Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on Political Islam, Interbelief Dialogue, and the Mission of the Clarity Coalition

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/15

Part 2 of 2

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian American physician, U.S. Navy veteran, and co-founder of the Clarity Coalition (Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny). A leading voice for Muslim reform, he advocates for secular governance, universal human rights, and freedom of belief. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-launched the Muslim Reform Movement. Jasser challenges political Islam and theocratic ideologies, promoting liberty through public discourse and civic engagement. Alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed, he empowers reformers to confront extremism while defending the rights and freedoms foundational to Western democratic societies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, we could probably get into the weeds a bit here—not quite to the depth of a theology course or debate—but the core ideological strands of political Islam seem to be central here. As you mentioned, Wahhabism is often identified as one of the most toxic sources of these extremist acts. Salafi-Wahhabi Islam, in particular, seems to fuel many of the terrorist activities. Regarding the Clarity Coalition working with other Muslim organizations, what are your dividing lines? What determines who you will or will not partner with?

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: That’s a great question. How did we build this coalition? What are the filters and vetting mechanisms for membership?

It is a group process, but we all agree on a common mission. As a Muslim who loves my faith and has a strong relationship with God, I am under no illusions about the state of Islam today. I debated this very point at Oxford in October. I took the position against the house in a formal debate, arguing that Islam, in its current form, is notcompatible with democracy.

And I still believe that. I do not understand why Muslims should be handed a participation trophy just for existing in Western societies, as if that automatically proves compatibility. There is no evidence anywhere on the planet that Islam, as it is currently practiced, is compatible with liberal democracy.

But it took Christianity 1,789 years before any legal system on the planet was truly compatible with democracy. Yet, Christians read their Bible, including the phrase, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”That speaks to a legal and theological separation of church and state.

Some aspects of the Bible have been reinterpreted and modernized through centuries of Enlightenment thinking. Islam has not yet undergone that same process. And I do not believe the core “recipe” is inherently bad. If you look at the first 300 to 400 years of Islamic civilization, even though dynasties governed it, it produced incredible advancements. The Elons of their time lived under Islamic rule. Those societies were not democratic, but they were the most intellectually and technologically advanced regions on Earth, while Europe was still in the Dark Ages.

If the recipe were fundamentally flawed, it would not have produced that history. But it was not a recipe for liberal democracy—it was a dynastic system that included some critical thinking. What is needed now is a second Enlightenment.

Our coalition came together around two core precepts: we are for liberty and against all forms of authoritarianism and fascism, particularly Islamist theocracy. One of the most important distinctions we make—and this is something all of us in the coalition agree on—is that Islam needs the space to evolve. It may not be compatible with democracy today, but it can be. It might be.

So, if someone believes Islam is fundamentally a death cult and the only way to deal with it is to isolate it, destroy it, or extinguish it, they cannot be part of our coalition. That makes no sense. If, however, someone believes Islam deserves the same space that Christianity and Judaism were given to reconcile with modernity, then we welcome them. We want to work with allies within the House of Islam who believe in religious liberty, secular governance, gender equality, and who are not homophobic. These are the essential values needed to be compatible with Western democratic society.

Our coalition is made up of publicly vetted individuals. Many people might agree with us in principle, but if they have not taken a courageous public stand against extremism—if they have not spoken out, taken risks, or faced consequences—then they have not met the standard we initially set. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in our coalition have received death threats. They have paid a high price for their advocacy, and that courage deserves recognition. Those are the individuals we look to bring into our coalition.

Jacobsen: What about interfaith dialogues? So, across denominations—within those who pass that first filter—or even between different faiths, not just denominationally, there is also the broader term I have seen used: interbelief. That includes humanists, atheists, and agnostics, all gathered not necessarily for friendly chats, but to have open and amicable conversations. How do you see that?

Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. That is part of free speech: understanding that people can have tough conversations about reality through mutual respect and equality. I have been deeply involved in that space. I served on the Arizona Interfaith Movement board for many years. There is a strong tradition—not just in America but across the West—of valuing faith diversity.

As discussed earlier, I remember my experience on the USS El Paso. My Commanding Officer was Catholic, the Executive Officer was Protestant, the Supply Officer was Mormon, our Deck Officer was Jewish, and I was the ship’s physician—and I was Muslim. And yes, there were also atheists on board. We were a microcosm of American society.

Yet we would all die for each other. We joined the military to keep our country safe so that we could freely choose our faith, or no faith. Interfaith conversation is critical. The problem with most interreligious dialogue in the United States today is that it focuses on platitudes and avoiding offence. It often centers only on what we share in common.

Now, it’s good to find common ground for the first few minutes of a conversation. But after that, interfaith—or interbelief—dialogue has no real value unless we can have frank, respectful conversations. For example, I should be able to explain to my Christian friends why I do not believe in the Trinity, why I do not believe in original sin, or why I think confession through a priest as an intermediary does not make sense to me. These are the things that distinguish my Muslim identity from Christianity.

Declaring a particular faith or worldview necessarily means making a choice, and that choice implicitly rejects other views. That should not be offensive. If someone is an atheist and rejects belief in God, that does not offend me. It is their choice, and we should be able to talk openly about it. It is a muscle memory that we need to build much more in our society.

Sometimes, the pendulum swings too far. What we see now, especially with certain DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, is that in the name of equity, every group is so shielded from offence that we lose the ability to engage in honest conversations. We end up preserving a superficial kind of diversity—one based on identity alone—without encouraging deep, meaningful dialogue.

Jacobsen: When everyone is soft-pedalling, no one is saying anything. People fear being uncomfortable, even when saying something at least partially true. Another part of that equation—now made worse with gasoline thrown on the fire by social media and the Internet—is the phenomenon of individuals, some briefly notable and some not, who are often labelled provocateurs. These are people who say things with a surface-level truth but with the intent to offend. Then, when people react, the provocateurs claim they’re being persecuted or silenced—that their free speech is under attack—when in reality, they have been able to say precisely what they wanted. What they dislike is the backlash. How do you view conversations around that? Because you mentioned respect for persons as a fundamental principle, too.

Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. As an activist, an academic, and a physician, I approach everything with a mindset of treatment: what is the desired outcome? That’s just how I think—things need to have productive intent. I do not believe in gaslighting or just provoking people to grab attention.

That said, I have released many press statements defending the right of individuals to burn Qur’ans. When I talk with those individuals privately, I tell them: “Look, nothing good in history has ever come from burning significant scriptures or books.” If you look at the 20th century, some of the most democratic regions of the world descended into fascism, and it often started with book burnings. I am no fan of that practice. History is not a fan of it. But I will still defend to the death someone’s right to do it.

These are just pieces of paper. I do not believe symbolic speech like that should be banned. If you look at Europe, they have hate speech laws, including laws that prohibit Holocaust denial. I oppose Holocaust denial morally and historically, but I also oppose those bans. In some European countries, Mein Kampf cannot even be legally published. That approach pushes dangerous ideas underground.

In the United States, we believe it is far more effective to monitor fascist groups above ground, where the antiseptic of sunlight can do its work. When you push them underground, you make them more complicated to track and potentially more dangerous. So the real question is: what effect are you trying to produce when you ban something?

Recently, I took a different position in one particular area. When it comes to antisemitic and pro-Hamas rallies held by individuals in the U.S. who are here on visas, I do notbelieve that is protected under the same principle. Why? Because those individuals are not American citizens. They are here under a privilege, not the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment in the same way as citizens are.

Just as I cannot go to Saudi Arabia—or even to the U.K.—and speak publicly about overthrowing the government, why should individuals be able to come to the U.S. as guests on student visas and espouse antisemitism, glorify Hamas terrorism, celebrate October 7, and promote genocide against Jews, all while enjoying the privilege of visa status on university campuses funded heavily by foreign governments?

Sometimes people mix these issues. In the same breath, you’ll hear individuals say things I would defend under free speech—and then they turn around and advocate for policies like shutting down all mosques. That kind of overreach only empowers the radicals in my community.

Instead, we need to acknowledge that while we may strongly disagree with what is taught in many mosques—and, yes, 90% of mosques in the U.S. may promote ideologies about governance incompatible with American values—shutting them down is the wrong response. First, it would not achieve the intended result, and second, it is profoundly un-American. It would only radicalize communities rather than address the issues through open dialogue and reform.

We need to ask: What is the appropriate treatment to cure political Islam’s malignancy? From a legal, rights-based, and solutions-oriented perspective, free speech, sunlight, and rigorous public scrutiny are still the best remedies. But we must also be honest and clear-eyed about what the speakers try to achieve with their rhetoric.

Jacobsen: Imagine you’re at the Walmart customer service desk, returning three products labelled “Left Wing,” “Centrist,” and “Right Wing.” They have asked about your complaints about each product. What is the left wing doing wrong? What are the centrists doing wrong? And what are the right wing doing wrong, from the perspective of the Clarity Coalition’s goals?

Jasser: Starting with the left wing, their main issue is identity politics. They embrace individuals from minority faiths or cultures without expecting those individuals to adhere to the same principles they demand from the majority. It’sa kind of bigotry of low expectations. They excuse Islamist ideologies under the banner of cultural sensitivity, when they would never accept those ideas from Christians or others in power.

The right wing, particularly some conservatives, often fails to engage with meaningful, long-term solutions. They can be overly focused on short election cycles and sometimes ignore the importance of working with reformers who may not share their views on family values or issues like abortion, but who are critical partners for national security. Hyper-nationalism also clouds their perspective on immigration, even though immigrants can be some of the best assets in the fight for democratic values.

My biggest critique of the centrists is that they are lacking in action. There is very little that animates them. Yet the survival of the West depends on the 80% in the middle waking up and taking a stand. They need to engage with the ideological battles within the House of Islam and take sides against the “Red-Green Axis”—the alliance between the far left and Islamists that operates from China to Iran and beyond.

That’s the future of my work—the legacy for my kids. That’s what drives me. I hope to awaken that center.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was a pleasure to meet you.

Jasser: Appreciate it, Scott. Cheers. Stay in touch. Thanks.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.