October 2003 Archives

"Across Europe and the Middle East," says the New York Times, "young militant Muslim men are answering a call issued by Osama bin Laden and other extremists, and leaving home to join the fight against the American-led occupation in Iraq, according to senior counterterrorism officials based in six countries."

Wait a minute. Don't these "young militant Muslim men" realize that jihad is a spiritual struggle to bring their souls into conformity with Allah's will? Why do they listen to Osama and other extremists? Why don't they tell those extremist preachers and recruiters, "Hey, man, get out of here. Islam is a religion of peace"? Why is Iraq only one focus of jihad activity in the world today, with other battlegrounds stretching from Nigeria to Indonesia?

Could it be that violent jihad is not as marginal and discredited an idea within the Muslim world as most commentators would have us believe?

Louis Sako, Chaldean Catholic Bishop of Kirkuk in Iraq, has spoken out about the situation in his homeland. Bishop Sako is one of the five Christians on the 200-member panel now working on Iraq's new constitution. But outside forces, he says, are making their job more difficult: "Iraq as an engine of democracy does not sit well with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and other neighbors."

Why not? "Civil rights for non-Arab minorities, religious liberty, and legal reform would bring into question the power upon which atavistic tyrannies and proven systems of repression are based."

The bishop is talking about the radical Muslims who are trying to impose the Sharia on Iraq. What other system rejects civil rights for religious minorities and religious liberty?

And who are those who don't want Iraq to become a free, democratic society?

"They are Arab fighters who have entered Iraq, financed by fundamentalist movements in nearby countries, or maybe even by the governments." In other words, the jihadists.

Rod Dreher reports in the Dallas Morning News about a most revealing interview with Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Dreher asked Syeed a question about ISNA's ties to extremists. He writes: "Dr. Syeed's revealing reaction - he said that my query reminded him of 'Nazism' and that I would have to 'repent' - tells us a great deal about American Islam's extremist problem ... and ours."

Precisely. It's revealing of the tactic that all too many American Muslim spokesmen use to silence uncomfortable questions: they accuse the questioner of racism, bigotry, etc. etc. They've used it with me plenty of times, and they will again.

Dreher points out some of ISNA's ties to extremists and concludes: "Given ISNA's leadership, it is no wonder Dr. Syeed wouldn't give a straight answer when a Morning News colleague of mine asked him three times what his organization was doing to fight Islamic extremism. When I asked the man how he squared his profession of tolerance and moderation with having radicals on the ISNA board, Dr. Syeed became hostile, sputtering that my question reminded him of Hitlerian persecution. That is blustering nonsense, of course, and an attempt to silence legitimate questions about ISNA's agenda through intimidation and misdirection."

Intimidation and misdirection -- that's the playbook for many American Muslim advocacy groups today. There are several Muslim organizations in the US today about which serious questions can be raised about their ties to radicals and terrorists -- and every one of them uses intimidation and misdirection as their chief responses to uncomfortable questions.

Most of the dhimmi press goes right along with it, accepting their smears as fact and allowing them to assail the reputations of decent men. The recent borking of Daniel Pipes, when he was nominated by Bush for a place in the US Institute of Peace, is a case in point.

The Middle East Media Research Institute reports on a new issue of Al-Qaeda's online magazine, "Voice of Jihad."

"Our number one enemy," this issue tells us, "is the Jews and the Christians, and we must free ourselves to invest all our efforts until we annihilate them - and we are able do this if Allah allows us to do it - because they are the main obstacle to establishing the Islamic state."

Note the goal: establishing the Islamic state, the caliphate. Why this is so widely ignored I don't know, but not just Al-Qaeda, but every radical Muslim group has stated this as its goal. If the US withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, and every citizen of Israel moved to Idaho, there would still be radical Muslims waging jihad against Jews and Christians in an effort to establish the Islamic state.

This issue also declares a plan to "avoid, as much as possible, confrontations with the armies and forces of the state, so that we can strike lethal blows to the occupiers, Allah willing." In this sentence "the state" refers to Muslim rulers who don't measure up to radical Muslim standards. It may signal an intention to stop picking off members of the Iraqi governing council, and to concentrate on killing Americans instead.

Also, a certain Sheikh Nasser Al-Najdi affirms the laws of jihad and dhimmitude that I reveal in Onward Muslim Soldiers. The fact that he can appeal to traditional stipulations of Islamic jurisprudence for all this is a key reason why Al-Qaeda and groups like it are able to gain recruits in the Muslim world: "Islam is an all-encompassing religion. It is a religion for people and for regimes... At a time when people are given the choice [of believing] in Islam or paying Jizya [a poll tax paid by non-Muslims living under Muslim rule], Islam is the only alternative for the countries [of the world.]...Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah's law, is an enormous sin... and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya." Read Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an and tell me that this Sheikh is perverting Islam; I do not contend that the radical vision of Islam is the only form of Islam out there, but to ignore its traditional foundations is to miss a chief source of the problem.

Also, in the course of a debate about whether Al-Qaeda should attack Americans in Saudi Arabia or not, Abd Al-Aziz bin 'Issa bin Abd Al-Mohsen (Abu Hajjer), who is wanted in Saudi Arabia, noted: "It is also true that we must use this country [Saudi Arabia] because it is the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements, and it has some degree of security and freedom of movement."

Straight from a key Al-Qaeda member: Saudi Arabia is "the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements."

Compass Direct reports today that Yakup Cindilli, a Turkish convert to Christianity, is in a coma after receiving a savage beating from members of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), a political party which "has historically linked its platform with an Islamic-tinged version of nationalism."

Cindilli's offense? According to the Turkish paper Milliyet, Cindilli and a companion received their beatings "doing missionary propaganda." It seems that he was passing out copies of the New Testament.

This is a case that bears watching. His attackers are in prison, and in secular Turkey, they should be punished in the same way as would be anyone who commited an assault.

However, the fact that Cindilli was beaten up at all is an indication that no matter how secular Turkey may be, old attitudes stemming from Islamic law -- conversion from Islam is a capital offense, and missionary activity among Muslims intolerable -- are still very much alive there. Radical Muslim influence has been growing steadily in the Turkish government, and may result in Cindilli's attackers getting off with a slap on the wrist or less.

I have always said that the struggle against jihad terror and dhimmitude is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is a human rights issue. Any person of good will who believes in the equality of rights and dignity of all people -- women as well as men, non-Muslims as well as Muslims -- should be doing everything possible to counter the military and ideological challenge of radical Islam.

But in practice that is generally not the case. Most of those willing to tell the truth about radical Islam are conservatives (which is not to say that all conservatives have had the spine to do this, either). Liberal media establishment organs have generally abetted the coverup of the real sources of jihad terrorism, or have ignored the roots of radical Islam altogether and contented themselves with blaming the United States for causing the modern rise of jihad ideology.

Now Hillary Clinton, of all people, has spoken out against the "culture of death" that radical Islam has created among Palestinians. Just as the Pope has gone from kissing the Qur'an to allowing (evidently) the publication of a piece that tells the truth about jihad and dhimmitude, so Hillary has gone from kissing Suha Arafat to realizing that all is not well in Arafat's world.

"How," Hillary asked after a Senate hearing on the education and indoctrination of Palestinian children, "can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death? We should all agree that children should not be indoctrinated into hatred and violence and then indoctrinated into killing themselves."

Well, yes, Senator Clinton, you're right: people who glorify suicide killings of civilians probably aren't too worried about building a better future. And yes, we should all agree that children should not be indoctrinated into hatred, violence, and murder by suicide. However, we don't all agree on that, and the reasons why not are quite illuminating of what's really going on and what's really at stake in this present conflict.

But so far the New York Times and other prominent Hillary-friendly publications have been reluctant -- at best -- to address the reasons why this hatred and violence has gained such a foothold not only among Palestinian Muslims, but all over the Islamic world. So in trying to understand this phenomenon, the Senator is at a disadvantage. Hillary, call me. I'll fill you in.

Check out this morning a Symposium on Muslim Anti-Semitism at Front Page, featuring Bat Ye'or, Walid Phares, Kenneth Timmerman, and me. Also there today is a piece on the new statement on Islam from La Civiltá Cattolica, about which I wrote here yesterday.

The Voice of America was once a key component of America's ideological struggle against Communism. But against a new threat it seems to be having trouble summoning the requisite backbone. In this interview with the author of a new book on terrorism, the author explains why she profiled Christian cultists and Jewish militants in a book on contemporary terrorism: "To begin with, it is only Islamist terrorists today that are causing major threats to international security. But I wanted to include the other religious traditions, because at different points in history, every religion has produced significant armies of religious killers. There is nothing unique about Islam."

It is true that every religious tradition has been used to justify atrocities. But it is also true that Islam's doctrine of jihad is unique among religions. No other religion has a developed theology, law, and tradition mandating warfare against non-believers. While Christianity developed the idea of the Crusades late in its history and discarded it long ago, jihad has been taught throughout Islamic history as a duty of the Muslim community, and is still taught today.

Even worse may be the title of the article: "How Is Religion Used by Terrorists to Produce Suicide Bombers?"

How's that again? Religion is used to produce suicide bombers? Where are the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist suicide bombers? In the entire world today, there is only one religion producing suicide bombers, and using core beliefs of the religion to recruit and motivate such bombers. Hint: it ain't Methodism.

Osama bin Laden's family, which has disowned its most famous son, runs one of the five companies that have just been awarded contracts to operate Saudi airports.

Osama, of course, has already displayed a taste for air operations. And as this news report notes laconically, "Western intelligence agencies said Al Qaida has been planning to strike Western aircraft that seek to land or take off from Saudi airports."

Let's hope that no one -- no one -- in the family really has any contact with Osama or Al-Qaeda, or this could turn into a magnificent example of the fox guarding the henhouse.

This just in from Sheik Mohammed Omran of Melbourne, Australia: violent jihad is acceptable in Iraq, but not in Australia itself. Why not? As the Sheikh put it to two Abdul Rahman Ayub and Abdul Rahim Ayub, Australia-based leaders of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah in Australia: "This is not how we work here."

What does he mean by that? Maybe that post-Christian, multiculturalist Australia can be taken without a shot?

Sheikh Mohammed's words were condemned by another Australian Muslim leader, Sheikh Hilali, who said: "It is not to the benefit of young people in any area to have a teacher like Omran ... not in Australia or any Arabic or Islamic country." But is Hilali actually renouncing violent jihad altogether, or simply showing that he understands very well that such open avowals of the true intentions of radical Muslims are simply "not how we work here"?

The Christian Science Monitor reports today on a strange phenomenon: the increase in the number of terror attacks since the beginning of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month.

Why would any Muslim devote his energy to killing people during a period when he should be spending his time increasing his religious fervor? Precisely because jihad is, in the classic Muslim view, an act of piety. This comes out several times in the article:

"Ramadan is a month of commitment and renewal to their faith and also to their cause, whether by military or nonmilitary jihad," says Prof. Nizar Hamzeh, a specialist on political Islam at the American University of Beirut. "It is a month of martyrdom and commitment to one's Islamic ideology."

Throughout Islamic history, Ramadan has been seen as a time of victory for Muslim armies - and a period when those who are martyred have a greater assurance of a place in paradise."

. . . Similarly, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah reminded Muslims that Ramadan is a time for good deeds. And the kingdom's highest religious authority told citizens to avoid violence. "Seeking to disturb security or subject Muslim countries to instability is forbidden, and a Muslim must not seek to do so," Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh said this week.

What about non-Muslim countries?

Sheikh Maher Hammoud, a prominent Sunni cleric in Sidon, in south Lebanon, says that Ramadan is perceived by all Muslims as "the month of jihad." "It is not the Islamic way to bomb places like the Red Cross or Iraqi police. But in principle, Ramadan is a blessed month and known as a month for jihad."

But he adds that Muslims have different interpretations of what constitutes legitimate jihad. "For example, shooting an Israeli soldier will be viewed by moderate Muslims as falling under the title of jihad," Sheikh Hammoud says. "But blowing up a cafe in Tel Aviv may not be viewed by moderate Muslims as jihad. Attacks on military targets are legitimate, according to moderates, but anything against civilians is not."

These "moderates," then, evidently dissent from traditional Islamic legal rulings that sanction the killing of non-combatants who are viewed as in some way aiding the war effort.

Hammoud says occupation should be met with resistance. "So in Iraq, shooting a US soldier on Iraqi soil might be seen as jihad," he says, "but shooting an American worker, businessman, or journalist - anything other than military - is not jihad. For the most part, I agree with that."

"For the most part?" Those four words from this learned cleric are another illustration of the prevalence of supposedly "extreme," "non-mainstream" ideas in the Islamic world.

Amir Taheri has written a great deal of worthwhile material, but I can't add his New York Post piece "No One Speaks For All Muslims" to the list. It's a classic example of the dhimmitude that whitewashes any blot on the master's record. To wit:

". . . many commentators in the West, especially in the United States, have presented Mahathir as a spokesman for the Muslim world as a whole. Mahathir has no such position."

OK, Amir, I'll grant you that. But this is a straw man. What about the fact that millions of Muslims around the world agree with Mahathir?

"There is no mechanism through which any particular opinion could be presented as that of all, or even a substantial number, of Muslims. . . . No, Mahathir was not talking on behalf of Islam. He was talking as a political leader who happens to be a Muslim, in a country where non-Muslims account for nearly half the population. Some Muslims liked what he said, and some did not. But this could be true of a statement made by any politician anywhere in the world."

This implies that all, or a substantial number, disagree with Mahathir. But there are some reasons to suspect that this is not the case. For one thing, Muslims are set against Jews in core texts of Islam, as witness this famous Hadith: "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (Sahih Muslim, book 41, no. 6985, and many other places). The Qur'an (Sura 5:59-60) says that the People of the Book were cursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs. Muslims make this connection all the time, particularly for Jews, such that the "apes and pigs" epithet is quite commonly applied to Jews by Muslims worldwide. Even the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, Sunni Islam's most influential voice, has declared Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of pigs and apes."

But from Taheri you get none of this. To him, Mahathir is just a lone politician shooting his mouth off. Is Taheri aware of the traditional bases for Islamic anti-Semitism? Or is he just hoping that we're not?

Many (if not most) of you have already seen this at LGF, but I had been planning to put it up already, and it is so significant that I didn't want to let it go by unremarked. La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit magazine in Rome that enjoys semi-official status in the Catholic Church, has published an absolutely scathing criticism of dhimmitude: the inferior status that Christians suffer in Islamic societies.

This is extraordinarily important: it represents the first indication that any Catholic Church officials recognize the dimensions of the religious conflict that jihadists are waging against Christians and others around the world. (For some non-Christian perspectives on this jihad, check out the three Hindu websites that I linked to this morning.) Up to now the signals have all been in the other direction: the Pope has been a relentless proponent of uncritical "dialogue" with Islam; he even kissed the Qur'an during an audience with several Muslim officials from Iraq in 1999. But La Civiltà Cattolica is not just any magazine; as the article here from La Chiesa tells us, "Every one of its articles is reviewed by the Vatican secretary of state before publication. So the magazine reflects his thought faithfully."

A few important parts of the article, with comments:

"In conclusion, we may state in historical terms that in all the places where Islam imposed itself by military force, which has few historical parallels for its rapidity and breadth, Christianity, which had been extraordinarily vigorous and rooted for centuries, practically disappeared or was reduced to tiny islands in an endless Islamic sea. It is not easy to explain how that could have happened. [...]"

It's especially hard to explain for people who cling to "Religion of Peace" fantasies. But the article correctly goes on to say that it would be too simple to say simply that these Christians were all killed. As I explain in detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers, Christians and Jews are allowed to practice their religions under Islamic law, but with severe restrictions. Read on:

"According to Islamic law, the world is divided into three parts: dar al-harb (the house of war), dar al-islam (the house of Islam), and dar al-'ahd (the house of accord); that is, the countries with which a treaty was stipulated."

Last year on the Michael Coren Show in Toronto a learned and soft-spoken Muslim professor protested, "But you are talking about concepts devised in the Middle Ages!" when Dr. Anis Shorrosh, who was on the show with me, brought up this distinction. Yet he did not and could not truthfully say that these Medieval distinctions form no part of the way many Muslims think of the world even today.

"As for the countries belonging to the 'house of war,' Islamic canon law recognizes no relations with them other than 'holy war' (jihad), which signifies an 'effort' in the way of Allah and has two meanings, both of which are equally essential and must not be dissociated, as if one could exist without the other. In its primary meaning, jihad indicates the "effort" that the Muslim must undertake to be faithful to the precepts of the Koran and so improve his "submission" (islam) to Allah; in the second, it indicates the "effort" that the Muslim must undertake to "fight in the way of Allah," which means fighting against the infidels and spreading Islam throughout the world. Jihad is a precept of the highest importance, so much so that it is sometimes counted among the fundamental precepts of Islam, as its sixth 'pillar'."

The only meaning of jihad you will get from American Muslim spokesmen is the first. But radicals are acting on the second all over the world today.

"Obedience to the precept of the 'holy war' explains why the history of Islam is one of unending warfare for the conquest of infidel lands. [...] In particular, all of Islamic history is dominated by the idea of the conquest of the Christian lands of Western Europe and of the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. Thus, through many centuries, Islam and Christianity faced each other in terrible battles, which led on one side to the conquest of Constantinople (1453), Bulgaria, and Greece, and on the other, to the defeat of the Ottoman empire in the naval battle of Lepanto (1571)."

Note that that unending warfare was initiated by the Muslim armies that swept into Syria and other Christian areas of the Middle East within just a few years of the death of Muhammad in 632. The first Crusade wasn't called until 1095. Have you heard that Christian-Muslim enmity began with the Christian Crusades? I have, again and again. But it is a falsehood.

"But the conquering spirit of Islam did not die after Lepanto. The Islamic advance into Europe was definitively halted only in 1683, when Vienna was liberated from the Ottoman siege by the Christian armies under the command of John III Sobieski, the king of Poland."

September 11, 1683, to be exact, when the siege of Vienna was broken. You can be sure that this date burns in the heart of Osama bin Laden.

"In reality, for almost a thousand years Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger."

And is doing so again, but up until now not too many people had noticed.

"Thus, in all of its history, Islam has shown a warlike face and a conquering spirit for the glory of Allah. [...] against the 'idolaters' who must be given a choice: convert to Islam, or be killed."

"Idolaters" such as Hindus have faced this choice throughout the history of Islam.

"As for the 'people of the Book' (Christians, Jews, and 'Sabeans'), Muslims must 'fight them until their members pay tribute, one by one, humiliated' (Koran, Sura 9:29)."

This is the foundation of dhimmitude. Islamic law ensures that Christians and Jews in Islamic society feel themselves "humiliated" in myriad ways.

"According to Muslim law, Christians, Jews, and the followers of other religions assimilated to Christianity and Judaism (the 'Sabeans') who live in a Muslim state belong to an inferior social order, in spite of their eventually belonging to the same race, language, and descent. Islamic law does not recognize the concepts of nation and citizenship, but only the umma, the one Islamic community, for which reason a Muslim, as he is part of the umma, may live in any Islamic country as he would in his homeland: he is subject to the same laws, finds the same customs, and enjoys the same consideration."

This is also why an American Muslim soldier might be susceptible to appeals from his fellow Muslims to stop fighting for the infidels against the Muslims.

"But those belonging to the 'people of the Book' are subject to the dhimma, which is a kind of bilateral treaty consisting in the fact that the Islamic state authorizes the 'people of the Book' to inhabit its lands, tolerates its religion, and guarantees the 'protection' of its persons and goods and its defense from external enemies. Thus the 'people of the Book' (Ahl al-Kitab) becomes the 'protected people' (Ahl al-dhimma). In exchange for this 'protection,' the 'people of the Book' must pay a tax (jizya) to the Islamic state, which is imposed only upon able-bodied free men, excluding women, children, and the old and infirm, and pay a tribute, called the haram, on the lands in its possession."

See below about the tax: at various points in Islamic history it was extraordinarily prohibitive -- so high, in fact, that occasionally conversions to Islam were prohibited: since Muslims paid no such tax, a flow of dhimmis into Islam would destroy the tax base!

"As for the freedom of worship, the dhimmi are prohibited only from external manifestations of worship, such as the ringing of bells, processions with the cross, solemn funerals, and the public sale of religious objects or other articles prohibited for Muslims. A Muslim man who marries a Christian or a Jew must leave her free to practice her religion and also to consume the foods permitted by her religion, even if they are forbidden for Muslims, such as pork or wine. The dhimmi may maintain or repair the churches or synagogues they already have, but, unless there is a treaty permitting them to own land, they may not build new places of worship, because to do this they would need to occupy Muslim land, which can never be ceded to anyone, having become, through Muslim conquest, land 'sacred' to Allah."

Every school of Islamic jurisprudence teaches this, and it has been the law of the land everywhere the Sharia has been enforced in its fullness. Now tell me that that is tolerance.

"In Sura 9:29 the Koran affirms that the 'people of the Book,' apart from being constrained to pay the two taxes mentioned above, must be placed under certain restrictions, such as dressing in a special way and not being allowed to bear arms or ride on horseback. Furthermore, the dhimmi may not serve in the army, be functionaries of the state, be witnesses in trials between Muslims, take the daughters of Muslims as their wives, be the guardians of underage Muslims, or keep Muslim slaves. They may not inherit from Muslims, nor Muslims from them, but legacies are permitted."

Many Muslim apologists point to the dhimmis' freedom from military service as an exculpation of dhimmitude: yes, the dhimmis paid a special tax, but they were exempt from military service. But they generally ignore the sting of the rest of these regulations.

"The release of the dhimma came about above all through conversion of the 'people of the Book' to Islam; but Muslims, especially in the early centuries, did not look favorably upon such conversions, because they represented a grave loss to the treasury, which flourished in direct proportion to the number of the dhimmi, who paid both the personal tax and the land tax. The dissolution of dhimma status could also take place through failure to observe the 'treaty'; that is, if the dhimmi took up arms against Muslims, refused to remain subject or to pay tribute, abducted a Muslim woman, blasphemed or offended the prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion, or if they drew a Muslim away from Islam, converting him to their own religion. According to the gravity of each case, the penalty could be the confiscation of goods, reduction to slavery, or death - unless the person who had committed the crimes converted to Islam. In that case, all penalties were waived."

That is why the large and flourishing Middle Eastern and North African Christian communities described at the beginning of this article are no longer there.

"It is evident that the condition of the dhimmi, prolonged through centuries, has led slowly but inexorably to the near extinction of Christianity in Muslim lands: the condition of civil inferiority, which prevented Christians from attaining public offices, and the condition of religious inferiority, which closed them in an asphyxiated religious life and practice with no possibility of development, put the Christians to the necessity of emigrating, or, more frequently, to the temptation of converting to Islam. There was also the fact that a Christian could not marry a Muslim woman without converting to Islam, in part because her children had to be educated in that faith. Furthermore, a Christian who became Muslim could divorce very easily, whereas Christianity prohibited divorce."

These conditions still prevail in varying degrees today. Not too long ago I was speaking with a Syrian friend who told me that he left Syria for the sake of his children. As Christians, they were unable to get good jobs; he knew they would have a chance for a better life here.

"The regime of the dhimma lasted for over a millennium, even if not always and everywhere in the harsh form called 'the conditions of 'Umar,' according to which Christians not only did not have the right to construct new churches and restore existing ones, even if they fell into ruins (and, if they had the permission to construct through the good will of the Muslim governor, the churches could not be of large dimensions: the building must be more modest than all the religious buildings around it); but the largest and most beautiful churches had to be transformed into mosques. That transformation made it impossible for the church-mosques ever to be restored to the Christian community, because a place that has become a mosque cannot be put to another use."

The regime of the dhimma, as I have stated, is still part of the Sharia that radical Muslims are trying to impose everywhere.

"In recent centuries, the dhimma system has undergone some modifications, in part because the ideas of citizenship and the equality of all citizens before the state have gained a foothold even in Muslim countries."

But because these ideas are contrary to traditional Islamic norms, they are rejected by a large number of Muslims worldwide.

"Nevertheless, in practice, the traditional conception is still present. [...] The Christian, whether he wish it or not, is brought back in spite of himself to the concept of the dhimmi, even if the term no longer appears in the present-day laws of a good number of Muslim-majority countries."

This is because even in officially secular and semi-secular states, such as Egypt, Syria, and Pakistan, strong vestiges of the dhimmi system still exist.

". . . Thus was born 'radical Islam,' which set itself up as the interpreter of the frustrations of the Muslim masses. Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abd al-Qadir 'Uda in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood; Abu l-A'li al-Mawdudi in Pakistan, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran are its most significant witnesses, and their followers have spread from Dakar to Kuala Lumpur."

See profiles of Al-Banna, Qutb, and Mawdudi in Onward Muslim Soldiers.

"Radical Islam, which proposes that shari'a law be instituted in every Islamic state, is gaining ground in many Muslim countries, in which groups of Christians are also present. It is evident that the institution of shari'a would render the lives of Christians rather difficult, and their very existence would be constantly in danger. This is the cause of the mass emigration of Christians from Islamic countries to Western countries: Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia."

Nor is this a new development with the rise of "radical Islam." My own grandparents made this journey in 1919, several years before the Muslim Brotherhood of Al-Banna and Qutb was founded.

"Furthermore, we must not underestimate grave recent actions against Christians in some Muslim-majority countries. In Algeria, the bishop of Orano, P. Claverie (1996), seven Trappist monks from Tibehirini (1999), four White Fathers (1994), and six sisters from various religious congregations have been brutally killed by Islamic fundamentalists, although the murders were condemned by numerous Muslim authorities. In Pakistan, which numbers 3,800,000 Christians among a population of 156,000,000 (96 percent Muslim), on October 28, 2001, some Muslims entered the Church of St. Dominic in Bahawalpur and gunned down 18 Christians. On May 6, 1998, Catholic bishop John Joseph killed himself for protesting against the blasphemy law, which punishes with death anyone who offends Mohammed, even only 'by speaking words, or by actions and through allusions, directly or indirectly.' For example, by saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, one offends Mohammed, who affirmed that Jesus is not the Son of God, but his 'servant.' With this kind of law, Christians are in constant danger of death.

"In Nigeria - where 13 states have introduced shari'a as state law - several thousand Christians have been the victims of incidents. Serious incidents are taking place in the south of the Philippines and in Indonesia, which, with its 212 million inhabitants, is the most populous Muslim country in the world, to the harm of the Christians of Java, East Timor, and the Moluccas. But the most tragic situation - and, unfortunately, forgotten by the Western world! - is that of Sudan, where the North is Arab and Muslim, and the South black and Christian, and in part, animist. Since the time of president G.M. Nimeiry, there has been a state of civil war between the North, which has proclaimed shari'a and intends to impose it with fierce violence on the rest of the country, and the South, which aims to preserve and defend its Christian identity. The North makes use of all of its military power - financed by oil exports to the West - to destroy Christian villages; prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid; kill the cattle, which are the means of sustenance for many South Sudanese; and carry out raids, for Christian girls in particular, who are brought to the North, raped, and sold as slaves or concubines to rich, older Sudanese men. According to the 2001 report of Amnesty International, 'at the end of 2000, the civil war, which started again in 1983, had cost the lives of almost two million persons and had caused the forced evacuation of 4,500,000 more. Tens of thousands of persons have been compelled by terror to leave their homes in the upper Nile region, which is rich in oil, after aerial bombardments, mass executions, and torture.'"

For a harrowing personal account of life as a Christian (and slave) in Sudan, see Escape from Slavery by Francis Bok.

"We must, finally, recall a fact that is often forgotten because Saudi Arabia is the largest provider of oil to the Western world, and the latter therefore has an interest in not disturbing relations with that country. In reality, in Saudi Arabia, where wahhabism is in force, not only is it impossible to build a church or even a tiny place of worship, but any act of Christian worship or any sign of Christian faith is severely prohibited with the harshest penalties. Thus about a million Christians working in Saudi Arabia are deprived by violence of any Christian practice or sign. They may participate in mass or in other Christian practices - and even then with the serious danger of losing their jobs - only on the property of the foreign oil companies."

This prohibition is founded on the Prophet Muhammad's famous deathbed statement that "no two religions are allowed in Arabia." Muhammad also said, "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims" (Sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4366).

"And yet, Saudi Arabia spends billions of petrodollars, not for the benefit of its poor citizens or of poor Muslims in other Muslim countries, but to construct mosques and madrasas in Europe and to finance the imams of the mosques in all the Western countries. We recall that the Roman mosque of Monte Antenne, constructed on land donated by the Italian government, was principally financed by Saudi Arabia and was built to be the largest mosque in Europe, in the very heart of Christianity."

That is contemporary dhimmitude.

Louis Farrakhan is waning in influence these days, but he and his Nation of Islam should not be underestimated: his word still counts for a great deal among many, many Americans. And although neither Sunnis nor Shi'ites consider the Nation of Islam a proper or orthodox Muslim group, Farrakhan finds a great deal to admire within the House of Islam. Like this, for instance. That's right, Farrakhan's Final Call newspaper has reprinted Mahathir's infamous "Jews rule the world" speech.

It comes recommended by the man himself: "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan would like our readers to study the speech delivered Oct. 16, 2003, by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad during the opening of the 10th session of the Islamic Summit Conference (OIC) of 57 Muslim countries, held in Putrajaya, Malaysia. Min. Farrakhan believes this address is an important message for Muslims concerning the future of Islam."

A couple of weeks ago I was on WRKO's Pat Whitley show (Boston) with Minister Don Muhammad, a local Nation of Islam leader. When I tried to pin him down about various violent statements of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, he simply disavowed them. He said he read the Bible more than he read the Qur'an, which may be true given the Nation's heterodox approach to Islam, and that Minister Farrakhan was a peaceful man who had been vilified and smeared by the press.

OK, Minister Don. Then why is Mahathir's speech, with its noxious anti-Semitic conspiracy paranoia, in the Final Call?

And since we're talking about Jews ruling the world, one more thing: yesterday someone wrote a comment saying that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir program I put up amounted to nothing more than if a Muslim publication had published the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But there are major differences: The Protocols has been proven to be a forgery, and there is absolutely zero corroborating evidence for it. But Hizb-ut-Tahrir's expansionist program corresponds exactly not only to the unanimous teachings of traditional Islamic jurisprudence, but also to numerous statements of Muslim radicals worldwide. That's why it is almost undoubtedly genuine, and merits concern.

Here is a perceptive and illuminating piece from Serge Trifkovic, author of the superb Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
This is modern Germany, a land too spiritually and culturally exhausted to resist those who openly declare their intent to remake Germany into an Islamic state. What is in store for the Germans? The fate of the dhimmis.

At Jihad Watch I just posted information about a remarkable story in which the radical Muslim group Hizb-ut-Tahrir discloses its aims.

In the story, this organization shows that the laws of dhimmitude are very much part of the radical Muslim program. This is how non-Muslims would be treated in a Hizb-ut-Tahrir state -- and everything in this list is taken straight from traditional manuals of Islamic Sharia law:

1. "Within the Caliphate, Christians and Jews would be allowed to drink alcohol, if that was required for religious rituals, and to regulate within their own communities marriage, divorce and the assignment of possessions."

This is Sharia "tolerance." But read on: laws mandating inequality on a large scale would also be in place.

2. "Islamic Sharia law would be imposed on all and faiths not mentioned in the Koran would be banned."

3. "Ideally it was said, all the countries of the world would join the caliphate although Hizb-ut-Tahir plans to allow non-Muslim countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, not to join the caliphate provided that they pay a tax to it. They would then fall under the protection of the caliphate and it would defend their interests. If non-Muslim countries refused to pay the tax, the caliphate would launch military attacks against them."

This is referring to the jizya, the special tax on non-Muslims, by which they buy their "protection." It is designed to make non-Muslims feel "subdued" under Islamic law. It is the focus of an elaborate legal superstructure, and is ultimately based on the Qur'an's Sura 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

4. "In the caliphate itself Christian and Jewish communities would be permitted because, according to the Koran, adherents of these religions are 'people of the Book'. Other religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism and the Hare Krishna faith, would be considered pagan sects and would be banned."

Throughout history, Muslim rulers have treated Buddhists and Hindus even worse than they treated Jews and Christians, because the former are not "People of the Book."

5. "In particular, the caliphate's leadership would oppose what it regards as sects within Islam itself (including Ahmadiyya, Bahai'ism and Ismailism). In Hizb-ut-Tahrir's view, the only true Muslims are those who adhere to the four Madhabs {i.e. the four separate schools of legal interpretation within Shariah law). Those who depart from the Madhabs would be considered as apostates and liable to punishment according to Islamic law."

Note that almost 90 percent of the world's Muslims adhere to one of the 4 madhhabs. Hizb-ut-Tahrir thus envisions itself as a mainstream group.

6. "All citizens in the caliphate would have to abide by Sharia law when outside their homes. For example, all women would have to wear long dresses and scarves when in public places. However, Hizb-ut-Tahir members told Forum 18 that in Christian and Jewish quarters women could wear clothes permitted by the laws of their own religion."

"In Christian and Jewish quarters!"

Meanwhile, "one Uzbek member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir expressed his regret to Forum 18 that Hitler had not succeeded in eliminating all Jews."

Note also: this illegal group has "thousands" of members in prison, and who know how many operating freely today.

The Islamic group Hizb-ut-Tahrir has given Forum 18 News Service a remarkably open acknowledgment of radical Muslim goals.

It's all here. Hizb-ut-Tahrir wants to:

1. Restore a worldwide Caliphate, uniting the world under Islamic rule;

2. Ban all faiths apart from Islam, Judaism and Christianity (members of other religions are not listed as "People of the Book" in the Qur'an);

3. Regulate all religious practice according to Sharia law;

4. "Give all non-Muslim states a choice between either joining the Caliphate under Sharia law, or paying a tax to the Caliphate. Failure to pay the tax would be punished by military attacks."

What the story doesn't say is that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not saying anything new; it's expressing classic principles of Islamic jurisprudence that are shared by many Muslims worldwide who are not members of this particular organization. Sheikh Omar Bakri in England, for example, has said much the same thing. I profile many others in Onward Muslim Soldiers.

More on this remarkable story at Dhimmi Watch.

Not only has Italy banned the crucifix from a classroom -- now they've thrown the Pope's "Jubilee Cross" into the garbage.

The classroom crucifix ban accedes to the wishes of "Muslim activist" Adel Smith, who was offended by the thought of his daughter having to gaze in class at a "miniature cadaver."

Smith pressed all the right buttons: "I have simply been granted the constitutional right that religious symbols not be on display in classrooms where my children study." So one may argue that the Italian court's ruling on this was not supine dhimmitude, but simple constitutional justice in a secular state.

But contrast this solicitude to recent events in Egypt, where 22 Christians have been arrested in the last week -- many of them converts from Islam. It's not illegal in "secular" Egypt to convert from Islam to another religion, but in Islamic law such a conversion carries a death sentence, and Egyptian officials are showing how influential that law remains in Egypt.

No one in Egypt is helpfully removing Islamic symbols from public places in order to avoid offending that country's non-Muslim minorities. Ultimately, the Smith ruling in Italy and the harrassment and torture of ex-Muslims in Egypt are just two manifestations of the fact that, far from being a relic of the past, dhimmitude is alive and well, and growing in power. Both post-Christian secularists in Italy and radical Muslim thugs in Egypt seem to agree: relations between Christianity and Islam must not be characterized by mutual coexistence as equals, but by the supremacy of Islam and Muslims.

AP reported recently that "a convicted armed robber" in Iran "has been punished by having four fingers on his right hand amputated, a local judiciary official said Saturday."

What does this have to do with jihad? Everything. According to classic Islamic law, jihad requires the Muslim community to make "war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax" (Umdat al-Salik, o9.8). Contemporary radical theorists apply this to state power. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan's radical Jamaat-e-Islami (Muslim Party), said of non-Muslims: "Islamic 'Jihad' does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil." Rather, State affairs must be administered according to the Islamic law that just took four of Saddam Askareh's fingers.

This is the societal order that radical Muslims wish to impose everywhere. Mind you, the Sharia stipulates that dhimmis are exempted from punishment for theft. But as far as I'm concerned, the barbarity of this punishment isn't determined by the religion of the person receiving it.

There is more of interest in the story. It explains that "while Iran's hard-line controlled judiciary follows a strict interpretation of Islamic law, enforcement of punishments, like amputation, are rare. Masoudinejad said the dramatic increase in armed robberies in Khuzestan had forced judiciary officials to start issuing harsh rulings." And why had there been such a dramatic increase? "Ahvaz newspapers have blamed the increase on the instability in neighboring Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime six months ago."

This is a familiar pattern. Throughout Islamic history, periods of moderation are followed by periods of harshness. Many analysts are too quick to take a period of moderation these days, wherever it may occur, as a sign of "reform." It is no such thing. The laws are still on the books, ready for an increase in "instability." Real reform won't happen until these punishments are repudiated on a large scale in such a way that they will no longer be available as recourses even in tough times.

Just as dhimmitude is a consequence of jihad, so Dhimmi Watch is a subsidiary of Jihad Watch. Dhimmitude is everywhere in the treatment of Islam by Western academics and media analysts.

A recent example: The estimable Charles at Little Green Footballs is highlighting a PBS information site on Islam. Like so many of these professedly neutral information sheets, this one is shot through with distortions, whitewashes, and inaccuracies -- typical of the dhimmi mentality of saying nothing to offend the master.

A sampling:

"Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book . . ."

Nary a word here, of course, of the subservience and humiliation that is codified in all schools of Islamic law as the price of this "protection."

"Islam was a major reform for women and granted them new rights, including the right to agree to their marriage partner, the right to education, and a guaranteed share of family inheritance."

Nothing here about, say, Sura 4:34: ". . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them" -- or the fact the wife-beating is pandemic in the Muslim world.

"Muslim societies through history have tended to be more tolerant of religious minorities -- especially Jews and Christians -- than the West has."

This is a great historical myth. Yes, the West had great periods of intolerance, but the tolerance of dhimmis in Muslim societies was the tolerance of a superior for an inferior. If the dhimmi didn't stay in his subservient place, he would be liable to be killed. Skeptics may refer to the books of Bat Ye'or for abundant historical corroboration of this.

"Some groups in the Middle East today disagree with U.S. foreign policies, but this is a political rather than a purely religious issue."

Actually it has everything to do with religion -- with Islamic radicals who consider that no government is legitimate unless it obeys Islamic law.

"Most Muslims condemn violence as heartily as any non-Muslim and resent being presumed violent on the basis of a shared religion or the rhetoric of a particular group. Muslims often ask, 'Did Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City mean all Christians are terrorists?'"

This is specious on a variety of levels. One is that if McVeigh was a Christian at all, his Christianity played no part in his avowed motives for his mass murder. Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, tradition, theology, and legal superstructure mandating warfare against non-Muslims. This does not mean that all Muslims are violent or terrorist, but it is a key justification used by radical Muslims to recruit and motivate terrorists. Until there is a large-scale renunciation of violent jihad and dhimmitude by Muslims, religious violence will continue. It is simply wishful thinking, or worse, to deny this.

"News stories about 'Islamic terrorism' often imply that Islam upholds the idea of jihad as a holy war fought against nonbelievers. For most Muslims, the most important meaning of 'jihad' is intensely personal; it is the internal struggle to be a moral person. 'Jihad' can also refer to the struggle for social justice or the defense of the Islamic community against outside attack. The Quran permits war to defend and expand the Islamic community, but it sets strict limits: No one should be forced to convert; and in battle, the lives and livelihood of noncombatants must be protected."

Look at that again. "The Quran permits war to defend and expand the Islamic community." There it is, friends, although so blandly stated and hedged that most readers will probably miss it. But that's it: no other religion permits war to expand its community!

"Since before the Crusades, European visitors to the Middle East have often exaggerated the differences between themselves and local Middle Eastern communities, concentrating on the 'exotic' rather than the similarities. The concept of 'Orient' that was invented by Europeans was based on these fanciful perceptions rather than on facts. The insistence on creating and upholding negative stereotypes worked to justify wars, colonial expansion, and the exploitation of native peoples and resources. This trend, called Orientalism, continues today."

Ah, the ghost of Edward Said is at work. I didn't realize it in 2001: what brought down the Twin Towers? Stereotyping.

What am I going to do at Jihad Watch? Very simple: watch jihad. Jihad Watch is not just a blog, or a website, but an organization. It is being formed in order to bring attention to the activities of jihadists in the United States and around the world.

Why does jihad need watching? Consider this juxtaposition:

"Murder has no place in any religious tradition and must find no home in Indonesia. . . . President Megawati has confronted this evil directly. Under her leadership Indonesia is hunting and finding dangerous killers. America appreciates Indonesia's strong cooperation in the war on terror." -- George W. Bush, October 22, 2003

And:

Villagers in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, are once again fleeing for their lives. They are reacting to recent attacks on four villages in the Poso district by bands of masked raiders armed with automatic weapons. Even the deployment of extra armed forces to secure the area has had little effect upon the worried inhabitants.

"People are too scared to remain in their isolated villages," said Mona Saroinsong, coordinator of the Crisis Center of the Protestant Church in North Sulawesi. "They have been walking through the jungle to the coast or making for Tentena, the nearest Christian town. When I questioned them, they said they did not trust the authorities to protect them.'"...

Saatu, Pantangolemba and Pinedapa all had large Christian populations. The attackers sought out the homes of known Christians and forced them into the street where they were shot. Police reported that nine people lost their lives and 11 more were hospitalized....

Some Christian men have agreed to return to their villages, which are now under heavy police protection, but have left their women and children elsewhere, fearing new attacks. Especially vulnerable are villages such as Malewa and Galuga, where Christians have resettled.

In Lembomawo village near Poso, the police advised the Christians to
evacuate their women and children after receiving several reports of
strangers gathering behind the village....

"There is growing chaos and unabated fear spreading throughout the Christian community. Please continue to petition the Indonesian government to do something about the root cause of the violence -- rather than patch over the cracks -- and make both sides adhere to the Malino agreement. Please keep praying for us here." -- Compass Direct, October 21, 2003

The persecution of Christians is not usually considered terror, although it targets innocent civilians no less unmistakably than Osama bin Laden did on 9/11/01. This persecution is jihad -- the same jihad that is being fought today by terrorists worldwide. Wishful thinking has gone far enough, and ultimately will get us nowhere.