See my first post for the background. Via Junk Yard Blog, Michael D. Bates digs deeper in the "Mosque of Peace?":
At the center of the story is Jamal Miftah, who emigrated from Pakistan in 2003 with his wife and four children. As a devout Muslim, he was incensed by the violent reaction of some Muslims to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed which appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. He began to write an article about it, but the demands of his job didn't allow him time to finish it.
But Miftah took up the pen again after seeing a videotaped speech in late September of this year by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist movement.
On November 18, 2006, in his local mosque, Miftah was confronted by the imam and then some minutes later:
[...] he was confronted by the president of the mosque's operating council, Houssam Elsoueissi (also known as Abu Waleed). In a loud voice, Elsoueissi called Miftah "anti-Muslim" and a "traitor" for writing against Muslim organizations.
Those who do not know much about Islamic rhetoric will miss the dark significance of those precise words. Though, thankfully, Bates gets the scoop right from the source.
In our conversation last week, Miftah explained that there is an implied threat in the label "anti-Muslim." In some parts of the Muslim world, apostates, those who abandon Islam, are deemed worthy to be put to death.
Open criticism of Al Qaeda results in swift condemnation, threat of physical violence and possible death for a Muslim. In America.
If nothing else, this incident should make non-Muslims realize how little we know. I invite Muslim Tulsans-- whether you are a leader in the mosque, a contented member, or a discontented member--contact me at [...]
That's the problem. Only Muslims can shed light upon what happens in their mosques. But they can't if they fear for their lives and izzat (reputation).