Frontpage Interview's guest today is Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

FP: Khalim Massoud, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Massoud: Thank you.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about what kind of Muslims the U.S. government uses for its government experts. What is your view of this matter?

Massoud: My view on this subject is very simple. A great number of Muslim "experts" used by the US government are connected, in one way or another, to some kind of terrorist group. This connection is either direct or through a front organization, such as CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. These "experts" almost in every case declare that their loyalties lie with Islamism and not with America. I'm not aware of every single expert ever used by the US Government, but almost every single Muslim "expert" that I know of, and that's quite a few, is an Islamist.

FP: What is the reason for this?

Massoud: The reason for this is very simple. The majority of mosques and civic Islamic organizations in America are funded by Wahhabi petro-dollars and push the radical agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, which includes "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

So, when the government is looking for a Muslim expert, it turns to the Muslim establishment, which is comprised of radicals, leaving out moderate Muslims by default.

FP: Moderate Muslims obviously exist in America, right? So they can be hired and heard from etc., correct? Why are most of them either silent or simply not heard from?

Massoud: Of course moderate Muslims exist in America. Religious figures like Sheikh Muhammed Hisham Kabbani of Islamic Supreme Council of America or secular figures like Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy do exist. It's just that those people are known to a very limited circle while Imams like Siraj Wahhaj of Muslim Alliance of North America who said that "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam." or Ibrahim Hooper of Council on American-Islamic Relations who said "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." are very prominent and well financed figures.

That's why government bureaucrats, who are not known for making an extra effort to begin with, fail to do their due diligence and end up following recommendations of other members of Muslim establishment to use radical Muslims as government experts.

FP: So what can be done to fix this problem?

Massoud: Every government official that hired an Islamic extremist either knowingly or without conducting due diligence should be fired along with their protégés. If there is a pattern of hiring Islamic extremists, the official should be tried for aiding and abetting terrorism.

Anyone who proclaims Islamic extremist views should be tried for sedition, since we are at war with radical Islam, or at the very least, promptly deported.

Due to the sensitive nature of some government work, all Muslims should go through extensive background checks before being hired. Some might call it discrimination or profiling. It is. It is also common sense to give extra scrutiny to people whose co-religionists are at war with us. If a Muslim feels that he/she is an American first, it wouldn't bother him/her. If a Muslim feels that he/she is a Muslim first, he/she shouldn't be here to begin with. I think there should be an intra-governmental agency made up of non-Muslim experts on Islamic extremism that would vet all Muslims applying for government positions. Personally, I would be happy to go through extra vetting if that could prevent Islamists from infiltrating our government.

FP: But how can we charge officials for aiding and abetting terrorism when hiring Islamic extremists when we still have difficulty charging the extremists themselves with anything?

I understand that this course of action may be an ideal for the way we should behave during war. But we still have a lot of work to do -- even at the stage of being able to define and detect what an Islamic extremist is.

Massoud: The problem is that we are too PC to charge the extremists with anything. We have no will to charge the extremists with anything. But one thing is for sure: treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue will get us all killed. Civilian courts are ill-equipped to deal with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts; it is hard or impossible to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Take the Liberty City Seven case. Videotaped evidence wasn't good enough to prove it. And the reactive approach of law enforcement doesn't work either. There is nothing you can do with a homicide bomber after he commits a terrorist act. We have been very reluctant to take proactive approach and treat terrorism as a military issue, but it is the only solution whether we like it or not.

FP: You say, “Anyone who proclaims Islamic extremist views should be tried for sedition, since we are at war with radical Islam.” This may make sense, but at this stage we live in a society that is afraid to label even who are our enemy is. Such action will be seen as an attack on civil liberties and free speech. This is the difficulty our democracy faces today and the cage the Left has put us in.

Massoud: I don't disagree with the fact, but it doesn't mean this is right. I believe that people get the government they deserve. If we are a bunch of sheep who would prefer to keep our mouths shut out of fear of being called racists, maybe we do not deserve democracy and should be living under Sharia. Free Speech is not absolute. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" at an airport, or sell child porn under the guise of Free Speech. You go to jail for that. Why should calls to murder infidels or attempts to impose Sharia should be treated any differently?

FP: Ok so how do we define an Islamic extrmiets?

Massoud: Defining what an Islamic extremist is not that difficult. Islamic extremists could be fairly easily defined by their own views on issues. Detecting them could be a lot harder, but in a current climate of government and media dhimmitude, Islamic extremists don't even have to hide their views. And how can you blame them? Our government almost completely ignores their extremist views and embraces them at almost every level.

FP: Give an example.

Massoud: That’s easy.

ISNA, a Muslim Brotherhood front, an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism trial, is welcomed by a major political party, a major religious organization, and a major government agency, the very agency that is supposed to protect us from Islamic extremists. Who in the right mind does that? Are we really that stupid? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, thrice, how many more times?

On the one hand, ISNA claims to be moderate, on the other hand, it strives for "grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their [Muslim Brothers] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

What other proof do we need to understand that Islamic extremists are bent on destruction of our way of life?

FP: How do you as a Muslim see yourself as an American first?

Massoud: Easy. My patriotism is a part of my public life. My religion is a part of my private life. I believe in the American way of life, not the Islamic way of life, but that doesn't make me a bad Muslim. I believe that religion is a private matter and, for the most part, has no place in public life.

FP: But doesn’t Islam teach that there is separation between Church and State?

Massoud: We don't believe it does. As you know we believe that some of the verses in the Koran did not come from Allah. And don't get me even started about Ahadith. That includes the verses about Islamic supremacy and Islamic state. Religion is a relationship between a human being and God. When this relationship spills into public square, it stops being a religion and becomes a political ideology. There is no separation between Mosque and State in Islamism, but Islamism is not a religion. It is a political ideology based on perversion of Islam.

FP: Well, I don’t know, Islam’s teaching on the separation between Church and State seems pretty clear to me, but your belief is that the verses in the Koran that teach that there is no separation did not come from Allah. This arbitrary picking and choosing of what comes from Allah and what does not is a bit problematic, to say the least, but we have already debated this issue in our recent symposium.

Suffice it to say, if reformers like you are able to create an Islam that respects separation between Church and State, all power to you sir.

Khalim Massoud, thank you for joining us.

Massoud: It's always a pleasure to talk with you, sir.