a thing or two about surviving persecution and succeeding in the most trying of times.

So, yes, we have celebrity “shaykhs” who court the kings of the kuffar and who dance with devils. However, they are only a small part of the broader problem that faces the worldwide community of Muslims. Western powers are working with Eastern powers to undermine the socio-political, economic, spiritual, and religious principles espoused by the prophets of God. Who are the enemies of Islam among Muslims? Just ask the enemies of Islam among the infidels. They identify them quite clearly. As the RAND Corporation stated in Building Moderate Muslims Networks (2007), “The potential partners of the West in the struggle against radical Islamism are moderate, liberal, and secular Muslims with political values congruent to the universal values underlying all modern liberal societies.” Who are the allies of the soul-sucking savages and imperialists? “In general,” writes the RAND Corporation, “there appears to be three broad sectors within the spectrum of ideological tendencies in the Muslim world where the United States and the West can find partners in the effort to combat Islamist extremism: secularists; liberal Muslims; and moderate traditionalists, including Sufis.”

These are the “Muslims” who are currently supported by the establishment. They are “moderates,” they are “liberals,” and they are “secular.” They are the ones who get millions in funds. It is their message that the powers-that-be promote. They are given positions as professors and chairs at universities. Promote Islamic “reformation” or deformation, you are hired! Promote Islamic “feminism” or de-feminization, you are hired! Legitimize “gay” Islam, you are hired! Promote Sufism or “spiritual” Islam to emasculate Islam’s political potential and legitimate claim to power, you are hired! And, surprise, surprise, all these efforts to spread “moderate” Islam are being closely monitored by the Mossad. In a top-secret document titled The Struggle of Islamic Regimes, dated May 29, 2014, that was leaked to al-Jazeera’s Investigative Unit, we learn that the Israeli secret service actively assesses attempts to promote what it calls a “moderate” interpretation of Islam.

As Muslims, we should be alarmed at any Islam that pleases occupiers, imperialists, tyrants, and illegitimate authorities, as well as the pillagers of people and this sacred planet. We must stand with the Islam of the oppressed as opposed to the Islam of the oppressors. As Muslims, we should be outraged at celebrity shaykhs who support sexual immorality. Allah (swt) commands us to promote the good and forbid the wrong. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was adamant that the lawful and the prohibited was applicable until the end of times. As Muslims, we cannot endorse, authorize, approve, legalize or bless major sins and moral abominations.

Who are these proponents of Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Tasawwuf who profess “non-interference in political affairs” and whose interests do they serve? Do they serve the interests of Islam and Muslims or the Gulf monarchies that fund and support them? And whose interests do the Gulf monarchies serve? Certainly not those of Islam and Muslims. Rather, they serve the interests of the Evil Empire. They legitimize the status quo. Being apolitical is profoundly political. It pleases the Deep State and the New World Order. Clearly, the counter-extremism strategy of Western powers, in collusion with Eastern powers, is really a counter-Islam strategy. I bear witness to Almighty Allah: I will denounce despots, oppose oppression, and fight injustice like the Prophet Elijah, Prophet John, the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, and the Prophet Muhammad (a).

Crescent International

Jumada’ al-Akhirah 13, 14392018-03-01

CI: Let us begin with your journey to Islam; tell us something about it.

Like most Métis and French Canadians, I was raised Roman Catholic and I am profoundly grateful that my parents, the Church, and the Bible cultivated my faith, morals, ethics, and values. Raising children without a divinely-revealed religion and without a sense of Natural and Divine Law is detrimental to both self and society. Like all human beings, I was born with a divinely-instilled inclination to believe. Consequently, I am who I was: a believer in the One. I am not a “New Muslim” nor am I a “revert” or a “convert.” I was raised as a follower of Jesus (a) as well as the prophets and messengers who preceded him. Due to historical, cultural, and geographical reasons, the message of Muhammad (pbuh), the final messenger of God, had not reached my people. My transition into Islam was natural. I did not move from disbelief to belief or from immorality to morality. I simply perfected my religion. I graduated from Christianity to Islam. At the time of the Prophet, there were unbelievers — pagans, heathens, idolaters, polytheists, and atheists — and there were believers: Jews, Messianic Jews or Judeo-Christians, and Christians. There were also the Hanifs, the Arabs who followed the ancient religion of Isma‘il and his father Ibrahim (a). Most members of these faith communities made a smooth transition into Islam. They recognized it as a continuation and completion of their faith traditions. So it was for me. Regardless of where I was born, I would have been a believer in one God: a Brahman in ancient India, a believer in the Great Spirit in pre-Columbian North America, a follower of Nezahualcoyotl in Mesoamerica, a Jew in the time of Moses, a Christian in the time of Jesus, and now, a Muslim in the age of Muhammad (a). I started to study Islam at the age of 13 and took shahadah at the age of 16. I have been a practising Muslim for 30 years and have never ceased to study. What was so appealing about Islam? Divine unity and divine justice; spirituality and social commitment; ethics and morality as well as the importance of family.

CI: Your book, Covenants of the Prophet with the Christians of the World, has received wide recognition among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Let’s start with addressing some key issues in your book. You claim to have found evidence that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spent a great deal of time with the Christian monks in Sinai during his twenties. Some detractors would argue that this claim feeds the orientalist narrative that the Prophet learned his teachings from Christians and Jews and then self-invented Islam. What is your response?

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was well-traveled. This is a fact. It is well-established in classical Muslim sources. Abundant references to these can be found in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World along with Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, who was both a Western academic and a traditionally trained Muslim scholar, held this to be true. Consequently, one cannot exclude the possibility that he traveled to Mt. Sinai as it was located along the main trading routes that the Arabs, including Abu ˇalib, routinely employed.

As Muslims, we do not believe that Islam is a new religion. Islam, namely, the belief in One God, divine revelation, and the hereafter, along with major moral laws, was the religion of Adam, Idris (Enoch), Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Yahyå (John), Jesus, and Muhammad (a). The Prophet did not draw upon Jewish and Christian doctrines to create a new religion: he was the heir of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its culmination. Although some orientalists have argued that the Prophet learned his teachings from Jews and Christians and invented Islam — and they base this belief on the Cycle of Bahira Legends that circulated among some Christians who were unfriendly toward Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet — this is not the tradition that was passed down by the monks who were acquainted with the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). The tradition of the Prophet’s travel to the Sinai — which could have taken place when he was a youth, during the early days of his mission in Madinah, or even toward the end of his prophetic mission, namely, when he went to Maqna — has been transmitted by large numbers of sources over the past 14 centuries. I have cited them in “The Covenants of the Prophet: Questions and Concerns” and “The Provenance of the Prophet’s Covenants,” both of which are found in Islam and the People of the Book.

Curiously, none of these original traditions claim that the Prophet studied with Christian monks. On the contrary, they assert that a Christian abbot from St. Catherine’s Monastery witnessed a sign of God clearly showing him that Muhammad (pbuh) was destined to greatness and that he would become a powerful leader; hence, the abbot asked him to protect the monastery after he proclaimed his prophecy. This tradition does not reinforce the orientalist narrative any more than the tradition that both Bahira the Monk and Nastura the Monk recognized young Muhammad as a future prophet. These are not the only instances in which seers, monks, priests, and rabbis prophesized that Muhammad was the long-awaited prophet who would come from Arabia. They are found in both ancient Christian and Muslim sources. They confirm, rather than deny, his divinely-ordained prophetic mission and the truth of his teachings.

CI: You reside in the US. There is currently a great deal of polarization between the so-called left and the right spectrum of the political trend. Many Muslim organizations have accepted the mainstream liberal narrative that leftists are friends of Muslims and rightists are outright racist and enemies of Islam. Neither the left nor right is monolithic. Are there any healthy right/conservative groups and organizations in the US with whom Muslims could build a mutually beneficial alliance?

Most Muslims in the West have cast their lot with the liberals. They have naively bought into the lie that liberals are tolerant people who care about Muslims. Tell a liberal that you oppose abortion on demand, that you oppose fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, gay marriage, and transgenderism, that you are convinced that the traditional family structure is in danger, that you believe that there are only two genders, that you oppose the use of alcohol and drugs, that you believe that both men and women should dress modestly, and that you are against illegal immigration since you believe in the rule of law, and see how tolerant they really are. You will be called by every profanity excluded from the dictionary. At the very least, you will be accused of being a racist, a sexist, and a fascist.

While I disagree with half of what Michael Savage has to say, I do agree with the other half, particularly his assertion that liberalism is a mental disorder. At the same time, however, I am equally convinced that conservatism is a mental disorder. Both are extremes. Both are symptomatic of spiritual, psychological, and social imbalance. While the political spectrum varies from country to country and from age to age, I stand at the center that was marked by Muhammad (pbuh), the Messenger of Allah, and the other Prophets of God who preceded him. Liberalism, both classical and social, had a platform in the past: opposition to slavery, racism, segregation, and discrimination, the right to vote for women, equal pay for equal work, along with a call for civil rights and human rights. Now, they spend their time cavorting with transsexuals, anti-white racists, and takfiri terrorists. The liberals sure have strange bed fellows.

What does liberalism stand for today? The right of children to choose their own gender? The right for illegal immigrants to invade Western nations with impunity? The right to blame white Westerners for crimes that they never committed and that most of their ancestors never committed? What does liberalism stand for today? Sexual anarchy? The destruction of the traditional family? The supplanting of religion by secularism? The right to change the ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious background of a country overnight as it ensures liberal votes, spreads secularization, and promotes globalization? The right to create a single people, speaking a single global language, sharing a single global culture, and sharing faiths “that are all the same” since they are all under the umbrella of the One World Religion? What does liberalism mean today? The right to destroy the sovereignty of nation-states to subject them to a New World Order controlled by the one-percenters, a bunch of billionaire elites who wish to exterminate most human beings who are overcrowding a planet they view as their personal country club and resort? As Muslims we categorically reject racism. We do, however, value diversity. Hence, we must oppose efforts to homogenize humanity, to weaken resistance, and to facilitate subservience. For the globalists, races, religions, languages, cultures, and ideologies are sources of division and conflict. If they are suppressed, there will only be submission, not to God, but to the real rulers of the world.

Although most Muslims feel that they share more affinities with liberals, who pretend to profess an unflinching belief in pluralism and an appreciation for diversity, they share just as much in common with certain conservatives, including, in some sectors, a clear sense of right and wrong derived from the prophets of the Old and New Testaments. As a Muslim, if I must choose between a person who believes in God and a person who is an atheist or an agnostic, I will side with the person of faith. As a Muslim, if I must choose between a person who believes in chastity and a person who advocates sexual immorality, I will side with the person who has a sense of human decency. Despite the slanderous propaganda of liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, secularists, atheists and Satanists, most religious conservatives are not racist nor are they sexist. Simply because one believes in the teachings of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an, the traditional family and the existence of two genders, does not mean that one is a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an extremist, a fascist, or a terrorist. Tolerating the intolerable is not tolerance: it is complicity and advocacy. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have the right to stand their moral ground, stand for what is sacred, and advocate for what they believe is best for society based on revelation and reason.

While liberals and conservatives take different positions on social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, the role of the public sector, education vouchers, embryonic stem cell research, energy, euthanasia, climate change, gun control, healthcare, homeland security, immigration, private property, religion, same-sex marriage, social security, taxes, the role of the United Nations, and welfare, they are, in reality, but two sides of the same coin and the difference between liberal and conservative governments in the West is generally superficial since the world revolves around economic as opposed to social interests. Both liberals and conservatives are secular and believe in the separation of church and state. Both believe, not in the Great Prophet Moses, the Great Prophet Jesus or the Great Prophet Muhammad (a) but in the Great Profit Margin. Both serve the interests of the global economic elites as opposed to the interests of God, the Prophets, and the people. They place their trust, not in God, but in the Market, some type of Supreme Force that “regulates itself.” We just need to submit to it. We, believers in God and followers of His Prophets, however, hold that human beings were not created to serve the economy but rather the economy was created to serve people.

Although conservatism, like liberalism, has been co-opted by the economic elites, the neocons, and the alt-right, who are just as diabolical as the liberal degenerates they denounce, having turned conservatism into savage capitalism, racism, sexism, and imperialism, there are some conservatives with whom traditional Muslims can make common cause. This would include cultural conservatives, moral conservatives, religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and traditionalist conservatives — but certainly not neoconservatives.

Despite their shortcomings, shortsightedness, and ignorance in certain areas, practicing Catholics have been firm when it comes to defending the fundamentals of their faith and its relevance in the world today. Orthodox Christians, in general, who tend to be even more conservative in theology and practice, also share universal, time-honored values. Although I am partial to the Catholic Church, both East and West, I admit that bridges can also be built with Protestants, particularly with conservative groups like the Amish, the Mennonites, and the Hutterites, as well as more liberal denominations like the Anglicans and Methodists.

I had long written off Southern Baptists, assuming erroneously that these predominantly white anglophones were all intolerant racists and white supremacists. My views changed when I met an old white preacher who was a Southern Baptist. He listened to a lecture I delivered in Jackson, Mississippi, in which I lambasted ISIS and shared the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Not only did I change the way he viewed Islam and Muslims, the man made me change the way I viewed Southern Baptists. Although Muslims tend to gravitate toward liberal Jews who share the same values, or lack thereof, of liberal Christians, there are plenty of conservative, orthodox, and even ultra-orthodox Jews who are very close to traditional Muslims in their worldview. Just like it is unfair to claim that all Muslims are anti-Jewish, it is also unfair to claim that all Jews are anti-Muslim. The message is clear: we, human beings, of different races, ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions, and political beliefs, must get to know one another. Then, and only then, will we see how much we share.

CI: What could Muslims in the US and Canada do to reach out to the conservative segment in society in these two countries?

Reaching out to conservatives is the same as reaching out to liberals. Make some calls. Send some emails. Knock on doors. Meet some people. Agree to agree. Focus on similarity. Learn from one another in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. Work together toward common causes. Personally, I would focus more on religious conservatives, including some of the denominations I previously mentioned, than political conservatives. I would not advise Muslims to reach out to extreme Trumpians, the violent side of the alt-right, racist neocons, radical Zionists, and other overtly anti-Islamic parties. I know some brothers, both African American and Caucasian American, who dialogue with people on the fringe. It takes proper training and preparation — not to mention, courage. As normative Muslims, we should be willing to talk to anyone who wishes to talk to us in a constructive fashion. We should respond to those who reach out to us and, at times, we should also reach out to others. Some may or may not respond, but the offer of dialogue, peace, collaboration, and reconciliation should always be on the table.