Jihad Watch

Surprising? Not at all, but newsworthy nonetheless. It is but one more example in the broader pattern of disturbing conduct by the Obama administration in its drive to gain the approval of the Muslim world at seemingly any cost.

It will not make us safer. It will not make us, or anyone else, freer.

An update on this story. "Stop preaching or get out: The king is unamused by Christians who proselytise," from The Economist, July 29 (thanks to Twostellas):

Evangelical Christians in the poor world are rarely accused of undermining public order. All the more surprising, then, that in recent months around a hundred have been deported from Morocco for just that. The Christians, mostly from the United States and Europe, have been accused of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, a crime punishable by imprisonment under Moroccan law, which protects the freedom to practise one's faith but forbids any attempt to convert others.

In accordance with Sharia.

Rules against proselytising are quite common in Muslim countries but Morocco has long enjoyed a reputation as a bastion of religious tolerance in the region. Almost all the country's 32m citizens are Sunni Muslims but churches and synagogues exist, alongside mosques, to cater for the 1% of the people who are Christian or Jewish.

Such open-mindedness presumably appealed to the Christian missionaries who ran the "Village of Hope" home for children 80km (50 miles) south of Fez, a former capital known for religion and scholarship. The 16 aid-workers had cared for abandoned children for over a decade when, in March, the Moroccan authorities sent inspectors to the orphanage, then gave the workers a few days' notice to leave the country. Witnesses reported distraught farewells between the Moroccan children and the foreigners who had acted as foster parents.

Morocco's communications minister, Khaled Naciri, said the missionaries "took advantage of the poverty of some families and targeted their young children". The aid-workers deny pumping the children with Christianity. But sympathisers say that even if they did, a few hours of preaching was a small price to pay for education and pastoral care. There have been further expulsions since then, most recently of an evangelical Spanish teacher.

"Moral rape," and "religious terrorism," the Moroccan officials called the alleged evangelization activities in the prior story linked above.

Local residents are quick to point out that it is not only Christians who have been targets; last year a similar campaign was waged against Morocco's even smaller population of Shia Muslims. But the motivation for the crackdowns is probably political more than religious. Morocco's constitution is based on the hereditary position of the king as "commander of the faithful". Any drift of Muhammad VI's subjects away from the dominant stream of moderate Sunni Islam might, his advisers fear, diminish his authority.

A false dichotomy of politics and religion, where there is clearly no such distinction here, with Islam active in its capacity as a political system claiming divine sanction.

The American branch of an evangelical organisation, Open Doors, which speaks up for persecuted Christians across the world, is backing a campaign by a Republican congressman, Frank Wolf, to press the Moroccans to be kinder to the evangelicals. Seeing that Morocco is one of America's closest Arab allies, the American administration has been notably silent.

The answer is, simply: Muhammad. Per Qur'an 33:21, he is the supreme example of conduct for Muslims. Muhammad's involvement in stonings is recorded in Sunni ahadith, and the tradition has clearly survived in the Shi'ite tradition as well. It doesn't matter that stoning doesn't appear in the Qur'an, because the notion of Islam as a sola scriptura faith is a far-fetched tool of apologists to make the Qur'an appear uncreated, and less dependent on the time and place in which it appeared. But the Qur'an-only movement is actually a minority view at variance with the prominent sects of Islam.

And then there's this:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him" (Sahih Bukhari 8.82.816).

So the answer, again, is: Muhammad. "Iranian woman facing stoning: 'I'm afraid of dying'," from CNN, July 30:

London, England (CNN) -- In a room thousands of miles from her prison cell in northeastern Iran, the fear that has gripped Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani for years was clear and almost palpable.

"The day I was given the stoning sentence, it was as if I fell into a deep hole and I lost consciousness," said a human rights advocate, reading aloud from a letter attributed to Ashtiani. "Many nights, before sleeping, I think to myself how can anybody be prepared to throw stones at me; to aim at my face and hands? Why?"

And we're told Islam "elevates" women -- except usually, in Iran, that's done with a noose and a crane. And Ashtiani may yet face that fate instead of stoning.

Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two, was set to be stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery in Iran. Members of the International Committee Against Executions, who have launched a public campaign for her freedom, held a news conference Friday to share a letter they said was from Ashtiani, who is being held in a Tabriz prison, and court documents from her case.

"I thank all of you from Tabriz prison," the letter said. Referring to advocate Mina Ahadi, Ashtiani wrote, "Mrs. Ahadi, tell everyone that I'm afraid of dying. Help me stay alive and hug my children."...

Qur'an 4:34, the verse in which Allah green-lights beating one's wife, has far-reaching consequences in letter and spirit. It makes the Muslim family a microcosm of the Qur'anic deity's ordering of the universe and society, where submission is paramount, and the one who feels entitled to be in charge -- whether Muhammad's deity or the man of the house -- can do as he pleases, and is free to resort to brutality to ensure submission... while demanding to be called compassionate and merciful, of course. To do otherwise might hurt his feelings, and the rage that ensues would be your fault, naturally.

Thus, even in an ostensibly secular Muslim society, the idea that it is okay to beat your wife persists. And there is only one way it can be passed off as "culture": recognizing that the culture is informed and suffused with the priorities, issues and hangups of Muhammad's own culture (and of Muhammad himself), which upholding him as a prophet make sacrosanct.

"Domestic abuse still a taboo in Turkey," by Ivan Watson and Yesim Comert for CNN, July 30:

...Video footage filmed in September of 2009 shows Sidika outside of the hospital in the provincial capital of Van. Her face was horribly bruised; her head encased in bandages. Part of Sidika's right ear had been sliced off. The woman could barely walk and leaned on her brother for support, as she hobbled a few short steps into the hospital.

After the incident, Turkish authorities separated Sidika Platin and her children from her husband and placed them in a state-run women's shelter. But barely two months later, a local criminal court asked that Sidika and her children be handed back to Faruk Platin. He had not served any jail time for beating his wife.

"At that time, because he showed regret and because his [criminal] record was clean, his sentence was postponed," said Meral Demirbas, the governor of Saray district where Kapikoy is located.

"Also, the wife withdrew her complaint."

Sidika Platin is an ethnic Kurd who speaks no Turkish. According to eyewitnesses, when she appeared in court, she could not understand the judge or prosecutor, and relied on her husband to translate legal proceedings.

On a snowy day last December, local women's rights activists like Hamide Yeni could do little more then watch helplessly, as Faruk Platin led his mutilated wife away from the courtyard, back to the village where they lived.

"This kind of thing happens in every village," says Yeni, one of the founders of a grassroots local family protection association in the Saray district of southeastern Turkey. "There are thousands of women like Sidika out here."

In fact, according to a 2009 Turkish government report, 42 percent of women surveyed said they had been the victims of either physical or sexual abuse by their husband or partner. The report concluded that one in four married Turkish women had been injured by partner violence. Meanwhile, one in 10 Turkish women were injured by such violence while pregnant.

Some Turkish activists fear the real statistics for violence against women may actually be much higher.

"In all domestic surveys there are 'shadow figures.' That is because women are not willing to tell about the violence, it's a very sensitive issue," says Pinar Ilkkaracan, a co-founder of the Istanbul-based group Women for Women's Human Rights.

"We think it's much higher then 42 percent."

Domestic violence against women is not confined to economically-depressed, rural regions of eastern Turkey. According to the Turkish government survey, the statistics for physical and sexual assault were roughly the same in the countryside as in the most developed, fast-growing cities in the western part of the country.

Over the past 15 years, Turkey has adopted several progressive pieces of legislation to protect women, including a 1998 Protection Order against Domestic Violence. Reform of Turkey's Civil Code in 2001 gave women legal equal status to men in the family.

Meanwhile, changes to the country's Penal Code in 2004 criminalized marital rape. But critics argue that the Turkish state has lapsed far behind in implementing these laws....

We always hear in the West that women who choose to don the veil are doing so of their own free will, and are perfectly free not to wear it. Yet the leader of the students' union at Aliah University is willing to put this kind of pressure on Sirin Middya, and he is by no means alone in this. "Woman not allowed to teach after burqa refusal," from Sify News, July 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A lady teacher in West Bengal's first Muslim university, the Aliah University, was not allowed to teach after she refused to wear the burqa (veil) inside the varsity premises.

Sirin Middya, a guest lecturer of the university, along with eight other lady teachers got a 'diktat' from the leaders of the students' union to wear burqa and attend the college.

'I was asked by the leaders of the student's union to wear burqa and attend the college and if I don't abide by the diktat, they won't allow me to attend the college. Then after a few days as we were entering the university campus, they started shouting slogans 'those who are against purdah system should go to hell',' Middya told IANS.

Middya was appointed in March this year and got the union's 'diktat' in the second week of April. From April-end, she has been unable to go to the Aliah University's Calcutta Madrasah Campus.

A notice issued by the university clearly stated that 'university has no dress code, any pressure from any corner will not be allowed regarding the use of burqa inside the university campus. If anybody creates pressure on female teachers to use the burqa, necessary steps will be taken by the university authorities', she said.

'The University Grants Commission and the university itself do not prescribe any such dress code. Who are they to dictate us what we should wear and what we should not. The most unfortunate part is that the students and leaders of students union are forcing us to wear burqa. A few of the teachers gave into their demand but I didn't,' Middya said.

According to her, she has no issues with wearing a burqa - but if she dons one, it would be of her own free will.

'Most of the teachers do not like the diktat of the students to wear burqa. But they have no option but to accept it. This is Talibanisation of educational premises and there is no one to our rescue,' she said....

Of course, that would just be the shape of things to come in an Islamic state: Bark at the uppity kuffar to put them back in their place.

"Key Jewish Group Rejects Ground Zero Mosque," from the Associated Press, July 30:

The nation's leading Jewish civil rights group has come out against the planned mosque and Islamic community center near ground zero, saying more information is needed about funding for the project and the location is "counterproductive to the healing process."

The Anti-Defamation League said it rejects any opposition to the center based on bigotry and acknowledged that the group behind the plan, the Cordoba Initiative, has the legal right to build at the site. But the ADL said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

"Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right," the ADL said in a statement. "In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."

The Cordoba Initiative did not comment Friday.

Here, the AP stringer uncritically regurgitates the mosque proponents' claims about themselves:

Based in New York, Cordoba aims to improve relations between Islam and the West by hosting leadership conferences for young American Muslims, and organizing programs on Arab-Jewish relations, building civil society in the Muslim world and empowering Muslim women.

The mosque and community center would be located two blocks from the lower Manhattan site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Cordoba purchased the property for $4 million and planned to build a 13-story, $100 million Islamic center, of which the mosque would be a part.

Cordoba's director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has not disclosed the funding sources for the project. But Sharif El-Gamal, the CEO of the company that owns the property, has said the project's backers were committed to transparency and would work with the attorney general's watchdog Charities Bureau.

... and disclose the funding sources? Or just line up some photo ops?

A city community board voted overwhelmingly last spring to back the project even as it drew emotional opposition from some local residents and relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the mosque's construction. Disagreement over the project has become a national issue, drawing opposition from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

The ADL, one of the most prominent groups in American Jewish life, is known for its advocacy of religious freedom and interfaith harmony. Its position on the mosque was met with shock and condemnation by several groups.

Time to dust off the "I, for one, welcome our new overlords" meme:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street, the dovish, pro-Israel group, said he would hope ADL would be at the forefront in defending the freedom of a religious minority, "rather than casting aspersions on its funders and giving in to the fear-mongerers."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group, said he read the ADL statement "with a great deal of sorrow."

"As an organization that for nearly 100 years has helped set the standard for fighting defamation and securing justice and fair treatment for all, it is disappointing to see the ADL arrived at this conclusion," Gaddy said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged ADL to retract its statement.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.

In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.

"We're saying if your purpose is to heal differences, it's the wrong place," Foxman said of the mosque. "Don't do it. The symbolism is wrong."

It sure is wrong. On so many levels. And the symbolism is just the start of what's wrong.

Putting nuclear materials in cigarettes! So thaaaaat's why they're so unhealthy! "Iranian Official: Marlboro Tainted with Pig Blood & Nuclear Matter," from Iran's PressTV, July 30 (thanks to Jeff):

(TEHRAN PRESS TV) - An Iranian official says some of the most popular cigarette brands are contaminated with nuclear substances when smuggled into the country.

The article linked above, via the Salem News, included the bit about pigs' blood in their headline. It's unclear where that came from -- and where it went.

"Some of the most famous cigarette brands worldwide including Marlboro, which accounts for the bulk of smuggled cigarettes [into the Islamic Republic] are tainted with [hazardous] nuclear materials," Mehr News Agency quoted Mohammad-Reza Madani from the Society for Fighting Smoking as saying on Friday.

What happens if you smoke them while consuming Pop Rocks and Coca-Cola? I mean, while we're dealing in urban legends and all...

"The largest tobacco companies in the world use various tricks in order to keep their markets and increase their sales," Madani added.

He went on to add that the company responsible for the production of the tainted cigarettes is the "Philip Morris International, which is led by Zionists (Israelis)," and sells Marlboro outside the US.

The Iranian official also referred to a confidential report released a few years ago, in which the contamination of the "Philip Morris" cigarettes was confirmed.

He called on the Iranian Tobacco Company to adopt better supervisory measures regarding the distribution of cigarettes in the country.

"Philip Morris" is an international tobacco company with market demand in over 160 countries.

Its main brands include Marlboro, L&M, Longbeach, Philip Morris, Bond Street and Chesterfield.

There is a virtually unlimited need, and an unlimited demand for health care the world over. It is a perpetually scarce and costly resource. So, what better way to spend it than in submission to Islamic mores?

Not that the taxpayer-funded virginity "Mulligan" is new to the U.K. This has been going on for a number of years now.

But along with the matter of resources, this practice enables the non-engagement of the issues of honor killing and penalties enshrined in Islamic law. Indeed, for all parties involved in the transaction, there is much to be swept under the rug.

"NHS pays for Muslim virginity operations," by Tim Stewart and David Pilditch for the Express, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):

AN INCREASING number of Muslim brides are having controversial pre-marriage "virginity repair" operations.

Taxpayers funded 116 hymen replacements on the NHS between 2005 and 2009, official figures revealed.

There were 30 operations in 2009 - up 25 per cent from 24 in 2005, it emerged yesterday.

You'll want to read this next part sitting down:

Private clinics report a huge surge in demand for the procedure, costing between £1,800 and £4,000. It means the taxpayer has forked out up to £400,000 over the four years to fund the half-hour operation.

Doctors say the trend is driven by young Muslim women under pressure from future husbands or relatives who insist they should be virgins.

Gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend charges £1,850 for hymenoplasty at his Regency Clinic in Harley Street. He said: "In the past, we would do one or two a week. Sometimes now we get two or three a day. Demand has tripled."

Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said it was "disappointing" that Muslim women in this country felt the need to resort "to subterfuge surgery".

The NHS says it does the operation only for "clinical need".

Dear NHS: I've decided I want my tonsils back. Can you hook that up, too?

Of course, given Pakistan's ongoing double game, there is always the question of whether the groups are banned as in "banned," or banned as in "just lay low for a bit or consider changing your name."

"Suspected Islamists Shoot Five Christians to Death in Pakistan," from Compass Direct News, July 29 (thanks to Twostellas):

SUKKUR, Pakistan, July 29 (CDN) -- A dozen masked men shot five Christians to death as they came out of their church building here on July 15, two months after a banned Islamic extremist group sent church leaders a threatening letter, relatives said.

Pastor Aaron John and church members Rohail Bhatti, Salman John, Abid Gill and Shamin Mall of Full Gospel Church were leaving the church building after meeting to discuss security in light of the threats they had received, said the pastor's son, Shahid John.

"As we came out of the church, a group of a dozen armed gunmen came and opened fire at us," said Shahid John, who survived a bullet in his arm. "Fear struck the area. The police arrived 45 minutes after the incident, and we waited for over 45 minutes for the ambulance to arrive."

Besides Shahid John, five others were wounded in the attack.

In May church leaders received a letter from Islamic extremist group Sip-e-Sahaba (formerly Sipah-e-Sahaba until it was banned) warning the Christians to leave the area, said Kiran Rohail, wife of the slain Rohail Bhatti.

"It said to vacate the land, Christians are not welcomed here, they are polluting our land," Kiran Rohail said.

The Sip-e-Sahaba and Sunni Tehrik extremist groups are both linked with an area madrassa (Islamic school) whose students had been threatening the church since 2008, Christian sources said.

"In 2008 a group of Muslim students started making threats for the church to vacate the land, as there are only 55 Christian families living in the area," said the pastor's widow, Naila John, who also lost her son Salman John in the attack.

The masked gunmen of July 15 had young physiques like those of students, Christian sources said, and their manner of attack indicated they were trained extremists....

An update on this story. The nature of the interaction with mosque officials is entirely too typical: When approached about specifics, respond with lofty generalities; repeat as necessary, and people who still won't back down are automatically Islamophobes, naturally. "Sheriff's office to probe Islamic burial," by Mark Bell for DNJ.com, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):

Rutherford County's Sheriff's Office will investigate questions regarding a burial at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro's new site on Veals Road.

Maj. Chuck Thomas told The Daily News Journal on Thursday that the office will "look into some concerns that were brought to our attention."

A group of about two dozen people requested an investigation in a letter and petition presented to Sheriff Truman Jones earlier this week.

"Who is it that's buried here?" group spokesperson Laurie Cardoza-Moore said in a press conference Thursday. "Is it a child? Is it an adult? Is it male or female? There are environmental issues. Was there a casket used?"

The group is also concerned about the burial permit that was issued by the Rutherford County Planning Department.

Cardoza-Moore said the permit was approved for one person to be buried on the site, notarized and dated May 18. But, the group claims the body was buried before that permit was even approved.

"It's our understanding the burial took place on the 17th," said Cardoza-Moore.

Murfreesboro Police have said they gave a funeral escort to the site on May 19, the day after the permit was issued.

Thomas said the sheriff's office will look into the matter.

"We will make sure that the death certificate was obtained and ... that all the laws and rules were followed," Thomas said.

The leader of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Imam Ossama Bahloul, didn't talk to a WSMV reporter on camera about the issue, but reacted by saying: "We want to be a good neighbor and want to reside in peace."

Body dumps don't build good neighborly relations.

He went on to say, "We wish everyone in the city the very best."

That's swell, but again, how 'bout that burial issue?

Islamic leaders had applied for a conditional use permit for a full cemetery on site, but later withdrew that request....

So is it just kind of a cemetery? Half a cemetery? A hemi-demi-semi-cemetery?

Which is not to say that they ought not to leave. What did they hope to accomplish there in the first place? With no clear mission or goal, and no understanding of the jihad doctrine or Sharia, the whole thing was foredoomed. "Taliban 'greet' Dutch on Afghan pullout," from AFP, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):

THE HAGUE: The Taliban has congratulated the Netherlands government for the imminent pullout of their troops from Afghanistan, according to a newspaper interview with a spokesman from the group.

"We hope that other countries with troops stationed in Afghanistan will follow the Netherlands example and withdraw their troops," said Qari Yusuf Ahmadij, who was described as the Taliban's spokesman for west and south Afghanistan. This was said in an interview given to the Dutch daily Volkskrant.

The deployment of about 1,950 Dutch troops in Afghanistan ends after four years on Sunday amid concerns about the void it will leave....

"Once again we call on European countries that have soldiers in Afghanistan to leave the country. Because it is not your war, but a war of the United States, which aims to reach their imperialistic objectives in the world and especially in this region," he said.

Right. Because for them, Islamic imperialism is the only acceptable kind.

Not surprising. "Obama behind Cameron's attack on Israel, by Pamela Geller in the Daily Caller, July 29:

Speaking in Turkey on Tuesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron slammed Israel and called Gaza a "prison camp." (Apparently Gaza is the first prison camp with luxury shopping malls.) The British Foreign Office has been taking the blame for this betrayal of Israel, but they're claiming they were as surprised as anyone. Now, a high-placed and knowledgeable source has informed me that it was Obama's people who put the slamming of Israel into Cameron's speech.

Cameron also said that "the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable." He didn't mention the ties of the Turkish-backed IHH "activists" on the flotilla to global jihad terror groups. He didn't mention that the "activists" on the Turkish flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, were chanting, "Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return" - a chant that refers to Muhammad's massacre of the Jews at the Arabian oasis of Khaibar.

And now we learn that it was the Obama camp that put Cameron up to this. It comes as no surprise. Obama himself termed Israel's defensive action against the jihad flotilla "tragic."

Just as Blair was Bush's "puppy," Cameron is Obama's lapdog.

Obama's use of Cameron as his sock puppet points once again to Obama's obsession with destroying the Jewish state. Obama is doing nothing less than warring against Israel. When Sean Hannity asked me on his show Tuesday night if I thought Obama was an anti-semite, I said yes. He is. It sounds harsh. But the evidence is clear and extensive: it's all meticulously researched and set out in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America, which is just out this week.

In the book I profile Obama's many, many anti-Israel playmates: not just Jeremiah Wright, but also Rashid Khalidi (who is also tied to the jihad flotillas and just named a new one after Obama's book The Audacity of Hope) and William Ayers: in the book also I expose the blatant Judeophobia of the terrorist couple Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn in their book Prairie Fire.

It is increasingly clear that the Islamic anti-Semitism taught in the Koranic classes of Obama's youth in Indonesia and the subsequent adult years he spent with the likes of demagogues and Jew-haters like Wright, Ayers, and Louis Farrakhan have made him the man he is....

The evidence is there. Read it all.

No doubt it was all nuclear material of peace. "Canada jails man for nuclear exports to Iran," from al-Arabiya, July 30:

A Canadian man convicted of trying to send nuclear technology to his native Iran has been sentenced to 20 months in prison.

In addition to his 20 months in jail, the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Mahmoud Yadegar to another 15.5 months of pre-sentence custody, Canada's public prosecution service said in a statement.

"Because the court granted double credit for pre-sentence custody, this amounts to a four-year, three-month sentence," the statement read.

He was found guilty on July 6 of nine out of 10 charges, including offences under the Customs Act, the United Nations Act, and the Criminal Code

Prosecutors were seeking 6.5 years prison for Yadegari, 37, who was born in Iran but has been living in Canada since 1988.

On March 4, 2009, Yadegari "attempted to export controlled material to Iran" via Dubai, read the statement.

"The goods, known as pressure transducers, are subject to a United Nations embargo on nuclear-related exports to Iran."

The items, it said, "are also on Canada's Export Control List."...

One would think that murdering thirteen Americans in the name of Islamic jihad would at least get you suspended without pay, but no such luck. "Banks won't take Fort Hood shooting suspect's paychecks, by Jeremy Schwartz for the American-Statesman, July 29 (thanks to Roger):

As he sits in the Bell County Jail, accused of the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, Maj. Nidal Hasan continues to receive his monthly U.S. Army paycheck, which based on his rank and experience is probably more than $6,000.

That's standard procedure for soldiers who are confined before military trial, according to Army officials.

But Hasan, charged with a shooting spree that shocked the country, is not a standard defendant. And he's having a hard time finding a bank to take his money.

According to his civilian attorney John Galligan , Bank of America notified Hasan last month that it was closing his account and no area bank so far has agreed to open an account for the Army psychiatrist. Military regulations require soldiers to be paid through direct deposit, making a bank account indispensable.

"I think it's just another example of the prejudice that he's been exposed to," Galligan said. "It's money that he's entitled to, that he has a right to."...

A right to? For reporting his patients for war crimes? For murdering Americans? For jihad?

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer

"...The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual, and political [means]. But their end goal is exactly the same."

While the emphasis on "radical Islamists" sidesteps the fundamental ideological cause of Islamic jihad -- the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and example of Muhammad -- there are several promising moments in this six-minute segment. Most of all:

"One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law."

Of course, Oklahoma was mocked for attempting this at the state level. But on the other hand, it would come too late for the New Jersey woman in whose case a judge sided with the husband who raped her because Islam forbids wives to refuse their husbands' sexual demands.

Another American against the Ground Zero mega-mosque. "If We Were Really Who They Say We are, We Would All be Liberals," transcript of the Rush Limbaugh Show, July 27 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Let's take, at face value, the template that the partisan political hacks spew at me. I am, according to them, anti-women's rights. Equal rights for women is no concern of mine, right? I'm the guy that came up with the name "feminazi." I'm not a friend of women's rights, they say. If that were true, I would be pushing for the mosque at Ground Zero. If I were anti-women's rights, I would be all for Sharia law. Sharia law is a not-so-stealth way to undermine women's rights in this country. It would be a perfect cause if I was who they say I am.

Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero. It's left who thinks "America's chickensssss came home to roost" on 9/11. It's the American left that thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11. It's the American left that wants the mosque at Ground Zero. No one can be pro-women's rights and remain silent about the metastasizing cancer that Sharia law is on women's rights.

Aziz Poonawalla, who is the kind of man who posts obscene photoshops about his ideological opponents, and who once fooled a whole passel of rubes at spitblogger Dean Esmay's site by claiming that my use of the standard and ordinary Arabic transliteration of my name was a ludicrous error, has now published a supposedly frank, open, and honest discussion of the plans for the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero with Sharif El-Gamal (pictured above at Tuesday's hearing of Manhattan's Community Board 1), the multimillionaire who owns the property. As might be expected, El-Gamal's answers fall significantly short of actually being frank, open, and honest.

"Q&A with Sharif el-Gamal about Park 51, NYC," by Aziz Poonawalla at BeliefNet, July 24:

As promised earlier in the week, here are the interview questions and answers from Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project. I am sincerely grateful to Sharif for taking the time to answer these questions and speak directly to the broader Muslim community.

1. How will you use this center to promote good citizenship and American values? What are the specific American values you seek to promote?

Park51 will be a community center promoting tolerance and understanding through three types of programs: arts and culture, education and recreation. We'll offer all New Yorkers valuable services, world-class facilities and empowering opportunities to learn more about the world around us and about each other. What's more American than serving others?

Swell! But self-consciously over-the-top in its swellness. After all the anger and pain that the plan for this mega-mosque has aroused in 9/11 families and others, for El-Gamal to be nattering blandly about "serving others" as if he and the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf just got back from a meeting of their Boy Scout Troop is disingenuous, to say the least. If this initiative is really all about serving others, what about serving those who oppose it by showing even the tiniest modicum of good will toward them, instead of vilifying and smearing them and dismissing their legitimate objections as "hatred" and "bigotry"? Is Sharif El-Gamal capable of even the smallest acknowledgment that he understands the pain that this mega-mosque is causing, and is willing to accommodate it in some way? Or is he only interested in "serving" his own constituency?

Because New York City is a global city, and New Yorkers come from all parts of the world, we need the kind of community center that our economy and cultural diversity demand. It's about fulfilling a need, meeting demand and looking to the future. I think that's a very American attitude. I know it's something I believe in very much. If we do something, we want to be the best at it, and we're always looking ahead.

If you look at a map of Manhattan, most of our major cultural and community centers are north of Houston. For the past two decades, New York City has become an increasingly attractive place to live. That's a great thing for the city. But, for more people to move into lower Manhattan, they have to have the right services. That's our contribution to Manhattan and the city. By serving all types of New Yorkers, we're doing our part as Americans to make our city and country stronger and safer.

Again, that all sounds really swell. But recall that Poonawalla asked El-Gamal how the mosque would promote "good citizenship and American values," and asked him which "specific American values" the mosque would promote. In response, "serving others" was about as specific as El-Gamal could get.

He had an opportunity to say that the Ground Zero mosque would institute programs to teach Muslims the virtues of American principles that contradict Sharia, such as the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law. He could have said that the mosque would teach Muslims the virtues of the Constitutional principle of the non-establishment of religion, as opposed to the theocratic autocracy prescribed by Sharia. He could have said that the mosque would teach that apostates from Islam should not be killed, but should be allowed to exercise their conscience without interference.

He could have said all that and more. Instead, he murmured sweet nothings about "serving others."

2. Why must the project necessarily include a mosque? Wouldn't a general prayer area, which could be reserved in advance by any religious group, be more appropriate and compatible with the community-centric interfaith mission of the project?

We will include a September 11th memorial and quiet reflection space where people of different faith traditions and beliefs, sacred and secular, can find quiet time and solace. Park51 will also include general spaces and world-class facilities for all New Yorkers to benefit from, whether that's a Hebrew class meeting weekly or a yoga studio looking for space on a regular basis. We'll have an auditorium to engage large audiences, and sophisticated classroom space as well.

With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all. There are probably one million Muslims in the tri-state area and several hundred thousand in New York City. We should understand that Muslim New Yorkers are part of the city and have been for a very long time. Just a few days ago, I stopped to pray at a midtown mosque, and the congregation was led by a New York City Police Officer. He was a Muslim serving our city, keeping us safe.

There's hundreds of thousands of Muslim New Yorkers like him. We're doctors, lawyers, businessmen, cab drivers, teachers and students. That's what people need to know.

Yes, but the question was why must the project necessarily include a mosque? There is no other available real estate in Manhattan to meet this need? The mosque organizers veer back and forth from claiming that they just happened upon this property and their initiative has nothing to do with 9/11, and is several blocks (actually, just around a corner) from Ground Zero, to assuming that it has everything to do with 9/11 and that they're trying to send a "positive message" that "reverses" that of the attacks. But they can't have it both ways.

3. Some of Imam Feisal's past statements [1,2] have been used by critics to undermine the project's credibility. Can Imam Feisal clarify his views on terrorism to reassure New Yorkers he understands the moral weight of the tragedy of 9-11?

Imam Feisal has been a champion of pluralism and tolerance. He fully understands the enormity of 9-11. In fact his own congregation was only blocks away from Ground Zero. He works very hard, day in and day out, to fight extremism and radicalism.

Actually, Rauf is an opening proponent of Sharia who actually calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book, What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.

More to the point, this is going to be a community center. Park51 is not a political organization. We do not have a political agenda, and we will be open to all New Yorkers. What we do not have room for are extremist views and opinions. Radical and hateful agendas will have no place in our community center or in the mosque. We are building this center for New York City, because we're New Yorkers. We're Americans. We have families here and futures here.

Define "radical" and "hateful." Is advocating for the rule of Islamic law "radical" and "hateful"? Given Rauf's writings, this is a very important question.

On September 11, 2001, I went down to the site of the attacks and spent two days handing out water to first responders and other victims. Hundreds of Muslims died on that day. New Yorkers of all faiths and no faiths died together. There are also hundreds of Muslims in our police force and fire department and many Muslims who volunteered to help the injured and the hurt. One of my close friends, a Muslim and a New Yorker, headed down to Ground Zero after the attacks, and helped set up a triage.

She was buried in the rubble when the towers collapsed, but she was dug out, thank God, and went right back to work. We understand the horror of that day because we lived it. Terrorists attacked our city and our country, and terrorists have continued to threaten our city and our country. We're proud of the many Muslims who have worked with our fellow Americans to keep our city and country safe.

Does anyone know who he might be talking about? The story doesn't ring true to me, which many will no doubt take as evidence of my inveterate "Islamophobia," but I do this all the time, all day every day, and I've heard thousands of stories of people who were in and around the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and I've never heard anyone tell the story of a Muslim woman who was working to save people and who was buried in the rubble, was dug out, and went back to work. Given the politically correct avidity to find "moderate Muslims" on the part of both government and media since 9/11, I seriously doubt that if such a woman existed, her story would not have been repeatedly trumpeted far and wide. But I am not saying El-Gamal is necessarily lying; if anyone (including you, Mr. El-Gamal, or even the shifty Aziz Poonawalla) can give evidence to establish this woman's existence and substantiate these claims, I will publish the material here.

4. What are Imam Feisal's specific roles and responsibilities in the project? If he is not in a leadership/executive position, then who is really "in charge" and making the decisions?

Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is as an interfaith leader and a visionary in this project. He has served the lower Manhattan community faithfully for over 27 years. He is supported by political and religious leaders across New York City for his commitment to moderation and tolerance and his years of work in bringing people together.

Besides being an open advocate for Sharia, Rauf has (like CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.

Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors. Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51.. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion.

The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn't been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric.

Here again, precise definitions are needed. Does El-Gamal believe it would be "illegal or un-American" to teach Sharia supremacism in lower Manhattan? And of course Aziz Poonawalla doesn't follow up with specific clarifying questions.

5. Will you pledge make all funding sources fully transparent? What are your criteria for accepting funding from a foreign source, to assuage concerns about extremist influences?

We have not yet launched our fundraising campaign. Park51 will incorporate as a non-profit and seek federal tax-exempt status. We are pledging to pursue this fundraising campaign in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We have hired legal counsel and top-notch auditors to oversee this process from start to finish.

We will hire security consultants to assist us in the process of reviewing potential financiers and philanthropists as we begin to establish our fundraising strategy. We will refuse assistance, financial or otherwise, from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not "flagged." But it is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Will the Ground Zero mega-mosque organizers deal with Brotherhood individuals and groups? If so, how will they keep the Brotherhood's perspective on Sharia and Islamic supremacism out of the mosque? Are they even interested in doing so?

6. Why was the site's proximity to Ground Zero considered a "selling point" [3] ? What other locations in lower Manhattan, if any, were considered that could serve the same purpose?

We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we're as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can't see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.

Of course, a September 11 memorial could be in Des Moines, it could be anywhere. When he talks about how Ground Zero can't be seen from the current building, El-Gamal is in "Ground Zero? What Ground Zero?" mode, as explained above. Rauf's wife Daisy Khan played the other side of this game here, emphasizing the property's symbolic closeness to Ground Zero.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of this project. We'd been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We found this site in January of 2006 and getting to the finish line and acquiring the real estate was proof that persistence pays off. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.

Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan - although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.

The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.

At the same time, we thought, why not give back to lower Manhattan and fulfill a pressing need? We looked for a building that could grow into a community center. In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is at Bowery and Houston and it's in a basement. There are new residential towers going up in lower Manhattan as we speak. Four Seasons is planning the tallest residential tower in the city a block away from our site. If you think of all of the community centers in Manhattan, they are further north. Residents need services, investment in the neighborhood, activities and opportunities. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of lower Manhattan, acknowledged the needs we were fulfilling when they gave us their clear support on two separate occasions.

Again -- no mention of Ground Zero in any of that windy explanation. It's a far cry from Daisy Khan's words: "I think the building came to us, which goes to show that there is a symbolism there, and that there's a divine hand in it. That it's so close to the tragedy, that its close proximity is very symbolic for the fact that we really want to reverse what happened on 9/11."

7. Do you concede there are genuine, valid concerns about this project which are not derived from Islamophobia or racism? What do you think those concerns are and how would you respond to them?

In a recent poll, even New Yorkers with a favorable opinion of Islam had reservations about the project. People have real questions and we need to work hard to make sure we get them answers, and that's not going to happen overnight. We're going to make sure our fundraising and planning involves people from across the city and we're going to make sure we do so in a way that hears concerns and responds to them.

Unfortunately, the public meetings we had with Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Committee were overtaken by a minority who prevented people from expressing their real concerns. The meetings turned into public spectacles. We're now looking for ways to engage our fellow New Yorkers and fellow Americans and have extended an open invitation to anyone concerned to come visit our space. They'll see we have a warm community that reflects the diversity of this country, and they'll see that we want to build Park51 so it has something for everyone.

I can't say this often enough. We work in lower Manhattan, we care about lower Manhattan and we're here to provide services to lower Manhattan.

The problem with this is that El-Gamal and Rauf and Daisy Khan and all their allies have consistently demonized all the opposition to the mega-mosque. There is nothing "Islamophobic" (a manipulative, trumped-up word in any case) or "racist" about pointing out that throughout history Muslims have built triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered peoples, or that Rauf has not been honest, or that the mosque would be an insult to the people killed by Islamic supremacists on 9/11. I have seen people at Community Board meetings and elsewhere painstakingly and cogently explain why their opposition to the mega-mosque had nothing whatsoever to do with "bigotry" or "intolerance," only to be rudely ignored and again vilified as bigots by mosque proponents.

8. How do you respond to a recent Quinnipiac poll [4] showing a majority (52%) of New Yorkers actively oppose the project? What would you say to the 17% undecided New Yorkers to try and persuade them?

The same poll shows that a majority of Manhattan is behind us. Community Board 1 is overwhelmingly behind us, and they represent the people of lower Manhattan who are closest to Park51 and would be most relevant to our vision. They are the people of lower Manhattan. They've studied our project closely, they learned about who we are and they live in the area we hope to serve. They were clear in their support for us, and we're tremendously grateful for that.

The Board recognized the value in jobs, programs and services we are bringing to the city, and they know that this project is very important for lower Manhattan. That's a major reason why Borough President Scott Stringer, Mayor Bloomberg, Councilwoman Chin and Councilman Jackson, City Comptroller Liu, Attorney General Cuomo, State Senator Squadron, U.S. Congressman Nadler, Governor Paterson a number of key officials and institutions are supporting us. We're also pleased to have the support of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. These leaders and organizations know Imam Feisal has served Lower Manhattan for a long time, and that he has been a positive force in this city and country.

But we need to do more to reach out to the undecided New Yorkers, the New Yorkers who have only heard misrepresentations about Park51, and other Americans in other parts of our country. I think that as more information comes out about the project, and more people learn about who we are and how we want to help New York City, we'll see these numbers change.

I want people in New York who are undecided to know we're a part of this city, and we want to make it a better place to live and work. We want to help stimulate our economy, and enhance New York's position as a global hub of ideas and culture.

Then address our real concerns, instead of setting up straw men and engaging in the basest forms of character assassination.

9. How do you make the case for supporting Park 51 to the local Muslim American community? Doesn't Park 51 undermine support for (and even actively harm) more pragmatic mosque projects in Sheepshead Bay and Staten Island?

We're not affiliated with either of those projects, but we do recognize that this project affects people from all over the world. New York City is the capital city of the world. I'm pretty sure New York City also has the largest Muslim population of any city in the United States. Muslim New Yorkers need to do more to become part of the institutions and organizations that serve and contribute to this city. We believe Park51 will be a positive step in this direction.

I believe that our model represents the best of American and Muslim values. More people need to know the truth about Islam, and that's that Islam is a peaceful religion, a compassionate religion, which preaches service to all. Unfortunately, there is some opposition to Muslim projects which is driven by hate and negativity, and we should be concerned by this.

Because hate for one minority can become hate for anyone who's different, and New Yorkers, like Americans, understand the value of diversity and the importance of protecting difference. That's what makes America so dynamic and so unique.

Here again, opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with "hate." No one would ever take the time to "hate" Muslims or think about them at all were it not for the ongoing threat of jihad terrorism and the increasing arrogance and demands of the Muslim community in the U.S. And the mega-mosque is just another example of it.

10. The controversy has alienated many Americans and New Yorkers who are tolerant of Islam per se but viscerally react to the project with offense. In hindsight, what could you have done differently to avoid this reaction?

My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones. We were all attacked that day, no matter what our color or our religion. I understand that people are offended, but we cannot lose sight of why we are doing this. And we cannot forget that we are a part of this city, a major part of this city, and we need to work together as Americans and as New Yorkers.

Moving forward, I hope and pray the dialogue reaches more New Yorkers and Americans. People have concerns and questions, and we want to answer them in a meaningful way, in a way that lets people know who we really are, what we want to do for the city and how they can be a part of Park51.

We have to appeal to the undecided, and change the conversation about Muslims in America. Because of that, we're offering an open door. You know, I'd love it if Sarah Palin came to Park51 to see our community.

She'd see that we're just as American as she is. She'd get the chance to meet some of her fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims. Consider that an open invitation, Mrs. Palin. We'd love to see you. We want to welcome everybody who cares about this city and about this country.

Fine, let's dialogue. Let's continue this discussion. I've raised what I believe to be legitimate concerns here. I invite Sharif El-Gamal to respond, and we will have a dialogue. I'm ready when he is.

In "New York Times: Not Just Anti-Israel But Pro-Islamist," July 21, Barry Rubin skewers the Leftist pseudo-journalism of the Paper Of Record:

The New York Times--with the exception of some honorable reporters in the field (you know who you are)--never ceases to amaze one in the spectacularly biased writings of those back at headquarters. Here's one that's particularly remarkable, a real piece of advocacy in which the reporter does everything possible to justify flotilla ships trying to run the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

He also selectively discusses the IHH sponsor of the previous flotilla, leaving out all the evidence (presented in my articles and elsewhere) of its radical and terrorist connections, including U.S. court documents. I explained this for the Times more than five weeks ago but they paid no attention and they still cannot find any of this evidence!

The article even includes a pro-IHH video without any balancing video, of which a number are easily available. There is virtually no hint that the militants on board had earlier shouted slogans advocating genocide for Jews, declared their intention to be Jihad martyrs, or attacked and kidnapped the arriving soldiers....

Read it all.

What shall we make of David Cameron? What can we learn from his little speech in Ankara? What does it tell us about his mental makeup, his grasp of history, his powers of understanding, his ability to make sense of things, his hierarchy of values, his appreciation and knowledge of the country of which he is now, almost accidentally, the Prime Minister, his experience of men and events, his everything?

Let's start with how the speech itself starts:

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for that very warm welcome. I can tell from your enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs that I met outside this incredible building that there is an enormous spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurialism and industry and business and trade here in Turkey, and that is one of the reasons that I want our two countries to build this incredibly strong relationship that I will be speaking about this morning.

I have come to Ankara to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country. As Prime Minister, I first visited our two largest European Union partners, then Afghanistan, then North America and now, I come to Turkey. People ask me, 'Why Turkey?' and, 'Why so soon?' Well, I can tell you why: because Turkey is vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our politics and our diplomacy.

Let me explain. First, our economy.

So: The Economy.

That's really the main point of Cameron's speech. It is that Great Britain wants economic ties, wants to make money, from the Turkish market. That's it. And he comes not as the representative of a country that is equal to, much less conceivably superior to, that of the country and regime he is visiting, but as a supplicant, kowtowing rhetorically to Erdogan.

Cliff May asks common-sensical and thought-provoking questions. They'll be ignored, of course. "Dear Mayor Bloomberg: A few questions you might want to ask before approving a mosque for Ground Zero," by Cliff May, July 29:

Your Honor:

In regard to the proposal to build an Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Manhattan, I commend you for saying: "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness, and I think it's a great message for the world. . . . " But I would urge you to question whether this project truly represents that idea -- or whether it undermines it.

Start with this: Before this project is approved, surely New Yorkers and other Americans should know who will be picking up the more than $100 million tab. Would you not be distressed were it later to be revealed that funds had been contributed by people who also finance terrorism?

You'll recall that, after the 9/11 attacks, your predecessor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million check from a Saudi prince who had said that America shares blame for the atrocity. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the Islamic center project, has said that U.S. policies "were an accessory to the crime that happened." How is that different?

By the way, the Saudi royal family embraces Wahhabism, an interpretation of Islam that cannot be said to value "tolerance and openness." Among other things, in Saudi Arabia non-Muslim houses of worship are prohibited and "infidels" -- people like you and me -- may not set foot in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina upon pain of death. Newt Gingrich has called on Abdul Rauf to state clearly that he disagrees with such policies. Is that not a reasonable request?

I have an additional suggestion: If this project -- also called the "Cordoba Initiative"-- is really to "symbolize interfaith cooperation," if it's really to be an "inter-religious center," a 13-story home for "multi-faith collaboration," should it not contain a synagogue and a church as well as a mosque?

I would recommend putting each on a different floor. On the highest floor, let's put the church -- since Christians founded this great nation of ours. One floor down, let's put a synagogue, since Jews were among the earliest immigrants to find religious freedom in America. And one floor farther down, we'd have the mosque, a place for a newer generation of immigrants to gather and worship freely.

Here's my guess: If you propose this to Abdul Rauf, emphasizing, as you have in the past, the First Amendment rule that the government "shouldn't be in the business of picking" one religion over another, he will nonetheless refuse. He will offer all sorts of explanations, but the truth, I suspect, is that he believes that Islam is not "one of the world's great religions" but rather the only true religion, that others are false and wicked. He will find it blasphemous that you want this center to give equal status to Christianity and Judaism. And he will see putting a church and synagogue on higher floors as symbolizing more than equality....

Read it all.

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?