View Full Version : Muslim groups still MIA on terror
Warrior-Mentor
01-19-2010, 17:43
Muslim groups still MIA on terror
By ADAM BRODSKY
January 19, 2010
If you believe the hype, the United States has a valuable new ally in the War on Terror: American Muslim leaders. Alas, it's called "hype" for a reason.
Yes, some American Muslim groups are making a show of undertaking a sincere campaign to oppose terror, purge jihadis, help disrupt networks and thwart plots.
At Christmas Day bomber Umar Abdulmutallab's arraignment this month, some 50 Muslims rallied outside the court, carrying placards that read "Not in the Name of Islam," chanting "We are Americans" and waving US flags. Majed Moughni, who organized the protest, vowed to "take our religion back" from terrorists like Abdulmutallab.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading American Muslim group, (coincidentally?) uses almost verbatim language in its "anti-terror" campaigns. (Check out CAIR's Web site -- its anti-extremism rhetoric could've been written by Dick Cheney.)
CAIR recently won tremendous press after informing officials that five young American Muslims left their homes in Virginia to wage jihad in Pakistan. In a sign of how low expectations had sunk, the media took it as a "man bites dog" story -- a leading Muslim group aiding law enforcement.
"American Muslim organizations, jolted by the spate of cases, are abandoning their hesitation to speak out," The Washington Post said. CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council had vowed to launch new "counter-radicalization programs aimed at young people."
But one law-enforcement official tells me of speculation that CAIR may have felt compelled to divulge what it knew. Sitting on info like that could land it in hot water; CAIR is already fighting to bolster its reputation after being cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror case (and the FBI cut its ties to the group).
The Anti-Defamation League last week said new efforts by American Muslim groups "to root out radicalization" were "a sham." As an example, it pointed to a Chicago convention staged by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America last month -- which, ADL National Director Abe Foxman said, was "nothing more than a cover for the dissemination of hateful anti-American and anti-Israel views and anti-Semitism."
Participants accused America of attacking Islam and targeting US Muslims at home and abroad. On sale, ADL reported, were books and CDs by such firebrands as Anwar al-Awlaki -- the Muslim cleric linked to al Qaeda.
The ADL's not alone. Another law-enforcement source tells me CAIR and other groups have been worse than useless: To this source's knowledge, US Muslims have played virtually no role in foiling local plots.
Indeed, in some places, imams have reportedly withheld useful info and threatened to oust congregants who aid law-enforcement. Officials say Ahmad Afzali, the Queens imam helping agents probe Najibullah Zazi (the coffee vendor charged in a New York terror plot), later double-crossed them and alerted Zazi.
"I know of no investigations" in which Muslims have been helpful, Rep. Peter King (R-LI), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, tells me. He says law-enforcement and counterterror officials invariably tell him Muslim cooperation doesn't exist. Sometimes agents say they're met with hostility.
For folks who "understand the nature of the threat" and watch officials from "CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council on major [TV] networks, it's incredibly demoralizing," a former FBI special agent says.
A reluctance to even acknowledge pro-terrorist sympathies persists even beyond official Muslim groups. At universities, for example, Muslim students have blocked speeches by people like Nonie Darwish -- an anti-terror activist who calls herself a "former Muslim" and who speaks about the Islamic links to terror. In the last two months, scheduled Darwish talks at Princeton and Columbia were canceled at the last minute, after Muslim objections. At Boston University, someone lit a fire in a building where she was to speak.
Darwish says she and other former Muslims regularly face death threats. And though she's asked American Muslim groups to sign a pledge opposing fatwas that condemn former Muslims to death, "not one organization" has done so.
No one doubts that many American Muslims oppose Islamist terror or that some serve admirably in the armed forces, at counterterror agencies and elsewhere. One Muslim group, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, regularly advises and assists officials, at least in a general way. Its executive director, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, has written extensively and testified before Congress, particularly on the Wahhabi threat.
He says an article he wrote contributed to a judge's decision to reject bail for an American Muslim, Randall Royer -- who had reportedly worked for CAIR and MAS -- and was linked to the Pakistani-based Wahhabi group Lashkar-i-Taiba.
Still, it's easy to see why many Americans remain suspicious: Deception and duplicity are key weapons of terrorists and their sympathizers.
If American Muslim leaders -- at mosques and groups like CAIR and MPAC -- are turning a corner, deterring young Muslims from paths of violence and truly cooperating with authorities, it would surely boost home-front security.
So far, though, skepticism seems prudent. abrodsky@nypost.com
SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/muslim_groups_still_mia_on_terror_vvzt1Uuffh8xE6tG NUSZsJ
Basenshukai
01-19-2010, 18:04
The absurdity of it all is that is made out to be as if it is some kind of breakthrough. Imagine these headlines: "Parents given award for raising their children right" Just like raising your own children correctly is a default duty that needs no encouraging, partnering with any government to dissuade the "hijack" of one's religion the way Islam supposedly has been hijacked should have been taking place from the start.
Muslim leaders - of the so-called religion of peace - should have been the most vocal opposition to terrorists and terror. Yet, they have been significantly quiet all these years. Occasionally, one hears of a Muslim rebuttal to terrorist ideals. To me, this silence is essentially tacit approval.
To me, this silence is essentially tacit approval.With respect, this argument, if applied equally, does not speak well of America's reaction to many events in its history. Should all Americans who did not decry actively slavery during the nineteenth century be held responsible for the turmoil and war that followed as well as the ensuing chaos and terror that continued well into the twentieth century? What of America's reluctance to take an active role in global affairs between 1919 and 1941?
Warrior-Mentor
01-19-2010, 18:29
Ah, yes, the default liberal position - let's find a way to blame it on America [or focus on things America did or didn't do in the past.]
I wasn't alive then. Most here weren't alive then either - and even if they were, they weren't old enough to act or influence events at that time.
How about what's going on right here, right now? Something people can actually act on?
How is ignoring the tacit approval of evil morally acceptable?
Entire post.Your attempt at sarcasm is noted. Although sorely tempted, I respectfully decline the opportunity to reply in kind.
I would point out that the quest for a just society is not the "default liberal position" but a core American value. I would also point out the "default liberal position" might be defined more accurately as the assumption that the government is responsible for establishing and maintaining social justice.
If one wants to stick to the here and now, one could ask why all concerns voiced over violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children in the Muslim world is not accompanied by a similar focus on those same two dynamics in America.
If one wants to stick to the here and now, one could ask why all concerns voiced over violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children in the Muslim world is not accompanied by a similar focus on those same two dynamics in America.
Probably because we as individuals, states and a nation as a whole have at least acknowledged and have various levels of litigation in place to at least try to keep things straight.. although it still happens.
Over "there" it's business as usual with it being kosher.
I honestly wouldn't expect anything better from stateside muslims, when the foreign ones with us in their borders haven't had the balls to do anything positive in any real respect either. A religion is a religion, and part of that religion is to not talk badly about anyone who follows that religion, especially when unlike most other religions most prevalent sects and followings... they try/succeed in killing their dissenters.
Basenshukai
01-19-2010, 22:25
With respect, this argument, if applied equally, does not speak well of America's reaction to many events in its history. Should all Americans who did not decry actively slavery during the nineteenth century be held responsible for the turmoil and war that followed as well as the ensuing chaos and terror that continued well into the twentieth century? What of America's reluctance to take an active role in global affairs between 1919 and 1941?
That's one of my favorite counter-points; old playbook type of stuff. Ok, here it goes. I am referring to the Muslim currently alive and living in this Country (the United States of America). Those that did nothing regarding slavery while having a way to do something = tacit approval of slavery.
A lot of Soldiers died fighting for a myriad of reasons during that internal conflict and those reasons even included slavery due to socio/economic reasons.
But, I doubt I'll ever see a similar open and significant commitment by prominent Muslim leaders in this country.
Warrior-Mentor
01-19-2010, 23:39
Your attempt at sarcasm is noted. Although sorely tempted, I respectfully decline the opportunity to reply in kind.
Fair enough.
I would point out that the quest for a just society is not the "default liberal position" but a core American value.
I agree. And significantly more often then not, we achieve this.
I would also point out the "default liberal position" might be defined more accurately as the assumption that the government is responsible for establishing and maintaining social justice.
Like wealth redistribution? IF liberals REALLY cared about this, they'd focus on teaching people to fish, rather than how to redistribute other peoples catches. Lottery winners are the best example. How often do people win a huge sum of money and a year or two later, they're broke again. Why? They never learned wealth creation and preservation - the basics of success.
If one wants to stick to the here and now, one could ask why all concerns voiced over violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children in the Muslim world is not accompanied by a similar focus on those same two dynamics in America.
OUR LAWS PROHIBIT SUCH VIOLENCE AND EXPLOITATION. Did you miss that part? Or the fact that OUR SOCIETY [as a collective whole] rejects such behavior (except for Obama - who finds it acceptable to appoint "Mr. Fisting" and put him in charge of safe schools.)
BY LAW these activities are rejected by American Society and by our culture as well. These repulsive behaviors are endorsed by sharia law - which make me wonder why you can't understand the difference??? :confused:
But this MAY make you feel better...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html
OUR LAWS PROHIBIT SUCH VIOLENCE AND EXPLOITATION. Did you miss that part? Or the fact that OUR SOCIETY [as a collective whole] rejects such behavior (except for Obama - who finds it acceptable to appoint "Mr. Fisting" and put him in charge of safe schools.)[/COLOR]
BY LAW these activities are rejected by American Society and by our culture as well. These repulsive behaviors are endorsed by sharia law - which make me wonder why you can't understand the difference??? :confused:
But this MAY make you feel better...Again, I am afraid that I must respectfully decline the invitation to engage in a game of snark hunt with you. In regards to your numerous implied comparisons of our comprehension and critical thinking skills, people can draw their own conclusions.
Now, for the substance of your post. First, if American society rejects "as a collective whole" violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children then why are feminist and child advocacy groups up in arms over the issue? What about ongoing complaints offered by many over America's sex industry? As an example, I would point to many of the comments offered in reference to United States vs. Paul Little. That these debates rage on suggest that the notion of "a collective whole" is not so clear cut.
Second, in regards to your comment about sharia law codifying "repulsive" behaviors, I pose the following question. Does the fact that the Constitution protects many sectors of the sex industry allow for a similar conclusion about American laws and society?
Third, your formulations of the law reflecting the collective will of American society and culture reflect a perspective that you bring to many of your posts. This perspective reflects your apparent conclusion that a set of laws accurately encapsulates the fundamental character of the entire society that subscribes to those laws and that this is character. (That is, they do not change.)
In this formulation, history is no longer the study of change over time in celebration of the diversity of the human condition, but rather a series of examples in which societies demonstrate their character by complying with the law. Or, in the case of this thread, the demands of a news paper columnist for the New York Post.
To put it politely, I find your perspective...problematic...for many reasons. In the case of this thread, my reservation centers around the question: What gives one group of Americans the right to dictate how another group of Americans behave?
What gives one group of Americans the right to dictate how another group of Americans behave?
I think the counter question is where does a society draw the line on acceptable behavior, and who has the authority to draw it? If one of your "groups" from above decides that having children engage in bestiality for entertainment is acceptable, are you arguing that another group has no moral authority to denounce and punish such abhorent behavior? Moral relativism can have frightening consequences.
greenberetTFS
01-20-2010, 16:25
I think the counter question is where does a society draw the line on acceptable behavior, and who has the authority to draw it? If one of your "groups" from above decides that having children engage in bestiality for entertainment is acceptable, are you arguing that another group has no moral authority to denounce and punish such abhorent behavior? Moral relativism can have frightening consequences.
Razor,
Complete agree,I just think we put up with too much shit from them and thats another reason why they don't respect us.............:(:(:(
Big Teddy :munchin
I think the counter question is where does a society draw the line on acceptable behavior, and who has the authority to draw it? If one of your "groups" from above decides that having children engage in bestiality for entertainment is acceptable, are you arguing that another group has no moral authority to denounce and punish such abhorent behavior? Moral relativism can have frightening consequences.Razor--
With respect, I think that "moral relativism" does not accurately describe the position from which I'm posing my questions. My concern centers around the potential unintended consequences posed by the intellectual trajectory of the editorial quoted in the OP. This concern is informed by my understanding of American history which is replete with examples of what happens when this group or that group insists that another group does things a specific way...or else.
IMO, key points in your counter question are:
What and who determines "acceptable behavior"?
What is the nature of authority in society when it comes to establishing normative practices? Is the authority essentially democratic or hegemonic?
If, as you suggest, rules of conduct are established by notions of morality, who gets to decide?
If notions of morality change over time--as they have in American history--what happens to the historical and political legitimacy of those who enforced moral codes that are now outdated?In regards to your specific example, I propose that we turn it on its head. In addition to proposing a situation that is on the margins of behavior in contemporary America, how about we also consider situations that strike closer to home?
Imagine, if you would, a convergence of circumstances in which many of the concerns voiced on this thread come to pass and the far left solidifies its control of American politics, society, and culture. Imagine, if you would, that as a part of their control of American culture they convinced most Americans to reposition the nation's moral values by re-introducing components of American political philosophy that have been put aside.
In this scenario, they would have the political and moral authority to impose their vision of everyday life on America. But would they have the right to impose their vision of everyday life on us by insisting on any of the following behaviors:
vegetarianism,
secularism,
pacifism (both at home and abroad),
communitariasm (not socialism or communism),
Malthusianism,
environmentalism, and
urbanism.
My broader point here is that we all have our visions of how America should be. On some points we may agree, on others we may not. While I think Americans have a duty to discuss openly and honestly their views, and to do what they can to show the benefits of these visions, I get a bit nervous--maybe because I live in a very blue state--when my fellow citizens start telling others how things must be done.
Warrior-Mentor
01-20-2010, 17:35
Again, I am afraid that I must respectfully decline the invitation to engage in a game of snark hunt with you. In regards to your numerous implied comparisons of our comprehension and critical thinking skills, people can draw their own conclusions.
I can appreciate that.
Now, for the substance of your post.
First, if American society rejects "as a collective whole" violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children then why are feminist and child advocacy groups up in arms over the issue? What about ongoing complaints offered by many over America's sex industry? As an example, I would point to many of the comments offered in reference to United States vs. Paul Little. That these debates rage on suggest that the notion of "a collective whole" is not so clear cut.
There's no moral equivalency between America's sex industry and legalized rape, pedophilia and murder as codified, permitted and sometimes required by islamic jurisprudence.
Second, in regards to your comment about sharia law codifying "repulsive" behaviors, I pose the following question. Does the fact that the Constitution protects many sectors of the sex industry allow for a similar conclusion about American laws and society?
No. Comparing the actions between consenting adults with rape, pedophilia and murder is like comparing apples with dump trucks.
Third, your formulations of the law reflecting the collective will of American society and culture reflect a perspective that you bring to many of your posts. This perspective reflects your apparent conclusion that a set of laws accurately encapsulates the fundamental character of the entire society that subscribes to those laws and that this is character. (That is, they do not change.)
Some laws may change. Virtues do not.
"The idea of virtue goes back to antiquity, and it varied in the course of time. The ancient virtues were not the Christian virtues , and they were not the Victorian virtues. But what was common to all these virtues, to the very idea of virtue, was a fixed moral standard - a standard by which all people at all times and under all circumstances would be judged. Today we have abandoned that idea of virtue and have adopted instead what we now call "values." Value is a subjective, relativistic term; any individual, group or society may chose to value whatever they like. One cannot say of virtues what one can say of values, that anyone's virtues are as good as anyone else's, or that everyone has a right to his own virtues. This shift from virtues to values represents the true moral revolution of our time."*
Call me old fashioned, I still believe in virtues as something to strive for and judged against.
In this formulation, history is no longer the study of change over time in celebration of the diversity of the human condition, but rather a series of examples in which societies demonstrate their character by complying with the law. Or, in the case of this thread, the demands of a news paper columnist for the New York Post.
I've had enough of diversity when it starts costing us lives. If diversity is a casualty of defending our way of life, so be it.
To put it politely, I find your perspective...problematic...for many reasons. In the case of this thread, my reservation centers around the question: What gives one group of Americans the right to dictate how another group of Americans behave?
One's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ends when it impinges on anyone else's right to the same.
* Death of the Grown-Up by Diana West.
I've had enough of diversity when it starts costing us lives. If diversity is a casualty of defending our way of life, so be it.
With the brush strokes of moral relativism, a dash of political correctness, and a wave of the hand, academics are all too willing to dismiss the uncomfortable notion of a clash of civilizations.
Is this getting into why we can't buy beer (in some places) before noon on Sunday buy yet can buy it anytime on Friday?
Why are public offices closed on Sunday but open on Friday?
What is fair?
So much depravity...
so much perfidy...
so much hate...
so much harm...
all accomplished in the name of God...
as codified in words...
the language of humanity...
so craftily edited and preached...
by Man.
Gawd!
And so it goes...:( :mad:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
With the brush strokes of moral relativism, a dash of political correctness, and a wave of the hand, academics are all too willing to dismiss the uncomfortable notion of a clash of civilizations.T-Rock--
With respect, this generalization is overly broad. The concept of a "clash of civilizations" was advanced by the late Samuel Huntington, an academic.
Moreover, as someone who is somewhat familiar with the historiography of American foreign relations, I can say that the debate over GWOT has many parallels to the contemporaneous discussions over America's involvement in most of its previous conflicts as well as the ensuing arguments among academics over those discussions. If you think things get heated here, one should take a stroll back to 1973 or to the mid 1980s when winged words flew like poisoned barbs.**
More generally, I would like to point out that what was mislabeled as "the culture wars" began in the Ivory Tower. Political and cultural conservatives have gotten a lot of political mileage out of the argument that they were in the vanguard of this "war" against intellectuals and "moral relativists." IMO, this argument carries weight among those who have not had the opportunity to invest time studying peer-reviewed academic publications (especially professional journals) or to have spent time in professors' office hours, to deliver papers at academic conferences (or just sitting the audience, in the back row, and take snarky notes), to attend 'job talks' (and to throw in one's two cents), or, bluntly, did not have enough interest to listen and to think critically about the information they may have received in undergraduate lecture courses. (This is to say that the issues were being contested hotly from all sides, often in plain sight.)
__________________________________________
* Robert B. Parker, Hush Money (New York: Putnam, 1999).
** A somewhat glib, and greatly abbreviated, account of the 1973 donnybrook is available here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=286686&postcount=61). Oh, the humanity. Am I really offering a self-referential reference?:rolleyes: Yep.:p As Maxwell Smart would say, "Sorry about that, Chief.":o
Basenshukai
01-21-2010, 17:24
T-Rock--
With respect, this generalization is overly broad. The concept of a "clash of civilizations" was advanced by the late Samuel Huntington, an academic.
Moreover, as someone who is somewhat familiar with the historiography of American foreign relations, I can say that the debate over GWOT has many parallels to the contemporaneous discussions over America's involvement in most of its previous conflicts as well as the ensuing arguments among academics over those discussions. If you think things get heated here, one should take a stroll back to 1973 or to the mid 1980s when winged words flew like poisoned barbs.**
More generally, I would like to point out that what was mislabeled as "the culture wars" began in the Ivory Tower. Political and cultural conservatives have gotten a lot of political mileage out of the argument that they were in the vanguard of this "war" against intellectuals and "moral relativists." IMO, this argument carries weight among those who have not had the opportunity to invest time studying peer-reviewed academic publications (especially professional journals) or to have spent time in professors' office hours, to deliver papers at academic conferences (or just sitting the audience, in the back row, and take snarky notes), to attend 'job talks' (and to throw in one's two cents), or, bluntly, did not have enough interest to listen and to think critically about the information they may have received in undergraduate lecture courses. (This is to say that the issues were being contested hotly from all sides, often in plain sight.)
__________________________________________
* Robert B. Parker, Hush Money (New York: Putnam, 1999).
** A somewhat glib, and greatly abbreviated, account of the 1973 donnybrook is available here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=286686&postcount=61). Oh, the humanity. Am I really offering a self-referential reference?:rolleyes: Yep.:p As Maxwell Smart would say, "Sorry about that, Chief.":o
I have found your posts to be well thought out and eloquently expressed. Seriously, I have literally read all of them to ensure I understand your point of departure on this. I'm not sure I have. But, that's OK.
It would certainly be awesome if the enemies we are fighting now really got down and discussed this with folks like you in this civilized manner. That would probably be helpful in finding common ground. Unfortunately, it is more likely that they would just behead you and post it on Youtube.
It's been an educational, though largely theoretical, excercise. Thanks for the insight. Have a very SF day! :)
I have found your posts to be well thought out and eloquently expressed. Seriously, I have literally read all of them to ensure I understand your point of departure on this. I'm not sure I have. But, that's OK.
It would certainly be awesome if the enemies we are fighting now really got down and discussed this with folks like you in this civilized manner. That would probably be helpful in finding common ground. Unfortunately, it is more likely that they would just behead you and post it on Youtube.
It's been an educational, though largely theoretical, excercise. Thanks for the insight. Have a very SF day! :)Sir--
Thank you very much.
I do not know if the enemy would be able to sit and to talk about developing common ground. They made a choice between talking to the freest, the most generous, and the most diverse nation in the history of the world. They could have said "We want peace" in so many different ways, instead, they said "We want war" in despicable ways and on many occasions.
While I strongly disagree with some members of this BB as to exactly who "they" are, I agree that "they" have forfeited the opportunity for discussion by choosing war over peace.
There have been well thought out posts on this thread. Radical Islam is a threat, and I'm grateful our troops are confronting it globally.
Respectfully, however at times the sentiment on this topic confuses me. Specifically what constitutes a good Muslim? What does one have to do? There are constant posts on negative facets/actions of Muslims, okay if they break our laws, throw the book at them. On the flip side when a Muslim or Muslim group denounces acts of terror or violence at times the prevalent perception seems they are shedding crocodile tears or disingenuous? CAIR might be a bad example, they do seem shady, but an inclination towards presumptive judgement of American citizens of a particular faith is a slippery slope. Some of the darkest moments in world history have resulted from absolute answers to this line of questioning.
I always thought it was a simple question of are you an American first, regardless of your background, ethnicity, or faith. If you are a productive law abiding citizen what else matters?
What do law abiding American Muslims have to do?
What do law abiding American Muslims have to do?
My question would be: Are they willing to submit to our Constitution or do they remain loyal to Shariah Law?
Shariah is incompatible with our Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_iDyf05eU
Edited to add:
With respect, this generalization is overly broad. The concept of a "clash of civilizations" was advanced by the late Samuel Huntington, an academic.
I thought the original concept was engineered by the prophet Muhammad, echoed by Ibn Taymiyyah, expounded on by Sayyid Qutb, and Hunnington was credited for labeling the concept that already existed :-)
I thought the original concept was engineered by the prophet Muhammad, echoed by Ibn Taymiyyah, expounded on by Sayyid Qutb, and Hunnington was credited for labeling the concept that already existed :-)My subsequent research indicates that Huntington may have gotten the term from another academic, Bernard Lewis in his "The Roots of Muslim Rage," Policy, 17:4 (summer 2001-2002): 24.
I speculate that the concept is not unique.
In regards to the OP, I found a report by United States Institute of Peace that collected examples of Muslim leaders and groups articulating opposition to terrorism. That report is available here (http://www.usip.org/files/resources/islamicpeacemaking.pdf). The following summary is available here (http://www.usip.org/resources/islamic-peacemaking-911).
Muslims in general and Muslim leaders particularly have often been severely criticized for not more energetically condemning the violent acts of Muslim extremists.
Violent extremists are on one edge of the Muslim community. They are counter-balanced by a growing movement of Muslim peacemakers.
Equally as notable as Islamic militancy but less noted are Muslims’
widespread condemnation of terrorism and other violent acts;
promotion of interfaith dialogue;
education of Muslim youth and reeducation of extremist Muslims; and
promotion of peaceful conflict resolution.
In regards to the OP, I found a report by United States Institute of Peace that collected examples of Muslim leaders and groups articulating opposition to terrorism. That report is available here. The following summary is available here.
Thanks Sigaba - I'll read you links when I finish my shift.
Warrior-Mentor
02-07-2010, 04:42
My subsequent research indicates that Huntington may have gotten the term from another academic, Bernard Lewis in his "The Roots of Muslim Rage," Policy, 17:4 (summer 2001-2002): 24.
I speculate that the concept is not unique.
In regards to the OP, I found a report by United States Institute of Peace that collected examples of Muslim leaders and groups articulating opposition to terrorism. That report is available here (http://www.usip.org/files/resources/islamicpeacemaking.pdf). The following summary is available here (http://www.usip.org/resources/islamic-peacemaking-911).
I put very little stock in anything published by the USIP (United States Institute of Peace).
Why?
They've hired a bunch of Islamic apologists, whose products are often endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood [as evidenced by their display on their english website].
www.ikhwanweb.com
Just because USIP is a government agency doesn't mean you can trust it.