This might also be helpful:
Certainly the "radicals" are recruiting among "traditional Muslims," and using American immorality as one among other pretexts. But while this argument looks impressive on its face, it dissolves among closer inspection -- chiefly because those "traditional Muslims" upon whom D'Souza places so much hope remain nebulous and elusive, even in his construction. Are they "moderates"? No: in his book he explains that they do not differ theologically or even politically from the jihadists. And in his book he doesn't name even one. When I asked him to name one, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Ali Gomaa, however, has expressed support for Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has led chants of "Death to America!" This is an actual or potential ally?More on Gomaa:
Ali Gomaa has also ruled that statues are un-Islamic; when I mentioned this to D'Souza, he was contemptuously dismissive. But in fact it is an important point. Cultural conservatives are supposed to ally, in his view, with "traditional Muslims" who allegedly share the same values. But what about when they don't share the same values? What makes D'Souza think that "traditional Muslims" will ally with non-Muslims on cultural issues in opposition to the jihad being waged by their fellow Muslims -- when they have no theological differences with those fellow Muslims, and fewer cultural differences with them than they have with those non-Muslims?
This doesn't make sense. If they have no theological differences with the jihadists, then they believe in principle in the jihad, and also hold to the traditional Qur'anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims. On what grounds will they set all this aside and join with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims? D'Souza produces no evidence that the great majority of Muslims who are not waging jihad do not approve of that jihad, or that even if they don't approve, they will do anything to oppose it.
He's a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam, but he supports Hizballah.
He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.He is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating.
His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.
The door finally opened, and Gomaa emerged. He is fifty-five, tall and regal, with a round face and a trim beard. He wore a tan caftan and a white turban. He held a sprig of mint to his nose as an aide whispered to him my reasons for coming. On the wall behind his desk was a photograph of President Mubarak.
Gomaa was born in Beni Suef, the same town as Dr. Fadl. “I began going into the prisons in the nineteen-nineties,” he told me. “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years. Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”
Before the revisions were published, Gomaa reviewed them. “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time,” he said.In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as "medicine for a particular time." That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.