January 2007 Archives

More on the latest foiled British jihad plot. "Source: British Beheading Plot Was 'Days Away,'" by Brian Ross and Alexis Debat at the ABC News blog :

A plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier on videotape was only "days away" and led to the arrests today of nine men in Birmingham, England, a Scotland Yard source tells ABC News.

Most of the nine men are described as British citizens of Pakistani descent who are being held under Britain's new anti-terror laws.

A British intelligence source tells ABC News that a British soldier had already been selected as the victim, based on instructions the men allegedly received by e-mail from "outside the country."

An important new initiative is underway. Details at FrontPage:

The Islamic Mein Kampf.

In a rational world, American universities would lead the way in exposing the noxious roots of Islamic terrorism. Instead of psychoanalyzing Rush Limbaugh or President Bush, they would devote their attentions to what makes terrorists tick. Readers of FrontPage Magazine are uniquely educated about the unholy alliance between academia and jihadists. Thus, we have launched the Terrorism Awareness Project -- www.TerrorismAwareness.org -- to educate college students directly.

In conjunction with the organization and website, we have produced the flash movie The Islamic Mein Kampf, as well as a scholarly pamphlet by the same name written by David Meir-Levi. Together, they provide a chilling and compelling testimony to the depths of bitter Islamic hatred and the threat a growing radical Muslim population poses to Europe, Israel, the United States, the Jewish people, and the world.

I am pleased to say that I'm part of this effort. From FrontPage today is also is this: "Introducing the Terrorism Awareness Project."

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has launched the Terrorism Awareness Project to combat the complacency and ignorance about the intentions of the radical Islamists who declared a holy war on the United States and the West on September 11, 2001.

If one thing was clear in the aftermath of the attack, it was this: the terrorists would be back. But the alarms 9/11 set off were soon muted by complacency and self doubt. After overthrowing the Taliban, the U.S. soon returned to the illusion of peace and security and confusion of purpose that had marked the Clinton era, when the Jihad first began to strike against our America. Because of the campaign by the “anti-war” movement, our populace as a whole is ignorant of the threat, doesn’t know the enemy, and is unaware of their true intent, capabilities and resolve. This is especially true of college students who face a daily barrage of anti-war and anti-American propaganda. The Terrorism Awareness Project is designed to make them aware of the threat of jihad and the struggle that lies ahead if this nation is to survive its assault.

The Freedom Center designed the Terrorism Awareness Project to put informative materials about the war on terror into the hands of millions of college students. The Project will identify campus coordinators at U.S. universities and colleges who want to make terrorism a priority at their schools. It will drop flash videos like The Islamic Mein Kampf directly into students’ and faculty members’ email boxes. It is placing a series of ads beginning with “What Americans Need to Know About Jihad” in all the leading college newspapers. It has prepared three pamphlets--The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism; The Islamic Mein Kampf, and What Every American Needs To Know About Jihad—which will be distributed throughout the university community. All three can be downloaded from the TAP website (www.terrorismawareness.org.)

The focal point for this campus campaign will be Terrorism Awareness Month. The Project’s campus coordinators including will distribute Terrorism Awareness Guide which will provide a brief history of the jihad and a bibliography of crucial books on the objectives of radical Islam. There will be well publicized screenings of “Obsession” (a documentary on the Islamists’ jihad recently featured on Fox News) and similar programs followed by panel discussions of experts on radical Islam such as Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes. In addition to these public events, TAP chapter members will evaluate the Islamic or Mideast Studies departments of their campuses, analyze the bias of the reading materials and classroom discussions, and ask to present competing ideas in class. They will conduct an organized public relations campaign with their campus newspapers, including opeds and letters to the editor.

1938 Alert from The Australian, with thanks to Twostellas:

THE US believes it has the first evidence of direct involvement by Tehran against US forces in Iraq, suspecting Iranians were behind a January 20 attack on a military compound in Karbala in which five US soldiers were killed.

The news will boost the Bush administration's rhetoric on the need to forcibly curb Iran - a stance creating increasing nervousness among European allies and in the US Congress.

Citing unnamed US government officials, CNN said yesterday the Department of Defence was investigating whether the attack, carried out by men wearing uniforms resembling those of US troops, was carried out by Iranians or by Iraqi fighters taught by Iranians.

"We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained," one of the officials told CNN.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the official said.

Traditional Muslim Alert: of course Mohammed Saud, mohammed_souljha@hotmail.co.uk, who threatened to kill me in an email he sent me in December, is indeed not an extremist.

He recently wrote this in an email that was forwarded to me by a Jihad Watch reader who exchanged emails with him about his threatening me:

i am not an extremist, but i did threaten to kill a man who insulted islam.

What's "extremist" about that? The idea that people who insult Islam and Muhammad should be killed is mainstream in Islamic law, and is taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. I don't accept the assertion that I have done so by shedding light on the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify their actions, but that is a separate matter. From the perspective of Islamic law there is nothing "extremist" about Mohammed Saud at all.

Saud also recalls romeosay@hotmail.com, who also threatened me some time ago. In the course of his threats he said:

I will be violent against anyone who hurts muslim feelings about Prophet.

It is a religion of peace for everyone until some duckhead sprews out his damn saliva on a senstive topic as this. Spencer will be delivered.

A religion of peace, until you insult us. Then we kill you.

John VI Cantacuzenes Alert from AKI, with thanks to Fjordman:

Tehran, 29 Jan. (AKI) - During a meeting with Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov in Tehran, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei was reported as calling on Monday for a cooperation between the two countries to halt US ambitions in the region. "The alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Russian Federation can stop US ambitions to conquer the region," Khamenei was quoted as saying by Iranian state television.

Russia and Iran are close commercial allies and Tehran's Bushehr nuclear power plant is being built with Russian technology despite the staunch opposition of the US which fears Iran is trying to build atomic weapons.

"Our two countries can forge a tie able to influence the political and economic choices of the region and halt America's ambition to rule the world," Khamenei said, also suggesting the creation of a joint gas exporting group like Opec based on their command of the world's largest natural gas reserves.

What madness has overtaken them, that they would betray a genuine ally for a false ally? Mahmoud "Raise rifles against Israel" Abbas is an ally? Of course, the genuine ally is doing it too. From AFP, with thanks to Kemaste:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has ordered the transfer of about 86 million dollars in aid to strengthen security forces loyal to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, the White House said.

Confirmation of the US aid came a day after an Islamic militant carried out the first suicide bombing inside Israel in nine months and as Abbas' Fatah party is locked in a violent power struggle with the Islamist movement Hamas.

The aid is part of a broader US push to revive peace negotiations between Abbas and Israel and comes ahead of a meeting here Friday of the so-called Quartet of Mideast mediators -- the US, Russia,
European Union and United Nations.

US officials said the aid, described as non-lethal assistance including training, vehicles and uniforms, would help Abbas counter militant attacks on Israel like Monday's suicide bombing in the Red Sea resort of Eilat which killed three Israelis plus the bomber.

"The idea is to build the legitimate security forces, to help provide law and order in Gaza and the West Bank, fight terror, and to facilitate movement and access especially in Gaza," said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Muslims in Britain plotted to behead a Muslim soldier of the British military, and show the beheading on the Internet.

By Adam Fresco and Daniel McGrory for The TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Security services said today that they had foiled a suspected plot to kidnap and torture a British Muslim soldier recently returned from service abroad before beheading him live on the internet.

Eight men were arrested in a series of dawn raids at 12 addresses in Birmingham. John Reid, the Home Secretary, has been informed of the arrests and is receiving regular updates about the operation.

Security sources said that the carefully planned operation had averted the alleged plan to kill the soldier, which was in its later stages.

The sources said that the alleged plotters planned to force their victim to plead for his life in online videos before torturing him and executing him much as Ken Bigley, the Liverpool hostage, was killed in Iraq in October 2004. The beheading would have been shown live on an extremist website.

The target, a man in his 20s who has not been named, is thought to have found out about the plot. He is now said to be in protective police custody. It is understood that a surveillance operation by anti-terror officers had been going on for several months.

In an unusual move, West Midlands police have called a press conference for later today to give more details about the police operation and to reassure the local communities.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a major counter terrorism operation took place earlier today led by West Midlands Police.

"The Home Secretary was fully briefed on the operation and is receiving regular updates as developments occur. This operation is a reminder of the real and serious nature of the terrorist threat we face."

I was supposed to debate Dinesh D'Souza again tomorrow night on the online show "Libertarian Politics Live," but I have just received word that D'Souza has canceled. The show may be rescheduled at a later date.

You can hear the first debate, on the Lores Rizkalla Show a few nights ago, here, and my review of D'Souza's book here.

As far as I know, however, the CPAC debate is still on for March 1, and I am still willing and eager to debate Dinesh D'Souza anytime, anywhere.

More of this sort of thing, this time in Spain.

By Itamar Eichner for Ynet News, with thanks to Davida:

While the rest of Europe marked the UN-established International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, a small town in Spain opted instead to commemorate the 'Day of Palestinian Genocide'.

Ciempozuelos, a Madrid suburb home to less than 20,000 residents, announced that it would hold ceremonies and public events in honor of the 'genocide of the Palestinian people'.

Following the town's announcement Israel's Ambassador to Spain Victor Harel issued an urgent message to Ciempozeulos mayor Susana León, a member of the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), asking him to reconsider his decision. Harel also turned to Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Miguel Moratinos and the PSOE secretary general.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) publicly slammed the decision as "shameful."

In an open letter to León the ADL wrote: "Applying the term 'genocide' to the Arab-Israeli conflict encourages hatred toward the State of Israel and deliberately insults those of us, both Jews and non-Jews, who seek to solemnly commemorate the victims of the Nazi campaign of slaughter."

The affair was covered extensively by the Spanish press. El Mundo, the country's largest daily newspaper, ran an editorial on the Ciempozeulos affair under the title – 'An insult to Israel'.

The coverage led to numerous Spanish citizens contacting the Israeli embassy to voice their support for Israel, while at the same time the Ciempozeulos administration was flooded by angry phone calls from outraged citizens.

Following the request of the Spanish Foreign Affairs Ministry the town eventually decided to cancel 'Palestinian Genocide Day' as well as choosing to forgo any of the original Holocaust ceremonies.

Any trace of the affair was stricken from the town's official website.

Down the memory hole.

Aid and comfort to the enemy. "Judge: Doctor Can't Treat Terrorists," by Larry Neumeister for Associated Press, with thanks to Mackie:

NEW YORK (AP) -- A doctor accused of pledging to treat al-Qaida members can be prosecuted because medical care counts as material support to terrorists under federal law, a judge said Tuesday.

Dr. Rafiq Abdus Sabir, an Ivy League-educated doctor, had argued it was unconstitutional to prosecute a doctor for providing medical services.

He was arrested in May 2005 at his home in Boca Raton, Fla., accused in a plot to assist terrorist organizations along with a New York jazz musician, a Brooklyn bookstore owner and a former Washington, D.C., cabdriver. Sabir has pleaded not guilty and remained jailed since his arrest....

The judge said Sabir is not charged merely for being a doctor or for performing medical services.

"Here, Sabir is alleged essentially to have volunteered as a medic for the al-Qaida military, offering to make himself available specifically to attend to the wounds of injured fighters," she said. "Much as a military force needs weapons, ammunition, trucks, food and shelter, it needs medical personnel to tend to its wounded."

"An embarrassment to the rule of law." Yes. This kind of shoddy effort by prosecutors not only victimizes people who are possibly innocent -- Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh -- but it victimizes the rest of us if they are guilty. From AP, with thanks to Mackie:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- An immigration judge ordered the federal government Tuesday to halt its 20-year effort to deport two Palestinian men accused of terrorist ties.

Judge Bruce J. Einhorn ruled the government had denied Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, members of the so-called "L.A. Eight," due process by keeping them in legal limbo for so many years and being unprepared to prosecute the case.

In his 11-page opinion, Einhorn described the proceedings as "a festering wound on the body of respondents and an embarrassment to the rule of law." He scolded the government for failing to release evidence favorable to the men after he had ordered it.

The two men, five other Palestinians and a Kenyan faced deportation since 1987. They were arrested on suspicion of association with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has opposed peace negotiations between the PLO and Israel. The U.S. government considers it a terrorist organization.

The eight have denied being members, and immigrant rights groups have called the case politically motivated.

Attorney Marc Van Der Hout, who represents the "L.A. Eight," said the judge's order will make it safer for immigrants to express political views.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "finds the judge's decision troubling as a matter of fact and law, and the agency is considering its legal options," according to an agency statement.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross explains in FrontPage, in the course of an interview about his new book My Year Inside Radical Islam, how he was convinced as a new convert to Islam that the jihadists were right -- by their theological arguments. He went to work at what turned out to be a terror-linked charity, and gradually they convinced him that their views were Qur'anically correct.

This is no surprise. The jihadist appeal within the larger Muslim community is theological, calling Muslims to the observance of what they characterize as "pure Islam." Moderate Muslims have never mounted any significant counter-movement to this, although virtually everyone takes for granted that they have a strong and traditional theological basis within Islam for their views. This is the great Emperor's New Clothes aspect of today's public debate.

FP: So what was the process of radicalization inside Al Haramain, the radical Islamic charity you worked for? And how did it happen that teachings that you once held as abhorrent eventually struck you as compelling?

Gartenstein-Ross: When I took the job, I assumed that I wouldn't see eye-to-eye with my coworkers on some spiritual matters, but that we could simply agree to disagree. Little did I realize that my ideas would instead fall into line with theirs. There were a number of reasons for this. I felt a great deal of peer pressure to accept radical conclusions. I complied more and more with external manifestations of the faith (growing a beard, eating only with my right hand, rolling my pants legs up above my ankles, refusing to pet a dog or shake hands with women) that were themselves not radical, but coupled with the prevalent teachings inside Al Haramain pushed me in a radical direction. The biggest factor, however, was that over time I became persuaded intellectually by the theological case advanced by my coworkers and the visiting scholars who frequently joined us.

In accord with Islamic law. "Jail loos turned from East," by Jamie Pyatt in The Sun:

JAIL bosses are rebuilding toilets so Muslim inmates don’t have to use them while facing Mecca.

Thousands of pounds of taxpayers money are being spent to ensure lags are not offended.

The Islamic religion prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the Kiblah — the direction of prayer — when they visit the lav.

Muslim lags claimed they have had to sit sideways on prison WCs.

But after pressure from faith leaders the Home Office has agreed to turn the existing toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.

The Home Office refused to reveal the cost of the new facilities — part of an “on-going refurbishment”.

One Muslim former inmate said: “The least the Prison Service can do is make sure people can practise their religion correctly in prison.”

A major victory. "US oks cases against accused terror-funding bank, from AP, with thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater:

Israelis and other foreign nationals can pursue claims in US courts accusing the Jordan-based Arab Bank of promoting Palestinian suicide attacks by funneling Saudi money to bombers' families, a judge ruled.

In a written decision in federal court in Brooklyn, US District Judge Nina Gershon upheld a lawsuit Monday filed under US law that gives non-US citizens access to courts in order to challenge violations of international laws or treaties.

"Bat Ye'or saw all this in 1994, when she said: ‘I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism...we are light years away from such a development...On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking...All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years...’ Lewis was light years away from saying anything like this at that time, but it is good to see that he is catching up." -- Robert Spencer on the Islamization of Europe

Bernard Lewis has been wrong about a number of things. He was wrong, dead wrong, in his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords. Indeed, he debated Douglas Feith once on this, and Feith, who did not know about Islam enough to discuss Muslim treaty-making and the model of Al-Hudaibiyyah, was without a main weapon. Nevertheless, he still managed to defeat Lewis soundly, purely on the basis of the disastrous wording of that agreement and on the consistent pattern of "Palestinian" ignoring of even the most limited promises that it had had to make.

Ask Lewis about his support for the Oslo Accords, and he replies, testily and laconically, "I was wrong." But he has never written about this. He has never explained what it was that he was wrong about. Was he wrong because Arafat was a bad man who couldn't be trusted? Was it something in the particular circumstances? Or was it, rather, something deeper, wider, more profound, something that means that any agreement made by Muslims with Infidels is going to be breached whenever and wherever possible? Does Lewis read about the history of Arab treaty-making with Israel? Surely he knows that every single agreement made by Israel with the Arabs, while being scrupulously observed in every jot and tittle by the Israelis, has always been violated by the Arabs whenever they can get away with it, and they have been able to get away with it quite often.

More attacks on Ashura ceremonies. Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad Update. "On Shiites' holiest day, 44 dead in Iraq," by Kim Gamel for Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Assailants struck Shiite worshippers in three Iraqi cities Tuesday, killing at least 39 people in bombings and ambushes during the climax of ceremonies marking Ashoura, the holiest day in the Shiite calendar. In apparent retaliation, mortar shells slammed into predominantly Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad hours later, killing at least five people and wounding 20, officials said.

Tens of thousands of Shiites Muslims converged on the holy city of Karbala — where the 7th-century battle took place that cemented the schism between Sunnis and Shiites — beating their chest and heads to mark the death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson. The entire city was sealed off, all vehicles were banned, and pilgrims were searched at numerous checkpoints, a day after the Iraqi army said it had foiled a plot by a messianic Shiite group to storm the nearby city of Najaf.

The bloodiest attack Tuesday occurred when a suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of worshippers entering a Shiite mosque, killing 19 people and wounding 54 in Mandali, a predominantly Shiite city northeast of Baghdad and near the Iranian border.

To the north, a bomb in a garbage can exploded as scores of Shiites — most them Kurds — were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said.

"I was participating in Ashoura ceremonies with my son and all of a sudden the bloodshed hit," Abdul Jasim Hassan said, holding his 11-year-old son, Hussein, whose right leg was bleeding.

Nawal Hasson said she pleaded with her husband not to go to the ceremonies but went with him when he refused to stay home.

"I had a feeling that something might happen, because terrorists are always targeting Shiites," she said.

The two bombings occurred on the edge of Diyala province, not far from Baqouba, where fighting has raged for weeks between Sunni insurgents, Shiite militiamen and U.S.-Iraqi troops.

[...]

Last year's Ashoura commemorations were largely peaceful, but suicide bombers killed 55 Shiites in 2005 and twin blasts killed at least 181 people in 2004.

Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad Update by Donna Abu-Nasr for Associated Press:

QATIF, Saudi Arabia -- Like many Saudi Shi'ites, Abdullah Abdul-Hussein is worried that if the government does not end anti-Shi'ite tirades by influential Sunni clerics, the sectarian conflict ravaging Iraq and threatening Lebanon could spread to his country.

"This rhetoric provokes trouble," said Abdul-Hussein, referring to recent statements from key members in Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment that have urged Sunnis around the world to expel Shi'ites from their lands.

"We are all citizens of the same country. The government should not allow such excess," said the 37-year-old merchant, expressing a worry shared by many in this mainly Shi'ite town.

Fears of sectarian tensions go beyond this sleepy oasis in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where the kingdom's Shi'ite minority is centered. The bloodshed in Iraq and turmoil in Lebanon have enflamed the Shi'ite-Sunni divide across the Middle East and in much of the Islamic world....

Read it all for examples of Sunni/Shi'ite tensions and violence around the Islamic world.

"The subject peoples," [i.e., the dhimmis] according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, must "pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, 'Peace be with you']; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork...recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches." ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5).

"Islamists threaten Yemeni Jews for selling wine," from Reuters:

SANAA, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Nearly a quarter Yemen's Jews have fled their village and sought refuge at a hotel in the Arab country after militant Islamists threatened to kill them for selling alcohol, a government official said on Monday.

The official, who asked not to be named, said authorities had deployed policemen around the hotel to protect the Jews, numbering at least 45, after they escaped the village of Al Salem in the northern province of Saada two weeks ago.

Just 200 Jews live in Yemen after thousands were evacuated to Israel in 1948.

"The Shi'ite militants of (Abdel-Malik) al-Houthi sent threats to them (Jews) because they sell wine," the official told Reuters. The Jewish community denied they sold wine.

Islam forbids the sale or drinking of alcohol.

The American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Student Association-National (MSA-N), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), Project Islamic Hope (PIH), and United Muslims of America (UMA) rush to the defense of Sami Al-Arian, an admitted member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Yet most officials and media talking heads will continue to assume that these are "moderate" groups.

"American Muslims Call Al-Arian Imprisonment 'Double Jeopardy,'" a press release from a coalition group, The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT):

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), a national coalition of major American Muslim organizations, today said the new prison sentence given to former Florida professor Sami Al-Arian amounted to unconstitutional "double jeopardy."

Al-Arian recently began a hunger strike after being given a sentence of up to 18 months for refusing to testify before a grand jury in Virginia. He and his attorney say an early plea agreement freed him from further cooperation with the government. Al-Arian's supporters say he is being held in a rat and cockroach-infested prison and is being forced to wear dirty and inadequate clothing as a form of harassment.

In 2005, a Florida jury rejected federal charges that Al-Arian operated a cell for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was scheduled for release and deportation in April.

A lesser charge. See here what he really admitted to.

"The Americans Love Pepsi-Cola, We Love Death" Alert: the procession was going down the street while cutting their heads until the blood streamed down their faces, and then the bomber tried to stop them by...blowing himself up.

"Suicide attack targeting Shia procession kills 2 in Pak," from the Times of India:

ISLAMABAD: A suicide bomber intending to target a Shia procession on Monday blew himself up killing two people, including a policeman, and injuring seven others in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province despite a heavy security blanket to check sectarian violence during Muharram.

The suicide attack in Dera Ismail Khan is the third to rock Pakistan in the last four days and comes two days after another bombing left 14 people dead in the NWFP capital, Peshawar. "He had a bomb strapped to his stomach and blew himself up," a senior provincial official said.

State run PTV said the suicide bomber intended to target a Shia process procession taken out during Muharram period. The bomber apparently refused to be searched and detonated explosives strapped to his body, which killed three persons including the attacker and police officer....

The suicide bombers suspected to be from the extremist groups of Sunni sect target the processions taken out by Shias during the period. Pakistani police and para-military troops have been put on high alert throughout the country.

David A. Bell thinks we overreacted to the largest attack ever on American soil. I, on the other hand, think that we haven't reacted strongly enough -- not so much militarily, although our response in that regard hasn't been properly focused, but in other ways: in dealing with the foreign policy dependence that arises from our use of oil, and in dealing with Muslim immigration into the West, and in calling to account Muslim advocacy groups in the U.S., asking that they cooperate actively with anti-terror efforts and work actively against the jihad ideology in American mosques.

"Was 9/11 really that bad? The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting," by Johns Hopkins professor David A. Bell in the LA Times:

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Youssef Ibrahim speaks truth to power in the New York Sun (news links in the original):

Ever wondered what might be the correct "Islamic" way to beat your wife, or what a Saudi princess's greatest wish might be if she were king?

The wires were buzzing Thursday with reports of "oohs" and "ahs" from the elitist World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, complete with applause for a Saudi royal princess, Lolwah al-Faisal, after she asserted that her first executive move would be to "let women drive."

Amazingly, according to the Associated Press news dispatch on this lame comment, the audience erupted in applause.

How can what passes as an elemental right in today's world — when uttered by a Saudi female belonging to the most oppressive, religiously fanatical ruling family in the world — be treated as a sign of progress in a kingdom of darkness?

Read it all.

The featured article at FrontPage this morning is my full review of Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11:

Dinesh D'Souza's new book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, is not all bad. He is absolutely right that Osama bin Laden's perception that Bill Clinton was weak in the 1990s led to the stepping-up of global jihad efforts. But the central point of the book is that "the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11," not only by fostering a view that America was weak, but by spreading around the world "a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world that are being overwhelmed with this culture. In addition, the left is waging an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures. This campaign has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe that their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault." Therefore, "without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened."

In response, D'Souza calls for the American right to build a traditional values coalition with what he calls "traditional Muslims," who abhor both bin Laden and Britney Spears. "Admittedly," he acknowledges, "some on the right may feel uncomfortable about teaming up with Muslims. Yes, I would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Michael Moore than with the grand mufti of Egypt. But when it comes to core beliefs, I'd have to confess that I'm closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap." Which core beliefs? D'Souza doesn't say, but the grand mufti of Egypt has declared sculpture un-Islamic, so perhaps he and D'Souza could get together for a fun evening of statue-smashing. Of course, that is one of the core beliefs of the mufti that no doubt D'Souza does not share. But this is just one example of D'Souza's propensity to make statements without apparently having examined their implications.

For although his book is focused on the Left, D'Souza has criticism for the Right also. He asserts that in order to cement the necessary alliance with these "traditional" Muslims, "the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet." He offers no prescription for how his "traditional Muslims" can repel the appeal to violence that jihadists everywhere base on the teachings of "their religion and their prophet," for presumably in D'Souza's ideal world even Muslim reformers, since they insult Muslim sensibilities, would be forbidden to discuss the Islamic teachings that jihadists use today to make their case among Muslims. How anyone would in that case counter or repel this jihadist appeal D'Souza does not explain.

Conservatives also must also "stop holding silly seminars on whether Islam is compatible with democracy. In reality, a majority of the world's Muslims today live under democratic governments - in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Turkey, not to mention Muslims living in Western countries. There is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic tradition that forbids democracy." And "if they want Sharia, let them have it." Of course, even if most Muslims today do live under democracies, to assume that this means Islam is compatible with democracy is like saying that most Russians loved Stalin's reign of terror, since they lived under it regime for so long.

But that is just a small example from one of the most poorly reasoned books I have ever read. There is so much wrong with it that a review that noted it all would be as long as the book itself, and many have already pointed out some of the holes in D'Souza's thesis: although Kathryn Lopez fawned over D'Souza in National Review, the New York Times, Glenn Beck, and others have given him a hard time. D'Souza's central contention, that the left has allied with Islamic jihadists and therefore the right should ally with "traditional Muslims" on the basis of shared moral values, is wrong in numerous ways. First, who are these "traditional Muslims"? In his entire book, D'Souza offers not a single name, although his criticism of conservative opposition to the Dubai ports deal last year suggests that he may consider the United Arab Emirates (which he calls "the small country of Dubai") a "traditional Muslim" state. D'Souza doesn't mention the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used the Emirates as a base of operations, or that Al-Qaeda has claimed to have infiltrated the Emirati government.

This is the same Sheikh Ali Gomaa cited last night by Dinesh D'Souza as an example of a "traditional Muslim" with whom Americans should ally. Sharia Alert, from AFP:

CAIRO (AFP) - Islam bars women from becoming head of state, Egypt's top Muslim cleric or mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, ruled in an official fatwa or religious edict published.

"Under Islamic sharia (religious law), a woman cannot be head of state because it is one of the duties of the position to lead Muslims in prayer and that role can only be carried out by men," said the fatwa carried by leading state daily Al-Ahram.

"If by political rights, we mean the right to vote, stand as candidate or assume public office, then the sharia has no objection to women enjoying them, but a woman cannot serve as head of state.

"Women can stand as candidates for parliament or the consultative council, in so far as they can reconcile their duties with the rights that their husbands and children have over them."

But the mufti said that women's conduct of their political rights must not infringe "the ethical laws of Islam" and that they should not therefore "take off the headscarf, deck themselves in fine clothes or be alone with men who are not their husbands or close relatives."

Egypt was the first Arab country to give women the franchise in 1956.

But in a country where the Muslim Brotherhood is the main opposition group, social pressures still limit women's political role.

Virginia Paintball Jihad Update: "Man once acquitted of aiding the Taliban on trial," from AP, :

A man who was acquitted three years ago of providing services to the Taliban went on trial again Monday, this time accused of lying to a US grand jury about his training as a jihadist.

The lawyer for Sabri Benkahla, 31, told a jury that prosecutors essentially laid a perjury trap for Benkahla after his acquittal. The defense has also accused the US government of pursuing a vindictive prosecution after its legal defeat.

Benkahla was one of only two defendants who were acquitted in the government's prosecution of a dozen Muslim men who participated in what the government called a "jihad network" that used paintball games in the Virginia woods in 2000 and 2001 as a means to train for holy war around the globe.

The government called it a "jihad network." That's AP for you. That they gained ten convictions on that basis might suggest that there was something accurate in this designation, but you wouldn't get that impression from this story.

And they don't mean he shouted "Yea, team." From The Guardian, with thanks to Charles:

A British Muslim chanted "7/7 on its way" and "Europe you will pay with your blood" at a demonstration over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, a court has heard.

Abdul Saleem, 31, was the "cheerleader" of hundreds of protesters who gathered to protest over the publication in a number of European countries, the Old Bailey heard. David Perry QC, prosecuting, said the cartoons which were first published in Denmark had sparked demonstrations across the continent and in the Middle East.

A large number of Muslims believe their religion forbids "any pictorial depiction or representation" of the prophet, a jury was told. Mr Perry said Saleem had been captured on film chanting slogans, which also included "bin Laden on his way" for the crowd to respond.

"There is the defendant addressing the crowd denouncing democracy, making it clear that European countries will pay for what they have done, even the United Kingdom where the cartoons were not even published.

"He made it clear that Europeans had to pay, that blood would be spilled, and that this was necessary. He made reference to the suicide bombings in London and he encouraged the crowd to chant the words that he himself used."

It's on: Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM EST at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC:

Islam: Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the Problem? - Empire Ballroom

Dinesh D'Souza, author of The Enemy at Home
Robert Spencer, author of The Truth About Muhammad
Moderator: Suhail Khan, Islamic Free Market Institute

How interesting. Suhail Khan was the moderator of the panel the last time I spoke at CPAC, in 2003. He ended the discussion with a long disquisition about how he had read the Qur'an twice and that it taught peace. I was just about to respond when he announced that the session was over.

"The attack was a "natural response to Israeli violations of the hudna.'" Yes, of course. Jihadists have no responsibility for anything they do.

By Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post, :

The mother of Muhammed Faisal Saksak, the 21-year-old suicide bomber who carried out Monday's attack in Eilat, said she was aware of her son's plan to blow himself up and that she had wished him "good luck."

Dozens of Palestinians, chanting slogans against Israel and the US, converged on the family's home to "congratulate" them on the success of the attack.

Although Muhammed's uncles claimed that he crossed the border into Israel from Jordan, PA security sources told The Jerusalem Post that he came from Egypt. They added that Muhammed's dispatchers were deliberately involving Jordan to avoid alienating the Egyptians and to create tensions between the Jordanians and Israel.

A spokesman for Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip claimed that preparations for the attack lasted seven months and that Muhammed had received training in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba.

The suicide attack is seen by many Palestinians as an attempt to divert attention from the Hamas-Fatah war that has claimed the lives of 34 people over the past four days. Fatah and Hamas leaders have repeatedly urged their followers to halt the fighting and to use their guns only against Israel.

Ruwaidah, 43, said she last saw her son on Friday morning, when he walked out of his home in the Slateen neighborhood near Bet Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip.

"As he walked out of the house, he asked me to wish him good luck," she said. "I wished him good luck and I knew of his decision to become a martyr. Although I was aware of his intention, I did not know exactly when he was planning to carry out a martyrdom attack."...

The mother of nine said she was proud of her son for carrying out the suicide attack. "I pray to Allah that Muhammed will be accepted as a shaheed [martyr]," she said shortly after hearing about the Eilat bombing. "I hope that his martyrdom will deliver a message to the Fatah and Hamas fighters to stop the fighting and direct their weapons against the one and only enemy - Israel."

Ruwaidah said she was prepared to "sacrifice" all her sons "for the sake of the Aqsa Mosque and Palestine." She added: "I hope that our politicians will stop fighting so that the blood of the martyrs will not be shed in vain."

Dinesh D'Souza recommends the American conservatives ally with what he calls "traditional Muslims," who are actually cultural Muslims who have little acquaintance with or interest in violent jihad. The problem is that such people are always susceptible to the jihadist appeal, based as it is on the Qur'an and Sunnah. Here is an example of this happening in D'Souza's native India.

"Austere version of Islam finding a home in India: Migrants returning from the Persian Gulf with stricter views are altering the melting pot in an Indian province," by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times, with thanks to Looney Tunes:

VENGARA, INDIA — The change came several years ago for Maryam Arrakal. Her husband brought a black, all-covering abaya back to this steamy, subtropical town from the desert sands of Saudi Arabia.

It contrasted starkly with the pastel saris she normally wore.

But in the 12 years that her husband, Kunchava, had been running a Saudi fabric shop, he had become detached from this melting pot of Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and more drawn to the Saudis' strict version of Islam.

"I used to dress much more colorfully," said Arrakal, standing amid diesel fumes and frenetic auto-rickshaw drivers in Vengara's one-street downtown, a 7-month-old baby in her arms and a black cloak shrouding her figure. "But my husband brought this for me and prefers me to wear it."

The migration to oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies of as many as one in five men from India's Kerala province has brought an influx of money that pays for food, shelter and education. It also funds dowries for their daughters and gifts for their wives.

But like many of the world's millions of economic migrants, the men bring back more than money.

In this case, they brim with provocative ideas about the proper way to worship. And they pay for plain green mosques with minarets and Arabic writing that are far different than the ornate and bulbous temples where Muslims have long worshiped here.

In Kerala, where Muslims are traditionally the poorest residents, those returning from the Persian Gulf say they are building pride in their community and connecting its members to the broader Islamic world. But others see the growth of sectarian politics and scattered religious violence as warning signs....

From the moment they arrive, migrants from Kerala are introduced to attitudes unknown at home. Some housing is for Hindus only; some employers openly prefer Muslims over Hindus or Christians.

Some migrant workers are invigorated by living in a country with a Muslim majority. Others less enthusiastic about their new home cling to their faith out of loneliness and a sense of isolation. But they find a different interpretation of Islam.

Arrakal's husband, Kunchava, 49, had little to do in his free time in Saudi Arabia but attend prayers and read the Koran. He gradually changed his views about life and faith, including how his wife dressed.

"In traditional Indian garb, the woman's stomach is bare," he said. "Islamic dress covers up all the body parts."

In study groups and at prayer gatherings throughout the Persian Gulf region, men such as Abdul Rahman Mohammed Peetee hammer away at Kerala's traditions. For them, paying homage to local saints or anyone other than God is sacrilege: The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad contain all that any Muslim needs.

"You must study the Arab culture," Peetee, a Kerala native, told a gathering on the sixth floor of an office tower in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The men howled in protest.

"Some Arabs behave worse than us!" one cried. "Why should we study them? We have our own practices and culture."

Peetee, a stout man with a collarless shirt buttoned to his neck, was relentless.

"These practices are established by society," he said. "Not by the Koran."...

"I am scared," said one moderate Muslim newspaper editor, who asked that his name not be published because it could harm his community standing. "The liberal Muslims, the moderate Muslims, are scared."

Identity politics

The religious awakening also has given rise to a new political assertiveness.

Critics say Muslim organizations have set up de facto political machines, forcing parties on the left and right to woo extreme Islamic groups funded by Persian Gulf riches....

"Social life has been politicized," Narayan said. "Muslim community organizations found that they could corner all the Muslim votes."

Many worry that the status quo has begun to unravel.

In January 2002 and May 2003, 14 people were killed in riots between Muslims and Hindus in Calicut. And in February 2005, suspected Hindu nationalists attacked a mosque in the town of Vallikunnam at the end of evening prayers, killing one and injuring two.

"Muslims themselves are worried by the rise of the militant Islamic organizations," said Ajai Mangat, Calicut correspondent for the Malayalam Manorama, the province's largest daily newspaper. "If they become more powerful, the Hindu nationalists become more powerful."

The BBC are researching the activities of Al-Muhajiroun in the town of Crawley in Sussex in the United Kingdom. It has been widely reported that the group and its leader Omar Bakri Mohammed were active in the town in the late 1990s, and that OBM lectured in a scout hut there. Anyone with any information about this, please contact Home Affairs Correspondent Richard Smith via r.smith@bbc.co.uk.

Please do not use this occasion to voice your opinion of the BBC's coverage of jihad-related activity.

Fjordman sends us this item, along with this comment: "These Taliban people must suffer from Islamophobia or something, since they believe there are numerous calls for violent Jihad in the Koran."

Indeed. Note Baitullah Mehsud's words: "Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."

But try asking a self-proclaimed moderate leader in America about whether or not the Qur'an really calls on Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and subjugate them, imposing a tax upon them. He will either not give you a straight answer or call you an "Islamophobe," or both.

And then there will be the inevitable charges that by calling attention to this jihadist use of the Qur'an, I am helping those jihadists instead of the moderates I should be helping. Fine: I invite any moderate to explain what he or she would say to Baitullah Mehsud to try to convince him that the Qur'an does not actually counsel war, and to alert him to the existence of a mainstream Islamic tradition that teaches peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers as equals on an indefinite basis.

"Pakistan Taleban vow more violence," from the BBC:

Pro-Taleban militants have been strengthening their hold in Pakistan's tribal areas following controversial peace deals with the authorities. Haroon Rashid of the BBC's Urdu service is one of the few reporters working for a Western media organisation with access to the area.

[...]

After visiting the site of the bombing, we were done with the basic purpose of the trip. I asked the militants if I could see their leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

[...]

Baitullah's private army along with other militant groups have imposed a strict Islamic code in North and parts of South Waziristan.

They run a parallel government here. Music and videos are banned while militants claim people approach them for settlement of their disputes.

With a black-dyed beard, 34-year-old Baitullah greeted us in a big room with several of his armed men beside him. We sat on a new colourful quilt spread on the ground.

Baitullah seemed a man with only jihad (holy war) on his mind. During the interview he quoted several verses from the Koran to defend his stance that foreign forces must be evicted from Islamic countries.

"Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world," he says.

The militant leader on several occasions in the past had openly admitted crossing over into Afghanistan to fight foreign troops.

"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 (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."

Suicide bombers

Baitullah predicted an even bloodier year for foreign forces in Afghanistan.

"The mujahideen will carry out even more severe attacks. If they [the West] have air power we have fidayeen [suicide bombers]... They will leave dishonoured."

[...]

Before we left, Baitullah gave us perfume and a book in Urdu on 'Why Jihad is a must'. On our way back, we saw newly built white graves on the roadside.

Lores Rizkalla has kindly posted audio of my debate last night with Dinesh D'Souza on her show -- the first, I hope, of my debates with him about his appalling new book. So if you missed the show, you can listen there now.

This story refers to a jihad martyrdom attack in an Israeli bakery (thanks to KA for the link). And of course this response is predictable. Everything Hamas does is legitimate. Every step Israel takes in response is illegitimate. Once you grasp that simple rule, you're ready for prime time, or a job at Reuters.

From the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

A Hamas spokesman defended Monday's suicide bombing in Eilat as legitimate "resistance" against Israel.

Fawzi Barhoum called the attack a "natural response" to IDF policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as its ongoing boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government. "So long as there is occupation, resistance is legitimate," he said.

He also said attacks on Israel were preferable to the recent bout of Palestinian infighting in Gaza. "The right thing is for Fatah weapons to be directed toward the occupation not toward Hamas," he said.

Fatah weapons paid for by the U.S. and Israel.

The Fatah-affiliated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the Islamic Jihad, and a new group calling itself "Army of Believers" claimed responsibility for Monday's attack in Eilat that killed three people.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Jihad posted a statement on its Web site Monday saying that it had engineered the bombing in an attempt to "focus Palestinians' attention away from killing each other," Sky News reported.

Last night when I debated Dinesh D'Souza for what I hope is just the first time, he kept invoking Bernard Lewis. I would make a point about Islamic teaching or the jihad ideology, and he would respond by talking about Bernard Lewis. It wasn't so much an Argument From Authority as an Argument From Bernard Lewis. Now, we have taken issue with Bernard Lewis in the past, and will not hesitate to do so in the future if we think it necessary; we do not believe, as some apparently do, that being the leading and justly renowned authority in a field confers infallibility. Nevertheless, at the same time it remains true that my areas of agreement with Lewis are much larger than any areas of disagreement I may have with him, and D'Souza's attempt to portray me as the Anti-Lewis founders on any actual examination of what I have written (an examination D'Souza has clearly not made).

Anyway, Lewis has said this before, and he was right then, and he is right now. By D'Souza's thesis, these Muslims are enraged by the cultural Left, and have thus been radicalized.

And as Andrew Bostom points out to me, Bat Ye'or saw all this in 1994, when she said: "I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism...we are light years away from such a development...On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking...All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years..." Lewis was light years away from saying anything like this at that time, but it is good to see that he is catching up.

"Muslims 'about to take over Europe,'" by David Machlis and Tovah Lazaroff in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.

The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.

Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up.

"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

The Tiny Minority of Extremists is growing, especially among young people. By Stephen Bates and agencies in The Guardian, with thanks to Charles:

A growing minority of young Muslims are inspired by political Islam and feel they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do, a survey reveals today. The poll, carried out for the conservative-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, found support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents.

In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.

Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. The survey claimed that British authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia and fuelled a sense of victimhood among some Muslims: 84% said they believed they had been well treated in British society, though only 28% thought the authorities had gone over the top in trying not to offend Muslims....

The Muslim Council of Britain has been working on this issue for a long time. "Bolton bans Holocaust Day," from the Jewish Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:

IN A move widely seen to be bowing to Muslim pressure, Bolton Council has scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event.

The council is to replace it with a Genocide Memorial Day in June. This is in line with the policy of the Muslim Council of Britain, which continues to boycott HMD and is asking for a Genocide Day, which will also mark "the ongoing genocide and human rights abuses of Palestinians" by Israelis.

The council decision was made in consultation with the town's Interfaith Council.

But Rabbi Joseph Lever of United Synagogue who has participated in the Bolton event for around three years was not consulted on the decision. He said: "I mourn the fact that the Holocaust Memorial Day event will not take place in Bolton this year."

Louis Rapaport, president of the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester, was equally disappointed that the Jewish community was not consulted.

He said: "Bolton, alone of all the local authorities in our area, is not having an HMD event which is a government recommendation." He added: "There may not be many Jews in Bolton but the day is supposed to have an educational message to the whole community.

"I can't help feeling the decision was influenced by Bolton's large Muslim community."

In September 2005, former Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Israel Meir Lau said: "The so called 'religious' leader Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, went out of his way to come all the way to Berlin to encourage Hitler to kill Jews. He did everything in his power to help the Nazis in their diabolical plot. So I do not buy it when Palestinians argue that they were victims of the Holocaust because it led to the establishment of the state of Israel. Before there was ever a state of Israel there was rabid anti-Semitism among radical Muslims."

Over at Brussels Journal, Fjordman has another terrific piece. A small excerpt:

The Swedish news website The Local writes about The Holocaust: Sweden’s complex legacy. That’s great. Unfortunately, it quickly degenerates into bashing all those who oppose Sweden’s policies of mass migration. According to The Local, “Leading the campaign for Holocaust education is the Forum for Living History, a government agency commissioned to promote democracy and human rights, with the Holocaust as its point of reference. Reports and studies published by the Forum deal with various forms of modern intolerance amongst young Swedes, including Islamophobia.”

I know that people such as Swedish historian of religion Matthias Gardell claim that Islamophobia is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in the Western world today. Personally, I subscribe more to the view of Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch that “‘Islamophobia’ is a word concocted to intimidate those who are rightly troubled, and more than troubled, by what they have learned of Islam largely through the observable behavior of Muslims not only in the West, but around the world.” Has the Forum for Living History asked the French teacher Robert Redeker about Islamophobia, after he had to quit his job and go into hiding following numerous death threats for criticizing Islam?

Read it all.

Massive reeducation begins in the UK, to make sure that no one -- no one -- opposes the spread of the jihad there. Why, to do so would be "Islamophobic." By Laura Clark in the Daily Mail, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Children will be taught race relations and multiculturalism with every subject they study -from Spanish to science - under controversial changes to the school curriculum announced by the Government.

In music and art, they could have to learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments, and West African drumming • 'School drop-outs regret leaving'

In maths and science, key Muslim contributions such algebra and the number zero will be emphasised to counter Islamophobia.

And in English, pupils will study literature on the experiences of migration - such as Zadie Smith's novel White Teeth, or Brick Lane, by Monica Ali.

Chaucer? Shakespeare? Milton? Donne? Keats? Wordsworth? Browning? Hardy? Austen? Nah. Zadie Smith and Monica Ali.

One critic accused Education Secretary Alan Johnson of 'politicising' lessons with the new agenda. Tory MP Douglas Carswell, a member of the Commons education select committee, said schools will be vehicles for multicultural propaganda and classrooms turned into 'laboratories for politically-correct thought'.

Mr Johnson was also attacked over attempts to put Britishness on the curriculum as it emerged that suggested core values are so woolly they could apply to many countries.

With concerns that standards in the three Rs are unacceptable, ministers will also face accusations that they are diverting attention away from vital subjects.

Under the recommendations - put forward in a report by former headmaster Sir Keith Ajegbo -teachers will be expected to make 'explicit references to cultural diversity' in as many subjects as possible....

However, Mr Carswell said: 'This report is prescribing precisely the wrong medicine to heal the wounds of a society that multiculturalism has divided. This is a stark example of the politically- correct lobby hijacking the citizenship agenda.

'Recent arrivals to this country have all the more reason to be given a sense of what we are all about so they can become part of it and share it. But instead this will give the green light to every politically-correct Left-Wing educationist to further undermine our society.'...

Andrew Bolt asks a trenchant question in his blog in the Herald Sun (news links in the original; thanks to Rosie):

How to make trouble for moderate Muslims with noisy “tolerance” for the extremists:

A ROW has erupted over Muslim-only washrooms at La Trobe University that can be accessed only with a secret push-button code.

Muslim students have exclusive access to male and female washrooms on campus, sparking claims of bias and discrimination.

What possible reason could there be for going to this expense in dividing Muslim students from everyone else, reinforcing the unhelpful notion that the two are so dangerously different?

Victorian Muslim community leader Yasser Soliman said the washrooms were necessary…

“Muslims need to wash their feet before prayer and in the past there have been complaints about them washing their feet in sinks, so this is a happy medium,” he said.

Let’s pretend we actually believe Soliman. Solution: Just put up notices explaining the feet-washing. Or install a separate sink in the communal toilets, at a handy foot-washing height.

But insist all faiths share the same toilets. If we can’t even share them…

Pakistan's blasphemy law is an easy way for Muslims to victimize Christians with whom they have a dispute. "Woman seeks lumber, gets jailed: Nation's blasphemy law criticized for ambiguities, improper use," from WorldNetDaily.com, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A woman in Pakistan went down the road from her family's construction supply business to check on some materials that had been borrowed, and returned with a charge of blasphemy against her, according to reports.

Martha Bibi, who lives in the small village of Kot Nanka Singh in Pakistan's Kasur District, was taken into custody after she went to a team of Muslims who are building a mosque and asked about the construction materials the group had borrowed.

The report comes from the international Christian human rights group International Christian Concern, as well as Assist News Service.

ICC said about six weeks ago, Martha and her husband, Butta Masih, loaned the Muslims some bamboos and logs for the project. But no one returned the equipment, or gave any notice of when that might happen.

"When Martha went to ask what had happened to the building materials, she got into a fierce argument with a shopowner near the mosque, but did not even mention religion. The woman she argued with told her husband, Mohammad Ramzan, that Martha blasphemed the prophet Muhammad," ICC said in a statement.

"Ramzan was so enraged that he gathered his neighbors and stirred them into a frenzy to march on Martha's home," the ICC continued.

Her husband reported the "large, furious mob" assembled and was marching toward his home so he and his wife fled, hiding in the home of a friendly neighbor. Accompanied and supported by police, the mob reached Butta and Martha's house late at night, and contacted Butta's parents, who had remained there.

"The fuming mob threatened my parents that our house would be gutted out if they had not handed us to them," the ICC report quoted Butta as saying.

The ICC said for hours, the mob threatened the family and searched the home, and finally dispersed so that the Butta and Martha could return.

"A relative of their neighbor Rashid came and said that the people wanted to burn Martha. He offered to speak for her innocence, but when they left to go speak to the leaders of the mob, the police accosted her and took her away in their patrol wagon," the ICC reported.

The jihad conference in Australia was supposed to be beamed to eager jihadists around the world, but the techies dropped the ball. World dominance may be a bit farther down the road than they're hoping. "Radical cause hits a glitch," by Sian Powell in The Australian, with thanks to JE:

A DAY-long conference in Sydney's Lakemba run by the fundamentalist Muslim organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, known for its anti-democratic, anti-Semitic views, was meant to be beamed out across the world via a live webcast. "Hizb-ut Tahrir Australia is proud to present the Khilafah conference Sydney 2007," the site said. "This live webcast will bring together Islamic knowledge, content and community to deliver a connected experience throughout the day."

The keynote speaker was Hizb ut-Tahrir's Indonesian chairman Ismail Yusanto, the radical who has previously demanded the jailing of US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the "war crime" of the 2003 Iraq invasion. But the Khilafah webcast was beset with all sorts of problems, boding ill for Hizb ut-Tahrir's future world dominance, or even an Islamic super-state (another of its favoured ideas). To begin with, there was neither vision nor sound. Then there were disjointed pictures, almost a frame at a time, but still no sound. Viewers from across the world, waiting for the webcast, sent in questioning messages but the site remained unresponsive, apart from some posted instructions, none of which worked.

UPDATE 1/29: Lores Rizkalla has kindly posted audio of the show, so you can catch it now if you missed it last night.

A reminder: I will be debating Dinesh D'Souza and his disastrous new book for what I hope will be only the first time, tonight at 7PM PST, 10PM EST, on Lores Rizkalla's radio show. You will be able to listen online here.

You can read my initial responses to D'Souza's book here, here, and here, and Hugh Fitzgerald's here, here, and here.

And the pressure is coming from the Flying Imams incident, just as I predicted -- with no notice given of the many questionable aspects of the incident, or of the questionable ties of the imams.

If this passes, as it probably will, and is signed by the President, as is likely, Islamic jihadists will have a free hand in American airports: authorities will be too afraid of prosecution to subject them to any scrutiny, no matter how suspiciously they're acting.

By Frederic J. Frommer for AP, with thanks to Kemaste:

WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) - The repercussions of an airline's decision to remove a group of imams from a commercial flight in Minneapolis could be heard in Congress this year, with civil rights groups pushing Democratic lawmakers to ban racial profiling.

The incident happened in November, made national news and reinvigorated an old proposal that got little attention from the GOP.

Now, a champion of the legislation, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction on the issue. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored legislation to ban racial profiling in the last Congress, now chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

No bill has been introduced so far, but Feingold made it clear the issue will be a priority for him.

"Many law-abiding African Americans, Arab Americans, Latino Americans and others live with the fear of being racially profiled as they go about their everyday lives," Feingold said. Although the vast majority of law enforcement officers don't engage in the practice, he added, some do and it must be addressed.

"I look forward to working with Chairman Conyers in the House as well as others to ensure that no one is judged by how they look or where they worship," he said....

Feingold's last bill would have banned federal, state and local law enforcement officials from "relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion" during investigations.

An exemption would have been made for specific information that "links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified incident or scheme."

Well, we have plenty of that, but the chilling effect will nevertheless be severe.

Some security-oriented groups are gearing up to fight a new version of the bill.

"It would have the effect of estranging police officers from the community that they serve," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "It would make them more hesitant to stop people who might well be in violation of the law for fear that they're going to get written up because of some racial protocol."

Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, mocked the legislation.

"The 9/11 atrocity was committed by 19 young single men from Arab nations. If you want to hand this country over to terrorists, why don't you say it right out front?" said Gadiel, whose son, James, died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. "We don't have to worry about 80-year-old ladies with bleach-blonde hair and southern accents."

Steve Mustapha Elturk, an imam in Troy, Mich., said he would welcome a ban on racial profiling. He said U.S. authorities have detained him four times since Sept. 11, 2001 — twice at the Canadian border and twice while traveling by air — even though he has done nothing wrong.

"It is pathetic for an American citizen who has spent more than half his life in this country to have to fly fearing that I will be stopped and interrogated," said Elturk, 52, who was born in Lebanon. "This is not the country I came to know."

The jihad against education continues, with its fighters eager to stamp out any future ideological challenge, especially from women. By Sameer N. Yacoub for Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mortar shells rained down Sunday on a girls' secondary school in a mostly Sunni area of western Baghdad, killing five pupils and wounding 20, witnesses and police said. At least seven other people died in a series of bombings and shootings across the capital, mostly in Shiite areas.

[...]

Sunday's mortar attack occurred about 11 a.m. at the Kholoud Secondary School in the Adil neighborhood of western Baghdad, police and school officials said. Several projectiles exploded in the courtyard, shattering windows and spraying pupils with glass. AP Television News footage showed blood smeared on the stone steps and walkways.

Hours after the attack, grieving parents wept as the bodies of the victims were placed inside wooden coffins. Police said four girls were killed instantly and a fifth died later. AP television footage showed the fin from one of the mortars lying in a walkway.

1938 Alert: "World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief," from AFP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A third World War is already underway between Islamic militancy and the West but most people do not realize it, the former head of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad said in an interview published Saturday in Portugal.

‘We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso.

‘The world does not understand. A person walks through the streets of Tel Aviv, Barcelona or Buenos Aires and doesn’t get the sense that there is a war going on,’ said Halevy who headed Mossad between 1998 and 2003.

‘During World War I and II the entire world felt there was a war. Today no one is conscious of it. From time to time there is a terrorist attack in Madrid, London and New York and then everything stays the same.’

Violence by Islamic militants has already disrupted international travel and trade just as in the previous two world conflicts, he said.

Halevy, who was raised in war-time London, predicted it would take at least 25 years before the battle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is won and during this time a nuclear strike by Islamic militants was likely.

25 years? How optimistic. Why will a 1,400-year-old conflict be wrapped up in 25 years?

Three pressure groups are gunning for Glenn Beck, despite the fact that he has punted on the key issue of our time, and declined to aid genuine Muslim reformers who are exploring the elements of Islam that jihadists are using to justify their actions. For Beck says here that he is "asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran." But his assumption that the jihadists are making a mockery of the Qur'an is, at best, unproven, and is contradicted by both the jihadists and courageous Muslims and ex-Muslims including Tashbih Sayyed, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina. Will Beck help fight the jihad by making "airtime available, at any time" also to them and people like them, in order to foster the discussion that is actually necessary to create even the possibility that a "peaceful view of Islam" might prevail?

In any case, his temporizing and whitewashing does nothing to assuage these pressure groups, who are enraged that he would dare even to explore the possibility that some Muslims in the U.S. might harbor jihadist sentiments.

"Arab groups don't want Glenn Beck back as 'Good Morning America' commentator," from Associated Press, with thanks to all who sent this in:

NEW YORK (AP) — Three groups are urging ABC News not to keep CNN Headline News personality Glenn Beck on as a "Good Morning America" commentator because they believe he's biased against Arabs.

The Arab American Institute, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Muslim Public Affairs Council all said Thursday they had written to ABC News President David Westin about Beck.

"Good Morning America" executive producer Jim Murphy has spoken to a representative of the groups and has invited them on the air to talk about their grievances, said ABC News spokeswoman Jeffrey Schneider....

The groups said that Beck — who's drawing strong ratings with his evening show on CNN Headline News — has stated on his show that Arab and Muslim Americans are apathetic to terrorism. During an interview in November with Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, Beck asked him to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."...

Beck has said that his question to Ellison was poorly worded.

"My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world's Muslims," he said. "I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam."

A Let Them Into the EU Alert from AP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Unknown assailants on Sunday stoned a two-story building housing a Protestant church in the Black Sea port city of Samsun, the pastor of the church said.

"The assailants broke at least 10 windows in an overnight attack," Mehmet Orhan Picaklar, the pastor of the Agape Church, told The Associated Press by telephone. "This is the seventh or eight such attack over the past three years. Separately, I am constantly receiving death threats by e-mail."

Nonviolent Islamization is A-OK. And evidently, calls for civil war are just fine too -- I guess the Australian government understands this as nonviolent civil war. Suicide of the West Update: "Ruddock: no ban on Muslim group," from AAP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The Federal Government refuses to ban a radical Muslim group that has sparked outrage by bringing to Australia its calls for an Islamic superstate.

Indonesian firebrand cleric Ismail Yusanto outlined his vision for an Islamic utopia before a crowd of about 500 Muslims at Lakemba, in Sydney's south-west, today.

Dr Yusanto and fellow members of the extremist group Hizb-u-Tahrir believe it can ease suffering around the world by creating an Islamic superstate - ruled by Sharia law - through jihad, or holy war.

The NSW government and federal opposition are outraged, demanding the Commonwealth follow Britain, Germany and several Middle Eastern countries in banning the group.

But Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today there was not enough evidence to justify using anti-terrorism laws to outlaw Hizb-u-Tahrir.

To be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, a group has to urge the use of force or violence.

"Evidence to sustain that has to be available," he told reporters.

"Just because people have messages that I don't regard as broadly in keeping with Australian values doesn't mean they can be proscribed as terrorist organisations," Mr Ruddock told reporters.

[...]

Dr Yusanto said if the utopian superstate fell, "all military-aged Muslims" and "Muslims living outside of the boundary" of the Sharia state should obtain military training and "join the jihad".

"Once successful, the new order would be just the beginning of the new era in the application of Islamic ideology," he said.

"There is no victory and glory without sacrifice and hard work. No pain no gain."

[...]

Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke called on newly appointed Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to consider cancelling Dr Yusanto's visa.

"There are clear character provisions in the Immigration Act that mean that if the government didn't want Ismail Yusanto here it could have stopped him from coming," he told reporters.

"The only reason we have someone in western Sydney right now preaching Sharia law is because the federal government chose to allow him to be here.

"My question and my comment to anyone from around the world who hates Australia is simple - if you hate the place, don't come here."

Good idea. All non-Muslim states should adopt it. But it is already quite late in the game -- time, long past time, for authorities to start calling to account those who are already here.

How Britain will slide into Third World status, part one. Clash of Civilizations Update: "Muslim urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines," by Abul Taher in the TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.

Islam permits only the consumption of halal products, where the animal has had its throat cut and bled to death while God’s name is invoked.

Islam also forbids the eating of any pig meat, which Katme says is another reason why vaccines should be avoided, as some contain or have been made using pork-based gelatine.

His warning has been criticised by the Department of Health and the British Medical Association, who said Katme risked increasing infections ranging from flu and measles to polio and diphtheria in Muslim communities.

Katme, a psychiatrist who has worked in the National Health Service for 15 years, wields influence as the head of one of only two national Islamic medical organisations as well as being a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. Moderate Muslims are concerned at the potential impact because other Islamic doctors will have to confirm vaccines are derived from animal and human products.

There is already evidence of lower than average vaccination rates in Muslim areas, reducing the prospect of the “herd immunity” needed to curb infectious diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella.
Katme’s appeal reflects a global movement by some hardline Islamic leaders who are telling followers torefuse vaccines from the West.

In Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of India, Muslims have refused to be immunised against polio after being told that the vaccines contain products that the West has deliberately added to make the recipients infertile....

He argued that leading “Islamically healthy lives” would be enough to ward off illnesses and diseases.

“You see, God created us perfect and with a very strong defence system. If you breast-feed your child for two years — as the Koran says — and you eat Koranic food like olives and black seed, and you do ablution each time you pray, then you will have a strong defence system,” he said.

“Many vaccines, especially those given to children, are full of haram substances — human parts, gelatine from pork, alcohol, animal/monkey parts, all coming from the West who do not have knowledge of halal or haram. It is forbidden in Islam to have any of these haram substances in our bodies.”...

No word on whether Bush plans to send American troops to Pakistan to stop Sunni-Shi'ite strife there. From The Associated Press:

A suspected suicide attacker exploded a bomb near a Shia mosque in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar late Saturday, killing at least 11 people, including the city police chief, and wounding 35, police said.

Most of the victims were police and municipal officials who were clearing the route for a procession of Shias in a crowded old quarter of the city, said police officer Aziz Khan. The procession had yet to begin.

This weekend marks the start of the festival of Ashoura, when Shias mourn the seventh-century death of the prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hussein. In the past the festival has been a target for sectarian attacks.

The blast went off in a bazaar area about 180 metres from the mosque that was the starting point for the Shia procession. It caused a power outage that left the city centre in darkness, complicating rescue efforts.

The "epic battle" between Sunnis and Shiites has been going on for fourteen hundred years. It will take a great deal more than a "surge" of American troops to prevent it indefinitely from breaking out again. From New Europe:

Trying to persuade a sceptical Congress to support sending more troops to Iraq, US President George W Bush warned January 22 that if the United States fails, sectarian violence could spill over into an “epic battle” between Sunnis and Shiites in a wider regional conflict.

The warning came in Bush’s annual “State of the Union” address, which was closely watched by European Union leaders, most of who have opposed the war in Iraq and have distanced themselves from the US leader.

Bush has begun deploying the first of 21,500 more troops to Iraq as part of his revised strategy announced earlier this month, but the Democratic-controlled Congress and some members of Bush’s Republican Party steadfastly oppose the plan.

“If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides,” Bush said. “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime.”

“A contagion of violence could spill out across the country and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict,” he added in the State of the Union address. “For America, this is a nightmare scenario.”

Unfortunately, there are nightmare scenarios all around.

Surely the main thing about Dinesh D'Souza is that he is:

1) a careerist with his eye on the main chance. He was among the first of those Bright Young Conservative Things -- think of William Kristol -- who have managed to make lavish livings for themselves, with those lecture fees, those quasi-instant books on matters of perceived moment, and for a few, a little aupres-de-ma-blonde stuff to make the whole thing more entertaining and endurable.

2) unused to having to meet standards of research or study that might, in other contexts, naturally be asked of him. D’Souza is surprised and chagrined: he asked quite a few people to blurb the book, and was disturbed to discover that some, who had made it a point to find out much more about Islam, were horrified by his thesis and refused.

Still more UK dhimmi follies. "Islamic school raided by police stays open," by Julie Henry in the Sunday Telegraph, :

The Government has failed to close down a Muslim school that was raided by anti-terror police, despite being advised by Ofsted to deregister it.

More than 100 police carried out a dawn raid at Jameah Islamiyah, a private school near Crowborough in East Sussex, in September.

Officers remained at the site for more than three weeks before the investigation was wound up.

The operation was linked to the earlier arrest of 14 men in London in connection with an alleged terrorist recruitment network. Twelve people were charged and remanded in custody to await trial. No arrests were made in connection with the school.

At the time, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) said that Ofsted was due to visit the school and, if improvements that were deemed necessary after an earlier inspection in 2005 had not been made, the department would "delete the school from the Register of Independent Schools and shut it down".

The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a confidential report which shows the school was the subject of a monitoring visit by Ofsted in November and that a report was sent to the DfES recommending the school be deregistered.

However, no action has been taken and the school remains on the Register of Independent schools.

"What is at stake is not just the destiny of the Muslim world but indeed the whole of mankind." Indeed.

"Sydney conference speaker demands Islamic state," from Australia's ABC News, with thanks to JE:

A speaker at a conference in Sydney's south-west says a revolution or a civil war may be necessary in order to create an Islamic state, or caliphate.

The meeting has been organised by the controversial Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in several countries overseas....

One of today's speakers, Ashraf Doureihi, told the audience action needs to be taken to ensure an Islamic state is created.

"It is important... [to move] collectively in the Muslim world to demand this change from such influential people in our lands, even if it means spilling onto the streets to create a revolution or staging a military coup," he said.

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wasim Durie has told the audience a number of speakers will address the meeting today and discuss ways of establishing an Islamic super-state.

"As we were here today, what is at stake is not just the destiny of the Muslim world but indeed the whole of mankind," he said.

How come these clerics haven't gotten the word that Islam forbids suicide? Could it be because they understand Qur'an 9:111 to promise Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah?

Anyway, this is one reason why it is so difficult for our Friend and Ally Pakistan to reform madrasas. By Mohammad Kamran and Mohammad Imran in the Daily Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:

ISLAMABAD: The administration of Lal Masjid on Friday threatened the government of suicide attacks if it continues to demolish mosques and madrassas. The clerics also acquired a commitment to this effect from thousands of worshippers at the Friday congregation.

Addressing the Friday sermon, Maulana Abdul Aziz, key prayer leader of Lal Masjid, asked the government to reconstruct the demolished mosques and urged President Musharraf to “seek Allah’s forgiveness” for demolishing “seven mosques in the country”. “We are ready to carry out suicide attacks if the government does not meet our demands,” he said, adding that the clerics would accept General Musharraf president for life if he accepts all their demands in letter and spirit.

Maulana Aziz, who is also the principal of Jamia Hafsa and Jamia Fareedia madrassas, issued a decree after citing verses from the Quran that jihad had become obligatory on all men and women against the backdrop of “prevailing evil in the country”. He demanded the government enforce a system based on the Quran and Sunnah in the country and stop dubbing jihad as terrorism....

Maulana Aziz said that millions of madrassa students had decided to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah and the government must realise the gravity of the situation. He said that 10,000 students of Jamia Fareedia would sit in aitekaaf for 40 days to seek “divine help” and they would also be taught about the significance of jihad. “We do not want an armed conflict with the government, but we should not be pushed to the wall,” he added.

A welcome precedent. From Judeoscope, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

The Quebec village of Hérouxville, 1300 inhabitants, has formally banned this week the stoning of women, face veils, female genital mutilation, or throwing acid at unveiled women’s faces, reports Montreal daily La Presse....

The nature of the Hérouxville bans suggests however that local politicians had Quebec Muslims in mind, though not a single Muslim or member of any religious or ethnic minority calls Hérouxville home. But referring to Quebec’s policy of encouraging immigrants to settle outside Montreal, Drouin says it was important to inform potential immigrants of the villages cultural norms: "We must ensure that people who come here want to live as we do", he told La Presse, "The Muslims who wanted to impose Sharia, had they known that we do not stone women here, maybe they would not have come".

Along with the bans, the Hérouxville document states that Christmas trees are a Quebec tradition, that swimming pools are mixed, and that pork meat and beef are displayed on the same shelves. Asked whether he fears being labeled a racist, Drouin answers: “We are not racists, we are explaining our culture".

National Review is pushing Dinesh D'Souza's silly and misleading book hard, running an ad that proclaims "Let the Debate Begin." This is ironic in light of the fact that I have heard not a word from NR's Kathryn Lopez about my open invitation to debate D'Souza there. I guess what NR is running is really a Henry Ford-style debate invitation: you can have any color car you like as long as it's black, and let the debate begin, as long as there is only one participant.

Anyway, the debate between D'Souza and me really is going to begin, tomorrow night at 7PM PST, 10PM EST, on Lores Rizkalla's radio show. You will be able to listen online here.

Also, D'Souza himself has told me that we are scheduled to debate at CPAC in March, but I have heard nothing from CPAC about this myself and thus cannot consider it confirmed. I'll keep you posted.

You can read my initial responses to D'Souza's book here, here, and here, and Hugh Fitzgerald's here, here, and here. Also, I am just about to start writing a full review of the book.

Hizballah invades Israel. "Israeli army blows up two Hezbollah bunkers," from AFP, with thanks to James:

The Israeli army says it has blown up two Hezbollah bunkers discovered near the Jewish state's border with Lebanon.

Israeli forces "uncovered two connected bunkers which had been used by the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, apparently as a forward base for its operations," the army said in a statement.

"Inside the bunkers forces found food, shovels and other equipment. The bunkers were detonated in a controlled environment by IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) engineering forces," it said Friday.

The bunkers were on "Israeli territory south of the international border" but beyond the security fence that the Jewish state has constructed along its border with Lebanon, it said.

This story explains in microcosm why, contrary to what Dinesh D'Souza assumes, even cleaning up American pop culture will not end the jihad, which proceeds for reasons that spring from within Islam, and not as a reaction to outside outrages -- although those outrages are used as a pretext for recruitment purposes. Mutatis mutandis, after we become a decent, upright, moral people, the "traditional Muslims" of which D'Souza speaks won't become our allies. Their jihadist brethren will kill -- or subjugate -- us anyway.

"'If they pay we kill them anyway' - the kidnapper's story," from The Guardian, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Fadhel is a slim, well-muscled 26-year-old Mahdi Army commander with a thin goatee beard and smoothed down hair that looks like a flat cap. One day last month he described how he and his men seized a group of three Sunni men suspected of killing his fellow Shia. "I followed the group for weeks and then one of them crossed the bridge to Karrada [a Shia district]. We first informed a nearby Iraqi army checkpoint that we were arresting terrorists then we attacked them and put them in the boots of the cars. We only have six to seven minutes when we grab someone - we have to act quickly, if he resists we shoot him."

In this case, he said, the men were taken to Sadr City, the Shia slum to the north-east of Baghdad, where they were interrogated by a "committee" which ordered their execution. "We ask the families of the terrorists for ransom money," said Fadhel. "And after they pay the ransom we kill them anyway."

Kidnapping in Baghdad these days is as much about economics as retribution or sectarian hatred. Another Shia man close to the Mahdi Army told me: "They kidnap 10 Sunnis, they get ransom on five, and kill them all, in each big kidnap operation they make at least $50 000, it's the best business in Baghdad."

[...]

Like many of their Sunni counterparts, the Mahdi commanders boast that they could wipe out the other sect and gain total control over Baghdad if the US left. "We control most of Baghdad, our main enemy is the Americans," said Fadhel. Then he paused for a second and continued: "Also we can't trust the other Shia factions. Imam Ali says 'God please protect me against my friends and I will take care of my enemies.'"

Serge Trifkovic, who along with me and Britney Spears causes jihad (at least in the mind of Dinesh D'Souza) responds brilliantly in "Dinesh the Dhimmi," from Chronicles (via FrontPage; news links in the original):

Nearly two years ago the Jihadist lobby in the United States made a concerted affort to have my book The Sword of the Prophet banned from National Review Online. Jihadi activists gathered around CAIR claimed the book defamed Islam and its "prophet." When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, CAIR instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. Faced with the loss of revenue National Review briefly took down The Sword, but then quickly reposted it, under pressure from mainly conservative quarters.

It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,

"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."

"Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question" -- Francis Fukuyama in Prospect magazine

It's not an "open question" to Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan or Azam Kamguian or Irfan Khawaja or Walid Shoebat or Anwar Shaikh or tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of articulate ex-Muslims now living in the West and able to speak and write freely. They know Islam a bit better than Francis Fukuyama. Of course, they would reject not only his use of the phrase "open question" but his larger assumption: that there might be something in what he too easily calls "the Muslim religion" (Islam is a Total System, Islam is a religion and a politics and a social theory and a geopolitics and a scientific explanation of the universe and much more): something "specific" that "encourages this radicalisation."

The way Fukuyama phrases things, it is clear that he thinks Islam alone is not the problem, but only the "radicalisation" of Islam. And both the declared apostates, and those few brave Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, could explain how wrong Fukuyama is to make such a misleading distinction between an assumed peaceful, good, unmenacing "Islam" and this dangerous "radicalisation" that, Fukuyama complacently allows himself to believe, is somehow different in its texts and teachings, for regular, mainstream, ordinary Islam. There is no such difference.

The continuing assumption that Islam has been hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists, and that "mainstream" Islam is "moderate" leads the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to a series of dead ends in attempting to explain the appearance of jihadists among Muslims in Canada.

"Jihadization of youth a 'rapid process'," by Stewart Bell for the National Post:

TORONTO - Canada's intelligence service says a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.

Enraged over what they perceive as a Western "war on Islam" and coaxed on by extremist preachers, a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed, the service warns in a new study. "The transformation from radical to jihadist can be a very rapid process," says the "secret" report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, obtained by the National Post.

The study, released under the Access to Information Act, is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is underway in Brampton, Ont., for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.

For at least the past two years, CSIS has been studying how some young people have been lured into terrorism. They are particularly interested in what made them radicalized and how they evolved from radicals to violent terrorists, a process known as "jihadization."

The conclusion: It depends on the individual. But analysts have come up with a list of factors they say are leading some Muslims to radicalism. They include the belief in the need to defend Islam from perceived Western aggression, the influence of spiritual leaders and extremist family members, and overseas training, the report says.

"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must preemptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies.

"They also watch what is happening in the Islamic world and the many conflicts that involve 'Western' or other aggression: Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and others.

"A few will act on these events and support or carry out terrorism in an attempt to change Western foreign or military policy. These individuals take the violent defence of Islam as a personal goal and religious obligation."

Those who undergo this process of radicalization reject mainstream Islam and instead adopt a narrow, literal, intolerant interpretation, CSIS says.

Questions for CSIS: How many personnel opened a Qur'an in this study? Or a pre-packaged interpretation, accepted unquestioningly? Was the possibility that the Qur'an calls for open-ended warfare against unbelievers to impose Islamic law ever considered (e.g., 9:5, 9:29)? Anything about the life and example of Muhammad? And at what point might CSIS, in the face of continuing confusion and a persistent jihadist threat, re-examine its basic assumptions about the nature of "mainstream" Islam?

The CSIS report notes that the failure of some Muslim immigrants to integrate into Western society is also a factor, but "this is seen more in European countries where the Muslim communities are more homogenous and there has been less integration than in North America."

Many Canadians were shocked when the RCMP announced last June 3 it had arrested a group of adults and juveniles for allegedly planning truck bombings in Toronto. The group had also allegedly stockpiled firearms and intended to take hostages at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and behead them unless Canada pulled its troops out of Afghanistan.

Prosecutors allege the suspected terrorists were encouraged partly by an extremist leader who has claimed that Canadian troops are only deployed to Afghanistan to rape Muslim women.

The report notes that younger jihadists are now often getting their inspiration online from spiritual leaders who are "available 24/7."

While most of those allegedly involved in the "homegrown" terror group were arrested, investigators say Canada harbours other pro-al-Qaeda extremists who could quickly escalate to violence.

An update on this story. "Suspected Terror Leader Abu Bakar Bashir Threatens 'Jihad' Against Indonesian Police," from Associated Press:

JAKARTA, Indonesia — An alleged Southeast Asian terror leader threatened to call for holy war against Indonesian police Thursday, days after an anti-terror squad shot dead 15 suspected Islamic extremists.

Abu Bakar Bashir, accused by Australia and the United States of being a key figure in the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah, said Muslims should stop serving in the police's anti-terror squad on Indonesia's conflict-ridden Sulawesi island.

"If Muslims are being killed, then we must fight back," the 69-year-old cleric told around 100 hard-liners outside the National Human Rights Commission in the capital, Jakarta, where they were protesting Monday's killings.

"If necessary, we must organize a jihad," he said.

Police say they shot the 15 men Monday after coming under attack as they entered a militant stronghold in Poso, a flash-point town on Sulawesi. They recovered large numbers of guns, bombs and ammunition.

Islamic groups and politicians have criticized police following the raid.

However, Indonesia's vice president, other government officials and most of the media in the world's most populous Muslim nation have supported the operation.

"There is an attempt in Poso to eliminate the Muslims so the unbelievers will control the town," Bashir said. "I curse the actions of (the anti-terror squad) Densus 88 for killing Muslims and helping the unbelievers."

The International Crisis Group think tank said Wednesday that the operation appeared to be justified, but warned that it could backfire by inflaming Islamic terrorists on Sulawesi and elsewhere in Indonesia.

Six years ago, Sulawesi was the scene of bloody battles between Muslim and Christian gangs that left about 1,000 people dead and attracted Islamic militants from all over Indonesia.

Over the past two years, Islamic extremists — some believed to Jemaah Islamiyah members — have carried out a series of shootings, beheadings and bombings against Christian men, women and children.

Bashir was released from jail last year after serving 26 months behind bars for conspiracy in the deadly 2002 Bali bombings. In December, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ordered that his name be cleared.

Bashir, who founded a boarding school attended by some of Indonesia's most notorious terrorists, has always denied any wrongdoing. Since his release from jail, he has continued preaching a hard-line, intolerant brand of Islam, but has consistently condemned terrorism.

Nutters with nukes unveil tomorrow's news today:

From A.P. U.N. says Iran plans nuclear development

Iran expects to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility next month, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Friday. The installation would pave the way to large-scale uranium enrichment, a potential way of making nuclear weapons.

From Reuters International Atomic Energy Agency's Iran section head must go: Tehran

Iran, cranking up a war of nerves with the West, has demanded the removal of the official running U.N. nuclear inspections, diplomats said on Friday.

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei said Friday he was calling for a timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, hoping that talks on the matter can resume.

A 1938 alert from Der Spiegel:

This essay is an excerpt of Henryk M. Broder's book "Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren," ("Hurray! We're Capitulating") published by Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag in 2006. The book spent a number of weeks atop the DER SPIEGEL bestseller list.

The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission.

"The West should desist from engaging in all provocations that produce feelings of debasement and humiliation," says psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. "We should show greater respect for the cultural identity of Muslim countries. ... For Muslims, it is important to be recognized and respected as equals." In Richter's view, what the Muslims need is "a partnership of equals."
But Richter neglects to describe what this partnership might look like. Does achieving such equality mean that we should set up separate sections for women on buses, as is the custom in Saudi Arabia? Should the marrying age for girls be reduced to 12, as is the case in Iran? And should death by stoning be our punishment for adultery, as Shariah law demands? What else could the West do to show its respect for the cultural identity of Islamic countries? Would it be sufficient to allow Horst-Eberhard Richter to decide whether, for example, a wet T-shirt contest in a German city rises to a level of criminal provocation that could cause the Muslim faithful in Hyderabad to feel debased and humiliated?
The discussion over which provocations WE should put an end to so that THEY do not feel upset inexorably leads to the realm of the absurd.
Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings?

"Nowadays acts of terrorism are not committed for their own sake, but in the name of an ideology one could call Nazi-Islamism," Romanian-American author Norman Manea told the German daily Die Welt in March 2004. The only difference, in Manea's view, is "that this ideology invokes a religion, whereas the Nazis were mythical without being religious." Manea believes that what he calls a "World War III" has already begun. "The Europeans are putting off the recognition -- as they did in the 1930s -- of the tremendous tragedy that awaits them and that has, in fact, already arrived."

Spreading democracy isn't working out. From UPI

The first problem was that the national elections, expected to unify the country behind a legitimate Iraqi government, did the opposite.

More Mush from the Wimp. But as Kenneth W. Stein writes in the Middle East Quarterly, Carter was president. His critics were not.

To support Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid's central theme that Israel is intransigent, Carter recasts Hamas as a moderate partner ready to negotiate with Israel. He launders its reputation both with careful word choice and omission. He uses the past tense, for example, to describe Hamas as an "Islamic militant group that opposed recognition of Israel [and] perpetrated acts of violence." Carter adds that he "urged them …to forgo violence." He omits mention that Hamas denies the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East and the group's belief that historical Palestine belongs in its entirety to Muslims.

UPDATE: Carter has apologized for writing this:

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the road map for peace are accepted by Israel." ... "That was a terribly worded sentence which implied, obviously in a ridiculous way, that I approved terrorism and terrorist acts against Israeli citizens," Carter says. "My publishers have been informed about that and the sentence has been changed in all future editions of the book."

The factual errors remain.

If China capitulates first, there won't be any bombs at the Olympics...perhaps.

From the Sidney Morning Herald (whose headline gets the nod, but thanks to all who sent this in from various sources):

China's ruling Communist Party has banned images and mention of pigs in TV advertisements airing over the lunar new year to avoid offending the country's Muslims, an advertising agency said on Friday.

"We were told by the CCTV (China Central Television) censorship team that the CCTV advertising department announced a new regulation on pigs in its internal document," an executive at the Shanghai-based Mindshare agency said.

The ban also applies to cartoons and traditional paper-cut images of pigs, and to slogans such as "golden pig brings you fortune" and "wish you a happy pig year", the executive said.

So, all you Western teachers who were planning big multi-cultural celebrations of Chinese New Year, watch out. It may be that in your local school district, too, Muslim traditions trump Chinese ones. Perhaps it would be best to spend Chinese New Year quietly working on times tables with your students.

The blast took place at the hotel "where the Indian High Commission was to host a reception to mark the Republic Day," according to the Times of India .

"Suicide blast at Marriott hotel in Pakistani capital," by Rana Jawad for AFP :

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - A suicide bomber killed a security guard and himself when he set off explosives strapped to his body outside the Marriott Hotel in the Pakistani capital, the interior minister has said.

The powerful blast, which could be heard across the city, occurred when the guard prevented the attacker from entering the heavily-protected five-star hotel, Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told AFP.

"It was a suicide attack. The suicide attacker and a guard were killed," Sherpao said. "The attacker tried to enter the hotel and was stopped by the security guard and there was a scuffle and the blast occurred."

"Analysts both in the Muslim and the Western world by and large agree that “fear” and lack of objective dialogue are the root cause of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism." – a statement by Abukar Arman in this article

Not so fast, buster. The word "Islamophobia" is not an acceptable term for intelligent apprehensions over Islam. For Islam is for its adherents a total belief-system whose central and moving idea is that of a complete division between Believer and Infidel. It asks of Believers that they offer their sole loyalty to Islam as a Total System, and to the Jihad, furthered through many conceivable instruments, to spread the dominance of Islam to lands that for now may still be under Infidel rule. Believers are also to ensure that dominance of Islam by removing "all obstacles" to its spread. They are to ensure that Muslims rule, and not just here or there, not just in the lands now part of Dar al-Islam or once part of Dar al-Islam, but everywhere.

The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has brought about a situation, for those indigenous Infidels (and also for other non-indigenous arrivals, non-Muslim immigrants), that is unpleasant, expensive (the costs of monitoring, the costs of security, spiralling ever upward), and physically dangerous. Ask a Frenchman who dares to enter the "quartiers chauds" which are all over France. Or ask English residents of Birmingham and Bradford and Leeds and Manchester and parts of London, or ask Swedes in Malmo, or Dutch in Rotterdam and parts of Amsterdam.

"Islamophobia" is a word concocted to intimidate those who are rightly troubled, and more than troubled, by what they have learned of Islam largely through the observable behavior of Muslims not only in the West, but around the world -- and also through more and deeper study of the canonical texts and of the history of Jihad-conquest over the past 1350 years, from Spain to the East Indies, and of the subsequent subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others. The similarities in their treatment, and the similarities in the impulses and attitudes exhibited by Muslims over a wide area, are simply too great to ignore.

The surprise on the part of the former minister for religious minorities that there were Jews in Pakistan underscores how thoroughly their presence has been erased from history there. "Pakistan census poses question on remaining Jews," from Reuters:

ISLAMABAD - The Pakistan government census on civil servants raised curiosity on Thursday about one of the Islamic Republic’s smallest and most low-profile religious minorities -- the Jews.

The 2003 census, released on a government Web site last week, showed none of the 234,933 government employees declared themselves to be Jews, though 10 had done so in the previous census three years earlier.

“Whatever happened to the 10 Jew civil servants?,” read a headline in The News daily, Pakistan’s biggest-selling English language newspaper, on Thursday.

But, for many people the real news was that there were still any Jews living in Pakistan, given Pakistan’s longstanding antipathy towards Israel and Zionism.

Even a former minister for religious minorities was taken aback that there were Jews in the country.

“I never thought there were Jews in Pakistan. I have never seen them or met them, even when I was a minister,” remarked Colonel S.K. Tressler, who served in President Pervez Musharraf’s first cabinet in 1999.

“I was also surprised to see the report that there were Jews in the government service, also.”

Officials who conducted the census couldn’t say whether the Jews had retired, converted, migrated, died, or simply chose to mark themselves in an “Other Religions” category.

The census depended on what answers respondents submitted, and Jews might have chosen not to disclose their religion.

“In the latest census, they might not have indicated their religion. If it is not there, it will not reflect in the census,” Saeed-un-Nisa Abbasi, of the Establishment Division, which looks after civil service affairs, told Reuters.

The existence of Jews in Pakistan is seldom acknowledged, although the mostly Muslim country has sizable Hindu and Christian communities, who between them make up about four percent of Pakistan’s 160 million people.

The number of Jews living in Pakistan today is unknown, but must be very tiny.

There were a couple of thousand Jews living in Karachi and Peshawar before the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan in 1947.

Their families mostly migrated from Iraq in the 19th century.

A 55-year-old woman, who converted to Islam from Judaism when she married, remembered attending services at a synagogue in Karachi.

The woman, who asked not to be named, says all of her relatives have migrated to Israel, the United States and Europe, and she hasn’t seen any people from her old faith for years.

“I have been separated from them for a long time,” she said.

A commercial plaza now stands where the synagogue used to be, she added.

It's good news that Boxer didn't give in to pressure from CAIR. It would be even better news if she continued to pursue what she has begun to learn about the group. "Boxer, Muslim group say skirmish resolved," from Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer and officials from a Muslim advocacy group said Wednesday they have resolved to move forward on improving interfaith relations after smoothing over a skirmish about an honor rescinded by her office.

“I’m putting it all behind me, and we’re moving ahead to work with the civil rights community to better relations among people of all faiths,” Boxer said in an interview.

But a spokeswoman for the California Democrat said she does not intend to give back the certificate honoring Basim Elkarra, executive director of the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The senator also said the concerns prompting her to rescind his service award this month haven’t changed.

At the time, Boxer and her staff cited concerns about CAIR’s positions on terrorist groups, contending that CAIR had refused to label Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Boxer had been criticized on conservative Web sites for giving the award to Elkarra; she said she did not know her office had done so.

CAIR officials met with Boxer and her staff Tuesday.

“We have addressed the issues related to this unfortunate and unnecessary incident, and have agreed with Senator Boxer that we should all move forward to build a nation in which people of all faiths work together to promote respect and tolerance,” CAIR said in a statement.

CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said the group condemns all acts of terrorism.

But apparently not terrorist -- more accurately, jihadist -- groups like Hizballah and Hamas, which is why the award was rescinded.

An update on this story. "U.S. envoy: Iran Revolutionary Guards Quds Force director detained," by Steven R. Hurst for Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. ambassador said Wednesday that one of the Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq during two raids over the past month was the director of operations for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds faction, the organization responsible for funding and arming Iraqi militants.

Zalmay Khalilzad said the recent raids were part of a "new strategy" to "go after their networks that are active here."

[...]

At least eight Iranians have been detained in Iraq recently, including two diplomats in a Dec. 21 roundup of a group of 10 suspects. The diplomats were interrogated and released to Iranian officials eight days later.

Six others were captured Jan. 11 at an Iranian liaison office in the northern city of Irbil. One was released and five are still believed in U.S. custody.

"Some of those we've arrested are Quds Force operatives. One of them was director of operations for the Quds Force" who was in the country without the knowledge of Iraqi security officials, he said.

The ambassador, who has been nominated by President Bush as Washington's envoy to the United Nations, said U.S. forces were detaining Iranians because "we've had a good understanding of the equipment that comes across (the border), particularly about the EFPs (explosively formed projectiles)." Those are high-tech roadside bombs capable of piercing armor on U.S. vehicles.

"And (we're) also concerned about the training and the money and the influence" by Iran inside Iraq.

[...]

He said Iran had set its sites on becoming the dominant power in the Middle East and was taking advantage of Iraq's "weakened state" and "throwing its weight around."

[...]

Khalilzad said Iranian agents were working with "a variety of groups, and there are groups that they fund and control, in my judgment, directly."

The ambassador said U.S. officials soon would outline in detail the activities of the arrested Iranians, as demanded by Tehran's ambassador in Baghdad.

"Since he was good enough to say we should present what we have, we will be helpful and try to do that - where we found them, what they were doing, what is coming from Iran across the border. ... We will have something for you in the coming days," he said.

As one U.S. official accurately described the policy: "We were bending over backwards not to fight back."

"Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq," by Dafna Linzer for the Washington Post:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.

Yes.

[...]

Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation.

But senior officials saw it as too timid.

"We were making no traction" with "catch and release," a senior counterterrorism official said in a recent interview, explaining that it had failed to halt Iranian activities in Iraq or worry the Tehran leadership. "Our goal is to change the dynamic with the Iranians, to change the way the Iranians perceive us and perceive themselves. They need to understand that they cannot be a party to endangering U.S. soldiers' lives and American interests, as they have before. That is going to end."

A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.

"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there.

But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.

Asked whether such a designation is imminent, Johndroe of the NSC said in a written response that the administration has "long been concerned about the activities of the IRGC and its components throughout the Middle East and beyond." He added: "The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force is a part of the Iranian state apparatus that supports and carries out these activities."

Didn't history end already? Why then are we still hearing from Francis Fukuyama?

In "Identity and Migration" in Prospect, he says this:

Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question. Since 11th September, a small industry has sprung up trying to show how violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic or historical roots. It is important to remember, however, that at many periods in history Muslim societies have been more tolerant than their Christian counterparts. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Córdoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning; Baghdad for many generations hosted one of the world's largest Jewish communities. It makes no more sense to see today's radical Islamism as an inevitable outgrowth of Islam than to see fascism as the culmination of centuries of European Christianity.

We see thus that it is an open question that he immediately closes. In other words, like Dinesh D'Souza, he proposes that we ignore the testimony of the jihadists themselves, when they make copious use of the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their acts of violence. (See, to take just two examples out of a great many, here and here.) No, the equation of Islam with violence comes not from them but from a "small industry" -- of "Islamophobes," no doubt -- that has sprung up since 9/11. We should also ignore the doctrine of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers that is taught by every single orthodox Islamic sect and school of jurisprudence. Instead, we should note that dhimmis were able to practice their religions within the Islamic state -- while ignoring also, of course, the institutionalized discrimination under which they labored even in vaunted Muslim Córdoba.

In fact, Muslim Spain was hardly a paradise for non-Muslims. Even Maria Rosa Menocal, in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, admits that at the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus:

The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax — no Muslims paid taxes — and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.

So much for paradise. Also, historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf observes that “much of this new legislation aimed at limiting those aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant position of Islam.” After enumerating a list of laws much like Menocal’s, he adds: “Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply designed to underscore the position of the dimmîs as second-class citizens.” These laws were not uniformly or strictly enforced; Christians were forbidden public funeral processions, but one contemporary account tells of priests merely “pelted with rocks and dung” rather than being arrested while on the way to a cemetery.

If Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably and productively only with Christians and Jews relegated by law to second-class citizen status, then al-Andalus has absolutely no reason to be lionized in our age. The laws of dhimmitude give all of Menocal’s accounts of Jewish viziers and Christian diplomats the same hollow ring as the stories of prominent American blacks from the slavery and Jim Crow eras: yes, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington were great men, but their accomplishments not only do not erase or contradict the records of the oppression of their people, but render them all the more poignant and haunting. Whatever the Christians and Jews of al-Andalus accomplished, they were still dhimmis. They enjoyed whatever rights and privileges they had not out of any sense of the dignity of all people before God, or the equality of all before the law, but at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords.

Refresh my memory: what was the name of that large skyscraper containing 3,000 people that was brought down by "Islamophobia"?

Abukar Arman writes in the Baltimore Chronicle:

Analysts both in the Muslim and the Western world by and large agree that “fear” and lack of objective dialogue are the root cause of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism. And while the debate on which one of the two ignited the other is still ongoing, one fact remains irrefutable: more people were victimized as a result of Islamophobia than the other way around.

Few people are aware that Islamic law forbids music, and when I have pointed it out, I've been accused of distortion and "Islamophobia." Bahraini author Dhiyaa Al-Musawi knows better, and lists it along with several other points as evidence of his going against religious orthodoxy. He also has good things to say about rejecting the Islamic mandate to hate Jews and Christians.

"Bahraini Liberal Author Dhiyaa Al-Musawi: We Hang Our Thinkers on the Gallows of Ideology. I Listen to Music and Placed Pictures of Jesus and Martin Luther King in My Home," from MEMRI:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Bahraini intellectual Dhiyaa Al-Musawi, which aired on Abu Dhabi TV on December 29, 2006.

[...]

We need to reform and to reshape religious thinking, because, in all honesty, the pulpits of our mosques have begun to "booby trap" the people.

Interviewer: In what way?

Dhiyaa Al-Musawi: They booby trap them by generating hatred towards "the other." We have claimed a monopoly over Paradise, and each of us has recorded it in the land registry in his name.

[...]

The Koran is balanced. It talks about the fire of Hell and the fruits of Paradise, but we constantly preach about the horrors of Judgment Day, saying that a bald Satan, or a bald serpent, would visit them in the grave. It is constant terror. It is always a dark picture. Why? That is the problem. Unfortunately, some young men – out of a wrong interpretation of religion... The moment he becomes religious, he ceases to smile and to greet others. He accuses some people of heresy and others of sin. He begins all that discourse. He hates music, and refuses to dress neatly. His mind is abducted into the dungeons of ideology, I'm sad to say.

Interviewer: Let me ask you a question. If a Shiite, or even a Sunni, becomes a religious cleric, yet he listens to music, can the Arab public possibly accept him?

Dhiyaa Al-Musawi: In my view, the Arab disposition suffers from many problems. We have destroyed many things, including the beauty of the general disposition. Music is a beautiful thing...

Interviewer: Do you listen to music?

Dhiyaa Al-Musawi: Yes, I listen to music. I listen to classical music, and I think Beethoven's symphonies are very beautiful. They are among the masterpieces of human art. I believe that music develops the spirit of Man and humbles him. What is wrong with that?

[...]

As for the policy of non-violence, I'd like to give you the example of Gandhi, whom I consider a hero. If only we could obtain some of Gandhi's genes, and plant them in the brains of our youth in the Arab world...

Interviewer: In your home, you have pictures of Martin Luther King and Jesus on the wall.

Dhiyaa Al-Musawi: In my home, I put up a picture of Jesus, because whenever I look at his picture, worlds of peace and love open up before me. It was Jesus who said: "Love thy enemies, bless them who curse thee." We need this beautiful language in our society. I also have a picture of Gandhi, whom I consider to be a very fine person, and whose [image] we should plant in the minds of our youth.

[...]

Some of us say: "May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, the offspring of apes and pigs." Is this the language of progress? Is this the language of enlightenment and tolerance? If you had been born in Rome, you would have been Christian, if you had been born in Tehran, you would have been Shiite, and if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would have been Sunni, and so on. How wonderful it would be if all these people could gather in love around the table of humanity.

"Violating our rights, confiscating our belongings and treating us badly has become costumary. Zoroastrians who denounce such violations to authorities are completely ignored."

Bravo, Kurosh Niknam. May you be safe. From AKI, with thanks to Fjordman:

Tehran, 23 Jan. (AKI) - Kurosh Niknam, an Iranian MP representing Zoroastrians in Parliament, has denounced state discriminations against members of his faith. "Violating our rights, confiscating our belongings and treating us badly has become costumary," he told Iranian daily Khatam Yazd on Tuesday. "Zoroastrians who denounce such violations to authorities are completely ignored."

Niknam also complained about the scrapping of his faith, the oldest religious community of that nation to have survived, from the list of officially recognized religions, which only includes Abrahamic religions.

"We have the impression that someone wants to cancel us gradually from the history of the country where our faith was born," he said....

The Zoroastrian community in Iran was estimated to number 32,000 individuals at the beginning of the 1980s but reports suggest that their number has halved since the 1979 Iranian revolution established an Islamic Republic. However, conservative Iranian papers have denounced that in the past few years an increasing number of Iranians, especially youths, have converted from Islam to the Evangelical Church and Zoroastrism, claiming the phenomenon is growing and becoming "extremely worrying."

Escalation. From Reuters:

JAMMU, India (Reuters) - Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged small arms fire on Thursday after an attempt by anti-India militants to cross their heavily guarded border in the disputed territory of Kashmir, an Indian army spokesman said.

"The (firing) has been going on for quite some time now between the two sides after an infiltration bid was foiled," Lieutenant Colonel G.D. Goswami said.

He said one militant had been killed in the incident in Poonch district, 250 km northwest of Jammu.

Security has been beefed up in Kashmir and other parts of India ahead of Republic Day on Friday when India marks the day in 1950 it adopted its republican constitution with a military parade through the capital New Delhi.

1938 Alert: "UN nuclear agency asks Iran to back off on rejection of 38 inspectors," and the second part of this headline should be: "Iran declines." From AFP, :

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency has asked Iran to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.

The IAEA "requested Iranian authorities to reconsider their decision," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

Fleming said the IAEA sent the letter Wednesday to Tehran, two days after an announcement in Iran that the Islamic Republic was blocking 38 IAEA inspectors from entering the country.

Alaeddin Borujerdi, the head of parliament's national security commission, told ISNA news agency on Monday that "the committee (in charge of implementing parliamentary legislation) decided not to allow 38 inspectors to enter Iran and this restriction has been officially announced to the IAEA."

Dhimmi Christians break their silence. By Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city.

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of "intimidation" for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded "collaborators" with Israel.

But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city.

"The situation is very dangerous," said Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station. "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation."

Qumsiyeh, one of the few Christians willing to speak about the harsh conditions of their community, has been the subject of numerous death threats. His house was recently attacked with fire-bombs, but no one was hurt.

Qumsiyeh said he has documented more than 160 incidents of attacks on Christians in the area in recent years.

Read it all.

Honor killing in modern, moderate Jordan, where the Parliament rejected strengthening laws against this sort of thing.

By Shafika Mattar for AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

AMMAN, Jordan - A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honor.

A state forensic pathologist, who works at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine in Amman where an autopsy was performed, said in a phone interview that the girl had run away from home several times for unknown reasons.

Weeks ago, the girl had returned home from a family protection clinic after doctors had vouched for her virginity and the father had signed a pledge not to harm her, the pathologist said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case.

"The tests proved that she was a virgin," the pathologist said. The girl returned home only after her father signed a statement promising not to harm her, he added.

The father shot the girl four times in the head on Tuesday. On Wednesday, an autopsy was performed that again showed "she was still a virgin," the pathologist said.

Authorities have not disclosed the names of the father or the daughter or even their hometown, saying only that they lived in a southern province.

The crime is the first "honor killing" this year in Jordan, where many men consider sex out of wedlock to be an almost indelible stain on a family's reputation. On average, about 20 women in the country are killed by their relatives in such cases each year. Women have been killed for simply dating.

"NEW: Questions As Weapons" by Charles Jacobs unmasks a little-noted rhetorical strategy often employed by the jihadists and their allies:

"Why did you kill your grandmother?” That’s what Professor Ruth Wisse said to an Arab student at Stanford who asked her, “Why is Israel an apartheid state?”

The student was flummoxed and tried again, “Why is Israel an apartheid state?” Wisse again responded, “Come on now, tell us why you killed your grandmother.” A few more rounds of this and the student relented.

According to the Chabad Rabbi who invited Harvard’s Wisse to speak, Wisse then explained how some questions are not questions at all, but weapons: If she would have answered his anti-Israel accusation, she would have been trapped, and done damage to her cause.

Her “grandmother” riposte was the perfect demonstration of that point:

Having to explain why you’re not guilty as charged is a losing proposition.

Yet Jews have allowed themselves to be trapped in a meta-discourse that continuously takes the form: “Israel is bad.” “No it’s not.” Or “It’s not as bad as you say.”

Indeed, much of the history of hasbara – Israeli PR – has been defense against slanderous accusations. The classic handy reference book many students use, “Myths and Facts,” a tome fat with expanded revisions to include the evolving set of lies and half-truths hurled at the Jewish state by Arabist propaganda. The formula of the book, which is the formula for much of hasbara training, is to set out the “myth” and then answer it with the true “facts.”

Sometimes the “factual” response shows how Israeli conduct is exemplary:

“Israel is an apartheid state?” “No,” reads the formula. “Apartheid is something very different and cannot be applied to the condition of Palestinians in Israel, who are in fact treated in many ways better than they are in Arab countries.” Etc.

But even this – “We are much better than you say” doesn¹t work, because as long as the discourse focuses on Israeli behavior, we lose.
What to do? Once armed with the realization that the anti-Israel formula accuses Israel of exactly those crimes the Arab/Muslim world has committed, we can work our way out of the corner:

“You say the Jews are guilty of oppression, apartheid, discrimination, expansion by land theft? Not true. What is true is that the Arab world is guilty of every one of these things.”

Here’s an enhanced “Myths, Facts, and Big Picture” approach:

The Lie: Israel is an apartheid state.

The Truth: That’s ridiculous. (See Myths and Facts on why.)

Transition: But I’m glad you brought up apartheid. Christians are fleeing Palestinian-controlled areas due to Muslim violence. Violence against women, especially “honor killings” where male relatives kill females for “improper” sexual relations, are common in Palestinian territories and throughout the Muslim world. Jews are not even permitted to set foot in Saudi Arabia.

The Big Picture: Something similar to apartheid is found in the Arab world, where women and children, gays and lesbians, and Christians and Jews, are controlled, expelled, tormented and killed. That’s what we should be protesting.

Clash of Civilizations Update. "French Muslim jailed for attacking gynaecologist," from Reuters:

PARIS: A French Muslim who attacked a male gynaecologist for examining his wife just after she had given birth, saying it was against Islam, has been jailed for six months by a Paris court.

Fouad ben Moussa burst into the delivery room at a Paris hospital last November and shoved, slapped and insulted Dr Jean-Francois Oury as he examined the woman after a complicated birth, the prosecution said in court on Wednesday.

Police had to intervene to remove him.

Ben Moussa, a 23-year-old lorry driver, apologised for the attack and said he had requested a female doctor. French state hospitals comply with such requests when staffing permits but say patients must accept treatment from the doctors on duty.

"This is a public and secular place," prosecution lawyer Georges Holleaux said of the state hospital where the attack occurred. "This is not the place where one can invoke religion to get different treatment."

French media have reported cases in recent years of Muslim men barring male doctors from treating their wives, sometimes resorting to violence, but legal cases against them are rare.

France's five million Muslims make up eight per cent of the French population, Europe's largest Islamic minority.

This is an Open Book Examination. You may use any materials you can find, including other newspaper reports, and of course you are encouraged to use the work of genuine scholars on Islam, Iraq, the history of Sunni-Shi’a relations and of Arab Muslim relations with Kurds and other non-Arab peoples.

You may even consult with others. But the thinking, in the end, must be yours, and so must the expression, in writing, of your thoughts and analysis.

You have one week to complete this task. Examination papers are due by 5 p.m. on January 31, 2007.

_____________________________________________________________

There are two passages below. One consists of an excerpt from an interview with Vice-President Cheney, conducted and broadcast on CNN on January 24, 2007 and reported in The Bandar Beacon (Washington Post) the next day. The other consists of an excerpt from a report from Iraq in The New Duranty Times [New York Times], written the same day, January 24, 2007, and appearing in that paper on January 25, 2007.

You are asked to comment on both of these passages, and on their usefulness to an American audience in illuminating the reality of Iraq today. Discuss the ratio of fact to mere assertion contained in each. Evaluate their overall usefulness, for the public, in judging what might make sense for American national interests.

Wherever possible, be careful to analyze examples of rhetoric that you feel contribute to, or take away from, the understanding of or expression of reality in each article.

Please be careful to support all your assertions with facts. You are encouraged to apply whatever knowledge you possess of the belief-system of Islam as you understand it, and of the attitudes and atmospherics to which the teachings of Islam may naturally give rise.

You are further encouraged to apply in your answer as detailed a knowledge as you possibly can of the history of Iraq and of its sectarian and ethnic fissures, and of how those fissures arise from the nature and history of Islam. You are asked to speculate on how the further development of such fissures might contribute to, or take away from, the security of the people of the United States and of other countries in what may be called, using the term used in Islam, the Dar al-Harb, or House of War.

The more deeply your answer is based on a knowledge both of Islam’s teachings and its history, and of the history of modern Iraq itself and the relations among the varied peoples who live within the state of Iraq, the better. The more you can bring to bear such knowledge, the more likely it is that you will be able to make an intelligent assessment of the effect, both inside and outside Iraq, of the presence or withdrawal of American troops.

Be sure to write from the viewpoint of one determined to further American national interests, broadly conceived, and also to further the interests of those who, while they may differ on all sorts of matters, share the basic assumptions and hierarchy of values of what may be called the West, or Western civilization, or perhaps, even more broadly and more accurately, the non-Islamic world or Camp of the Infidels.

Here are the two passages for comment:

In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the Dispatches documentary that recently uncovered Islamic supremacism being preached in mosques that had been considered moderate. This underscores the necessity of doing what so few dare to do: discuss the elements of Islam that are fueling the jihad. This must be done, for the "extremists" are using those elements of Islam to recruit terrorists, and thus that recruitment cannot be stopped without confronting the way in which it is being done. Contrary to D'Souza, Lowry, and others, this shouldn't hurt and radicalize genuine moderates: if they're serious about Islamic reform, they shouldn't be enraged by a discussion of what needs reforming.

This Hot Air video piece is expanded in this FrontPage article, "Islamic Prejudice, Islamic Denial" (news links in the original):

For last week’s “Dispatches” program on Britain’s Channel Four, a reporter with a hidden camera entered Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque (which has won praise from Britain’s Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed) and other leading mosques in Britain. He found they preached Islamic supremacism, hatred of Jews and Christians, and the subjugation of women.

The mosques, of course, are in heavy damage-control mode. A press release at the Green Lane mosque website complains that “it is extremely disappointing but not at all surprising that ‘Dispatches’ has chosen to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. ‘Dispatches’ has opted for sensationalism over substance with total disregard for peaceful community relations.” And not only that: “This so-called ‘undercover’ investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by employing the time-honoured tradition of cherry picking statements and presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.”

The statement doesn’t address the obvious fact that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to cherry-pick statements anywhere near as hateful and inflammatory as those recorded in the Green Lane mosque from proceedings in any Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist house of worship.

Among the statements recorded in the Green Lane mosque were these about women:

Jamie Glazov serves up Cream of Dinesh soup in FrontPage today. You can also read my initial responses to Dinesh D'Souza's disastrously misleading thesis here, here, and here, and Hugh Fitzgerald's here, here, and here. And the funniest response comes from Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett, here.

Note also Glazov's invitation to D'Souza to respond to his points whenever he can make the time to do so. It would seem to be a matter of some little moment to address direct, detailed, and well-reasoned challenges to one's central thesis. I hope he does so soon.

Frontpage Magazine’s guest today is Dinesh D’Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of several bestselling books, including Illiberal Education, The Virtue of Prosperity, and What's So Great About America. He is the author of the new book The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

Jamie Glazov: Dinesh D’Souza, welcome back to Frontpage.

Dinesh D’Souza: Thank you Jamie.

Glazov: As we announced in our interview on January 23, today Mr. D’Souza and I will engage in a detailed exchange on some of our points of disagreement. We break the debate up into the category of “rounds” so that the themes remain clear and concise.

As a side note, I ended up getting the last word in each round in this particular segment. But Mr. D’Souza is most welcome to volley back whenever his schedule permits and we will be most happy to publish his responses.

So we begin with the first round:

Round #1: Qutb a Democrat?

Glazov: Let us begin our discussion, Mr. D’Souza, with your interpretation of Sayyid Qutb. With all due respect, I am not so sure what kind of great supporter Qutb was of democracy and capitalism. Qutb was an Islamic fanatic who was full of hatred. He was intoxicated by a death cult based on martyrdom through jihad.

Yes, Qutb obviously believed that we were “immoral” -- in the sense that any Muslim radical believes that anything non-Muslim is immoral. In his view, immorality was anything connected to humans pursuing earthly happiness and joy -- and anything that didn’t involve giving one’s life through jihad.

In terms of the U.S., Qutb was enraged when he saw people dancing at a church social in Colorado in the 1940s. And let’s just get a glimpse of the mindset here: the dancing there was nothing compared to the dancing of today. And whatever it is that one might think of the dancing today, one thing is for sure: no one of sound mind would have called the dancing at the church social in Colorado in 1940 as being “immoral” by any rational standard.

The bottom line is that Qutb was enraged that people were enjoying music and life, because the purpose of life was death through jihad. And this disposition was akin to the Leninist hatred of cheer on earth.

Qutb was opposed to democracy, first and foremost, for the simple reason that it placed sovereignty with the people rather than with God and was, therefore, contrary to Islam. And let’s also just bring up one anti-democratic theme in a sea of many: In In the Shade of the Qur'an, commenting on Sura 9:29 of the Qur’an, which commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians (“the People of the Book”) until they “pay the jizya [a non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” Qutb echoes the Qur’anic verse directly. He says that Muslims must “smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax.”

Is this subjugation of Jews and Christians under the rule of Islamic law consistent with our idea of democracy and freedom?

Saying that Qutb hated us for how we used our freedom is, I am afraid, meaningless. Freedom is freedom. When humans are free, they are going to use their human agency in ways that tyranny supporters despise. A person who yearns for totalitarianism and wants to veil women, segregate the genders, ban the privatization of love, etc., will never support a society where people can “use” their freedom in the way they see fit. Once you start making rules on how people can “use” their freedom, then you aren’t talking about real freedom. And so when you have Sharia, people don’t “use” freedom in any way at all, because there is no freedom.

Overall, Mr. D’Souza, the troubling implication of your argument appears to be -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that it is our fault that we enraged Qutb because we allowed people to be free, and that they did things with their freedom that enraged totalitarians. In other words, when it comes to the terrorists and their terror, you are implying that the devil made them do it. And the devil is us. This is a leftist argument, which blames us rather than the terrorists who are responsible for the destruction they perpetrate.

Pakistan blasphemy law news from Compass Direct:

ISTANBUL, January 22 (Compass Direct News) – A Pakistani court last week acquitted a Christian “blasphemy” prisoner on grounds that the convict was mentally unstable, while another Christian facing the same accusation was released on bail.

Justice Muhammad Ijaz Chaudhry overturned Shahbaz Masih’s life sentence at a Lahore High Court hearing on Friday (January 19), citing evidence that the Christian was mentally handicapped. He has been incarcerated for more than five years.

The judge also noted that no one had seen Masih, 28, commit the alleged crime, defense lawyer Khalil Tahir Sindhu said.

A Faisalabad court condemned the Christian to 25 years in prison in September 2004 for allegedly tearing up a Quran in a Muslim graveyard in Faisalabad.

Though psychiatrist Dr. Pervez Ahmed had testified under oath that Masih suffered from a “bipolar effective disorder,” the mentally unstable man was found guilty under sections 295 A and B of Pakistan’s Penal Code, two of the country’s blasphemy laws.

Defense lawyer Sindhu told Compass that tomorrow he plans to secure his client’s release from Faisalabad District Jail’s mental ward, where he has been jailed since June 4, 2001.

‘I will get him tomorrow and keep him in a secret place,” Sindhu said, noting that his client’s life may still be in danger from Muslim fanatics angered by the verdict.

Threats from radical groups have forced Masih’s family into hiding several times during the case. More than 60 armed Muslim clerics were present at the Christian’s final Faisalabad court hearing in 2004, chanting slogans and praising the judge and Islamic law when he was found guilty.

These films fuel "Islamophobia," you see. Some even dare to link Islamic ritual to terrorist attacks. No one seems to have considered the possibility that actual terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic terrorists who perform Islamic rituals and ascribe their terrorist acts to Islamic teachings fuel "Islamophobia" far more than any film ever could. "From Aladdin to Lost Ark, Muslims get angry at 'bad guy' film images: Crude and exaggerated stereotypes are fuelling Islamophobia, says study," by Lucy Ward in The Guardian, with thanks to D. C. Watson:

Popular films ranging from Hollywood blockbusters to children's cartoons are depicting "crude and exaggerated" stereotypes of Muslims and perpetuating Islamophobia, according to a study published today.

A report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission argues that films as diverse as The Siege, a portrayal of a terrorist attack on New York starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, the Disney film Aladdin and the British comedy East is East have helped demonise Muslims as violent, dangerous and threatening, and reinforce prejudices.

While The Siege is attacked for inter-cutting Islamic ritual and terrorist violence, potentially linking the two in the minds of audiences, Aladdin faces criticism for depicting Arabs as "ruthless caricatures" with "exaggerated and ridiculous accents".

The study, titled The British media and Muslim representation: the ideology of demonisation, argues that Hollywood has a crucial role in influencing how the public views Muslims.

A survey conducted as part of the research revealed that Muslims in Britain felt negative images of their faith on the big and small screen had consequences in their daily lives. Those interviewed "found a direct correlation between media portrayal and their social experiences of exclusion, hatred, discrimination and violence".

Do Muslims in Britain really want to lessen experiences of exclusion, hatred, discrimination and violence? Easy. Just follow these four simple steps:

1. Stop blaming violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam on the various sins of unbelievers.

2. Establish nationwide, compulsory programs in mosques to teach against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, by means including an explicit and definitive rejection of the literal meaning of many passages of Qur'an and Hadith.

3. Stop saying violent or hateful things in private when you think no non-Muslims are around. The most notorious recent example is the Dispatches documentary. There was also the imam Umar Abdul-Jalil, executive director of ministerial services for the New York City Department of Correction, was secretly recorded last year while speaking at an Islamic conference in Arizona. Muslims, he said, invoking Qur’an 48:29, must be "compassionate with each other" and "hard against the kufr [unbeliever]." In Britain, Hamid Ali, imam of the mosque frequented by the July 7 bombers, praised the bombers and called their terror attack "good" in a conversation secretly recorded by an undercover journalist. Publicly, he had condemned the attacks. In a mosque in the Czech Republic, a Muslim secretly filmed by a documentary filmmaker says Islamic Shari’a law, including the stoning of adulterers, should be adopted by the Czech Republic. Cleveland imam Fawaz Damra, who has since been deported for failing to disclose his ties to terror groups, signed the Fiqh Council of North America’s condemnation of terrorism, despite having declared at an Islamic conference that "terrorism, and terrorism alone, is the path to liberation."

Do such incidents mean that every Muslim who professes to have adopted Western notions of pluralism and the equality of dignity and rights of non-Muslims and Muslims is dissembling? Of course not. But they do mean that non-Muslims are perfectly justified in being suspicious even when Muslim profess moderation and opposition to terror. Consequently deeds, not just words, are needed. To conclude my four recommendations, genuinely anti-terror Muslims should:

4. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

But it is unlikely that any of that will be done. Instead, these poor mistrusted, misunderstood folks will keep crying "Islamophobia" and trying to manipulate the American legal and political systems.

Some people will resort to anything to avoid looking squarely at the implications of the Islamic jihad ideology. Watch this space for next week's feature, "Chicken Salad Causes Jihad."

"Climate change seen fanning conflict and terrorism," by Mark Trevelyan for Reuters, with thanks to Paul:

LONDON (Reuters) - Global warming could exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism in the countries worst affected, security and climate experts said on Wednesday.

If poverty causes jihad, why isn't Haiti teeming with suicide bombers?

"We have to reckon with the human propensity for violence," Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, told a London conference on "Climate Change: the Global Security Impact."

"Violence within and between communities and between nation states, we must accept, could possibly increase, because the precedents are all around."

He cited Rwanda and Sudan's Darfur region as two examples where drought and overpopulation, relative to scarce resources, had helped to fuel deadly conflicts.

Experts at the conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute said it was likely that global warming would create huge flows of refugees as people tried to escape areas swamped by rising sea levels or rendered uninhabitable by desertification.

Tickell said terrorists were likely to seek to exploit the tensions created.

"Those who are short of food, those who are short of water, those who can't move to countries where it looks as if everything is marvelous are going to be people who are going to adopt desperate measures to try and make their point."

Osama said it too:

BIN LADEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE

John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain's Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries," al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 "letter to the American people."

Well, by all means we must redress all of bin Laden's grievances. Then there will be peace. What's that? Even if we give him everything he wants, the jihad ideology still mandates warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

But he doesn't consider the possibility that this "view" of a "strand" of Islam is "proving powerful" because its proponents successfully present it as pure and authentic Islam, faithful to the Qur'an and Sunnah, and peaceful Muslims have mounted no effective response to this challenge. "Bomb suspects 'radicalised in weeks,'" by Michael Holden for Reuters, with thanks to Montague:

LONDON (Reuters) - A group of British Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up U.S.-bound airliners flying from Britain had been radicalised in just weeks or months, London's police chief said on Wednesday.

British detectives announced last August they had foiled a suicide bomb plot to blow up planes using liquid explosives.

Officers have charged 15 people over the suspected plot with offences including conspiracy to murder and planning acts of terrorism. The suspects are due to go on trial next year.

"One of the really shocking things ... is the apparent speed with which young, reasonably affluent, some reasonably well-educated, British-born people were converted," police chief Ian Blair told a conference on Islamophobia.

It is only shocking because he still clings to what has been disproven many times: that jihadists are poor and uneducated. Note also that he was speaking at a conference on "Islamophobia," not on...jihad terrorism.

He said the suspects had been converted "from what would appear to be ordinary lives in a matter of some weeks and months, not years, to a position where they were allegedly prepared to commit suicide and murder thousands of people".

Authorities are trying to understand what has caused a growth in extremism among the Britain's 1.8 million Muslims, dramatically exemplified by the July 2005 suicide bomb attacks on London's transport system by four British Islamists who killed themselves and 52 other people....

Blair said the "extreme view of one austere strand" of Islam was proving powerful.

"It seems to be very potent," he said, repeating his warning that the threat to Britain was "growing, and extremely grave" and the conspiracies were growing in "number and gravity".

He said he was concerned about recent opinion polls taken amongst British Muslims which found support in "principle at least" for terrorist action.

A poll of Islamic students and Muslims generally found that 4 and 6 percent of those questioned thought the July 7 London bombings were justified -- the equivalent of about 80,000 and 120,000 people, Blair said.

"I'm not suggesting that means there are that many terrorists. It does however indicate the power of the ideology involved."

Blair said it was vital to get over the message of "Britishness" based on values of tolerance, fairness and respect for faiths and traditions of others.

"We have to get over the message this is not a clash of civilisations."

And of course, it is entirely incumbent upon British authorities, in Ian Blair's mind, to get that message out. Muslim leaders have no responsibility whatsoever to demonstrate their loyalty.

"Australian-friendly Islam" -- presumably featuring a Qur'an more full of cut-out passages than a Christmas catalogue in Saudi Arabia. By Phil Mercer in VOA News, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Young Muslims are to be taught Australian-friendly Islam under a government plan to stop them being influenced by extremists. An approved curriculum will be introduced at universities in an attempt to counter the teachings of controversial Muslim clerics. Phil Mercer in Sydney reports.

The program announced this week is aimed at challenging firebrand clerics in Australia, who preach a radical version Islam that is peppered with intolerance and hate.

The university courses, which are intended to help train young Australian imams, will look at Islam with an international perspective.

The centers for Islamic excellence will be concentrated at a handful of campuses and are part of an Australian government plan to enhance social harmony and integration. The program will cost about $6 million and the government says courses should start by the end of the year.

The precise details and content of the courses are still being worked out.

Let's see...sura 9 will have to go. And much of sura 8. And 47:4. And 2:62-5; 5:59-60; and 7:166. And 5:82. And 98:6. And dozens of other passages. And after that you'll have to tackle the Hadith...

...as CAIR keeps pounding away at an increasingly contrite-sounding Dennis Prager. "Controversy follows Dennis Prager to Yorba Linda," by Christopher Goffard in the Los Angeles Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:

When talk-show host Dennis Prager wrote a column in November decrying a congressman-elect's decision to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, he argued that it would "embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones."

In a column for Townhall.com, Prager wrote that Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress, "should not be allowed" to swear on the Koran because "the act undermines American civilization."

Soon, the Los Angeles radio host was at the center of the biggest controversy he has faced during decades in public life. Op-ed pages around the country rushed to pillory him. The Anti-Defamation League condemned his remarks. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch characterized him as a bigot and called for his ouster as a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.

Now, the tumult is extending to Prager's scheduled appearance at the North County Chabad Center in Yorba Linda, where he will speak tonight on "Islam, Iran, the West and Israel."

The Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is calling him an "Islamophobic speaker," while the director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California has said he "seeks the marginalization of American Muslims."...

Rabbi David Eliezrie, who heads the Yorba Linda congregation, said the criticism of Prager in a press release issued Monday by the Islamic relations group was "outrageous" and "akin to a blood libel."

"I think CAIR in this case has smeared a wonderful Jewish leader, somebody respected by Jews all over the country, in a despicable fashion," Eliezrie said....

"If they were interested in dialogue with the Jewish community, they would have sent me a gentle letter" or placed a phone call, Eliezrie said. He added the group was trying to bully into silence those who disagreed with its positions.

"I have great skepticism of CAIR," Eliezrie said. "I haven't seen them condemn specific groups who are involved in terror in the Middle East, and that to me is very scary."

The council describes itself as a mainstream civil-rights organization. In an interview with The Times, the group's Southern California spokeswoman Munira Syeda generically condemned "terrorist actions" but declined to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. "I don't understand what the relevance is," Syeda said.

Watch for Sir Cyril Taylor to be called an "Islamophobe" and worse. "Replace Muslim schools says top Blair aide," by Rob Waugh in the Yorkshire Post, with thanks to Twostellas:

SCHOOLS which are dominated by children from Muslim families should be closed and replaced with "multi-faith" academies, a senior Government adviser has said.

Sir Cyril Taylor, chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, said police faced problems in areas where different communities were concentrated in separate schools.

He suggested that such "segregated" schools should be replaced with privately sponsored academies.

Bradford and Leeds were among the areas where such changes could be implemented, Sir Cyril said.

But his comments were severely criticised by one senior Bradford councillor who described them as "staggering" and unfairly singling out Muslims.

That someone would say that after the Dispatches documentary, to say nothing of 7/7, is...staggering.

Robert Redeker Update. A professor of philosophy who goes by the tag "Das Ding an sich" has kindly translated this item from the superb German-language Politically Incorrect blog:

The French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker who, because of his criticism of Islam was threatened with death, is giving up. Shamefully left in a bind by the authorities and insulted by the depraved Left, Redeker had to hide with his family for months in different locations -- of course on his own dime, while the Muslim who threatened him was permitted to move about freely.

Now Redeker has had enough and explains, that he will no longer practice his profession as a teacher.

"The French critic of Islam, teacher Robert Redeker, no longer wants to teach in school after death threats were directed at him. Redeker said on Saturday to French broadcasting that instead of teaching he will take a post in the state research institute CNRS. He agreed on that with Education Minister Gilles de Robien. In interviews he complained that the Ministry of Education had left him without help. On Saturday Redeker said further that he wasn’t sorry for his article. In the article he had called the Quran a 'book of unbelievable violence' and the Prophet Muhammad a 'merciless warmonger.'"

Excellent research and fascinating articles about the Redeker case can be found at the blog of Gudrun Eussner, for example here.

In German.

"As soon as people see Arabic, they immediately make an association with terrorism." The best way to combat that is not to write "I'm a little teapot." It is to have Arabic-speaking people stop committing acts of terrorism.

Absolutely terrific piece by Julia Gorin in FrontPage: "To Serve Man."

In a recent piece by Rabbi Avi Shafran, the rabbi asks, “You suddenly begin noticing signs bearing Arabic script in buses. What do you do?”

Well, what bus riders in Richmond, Virginia did was call the local Transit Authority to find out what it might know about the signs, which had been turning up on buses and the walls of local universities.

The Associated Press and other media outlets subtly scoffed at the concerned citizens, explaining that the Arabic phrases were in fact innocuous — translating as things like “paper or plastic?” or “paper, scissors, rock” or “I’m a little teapot.” Those translations in fact appeared at the bottom of the signs, along with admonishments like “Misunderstanding can make anything scary” or “What did you think it said?”

The provocative ads were the work of the Virginia Interfaith Center, which placed them in public venues as part of an effort to change the fact that, as the center’s executive director put it, “as soon as people see Arabic, they immediately make an association with terrorism.”

Imagine German writing turning up on public buses and university walls in 1942, and the citizenry being expected to not bat an eyelash, with the Germans and the media, who do the enemy’s bidding, admonishing us, “What did you think it said?”

But Islam and our media want us to hit the snooze button again. When we see ominous Arabic writing (and for now, all Arabic writing is ominous -- sorry), we’re supposed to think “Oh, it just says ‘I’m a little teapot.’” In fact, intelligence shouldn’t even be intercepting Arabic conversations, because the talkers are merely discussing recycling programs or calling themselves teapots.

Read it all.

Ain't multiculturalism grand? "Baby-stabber refuses to grant wife sharia divorce: Blames attack on his drug abuse. She wants to return to Lebanon but fears she could face arrest for child abduction," by Katherine Wilton in the Gazette, with thanks to TeeCee:

A man who stabbed his wife seven times, then knifed their infant daughter, told a Quebec Court hearing yesterday he regretted the assaults and blamed his actions on a drug problem.

The man, whose name cannot be published to protect his child's identity, attacked his wife last February in their Snowdon apartment before stabbing the 15-month-old girl in the stomach.

The man pleaded guilty in December to two counts of aggravated assault, rather than stand trial for attempted murder.

The couple are Muslim. His wife wants to return with her daughter to her family in her native Lebanon, but is reluctant to do so unless her husband grants her a sharia divorce, conducted by an imam.

The man testified yesterday he has no intention of granting his wife a divorce in Canada under sharia law.

How's that again? Sharia law in Canada?

"The issue of the divorce will be decided over there," he told Judge Martin Vauclair.

Without such a divorce, the woman says, she fears she could be forced to live with her husband in Lebanon when he returns, or be arrested for abducting her daughter if she takes the girls there without her spouse.

The man also told the prosecutor he didn't think he needed treatment for violent behaviour, saying he is normally a peaceful person.

Incredible. "Police chief calls on communities," by Nasreen Suleaman for BBC News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The police are considering proposals to share intelligence and information with Muslims before launching anti-terror operations.

The plans, announced by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, are part of a wider vision to engage more with British Muslims whose support police need in fighting terrorism.

Community help was vital in combating terrorism, Sir Ian said.

At a conference on Islamophobia, Sir Ian told his largely Muslim audience that combating the threat of extremism and terrorism was something his officers could not do alone.

"It will not be the police and intelligence services that defeat terrorism, it will be communities," he said.

"The most single important component in the domestic defeat of terror in the next decade is the ability of the police to work with communities to do just that."...

Commander Richard Gargini has been in the police service since 1976 and has extensive experience in dealing with high-risk police operations dealing with murder and other serious crime.

But this job could be his most challenging yet.

In his first interview since his appointment, Mr Gargini explained what he intends to do to heal the rift and restore trust.

He says that the next 12 months will be crucial in broadening and strengthening the links with Muslim communities.

One of his key tasks, and perhaps a controversial one, is to develop a policy whereby Muslims will be consulted before an anti-terror raid happens.

'Influential leaders'

"What we intend to do is invite selected, influential leaders from the Muslim community to come in and assist us when we are planning and dealing with new information - this has worked extremely well in the black community and the shootings that have taken place amongst black men," he said.

Axis of Evil Update. By Con Coughlin in The Telegraph, :

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists....

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

Jimmy Carter went to Brandeis, and one of the protest signs greeting him called him by his right name: Dhimmi Jimmy.

"At Brandeis, Carter Responds to Critics," by Pam Belluck in The New York Times:

WALTHAM, Mass., Jan. 23 — In his first major public speech about his controversial book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” former President Jimmy Carter told an audience at Brandeis University on Tuesday that he stood by the book and its title, that he apologized for what he called an “improper and stupid” sentence in the book and that he had been disturbed by accusations that he was anti-Semitic.

Mr. Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” drew protesters to Brandeis on Tuesday. Critics have said the book contains errors and misrepresentations of the roles of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Although controversy had preceded his visit here, Mr. Carter was greeted with a standing ovation and treated with obvious respect by the audience, even as students asked questions that were critical of his assertions.

A standing ovation? Shameful.

“This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist,” Mr. Carter told the crowd of about 1,700 at Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, where about half the students are Jewish. “This is hurting me.”

The first time he has been called a coward? Really?

He added, “The fact that they deteriorate into ad hominem attacks on my character has probably been a greater barrier to progress than the fact that I chose a particular word in the title.”...

No, the greatest barrier to progress has been your arrogant refusal to debate -- you are probably aware that your carelessness and inaccuracy would be exposed.

Mr. Carter initially rejected an invitation to speak at Brandeis because it suggested that he debate Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who has sharply criticized the book. Wanting the university to welcome contrary views, more than 100 students and faculty members signed a petition contending that Mr. Carter should be invited without conditions. Questions were preselected by the committee that invited Mr. Carter, and the questioners included an Israeli student and a Palestinian student.

After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews.

“There are two different Jimmy Carters,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you’ll hear a very different perspective.”

Oh, this will make the Afghanis love the Dutch, for sure. From NIS News Bulletin, with thanks to Fjordman:

TARIN KOWT, 24/01/07 - The Netherlands is considering financing a Koran school in Afghanistan. The population of Uruzgan has a need for this, according to Governor Abdul Hakim Munib.

Uruzgan currently has no official Koran school, with the result that children now end up at madrassas just over the border in Pakistan. There they receive Islamic education that is influenced by the extreme Taliban, said Munib yesterday.

Qur'an 4:34 Alert: he said, she said. Update on this story: "Wife of imam tells of persistent abuse: His representatives say her story is full of lies and is one-sided," by Jason Bergreen and Jessica Ravitz in The Salt Lake Tribune, with thanks to LHK:

Apparently angry with how his dinner was prepared, Imam Shuaib-ud Din on Jan. 2 punched and kicked his wife and beat her head against a freezer until the door broke, the woman alleged in a petition for a protective order.

The next day, the imam - the recently fired religious leader of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake - threw a kitchen knife at her and threatened to kill her, according to a petition for a temporary protective order filed last week by Ayesha Siddiqa Din.

The order, signed by 3rd District Judge John Paul Kennedy on Jan. 16, requires that the imam not contact his wife. It also requires him to stay away from their home and that he may not take his two children out of Utah, among other restrictions.

The allegations of abuse - and the Islamic Society board's reaction to them - have sparked a schism in the Muslim community, with many members criticizing the way the board has handled the situation.

Shuaib-ud Din was not available for comment Monday. But a family representative in Chicago, where he has taken refuge, insisted that while there were marital concerns, the allegations in his wife's petition are "lies," inherently one-sided and do not tell the whole story.

More declarations of war. "Iran: Israel, US will soon die: Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives," by Yaakov Lappin in YnetNews, with thanks to Mackie:

Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.

The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."

Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.

The Americans can do nothing, says the Thug-In-Chief. I'm not sure about that, but I think he is probably right that the Americans lack the will to do anything. By Ali Akbar Dareini for AP, with thanks to Mackie:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The United States is incapable of inflicting "serious damage" on Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, as a second U.S. aircraft carrier group steamed toward the Gulf as a warning from Washington for Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region.

In an interview with Iranian state television, Ahmadinejad said Washington had not stepped up its campaign against Tehran, despite the standoff with the West over Iran's defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment. The U.N. Security Council imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.

"U.S. rhetoric against Iran has not increased," Ahmadinejad said. "In 2003, they openly threatened to attack Iran. Now they have indirectly made such threats."

He spoke with confidence over Iran's ability to withstand a strike. "The United States is unable to inflict serious damage on Iran," the president said. He also noted, "They (U.S.) are not really in a position to carry out this action (of attacking Iran). I believe there are many wise people in the United States who would not let it happen."

When Abdellatif Nekkavi entered Spain, no doubt no one asked him a single question designed to determine his views on jihad and Islamic supremacism. Why not? "Man arrested for links to Islamic terrorism," from Expatica, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

BARCELONA — A Moroccan man was arrested on Wednesday for alleged links to an Islamic terrorist organisation.

Abdellatif Nekkavi alleged sent cash to help the 'yihad' in Iraq.

The operation, which is ongoing, has involved raids on a number of addresses in the Badalona area of Barcelona.

It is the latest arrest in an operation against alleged sympathisers who are sending money and false documenation to help the insurgency against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

New Inner Spiritual Struggle-related violence on Sulawesi. "Terrorists open new front in Indonesia," by Lindsay Murdoch for the Sydney Morning Herald:

HIGH-RANKING figures in the Jemaah Islamiah organisation have opened a new front in their terror campaign on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, where nine of their fighters and a police officer have been killed in the latest gun battle.

Terrorism experts say dormant Java-based cells of the organisation appear to have been reactivated by US and Australian-trained anti-terror squad attacks on militant strongholds near the Sulawesi town of Poso, 1700 kilometres east of Jakarta.

They say the violence in Poso during January has caused a dangerous escalation of what radical Islamic militants see as their jihad, or war, against non-Muslims in the mainly Muslim country of 210 million people.

One will recall that Poso, in the Central Sulawesi province, has been a center of ongoing violence and persecution of local Christians.

Jemaah Islamiah, or JI, planned and carried out the two Bali bombings and a string of other attacks on mainly Western targets in Indonesia which have killed hundreds of people since 2002.

Scores of militant members of JI cells who apparently opposed attacks on Western targets such as the Australian embassy in Jakarta have travelled to Poso to fight.

"This is a dangerous development," terrorism expert Sidney Jones told The Age yesterday.

"The ramifications could well be an energising of the jihadist movement, which in my opinion had been steadily weakening," said Ms Jones, the Jakarta-based director of the International Crisis Group.

At least two high-ranking and influential JI figures have been killed in Poso this month, one of them in the battle late on Monday in which police killed the nine militants, captured 18 others and seized a large cache of bombs, weapons and ammunition.

Police killed a prominent JI leader, Rassyah, from the central Java city of Solo, in a battle in Poso on January 11, which apparently set the stage for more violent clashes in the area.

Rassyah was trained in terrorism in the same class in Afghanistan as Ali Ghufron, alias Mukhlas, one of three bombers on death row who carried out the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 82 holidaying Australians. He apparently turned up in Poso in 2004.

Since then, Islamic extremists in the town have been blamed for sporadic bombings, beheadings, shootings and other attacks, which prompted the Government in Jakarta to authorise the US and Australian-trained Detachment 88 anti-terror squad to go to Poso to crack down on them. The policeman killed on Monday was from the squad.

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update. "3 killed as protesters paralyze Lebanon," by Sam F. Ghattas for Associated Press:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah-led protesters paralyzed Lebanon Tuesday, clashing with government supporters and burning tires and cars on roads in and around the capital to enforce a general strike aimed at toppling U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. Three people were killed and dozens injured.

What had been planned as a peaceful work-stoppage around the country turned into the worst violence since the pro-Syrian Shiite Hezbollah and its allies launched a campaign two months ago to oust the government.

In a televised speech, Saniora called for a special session of parliament to defuse the crisis, and gave every indication that he intended to stay in office.

"We will stand together against intimidation and confront sedition for the sake of Lebanon," he said. He added he remained ready for talks with the opposition.

Police said three people were killed and 43 others sustained gunshot wounds in clashes in the towns of central and northern Lebanon, including two bodyguards of a prominent pro-government politician. Commuters were stranded and business came to halt in many parts of the capital.

"The opposition is attempting a coup by force," Cabinet minister Ahmed Fatfat said. "This is not a strike. This is military action, a true aggression and I'm afraid this could develop into clashes between citizens," Fatfat, the youth and sports minister, told Al-Arabiya television.

Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and other opposition leaders called the strike, which was backed by labor unions. The Hezbollah-led opposition is demanding a new coalition government giving them more power, which Saniora has rejected.

The opposition has been camped out since Dec. 1 in front of the prime minister's office in downtown Beirut and has staged several protests to press its demands but Tuesday's strike escalated the nearly two-month demonstration. Troops have been deployed in central Beirut for weeks to keep order. But the action has largely been peaceful.

The conflict has strained the already fragile sectarian lines in a country that fought a 1975-1990 civil war between Muslims and Christians. In the current power struggle, Lebanon's Sunni Muslims largely support Saniora, while the Shiites back Hezbollah and the opposition. Many Christians back Saniora.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, called Tuesday for Arabs, the U.S. and Europe to support Saniora.

"We have indications they will try to go into the streets this week to overturn a democratically elected government, through the rule of people in the streets, through mobs," he said in a speech in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Meanwhile, black clouds billowed over parts of Beirut as opposition supporters set up burning roadblocks on main routes and at entrances to the capital, as well as in other major cities to enforce the strike. Opposition supporters clustered in small groups to man blazing roadblocks.

Police and troops deployed by the thousands across the country in an attempt to open roads and break up clashes. In some cases, troops negotiated the lifting of roadblocks. Elsewhere, they charged crowds to separate battling protesters and push open roads.

Hezbollah's deputy leader, Sheik Naim Kassem, told al-Jazeera television that the opposition would decide later in the day whether to call off the action or continue the escalating campaign.

"It was very successful and a clear message" to the government and its international backers, said Kassem.

Other opposition activists expressed frustration that the protests so far had not succeeded. Many workers stayed home, either in support of the strike or in fear of violence. Some schools closed due to unrest.

Blazing roadblocks cut off the road to Beirut international airport and the highway linking Beirut with the mountains and the road to Damascus, the Syrian capital.

An update on this jihadist cell. "British bomb plot suspects 'planned jihad'," from Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - Seven Britons accused of plotting to bomb clubs, trains and synagogues in England planned to take their fight to Pakistan and Afghanistan if they had succeeded, prosecutors told a court on Tuesday.

"The overall desire was to further the (cause) of jihad (Holy War) wherever and however it could be achieved," prosecution lawyer David Waters said in what police have described as Britain's biggest terrorism trial since September 11 attacks on the United States.

[...]

The seven are accused of conspiring to bomb high profile targets, possibly including London's Ministry of Sound nightclub and the huge Bluewater shopping center in Kent using bombs made from fertilizer.

The defendants -- Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar, Omar Khyam, his brother Shujah Mahmood, Waheed Mahmood, Nabeel Hussain, and Salahuddin Amin -- deny conspiring to cause an explosion "likely to endanger life."

Garcia, Khyam and Hussain deny possessing an article for terrorism -- the fertilizer. Khyam and Mahmood deny having aluminum powder, an ingredient in explosives.

[...]

Meanwhile, the prosecution is somewhat on trial itself for Islamophobia:

The prosecution said the trial was not a witch-hunt against the defendants' religious beliefs.

"Of course it would be ludicrous to approach the allegations in a vacuum and pretend the backdrop or religious or political motivations does not exist," Waters said.

"But having acknowledged that it is only a backdrop, what we are concerned about are allegations of crime."

Hatred has nothing to do with it. It is not a manifestation of hatred to want to defend oneself against forces that have declared explicitly many times that they are dedicated to our destruction. And it certainly has nothing to do with hating "people who don't worship the way we do." Has this sanctimonious blowhard ever noticed that no one seems to be filled with Buddhismophobia, or Hinduphobia? Might that be connected to the fact that Buddhists and Hindus haven't flown any planes into any buildings -- and justified that action by means of their religious texts as they have been traditionally understood by believers?

"Carter urges Americans to abandon fear, hatred," by Richard Hyatt in the Ledger-Enquirer, with thanks to DFS:

ATHENS, Ga. - With the zeal of a Baptist Sunday School teacher, Jimmy Carter ended a conference on his presidency Sunday morning by telling Americans they should not fear and they should not hate....

"We are developing an ingrained hatred for people who aren't Christians," said Carter, a Sunday School teacher since he was 18 years old.

Unwarranted fear of terrorism is behind these feelings, he said.

"The distortion that we are about to be destroyed makes us suspicious of those who don't worship the way we do," he said. "And our country has no reason to be afraid."...

Sure. It's all a matter of translation, you see, just like with the Qur'an. When they say, "Death to America!" they mean, "Gee, we think America is just swell!"

Meanwhile, the assembled idiots agreed that Carter's disastrous presidency would have been a brilliant success were it not for those mean old Iranian hostage-takers, whom we do not hate for their non-Christian status. Carter's utterly inept and pusillanimous handling of that hostage crisis seems to have gone unmentioned:

Tom Johnson, former president of CNN, said Carter should be judged by his body of work, not the disappointments of his final year in the White House.

"That obscured four years of achievement," Johnson said.

In 1980, Americans were held hostage in Iran and Carter was held hostage in the Oval Office. That was also the year that ABC gave birth to "Nightline," a program that counted down the number of days the Americans had been locked up.

"Iran was the drumbeat," said Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" and a former speechwriter in the Carter administration.

They weren't actually Christians at all, of course -- not that the continued non-participation of Christians in terror plotting makes any impression on the moral equivalence crowd.

"Five held after anti-terror raids," from the BBC, with thanks to Wayne:

Five men have been arrested under terrorism laws in two separate operations, police have confirmed.

Police arrested two men, aged 25 and 29, during morning raids in Halifax, West Yorkshire.

Another two men, both 24, were arrested in Cheetham Hill, Manchester, and a fifth man, 32, was held after his arrest in that city's Longsight area.

Police said there was no evidence "any of the men were involved in planned terror activity in the UK".

The men in Halifax, thought to be British Pakistanis, are being held on suspicion of involvement in facilitating terrorist activities overseas....

The Secretary of State recently stated that the Middle East will have to “overcome” the tendency to see things in Sunni-Shi’a terms. There are two things wrong with the statement of Condoleeza Rice.

The first is the o'erweening, history-ignoring idea that Sunni-Shi'a rivalries and hostilities can "be overcome." The Sunni-Shi'a split long ago transcended the initial quarrel over succession. Now there are differences in the organization of the Shi'a and Sunni variants of Islam: in organization (the power of the Shi'a ayatollahs and other Shi'a clergy has nothing similar in Sunni Islam); in ritual (the Shi'a Ashoura, with its emphasis on self-flagellation); and practice (the Shi'a shrines and visits to those shrines, so offensive to austere Sunnis, especially to the most austere of all, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia).

Courtroom Jihad meets UK dhimmitude and cultural weariness. Guess who wins? "Muslim father gets legal aid to fight school over veil ban," by Neil Sears in the Daily Mail, with thanks to Kasper:

A school may be forced to allow a 12-year-old Muslim to wear a full-face veil because its local council is refusing to fund a court battle against the child's fundamentalist father.

The school told the girl it was not acceptable for her to wear the niqab – which covers all of her face except her eyes – because teachers believe it will make communication and learning difficult.

Call to tackle 'segregated' schools

But the child's Pakistan-born father is seeking a judicial review of the decision in the High Court in London.

He argues that the ban amounts to an infringement of his daughter's human rights and is understood to be receiving legal aid for his case....

The British government could ask for reciprocal recognition of the human rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries. But it won't, of course.

Its governors are meeting tonight and may vote for a climbdown because of the council's refusal to support them, fearing costs for contesting the action could climb to £500,000.

Last year the Law Lords ruled that a Luton school was justified in barring Muslim schoolgirl Shabina Begum from wearing a jilbab, a long loose gown, to classes – but it took a long and expensive legal fight.

Even though court costs are currently low, neighbouring Buckinghamshire County Council fears the bill could rocket if its case drags on.

Many of the school’s 1,000-plus pupils are Muslim girls, and they are allowed to wear headscarves.

The girl is the only pupil demanding the right to wear the full-face veil. Her three elder sisters, who attended in the past, were allowed to wear the niqab when a different head was in charge.

A source at the Conservative-led council said: "With 250 other schools in the area and severe cuts to the social care budget, it would be inappropriate to spend taxpayers' money on this.

"The council backs the right of the head to enforce her uniform policy, but is not commenting about its stand on the veil."

The girl is understood to have come to school with her face covered in September and the head and governors tried to reach a compromise with her parents to no avail.

She has not been excluded, but has been out of school since early October.

A source close to the school said: "The school feels it would be inappropriate to allow the veil because it could bring difficulties interacting with the girl, especially in lessons like drama.

"The teachers are also concerned they would not be able to see whether or not she has understood something if they cannot see her face."

Yes, drama might be tough. Of course, they could always put on The Great Train Robbery.

Zachariah Anani is a former jihadist, and a convert to Christianity who recently gave a lecture in Windsor, Ontario on "the dangers of radical extremism," in which passages from the Qur'an figured prominently. Now, there is a movement among Muslim interest groups, including CAIR Canada, to charge him under a criminal code concerned with "spreading hatred in the community."

Not surprisingly, there is rather little in the national media about this affair, aside from this press release. "CAIR Canada Should Stop Bias Campaign to Arrest and Deport Muslim Convert and Refugee from Lebanon Says Shoebat" from the Walid Shoebat Foundation, via PRNewswire:

ONTARIO, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- There is a growing and forceful campaign by CAIR and other Islamist organizations in Canada to silence the free speech of Zachariah Anani and undermine his legitimacy as a Canadian citizen, by calling for his arrest and deportation. Anani is a former terrorist-militant, a refugee from Lebanon and Muslim convert to Christianity. CAIR, an organization which claims to be the voice of moderation, should be embracing Anani's message against violence and the dangers of extremism instead of mounting a witch hunt against him.

It is no wonder that CAIR is attacking Anani, as it has been documented that many of the leaders of CAIR have openly supported the positions of Hamas, Hizballah and al-Queda -- all recognized terrorist organizations.

Recently, Anani spoke on the dangers of radical extremism at a church in Ontario. A backlash ensued, with CAIR and other Islamist groups pressuring political leaders to throw Anani and his family out of the country. Two members of Parliament, and one member of City Council joined the mayor of Windsor in denouncing Anani. None of these political officials, however, attended the lecture or even watched a video of it. The content of Anani's speech was almost exclusively from passages he read directly from the Koran.

Wally Chafchak, a member of the Windsor Police Services Board and the Windsor Islamic Association, is leading the charge to have Anani arrested. According to Arab American News of Michigan, CAIR Canada is also calling for Anani's arrest.

In the Criminal Code there is a section that deals with spreading hatred in the community, Chafchak said. This instance should fall under those laws. Justice can only be served if this person is charged.

But Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist from the West Bank, believes silencing Anani is a dangerous trend with far reaching implications for the future of Canadian and eventually US freedoms.

"Incarcerating or deporting a former terrorist who wants to warn the world about extremism will set a dangerous precedence for Canada," Shoebat says. "Instead of censoring free speech, CAIR should be encouraging Muslims to embrace Canadian culture, as other groups have, and not try to change it in a way that will censor the freedoms Canadians have fought and died for."

Shoebat believes that CAIR and other Islamist organizations should join Anani in encouraging Muslims to speak out against terrorism and the killing, raping, forced conversion, mutilation and other acts of violence perpetrated by Jihadist groups worldwide against non-Muslims.

This particularly brazen attack resulted in five U.S. casualties on Saturday, targeting troops meeting with Shi'ite authorities to discuss security for the upcoming Ashura pilgrimage. But it differs from the Sunni-Shi'ite violence the world is accustomed to seeing in that there were no Shi'ite casualties, and, while an intense investigation is ongoing, several events surrounding the case seem strange and somewhat improbable. From CNN:

KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- Attackers who killed five U.S. troops at a government building in Karbala posed as U.S. military officials to get past Iraqi guards, a Karbala police spokesman said.

The attack happened Saturday as the U.S. military convened a meeting to discuss security for Ashura, the upcoming Shiite pilgrimage to Karbala.

According to police spokesman Abdul Rahman al-Mishawi, about 30 gunmen traveling in a convoy of at least seven SUVs with tinted windows -- similar to the vehicles used by top U.S. military officials -- drove up to the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center wearing uniforms similar to those worn by the U.S. military.

About a dozen U.S. troops were inside the compound at the time, al-Mishawi said.

Around 5:45 p.m., the gunmen cleared an Iraqi police checkpoint outside the center by flashing fake identification badges and speaking some English, al-Mishawi said.

Al-Mishawi said it is standard procedure for U.S. troops not to jointly man the checkpoint. He said U.S. personnel insist on passing without going through a security screening.

The attackers went through three checkpoints to enter the center, he said.

The first U.S. casualty in the attack was a soldier sitting in a Humvee outside a meeting of U.S. and Iraqi security officials.

The assailants targeted only U.S. soldiers, al-Mishawi said, adding that not a single Iraqi soldier or police officer was killed.

Several of the SUVs used in the attack were found late Saturday in neighboring Babil province, along with two of the suspected gunmen, an official in Baghdad said. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the gunmen were wounded and detained by the Americans, but the U.S. military said the two were found dead.

When asked why Iraqi police did not intervene to stop the gunmen from fleeing, al-Mishawi said "they assumed it was American-on-American violence and wanted to stay out of it."

This detail seems odd, coupled with the fact that the attackers cleared three checkpoints.

Al-Mishawi said Monday that "the Americans have shut down the provincial government compound and everyone is being interrogated from the police chief, officers, down to the average policemen."

Like those odds? Didn't think so. "Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Addresses U.S. President Bush’s Baghdad Security Plan in Video Speech from as-Sahab, 'The Correct Equation' – 1/2007," from the SITE Institute:

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, presents a speech titled: “The Correct Equation,” in a 14:11 minute video produced by the group’s multimedia arm, as-Sahab. The speech, including English-subtitles, concerns the Iraq security plan announced by U.S. President George W. Bush to send an additional 20,000 American troops to Baghdad, and the necessity of the Muslims joining the Mujahideen and supporting their jihad in all theaters of war, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Somalia, and Algeria. Zawahiri taunts Bush, questioning: “why send 20,000 only - why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?.” He then invites the American President to send the entire American Army to Iraq as he believes the Mujahideen are capable of destroying the equivalent of ten armies.

Continuing his interpretation of Bush’s address, or “ravings,” Zawahiri clarifies that America has not deprived al-Qaeda of safe haven in Afghanistan, as the Taliban under the command of Mullah Muhammad Omar have deprived the Americans of such in that country, evidenced by their bringing NATO to the forefront of the war. He then turns to the American people, reminding of past offers of security by reaching an “understanding” with Muslims, and warns that if they continue to follow the policies of Bush and his administration, then peace is impossible. The “correct equation,” as Zawahiri puts it, is security being a shared destiny, but not guaranteed. He states: “if we are secure, you might be secure, and if we are safe, you might be safe. And if we are struck and killed, you will definitely - with Allah's permission - be struck and killed.”

The correct equation: 2 + 2 = 5.

The remainder of the speech serves to incite Muslims to jihad, using Bush’s security plan and continuing actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Somalia, as justification. Zawahiri argues that every Muslim today is responsible for the defense of Islam and the efforts to “liberate” Muslim captives, foremost being the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Zawahiri also entreats “Arab nationalists and leftists” to return to Islam and refuse international law that has divided their land and Muslim Nation.

Will this raise an eyebrow at any of the colleges and universities nationwide, which, attracted by the possible windfall of out-of-state tuition, have looked to places like Saudi Arabia for prospective students?

"Details Emerge About Possible Terror Threat," by Pierre Thomas for ABC News:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 — Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

At the time, Maples offered little additional insight into the possible terror plot. ABC News, however, has learned new details of what remains a classified incident that has been dealt with at the highest levels of government.

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas — the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.

U.S. officials now require universities to closely track foreign nationals who use student visas to study in the United States. University officials must report international students who fail to arrive on campus or miss class regularly.

In August, the FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement alerted intelligence agencies and state and local law enforcement about 11 Egyptian students who had failed to report to their classes at Montana State University. The students were ultimately apprehended.

Still, despite the heightened precautions, some security analysts fear that skilled terrorists — handpicked because of their clean records and because they are carefully trained — could still slip through an academic setting.

The plot was discovered six months ago, roughly the same time that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by coalition forces. Sources tell ABC News that the suspects involved in the effort to launch the U.S. attack were closely associated with Zarqawi.

The plan also came only months after Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, had requested that Zarqawi attempt an attack inside the United States.

"This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to attack us here at home," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.

The plan was uncovered in its early stages, and sources say there is no indication that the suspects made it into the United States. Officials also emphasize that there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

The hunt for suspects continues, however, and some fear that al Qaeda recruits in Iraq could be easily redirected.

"Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight American troops is probably willing to try to come to the United States," Clarke said.

Dinesh D'Souza will have to get to work on a second edition of his book, perhaps titling it Fred Astaire, Doris Day and Bing Crosby's Responsibility for 9/11.

Some of the hit songs of 1948, the year Sayyid Qutb discovered American depravity:

• "I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover" by Art Mooney
• "Buttons and Bows" by Dinah Shore
• "All I Want For Christmas is My Two Front Teeth" by Spike Jones
• "Now Is The Hour" by Bing Crosby
• "It's Magic" by Doris Day

Some of the hit movies of 1948:

• The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
• Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet
• I Remember Mama
• Key Largo
• Easter Parade

Filth, filth, filth. No wonder they hate us.

Jihadi junction, what's your function? "Taliban to open ‘jihad schools’," from the Daily Times:

KABUL: Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents say they are going to spend $1 million on opening schools in areas they control to counter the propaganda of the West and the Western-backed government.

The Taliban banned girls from education during their rule, and have attacked hundreds of schools and killed some teachers and pupils in recent years as part of their war against the government and its Western backers.

“The aims are to reopen schools so children who are deprived can benefit and secondly, to counter the propaganda of the West and its puppets against Islam, jihad and the Taliban,” a Taliban spokesman, Abdul Hai Mutmaen, said by telephone from an undisclosed location. “Students will be taught subjects that are in line with Islamic teaching and jihad,” he said late on Saturday.

Islamic Tolerance Alert. "Jews flee homes after Muslim death threats," by Aaron Klein for World Net Daily, with thanks to Kemaste:

JERUSALEM – Many of Yemen's Jews this weekend fled their homes for a hotel after receiving death threats from Islamic militants accusing the country's tiny Jewish community of serving as agents for "global Zionism."

The Jews said they feared for their lives. It was disclosed they had been forced to pay special taxes that Islam imposes on Jews and Christians in return for protection and security.

That would be the jizya tax, of course, per Qur'an 9:29.

About 45 Jews left their village in Sa'ada county in Yemen after Dawoud Yousuf Mousa, one of the heads of the local Jewish community, was warned Jan. 10 if the Jews don't leave within 10 days they would be exposed to killings, abductions and looting.

Four masked militants approached Mousa and delivered a letter to him warning the Jewish community had been under Islamic surveillance.

"After accurate surveillance over the Jews residing in Al Haid, it has become clear to us that they were doing things which serve mainly global Zionism, which seeks to corrupt the people and distance them from their principles, their values, their morals, and their religion," the letter stated.

"Islam calls upon us to fight against the disseminators of decay," the letter said.

The threats have been attributed to disciples of Shiite religious leader Hossein Bader a-Din al-Khouty.

Mousa reportedly told local authorities the militants told him if the Jews don't flee within 10 days "the Jewish community would bear the consequences."

According to a recent Yemeni immigrant to Israel with contacts in Sa'ada, the Jewish community there received another letter Friday warning, "whoever remains at his home, will be killed or his children will be taken away."

Sa'ada's Jewish community had lived in the village for generations.

They were forced to evacuate their homes and leave some of their possessions with local sheiks.

The displaced Jews are staying at a hotel in the center of Sa'ada, where they have been petitioning local authorities for protection. The Yemen Jews say the government has refused to offer assistance other than to temporarily pay for the hotel stays.

The Jews reportedly spoke of long-term Muslim intimidation and of having to pay special taxes because they were Jewish.

Salem Al Wehayshi, Sadaa deputy governor, told the Gulf News agency the Jews are being asked to go home.

"Yes, they received threats from Al Houthi supporters. They are now here in the hotel but I can assure you that the problem will be solved today, and they will return to their villages," Wehayshi said.

The Jewish community in Yemen consists of several hundred members. According to recent immigrants to Israel, the Yemeni Jews don't want to leave their country.

Yemen's Jews have faced persecution since Israel's establishment in 1948. After the declaration of the Jewish state, Muslim rioters killed 81 Jews in Aden, a large Yemeni city, and destroyed many Jewish cities.

Most of Yemen's Jews were evacuated to Israel in Operation Magic Carpet, a series of semi-secret airlifts between June 1949 and September 1950 that brought 45,000 to the Jewish state with the assistance of Britain and the U.S.

A smaller, continuous migration was allowed to continue until 1962, when a civil war in Yemen put an abrupt halt to any further Jewish exodus. Several thousand Jews remained.

Then in the early 1990s, after years of petitioning by a group led by a professor at New York's Yeshiva University, most of the rest of Yemen's Jews were brought to Israel, except the few hundred who decided to stay in Yemen.

This article spends considerable time on the status of Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed -- chairman of the Executive Council of Islamic Courts -- as a "moderate," and thus, supposedly someone the Somali government can work with.

But aside from the vague and useless notion of what defines the sort of "moderate" that we're expected to be excited about, Ahmed's surrender is a significant blow to the Islamic Courts movement, and its lingering aspirations to return to power. By Chris Tomlinson for Associated Press:

NAIROBI, Kenya - A top leader of Somalia's ousted Islamic movement seen by the U.S. as a potential key to preventing a widespread insurgency there surrendered to authorities and is under protection in Nairobi, officials said Monday.

Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, who has been described by a U.S. diplomat as a moderate who could play a role in reconciling Somali factions, crossed into Kenya, went to a police station along the border on Sunday and was flown to Nairobi, according to a police report seen by The Associated Press.

The U.S. said it was not involved in protecting Ahmed, who apparently feared for his life in Somalia, where the remnants of his Council of Islamic Courts are being hunted by Ethiopian troops and Somali government forces.

"The U.S. government is not holding or interrogating Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed and was not involved in his capture or surrender," a U.S. Embassy official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to talk to the media.

U.S. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger has repeatedly said Ahmed is a moderate Islamic leader who should be part of a national reconciliation process in Somalia.

Ahmed was the chairman of the Executive Council of Islamic Courts and shared the leadership with the Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, who was chairman of the court's legislative council. While Ahmed is considered a moderate, Aweys is on a U.S. list of people with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terror network, though he has repeatedly denied having links to international terrorists.

If Ahmed agrees to hold talks with Somalia's government, it could be a major step toward preventing the widespread insurgency that many Islamic leaders have promised in Somalia.

This assertion is offered without source or additional explanation. With Sheik Aweys still on the loose, there is still ample incentive to fight, and there would be even with him in custody for the jihadists who will not compromise with the Somali government, or lay down their arms for anything short of an Islamic state.

[...]

On Sunday, Somalia's government spokesman, Abdirahman Dinari, said Kenya has handed over 34 Islamic militiamen, and that some may be senior leaders of the Islamic movement.

"Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance." -- from Dinesh D'Souza's latest book

Has Dinesh D'Souza read either The Myth of Islamic Tolerance or the other works by those who contributed to that anthology? What would lead him to call this a book of the "right" or its authors of the "right"? Does he know something about them, about their views on anything other than Islam?

Ibn Warraq, for example. What are his views on the world that Dinesh D'Souza thinks make him someone on the "right"? Is it his contempt for Edward Said and the influence he has had on the study of history and literature? Does that make someone on the "right"? Is it his views on the environment, or taxation, or home-schooling, or possibly on what he thinks of free trade, or the unfettered free market? Does Dinesh D'Souza know a thing about what Ibn Warraq thinks about these things?

Another update to the Handshake Controversy story. "Islamic leaders defend Muslim officer over handshake snub," from Metro.co.uk, with thanks to Twostellas:

British Islamic leaders today defended a Muslim woman police constable who refused to shake hands with her force's chief because of her beliefs.

The Metropolitan Police officer declined to have any physical contact with Commissioner Sir Ian Blair at a passing-out ceremony for newly-qualified recruits.

Muslim groups said her refusal was in line with common Islamic practice and called for greater understanding of cultural differences.

But Scotland Yard said it would not normally tolerate such requests and indicated that the officer, who has not been named, could be fired if she failed to fulfil her duties.

An update on this story. "Warning for Muslim WPc who refused to shake Met chief's hand," by Ben Fenton in the Telegraph, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Scotland Yard said yesterday that a Muslim woman police who refused to shake hands with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at her passing-out ceremony would be dismissed if she did not "engage" with people as other officers do.

Sir Ian Blair personally congratulated all 200 recruits at a ceremony in London last month, but shook hands with only 199 after the woman specifically requested that she should not be required to do so, apparently for religious reasons.

She also asked not to have her photograph taken with Sir Ian, Scotland Yard said, but a spokesman refused to confirm reports that the officer had cited her concern that a picture would be used for "propaganda purposes".

A spokesman said Sir Ian had questioned "the validity" of her request at the time and an investigation was now going on into the incident.

The statement said: "Ordinarily, the Metropolitan Police Service would not tolerate such requests.

"This request was only granted by members of training staff out of a desire to minimise any disruption to others' enjoyment, and to ensure the smooth running of what is one of the most important events in an officer's career."

The statement added: "An officer's probationary period is designed specifically to ensure that they undertake the role as required. If this does not occur the officer may be required to leave the service as any variation on this will not be tolerated."

Yep, that'll fix it, all right.

Condoleeza Rice proclaims that Muslims are "going to have to overcome" 1,400 years of hostility rooted in what they view as divine revelation. And pronto.

“I don’t think about it in terms of my reputation,” says Ms. Rice. Good thing.

Historians catch up with Jihad Watch. I was recently sent a piece from a blog saying that we were "racists" for never believing that democracy would take hold in Iraq the way it did in Japan and Germany after World War II. This charge ignores, of course, the fact that neither Hugh Fitzgerald nor I have ever argued this on the basis of race, but on the basis of the ineluctable Sunni/Shi'ite hostility, and of the strong attachment to Sharia, which both Sunnis and Shi'ites regard as the law of Allah and hence preferable to any law based on human consensus. "Historians Offer Dismal Iraq Forecast," by Charles J. Hanley for The Associated Press:

To historians and others pondering Iraq, forecasting a final outcome for that sad land is like finding your way through one of its "shamal" sandstorms. You may not know where you're headed, but you know it's going to be dark.

The Middle East historian David Fromkin sees a breakup of the jerry-built nation. Phebe Marr, doyenne of Iraq scholars, sees "distrust and suspicion" too deep to overcome. "Bleak," concludes Baghdad University's Saad al-Hadithi.

"At the moment," said the British historian Niall Ferguson, "a happy ending has a 1-in-100 look about it."

In interviews with The Associated Press, few experts see much chance that President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to the U.S. force in Baghdad and western Iraq will suppress either the anti-U.S. insurgency or the bloody underground warfare between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or induce a political settlement among the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.

The Senate this week is expected to begin action on a nonbinding resolution repudiating the Bush troop buildup. The measure was introduced by the Democratic-majority but has attracted some Republican support.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said, of Cairo's al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said he expects the growing U.S. political opposition to the war will lead at some point to a redeployment of American troops to northern Iraq's Kurdistan and to elsewhere in the Gulf region.

After that, said this Arab scholar, "events will take their own course, which is basically generalized civil war."

When I saw the above screenshot at Hot Air of a new Fox News promo, I immediately thought of Dinesh D'Souza, who in his new book The Enemy At Home says that "the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11." I do not believe that either the left or the right in America is responsible for causing 9/11, which I believe took place because of the expansionist and totalitarian jihad ideology and the renewed strength of some in the Islamic world to further its ends -- with, to be sure, a healthy sense of grievance against the West used for recruitment purposes. But I have long stressed, and continue to believe on the basis of numerous historical precedents, that those grievances, if redressed, would not end the jihad, which would simply continue to recruit on the basis of different grievances.

In any case, I just discovered, via referrals from Powerline, that D'Souza goes farther, and blames me also for Islamic terrorism. I have his book but haven't finished reading it yet -- when I wrote this and this about interviews he conducted, I didn't know this was in his book. But I just found this on page 278:

In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet.

Two of the three books he mentions, of course, are mine: Islam Unveiled and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. His point about them, however, can just as easily be used against him: I have many times emphasized that the jihad threatens all Americans, both leftists and rightists. There is probably no better way to repel anti-jihad leftists, and push them into the arms of the jihadists (with whom so much of the left is already allied), than to dub them "the enemy at home." But irony aside, D'Souza's point here is wrong in numerous ways. First and foremost, he seems to assume that the jihadists have -- that's right -- "hijacked" the Religion of Peace. Dean Barnett puts this very well:

This view of things is dangerously misguided, and dangerously ignorant. The Radical Islamic world doesn’t hate us because our TV shows are too racy or our women too provocative. The Radical Islamic world hates us not for what we are but for what we aren’t. Specifically, the haters at issue loathe us because we’re not Muslims.

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”

One of the things that makes “The Enemy at Home” so strange is that D’Souza never grapples with this side of Islam. Especially odd is the fact that even though D’Souza quotes Khomeini at several points, he never cites this particular speech. This is almost inexplicable; the above quote comes from a 1942 Khomeini work that is more or less the equivalent of the madman’s Gettysburg Address. It’s his signature piece. It defies belief that D’Souza delved even superficially into the Khomeini collection and these comments didn’t catch his eye.

Second, he assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims. That is indeed very likely true, but it makes hash of his entire thesis -- that social conservatives should ally with these "traditional" Muslims. For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? If they think "Islamophobic tracts" (a characterization I do not accept) are more threatening to their religion than acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam, how "traditional" and moderate could they possibly be?

This is a fundamental question, and it warrants debate, not the mainstream media's usual treatment (yes, both liberal and conservative) of assuming the correctness of one point of view without due consideration.

With full awareness of how important this question is, I will be working on a full review of his book this week. Certainly there is a personal element in this now, since he named my books, and I believe a reputedly responsible commentator such as Dinesh D'Souza should know better than to blame me (and Srdja Trifkovic) for terrorism, but the issues involved are far more important than personal affronts. I am hereby inviting and challenging Dinesh D'Souza to a debate, on the topic of "Is Critical Examination of Islam Helping Or Hurting the Defense Against the Jihad?" Or a similar topic of his choosing, in a venue of his choice, to which I will happily travel at my own expense. I also invite C-Span or anyone else to film this debate when it happens, and broadcast it far and wide. Or I will debate him on television, on radio, in print, or in all three.

I have no contact information for Dinesh D'Souza -- we were scheduled to debate on a show last week but he didn't show up. If anyone reading this knows him, please convey this invitation to him.

UPDATE: Dinesh D'Souza tells me we are scheduled to debate at CPAC. I haven't heard anything about that from CPAC, but I look forward to it.

Good luck with that, Bibi. Not that the Thug-In-Chief doesn't deserve it, and more. From Reuters, with thanks to Rosie:

ISRAEL'S opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu said overnight he hoped to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to international trial for incitement to genocide.

Mr Ahmadinejad has provoked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Speaking at a conference in Israel, Mr Netanyahu said he and other Israelis were trying to bring the Iranian leader to the International Court of Justice.

"We are working to bring Ahmadinejad to stand trial as a war criminal for his call for genocide," he said.

"The 1948 universal declaration of human rights does not just prohibit acts of genocide but also deals with incitement to genocide. And according to this, we are aiming to lobby international figures."

Mr Netanyahu, a former Israeli prime minister, said he had already discussed the initiative with diplomats, adding that he planned to visit Britain this week to lobby MPs there.

"I want to call on the world, the world that did not stop the Holocaust last time, (to) stop any attempt at a future Holocaust this time," he said.

This incident highlights several aspects of Hamas' mindset that are also prominent throughout other jihadist movements. One is the displacement of blame: their rage is not directed at whoever made the damaging statement on the tape, but at Al Arabiya for recording and publicizing it. Closely connected to that is the disproportional response to insult or embarrassment, all the more amplified when it involves high-ranking officials who are both corrupted by power and inclined to believe that their work in a supposedly divine cause somehow places them beyond accountability.

Lastly, the incident demonstrates the pattern of disbelief in the face of evidence that would convince a reasonable person otherwise: While Hamas has not offered an explanation of its own for the voice on the recording, it won't be surprising if they denounce the tape as a forgery by foreign intelligence agencies, as was widely claimed about the 2001 video in which Osama bin Laden bragged about the 9/11 attacks.

"Threats by Hamas prompt Arabic network's shutdown," by Sa'id Ghazali for the Boston Globe:

JERUSALEM -- The Arabic satellite network Al Arabiya ordered its reporters to stop working in the Gaza Strip yesterday after the governing Palestinian Islamist party Hamas attacked the network for blasphemy.

The threats from Hamas against the network highlight the delicate balancing act faced by international Arab networks, which often come under fire from Western governments that accuse their coverage of inflaming tensions in places like Iraq and the Palestinian territories. The networks have come under attack from Arab governments as well; the Iraqi government has repeatedly suspended Al Jazeera after the network aired stories unfavorable to the Shi'ite-dominated government.

Al Arabiya drew the wrath of Hamas after airing a recording that quoted Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh saying that Hamas "will not accept conditional aid, even if it came from God."

Hamas officials told Al Arabiya not to air the quote, which reportedly came from a Palestinian Cabinet meeting. The Dubai-based network instead aired the quote along with a denial by a Hamas spokesman.

In response, the Palestinian government threatened to sue Arabiya. "It is a clear and deliberate defamation," government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said.

Al Arabiya's director of operations in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Nidal Hasan, said he had ordered the 42 employees in the station's Gaza bureau to stay home after receiving death threats from anonymous gunmen. "There are some people who might wrongly attack us," Hasan said.

Hasan has refused to apologize for airing the statement.

"We did nothing wrong," he said. "We did our jobs as we should, getting comments on the tape from both sides."

Palestine Press, a local news agency linked to a Fatah leader, Mohammed Dahlan, leaked the tape of what it said was a Jan. 10 Cabinet meeting. In a statement, the Fatah faction excoriated the Hamas government for attacking the network.

"Hamas has lost its balance by making such crazy threats against Al Arabiya and its employees in Gaza," the statement said, describing the threats as "reflecting the spirit of darkness against local, Arab, and international media organizations."

Our Friend and Ally has an ever-increasing amount of explaining to do, if only it were held to account. "Pakistani Role Seen in Taliban Surge at Border," by Carlotta Gall for the New York Times:

QUETTA, Pakistan — The most explosive question about the Taliban resurgence here along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is this: Have Pakistani intelligence agencies been promoting the Islamic insurgency?

The government of Pakistan vehemently rejects the allegation and insists that it is fully committed to help American and NATO forces prevail against the Taliban militants who were driven from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

Western diplomats in both countries and Pakistani opposition figures say that Pakistani intelligence agencies — in particular the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence — have been supporting a Taliban restoration, motivated not only by Islamic fervor but also by a longstanding view that the jihadist movement allows them to assert greater influence on Pakistan’s vulnerable western flank.

More than two weeks of reporting along this frontier, including dozens of interviews with residents on each side of the porous border, leaves little doubt that Quetta is an important base for the Taliban, and found many signs that Pakistani authorities are encouraging the insurgents, if not sponsoring them.

The evidence is provided in fearful whispers, and it is anecdotal.

At Jamiya Islamiya, a religious school here in Quetta, Taliban sympathies are on flagrant display, and residents say students have gone with their teachers’ blessings to die in suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

Three families whose sons had died as suicide bombers in Afghanistan said they were afraid to talk about the deaths because of pressure from Pakistani intelligence agents. Local people say dozens of families have lost sons in Afghanistan as suicide bombers and fighters.

One former Taliban commander said in an interview that he had been jailed by Pakistani intelligence officials because he would not go to Afghanistan to fight. He said that, for Western and local consumption, his arrest had been billed as part of Pakistan’s crackdown on the Taliban in Pakistan. Former Taliban members who have refused to fight in Afghanistan have been arrested — or even mysteriously killed — after resisting pressure to re-enlist in the Taliban, Pakistani and Afghan tribal elders said.

“The Pakistanis are actively supporting the Taliban,” declared a Western diplomat in an interview in Kabul. He said he had seen an intelligence report of a recent meeting on the Afghan border between a senior Taliban commander and a retired colonel of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence.

Pakistanis and Afghans interviewed on the frontier, frightened by the long reach of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, spoke only with assurances that they would not be named. Even then, they spoke cautiously.

[...]

The Inter-Services Intelligence once had an entire wing dedicated to training jihadis, he said. Today the religious parties probably have enough of their own people to do the training, but, he added, the I.S.I. so thoroughly monitors phone calls and people’s movements that it would be almost impossible for any religious party to operate a training camp without its knowledge.

“They trained the people who are at the heart of it all, and they have done nothing to roll back their protégés,” Mr. Haqqani said.

[...]

Pakistan has long seen jihadi movements like the Taliban as a counter to Indian and Russian influence next door in Afghanistan, the Western diplomat and other analysts said, and as a way to provide Pakistan with “strategic depth,” or a friendly buffer on its western border.

[...]

Three students from the madrasa went to Afghanistan recently on suicide missions, he said. The family of one of the men admitted that he had blown himself up but denied that he had attended the school. The man’s brother suggested that he had been forced into the mission and that someone had recruited him for payment.

President Musharraf relies on the religious party Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, or J.U.I., which dominates this province, Baluchistan, as an important partner in the provincial and national parliaments.

At a madrasa, called simply Jamiya Islamiya, on winding Hajji Ghabi Road, a board in the courtyard proudly declares “Long Live Mullah Omar,” in praise of the Taliban leader, and “Long Live Fazlur Rehman,” the leader of J.U.I.

Members of the provincial government and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam are frequent visitors to the school, the local opposition party member said, asking that his name not be used because he feared Pakistan’s intelligence services. People on motorbikes with green government license plates visit at night, he said, as do luxurious sport utility vehicles with blackened windows, a favorite of Taliban commanders.

Maulvi Noor Muhammad, a Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam representative from Baluchistan in the National Assembly, recently received a guest barefoot while sitting on the floor of a grubby district office in Quetta, a map of the world above him painted on the wall to represent his belief in worldwide Islamic revolution.

He denied providing the militants any logistical support. “The J.U.I. is not supporting the Taliban anymore,” he said. “We are only providing moral support. We pray for their success in ousting the foreign troops from the land of Afghanistan.”

On a recent morning, the deputy director of the Jamiya Islamiya madrasa, Qari Muhammad Ibrahim, declined to meet a female reporter for The New York Times but answered a question from a local male reporter.

He did not deny that some of the madrasa’s 280 students had gone to fight in Afghanistan. “In the Koran it is written that it is every Muslim’s right to fight jihad,” he said. “All we are telling them is what is in the Koran, and then it’s up to them to go to jihad.”

NATO officials and Western diplomats in Afghanistan have grown increasingly critical of Pakistan for allowing the Taliban leaders, commanders and soldiers to operate from their country, which has given an advantage to the insurgency in southern Afghanistan. In September, Gen. James L. Jones, then NATO’s supreme commander, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Quetta remained the headquarters of the Taliban movement.

Still, Pakistan has insisted that the Taliban leadership is not based in Quetta. “If there are Taliban in Quetta, they are few,” said Pakistan’s minister for information and broadcasting, Tariq Azim Khan. “You can count them on your fingers.”

American officials and Western diplomats noted that, when put under enough pressure, Pakistan had come through with flashes of cooperation. But that only seems to reinforce the view that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies are more in touch with what is going on in the Taliban insurgency than the government lets on publicly.

At the same time, a kind of dirty war is building between Afghan and Pakistani intelligence agencies. A senior Afghan intelligence official said one of its informers in Pakistan was recently killed and dumped in pieces in Peshawar, a border town. The Afghan intelligence service has also recently arrested two Afghan generals, one retired, who have been charged with spying for Pakistan, as well as a Pakistani suspected of being an intelligence agent.

[...]

Mr. Hai, 50, who is a Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam member, denied that his son had been persuaded to fight by anyone. “From the start it was his spirit to take part in jihad,” his father said. “It’s all to do with personal will. If someone agrees, then he goes. Even if someone wishes to, no one can stop him.”

It is an argument that supporters of the jihad use frequently. But for some of the families mourning their sons, there is no doubt that the madrasas and the religious parties are the first point of contact.

That was the conclusion reached by the family of Muhammad Daoud, a 22-year-old man from Pishin who disappeared more than a year ago.

Mr. Hai, 50, who is a Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam member, denied that his son had been persuaded to fight by anyone. “From the start it was his spirit to take part in jihad,” his father said. “It’s all to do with personal will. If someone agrees, then he goes. Even if someone wishes to, no one can stop him.”

It is an argument that supporters of the jihad use frequently. But for some of the families mourning their sons, there is no doubt that the madrasas and the religious parties are the first point of contact.

That was the conclusion reached by the family of Muhammad Daoud, a 22-year-old man from Pishin who disappeared more than a year ago.

[...]

Then, he said, a Taliban propaganda CD came out showing his son with a group of others taking an oath before the Taliban commander, Mullah Dadullah.

“He had a shawl over his head and was preparing for a suicide bombing,” Mr. Gul said. “He said, ‘I am fighting for God, and I am ready for this.’”

His eldest son, Allah Dad, 33, blamed the jihadi groups and the Inter-Services Intelligence. “We don’t know how he made contact with those jihadi groups,” he said. “There are some groups active in taking people to Afghanistan and they are active in Quetta.

“All Taliban are I.S.I. Taliban,” he added. “It is not possible to go to Afghanistan without the help of the I.S.I. Everyone says this.”

Jihadist Sheikh Omar Bakri casts aspersions on the loyalty of Muslim police officers to the British state. Expect in response a large-scale, no-holds-barred, noisy and exuberant display of British patriotism from an indignant, besmirched Muslim community in Britain (just kidding).

By Mike Hirst and Adam Lusher in the Sunday Telegraph, with thanks to Nicolei:

Moderate British Muslims in the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service will one day revolt against the system to "crush it from within", according to Omar Bakri Mohammed, the notorious Islamic extremist. In claims condemned as a cynical attempt to create division, the co-founder of the extremist al-Muhajiroun group said that Britain was "digging a deep hole" for itself by allowing Muslims into the Services and Whitehall.

Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph in Lebanon, where he moved in August 2005 — at about the time it emerged the British authorities might charge him with incitement to treason — he claimed police officers, soldiers and civil servants would one day become radicalised.

"When you start to ask Muslims to join your Army and your police you are making a grave mistake. That British Muslim who joins the police today will one day read the Koran and will have an awakening," he said.

Muslims in Britain should at least be so kind as to explain why non-Muslims should not actually be concerned about this.

"Those moderates are one day going to be practising Muslims. Now what happens if they are British police or in the Army and they have weapons? How much information do they have about you that they will use to serve the global struggle?

"They will revolt against the system if they have been failed by your foreign policy which is oppressive against Islam, or have been contacted by people who believe Britain is a domain of war."

In remarks almost certain to cause widespread anger among the survivors and relatives of victims, he also claimed that the world was a better place after the July 7 bombings in London. "I believe it is a better place for Islam and Muslims… but not for non-Muslims. What's happening around the world is good and positive for Islam."

"Talking to newsmen at Chaklala Airbase before his departure, Musharraf said the world should resolve the problems faced by the Ummah urgently, to get rid of terrorism and extremism.

President Musharraf said an urgent solution of problems is must due to gravity of situation in Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Lebanon."
-- from this article

What is "Palestine" as referred to so blithely by Musharraf, and reported as if it were not to be questioned? The toponym "Palestine" was used in Western Christendom to refer to that land on both sides of the river Jordan which roughly corresponded to Biblical Palestine. More recently, it was the name given to that territory set aside by the League of Nations under the Mandate for Palestine for the establishment of the Jewish National Home that became the State of Israel -- after Israel successfully defended itself from the attacking Arabs during the War of Independence.

The use of the word "Palestine" by Arabs and Muslims is an attempt to efface Israel, and to replace it by a term that reifies that which does not exist -- an Arab "Palestine." It is not an innocent matter, devoid of meaning. Those non-Muslims who, like Blair, may refer to "Palestine" are in fact behaving, nolens-volens or perhaps willingly, as mouthpieces for Arab propaganda. No one who uses the term "Palestine" at present is doing anything other than furthering the Arab and Muslim worldview.

“It is absolutely wrong that people who are going to Mecca for entirely religious purposes should be monitored by the security services. It is a sad commentary on Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia.” No, it's a sad commentary on the prevalence of attachment to violent jihad among all too many Muslims, and the failure of Muslims in Britain or anywhere else to separate the jihadists from their ranks. By David Leppard in the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

THE intelligence agencies are monitoring every Muslim who travels from Britain to Mecca on pilgrimage in a wider effort to piece together intelligence on suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist activity.

A senior Whitehall official has disclosed that the operation targeting trips to the holy city in Saudi Arabia by more than 100,000 British Muslims is part of a trawl by MI5 and MI6 for information about movements of suspected terrorists. It follows evidence that British Islamic terrorists have visited the city before carrying out attacks in Britain and abroad.

The importance of the intelligence operation was one of the reasons given by spy chiefs for maintaining ties with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi government was threatening to break off intelligence ties over a bribery investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into BAE, Britain’s prime defence contractor....

This weekend Muslim leaders voiced their unhappiness about the operation. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “It is absolutely wrong that people who are going to Mecca for entirely religious purposes should be monitored by the security services. It is a sad commentary on Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia.”

When recruitment fails, there's always force. Or is this story just Sadiqullah's attempt to avoid prosecution? "Waziristan teenager ‘kidnapped’ from Peshawar for suicide mission in Karachi," by Zar Nageen in the Daily Times, with thanks to DFS:

KARACHI: A teenager from South Waziristan has surfaced in Karachi with the extraordinary tale of being kidnapped by people who told him that they would make him carry out target killings and a suicide attack.

Sadiqullah, who says he is 14, told Daily Times from the office of the Ansar Burney Welfare Trust Friday that he was kept in a comfortable place with many other boys and five girls.

According to him, he is a class eight student who boards at a hostel of the Frontier Children Academy, Hayatabad, Peshawar. His father Sardar Ali Khan is a businessman from South Waziristan. He claims he was kidnapped from his hometown on January 16 and reached Karachi Thursday night where he turned up at the Karachi Press Club after spending three days with his kidnappers.

[...]

Sadiqullah asked the abductors how they managed to make a video of them while they were in the academy. He was told that they had been following him and his friend for several months and wanted them to perform some special task. They said that they would also bring Irfan in a few days and then they would have to commit several murders and a suicide attack.

Sadiqullah said that it was impossible for him to kill anything. Upon this, the kidnappers signalled to the other boys in the room who started beating him. He said that he fought back and was injured. He was tied in a corner of the room and was told that he should think over his decision for which he was given 25 minutes. Eventually, Sadiqullah said he agreed to kill others in order to protect his own life.

Read it all.

When awards are handed out, they often go to the wrong people. It is not the hapless Mohammed El Baradei, nor that apologist-for-Islam ("the mistreatment of women does not come from Islam") Shirin Ebadi, who deserve that Nobel for Peace, but rather Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other brave apostates. And the same is true for those prizes awarded to journalists.

Who has given a prize to Flemming Rose? Or to Hrant Dink?

Hrant (pronounced "Erant") Dink was a non-Muslim victim of Muslim hatred of non-Muslims. He was shot because he was an Armenian citizen of Turkey, who thought that the government and people of Turkey should own up to the mass-murder (genocide) of the Armenians. He was not, and could not be, a true "Turk" according to the definition supplied by Turkish nationalists.

And in response, non-Muslim leaders will...call for more dialogue. And probably get a few aid packages ready.

"Dialogue cannot replace guns: LeT," from the Times of India, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

NEW DELHI: Even as the Hurriyat team visiting Pakistan met president Pervez Musharraf and made appropriate 'peace noises', the main driver of terror in Jammu & Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba, made it clear that it was not prepared to buy the argument that dialogue could replace guns.

In an indication that it did not set much store from attempts at normalcy being mounted by Hurriyat, which has often been seen to be more than receptive to signals from Islamabad, LeT boss Hafiz Saeed said: "It is a historical fact that nations have always achieved their independence through sacrifices on the battlefront."

Promising to continue militancy in the Valley, he told a gathering after Friday prayers in Lahore that jehadis will "fully support the legitimate struggle for freedom of the Kashmiri people". This made it quite apparent that whatever the Hurriyet may say, the jehadis continue to see Kashmir as a religious and political cause that they are bent on achieving.

Saeed's statements were timed to offset, and even counter, the late-evening meeting of the moderate faction of Hurriyat with Musharraf.

Dinesh D'Souza has found someone who agrees with him: Pervez Musharraf. There is no recognition from Musharraf here of the manifest fact that what are commonly known as terrorism and extremism spring from the jihad imperative, not from conditions within the Ummah that can be repaired by those outside, or from conditions outside the Ummah that enrage the Ummah. Maybe Pervez has been reading D'Souza's Enemy At Home.

Regular Jihad Watch readers will recognize this abdication of responsibility as pandemic among mujahedin and self-proclaimed moderate Islamic spokesmen. If a Muslim leader ever said anything to the effect of "Muslims themselves provoke 'Islamophobia': some by performing acts of violence in the name of Islam and others by blaming those acts of violence on non-Muslims instead of cleaning their own house," I would faint dead away.

From the Khaleej Times, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

ISLAMABAD — President Gen. Pervez Musharraf yesterday left for Riyadh as part of a 5-day trip to the Middle East which would also take him to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Talking to newsmen at Chaklala Airbase before his departure, Musharraf said the world should resolve the problems faced by the Ummah urgently, to get rid of terrorism and extremism.

President Musharraf said an urgent solution of problems is must due to gravity of situation in Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Lebanon.

Revolting Geek Of Mass Proportions Update (not long before his conversion to Islam, Adam Gadahn wrote in a letter: "I am now, as ever, a revolting geek of mass proportions"). Gadahn, you may recall, is the Al-Qaeda operative who has been indicted for treason -- and who, in a videotape introduced by Ayman al-Zawahri himself, was kind enough to invite me personally, along with a few others, to accept Islam.

Anyway, Gadahn -- "Azzam the American" -- has been profiled in a fascinating New Yorker piece, which I recommend reading in its entirety, as it is full of illuminating information. And now the Minority Report blog (thanks to DFS) has highlighted one largely overlooked little detail: a bogus charity founded by Al-Qaeda operatives and including Gadahn received California state funding for a time. Minority Report doesn't say, and I am not saying, that California state officials were in cahoots with Al-Qaeda; I am sure this was a case of indifference and ignorance, and an anxiety to "reach out to the Muslim community." California officials no doubt had no idea of the connections of the people they were dealing with.

And that's the problem.

Here is the relevant section of the (much larger) New Yorker piece:

In the late nineties, the National Security Council, concerned about possible terrorist attacks around the millennium, asked a team of private terrorism analysts to investigate Deek and Diab’s activities. Rita Katz, who is now the director of the SITE Institute, a nonprofit group that monitors jihadi communiqués on the Internet, led the investigation. (Katz showed me a videotape of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman’s 1992 lecture at the Islamic Society.) Katz knew that Deek had obtained American citizenship, and she learned from intelligence reports that he had connections to a terrorist cell based in Montreal. (The cell included Ahmed Ressam, who was involved in the millennium plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport.) Katz suspected that Deek was working as a coördinator for Al Qaeda groups in the West. She discovered that he had collaborated with Diab in California; the two men had set up a bogus nonprofit group, called Charity Without Borders, in Diab’s name, and Diab had even managed to obtain grants for it from the state. (Gadahn is listed as “crew member” in the charity’s official documents.) Deek and Diab paid the rent on the apartment where Gadahn lived, according to Diab’s ex-wife, and purchased a beat-up Audi for the men to share. Gadahn did not have a license, but he often drove the car on errands.

Clash of Civilizations Update from Britain -- or rather, Acquiescence to Islamic Customs by Supine Dhimmis Update. From AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

LONDON - A Muslim woman police officer refused to shake hands with her force’s chief, police said Saturday, amid a new row in Britain over religious customs and professional duties.

The officer was granted the exemption for religious reasons at a graduation ceremony where newly-qualified recruits met Sir Ian Blair, the head of London’s Metropolitan Police force, a police spokeswoman said.

The officer, who has not been named, reportedly refused out of respect for a strict school of Muslim faith which dictates that a woman must not shake hands with, or kiss, a man other than her husband or close relative.

The “request was only granted” in order not to spoil what is a key event, the police spokeswoman said.

She said that Sir Ian, Britain’s most senior police officer, questioned her refusal to shake his hand, but the officer insisted she put her duties above her personal beliefs unless she had a choice to do otherwise....

A senior police source told the Mail On Sunday that “Sir Ian was informed on his arrival of the officer’s request” during the graduation ceremony on December 21.

“This has never happened before and he was bloody furious. But he agreed to go along with it so as not to cause a scene,” the source was quoted as saying.

Bloody furious, eh. But above all, Sir Ian, avoid a scene.

It is not just Muslims who avoid shaking hands in certain circumstances. But it is only Muslims who have a ready-made replacement for the whole panoply of societal norms, and many of them in Britain are quite obviously determined to impose that replacement upon the country as a whole.

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them." -- Qur'an 4:34

"Utah imam is fired amid rumors of domestic violence, shirked duty," by Jessica Ravitz and Jason Bergreen in The Salt Lake Tribune, with thanks to D.C. Watson:

WEST VALLEY CITY - Imam Shuaib-ud Din has been terminated from his position as religious leader of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake amid allegations of domestic violence.

Police said they responded to a "domestic-related incident" at Din's home a week ago, and the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office reported an attempt to serve a protective order against him on Thursday.

Contacted by phone, a relative of the imam said he was in Chicago now but would not comment on the allegations. The relative acknowledged that Din and his wife were having marital problems but said the imam was driven out of town by disgruntled members of the society's board.

Police Lt. Matt Elson said officers responded to Din's home Jan. 13 at 12:05 p.m. The call was completed at 4:32 p.m.

There were no arrests made, and Elson said he was not aware of any warrants. He would not comment on any other details of the incident....

The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office on Thursday obtained a protective order against Din, said Lt. Paul Jaroscak.

Two attempts were made to serve it, but deputies could not locate Din, Jaroscak said.

Speaking of things people never said, try this one on for size:

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

That one is from Al-Jazeera: "Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map." Posted October 28, 2005.

Now compare this one:

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to the legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, said that "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.

That one is also from Al-Jazeera: "The rumor of the century," by Arash Norouzi. Posted January 19, 2007 (thanks to Doc Washburn).

In that piece, Norouzi attempts to debunk the common understanding of one statement Ahmadinejad made on October 25, 2005. But no one should be taken in by this. There is no word from Arash Norouzi on these other statements of Ahmadinejad:

"I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"Soon all of Palestine will be liberated."

"The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years."

Jihad Watch reader Paul has informed me that in its coverage of the murder of journalist Hrant Dink in Turkey, the mainstream media is neglecting to mention that the killer cried, "I shot the non-Muslim," as we reported here yesterday.

That little detail appeared in a Reuters report, but now, Paul points out, it is gone. The original Reuters story containing the quote is still at Gulf Times.

Nor is it mentioned in the New York Times report on the assassination, or CNN's. AFP? Nope. AP? Forget it. It likewise goes unmentioned in AP's story on the arrest of three suspects in the murder.

Now why would this be initially reported and then disappear without a trace (or a retraction)? If it were inaccurate, I would expect some kind of correction or retraction to appear. And I certainly know from personal experience that the mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, is extremely reluctant to discuss the possibility that there might be some aspect of Islam that incites to violence, or that Muslims are committing violence because of religious principles, not because of poverty or ethnicity or Abu Ghraib or Britney Spears or whatever. And then there are the powerful Muslim advocacy groups in Western countries, which portray any honest depiction of jihad violence as "Islamophobia."

Was this "I shot the non-Muslim" cry killfiled because of political correctness and fear? So that the foolish kuffar would go back to sleep, untroubled by anxieties of jihad?

UPDATE: Paul tells me that Charles Johnson at LGF, who is far better at this sort of detective work than I am, has found a Telegraph story that translates the cry as "I shot the infidel." Paul observes that that is much more likely to be what was actually said, and I agree.

A major figure is out of the picture in the Philippines Jihad. Khadaffy Janjalani Update. By Oliver Teves for Associated Press:

MANILA, Philippines - DNA tests confirmed the death of the leader of the al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf terror group that was responsible for the beheading of a California tourist and the kidnapping of two American missionaries, officials said Saturday.

The Abu Sayyaf leader, Khadaffy Janjalani, was killed in September in fighting with U.S.-backed Philippine troops, who also killed Janjalani's possible successor in an operation on Tuesday.

The deaths of Janjalani and Abu Sulaiman, who was wanted in the abduction of the three Americans and the deaths of two of them, mark a major victory in the campaign against Islamic militants in the south of the archipelago after years of bombings and kidnappings.

The FBI conducted the tests on remains found buried in the jungles of southern Jolo island in December, comparing the DNA with that of Janjalani's imprisoned brother, said military Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon.

"The Armed Forces of the Philippines is proud to announce that we have neutralized the center of gravity of terrorism in the Philippines," Esperon said.

Martin and Gracia Burnham, a missionary couple from Wichita, Kan., and Guillermo Sobero of Corona, Calif., were taken by Abu Sayyaf from a resort island in May 2001. Sobero was beheaded by the militants and Martin Burnham was killed during a military rescue in June 2002 in which his wife was wounded.

The U.S. Embassy said Janjalani's death marks "an important and positive step forward in the ultimate goal of eliminating the ruthless and dangerous Abu Sayyaf group, and in destroying its links with international terrorist groups," such as Indonesian-based Jemaah Islamiyah.

Police warned that Abu Sayyaf could stage retaliatory attacks.

[...]

Janjalani, who had a $5 million U.S. bounty for his capture or death, escaped from police detention in 1995. He took over Abu Sayyaf from his older brother, group founder Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, after he was killed in 1998.

Abu Sayyaf has been linked to several deadly attacks in the Philippines, including a 2004 bombing that gutted a ferry, killing 116 people.

The group, which is believed to have about 400 followers and says it is fighting to establish a separate Muslim state in the southern Philippines, has also carried out mass kidnappings. Among them was the seizure of dozens of students and teachers in the southern island province of Basilan in 2000, and the abduction of 17 Filipinos and the three Americans.

Janjalani was killed in a clash with soldiers on southern Jolo island on Sept. 4, about a month after the military launched a major offensive backed by U.S. troops, which provide training and intelligence support.

The offensive on Jolo, about 600 miles south of Manila, has targeted Janjalani, Sulaiman, and two top Indonesian terror suspects blamed for the October 2002 Bali, Indonesia, bombings that killed 202 people.

But Ruediger Seesemann, an associate professor of Islamic studies at Northwestern, said academic institutions have a responsibility to encourage spiritual formation.

These Muslim students want to integrate their Muslim identity with their identity as college students," he said. "Why not let them bring their prayer rugs, let them pray and let them enjoy the basketball game?"

"I personally think it can be settled in a very easy and uncomplicated way," Seesemann added. "The fact that it becomes a matter of debate is significant and points to the sensitivity of the issue."

That sensitivity, he said, stems from fear and a lack of knowledge about the Islamic faith--nothing a dialogue can't fix. A student senator representing the Muslim constituency on campus, senior sophomore Hibah Yousuf, hopes to launch that dialogue with administrators next week. – from this article

Transparent apologetics by Ruediger Seesemann. And who decided to ask his opinion? Is he an expert of some kind on the subject of pedagogy, or on the favoring of religion, or of one religion, by the government? Perhaps Ruediger Seesemann is unacquainted with the Establishment Clause or the constitutional history of that clause; if so, he might learn a bit before making pronouncements about this country, its laws, its customs, and a good deal else.

And one wonders how it is that he is quoted at all. And the statement by him about how "academic institutions have a duty to encourage spiritual formation" is nonsense. They don't. Some, those specifically connected to this or that religion, may find it their duty. But others do not. Not if "spiritual formation" is defined as changing long-established rules in order to accommodate the rituals of this or that belief-system.

"We are beginning to learn some of the lessons we had to learn during the Cold War — that to take on the opposing ideology we had to take on the extremists, but we had also to win over moderate opinion." -- from Gordon Brown in this article

During the Cold War, Gordon Brown claims, "to take on the opposing ideology we had to take on the extremists, but we had also to win over moderate opinion."

Which "extremists" are those? Stalin and Mao? And which exemplars of "moderate opinion" were appealed to? Was it Khrushchev and Brezhnev?

Of course, he meant "kill them by means of a personal struggle against things like mischievousness, temptation and personal harm." Feiz Mohammed Update by Simon Kearney and Tracy Ong in The Australian, with thanks to all who sent this in:

FIREBRAND cleric Sheik Feiz Mohamed's defence of his comments on a DVD calling children to jihad has been undermined by revelations, the video also urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.

In the DVD, which runs for almost four hours, Sheik Feiz describes inmates of Guantanamo Bay as better Muslims than those in Australia, who would would not forsake their lifestyles for martyrdom.

"The brothers in Cuba are better than us," he said. "They are being examined through the best examination (a reference to God's judgment) and the like of them worldwide."

The sheik, who left Australia in 2005 to live in his father's homeland, Lebanon, exorts his followers to seek the honourable death of the believer, quoting from narrations about the prophet Mohammed.

"They fight in the cause, they kill others - the enemies who fight Islam and they themselves are killed as martyrs," he said. He gives the example of a mujaheddin who fought in Bosnia in the 1990s who spoke of nothing but jihad and was killed on the battlefield. "What a beautiful person to be associated with. Would you not like to be an associate of this person?"

"They fight in the cause, they kill others" is an echo of Qur'an 9:111: "they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain...."

The DVD was a recording of a series of passionate fire-and-brimstone sermons that told his audience over several weeks nearly four years ago his thoughts on the way to live their lives. "This is our intention that we want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam, loving Islam," he said....

One of Sheik Feiz's former students, Zeky Mallah, who was acquitted of terrorism charges, said the sermon was normal. "That's something that's normal with any Islamic scholar. It's just a way of speaking about things," he said.

Sheik Feiz told The Australian on Thursday that his reference to jihad did not mean violence. He said he was against suicide bombing and violence against others.

However, the DVD is littered with references to violence and a call to arms - most of which is made using examples of historical warriors as an admonishment to modern Muslims for straying from their path.

"If you're a hardliner, you'll say these in lectures; if you're a moderate, you'll keep these views to yourself," Mr Mallah said. "It's not really inciting violence. It is saying to stand up for yourself, to defend yourself and defend your land."

Muslim internet forums were buzzing with criticism of the media for running the story yesterday, accusing news outlets of misinterpreting the meaning of jihad, which can also mean a peaceful quest to be a good Muslim.

Yes, of course. It's all the fault of misinterpretation by news outlets. Feiz Mohammed bears none of the responsibility. How could he? It's all Islamophobia.

According to the biography at Taslima Nasrin's website, an organization called Soldiers of Islam issued a death fatwa against her in 1993 for criticising Islam, after which, as the article notes, she fled Bangladesh for India. "Throw Taslima out of India: Muslim law board," from Rediff:

Controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's article in a weekly criticising the wearing of the veil by women has drawn the ire of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which on Thursday said that she should be thrown out of the country.

"The article written by Taslima in Outlook magazine was derogatory and outrageous." AIMPLB member Kamal Farooqi said, adding: "She should be thrown out of the country."

Farooqi said the AIMPLB will soon approach the external affairs ministry to seek Taslima's expulsion from the country where she has been living since she fled Bangladesh in 1994 after receiving death threats for her novel Lajja.

Taslima, in her article titled 'Let's Burn The Burqa,' criticised the wearing of veils and asked Muslim women to 'throw away the apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.'

Farooqi said Taslima's article was written with the intention of hurting Muslim sentiments and was 'highly objectionable.' Taslima currently lives in Kolkata.

That "objectionable" article can be found here, and includes these observations:

Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?

[...]

Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual's personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.

What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.

An update on this story. "Trial begins in 'insulting Islam' case," by Nadia Abou El-Magd for Associated Press:

CAIRO, Egypt - An Egyptian blogger went on trial Thursday on charges of insulting Islam and causing sectarian strife with his Internet writings.

It was Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger, and it came as Washington has backed away from pressuring Egypt to improve its human rights record and bring democratic reform.

The defendant, Abdel Kareem Nabil, often denounced Islamic authorities and criticized Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his Arabic-language blog. He has been in detention since November and faces up to nine years in prison if convicted.

Egypt has arrested a string of pro-democracy bloggers over the past year, sparking condemnation from human rights groups.

Nabil's trial in Alexandria began two days after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Mubarak, seeking support for a new U.S. strategy on calming violence in Iraq. But unlike past visits to Egypt when she pressed demands for greater democracy, Rice made no reference to reform. Instead she praised the two countries' "important strategic relationship -- one that we value greatly."

In court Thursday, Nabil was charged with inciting sedition, insulting Islam, harming national unity and insulting the president, a court official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of court rules.

Other bloggers have been detained and released without charges. They concentrated on politics, unlike Nabil, who wrote often on religion. In his blog Nabil was a fierce critic of conservative Muslims and in particularly of al-Azhar University, one of the most prestigious religious institutions in the Sunni Muslim world, where he was a law student.

He was thrown out of the university in March, and in his last blog entry before his arrest blamed al-Azhar for pushing the government to investigate him.

His blog can be found here, though most of it is in Arabic. There is also an English-language site in support of him, FreeKareem.org.

When these bombings took place, initial reports attributed them to the jihadists in southern Thailand. I posted a story to that effect here. Then later the current Prime Minister of Thailand, a Muslim, blamed them on his predecessor, whom he had removed from office in a coup. I noted this in an update to the story, and later took it down altogether since the incident didn't seem jihad-related -- which didn't stop the flood of "You rushed to judgment" emails from coming in from those who feel threatened by this site, despite the fact that in both the original posting and the update I had simply reported what was in the wire service reports.

Anyway, it looks as if those who "rushed to judgment" were correct: Thai intelligence has uncovered a link to Jemaah Islamiah. "Bangkok bombings the work of JI," by Ron Corben in The Australian, with thanks to JE:

THAI intelligence agencies say operatives of the regional terror network Jemaah Islamiah were directly involved in the New Year's Eve bombings in the Thai capital that left three dead and 40 wounded.

In reports seen by The Weekend Australian, the agencies say a key JI leader in Thailand's southern Narathiwat province was directly involved in the planning of the operation. The link contradicts earlier comments by military-installed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont who said the bombings appeared to be unrelated to the violence in the south, which has claimed more than 1800 lives since early 2004.

"From the evidence we have gathered, there is a slim chance that it is related to the southern insurgency," Mr Surayud said in the early hours of New Year's Day soon after the bloodshed.

"It is likely related to people who lost political benefits," he said, referring to the former Thaksin Shinawatra administration that was ousted in a coup in September amid allegations of corruption and abuse of power and fears of street clashes.

In an interview with CNN this week, Mr Thaksin, who is now living in exile, denied any involvement with the attacks.

No group has claimed responsibility for the bombings.

The eight bombs, set in crowded tourist areas that left at least seven foreigners among the wounded, cast a pall over the city that had largely escaped violence in a year of political turmoil.

However, Thai intelligence reports draw a direct link with the southern insurgency, including JI.

The Somali Jihad Is Not Over Update: "Somalian Islamists attack president," from the Telegraph, with thanks to DFS:

Fears grew of a resurgence of the Islamist movement in Somalia last night after rebels hammered the president's residence with mortar fire before attacking his Ethiopian guards.

A government source said that Abdullahi Yusuf, the president, was inside Villa Somalia in Mogadishu when five mortar rounds hit after dusk last night. Suspected rebels from the deposed Islamic Courts Union then launched an assault on the compound before being beaten back by his guards in a 20-minute battle.

The attack came as gunfire and explosions were heard across the capital, the most spectacular violence since Mr Yusuf took up residence in Mogadishu 11 days ago.

And not just pride, but Churchillian pride. But he doesn't explain how he will do this, or how he intends to confront Islamic supremacism. From the Daily Mail, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Gordon Brown today signalled that his first task as Prime Minister would be to get Muslims to rally around a "Churchillian" pride in Britain.

Finally admitting that he expected to take over from Tony Blair this year, the Chancellor said that he wanted to promote a "modern patriotism" as an alternative to Islamic extremism. Mr Brown said: "I believe we can do more to separate some Muslims from the dark forces that they can be susceptible to."

Good luck, Mr. Skywalker.

And he can commiserate with Sheik Feiz Mohammed about his having his statements supposedly misinterpreted and taken out of context. "Sheik due back as controversy continues," from The West:

It might sound improbable, but Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali is hoping to sneak back into Sydney next week quietly and without fuss.

Not much about Australia's senior Muslim cleric has been quiet or fuss-free since his comments last year comparing immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat, and last week's remarks to Egyptian television that Australians were liars.

Fearing another media circus greeting his return from his two-month self-imposed exile to Mecca and Egypt, the sheik is even keeping the date of his arrival from his closest advisers.

His absence from Sydney, however, has not dulled debate on his contentious role as the spiritual leader of Australia's 300,000 Muslims, with rival Islamic factions still divided over his future.

The newly established Australian National Imams Council has given itself the task of uniting the Islamic community's fractured leadership and will discuss the sheik's position as grand mufti at its first conference in April, after rescheduling it from January.

But rival groups in the splintered community dispute the authority of the council which is made up of 77 imams from around Australia, including Alhilali.

The controversial Islamic Charity Projects Association (ICPA) - an organisation with a long history of antagonism with Alhilali and his followers - says the National Imams Council is a whitewash group hand picked by Alhilali.

[...]

The ICPA has been a long-time opponent of Alhilali, and his followers have accused the organisation of being associated with the group Al-Ahbash, which was linked to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

Keysar Trad, founder of the Islamic Friendship Association and one of Alhilali's strongest allies and his regular spokesman and defender, said the mufti has huge support among the Muslim community in Australia.

[...]

He said the broader issues will test the credibility of the unproven Australian National Imams Council at its first conference.

"If the first thing this council does is deal with the mufti in a negative way, then it has lost its credibility in the Muslim community, it will lose its support," Mr Trad said.

"Because we have bigger issues than this."

More on the persecuted Christian population of Iraq from AINA:

Difficulties and persecution is nothing new to the minority Christians living in Iraq. However, local Christians are now saying that the anarchistic situation in their country has destroyed all optimism for a better future.

"Almost no one sees a bright future for Iraq," said Stefan De Groot, co-worker of the international organization Open Doors, according to a report on Tuesday.

De Groot, who visits Iraq several times a year, says that every time he visits, a local believer tells him that the situation is worse than the last time he visited.

"Another Christian told me he had to buy new clothes for his wife because during a shooting on the streets, her wardrobe was riddled with bullets," recalled De Groot. "A third man explained in detail what happened when he brought his son to school and a car bomb went off. The little boy ran inside the school and saw a human heart hanging against the window."

"Rehab said the quest for prayer space could be an opportunity to close the knowledge gap about Islam and teach more Americans about the central role of prayer in the Muslim faith." Just so you understand the object of this game.

"Seeking timeout for prayer," by Manya A. Brachear in the Chicago Tribune, with thanks to James:

As the Ohio State Buckeyes pummeled the Northwestern Wildcats on Ryan Field last November, senior Amir Siddiqui and his friends slipped below the bleachers, removed their shoes and knelt on pieces of poster board to pray.

As the sea of purple cheered and jeered above, Siddiqui tuned out the world around him to perform salaat, the Islamic ritual prayer that faithful Muslims recite five times daily.

Siddiqui will do the same in Welsh-Ryan Arena next week when the Buckeyes basketball team goes up against the Wildcats. But rather than pray amid raucous crowds, some Muslim students are pressing Northwestern's athletic department to set aside a secluded space for the ritual, or grant them permission to come and go from the arena before the buzzer.

"If we attend the game in its entirety, we would miss one of our five daily prayers," said Siddiqui, president of the Muslim cultural Student Association. "I can leave the game early, come later, or pray somewhere in the stadium on dirty floors with lots of noise and lots of people around, which isn't a huge problem. But we'd love to have a small area."

In a statement, associate athletic director John Mack said the athletic department was not yet ready to make such an exception for Muslim fans. He has agreed to meet with Muslim student leaders next week.

"There were some logistical issues involved, particularly in regards to people leaving the arena or Ryan Field while a game is in progress and then seeking re-entry, which is normally not allowed," Mack wrote. "But we understand that Northwestern is an institution that values diversity, so we're continuing to take a look at it to see if there is a way we can accommodate the needs of our Muslim students."...

Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council for American-Islamic Relations in Chicago, said the beauty of salaat is that it can be performed just about anywhere. Prayer space is often set aside in airports and hospitals, he said....

Rehab said the quest for prayer space could be an opportunity to close the knowledge gap about Islam and teach more Americans about the central role of prayer in the Muslim faith.

The campus newspaper has published at least one letter to the editor in opposition to the Muslim students' endeavor to set aside space.

"Any spectator attending a sporting event recognizes that certain sacrifices must be made to attend a live event," wrote 2005 graduate Scott Barnett. "If attending a game interferes with one's religious rituals, I suggest they watch it at home or simply postpone the rituals until after the game."

But Ruediger Seesemann, an associate professor of Islamic studies at Northwestern, said academic institutions have a responsibility to encourage spiritual formation.

"These Muslim students want to integrate their Muslim identity with their identity as college students," he said. "Why not let them bring their prayer rugs, let them pray and let them enjoy the basketball game?"

"I personally think it can be settled in a very easy and uncomplicated way," Seesemann added. "The fact that it becomes a matter of debate is significant and points to the sensitivity of the issue."

That sensitivity, he said, stems from fear and a lack of knowledge about the Islamic faith--nothing a dialogue can't fix. A student senator representing the Muslim constituency on campus, senior sophomore Hibah Yousuf, hopes to launch that dialogue with administrators next week.

Great. Let's have a dialogue. With full transparency and honesty.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" All right. Let's talk to Herr Ahmadinejad, Mr. Chamberlain. Prepare a plane to Munich. Our diplomacy will be particularly effective once the Iranians know that there is no possibility that we will use force.

By Laurie Kellman for Associated Press, with thanks to Kemaste:

Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club....

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out....

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

A trenchant editorial from Investor's Business Daily (thanks to PRCS):

Demographics: Since Muslim Keith Ellison's election to Congress, there's been a lot of noise in the media about the growing clout of the 8 million-Muslim electorate. Eight million?

'There are 8 million Muslims in America now," boasted a spokeswoman for something called the Muslim Advancement Society. She appeared on CNN to talk about what a proud day it was for her and other Muslim-Americans to see a Muslim brother sworn into Congress for the first time.

It seems the size of the Muslim population in America jumps by an additional million every other year or so. Just a couple of years ago the consensus number bandied about in the media was 7 million. Before 9/11 it was 6 million.

Politicians in Washington are intimidated by the figure. They believe it.

But it's a wildly inflated estimate manufactured by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, something that the media could easily refute if they dared — simply by deconstructing CAIR's unscientific methodology.

While the number of Muslims is growing thanks to higher birthrates and immigration, it's nowhere near CAIR's claim. Even the most generous independent estimate puts it at half that size, or 4 million....

"Today, 8 to 10 million Muslims live in the United States," claims Navy Lt. Cmdr. Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam, who serves as Muslim chaplain for the new Marine mosque at Quantico, Va.

The Pentagon, which recently promoted Saifulislam, does not question the number. Neither does the White House, Congress nor the media — no matter how fantastic the number gets.

But it's the Wahhabi lobby's big lie. CAIR and other militant Muslim groups use it to intimidate politicians, corporations and media to change policy.

Eight-million-strong Muslims make the threat of bloc voting and boycotts a lot scarier. And the bigger the number, the bigger the foothold Islamists gain in American society.

A small bit of good news about Britain's wholesale cultural collapse in an update on this story. From The Australian, with thanks to Nicolei:

BRITISH Airways said overnight said it had changed uniform rules to allow staff to wear religious symbols openly, after coming under heavy criticism for banning an employee from wearing a crucifix over her uniform.

Following consultations with representatives from a wide range of religious groups, the airline said it would permit staff to wear a lapel pin symbol such as a Christian cross or Jewish Star of David, the company said.

In addition, and in response to complaints by some Christians, it "would allow some flexibility" in its usual policy banning staff from wearing chains over their uniforms.

"Unintentionally we have found ourselves at the centre of one of the hottest social issues in current political debate," said BA chief executive Willie Walsh.

Check-in staffer Nadia Eweida was told last October by BA managers she must not display a small necklace crucifix, prompting an outcry from the Church of England. One cabinet minister described BA's decision as "loopy".

Especially because the hijab was just fine with BA.

Incredible, particularly in light of this. By Adam Entous for Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel transferred $100 million in withheld Palestinian tax revenue to President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday, part of a U.S.-led push to bolster the moderate leader in his power struggle with Hamas, Israeli officials said.

The transfer was the first by Israel since Hamas, whose charter calls for the Jewish state's destruction, came to power last year.

"The money has been transferred," a senior official in Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said.

The United States has been pressing Israel to strengthen Abbas in his rivalry with the Islamist Hamas movement which took control of the
Palestinian Authority in March and has been building up its own "Executive Force."

Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said the money would be earmarked for humanitarian needs and a U.S.-backed program to strengthen Abbas's presidential guard.

It will not be used to make long-overdue salary payments to Palestinian public sector workers, hard hit by a Western and Israeli embargo of the Hamas-led government, they said.

Glenn Beck (thanks to Awake) demolishes the hapless Dinesh D'Souza:

Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore are in absolutely no way responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Now just wait. We`ll check back tomorrow. I`ll show you the letters. Because about 10 percent of the viewers just translated that into Glenn Beck says liberals caused the trade -- World Trade Centers to fall, which is clearly a view I don`t have. But my next guest does.

So let`s just see if there`s anybody there on the extreme left or the extreme right who will actually listen to the differences in our views or if they`re all just too busy right now blogging and logging onto their blog sites.

Dinesh D`Souza, he is the author of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and It`s Responsibility for 9/11".

Dinesh, I have to tell you, I`m -- I`m disappointed in this book. I`m a fan. I read your book -- I believe it was called "What`s so Great About America" -- and I found it inspiring. This book, or at least the premise - - I haven`t read it -- the premise is divisive and I believe untrue. Please explain your premise.

DINESH D`SOUZA, AUTHOR, "THE ENEMY AT HOME": Well, remember, after 9/11 there was a kind of gorgeous moment of national unity. And I think my earlier book, "What`s So Great About America", reflects that.

But the truth is, Glenn, we live in a divided country. I mean, look, one half of the people in this country seem to want to fight a war on terror, and there`s an organized camp in this country that seems to want Bush to lose the war on terror.

BECK: That`s not the same, Dinesh, as causing 9/11.

D`SOUZA: No, no. I agree with that. But what I`m saying is five years after 9/11, it`s not a bad idea to take a cold, critical look and see what are the roots of 9/11.

Take a simple example. The radical Muslims have been around since the 1920s. They first got a major stake when they captured Iran. Khomeini was the first guy to cal America the great Satan, who instigated Muslims to have martyrdom and jihad against us.

And how did we get Khomeini? Because Jimmy Carter came into office. He said, "I`m a virtuous man. I believe in human rights. We support the shah. The shah is a tyrant." So America pulls the Persian rug out from under the shah. And in trying to get rid of the bad guy, we get the worst guy.

So here`s a concrete way in which we put a major state into the hands of radical Islam.

This is a far cry, of course, from the actual thesis of D'Souza's book, which isn't about Jimmy Carter's short-sighted miscalucalations. In his book, he says flatly that "the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11" (that's right on page one) -- through immorality, not through Jimmy Carter. So Beck tries to get D'Souza back on point:

BECK: I can`t believe -- why would you put me in this situation? I mean, I`m a conservative. Why are you take -- putting me into this situation where I have to just now tear you to shreds?

What are you talking about, 1979 is the first time this reared its ugly head? Jimmy Carter caused this stuff? Are you crazy?

In 1950, the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact if I can give this guy`s name, Sayyid Qutb. He`s a guy who moved over to the United States in the 1940s. I mean, it took me a while to look this us, but I knew I had read this someplace before.

He moves over to the United States. He leaves. In about 1950, he goes back to Egypt, because he says America is just a decadent place.

And let me quote some of the things that he said. "The poor hair cuts in America, the enthusiasm for sports, the animal-like mixing of the sexes." This predates Jimmy Carter just by a few years.

D`SOUZA: I know. But see, Qutb was one of the thinkers of radical Islam. I`m talking about the radical Muslims moving from the theoretical phase to the phase of actually capturing a major state and making it a beachhead for launching the Khomeini revolution.

Look...

BECK: Dinesh...

D`SOUZA: ... you`ve done five minutes of Internet research but I`ve been researching this for four years. I look at all these thinkers. I look at their impact on action.

D'Souza here is just pulling rank on Beck. But the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. We should believe D'Souza because he has studied this for four years? Tell me another.

Now look, let me give you another example. After the Cold War the radical Muslims went back to their own countries. Bin Laden went back to Saudi Arabia. Al Zawahiri went back to Egypt. They were fighting the near enemy, their own governments.

But then they decided to shift strategy and attack the far enemy, which is us, the United States. Why? Because Bin Laden said, "I have come to the view that the United States, the far enemy, is more cowardly, is more vulnerable than the near enemy."

And how did he decide that? Because the radical Muslims launched a bunch of strikes, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the embassy attacks, the bombing of the Cole. And Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing. So this emboldened bin Laden, by his own account, was emboldened to strike at 9/11.

Here again, D'Souza still is not dealing with his book's main thrust, that American immorality caused 9/11. He is right that the perception of Bill Clinton's cowardice emboldened the jihadists. But from his book, we should expect D'Souza to be saying that drugs, pornography and abortion made the jihadists decide to focus on the United States. He can't say that, however, because it is patently false, as is his entire thesis, and so in defending it he resorts to irrelevancy.

BECK: Boy, you`ve done -- you`ve done a great job of mixing some fact with some fiction. You`re exactly right; that did embolden Osama bin Laden. But your point -- and please correct me if I have this wrong -- is that the liberals in America are the root of the problem.

I am a conservative, sir, who is telling you the nut jobs over in the Middle East have used the fertilizer of things like Hollywood and liberalism, or the idea here of, you know, Bill Clinton emboldening them or even, dare I say it, Ronald Reagan doing the same thing in Beirut. Yes, that`s fertilizer. That`s not the root, Dinesh.

D`SOUZA: No, true. But I agree with this. But you have to realize that the radical Muslims, while they are exploiting these things, are striking a resonant chord among traditional Muslims. And the traditional Muslims are the recruiting pool of radical Islam.

Indeed.

So we will not be able to drive a wedge between traditional Islam and radical Islam if we cannot effectively answer the charge that we are trying to impose secularism, family breakdown and moral decadence of Islamic society. Simply snorting about it isn`t going to solve the problem.

Nonsense. These are pretexts used to stir up anger against us. That's certainly true. But ultimately the jihad imperative rests on the words of the Qur'an, the teachings of Muhammad, and the rulings of the Islamic schools of law. All agree that Muslims must wage war against non-Muslims in order to establish Islamic law over the world. They must do this whether or not the non-Muslims are immoral. And as D'Souza himself points out here, the modern resurgance of the jihad is based on the perception that America is weak, not on the perception that America is immoral.

BECK: Simply separating ourselves and saying that anyone beside those hijackers flew those planes into those buildings, those are the people responsible.

Yes. As always with this sort of thing, much more needs to be said. But Beck did a good job within a short timeframe.

Hrant Dink

But the murder is attributed here to "nationalist anger." "Turkish-Armenian editor shot dead in Istanbul," by Paul de Bendern and Thomas Grove for Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - A high-profile Turkish-Armenian editor, convicted of insulting Turkey's identity, was shot dead outside his newspaper office in Istanbul on Friday.

Hrant Dink, a frequent target of nationalist anger for his comments on the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War One, was shot as he left his weekly Agos around 1300 GMT in central Istanbul....

Muharrem Gozutok, a restaurant owner near the newspaper, said the assailant looked about 20, wore jeans and a cap and shouted "I shot the non-Muslim" as he left the scene.

Protesters outside the Agos office on one of Istanbul's busiest streets chanted "the murderer government will pay" and "shoulder-to-shoulder against fascism."...

"This bullet was fired against Turkey ... an image has been created about Turkey that its Armenian citizens have no safety," said CNN Turk editor Taha Akyol.

Last year Turkey's appeals court upheld a six-month suspended jail sentence against Dink for referring in an article to an Armenian nationalist idea of ethnic purity without Turkish blood.

The court said the comments went against article 301 of Turkey's revised penal code, which lets prosecutors pursue cases against writers and scholars for "insulting Turkish identity."

The ruling was sharply criticised by the EU.

INSULTING TURKISHNESS

Dink was one of dozens of writers who have been charged for insulting Turkishness, particularly over the alleged genocide of Armenians by Turks during World War One.

Turkey denies allegations that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic genocide. It says both Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks were killed in a partisan conflict that raged on Ottoman territory.

Sure. Some Nazis were killed during World War II also.

Christiane Amanpour, despite her family background, has no real experience or knowledge of Islam. Herself secular, and married (in a mariage blanc) to James Rubin, she is confused about Islam. She knows Iranian Muslims who are nothing like the Iranian Muslims now in power, but she fails to recognize that those she knows were never the real thing. She doesn’t realize that they were unrepresentative, as unrepresentative of Islam as was, say, Maxim Litvinov of the Soviet regime -- even though he served that regime as Foreign Minister and as ambassador.

She is defensive about Islam without knowing about it, and without knowing how the primitive Muslim masses think. Yet that is what should count in Infidel calculations, and not the suave and often deceptive exceptions -- whether they are Chalabi and other westernized Shi'a exiles inveigling the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein, or plummy-voiced Prince Hassan, a real performance artist, capable of impressing the impressionable.

Jordan, the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, was formerly the Emirate of Transjordan, and before that, it was a territory formerly part of the Ottoman Empire that included the entire trans-Jordanian part of historic Palestine. Therefore, it was part of the territory that was originally intended by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations to be included in the Mandate for Palestine (the Mandate that had as its sole purpose the establishment of a Jewish National Home).

Today, Jordan exists on Jizyah. That is, it exists on economic favors -- outright aid, and special dispensations, such as Most Favored Nation Status -- given it by the United States. These favors are not received with gratitude but rather as due. Jordan's population has consistently shown itself, in polls, to be virulently hostile to the United States. Yet nevertheless, this aid is given as if it were Jordan's due, and never to be tampered with. The attitudes, then, of both donor and recipient are the classic attitudes of the Jizyah, that "protection" money given by the "protected people" to their Muslim masters.

Jimmy Carter believes all kinds of things. He believes that the 1949 Armistice Lines became permanent borders, even though they never did -- because the Arabs kept refusing the Israeli offer to make them so. And he appeared to know the truth back in 1974, but has forgotten it in the intervening years.

He believes that Resolution 242 is to be read to mean withdrawal from "all the territories" won in the Six-Day War, when it not only says no such thing, but Lord Caradon and others carefully crafted the document so that it would deliberately NOT mean that. And the statements of both Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the U.N., and of Michael Stewart, the-then British Foreign Minister, make clear that Resolution 242 did not mean what the Arabs, who failed in their attempts to change the wording and the interpretation at the U.N. itself, then went off and insisted without any justification that it did mean -- the meaning which Jimmy Carter, Arab stooge, now blithely gives it.

Well, of course! Behold the glorious complexity of Sheikh Feiz Mohammed! He doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs, and peep about, to find ourselves dishonourable graves! After all, when has a non-Muslim ever understood a jihadist sheikh, or the Qur'an, or the life of Muhammad correctly? These things are beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. We need them explained to us by those who possess Secret Qur'anic Decoder Rings, and then we will see that "beat her" (Qur'an 4:34) really means "give her a dozen roses," and that when Sheikh Feiz Mohammed says about children that we should "put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom," he means that we should put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of learning their multiplication tables and a love of Bob The Builder.

Feiz Mohammed Update from The Associated Press, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

SYDNEY, Australia: A radical Australian cleric who sparked outrage by encouraging children to sacrifice their lives for Islam has claimed his remarks were misinterpreted, as Muslim leaders were divided Friday in their reaction to the outspoken cleric.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Center in western Sydney, was swiftly condemned Thursday by government leaders across Australia over a series of video lectures, in which he urged children to become "soldiers defending Islam" and sacrifice their lives for Allah.

"Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid," or holy warrior, the cleric said in the videos. "Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."

The Australian Federal Police said they would investigate whether Mohammed had breached laws against sedition and was inciting violence or terrorism.

However, in an interview published Friday in The Australian newspaper, Mohammed said his words had been misconstrued.

"The jihad I speak of is not one of violence," he was quoted as saying. "It is one of personal struggle against things like mischievousness, temptation and personal harm."

"I don't believe in suicide bombing. I don't believe in violence against others," he said. "We denounce that. This is not Islamic law and it is not moral."

Mohammed also said in the interview he regretted implicitly referring to Jews as pigs in the videos, which were recorded in 2002 following the release of photographs showing bloody clashes between Israelis and Palestinians.

"That remark was made in the heat of the moment and I regret it," he was quoted as saying. "It was not something I should have said and is not something I believe."

So he disbelieves in Qur'an 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166? Or does he have some other interpretation of those verses? Get out your Secret Qur'anic Decoder Ring and enlighten us, Feiz.

In reality, some Muslim commentators posit that those verses refer to some Jews, but not to all Jews. However, the idea that they refer to all Jews, or at least to the Jews of today, is dominant among jihadists. Is it likely that Sheikh Feiz Mohammed really rejects that interpretation? No, it isn't.

Several Muslim leaders have sought to distance themselves from his comments.

Keysar Trad, head of the Islamic Friendship Association, said the jihad remarks might have been misinterpreted, but he conceded that they were not helpful to Australian Muslims.

Mohammed is the latest of several Muslim leaders to spur controversy in Australia, widening a cultural divide between the majority of Australians and the country's Muslim minority, which has been criticized for failing to suppress its extremist fringe.

Late last year Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, the mufti of Australia since 1989, made international headlines when he likened unveiled women to "uncovered meat," suggesting they invite sexual assault.

However, Rahim Ghauri, leader of the Islamic Council of Western Australia, said the Islamic community should not be held accountable for one cleric's offensive remarks.

"Some lousy guy stands up and calls himself a leader of the Muslims, calls himself a cleric because he can read the Quran," Ghauri told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. "Why do people like me (have to) sit here and give an interview because every Tom, Dick and Harry gets up an makes some stupid comments?"

Well, uh, maybe because al-Hilali is the leader of the Muslims in Australia.

Ghauri and other Muslim leaders declined to speculate on the meaning of Mohammed's videotaped remarks, but said the concept of jihad and religious martyrdom was often misunderstood by the non-Muslim public.

"Jihad ... means to eschew those types of things in our lives which we see as negative, such as promiscuity and drugs and stealing," said Kuranda Seyit, of the Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations.

Seyit dismissed the furor over the sheik's remarks as "another case of Islam bashing" in Australia, but acknowledged that Muslim leaders "do have to be very responsible about how they conduct themselves in public."

Put up or shut up time in Ankara. From AKI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Vatican City, 19 Jan. (AKI) - Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called on Turkey to give the Catholic Church legal status as a recognised religious institution. The pope made the remark during a meeting with Turkey's new ambassador to the Holy See, Moammer Dogan Akdur. "In enjoying the freedom of religion which the Turkish constitution grants to all believers, the Catholic Church hopes it can benefit from a recognised judicial statute," Benedict said.

Benedict told Akdur that he hoped all religions would strive for peace "beginning by denouncing violence which too often in the past has been motivated on religious grounds."

This isn't the first time that CAIR has complained about 24, and the last time it happened, Fox hopped to in a hurry. This time, so far, the network is holding firm. If CAIR were half as energetic in combating actual Islamic terrorism as it is in combating screen depictions of Islamic terrorism, the world would be at peace.

A "Shut Up, Dhimmi" Alert: "Muslims take aim at hit series 24," from Agence France-Presse, with thanks to JE:

THE hit US television show 24 has come under fire from a Muslim group which has accused the program's makers of fuelling anti-Muslim prejudice with its latest storyline.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said 24's season premiere, in which Islamic terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb near Los Angeles, risked stoking racial hatred.

What race are Muslims again?

The criticism was swiftly rejected by the show's network Fox Broadcasting, which said the series did not single out ethnic groups to be villains.

"The raw emotional impact of fictional scenes that include widespread death and destruction in America may adversely affect the public's attitude toward civil liberties, religious freedom and interfaith relations," CAIR said.

"The program's repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam will only serve to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in our society."

No, the repeated commission of acts of terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam, and the repeated obfuscation of this fact by CAIR and others who should be dealing with it forthrightly and energetically, only serves to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in our society.

Representatives of the award-winning series responded by pointing out that during the show's five seasons villains have included Americans, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists and the fictional president of the US.

"The producers are sensitive to the fact that over the course of the series no ethnic group be singled out for persecution or blame," Fox said.

"In fact, the show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multi-dimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints."

Jordan jumps on the nuclear bandwagon. After all, everybody's doing it. From AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

JERUSALEM - Jordan wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful means, King Abdullah II said in an interview with Israel’s Haaretz daily published on Friday.

‘The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are looking at one, and we are actually looking at nuclear power for peaceful and energy purposes. We’ve been discussing it with the West,’ he said.

‘I personally believe that any country that has a nuclear program should conform to international regulations and should have international regulatory bodies that check to make sure that any nuclear program moves in the right direction,’ he told the liberal daily.

‘The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. Where I think Jordan was saying, ‘we’d like to have a nuclear-free zone in the area,’ after this summer, everybody’s going for nuclear programs,’ the Jordanian king said.

Common sense could overwhelm political correctness in Britain. Let's hope it does before it's too late. By James Slack in the Daily Mail, with thanks to Olivia:

Britain might quit the European Convention on Human Rights, Charles Clarke has said.

The former Home Secretary said there was public anger that the courts appeared to give the rights of terror suspects a "higher priority" than preventing possible bomb attacks.

On pulling out of the convention, Mr Clarke said: "It's completely underestimated as a possibility, I think it could easily happen.

"If the court is not seen as upholding the interests of the public then the public will say "no thanks"."

What a surprise. From "British Muslims Get Their Soapbox," by Brendan Bernhard in the New York Sun, with thanks to Web:

Radical Islam in Britain will also be featured tomorrow night on "CNN: Special Investigations Unit," a new series which sounds like something involving David Caruso, designer sunglasses, and murdered fashion models. In fact, this episode, "The War Within," stars Christiane Amanpour, and while it would be going too far to call it an unflinching look at Muslim extremism, it does at least look at it. But let's not give Ms. Amanpour, arguably the most famous female journalist in the world, too much credit. Oriana Fallaci lamented before her death last year that she had come so late to the most important story of her lifetime. She was talking about the growth of Islamic radicalism in Europe, and she was referring to its beginnings in the 1970s.

Now in 2007, we have Ms. Amanpour, chicly turned out in dark glasses and a long dark coat, announcing at the outset that London, which has been not only her home but also her "refuge" from conflicts overseas, is itself embattled, a site of conflict and suicide bombings and fear. Unfortunately, little history or context for the eruption of this problem is provided. A massive, highly politicized Muslim population is just suddenly there, in Britain. There is no reference to the fatwa against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, when there was widespread rioting by British Muslims, let alone to the notorious 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech by the maverick Conservative politician Enoch Powell, in which the issue of immigration was placed dramatically on the front burner of English politics before being swiftly removed for the next three decades.

Ms. Amanpour appears to interview a wide range of people, Muslim and non-Muslim, but this is somewhat illusory. She interviews a fair number of Muslims and a couple of non-Muslims, primarily Alan Craig, a Christian city councillor opposed to the football stadium-size "mega-mosque" being planned for East London. (To him she says: A lot of this sounds like, I'm sorry to say, white middle class fear, and anger, of Muslims right now.")

What she doesn't do is interview other British immigrants about the Muslim situation. Indians, say. There are a lot of them in Britain, and I suspect they would be quite articulate on the subject. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or West Indians. Or — you name it. All these people are kept in the background, part of Britain's "rich multicultural fabric," to be heard from on a more convenient occasion. Instead, the equation becomes either British whites versus British Muslims, or radical Muslims versus moderate Muslims, with white people looking on. Consciously or not, the effect is misleading and subtly racist — against white Britons.

Last night I was interviewed by the ever-charming Pamela Geller Oshry -- Atlas Shrugs -- and you can find the Podcast here. It was my seventh radio interview of the day, and it was late for this old man, so I'm not sure if I was particularly coherent, but anyway -- there it is.

This story, which insistently sounds upon the Tiny Minority of Extremists™ theme, seems to be designed to reverse some of the damage done by the Dispatches documentary. But the Vast Majority of Moderates™, alas, is still not much in evidence in Britain.

"Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads," from CNN, with thanks to all who sent this in:

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

That's what Muhammad said to the pagan Quraysh: "I bring you slaughter." I recount the incident in my book The Truth About Muhammad.

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

Anjem Choudary, the public face of Islamist extremism in Britain, added that Muslims have no choice but to take the fight to the West.

"What are Muslims supposed to do when they are being killed in the streets in Afghanistan and Baghdad and Palestine? Do they not have the same rights to defend themselves? In war, people die. People don't make love; they kill each other," he said....

But in the same debate, held on the prestigious grounds of Dublin's Trinity College in October, many people in the crowd objected.

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness."...

'Foreign policy has a lot to do with it'

This war of words is part of a larger debate going on in Britain -- the war within the Muslim community for the hearts and minds of young people. The battle of ideas came to the fore again this week when the trial began for six men who are accused of an "extremist Muslim plot" to target London on July 21, 2005.

The Woolwich Crown Court was told the men plotted to carry out a series of "murderous suicide bombings" on London's public transport system, just 14 days after the carnage of the July 7 London bombings, which killed 52 commuters and four bombers.

While Islamic extremists are believed to be a tiny minority of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims, they have no problem having their criticism heard. They have disdain for democracy -- and, most of all, the Bush administration's war on terror policies.

A poll taken in June 2006 for the Times of London newspaper suggested that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the July 7 London bombers were martyrs.

"Foreign policy has a lot to do with it," said Hanif Qadir, a youth worker and a moderate voice for Islam in Walthamstow, one of London's biggest Muslim neighborhoods. "But it's the minority radical groups that use that to get to our young people."...

"Our scholars ... are not coming out of their holes -- their mosques and their holes -- to engage with these people. They're frightened of that," Qadir said....

Indeed.

Choudary, whose group Al-Mahajiroun disbanded before the British government could outlaw it under its anti-terror laws, spoke to CNN and made clear he wants to see Islamic law for Britain.

"All of the world belongs to Allah, and we will live according to the Sharia wherever we are," said Choudary, a lawyer. "This is a fundamental belief of the Muslims."...

Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, "No, I don't at all."

"One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It's a matter of time."

Choudary cited the videotaped "will" of one of the London subway bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, who said, "Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight."

Choudary said he sides strongly with that statement -- "we have everything we need in those wills" -- and he cited passages from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that he says justify jihad.

"I happen to be in an ideological and political war," Choudary said. "My brothers in al Qaeda and other Mujahedeen are involved in a military campaign."

While Choudary and other radicals continue to try to spread their beliefs, others say there is no justification for jihad in England. Imam Usama Hasan memorized the Quran by the time he was 11 and at 19, he briefly fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

"If you have the wrong intention, you can justify your criminal actions from any text -- whether it's the Quran or Bible or Shakespeare," Hasan said.

Yes, watch out for those Shakespearean terror groups. They don't just sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the deaths of kings. And they work fast; after all, if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly. These Shakespearean terrorists teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor.

He said it makes him "furious" when radicals quote the Quran out of context to justify killing of innocents. It's a "very tiny" minority with such beliefs, he said, but "it only takes a handful, of course, to create devastation."

Can we please get the in-context refutation of the idea that a kafir harbi, an unbeliever considered to be at war with Islam, can lawfully be killed? This idea is deeply rooted in Islamic theology.

"Many people are terrified of Muslims. They are terrified of a brother walking down the road with his eastern dress and his hat and his beard, because they have seen these images associated with suicide bombers," he said.

"It is up to us to dispel that fear -- to smile at people to tell them that ... the message of Islam is not about bits of cloth. It is not about the beard or head scarf or the face veil or violence. It is about peace."

In addition to smiling at non-Muslims, Hasan might consider actively working against the spread of the jihad ideology among Muslims in Britain.

But if he was just quoting the Qur'an (2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166) in calling Jews pigs, will they ban the Qur'an also? An update on this story. "Firebrand cleric may face charges," from the Sydney Morning Herald, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A firebrand Islamic leader who urged young Muslims to become holy warriors and labelled Jews as pigs could face charges of incitement to violence.

Australian Federal Police are looking into DVDs featuring Sheik Feiz Mohammed, the leader of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, in Sydney's west.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma today accused the sheik of inciting terrorism in the collection of DVDs, called the Death Series.

The Federal Government said the sheik's DVD preachings were "reprehensible and offensive", Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said they were "obscene" and Mr Iemma labelled them "disgusting".

If it is found the sheik's comments breach sedition laws and incite acts of violence, the AFP will launch a full investigation and he could face charges.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff said the sheik was inciting racial hatred.

"It is of great concern when people in positions of influence abuse that power to incite racial hatred," Mr Alhadeff said.

In the DVDs, which are on sale through the youth centre's website, the Sydney-born cleric urges young Muslims to be prepared to sacrifice themselves for Islam.

The sheik, who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, also talks of a Muslim killing a Jew and ridiculed Jews as pigs.

Abu Usamah is from New Jersey and preached at the Islamic Center of Peoria. Did anyone there agree with him? What are those who heard him doing now? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? No worries: his teachings there were "moderate."

A report by George Kindel for FoxNews, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

NEW YORK — A New Jersey-born Muslim cleric with links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative who surfaced at a college not far from the cleric's Peoria, Ill., mosque the day before the Sept. 11 attacks has found a new home.

The imam now is spewing his message of hate to a growing group of followers at a mosque in Birmingham, England.

His target: the United States, the United Kingdom, Christians and Jews.

Abu Usamah at-Thahabi, who preached at the Islamic Center of Peoria in 2001, is the subject of a British news documentary that revealed Monday how he regularly exhorts worshippers at the Green Lane Masjid, or mosque, in Birmingham to hate Westerners, whom he calls "pathological liars" and "kuffar," a derogatory term for non-Muslims.

Click here to view the British news documentary.

Abu Usamah also calls for the public crucifixion of all "kuffar" and says they should be "left there to bleed to death for three days."

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

Abu Usamah, who was born in New Jersey and is 42 or 43 years old, was the imam in Peoria when federal agents swooped down in December 2001 and arrested Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari student at Bradley University, on charges that he used false documents to open bank accounts and was in possession of a telephone credit card used to call a number in Dubai that federal agents said was linked to reputed Al Qaeda financier and Sept. 11 organizer Mustafa al-Hawsawi.

Sources tell FOX News that Abu Usamah is a mysterious character — no one, including federal agents and fellow imams, seems to know what his name was prior to his conversion to Islam.

But sources in Peoria say that though his public teachings there were moderate, he occasionally stepped over the line into anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Just prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he called President Bush a "pathological liar" and constantly argued to his followers that "Jews controlled the media."...

Abu Usamah, in the days immediately after Sept. 11, asked Peoria residents not to judge the Muslim community by the actions of the terrorists who carried out the attack and thanked the local Christian community for its support.

"More faiths, different groups reached out to us," he told the Peoria Journal Star newspaper a year after the attacks.

He went on to thank "those open-minded people who judge everyone individually."

The New Jersey-born imam, who claims to have studied a strict version of Islam at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, has since changed his tune.

"Lying is part of their religion," Abu Usamah is heard telling his followers in the special report produced by the British news show "Dispatches" on Channel 4.

"They do whatever they want to do. They are liars, they are terrorists themselves. They are lying, you can't believe them.

"They are pathological liars," he rants.

Ironic in light of, for example, Ibn Kathir's commentary on Qur'an 3:28: "...'unless you indeed fear a danger from them' meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyyah] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"

He also is heard ticking off an enemies list that includes mainstream British culture.

"America, the U.K., Germany and France, they have come against the religion of Islam," he declares.

"Popular culture … if you're a person who gives yourself to that, your mind is going to be controlled by the so-called powers to be, who make these manmade laws."

The mosque's official Web site says its purpose is to counter Muslim stereotyping, but the Channel 4 report found there is a secret chat room area of the site that only mosque members know about, where At-Thahabi's lectures are broadcast.

It is in this chat room, the report says, that Abu Usamah preaches the creation of a "total Islamic state" that advocates harsh punishments for non-believers.

"Whoever changes his religion from Islam," he declares, "kill him, in the Islamic state."

This is a quote from Muhammad, who said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه).

The Islamic Courts in Somalia are not giving up despite their crushing defeat by Ethiopia. "Information for Mujahideen Seeking to Join the Jihad in Somalia," from MEMRI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

On January 15, 2007, an Islamist website posted information for mujahideen who wish to travel to Somalia in order to join the jihad there. The message included maps and satellite images showing various possible travel routes. One of the suggested routes goes from the port of Aden in Yemen to the port of Berbera in Somaliland, continues to Burao, capital of Togdheer region in Somalia, and ends in Lasanod, capital of Sool district, where a unit of the Islamic Courts Union is claimed to be stationed.

Winning in Iraq is important. And we need a return on our investment: 3,000 dead, nearly 25,000 wounded, about $700 billion so far spent or committed in future unavoidable costs, with estimates for the total ranging between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

And winning can only be done if the definition of "victory" is first made clear.

What is the correct definition of "victory" for the United States? It is the Camp of Islam and Jihad rendered weaker than it was before. The Administration keeps saying that bringing "democracy" itself somehow weakens the appeal of what it inaccurately describes as "extremists who have hijacked a great religion," but since those "extremists" or merely the more religious and less secular have only increased their power whenever free elections have been held -- in Algeria, in Egypt, in the "Palestinian"-controlled territories -- the clash of theory and reality is never explained. How can the Camp of Islam be weakened if American efforts are directed at ensuring a united, stable, and prosperous Iraq?

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph C. Myers, the Senior Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, has published in Parameters a superb review of Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik's The Quranic Concept of War, which I discussed at some length in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers.

“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.” — Majid Khadduri

[...]

To understand war, one has to study its philosophy; the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam—and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.

With respect to the war against the global jihad and its associated terror groups, individual terrorists, and clandestine adherents, one should ask if there is a unique method or attitude to their approach to war. Is there a philosophy, or treatise such as Clausewitz’s On War that attempts to form their thinking about war? Is there a document that can be reviewed and understood in such a manner that we may begin to think strategically about our opponent. There is one work that stands out from the many.

The Quranic Concept of War

The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores. One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”

Historiography

In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.” For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”

The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith. The lessons learned are recorded and form an important part of Quranic surah and jihadist’s scholarship. Islamic scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim will find much to debate in terms of Malik’s view of jihad doctrine and Quranic warfare. Malik’s work is essentially modern scholarship; although he does acknowledge the classical views of jihad in many respects.

[...]

Malik’s most controversial dictum is summarized in the following manner: in war, “the point where the means and the end meet” is in terror. He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.

Read it all.

That jihad crisis thing is, like, so 2002. "`No Fly' List of Terror Suspects Will Be Cut in Half (Update1)," by John Hughes for Bloomberg News, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government will cut in half the ``no fly'' list of terror suspects banned from flights so it can better focus on people who pose the greatest threat, the head of the transportation security agency said.

The paring, to be complete in a month, will drop ``those who were feared to have presented a threat in the past but no longer do,'' said Kip Hawley, chief of the Transportation Security Administration.

The ``no fly'' list and a roster of people who warrant extra checks were expanded after Sept. 11 to prevent a repeat of the terrorist attacks. The lists have frustrated travelers, including Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, who was delayed from boarding flights in 2004 because his name matched an alias of someone on a list.

The security agency processed 20,000 requests last year from people who believed they were wrongly on lists or were being mistaken for people on the lists, Hawley told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today in Washington. Agency spokesman Christopher White declined to discuss the size of the lists, citing security concerns.

So what? I was on the list myself at one point. Anyone who is a loyal citizen and isn't doing anything illegal shouldn't mind putting up with some inconvenience.

Arriving Late While Muslim pays off. From Bloomberg News, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

Northwest Airlines will offer an apology and compensation to a group of 40 Muslims who said they were turned away from a U.S.-bound plane in Germany.

The payment will cover "extra flight and hotel costs" incurred after the airline refused to let the group board a Jan. 7 Frankfurt-to-Detroit flight, the Michigan office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Wednesday in a prepared statement.

"We welcome Northwest Airlines' apology and offer of limited compensation as a positive step toward addressing the concerns of the Muslim passengers," the group's executive director, Dawud Walid, said in the statement.

The group had arrived early enough for the flight but was denied boarding on the grounds that they were too late, according to the rights group. Northwest spokesman Dean Breest said the flight already had been closed to passengers when the group reached the gate.

Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: "Islamic protesters hurl abuse at Indonesian Playboy centerfold," from AP, with thanks to Cindy:

Islamic protesters hurled abuse at Playboy magazine's first Indonesian centerfold Thursday, calling her a prostitute and saying they hoped her daughter would be raped. Andhara Early did not respond to demonstrators - among them several women wearing Islamic headscarves - as she left the South Jakarta District Court after testifying in the indecency trial of Playboy's Indonesia editor, Erwin Arnada.

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Masses protest Pakistani hit on alleged al-Qaida hide-out," from the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to Looney Tunes:

Hundreds of religious hard-liners chanting "Jihad!" staged rallies in a Pakistani town against an army airstrike on a suspected al-Qaida hide-out and claimed it had killed innocent laborers, police and witnesses said Wednesday.

In the protest, about 1,000 supporters of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) party marched through Tank, a city about 160 kilometers north of the scene of Tuesday's attack in the South Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border that the army said killed eight militants.

"They killed innocent laborers. There were no foreigners or [militant] training centers," witnesses quoted rally leader Maulana Tahir as saying.

Activists of the JUI, a pro-Taliban Islamic group in the provincial government, chanted, "Jihad! [holy war]" during the protest and "Death to Musharraf!" - referring to Pakistan's military leader, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key US ally.

A tribal militant vowed to take revenge for the airstrike, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported on its Urdu-language news Web site Wednesday.

"We will take revenge within 10 to 15 days," the BBC quoted Baitullah Mehsud as saying.

A reaction to the hate speech in UK mosques. By Marc Shoffman at TotallyJewish.com, with thanks to FM:

Jewish politicians are demanding an official investigation after a television documentary revealed anti-Semitic DVDs on sale at London's most prestigious mosque.

The Channel 4 Dispatches programme also revealed that speakers were preaching hatred against Jews at Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham – one of the country’s biggest.

One of the country's biggest? Why didn't the Vast Majority of Moderates™ protest?

Despite condemnation of the Undercover Mosque investigation by mainstream Muslim groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, Jewish MPs have questioned how religious leaders could not know what was happening on their premises.

West Midlands Police and the Metropolitan Police are investigating the content of the programme, which was broadcast on Monday.

Both mosques are seen as representative of mainstream Islam, but they have refused to take responsibility for the lectures.

Green Lane Mosque claimed the building had been rented out, and Regents Park Mosque said its bookshop is owned by a separate company, Darussalam publications, based in Saudi Arabia.

Excuses, excuses. Read it all.

So says the former Secretary General of Hizballah. "Former Hizbullah Sec-Gen: Hizbullah is an Integral Part of Iranian Intelligence; The Abduction of the Israeli Soldiers Was an 'Unsuccessful Adventure,'" from MEMRI:

In an interview with the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, former Hizbullah secretary-general Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufeili said that Hizbullah was part of Iranian intelligence, and called the July 12, 2006 abduction of two Israeli soldiers, which sparked the July-August 2006 war with Israel, an "unsuccessful adventure."

The following are excerpts from the interview.(1)

Hizbullah is an Integral Part of the Iranian Intelligence Apparatus

Question: "You were formerly Hizbullah secretary-general. Is the [situation in Lebanon] within the strategic framework of Hizbullah? Does Hizbullah have an outlined and prepared plan that is being implemented today? Why do you think Hizbullah has become a source of anxiety for the Lebanese? "

Al-Tufeili: "It wasn't like this in the beginning. Hizbullah's activity was limited to resistance [operations]... But, unfortunately, the problem has developed today to the point where they have succeeded in changing Hizbullah from a resistance force into a tool to be used in [whatever] direction they want."

Question: "Does this mean that Hizbullah does not make its own decisions, and that its orders come from outside [Lebanon]?"

Al-Tufeili: "Yes, Hizbullah is a tool, and it is an integral part of the Iranian intelligence apparatus. Unfortunately, all the elements in the [Lebanese] arena have become tools, and take orders from outside [Lebanon]..."

Provocative suggestions from H. W. Crocker III in The American Spectator:

All right, let's skip all the introductory remarks and get to the point. Is victory still possible in Iraq? Yes, though the Bush administration keeps doing its level best to kick that prize away from our troops.

We can tally up the mistakes later (I'll mention two of the worst ones at the end) but the first step to winning in Iraq is to define victory -- and not to define it in such a way, as the Bush administration has done, that leaves us hostages to the Iraqi government. That is a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Even after the president's recent address, announcing that America's patience with the Iraqi government is not limitless, and promising a -- by my lights, not very dramatic -- surge of troops, not enough has changed. The Bush administration's rhetoric of why we fight has shifted from the politically cynical -- and deeply stupid and insensate -- mantra of "stay the course (because you can't trust the cut-'n'-run Democrats)," which the American people rightly recognized as no course at all, to an equally pitiful emphasis that American defeat in Iraq would be a disaster.

No one ever won a war by fighting for "not defeat." You win a war by smashing up the enemy, by so overwhelming him but that he has no choice but to surrender or die. Instead we have "stayed the course" (where is the urgency in that?) and we have whined that losing would be a bad thing.

Yes, losing would be a bad thing -- and the Bush administration should know, given that it has managed to lose both houses of Congress, alienate its own supporters, and convince the American people by a whopping majority that we cannot "win" in Iraq. Well done, Mr. President!

A PRESIDENT WITH SO LITTLE understanding of his own electorate can hardly, in fairness, be held to account for failing to understand the political realities in a country far away and of which he knows little -- though this is scant consolation for those of us who not only think the war was the right and necessary thing to do but who share Mark Steyn's conviction that "if Iraq's lost, the Dems and the media will have a whole new quagmire template for the next 40 years."

But whatever the failures of the administration, it is always a bad idea to bet against the American military.

Indeed, on the military front, things are not so dire as you might think.

Read it all.

D'Souza begins his book thus:

In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.

Also from this idiotic book by D'Souza:

Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.’ … I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.

And the Jihad -- Col. Ojukwu's own word -- against the Nigerian Christians, that led to the 1967-1969 Biafran War -- was caused by what "cultural left" among the Ibo? Doesn't Dinesh D'Souza know that the most straitlaced and conservative Anglicans in the world are the black African Anglicans?

In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the imminent efforts to outlaw religious profiling, and explain why those efforts should be resisted.

I don't want to belabor the point about Dinesh D'Souza and his irresponsible new book, but as I expected, he is getting tons of publicity -- O'Reilly, Zahn, Beck, Carlson, Cavuto -- because he is telling people what they want to hear: a new variation of the "It's All Our Fault" theme. At least here you will be able to find the truth about what he is saying. In this tothesource interview, whose views we have already discussed here and here, continues to deny the reality of the jihad ideology:

tts: Many Americans believe Islam is caught up in a Constantinian vision to conquer and convert by force.

D'Souza: There is no "inherent conquering spirit" in Islam, any more than there is one in Christianity. Yes, early Islam did conquer a great deal of territory and early Christianity didn't. But that's because Christianity began in defeat, with the early Christians harassed and persecuted, while Islam began with success, with the prophet Muhammad becoming the ruler of a large domain.

Highly ironic, this. For if you read Islamic apologetics about Muhammad's battles, they will tell you that Muhammad took up arms precisely because the Muslims were being "harassed and persecuted," and that fighting against oppression is justified. After all, the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" (2:191) -- in other words, slaughtering persecutors is justified.

Anyway, the key point is that a strong theological justification was developed in Islam for Muhammad's "becoming the ruler of a large domain." And that theological justification perdured throughout the centuries, and has never been reformed away. Thus it remains today as a basis for Islamic expansionism. In that light, what Christians did or did not do doesn't matter: the supremacist, expansionist, totalitarian ideology threatening the world today comes from Islam, not from Christianity.

So Islam began to spread through force and conquest, but this is no different than the Roman empire which, let us remember, also carried Christianity to the far corners of Europe.

Not true. The Christian Romans did not conquer territories and then offer the conquered people conversion to Christianity or dhimmi status. The Roman Empire was converted by missionaries, not by force, although there were many conversions of convenience in the post-Constantine period. The contrast with the conquered countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where the jizya was exacted from the dhimmi populations, and those populations steadily converted to Islam so as to obtain equality of rights in the society, is stark.

Since the founding period there have been several Islamic empires: the Umayyad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. All have behaved like conventional dynasties, sometimes imperialist, usually valuing stability over everything else.

All were, to the extent of their ability, imperialist on the basis of Muhammad's command to convert or subjugate the infidels. This command remains in place today. Should we not direct attention to it? In doing so, we may awaken non-Muslims to the gravity of the threat, and help Muslims of good will with their reform efforts.

Despite the Koran's call to "slay the infidels" this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims.

Right. This is a common red herring. Forced conversion is forbidden in Islam, although this law was often honored in the breach. And the choice, as I explained above, was not "convert or kill non-Muslims," it was to convert or subjugate non-Muslims, or go to war with them. That this mandate has never been operative in Islam is false. A Hanafi manual of Islamic law insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

The great medieval theorist of what is now known as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Calls for jihad went out in the seventh century against the Christians of Egypt and Syria and the other areas of what is now known as the Muslim world. Such calls sounded innumerable times against the Christians of Europe until 1683.

After that, although jihads became less common (particularly in Europe), at no point did Islamic theology evolve beyond the legal manuals and medieval theorists I have just quoted. Jihad remained part of Islamic thought and practice, but as the Islamic world went into economic and cultural decline so did jihad. Jihad is not a suicide pact; those who fight must have some reasonable chance of success; and such success became less assured as the West gained military predominance.

Still, Indian Muslims declared jihad against their colonial occupiers and the Ottomans against their enemies in Europe as late as 1914. Turkish Muslims proclaimed jihad against the secular state that was ultimately established by Kemal Ataturk. Yasir Arafat and Hamas have both called for jihad against Israel. Just as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the United States.

No Muslim empire ever did that. The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have killed the Hindus. They could have forcibly converted them all. They did none of this. Similarly under the Ottomans there were Jews and Christians who went to synagogue and church. The Ottomans gave them relative autonomy over their own communities. If you go to Istanbul today you can see these Jewish and Christian churches. These were not built after the secular Ataturk regime. They were built during the Ottoman period.

Sure. But the reality of the subjugation of non-Muslims goes back to the beginning of Islam. The 7-century caliph Umar’s agreement with the Christians mandates a number of humiliating regulations to make sure that the dhimmis “feel themselves subdued.” The Christians concede:

We will not...prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.

The regulations about different clothing and hairstyle, of course, made it easier to spot a dhimmi in a crowd and to make sure that he had paid the jizya and submitted to other legal requirements. The prohibition against weapons made it less likely that such investigations would meet with resistance.

We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims....

After these and other rules are fully laid out, the agreement concludes: “These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”

The Verse of the Sword, Qur'an 9:5, is still in effect, and various other passages of Sura 9 clarify its precise meaning and applicability. While the regulations of dhimmitude are not enforced in countries where the Sharia is not the law of the land, and is ignored in whole or part in many places that do hold to the Sharia, they are still a part of Islamic law — as a Saudi preacher recently emphasized. In a Friday sermon at a mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi declared: “The Jews and Christians are infidels, enemies of Allah, his Messenger, and the believers. They deny and curse Allah and his Messenger....How can we draw near to these infidels?...They deny even the messengers sent to them. They do not believe in Moses, they do not believe in Jesus — because if they really believed in them, they would join Islam, because every prophet heralded to his nation the coming of the Prophet Muhammad and the need to believe in him.”

Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi also repeated the Sharia’s classic injunctions on dhimmitude:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are...that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes...that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim... If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.

Even in Saddam Hussein’s relatively secular Iraq, Christians had a hard time. The Reverend Said Bello, a Chaldean Catholic who left Iraq for Canada in 1990 but has maintained close ties with the Christian community there, reported toward the end of Saddam's regime that Christians in Iraq are “living like slaves....The Christians have no work, and no revenue. The powerful are taking advantage of the weak. In some cases, young mothers whose husbands were killed in war have been obliged to become Muslims to feed their children.”

D'Souza:

There is a great deal of nonsense being said today about how Islam is the problem and how Islam leads to terrorism. But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism dates back around 25 years, to the Khomeini revolution. The reasonable question to ask is what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of fanaticism? Why has traditional Islam become such a fertile recruiting pool for radical Islam?

I responded to this yesterday: "This suggests that he does not regard the relentless jihad against Israel as "Islamic terrorism"; that he doesn't regard the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood, the direct forerunner of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, in Egypt in 1928 as having anything to do with 'Islamic terrorism'; and that he either doesn't know or care that the ideology held by Osama bin Laden and other jihad terrorists today is identical to that held by jihad armies of the past, which overwhelmed and islamized the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and significant portions of Europe and Asia."

tts: OK. Why has it?

D'Souza: The Islamic world is divided into traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. The traditional Muslims are the ones who have practiced Islam in the way it has been practiced since the days of Muhammad. The Islamic radicals are a new force that has gained power in the last few decades. My point is that we cannot win the war on terror without driving a wedge between these two groups. The reason is that the radical Muslims are recruiting from the pool of traditional Muslims. So no matter how many radicals America captures or kills, it's no use if twice as many traditional Muslims join the radical camp. What unites the radical and the traditional Muslims is not merely opposition to American values or culture, but a deep conviction that their religion is threatened. This is their unifying slogan: "Islam is under attack." What differentiates the two groups is that the radicals want to fight a jihad against America, using any means necessary, including terrorism, while the traditionalists would prefer to find a different approach.

tts: What should America do?

D'Souza: We should show them the other America, which is conservative and traditional America. When Muslims look at America, all they see is Hollywood and family breakdown. They don't see the Americans who work hard, look after their families, and go to church. If traditional Muslims understood that there is a part of America that shares its traditional values, and that there are Americans who are working hard to combat the depravities of American society, then this would go a long way to diminish their attraction to radical and terrorist strategies. They will see, for the first time, that they have potential allies in Americans who share their respect for traditional values, and who have no problem with Muslims living by those values in their own countries.

Attacks on Islam, the religion, or on the founder of the religion are going to have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them into the radical camp. The radicals are going to say, "See, we've always told you that Islam is the West's real target. That's what they want to get rid of." So it's very imprudent for us to blame Islam as a whole, even if Islam is to blame. But as a matter of fact Islam is not to blame. Remember that Islam has been around for 1300 years. It's absurd to blame the prophet Muhammad or the Koran for something that's quite recent.

Yet the jihadists routinely point to Muhammad and the Qur'an to justify their actions. We must ignore this because it will offend moderates? But why should moderates be offended if we point out the elements of Islam that they reject, or should reject, if their moderation is to have any substance and be able to withstand the challenge from jihadists?

Dinesh D'Souza's arrogance, in presuming to write about matters that he could not possibly have studied, arrogance about the most important matters, disqualifies him from ever again being taken seriously about anything.

His dreamy belief that Islamic terrorism dates back to 1979 and the Ayatollah Khomeini returning from Neauphle-le-chateau to Teheran, ignores, as Robert Spencer mentions here, the entire history of terrorism directed against Israel, Israel as a state, and even before it was a state, against the Jews who lived in what was, historically, the Land of Israel. D'Souza ignores the terrorism used against the French in Algeria. (Incidentally, apparently Bush is reading Alistair Horne, who got so much wrong in his history of that conflict, because Henry Kissinger, ever the Islam-avoider, recommended his book to Bush as a guide to the situation in Iraq. Yet a moment's thought would show ten ways in which the situations are different. Horne's book refuses to recognize the centrality of Islam in the Algerian war against the Infidels, who included not only the French, but also all kinds of other non-Muslims -- Spanish, Italians, Jews -- who had been living for a long time in Algeria and whose only crime was to not be Muslim.)

But more than that, D’Souza ignores the 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, or apparently thinks that because the military means involved did not include bombs on airplanes, those conquests were not Jihad and certainly not terrorism. No, there were no bombs on airplanes during those 1300 years of Jihad-conquest. Nor were there I.E.D.s blowing up Humvees when the Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa, or when the Seljuk Turks conquered most of Anatolia and the Ottoman Turks finished the rest of the conquering, nor when Sassanian Persia, or Hindu India, were conquered.

Anti-dhimmitude contemplated at the Minneapolis airport. An update on this story, by Emily Gurnon in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, with thanks to TC:

For the airport, it's about customer service. For taxi drivers, it's about freedom of religion.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is considering tough penalties against taxi drivers who say Islam forbids them from accepting passengers who carry alcohol.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission voted Tuesday to conduct a public hearing on the matter Feb. 27. Cabdrivers, many of them Muslims from Somalia, say they are being put in a tough spot.

"Our people are ready to work with a customer always," said Yusuf Abdullah, 32, of Minneapolis. "I would like to keep my faith, and I would like to keep my job."

Airport Director Steve Wareham said his staff will recommend that cabdrivers who refuse a customer be given a 30-day suspension for the first offense and a two-year revocation of their airport license for a second refusal.

The current punishment is sending the cabdriver to the back of the taxi line, which can mean a wait of three or more hours, drivers said.

"You go behind 200 cabs — that's enough of a penalty," said Girma Asfaw, 55, of Bloomington.

Flemming Rose in this interview reminds us, in these days of D'Souzaite dhimmitude, that publishing the cartoons of Muhammad was a courageous and necessary act. "Editor: Mohammad cartoons provoked vital debate: Editor of Danish newspaper that published cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, touching off violent protests, says caricatures 'made an existing reality visible,'" from Reuters, with thanks to Davida:

Almost a year after violent protests against Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, the editor who commissioned the drawings said they had prompted a vital debate on the integration of Islam in the West.

Flemming Rose, culture editor of daily Jyllands-Posten, said on Wednesday he had published the 12 cartoons depicting Mohammad to defend free expression against what he saw as self-censorship over Islam in Denmark and Europe.

The cartoons sparked protests by Muslims around the world in which at least 50 people died. Many Muslims regard any image of the Prophet as blasphemous.

"The cartoons didn't create a new reality, they just made an existing reality visible. This reality is about differences in culture that have been taboo to discuss in Europe," Rose told a news conference.

[...]

"Of course a drawing in a newspaper is never worth even a single life, but I just don't accept the direct connection between our drawings and that people were killed," he said.

Rose added that if he said he would not publish the cartoons again, it would send a signal that intimidation, threats and violence could be used to silence critics.

More Islamic slavery in the U.S. From ABC 7 News, with thanks to AC:

A Kuwaiti diplomat and his wife regularly beat and abused three domestic workers who were kept under conditions akin to slavery before they finally escaped, according to a civil lawsuit filed Wednesday.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of the three workers by the American Civil Liberties Union, also names the Kuwaiti government as a defendant for enabling the alleged abuse carried out by its employee.

The lawsuit claims violations of labor laws, anti-trafficking laws, as well as the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery. It also states that the couple used diplomatic immunity to avoid criminal charges.

The three women, originally from India, said they came to the United States in the summer of 2005 to work as domestic help for Maj. Waleed Al Saleh, an embassy attache, and his wife, Maysaa Al Omar. The workers were promised monthly wages of $1,280 to work a six-day, 48-hour week, according to the lawsuit.

Instead, the women were regularly subjected to physical abuse and constant duty taking care of the couple's home and four children, including year-old triplets. The women were allowed out of the McLean home only once a month to attend church services.

The lawsuit alleges that the women only received a fraction of their promised wages, which were sent directly to family members overseas. The couple took the women's passports from them.

The alleged abuse included death threats, pulled hair, and beatings - including one with a box of frozen chicken.

Bravo. This is the kind of thing we should have been seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan all along, and not infrequently, if what the media and government have had us believe were true. From CNN, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Two civilians thwarted an attempted terrorist attack Tuesday when a vehicle loaded with explosives attempted to crash through the front gate of a U.S. base in the Afghan capital, according to the U.S. military.

The two men, an interpreter and a security guard, dragged the apparent suicide bomber from the vehicle before he could detonate explosives, said Col. Tom Collins, the chief spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"I think it's a pretty amazing and heroic event," Collins said.

He said that at about 9 a.m. Tuesday (10:30 p.m. ET Monday) a driver crashed his vehicle into Camp Phoenix, the base where the Afghan National Army and police are trained. The driver reached for what appeared to be a cord to detonate a bomb, he said.

"Amazingly, a couple of Afghans who just happened to be on the scene there realized what was happening," Collins said.

"Anyone's inclination would have been to run away but these guys are genuine heroes," Collins said.

Giving in to pressure, but Gonzales says the job will still be done. "Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping," by James Vicini for Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending an law-enforcement tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

The program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, allowed the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without a warrant, if those wiretaps were made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives.

In accord with Qur'an 2:62-5; 5:59-60; and 7:166. "Sydney cleric ridicules Jews: report," from AAP, with thanks to David:

Sydney's most influential radical Muslim cleric has been reportedly caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah.

Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, delivers the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series, sold in Australia and overseas, News Limited newspapers report.

An Australian citizen born in Sydney, he has spent the past year living in Lebanon.

Sheikh Feiz was exposed this week in the British documentary, Undercover Mosque.

"Today many parents, they prevent their children from attending lessons," he says in the video.

"Why? They fear that they might create a place in the their hearts, the love, just a bit of the love, of sacrificing their lives for Allah."

"We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam.

"Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior).

"Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."

British investigators found the DVDs being sold by children in the carpark of the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham and other Islamic bookshops.

The entire set is available on the internet for $150.

His rants on video include denouncing "kaffirs" or non-Muslims.

"(Kaffir) is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt," Sheikh Feiz says.

In an excerpt from a video lecture series called Signs of the Hour, he ridicules Jews as pigs.

CAIR has found what it has been fishing for -- or thinks it has. But it looks as if they're trying to make something out of people being late for their flight.

"40 kept from Detroit flight, council says: Northwest: Muslim pilgrims were late," by Shabina S. Khatri for the Detroit Free Press, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Thousands of American Muslims returned to Michigan this month exhausted in body but revitalized in spirit after performing the hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, that is a religious duty.

But not all travelers had an easy time getting home.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is expected to hold a news conference today regarding the treatment of 40 American Muslim pilgrims - some from Canton, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights - who were allegedly denied passage on a flight to Detroit.

The men were reportedly denied boarding on Northwest Airlines Flight 51 from Germany on Jan. 7. CAIR-Michigan is asking the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate the incident.

Northwest spokesman Roman Blahoski said Monday that the passengers were denied boarding because they arrived for the flight just 20 minutes before departure, a violation of airline and governmental regulations.

"These passengers did not meet the standard check-in deadline of 60 minutes or onboard deadline of 20 minutes," he said. "It's nothing beyond that."

Wouldn't be surprising, if true. By Maddy Sauer and Gretchen Peters at ABC's The Blotter (thanks to James):

Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is alive and well and living in Pakistan under the protection of the Pakistan intelligence agency, according to the captured spokesman for the Taliban, Mohammad Hanif.

Hanif was captured in Afghanistan yesterday, and today the Afghan government released video footage of him in which he claims to know the location of Omar.

"He is living in Quetta," says Hanif, "and the ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency] is protecting him."

While Pakistani officials dismiss this statement, the information coincides with secret U.S. military documents obtained by ABC News earlier this year. The documents were part of a U.S. targeting assessment produced in January 2005 and, incredibly, were bought at an Afghanistan street bazaar, just a few hundred feet from the front gate of the U.S. air base in Bagram.

Dinesh D'Souza has written a spectacularly wrongheaded and potentially immensely damaging new book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues essentially that the jihadists hate us because we are immoral. It is, of course, already getting lavish attention from those who, out of political correctness and fear, as well as a miscalculation of the most effective ways to deal with the problem we face, have steadily ignored the jihad ideology and its influence among those who are waging war against the U.S. and its allies.

D'Souza showed up in a National Review Q & A with Kathryn Lopez yesterday, wherein he breezily discounted the possibility that they hate us because of imperatives arising from within the Islamic religion.

Lopez: On Islam: It has been argued that the Koran itself is violent. That moderate Muslims, in fact, have to distance themselves from more than Osama bin Laden. Is it possible that you are part of the not-understanding-the-threat-we-face problem by suggesting that line of examination be shut down?

D'Souza: I'm not urging that any line of inquiry be "shut down."

It's ironic that this question would even have been asked and answered, since, with the notable and noble exception of the articles of Andrew McCarthy, this line of inquiry has effectively been shut down at National Review. For reasons I do not know, after my 2005 skirmish with Rich Lowry over J. L. Menezes' book on Muhammad, NR has tended to shy away from considering the possibility that there might be something within Islam that fuels jihad terror -- Lowry, if I understand him correctly, thinks (as does D'Souza -- see below) that to do so alienates moderates. This is ironic, however, because by declining, at least so far, to enter into this discussion they cut the ground out from under those moderates, by pretending that nothing in Islam actually needs reform.

I'd like to invite Kathryn Lopez and NR to take D'Souza's words to heart and not shut down this line of inquiry. I'd be happy to debate D'Souza in the pages of National Review or at NRO on whether or not there is something about Islam that fuels today's jihad violence, and whether our immorality is the paramount cause of jihad. I contend that, pace D'Souza, that we could be the most moral people on earth and the jihad would continue nevertheless. The Qur'an (9:29) directs Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, not just immoral Jews and Christians. What has changed in the last 25 years is the material ability of Muslims to pursue the jihad imperative.

After all, Egyptian jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb was enraged by the immorality of the dancing at a church social in Colorado in the late 1940s; how immoral do you think that dancing really was, compared to today's standards? Yet despite its relative innocuousness, it still enraged him. He would not have been pacified by anything short of full Islamic separation of the sexes, and the covering of women. In other words, he would not have been satisfied by anything short of our islamization.

D'Souza continues:

I'm saying it's foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years.

I expect in this D'Souza is dating the beginning of Islamic terrorism to the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979. This suggests that he does not regard the relentless jihad against Israel as "Islamic terrorism"; that he doesn't regard the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood, the direct forerunner of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, in Egypt in 1928 as having anything to do with "Islamic terrorism"; and that he either doesn't know or care that the ideology held by Osama bin Laden and other jihad terrorists today is identical to that held by jihad armies of the past, which overwhelmed and islamized the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and significant portions of Europe and Asia.

So is it even reasonable to blame Mohammad or the Koran? I realize that you can fish out this passage or that passage and make it sound like the Muslims want to convert or kill everybody. But that would be like taking passages out of the Old Testament to make Moses sound like Hitler.

Would it really? The question here is who is doing the fishing. D'Souza refers to Osama's communiques -- what about all the Qur'an quotes in them? Here's the one from November 24, 2002. Lots of Qur'an in it. As I have pointed out many, many times, jihadists quote Qur'an and Hadith copiously, and portray themselves as the exponents of "pure Islam." It is not "Islamophobes" who are "fish[ing] out this passage or that passage," it is the jihadists. Are we to avoid examining this phenomenon and discussing its implications because of fear of "blam[ing] blame Mohammad or the Koran"? Would it not be more prudent to explore it and try to formulate positive ways to deal with it?

After all, there is no body of Jews corresponding to the Islamic jihadists, quoting the Old Testament to justify Hitlerian genocide. And that's why D'Souza's analogy fails utterly.

And also, Muslims don't want to "convert or kill everybody." That is a false oversimplification. Muhammad commanded Muslims to convert or subjugate or kill everybody. And that explains much of what D'Souza brings up next:

Besides, you have to look at what the Islamic empires actually did. There were Christians and Jews who lived under the various Muslim dynasties, from the Abbasid to the Ottoman. In fact, Jews were much safer in the Ottoman empire than in just about any of the Christian kingdoms, such as that of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain.

In fact, Jews as dhimmis were in Ottoman domains subjugated as dhimmis. D'Souza's contention that "Jews were much safer in the Ottoman empire than in just about any of the Christian kingdoms" is flatly false. That's why 17 million Jews were in Europe at the dawn of the twentieth century, and only one million in Islamic lands.

D'Souza continues:

So we have to be careful about simply describing a religion of one billion people as "violent." This would be tactically imprudent even if it were true, but it is not true, so why repeat a canard that has the terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp?

Although this idea is taken for granted by most analysts, no one has ever yet explained to me why describing Islam as containing elements that incite to violence will make otherwise peaceful Muslims become violent or begin to condone religious violence. Why wouldn't it lead them to begin much more active reform efforts? D'Souza thinks talking about the elements of Islam that give rise to violence is "tactically imprudent"; I think his avoiding doing so is tactically disastrous. He wants to foster the growth of an Islam that accepts the idea of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims by ignoring the elements of Islam that make this increasingly difficult in the modern world. Yet while D'Souza is calling upon us to ignore these elements of Islam, jihad terrorists are not ignoring them. They continue to use them to recruit and motivate terrorists. Thus in reality the only viable way to encourage moderate Muslims is to help them confront and reject these elements of Islam, so as to forestall such recruitment.

So how about it, Ms. Lopez? Mr. D'Souza? I am up for a debate anytime you're ready.

Why didn't the Vast Majority of Moderates™ in the mosque turn him over to police? "Terrorist suspect flees police in mosque," by Daniel McGrory and Richard Ford in the TimesOnline, with thanks to Ben:

A British-born terror suspect was on the run last night after breaking his control order and evading police by taking shelter in a mosque.

The man, aged 26, is thought to have escaped abroad after claiming that he wanted to undertake terror training in Afghanistan.

His disappearance is a further embarrassment for John Reid, the Home Secretary, as he is the third terror suspect under a control order to escape in less than six months.

It raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the orders, which were introduced by Government in 2005 and are designed to control and monitor terrorist suspects who can’t be prosected or deported from Britain.

Opposition MPs last night demanded that the suspect be identified. Currently there is an anonymity order in place and the Government has not applied to overturn it.

The man, who is of Pakistani origin and lives in Manchester, was only placed under the control order this month. But within four days he disappeared. Police sources say that the man failed to show up at a local police station to surrender his passport. He was traced to a nearby mosque, where community leaders say he had sought sanctuary. Police rarely enter a mosque: they began discussions with both local community figures and leading officials connected to the mosque.

It is understood that while these talks were taking place, the young suspect was helped to escape through a back entrance while officers from Greater Manchester Police were stationed outside.

A New York Post editorial calls upon the Democrats to cut all ties to Dhimmi Carter. If only they had the integrity and courage to do so. "Jimmy For Terror," from the New York Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?

To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)

You don't have to read between the lines here.

Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.

Read it all.

"New Book Details Militant Islam in U.S." in Human Events is my review of Steven Emerson's Jihad Incorporated.

Are you aware of the al Qaeda plot to assassinate President Bush that was uncovered in 2005? Did you know that jihad terrorists in the U.S. financed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing partially through the sale of counterfeit T-shirts? Did you know that a professor at the University of South Florida in the 1990s was one of the international leaders of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad and that he used his university activities as a cover while he raised money, gained recruits and disseminated propaganda for the jihad group? Had you heard that in May 2003, an American citizen living in Ohio pled guilty to conducting surveillance of the Brooklyn Bridge and other potential targets for al Qaeda?

These were not isolated incidents. In fact, they are just a few of the known activities of a huge jihad network that still operates in the United States, but of which few Americans are aware. That lack of awareness, however, is not because the information is unavailable: Steven Emerson’s “Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.” tears the cover off this American jihad network. It is a comprehensive summation of what is known about the activities of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other jihad groups within the United States. Although the tone of this book is sober and straightforward throughout, the cumulative effect is startling: The extent to which these jihad groups have penetrated American society is likely to come as a surprise even to relatively informed readers.

While PBS’ recent supposed documentary on antisemitism was farcical from top to bottom, the appearance of Bernard Lewis was not the worst of it. One did not expect people of the level of Gavin Langmuir and Leon Poliakoff to appear, but to have man-in-black Tony Judt and PLO-propagandist Rashid Khalidi (for that was how he got started back in Beirut, before getting that "degree" in Middle Eastern studies from Hourani's D. Phil. factory at St. Antony's) put in appearances was hard to stomach.

As for Lewis, he is a man more outwardly cultivated than wise. In his mass-audience "The Middle East: A History of the Past 2000 Years," he devotes exactly three paragraphs, on one out of a total of 400 pages, to the status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. That is not distant from Le Pen's justifying his remark that the death camps were a "detail" of World War II by noting that in some histories of that war that "detail" is discussed in a few pages. In the documentary, he keeps up this nonsense about how antisemitism was non-existent in the world of Islam, and is essentially a European import.

A Jihad Watch poster recently remarked that Bernard Lewis "is considered a foremost expert of islam by almost everybody."

No, he isn't. It is just that those who do Middle Eastern studies come in two varieties. First are the apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who hate Lewis for knowing a bit too much about Islam, and for so intelligently attacking Edward Said. In other words, the espositos and the armstrongs and dabashis and khalidis and ernst-sells brigade all hate him.

And these apologists for Islam have cleverly wormed their way into academic department after academic department. They have more or less taken over MESA Nostra. Also, they now dominate the editorial boards of professional journals, where they permit publication of either Islamic propaganda about the Lesser Jihad (hypertrophied attention to "the Palestinians"), or anodyne articles on subjects sufficiently abstruse. The effect of this is that Islam is seen not steadily and whole, but only in this or that untroubling aspect. There is, of course, nothing about Jihad-conquest, nothing about the treatment of dhimmis. These apologists are so obviously awful, and so obviously against Lewis, that one wishes, and many have assumed, that Lewis is a tremendously learned (he is) and therefore reliable (he isn't) truth-teller about Islam.

Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy - an unusual agreement across Iran's political spectrum, with many saying his provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country. -– from this article

But there is also the siren-song sung by those who insist that if no measures are taken, then within Iran a better regime will come to power. And so what? Had the Shah acquired nuclear weapons -- and he certainly wanted to -- then the Khomeini regime would have inherited those weapons. And even if the Shah's son were somehow to take over from those now running the Islamic Republic, given the makeup of the population in Iran, who can say that the Shah's son would not be followed by a regime similar to the one now in power?

Sharia Alert. "Nigeria - State's policies said to strangle Christianity," from Compass Direct:

LAFIA, Nigeria, January 15 (Compass Direct News) – As soon as Christians in this capital city of Nasarawa state tried to rebuild a Reformed Church building that Muslims burned down two years ago, more than 200 Islamists attacked the workers.

The rebuilding came to a halt, and the Nasarawa state government subsequently banned reconstruction of the facility. The church had been planted more than a century ago by missionaries of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa under the auspices of the then-Sudan United Mission, headed by German missionary Dr. Karl Kunn.

Islamic law prohibits building new churches or restoring old ones, based on the dhimma laws set forth in the Pact of Umar:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

The article continues:

“I personally witnessed the attack on the workers at the reconstruction site of the church,” said the Rev. Jerry Modibo, chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Nasarawa state chapter. “The Muslims were chanting, ‘Death to Christians, death to infidels. This town is for Muslims, we don’t want Christians here.’”

The church was known as NKST, or Nongo u Kristu u ken Sudan hen Tiv, Church of Christ in the Sudan Among the Tiv. The Tiv are an ethnic group of central Nigeria. The congregation in the Angwan Tiv area of Lafia had lost their church building in religious rioting.

Angwan Tiv is just one of many areas of Lafia town where the government now forbids building churches, Modibo said. At the same time, he said, the Nasarawa administration has financed the building of mosques across the state with public funds. Some of these mosques have been built on the premises of various government ministries and agencies.

The church leader said Nasarawa state has also built mosques in the Governor’s House and in the state House of Assembly, or parliament.

“If you are traveling from Lafia to Akwanga through Keffi to Abuja, you will see mosques being built along the road,” Modibo said. “These mosques are being built by the state government in towns and villages like Shabu, Nasarawa Eggon, Akwanga, Sabon Gida, Keffi, and Gora. Yet no single church or chapel has been built for Christians in this state.”

Christian public servants recently raised funds to build a chapel within the confines of the office of the deputy governor, who happens to be a Christian, Modibo said.

“They were ordered by the governor to stop the building of the chapel,” he said. “But there are two mosques built by the government in the same premises. That is the kind of injustice confronting us in this state.”

Gov. Alhaji Abdullahi Adamu was not available for comment, and his commissioner for information and internal affairs, Suleiman Adokwe, declined to speak on these and other issues to Compass. “Religious issues are sensitive, and I cannot therefore speak on them,” Adokwe said.

Muslim Chiefdoms

Nasarawa state policies are strangling Christian presence in the central Nigerian state, Modibo said. Officials deny Christians appointments to government institutions; at the same time, they promote junior-ranking Muslims above Christians in public service positions.

Nasarawa state has 51 “traditional rulers,” or community leaders recognized by the government. Modibo said that of this number, only 10 are Christians – the other 41 are Muslims.

“Abdullahi Adamu, the governor, did this by creating more chiefdoms to favor Muslims, and meanwhile he was stifling Christian community leaders by making them second fiddle in the scheme of things in this state,” Modibo said.

Discrimination in public service, the Christian leader said, has become a lifestyle for Christian public servants in the state. Of the 18 commissioners in government service, he said, only six are Christians.

“Last year Gov. Adamu appointed 18 commissioners, and 12 are Muslims,” he said. “Yet Christians constitute the largest population of the state – if you visit all 29 local government areas of this state and take statistics of all the people of these areas, you will discover that Christians constitute well over two-thirds of the state’s 1.2 million population.”

In addition, Modibo said, in the past 10 years appointments of federal ministers and ambassadors – based on recommendations from the state governor – have favored Muslims.

“Only one Christian in the past 10 years has ever been appointed a minister, and even then he was not allowed to complete his term of office,” Modibo said. “The same scenario played out in ambassadorial appointments – only one Christian has been appointed an ambassador in the past 10 years from this state.”

In the Christian-majority state, elections have been manipulated to perpetuate Muslim political leadership, he added.

Modibo, also a pastor with the Evangelical Reformed Church of Christ said Christians have made concerted efforts to dialogue with Gov. Abdullahi Adamu on these issues without success.

“Several attempts have been made by us to sit with the governor on a round table to discuss and find solutions to these issues, but our efforts yielded no results,” Modibo said. “In addition to personal contacts with officers of the protocol department, we have written thrice seeking to have an audience with the governor but have waited almost eternally.”

Pilgrimage to Justice

Nigerian state governments have assumed responsibility for helping to finance pilgrimages for Muslims to Mecca and for Christians to Jerusalem. Christians in Nasarawa believe the state has discriminated against them in this area as well.

In 2005, Nasarawa state budgeted and distributed 200 million naira (US$1.6 million) for Muslim pilgrims. The state budgeted 15 million naira (US$121,832) for Christians.

“Even this amount was not released for the sponsorship of Christian pilgrims after its approval,” Modibo said. From 2000 to 2005, Muslim pilgrims to Mecca sponsored by the state totaled 6,220, while the state supported only 355 Christians – and many of those encountered difficulties in obtaining the assistance, Modibo said.

“We have been facing a lot of tribulations, trials, and frustrations here in Nasarawa state,” he said. “The church here is facing the most difficult period of her life.”

Modibo noted that Proverbs 31:8-9 advocates speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves, defending the rights of the destitute, and letting justice flow.

“So, we are demanding that there be justice and fairness to all,” he said. “All religions in this state should be treated fairly.”

"Its chief targets are the US-led forces and 'collaborators.'" As long as there are American and coalition troops in Iraq, why is al-Zawraa still on the air? "Insurgent TV channel turns into Iraq's newest cult hit," by Michael Howard for the Guardian:

An American soldier slumps in the turret of his tank, felled by the infamous Baghdad sniper. A Humvee is vapourised by a roadside bomb. Rockets launch from a pick-up truck to shouts of "Allah u Akhbar [God is great]".

Back in the studio a TV anchorman, dressed in fatigues, urges viewers to rise up and fight the invaders. "We will not surrender. Either death or victory," he vows, while warning US forces and their "Iranian" friends in Iraq's government that they face a shameful defeat.

This is al-Zawraa TV, a 24-hour satellite station that lionises Iraq's insurgency to the drumbeat of Saddam-era martial music. It is a crude and dizzying mix of images and videos harvested from jihadi websites - and a cult hit. There are grainy loops of car bombs and mortar attacks interspersed with images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and bloodied children. "Mujahideen" are seen training. Clips of Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11 are thrown in for good measure.

Its chief targets are the US-led forces and "collaborators". But it reserves some of its strongest venom for the Safawis, a derogatory term used by Sunni Arabs to describe Iraq's resurgent Shia political and religious establishment. The name harks back to the Persian Safavid empire which ran amok in Baghdad in the 16th century.

The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia, thought to be behind many of today's anti-Sunni attacks, are excoriated as "murderous gangsters", while the Shia-led government is labelled as Iranian stooges. "We are not against the Shia, we are against the Safawis," the station proclaims.

Al-Zawraa started life as a mostly song-and-dance channel, but following the closure of its Baghdad offices by the Iraqi government in November for "inciting violence" it made an abrupt change of tone.

Iraqi officials say al-Zawraa is a mouthpiece for the Islamic Army in Iraq, a Baathist-dominated insurgent group. It is transmitted from an unknown location into the Middle East and north Africa by the Egyptian-owned Nilesat network.

The station is owned by Mishan al-Jibouri, a member of Iraq's national assembly who had his parliamentary immunity stripped earlier this year following allegations of embezzlement. US officials in Iraq say he is in hiding in Syria.

Al-Zawraa has proved a hit with disaffected youth in Baghdad. "I watch this channel every night," said Samir Aziz, 22. "I don't like encouraging violence, but it is something unusual in the argument against the Americans. I am hooked."

An update on this story. "Suspended sentences for Moroccan journalists for defaming Islam," from AFP:

CASABLANCA, Morocco (AFP) - A court in Casablanca has handed down three-year suspended jail terms on two journalists for defaming Islam and breaching public morality in jokes published in a Moroccan weekly magazine.

The court also ordered the payment of damages of 80,000 dirhams (7,200 euros, 9,300 dollars) for "defamation against Islam and the monarchy".

At the same time the court banned the magazine Nichane from publishing for two months.

The contentious jokes featured the prophet Mohammed, the late Moroccan King Hassan II, Islamists and Moroccans in an article entitled "How Moroccans laugh at religion, sex and politics."

The magazine's attorney, Chawki Benyoub, said he would appeal the ruling.

International media rights groups had widely condemned the trial of the two journalists, Sanaa Al Aji and Driss Ksikes, as a violation of press freedom.

Nazanin Update, and it's surprisingly good news, thanks in no small part to international pressure. "Iran clears teenage woman sentenced to death," from AFP:

TEHERAN - An Iranian court has cleared of murder charges a 19-year-old woman who was originally sentenced to death for killing a man she said tried to rape her, the press reported Monday.

Mahabad Fatehi, known as Nazanin, was cleared by a Teheran provincial court of premeditated murder but still ordered to pay blood money of 260 million rials (30,600 dollars) to the victim’s family, the Etemad newspaper reported.

Fatehi, whose case achieved international notoriety when it was taken up by a Canadian beauty queen of Iranian origin, said she stabbed the man in an act of self defence after he tried to rape her and her niece in March 2005.

In January last year, Fatehi was put on trial and sentenced to death by a criminal court, a verdict which was then quashed by the supreme court in an unprecedented move, the report said.

Her case then was referred to the Teheran provincial court, whose five judges cleared her of the charge with the majority of votes on Wednesday, the report said.

‘Two bikers held me and my niece, Somayeh, and asked us a dirty favor. I stabbed Yusof and released myself and Somayeh. But Yusof attacked me again and I stabbed him again,’ Fatehi said.

She maintained she had no other option but self defence, otherwise she and her niece would have been raped by the attackers.

She explained that she and her 15-year-old niece had gone out with two other men when the attackers trapped them in a remote location outside Teheran.

In January 2005, after seven years of legal wrangling, the Iranian judiciary acquitted a woman who killed a senior police officer she said had attempted to rape her on the Gulf island of Kish.

According to the current Iranian law, which is under modification, a boy can be executed from the age of 15, and a girl from the age of nine. However, the execution is in practice normally carried out when the offender is over 18 years old.

The European Union and international human rights groups have been pressuring Iran to stop executing those under age 18, and the UN General Assembly has adopted a non-binding resolution denouncing the practice of executing minors in Iran.

Iran’s ultra-conservative judiciary has responded to critics by saying minors are not executed in the Islamic republic. It has also proposed a law that would prohibit the death penalty or flagellation for those who were minors at the time of the crimes.

Last year at least 154 people were executed in Iran according to an AFP tally based on press and witness reports.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, of course. They couldn't figure out how an obviously oppressed third worlder like Ressam could have been sentenced to 22 years. "Appeals court vacates sentence of 'millennium bomber' Ressam," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.

Engaging constructively

More on the burgeoning Shi'ite client state of Iran that the democracy project in Iraq has unwittingly helped create. By Louise Roug and Borzou Daragahi in the LA Times, with thanks to Mackie:

'There cannot be and there should not be relations with security institutions of neighboring states that work against the interests of this new Iraq.' — Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. ambassador to Iraq

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government is moving to solidify relations with Iran, even as the United States turns up the rhetorical heat and bolsters its military forces to confront Tehran's influence in Iraq.

Iraq's foreign minister, responding to a U.S. raid on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq last week, said Monday that the government intended to transform similar Iranian agencies into consulates. The minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also said the government planned to negotiate more border entry points with Iran.

The U.S. military is still holding five Iranians detained in Thursday's raid. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said records seized in the raid and statements made by the detainees showed that at least some of them worked for Iran's intelligence service.

"I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that these folks that we have captured are foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq's request," Casey said Monday.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, added, "We are going after their networks in Iraq."

Iraqis, who have echoed Tehran's calls for the U.S. to release the five men, say the three-way standoff that has ensued reveals more about American meddling in Iraqi affairs than about Iranian influence.

"We, as Iraqis, have our own interest," Zebari said in an interview with The Times. "We are bound by geographic destiny to live with" Iran, adding that the Iraqi government wanted "to engage them constructively."

Tell them in Grand Rapids.

From The Press Association, with thanks to Kemaste:

One of the alleged July 21 bombers fled London after the attempted attacks disguised as a woman wearing a burka, their trial heard.

Yassin Omar was captured on CCTV at Golders Green coach station in north London and at Birmingham coach station disguised in the traditional Muslim women's dress.

He was picked up on the CCTV just a day after the attempted attacks, Woolwich Crown Court was told.

Prosecuting counsel Nigel Sweeney said: "CCTV shows him and his fiancee at Golders Green coach station and him at Birmingham coach station that evening disguised in the burka."

But the case is likely to go to a higher court. From Associated Press, with thanks to H:

MUNICH, Germany — A court on Monday upheld a ban on Muslim teachers wearing head scarves in the schools of a German state under a law that says teachers' attire must be in line with “western Christian” values.

A Berlin-based Islamic association had complained about the law, which authorities in the conservative-run state of Bavaria have used to ban head scarves while allowing Roman Catholic nuns to continue to wear their head-covering habits in schools.

The Bavarian Constitutional Court ruled on Monday that the application of the law in the state neither violated religious freedom nor was discriminatory.

However, a lawyer for the Islamic Religious Community said some of its members were considering taking their case to the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany's highest court.

"No national security issue says agency." An intriguing update to this story. By David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans in The Guardian, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has challenged the government's claim that a major corruption inquiry into Saudi Arabian arms deals was threatening national security.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told parliament before Christmas that the intelligence agencies "agreed with the assessment" of Tony Blair that national security was in jeopardy because the Saudis intended to pull out of intelligence cooperation with Britain. But John Scarlett, the head of MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier which says MI6 endorses this view.

Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords was incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen. They replied that naturally it would.

The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at an international meeting today to justify why they terminated an important corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems.

In a controversial move last month, Tony Blair ordered the Serious Fraud Office inquiry to be halted, and said he took the responsibility for doing so, after BAE lobbied him that it might otherwise lose a lucrative Saudi order for more arms sales. The decision was condemned by MPs and anti-corruption campaigners, and is now the subject of an inquiry by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for rooting out corruption around the world. Britain signed up to its anti-bribery convention which made the payment of bribes a specific criminal offence under UK law in 2002.

Pc Leigh Walker says: "This attack was particularly degrading for the victim. We need to put a stop to this kind of behaviour by someone who is ignorant to the diverse society that we live in. We will not stand for any type of racial or religious abuse and will deal with anyone who does abuse or assault people like this robustly."

Bravo, Pc Leigh Walker. Go get him. This undeniably boorish fellow clearly poses much more of a threat to Britain than these guys.

This individual's behavior is without excuse. And probably it is prompted by frustration at the utter failure of British authorities to do anything effective about the spread of the jihad ideology in Britain. When I see British police pursuing the preachers of Islamic supremacism and jihad at least as energetically as they are apparently hunting for this man, I will begin to think Britain has opted definitively for survival.

"Man racially abuses Muslim woman," from the BBC, with thanks to JS:

A man who racially abused a Muslim woman and then tried to rip off her veil is being hunted by police.

The 37-year-old woman was attacked as she crossed East Park towards the Cenotaph in Southampton on Thursday afternoon.

The attacker grabbed her by the neck and told her to remove her veil. He then tried to take it off himself but she struggled free and fled.

Pc Leigh Walker said: "This attack was particularly degrading for the victim."...

Pc Leigh Walker said: "We need to put a stop to this kind of behaviour by someone who is ignorant to the diverse society that we live in.

"We will not stand for any type of racial or religious abuse and will deal with anyone who does abuse or assault people like this robustly.

Our Friend and Ally acts like our friend and ally for a change. "Pak destroys Al-Qaida hubs near Afghan border," from the Times of India, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's army destroyed three suspected Al-Qaida hideouts in an air strike near the Afghan border on Tuesday, killing several militants including foreigners.

Military forces carried out the operation with the backing of helicopter gunships in the South Waziristan tribal region after receiving information that 25 to 30 Al-Qaida members were hiding there, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, said.

“We believe most of them were killed, but we don't have a body count,”' he said.

Some terror group members at the sites were foreigners, but “no high-value target was believed to be there,” he said.

The destroyed Al-Qaida hideouts were in an isolated area near the village of Zamzola, which is close to North Waziristan where the government in September signed a controversial peace deal with tribal elders to halt military operations against militants.

In return, local militants and tribal elders at the time promised to not provide shelter to any foreign militants, nor target Pakistani security forces and pro-government elders. However, the government has not signed any such deal in South Waziristan, where the military has carried out scores of operations against Al-Qaida and their local supporters since the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Three clips at YouTube from the British series Dispatches (thanks to Kasper):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

The Thug-In-Chief gathers allies from among the short-sighted, self-serving, and ignorant. They don't realize that they are ensuring only that the crocodile will eat them last. From Channelnewsasia, with thanks to DFS:

CARACAS : Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is locked in a tense standoff with the United States, has arrived in Venezuela for talks with his ideological "brother," President Hugo Chavez.

His regional swing will also include visits to Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, countries controlled by leftist governments critical of Washington.

In Caracas, the two leaders were expected to sign a series of new trade and economic cooperation agreements.

"Iran and Venezuela are two important allies on a global level, the two countries have important industrial and oil projects, which we will follow up in this trip," Ahmadinejad said before flying from Tehran, according to the state-run IRNA agency.

An extremely exciting, if perhaps somewhat extraneous, exposition from those experts who excoriate us for our immorality, that is, our uxorious and exigent exercise of the letter X. From NewsMax (if you'll pardon the expression), with thanks to War On Hate:

A group of Islamic clergy in Saudi Arabia has condemned the letter "X” because of its similarity to a hated banned symbol – the cross.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which has the ultimate say in all legal, civil and governance matters in the kingdom, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against the "X.” It came in response to a Ministry of Trade query about whether a Saudi businessman could be granted trademark protection for a new service with the English name "Explorer.”

The request from the businessman, Amru Mohammad Faisal, was turned down.

"Experts who examined the English word ‘explorer’ were struck by how suspicious that ‘X’ appeared,” Youssef Ibrahim writes in the New York Sun.

"In a kingdom where Friday preachers routinely refer to Christians as pigs and infidel crusaders, even a twisted cross ranks as an abomination.”

And if the attacks were as carefully planned as the evidence indicates, who may have recruited, funded, and trained the bombers? "Militants plotted second wave of UK bombs, court told," by Michael Holden for Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - An Islamist cell tried to carry out suicide bombings on London's transport system just two weeks after attacks that killed 52 people and wounded about 700, a prosecutor said on Monday.

The "extremist Muslim plot" was not a hastily arranged copycat scheme but a long-planned operation, chief prosecutor Nigel Sweeney said as six British men went on trial over the failed attacks of July 21, 2005.

He said the attackers aimed to cause maximum injury by detonating home-made bombs packed with metal, which they carried in rucksacks onto the public transport system.

"It was simply the good fortune of the traveling public that they were spared," Sweeney told the court.

The targets -- three underground trains and a bus -- echoed those in the deadly attacks by four young British Muslims who blew themselves up in London two weeks earlier, on July 7, 2005.

The failed second set of attacks caused panic and triggered a huge manhunt, leaving Londoners unclear if they were a botched and quickly assembled attempt to imitate the original carnage.

But Sweeney told the high-security Woolwich Crown Court: "The evidence in this case shows that this conspiracy had been in existence long before the events of July 7."

The six men are all originally from Africa and in their 20s.

Sweeney said the 9th-floor flat of defendant Yassin Hassin Omar in north London was the bomb-making factory. The detonator was triacetone triperoxide (TATP) and the main charge was held in buckets surrounded by screws, tacks, washers and nuts.

"The purpose is, of course, to increase fragmentation when the bomb explodes and maximize the possibility of injury, fatal or otherwise, to those in the vicinity," Sweeney told the court.

FAILED TO EXPLODE

Sweeney said the 5 kg (11 lb) bombs were made of hydrogen peroxide, nail varnish and flour used to make chapatis, or unleavened bread. They were carried in rucksacks with wires connected to the detonators hidden under clothing.

He said that between May 9 and July 5, the group bought 442 liters of hydrogen peroxide. One supplier sold them 218 liters, nearly half of its total sales of the chemical in that period.

Sweeney said four of the defendants successfully fired their TATP detonators but the main charge failed to explode, possibly because the proportion of hydrogen peroxide was not quite right.

TATP is an explosive chemical which can be made from commonly available household products. Nicknamed "Mother of Satan," it is highly volatile and liable to explode prematurely if subjected to friction, impact or change of temperature.

All the main suspects on trial were apprehended just over a week after the failed attacks.

Muktah Said Ibrahim, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, Hussein Osman, Yassin Hassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Adel Yahya are all charged with conspiracy to murder. They deny the charges.

The prosecutor said Osman had told police after being arrested in Italy that the bombings were a deliberate hoax to make a political point. Sweeney rejected the "hoax" defense.

Sweeney said Mohammed was seen trying to set off his bomb facing a woman with a pushchair and was wearing a top with New York on it, "no doubt connected with the events of 9/11."

He said home-made films featuring images of beheadings of Western hostages and other attacks, including those on September 11 in New York, were found in two of the defendants' flats.

They are also accused of "conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property."

In "The Question of Carter's Cash" at National Review, Claudia Rosett explores some of the people financing Jimmy Carter, including Osama bin Laden's brother. It's behind subscription, so here is just a small excerpt:

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That's the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding....

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter's anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center's prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center's annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, 'for the Saudi BinLadin Group.'"

Because the U.S., the U.K., and Israel are trying to drive Sunnis and Shi'ites apart. And you know they loved each other so much before the Western powers came along. From Reuters, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday the United States, Britain and Israel were an "axis of evil" trying to drive a wedge between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush originally labeled Iran, North Korea and Iraq -- before U.S. troops invaded -- as part of an "axis of evil." Washington accuses Iran of backing terrorism and trying to build atomic bombs, charges Tehran denies.

"America, Britain and the Zionist regime (Israel) are an axis of evil against the Islamic world and the whole of humanity," Guards Commander-in-Chief Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying by Iran's student news agency ISNA.

"They are trying to make enmity among Islamic countries and to make divisions among Shi'ites and Sunnis," he said.

He was echoing comments by other Iranian officials who have accused Washington of stoking sectarian tensions in Iraq where the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims, like most Iranians. Washington blames Iran for fuelling violence in Iraq.

"Our powerful country does not worry about American and Zionist regime threats and in case of any kind of attack by intruders, we are able to defeat them," he added.

We noted last week that documentary footage of jihadist preaching inside British mosques would soon air in Britain -- and it's airing tonight. But oddly enough, the Muslim Council of Britain, the "moderate" group, is unhappy. You would think that a group of moderate Muslims would be cheering the exposure of jihad sympathizers among them, but they're instead sounding all the familiar themes of selective quotation, etc. etc. etc. But you know, in most circumstances, no matter how selectively one quotes not much can be made of the result.

"TV documentary accused of misrepresenting UK Muslims," from Arabic News (thanks to Doc Washburn):

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is accusing Channel Four commercial channel of attempting to foment division and sectarianism among Britain's 1.8 million Muslim community.

A documentary, being screened Monday, goes undercover at mosques to find what it in its advance publicity are "preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers." MCB said the Dispatches program "mischievously tried to prove that key Muslim institutions are teaching the exact opposite to Islam commanding Muslims to deal positively and peacefully with those around us."

The producers were "resorting to the dishonest tactic of selectively quoting from some recorded speeches for the purpose of misrepresentation," MCB secretary general Abdul Bari said.

"Their aim is to attach guilt by association. This continuing demonization of British Muslims and the risible attempt at promoting sectarianism among British Muslims will be firmly rejected," Bari said.

Some of the, shall we say, less well-grounded members of the Internet community have been trying to make a mountain out of this particular molehill, although Khaled Meshal himself has emphasized that nothing has changed in Hamas' determination to destroy Israel. And of course that's true: all Meshal has said is that Israel exists, which is something Hamas has always admitted: it would be silly to declare your intention to destroy something that doesn't exist. The Hamas Charter quotes Hassan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"PM dismisses Meshal comments that Israel's existence is a reality," by Avi Issacharoff in Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday shrugged off comments by Hamas' Damascus-based political chief Khaled Meshal, in which he acknowledged the existence of Israel.

Meshal, whose Hamas movement leads the Palestinian government, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday that Israel is a "matter of fact," apparently softening a previous refusal to accept that Israel's existence.

Olmert, asked by reporters accompanying him on a visit to China about Meshal's acceptance of Israel as a state that will endure, said: "Does that mean we weren't until now?"

"Should I be expected to check what he said? Should I be expected to read what he said?" Olmert added, shrugging as he toured Beijing's Forbidden City.

Hamas for its part denied Wednesday that Meshal told Reuters in an interview that his group would consider recognizing Israel once a Palestinian state is established. (Click here for the full interview)

One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists - and that's a fact."

However, Hamad maintained that Meshal did not say anything about recognizing Israel. "There was no change in our stance that Hamas does not recognize Israel," he said.

Thai Jihad Update. "One beheaded, two killed in Thai Muslim south," from Reuters:

YALA, Thailand (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim militants beheaded a Buddhist man and shot dead two civilians in southern Thailand on Sunday as an uprising shows no signs of abating.

The head of the 40-year-old farmer was found next to his body and that of his 35-year-old wife at the entrance of their rubber plantation in Yala province, police said.

Both had been shot and a handwritten note next to the bodies said, "We shall kill all Thai Buddhists," they said.

In the same province, a 74-year-old man was shot dead while riding his motorcycle, police said. Two teenagers, also on a motorcycle, had shot the man.

On Saturday, suspected militants shot dead police Sergeant-Major Pak Petmalai, 47, as he headed for work at a station near his home.

[...]

More than 1,900 people have been killed in three years of violence in the south and peace efforts by the country's new military rulers have had little impact in curbing the unrest.