Jihad Watch

Silly me. I thought that after an Islamic jihadist murdered twelve innocent non-Muslims, it would be the non-Muslims who would need reassuring and protecting. But of course that non-existent backlash takes priority over 12 dead unbelievers.

"Some Muslims fear backlash after rampage: In the wake of Fort Hood tragedy, Houston authorities try to assure the faithful steps are being taken to keep followers safe," by Moises Mendoza and Lindsay Wise for the Houston Chronicle, November 7:

KILLEEN -- Almost exactly 24 hours after Thursday's shootings at Fort Hood, Sgt. Fahad Kamal knelt in a small red-brick mosque near the base and prayed for strength.

The 26-year-old combat medic from Sugar Land worships every Friday at Masjidu Ttaqwa on Fort Hood Road, where suspected shooter Nidal Malik Hasan attended services after moving to Killeen from Washington, D.C., this summer.

"I just want to show myself in a positive way for the religion I represent," he said. "I just hope people don't stereo­type."

Groups reeling

From Killeen to Houston, Thursday's killings at Fort Hood left Texas' tight-knit Muslim community reeling. Though the attack has been universally condemned by U.S. Muslim organizations, some worry that it could give the ignorant an excuse to stereotype and lash out at Muslims -- or worse.

The problem, of course, is that so many Muslims point to Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. But that, of course, is never mentioned here.

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 Koran 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 Koran'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."

Osama bin Laden's communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," he quotes seven Koran 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 Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" (22:39) and "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan" (4:76)."

In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Koranic exhortation to violence as being a means to establish the truth: "Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood." The "Verse of the Sword" is Koran 9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement - Osama bin Laden - down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare - if not impossible - to find a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. Britain-based jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, "It says in the Koran that we must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy." And Pakistani jihad leader Beitullah Mehsud claims that "Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world." He specified that his jihad - struggle in Arabic - was an offensive military operation: "We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia." The "jazia," or jizya, is a tax that the Koran (9:29) specifies must be levied on Jews, Christians, and some other non-Muslim faiths as a sign of their subjugation under the Islamic social order.

One pro-Osama website put it this way: "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."

In Houston, government officials have been working to reassure Muslims that they're safe, pointing out that there have been few cases of retaliation locally after previous attacks involving Muslims.

There have been few cases anywhere. So few that CAIR has had to invent them.

Here is yet another indication that the Fort Hood massacre was a jihad carried out by Nidal Hasan. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was supposed to give a "grand round" -- a medical lecture. Instead, he treated medical personnel to a dawah session, trying to frighten them into Islam with threats of hell. Another Muslim stood up and challenged him about his characterization of the Koran -- a fact that is making the rounds today as evidence of Hasan's "extremism." He was twisting and hijacking the Koran, you see, and it was the same sort of misunderstanding of Islam that led him to massacre so many infidels at Fort Hood, you see.

Well, that would be just great if he were, because it would indicate that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims don't agree with Nidal Hasan's apparent understanding of Islam. So let's look at the Koran and see what it actually says, as compared to what Hasan said it says.

"Officials Begin Putting Shooting Pieces Together," by Tom Gjelten, Daniel Zwerdling and Steve Inskeep for NPR, November 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for what condition. But instead of that, he - Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don't believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.

And I said to the psychiatrist, but this co[u]ld be a very interesting informational session, right? Where he's educating everybody about the Koran. He said but what disturbed everybody was that Hasan seemed to believe these things. And actually, a Muslim in the audience, a psychiatrist, raised his hand and said, excuse me. But I'm a Muslim and I do not believe these things in the Koran, and then I don't believe what you say the Koran says. And then Hasan didn't say, well, I'm just giving you one point of view. He basically just stared the guy down.

According to this, Hasan made four assertions about the Koran:
1. "If you don't believe, you are condemned to hell";
2. If you don't believe, "your head is cut off";
3. If you don't believe, "you're set on fire";
4. If you don't believe, "burning oil is burned down your throat."

Then a Muslim in the audience confronted Hasan: " I don't believe what you say the Koran says."

Well, what the Koran says is a matter for objective verification. Just open the book and read it. Does it say what Hasan said it says, or does it not?

1. "If you don't believe, you are condemned to hell"

"Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell" -- Koran 4:140

"Lo! hell verily is all around the disbelievers." -- Koran 9:49

"Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode." -- Koran 9:68

"O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end." -- Koran 9:73

And there are many others.

2. If you don't believe, "your head is cut off"

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" -- Koran 8:12

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks..." -- Koran 47:4

3. If you don't believe, "you're set on fire"

"Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire" -- Koran 33:64

"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" -- Koran 48:13

"Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers manacles and carcans and a raging fire." -- Koran 76:4

There are many others.

4. If you don't believe, "burning oil is burned down your throat."

"And say: 'The truth is from your Lord.' Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve. Verily, We have prepared for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), a Fire whose walls will be surrounding them (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). And if they ask for help (relief, water, etc.) they will be granted water like boiling oil, that will scald their faces. Terrible the drink, and an evil Murtafaqa (dwelling, resting place, etc.)!" -- Koran 18:29

"Surely the tree of the Zaqqum is the food of the sinful. Like dregs of oil, it shall boil in (their) bellies,like the boiling of hot water." -- Koran 44:43-46

Zowie! AP says that there has been "immediate" anti-Muslim "backlash" following the mass murders by an Islamic jihadist at Fort Hood! Good gravy, what happened? Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?

Has there been any report of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a "backlash" after the Fort Hood jihad?

Nope. Not one. Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But Ibrahim Hooper and his fellow thugs at CAIR need hate crimes so that they can claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from such small matters as the jihad at Fort Hood, and they have the clueless and/or complicit mainstream media in their hip pocket. And so we witness the strange phenomenon of stories of Muslims fearing a backlash far outnumbering actual incidents of backlash. In fact, the score is about umpteen to zero.

And in the AP story linked above, all we get after the promise of news of "immediate" backlash are various stories about mosques and Muslims asking for special police protection, etc. So in reality, the story should be headlined, "Muslims claim victim status in wake of Fort Hood jihad attack," or "Muslim victimhood whining immediate after Fort Hood jihad massacre," or some such.

But the only actual incidents of "backlash" that AP can come up with are incidents in which people like me call the Fort Hood massacre a jihad attack -- as if it is "Islamophobic" and hateful to note that a guy shouting "Allahu akbar" as he gunned people down, and who gave out Korans hours before he started shooting people, and who expressed sympathy for suicide attackers, may just have been motivated by the Islamic jihad doctrine of warfare against unbelievers.

If that's "backlash," I'm Barack Obama. That's actually something known as "honest reporting." But what would AP know about that?

Just a little murder. This quote comes from Nidal Malik Hasan's cousin in an article that, like many news reports, comes perilously close to offering any alienation or mistreatment Hasan may have perceived as an excuse for his rampage. Broken moral compasses and outrageous claims of moral equivalence abound.

The headline here seemed promising for a moment, but it's not what CNN meant. "Fort Hood suspect's religion was an issue, family says," from CNN, November 6:

FORT HOOD, Texas (CNN) -- The bumper sticker reading "Allah is Love" was torn off and the car was keyed.

Dawah, alluding to 1 John 4:8. But while one of the 99 names of Allah is "al-wadud," "the loving," one cannot attempt to equate the relative importance of love in the two religions' narratives without being disingenuous.

A police report was filed in the August 16 incident involving Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Honda, and a neighbor was charged with criminal mischief. But what kind of impact that incident, and possibly others, had on Hasan remains a mystery.

While few official details have been released about Hasan, his family and others have given some insight into the man accused of killing 13 people and wounded 38 others in Thursday's massacre at Fort Hood Army Post in Texas. [...]

Hasan's cousin, Mohammad Munif Abdallah Hasan, said the Army major had wanted to leave the military because he felt disrespected over his religion.

"There was racism towards him because he's a Muslim, because he's an Arab, because he prays," the cousin said in a CNN interview in the Palestinian city of Ramallah. "They used to see him dress in traditional Muslim clothing, so he was a bit irritated because of this. Also, the fact that they wanted to send him to Iraq. He decided to leave the Army for good and hire a lawyer because of this matter." [...]

There are about 3,500 Muslims in the U.S. Army, less than 1 percent of the total number of soldiers. The investigation into the shootings is ongoing, and Army officials have not indicated any evidence of Hasan being harassed among the ranks.

Hasan's cousin said that despite the concerns over discrimination, a motive behind the shootings still was incomprehensible.

"If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself. I could say that there could have been a problem between two sides which led to the use of weapons. But for one to kill 13 people and injure more than 30, I personally don't think that it was because someone was bothering him. There is a bigger reason that this happened and no ones knows it besides Nidal."

Well, it starts with a "j"...

Audio courtesy Occidental Soapbox.

Eurabia Alert, and an update on this story. "Italy: Al-Qaeda allies 'may carry out attacks'," from AdnKronos International, November 7:

Rome, 6 Nov. (AKI) - Italy was susceptible to terror attacks by allies of the Al-Qaeda network, the interior minister Roberto Maroni said on Friday. Maroni warned there were terror cells that identified with Al-Qaeda and they had "authorisation" to carry out attacks in Italy.

"Al-Qaeda is not present in Italy, however we are investigating terror cells who identify with it and have somehow obtained authorisation from Al-Qaeda," said Maroni.

He was speaking during a media conference at Rome's foreign press club.

"We are very worried," he said, warning that terrorists could be training in Italy to carry out attacks inside the country.

"We think there could be terror cells in Italy that are being created, financed and trained to carry out attacks against us."

Maroni said after the attack last month by a Libyan citizen against an army barracks in the northern city of Milan that "the conditions have changed" and that the event marked a "turning-point" in regard to this type of activity in Italy.

Early in October, an Italian soldier was injured after a 35-year-old Libyan Mohammed Game allegedly exploded a bomb at the entrance of the 'Santa Barbara' barracks using rudimentary explosives reportedly made of solid nitrate.

Two other alleged accomplices, an Egyptian and a Libyan, were arrested after the attack.

While Game suffered severe injuries to his face and his hand was amputated, no others were injured.

According to Maroni, before the attack by the Libyan, Italian cells would collect funds and recruit people to carry out attacks abroad.

A copy of the Koran and Nidal Hasan's business card, given to a neighbor yesterday before he went on his jihad. (Thanks to Cindy.)

Islamic jihadists routinely characterize anti-terror efforts as part of a "war on Islam." But of course, there is no war on terror, and there is no war on Islam. There is just the Islamic jihad against the U.S. and the West. "Hasan Called War on Terror 'War Against Islam,' Classmate Says," by Justin Blum for Bloomberg, November 6:

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as "a war against Islam," according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

"He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview today. "He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted."...

CAIR's Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper must be fuming at Abdul-Rashid Abdullah. As I explained here, he needs hate crimes. But the greasy Islamophobes aren't obliging.

"Muslim Veterans Group Says No Reports of Harassment of Islamic Soldiers," by Joshua Rhett Miller for FoxNews, November 6 (thanks to Axel):

A Muslim veteran affairs organization says it has not received reports of harassment from Islamic soldiers, contrary to claims by a relative of the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base.

Abdul-Rashid Abdullah, deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com that the nonprofit group has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed "simply because he was Muslim."

"That kind of report is inconsistent with what we've heard," Abdullah said prior to a press conference in Washington to denounce Thursday's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist who was reportedly due to be deployed later this month, is accused in the mass shooting.

Abdullah said his organization, which condemned the "unspeakable" attack, serves "several thousand" Muslim soldiers....

The thuggish Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is playing the mainstream media like an accordion today, knowing that no reporter will ever dare ask them why they're condemning yesterday's jihad attack while opposing every anti-terror measure that has ever come down the pike, and smearing and defaming those who are trying to stand up for freedom against Islamic supremacism.

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

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

And so it is again today. We should be hearing from Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. that they are determined to root out jihad violence and Islamic supremacism from the Muslim community in America, and are instituting transparent and inspectable programs to teach against those things. But instead, "Muslims fear backlash" stories are blanketing the mainstream media, and this mosque is making a grandstand play for victim status even in the absence of any actual threats.

"Islamic Center for PEACE in Fort Myers requests additional police patrols," by Rachel Revehl for the News-Press, November 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

11:09 A.M. -- Following the shootings at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas on Thursday, those at the Islamic Center for PEACE in Fort Myers have requested additional police patrols, though there have so far been no threats to the center.

Alibaba Lumumba, president of the center, said anytime there is a crime allegedly committed by a Muslim, the whole Muslim community suffers.

"But when there is a Christian who commits a crime, we don't get into his religion or whether he wears a cross or not," Lumumba said. "It's a lack of knowledge about what Islam is and what it is not. Such acts of violence, especially if there were women, children or elderly who were hurt, are not condoned by Islam."...

The problem is that Christians are not committing violence and quoting chapter and verse of the Bible to justify it. But Muslims are committing violence and quoting chapter and verse of the Koran to justify it.

Calling for freelance jihad. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. "Counterterrorism: Shifting from 'Who' to 'How,'" by Scott Stewart and Fred Burton for Stratfor, November 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

In the 11th edition of the online magazine Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battle), which was released to jihadist Web sites last week, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Nasir al-Wahayshi wrote an article that called for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets. The targets included "any tyrant, intelligence den, prince" or "minister" (referring to the governments in the Muslim world like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and "any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains etc.," (an obvious reference to the United States and Europe and Westerners living in Muslim countries)....

This, too, follows the example of Muhammad:

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

Sharia Alert. "Somali adulterer stoned to death," from BBC News, November 6:

Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth.

Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.

An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.

Islamist groups run much of southern Somalia, while the UN-backed government only control parts of the capital.

This is the third time Islamists have stoned a person to death for adultery in the past year.

Al-Shabab official Sheikh Suldan Aala Mohamed said Mr Abdirahman had confessed to adultery before an Islamic court.

"He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.

The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says that if the woman is also killed, her baby would be given to relatives to look after....

Surveillance video of Nidal Hasan, yesterday morning. Video thanks to Pamela.

Of course. Why not? He was a "moderate." Until he wasn't.

"Nidal Hasan: Ft. Hood Shooter Participated in Homeland Security Disaster Preparation," from Gawker, November 6 (thanks to Mary Belle):

The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year.

The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

According to the task force's May 2009 report [pdf], a "Nidal Hasan" from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times....

Muhammad Atta said: "Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."

"Fort Hood soldier describes horrific scene to family in Utah," by John Daley for KSL.com, November 5 (thanks to AJ):

NORTHERN UTAH -- The news of the mass shooting at Fort Hood Thursday hit close to home for some Utahns. One man says his daughter heard the shooter exclaim "Allah Akbar" as he opened fire.

We want to stress that no government or military officials are reporting that and there is no way for us to independently confirm that it is true....

The soldier's father says his daughter was at Fort Hood Thursday when the shooting happened, and she called him, frantic and upset, soon after.

"She said, 'Dad, I'm OK. Don't worry, I'm OK.' And initially I said, 'What are you talking about?' She said, 'Haven't you heard?' And I said, 'No.' And she said, 'We've been attacked by terrorists,'" the father explained.

He told KSL News soldiers were sitting in a staging area for medical and dental checks when the group was startled by gunfire.

"A person behind counter stood up, and he said, 'Allah Akbar!' And just opened up on everybody," the father told us....

He handed out Korans? But didn't what he read in the Book of Peace make him think that he shouldn't go through with the massacre?

Or maybe he read that Paradise was guaranteed to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111), and took that seriously.

Note also that he affected Islamic clothing -- as did another "moderate," Maher Hawash, before the latter embarked upon his jihad.

"Police raid shooting suspect's Killeen apartment," by Victor O'Brien for the Killeen Daily Herald, November 6 (thanks to Ernest):

Bell County SWAT teams barricaded and evacuated a downtown Killeen apartment complex where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan lived before authorities say he killed 13 people and injured 30 more during a massacre at Fort Hood Thursday....

In the morning, neighbors said Hasan handed Qurans and donated his furniture to anyone who would take it.

Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class....

In FrontPage this morning, I summarize what we know so far:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, "shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting." Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR [1], "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said." The Washington Post [2] agreed: "The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment." The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that "there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab."

Yet there was, and what's more, Major Hasan's motive was perfectly clear -- but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened - and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn't think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as "American" but as "Palestinian." A mosque official found that curious, saying: "I don't know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine."

He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was "put on probation early in his postgraduate work" and was "disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues."

He was a staff psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before transferring to Fort Hood earlier this year. While at Walter Reed, he was a "very devout" member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring. Faizul Khan, a former imam at the Center, expressed puzzlement over Hasan's murders: "To know something like this happened, I don't know what got into his mind. There was nothing extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration....He never showed any remorse or wish for vengeance on anybody."

So he identified himself as Palestinian and was a devout Muslim - so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran's many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today's world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.

CAIR has been working overtime (they're quoted in this article also), and the "Muslims fear backlash" victimhood machine is in high gear. No one, of course, is questioning whether there might be any connection between this man's devoutly held Islam and the massacre today. After all, how could there be any such connection? Islam is a Religion of Peace™!

"Massacre Leaves 12 Dead At Fort Hood," by Kevin Whitelaw for NPR, November 5 (thanks to Axel):

[...] The motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said....

Nothing can be made clear to those who do not wish to see.

A source tells NPR's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.

And the talking heads are saying how good it is that he is alive, as it will provide an opportunity for him to be questioned about why he did this. Jihad? Pah! "Army: Ft. Hood suspect still alive," from WISH, November 5:

KILLEEN, Texas (KXAN/AP/MSNBC) - Major Malik Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 12 and wounding 31 in an attack at Fort Hood on Thursday, is alive and in stable condition, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said at an 8:30 p.m. news conference.

Counter to initial reports, the 39-year-old psychiatrist - who was thought to be killed by local police - is hospitalized and not expected to die of gunshots sustained during the 1:30 p.m. attack. The local police officer who allegedly shot Hasan and injured him is in the hospital also in stable condition.

Cone also told reporters that Hasan was carrying one handgun and one semi-automatic weapon. But the fact that there were so many injured, apparently by one man, "counter-intuitively is concern," Cone said - spurring officials to continue their investigation to make sure they haven't missed any other shooters. Two soldiers were questioned earlier in the day and then released, determined not to have been involved, officials said....

Evidently he was not a convert to Islam, but was a lifelong -- and observant -- Muslim. "At least 12 killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.," by William Branigin and Carrie Johnson for the Washington Post, November 5 (thanks to Peter Collier):

[...] Hasan was a psychiatrist, according to acquaintances of his in Washington, and a Pentagon source said he was recently reassigned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington to work with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood.

Hasan was a U.S. citizen, according to Virginia voting records, and his parents are Palestinians from the West Bank, according to his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church. He was born at Arlington Hospital Center.

Hasan, 39, had lived in Montgomery County, Md., and Arlington, Va., in addition to Roanoke and nearby Vinton, Va. He graduated from Virginia Tech and earned his medical degree at Bethesda's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, records show.

Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring and was "very devout," according to Faizul Khan, a former imam at the center. Khan said Hasan attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week, often in his Army fatigues.

Khan also said Hasan applied to an annual matrimonial seminar that matches Muslims looking for spouses. "I don't think he ever had a match, because he had too many conditions," Khan said.

"We never got into details of worldly affairs or politics," the former imam said of his conversations with Hasan. "Mostly religious questions. But there was nothing extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration. . . . He never showed any . . . wish for vengeance on anybody."

However, a fellow Army officer who worked with Hasan told Fox News Channel that Hasan had expressed strong opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He would make comments to other individuals about how we should not be in the war in the first place," Col. Terry Lee told the network. "He made those comments, and he stuck strongly to his faith, but as soldiers we have a duty to follow orders from our commander in chief, and our political views are set aside."

They should have been shadowing this guy at every step. Or would that have been "Islamophobic"? "AP source: Authorities had concerns about suspected shooter, reviewed Internet postings," by Lara Jakes for Associated Press, November 5 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

WASHINGTON - Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.

The officials say the postings appeared to have been made by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was killed during the shooting incident that left least 11 others dead and 31 wounded. The officials say they are still trying to confirm that he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened....

"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

Misunderstanders of Islam abound on this thread at Islamic Awakening, discussing the jihad shooting at Fort Hood today.

mujahid_moonsighter Junior Member Muslim Male Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Riyadh, Saudia Arabia

Re: As many as 9 killed in Fort Hood shootings, officials say
reports now are saying that the shooter was a convert(revert) to Islam, a Major(officer) in the army

Allahu akbar insha Allah he be shaheed, what a brave mujahid

Read the others also.

Nidal Malik Hasan

"They were telling him that one guy was shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting," Tom Hunt said. "He couldn't say much more than that."

There is also this from Pamela:

"Malik Nadal Hasan, the jihadi that led the attack on Fort Hood, was quoted as saying "Muslims have the right to rise up against the US military" "The Malik Nadal Hasan Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors" "maybe we should have more of these where people strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square" - this according to Col Terry Lee who worked with Muslim convert.

The mainstream media, of course, is still searching for a motive.

Nidal Malik Hasan

Lots of predictable mainstream media dissembling going on about Malik Nadal Hasan, the one murderer who has been identified in the attacks at Fort Hood today that left 12 dead and 31 wounded. One AP story says that his religion is not known. The CBS story below is a bit better, actually identifying him as a Muslim. But no one, no one at all, in the mainstream media is discussing jihad as a motivation. It's all about "snapping," "not wanting to go to war" (then why join the Army), etc.

"Soldier Opens Fire at Ft. Hood; 12 Dead," from CBS News, November 5 (thanks to Joe):

[...] A law enforcement official identified the shooting suspect as Army Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan. The official said Hasan, believed to be in his late 30s, was killed after opening fire at the base. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

The official says investigators are trying to determine if Hasan was his birth name, or if he changed his name and converted to Islam at some point in his life.

CBS News investigative producer Len Tepper reports that Hasan, 39, is a licensed psychiatrist from Silver Spring, Md....

Evidently a convert to Islam, and an apparent jihad attack has taken place at Ft. Hood.

[Robert here:] Twelve dead, thirty wounded in what was apparently an attack coordinated between two or three gunmen -- belying the post-traumatic stress syndrome spin playing out in the mainstream media.

If this turns out to be a jihad attack, watch for the President to caution against "backlash" and "Islamophobia."

Not all were willing to oblige, however. "Brave Iranians ruin hate-U.S. fest," by Amir Taheri in the New York Post, November 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Yesterday marked the 30th anniversary of the capture by Khomeinist "students" of the US Embassy in Tehran, triggering the 444-day hostage crisis.

The Iranian public seized the chance to reject the regime -- even as the surviving hostage-takers have largely come to regret their actions.

For months, Iran's state-controlled media had tried to build up the day as a "turning point" for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's troubled second term.

The occasion was supposed to highlight Ahmadinejad's "victory over the American Great Satan" and Washington's implicit acceptance of Iran's nuclear project in recent talks in Geneva and Vienna.

In a message on the eve of the anniversary, "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei called on "true Muslims" to show "unquenchable anger against the Great Satan." The newspaper Kayhan promised "the largest crowds in Iran's history."

But events defied the official script.

Weeks of "mass mobilization" failed to produce "the largest crowds in history."

The official news agency, IRNA, which habitually reports "the marches of the millions," had to lower its rhetoric to "tens of thousands." More, its reports indicated that, in most cases, the authorities had to press-gang schoolchildren into marching.

The largest rally, in front of the former US Embassy, attracted no more than 5,000 professional militants, eyewitnesses said.

And the opposition seized the chance to show its strength once again. The official media reported that "the enemies of the revolution" held rallies in more than 100 cites. In cities such as Ahvaz and Yazd, opposition marches pushed official processions to the sidelines.

That anti-Americanism is no longer in vogue (if it ever was) was further underlined by the fact that regime grandees stayed away from the anti-US marches.

In some cases, senior officials were advised not to appear -- for fear of facing hostile crowds. For the first time in 30 years, no major regime figure was there to address the rallies.

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad stayed in their bunkers -- dispatching Ghulam Haddad-Adel, a former speaker of Iran's ersatz parliament, to deliver the main address in front of the former embassy. Even then, he had to make a quick getaway when advised that an opposition crowd was approaching.

In some cases, the opposition's chants of "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Russia!" were louder than the slogan "Death to America!" chanted by official demonstrators, often with little enthusiasm.

In some gatherings, non-Iranian militants, including members of the Lebanese Hezbollah and students from Africa and elsewhere in Asia, provided the core of the crowds.

State-owned TV showed a group of Spanish converts to Shiism whose leader, a certain Jaafar Gonzales, claimed he'd come to Iran to underline "my people's deep hatred of America."...

Piety!

Big surprise here. "Afghan National Police penetrated by Taliban at 'every level,'" by Thomas Harding and James Kirkup from the Telegraph, November 4 (thanks to Axel):

The Afghan National Police have been penetrated by the Taliban "at every level" with officers poorly trained, corrupt and some addicted to drugs, a former Army officer has said. Capt Doug Beattie, who served two tours in Afghanistan working with the ANP, said many police officers are in the paid [sic] of insurgents and were more loyal to their tribes than the Afghan government.

British officers say that among low-ranking Afghan police, and particularly in more rural areas away from central control, there is widespread corruption and disloyalty....

Capt Beattie, who has retired from the Army, said: "It is absolutely right to say that the Afghan police are infiltrated by the Taliban at every level, from the very lowest to the very highest."

The police officer who killed five British soldiers on Tuesday is understood to have been in the police for at least two years. That raises the possibility that he was paid to switch sides....

"Washington, DC, Oct. 16 -- At the Oct. 15 Fourth Annual Gala of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), the National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones, reiterated the Administration's commitment to establishing a Palestinian state and determination to move forward with peace talks.

"We are clear, unambiguous and consistent," said Gen. Jones, "The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions to reach a final status agreement on two states." The National Security Advisor emphasized that, "President Obama's dedication to achieve these goals is unshaken, is committed, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of achieving these." He said that ending the conflict and the occupation is essential because what is at stake is "nothing less than the dignity and the security of all human beings." "We must move beyond talking about talks and get to the hard work of addressing the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians," Jones said...."

The National Security Adviser to Barack Obama, and the author of the amazing, nearly crazed, speech above, is General James L. Jones. Like Scott Gration, who joined the Obama campaign and was rewarded with the portfolio for the Sudan because as a young man he had lived in the Congo and Kenya, Jones is a kind of court general. His life in the military may not have prepared him well for the task at hand, but in the calculations of the Obama retinue, it is assumed he will help provide an aura of "toughness" - willingness to use force, that sort of thing - and of lack of hostility to the military that the Obama calculators think he needs.

But there are generals and there are generals. One disastrous military man who served as National Security Adviser -- Brent Scowcroft, a chocolate soldier -- comes swimmingly to mind. There is mettle more attractive than the medals on a uniform, and the most attractive mettle of all, verso and recto, is the mental mettle of those who know how to recognize what it is they need to find out about, what it is they need to know more about, in order to meet the demands and responsibilities and duties of their job.

What has James Jones, this court general -- the one Obama enrolled in his pre-election entourage, along with Scott Gration, in order to protect Candidate Obama from possible political attacks or evident disaffection from almost all the other military men - said or done to show us that he has understand Islam, has grasped the doctrine of Jihad? And when we come specifically to the Lesser Jihad being waged against Israel, why does General Jones accept so unthinkingly the camouflage the Arabs have created for that Jihad - so clear in its ultimate goal, a goal shared by the Muslims of the Fast Jihadist of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, that is, the elimination of the Infidel nation-state of Israel?

They rejected the offer; they'd prefer to have the whole thing, thank you.

"US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases," by Aamir Latif for Islam Online, November 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISLAMABAD - The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed.

"US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast," a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media.

He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul.

Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognize the Taliban regime which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

Turkish Prime Minister Reccap Erodgan has reportedly been active in brokering talks between the two sides.

His emissaries are in contact with Hizb-e-Islami (of former prime minister Gulbadin Hikmatyar) too because he is an important factor in northeastern Afghanistan."

A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US.

"Yes, there were some indirect talks, but they did not work," Yousaf Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, told IOL from an unknown location via satellite phone.

"There are some people who are conveying each others' (Taliban and US) messages. But there were no direct talks between us and America," he explained....

Comments by David G. Littman, NGO Representative to the United Nations (Geneva) for the Association for World Education (AWE) and World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ):

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, the proposed Islamic Charter, the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants

On looking through my papers recently, I came across a premonitory letter sent nearly two years ago to the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, by me and Roy Brown, the main representative of the International Humanist & Ethical Union to the UN in Geneva. It denounces the OIC 'Stealth Jihad' campaign inside the UN corridors of power, particularly at its Human Rights Council, and is worthwhile reproducing here as a follow-up to my yesterday's assessment on this ominous subject (with links to my earlier relevant Jihad Watch articles); coming nearly a year after this letter by 2 NGOs (WUPJ & IHEU), representing about seven million members in 70 states worldwide.

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM
c/o Beith-GIL, 12 Quai du Seujet, 1201 Genève, Suisse

INTERNATIONAL HUMANIST AND ETHICAL UNION
1 Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD, United Kingdom

Mrs. Louise Arbour
High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson - Geneva
21 December 2007
By Fax: 022: 917 9012

Your Excellency,

Primacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The message of OIC Secretary-General, Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on the occasion of Human Rights Day, has just come to our attention, and his statement is noteworthy. It reads, in part:

Respect of Human Rights through effective protection and promotion of equality, civil liberties and social justice is a milestone in the OIC Ten Year Plan of Action. In this regard the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of [an] independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in the Member States in accordance with the provisions of the OIC 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam' and to elaborate an OIC 'Charter on Human Rights'. The OIC is also committed to encourage its member States to reinforce their national laws and regulations in order to guaranty strict respect for Human Right[s]." [bold added] http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_print.asp?t_id=708

On Friday, 14 December, I handed to you the two statements we addressed to the Council on 11 December, one concerning Darfur, the other the primacy of the UDHR. We were however unable to complete the latter statement because of a procedural ruling by the President, Ambassador Toru Romulus da Costea, but it was officially circulated at the plenum with the Secretariat's approval.
In this statement, we noted:

We were surprised that Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan, speaking yesterday morning on behalf of the OIC, claimed that the Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights", but failed to mention the shari'a law as "the only source of reference" (articles 24 and 25) in that same Declaration - the shari'a law where there is no equality between Muslim men and women, and between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Final Communiqué of the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit held in Mecca on 7-8 December 2005 (...) provides a clear message regarding the UN system of human rights:

The Conference called for considering the possibility of establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in Member States as well as the possibility in preparing an 'Islamic Charter on Human Rights' in accordance with the provisions of the 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam' and interact with the United Nations and other relevant international bodies.

We seriously question whether such a body would be "complementary" to the Human Rights Council or whether, given the wording of the Cairo Declaration, it will have shari'a law as its "only source of reference" and be seen as an alternative.

On 14 September 2000, in reply to a communication from the Association for World Education as to the "universality" of the 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam' (published in Volume II: 'Regional Instruments', OHCHR, 1997, pp. 477-84, of 'A Compilation of International Instruments'), the legal advisor to the then HCHR replied:

The Member States which have acceded to and ratified United Nations Human Rights Conventions remain bound, under all circumstances, by the provisions of those texts as well as the erge omnes obligations under customary international law.

We are writing to you today to request an official ruling from your legal advisor as to whether the above official statement on Human Rights Day by the OIC Secretary General - in regard to the 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam' and a future 'Islamic Charter' based on shari'a law - would clash with the UDHR and the 'Universal Instruments' ('A Compilation Of International Instruments' Vol. I, 1993)

Please accept our season's greetings, and our sincere appreciation for your multifarious efforts in holding to the highest standards of human rights and in guiding the international community along that straight and narrow path, toward an appreciation of the universality of the UDHR.

Respectfully,

David G. Littman - WUPJ Representative to the UNO in Geneva
Roy W. Brown - IHEU main representative the UN in Geneva

* * * * *
See OIC at the UN: 'Dialogue for Dhimmis' & more 'Stealth Jihad' (Dec. 22, 2008)

Comments by David G. Littman: the Association for World Education, UN-Geneva
See his previous articles on Stealth Jihad at the United Nations: here and here.

OIC Inter-institutional Forum on Universal Shared Values: Challenges & New Paradigms

On December 19, 2008, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Prof. Elmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, delivered the keynote address after 4 high level speakers. His full speech was posted today on the OIC website. Here is a noteworthy passage:

The OIC is going through a phase of introspection and soul searching on human rights. As the first major step in this field, the OIC adopted in the year 2000, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. This Declaration was not conceived as an alternative to the Universal Declaration even though it additionally addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries. The OIC has moved beyond the Cairo Declaration. In December 2005, OIC leaders at their Third Extraordinary Summit Conference in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, unanimously declared that contemporary reform and development must be anchored in the principles of good governance, protection of human rights, social justice, transparency and accountability. The Summit outlined a Ten-Year Programme of Action with a road map for enhancement of human rights, for striving for enlargement of political participation and promotion of equality, civil liberties and social justice in the OIC member states. The new OIC Charter adopted during the last OIC Summit in Dakar, Senegal in March 2008, called for the establishment of an independent permanent Commission to promote "the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization's covenants, the [1990] Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, and in legally agreed instruments." (...)

* * * * *

Nothing could be clearer for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. We await the next OIC "soul-searching"- with details on the "new OIC Charter" that will encompass the "enhancement of human rights, for striving for enlargement of political participation and promotion of equality, civil liberties and social justice in the OIC member states."
Perhaps we'll learn more on Human Rights Day, the 61st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed on 10 December 1948.

* * * * *

But hey, if it didn't work the first hundred times, there's always hope for the 101st.

"Obama calls for new relationship with Iran on anniversay [sic] of embassy takeover," by Michael Muskal for the Los Angeles Times, November 4:

President Obama today called for a new relationship with Iran in a statement that marked the 30th anniversary of the takeover by Iranian militants of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The seizure of the embassy by radical students marked the beginning of Iran's turn to hard-line policies. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

"This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation," Obama said in his statement. "I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."...

And the response:

"Iran's Khamenei rejects U.S. outreach," by Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigin for the Washington Post, November 4:

TEHRAN -- Iran's supreme leader, spurning what he described as several personal overtures from President Obama, warned Tuesday that negotiating with the United States would be "naive and perverted" and that Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 70, said Obama has approached him several times through oral and written messages. It was the second time that Khamenei, who wields ultimate political and religious authority in Iran, has referred to the president's outreach.

The White House has not confirmed sending letters to the Iranian supreme leader but has acknowledged a willingness to talk to Tehran and said it has sought to communicate with Iranian leaders in a variety of ways.

In his harshest comments yet on the Obama administration, Khamenei said in a speech Tuesday that the United States has ill intentions toward Iran and is not to be trusted.

"The new U.S. president has said nice things," he said. "He has given us many spoken and written messages and said: 'Let's turn the page and create a new situation. Let's cooperate with each other in resolving world problems.' "

Khamenei said he had responded in March to Obama's overtures, referring to a speech in which he said he would wait for changes in U.S. policy toward Iran before reassessing ties.

Since then, Khamenei said, "what we have witnessed is completely the opposite of what they have been saying and claiming. On the face of things, they say, 'Let's negotiate.' But alongside this, they threaten us and say that if these negotiations do not achieve a desirable result, they will do this and that."

Khamenei urged Iranian representatives to be extremely careful when dealing with the United States.

"Whenever they smile at the officials of the Islamic revolution, when we carefully look at the situation, we notice that they are hiding a dagger behind their back," he said. "They have not changed their intentions."...

Iranian authorities, meanwhile, warned the opposition against using Wednesday's commemorative events to stage protests against the government. Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have urged supporters to demonstrate during the anniversary rallies, news agencies reported.

"Only anti-American rallies in front of the former American Embassy in Tehran are legal," the head of Tehran's security forces said in a statement. "Other gatherings or rallies on Wednesday are illegal and will be strongly confronted by the police."

Only anti-American rallies.

This latest There Is No Fun In Islam* Update comes from modern, moderate Indonesia, where they have found a marvelous accord between Islamic tradition and modern sensibilities: "Sexy Costumes Spark Halloween Raids in Indonesia's Kalimantan," from the Jakarta Globe, November 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Halloween party in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, on Saturday night got more spooks than it hoped for when public order officers arrived to break up the festivities apparently because some of the young women were wearing costumes deemed too revealing.

The city's spokesman, Muhammad Faisal, said on Sunday that about 10 young women under the age of 22 were arrested at 11 p.m. after celebrating at a local nightspot called Platinum. The women, he said, tried to hide but the officers were able to find them.

"They were released this morning. They only had to bring their ID cards and did not need wear costumes like that to the party," he said.

"We had received complaints from residents that they were disturbed by such parties."

Although Samarinda does not have any regulations regarding inappropriate dress, Faisal said some residents had complained....

* The Ayatollah Khomeini said that.

Remember, this was within the context of the good war, in which the United States showed the umma that we are not anti-Muslim, and sided with modern, moderate Muslims who love the U.S. dearly to this day. "Bosnia: Muslim ex-commander arrested for war crimes," from AKI, November 4 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Sarajevo, 4 Nov. (AKI) - A former Bosnian Muslim army deputy commander, Nihad Bojadzic, was arrested in Sarajevo on Wednesday on suspicion of having killed over 20 Croat civilians and prisoners of war during the 1993 Muslim-Croat war, the state prosecutor's office said. Bojadzic was due to be handed over to Bosnia's state war crimes court.

Bojadzic, 47, is suspected of committing the mass killings while serving as deputy commander of the Bosnian Muslim-led army special platoon 'Zulfikar' when it overran the village of Trusina near the southern town of Konjic in April 1993.

Prosecution spokesman Boris Grubesic told media that 19 of the victims were Croat civilians, three were Croatian soldiers who had surrendered themselves, while four people, including two children, were wounded.

Four more Muslims were arrested on the same charges in September and are in detention pending trial....

An update on this story. The court decided to uphold the constitution, despite pressure to ignore it in favor of Sharia (which sure seems to be happening in a lot of places lately). Not that this will stop Islamist legislators from harping on the issue in the future.

"Court rules hijab optional for MPs," by James Calderwood for The National, October 29:

KUWAIT CITY // Kuwait's female MPs will not be forced to wear a hijab or have their parliamentary membership invalidated after the Constitutional Court, the country's highest legal authority, rejected a case by a Kuwaiti man who said they broke rules relating to Islamic dress.

The man, identified as Hamad al Nashi, urged the court to cancel the membership of the two female MPs - Aseel al Awadhi and Rola Dashti - who did not wear the hijab, thereby violating an article of the election law that states: "A condition for women to vote and be elected is to abide by the rules and terms of Sharia law".

Islamists say the Sharia clearly states that women must wear the hijab.

In its ruling, the court said the article of the election law was not specific and therefore could be interpreted in different ways. It said Sharia could apply to many things, including beliefs, morals and actions, and comes from many sources such as the Quran, the Sunna, and other traditions and customs.

That was the point: To use the lack of limitations on Sharia's scope to keep women legislators in line, or force them out of office.

If the court had ruled that the women were in violation of the election law when they were elected, their membership in parliament could have been cancelled, legal experts said. "I'm very happy it's been rejected," Ms al Awadhi, one of Kuwait's four female MPs, said after receiving the news of the court's decision. "So we're not going to wear the hijab in the Majlis," Ms al Awadhi said, using the first word of Majlis al Umma, the Arabic name for Kuwait's national assembly....

Picking up on libels from a Leftist pro-jihad hate site, the Hamas-linked unindicted conspirator the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has claimed in its "American Muslim News Briefs" email that I own the domains f***allah.com and f***islam.com and have redirected them to Jihad Watch.

"In doing so," says the CAIR News Brief, "Robert Spencer may have been trying to actively market his hate material to like-minded audiences. It is a well known fact that keywords are a crucial factor in the popularity of a blog. This is damning evidence of the true gutter intent behind his little blog project which is to attract and further incite those with Islamophobic tendencies, his primary audience."

In fact, it is damning evidence of CAIR's willingness to pass on outright libels.

For the record, I do not own the domain names f***allah.com and f***islam.com, and have nothing to do with them whatsoever. I have never engaged in such tactics and do not approve of them.

Anyone can buy a domain name and redirect it anywhere he wants. I could buy f***cair.com and redirect it to the CAIR site -- but I won't. This is clearly a smear designed to discredit Jihad Watch and my work, and I'm engaged in active efforts now to find out who does own those sites -- they registered them with Domains By Proxy, indicating that they had something to hide from the beginning.

But they will be found out, and I am sure their identity will be interesting in many ways.

My ace tech man has been working all day with enon.com, where those domains originated, and has finally succeeded in getting them to redirect these domain names so they don't bring one to Jihad Watch.

I wrote to CAIR's Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper awhile ago asking for a retraction and apology. In a typical evasion of responsibility, he wrote back directing me to the Leftist hate site. But that won't make his obvious libel go away.

Above all, this demonstrates how desperate CAIR and the pro-jihad site that originated this libel really are: they cannot refute what I say about Islam and jihad, and so they have to resort to gutter tactics like this one to try to fool people into thinking that it is "hate" to defend of the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law against Islamic supremacist thuggery.

Well, they're exposed again for what they are: Islamic supremacist thugs. Desperate, dishonest, and pathetic ones.

Fun fact of the day: the U.S. Congress voted 344 to 36 to condemn the OIC-initiated and antisemitic Goldstone Report today. Of the 36 who voted Nay and the 30 who did not vote, eight are among the eleven Representatives listed in the book Muslim Mafia as the top recipients of Arab-Muslim cash.

Pamela has the details:

Muslim Mafia page 195

Top 11 recipients of Arab Muslim cash

Rahall - voted nay
Moran - voted nay
Issa - voted yea
Conyers - did not vote
Kucinich - voted nay
Jackson - voted yea
Lee - voted nay
Dingell - voted nay
Kilpatrick - voted nay
Jackson-Lee - voted yea
McDermott - voted nay

Shows what that money will buy -- 7 nay votes and one did not vote.
I am pleasantly surprised at Issa, Jackson, and Jackson-Lee.

Pamela Geller is organizing a Rally for Rifqa Bary, the girl who fled from her home in Ohio because, she says, her father threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Although there is a great deal of evidence of various kinds to back up her claim, Rifqa has been sent back to Ohio, restricted in her phone and Internet use, and is in danger of being sent back to her family. Hence the Rally, which I'm honored to be helping out with as well.

However, in The Iconoclast today, the ordinarily perceptive and sensible Jerry Gordon casts a jaundiced eye on the proceedings:

[...] But then Geller whips up the passions by citing "Rifqa's imprisonment":

Rifqa Bary's civil rights are being violated. She is being held prisoner: no phone, no internet, and no public school. Why? What is her crime? She is being held under house arrest in accord with Sharia law, which stipulates that female apostates are to be imprisoned until they recant. Ohio is effectively practicing Sharia law.

In the run-up to the Rifqa Bary rally it is important to keep in mind the conditions of her current foster care as regards her ability to communicate with outsiders.

First, restrictions on her ability to communicate:

· Her cell phone is not tapped, and she can phone whomever she chooses.

He Her [sic] internet access is not restricted to approved sites, or officially monitored by anyone.

Sources inform us that the large Muslim community in Columbus, estimated at over 70,000, including a large Somali contingent, may be prepared to come out in force to counter demonstrate against "outsiders." Then there are the extremists at the Noor Mosque, which the Bary family attended. The Protest Rally for Rifqa might trigger something more than the 'stealth jihad' aimed at reunifying Rifqa with her parents, ready to flee the US for their native Sri Lanka. That flight could be imminent if the Franklin County Juvenile Court Magistrate Hearing overturns the petition for dependency on the grounds of abuse by her family, and immigration authorities encourage their departure.

The other concern is whether this proceeding in Franklin County Juvenile court is simply 'pro forma'. That is the re-unification deal is a foregone conclusion and would occur on the hearing date, November 16th. Sources close to the legal team indicate that even if that occurs, there will still be appeals and other legal filings that would cause a delay of up to sixty days before that might happen....

The petition before the court is for dependency, because Rifqa fears being sent home to her family. Her fears reflect a history of abuse, of being taken back to Sri Lanka and the distinct possibility of her being fatally punished under Sharia law for her apostasy as a Muslim who converted to Christianity. If the dependency petition filing is approved then Rifqa would become a ward (dependent) of the State of Ohio. She would then be automatically eligible to be on the fast track to obtain a Green Card under US immigration rules, regardless of the immigration status of her parents.

What messages should the Rifqa protest rally appropriately convey?

The message at the protest rally should be to support the dependency petition so that Rifqa can remain in this country and become a US citizen.

Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, responded to Jerry this morning in his characteristically passionate way:

This is the sheerest and most dangerous stupidity you've ever written.

How do you know this information? Have YOU spoken to Rifqa? You're now one of her intimate friends whom she reaches out to?

Unlike you, Pamela Geller has been in touch with many of Rifqa's closest friends for weeks now, and it appears that NONE of them who were able to communicate with her in the past--like Jamal Jivanjee---are able to presently. You don't have a problem with that? Is she the criminal here??

You don't have a problem with the fact that Rifqa's Florida legal team prevented independent efforts by Judge Einhorn's Pepperdine Clinic (they reached out to Rifqa's legal team weeks before I contacted them) to begin proceedings for asylum in parallel with other legal efforts to protect her, and Rifqa's Florida lawyer John Stemberger et al ignored a SUCCESSFUL team of volunteer lawyers well versed in apostasy law and passed them on to her current legal team?

You also don't seem to have a problem with the fact that the current "legal eagles" have yet to invite a lawyer well versed in apostasy law, like David Yerushalmi, onto their team. Nor have they filed countersuits against Rifqa's odious father--an abusive, perjuring tax cheat and illegal alien, whose legal downfall would help her case immensely.

No, instead you endorse a one track (with no failsafe--no Einhorn team collaboration; no Yerushalmi legal attacks on the parents) approach for "dependency" which could easily be trumped by her odious parents "reunification (read--license to honor kill)" efforts, while witlessly castigating the MAIN person trying to protect Rifqa--Pamela Geller.

Who advised you to write this?

And John Jay, an attorney who is familiar with the legal tangles of this case, added these perceptive remarks later in ee cummings fashion:

dear sir:

if i understand your post correctly, you criticize pamela geller's efforts to broaden the scope of the bary case via the rally to be held in columbus on 16 november, and suggest that people more cautiously just back the legal team's efforts to obtain a ruling from the court that rifqa bary is a dependent child, so that more appropriate remedies to secure her safety, and permanent separation from her parents, might be sought by the child obtaining a certain immigration status, e.g., the "green card", and thereby gain that separation.

i think your criticism of ms. geller's aims unwarranted, and believe it to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of certain aspects of dependency law. if i may explain my perspective after 25 years of law practice, 10 or 12 of which were spent in juvenile courts and more specifically in juvenile courts.--

the simplest question before the franklin county (ohio) juvenile court is whether rifqa bary is in fact and under the law a dependent child, e.g., is she a child whose parents cannot adequately provide for and protect whether because they are neglectful, abusive or simply unwilling to perform the minimum tasks of parenting. it would appear to me that rifqa bary makes a colorable assertion of parental abuse, by her allegations of the threats to do her harm issuing from her father, and by the fact that the court records so far sustain a parental confirmation of the circumstances in which rifqa asserts those threats to have occurred.

it is likely that the ohio court will find rifqa to be a dependent child.

the matter does not end there. the matter simply starts there. and, the remedies that the court issues & orders while the case is pending until its conclusion will determine the extent to which rifqa bary's life is protected and supervised by the state, or, on the other hand, the extent to which she is exposed to abuse, assault and the very probable exposure to death by the hands of family because of her apostasy.

for instance.--

a dependency court has the jurisdiction to order a child returned to home even in the face of find[ing: sic] dependency.

a dependency court, on the other hand, has the authority to order a child into a custodial situation outside the home, which would be closely supervised by the court, and by the appropriate child protections service either in the county or as provided by the state. a dependency court has the authority to prohibit visitation by parents and family, or to limit it to a matter of hours per episode and in the company of a social worker, or to limit it to daylight hours of a limited frequency. a dependency court can order an extremely thorough and detailed home study, can order parents to undergo psychiatric evaluation, and to comply with any treatment recommendations issuing from such evaluation: the court can task the appropriate social agencies to measure and report upon parental compliance.

to the point of this letter.--

imagine, if you will, a case in which a child of christian fundamentalist parents is abused by those parents. imagine, further, that a source of the strain in family relations is a child's refusal to take part in religious ceremonies involving the handling of rattlesnakes, fully loaded with venom and fangs intact.

would competent counsel simply seek a determination of "dependency" from a court, and not resist the child's return to the home.

would competent counsel not seek to introduce the facts and circumstances of parental efforts to compel a child to take part in the rattlesnake handling portions of the parent's religious ceremonies.

competent counsel would not hold the scope of the hearing to just the barest issues of dependency, but would seek to get the evidence of these ceremonies in, so that the appropriate temporary orders securing the safety of the child would be ensured. in short, competent counsel would seek to broaden the examination of the court to include a thorough review of all such relevant facts and circumstances.

i believe, therefore, your criticisms of ms. geller to be entirely misplaced, both because you do not understand why she seeks to make sure the courts examine the issues of apostasy in the islamic religion, and to make sure that the courts understand the very true extent of the physical danger presented to her by any association with her family.

those speakers invited to the rally are designed to do exactly that, and to make the public aware of these issues.

the very real danger presented to rifqa bary is not that the ohio court will not find that she is a dependent child, but, that the ohio court, being and remaining ignorant of the facts and circumstances of apostasy killings and murders, will not fashion those intermediate remedies necessary during the pendency of the case to adequately protect rifqa bary.

the court must be educated about islamic and koranic penalties to be imposed upon apostates who do not reaffirm their adherence to islam.

the court must be educated and understand that if rifqa bary is returned to her family or placed in their immediate company, that she faces the fate of an apostate, and that she is exposed to the risk that she will be spirited out of the country with them to sri lanka, a place where her "justice" might be "meted" out by islam and her family without intervention on the part of the civil and criminal authorities.

this is the function of this rally. and, if it "invites" the intervention of the islamic community, ... , well, good sirs, if we are to stand for our heritage and our beliefs, how is that to be avoided from time to time. would you see us abandon our beliefs, abandon the field to islam, at the mere risk of risk, as it were. that is a callow position.

finally, pamela geller is as aware as you of the "green card" situation with immigration services. but, in and of itself, it is absolutely no panacea for rifqa bary, and presents absolutely no protection to her if she is in the presence of her family. it is a remedy to be sought in conjunction with the other protections sought for her in a dependency proceeding, but the only underlying protection to her is that derived from being separate from her family.

john jay, milton freewater, oregon usa

A few weeks ago I was in an airport, having hurried from a venue where I had just given a talk. I don't ever speak from a written text, but I do carry notes -- a page or two of quotations from various Muslim Brotherhood operatives, etc., including jihadist and Islamic supremacist statements by some putative American moderate Muslims, as well as quotations from the Koran and Hadith, etc. I had this material in my suit pocket, and it dropped out when I took off my suit jacket to go through security. So a few minutes later I was again in the friendly presence of police and TSA personnel. One gentleman was holding up my notes and asking me why I had this material. I started laughing, because I realized that there was absolutely nothing in the notes to show that I actually opposed what was written there -- and realized that it might take awhile to straighten the whole thing out.

But I didn't mind. Because I knew what they were doing. I knew they weren't holding the bearded, swarthy fellow with notes full of jihad and hate because they don't like people of Middle Eastern descent, or because they hate Muslims, or what have you. They were doing their job, which was to protect the American people. These Welshman from Pakistan, or Pakistanis from Cardiff, should realize that. If they care.

"Muslim men plan complaint after being 'treated like terrorists' by airport police," by Abby Alford for the Western Mail, November 4 (thanks to John Doe):

A PARTY of Muslim men who claim they were singled out and treated like terrorists by airport police vowed last night to push for an independent investigation.

The seven-strong group say they plan to approach the Independent Police Complaints Commission over the incident at Cardiff Airport.

The men, who are from Pakistani families but were born and brought up in Cardiff, said they were questioned and had their details and passports checked by police officers.

Two of the group also said they were singled out for hour-long interrogations, during which they claimed they were asked if they had extremist views and if they had ever been asked to carry out a terrorist attack.

Garage owner Sajid Hussain, 30, from Cyncoed, Cardiff, said: "It was clear discrimination. We were the only Asians in the airport. We understand they have a job to do and have to pull some people over, but it's just the fact that it was all seven of us. And some of the questions they asked were ridiculous. It was like they were saying to me, 'You have got a beard, so you look like a terrorist'. I felt quite bad that, just because of my appearance, I am considered half way to becoming a terrorist."

A police spokeswoman said: "South Wales Police takes its responsibilities very seriously in terms of respecting diversity in all individuals. We are very much aware of the sensitivities and considerations required in balancing the need to protect the public while respecting all individuals' rights and needs."

The seven, all friends since childhood, travelled to Cardiff Airport on October 24 to catch a flight to Glasgow for a friend's wedding. The first group to arrive - Atif Shabir, Ali Chishti, Sajid Hussain and Naweed Akram - were in the process of using the self check-in when they were approached by armed police, a plain clothes police officer and airport security officers.

Mr Shabir, 27, a self-employed property developer from Cyncoed, Cardiff, said: "They called us over to the side and checked our passports. They also took our names, addresses and date of birth and asked us where we were going. I asked them why. They said there was nothing to worry about and it was routine and all normal, but it wasn't because we were the only ones."

He said they were taken around the corner out of sight of other passengers. But after they had given their details they thought the police and security officers had finished with them so Mr Hussain joined the check-in queue....

Mr Ashraf, 29, an accountant from Riverside, Cardiff, said: "I asked the police officer why we were being pulled aside and he basically said he was airport police and he could do what he wanted."

Mr Hussain and Mr Akram, 29, also from Cyncoed, were taken to separate rooms upstairs where they claimed they were asked to empty their pockets and to hand over mobile phones and bank cards.

They said they agreed police could make a note of the last 10 numbers they had dialled as they had nothing to hide.

Mr Hussain claimed the questions he was asked included whether he believed in radical Islam, did he associate with or know any radicals, is hatred incited in his mosque and was he a practising Muslim.

Mr Akram said: "They asked me if, at the mosque, they were talking about the English Defence League and Welsh Defence League. I said that at the mosque, they just teach us about religion. Then the policeman told me there was a rally happening that day."

The Welsh Defence League had planned a march in Newport on October 24, but the protest fizzled out.

The group was only allowed to proceed to the gate shortly before the flight was due to leave. In the days after they said they were interrogated, both Mr Hussain and Mr Akram claimed they had trouble using their bank cards because they had been security flagged.

Mr Hussain said: "We (the UK) have gone to Afghanistan to promote our way of life - that is a very tolerant society that is very accepting. While here, the picture is different and is getting worse. It's a very sad situation."

Yeah, things are just peachy in Afghanistan as compared to Wales. Why don't you emigrate to that paradise, Mr. Hussain?

A few years ago when the Muslim cabdrivers at the Minneapolis airport were refusing to carry passengers who had alcohol, several people pointed out that it would set a dangerous precedent to allow cabbies to select passengers according to Sharia rules. If a cabdriver could reject a passenger who was holding a bottle of whiskey, he could reject a passenger who was eating a ham sandwich, or an unmarried couple, or, as here, a gay couple. And the American principle of equality of access would be overthrown in favor of a religious discrimination that would enshrine Islamic law as a higher law than the law of the land.

And that's why Medhat Mohamed needs to lose his job. As long as the law of the U.S. disallows religious discrimination, his action ought to be seen as such and authorities should act accordingly.

"Crabby cabby boots same-sex lovebirds," by Kirsten Fleming, Tom Namako and Reuven Fenton in the New York Post, November 4 (thanks to John):

An overzealous cabby allegedly booted a gay couple when he spotted the duo sharing a warm embrace in the back of his cold car.

Paul Bruno and his partner hailed the yellow cab Monday night at 13th Street and First Avenue and sat close, Bruno told The Post.

But the driver, identified by Bruno and city records as Medhat Mohamed, was apparently appalled by their shows of affection -- and pulled the cab over two blocks into the trip.

"You guys have to get out of the taxi! Hugging is not allowed in here!" the driver said, according to Bruno.

Stunned, the lovebirds exited and watched the taxi peel away.

"I was shocked," said Bruno, 27, who called the act "discrimination against homosexuals."

The encounter took place at 10:20 p.m. after the couple attended a birthday dinner and hailed a ride to East Harlem.

"To pull over after two blocks and be so blatantly intolerant is outrageous," Bruno said.

"He needs to exercise the rules in which he was employed a little more closely."

Both men said they hoped other cabbies didn't share the same views on an innocent act.

"I don't know if it was a personal or religious thing. But it's never OK to deny anyone a ride, especially when it's such blatant and direct discrimination," added Bruno, a lifelong city resident....