Brave Sir Ahmed ran away: Hamas-linked CAIR op passed up a chance to be on ALA panel, and now crows about his victory over free speech

Brave Sir Ahmed

In "The Islam-Basher and the Librarian Kerkuffle" at the Huffington Post, July 14, Ahmed Rehab of Hamas-linked CAIR-Chicago, who just succeeded in strong-arming the American Library Association into canceling a panel on which I had been scheduled to appear, crows about his campaign against free speech and the truth about Islamic jihad.

However, he left a few things out. No problem, Ahmed. I'm here to help, and always glad to be of service. Here is what Ahmed Rehab left out as he told his side of the story:

1. Informed sources have revealed to me that Ahmed Rehab of CAIR was invited by Myra Appel of the American Library Association to join this panel with me. Rehab refused. Instead of seizing the opportunity to show me up, prove me wrong, and thus severely damage, if not destroy, my reputation, Ahmed Rehab took the coward's and thug's way out, pressuring the other panelists to drop off the panel, and the ALA to cancel the whole thing.

Can't handle the truth, eh, Ahmed? But no worries: I am right here, at director@jihadwatch.org, and ready to meet you in debate anytime, anywhere, at my own expense. If I am so clearly and obviously wrong about jihad and Islamic supremacism, it ought to be easy for you to best me, no? If you can manage to stop cowering under the bed long enough, poor lamb!

Here is a song honor of the brave Rehab, with apologies to Monty Python:

Brave Sir Ahmed ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When Spencer reared his ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Ahmed turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Ahmed!

2. Rehab quotes copiously from my bio information here, but he left out this:

Spencer...has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community. [...]

In addition to the seminars on Islam and jihad that Spencer has led for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, the FBI, branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry.

Why do you think he left all that out? Could it be that he doesn't want HuffPo readers and the ALA to know that I am not the ignorant bigot and racist of his defamatory caricature?

3. Rehab also left out a few facts about his employer. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Hmmm. Now why wouldn't he want anyone to know about his organization's proud track record?

(Photo thanks to Joe Kaufman.)

UPDATE: Rehab has completely reworked his HuffPo piece, larding it with photos of me (wearing a shirt!) and largely unsupported (surprise!) claims about my work. But no admission that he was invited onto the panel and didn't have the guts to appear, and no acceptance of my challenge to debate here. How about it, Ahmed? What is it that you don't want the American people to know?

And in a fine distillation of the essence of the man's character, he adds in this preposterous ex post facto prophecy: "I would not be surprised if he were to read this piece only to respond with a juvenile personal attack against me on his hate blog." This was not in his original article, and clearly he had already seen this post when he wrote it. Mr. Rehab, are you even capable of being honest?

Fitzgerald: "That will have to do for now. Perhaps another time."

Yes. "Perhaps another time." Svend White, Defender of the Faith (that faith being the Total Belief-System of Islam), will "perhaps another time" be able to begin to find time in his busy schedule of Defending That Faith and Attacking All Those Who Raise Uncomfortable Questions About It to begin to answer the questions Robert Spencer actually asked him to answer. But right now Svend White, an apparent convert to Islam, simply can't be bothered. You see, he has other things to deal with, such as questioning the "credentials" of Robert Spencer to discuss Islam. Here’s how Svend White originally put it:

He's neither a librarian nor a community outreach professional--an understatement if ever there was one--and while the popular tracts against Islam that he churns out at such regular intervals may earn him an 'A' for effort he certainly isn't taken seriously as a scholar in the fields of Religious Studies or Middle Eastern Studies. So his qualifications and relevance seem exceedingly dubious for an event of this nature.

Never mind the business of being that doubtful, even unappetizing, thing, a “community outreach professional.”

Never mind the baseless assertion that “he [Robert Spencer] certainly isn’t taken seriously as a scholar in the fields of Religious Studies or Middle Eastern Studies.” Ibn Warraq, who has produced four scholarly books on early Islam and the origins of the Qur’an, takes Spencer seriously, and so do all of the apostates from Islam -- those highly articulate, morally advanced people who, through no fault of their own, were born into Islam (unlike Svend White, who appears to be one of those who voluntarily signed on as a recruit to the Army of Islam), and who, in the mental freedom of the West, and in the physical security that powerful non-Muslim countries can offer apostates, analyzed the nature of Islam, in ways not different from those employed by Spencer. They find him to be perfectly credible and, indeed, a truth-teller among a great many purveyors of plausible (and implausible) nonsense.

ISNA's U.S. Government-Approved Racist Hatefest

In "ISNA's U.S. Government-Approved Racist Hatefest" at Human Events today, Pamela Geller examines the recent convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in a jihad terror funding case and close partner of that other unindicted co-conspirator, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) put on a hatefest during its annual convention in Washington over the Fourth of July weekend. The popular American Muslim speaker Hamza Yusuf of California’s Zaytuna Institute illustrated this when he declared July 4th a Muslim Day -- because on that day, Muslims defeated the crusaders.

One featured speaker was the Imam Warith Deen Umar, the former head of New York prisons’ Muslim chaplain program. He spoke about his books, Jews for Salaam: The Straight Path to Global Peace, and Judaiology. Umar repeatedly described Jewish conspiracies to control the world, saying:

“You need to know that Obama, the first man that Obama picked when we were so happy that he was the President, he picked an Israeli -- Rahm Emanuel -- his number one man. His number two man -- [David] Axelrod -- another Israeli person. Why do this small number of people have control of the world…There’s some people in the world says no Holocaust even happened. Some of their leaders say no Holocaust even happened. Well it did happen. These people were punished. They were punished for a reason because they were serially disobedient to Allah.”

These rants are not surprising. Robert Spencer reminds us: “ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror funding case. The Holy Land Foundation, once the nation’s largest Islamic charity, was ultimately found guilty of funneling millions of dollars in charitable contributions to the jihad terror group Hamas.”

What is surprising is that the Justice Department and the White House are sanctioning this un-indicted co-conspirator. Senior Adviser to the President Valerie Jarrett and officials of the Department of Justice were present at the ISNA convention, where Umar engaged in this hatred of Jews. What does that say?

Read it all.

Hamas accuses Israel of sending aphrodisiac gum into Gaza; will Bill Clinton announce a fact-finding mission?

Okay, so the part about Clinton is a joke. But when Hamas accuses Israel of corrupting the young, that is no joke at all. When Hamas levels such a charge, it is aware of the significance it will have for Muslims who know their Qur'an, situating the modern-day Jews as those meriting divinely-mandated retribution:

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." -- Qur'an 5:33

"Hamas says Israel dumping aphrodisiac gum on Gaza," from AFP, July 14 (thanks to James):

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Hamas suspects that Israeli intelligence services are supplying its Gaza Strip stronghold with chewing gum that boosts the sex drive in order to "corrupt the young," an official said on Tuesday.

"We have discovered two types of stimulants that were introduced into the Gaza Strip from Israeli border crossings," Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan told AFP.

"The first type is presented in the form of chewing gum and the second in the form of drops," he said.

The Islamist movement that has run the densely populated and impoverished Palestinian territory for the past two years said it has detained members of a gang that helped to bring in the products.

"They admitted during the investigation they were linked to the Zionist intelligence services," he said....

Fitzgerald: In Iraq, Is What's To Come Still Unsure?

After all the effort, all the expense, all the thousands of men killed and the tens of thousands who are permanently maimed and will require lifetime care; after all the handing out of contracts, and the spending of nearly a hundred billion on "reconstruction" in a country that was hardly constructed to begin with; after all the efforts to pass out, like candy -- and candy too was passed out -- the billions and billions to local Arabs in Iraq, with billions more spent in Kuwait and other Gulf states (for a great deal of money was sucked from the American teat by many Arabs in the Gulf, all of them delighted to add to their oil revenues with money from apparently limitlessly trusting Americans); after the "counterinsurgency" manuals with their "rules" establishing just how long -- on average! -- insurgencies last; and after all the deep seriousness with which such rules were taken, and Islam ignored, as incense was apparently burned at Leavenworth and points east to the memory of David Galula; after all this, we come down to what was always predictable, and at JW was predicted.

The removal of Saddam Hussein ended forever the Sunni Arab despotism in Iraq, under which Shi'a had chafed since the beginning of modern Iraq in roughly 1920. The Shi'a Arabs have steadily increased their share of the population, and now constitute at least 65% of the population. The Sunni Arabs now constitute less than 20% of the population. The rest are Kurds, with Turcomans and Christians constituting, at this point, a million or two more.

Al-Qaeda threatens to hit China over Uighurs

But of course it's nationalist "unrest" that has nothing to do with Islam. "Al-Qaeda vows to hit China over Uighur unrest," by Polly Hui for AFP, July 14 (thanks to Neil):

HONG KONG (AFP) – Al-Qaeda is threatening for the first time to attack Chinese interests overseas in retaliation for the deaths of Muslims in the restive region of Xinjiang, according to a risk analysis group.

The call for reprisals against China comes from the Algerian-based offshoot Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), according to a summary of its report sent to AFP by the international consultancy Stirling Assynt.

"Although AQIM appear to be the first arm of Al-Qaeda to officially state they will target Chinese interests, others are likely to follow," said the report, which was first divulged by the South China Morning Post Tuesday.

Osama bin Laden's network has not previously threatened China, but the Stirling report said a thirst for vengeance over Beijing's clampdown in Xinjiang was spreading over the global jihadist community....

The most likely scenario would be that Al-Qaeda's central leadership would encourage their affiliates in North Africa and the Arabian peninsula to attack Chinese targets near at hand, it said.

Al-Qaeda centrally does "not want to open a new front with China," the analysis said.

"But equally their sense of Muslim solidarity compels them to help and/or to be seen to be helping. This is also a factor in helping the organisation regain support and funding from their global constituency."...

Indian state promises to stop referring to terror groups as "Islamic"

Question: has Anwarul Haq Chaudhury or any of the Muslim MLAs, or Congress, AGP, AUDF and Independent legislators who objected to the term "Islamic militancy" ever registered any objection to the names of the following terror groups?

Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb
Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front
Islamic Army of Aden
Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Moro Islamic Liberation Front
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage
Students Islamic Movement of India

If not, why not? Why is it always non-Muslims who are being called to account for "identifying" Islam with "terrorism," while the many Muslims around the world who are energetically making that same identification never seem to arouse any protest from Muslim spokesmen or others?

"No 'Islamic' tag on terror outfits: Gogoi," from the Times of India, July 14 (thanks to Vijay):

GUWAHATI: Protests in Assam assembly against the use of the word ‘Islamic’ to refer to terrorist groups in the state on Monday led to chief minister Tarun Gogoi assuring his government would stop such a use of the word in future.

Gogoi’s comment came after Assam United Democratic Front legislator Anwarul Haq Chaudhury objected to ‘Islamic militancy’ used in a question by Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) MLA Prabin Gogoi.

The issue was immediately grabbed by Muslim MLAs cutting across party lines and Congress, AGP, AUDF and even Independent legislators vehemently objected, calling it an insult to the community.

A non-answer from a critic

I'm constantly told that what I say about Islam and jihad is wrong, wrong, wrong, and evidence that I'm an evil fellow to boot -- as CAIR and its useful idiots have been saying again and again in the wake of the ALA controversy. But whenever I ask a critic to show me exactly where I'm wrong, somehow the critic in question can't quite manage to do it. Now why might that be?

And so it is with Svend White, whom I asked yesterday: "What I want to ask you is this: I have heard innumerable times that I offer 'selective surveys of facts.' Very well. Please supply what I’m leaving out. This is a serious request. Please supply, specifically, rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Please show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this."

Here is his non-answer:

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Some corrections and clarifications: First (and perhaps you can be forgiven for overlooking this fact given the number and chaotic arrangement of comments on the blog), I made it quite clear in my contributions that I was questioning your credibility and qualifications not to discuss “Islamic issues” but rather to participate in a forum on library policies and outreach to Muslim communities. Second, you neglected to note the backdrop of lively and blunt give and take regarding Islam—some of it quite crudely prejudiced or hostile—in the comments which inevitably colored my comments at times. Third, despite my inclusion of a link to the term’s definition you neglected to note that “Islamophobe-e-Azam” was a play on the title Quaid-e-Azam (“Great Leader”) used by Pakistanis for their nation’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, rather than some obscure insult or malediction; given your already established fame as a critic of Islam and, thus, little need for introduction to Muslim readers in the Blogosphere, it functioned as a joke more than anything else. Fourth, the quip about your writings representing a “personal crusade” involved a bit of poetic license, but I think it’s a defensible interpretation of your career as a public figure. More generally, my comments were frank and opionated [sic] —in keeping with the medium—but hardly “defamatory.” In fact, I took another commenter to task for engaging in ad hominem attacks against you. (Still, there is a limit to how diplomatic one can be when confronting what one sees as bigotry; a spade must be called a spade.)

I am not particularly inclined to write a treatise on special topics in Fiqh for Jihad Watch or otherwise play games with you. My comments on the blog in question were undoubtedly a bit disjointed and off the cuff, but they captured the gist of my concerns reasonably well. People who dismiss those objections out of hand aren’t likely to be a very receptive audience for further reflections by me here.

Islamic law is besides the point in a way, though. In my view, the flaws in your writings on Islam transcend simple factual points and speak to far more fundamental conceptual problems. There is a critical dearth of social scientific awareness in the writings I have seen by you, this manifesting itself most strikingly in an acute overemphasize [sic] of jurisprudence, as if Islamic civilization and Muslims were simply the sum of their laws. (Nor coincidently [sic], I suspect, this narrow, legalistic approach dovetails nicely with the agenda of those in contemporary politics intent on discouraging consideration of the many non-religious factors at play in the Muslim world’s problems.)

The graver problem, though is systematic bias, and the point at which it rises to the level of outright prejudice and hate. As you must know, a new definition of anti-Semitism added to the Western political lexicon in recent years holds that criticism of Israel that demands of the Jewish State that it adhere to standards never applied to other nations is anti-Semitism. It is a reasonable criterion for prejudice and method of detecting more insidious forms of bias. It is also at the crux of this debate: Analyses of Muslims—or any other community, for that matter—that discuss them in a vacuum and hold them to ahistorical and/or unique standards are equally immoral and intellectually disreputable. (Sadly, it has become second nature in wide swathes [sic] of American political life to view Muslims through such a dehumanizing, Islamophobic prism, thanks in part to the attacks of people such as yourself.)

That will have to do for now. Perhaps another time.

Sincerely,
Svend

Deflection, focus-shifting, new charges -- no answer to my question.

Typical.

Do I really think, in any case, that "Islamic civilization and Muslims" are "simply the sum of their laws"? Of course not. The fact that is constantly ignored by the likes of White and CAIR is that Muslims around the world are acting upon those laws on a daily basis. Thus when they cry foul when I quote those laws, and say that I'm misrepresenting them, quoting out of context, etc., their protestations ring hollow.

Uighurs called for jihad, pulled out knives

"The imam then ended the prayers, adding: 'We will definitely not follow you. Get out!'" Good for him, although it is more likely that his disapproval was motivated by political expediency rather than by some deep conviction that Muslims must not wage war in the name of Islam -- after all, the Uighurs who have been fighting the Han Chinese, as well as the ones who ended up in Afghanistan and then in Guantanamo, must have learned about jihad somewhere.

"Uighurs called for 'jihad,'" from AFP, July 14 (thanks to James):

BEIJING - THREE Uighur men tried to incite other Muslims to launch a 'jihad' and attacked a mosque security guard before police shot and killed two of them, state media reported on Tuesday.

The incident began when around 150 Muslims were praying in a mosque in Urumqi, the capital of the northwest Xinjiang region on Monday, Xinhua news agency said, citing an unnamed imam who was giving a service at the time.

One man stood up and tried to take over the prayers but was stopped, the imam told Xinhua. A few minutes later the man reportedly stood up holding a green banner and started calling for a 'jihad'.

The imam then ended the prayers, adding: 'We will definitely not follow you. Get out!", according to Xinhua.

As the man was being ordered from the mosque, two other men took out three 50 centimetre long knives from a bag, Xinhua said.

Security guards then tried to stop the men. One of the guards, aged in his 40s who did not want to give his name, said the group chased him out of the mosque wielding the knives where they met patrolling police, Xinhua said.

Police fired warnings shots to try to stop the men before shooting at the three, killing two and injuring one.

A government statement released on Monday soon after the attack said: 'Police shot and killed two suspected lawbreakers and injured one suspected lawbreaker using legal means.' The statement said the three Uighurs were trying to attack another person from the Uighur minority group.

The government's statement and the Xinhua report conflicted with accounts by two Uighurs who said they witnessed the incident from 50 metres away and that three Uighur men had been trying to attack security forces. 'They hacked at the soldiers with big knives and then they were shot,' said one of the witnesses, who said the incident took place across the street from a mosque....

We are not at war with Maliki -- but is he at war with us?

Traveling correspondent Michael Totten takes issue with this post:

Robert Spencer, founder and lead writer for Jihad Watch, has a bit of trouble telling the difference between friend and foe in Iraq and still thinks, despite everything, that the United States is losing the war.

Instead of referring to me by name, he sarcastically dismisses me as a “learned analyst,” as he does with President Barack Obama and his advisors, while scoffing at a long dispatch I published last week. “No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq’s cities because they were beaten,” I wrote. Spencer acknowledges that Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki isn’t the leader of an insurgent or terrorist group. But he maintains that my statement is “breathtaking in its disconnect from reality” because Maliki declared the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq’s cities “a great victory.”

Yes, I didn't name him because I was using his statement as an example of a tendency. But as long as he has responded, I will respond in turn.

We are not, and never have been, at war with Prime Minister Maliki. Everyone with even a pedestrian familiarity with events in Iraq during the last couple of years knows that American soldiers and Marines have fought alongside Maliki’s Iraqi soldiers and police against common enemies – Al Qaeda in Iraq and the various offshoots and branches of Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Not even in an alternate universe have Maliki’s men fought Americans and forced them to withdraw.

Where did I claim otherwise?

They fought, bled, and died alongside Americans. The United States military recently withdrew from most of Iraq’s urban areas as stipulated by the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, but they’re still training and working closely with Iraqi security forces.

Not without incident.

Maliki’s “great victory” statement was an attempt to suck up to the anti-Americans in his electoral constituency who are unhappy with his close relationship with the United States. Iraq’s most sectarian Sunni Arabs regularly accuse Maliki of being an Iranian puppet prime minister when they aren’t contradicting themselves by joining radical Shias and saying he’s an American puppet prime minister. Maliki is closer to Iran than Americans and Iraq’s Sunnis would like, but he’s much closer to the United States where it counts most. He has never sent his men into battle against Americans. But he did order his soldiers into battle alongside Americans last year against Iranian-backed Shia militias in Sadr City and Basra. He also put the Sons of Iraq – whom he used to decry as an anti-Shia Sunni militia – on his government’s payroll.

I don’t know if throwing a rhetorical bone to Iraq’s most strident anti-Americans to shore up his nationalist bona fides is a good idea or if it isn’t. Either way, it’s not hard to see that’s what he’s doing. And it’s frankly ridiculous for Spencer to write as though I have no idea what’s going on in Iraq when he thinks a political speech for domestic consumption overrides the fact that for years Maliki has been at war not against us but with us against our mutual enemies.

Does Spencer believe that, all of a sudden and for no apparent reason, Maliki sympathizes with the terrorists and insurgents he recently crushed?

Of course not. This is the third straw man Totten has set up in the space of eight paragraphs.

“In any case,” Spencer writes, “any ‘victory’ the Americans won in Iraq was sure to be undone as soon as the troops were gone, and we are already seeing that. Sunni will go after Shi’ite and vice versa, the Iranians will press forward to create a Shi’ite client state, the non-Muslims will be victimized more than ever…”

Iraq has made a fool of just about everyone, including me, who has claimed to know in advance what the future would look like. The entire Middle East makes fools of its prophets. Most of us who work there eventually learn this the hard way. Nobody can know what’s going to happen in Iraq now that the U.S. is pulling back.

Spencer’s view might by chance be correct. Around half the Iraqis and half the Americans I’ve spoken to in Iraq think the country is more likely than not to disintegrate. The other half don’t. And the optimists who live and work over there, just like the pessimists, know more about Iraq than Robert Spencer and I do combined.

Well, here is some background information that may help us all learn a bit more:

"Doubts on Maliki pledge to Iran," from the BBC, June 9, 2008:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has reassured Iran about a proposed security pact being negotiated between Iraq and the US. He told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran would not be the victim of any security deal between Iraq and the US.

"Maliki: Iraq, Iran plan economic ties," from UPI, January 4, 2009:

TEHRAN, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- Iraq and Iran have created two committees to strengthen economic ties, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday as he ended a visit to Tehran.

The trip was Maliki's fourth to the neighboring Shiite state since he became prime minister. He had meetings President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Parviz Daoudi, the first vice president, Fars News Agency reported.

At a news conference, Maliki said the goal of his trip was a wider relationship between Iran and Iraq, the Tehran Times said. He said Cabinet members from both countries will supervise the two committees....

"Maliki moves to develop Iran relations," from UPI, January 5, 2009:

TEHRAN, Jan. 5 (UPI) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says he has established a committee to develop the country's relations with Iran.

Speaking to reporters in Tehran Monday after wrapping up meetings with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other officials, Maliki said his visit to Tehran has resulted of the formation of a supreme joint committee for bilateral relations development, Iraqi broadcaster Al Sumaria reported.

Maliki said an agreement was reached to form a reconstruction services company with Iran that would come into play after Iraq has gained more stability....

"Freed Iranians Get A Heroes’ Welcome Back Home As Iran Shakes A Fist at U.S.," by Patrick Goodenough for CNSNews, July 13, 2009:

(CNSNews.com) – Iran on Sunday welcomed as heroes five men held by U.S. forces in Iraq on suspicion of aiding deadly anti-coalition violence. Iran played down any suggestion that their release may help to improve relations between Tehran and Washington....

When the men were captured in Arbil in January 2007, the U.S. linked them to the Qods Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an organization the U.S. and British governments and militaries have accused of facilitating violence by Shi’ite militias against coalition forces.

In particular, the two governments have accused Iran and the Qods Force of responsibility for an influx of deadly roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs), especially “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) with shaped charges designed to pierce armored vehicles....

U.S. forces last week handed the Iranians over to Iraqi custody, although the State Department acknowledged that there were ongoing concerns about the safety of U.S. forces – concerns which it said had been made clear to the Iraqis.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi’ite with close historical ties to Iran, immediately turned the five over to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad....

"Freed Iranians highlight US-Iraq conflict," by Gareth Porter for Asia Times, July 14, 2009:

WASHINGTON - The release on Friday of five Iranians held by the United States military in Iraq for two-and-a-half years highlights the long-simmering conflict between the US and Iraqi views of Iranian policy in Iraq and of the role of its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) there.

For the Barack Obama administration, as for the George W Bush administration before it, the Iranian detainees had become symbols of what Washington steadfastly insisted was an Iranian effort to use the IRGC to destabilize the Iraqi regime.

But high-ranking Shi'ite and Kurdish officials of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had never shared the US view of the IRGC or of the Iranian role. They have acted on the premise that Iran is interested in ensuring that a friendly Shi'ite regime would remain in power....

I believe that's what I said.

Iranian artist gets five years in jail for "musical Qur'an"

Another consequence of Sharia law and its strictures on freedom of speech and expression is a climate of fear that makes creative thought too risky. And its chilling effect reaches far beyond the performing arts, retarding the development of the sciences and other areas of life.

Mohsen Namju Update. "Iran: Artist gets five year jail term for musical Koran," from Adnkronos International, July 13:

Tehran, 13 July (AKI) - An Iranian artist has been sentenced to five years in prison for having put the Koran to music. According to 'Fardanews', the Iranian authorities considered the move "offensive to Islamic morality".

Mohsen Namju is accused of having ridiculed the Koran, "reciting it in a western and anti-Islamic style".

One of the major experts on recitation of the the Koran in Iran, Abbas Salimi, reported the musician to the Islamic court in Tehran.

The court found the artist guilty for having breached "Islamic morality".

After the sentence, Abbas Salimi was reportedly "very satisfied" and underlined the importance of "defending the sacredness of god's book".

"No-one should be able to ridicule it," he said....

Al Qaida: Western spies multiply "like locusts" and "pretend they are Muslims"

And the locust sang

Creating a thorny legal problem: "al-Libi ruminated at length on the religious and legal problem of the Muslim spy. Can there be a Muslim who spies against other Muslims or, since such a person would by definition be an apostate, is a Muslim spy a contradiction in terms? May such a person be killed? (It depends.) To convict a spy nowadays is it necessary to rely on the traditional two witnesses? (Again, it depends.) What about a person who is mistakenly executed as a spy? (God will reward him.)"

"Al Qaida: Western Spies Multiply 'Like Locusts,'” from Secrecy News, July 13 (thanks to jetcal1):

From the point of view of an al Qaida military leader, Western intelligence agents are now ubiquitous in the lands of Islam, and their operations have been extraordinarily effective. The Western spies are unfailingly lethal, leaving a trail of dead Islamist fighters behind them. Worst of all, they have managed to recruit innumerable Muslims to assist their war efforts.

“The spies… were sent to penetrate the ranks of the Muslims generally, and the mujahidin specifically, and [they] spread all over the lands like locusts,” wrote Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al Qaida field commander in Afghanistan, in a new book called “Guidance on the Ruling of the Muslim Spy” (pdf).

“The spies are busy day and night carrying out their duties in an organized and secret manner… How many heroic leaders have been kidnapped at their hands? How many major mujahidin were surprised to be imprisoned or traced? Even the military and financial supply roads of the mujahidin, which are far from the enemy’s surveillance, were found by the spies.”

Al Qaida operations have been severely impeded by the intelligence war against them, al-Libi said. “As soon as the mujahidin get secretly into an area on a dark night, they are confronted by the Cross forces and their helpers. Many are killed or captured.”

Western spies are found under every conceivable cover, al-Libi wrote. “They have among them old hunchbacked men who cannot even walk, strong young men, weak women inside their house, young girls, and even children who did not reach puberty yet. The spy might be a doctor, nurse, engineer, student, preacher, scholar, runner, or a taxi driver. The spy can be anyone….”

“The occupation armies completely rely on recruiting spies and informants from the Muslim lands they usurped and conquered… The spy lives among Muslims, being one of them: living their life, wearing their dress, eating what they eat… Therefore, he can access what the armed soldiers of the occupation cannot put hands on.”

In the new book, published in Arabic (pdf) on jihadist websites on June 30, al-Libi ruminated at length on the religious and legal problem of the Muslim spy. Can there be a Muslim who spies against other Muslims or, since such a person would by definition be an apostate, is a Muslim spy a contradiction in terms? May such a person be killed? (It depends.) To convict a spy nowadays is it necessary to rely on the traditional two witnesses? (Again, it depends.) What about a person who is mistakenly executed as a spy? (God will reward him.)

Pervading the book is a sense of the overwhelming impact of U.S. and Allied intelligence operations on jihadist forces, and the willingness of indigenous Muslims to act with Western intelligence against those forces.

“Everyone who lives in the jihad battlegrounds… knows well that the occupation forces could not do one-tenth of what they do now if they did not recruit spies and informants…. Most of the mujahidin and their soldiers were killed or captured because of the intelligence information that the infidel forces have obtained from the secret soldiers whom they recruit, like swarms of locusts, from the native citizens who talk our language and pretend they are Muslims.”...

Hamas-linked CAIR instructs Muslims approached by "extremists" not to go to law enforcement, but to call them first

As Hamas-linked CAIR crows about its victory over free speech at the American Library Association convention, here is a revealing video from that unsavory organization. As Pamela says, "Attempting to silence us, attacking free speech, silencing everyone who uses the phrase 'jihad against the west' ..... is a part of the jihad against the West."

From Creeping Sharia (thanks to Pamela):

If any person is solicited to join a politically extreme organization or to make statements regarding the media crazed catch-phrase “jihad against the West”, CAIR is requesting that you notify them of the incident....

This video from a CAIR lawyer instructs Muslims not to call law enforcement to report suspicious activity, but to call their mosque or imam first, and the imam or mosque will then contact CAIR, who will then give a third-person account to law enforcement.

Why? Why not contact law enforcement immediately? Could it be so CAIR can craft the story appropriately or coach the witness on what to say or not say? Why contact an imam or mosque with no law enforcement training, background, or authority?

Why then contact CAIR – a group whose founders have been convicted of terror-related offenses? A group who is currently under a RICO indictment for alleged crimes against Muslims? A group who has threatened to not cooperate with the FBI.

The FBI has gone so far as banning field agents from meeting with CAIR due to CAIR’s connection to Hamas – a terrorist group – although there are still meetings taking place.

Democratic and Republican politicians have recommended that the U.S. government not have any relation with CAIR – although CAIR’s chairman is North Carolina state senator Larry Shaw.

This video featuring a CAIR lawyer also instructs Muslims to report incidents to CAIR if they are approached regarding attacks of violence against “civilians”. In accordance with Islamic sharia law, attacks on non-civilians, are permitted. And according to CAIR, only attacks on civilians need be reported, so conversely, attacks on non-civilians – like the deadly jihad attack on two U.S. Army soldiers in Arkansas by a Muslim American, do not need to be reported as they are permitted. (No mention of that deadly attack on CAIR’s website – could it be because the two victims of jihad were not “civilians”?)

Jihadist group to meet in Chicago -- will CAIR-Chicago complain?

The Chicago chapter of the Hamas-linked group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) succeeded in intimidating the American Library Association into canceling a panel on which I was scheduled to appear this past weekend.

CAIR, of course, would have you believe that they, and all American Muslims, abhor terrorism, reject Islamic supremacism, and fully accept Constitutional pluralism and the non-establishment of religion.

Very well. I expect, then, that they will protest against this event strenuously. Well, Mr. Rehab? Well, Mr. Hooper?

Or do jihadists not bother you -- only those who are standing against the jihadists get under your skin?

"Pro-Terror Group to Meet in Chicago Suburb," from IPT News, July 10 (thanks to Paul):

Hizb ut-Tahrir, an international movement seeking to re-establish an international Islamic state - or Caliphate - and to indoctrinate Muslims into supporting jihad, wants to step up its recruitment efforts in the United States. On July 19, the group, whose alumni include 9/ 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and suicide bombers, will hold a conference entitled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" in the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Ill, a Chicago suburb.

For decades, Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) has operated covertly, holding these Khalifa (Caliphate) conferences in the United States under the name of front organizations. But that has begun to change. Last fall, the group issued a leaflet in its own name urging Muslims to boycott the U.S. elections. The group just released this video promoting the July 19 conference. According to the conference website, the program includes a question-and-answer session and two panels; one entitled "Capitalism is Doomed to Fail," the other "The Suffering Under Capitalism."

The conference initially was scheduled for the Aqsa School in Bridgeview, Ill. But the school withdrew, claiming Hizb ut-Tahrir officials "misrepresented themselves." An official said the group approached the school in late April claiming it wanted to hold a bazaar-type event in July that would involve selling traditional food and clothing. School officials said that when they learned the real purpose, they cancelled and refunded the group's deposit.

While solid numbers are difficult to come by, there is little question that Hizb ut-Tahrir's worldwide membership has grown substantially since the September 11 attacks, says Madeleine Gruen, a senior analyst with the NEFA Foundation. In 2003, estimates of HT membership ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 people worldwide. Today, by contrast, the group (currently active in more than 40 countries) has approximately 100,000 members in Indonesia alone and "many thousands" more around the world, Gruen told IPT News.

In the United States, Hizb ut-Tahrir's following is estimated at no more than a few hundred. The decision to hold this month's conference under its own name is a sign that the group is preparing to raise its profile. Once that is achieved, Gruen adds, its cadres are supposed to establish "an Islamic government and military" in order to take Hizb ut-Tahrir's message to the world....

Read it all.

Pervert Travels in the Muslim World

Gay rights advocates make a huge issue of Christian opposition to gay marriage, while remaining indifferent to the Islamic jihad -- or, if they care about the jihad, many are still willing to throw overboard allies who may not be in lockstep with their social agenda. The fact that the Islamic jihadists, once in power, will treat gays far more harshly than Christian conservatives ever dreamed of doing doesn't seem to enter into their calculations.

"Book Translation: 'Gay' Equals 'Pervert,'" by Julie Bolcer for The Advocate, July 13 (thanks to Bruce):

Gay travel journalist Michael Luongo...received a mixed surprise last week when he learned that the Arabic translation of his 2007 book, Gay Travels in the Muslim World was completed ahead of schedule -- with the word “gay” translated as “pervert.”

“It literally means 'different',” Luongo told Advocate.com about the word that Beirut-based publisher Arab Diffusion chose to use. “But it can also mean 'pervert.' It depends on whom you talk to.”

Luongo said the translation, which was reported in The New York Post’s Page Six on Sunday, could interfere with his plans to promote the book in the Middle East in October.

“All of the gay rights organizations in the Middle East that I was planning to do events with, once they saw the word, were horrified,” said Luongo. A more modern Arabic word for gay meaning “homosexual” or “same-sex” exists, but publisher Arab Diffusion deferred to their usual practice.

“The publisher said this is the word they’ve traditionally used,” said Luongo.

Luongo added that he did not vet the translation before its publication, largely because the project was finished earlier than he expected. In addition, the representative from his English-language publisher Routledge who negotiated the translation left her job in the meantime, and Luongo was living overseas in Argentina.

He said that he asked Arab Diffusion to fix the problem, but the fate of so-called Pervert Travels in the Middle East remains unclear....

The wicked Zionists "destroyed" a Gaza hospital! Just one little detail: it, uh, never existed

Palestinian media manipulation and demonization of Israel update: "Israel ‘Destroyed’ Gaza Hospital that Never Existed," by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for Israel National News, July 13 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Another anti-Israeli campaign, this time charging that the IDF destroyed a Christian hospital in Gaza earlier this year, has gone up in smoke following an investigation by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). One question remains: what was supposed to happen with the $1.67 million raised for “rebuilding” the hospital?

Several months ago a fundraising campaign was conducted in Greece, with a star-studded telethon for the hospitals that Israel allegedly “destroyed with their bombs” during the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign from last December through mid-January.

The JTA revealed that the supposed hospital was not on United Nations and Red Crescent Society lists of damaged structures. Officials of non-government groups (NGOs) in Gaza told the American Jewish news network that only one Christian hospital was used during the campaign and that it did not sustain any damage....

Read it all.

Everybody knows that the plague is coming: Leonard Cohen encounters jihadist intransingence

He wanted to show his support for the "two-state solution." But the Palestinian Arabs only wanted him to appear if he supported a one-state solution, and the destruction of Israel.

Steven Plaut reports (thanks to Ruth King):

You no doubt recall that Leonard Cohen, the 1960s songwriter/poet, was planning to perform in Israel and "Palestine" (Ramallah) in order to show his support for two states for two peoples, and to earn himself some wampum now that his nest egg dissipated in the bear stock market. We bashed Lenny in these postings for his allowing himself to be co-opted by the terrorhoids.

Well, now it turns out that Lenny upset the Pestilinians because he refused to cancel his Israeli performance and to perform ONLY in "Palestine," as they demanded, to show his opposition to the continued existence of Israel. The main Palestinian group that promotes boycotts of Israel and whose leader is now a PhD student in "ethics" at Tel Aviv University demanded that Lenny join their boycott. He refused, whether out of principle or cause he needs the shekels. So the Palestinian boycotters started threatening the Palestinians who were serving to host Lenny's peace concert in Ramallah. Haaretz today reports that the Palestinian hosts have now dis-invited Cohen and the Ramallah concert is OFF!

Muslims torch Church, Egyptian authorities blame a Christian

"America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." -- Barack Obama, Cairo, June 4, 2009

"The State, the Security authorities and the Muslims all do not want any Churches, and the Muslim village inhabitants torched it because they just do not want any Churches."

"Muslims Set Church Ablaze But Egyptian Security Implicates a Christian Copt," from AINA, July 12 (thanks to all who sent this in):

(AINA) -- In a continuation of the ongoing wave of arson attacks on Coptic places of worship, the Church of St. Abaskharion Kellini, in the village of Ezbet Bassilious, Beni Mazar, was burnt down at noon on July 11 by Muslim village inhabitants. No one was injured.

A source in Bani Mazar Diocese told Free Copts advocacy the fire was instigated and directed as usual by State Security, aiming "to prevent prayers in new churches throughout both the Upper Egyptian provinces of Minya and of Beni Suef."

Reverend Abraham Phillobos, pastor of the torched Church told Coptic News Bulletin that the Security authorities are trying to falsely implicate the Copt Reda Gamal.

The Church was officially inaugurated on July 3 by the Bishop of Beni Mazar and was licensed for prayer. It was closed on that same day by State Security 'for security reasons and to avert a sectarian crisis,' and was placed under continuous guard.

Eyewitnesses named three Muslim village inhabitants Ahmed Abdelghani, Ahmed El-Qatawy and Eid Sayed Ahmad of torching the Church after spraying it with kerosene, according to Mikhael Fares of Copts United advocacy.

"The arson suspects went inside the church from a back door, but came out from the front of the burning Church in full view of the security guards," said an eye witness to Coptic News Bulletin. "Guards were there and just watched; when they heard explosions they went and stood far. They saw everything and did nothing, which is evidence of collusion."

"The State, the Security authorities and the Muslims all do not want any Churches, and the Muslim village inhabitants torched it because they just do not want any Churches," an eyewitness who wished to remain anonymous told Coptic News Bulletin. "We have been warned by security not to talk to anyone especially with the Coptic media from abroad."...

Selectivity and spin? An open request to critics

In the course of the recent controversy with the ALA, which caved to pressure from Hamas-linked CAIR and canceled a panel on which I was to appear, numerous criticisms of my work have appeared. One repository of them is at this site, which I do not highlight here because it manifests sober or balanced argumentation. The author, a Mr. Svend White, believes that Muslims in America are "being locked up on secret evidence, openly vilified and otherwise made into second class citizens" -- while complaining in the same breath about "truly moronic and demagogic claims," so there is a certain amusement value here, but it is still a useful summary site for the most common charges made about my work.

He says, among other things, that I have "dubious credibility and no evident qualifications to discuss" Islamic issues, calls me "Islamophobe-e-Azam" ("Great Islamophobe") and says that I am not "taken seriously as a scholar in the fields of Religious Studies or Middle Eastern Studies." I'm "undeniably polarizing and partisan," and am on a "personal crusade to make anti-Muslim prejudice intellectually respectable, churning out tracts to disabuse the world of the supposedly mistaken notion that there is any worthy of admiration in Islam and to clear up any lingering suspicions that [Islam] might share anything important with the civilized religions of Judaism and Christianity."

Most of this is just personal insult and tendentious prejudgment, and even White tacitly acknowledges that no such hatefulness can actually be found in my work when he claims that I "speak in code that makes it hard to pin [my] agenda down." (Dot dash dot, Svend!)

Nonetheless, he asserts that "a closer examination" of my writings "reveals an unmistakable pattern of *rationalizing* rather than critiquing prejudice, as much of his output is geared towards explaining why all the insulting and dehumanizing generalizations we rightfully find objectionable normally are, in the unique case of Islam and Muslims, completely justified by 'the facts.'” He even goes so far as to level the bizarre and preposterous charge that I think that "we Muslims are the root of all evil."

But leaving aside the self-pitying tosh and defamatory caricatures, he says this: "As always, the devil is in the details. First of all, his selective and tendentious presentation of Islamic doctrine and tradition is recognizable to neither traditional Muslim scholars nor Muslim reformers or liberals, so the idea that he is just a chronicler of Islamic tradition is untenable. No one outside his Muslim-bashing circles recognizes this 'Islam' that he deconstructs over and over. He’s a highly partisan critic, and one that most his supposed colleagues in academia ignore."

And over here, he says: "he consistently jerrymanders the discussion with selective surveys of facts and spins the issues so as to make inevitable a conclusion that the interpretations of the fanatics you mention reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition."

Very well. I've heard for years that I'm selective in my reading of the Qur'an and other Islamic sources, that I downplay peaceful aspects, etc. I don't think this is true, and have taken pains to make sure it isn't, and so I am asking again: prove it, please. Show me what I am leaving out. I invite Svend White or anyone else to supply what I ask for in a comment I left here. Here is that comment:

Svend:

You respond to this statement — “What Robert Spencer does is quote what Muslims themselves say and how they justify what they do under Islam” — by saying this: “This is certainly what Spencer claims (and perhaps believes himself) to do, but as you might guess I think he goes far beyond that humble task. In my view, he consistently jerrymanders the discussion with selective surveys of facts and spins the issues so as to make inevitable a conclusion that the interpretations of the fanatics you mention reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition.”

I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition,” and challenge you to prove that I have.

But leave that aside for now. What I want to ask you is this: I have heard innumerable times that I offer “selective surveys of facts.” Very well. Please supply what I’m leaving out. This is a serious request. Please supply, specifically, rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Please show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this.

If, on the other hand, you find that you cannot supply such evidence, and instead restrict your argument to demonstrating that the Qur’an and Sunnah teach that jihad is only and at all times to be defensive in character, please explain why the fard kifaya/fard ayn distinction was elaborated in Islamic law, and why the various madhahib elaborated guidelines for offensive jihad — and how you propose to convince them today to discard those guidelines, even were a caliphate to be restored.

Thanks in advance for filling in the gaps here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Oh, and if you believe that martial jihad is only defensive in character, please explain how you refute on Islamic grounds the argument -- an argument made by Muslims -- that kufr (unbelief) itself constitutes an offense against Allah and Islam, and requires Muslims to take up arms in defense.

Dirty wizard or homeless Santa

"Bruno" interviews a jihad terrorist. (Video thanks to Nicholas.)

Sudanese women flogged for wearing trousers

They were dressed indecently, doncha know. What fun they will have once they gain jurisdiction over the likes of Christina Aguilera.

Sharia Respects Women Alert: "Sudan women 'lashed for trousers,'" from the BBC, July 13 (thanks to Kasper):

A group of Sudanese women has been flogged as a punishment for dressing "indecently", according to a local journalist who was arrested with them.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who says she is facing 40 lashes, said she and 12 other women wearing trousers were arrested in a restaurant in the capital, Khartoum.

She told the BBC several of the women had pleaded guilty to the charges and had 10 lashes immediately.

Khartoum, unlike South Sudan, is governed by Sharia law.

Several of those punished were from the mainly Christian and animist south, Ms Hussein said.

Non-Muslims are not supposed to be subject to Islamic law, even in Khartoum and other parts of the mainly Muslim north....

Ms Hussein said some women pleaded guilty to "get it over with" but others, including herself, chose to speak to their lawyers and are awaiting their fates.

Under Sharia law in Khartoum, the normal punishment for "indecent" dressing is 40 lashes....

And then the imam's house blew up

This one comes courtesy of Jihad Watch reader "Dumbledoresarmy," who observes: "Here is a Muslim cleric's house, also 'used as a makeshift [Islamic] school', which suddenly goes ka-booom, creating an enormous crater, and flattening neighbouring houses. Now - can anyone imagine a newspaper report in which 'the rabbi's house blew up' or 'the priest's house blew up' or 'the guru's house blew up' because they were being used as an ammo dump?"

In fact, yes. I can imagine such a newspaper report. So can lots of other people. And they imagine such reports all the time. They imagine them in order to reinforce the false moral equivalence they have embraced, and to avoid facing the hard facts of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism. But that's all they are -- imaginings. This one is real.

"Blast kills nine in Pakistan village," by Sally Sara for Australia's ABC, July 13 (thanks to Dumbledoresarmy):

At least nine people have been killed and more than 50 injured in a blast at the home of a Muslim cleric in Pakistan.

Dozens of houses were flattened by the blast east of the city of Multan in Punjab province.

The house was often used as a makeshift religious school and some reports said seven children were among the dead.

The blast left a crater 12 metres wide and more than 20 nearby houses collapsed.

Witnesses say the ground shook like an earthquake.

The cause of the explosion is unknown but police found rocket launchers at the scene and suspect there may have been an ammunition dump at the cleric's house....

NY Times ascribes "radicalization" of Minneapolis jihadists to "a crisis of belonging"

But at the same time it can't help but notice that there was a religious dimension to their deciding to return to Somalia and wage violent jihad. And no one, you'll note, seems to have stopped them and said, "Wait a minute! Islam is peace!"

A few excerpts from a very long piece -- read it all: "A Call to Jihad, Answered in America," by Andrea Elliott for the New York Times, July 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] “Why are we sitting around in America, doing nothing for our people?” one of the men, Mohamoud Hassan, a skinny 23-year-old engineering major, pressed his friends.

In November, Mr. Hassan and two other students dropped out of college and left for Somalia, the homeland they barely knew. Word soon spread that they had joined the Shabaab, a militant Islamist group aligned with Al Qaeda that is fighting to overthrow the fragile Somali government.

The students are among more than 20 young Americans who are the focus of what may be the most significant domestic terrorism investigation since Sept. 11. One of the men, Shirwa Ahmed, blew himself up in Somalia in October, becoming the first known American suicide bomber. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert M. Mueller, has said Mr. Ahmed was “radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota.” [...]

The men appear to have been motivated by a complex mix of politics and faith, and their communications show how some are trying to recruit other young Americans to their cause.

The case represents the largest group of American citizens suspected of joining an extremist movement affiliated with Al Qaeda. Although friends say the men have never thought of carrying out attacks in the United States, F.B.I. officials worry that with their training, ideology and American passports, there is a real danger that they could.[...]

At the root of the problem was a “crisis of belonging,” said Mohamud Galony, a science tutor who was friends with Mr. Ahmed and is the uncle of another boy who left. Young Somalis had been raised to honor their families’ tribes, yet felt disconnected from them. “They want to belong, but who do they belong to?” said Mr. Galony, 23.

By 2004, Mr. Ahmed had found a new circle of friends. These religious young men, pegged as “born-agains” or “fundis,” set themselves apart by their dress. Their trousers had gone from sagging to short, emulating the Prophet Muhammad, who was said to have kept his clothes from touching the ground.

Perhaps none of Mr. Ahmed’s contemporaries had undergone a transformation like that of Zakaria Maruf.

A short boy prone to fits of rage, Mr. Maruf began running afoul of the law at the age of 14. For a time, he fell in with the Hot Boyz, a violent street gang.

He seemed to crave recognition. Known on the basketball court as Zak, he was a mediocre athlete, but he pushed himself harder than anyone else, recalled his coach, Ahmed Dahir.

Mr. Maruf threw himself into Islam with the same intensity, becoming a fixture at a mosque near the Towers, where he mastered the call to prayer. “He had an ego the size of Minnesota,” one fellow mosque member said. “It was, ‘Look at me.’ ”

Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Maruf were sometimes seen preaching to kids on the street, offering their own lives as examples of reform. Yet they continued to struggle.

Mr. Maruf’s criminal record had foiled his search for a job. When he proposed to a young woman in 2005, her parents scoffed, one friend recalled. They did not want their daughter winding up “on welfare,” they told Mr. Maruf, who worked at a Wal-Mart.

“They think that life is about money and material things, but watch what that will do for them,” Mr. Maruf told the friend one afternoon, sitting slumped at the mosque.

He seemed to be searching for a clean slate. Both he and Mr. Ahmed would find it thousands of miles away. [...]

In 2006, an Islamist movement swept through Somalia and seized control, giving the country its first taste of peace in a generation.

The group, known as the Islamic Courts Union, promised to end 15 years of internecine violence by uniting Somalia’s clans under the banner of Islam. Key ports were reopened, and order was restored to the capital, Mogadishu.[...]

Spurred by a newfound sense of nationalism, college students distributed T-shirts emblazoned with the Somali flag and held demonstrations during a frigid Minnesota winter.

The protests took on a religious dimension as well. While the United States had defended the Ethiopian invasion as a front in the global war on terrorism, many Somalis saw it as a Christian crusade into a Muslim land. They were outraged at reports of Ethiopian troops raping Somali women, looting mosques and killing civilians.

If the Ethiopians were seen as infidel invaders, an insurgent group known as the Shabaab — “youth,” in Arabic — was emerging as “freedom fighters.” In its online propaganda, the Shabaab conflated nationalist sentiments with religious ideology, following a tactic honed by Al Qaeda.

The Shabaab began releasing videos portraying Somalia’s struggle as part of a global movement to defend Islam and restore its rule. Foreign recruits were promised “victory or martyrdom” for enlisting. Several American converts to Islam joined up.

The recruitment of the Twin Cities men can be traced to a group of Somali immigrants from Northern Europe and other countries who, in 2005, traveled to Somalia to fight with the Islamist movement, a senior law enforcement official said. A handful of those men later went to Minneapolis, the official said, and helped persuade the first large group from the Twin Cities to leave for Somalia starting in late 2007.

That first wave consisted of men in their 20s and 30s who had been fixtures at the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center, the largest Somali mosque in Minneapolis. They included an emergency medical technician, a former waiter, a car-rental employee and Shirwa Ahmed, the onetime Roosevelt student who now wore a thick beard and silk gown.

That fall, Mr. Ahmed announced to friends that he was moving to the Middle East to study Islam. After he left for Saudi Arabia to make hajj, the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca, his nephew wrote to a friend, “My uncle is a changed man.”[...]

Mr. Hassan and another university student searched the Internet for jihadist videos and chat rooms, the friend said. They listened to “Constants on the Path to Jihad,” lectures by the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is suspected of inciting Muslims in the West to violence.

While Somali nationalism had initially driven the men, a friend said, their cause eventually took on a religious cast. They became convinced that Somalia’s years of bloodshed were punishment from God for straying from Islam, the friend said. The answer was to restore the Caliphate, or Islamic rule.

“They saw it as their duty to go and fight,” the friend said. “If it was just nationalism, they could give money. But religion convinced them to sacrifice their whole life.”[...]

Mr. Hassan was struck by the diversity of the fighters, who included Chechnyans and converts from Europe. “I am looking out into the field and I see so many different colors,” Mr. Hassan told the friend by phone.[...]

"Gunmen" assassinate Christian leader in Iraq

Now why would "insurgents," or "militants," or even Iraqi "freedom fighters" or "nationalists," want to target Iraqi Christians -- as they are manifestly being targeted? Could it be that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism have something to do with this? But of course, we are not allowed to ask questions like that -- what are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

"Iraqi Christian official assassinated in Kirkuk (Extra)," from Middle East News, July 12 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Baghdad - Aziz Rozko Hanna, director of the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk's Department of Financial Control, was assassinated on Sunday, police said.

Hanna, a Christian, was driving with his daughter in Kirkuk when gunmen pulled him from the car and shot him dead, police there told the German Press Agency dpa.

His daughter witnessed her father's murder, which took place in the predominantly Christian neighbourhood of Dumiz, police added....

Hamas-linked CAIR thumps its chest after succeeding in restricting free speech at the ALA

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has succeeded in silencing speech about Islam that it does not want you to hear. CAIR's press release about this incident is entitled: "Good News: Islam-Basher Will Not Speak At Library Association Conference: CAIR to work with the ALA to schedule a future event on the same topic as the canceled panel discussion."

How helpful!

With whom will the American Library Association be working on this? CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Nice working partner you got there, ALA!

Spree of honor killings in modern, moderate Jordan

We are constantly told in the West that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam. So why don't Islamic clerics agitate for stiffer penalties for honor killings? Well, because they are on the other side: a manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

Until the Islamic roots of the practice are discussed openly and human rights groups begin calling for reform, honor killings will continue in the Islamic world -- and in Muslim communities in the West.

"Spree of honour killings in Jordan," by Suha Philip Ma’ayeh for The National, July 11 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

AMMAN // Women’s activists in Jordan said they would step up their fight against so-called honour crimes after two women were killed on the same day, and a man jailed for shooting his raped sister had his sentence halved.

On Thursday, a 20-year-old man stabbed his older sister several times with a kitchen knife and then smashed her head with a rock, an official and reports said.

A criminal prosecutor working on the case said an autopsy was being carried out but the brother had confessed and had been taken into custody.

According to the prosecutor, who wished to remain anonymous because he was not authorised to talk to the press, the woman had spent the last three months in Juwaidah prison for women fearing her life was in danger.

“She had been living in difficult circumstances. Her parents separated 18 years ago. She had family problems and she stayed with her grandparents at her uncle’s house.”

But reports said the woman, a mother of one, had “disappeared” from her house a month ago and that police had found her with a man in an apartment and had taken her into custody.

The brother was called to collect her on Thursday, the prosecutor said, and they returned to the family home in an eastern Amman suburb.

“The brother went out for food and when he returned home, he said he found his sister at the door talking to a man,” the prosecutor said.

The brother confessed that he became enraged and stabbed her, according to the prosecutor.

Just hours earlier, a 34-year-old woman was stabbed to death 15 times by her younger brother in the Jordan Valley, Ehssan Salamat, the lead criminal prosecutor in Amman, said. Police told Agence France-Presse the man believed his sister was having an affair and was four weeks pregant.

“An investigation is under way and we are examining the samples,” Mr Salamat told The National.

Thursday’s deaths bring the number of women killed in the name of honour this year to 13. Last year, there were 17 such deaths.

Women’s activists have renewed their calls on parliament to tighten penalties for these crimes. Jordanian laws are often lenient towards men convicted of honour crimes. On Tuesday, a court in Amman halved the jail term of a man who shot dead his raped sister “in the name of honour”....

5 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours

"Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken to calling the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq’s cities by next Tuesday a 'great victory,' a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compares to the rebellion against British troops in 1920." -- New York Times, June 25

Fruits of Victory Alert: "5 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours," from CNN, July 12 (thanks to M.):

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Five Baghdad churches were bombed in less than 24 hours and eight civilians were wounded, officials said Sunday.

Three bombs exploded outside churches Sunday afternoon, wounding the civilians, an Interior Ministry official said. The bombs detonated within a 15-minute span, between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m.

Two of the churches are in central Baghdad's al-Karrada district, and the third is in al-Ghadeer in eastern Baghdad.

Sunday evening, a bomb exploded outside a church in eastern Baghdad just after 7 p.m. No casualties were reported.

Most of the churches were damaged in the bombings, according to video footage.

Saturday night, a church in western Baghdad sustained damage in a double bombing, the official said. The two bombs placed inside St. Joseph's church detonated at around 10 p.m. local time. There was no one in the church at the time of the attack....

Fatah official: Our goal has never been peace

But of course the learned analysts, from Obama on down, will never be convinced of this. "Fatah official: 'Our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine,'" by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, July 12 (thanks to Rachel):

The PA will resume violence and terror against Israel when Fatah is "capable," and "according to what seems right," Fatah activist Kifah Radaydeh says in a PA TV interview. She states openly that peace is not a goal for Fatah:

"It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine."

Radaydeh says that "armed struggle" has not been ruled out and will continue, depending on how "capable" the PA forces are.

Transcript:

"Fatah is facing a challenge, because [Fatah] says that we perceive peace as one of the strategies, but we say that all forms of the struggle exist, and we do not rule out the possibility of the armed struggle or any other struggle. The struggle exists in all its forms, on the basis of what we are capable of at a given time, and according to what seems right...

What exactly do we want? It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; and the goal is Palestine. I do not negotiate in order to achieve peace. I negotiate for Palestine, in order to achieve a state."

[PA TV July 7, 2009]

It should be noted that when Fatah refers to "Palestine", it is routinely referring to all of Israel.

Some examples:

1. The Fatah flag still shows the map of Israel under rifles. The same symbol (see right) appears on the Fatah website (http://www.fateh.ps) and other official Fatah publications.

2. Fatah MP Najat Abu-Bakr said in a PA TV interview last year that Fatah's goal remains the destruction of Israel, but that their political plan is to focus on the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

"It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [all of Israel]...but our current political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders." [PA TV, Aug. 25 2008]. Click to view

3. A PA TV educational documentary broadcast monthly since 2007 includes the following words denying the existence of Israel:
"Another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from... Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the 'occupation' [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the lake of Tiberias [Kinneret- Sea of Galilee]. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world." [PA TV, August 2007-June 7, 2009, dozens of times] Click to view
4. Muhammad Dahlan, senior PA official, recently stressed that Fatah adamantly refuses to recognize Israel, and that even Palestinian Authority recognition is to have better standing internationally in order to receive foreign aid:
"I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today... It's required of the government but not of Hamas; it's required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families... This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community." [PA TV March 17, 2009]
Click to view

Newsweek wants you to relax and forget about the jihad against Europe

Go back to sleep, won't you? "Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong: Analyzing the forecasts of an emerging 'Eurabia,' hostile to America and western values," by William Underhill for Newsweek, from the July 20 issue (thanks to James):

To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary.

"Far right" -- thus Newsweek signals to its enlightened, forward looking readers that they are not to think this way. This is no new "bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary." Only the "far right" thinks there is. And we are not those benighted, neofascist souls, now, are we?

"The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

Yes, Wilders "claims" that. Of course all enlightened Newsweek readers know that that isn't true. Wilders made it all up. Never mind, for example, that in March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an “Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.” In it they quote the Qur'an to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. “In God’s book,” asserts the letter, “he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God’s book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Qur'an’s 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”

Never mind also that Osama bin Laden’s communiqués have also quoted the Qur'an copiously. In his 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” he quotes seven Qur'an verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5. Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Qur'an quotations, both of a martial bent -- 22:39 and 4:76.

One Muslim website wrote some time ago: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad.”

So it would appear that there are significant numbers of Muslims -- since, after all, Al-Qaeda alone is a worldwide movement -- who believe that Islam encourages terrorism. Maybe they're getting Islam horribly wrong, as we hear claimed every day, but in any case it is they who are finding in Islam justification for violence and terrorism. Non-Muslims like Wilders are merely reporting on that fact. But never mind. Newsweek knows better. Wilders is the one who makes this pernicious claim, and since he is "far-right," he must be wrong. In fact, he is simply engaging in "rabble-rousing":

It's rabble-rousing stuff. But underlying Wilders's polemic is an argument shared by many more mainstream right-leaning thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe, its will sapped by secularism and anything-goes tolerance, has allowed decades of mass immigration without serious challenge. Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time—fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn, author of the bestselling America Alone—that immigration and high birthrates could mean that Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025. Similar and very public warnings have come from American diplomat Timothy Savage, who claimed that forecasts of a Muslim majority in Western Europe by midcentury "may not be far off the mark" if present trends continue, which would heighten the risk of conflict. The British historian Niall Ferguson has written that "a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a senescent Europe." And the American journalist Christopher Caldwell forecasts that an "anchored" and "confident" Islam looks likely to impose its will on an "insecure" and "relativistic" European culture. The gloomiest commentators, including Steyn and the conservative American writer Tony Blankley, talk of an emerging "Eurabia" hostile to American interests and in thrall to Islam....

See how Newsweek wants you to relax? They want to make sure you don't take any of those writers seriously, and so Underhill has filled that paragraph with code words to warn readers away from these people -- probably many of his casual left-leaning readers will find this magic working upon them without their even realizing it's happening. Wilders is engaging in "rabble-rousing" "polemic." And even "more mainstream" thinkers who subscribe to the same views are "right-leaning." Steyn's work is "alarmist and highly speculative." Timothy Savage "claimed" that predictions of Muslim majorities in Western European countries may be close to correct (but still wrong, evidently). Ferguson and Caldwell get off without sly editorial digs, but the clipped quotations from them, presented without the supporting evidence they adduce, sound, well, alarmist and highly speculative. And Steyn (again) and Tony Blankley (who is -- gasp! -- a "conservative," a word that the mainstream media uses only for bloodthirsty mullahs and other gargoyles) are "gloomiest" of all.

By these semaphores Underhill tells us that he doesn't buy any of their analysis, and doesn't want you to, either.

Underhill then presents some evidence of the emerging Eurabia and the emerging resistance to it, only to sweep it all aside.

But all this obscures a simple fact: the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence. A much-cited 2004 study from the U.S. National Intelligence Council outlines a number of possible scenarios. Its most aggressive is that the number of Muslims in Europe could increase from roughly 20 million today—about 5 percent of the population—to 38 million by 2025. But that projection turns out to be attributed to "diplomatic and media reporting as well as government, academic, and other sources." In other words, it's all speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population, estimated by the EU to be 470 million in 2025. Indeed, if there is a surge ahead, its scale looks overstated. "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University....

So relax. What can a tiny minority do? Never mind that a small group of Bolsheviks was able to gain power in Russia and transform the society utterly. Underhill has no time for historical analogies.

[...] Fertility rates remain higher among Muslim immigrants than among other Europeans, and Muslims may continue to arrive in Europe in large numbers. But the alarmists assume that past patterns are sure to hold. "The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue," says Grace Davie, an expert on Europe and Islam at the University of Exeter in Britain.

See? It's all just "scaremongering." Never mind that the concerns about Eurabia aren't solely based on demographics, but upon an increasingly assertive Muslim population in Western Europe that refuses to accept the governing authorities or secular society, and boasts openly about its intention to impose Sharia upon the land as soon as it is able.

[...] Moreover, the myth of Eurabia implies the existence of a united Islam, a bloc capable of collective and potentially dangerous action. The truth is that there are no powerful Muslim political movements in Europe, either continentwide or at the national level, and the divisions that separate Muslims worldwide, most obviously between Sunnis and Shiites, are apparent in Europe as well. Each major nation in Europe has drawn Muslim immigrants from distinct regions of the Islamic world, often former colonies, with different traditions and outlooks. A British Muslim from Pakistan would struggle to communicate with a French Muslim from Algeria. A second-generation Muslim from Turkey living in Germany will have little in common with a newly arrived Moroccan across the border in Belgium. Sharp differences exist even within national frontiers. In Germany, more than one in 10 Muslims are Alawites, who aren't even recognized as coreligionists by the more orthodox.

Here again, this matters not a whit. The point is not that all Muslims in Europe will work together, in a coordinated fashion, to establish Sharia in Europe. It only need take some to do so, and some are already working on that.

U.K.: President of Civil Service Islamic Society back on the job after suspension for endorsing the killing of British, U.S. soldiers

"It is understood there were concerns that Mr Ali may have breached the Whitehall code of practice that restricts civil servants from political activities."

Oh, maybe a little. Azad Ali Update. "'Kill soldiers' Muslim blogger is back in job as Treasury civil servant," from the Daily Mail, July 11:

A Muslim civil servant suspended amid claims that he used his personal website to justify the killing of British troops in Iraq has returned to work at the Treasury.

Azad Ali, an IT worker and president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, was suspended on full pay for six months following comments on his blog.

In one post Mr Ali quoted an interview with an Islamic militant who said: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.

'If I found the same soldier in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.’

Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most senior civil servant and patron of the Civil Service Islamic Society, ordered that Mr Ali be suspended while an investigation was carried out.

It is understood there were concerns that Mr Ali may have breached the Whitehall code of practice that restricts civil servants from political activities.

The investigation has now finished and Mr Ali has returned to his job.

A Treasury spokesman said last night: ‘Azad Ali is back at work. The Treasury has dealt with the matter in accordance with our disciplinary procedures. We will not comment on individual cases.’

Mr Ali refused to comment.

Sharia law and amputations in Nigeria: "This is what God said"

"Sharia law is my ambition and that is the ambition of every Muslim in this country."

"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Qur'an 5:38

"In an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States." -- State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh

Video thanks to Pamela.

Obama frees Iranian jihadists

Yet another Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Alert. Is anyone starting to notice a pattern?

"Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters: The release of the Irbil Five is a continuation of a shameful policy," by Andrew C. McCarthy for National Review, July 11:

There are a few things you need to know about President Obama’s shameful release on Thursday of the “Irbil Five” — Quds Force commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds — yes, hundreds — of American soldiers and Marines.

First, of the 4,322 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003, 10 percent of them (i.e., more than 400) have been murdered by a single type of weapon alone, a weapon that is supplied by Iran for the singular purpose of murdering Americans. As Steve Schippert explains at NRO’s military blog, the Tank, the weapon is “the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator), designed by Iran’s IRGC specifically to penetrate the armor of the M1 Abrams main battle tank and, consequently, everything else deployed in the field.” Understand: This does not mean Iran has killed only 400 Americans in Iraq. The number killed and wounded at the mullahs’ direction is far higher than that — likely multiples of that — when factoring in the IRGC’s other tactics, such as the mustering of Hezbollah-style Shiite terror cells.

Second, President Bush and our armed forces steadfastly refused demands by Iran and Iraq’s Maliki government for the release of the Irbil Five because Iran was continuing to coordinate terrorist operations against American forces in Iraq (and to aid Taliban operations against American forces in Afghanistan). Freeing the Quds operatives obviously would return the most effective, dedicated terrorist trainers to their grisly business.

Third, Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave. As the New York Times reports, Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, put it this way less than two weeks ago:

Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out. . . . They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, [about] where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.

Fourth, President Obama’s release of the Quds terrorists is a natural continuation of his administration’s stunningly irresponsible policy of bartering terrorist prisoners for hostages. As I detailed here on June 24, Obama has already released a leader of the Iran-backed Asaib al-Haq terror network in Iraq, a jihadist who is among those responsible for the 2007 murders of five American troops in Karbala. While the release was ludicrously portrayed as an effort to further “Iraqi reconciliation” (as if that would be a valid reason to spring a terrorist who had killed Americans), it was in actuality a naïve attempt to secure the reciprocal release of five British hostages — and a predictably disastrous one: The terror network released only the corpses of two of the hostages, threatening to kill the remaining three (and who knows whether they still are alive?) unless other terror leaders were released....

Read it all.

ALA, panelists cave to pressure from terror-linked group, panel with Spencer canceled

The American Library Association invited me to speak on a panel tomorrow, which led the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, along with some complicit, bemused, and Leftist academics, to kick up a controversy -- previous posts about this here and here.

However, now the other three panelists, caving to pressure from this terror-linked group, have withdrawn from the panel, and the ALA has canceled the panel. The panel was stacked three against one against my point of view, but even three-to-one wasn't safe enough for CAIR or these evidently very insecure academics.

CAIR has in this won a great victory, one of many, and I am sure there will be many more, but ultimately time is running out on that unsavory organization anyway, because the truth is not on its side. CAIR has succeeded in intimidating these academics and the ALA into behaving as if my position were beyond the pale, unworthy of discussion by decent people. This way they make the ignorant and timid afraid to consider what I say, and they don't have to go to the trouble of refuting it.

And ultimately, there is nothing I can do about this tactic. It has been employed on a large scale for years by CAIR and others. But consider: my position is based on analysis of the texts and teachings of Islam, and how jihadists use those texts to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Everything I say I back up with evidence, and have repeatedly stated my willingness to discuss and debate these issues -- with CAIR or with anyone else. Thus the best way to silence me would be to refute me -- censoring me will only inevitably make people curious as to whether or not they're being lied to (and they are). Yet no one will dare to even try to refute me.

CAIR, meanwhile, is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

If one of us is to be marginalized, it should be terror-linked CAIR, not me. But of course with politically correct multiculturalism befogging the entire society, it is not likely that anything will change in this regard anytime soon.

There are further ironies in various position statements of the ALA itself:

Irony #1: "ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society. It is a core value of the library profession."

Irony #2: "We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources."

Irony #3: "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources."

Here is the Library Journal article, which contains numerous inaccuracies: "ALA Conference 2009: Panelists Withdraw from Session Featuring 'Islam-basher': American Library Association Conference 2009: Organization had asked for Robert Spencer to drop out from panel, says other speakers didn't know he would be joining them," by Raya Kuzyk & Norman Oder for the Library Journal, July 11:

[July 11] The Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Chicago) today announced that all other panelists scheduled to speak at an American Library Association (ALA) annual conference session July 12 on stereotyping of Islam have withdrawn in protest over the participation of Robert Spencer, which CAIR calls "one of the nation’s leading Islam-bashers."

Dr. Marcia Hermansen, a professor of Islamic Studies at Loyola University, wrote to the ALA, ""[sic] While I heartily endorse the principles of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are part of the ALA mission, the way in which this information session about Islam and Muslims for Ethnic and Multi-Cultural librarians was modified and politicized at the last moment raises serious concerns about the integrity of the session."

Dr. Alia Ammar, a neuropsychologist from Hinsdale, IL, commented, "Given the substantial changes in the composition, subject, and direction of the ALA panel to which I was invited to present as well as the blatant misinformation provided regarding the purpose of the session, it would [be] untenable to present in your forum…The lack of professionalism with which this matter has been handled has been wholly disappointing as the efforts of the originally invited panelists to reach a respectable solution to the problem were simply ignored. In light of these developments, I respectfully decline to participate in the panel."

CAIR said that none of the invited panelists were informed by the ALA that Spencer was invited to participate in the panel.

Hermansen and Ammar both seem to be suggesting that the panel was changed at the last minute -- apparently by my being added on. CAIR says that none of the other panelists were told that I would be on the panel. I find this hard to believe. Here is an email that Myra Appel, chair of the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable (EMIERT), sent around to the ALA's EMIERT mailing list on June 15 -- almost a month ago:

From: Myra L. Appel <[address removed]>
Subject: EMIERT Program, July 12, 2009
To: "emie-l"
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 10:07 AM

Dear EMIERT Colleagues,

Homa Naficy, our Vice-Chair, Chair-Elect, has planned another outstanding program to inform and stimulate conversation. We invite you to join us Sunday, July 12, 2009, for our General Meeting, followed by the panel discussion, "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping." Please see below a brief description of the program, the list of panelists, and the agenda for the morning of July 12th. Attached are brief speaker bios:

Islam is not new in America; over 40% of the Muslims in America are African-Americans. The change is within the Muslim immigration trend, that's grown 38 fold over the past three decades. Arriving from all over the world, China, Trinidad and Tobago, Bosnia, and Somalia, Muslims are a diverse population speaking different languages and practicing different costumes. Even the Muslims from the Middle East are not a homogeneous population. Yet the faith that binds the populations is what is often singled out and often misunderstood. Portrayed as a terrorist religion, many Muslim families and children end up victims of hate messages and harassment. This program will offer a brief overview of the cultures and literatures of the Muslim populations and the ties that bind the faith with Judaism and Christianity. Learn how your library can serve as a key forum for Islamic tolerance and all beliefs, through interfaith dialogue and programming. Panelists:

Dr. Marcia Hermansen
Director of the Islamic World Studies Program and Professor in the Theology Department
Loyola University Chicago.

Dr. Esmail Koushanpour
Emeritus professor, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, &
Former Executive Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago

Robert Spencer
Columnist and author of 8 books on Islam and jihad, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Director of the weblog,
Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. .

Alia Ammar, Ph.D., Chief Neuropsychologist, Geriatric Care Association & member of the Islamic Foundation North

AGENDA, July 12, 2009

8:00 to 9:00 EMIERT Business Meeting

9:00 to 9:15 Welcome and Introductions

9:15 to 9:40 Dr. Marcia Hermansen – “Statistical Overview/Outlook of Muslim Populations in America and Overview of Diverse Islamic Cultural/National Origins”

9:40 to 10:10 Dr. Esmail Koushanpour – “Core Beliefs Commonalities with Judaism and Christianity”

10:10 to 10:30 Robert Spencer – “Jihad: What Muslims Say It Means”

10:30 - 10:50 Dr. Alia Ammar - “Stereotypes and Realities of the African American Muslim Experience”

10:50 to 11:00 Q & As

11:00 to 12:00 Board Meeting

--Myra

So would Hermansen and Ammar have us believe that in all the time since that email was sent on June 15, no one got around to informing them who else was on the panel? They had no curiosity about it? It strains credulity, to say the least.

CAIR's press release about the other three panelists dropping out is here. It repeats many of the same libels and innuendos that I answered here, although it is noteworthy that this latest from CAIR contains no mention of the lies and hate site "Little Green Footballs." Maybe CAIR realized how silly it sounded to invoke something called "Little Green Footballs" as an authority -- or maybe the falsehoods manufactured by the ridiculous Charles Johnson proved to be too flimsy and implausible even for those old hands at truth-twisting at CAIR.

Hermansen said: "I heartily endorse the principles of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are part of the ALA mission." Glad to hear it. So do I. Accordingly, I invite her to debate me on issues regarding Islam and jihad -- in fact, she can formulate the specific topic. I will travel to Loyola University at my own expense for this debate at a time at her convenience. The same invitation goes to the other panelists, Esmail Koushanpour and Alia Ammar. If my opinions are so patently false, why not debate me and demonstrate it to the world, so that I will stand forever discredited?

If Hermansen, Koushanpour, and Ammar disagree with me, they have proven too cowardly to debate and defend their positions, and to show mine to be wrong. And if they agree with me, they have proven too cowardly to do so in public. As with numerous other lightweight academics, they dare not defend anything outside their politically correct cocoon, because they know, even if they cannot admit it, that what they are saying is a soothing lie, and that what I am saying is the truth.

Not so? Prove it. My invitation to debate stands open. Hermansen, Koushanpour and/or Ammar, or even Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR, whom I would love to debate, can reach me at director@jihadwatch.org.

"The hands of the religious police, as well as the brother's hands, are stained with the blood of these innocent young women"

Yet another honor killing. "Arresting women for mingling with (unrelated males) should be stopped because it puts many Saudi women in danger and sometimes (costs) them their lives. This act has nothing to do with the religion of Islam or Saudi tradition."

Maybe not, although Islamic law does forbid women to mingle with unrelated males. And as for the honor killing itself, it's unmistakable. A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

"Saudi Religious Police Blamed In 'Honor' Killing Of Sisters," from AFP, July 10 (thanks to Pamela):

RIYADH (AFP)--A Saudi women's group on Friday blamed the country's religious police in the "honor" killing of two sisters shot dead by their own brother after they were arrested for mixing with unrelated men.

The Society for Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia said the religious police put the sisters' lives in danger when they arrested them and placed them in a Riyadh women's shelter.

The two women, identified as Reem, 21, and Nouf, 19, were murdered after they left the shelter July 5.

The brother shot them in the presence of their father who, according to newspaper reports, quickly forgave the son because he was defending the family's honor....

"The hands of the religious police, as well as the brother's hands, are stained with the blood of these innocent young women," the group said in a statement. "These women have not committed any crime to be killed in a such brutal way."

Under Saudi Arabia's Islamic sharia legal code, unrelated men and women are not allowed to be together, and the religious police actively enforce the rules by patrolling areas frequented by young people.

"Arresting women for mingling with (unrelated males) should be stopped because it puts many Saudi women in danger and sometimes (costs) them their lives," the statement said.

"This act has nothing to do with the religion of Islam or Saudi tradition."...

Spencer on "Need to Know!"

Don’t miss my interview this Saturday on “Need to Know!” with host Frank Wuco. Frank is a longtime friend of Jihad Watch and is a 28-year veteran of the military and intelligence community. His weekly radio magazine focuses on national security, international events, and the threats to our nation.

Frank and I will be talking about one of our favorite topics, getting inside the mind of the committed jihadist!

Don’t miss this conversation and don’t miss “Need to Know!” It airs every Saturday from 2:00-3:00 PM EST and can be streamed live here. Every week, our favorite jihadist, Fuad Wasul, joins Frank in the “Ask the Jihadist” segment, in which live callers are invited to have close encounters with a committed jihadist on the air!

Here’s a podcast of last week’s “Need to Know!” I will keep you posted on my regular “Need to Know” interviews.

U.K.: Police told not to charge Muslim "extremists" in some hate crime cases for fear of "radicalizing" them even more

In part, they don't want to subject Muslims to prison dawah by incarcerating them. Essentially, they are creating a new problem in order to sidestep the one they already created by allowing the prisons to become conduits for jihadist indoctrination -- a move also influenced by a politically correct fear of the consequences of causing offense.

"Take it easy on Muslim extremists, police told," by Macer Hall for the Daily Express, July 11:

Police will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.

Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.

Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.

Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.

It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.

“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”

Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.

Then, why did officials initiate this discussion? Are Muslims to be treated equally under the law with the majority population, or, per Orwell's coinage, "more equal than others?"

Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.

One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial....

Read it all.

This is not a joke: Iran condemns "Italy's use of force to repress demonstrations against G8"

Italian-language article, "Attacco diplomatico dell'Iran all'Italia: «Uso della forza della polizia nel G8»," from Corriere della Sera, here (thanks to Andrea).

You gotta admit, the mullahs got chutzpah. Barrels of it.

France: Muslim ringleader of gang who tortured and murdered Jew sentenced to life in prison

Predictably, this story does not call attention to the role of Islamic anti-semitism in Fofana's acts. The words "Islam" and "Muslim" are not mentioned despite Fofana's own words quoted below, and the fact that the torturers chanted Qur'anic verses, and Fofana shouted "Allahu akbar!" in court. "Gang leader gets life in anti-Semitic murder case," from France24, July 10:

Youssouf Fofana, leader of a kidnap gang who called themselves "The Barbarians", has been sentenced to life in prison for an anti-Semitic murder of shocking brutality.

Eligible for parole after 22 years:

The court ruled he must serve a minimum of 22 yerars [sic] before he can be considered for parole.

Fofana, 28, kidnapped, tortured and killed Jewish shop clerk Ilan Halimi in 2006.

Halimi went missing on January 20, 2006 while on a date with a girl he had met at his workplace.

The girl, it is alleged, was one of Fofana's accomplices, instructed to lure Halimi to the basement of a building in a Paris suburb where he was attacked and subdued with ether.

Halimi was tortured for 24 days. Fofana is accused of stabbing Halimi and dousing his body with alcohol before setting him alight.

His naked and badly burned body was dumped, handcuffed to a tree near a railway track. Halimi died on his way to hospital.

Prosecutors have called for a life sentence for Fofana, 20-year sentences for his two close associates and a 12-year sentence for a young woman who allegedly lured Halimi to his death.

A further 26 alleged accomplices face sentences of between five and 13 years.

Hate crime

The killing of 23-year-old Ilan Halimi stirred debate on anti-Semitism in France because police initially refused to consider the kidnapping as a hate crime bcause the gang was trying to extort a ransom from Halimi's family.

However, the brutal nature of the torture and subsequent murder prompted prosecutors to demand a life sentence becuase of the murder's anti-Semitic nature.

Fofana, the son of Ivorian immigrants, raised his fist as he turned up in court at the start of the trial and proclaimed "Allah will conquer!"

Asked to state his name, he answered "African Barbarian Armed Revolt Salafist."

From the beginning of the two-month trial, Fofana made repeated anti-Semitic declarations, has thrown his shoes at court staff and sacked all his lawyers.

Towards the end of his trial, Fofana told the court: "I would rather live like a lion for a day than as a sheep for one hundred."...

"In a way, we already have two parallel legal systems: some things are illegal for non-Muslims but not for Muslims"

NRC Handelsblad is running a point/counterpoint about Sharia, asking the question, "Would it be such a terrible thing if sharia courts existed in the Netherlands?" Interestingly enough, answering yes, it would be a terrible thing, is a Muslim woman, Nahed Selim, who knows what Sharia is all about, while the other side is taken up by a dhimmi with probably not the slightest idea what Sharia involves, Maurits Berger.

"Help Muslims escape the tyranny of sharia law," by Nahed Selim for NRC Handelsblad, July 10 (thanks to Insubria):

Sharia law in the Netherlands may not be practised in an actual 'sharia court', but that makes little difference. The point is that Islamic rules about marriage, divorce, custody, parental authority, alimony and inheritance are being implemented according to the sharia, and that these contradict Dutch law.

The clearest example of this is polygamy. Marriages are made and dissolved in mosques in the Netherlands, including polygamous marriages. On September 19, 2008, newspaper De Telegraaf reported that 173 men in Amsterdam are registered as having two legal wives, two men even have three wives. A spokesperson for the city of Rotterdam admitted in NRC Handelsblad last year that polygamous marriages are being registered in that city on an almost weekly basis.

It's a pity that the national statistics bureau automatically rejects these marriages because it thinks they're mistakes. Because of this there are no national data about polygamy in the Netherlands. (Non-registered polygamy is probably even much wider-spread.)

The same goes for marriages with underage girls. They are mostly not registered, but sometimes they are. Either way, according to the national statistics bureau they don't exist.

In a way, we already have two parallel legal systems: some things are illegal for non-Muslims but not for Muslims. This is typical of the Dutch attitude towards the Islamisation of Dutch society. Things are happening that the government doesn't know about or doesn't want to know about. They just throw away the statistics, case closed.

Verdicts by imams should not be tolerated by Dutch society even if they happen in the backrooms of mosques. That Catholics and Jews do the same thing, as Berger says, is up to them. Presumably their 'courts' do not impose decapitation for heretics or homosexuals, or condone disobedient wives being beaten up by their husbands.

For everything in sharia law is discriminatory against women: marrying a non-Muslim is not allowed, divorce is not allowed unless the husband agrees to it. The man, for his part, can disown his wife whenever he wants. (A sharia court in Malaysia has ruled that a text message saying 'I disown you' suffices.) If he changes his mind within three months, he can take his wife back. He can do this up to three times. Custody always goes to the father: the mother may raise the children, but he always has the final word....

There is much more. Read it all.

Minneapolis "naive, near-sighted and overweight idealist" gets 7½ years for training with and financing Al-Qaeda

"Like many religious Muslims, became aware of the Taliban in the mid-1990s and believed a pure Islam would rise from there." But...but...aren't they inveterate Misunderstanders of Islam?

"Canadian jailed for supporting al-Qaeda: Preached jihad, trained at bin Laden's camp, U. S. says," by Stewart Bell for the National Post, July 10 (thanks to Patrick Poole):

A Canadian who left Toronto in 2000 to join Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was sentenced to 7½ years imprisonment yesterday after admitting he had trained with and helped finance the terrorist group.

Although his lawyers described Mohamed Abdullah Warsame as simply "a naive, near-sighted and overweight idealist" who became deeply religious while living in Toronto and travelled to Afghanistan in search of an "Islamic utopia," prosecutors in Minneapolis argued the 35-year-old Somali, who came to Canada as a refugee in 1989, was devoted to the al-Qaeda cause.

Warsame could be released in less than a year and deported to Canada; he has been in custody since his 2003 arrest and the judge gave him credit for the time he has already served.

Warsame pleaded guilty in May to a single count of providing material support to al-Qaeda. In exchange, federal prosecutors dropped three counts of making false statements to the FBI.

"Mr. Warsame's actions demonstrate that he was a member of the organization, that he believed in its cause, and that he was willing to violate United States law in support of al-Qaeda," said U. S. Attorney Frank Magill.

Warsame's lawyers maintained that his trek to Afghanistan was not driven by violent ideals, but rather religious devotion. "There came a time, however, where it became so apparent that his vision of the new Islamic world was different than that embraced by the other men who had travelled to Afghanistan," defence lawyer Andrea George wrote in a sentencing memorandum.

"There came a time when Mohamed Warsame had to acknowledge that the utopia that he had envisioned, that the Islamic paradise that he sought was usurped by men who wrapped their piety in bandoliers and announced their faith with explosives."

Usurped?

Warsame was born in Mogadishu and schooled in India. At age 17, he fled Somalia for Rome. From there, he went to New York and then Canada, where he was accepted as a refugee.

He married a Minneapolis woman in an arranged marriage but had to return to Toronto without her because he did not have immigration status in the United States.

"He could not find spiritual fulfillment in Canada or the United States," his lawyer wrote, and "like many religious Muslims, became aware of the Taliban in the mid-1990s and believed a pure Islam would rise from there."...

He wrote other e-mails encouraging friends to join him because he considered it un-Islamic to live in non-Muslim countries, and "I don't want you to be late for the action, you know what I mean. I hear there may be an attack soon."

He returned to Afghanistan and, beginning in January 2001, lived at an al-Qaeda guesthouse, where he worked as a guard. At a nearby Islamic institute, he "taught radical Islam and preached jihad to students," the U. S. Department of Justice said in a statement yesterday....

He later moved to Minneapolis and lived there until his arrest.