Jihad Watch

But of course, the learned analysts all know that Shi'ites and Sunnis will never work together! "Reports Bolster Suspicion of Iranian Ties to Extremists," by Siobhan Gorman and Jay Solomon in the Wall Street Journal, July 27 (thanks to Moishe):

WASHINGTON--Cooperation among Iran, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups is more extensive than previously known to the public, according to details buried in the tens of thousands of military intelligence documents released by an independent group Sunday.

U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said some of the most explosive information contained in the WikiLeaks documents detail Iran's alleged ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the facilitating role Tehran may have played in providing arms from sources as varied as North Korea and Algeria.

The officials have for years received reports of Iran smuggling arms to the Taliban. The WikiLeaks documents, however, appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban's and al Qaeda's senior leadership. It also outlines Iran's alleged role in brokering arms deals between North Korea and Pakistan-based militants, particularly militant leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and al Qaeda.

WikiLeaks released a cache of intelligence documents Sunday that detail raw intelligence reports over a five-year period. The information is fragmentary, and its not known how many reports were corroborated by other sources. "Some parts are more believable than others, but this sort of raw stuff could be gold or a dud," said a senior U.S. official working on both Pakistan and Iran.

The apparent links are striking because Iran has historically been a foe of the Taliban, who generally view the followers of Shiite Islam--Iran's predominant faith--as heretics.

The Iranian mission to the United Nations condemned the allegations of ties to extremists. "Any allegation about any collaboration or relation between Taliban and al Qaeda is absolutely false and baseless," a spokesman said....

Several reports describe Iran as a hub of planning activity for attacks on the Afghan government. A May 2006 report describes an al Qaeda-Hekmatyar plot to equip suicide bombers and car bombs to attack Afghan government and international targets--using cars and equipment obtained in Iran and Pakistan.

By April 2007, the reports show what appears to be even closer collaboration. A report that month describes an effort two months earlier in which al Qaeda, "helped by Iran," bought 72 air-to-air missiles from Algeria and hid them in Zahedan, Iran, in order to later smuggle them into Afghanistan....

Some time ago, my SIOA colleague Pamela Geller and I applied for a trademark registration for the name Stop Islamization Of America. It was rejected: the trademark office stated that "Islamization" meant "Islamic," and that thus to say that Islamization must be stopped disparaged Muslims in general and linked them to terrorism. This is a common canard against my work, but coming from the Trademark Office we couldn't allow it to stand, so we engaged the great lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center to pursue the matter. Once again, these warriors for freedom unhesitatingly took the case pro bono, and have filed a brilliant response to the Trademark Office's claims.

Pamela has more details here, and you can read the entire document in this pdf. Here is a key section:

I am legal counsel to the applicant, Pamela Geller, regarding the trademark application referenced above. Please consider this letter and its exhibits as evidentiary support of my client's Response to Office Action Trademark Application Refusal filed via TEAS. Specifically, my client objects to USPTO's Office Action refusal to register ("Office Action") the trademark "Stop the Islamisation of America" ("SIOA") on the grounds that it violates 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), and specifically that the trademark "includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."1 Even more particularly, my client objects and responds to the Office Action refusal to register the trademark on the grounds that the trademark "consists of matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic religion."

I. INTRODUCTION.

The Office Action refusal to register my client's trademark predicates its ruling on two grounds: (1) that the meaning of the word 'Islamisation' combined with the word 'Stop' refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease; and (2) that my client's trademark, which identifies informational services (i.e., "providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism"), "implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats."

My client objects to these two grounds for the following reasons: (1) the Office Action improperly and too generally defines 'Islamisation' as referring to Muslims and Islam; (2) the Office Action fails to identify what specific group of Muslims would be disparaged by the trademark; (3) there is no showing that terrorism is not in fact associated with 'Islamisation'; and (4) refusal to grant the trademark is a violation of my client's right to Free Speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

II. THE OFFICE ACTION IMPROPERLY AND TOO GENERALLY DEFINES 'ISLAMISATION' AS REFERRING TO MUSLIMS AND ISLAM.

The Office Action premises its refusal to register based upon the following faulty polysyllogism:

Premise 1: 'Islamisation' refers to converting to Islam or becoming more Islamic.
Premise 2: 'Islam' and 'Islamic' refer to Muslims.
Premise 3: 'Stop' disparages that which it seeks to render inactive.
Proposition: 'Stop the Islamisation of America' ("SIOA") disparages Muslims.

The Office Action then applies the proposition of its syllogism to draw the conclusion that because (a) SIOA provides services relating to information of and about terrorism, then (b) SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism.

First, the Office Action's proposition that SIOA disparages Muslims, and its further conclusion that SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism, both flow from the first premise which is patently false. 'Islamisation' does not refer to an individual or even a society simply converting to the faith of Islam or even becoming more Islamic. The Office Action, in defining 'Islamisation' as merely the conversion to Islam or becoming more Islamic, has improperly relied upon an online dictionary called Dictionary.com (see Office Action Attachments 1-3). The problem with using this online dictionary definition is twofold: (1) the Dictionary.com definition does not properly characterize how Muslims themselves use the word 'Islamisation,' nor does it describe how professional and academics in the relevant disciplines use the word; and (2) The Office Action ignores the dominant and prevailing meaning of the term, which is actually provided by Dictionary.com as a second meaning. This alternative definition is closer to how Muslims use the word and how relevant professionals and academics apply the word in the literature of their respective disciplines. Thus, Dictionary.com recognizes that the word can mean "To cause to conform to Islamic law2 or precepts." (emphasis added.) (See Office Action Attachment 2.) But even this definition is woefully inadequate because 'Islamisation' does not just mean "to cause to conform to [Shariah]," but includes the entire politicalization of Shariah so that it controls all aspects of political, social, economic, and religious life.

Formally, the proper and widely understood definition of 'Islamisation' (alternatively spelled 'Islamization') is the political movement prevalent in a society or societal unit which seeks to embrace a political doctrine that calls for the application of Shariah (i.e., Islamic law) as the supreme law of the society. While Islamisation and the call to create a Shariah-adherent political order does include the call to convert non-Muslims, that is not what marks Islamisation as a political and social order, and it is not how Muslims themselves understand the word, nor is it how professionals and academics in the relevant disciplines use the word.

Rather, Islamisation is specifically the politicization of a Muslim's religious faith in that Shariah, in its classic and extant form, demands that a society's laws must all be predicated upon and subservient to Shariah and its legal jurisprudence called fiqh. Islamisation even in its "moderate" form demands that no secular law may contradict any Shariah dictate. The prototypical examples of this form of Islamisation are the constitutional or legal provisions in Muslim-dominated countries that include a "Shariah-supremacy" clause providing that no secular law passed by the political branches may contradict Shariah.

In short, the Islamisation of a society is the conversion to a theocratic political order organized and enforced by the dictates of Shariah. Per Shariah, there is no possibility of "separation of mosque and state." Shariah applies to all political, social, religious, and military institutions within a society that has undergone Islamisation.

[...]

For the foregoing reasons, we ask that you reverse the Office Action's refusal to register the trademark and to take any and all steps to register the trademark immediately.

Respectfully submitted,
David Yerushalmi, Esq.

Mind you, Hussam Fawzi Jabar is an Islamic cleric. He has devoted his life to studying the Qur'an and Sunnah. And he doesn't seem to have come across anything in that extensive study to make him reconsider his vile and genocidal anti-Semitism.

Yet the myth persists that Islamic anti-Semitism is an import from Christianity or Nazism or both, and that Islam in its pure form is tolerant and friendly to Jews. Journalist Lawrence Wright writes in this vein in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11:

Until the end of World War II ... Jews lived safely--although submissively--under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom; but in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda on Arabic-language shortwave radio, coupled with slanders by Christian missionaries in the region, infected the area with this ancient Western prejudice [anti-Semitism]. After the war, Cairo became a sanctuary for Nazis, who advised the military and the government. The rise of the Islamist movement coincided with the decline of fascism, but they overlapped in Egypt, and the germ passed into a new carrier.

This is a common view, but in reality there is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, which is rooted in the Qur'an. The Muslim holy book contains a great deal of material that forms the foundation for a hatred of Jews that has perdured throughout Islamic history. It is virulent and hard to eradicate. The Qur'an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims -- and there is no Islamic authority that has moved to mitigate the most destructive interpretations of all this. The Qur'anic material on the Jews remains the prism through which far too many Muslims see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--and Jews in general--to this day.

A vivid illustration of this came in 2004 from Islam Online, a website founded by, among others, the internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1997. Although al-Qaradawi has won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism, and human rights," that "reformist" impulse doesn't seem to carry over to his view of Jews (he has justified suicide bombings against Israeli civilians), or the view of them he has allowed to be published on Islam Online.

In 2004 the site posted an article titled "Jews as Depicted in the Qur'an," in which Sheikh 'Atiyyah Saqr, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at the most respected institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, depicts Jews in a chillingly negative light, illustrated with abundant quotations from the Qur'an. Among other charges he levels at the Jews, Saqr says that they "used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah"; they "love to listen to lies"; they disobey Allah and ignore his commands; they wish "evil for people" and try to "mislead them"; and they "feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity." He adds that "it is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents," for "they are merciless and heartless." And each charge he follows with Qur'anic citations (including, among others, 3:75; 5:64; 3:181; 5:41; 5:13; 2:109; 3:120; 2:61; 2:74; 2:100; 59:13-14; 2:96; and 2:79).

Though he offers many examples of the alleged evil traits of the Jews supported by the Qur'an, Saqr doesn't mention the notorious Qur'anic passages that depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63-66; 5:59-60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who "profaned the Sabbath": "Be as apes despicable!" It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve "as a warning example for their time and for all times to come." The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the "People of the Book" about "those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil." The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when "in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions," Allah said to them, "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. The classic Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir, whose commentary is widely distributed and respected among Muslims today, quotes earlier authorities saying that "those who violated the sanctity of the Sabbath were turned into monkeys, then they perished without offspring," and that they "only lived on the earth for three days, for no transformed person ever lives more than three days." While parts of the Qur'an are hostile to the Jews, Muhammad's curse, in this case, was limited to these Sabbath-breakers, not to all Jews.

However, that hasn't stopped contemporary jihadists from frequently referring to Jews as the "descendants of apes and swine." The implication is that today's Jews are bestial in character and are the enemies of Allah, just as the Sabbath-breakers were. The recently deceased grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who was the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims, called Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba'd bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: "The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places ... is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam--which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam." A 1996 Hamas publication says that today's Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. In January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, "The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth," referring to Qur'an 5:64.

All this shows that leading Muslim authorities approach the Qur'an not as a document rooted in history, but as a blueprint for understanding the world today. Likewise, Sheikh 'Atiyyah Saqr describes the Qur'anic teachings that because Jews "revolted against the Divine ordinances ... they found no warm reception in all countries where they tried to reside. Rather, they would either be driven out or live in isolation." Moreover, "Almighty Allah told us that He'd send to them people who'd pour on them rain of severe punishment that would last till the Day of Resurrection." Then comes a threat: "All this gives us glad tidings of the coming victory of Muslims over them once Muslims stick to strong faith and belief in Allah and adopt the modern means of technology."

The classic Qur'anic commentators not do not mitigate the Qur'an's words against Jews, but only add fuel to the fire. Ibn Kathir explained Qur'an 2:61 ("They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah") this way: "This Ayah [verse] indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and that this will continue, meaning that it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly." Another Middle Ages commentator of lingering influence, 'Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi, explains the same verse this way: "The Jews are mostly humiliated and wretched either of their own accord, or out of coercion of the fear of having their jizya [punitive tax] doubled."

Ibn Kathir notes Islamic traditions that predict that at the end of the world, "the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah), and the Muslims, along with 'Isa [Jesus], son of Mary, will kill the Jews." The idea in Islam that the end times will be marked by Muslims killing Jews comes from the prophet Muhammad himself, who said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" This is, not unexpectedly, a favorite motif among contemporary jihadists. On March 30, 2007, a spokesman for Hamas, Dr. Ismail Radwan, said on Palestinian Authority television:

The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: "Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!"

We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle. It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle, since this occupation knows no language but the language of force.... O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere.... Allah take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!

The history of Jews who lived under Muslim rule is a more or less unbroken record of theologically sanctioned humiliation and wretchedness. Like the Christians, Jews were allowed to practice their religion within restrictions, but they were seldom allowed to forget their humiliation. Although the strictness with which the laws of dhimmitude (the subservient status of Jews and Christians) were enforced varied, they were never abolished, and during times of relaxation the subject populations always lived in fear that they would be enforced with new stringency. Muslim rulers did not forget that the Qur'an mandates that both Jews and Christians must "feel themselves subdued." One notable instance is recounted by the Arab historian Phillip Hitti: "The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color, i.e. yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their slaves, ... and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle." A millennium later, in 1888, little had changed. A Tunisian Jew noted:

The Jew is prohibited in this country to wear the same clothes as a Muslim and may not wear a red tarbush. He can be seen to bow down with his whole body to a Muslim child and permit him the traditional privilege of striking him in the face, a gesture that can prove to be of the gravest consequence. Indeed, the present writer has received such blows. In such matters the offenders act with complete impunity, for this has been the custom from time immemorial.

In 1291 Isaac ben Samuel, a noted Kabbalist and Palestinian Jew, sought refuge in a Christian-controlled area of Spain after the collapse of the last Crusader kingdom in the Levant. He explained, "For, in the eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an unprotected field. Even in their law and statutes they rule that the testimony of a Muslim is always to be believed against that of a Jew. For this reason our rabbis of blessed memory have said, 'Rather beneath the yoke of Edom [Christendom] than that of Ishmael [Islam]. They [the rabbis] plead for mercy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, saying, 'Master of the World, either let us live beneath Thy shadow or else beneath that of the children of Edom' (Talmud, Gittin 17a)."

Ben Samuel's choice of Christian Spain is paradoxical, as Muslim Spain was supposed to have been a famous exception to the oppression of Jews that prevailed elsewhere among both Muslims and Christians. Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong enunciates the common wisdom when she says that "until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and productively together in Muslim Spain--a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe." Even the U.S. State Department has proclaimed that "during the Islamic period in Spain, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and mutual respect, creating a diverse society in which vibrant exchanges of ideas took place."

Yet the philosopher Maimonides, a Jew who lived for a time in Muslim Spain and then fled that supposedly tolerant and pluralistic land, remarked, "You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us....No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have....We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear."

Notably, Maimonides directed that Jews could teach rabbinic law to Christians, but not to Muslims. For Muslims, he said, will interpret what they are taught "according to their erroneous principles and they will oppress us. [F]or this reason ... they hate all [non-Muslims] who live among them." But the Christians, he said, "admit that the text of the Torah, such as we have it, is intact"--as opposed to the Islamic view that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures. Christians, continued Maimonides, "do not find in their religious law any contradiction with ours."

Even María Rosa Menocal, in her romantic and fantastic hagiography of Muslim Spain, The Ornament of the World, acknowledges the second-class status to which Jews and Christians were relegated there. "In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax--no Muslims paid taxes--and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals."

According to historian Richard Fletcher, "Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch." On December 30, 1066, about four thousand Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs--more than would be killed in the Crusaders' infamous Rhineland pogroms of the mid-twelfth century. What enraged the Granadan Muslims was the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph: the mob resented the fact that these men had authority over Muslims, which they saw as a "breach of sharia." The mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: "I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. ... So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God's favor, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram."

The mob heeded his call. A Muslim chronicler (and later sultan of Granada), 'Abd Allah, said that "both the common people and the nobles were disgusted by the cunning of the Jews, the notorious changes they had brought in the order of things, and the positions they occupied in violation of their pact [of second-class status]." He recounted that the mob "put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of their property."

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82.

"Egyptian Cleric Hussam Fawzi Jabar: Hitler Was Right to Do What He Did to the Jews," from MEMRITV, July 11 (thanks to Inexion):

Following are excerpts from a religious program hosted by Egyptian cleric Hussam Fawzi Jabar, which aired on Al-Nas TV on July 11, 2010:

Hussam Fawzi Jabar: This is the nature of the Jews. By nature, they abhor keeping their commitments. By nature, they hate peace. By nature, they love treachery, betrayal, deception, killing, and blood. This is their nature.

[...]

It is very sad to see some of our own people, who speak our own tongue, try to convince their peoples that the Jews are peace-loving, that a solution to the satisfaction of both parties can be reached with them. I say that whoever says this and tries to convince others should either deny what is said in the Koran and the Sunna, and accept what the Jews say as truth, or else deny what the Jews say and accept what is said in the Koran and the Sunna. There is no third alternative....

[...]

One of the most amazing things I have read is that Hitler said: "I could have annihilated all the Jews of the world, but I left some of them, so that you would understand why I did this to them." Hitler was right to say what he said and to do what he did to the Jews....

[...]

In Communist and atheist Russia, they would put the Muslims into meat grinders, and they would come out from the other side as minced meat or cold cuts. All this because [the Russians] believe in a religion other than Islam.

Yes, that all happened, and that was why. Of course.

The Ahmadis are considered heretics, and thus are fair game for this kind of persecution by mainstream Muslims. "Hundreds attack mosque," from AFP, July 29 (thanks to Twostellas):

JAKARTA - INDONESIAN police clashed with about 200 people on Thursday as the mob tried to attack a mosque in West Java belonging to a minority Islamic sect.

The crowd hurled stones at an Ahmadiyah mosque in Manislor village in Kuningan district, leading to an hour-long conflict with police, said local general secretary of the Ahmadiyah sect, Nurahim.

'About 200 people pelted stones at our mosque and clashed with the police for about an hour. It's not clear yet who was the organiser of the mob,' Mr Nurahim, who goes by one name, told AFP....

'We had a similar experience before in 2007, in which our mosque and houses were attacked. A house was burned and several were damaged at the time,' Mr Nurahim said.

Despite all the evidence establishing that elements within the Pakistani government have aided Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the U.S. is going to continue giving money to Pakistan and pretending that they're fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. After all, the money will never run out, right? "US backs Pak's effort on war against terror," from the Press Trust Of India, July 29 (thanks to Slothy):

Washington: Notwithstanding the concerns, [sic] the US has about the continued links that some elements of ISI has with terrorist outfits like the al-Qaeda and Taliban, the Obama Administration has said that Islamabad in the last one year has made strategic shift in the war against terrorism.

"Pakistan has, in our view, made a strategic shift in the last year or more. It has taken aggressive action at considerable expense to Pakistan," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley, told reporters at his daily news conference.

"The Pakistani people are suffering as much if not more than any other people in the world from terrorism. But there is clearly more to be done," he said.

"Our joint concern here is to eliminate the safe havens that exist in the region and to prevent the emergence of new safe havens from which there can be the export of terrorism that can threaten US, Europe, or other parts of the world," Crowley said.

When asked about the comment made by British Prime Minister David Cameroon [sic], that his country would not tolerate export of terrorism by Pakistan, the State Department spokesman said US does not want to see the export of terror by any country.

"We are concerned about and have said many times that extremist element within the borders of Pakistan, in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, first and foremost, it represents a threat to Pakistan, it represents a threat to Afghanistan," Crowley said.

"As we have seen, extremists with links to these areas have made their way to Europe, have made their way to the United States. This is an important component of our relationship and our strategic dialogue with Pakistan, and we are both satisfied with the aggressive steps that Pakistan has taken in recent months at considerable expense to Pakistan," he said.

"As we've made clear, we want to see Pakistan stay on the offensive in combating these extremist elements. I know Pakistani officials in recent days have publicly stated their commitment to continue to do that," Crowley said....

The prime minister who has overreached in his fanciful definition of the "real Islam," and fallen in line with jihadist propaganda by calling Gaza a "prison camp," continues his losing streak in comments on Islamic jihad and foreign policy.

Evidence of Pakistan's double game far predates the WikiLeaks affair, which makes Cameron's response dismally understated in light of the severity of Pakistan's long-standing pattern of conduct.

And even what Cameron does say is verbally bubble-wrapped with the usual assurances that "our interests are your [Pakistan's] interests," and of course, his prior insistence that this has nothing to do with Islam. "Cameron: We won't tolerate 'export of terror' by Pakistan," from CNN, July 28:

New Delhi, India (CNN) -- Britain's prime minister delivered a sober message Wednesday to Pakistan: Don't export terror.

"We want to see a strong and a stable and a democratic Pakistan," David Cameron said in Bangalore, India, "but we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able in any way to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world."

Cameron made several remarks in a speech and a question and answer session. A transcript of his comments were posted on the prime minister's website.

"The relationship is important, but it should be a relationship based on a very clear message that it is not right ... to have any relationship with groups that are promoting terror. Democratic states that want to be part of the developed world cannot do that, and the message to Pakistan from the U.S. and from the U.K. is very clear on that point," he said.

His remarks come as the military documents divulged by WikiLeaks include indications that Pakistan's spy service, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or the ISI, may have been helping militants in Afghanistan, an assertion strongly disputed by Pakistani officials.

The United States has been working to help bolster the Pakistani government's efforts to battle Taliban and al Qaeda elements in the country. The NATO-led command has been focused on insurgents operating along the Afghan and Pakistani border, and India has long been concerned about militancy in India that comes from Pakistan.

He said that when it comes to protecting their mutual citizenry, developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan can't be "overlooked."

"Let me state clearly: your relations with those two countries are a matter for you and you alone. But let me also say we, like you, want a Pakistan that is stable, democratic and free from terror. We, like you, want an Afghanistan that is secure, free from interference from its neighbors and not a threat to our security. We, like you, are determined that groups like the Taliban, the Haqqani network or Lashkar-e-Tayyiba should not be allowed to launch attacks on Indian and British citizens in India or in Britain. Neither should they be able to do so against our people, whether soldiers or civilians, from both our countries who are working for peace in Afghanistan. Our interests are your interests, so let us work together to realize them."

When asked about Cameron's remarks, a spokesman for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Britain and Pakistan "have a robust and comprehensive partnership, including on counter-terrorism."

"Terrorists have no religion, no humanity, no specific ethnicity or geography. Terrorists' networks, as the U.K. knows full well mutate and operate in different regions and cities. The genesis of terrorism as a global phenomenon warrants close attention. Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism as are Afghanistan, India or other countries," the statement said.

"Pakistan has done much more than any other country in combating terrorism. Our people and security forces have rendered innumerable sacrifices. We hope that our friends will be able to persuade India to view this issue objectively and the value of 'cooperation' in counter-terrorism."...

"Pakistan has done much more than any other country in combating terrorism." Given the behavior of the ISI, that's a little like lauding an arsonist for trying to put out his own fires.

Shock horror! The FBI spends more time on surveillance of Muslims than on surveillance of Amish! It's racism! It's "Islamophobia"! Tim McVeigh! Profiling!

If only the facts weren't so inconvenient, and Islamic jihadists weren't still so active around the world. Not that the facts matter to these "civil liberties groups."

"FBI defends surveillance guidelines allegedly targeting Muslims," by Pete Yost for AP, July 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON: Under fire from US civil liberties groups, the FBI is defending domestic surveillance guidelines that critics fear could unfairly target innocent Muslims in terrorism and other criminal investigations.

"It's quite an invasive data collection system," said Farhana Khera, executive director of the nonprofit group Muslim Advocates. "It's based on generalized suspicion and fear on the part of law enforcement, not on individualized evidence of criminal activity."

Khera spoke in an interview on the eve of a Capitol Hill appearance by FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was scheduled to testify Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a statement, the bureau said its procedures are designed to ensure that FBI probes don't zero in on anyone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or the exercise of any other constitutional right....

Khera said the FBI has lowered the bar for sending undercover agents or informants into mosques and has enabled the gathering of data about Muslims' charitable giving practices, financial transactions and jobs....

Yet another claim of victim status that turned out to be just the opposite. The fake hate crimes are, of course, a tactic for which the motivation is clear, and this incident is closely akin to those. "Claim of 'Islamic veil bus ban' thrown out," by Ross Lydall in the Evening Standard, July 28 (thanks to Block Ness):

A bus driver accused by two students of banning them because of their Islamic dress has been cleared after CCTV showed he had actually barred them for their abusive behaviour.

An investigation by Metroline - which operates the No7 bus - found the driver, who could have faced the sack over the allegation, was justified in not allowing the women on his vehicle.

The 22-year-olds, Yasmin and Atoofa, from Slough, told the BBC that they had been refused access to the bus at Russell Square because of their dress. Yasmin was wearing a hijab and her face was uncovered while Atoofa was wearing a niqab, which covers the face.

But the Standard has learned that the students, who asked for their full names not to be revealed, were denied entry "due to abusive behaviour towards bus driver and other passengers".

On-board CCTV of the incident, on Monday last week, showed the women banging on the front doors and attempting to board the bus when it had come to the end of its run. They then get on through the rear doors and begin arguing with the driver. They get off and wait for the bus to start its journey back to Paddington - but another exchange follows, and the driver refuses to set off unless they disembark.

Metroline said: "We have now reviewed the CCTV and interviewed the bus driver. The circumstances of this incident are not as represented by the bus passengers."

What a shock!

But freedom-lovers once again showed up in force and made their voices heard. Above is video of remarks by my SIOA colleague Pamela Geller and by me. (Video courtesy the magnificent Pamela Hall.)

The SIOA high command (Photo by longtime Jihad Watch commenter Awake -- it was great to meet you!)

Sharif El-Gamal (R), owner of the property, and his lawyer Shelly Friedman (L)

Mark Jacobson of New York Magazine, who interviewed me for two hours Tuesday about the Ground Zero mega-mosque

Hindu activists

Free people were and are against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque

Pamela Geller has many photos and more info over at Atlas Shrugs.

Activist Barbara Paolucci kindly sent me this summary report of the night's proceedings:

First, Bill thanks for attending, 555 you too - nice to finally meet you, Bay People, what a group you are, I know you will win your battle too - so nice to see you again. Ilya from www.citizensmagazine was there and I'm sure will do a fantastic job of reporting on the event as usual - very nice to meet you too. So proud to see Staten Island and Brooklyn so well represented.

The press was present, but not to the degree expected. As many of us as possible gave interviews - they make me nervous but it has to be done. Pamela Geller is on Hannity tonight along with Andrew McCarthy, repeats at midnight - try to tape it, it's a good discussion on ground zero and the jihad threat against all Americans. [It was last night; you can watch it here.]

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were at the top of their game, as usual. They are so good at speaking for a limited amount of time and getting everything they want to say said.

I tried to yield some of my time to them when I spoke so they could explain to everyone the differences in Imam Rauf's book as published for Americans and the version that's far more sinister and published under the same title for Muslims in Arabic. The Chairwoman wasn't going to let me have the full 2 minutes I should have had to speak. I did submit the 5 page statement outlining all of the reasons to landmark and stating that all testimony about building the mosque must be disregarded as irrelevant - and I submitted the copy of the request for a 9/11 historic district to be created that would include the Burlington Building. While it was accepted, they vote tonight, I doubt it will make a bit of difference.

John Press, the leader of the Brooklyn Tea Party spoke and did a fantastic job too.

Brett Joshpe, an attorney who along with Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice are representing a 9/11 fireman, (and a group of others) in the fight to stop the mosque at ground zero. He had the crowd cheering too. Check out his website www.brettjoshpe.com and the ACLJ - http://www.aclj.org - both are extremely good.

So many people were there on our side. It was more than obvious though that the Community Board was not on our side - in fact I was told by 2 women on the Board that they want the mosque. So much for objectivity and doing what they know the community wants, what the majority of New Yorkers want and what the majority of Americans across the country wants - they've heard from people from all over America who are against this mosque.

While the focus should have been the building, it was the damn mosque.

Gamal, the owner, was there and after introducing himself he said he was there as a resource. No one was interested in him - he saw the anger New Yorkers voiced and couldn't care less. I couldn't help staring him down and didn't let up until he bowed his head.

Maybe 3 people spoke in favor of the mosque - all of them were shouted down until they left the microphone.

Every speaker on our side did well.

I have to tell you what I was told. It's more than likely that the Landmark Committee will vote against landmark status for the building. The next step in the process after the vote is to submit the Committee's recommendations to the Landmarks Preservation Commission - which usually does what the Committee recommends.

Those who know far more than I do told me that it's believed that Obama let Bloomberg know he wants the mosque and Bloomberg, being the fame and power hungry person that he is (remember he wanted the vice presidential spot on Obama's ticket & didn't get it) is doing what Obama wants. Also explains why Schumer, Gillibrand and Mahoney aren't saying a word. So the expectation is that we will lose this battle at this level - but - The ACLJ is ready to take them to court over this, and they believe they should win. Give these guys as much support as possible.

After they cut off speakers and turned to their normal business we started to leave. We went back into the room when we heard they were discussing the original landmark vote that took place. Believe it or not, members of the board were questioning the panel (the Board's leadership) as to how they arrived at the vote against landmark status. They were going over the points in the resolution and insisting on answers. A good sign, but....

We had to leave, we'll know in the morning how this turned out. While I was encouraged by the questioning, I could tell by the look on this panel's faces when we spoke and how they cut off our side that this panel would need a gun held to their heads in order to vote for preservation.

I hope I'm wrong.

Tomorrow I'll contact some of the people I've listed above and see how we can help each other. Meantime, pass this along to everyone possible. And remember,

We still need to pray.

In the West, Islamic spokesmen always insist that Islam supports the freedom of conscience, and the freedom to change one's religion. These people must be reading that notorious Misunderstood Qur'an. Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: "Missionary trio leave Aceh after anger at baptisms," by Toni O'Loughlin in the Sydney Morning Herald, July 24 (thanks to Stewart):

JAKARTA: A US family accused of converting Muslims by giving them Christian baptisms has been forced to leave the Islamic Indonesian territory of Aceh.

Three Indonesians have also been arrested for assisting and the three alleged converts have been sent to a pesantran, an Islamic school, for re-education.

Robin Kay Jordan, his wife, Kelly Green Jordan, and their daughter, Claire, arrived in Indonesia on July 14, sponsored by the Baptist Church, to work for 10 months in West Aceh where Islamic law is strictly enforced.

But after locals pelted their residence with stones, immigration officials became alarmed and told the Jordans to leave.

''I suggested to them that they go somewhere else if they still wanted to do their job, as long as it's not in Aceh,'' said Iyung Gunawan, the head of immigration for West Aceh.

''This is an area known for its fanatics. West Aceh regency has a reputation as the most fanatical. Even men can't wear shorts in public and swimming areas on the beach are separate,'' he said.

The Jordan family could not be contacted but immigration officials said they had been helped by Yanis Lengaong, an immigration agent who regularly assists the Association of Indonesian Baptist Churches in bringing missionaries to Indonesia. Sharia - Islamic law - has governed Aceh for the past eight years. Adultery and gambling are punishable by public caning. This year women were banned from wearing tight clothing such as jeans.

The spokesman for the West Aceh municipality, Mulya Agus, said locals began questioning the Jordans' activities after three people in the nearby area of Samatiga converted to Christianity. Sharia authorities conducted an investigation and confirmed the baptisms had taken place, Mr Agus said.

''We even have a tape showing them being baptised ... They claimed they were baptised under the influence of hypnosis,'' he said....

The Qur'an has been around for 1,400 years, and so has jihad violence, but now the Indonesian government has discovered the key: it's all because of a faulty translation, doncha know! And now I am very happy to announce that I too have come into the possession of the Secret Decoder Ring hitherto solely in the possession of Muslim moderates, and have used it to produce a brand new Qur'an of my own, now with 70% less "potential to breed radicalism"!

Here are some sample verses of my marvelous new Qur'an (Reduced Radicalism Edition):

Qur'an 98:6:

OLD: The unbelievers "are the most vile of created beings"
NEW: The unbelievers "are the most cuddly of created beings"

Qur'an 9:5:

OLD: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush..."
NEW: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, hug the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (to dinner), and be sweet to them, and prepare for them a bubble bath..."

Qur'an 9:29:

OLD: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
NEW: "Establish interfaith dialogue with those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they accept the principles of multiculturalism with willing open-mindedness, and feel themselves tolerant."

"New translation of the Koran to reduce radicalism: Govt," from The Jakarta Post, July 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

The Religious Affairs Ministry has released a new translation of the Koran in an effort to reduce Islamic radicalism. However, the ministry refused to consider the new translation as state product.

"It is a joint product, between the state and the Indonesian people," director general of guidance to Islam community Nasaruddin Umar said Wednesday during a national forum on radicalism and terrorism in Jakarta, as quoted by tempointeraktif.com.

Nasaruddin said the newest translation of the Koran aimed to better communicate the Islamic teachings to Indonesian Muslims.

"The [previous] Koran translation has the potential to breed radicalism. That is because the Indonesian vocabulary is very limited," he said.

Nasaruddin took "love" in Arabic as an example.

"In Indonesian, there is only one word for 'love'. Yet, the Koran has 14 different words for varying degrees of love," he added....

Fourteen degrees of love!

I loved her to the twelfth degree
Or maybe the thirteenth,
But she loved me just to degree three
and knocked out my front teeth...

Anyway, yes, the Qur'an is so famously a book of love. It is full of knights and damsels and high romance and Song of Songs-like mysticism. And just as Swedish is alleged to have over a hundred words for snow, so the Qur'an is so deeply concerned with the nuances and finer gradations of love that it has fourteen different words for it. That's why we see those who are most steeped in its teachings, and most dedicated to carrying them out, so indefatigably generous and loving.

Of course, I'm referring to the Reduced Radicalism Version.

This Bloomberg News article says matter-of-factly that there has been "a rise this year in the number of hate crimes against Muslims," and that's why these extra police patrols are needed at New York City mosques during Ramadan.

And certainly if there is any actual threat against these mosques, they warrant the extra police protection, quite aside from questions of whether or not Islamic supremacism and hatred are being taught inside them. This is a nation of laws, not vigilantes, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty still holds and must hold.

At the same time, the police should investigate the question of whether or not the hate crimes that have made it appear that this extra police protection was necessary were faked. This is a legitimate and reasonable question given the fact that the thuggish Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually trumpeted fake anti-Muslim hate crimes in the past, in order to use them to score political points. They did this again just weeks ago in Georgia.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, has claimed that "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have risen sharply in the U.S. since 9/11. In fact, the rate of such crimes has actually dropped. CAIR knows well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims in the U.S., they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism.

That's most likely why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating "hate crimes." They want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

So it must be asked: on the basis of what evidence was the decision made to increase police protection of New York mosques during Ramadan? How was that evidence evaluated? What consideration was made for the recurring phenomenon of Muslims faking anti-Muslim hate crimes?

If there were any real reporters in New York, they would be asking Bloomberg questions like those.

"New York City mosques get extra protection during Ramadan," from Bloomberg News, July 28:

The New York Police Department will increase foot patrols at mosques during Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting that begins in August, amid a rise this year in the number of hate crimes against Muslims.

"I know this is the most sacred time of the year for the Muslim faith," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Tuesday at a news conference attended by about 400 people, including leaders of the Muslim community. "Our goal at the department is that you are able to experience it in safety and in peace."

New York City has more than 100 mosques, compared with 10 in 1970, said Philip Banks III, chief of the department's Community Affairs Bureau. Ramadan starts Aug. 11 and ends Sept. 9.

Translated as "holy warrior" in this AP piece. "Al-Qaida No. 2 slams France's push to ban veils," by Maggie Michael for Associated Press, July 28 (thanks to Maxwell):

CAIRO - Al-Qaida's No. 2 has slammed France's push to ban the Islamic full-face veil and urged Muslim women to be "holy warriors" in the defense of their headdress against the "secular Western crusade" in a new audio message released Wednesday on militant websites.

In the 47-minute recording, Ayman al-Zawahri said the drive by France and other European nations to ban the veil amounted to discrimination against Muslim women.

"Every single woman who defends her veil is a holy warrior ... in the face of the secular Western crusade," he said.

"France, with all its power and clout, can't touch the head-cover of a nun, but it can assault any face-veiled woman."

Al-Zawahri also urged Muslims in Europe to support their women in resisting the Western ban on the veil.

"We must call upon our girls, our sisters and our mothers to put on the veil. We must support them and defend them."

France, Belgium and Spain are debating legislation that would ban the veil. Other nations in Europe too have struggled to balance national identities with growing Muslim populations with cultural practices that clash with their own. [...]

And about Iraq he said:

"The Americans are leaving and the Mujahedden ... are the ones staying," he said....

And regarding the jihad attacks in the U.S. recently, he said:

"Leave our land and enjoy security in your countries," al-Zawahri said....

However, it is more likely that if Americans did leave Islamic lands, al-Zawahiri and others would find a new pretext and continue the jihad.

And he called for jihad in Yemen:

Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh, he said, was "ready to do anything to appease America."

"Are you waiting for American soldiers to tour the streets of San'a in their tanks before you wage holy war against them?" He asked....

I had the great pleasure of meeting Rene Stadtkewitz when I spoke for Pax Europa in Berlin last year. He is a measured, intelligent, well-spoken politician who is deeply aware of the nature of Sharia and the threat of the global jihad. But when he has tried to raise awareness of those things among his fellow citizens by bringing in Wilders to speak, he has been targeted by the slaves who are choosing slavery. "Berlin Politician in Trouble for Inviting Dutch Populist Wilders," from Spiegel, July 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

CDU politician Rene Stadtkewitz is in trouble with his party for a provocative invitation.

A local Berlin politician from Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives is under fire for inviting Dutch populist Geert Wilders to a meeting on Islam on October 2. Rene Stadtkewitz, who is known for his anti-Islamic views, has refused to cancel the invitation, and now faces eviction from his party's parliamentary group in the city assembly.

A local Berlin politician is in trouble for inviting Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders, who is known for his provocative positions on Islam and immigration, to a political event in Berlin.

Rene Stadtkewitz, 45, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), looks set to be excluded from the CDU's parliamentary group in the Berlin city assembly after inviting Wilders to Berlin on October 2 to discuss integration and Islam. He had also discussed founding a branch of Wilders' Freedom Party in Germany.

Frank Henkel, the CDU's regional parliamentary group leader, gave Stadtkewitz an ultimatum: Withdraw the invitation by July 26 or face the consequences.

Stadtkewitz refused in an open letter in which he also suggested that the CDU should be doing more to combat Islam politically. Up until now, public debate about the Islamic faith had been "too timid" in Germany, Stadtkewitz wrote. He added that the debate should focus on the defense of freedom and of Christian values, including concerns about "countless young women, who are forced into arranged marriages, enslaved and who sometimes become victims of so-called honor killings."

'No Place in Our Party'

Henkel responded Monday by saying that he would propose a motion to exclude Stadtkewitz from the parliamentary group because he had distanced himself from "the goals of the conservatives."...

What are those goals? Islamization? Sharia? Dhimmitude?

This is worth the price of admission right away: "David Cameron was in Turkey yesterday endorsing Turkish membership of the EU, as blogger Laban Tall says, 'doubtless driven by that grass-roots Tory pressure for a few million Turks to come to the UK.'"

But all of it is worth reading. Cameron has just joined the very long line of Western politicians who assume that Islam and the Qur'an are fundamentally peaceful, ignoring the huge chasm of cognitive dissonance that opens up between their statements to that effect and the repeated, consistent, and theologically detailed statements of the mujahedin explaining and justifying their actions in Islamic terms, with copious Qur'an references.

So on the one hand we have pious Muslims, including many Islamic clerics, insisting and explaining that Islam mandates warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers; on the other hand, we have non-Muslim politicians who have probably never opened a Qur'an, and maybe even never seen one up close, insisting without explanation that Islam mandates peaceful coexistence with unbelievers and mutual respect. Behind them are a small number of high profile Muslim spokesmen, ranging from smooth deceivers with Brotherhood ties who talk peace out of one side of their mouths and jihad out of the other, and some sincere reformers with eccentric theologies and minuscule followings among Muslims.

And in the middle we have a large number of Muslims who are not actively aiding the jihad but aren't doing anything to stop it. Which side will they come down on if it comes down to a choice they have to make? I don't think that is in doubt, given how much group loyalty is inculcated into this particular group. But no one in authority seems to care about the implications of that, either.

"Who is David Cameron to say what the 'real Islam' is?" -- Ed West asks that splendid and apposite question in the Telegraph, July 28:

David Cameron was in Turkey yesterday endorsing Turkish membership of the EU, as blogger Laban Tall says, "doubtless driven by that grass-roots Tory pressure for a few million Turks to come to the UK".

Personally I'm quite happy for Turkey to have our EU place, if they really want it; or to be a fellow member of a new free trade area along EFTA lines, with restrictions on free movement until some point when its median income reach western European levels.

But until that happens membership of the EU is a non-starter, and everyone knows it.

And as well as being disingenuous about the EU, Cameron is also playing the disingenuous theologian. Rod Liddle points out that he criticises opponents of a Muslim country joining the EU by claiming:

"They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures."

Cameron is falling into exactly the same trap as his predecessors, by trying to play the theologian. Tony Blair called the Koran a "progressive" book, while Jacqui Smith called Islamic terrorism "anti-Islamic" activities, while the phrase "religion of peace" has been used so much by well-meaning politicians that it is now used, exclusively, in an ironic sense by cynics.

Who on earth is Cameron to say what is the real Islam? If a fresh-faced politician from the Islamic world told us that the fundamentalist Christians who funded settlements in the West Bank because they believed in some crazy end times were not "real Christians", I'd be flattered that he recognised differences within a large and wide ranging religion, but I'd also think "Who are you to say?"

When politicians start claiming to have theological insight into Islam, it usually signals a ham-fisted, expensive and counter-productive attempt to deal with radical Islam. I pray not in this case. As Douglas Murray said last month, on the Government's disastrous "Prevent" agenda: "Government can't do many things very well... but the thing it definitely can't do very well is theology, in particular a theology it knows very little about, or is only starting to learn about."

The real problem, as no western politician will admit, is that Islam has no experience of secularism. I don't mean secularism in the secondary sense used by the National Secular Society, which aims to drive religion out of all public life as it was in the Soviet Union - that's Bolshevism, not secularism - but of a separation of church and state....

That headline should have read this way: "UK: Prison governor tells Muslim inmates complaining about non-halal meat that they should have respected British laws and thus not ended up in prison in the first place, but now that they're there they should expect to be treated with the same respect they accorded the victims of their crimes."

Naah. That would have been far too long a headline.

"Prison governor apologises for non-halal food," by Ushma Mistry for the BBC, July 27 (thanks to Benedict):

A prison governor has apologised to Muslim inmates after they were served non-halal burgers.

A number of Muslim inmates at HMP Ford, an open prison in West Sussex, are claiming they were served pork burgers by prison staff on Saturday evening.

A prison service spokesman said: "On Saturday a problem in the kitchens resulted in Muslim prisoners being mistakenly served non-halal food."

It is still not clear exactly what meat was used.

The spokesman added: "The governor is apologising to the prisoners affected and an investigation is under way. The prison is working closely with the Muslim chaplain on this matter."

Muslim inmates are forbidden from eating pork as it is considered a sin but there are differences of opinion on non-halal meat....

Is breaking kuffar laws considered a sin? Opinions differ.

Here again we see that those in authority had no mechanism for and/or no interest in distinguishing "moderates" who merited being given powerful positions in post-Taliban Afghanistan from Islamic supremacists and jihadists. And even they had cared to make such a distinction and tried to do so, how could they have gone about it? "Wikileaks Afghanistan: police chief doubled as Iranian spy," by John Bingham in the Telegraph, July 27:

A powerful Afghan police chief doubled as an Iranian spy and drugs lord, a leaked US report claims.

The man, described as a "notorious criminal" is said to have secured his position through the influence of Iran's Revolutionary Guard over local warlords in southern Afghanistan....

It recounts how the man, named in redacted versions only as X, is said to have had links with Iran stretching back to the time of the war against the invading Soviet forces the 1980s.

"It was reported that [X] is a notorious criminal in Afghanistan and a spy for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)," the report alleges.

"During the time of the jihad in Afghanistan against the Russians, [X] did not participate in the jihad, but went into Iran and became a spy for the IRGC.

"By order of the IRGC, the jihadi commanders in western Afghanistan were to protect [X] and help him attain a government job.

"In this way, [X] became [a] chief of police."

While he was chief of police, says the report, he "encouraged the farmers of Bala Bluk, Khaki Safeed, and Bagwa districts, Farah province, to start to cultivate poppies"....

Winning hearts and minds. None could have gone to the jihad, you say? And why not, exactly? What effective safeguards were in place to ensure that those who received money in Iraq had no sympathies for the jihad? With the U.S. government in massive denial about the nature of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism itself, it is nothing short of inconceivable that any such safeguards were in place. "Audit: US cannot account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds," by Tarek El-tablawy for AP, July 28:

BAGHDAD - A U.S. audit has found that the Pentagon cannot account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraq reconstruction money, spotlighting Iraqi complaints that there is little to show for the massive funds pumped into their cash-strapped, war-ravaged nation.

The $8.7 billion in question was Iraqi money managed by the Pentagon, not part of the $53 billion that Congress has allocated for rebuilding. It's cash that Iraq, which relies on volatile oil revenues to fuel its spending, can ill afford to lose.

"Iraq should take legal action to get back this huge amount of money," said Sabah al-Saedi, chairman of the Parliamentary Integrity Committee. The money "should be spent for rebuilding the country and providing services for this poor nation."

The report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction accused the Defense Department of lax oversight and weak controls, though not fraud.

"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the audit said....

Yep.

Here again we see that those whom Obama, John Brennan, and so many others insist have nothing to do with Islam explicitly take upon themselves the mantle of Islamic purity and authenticity. This is a cognitive dissonance that no one in authority is showing any signs of addressing, and yet it undercuts their entire strategy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including in regard to many domestic policies. "Taliban says will continue 'jihad' against ANP," from the Daily Times, July 28:

MIRANSHAH: The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) said on Tuesday that it was the duty of the mujahideen to annihilate the Awami National Party (ANP), as it was "not only the enemy of the Taliban, but Islam as well". Talking to reporters over telephone from an undisclosed location about the recent attacks on the ANP, TTP spokesman Azam Tariq said Pakhtuns could not tolerate the existence of the ANP in the region, as the party was an enemy of Islam. The spokesman added that it was the need of the hour to exterminate the ANP and the Taliban would continue jihad against the party.

Duuuude. The blase attitude toward the crackdown that the partiers show in this article would likely come to an end with a few lashes. Sharia Alert from modern, moderate Malaysia: "Muslims party on despite religious crackdown," from AFP, July 26 (thanks to Block Ness):

...A morality crackdown has seen Malaysian Islamic authorities hand out caning and jail sentences for illicit drinking and sex, and launch raids on homes and clubs in the glare of media flashlights.

But for Asyikin, a petite and attractive business executive dressed in a knee-length skirt and strappy high heels, the campaign hasn't dampened her party mood.

"I couldn't care less, I'm partying. Religion to me is a personal thing," she says as she sips a glass of whisky and greets other regulars at the bars and restaurants that line the narrow streets.

Malays, who make up 60 percent of the population, are forbidden to have sex out of wedlock or drink alcohol under the Sharia legal system which runs in parallel to the civil courts in Malaysia.

In an unprecedented case that grabbed world headlines last year, Muslim model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 33, was sentenced to six lashes of the cane for drinking beer.

Kartika's sentence was commuted to community service after an uproar from rights groups, but three other women were quietly caned under Islamic laws in February for having sex out of wedlock.

Despite the highly publicised cases, every weekend Kuala Lumpur's top clubs are packed with fashionably dressed youngsters including Muslim Malays -- many offspring of the nation's elite -- socialising and drinking openly.

"I'm a bit more wary after all these cases but it doesn't really affect my mood to go out and party," says Muaz Omar, a civil servant who goes to pubs with friends to watch live band performances.

"People who drink still do go out because even private parties at home are subjected to raids, there is no longer a safe haven," says the 35-year-old, who adds that he does not drink himself.

"The religious authorities should not be a moral police. In the religion, if it's a private matter, then it should be a private thing. There must be a rethinking of the way they act."

The crackdown has fuelled debate over rising "Islamisation" of the multi-ethnic nation, and rights groups have urged religious authorities to stop acting as morality police.

"We don't agree with the way they go on, Islam is not about snooping around catching people committing sin," says Ratna Osman, legal manager from leading civil society group Sisters In Islam (SIS).

Ratna blasted the raids as a form of rights violation and an intrusion into people's privacy.

"Unless that person is a drunkard and started going around committing crime or causing accidents, then yes, you can punish them because they endanger people and their own life," she says.

"But if the person commits a sin in a private domain then it is between him and God. If as a Muslim you feel compelled to tell him, it should be done in a compassionate way or to educate them."

Religious authorities defend their actions, saying they are merely carrying out their duty to ensure fellow Muslims stay away from sin.

"We don't accept any behaviour that is not condoned by Islam," Che Mat Che Ali, the head of the Islamic affairs department in Kuala Lumpur, tells AFP.

"Drinking is a big sin. If you are drunk, you are not in the right state of mind, you yourself will suffer and others may suffer too."

"It's not just something between the person and God, we have a duty to advise them."...

And what better advice can anyone give than a few lashes with a cane?

From the looks of these and other pictures that have come out of Gaza lately, this looks like a prison camp that people might start trying to break into, rather than out of. More dhimmitude from the wretched Cameron in Turkey: "Cameron calls Gaza 'prison camp,'" from AFP, July 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday urged Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip, slamming the current state of the Palestinian enclave as a "prison camp."

"Let me be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change... Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp," he said in a speech to a business association during a visit to Turkey.

Speaking later after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Cameron defended his harsh description, saying that "even though some progress has been made we're still in a situation where it's very difficult to get in, it's very difficult to get out...

"We've long supported lifting the blockade of Gaza," he said.

Cameron however acknowledged Israel's security concerns, pointing to rocket attacks from Gaza, run by the radical Palestinian group Hamas, on Israel.

"We both share the view that direct talks (between Israel and the Palestinians) is the right answer," he said, referring to Erdogan....

And Erdogan no doubt smiled knowingly.

A week in jail, a few fines. "This will become a political issue for the country's minorities" -- that is, the non-Muslims -- "and further reinforce their unhappiness." "Malaysia fines Muslims for Hindu temple protest," by Razak Ahmad for Reuters, July 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A Malaysian court sentenced a Muslim to a week in jail on Tuesday and fined 11 others for a brandishing a cow's head during a protest against the construction of a Hindu temple.

Critics said the light sentences may further strain race relations between Muslims, who make up the majority of the country's 28 million population, and minority Hindus and Christians who complain of discrimination.

"Going ahead, this will become a political issue for the country's minorities and further reinforce their unhappiness," said James Chin, a politics professor at Monash University in Kuala Lumpur.

The 12 were from a group who had marched in August last year with the head of a cow to protest a plan to build a Hindu temple in their mainly Muslim neighbourhood. Hindus, who consider the cow to be a sacred animal, were angered.

Non-Muslims, who together constitute 40 percent of the population, handed the country's ruling coalition its worst defeat in the polls in 2008 due to growing alienation.

Since taking office in April last year, Prime Minister Najib Najib Razak has tried to reach out to minorities with an inclusive "1Malaysia" policy.

But ethnic and religious tensions remain high after a number of religiously charged disputes including the "cow head protest" and an ongoing row over the use of the word Allah by Christians which saw houses of worship being attacked early this year.

That is, churches attacked, by Islamic supremacists.

Aggressive and potentially lethal dhimmitude. These police officers have evidently bought into the Muslim line that they are routinely victims of hate crimes, without bothering to note the fact that many of those hate crimes are fabricated by Muslims themselves. Find links establishing that in this post. "EDL members arrested over Bournemouth mosque bomb plot fears," by Jim Durkin in the Bournemouth Daily Echo, July 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

ARMED police opened fire during an operation to arrest members of the controversial far-right English Defence League, who were feared to be masterminding an attack at a Bournemouth mosque.

Marksmen shot the tyres out on a van belonging to John Broomfield, who describes himself as Dorset EDL head, as he drove alone through Corfe Castle.

He and six others were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion at a Bournemouth mosque.

All seven, including at least six EDL members, have since been released without charge.

Armed officers pounced from an unmarked car close to the Norden roundabout as 27-year-old Mr Broomfield, from Swanage, drove home from work around 5pm.

They used special rapid tyre deflation rounds, fired from a shotgun, to disable his vehicle.

Officers, including specialised forensic experts, then swooped on his Bell Street home, removing clothes, computer equipment, mobile phones and passports.

The suspects were held at Poole police station and a police station in Southampton, following last Thursday's arrests.

The English Defence League is a contentious group that has been leading "anti-Muslim extremism" demonstrations around England since 2009.

Thousands of people have attended its protests - many of which have involved racist and Islamophobic chanting.

However, organisers insist it is not a racist organisation.

A number of violent clashes have also taken place at EDL demonstrations since the group first emerged in Luton last year.

In a statement to the Daily Echo, Mr Broomfield said: "While travelling home from work I was stopped and arrested by armed police. I was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion at a Bournemouth mosque.

"Five other members of the EDL were also arrested and held for 24 hours for questioning while searches of their homes took place. Then all of us were released without charge.

"There has been no conspiracy.

"There has never been any conspiracy. The EDL is not a terrorist organisation."

A spokesman for Dorset Police said: "Dorset Police can confirm that as part of an investigation surrounding threats to a Bournemouth mosque a total of seven people were arrested for conspiracy to cause an explosion.

"Following an investigation police can now confirm these people have been released without charge....

"We've been working very closely with the Muslim community since last Thursday and our local safer neighbourhood teams have been providing advice and reassurance throughout.

"At this stage there is no indication whatsoever that any of the mosques in Dorset are under threat of attack."

It's a funny thing in Western countries: when non-Muslims are (falsely) suspected of plotting to harm Muslims, non-Muslim authorities work to reassure the Muslim community. When Muslims kill non-Muslims, non-Muslim authorities work to reassure the Muslim community.

Cameron's entire argument here rests on the proposition that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists. If that is false, then he is taking a course of extraordinary folly. "Turkey must join EU, says Cameron: 'Those who are against are playing on fears of Islam,'" by Jason Groves in the Daily Mail, July 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

David Cameron today accused critics of Turkey's membership of the EU of playing on fears of Islam - as he pledged to 'pave the road from Ankara to Brussels'.

In a speech in the Turkish capital the Prime Minister promised to 'fight' to help the Islamic state achieve its 50-year goal of EU membership.

He said that, by embracing the moderate Muslim nation, the EU can improve relations with the rest of the Islamic world.

And he hit out at those who 'wilfully misunderstand Islam' in order to oppose Turkey's membership.

He said: 'They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists.

'They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.

'All these arguments are just plain wrong. I want us to be at the forefront of an international effort to defeat them.'...

At long last, The Post-American Presidency by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer is now available! Order your copy now here. And visit the official Post-American Presidency website.

"Sheer brilliance! Sharp, well-written and to-the-point. The ultimate patriot's handbook. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer lay bare Barack Hussein Obama's radical agenda and how to stop it. No true American's library will be complete without this book."

--Brad Thor, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Foreign Influence

"This book is a chilling analysis of how the policy of President Barack Obama is chipping away at the very foundation of America's leading role in the world. It exposes his philosophy of near universal 'moral equivalency': a philosophy that is a dead ringer for the cultural relativism that has been poisoning Europe for the past decades. America is the last man standing and it is vital that the people of Europe adopt the attitude of proud American citizens and learn that it is not shameful to be proud of one's heritage. This book is incredibly fascinating and at the same time holds a deeply disturbing message we should all take to heart."

--Geert Wilders, Dutch MP

"Barack Obama is the most radical individual ever to occupy the White House. This excellent book by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer explains exactly what that means and why its implications are fraught with such dangers for this great Republic."

--David Horowitz, author of Radical Son

"Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are two of the most incisive analysts of events at home and abroad, and you could not ask for better guides to where 'hope,' 'change' and czars are taking us -- and what Americans can do about it."

--Mark Steyn, New York Times bestselling author of  America Alone

"In The Post-American Presidency, Pamela Geller shines her laser on President Barack Obama -- his life, his values, his friends and his perceptions of the country he leads. What she reports will disturb not only every American who believes in that America is the Shining City on the Hill and that the American people are what Abraham Lincoln referred to as 'the almost chosen people.' It should also disturb people around the world who recognize that the international system stops working when the American Atlas shirks the burden of its uniqueness."

--Caroline Glick, author of The Shackled Warrior

"With their characteristic attention to detail, clarity and fearlessness, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer assay the wreckage. The Post-American Presidency is must reading for every concerned American who needs to know why we're in this perilous moment, and where we're headed if we don't take our exceptional country back."

--Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review legal affairs editor, author of Willful Blindness and Grand Jihad

Indonesia the Model of Modern Islam continues to show a very different face, at least for the Christians there. "Attacks on Christian Churches in Indonesia Rising: Activists," from Agence France-Presse, July 26 (thanks to Twostellas):

Jakarta. Indonesian human rights activists on Monday urged President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to investigate attacks on Christian churches, which they say have increased in the last two years.

From January to July, there were 28 cases of religious freedom violations by "intolerant groups targeting Christians," up from 17 for the whole of 2008 and 18 in 2009, the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace said in a report.

Based on reports by churches and the media, the violations -- mostly by radical Muslim groups -- include forced closure of churches, revocation and delays in issuing building permits, and attacks such as torching and damaging churches, the institute said.

"These incidents are a breach of law and human rights. The President and the government have been very silent on this matter and have not provided enough protection to citizens," Setara's deputy chief Bonar Tigor Naipospos said.

"The attackers have become bolder as law enforcement is weak. We can't let the incidents continue as peace in the country will be jeopardized," he added....

Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance Update: on May 3, Robert Dreyfuss wrote this in The Nation:

It may be that the Pakistan-based Taliban, the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), has quietly established a Connecticut franchise while we weren't looking. That's possible. But it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone wolf or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right. Which actually exists in Connecticut, where, it seems, the car's licence plates were stolen.

Of course, the Pakistan Taliban was indeed behind the Times Square bombing attempt, not the far right at all.

You'd think Robert Dreyfuss would be too embarrassed after committing such an ideologically-driven error ever to write about any aspect of the jihad threat again, but some people have no shame. Retract? Apologize? Not the noble Dreyfuss! Instead, he has just dug himself in even deeper, echoing the talking points of Hamas-linked CAIR in complaining about my recent seminars for the FBI and JTTF: "Anti-Muslim Bigot and Fanatic Explains Islam to the FBI and the Tidewater Joint Terrorism Task Force," by Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation, July 26 (thanks to James):

The Council on American Islamic Relations is making noise about the fact that an extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser was "invited to offer training to state and federal law enforcement officers." It sounds like something that might have happened under the administration of President Bush, but no - this happened on Obama's watch. Robert Spencer, co-founder of the group Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), is the culprit.

Even over at the Nation, however, a few of Dreyfuss's commenters were on to him. Some of the remarks were especially apposite:

It's not "fanatical" or "bigoted" to tell the truth. Anyone who can read knows that the Koran sanctions the violent murder of all non-Moslems, especially Jews (even those who deny it). There's no point in maintaining a commitment to evade reality. Spencer is not anti-Moslem or bigoted. He is a man who has devoted his life to studying Islamic theology. He simply doesn't tell lies.

The only reason you defend Islam is because you want it to be peaceful, not because you have any rational reason to believe that it is.

And:

So you rely on a Muslim Brotherhood front group for proof of Spencer being "right wing." How about asking Mr. Spencer yourself? Is "tea partiers" the new incantation to forget about the reality of Obama and the world?

SIOA's response to the CAIR/Dreyfuss screed is here.

This Misunderstander of Islam claims that "Islamic scriptures have predicted a victory over 'non-believers'" for the Muslims. How can he say such a thing about the Religion Of Peace™? Can we get Honest Ibe Hooper and the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to go over to Pakistan and explain to Azam Tariq about the Qur'an's true teachings of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with non-believers?

"3,000 terrorists for India battle: Pak Taliban," from Rediff News, July 26 (thanks to Arjun):

Pakistan's Taliban claims it has organised 3,000 terrorists for its declared battle against India, the Taliban spokesperson tells Tahir Ali in Islamabad.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan has declared it is training terrorists to launch an attack on India.

The TTP is the Pakistan counterpart of Afghanistan's Taliban and has been blamed for several terror attacks in that country.

TTP spokesperson Azam Tariq told this correspondent in a telephone interview that the TTP has vowed to capture "Hindustan".

"India is our jageer (domain)," Tariq said, "and we will attack to take possession of it. We are training lots of fighters and suicide bombers who will be used for this purpose."

He added the Taliban would fight a "decisive' battle" in India before proceeding towards the Middle East, presumably to evict Israel from that region.

After taking control of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the TTP spokesperson said the Taliban would move towards India.

Tariq said Islamic scriptures have predicted a victory over "non-believers".

"For us, whether they are Hindus or Jews, they all are the same. Soon, we will teach India a lesson. India's defeat at the hands of the mujahedeen is written in our religious books," he boasted.

Criticising relations between Pakistan and the United States, Tariq said, "We are not against Pakistan, but we don't like its pro-American policies; we will target their security forces, the secular leaders and other sensitive installations until the government does not change its anti-Islamic policies."

"What has Pakistan gained from American friendship? Despite Pakistan's role as a frontline ally in the war against terror, India is closer to the US. The Americans are not interested in solving the Kashmir issue and have shown their inclination towards India in this regard. Pakistani rulers should remember that only the mujahideen would come to their rescue in case of Indian aggression against their country."

"If Pakistan changes its anti-Taliban policies, not only can the mujahedeen free Kashmir from India, but can also capture India itself," Tariq declared.

When asked how the TTP is preparing for its declared onslaught against India, Tariq claimed, "We are preparing fighters to attack India. Sooner or later, when there is no tussle between the Pakistani forces and us, or after we defeat the Pakistani forces, the mujahideen will move towards Hindustan."

"There are around 3,000 trained suicide bombers with the TTP. Others are undergoing training. We are not preparing them for Pakistan, but for our real target -- the occupation of India," Tariq said.

Asked if the Pakistani Taliban was involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Tariq added, "We don't have any connection with those attackers or their backers, but we appreciate their struggle and sacrifices."

Jihad Watch reader Christine kindly sent me this photo she snapped only minutes ago in Manhattan, where our SIOA freedom cabs have just started running. Thanks, Christine!

Ramdas Lamb was a "Hindu monk in India from 1969-1978." He is now a professor at the University of Hawai'i. He engages here in a bit of moral equivalence that fails to take into account the huge difference in content between the Christian and Islamic Scriptures, but otherwise makes many sound points.

"Islam needs more tolerance, not more mosques," from the Washington Post's On Faith blog, July 26:

One has to wonder how long the U.S. will continue to tip toe around its relationship with Islam and Muslims. There seems to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members. If it had been Jewish terrorists who had attacked the twin Towers, would the building of a synagogue at the site even be in anyone's fantasy? I strongly doubt it. Yet, when Muslims are involved in terrorism, so many of our politicians want to pretend Islam had nothing to do with it. They need to wake up and listen to what the terrorists and their hate filled [followers] are saying. [...]

Religious tolerance in the U.S. has increased a great deal over the decades, but as long as Islam continues to be treated differently than other religions, and fundamentalists are given a pass, most Americans will want to have little or nothing to do with the religion or its members. There are those who say that we are the ones at fault, we need to better understand Muslims and Islam, and the planned center and mosque near Ground Zero will help in that process. Actually, our politicians need to stop making excuses for the violence fundamentalist Islam supports, and its perpetrators need to start making room for the rest of the world in their currently narrow and hate filled version of reality. Those who say Americans need to better understand Islam need to rethink the problem. They should direct their efforts instead to attempting to teach fundamentalist Muslims the concept of tolerance of others first, since they are the source of the problem. That would be the best way to begin to inspire non-Muslims in the U.S. and the rest of the world to change their view of the tradition and to see beyond its violence for the good it can hopefully offer the rest of the world.

The Islamic cleric whom John Esposito has praised as a "reformist" shows his non-reformist bent yet again. "Top Muslim Cleric Qaradawi Urges Western Muslims to 'Liberalize': Outwardly, Anyway," by Raymond Ibrahim at Pajamas Media (via Raymond's site), July 23:

A recent episode of the popular Arabic show al-Sharia wa al-Haya (Law and Life), which airs weekly on Al Jazeera and features renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, addressed the important yet little known Muslim concept of taysir (pronounced "tey-seer").

Qaradawi, who is touted by the likes of John Esposito and CAIR as a "moderate" -- even as he legitimizes suicide attacks against Israel (including by women) and death for apostates -- explained that, according to fiqh al-taysir (the "jurisprudence of ease"), Islam (not unlike Catholicism) offers Muslims dispensations, whenever needed: "For Allah desires ease for you, not hardship" (Koran 2:185; see also 5:6, 4:26-28, 2:286). For instance, Muslims traveling during the month of Ramadan or engaged in jihad need not observe the obligatory fast.

Qaradawi stressed that no one advocated taking the "easy way" as much as Muhammad himself. He offered several examples, including how Muhammad would be angry with prayer leaders who tired the people with long prayers. (Other less flattering though applicable anecdotes concerning Muhammad's "leniency" come to mind, such as when his followers thought they had to practice coitus interruptus while raping their captive women so as not to impregnate them, only to be told by the prophet that "There is no harm if you do not practice it, for it [the birth of the child] is something ordained [by Allah]").

Lest it be abused, Qaradawi warned that taysir should only be used as needed, based on the vicissitudes of time and chance. In other words, Muslims should not actively seek the easy way, but rather, when uncontrollable circumstances create hardships, Muslims are free to opt for the easy way -- as long as they recognize that the "hard way" (i.e., total implementation of Sharia) is the ideal way.

Qaradawi proudly contrasted taysir with the practices of Jews and Christians who "took things to the extreme, and thus were treated extremely." After quoting the verse, "Ask not about matters which, if made known to you, may make things difficult for you" (Koran 5:105), Qaradawi said Allah made things difficult for the "anal" Jews because they always insisted on receiving specific details for his otherwise simple commandments. As for Christians, Qaradawi, in dismay, pointed to monks and anchorites, who, by shunning all female contact, and living in absolute solitude and austerity, also went to the extreme.

The most significant point of the program came when Qaradawi said that taysir is especially needed in "this era" and "especially for those Muslim minorities living in Europe and America."

Now, why is that? For starters, by migrating to the West of their own free will, Muslims themselves -- not "uncontrollable circumstances" -- create this apparent need for taysir. Moreover, Western religious freedom allows Muslims to uphold Islam's fundamental Five Pillars: Muslims can proclaim the shahada (profession of faith), pray, fast, give zakat (except to terrorists), and go on the hajj. So what, exactly, is Sheikh Qaradawi referring to that makes living in the West especially hard on Muslims?

The answer is obvious: Qaradawi is referring to those other aspects of Sharia law -- you know, subjugation of non-Muslim infidels, absolute authority over women, jihad, draconian punishments, and all the rest --that do create "hardships" for Muslims who try to implement them in the West, for instance, by getting them arrested and imprisoned.

In other words, far from "liberalizing" Muslim life, taysir allows only for insincere conformity. As Qaradawi made clear, to practice taysir is not to renounce Sharia's otherwise harsh obligations; it is to put them on hold till circumstances are more accommodating....

Read it all.

Lucy, you got a lot of 'splainin' to do

Yet another There Is No Fun In Islam* Alert from the Islamic guardians of Somalia. "Somali Islamic group cracks down on TV sets," from Reuters, July 26 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

MOGADISHU, July 26 (Reuters) - Somali Islamist rebels have ordered residents in areas they control to hand over televisions and satellite dishes, warning that anyone who did not would be considered a spy, residents said on Monday.

The affected region is largely controlled by the al Shabaab group, a rebel militia linked to al Qaeda which enforces a harsh version of sharia law that includes banning school bells, ringtones on cell phones and music on radios.

Members of the militia group, which has also banned watching football and films, have warned residents through loud speakers mounted on vehicles in towns across southern and central Somalia to give up their TV sets before the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan starts in mid-August.

"Families were told to surrender their television sets and satellite dishes. They are afraid some of us may use them as private channels for communication," Abshir, a resident of Buula-barde, told Reuters.

"In the past, we could not watch games or films as we wanted. Now, we cannot have TV sets at all," he said, declining to give his second name for safety reasons....

* The Ayatollah Khomeini said that.

"It is not a cruelty to kill blasphemers." Got that?

"Muslim cleric accuses Pakistani Christian minister of committing blasphemy," from the ASSIST News Service, July 26 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Allama Ahmed Mian Hammadi, a Pakistani Muslim cleric, has claimed that Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minorities has himself committed blasphemy by branding the recently murdered Christian brothers as victims of Pakistan blasphemy laws.

Bhatti had spoken out about the murder last week of Rashid Emmanuel, 30, and his brother Sajid, 27, by unidentified masked gunmen inside a courthouse in Faisalabad. The brothers had been accused of blaspheming the Prophet Muhammad earlier this month, a charge they had both denied.

According to Mr Hammadi's statement, published in Daily Jasarat, a Pakistani Urdu daily newspaper, the Muslim cleric said that Muslims cannot tolerate blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad.

"It is not a cruelty to kill blasphemers, rather blasphemy itself is such an enormous brutality that the one who commits it neither has got a right to live in this world nor is there any pardon for the blasphemer," Daily Jasarat quoted Mr Hammadi as saying.

"Muslims won't tolerate even a slightest blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad. If Shahbaz Bhatti committed blasphemy he would be beheaded."

He maintained: "A Muslim loves [the] Prophet Muhammad more than anyone else."
The newspaper quoted Mr Hammadi as saying that the incident of killing of the Christian brothers due to non implementation of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

According to the newspaper, the Muslim cleric criticized Mr. Bhatti for stating that the law had been abused vis-à-vis the case of the Christian brothers.

"No law has been implemented in this case. Court implements the law not people," Daily Jasarat quoted Mr. Hammadi as saying. "Christian brothers were killed after Muslims became angry."...

Oh, well, then, in that case...

The logical outcome of continuing to finance Pakistan's double game. "US paying Pakistan to kill American troops?," by Chidanand Rajghatta in the Times of India, July 27 (thanks to Regumrex):

WASHINGTON: A treasure trove of US documents implicating Pakistan in its support for terrorism exploded in the public domain on Sunday, sending officials in both countries scurrying to defend a dubious alliance and straining a phony partnership based on a misreading of the ground sentiment and situation.

WikiLeaks, a whistleblower organization that publishes sensitive government leaks from anonymous sources, put a staggering 91,000 documents, mainly ground reports from US military personnel, in public domain on Sunday. Many of the documents exposed Pakistan's double-faced policy of fuelling terrorism in Afghanistan while claiming to be fighting it as an US ally.

In effect, the chronicles suggested that Washington was blindly paying Pakistan massive amounts of money for access to Afghanistan even as Islamabad uses its spy agency, ISI, to plot the death of American and Nato troops, allied Indian personnel, and undermines US policy. The most devastating leaks showed that Pakistan allows representatives of its spy service, ISI, to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize attacks against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders, including President Hamid Karzai....

"Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harboured strong suspicions that Pakistan's military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants," the New York Times said in its assessment of the report. "The records also contain firsthand accounts of American anger at Pakistan's unwillingness to confront insurgents who launched attacks near Pakistani border posts, moved openly by the truckload across the frontier and retreated to Pakistani territory for safety," it continued.

"The behind-the-scenes frustrations of soldiers on the ground and glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Islamabad as an ally by American officials looking to sustain a drone campaign over parts of Pakistani territory to strike at Qaida havens," it added.

That policy of ambivalence and appeasement continued even into the hours after the WikiLeaks expose, as US and Pakistani officials rushed to control the damage. US national security advisor James Jones condemned the "disclosure of classified documents by individuals and organizations", which, he said, "could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security", when, in effect, the documents suggest it is Washington's appeasement of Pakistan which is doing that....

Indeed.

Please join SIOA and FDI in our solemn protest against the 9/11 mega-mosque at Ground Zero on September 11. It will be held in the afternoon, after the memorial services -- the exact time and date are to be determined and will be announced here.

World leaders, prominent politicians and 911 family members will be speaking.

This is a solemn protest. Please do not bring any inflammatory signs. "Ground Zero is sacred ground." "Ground Zero is a war Memorial." "Ground Zero Mosque is Radically Insensitive."

We will begin with interfaith prayer and the playing of "Taps" for the 911 victims.

Please mark your calenders. Come to New York City on September 11. If you believe that the construction of this Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero is an insult to those Americans who lost their lives in the largest attack on American soil in history, now is the time to make your voice heard.

After the SIOA/FDI rally against the mega-mosque, you may wish to head to Washington for the 912 rally. Those who looking for rides to the protest or from the Ground Zero protest to the 912 rally in DC on Sunday can connect here. You can easily catch the train to Washington from Penn Station in New York.

Also, if you are in Manhattan tomorrow evening, please come to the next Community Board 1 meeting concerning the Ground Zero mosque site, at 6:00 PM at Dance New Amsterdam, 280 Broadway, 2nd Floor (entrance on Chambers and Elk Streets). We need to be there.

The blockade-running jihadis recognize that they have an ally in Obama. "'The Audacity of Hope' to set sail," by Adam Chandler in the Jerusalem Post, July 26 (thanks to Choi):

An initiative is under way to add an American ship to the effort to break the IDF blockade of Gaza.

The vessel, to be named The Audacity of Hope after US President Barack Obama's best-selling book, is being organized by an American group called "US Boat to Gaza." It is expected to sail in the fall.

The links to Obama do not end there. Prof. Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, and a friend from Obama's time in Chicago, is among the supporters of an appeal launched by the group last week.

"We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month," a statement on US Boat to Gaza's Web site read.

"These funds will be used to purchase a boat large enough for 40-60 people, secure a crew, and cover the licensing and registering of the boat...

together we will contribute to the great effort to end the blockade of Gaza and the illegal occupation of Palestine."

The Lebanese-Saudi Arabian- Palestinian-American Khalidi, an outspoken critic of Israel, garnered attention in 2008 when his friendship with Obama became a point of controversy during the US presidential campaign. Sen.

John McCain, Obama's opponent, portrayed Khalidi as a Hamas sympathizer.

Khalidi's involvement in this new project is already a popular topic among rightwing bloggers and media personalities in America.

"Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian arm.

Rashid Khalidi has now signed an appeal for funds to outfit another ship like the peace flotilla that would try to break Israeli's blockage of Gaza, the territory controlled by Hamas," American pundit Glenn Beck said on his syndicated radio show last week.

"Rashid Khalidi, a good friend of the president. The name of the ship: The Audacity of Hope."

Others supporters of US Boat to Gaza include author Alice Walker, activist Angela Davis, and Cindy and Craig Corrie, the parents of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah in 2003....

For background, see this post and CAIR's defamatory press release. Honest Ibe Hooper and his henchmen have been churning out sleazy propaganda like that press release for years, and have gone unchallenged. But now a group has arisen that is unafraid to tell the truth about CAIR and to call Hooper on his fascist intimidation tactics: SIOA!

From Yahoo News:

NEW YORK, July 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The human rights group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) today called on the FBI and Virginia's Tidewater Joint Terrorism Task Force to resist efforts by an Islamic supremacist hate group to intimidate state and federal law enforcement officers and dictate how they are to be trained about the Islamic jihad threat.

On Saturday the Hamas-linked Islamic supremacist hate group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the FBI and Virginia's Tidewater Joint Terrorism Task Force to explain why they invited Islam expert Robert Spencer to offer training to state and federal law enforcement officers. SIOA respectfully requests that the FBI and the Tidewater JTTF repudiate this attempt by CAIR to interfere with these agencies and impede counterterrorism training.

The Associate Director of SIOA, Robert Spencer is a highly acclaimed expert on Islam and Sharia, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of ten books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, and the U.S. intelligence community - as well as the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on previous occasions.

Spencer is the coauthor of Pamela Geller's The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America, which is set to be released this week by Simon & Schuster Publishers.

Bat Ye'or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, the institutionalized mistreatment of non-Muslims in Islamic societies, said: "Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate's New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty."

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, a Senior Fellow at National Review Institute, called Spencer "America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism." The New York Times noted that Spencer's work is "widely read in conservative foreign policy circles."

CAIR, by contrast, is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department during the trial of the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation.

CAIR has previously attempted to intimidate numerous government agencies and citizens' groups into dropping events featuring foes of international jihad activity, including SIOA's Executive Director Pamela Geller, ACT for America's Brigitte Gabriel, and others. In the summer of 2010 it has embarked upon a concerted campaign of intimidation and defamation to silence public figures who speak out against jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the Rev. Franklin Graham, Florida Congressional candidate Dan Fanelli, and Connecticut Congressional candidate Rick Torres.

CAIR's attempt to intimidate the FBI and JTTF and dictate their choice of speakers contained numerous false charges, defamation, distortions, and outright lies about Spencer, SIOA, and Geller.

CAIR has a long record of duplicity and deception. Although it has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign Islamic entities, it has not registered as a foreign agent as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), despite spreading Islamic supremacist propaganda within the United States.

Although it presents itself as a civil rights group, CAIR actually has numerous links to Islamic supremacist and jihad groups. CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad (who still serves as CAIR's executive director) were present at a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they and other Hamas operatives conspired to raise funds for Hamas and to promote jihad in the Middle East. CAIR has steadfastly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror:

* Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians
* Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a "terrorist and Hamas leader." He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
* Randall Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
* Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.
* Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.

In 1998 Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

After he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Ahmad denied saying it, several years after the fact. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.

CAIR's spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

SIOA is one of America's foremost organizations defending human rights, religious liberty, and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the United States.

In FrontPage this morning I discuss the curious new revelations about Obama's stance toward the release of the Lockerbie jihadist:

[...] And so the key question that should be posed to Barack Obama today is why he believed that "compassionate" release was preferable for this remorseless mass murderer than time in a Libyan jail. And if his administration approved of al-Megrahi's "compassionate" release, or at least had green-lighted it as a possibility before it occurred, why were U.S. officials "surprised, disappointed and angry" when it actually happened? Were any quid pro quos involved, either from Libya, whose strongman Muammar Gaddafi has lavishly praised Obama, or from Great Britain?

Obama should also be asked, if the White House press corps were not so anxious to further the President's agenda, why this monster deserved any kind of compassion whatsoever, even if the reports about his terminal cancer had been true. Why should Abdelbeset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, of all people, not die in prison for his pitiless crime of blowing an airplane out of the sky four days before Christmas and killing everyone on board? Isn't even the contemplation of "compassionate release" for such a man a miscarriage of justice for those who were killed, and an indication of a moral myopia staggering in its severity on the part of British authorities and Obama?

Given Obama's oft-repeated desire to establish relations with the Islamic world on the basis of a "mutual respect" that remains ever-elusive from the Islamic side, as shown in the new book I have written with Pamela Geller, The Post-American Presidency, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he directed U.S. officials to approve of al-Megrahi's "compassionate release" as yet another gesture of good will toward the Islamic world. Yet these gestures of good will remain unreciprocated. Al-Megrahi is free, his crime unpunished. Will anyone ask Barack Obama why?

Read it all.

In Human Events this morning, I discuss the looming succession crisis in Egypt:

The Islamic supremacist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated--according to a captured internal document--to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," has its best chance in years to take power in Egypt, with implications for the Middle East and beyond.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has terminal stomach cancer, and is not expected to survive beyond another year. Mubarak has anointed his son Gamal as his successor; however, the Brotherhood, from which sprang both Hamas and al Qaeda, could attempt to seize power upon the elder Mubarak's death, and is maneuvering now to ensure that once Hosni Mubarak is gone from the scene, the Muslim Brothers will be more powerful than ever.

The Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, but often runs candidates in Egyptian elections as independents. In this way it won one-fifth of the seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Since the days of President Gamel Abdel Nasser (1956-1970), the Egyptian government has looked the other way as the group terrorized Coptic Christians and enforced Islamic strictures upon the Egyptian populace, but cracked down when the Brotherhood showed signs of growing powerful enough actually to seize the reins of the Egyptian government.

Shortly before he was assassinated, Nasser's successor Anwar Sadat released all the Brotherhood political prisoners who had been languishing in Egyptian prisons, and even promised the Brotherhood that Islamic law would be fully implemented in Egypt.

The Islamization of Egypt has been proceeding steadily for decades. The Brotherhood's societal and cultural influence has long outstripped its direct political reach, and shows no sign of abating. Nonetheless, nearly 30 years after Sadat's promise, the Brotherhood is still pressing for that full implementation of sharia law.

Read it all.

Malmö is, of course, the city from which Jews are already fleeing because of antisemitic attacks from the Muslims there. "Attack Against the Synagogue in Malmö Revives Threat Concerns for the Jewish Community," from Sweden Israel and the Jews, July 25 (thanks to Joseph):

In the early morning hours on Friday a large explosion was reported outside Malmö's synagogue. The explosion is suspected to have been caused by a substantial firecracker and is seen as an attack on the synagogue. The attack can also be seen as a resurgence of the threat against the Malmö Jewish community.

Some minutes before 2am the night between July 22nd and the 23rd a big explosion was reported outside the synagogue in Malmö. Residents living close to the synagogue reported that an explosion was heard and there was also a very bright flash. Spokesperson for the police, Göran Billberg commented that the explosion most probably was due to "some kind of firecracker", and did not characterize the explosive as a bomb.

The local newspaper Sydsvenskan reported incorrectly that no damage was done to the synagogue; in fact the explosion was so strong that several of the synagogue windows were blown out by the blast. [...]

The local police force feels that it is not necessary to enforce security around the synagogue although it is evident that the Jewish Community remains in a state of constant threat....