Jihad Watch

Maybe these are the sort of dolls Muhammad's pre-pubescent wife was playing with:

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)" -- Bukhari 8.73.151

"It's Barbie in a burkha: World-famous doll gets a makeover to go under the hammer for 50th anniversary," from the Daily Mail, November 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

Makers Mattel are backing the exhibition which is the work of Italian designer Eliana Lorena.

The auction is part of Barbie celebrations for her 50th anniversary this year. The UK's biggest Barbie fan Angela Ellis, 35, has a collection of more than 250 dolls....

Acting upon a rumor. "Egypt Muslims burn Christian shops: police," from AFP, November 21 (thanks to Mackie):

CAIRO -- Hundreds of Muslim protesters on Saturday burnt Christian-owned shops in southern Egypt and attacked a police station where they believed a Christian accused of raping a Muslim girl was being held, a police official said.

Police repelled the demonstrators in the town of Farshut using tear gas and also arrested 60 people during the clashes in which seven Coptic Christian-owned shops were destroyed, the official said.

The protesters hurled stones at the police station after they heard that a Coptic Christian man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old Muslim was being held there, he said....

One would have thought that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims would rise up and not allow Saeed to preach. But once again, no such luck. Tiny Minority of Extremists Alert: "'Mastermind' of Mumbai attack preaches at mosque in Lahore," by Zahid Hussain in The Times, November 21 (thanks to Kris):

Come Friday prayers in Lahore, it is not hard to find the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is neither in hiding nor in jail. The founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba is instead delivering a sermon to thousands of devoteees at the Jamia al-Qadsia mosque -- one of the biggest in the city.

"God has promised to make Muslims a superpower if we follow the right path," Mr Saeed told his followers, who listened in rapt silence.

Outside, policemen with machineguns stood guard and bearded security men frisked all those entering. "Our rulers are the slave of America and have sold their conscience for a few dollars," continued the diminutive former university teacher, his long beard dyed red with henna.

In imitation of Muhammad.

Timothy Roemer, the US Ambassador in Delhi, backed Indian calls this week for Pakistan to bring Mr Saeed and six other Mumbai suspects to justice. "We need to see actions and results from Pakistan," he said after India handed Pakistan a seventh dossier of evidence on the Mumbai attacks.

Analysts say that the problem lies with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which backed Mr Saeed when he founded Lashkar-e-Taiba in 1990 to fight Indian rule in the disputed region of Kashmir. Under pressure from the US, Pakistan banned the group in 2002, but it continued to operate under the banner of Jamaat-ud Dawa, which Mr Saeed also founded and calls a charity organisation....

Pakistan's #1 export takes root in Italy. "Mumbai attack suspects arrested by Italian police," from BBC News, November 21:

Italian police have arrested two Pakistanis suspected of providing logistical support for last year's attacks in Mumbai.

The father and son were detained in an early morning raid in the northern city of Brescia, police said.

They are accused of supplying cash from their money transfer agency to pay for an internet phone account used by people in contact with the attackers.

More than 170 people, nine of them gunmen, died in the November attacks.

Mohammad Yaqub Janjua, 60, and Aamer Yaqub Janjua, 31, are accused of aiding and abetting international terrorism as well as illegal financial activity.

They were identified after leads from India and the FBI, police said....

Last Tuesday, while I was speaking at NYU, Leftist students created a diversion and threw pies at me and the other speaker, Elan Journo (they missed me, but got Journo on the shoulder).

In brief:

1. This is assault.
2. This shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. They can't answer arguments, so they try to shut down the speakers instead.
3. This shows the Left's thuggery and lack of commitment to free speech and free inquiry.
4. The choice of pies as weapons is intended to ridicule the victims, even if the pies were filled with noxious and/or poisonous substances, thus accomplishing not only the disruption of the event but the portrayal of the victim as a clown, not worth taking seriously (which of course is one of the Alinsky rules).

Here are two accounts of the event (thanks to James):

"NYC: Racist Warmonger Gets Pied," from Infoshop News, November 21:

NYU students disrupted a university event this evening featuring Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch" and Elan Journo from the "Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Freedom." Students called out the panelists for their Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric, shouting and launching pies at the speakers. One student was detained, and several were escorted out of the building.

Ironically enough, the "Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric" that prompted the little Stalinist to stand up and start shouting was my quoting Maulana Maududi, the internationally influential Pakistani jihad theorist.

The event, entitled "The Jihad Still Threatens America," encouraged viscous Islamophobia and promoted aggressive military intervention in majority Muslim nations.

"Viscous" Islamophobia, as opposed to the usual clear and thin Islamophobia.

Speaker Elan Journo actively promotes devastating attacks on Iran, claiming that "victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan.... Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile." Fear-mongering comments such as these promote the expansion of US imperialism, and contribute to the wave of anti-Muslim hate that is sweeping our nation....

Where? What anti-Muslim hate? And note that Muslim hate and terror appears to be just fine with these guys.

While it is disturbing to see hate being expressed on such institutional levels on our campuses, the students' refusal to be silent is an inspiration to us all.

Yes, violence in the name of suppressing free speech sure is an inspiration.

Here is the other, apparently mocking the self-contradictory stance of the "tolerancemongers":

"NYU Tolerancemongers Attack Intolerance With Pie," by Hamilton Nolan for Gawker, November 19:

Last week, Forbes columnist and NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan won our Outrage-off for his column about crazy Muslim murderers lurking amongst us. NYU radicals have struck back with a revolutionary pie-ing of Varadarajan's Islamaphobic allies!

A member of the NYU revolutionary vanguard alerted us to the pie-ing, and her note is reprinted in full below. The victims were Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch," both of whom were there to talk about how there is apparently a Jihad, threatening America? Did you know about this?

Anyhow the kids were not about to let this intolerance of opposing viewpoints stand, so they interrupted the guys with a pie assault. Spencer himself writes about his close brush with whipped cream here. One eyewitness account says the two speakers "ended up largely unscathed." Our tipster tells us that the revolutionary cameraperson assigned to film the pie-ing for propaganda purposes "was tackled by security at the very beginning and didn't get any footage."

How are we supposed to repel the Jihadists if our military-age youth can't even stage a proper pie attack? Very troubling indeed....

The bill is full of tolerance, however: it allows non-Muslims to worship in private homes.

This is one of those stories where it becomes bitterly ironic -- those who report on this will be called "Islamophobic," but no one will particularly mind that the Maldives is systematically stamping out the freedom of religion in the name of Islam.

Islamic Tolerance Alert: "Islamic President requests ruling on non-Muslim worship," by Ahmed Naish for Minivan News, November 21:

President Mohamed Nasheed said yesterday he would seek advice from religious scholars on Islam's position on allowing non-Muslims to worship in an Islamic community.

In his radio weekly address, the president said the constitution was "very clear" that laws contrary to Islam could not be made or enacted.

"It has become very important for me to find out what Islamic sharia says about not allowing foreigners who want to worship other religions in the Maldives," he said.

"When this bill comes from the People's Majlis for the president to ratify, the question before me will be what is the ruling in Islamic sharia on people of other religions living in an Islamic community to worship?"

The president said he needed an answer to the question before ratifying the bill. "When I know, it will be easier for me to make a decision on ratify the bill before it becomes law," he said.

Banned

Last week, a bill proposed by independent MP Ibrahim Muttalib Fares-Maathoda on outlawing places of worship for non-Muslims was sent to committee for further review with unanimous consent of all MPs who participated in the vote.

At the sitting, Muttalib said he learned that inquiries had been made with the government on establishing places of worship for expatriates and there was no law to forbid it.

"The other thing we have to think about today is that the government is considering establishing wedding tourism in the country and this will indirectly set up churches in the country," he said.

Horror of horrors!

While the bill states that foreigners or expatriates will be allowed to worship in the privacy of their homes, involving Maldivians or encouraging them to participate will be an offence.

The bill specifies a jail term of three to five years or a fine of between Rf36,000 (US$2,800) and Rf60,000 (US$4,669) for those in violation of the law.

Several MPs called for longer jail terms and higher fines, while others said foreigners in violation of the law should be deported.

But, some MPs argued the law was unnecessary as the constitution states that Islam shall be the basis of all laws and non-Muslims cannot be citizens.

Most MPs said laws were needed to seal off all avenues to freedom of religion being established in the Maldives.

Rights for Muslims

Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, state minister for Islamic affairs, told Minivan News today the president's office had not officially asked for the ministry's advice.

"But the matter has been sent to the Fiqh academy and they will issue a decree on it," he said. Shaheem said he believed laws should be made to protect Islam and strengthen Maldivians' faith.

"Right now, Muslims aren't getting their rights," he said. "For example, there's no way for students to pray at schools, you can't get some jobs if you wear the burqa and there are some jobs where you can't grow beards."

He added the ministry had drafted regulations under the Religious Unity Act of 1994 together with the police and sent it to the president's office.

The regulations will be published in the government gazette next week, he continued, and would provide a legal framework to protect Islam.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Abdullah bin Mohamed Ibrahim, president of religious NGO Salaf Jamiyya, said he believed the bill was necessary to safeguard Islam.

"What the president said doesn't match what was in the bill," he said. "The bill is about making it illegal to build places of worship for non-Muslims. It doesn't make it illegal for foreigners to pray in their rooms or houses."

Abdullah said the association had information that Christian missionaries were trying to infiltrate the country and proselytize in the Maldives.

"I believe the bill is essential because the constitution does not forbid building places of worship," he said.

Another update on this story. "Sears Tower bomb plot leader Narseal Batiste jailed," from BBC News, November 20:

The leader of a group which plotted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago has been sentenced to 13-and-a-half years in prison.

Narseal Batiste, 35, also planned to bomb FBI offices, along with four other men who have already been jailed.

Prosecutors said the men conspired to provide material support to al-Qaeda but defence lawyers said the plot was never serious.

Prosecutors in Miami had sought the maximum 70-year sentence for Batiste.

But he maintained he only went along with the plot to seize the $50,000 (£30,000) offered by an undercover FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative.

The men, most of whom have Haitian backgrounds, were arrested in Miami in 2006.

They had been caught on tape by the FBI informant discussing plans to cause an anti-government insurrection.

Batiste was heard on audio and video tape saying they should start a "full ground war" that would "kill all the devils".

'No threat'

Sentencing Batiste, US District Judge Joan Lenard said: "You've done great harm to yourself, your family, the young men who were your followers, and you've violated the trust of your country."

Batiste apologised for the plot in court, saying he had "wanted respect"....

Fiend, er, Friend and Ally Update. "EXCLUSIVE: Taliban chief hides in Pakistan," by Eli Lake, Sara A. Carter, and Barbara Slavin for the Washington Times, November 20 (thanks to Alan):

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Afghan Taliban, has fled a Pakistani city on the border with Afghanistan and found refuge from potential U.S. attacks in the teeming Pakistani port city of Karachi with the assistance of Pakistan's intelligence service, three current and former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Mullah Omar, who hosted Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders when they plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had been residing in Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban shura -- or council -- had moved from Kandahar after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Two senior U.S. intelligence officials and one former senior CIA officer told The Washington Times that Mullah Omar traveled to Karachi last month after the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. He inaugurated a new senior leadership council in Karachi, a city that so far has escaped U.S. and Pakistani counterterrorism campaigns, the officials said.

The officials, two of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI, helped the Taliban leaders move from Quetta, where they were exposed to attacks by unmanned U.S. drones.

The development reinforces suspicions that the ISI, which helped create the Taliban in the 1990s to expand Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan as the Obama administration prepares to send more U.S. troops to fight there.

Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran and analyst on al Qaeda and the Taliban, confirmed that Mullah Omar had been spotted in Karachi recently.

"Some sources claim the ISI decided to move him further from the battlefield to keep him safe" from U.S. drone attacks, said Mr. Riedel, who headed the Obama administration's review of policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring. "There are huge madrassas in Karachi where Mullah Omar could easily be kept."

Mr. Riedel also noted that there had been few suicide bombings in Karachi, which he attributed to the Taliban and al Qaeda not wanting to "foul their own nest."

A U.S. counterterrorism official said, "There are indications of some kind of bleed-out of Taliban types from Quetta to Karachi, but no one should assume at this point that the entire Afghan Taliban leadership has packed up its bags and headed for another Pakistani city."

A second senior intelligence officer who specializes in monitoring al Qaeda said U.S. intelligence had confirmed Mullah Omar's move through both electronic and human sources as well as intelligence from an unnamed allied service....

After this post, I decided to write to Umar Lee (with whom I've had some interaction in the past) and ask for an interview. Here is our exchange, in which he endorses the death penalty for apostasy in principle, just not at the moment in America. At very least, his honesty about Islamic teaching is a refreshing departure from the deceptions and diversions of Honest Ibe Hooper, Brave Ahmed Rehab, and their ilk:

1. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Umar

How you doing? It's been a long time. I hope you're well.

I've read your post on Muslims in the military with great interest, and am posting about it now at Jihad Watch.

Would you be up for an interview with me on this and related issues?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Your friend as ever,
Robert Spencer

2. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Mr. Spencer, i do not have time to grant interviews at this time. Regarding my position on muslims in the military i stand by the fatawa posted on my blog and that is why i encorage all muslims in america to not join. My feelings on the ft hood shooting and brother nidal hassan will be in the next edition of muslim quarterly magazine in an article titled why the fort got hood.

3. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Thanks for your kind and informative note. I respect the fact that you base your position on Sharia norms as delineated by the Qur'an and Sunnah. In line with that, I was wondering about what you thought on a tangential but related matter: in light of all the publicity that the Rifqa Bary case has gotten, and the many statements by Muslim leaders in the U.S. denying that Islam mandates death for apostates, do you uphold the traditional death penalty for apostasy as taught by Muhammad and by all the madhahib?

Thanks and regards
Robert

4. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Im not that up on that case. What i do know is we live in a very imoral society and teens are bombarded with negative messages. Any teen girl who is not a serial fornicator is seen as square and if she has good muslim parents making sure she is not acting like a ho she may rebel. I am not a scholar but the ruling on apostacy is clear. In an ideal world the apostate would face death but there is no authority to implement the shariah in america so no she shouldnt be killed and besides this girl may very well be making the whole thing up.

Ace videographer Dave Miles kindly sent along these superb videos from the Rifqa Rally for human rights and religious freedom, Columbus, Ohio, November 16.

The identity of the masked gunman is not yet known, but the number of threats against Fr. Sysoyev that already existed because of his work among Muslims is itself noteworthy. And Russian prosecutors are also proceeding with the theory that "religious motives" are behind the murder.

"Russian Priest Gunned Down in Church," by Alexander Marquardt for ABC News, November 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Russian Orthodox priest known for his missionary work among Muslims was gunned down in his Moscow church, Russian officials said Friday.

Thirty-four-year-old Daniil Sysoyev was shot at least four times at in the head and chest in the Church of St. Thomas by a masked gunman Thursday night, according to the Prosecutor General's Investigative Committee. The assailant also wounded the church's choirmaster, Vladimir Strelbitsky.

Sysoyev died on the way to the hospital. Strelbitsky is in critical condition.

"The main theory is that religious motives are behind the crime," a prosecutor's office spokesman told reporters.

Sysoyev routinely denounced Islam and actively reached out to Muslims and various religious sects to convert them. In a recent interview with a Russian newspaper, Sysoyev boasted that he had baptized 80 Muslims.

But with his ambitious missionary work came death threats.

"They've threatened to cut my head off 14 times," Sysoyev told Komsomolskaya Pravda in the interview. "The FSB [Federal Security Service] got in touch with me a year ago to say they had uncovered a murder plot against me."

He told a television interviewer in February 2008 that he considered it a sin not to preach to Muslims, according to the Interfax news agency.

Sysoyev was originally from the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, where a large majority of the population is Muslim. He published books titled "An Orthodox Response to Islam" and "Marrying a Muslim," which criticized the faith and drew fierce responses from Muslim organizations.

'No Reason to Kill'

Russia's Council of Muftis strongly denounced the murder Friday, saying differences should be worked out in a civilized way....

Still another "misunderstander" of Islam. Funny how that keep happening. "Sixth area Somali man is indicted in probe," by James Walsh, Richard Meryhew and Allie Shah for the Star Tribune, November 20:

A 24-year-old local Somali man has been indicted in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on charges of conspiring to provide support to terrorists.

Omer Abdi Mohamed, an unemployed employment counselor and father of a 2-month-old boy, was indicted on charges of conspiracy to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" people in foreign countries, according to an indictment filed Tuesday but made public Thursday.

Mohamed, of Minneapolis, is the sixth Somali man with local ties to be charged in connection with a two-year-old federal counterterrorism investigation aimed at finding out who recruited as many as 20 area men of Somali descent to return to their homeland and train and fight with the terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. The probe is considered to be one of the most sweeping international counterterrorism investigations since Sept. 11, 2001.

When asked if investigators allege that Mohamed was a recruiter, Peter Wold, his attorney, said: "In the end, I think you'll see that certainly wasn't the case."

The indictment released Thursday provides few details, but it links Mohamed to a broad conspiracy involving other men who returned to Somalia to fight or train with terrorists, including Shirwa Ahmed, a 26-year-old Minneapolis man believed to be the first U.S. suicide bomber.

According to the indictment, others connected to the conspiracy include: Salah Osman Ahmed, Kamal Said Hassan, Ahmed Ali Omar, Abdifatah Isse and Khalid Mohamud Abshir -- all of whom left the United States in December 2007 with a final destination of Somalia. Ahmed, Hassan and Isse all have pleaded guilty to the same charges Mohamed faces.

Wold said after the hearing Thursday that his client knew the other men through the mosque where they prayed. Isse Hussein, Mohamed's cousin, said Mohamed prayed "a lot" at Abubakar as-Saddique Islamic Center in south Minneapolis. [...]

A Minneapolis woman who described herself as an acquaintance of Mohamed said he was known by the nickname "Galeyr" and was good friends with Salah Ahmed. She said Mohamed also was related to Adarus Abdullah Ali, 25, who admitted in federal court this month to lying to a grand jury about knowing men who went to Somalia to fight.

The woman, who was close friends with Mohamoud Hassan, a local Somali who was killed in Mogadishu in September, said Mohamed and Ahmed and some of the other men who left Minnesota for Somalia often spent time at Abubakar, the largest Somali mosque in the state. [...]

The woman said she doesn't know for certain why all the men left for Somalia, but said she believes it's rooted in a combination of patriotic feelings toward the Somali homeland and religious fervor. [...]

Minneapolis has been at the center of the international counterterrorism investigation since the first of up to 20 young Somali men from Minnesota began quietly leaving to return to their homeland. In most cases, the men left without telling their families or friends of their plans.

The focus of the investigation has been uncovering the identities of those who recruited the men and financed their return to Somalia to train and fight.

The men are believed to have been recruited by Al-Shabaab, which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaida.

Since October 2008, five of the Minnesotans who left have died. A sixth man, a Muslim convert from Minneapolis, also is thought to have been killed.

It's not the whole truth. It's not "Fort Hood massacre was jihad," although even that word comes up. It's not an acknowledgment that the attack was motivated by the same murderous ideology that took down the Twin Towers and that threatens Israel and other free nations around the world every day, but it's a step.

"Senators say Fort Hood shooting was terrorism: Several lawmakers and terror experts at Senate hearings on the Fort Hood shooting Thursday called the incident a terrorist attack, and warned of the danger of homegrown jihad," by Patrik Jonsson for The Christian Science Monitor, November 19:

The Senate Homeland Security Committee Thursday began its probe into the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting with few details about what everyone really wants to know: the true motives of alleged shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Nevertheless, several lawmakers at the hearing called the rampage a terrorist attack.

That label was supported by most of the terror experts who testified at the Senate hearing. Addressing questions about how red flags were missed in the lead-up to the rampage, experts pinpointed a rise in homegrown terrorism and expressed the need for the government to establish, in the words of retired Army Gen. John Keane, "clear specific guidelines as to what is jihadist extremist behavior, how do you identify this behavior, and how does it manifest itself?"

Uh, yeah. One would think that such a thing would have been in place for years now -- long enough for clear-eyed and clear-minded people, i.e., those more interested in truth than in political correctness, to realize that there was nothing "extremist" about Hasan's actions from the standpoint of the Koran and Sunnah. But of course nothing like this is in place at all. CAIR and its allies, with their campaign of intimidation and obfuscation, have made sure of that.

The Fort Hood shooting, like no other incident, has "fueled discussion about the spectre of violent extremist ideology in our midst," said Juan Zarate, the former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.

"There is no smoking gun that reveals Hasan's true motivations and signaled intent, so the patchwork of data points and behavioral clues in light of the incident ... appear to point to a path of violence," he added. "The question then is whether the data points were seen and evaluated properly."...

No smoking gun. He passed out Korans on the day of the shooting and shouted "Allahu akbar" as he shot, but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood.

News reports have detailed the failure of the military to report up the chain of command the disturbing and delusionary behavior Hasan exhibited. Some have suggested this was partly because of the fear of appearing to be targeting a Muslim.

"Political correctness played a role," according to Keane. "It shouldn't have to be an act of moral courage on behalf of a soldier to report behavior that we should not be tolerating within the military; it should be an obligation."

Yep.

If you have been paying attention - and even if you have not - by now you know that something is going on in Yemen. You have heard about the "Houthis" - that is, a group of Shi'a, who have named themselves after a leader of one of their tribes, and who live in the northern part of Yemen, where they constitute a majority of the population. They also perhaps constitute as much as 40% of the total Yemeni population. And you know that these Shi'a are not quite like the Shi'a of iran, but nonetheless, they are Shi'a, and so, to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, they are considered to be nearly Infidels.

That didn't keep the Saudis, more than forty years ago, from supporting tribes, including "Zaidi" or Shi'a tribes, in the north of Yemen, against the dangerously "Marxist" southerners of Yemen. But that word "marxist" is treacherous. As J. B. Kelly has written, the casual application of the word "Marxist" in the context of an Arab Muslim country is misleading, for beneath that "Marxism" is Islam. The dictatorship of the proletariat, and the collective ownership of the means of production, is not exactly on the minds of Muslim tribesmen; "Marxism" has been a phrase used by one set of would-be seizers of the national wealth against whatever prior seizers of the national wealth are currently in power.

Yes, in the mid-1960s Yemen, a country that contains a larger population than its immediate northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia, was the site of what so many are content to call a "proxy war" between Nasserist Egypt (representing not so much the "Marxists" - as the American State Department appeared to think, as those who were less fanatical, and slightly more secular, in their reception of Islam) and Saudi Arabia, said to be backing people called "the Royalists." That proxy war in Yemen has no significance whatsoever save that it helped to occupy and preoccupy Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and to weaken the forces of both - an outcome that should be remembered as we try to think about Yemen today.

Secretary Gates, I can save you a lot of time and trouble: no one reported Nidal Hasan because they were afraid of the repercussions that would come to them in this politically correct age. They were afraid of being accused of being racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc. They were afraid of showing up in the next Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Alert.

But it will be interesting to see what creative fiction your investigators come up with in lieu of admitting that.

"Gates orders Army inquiry after Fort Hood killings," from the BBC, November 19 (thanks to Hildegard):

A review of US Army and Pentagon policies has been ordered by the defence secretary in the wake of a shooting at a military base.

The review will include Pentagon medical and personnel programmes, and US military base security.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates appointed a former Army secretary and an ex-Navy chief to report in 45 days.

The review is in addition to others into the Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed.

Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, was shot by police during the incident on 5 November, and remains in hospital. He has been charged with 13 counts of murder.

"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Mr Gates said at the Pentagon....

Former US Army secretary Togo West and former chief of naval operations, Admiral Vernon Clark will oversee the review.

US President Barack Obama has already ordered a review of the way intelligence agencies handled information about the major.

US intelligence authorities revealed they knew Maj Hasan had been in contact with a cleric sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

An FBI-led task force monitoring the e-mail of Yemen-based US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki said he had communicated with Maj Hasan - a US-born Muslim and army psychiatrist - on 10 to 20 occasions.

However, it was decided that further investigation was not needed, as the content of the messages did not advocate or threaten violence.

They're doing it, of course, under the cover of criminalizing "blasphemy," but the real agenda here is to compel the West to adopt Sharia norms forbidding criticism of Islam, including analysis of the jihad terrorists' motives and goals. This, of course, would leave us mute and defenseless before them.

AP thinks that the free nations of the West will oppose this. But with Barack Obama in the White House, that isn't actually certain. After all, he made sure that the U.S. not only supported, but cosponsored (with Egypt) a similar initiative at the United Nations not too long ago.

Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"?

Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.

"Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army?," by Umar Lee, November 19:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen a serious re-defining and whitewashing of what our deen is and is not. Since the Ft Hood shootings, and even before that, we have seen many Muslim organizations refer to US troops which are occupying Muslim lands, as "our troops". They have celebrated Muslims that have gone over to fight and kill other Muslims. We see Muslim spokesmen saying that the Muslims must abandon the concept of "Ummah". We are seeing Muslims and Muslim Organizations calling for American citizenship to be put above their loyalty to other Muslims around the world. This is a very strange thing as prior to 9/11 the ulamaa of Islam had many fatwas that said just the opposite, especially with regards to a Muslim joining a kufr army and going to fight other Muslims.

We find the people nowadays saying that it is perfectly permissible and even praiseworthy to join the kufr army. This is in contrast to what we saw in the past from the scholars. I would like to know what our friends at Muslim Matters have to say about the following fatwas from such scholars as Sh Ibn Uthaymeen and Sh. Al Munajid. What do they think the scholars would say about al wala wal bara (something completely forgotten about and not taught these days)?

This first fatwa is from Sh Al-Munajjid:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war. What should I do? What is the ruling if I go...?

Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa', i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them"[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters - unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da'wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter.

This one is from Sh Ibn Muhammad Saalih al-Uthaymeen, May Allah have mercy upon him:

What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country ? What is the evidence for its permissibility or prohibition? And lastly, what is the status of a Muslim working to help those in the military to fulfill their obligations to Allaah while serving in the Army, Navy, or whatever?

Praise be to Allaah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:

"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit, it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."

On this basis, if a person works as a preacher or daa'iyah or imaam or muezzin, serving the Muslims and calling non-Muslims to Islam, then there is nothing wrong with this.

And for good measure, here is one more fatwa

So can the brothers find me a fatwa from a repudible scholar of the sunnah (not one that quotes from his desires) that says that it is permissible to put citizenship above our Islam and join the kafir army and to fight against Islam and the Muslims? It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

The evidence is clearly against those who are saying that these things are permissible.

Here is a question:

If a group of Muslims in Mecca attacked the United States and the US Army wanted to retaliate by taking the haram, would it still be permissible to join the kufr army?

Since the UN, with its OIC-driven agenda, is simply the other side of bin Laden's coin, this would be a perfect fit. "Britain: Bin-Laden's son wants to work for the UN," from AKI, November 19 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

New York, 19 Nov. (AKI) - The son of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Omar, has told a British magazine that he would like to promote peace and work for the United Nations. His comments were published on Thursday in New Statesman magazine.

"I do not believe that I would be a good politician - I have a habit of speaking the truth, even when it does not serve me well. But I would like to be in a position to promote peace. I believe that the United Nations would be ideal for me," said Omar Bin-Laden.

So do I, Omar!

Last year in November, Omar requested asylum in Spain, but his application was refused.

He was travelling on a Saudi Arabian passport and was detained at Madrid's Barajas Airport after arriving on a flight from Egypt.

In the interview, Omar told New Statesman that he would seek God's advice in whether to report his father if he knew where he was hiding.

"If such a time comes, God will guide me to the correct path. But any child on earth would have difficulty with such a situation."...

Interviewed by ex-Muslim Nabil Qureshi at the Rifqa Rally, November 16, Columbus, Ohio. (Thanks to David.)

Interview from November 6 (thanks to James).

If someone in America points out that such punishments are part of Sharia, he is derided as an ignorant "Islamophobe." But the Koran is clear: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Koran 5:38

And it is also clear that this verse is taken literally and seriously by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. And so this imam is saying something that is only controversial to those who are ignorant (whether willfully so or not).

"What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks," by Christian Peregin for the Times of Malta, November 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

Imam Mohamed El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, believes chopping off the hands of thieves is a "deserving punishment".

Mr El Sadi made the statement during Monday's television programme Bondiplus, where he defended Sharia law, a judicial system used in some Islamic states and which can involve severe corporal punishments.

Contacted yesterday, Mr El Sadi stood by his comments and added the world was incurring the "wrath of God" through its permissiveness and destruction of spiritual and moral values, namely through the acceptance of "same-sex marriages, homosexuality, adultery and abortion".

Under Sharia law, such things are considered crimes that may even be punishable by death. When asked if he agreed with such punishments he said: "Yes, of course. I agree with everything Islamic."...

Mr Bondì then asked whether religion should dictate the laws of the country, through, say, Sharia law.

"What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals, he is taking from the country or the poor, so why is it wrong to cut off his hand?" the Imam replied.

Mr El Sadi said the punishment should terrify thieves and criminals, "not the good people".

When speaking to The Times about his remarks, the Imam said: "Why don't you concentrate on what is common rather than pick on what is controversial?"

He said he was not proposing this system for Europe because it would be undemocratic. But it was also undemocratic for Muslim countries not to use it because most Muslims wanted it....

He conceded there were different kinds of Muslims who thought of Sharia differently. "But whoever denies this is not a Muslim," he said, adding the law of God was perfect.

He said there were many safeguards to ensure Sharia law was applied justly, through a court system that depended on having several witnesses. "This does not apply to thieves who are poor or hungry. This is for people who have everything and want more; people who are greedy... The point is to frighten criminals."

Fr Renè Camilleri, who was also a guest on the programme, said he was "shocked" by the Imam's comments.

"I tried to insist violence is unacceptable. The concept is horrific to me. It is equivalent to the death penalty. I know it is what Sharia law dictates but, coming from him, such a moderate and tolerant person, I was shocked," he said, adding he never considered the Imam to be a fundamentalist....

Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Pamela at Atlas Shrugs:

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of "Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law". and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before she was scheduled to speak, the groups (the Debate Society and Tigers of Israel) succumbed to student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Nonie called me from her NY taxi, shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on US soil, the largest in US history, that activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

There is much more. Read it all.

Pat Robertson said: "If we don't stop covering up what Islam is. Islam is a violent...I was going to say religion but it's not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

I disagree. I don't think Islam is not a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that. But is Islam a political system that teaches world domination?

Don't take Pat Robertson's word for it, or mine. Let's go to Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Don't believe Khadduri? Very well. How about Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

Don't believe Nyazee, either? How about Iran's Thug-In-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Of course, he is no Islamic scholar, but he is a devout Muslim, and he learned Islam not from greasy Islamophobes but from...Islamic scholars. And he has said: "Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."

Don't believe Ahmadinejad? How about a Shafi'i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo? It says that the leader of the Muslims "makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax," and cites Koran 9:29 in support of this idea: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." ('Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

Evidently all these people are misunderstanders of Islam. Will CAIR denounce them? How about it, Honest Ibe? Or do you believe, Mr. Hooper, that it is just fine for Muslims to say this sort of thing anytime and anywhere, and it only becomes "hate speech" when Robertson says it?

CAIR Deception and Hypocrisy Alert: "CAIR asks McDonnell for more on Robertson, as Connolly weighs in," by Rosalind Helderman in the Washington Post, November 18 (thanks to herr Oyal):

Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell continues to face calls for him to publicly repudiate donor and ally Pat Robertson today, even after a statement issued Tuesday evening in which his spokesman commented generally about the importance of the Muslim community to Virginia.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Wednesday that McDonnell's comment "a good statement as far as it went," but said he did not believe it went far enough in directly disavowing Robertson's remarks.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said the national group is working with Muslims in Virginia to decide how to proceed on the issue. But he said he continues to believe McDonnell needs to make a clear statement indicating he does not agree with Robertson's stand on Islam. Robertson said last week that Islam is "not a religion" but a "violent political system" and called for Muslims to be treated like communists or members of a fascist party.

"[McDonnell's] sending the message that he wants it both ways--he wants the support of a Muslim-basher. And he wants to work with Virginia Muslims. I think those two things are incompatible," Hooper said.

Meanwhile, the political implications of the Robertson remarks are growing. U.S. Rep Gerry Connolly (D) has put out a statement Wednesday calling on Robertson to apologize for his comments. Connolly said he has heard from hundreds of constituents, both Muslims and others, offended by Robertson's comments, which came in response to the Fort Hood shootings on an episode of the 700 Club last week.

"My feeling is that if public officials don't speak out about this, our silence might be misconstrued," Connolly said. "I, for one, am not going to be silent in the face of that kind of unbridled intolerance."...

What courage!

Quoth the intrepid Obama in response: "... as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences."

Yeah. Take that! "U.S. warns Iran of consequences over standoff," by Patricia Zengerle and Manny Mogato for Reuters, November 19:

SEOUL/MANILA (Reuters) - World powers could have a package of measures against Iran "within weeks", U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday, warning Tehran of consequences for its failure to respond to an offer of a nuclear deal.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed talk of further punitive sanctions, saying the West had learnt from past failures.

Not much of a plan in the first place:

Iran on Wednesday rejected a deal to send enriched uranium abroad for rendering into fuel for medical purposes in Tehran, defying world powers which regarded the offer as a way to delay Iran's potential ability to make atomic bombs by at least a year by divesting the country of most of its refined uranium stock.

Under the plan brokered by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Iran would ship some 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel plates for a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer treatment.

"Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal ... and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences," Obama said at a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul.

He said Iran would not be given an unlimited amount of time, likening the Iranian nuclear issue to years of stop-and-start negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear ambitions.

"We weren't going to duplicate what has happened with North Korea, in which talks just continue forever without any actual resolution to the issue," said Obama.

He has advocated a policy of increased engagement, rather than confrontation, on thorny international issues.

In apparent response to Obama's comments, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated in a speech in Tabriz that Iran would respond positively to a change in big powers' policy.

"I am speaking to the world powers: Those who say they want to have a constructive interaction should know that if the Iranian nation sees a practical change in their behaviour and that they have given up their aggressive attitude and honestly raised a hand to Iran, then we would accept it," he said.

"But if we find they are still continuing their past domineering and hostile policies ... then the response of the Iranian national would be as firm as in the past." [...]

During a visit to the Philippines, Mottaki shrugged off the possibility of further sanctions. "Sanction was the literature of the 60s and 70s," he told a news conference in Manila.

"I think they are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences," he said, speaking through an interpreter. "Of course, it's totally up to them."

Mottaki said the Islamic Republic was willing to discuss the reactor fuel deal but only if the swap of enriched uranium for the fuel took place within Iran.

Buying time:

"Iran raises its readiness in order to have further talks within the framework which is presented," he said. "It's not our proposal to have a swap. They raised such a proposal and we described and talked about how it could be operationalised."

Hope. For change:

Obama said he still hoped Iran would change its mind and that Washington and its allies would consider a package of potential steps to indicate to Iran how serious they were.

"Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said.

He said he had confidence in the approach to Iran, which rejects suspicions that its declared programme to enrich uranium for electricity generation is a trojan horse for efforts to produce atomic bomb fuel.

"I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door. I hope they do," he said....

In Human Events this morning I discuss a few things Nidal Hasan's PowerPoint has in common with other presentations of Islam we've seen in the past:

Before he killed or wounded 54 Americans at Fort Hood on November 5, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan had raised eyebrows with his Islamic proselytizing, which he carried on even when he was supposed to be conducting medical briefings. One such presentation has come to light: the June 2007 briefing which Hasan gave to other doctors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Hasan's PowerPoint slides say many of the same things found in jihadist literature and propaganda throughout the Middle East and among its apologists here in America.

Hasan's Islam is rooted in traditional understandings of the faith as taught by the authoritative schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. It also is the same Islam that is taught by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

In arguing that the Koran mandates defensive jihad against unbelievers, Hasan invokes the same Koranic verse that Osama bin Laden used as an epigraph on his "Letter to the American People" of October 2002: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged; and surely, Allah is able to give them victory."

Hasan also explains that Muslims are obligated to wage offensive jihad against unbelievers, with ominous taglines in his PowerPoint such as "we love death more than you love life." He quotes the Koranic verse calling for war against the "People of the Book" (that is, mainly Jews and Christians) until they "pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Islamic] superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (9:29). Hasan apparently told the assembled (and no doubt stunned) physicians that Muslims had a religious obligation to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under their rule.

Hasan's Islam coincides with that of the jihad terror group Hamas, which has announced its intention, once fully and firmly ensconced in power, to collect that Koran-mandated tax -- jizyah -- from the non-Muslims luckless enough to live within its domains. Most importantly of all, however, he makes the case that Muslims must not fight against other Muslims (as is mandated by Koran 4:92). Ominously, he recommends that because of this injunction, "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Adverse events, perhaps, like his own jihad at Fort Hood. For he warned in his PowerPoint that "Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not." And further, "if Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc."

It is this desire to correct the "injustices of the 'infidels' that has led the Muslim Brotherhood, the international Islamic organization (which operates under a variety of names in the United States), to engage in what it calls a "grand Jihad in 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 is made victorious over all other religions." Hasan couldn't disagree -- not with his talk of offensive jihad and quoting of Muhammad the Islamic prophet saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah..."

And Allah, Nidal Hasan reminded his audience in his PowerPoint, "expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with hell." The clear trajectory of his argument is that Muslims may lay hold of that promise of heaven by waging war against Infidels, but that hell awaited those Muslims who might be foolish and traitorous enough to side with the Infidels and fight alongside them against Muslims.

No one in government or law enforcement has ever made any attempt to determine how prevalent such understandings of Islam are among Muslims in the United States. Yet it is of cardinal importance for those sworn to protect us to begin making such an attempt now. As we saw at Fort Hood, the lives of innocent people depend on it.

Spying and willful blindness don't mix. This story would be comical if the stakes weren't so high: the analysts realize there has to be "some kind of guide," some "missing" link in the "radicalization" of Muslims, but what? This is because their work proceeds according to the politically correct dogma that there is nothing problematic about Islam's core texts and teachings. And until they take their blinders off and have a good look around, what follows below will have to pass for "analysis."

You may want to read this one sitting down. "Spy Agencies' Quest: What Makes A Terrorist?" by Kevin Whitelaw for NPR (go figure), November 18:

Investigators are still trying to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan's alleged deadly rampage at Fort Hood was a calculated act of radical Islamist ideology or the deranged act of an alienated loner.

But even as military and law enforcement officials continue their probe, the incident has sparked a renewed focus on how Islamic extremists and al-Qaida sympathizers become radicalized in the first place.

The U.S. government has focused significant intelligence resources on the question of radicalization in recent years, but they admit the dynamics are still not well understood.

"We haven't completely figured out why some people are susceptible to that and some aren't," says a senior U.S. intelligence official. "There are people who argue it's cultural or economic or political or psychological, but it depends."

The al-Qaida terrorist network has worked hard to build and maintain an active media arm, which pumps out propaganda videos, training materials and other exhortations across the Internet. Much of it is aimed at inspiring extremists across the globe to join the cause, but it remains unclear how effective the messages are.

'Some Kind Of Guide'

"Generally speaking, there needs to be an intermediary -- someone who helps you along the path to radicalization," says the senior intelligence official. "For the actual embrace of the global jihad, you can be launched on that path by your own research on the Internet, but in most cases, you do need some kind of a guide." [...]

"My ability to understand the people I'm dealing with today is far different and far more difficult," Philip Mudd, the assistant director for national security at the FBI and a veteran CIA analyst, said at a conference last month. "The revolution has meant the people we're facing are al-Qaida central, they're affiliates, they're like-mindeds, [and] they're a kid in a garage, each of whom poses a unique threat."

Beyond the core members of al-Qaida, the U.S. intelligence community is trying to track affiliated groups, including offshoots like al-Qaida in Iraq; sympathetic groups, such as al-Shabaab, a Somali extremist group; and all kinds of homegrown radicals....

Read it all.

An update on this story. "Florida Man Convicted in Chicago Sears Tower Terror Plot Gets 6 Years," from Fox News, November 18:

MIAMI -- A Miami man convicted of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices has been sentenced to six years in federal prison.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard imposed the sentence Wednesday on 24-year-old Burson Augustin. Four other men are scheduled to be sentenced over the next three days.

Prosecutors sought the maximum 30-year sentence for Augustin. Lenard ruled that sentencing terrorism enhancements should not apply to Augustin, who was not the leader.

The men were convicted in May of supporting Al Qaeda, conspiring to wage war on the U.S. and other charges.

There were two mistrials, and two other men were acquitted. All denied plotting terror attacks....

Sharia Alert. This woman was killed after giving birth, following Muhammad's example:

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. - Sahih Muslim 17.4206.

In this case, the child was stillborn, so they were able to skip right to killing the mother. "Somali woman stoned for adultery," from BBC News, November 18:

A 20-year-old woman divorcee accused of committing adultery in Somalia has been stoned to death by Islamists in front of a crowd of about 200 people.

A judge working for the militant group al-Shabab said she had had an affair with an unmarried 29-year-old man.

He said she gave birth to a still-born baby and was found guilty of adultery. Her boyfriend was given 100 lashes.

It is thought to be the second time a woman has been stoned to death for adultery by al-Shabab.

The group controls large swathes of southern Somalia where they have imposed a strict interpretation of Islamic law which has been unpopular with many Somalis.

'Lenient'

According to reports from a small village near the town of Wajid, 250 miles (400km) north-west of the capital, Mogadishu, the woman was taken to the public grounds where she was buried up to her waist.

She was then stoned to death in front of the crowds on Tuesday afternoon.

The judge, Sheikh Ibrahim Abdirahman, said her unmarried boyfriend was given 100 lashes at the same venue. [...]

Meanwhile, another woman waits:

Earlier this month, a man was stoned to death for adultery in the port town of Merka, south of Mogadishu.

His pregnant girlfriend was spared, until she gives birth....

Earlier this evening I spoke at NYU on a panel with Elan Journo. I had just started explaining the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism when a young man in the middle of the audience stood up and started yelling and refused to be quiet. When the security guards went over to start moving him out of the room, they left a side door by the stage unsecured -- and sure enough, the yelling guy turned out to be a diversion. Two other young men rushed in that side door and threw pies at Elan Journo and me. They hit Dr. Journo on the shoulder but missed me altogether, as I had jumped aside when I saw them coming.

Of course a pie in the face is a staple of American comedy going back to the Marx Brothers (by far my favorite Marxists), but this was no joke. In the first place, it is yet another manifestation of Leftist thuggery, antipathy to the freedom of speech, and alliance with the global jihad; it also shows yet again the degeneration of our nation's universities into propaganda mills in which those with opposing views are hounded out or intimidated into silence. (And then there is this.)

As we continued the event with pie splattered all over the curtain behind us, it was a vivid object lesson in how much free inquiry threatens the Left, and created a nice backdrop for our discussion of the Organization of the Islamic Conference's war on free speech, which is, of course, intended to enable the global jihad to advance without challenge.

Here is an eyewitness account of what happened from the audience's perspective (thanks to Pamela).

That's one way of putting it, with Hamas as intent as ever on destroying Israel, and Fatah's remaining committed to armed "resistance" despite its attempts at putting on a friendlier face to the Western public. Not to mention the rampant corruption and misappropriation of aid for weapons. No, we're "not there yet."

An update on this story. "Mideast: EU rejects calls for a Palestinian state," from AdnKronos International, November 17:

Brussels, 17 Nov. (AKI) - The European Union on Tuesday rejected calls by the Palestinian Authority to declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, whose country currently holds the presidency of the EU, said conditions in the Palestinian territories "were not there yet" for such a move.

Bildt was speaking before a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

He said in regard to the establishment of a Palestinian state that "...there has to be one first. We would be ready to recognise a Palestinian state, but conditions are not there as of yet."

Bildt's came after US state department spokesman Ian Kelly echoed similar concerns, saying "We support the creation of a Palestinian state that is contiguous...the best way to achieve that is negotiation between two parties."

So, the policy in the coming years is to force Israel to make more land concessions, even as disastrous as past ones have proven (see also: Gaza).

Earlier this week, Palestinian officials, led by chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, announced that they would seek recognition of a state from the United Nations Security Council, without a solution to the conflict with Israel.

The US - Israel's biggest ally - however, has veto power in the Security Council, and could in theory exercise it to prevent the unilateral declaration.....

Canada welcomes in immigrants and ends up becoming a center for jihad recruitment, eh? "Officials worried group in Canada went to join Islamic radicals in Somalia," by Stewart Bell for the National Post, November 16 (thanks to Kim):

TORONTO -- Counterterrorism officials are investigating a group of youths who allegedly left Canada for East Africa two weeks ago, amid concerns they may have gone to join the Somali militant group Al-Shabab.

Two sources familiar with the case said investigators had been canvassing Toronto's large Somali-Canadian community for information about as many as five men who departed Canada together in early November.

They are believed to have flown to Kenya, the sources said. Kenya borders the region of southern Somalia controlled by Al-Shabab, an Islamist militia aligned with al-Qaeda and sometimes likened to the Taliban.

The investigation comes as the Somali conflict has become a key focus of North American counterterrorism officials. Several Somali-American youths have left the Midwestern United States to join the Shabab, and the commissioner of the RCMP said in a speech last month he is concerned about a similar trend in Canada.

"Radicalization within the U.S. Somali community may be an indicator of similar processes at work in Canada," Commissioner William Elliott said in his Oct. 30 address to the Canadian Association of Security and Intelligence Studies in Ottawa.

"As you know, we have one of the largest Somali diaspora communities in the Western world. The potential follow-on threat, from a Canadian and RCMP perspective, is Somali-Canadians who travel to Somalia to fight and then return, imbued with both extremist ideology and the skills necessary to translate it into direct action."

Al-Shabab, which means "youth," is an armed extremist group that has emerged from the lawlessness and chaos of Somalia and aims to establish an Islamic state....

The Jihad Still Threatens America

Even as many Americans grow complacent, the enemy that struck us on 9/11 grows stronger. Eight years since that fateful Tuesday, the enemy--the Islamic totalitarian movement--stands undefeated and continues to threaten our lives and our freedom, from overseas and from within.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the resurgent Taliban and their Islamist allies are waging a fierce comeback. They are actively fomenting plots against America and the West. The Islamist regime in Iran--which began the anti-American holy war decades prior to 9/11--appears poised to acquire its own nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, within America and the West, there is an overlooked drive by pro-Islamist activist groups to impose Islamic law--without guns or bombs--in the West. Their incremental advances would subvert our freedom of speech and the very foundations of our political system.

What is the Islamic totalitarian movement? What are its goals and means? Why, despite America's military response to 9/11, does it remain a threat to us? What can be done to counter this menace--at home and overseas? These are some of the urgent questions that panelists Robert Spencer and Elan Journo will address.

Bio: Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, is author of nine books on Islam, including two bestsellers. He has led seminars for the U.S. Central Command, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.
Bio: Elan Journo Elan Journo is a fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute focusing on foreign policy. He is the editor of and chief contributor to Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, and the Globe and Mail of Canada.

Tuesday, November 17th at 7:00 PM
New York University Cantor Film Center
36 East Eighth Street; New York, NY 10003 (between Greene and Washington Square East)
(Map available at http://www.nyu.edu/v40extras/nyumap.pdf)

RSVP's: http://jihadonamerica.eventbrite.com/
More information: aynrand.nyu@gmail.com

Here is video of the rally for human rights and religious freedom in defense of Rifqa Bary, yesterday in Columbus, Ohio. Speakers included Simon Deng, the courageous ex-slave from the Sudan; the knowledgeable and indefatigable ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish; Jim Lafferty of the anti-Sharia coalition that fought against the Islamic Saudi Academy expansion in Virginia; Rifqa's dear friend Jamal Jivanjee; Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs; and me.

(Video thanks to Pamela.)

Late in October in Washington, DC, Pamela Geller invited Andrew Bostom and me to participate in a panel on the Rifqa Bary case and its implications. Watch and enjoy!

(Video thanks to Pamela.)

This story is distastefully wobbly about whether there were real "war crimes" and whether there was something substantive that could push Hasan over the edge, ignoring as always the obvious jihadist element to the massacre.

At issue here is the fact that, under Islamic law, the life of a Muslim is worth more than a non-Muslim in terms of the required diyya, or compensation by blood money, and a non-Muslim who kills a Muslim is to be put to death. And that raises a question that applies to perceived Muslim grievances around the world: Would Hasan care half as much if the casualties inflicted by American soldiers during combat operations were non-Muslims? Would the Muslim world be in such an uproar over Kashmir and "Palestine" if all of the disputing parties were non-Muslim? No. Inherent in these issues is a sense of superiority and divinely ordered entitlement.

"Officials: Major Hasan Sought 'War Crimes' Prosecution of U.S. Soldiers," by Joseph Rhee, Mary-Rose Abraham, Anna Schecter and Brian Ross for ABC News, November 16:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan's military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to "war crimes" during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials

On Nov. 4, the day after his last attempt to raise the issue, he took extra target practice at Stan's shooting range in nearby Florence, Texas and then closed a safe deposit box he had at a Bank of America branch in Killeen, according to the reports. A bank employee told investigators Hasan appeared nervous and said, "You'll never see me again."

Diane Wagner, Bank of America's senior vice president of media relations, said that her company does not "comment or discuss customer relationships" but is "cooperating fully with law enforcement officials."

Investigators believe Hasan's frustration over the failure of the Army to pursue what he regarded as criminal acts by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may have helped to trigger the shootings.

"The Army may not want to admit it, and you may not hear much about it, but it was very big for him," said one of the federal investigators on the task force collecting evidence of the crime.

His last effort to get the attention of military investigators came on Nov. 2, three days before his alleged shooting spree, according to the reports....

Read it all.

But not before "the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'." You know, like a good dhimmi. At least, in this case, the Home Office was overruled, and the plight of non-Muslims and apostates from Islam in Islamic societies gained a modicum of official recognition.

"Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity," from the Daily Mail, November 17 (thanks to Rob):

An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in Britain has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.

In a landmark case, the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, used human rights rules to overturn a previous Home Office decision to refuse him asylum.

Lawyers said there were fears that, as an apostate - one who rejects the Muslim religion - the man, originally from Mazar-i-Sharif, but now living in Hounslow, west London, would face persecution, or even death, on his return.

The former Kabul hotel worker had arrived in the UK as a Muslim, but converted to Christianity, was baptised and now regularly attends a west London church and bible class.

But his conversion had met with hostility from other Afghans and Muslims, who spat at him in the street when rumours spread, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal was told.

He was even threatened with death by two Afghans with whom he had shared a house in London and warned by others that he would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.

Although the Afghan Constitution allows non-Muslims to practise their faith, the small Christian community practises exclusively underground and it is forbidden for Afghans to abandon Islam.

To avoid detection if sent back to war-torn Afghanistan, he would have to find an underground network of other Christians to worship with and keep his beliefs from everyone else.

The man who arrived on a hijacked jet would spend his life 'looking over his shoulder' in case he was recognised and could expect no protection from the Afghan government, his lawyers told immigration judges.

Contesting the man's appeal, the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'.

But, giving the tribunal decision, Senior Immigration Judge Nichols said it was not reasonable to expect someone to live and worship in such circumstances.

Although the Afghan Constitution made no mention of what should happen to apostates, Sharia Law demanded the death penalty, he said [...]

'He faces a real risk of, at the very least, detention because of his religion and, at worst, trial before a Sharia Court and harsh punishment unless the appellant recanted his conversion.

The next step would be to recognize that this aspect of Sharia comes from Muhammad's own orders: "if anyone changes his religion, kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57) -- hence its persistence.

The symbolism of Abu Hamza's sermons going through the plumbing system is just too good. More on this story. "Hate preacher Abu Hamza secretly gives lectures on Islam... through the water pipes of his prison cell," by Rebecca Camber in the Daily Mail, November 17 (thanks to Kris):

Hate preacher Abu Hamza is delivering extremist sermons to prisoners through the water pipes of his cell, it has been claimed.

The Muslim cleric is defying a preaching ban imposed by prison bosses to radicalise inmates.

He is able to give his lectures through the plumbing that connects to neighbouring cells in Belmarsh Prison....

The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think-tank, has called for the 51-year-old to be removed from the mainstream prison population.

Its report on growing prison radicalisation says the authorities have tried to stop him giving sermons openly.

But a source told the thinktank that Egyptian-born Hamza has found a way to talk to his fellow inmates - through the pipes....

"Neighbours said a 62-year-old man arrested at his home on Willows Lane, Deane, Bolton, taught the Koran at a number of mosques across the region."

So much "misunderstanding" of Islam's purportedly peaceful and tolerant message: Funny how that keeps happening. "Raids on suspected terrorist recruitment network," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, November 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Raids in Manchester and Bolton coincided with the arrest of a 26-year-old man at a hotel near Heathrow airport.

Sources were unable to confirm suggestions that he was planning to travel to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

It is thought the men had been under surveillance for some time and Assistant Chief Constable Dave Thompson of Greater Manchester Police said: "This is a complex and ongoing investigation, which has now reached the point where it was necessary to make arrests and speak to a number of people."

Officers from the North West Counter Terrorism Unit began the operation at 4am raiding houses across Greater Manchester.

Neighbours said a 62-year-old man arrested at his home on Willows Lane, Deane, Bolton, taught the Koran at a number of mosques across the region.

"I'm surprised. He carries out spiritual sessions twice-a-week. He is very spiritual," said one source within the Muslim community.

The other suspects included a 52-year-old from Longsight in Manchester, a 21-year-old arrested in Fallowfield, Manchester and a 27-year-old held in Stalybridge, Cheshire...

The moral of the story: Don't accept invitations from Gaddafi. "Food Summit: Gaddafi asks women to convert to Islam," from AdnKronos International, November 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Rome, 16 Nov. (AKI) - Libya's controversial leader Muammar Gaddafi has created headlines in Italy after inviting 200 women to a party and inviting them to convert to Islam. Gaddafi who is in Rome for the United Nations-sponsored global food summit, held the party at the house of the Libyan ambassador, Hafed Gaddur, on Sunday.

"Convert to Islam. Jesus was sent to the Jews, not for you. Mohammed, on the other hand, was sent for all human beings," he reportedly said.

Never mind that bit about "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

"Whoever goes in a different direction than Mohammed is wrong. God's religion is Islam and whomever follows a different one, in the end, will lose," said Gaddafi quoted by Italian daily La Stampa.

After arriving an hour late, Gaddafi began distributing gifts to the women, who were reportedly all Italian.

They were also each given a copy of the Islamic holy book the Koran as well as the Libyan leader's Green Book, which outlines the Libyan leader's view on political philosophy and democracy.

He then sat next to Libya's ambassador to Italy Hafed Gaddur and an interpreter with two of his renowned female guards, known as 'Amazon Guards'.

Gaddafi then began a speech in which he invited the women to convert to Islam, emphasising his support for equal rights but not equal duties.

According to the Libyan leader, women must do only "what their physical condition allows them" and spoke about the role that women played during World War II.

"What their physical condition allows them": Sojourner Truth would beg to differ: "That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman?..."

And for that matter, then, what's the point of his female bodyguards?

Gaddafi criticised the West, saying that women there "have often been used as pieces of furniture, changed whenever it pleases men. And this is an injustice."

After all, the correct Qur'anic term is "tilth" (2:223).

Gaddafi also invited the women attending the party to travel to the Islamic holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.....

.... which requires converting to Islam.

Is anyone in D.C. listening, or are they too busy playing politics and putting the supposed symbolism of the trial over the array of obvious security concerns? Louis Pepe Update, and an update on this story. "Blinded Prison Guard: Don't House Terror Suspects in NYC," by Joseph Abrams for Fox News, November 16 (thanks to Sam):

The high-security prison in New York City where 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is expected to be sent to await his trial has a supermax wing to keep even the most notorious criminals quiet -- but it isn't perfect. Just ask Louis Pepe.

Ten months before Al Qaeda in 2001 struck a deathblow in the heart lower Manhattan, one of the terrorist group's founding members plunged a sharpened comb through Pepe's left eye and into his brain, blinding the 42-year-old prison guard and causing severe brain injuries that plague him to this day.

Pepe told FoxNews.com he worries that sending Mohammed and four of his alleged fellow 9/11 conspirators to New York could compromise the safety of the guards at the MCC prison. Keeping the prisoners in one location, he said, was especially dangerous.

"Could you imagine over there what they're gonna do, God forbid?" asked Pepe, now 52, who lost feeling in the right side of his body and most of his ability to speak. "After all these years, you'd think they should know."

On Nov. 1, 2000, Pepe was ambushed in the cell of Mamdouh Mahmud Salim -- an alleged top aide to Usama bin Laden. Salim's cellmate, another Al Qaeda suspect, joined in the attack, which prosecutors say was an attempt to steal Pepe's keys to the cell block to free other prisoners and take hostages.

The two had been granted permission by a federal judge to purchase hot sauce, says Pepe's sister, which they then stored in a honey jar and used to create a blinding mace. Teaming up against Pepe, they beat and blinded him, covering the floor in his spattered blood. They then tried to rape him as he waited an entire hour for fellow guards to come to his aid, his sister said.

"They wanted to discredit the badge and what he stood for," Eileen Trotta told FoxNews.com. "After they plunged him in the eye with that makeshift knife, they did the sign of the cross on his chest."

Trotta said it would be like "deja vu" to see more Al Qaeda detainees shipped into New York for trial, where their court hearings will be just blocks from Ground Zero

"There's no reason why everything has to be in New York, especially after 9/11 and what happened to Louis," she said. "It doesn't make sense -- why bring them into the hotbed of the city?"...

Politics.