October 2007 Archives

How wonderfully appropriate. But surely someone is going to get sacked.

Video at Weasel Zippers (thanks to James).

This shouldn't surprise anyone, given the sharp dichotomy between believers and unbelievers that runs through all of Islam.

From the Herald Sun (thanks to JE):

ONE of the three Bali bombers on death row in Indonesia has admitted crying for Muslim victims of his crime, but remained unrepentant for taking other lives. Bali bombings mastermind Imam Samudra told an Indonesian television station he was "very sorry" and had wept because he had killed Muslims in the 2002 attack.

But he remained unrepentant for the other innocent lives he had ended, when he masterminded the twin nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

Indonesian television station Lativi has broadcast footage from a hidden camera, filmed this week when two journalists gained access to the tightly-guarded island prison at Nusakambangan island, by pretending to be relatives.

Family of the three - Samudra, the "smiling assassin" Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, and his brother Ali Ghufron alias Mukhlas - visited the prison on Monday in what could be their last meeting with the death row convicts before their executions.

Samudra used the gathering to deliver a set of 10 final wishes to his family.

He asked his family to not cry out loud in front of his body.

"Nobody, neither family, nor parents, nor wife or children can cry out loud in front of my dead body," he told relatives.

"I asked you to buy the cheapest white cloth to cover my body, but it should be bought from clean money.

"And when I am dead, I don't want to be autopsied," he said.

The 10 wishes included a request he be buried in his home village in Serang, West Java and that his funeral be conducted by fellow muslims.

Meanwhile, Amrozi had been fasting for two consecutive months inside the prison to ask God's forgiveness for killing the Muslims, the program said.

"Tell the others that I am sorry for the Muslims that had become victims," Amrozi said.

But the terrorist, who was scorned for laughing at the carnage during his trial, said that the blasts had gone as planned, and only regretted there weren't more victims.

"When I was caught, no one in the coastal area knew what jihad was," he said.

"But right now, everyone is saying it, and I really feel it.

"This evidence was (shown) when I am still alive, (so) it would be even more when I die."

No, man. Everyone in the Western world knows that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle. Get with the program, will you? You're just another of the multitudinous Misunderstanders of Islam.

What race are Muslims again? And why must Western culture always give way to the cultural demands of Muslim immigrants?

Me, I think Labour's heart is three sizes too small.

"Christmas should be 'downgraded' to help race relations says Labour think tank," by James Chapman in the Daily Mail (thanks to Brenda):

Christmas should be downgraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve race relations, says an explosive report.

Labour's favourite think-tank says that because it would be hard to 'expunge' Christmas from the national calendar, 'even-handedness' means public organisations must start giving other religions equal footing.

The leaked findings of its investigation into identity, citizenship and community cohesion also propose:

• 'Birth ceremonies', at which state and parents agree to 'work in partnership' to bring up children

• Action to 'ensure access' for ethnic minorities to 'largely white' countryside

• An overhaul of Britain's 'imperial' honours system

• Bishops being thrown out of the House of Lords

• An end to 'sectarian' religious education

• Flying flags other than the Union Jack.

I get lots of hate mail, and indeed, I've gotten a particularly large amount from a frequent commenter on the articles at FrontPage magazine, who sent me this one. But this is one of the oddest:

I am a just and fair person, so I must inform you that I have resources backing me that have pockets far deeper and wider than yours will ever be, Insha Allah. I will be watching very closely.

Well, my friend, you know what the man says: All the money you've made will never buy back your soul.

And they didn't mean an interior spiritual struggle.

"Expert: Miami Group Ready for Holy War," by Curt Anderson for Associated Press (thanks to Block Ness):

MIAMI (AP) -- A group of men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower were in the final stages of forming a homegrown terrorist cell dedicated to waging an Islamic holy war before they were arrested, a prosecution terrorism expert testified Tuesday.

Raymond Tanter, a Georgetown University professor and terrorism scholar for 40 years, said suspected ringleader Narseal Batiste and the other six had nearly completed the "radicalization process" and moved toward acts of terrorism before their arrests in June 2006.

Hallmarks of this process include religious conversion, operation within a military-style hierarchy and adoption of goals shared by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to destroy U.S. landmarks, Tanter said. The final stage - which he called "jihadization" - means the group is ready to plan, recruit and prepare for an attack.

"I believe that Mr. Batiste falls in the jihadization, or final stage of the radicalization process," Tanter said, adding the other members of the "Liberty City Seven" also fall into that category.

Evidence introduced at trial shows that Batiste "was talking only about violent jihad" and not other meanings of the Arabic word, such as self-examination, Tanter said.

The oath of allegiance to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden taken by the seven men - captured on an FBI videotape - "is the manner in which al-Qaida binds individuals to the organization," Tanter said.

The oath was administered by a man Batiste's group knew as "Brother Mohammed" who claimed to be an emissary sent by al-Qaida to assist in the purported terror plot. In reality, "Mohammed" paid FBI informant Elie Assad, who testified earlier that he was playing a role under close watch of FBI agents.

Several people have sent me this item from The Corner:

Constant Reader [John Derbyshire]

An astonished reader:

Mr. Derbyshire—You read Human Events? You think abortion is ok, Intelligent Design is bunk, Christianity is false, and Robert Spencer is nuts, yet you read Human Events? Why?

[Me] Well, for great political reporting like the John Gizzi piece I quoted, for one thing. For Ann Coulter. For Jed Babbin. For the Capital Briefs. Perhaps more than anything, for the stats. I'm a sucker for numbers, and HE doesn't stint on them. (In that Oct. 22 issue, there's an entire page of numbers on the fund-raising efforts of the presidential candidates.)

And I don't think Robert is nuts. In my exchanges with him, he has always come across as courteous, civilized, and perfectly sane. His zeal for his own religion, and scorn for other people's, is the kind of thinking that, in my opinion, gets us nowhere we should want to be; but it's a point of view, and I respect Robert's scholarship. Nuts? No way.

Why, thank you, John. I don't think you're nuts, either.

I must have been nuts, however, when I did something I had never done before and will never do again: announce that a piece was coming before I had written it. On September 21 I promised an imminent reply to Derbyshire's "Islamophobophobia" article, and haven't delivered yet. One day it will appear, but this yawning gap between promise and fulfillment is getting to be embarrassing.

Anyway, one thing for now: this business about my "zeal" for my own religion, and "scorn for other people's" is wholly false. I don't have scorn for anyone's religion, and lots of people would question my zeal for my own. In this I expect that Derbyshire is referring to my last book, Religion of Peace?, which he seems to have taken as some kind of proselytizing tract or exercise in religious one-upmanship. It is neither. I explain in the book that I believe the same book could have been written by any atheist, or Jew, or Hindu, or Buddhist who was interested in the facts of the case, and in setting them forth in a neutral manner.

The book does not proselytize, and doesn't analyze the truth or falsehood of Christianity or Islam. All it does is evaluate from various angles the question of whether Christianity and Islam are equally threatening to a pluralistic society that respects non-establishment of religion, as Rosie O'Donnell and many others contend. It was an attempt to respond to the "Religion is the Problem" types like Christopher Hitchens by exploring whether it is really useful to lump all religions together, and to the Christian Theocracy scaremongers by examining whether there is really any comparison between Islamic supremacism and the alleged desire of Christians to replace the U.S. Constitution with Biblical law.

And for all that, we hear that it because I am zealous and scorn other religions. John, with respect, that's a particularly pungent pile of hooey. I don't scorn any religion, particularly Islam. In fact, I have been fascinated by Islam for many years now, which has led to my doing this work. And I respect Islam enough to tell the truth about it, including its warlike and supremacist doctrines -- these are matters of verifiable fact, and it is not "scornful" to point out their existence. I believe it is a particular act of scorn for Islam to adopt the patronizing pap and wishful thinking that marks the work of so many analysts of Islam and terrorism today. When I hear a non-Muslim judge lecturing a jihadist about how he has twisted his own religion, out of a mistaken and condescending distorted view of Islam that he has picked up from the deceivers (both Muslim and non-Muslim), I see scorn for Islam in action.

Speaking about something honestly is not scorning it, much less hating it. I do not wish to become a Muslim or live as a dhimmi under Sharia; I prefer Western notions of human rights. But "scorn" Islam? Not by a long shot. As I say here, I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc. If all that is "anti-Muslim," as some have said it is, so be it.

The indefatigable Harrison Sonntag of Dartmouth notifies me that Google has removed the video of my talk at Dartmouth, with this explanation:

As set forth in the Terms & Conditions, Google Video is not required to host or display uploaded content. Google Video may refuse to host content that violates its policies, including:

illegal content
invasions of personal privacy
pornography or obscenity
hate or incitement of violence
graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death
violations of copyright. Please see our DMCA policy for more information.
Please note that we also reserve the right to not show mature content to users with their safesearch activated. This includes content that would typically not be shown to users under 18 years of age.

We may change these policies at any time without notice.

Of course, my speech was none of those things. It just caught the attention of someone who disagrees with it politically, and rather than engage in reasoned discussion or debate, or mount a rebuttal, he or she just made sure I would not be heard.

The fascist thugs aren't just at Emory. Some of them apparently work for Google.

UPDATE: Charles at LGF kindly vouches for me:

I watched the video, and there was absolutely nothing in it that violated these terms of service. It was a calm, well-reasoned speech that contained nothing hateful, no incitement to violence, no invasion of privacy, no pornography or obscenity, and certainly no violation of copyright.

Thanks, Charles. I'm glad I decided to take out that bit about Paris Hilton, but obviously it didn't do any good anyway.

SECOND UPDATE: Harrison has now kindly made the video available here.

"Millions of Iranians ready for martyrdom: Ahmadinejad," from Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday millions of Iranians would be ready to sacrifice themselves fighting the country's enemies, in an apparent reference to the United States and its allies.

Ahmadinejad's statement came a day after an Iranian commander said the Basij religious militia and their spirit of martyrdom could disrupt strategic Gulf oil shipping routes with a small operation.

But, alas: No houris for economic suicide.

They both spoke at annual ceremonies marking the death of a 13-year-old Basij, Mohammad Hosseini Fahmideh, who died trying to destroy an Iraqi tank in the 1980s war with Iran's neighbor.

"Enemies of the Iranian nation must know that by the passing away of martyrs like Fahmideh, the hands of the Iranian people are not empty," Ahmadinejad told a crowd of student Basij members in Tehran, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"And today millions of Fahmidehs are standing fresher and more prepared," he said.

So, more child soldiers, too? That's not generally something people are proud of.

Iran is locked in a standoff with the West which accuses Tehran of seeking atomic bombs. The United States has said it would not rule out force if diplomacy fails to end the row.

Iran says it nuclear aims are peaceful and says it would respond to any U.S. attack, including targeting U.S. interests.

On Monday, Brigadier General Ali Fahdavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' naval force, told a rally of Basijis: "The area of Persian Gulf and strategic Strait of Hormuz is such that a small operation can have a big outcome."

The Revolutionary Guards, the ideological wing of Iran's military which commands the Basij militia, has previously suggested it could, if pushed, disrupt oil flows in the Gulf and the narrow Strait of Hormuz at its mouth of the oil-rich region.

Jihad guilt from all over:

Guilty Plea In Plot To Attack Fort Dix

Guilty verdicts over Madrid bombs

Will the Islamophobia never end?

This is just weird. Why would someone bring a Saudi flag to the Boston Red Sox victory rally?

Go Yankees!

(Thanks to Hot Air.)

An anti-dhimmi panel in Washington speaks truth to power. By Nathan Burchfiel for CNSNews (thanks to Twostellas):

(CNSNews.com) - Muslim extremists are branding opponents "Islamophobes" in an effort to paint themselves as the victim and silence dissent and opposition to their political and religious beliefs, according to a panel convened in Washington, D.C., Tuesday.

"'Islamophobia' has become ... the new battleground in this war" on terrorism, Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said at the panel discussion.

She said the term "inverts victim and perpetrator" by portraying Islamic fanatics as the victim, thus allowing them to label dissent as a violation of human rights and, in effect, silence dissent.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations has been lobbying hard for bans against "Islamaphobia, which are "tantamount to blasphemy strictures that have been used to curtail freedoms of expression, press, and religion by some of the OIC's most repressive member states," noted the Hudson Institute in its preview to the panel discussion.

The term "Islamaphobia" will be a major focus of the 2009 U.N. World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Bayefsky said the goal of conference organizers, including Libya, Cuba and Iran, is to "deflect attention from the human rights abuses" and "to circle the wagons, to invoke mass hysteria, to suggest to people that they are under threat, which is in fact imaginary."

She said that by labeling themselves victims of Islamophobia, leaders of Islamic regimes can justify harsh crackdowns on internal dissent and legitimize calls for similar crackdowns on outside criticism - such as calls for the punishment of cartoonists who depict the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

"If you can claim the other guy is the human rights violator," Bayefsky said, "if you become the victim of racism and Islamophobia, then you justify the so-called struggle against the enemy of human rights."

Precisely.

And the Leftist thugs who shouted down David Horowitz were nowhere in evidence, of course. Not that they would have wanted to turn out to protest a speech by an apologist for jihad terror -- and meanwhile, Emory's President James Wagner pretended that conservative students were just as likely to behave like fascist thugs as liberal ones, and took precautions to protect Ashrawi's speech that he did not take for Horowitz.

"Ashrawi defends Hizbullah and Hamas," by Gil Hoffman in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

Veteran Palestinian Authority lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi, who represents PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's Third-Wave party, defended both Hamas and Hizbullah in a speech at Emory University in Atlanta on Monday night.

"The [Second Lebanon] War proved [Israel] could not defeat a nation fighting for freedom," Ashrawi said. Later, the Christian lawmaker blamed Hamas's January 2006 election victory on Israel, saying the occupation bred extremism.

Ashrawi also discussed the plight of the Palestinian people, saying they had plunged into a deep depression with unemployment and poverty at record levels, and that peace was the only answer.

Palestinians are experiencing "one of the most difficult phases in our history," she said. "Violence and [the] extreme ideology of Israel feed violence and extremism on the other side. And that's what led to the election of Hamas."

"Now we see not just a political and economic battle, but a battle over the soul of Palestine," she told an audience of about 200. "We find ourselves in the grip of... the deconstruction of Palestine."

Nearly 75 percent of Gazans were dependent on welfare and the Strip's unemployment rate had skyrocketed to 50%, she said, adding that conditions there had worsened since Hamas seized power in June.

[...]

She said peace talks must be moved forward rather than waiting for the violence to subside.

"You cannot hold peace hostage and say, 'Until every single Palestinian becomes peaceful, I'm not going to have talks,'" Ashrawi said. "You have to talk in order to bring about peace."

Hey, this is great! Alexander Van der Bellen won't associate Islam with terrorism! Now if we can just get all the Islamic jihadists around the world to agree not to do so either, we'll really be making progress!

More on this controversy: "Head of the Green Party refuses to associate terrorism with Islam," by Abdelwahab El-Gueyed for KUNA (thanks to Twostellas):

VIENNA, Oct 31 (KUNA) -- Head of the Green Party and National Spokesman Alexander Van der Bellen said he is against the attempts of some bodies to associate Islam with terrorism.

Der Bellen told KUNA that it is in everybody's favor that 400,000 Moslems living in Austria do not turn into hostages as a result of the acts of a few extremist Moslems in the country.

He said the Austrian Green Party, the third largest party in Austria, has expressed its support for the Islamic community in many gatherings.

The eminent politician praised the initiative of the Austrian President Heinz Fischer to organize a reception for the representatives of the Islamic community in Austria and considered it an example to promote Inter-religious and cultural coexistence.

And after a month, what will prevent her from spreading "provocative texts" again?

"Five freed on jihad charges," from Dutch News (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A court in Rotterdam has freed five out of six people charged with recruiting for an armed jihad, or holy war.

The court said the public prosecution department had failed to prove the men were trying to persuade people to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The one female defendant, Michelle Y, was sentenced to one month in jail for spreading provocative texts.

Maybe he thinks that if we throw enough money at Fatah, it really will become moderate. "Aid Request Emphasizes U.S. Support of Palestinian Authority Leadership," by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post (thanks to Pamela):

President Bush has proposed a sixfold increase in aid to the Palestinians, including $150 million in direct cash transfers to the Palestinian Authority, in an effort to bolster the government in advance of a Middle East peace conference planned for later this month in Annapolis.

The $435 million in additional aid, on top of $77 million requested earlier this year, has attracted little notice in the president's $45.9 billion supplemental request last week to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, if approved, it would constitute the administration's largest amount of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. Previously, the administration had limited cash transfers to $50 million at a time.

The Bush administration largely cut off aid to the Palestinian government when the militant group Hamas unexpectedly won legislative elections in 2006. But earlier this year, a unity government deal between Hamas and its Fatah rivals collapsed. Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip, leaving the Fatah-led government in charge of only the West Bank.

Since Hamas seized Gaza, the Bush administration has sought to demonstrate support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and new Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The Annapolis conference is designed to show that the Fayyad government is on track to create a Palestinian state, with the backing of Arab leaders, and State Department officials said the money sought by Bush is designed to signal that substantial aid will flow to leaders who reject terrorism.

Great, except for the fact that they haven't rejected terrorism. But the facts have never gotten in the way of Bush's fantasy-based foreign policy.

All the recent controversy about who is and who isn't a neo-Nazi in Europe should consider whether or not the EU itself can be counted into the neo-Nazi group, or at very least harbors policymakers with such sentiments.

"Guess who Europe's subsidizing?" by Manfred Gerstenfeld in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to Looney Tunes):

The European Union and its member countries have been subsidizing various opponents of Israel for many years. A study, just published by the Dutch Center for Documentation and Information on Israel contains perhaps the most detailed investigation of one such case.

A group called United Civilians for Peace is a joint venture of five Dutch NGOs. Fifty to 90% of their budgets are funded by the Dutch government and the European Union. A sixth partner left UCP in view of its extreme anti-Israeli activities.

UCP - among other things - publishes research about "Dutch economic links in support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and/or Syrian territories."

Journalist Joost de Haas, writing in the Dutch Telegraaf summed up the 50-plus page report by the Dutch Center for Documentation saying: "A peace organization financed with taxpayers money is guided by the Palestinian terror organization Hamas and supports the Iranian atom bomb."

The EU and the Dutch government thus indirectly finance Dutch opponents of Israel.

This story is the tip of a European iceberg of financial support for anti-Israeli bodies. NGO Monitor has exposed various state agencies which finance extreme anti-Israeli organizations. In an article in the Swiss daily Le Temps, Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO Monitor cited examples of such support by the Swiss Agency for Development & Cooperation.

Read it all.

It's OK. I'm sure they all dress as monks and nuns for Christmas.

"Teachers' Muslim dress order," from The Sun, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A SCHOOL was yesterday accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day – to celebrate a Muslim festival.

Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.

The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.

Just two members of staff – a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant – are Muslim.

Embrace

Yesterday a relative of one of the 39 others said: “Staff have got to go along with it – or let’s face it, they would be branded racist.

“Who would put their job on the line? They have been told they have to embrace the day to show their diversity. But they are not all happy.”

The day aims to belatedly mark Eid, the end of Ramadan.

Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.

“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.”

I suspect Ms. Bloomer may be hearing a complaint or two soon.

Not really, of course. I never called for him to resign, much less force him to do so. I did call attention to things that he admits to having said. But AP, characteristically, puts the blame on Jihad Watch and Patrick Poole, as if we trumped up the charges.

Just imagine if an anti-jihadist made reference to some ancient text that says that in the last days, Jews will kill Muslims -- not that any such text exists -- and resigned from his job amid the ensuing controversy. Do you think AP would run a weepy story depicting the anti-jihadist complaining about what a "nightmare" his critics have created for him, and the critics themselves as relentless head hunters bent on doing in a good man?

I don't think so either.

You'll note also that AP doesn't seem to have made any attempt to contact Central Ohioans Against Terrorism or Jihad Watch for comment. This article is wall-to-wall Alzaree, who doth bestride this narrow world like a colossus, a Julius Caesar done in by his mad, craven, jealous opponents.

"Blog critics force imam to resign at Ohio mosque," from The Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):

PARMA, Ohio (AP) — An imam who was to become the new spiritual leader of Ohio's largest mosque resigned because of allegations by bloggers that he is anti-Semitic, he said.

Imam Ahmed Alzaree said the Web postings so poisoned the atmosphere in the community that he and his wife, Marwa, decided to look elsewhere.

"Cleveland now is a nightmare for her," Alzaree said Monday, three days before he was to start at the Islamic Center of Cleveland in suburban Parma. "It will never be a good start for me and the Jewish community."

Alzaree, 38, an Egyptian-born cleric, was to be the mosque's first permanent imam since Fawaz Damra, who was deported in January after a 1991 videotape surfaced showing him disparaging Jews and raising money for the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.

Damra apologized and said his views had changed but was shunned by the interfaith leaders who once worked with him.

Alzaree, who previously led a mosque in Omaha, Neb., said bloggers such as Central Ohioans Against Terrorism and Jihad Watch continued to attack him for a 2003 sermon in which he referenced the Hadiths, a collection of Prophet Muhammad's sayings.

"The hour of judgment shall not happen until the Muslims fight the Jews," the sermon quotes a Hadith. "The Muslims shall kill the Jews to the point that the Jew shall hide behind a big rock or a tree."

Alzaree has said the sermon gave many examples of Islamic teaching on the Day of Judgment and that it is clear that Muslims in the present are required to "strive and struggle in the world doing the good."

Bloggers also attacked him for an appearance at the Omaha mosque by Wagdy Ghoneim, an Egyptian and former imam at the Islamic Institute of Orange County in California who was forced to leave the United States in 2005 because of immigration violations.

Ghoneim had come to the attention of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, which believed his speeches could be considered supportive of terrorist organizations.

Alzaree said it was the administration of the Omaha mosque that had invited Ghoneim to speak.

Leaders of the Ohio mosque said they investigated Alzaree's background and that a major reason they hired him was his commitment to interfaith work. And just last week, Alzaree said he still planned to come to Ohio and make an extra effort to reach out to Jewish and Christian leaders.

But Alzaree said bloggers made it impossible for him to have a good beginning.

"I leave the field" to the bloggers, he said. "I have peace now." Alzaree said he will decide among a half-dozen other job offers....

"I leave the field...I have peace now." And so the noble man rides off into the sunset, without ever having explained whether he actually believes that Muslims will spend their days during the end times killing Jews, or, for that matter, what he believes about Islamic supremacism in general. And no AP reporter, or any reporter, is informed enough or free enough of PC blinders to ask him.

Emblematic of the general unserious response in the West to the ideological challenge from the jihadists. You'll notice that the problem all comes from the young man being unable to find a job -- in other words, jihadism is all the West's fault, and the West can put an end to it with the proper welfare and jobs programs.

"Germany Battles Terror in the Classrooms," by Yassin Musharbash in SpiegelOnline (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Interior Ministry of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is taking a new tack in the fight against homegrown terrorism. It's using a comic book -- complete with colorful images and "youthful" language -- to battle nasty jihadism.

Creativity is often found in the most unlikely places. Take, for example, a couple of German state domestic intelligence offices charged with tasks such as tracking far-right extremism and terrorist cells. In Baden-Württemberg, they recently constructed a mock Pakistani terror camp for a touring exhibition about Islamism. And their colleagues in North Rhine-Westphalia are no slouches either: They've commissioned a comic book, in which kids talk about Islam, the ideology of Islamism and terrorism. Its hero is a young German named Andi.

[...]

Andi has all the accoutrements needed to mark him as your run-o-the-mill hipster kid -- baseball cap, hoodie and messy hair -- and he has a Turkish girlfriend, Ayshe. Her brother -- and Andi's buddy -- Murat, is going through a bit of a crisis because he can't find a position as an apprentice, and he blames his rejection letters on xenophobia. That makes Murat the perfect prey for the strange new kid on the playground, Harun, with his serious demeanor and steadfast belief in what he's been fed from Islamists. Harun, in turn, beats it into Murat's head that he will be discriminated against because of his religion.

My New Homie, the Jihadist

Huran takes Murat under his wing, and it's not long before he makes some progress by convincing him that he shouldn't have any infidel friends because Islam forbids it. Basketball is taboo, too. And he also needs to make sure that his sister doesn't go to the movies with Andi.

After a while, Harun even takes Murat to meet his favorite sheik, whose sermons are filled with hatred. His preaching goes along these lines: "God has ordered the Muslim to neither associate with nor befriend the infidel!" Huran also shows Murat radical Web sites showing videos of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. "But a lot of Muslims get killed in those attacks, too," Murat ventures to comment. "They are all hypocrites and liars!" comes the response of the Jihadist sheik. And even if a Muslim were among the dead, he would have died a martyr. What more could a man want?

Of course, after 38 pages, there is the inevitable happy ending: Murat transforms himself from a potential public enemy number one back into a cheerful chap. And, joy upon joy, an apprenticeship position appears out of nowhere, just to hammer home the moral of the story.

Realism and Reality

It's hard to say whether school kids are going to laugh themselves silly while reading this stuff or if their slippery attention can be held. There will be 170,000 copies of Andi's first adventure and Hamburg is also planning to use them. The second issue in the Andi series is set to hit schools soon.

One thing is for sure: the officials have given it a good shot. The story is a bit too short and sweet but, at the same time, it's half-way believable because you can see that a lot of the details are a fairly faithful reflection of reality.

That said, the character of the headscarf-wearing Ayshe is a bit exaggerated and too good to believe: She's friendly, smart, versed in the Koran, pious ... and on top of that she's a rock-solid believer in the tenets of liberal democracy....

Ah, yes, of course, the great Unicorn, the Western Muslim we are all commanded to believe exists in large numbers, but whom virtually no one has ever actually seen.

My column this week in Human Events:

The Arab American Institute held its national conference in Detroit over the weekend, and presidential hopefuls Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were there. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards addressed the conference via video hookup. Obama also sent an adviser, Tony Lake, and Edwards sent his campaign manager, David Bonior. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean was there as well.

A Detroit Free Press article noted how much this was indication of changing times: “In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis rejected the endorsement of a major Arab-American group.” But now? “This year, Democratic party leaders gave the candidates permission to address the conference despite a campaign boycott of Michigan because legislators moved up the date of the state’s primary.”

"The sect believes that praying once a day is sufficient for Muslims and also calls for a revision of the current interpretations of the Koran."

Oh, the horror!

Wouldn't it be refreshing if somewhere, anywhere, Muslim authorities cracked down this hard on the jihadists?

From AKI (thanks to Twostellas):

Jakarta, 30 Oct. (AKI) – Ahmad Mushaddeq, the leader of the controversial Muslim sect, Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah, and six of his followers have been arrested in Indonesia.

The Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), Indonesia’s main state religious institution welcomed the arrests of the Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah sect members, but asked the police to do more.

“We are asking the police to limit the spreading of these beliefs,” Anwar Ibrahim, head of the MUI Fatwa division told AdnKronos International (AKI).

“The teachings are dangerous and we must be vigilant.”

The sect is regarded as a heretic organisation by the MUI and several other religious organisations also complained to the police.

Al Qiyadah was founded by Haji Salam, later known as Ahmad Moshaddeq several years ago in Bogor, West Java.

It first surfaced in 2000 and has rapidly grown to count some 4000 followers across Java and Sumatra.

On July 23, Ahmad Moshaddeq claimed to be a prophet. He said he had the revelation after he spent 40 days and nights in meditation at Mount Bunder, Bogor, West Java.

The sect believes that praying once a day is sufficient for Muslims and also calls for a revision of the current interpretations of the Koran.

As with the Brown story, this story from the Dartmouth college newspaper is accompanied by a bogeyman photo obviously designed to portray me as a Hitlerian rabble-rouser. There was a campus photographer at the Darmouth talk who was, I was told, taking "hundreds" of photos. I responded at the time that he was no doubt taking so many pictures so he could find one that made me look as bad as possible. And here we are.

Anyway, in the story, a Muslim student blandly retails falsehoods about what the Qur'an says, and where I stand. More comments below.

"‘Islamo-fascism’ speaker met with controversy," by Thomas Bukowski in TheDartmouth.com (thanks to Harrison Sonntag):

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic jihad, gave a speech to an audience of around 70 in Dartmouth Hall on Friday on the subject of “Islamo-fascism.” Amid much controversy over the week’s advertising, the keynote speech received a standing ovation and was the concluding event of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” at the College.

During his speech, Spencer called on the audience to end the silence on the subject of what he called Islamo-fascism.

“Now is the time for every person of conscience to call what oppression and injustice are —- oppression and injustice,” Spencer said. “That’s why we need Islamo-fascism Awareness Week.”

Chloe Mulderig ‘05, who identifies as a “moderate Muslim” and works for the anthropology department, said that Dartmouth disagrees with Spencer’s assertion that Dartmouth needs such a week.

“Part of their agenda is to illicit [sic] a response, but we’re smarter than that,” Mulderig said. “Debate about terrorism is very important, but Robert Spencer is unfortunately bringing hate speech on campus and hates Islam itself.”

Of course, no evidence is offered for this. I ask anyone and everyone, including Chloe Mulderig, to listen to the talk I gave at Dartmouth and to come up with even a single example of "hate speech."

Spencer defended the term “Islamo-fascism” and denied that the term equates Islam to terrorism. He added that terms such as Italian and German fascism used during World War II did not apply to the entire populations of Italy or Germany.

“Saying that Islamo-fascism tars all Muslims simply defies all common sense,” he said.

Spencer said that there was a growing movement of fundamentalist Muslims within the Islamic world who are “claiming the mantle of Islamic purity”.

“Without an authority on who can say what is ‘true Islam’ and when they can base their words on the Koran, then it can and does have a great effect on the Islamic world.”

Spencer claimed that Al-Qaeda and Hamas, who feel “the need for waging war against Christians and Jews until they submit,” sprang from this disagreement about the finer details of Islam.

Spencer also emphasized that in the society that jihadists would implement, women would be one of main groups to suffer .

Though Mulderig was impressed by Spencer’s knowledge of Islamic theology, she questioned the accuracy of his comments concerning the Koran in regards to women.

“[Spencer’s assertion] that the Koran says it is okay to beat women is incorrect and offensive,” she said.

Is that so?

Qur'an 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. This is, of course, an extremely controversial verse, so it is worth noting how several translators render the key word here, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.

Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Daryabadi: "and beat them"
Asad: “then beat them”

Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all "incorrect and offensive"?

Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates Qur'an 4:34 as “go away from them.” In light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain – all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment. Asad adduces numerous traditions in which Muhammad “forbade the beating of any woman,” concluding that wife-beating is “barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided.”

Unfortunately, however, this is not a unanimous view. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

But Mulderig would apparently prefer to pretend that I made this up rather than deal with Muslim approval of wife-beating.

Muldering also wished that a speaker without an agenda was brought in to ignite discussion about terrorism.

“Though a part of Spencer’s agenda is to increase awareness [of terrorism], the other part is to hate on Muslims,” she said.

Once again: prove it. These are false and libelous charges. I argued during the talk that peaceful Muslims were among the victims of jihadists who deem them insufficiently Muslim. It is an act of hate to make false and libelous charges against someone one opposes. Mulderig should back it up if she can, or retract it.

In the question and answer session following the speech, Spencer was asked by a member of the audience if having an Islamo-fascism Awareness Week meant that the College should also have a week for other countries, including a “CIA-fascism awareness week”.

“You guys have that every week here,” Spencer replied, a comment that was met with applause from the mostly-conservative audience.

Spencer was introduced by Professor Meir Kohn of the economics department, who highlighted how the effects of Islamo-fascism was brought to the world’s attention by Sept. 11, 2001 and criticized the ambivalent view of Islamo-fascism by the “left”.

“Marxism currently exists in only three places: North Korea, Cuba and American universities,” said Kohn. He went on to call the academic left a “watered-down version of Marxism.”

Kohn also said that the silence about Islamo-fascism by the academic left is a form of passive approval, and that the front of the war for awareness of this issue is waged on American university campuses.

At one point during the speech, two Safety and Security officers came into the auditorium. They said that they were “not here in official capacity”, but there “just to make sure things were OK,” adding that they found the speech interesting.

Mulderig felt that the presence of the Safety and Security officers was the most offensive part of the event.

“The College clearly has a lot of faith in the muslim community,” she said sarcastically.

Sorry. I know Noam Chomsky and Tom Friedman could go to any campus and speak without needing guards, given the Leftist fascist thugs who dominate so many campuses today, I am not going to have faith in anyone.

These Islamophobes: how dare Imam Samudra, Mukhlas and Amrozi link Islam with terrorism! I trust they will be getting a strongly worded letter from Ibrahim Hooper. Or at least that CAIR will issue a strong denunciation of these statements.

Won't they?

"No regrets for the smiling murderers," from the Times (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

The three Indonesians sentenced to die for the 2002 Bali blasts say that they are ready to be executed and their only regret is that Muslims were among the 202 killed in the attack.

Imam Samudra and the brothers Mukhlas and Amrozi are held at the top-security Batu prison, off the southern coast of Java. They were allowed to meet relatives yesterday in what is likely to be the last such visit before they face a firing squad, probably within the next two months.

Amrozi became known as the smiling bomber because of his constant grin during his trial. “People ask me, why am I smiling? I am happy because I will be united with 72 angels in heaven,” he said in an interview with Reuters and a local television network. “I have killed many with my bombs. I have been tested by spending time in this prison, but if you make infidels angry you will be rewarded.”

The Bali bombings, blamed on the South East Asian Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiah, were intended to scare away foreigners so that Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, could eventually become part of a larger Islamic caliphate. Instead, the attacks in Bali and Jakarta pushed Indonesia into a closer security and intelligence relationship with the US and Australia.

The bombers said that Indonesia’s ties to Washington and Canberra did not mean that they had failed. “What we did was to fight the soldiers of Zion and the cross,” said Samudra, who is considered to have been the chief planner of the Bali attack. Mukhlas added: “If there are victims among Muslims it was just an error. Muslims’ blood is not halal [allowed to be killed] and their killing was not intentional.”

I just emailed this to Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes, who wrote this morning's wildly biased story about those horrible Republican Presidential candidates linking Islam with terrorism:

Dear Ms. Holmes,

In light of the considerations I voiced in my Jihad Watch post about your article, I'd like to interview you for an article I'm writing about journalistic bias.

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a moment to answer these questions via email, or call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

1. When we spoke, I explained to you that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions, and told you that if we refuse to explore this, and to speak about it honestly, we are voluntarily declining to make use of the only key that they themselves have given us to understanding their own motives and goals. You did not quote or refer to anything I said; nor did you quote anyone else saying anything similar. Why did you think these observations irrelevant to the question of the Republican candidates' usage of terms like "Islamic terrorism"?

2. Why did you quote four authorities against the Republicans' usage and only two in favor, and both of those were "man-on-the-street" quips as opposed to four recognized analysts and spokesmen on the other side?

3. On what grounds do you and/or your editors believe that the religion of a particular analyst might color his understanding of the appropriateness of the usage of the adjective "Islamic" in front of the word "terrorism"?

4. Do you yourself believe that if terror groups take names like "Islamic Jihad" or "the Party of Allah" (Hizballah) or "The Islamic Resistance Movement" (Hamas), that non-Muslim officials and writers have the responsibility to find other names by which to refer to them, so as to obscure the Islamic content of their message and appeal within the Islamic world? If so, why?

5. Do you yourself believe that referring to "Islamic terrorism" tars all Muslims as terrorists? If so, can you please explain why this usage is different in substance from common terms such as "white racism" and "Italian fascism," which no one has ever understood as referring to the entire group involved?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I'll let you know if I get any answer.

UPDATE: Elizabeth Holmes writes:

Robert, All interview requests must go through our public relations department in the New York office – please contact Robert Christie (cc’d here). Thanks and best, Elizabeth Holmes

So I wrote Christie and asked for permission. He responded:

Mr. Spencer, Respectfully, we need to decline your interview request for Ms. Holmes. Please feel free to quote from her reporting and if you need any information or fact checking about The Wall Street Journal, please don’t hesitate to ask. Regards, Bob

I wrote back:

How very interesting, Bob. How very, very interesting. Thank you.

Would you yourself then be willing to answer the questions below?

And he responded:

The story speaks for itself and we have no further comment on the matter. Regards, Bob

Indeed it does speak for itself. It speaks volumes.

James W. Wagner, President of Emory University, where the self-proclaimed proponents of free speech and free inquiry behaved like the fascist thugs they really are and shouted down David Horowitz last week, has apologized to the College Republicans for the disruption of the event they sponsored.

In the course of his apology, Wagner says this:

It is worth reminding ourselves and others, in this context, that Emory invites speakers to our campus primarily for the interest and enrichment of the campus community. We open our doors to others as a courtesy. One regrettable consequence of Wednesday night’s assault on free speech is our decision to restrict admission to Glenn Auditorium on Monday afternoon for a lecture by former Palestinian minister of higher education and research Hanan Ashrawi. Admission will be open only to persons with a valid college or university photo ID from Emory or elsewhere. In order to accommodate the interest of persons from the general community, an off-site video feed will be made available in White Hall 208.

Hey, thanks, Dr. Wagner. That's terrific. One speaker's address got disrupted, so you're taking extra precautions for the next speaker. Admirable foresight, sir!

Just a few questions: does your determination to make sure Hanan Ashrawi's speech goes off without disruption have anything to do with her status as an apologist for Palestinian jihad terror against Israel?

And aren't your precautions regarding her speech a suggestion that conservative students are likely to engage in the same fascist silencing tactics that the Emory student Leftists engaged in when they torpedoed Horowitz's speech?

Yet where and when have conservative students ever behaved in such a manner?

If you are really interested in free speech and free inquiry, as you say, wouldn't it make more sense not to trumpet your protections of Hanan Ashrawi, which are not needed in any case since Leftist and pro-jihad speakers are never in physical danger on college campuses, but to invite David Horowitz back to Emory and make sure he is allowed to speak without being shouted down by thugs?

More balanced, objective journalism: at the end of a story on Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, being detained at a U.S. airport (thanks to PRCS for the heads-up), the BBC adds this:

Are you a Muslim who has been detained in an American airport? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below

Has the BBC ever run any requests like these?

Are you a victim of Islamic terrorism? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below

Are you a non-jihadist who has been detained and questioned in an airport because of Islamic terrorism? Are you willing to put up with inconveniences in order to head off another terrorist attack? Send us your comments using the form below

Somehow I doubt it.

Caroline Glick explains exactly what's wrong with Laura Bush donning the hijab in "Our World: Laura Bush's embrace of tyranny" in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to LGF):

Women in Saudi Arabia do not have human rights. As Amnesty International puts it, "The abuse of women's rights in Saudi Arabia is not simply the unfortunate consequence of overzealous security forces and religious police. It is the inevitable result of a state policy which gives women fewer rights than men, which means that women face discrimination in all walks of life and which allows men with authority to exercise their power without any fear of being held to account for their actions."

For instance, women in Saudi Arabia cannot choose whom they marry and they have no real power to divorce their husbands. Men on the other hand can lawfully marry up to four women and divorce any of them simply by announcing that they have divorced them. And once they are divorced, they are by law and practice denied custody of their children.

Marital rape and physical abuse are not generally considered crimes and therefore women have no legal recourse for dealing with abusive husbands, or fathers or brothers. Since they are legally barred from serving as lawyers, and Islam weighs a woman's court testimony as worth half the testimony of a man, even if they were able to press charges against their male tormentors, Saudi women are effectively denied recourse in the local courts.

Women of course are not the only victims of the Saudi regime. Non-Muslims are denied the right to worship. Shi'ite Muslims' right to worship is subject to draconian limitations. Jews are officially barred from entering the kingdom. Then too, there are no real elections in Saudi Arabia, no press freedom, no freedom of assembly. Yet even against this totalitarian backdrop the position of women stands out in its severity.

Take education for example. As the State Department's 2006 Human Rights report notes, there is little academic freedom in Saudi Arabia. For instance, "The government prohibited the study of Freud, Marx, Western music, and Western philosophy." Yet women's educational opportunities are even more constrained. Due to gender apartheid, women may only study in all female institutions. There they are prohibited from studying fields like law and engineering and petroleum sciences. In 2005 the BBC reported, "Although women make up more than half of all graduates from Saudi universities, they comprise only 5 percent of the kingdom's workforce."

Saudi women have no freedom of movement. They may not drive. And they may not move around in public unless escorted by their husband, father or brother. Women found in public unescorted by suitable males are subject to arrest and corporal punishment.

The limitations placed on public appearances are mind boggling. As Freedom House reported in 2005, "Visible and invisible spatial boundaries also limit women's movement. Mosques, most ministries, public streets, and food stalls (supermarkets not included) are male territory. Furthermore, accommodations that are available for men are always superior to those accessible to women, and public space, such as parks, zoos, museums, libraries, or the national Jinadriyah Festival of Folklore and Culture, is created for men, with only limited times allotted for women's visits."

TO THE extent that women in Saudi Arabia are allowed leave their homes, they are prohibited from actually being seen by anyone through the rigid enforcement of Islamic dress codes. As the State Department 2006 report explains, "In public, a woman was expected to wear an abaya (a black garment that covers the entire body) and also to cover her head and hair. The religious police generally expected Muslim women to cover their faces and non-Muslim women from other Asian and African countries to comply more fully with local customs of dress than non-Muslim Western women. During the year religious police admonished and harassed citizen and noncitizen women who failed to wear an abaya and hair cover."

Perhaps it is because it is so offensive to the Western eye to see women covered like sacks of potatoes, the abaya has become a symbol of Islamic oppression and degradation of women. Although outlawing their use, as the French have attempted to do in recent years, is itself a form of religious oppression, the sentiment informing their ban is certainly understandable. The fact is that a free society should not be able to easily stomach the notion that women should be encouraged, let alone obliged to wear degrading garments that deny them the outward vestiges of their humanity and individuality.

Due to the fact that the abayas convey a symbolic message of effective enslavement of women, Mrs. Bush's interaction with women clad in abayas was the aspect of her trip most scrutinized. In the United Arab Emirates, Mrs. Bush was photographed sitting between four women covered head to toe in abayas while she was wearing regular clothes. The image of Mrs. Bush sitting between four women who look like nothing more than black piles of fabric couldn't have been more viscerally evocative and consequently, symbolically meaningful.

The image told the world that she - and America - is free and humane while the hidden women of Arabia are enslaved and their society is inhumane.

But then Mrs. Bush went to Saudi Arabia and the symbolic message of the previous day was superseded and lost when she donned an abaya herself and had her picture taken with other abaya-clad women. The symbolic message of those photographs also couldn't have been clearer. By donning an abaya, Mrs. Bush symbolically accepted the legitimacy of the system of subjugating women that the garment embodies, (or disembodies). Understanding this, conservative media outlets in the US criticized her angrily.

Sunday morning, Mrs. Bush sought to answer her critics in an interview with Fox News. Unfortunately, her remarks compounded the damage. Mrs. Bush said, "These women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That's their culture. That's their tradition. That's a religious choice of theirs."

It is true that this is their culture. And it is also their tradition. But it is not their choice. Their culture and tradition are predicated on denying them the choice of whether or not to wear a garment that denies them their identity just as it denies them the right to make any choices about their lives. The Saudi women's assertions of satisfaction with their plight were no more credible than statements by hostages in support of their captors.

As the First Lady, Laura Bush is an American symbol. By having her picture taken wearing an abaya in Saudi Arabia - the epicenter of Islamic totalitarian misogyny - Mrs. Bush diminished that symbol. In so doing, she weakened the causes of freedom and liberty which America has fought since its founding to secure and defend at home and throughout the world.

Pamela has a post this morning, "CAIR Plays Presidential Politics With Our Lives," about CAIR complaining that "while Democrats tend to talk about terrorism in general, Republicans increasingly pin the threat directly on Islam." That quote comes from a piece posted on CAIR's website, "CAIR: Republicans Pin Terror on Islam, Democrats Don’t."

This is not, however, a CAIR press release. CAIR has simply reposted a Wall Street Journal article, "Linking Terror on the Trail: Republicans Point To Islam, Democrats Take Different Tone," by Elizabeth Holmes.

Elizabeth Holmes interviewed me at some length for this article, and I explained to her that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions. If we refuse to explore this, and to speak about it honestly, we are voluntarily declining to make use of the only key that they themselves have given us to understanding their own motives and goals. And without understanding the motives and goals of an opponent, you cannot defeat him.

Does speaking of "Islamic terrorism" defame or demean all Muslims? Not unless speaking of "Italian fascism" classified all Italians as followers of Mussolini. In fact, if groups like CAIR really wanted to fight against the use of Islamic texts and teachings by jihad terrorists, they would not ignore that use, and criticize those who note it, but would confront it head-on and develop comprehensive programs for mosques and Islamic schools in America to teach against it.

Anyway, I explained all this, and more, to Elizabeth Holmes. But I am not mentioned in the article. Now, that's fine -- it doesn't have to come from me, as long as the perspective I articulated is represented. But in fact, this perspective doesn't appear in the article at all, although it's the best, and indeed the only, defense of the Republican candidates' usage.

The article is thoroughly stacked: in defense of the Republicans speaking of "Islamic terrorism," we hear from "a 62-year-old retiree who heard Mr. Romney speak in Clinton, Iowa, earlier this month," who just offers a quip, and "Henry Eldridge, the past chairman of the York County Republican Party in South Carolina." On the critical side there are four full paragraphs devoted to the negative reactions of David Halperin, a senior vice president at the Democratic-leaning think tank Center for American Progress; James Zogby of the Arab American Institute; Gary Sick, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs; and CAIR's Nihad Awad.

This is fairness? Balance? Objectivity? Journalism?

To top it off, Elizabeth Holmes followed up with me late last week, sending me this email: "Robert – my eds wanted me to ask you what religion you are – would you mind?"

I responded: "I don't mind -- it's a matter of public knowledge -- but why? Is this something that changes the understanding and usage of the word 'jihad' by Islamic supremacists?"

Holmes: "No, it's just something I mention with others, a trait they used in explaining their reactions to Romney."

Spencer: "My reactions to Romney aren't a result of my religion. They result from my readings of Islamic texts and study of how those texts are used by the jihadists to justify terrorism and Islamic supremacism."

I didn't hear from her after that. But the question itself indicates how thoroughly such reporters, who guide and control so much of what we know about the world, misunderstand the jihad threat in all its dimensions.

And the whole episode illustrates once again why I so dislike talking with reporters, who so often just don't care to report on matters fairly or accurately.

A small step toward anti-dhimmitude. By Kirsten Grieshaber for Associated Press (thanks to LGF):

Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined a growing movement to criminalize forced marriages in Germany, which is growing less tolerant of practices among Muslim immigrants that clash with the nation's liberal social values.

Forced marriages are generally imposed by young women's families to keep them from dating. Prosecution is rare and must take place under assault laws that also outlaw threats and coercion.

Women's' groups have been increasingly pushing for forced marriages to be specifically criminalized, to ease prosecution and to send a strong signal that the practice violates German laws and traditions.

"I completely agree that forced marriages should be punishable as a criminal act," Merkel said in a speech at a women's conference held by her conservative Christian Democrats over the weekend, surprising and pleasing activists.

"We are thrilled that the chancellor has made such a clear statement," said Sibylle Schreiber, a spokeswoman for the women's rights group Terre des Femmes. "Finally she's given a signal to the people that forcing your daughter into marriage is a crime."

Approximately 3.3 million Muslims live in Germany, 70 percent of them of Turkish origin. Many lead secular lifestyles but some make strong, even extreme, efforts to preserve conservative values.

In recent years, several courts have upheld state-level bans on headscarves for Muslim women teaching in public schools. Immigration laws now require that foreign spouses be at least 18 years old and already have a basic knowledge of the German language.

No one should be surprised by this. But of course they are surprised, because they refuse to look into the contents of Islamic teaching for themselves. By Toby Helm in the Telegraph (thanks to all who sent this in):

Extremist literature that encourages hatred of gays, Christians and Jews can be easily found at many of Britain's mosques, according to a new survey.

Researchers for the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange claims it found the literature in a quarter of the 100 mosques and Islamic institutions they visited.

Many of the publications allegedly called on British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims and for unbelievers to be treated as second-class citizens wherever possible.

The literature also allegedly contained repeated calls for gays to be thrown from mountains and tall buildings and for women to be subjugated.

These things are not "extremism." They are mainstream, traditional Islam. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, directed his followers to “kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him” (‘Umdat al-Salik, p17.3). And the Qur'an says that "men are in charge of women" and that disobedient women should be beaten (4:34).

Thus the absence of literature teaching these things in three quarters of the mosques in Britain is good, but it is not enough. If the Muslims in those mosques don't hold these views, they should explicitly disavow and teach against them.

Policy Exchange said that among the documents were the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and other publications peddling bizarre conspiracy theories.

Anthony Browne, the director of Policy Exchange, said: "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques.

"I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques."

Yes, I'm sure they're thoroughly horrified that any Muslim takes Qur'an 9:29 as instructions for action today. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Policy Exchange visited more than 100 mosques and other Islamic institutions and said it found the literature was accessible both openly and "under the counter". Altogether some 80 books and pamphlets were collected over the course of a year.

Under the counter. So they knew they had something to hide.

And they were funded well -- another manifestation of the Saudi money weapon:

Many of the institutions were among the best funded and most active of Britain's 1,500 or so Islamic establishments. In several cases they had received official visits from politicians and even members of the royal family.

In response, we get excuses, not the taking of responsibility:

Dr Yunes Teinaz, of the London Central Mosque, said: "Any book or literature like this found in the mosque will reflect the views of the author and not at all the view of the mosque." He added that the bookshop in the mosque was not run by the mosque, but was a franchise.

Iqbal Sacranie says it's all because verses of the Qur'an have been -- you guessed it -- taken out of context:

Iqbal Sacranie, a former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, criticised the report. He said: "The majority of Muslims will totally dismiss this because it is written by the Policy Exchange, who have an agenda to denigrate the mainstream of Islam in this country.

"If there is any material which falls foul of the law, then the law should take its course. We cannot accept messages of hate - there is zero tolerance on that. But it is irresponsible to target religious texts and take them out of context. These texts can be found not just in mosques but in ordinary bookshops - the report overlooks that."

Why Pakistan's estimated 20,000 madrassas are the country's biggest jihad threat.

"Pakistan's problem child recites the Koran," by Colin Freeman in the Telegraph (thanks to Joe):

Like many younger pupils at Karachi's Jamia Binoria madrassa, 12-year-old Imran Mohammed is a shy, quietly spoken child who is all but tongue-tied in front of his elders. One thing can get him talking though – for hours if need be.

"God is one and he is our creator," he intones, his faltering voice suddenly breaking into fluent Arabic. "He has not given birth of anyone, nor did anyone give birth of him."

It is a verse from the Koran, a tiny part of four entire chapters he has learnt by heart since arriving at the madrassa, or religious school, two years ago. Four chapters is roughly 60 pages, and to recite it fully – as he can do – takes up to two hours.

However, when it comes to non-religious learning, such as the alphabet or multiplication tables, Mohammed is somewhat behind for his age. Asked to add 10 and 11 together, he uses his fingers to reach the right answer, and the only words he can write are his own name and his father's.

For much of the past two decades, though, this has been what passes as education for hundreds of thousands of young Pakistanis. With secular, state schools all but non existent in much of the country – six million children never see a classroom – growing numbers of parents "opt out" their children for religious education instead.

That, though, is what makes Pakistan's estimated 20,000 madrassas the country's biggest threat. By teaching religion to the exclusion of almost everything else, they are blamed for training a generation of youngsters whose only job prospects lie in preaching and zealotry, fuelling the Islamic fundamentalism that many Pakistanis fear could turn their country into another Afghanistan. The more militant madrassas are also accused of recruiting volunteers for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, among them Britons such as Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, who are thought to have attended them before going on to commit the July 7 London bombings in 2005.

Read it all.

"Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess..." (Qur'an 4:3).

Do any Muslims still take female captives and feel themselves justified in doing so by this teaching of the Qur'an?

For background, see this site.

"Madeleine: New hope for McCanns as kidnapped American girl 'is found safe in Morocco,'" from the Daily Mail (thanks to Doc Washburn):

Private investigators searching for Madeleine McCann found a blonde girl who had been kidnapped by a Moroccan family, it was claimed yesterday.

The discovery will give new hope to Kate and Gerry that their daughter is still alive and in a "similar situation".

Sources inside Spanish detective agency Metodo 3, which has been hired by the McCanns, said Interpol is investigating the discovery of the blonde girl living in the Rif mountains — the area where they are searching for Madeleine.

An insider said: "She was not Madeleine but she was an English speaker, possibly an American."

The boss of Metodo 3 said he believed Madeleine was abducted by a care worker on the instruction of a paedophile gang who stole the child to order.

He believes another girl matching Madeleine's description, who has been spotted with a woman aged about 60 in the Rif mountains by 10 different people, could well be the four-year-old who went missing from the Algarve on 3 May.

Francisco Marco, Metodo 3's director-general, said: "My own feeling is that this woman is some sort of carer who is working on behalf of other people. We can't be certain it's Madeleine but several unconnected people have told our informers of the same girl with the same woman.

"The only difference is that she has slightly shorter hair than Madeleine had when she disappeared. Everything else matches.

"They've been seen over a wide area but always within the confines of the Rif mountains."

Madeleine was six days short of her fourth birthday when she went missing from the family apartment at Praia da Luz. Her parents, named as official suspects in her disappearance, have always insisted that she was abducted from her bed while they dined nearby.

The insider at Metodo 3 said of the American girl: "Investigators came across her as they were working to find Madeleine and have tipped off Interpol. There is a long history of girls being kidnapped from Europe and ending up in Morocco."

"Iranian general warns of Gulf suicide bombings," from Agence France-Presse:

TEHERAN - A top general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Monday warned that the Basij militia were ready ‘if necessary’ to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf, amid rising tensions with the United States, the Fars news agency reported.

‘If necessary we will take advantage of the element of martyrdom-seeking,’ said Brigadier General Ali Fahdavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards’ naval forces.

‘This spirit is prevailing now throughout the Revolutionary Guards,’ he added. The Basij militia is part of the Guards’ military apparatus.

‘They have taken an example from Shahid (martyr) Fahmideh,’ Fahdavi said, referring to 13-year-old Iranian Hossein Fahmideh who became a national hero after blowing himself up under an Iraqi tank in the 1980-1988 war.

One can tell a lot about a society from the figures it regards as heroes. Here, we have a 13-year-old suicide bomber.

‘The scene of the Persian Gulf and strategic Strait of Hormuz is such that even a small operation can have a big impact,’ he added.

Several presidential candidates and other prominent politicians appeared at this weekend's Arab American Institute conference, and they appear to have indulged in a good deal of sobbing and handwringing over the alleged human rights abuses that Arab Americans currently suffer, while saying nary a word (at least from the looks of this story) about our shared responsibility to resist the jihad threat. But of course, candidates like Richardson, Paul and Kucinich would say, "What jihad threat?" It has all been cooked up by the State Department to provide a foundation for their imperialist project, doncha know.

And those boys over at CIA and State are good: look at all the violent material they've managed to finagle into the Qur'an and Sunnah.

"Arab Americans host hopefuls: Richardson, Paul, Kucinich attend conference, speak," by Niraj Warikoo in the Detroit Free Press:

After three days of networking and political speeches, Arab Americans who attended a national conference in Detroit say they went home committed to continuing their fight for constitutional rights and restoring the United States' image in the world.

[...]

The conference reflects the growing clout of the Arab-American community, which not too long ago was avoided by presidential candidates: In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis rejected the endorsement of a major Arab-American group. This year, Democratic party leaders gave the candidates permission to address the conference despite a campaign boycott of Michigan because legislators moved up the date of the state's primary.

A mix-up over the boycott might explain why none of the leading candidates appeared at the conference, institute head James Zogby said.

"We ran into this cross fire with the early states versus Michigan," he said.

But he noted that the campaign teams sent high-level surrogates, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's adviser, Tony Lake, and former Sen. John Edwards' campaign manager, former Michigan congressman David Bonior.

The candidates who did appear were warmly received.

"I will follow the Constitution of the United States," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Sunday to loud applause. "The erosion of our civil liberties is not just something that is felt by minorities -- it affects all Americans."

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, was the first candidate to speak Sunday. He spoke about meeting with victims of war in Lebanon and criticized current U.S. foreign policy.

Republican candidates were also invited, but only Ron Paul addressed the conference.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean slammed those who divide the nation by scapegoating those with Middle Eastern ancestry.

"You have been singled out unfairly and unjustly ... by politicians who hope to have a cheap electoral trick," Dean said.

He cited successful Arab Americans such as former Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell and Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.

"It is important for us to stand and recognize these leaders at a time when this community is under siege by those who would divide America in order to win elections," Dean said.

Hugh and others have urged me to expand this Hot Air Jihad Watch video into a five-part series, examining each of the five objectives of the UK "Islam Is Peace" campaign at some length.

And so it begins with this video on the first objective. More to come.

...it was "a radical Islamic group." Oh, will the Islamophobia never end?

"US embassy targeted by Azerbaijan terror," by Aida Sultanova for Associated Press:

BAKU, Azerbaijan - The U.S. and British embassies suspended operations Monday in Baku, where the government said it thwarted a radical Islamic group's plot to conduct a "large-scale horrifying terror attack" against diplomatic missions and government buildings.

The Azerbaijani National Security Ministry said one suspect was killed and several others were detained in a weekend sweep in village outside the capital. The ministry said the Islamic group included an army lieutenant who stole 20 hand grenades, a machine gun, four assault rifles and ammunition from his military unit and made them available for the planned attack.

The British Embassy in Baku temporarily closed Monday, and the U.S. Embassy sent out an announcement to American citizens saying it had closed its consular office for an indefinite period because of a security threat. No specifics were given.

National Security Ministry spokesman Arif Babayev told The Associated Press that the radical Islamic group had planned to launch a "terror attack against several government structures in Baku and the U.S. Embassy."

Here is video of my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk at Dartmouth College last Friday night, courtesy Harrison Sonntag, the fearless and redoubtable Dartmouth student who was largely responsible for making it possible for me to speak there.

Please watch this video. Compare and contrast it to this email that was sent around by Kurt Nelson, "Multi-Faith Program Advisor, The Tucker Foundation, Dartmouth College":

As interested folks, many of whom have pledged support for Dartmouth's Muslim community, I wanted to update you on the goings on.

Instead of responding directly to Robert Spencer's presence on campus or the violent and hateful posters associated with Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, al-Nur with the help of the Multi-Faith Council and Hillel is planning a collection of events for the near future.

We have a bare-bones sense of them at this point, but under the title "Islamo-Fashion Awareness Week" al-Nur, the Multi-Faith Council and Hillel (and any other groups interested in co-sponsorship) will host the following:

Friday November 2, Sundown in the Muslim Prayer Room, N Fairbanks all are welcome to come to Maghrib prayer with an introduction and question and answer hosted by al-Nur

Monday November 5, time and location TBD a showing of the Oscar Winning WEST BANK STORY with discussion. A musical comedy about competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank. A must see. (MFC folks, this will take the place of our regular meeting)

Wednesday November 7th 6:00 PM Collis Commonground hear students Muslim students about the Muslim faith and what unites this unique and diverse group, eat dinner and discuss.

It appears that Mr. Nelson is dismissing my talk as hateful and violent without even bothering to listen first to what I said. So I ask you to do so, and to write in the comments field below if you believe anything I said was hateful or violent, or even false.

We'll discuss it here, if Nelson and his ilk won't discuss it at Dartmouth. They apparently would rather content themselves with talk of hummus restaurants, as if that will make the global jihad go away. No one is bothering to refute what I said, because, of course, they can't. But if they want to try, I can be reached at director@jihadwatch.org.

The murderous Khartoum regime, which has been butchering Christians in Southern Sudan for years and is now waging a jihad against those it deems insufficiently Muslim in Darfur, has now accused the West of "lacking ethics and morals," and promised to "export" them to us.

Omar Al-Bashir must be one of those whom Dinesh D'Souza has dubbed "traditional Muslims," whom he believes are waging jihad in order to protect the traditional morality of their societies from being contaminated by Britney Spears. But unfortunately for the estimable Dinesh, and the rest of us, Omar's methods of restoring morals to those he deems immoral are not quite as non-lethal as, say, Pat Robertson's. "We are," says Omar, "waiting on Allah’s promise to obliterate them.” How beautifully moral!

By Wasil Ali in the Sudan Tribune (thanks to Stacey):

October 28, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — The Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir lashed out at Western countries and accused them of “lacking ethics and morals”.

“Western nations have no ethics or morals and we will export it to them. These countries have the political, military and economic strength. We are strong with our values and we are waiting on Allah’s promise to obliterate them” Al-Bashir said while addressing crowds at the White Nile state capital.

And of course, the responsibility for that lies solely with the police, not with the Muslim community in Australia.

"Australia risks 'London-type bombing,'" by John Lyons in The Australian (thanks to LGF):

AUSTRALIA faces a "London-type bombing" if relations between Muslims and the intelligence and police authorities do not improve, an influential Islamic youth leader has warned.

Fadi Rahman, who runs one of Sydney's biggest youth centres at Lidcombe in the city's west, said overseas Islamic elements were attempting to radicalise Muslim youth with their hardline ideologies.

But in a warning that will resonate with Australian authorities, Mr Rahman said Muslims did not trust ASIO or the Australian Federal Police and that the bungled terror case against Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef had worsened the situation. "The biggest problem ASIO and the federal police have is that no one in the Islamic community trusts them enough to give them a heads-up about anything," Mr Rahman told The Australian.

"Look at the Haneef thing - why would we trust these guys when all you see is one fumble after another? People are afraid."

Indeed.

Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of Jihad Watch, and we are beginning our second term with things pretty much the way they always have been: the jihadists are still plotting, their allies and dupes are still lying and covering for them, the mainstream media (liberal and conservative) is still cowering in fear, and we are still telling the truth.

This is not a struggle that will take up to five or ten more years, as the learned analysts have predicted to the horrified gasps of the media. The jihadists believe they are continuing a 1,400-year-old struggle. They will not be bought off or negotiated away. And they are advancing in myriad ways that aren't even on the radar screen of law enforcement and government officials in the West.

And so whether it takes four more years, or eight, or sixteen, and whether we will have to pass this struggle for human rights and human dignity on to our children and our children's children, we will never give up. We will not be subdued, we will not be shouted down, we will not be subjugated.

Thank you for reading the site, and for your own efforts for the Counterjihad Resistance.

Yes, you read that right. I would venture to say that the Chutzpah level of this one far surpasses anything we have seen in four years of jihad watching at this site.

"Saudi king chides UK on terrorism," from the BBC (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism, which he says could take 20 or 30 years to beat.

He was speaking in a BBC interview ahead of a state visit to the UK - the first by a Saudi monarch for 20 years.

He also said Britain failed to act on information passed by the Saudis which might have averted terrorist attacks.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Whitehall officials have strenuously denied this.

Speaking of the assertion that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which all good Brown University students know is axiomatically true, despite the cascades of Qur'an verses and claims of Islamic purity that shower upon us on a regular basis courtesy Osama bin Laden and his ideological kin, here is some evidence of the fact. In this installment of my Blogging the Qur’an series, I discuss the first thirty verses of Sura 8, “Booty,” in which Muhammad confronts the forces of the pagan Quraysh at Badr and...turns the other cheek! Exhorts his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them! And begins a Gandhi-esque nonviolent protest!

Sura 8, Al-Anfal — “Booty,” or “The Spoils of War” — dates from the second year of the Medinan period, the second part of Muhammad’s prophetic career. It was revealed not long after the Battle of Badr, the first great victory of the Muslims over their chief rivals of the time, the pagan Quraysh tribe. The title of this sura is better known than most, since Saddam Hussein used Al-Anfal as the name for his genocidal 1988 campaigns against the Kurds, in which between 50,000 and 100,000 people were murdered.

At Badr, the Quraysh came out to meet Muhammad’s three hundred men with a force nearly a thousand strong. Muhammad had provoked the battle by sending his men out to raid a Quraysh caravan, telling them: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you.” As the battle loomed, according to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the Islamic prophet strode among his troops and issued a momentous promise — one that has given heart to Muslim warriors throughout the ages: “By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise.” One of the Muslim warriors, ‘Umayr bin al-Humam, exclaimed: “Fine, Fine! Is there nothing between me and my entering Paradise save to be killed by these men?” He flung away some dates that he had been eating, rushed into the thick of the battle, and fought until he was killed.

"Polemics don't advance the debate," says the Brown Daily Herald in "Ignoring 'Islamofascism' hype," a vicious little polemic that accuses the organizers of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week of wanting a "fight." The editorialist preens: "We're glad that the debate is being carried out at this level, not with signs and shouting."

Of course, there was shouting when I spoke at Brown last week, although not too much, so the Daily Herald has every right to be proud. Very proud, considering the immense provocation they had to suffer through:

Fortunately, despite confrontational remarks made by Robert Spencer, who said in his lecture here Thursday that he does not believe "that Islam at its core is a peaceful religion," Brown's campus remained largely calm.

Largely?

Anyway, this was not an assertion I made without evidence. I drew a distinction between teaching and practice and explaining the vulnerability of peaceful Muslims to jihadist recruitment on the basis of the jihadists' use of various passages of the Qur'an and Hadith (which I cited), I explained that all the schools of Sunni and Shi'ite jurisprudence have a doctrine involving warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

This was and is a statement of fact. If it is false, the Brown Herald, or the Muslim community at Brown, should refute it. Anyone is welcome to refute it if they can. I can and have (in my books and elsewhere) explained it at length, with abundant citations from the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as from mainstream Islamic commentaries on the Qur'an and Islamic jurists.

But they don't refute it. No one ever has refuted it. Instead, here the Herald treats it as if the very statement constitutes incitement to violence against Muslims. And in an unconscious irony, the Herald expresses relief that the campus remained "largely calm," rather than erupt into violence over someone daring to assert that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Well, bravo, Brown students! What admirable, nay, noble restraint! But if you really want a debate on the key issues, as you say in this editorial, simply heaping abuse and contempt on your opponent and being glad that nobody popped him one is not actually a demonstration of the falsity of his arguments. If you are willing to engage in a genuine discussion and debate of this question -- does Islamic doctrine actually teach peace? -- I am at your service, and will return to Brown.

If you do not wish to engage in such a debate, as appears clear, then be assured that you will not forever be able to ignore this question, or to act as if the mere asking of it is the equivalent of burning a cross on someone's front lawn. Unfortunately, those Muslims who do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace, who are the ones who benefit most from the ruling of this question out of polite discourse, will continue -- unimpeded by their peaceful coreligionists -- to commit acts of violence in order to advance the cause of Islamic supremacism. It is more than likely that this conflict will touch you personally, and your vilification of the anti-jihad movement and your refusal to engage it intellectually may at that point look very different to you from the way it looks today.

From our Which Side Are You On Department comes Patrick Poole's story about Ohio Muslim activist and U.S. Air Force veteran Mahmoud El-Yousseph, who declares in video at the Central Ohioans Against Terrorism site (scroll down) that the Death-to-America chanting jihadists of Hizballah are actually freedom fighters. Poole also provides substantial background on Hizballah's war against the United States.

Osama bin Laden is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels" -- i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur.

He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government -- and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.

Those words are spoken by a Muslim woman, apparently a student of George Washington University, in this Incorrect U video (the top one) of GWU Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week festivities. It's at right about the five-minute mark.

Maybe she doesn't mean the United States. Hard to say. But she may.

"Imposed." Not "voted in," or even "instituted." "Imposed." The forcible subjugation as inferiors of women and religious minorities. "Imposed." An Islamic supremacist system that denies the freedom of conscience, stones adulterers, and amputates the hands of thieves.

Well, at least she's honest about it.

Don't miss the interview with ex-spy Bruce Tefft at FrontPage, and contribute to his legal defense fund. He is being victimized by an effort at legal intimidation the likes of which Jihad Watch readers have seen many times before.

By Adam Smeltz in CentreDaily:

UNIVERSITY PARK - The Western world may not hear this too often, but nothing in Islam justifies terrorism, a scholar on the Middle East said Thursday night.

WRONG. We hear all the time that "Islam is a religion of peace." See remarks by President Bush, President Clinton, Senator Reid, Secretary Rice, Prime Minister Blair, and just about every academic and journalist who have opened their mouths on the question.

“The root of terrorism — it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam,” Medhi Noorbaksh told a gathering of about 60 people in the Forest Resources Building. “ ... Terrorism in any shape is to be condemned.”

Noorbaksh, an associate professor of international affairs at Harrisburg University, appeared here as part of the “Peace, not Prejudice” seminar series. Put together by the Penn State Muslim Student Association, the series is a reaction to “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.”

Not THEM again!

That national theme week of events, inspired by conservative activist David Horowitz, brought former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum to campus on Tuesday.

Santorum issued warnings against radicalized Islam, saying that most Americans don’t fully understand the threat. He also drew distinctions between Judeo-Christian culture and Islam in general, and painted the latter as a religion built more on control and dominance.

Noorbaksh, an expert in Middle Eastern politics and its intersection with Islam, offered a dramatically different presentation.

He underscored the religion’s past in education, capitalism, consensus-building and equity.

In fact, the faith promotes respect for diversity, including religious diversity, he said, quoting from Muslim texts.

“Muslims are obliged. ... You have to respect people of other faith,” Noorbaksh said.

Radical elements in Muslim countries — such as those that promote female genital mutilation or ban women from driving — do not stem from the religion itself, Noorbaksh said.

“Of course, we have a lot of authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world,” he said. “But it doesn’t have anything to do with the faith.”

Nope. Just coincidence.

He went on to tweak the U.S. government over its relationships with a number of those regimes. Some radical Muslims develop extreme ideologies because they’ve felt left out of the political process, Noorbaksh said.

You see, they had their feelings hurt. Well, that explains it. Murdering civilians is a perfectly understandable reaction. Could happen to anybody.

He said terrorists make up far less than even 1 percent of the global Muslim population of 1.3 billion.

Rest assured, an associate professor who couldn't identify a violent religious ideology if it walked up and bit him on the fanny promises us that there are absolutely not more than 13 million Muslim terrorists in the world today. I feel much better.

Actually, they knew it would be about waging war, but they found out no war needed to be waged: "They'd followed the call from a religious leader in Pakistan to come in and wage jihad. They were told believed that the 'infidels' -- the NATO forces -- were running this country now, and they came in to help drive them out...they suddenly realize that Afghanistan is not ruled by infidels, that this very much still a Muslim country, and they were proclaiming their naivete."

Or that's what they say, anyway.

All week during my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talks at DePaul, the University of Rhode Island, and Brown (I also spoke at Dartmouth, but this didn't happen there), I was confronted by people who had been lied to and who fervently believed the lies and were acting upon them. This is apparently -- if the claims of these men are to be believed -- happening in jihad recruitment in Pakistan also.

These men may well be lying, but in theory it is completely believable that these men would have been told that Afghanistan was being trodden under by infidels, with no mention made of how anxious those infidels are not to do anything to give offense to Islam or Muslims. But when the propagandized saw that their propaganda didn't match reality, their eyes began to be opened. Perhaps that will begin to happen on college campuses also.

"Arrested Taliban bombing jihadists claim naivety," from CTV.ca (thanks to DSH):

Three self-confessed, 20-something Pakistani jihadists arrested in Afghanistan have an odd story to tell -- assuming it's true.

"They'd followed the call from a religious leader in Pakistan to come in and wage jihad," CTV's Paul Workman told Newsnet on Saturday from Kandahar.

"They were told believed that the 'infidels' -- the NATO forces -- were running this country now, and they came in to help drive them out.

After their arrest, "they suddenly realize that Afghanistan is not ruled by infidels, that this very much still a Muslim country, and they were proclaiming their naivete," he said.

An Afghan security official told a news conference that three suspected Taliban 'trainers' from Pakistan had been arrested as they travelled to Kandahar province.

Security agents picked up the three men on the highway between Uruzgan province and Kandahar to the south, Abdul Qayoom, of the National Directorate for Security, said Saturday in Kandahar City.

Authorities said they believe the men are trainers for the Taliban, who have been trying to recruit more members to become suicide bombers.

"The intelligence services say they knew they were coming and that they are not just naive foot soldiers, that they very much are involving in training people to make and set roadside bombs," Workman said.

The arrests actually happened a week ago but only made public now. However, the Afghan security forces want to show that they are doing their jobs, he said.

"Out of context." "Anti-Muslim prejudice." Not: "We repudiate now and forever any Islamic tradition or teaching that teaches hatred of and/or violence against Jews, and pledge to do all we can to offer benign reinterpretations of this material if it cannot be rejected outright, and to work against the effects of such teachings within the Muslim community."

"New Cleveland imam hopes to ease Muslim-Jewish relations," by David Briggs in the Cleveland Plain Dealer blog (thanks to Mary):

Ahmed Alzaree was looking forward to his new job as spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of Cleveland. The stocky, spirited 38-year-old, who five years ago left his job as a physician in Egypt to become an imam in Omaha, Neb., wanted to be a voice for "tolerance, harmony and understanding."

No sooner did Ohio's largest mosque announce Alzaree's hiring last month, than bloggers posted a portion of a 4-year-old end-times sermon in which the imam quoted the Prophet Muhammad saying one sign of the approach of the Day of Judgment is that "the Muslims will kill the Jews."

Yes indeed. And it's all the bloggers' fault, you see. No would ever have gotten the idea that "The Muslims shall kill the Jews" meant anything crazy like "The Muslims shall kill the Jews" if it hadn't been for those evil bloggers. Alzaree himself was "stunned" that anyone could have mistaken this as anything but an appeal for peace, love, and understanding:

Alzaree was stunned by the ensuing uproar. The Islamic Center of Omaha took his sermons off its Web site as allegations circulated on the Internet that Alzaree associated with an Egyptian cleric suspected of having terrorist ties.

In interviews this week, the imam said he and his wife considered backing out of the Cleveland offer. He said he knew about the lingering tension in Cleveland, where his predecessor, Fawaz Damra, had been deported, but "I did nothing wrong to defend myself [against]."

After lengthy conversations with his family and mosque leaders, the imam put aside his worries and will begin work Thursday at the center in Parma. He has vowed to make an extra effort to meet area Jewish and Christian leaders "to explain Islam, to explain myself to them."

[...]

Muslim-Jewish relations in Northeast Ohio have been troubled since fall 2001 when a decade-old videotape of Damra, the previous imam, surfaced. It showed him railing against Jews "as the sons of monkeys and pigs" and raising money for Palestinian militant groups. Damra apologized, saying he made the remarks when he did not know the Jewish and Christian communities, and the mosque retained him as imam. But some members left in protest, and the center's interfaith work was severely curtailed. In January, Damra was deported to the Middle East on charges he falsified his citizenship application by failing to disclose ties to extremist groups.

The celebration over Alzaree's hiring was short-lived.

Bloggers quickly posted the 2003 sermon in which the imam included a controversial Hadith, a saying of Muhammad. "The hour of judgment shall not happen until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims shall kill the Jews to the point that the Jew shall hide behind a big rock or a tree," the Hadith reads in part.

Bloggers such as Patrick Poole of Central Ohioans Against Terrorism noted that Wagdy Ghoneim, a controversial cleric who left the country after being charged with violating his visa, spoke at the Omaha mosque when Alzaree was imam. Many in the Islamic community believe Ghoneim is a respected scholar, but some terrorism watchers say he preached hatred against Jews and raised funds for militant groups. Poole also wrote that the mosque's Web site contained photographs and statements comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Steven Emerson, executive director of the Washington-based Investigative Project On Terrorism, said based on his study of Alzaree's sermons and the mosque's speaking invitation to Ghoneim, the imam "is a fairly typical Islamic fundamentalist who believes in a literal translation of the Koran. . . . In our parlance, he would be called a militant."

Yehudit Barsky, director of the Division on Middle East and International Terrorism for the American Jewish Committee in New York, said the Hadith in Alzaree's sermon is used today in the Muslim world to legitimize suicide bombings. "If one believes in interfaith dialogue, one should not use that Hadith," she said.

Others offer a different view.

Zeki Saritoprak, professor of Islamic studies at John Carroll University, said the Hadith is part of the ambiguous, allegorical sayings of the prophet. He said Alzaree seemed to be using the saying as part of a discussion of the end times, and not in a political sense encouraging violence against Jews.

"We shouldn't immediately accuse someone just for saying a saying of the prophet," Saritoprak said.

Ashfaque Hussain, treasurer of the Islamic Center of Omaha, said Alzaree visited temples and participated in interfaith programs and gave no indication of being anti-Semitic. "When you talk to some people, you can feel that. He's nothing like that," Hussain said.

Alzaree said the allegations against him are unfounded.

He said the sermon gave many examples of Islamic teaching on the Day of Judgment, including such signs as the rising of the sun from the West, the appearance of an animal or beast to face the unjust and three eclipses. Alzaree said it was clear he was not urging action against any group, and the end-time events the prophet spoke of were in the future. The sermon began with a reminder that no one but Allah knows when judgment day will occur, and in the interim people are encouraged to "strive and struggle in the world doing the good and avoiding the bad and forbidden."

Alzaree also said it was the administration at the Omaha mosque that invited Ghoneim to speak, and the cleric said nothing inflammatory. He said he was unaware of the Holocaust photographs and commentary on the Web site.

Of course.

Islamic Center of Cleveland leaders defended Alzaree. Abu-Shaweesh said the Islamic teaching was taken out of context, and the bloggers' response is an example of anti-Muslim prejudice that undermines the mosque's efforts to rebuild interfaith and community relations.

Out of context. Are we ever going to be told the context in which such statements become harmless?

"It is the fate of an American agent. Whoever works for America will face the same fate."

"Pakistan militants behead guards," from the BBC (thanks to Davida):

Militants in north-west Pakistan have beheaded six security officials and killed seven civilians in apparent reprisals for an army attack.

The army attack on the stronghold of pro-Taleban militant Maulana Fazlullah on Thursday left at least 17 soldiers and a number of civilians dead.

The bodies of the guards reportedly had notes saying they were American agents.

Swat is one of a number of areas near the Afghan border where militants have been gaining control in recent months.

Leaflets dropped

Reports say the civilians who were killed were dragged out of a minibus.

A local resident told Associated Press news agency the bodies of the security officials had notes on them reading: "It is the fate of an American agent. Whoever works for America will face the same fate."

I linked last week to the indefatigable and courageous Pamela's video of the same talk, given in the Flemish Parliament building in Brussels during the Counterjihad Summit. This new video comes courtesy of Steen.

Of course virtually the entire discussion of the Counterjihad Summit has degenerated into accusations and counter-accusations revolving around the alleged neo-Nazi ties of some of the people who attended. CAIR has attempted to make hay with this, of course, but their dishonesty is well known and abundantly established; deeply unfortunate is the split in the anti-jihad ranks over this. At this point it bears repeating that if there were any actual racists or neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers at this meeting, which is based on evidence that is hotly contested, I completely repudiate them and all that they stand for.

More importantly, the Counterjihad Summit was about the Islamization of Europe, which concerns us all, and concerned just the opposite of what CAIR and its allies and dupes have suggested: it was a conference concerned with defending Western societies and civilization. There was, contrary to the neo-Nazi claims, a strong emphasis on the plight of the Jews in Europe and in general. Full reports are being assembled here. The attention should be focused on what we discussed and accomplished there.

And the money will flow, in exchange for still more empty promises that will be broken practically before they're even made. "France to host Palestinian donors conference," from AFP (thanks to Sr. Soph):

PARIS (AFP) - France will hold a special conference of donors for the Palestinians at the end of the year which will be co-hosted by the Mideast Quartet special envoy Tony Blair and Norway, a joint statement said Wednesday.

"France will host a major donors' conference for Palestine at the end of the year at the request of (Palestinian) President (Mahmud) Abbas," the statement said.

"Tony Blair and Norway will co-chair the conference with France," it said, adding: "Tony Blair in his capacity as special representative of the Quartet and Norway as chair of the ad hoc liaison committee (AHLC)."

"This conference will aim to mobilise the donors ... to provide political and financial support to the Palestinian Authority by creating the capacities and the conditions for building a viable Palestinian state."

[...]

Kouchner added that a meeting has been organised by Blair next week in Jerusalem to give out invitations to the donors' conference.

"A state is not a negotiation about territory, it has also got to be about what that state does, the nature of that state, how it runs its security, its social, educational and health systems, encouragement of the private sector and economic development," Blair told reporters.

"It also means changing what is happening on the ground so that...the prospect of jobs and prosperity, particularly for the Palestinian people, as well as security for the Israeli people can come about."

Things didn't go precisely the way he had planned. "Afghan Suicide Bomber Kills Own Family," from Associated Press (thanks to DFS):

KABUL, Afghanistan - A mother who tried to stop her son from carrying out a suicide bomb attack triggered an explosion in the family's home in southern Afghanistan that killed the would-be bomber, his mother and three siblings, police said Monday.

The would-be bomber had been studying at a madrassa, or religious school, in Pakistan, and when he returned to his home in Uruzgan province over the weekend announced that he planned to carry out a suicide attack, Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said.

Surviving family members told police that the suicide vest exploded during a struggle between the mother and her son, said Juma Gul Himat, Uruzgan's police chief. The man's brother and two sisters were also killed.

...between the two parties.

...is at the Washington Times' Fishwrap, where Robert Stacy McCain has collected news from all over. A few of the don't-miss items are:

1. Video of Umar Lee, a Muslim writer who has charged me with harboring secret racist tendencies. (His evidence? Why, I run Jihad Watch!) It looks as if maybe Umar was projecting, for in the Incorrect U video he directs several racial slurs at the black policeman who was evicting him from the IFAW event at George Washington University.

2. Then there's Hot Air video of YAF phenom Jason "CAIR can go to hell and take their 72 virgins with them" Mattera speaking with Adam Kokesh, the GWU student who posted "satirical" flyers that have been taken as real IFAW publications all over. Mattera questions Kokesh brilliantly, tying him up into knots with the contradictions in his thinking, getting him to acknowledge essentially that one may speak in terms of Fascism in an Islamic Context, but not, good heavens, Islamo-Fascism. Here again, on lavish display, is the intellectual bankruptcy of the opposition, and why they must resort to slander, intimidation, and the shouting-down of speakers.

McCain has a great deal more on the Fishwrap page also. Read it all.

Last night I ended Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week on an unexpectedly high note at Dartmouth. Even the hostile questions had less of an edge to them than they had at Brown, DePaul, and the University of Rhode Island, and the overwhelming majority of questioners were sympathetic to the perspective I was representing.

I think the people in the audience who had come planning to ask angry questions were caught flat-footed by the stark difference between the Spencer they read about in their propaganda and the Spencer of real life. Which is an object lesson in why the Leftists and jihad sympathizers who have so thoroughly propagandized American campuses at this point will ultimately fail. Those they have propagandized will begin to experience cognitive dissonance, noticing the increasing disparity between the lies they've been fed and the realities of the world -- and then the nasty, foolish little empire will begin to crumble.

No worries. He renounced terrorism!

From AP (thanks to all who sent this in):

(AP) Yemen has set free one of the al Qaeda masterminds of the USS Cole bombing in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors, a senior security official said Thursday.

Jamal al-Badawi, who is wanted by the FBI, was convicted in 2004 of plotting, preparing and helping carry out the USS Cole bombing and received a death sentence that was commuted to 15 years in prison.

He and 22 others, mostly al Qaeda fighters, escaped from prison in 2004. But al-Badawi was granted his freedom after turning himself in 15 days ago and pledging loyalty to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The official said police were told by the government to "stop all previous orders concerning measures adopted against al-Badawi."

Witnesses told The Associated Press that al-Badawi was receiving well-wishers at his home in the al-Buraika district in Aden.

The Interior Ministry said earlier that al-Badawi voluntarily gave himself up to police, but media reports said tribal chiefs mediated his surrender after he renounced terrorism and pledged allegiance to the Yemeni leader.

I am just about on my way out of the hotel room (no Pinot Noir in mine, Greg) to Dartmouth College for my final Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk, but I thought I'd relay some good news I just heard from the crack legal team over at The Becker Law Firm.

My lawyer, William J. Becker, Jr., just got off the telephone with Fred Gonzales, general counsel for SonicWall, one of the main netfilters responsible for the blocking of Jihad Watch on computers all over. Gonzales was responding to Becker's letter to SonicWall explaining about some salient Constitutional rights and asking that the block be removed. Gonzales informed Becker that Jihad Watch has been recharacterized by Sonic Wall as "political/advocacy" rather than "violence/hate/racism." Gonzales and Becker had a pleasant discussion, during which Gonzales explained that it is always useful to know specifically where a site is being blocked ( e.g., a library computer). So if this happens again, please let me know at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will inform Becker so he can take appropriate action.

Gonzalez also told Becker that if requests to come in to block Jihad Watch in the future (as they are likely to do given that a campaign is being waged to suppress the truths we tell here), the matter will be reviewed by an executive committee. He assured Becker that his company does not deliberately target ideological content.

So if your place of work uses SonicWall, you should be able to access Jihad Watch now. If you cannot, please let me know, and we will inform Mr. Gonzales per this conversation and the letter he has already received from the Becker Law Firm.

Nice to know the First Amendment still lives, even if it is breathing a bit heavily.

This is perfectly consonant with the Islamic worldview. The earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger Muhammad -- which means, in human terms, those who are the Believers in Allah and that Messenger. Everyone else must either convert, be killed, or in some cases be permitted to live, but only in a condition of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, as "dhimmis."

Nothing else has value. Nothing else is of interest. And since everyone since time began -- a nice bit of backdating -- is in the Muslim view born a Muslim, but for one reason or another falls away (talk about a bad environment!) -- every claim by those of other faiths are meaningless.

Well, it seems I got the easy job this week. My visit to Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo was all in all very pleasant. I was hosted by the Cal Poly College Republicans, and we shared a lively dinner before the showing of the movie, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, during which I was able to steal furtive glances at the big-screen of the Red Sox's game one slaughter of the Rockies (yes!).

At the hall, there was a collection of protesters with the predictable signs excoriating David Horowitz and the evil Freedom Center, but for the most part they seemed pretty mellow (must have been the heat). So, with plain-clothes security guards mingling in the crowd and naval and air support standing by, we began. I wonder if we'd need all that for What the West Needs to Know about Unitarianism?

I spoke to the 150 or so crowd for a few minutes by way of introduction. My point -- as it has been for some time -- is that we must be willing to speak plainly about the thing itself, namely, Islam. Mumbling on about "extremism," "radicalism," "Islamism," etc. only serves to obscure what is really going on. I even had to dissent from the term "Islamo-Fascism," which, while it helpfully indicates the repressive political agenda of the Islamic supremacists, nonetheless gives the impression that we are dealing with a sort of bastard love-child of Sayyid Qutb and Benito Mussolini. The jihadis aren't cutting people's heads off because they are fascists but because they are faithful Muslims acting in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran and the example of Muhammad. Or so I have argued. (For pics and details go here.)

With that, I ducked out while the movie played (I know how it ends -- it was the butler), during which the 180-capacity hall filled to overflowing.

Following the applause -- and there was applause, really -- I took questions. There were only a few really noisome people in the audience, who turned out to be College Democrats. They sent up the usual smokescreen, going on about Christian wackos bombing abortion clinics, etc. Fortunately, we were able to get into the nitty-gritty of the movie's claims, and I think for the most part the questions (tinged with hostility as they were) contributed to a clearer understanding.

After the questions, several audience members came up to thank me, and I had an extensive discussion with a Muslim undergrad about Muhammad's massacre of the Quraiza tribe in the Islamic year five. He pointed out some of the nuances of the situation that he felt changed the meaning of the massacre from what we had made it out to be. I, as you might imagine, disagreed. But everything stayed civil. And I don't think there is any easy answer to the fact that Muhammad hacked off anywhere from 600 to 900 heads in a single day and took the surviving women and children as slaves, which he did not dispute.

So I retired to my room in the pink-themed Madonna Inn in San Luis with the pinot noir thoughtfully provided by my hosts. Counter-jihad has its perks!

Anjem Chaudary, poor misunderstood lamb, is on this videotape explaing that no non-Muslims are innocent. None.

War Is Deceit Update: "Islamic fundamentalist claims he is victim of propaganda," by Caroline O’Doherty for the Irish Examiner (thanks to Twostellas):

A LEADING Islamic fundamentalist, who said previously Ireland was a target for terrorist attack because of the US military’s use of Shannon, claimed last night he was a victim of propaganda.

However, Anjem Choudary, a British-born self-styled cleric who has been investigated numerous times by the British police for his extremist pronouncements, repeated his assertion to a gathering in Trinity College, Dublin, last night that followers of Islam could not accept secular authority.

Mr Choudary said democratic, liberal states were plagued by rape, paedophilia, pornography, bestiality, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. “When you push the boundaries of freedom and liberalism, that is the result. That is how people practice their freedom. We do not want that imported into our community.”

Paging Dinesh D'Souza: Dinesh, I think I've found you a Traditional Muslim. If you meet with Anjem, however, just...watch your back.

The audience at the Dublin University Philosophical Society debate also heard a radical Muslim cleric, who has been banned from Britain for promoting extremist views, say that followers of Islam could not accept the authority of a secular state.

Omar Bakri Mohammed spoke in a video message to the debate where Muslim fundamentalists and moderates argued the motion that Islam is incompatible with western liberal society.

Lebanon-based Mr Mohammed, who lost his asylum status in Britain after saying the British people brought the London bombings on themselves, said Islam was a complete way of life that could not yield to any other way. “Islam is a complete system of living, the Sharia system. Islam has political beliefs — it cannot co-exist with another political belief.”

He added: “There will be strife. It could be political, it could be ideological, it could be military struggle.”

Moderate Muslims follow in the story, saying that Chaudary and Bakri are twisting Islam, but not explaining how or why, or what can be done to blunt their appeal among Muslims.

From our bulging "Grow Up" File. By Paul Sims for the Daily Mail (thanks to Josephine):

Scores of Muslim inmates at a high security prison are set to launch a multi-million pound claim for compensation after they were offered ham sandwiches during the holy month of Ramadan.

They say their human rights were breached when they were given a special nightly menu - drawn up to recognise their specific dietary requirements - by officers at HMP Leeds last month.

More than 200 Muslim inmates at the jail are believed to have been offered the meat which is strictly forbidden by Islam.

The sandwich was one of three options on the menu card which was created to cover the religious festival during which Muslims are required to fast during daylight.

They later complained to prison officers on duty but say they were told that the menus had been printed in error.

Yet when they opened the sandwiches, having ordered cheese, some claim they were still filled with boiled ham.

They are now launching legal action, insisting that their human rights were breached and could each be entitled to up to £10,000 in compensation if they win their case at court.

One Muslim inmate, a 28-year-old who was serving a 16-week sentence for driving whilst disqualified, said: 'When I opened my meal that night I found I'd been given a ham sandwich. I'd asked for cheese.

'It was a breach of my human rights and I want compensation.'

The idea that Bush will only be safe if he converts to Islam is in accord with Muhammad's words to the Jews of Bait-ul-Midras: "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe." But otherwise: "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Abu Bakar Bashir also says that the Bali bombers were counterterrorists. This is one reason why it is not enough for Muslims to condemn "terrorism," when those identified as "terrorists" reject the label. But so far spokesmen for CAIR, for example, have resisted calls to be specific and condemn Hamas and Hizballah particularly as terror groups.

Note also the repeated emphasis on Islam, the declaration of fidelity to the Qur'an, the affirmation of Osama bin Laden's Islamic orthodoxy. Yet all week, all over the country, Muslim and non-Muslim college students, full of righteous indignation, have loudly protested against the Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week speakers as if it were we who have made the equation between Islam and supremacism and violence. They would do better to take up their arguments with people like Abu Bakar Bashir.

"The voice of the Bali blast speaks: Abu Bakar Ba'asyir," by Philip Smucker in Asia Times (thanks to all who sent this in):

ATol: What role does the US play in the war against radical Islamic groups in Indonesia and beyond?

Ba'asyir: The US is a tool for the Zionists. The US has a program and has a crusade that is being carried out in an unfair way, which is by spreading the message that there is Islamic terrorism in this world and basically all the enemies, all the terrorists are Islamists and all the people who fight for sharia law. Everyone who is active is left with the stigma that they are terrorists. They are being arrested and imprisoned.

Yes, there are cases when some persons in some Islamic groups carry out bombings here in Indonesia. It is also unfortunately the case that they are bombing places that are relatively safe. It is easy for them to become prey to US efforts to stigmatize all Muslims.

What "US efforts to stigmatize all Muslims"? Note that this is being said by one of the intigators of the Bali bombing. He is doing quite well to stigmatize Muslims without any outside help.

ATol: Have you rethought your initial approval of the Bali bombings?

Ba'asyir: The bombers were carrying out their acts in Indonesia, a relatively safe place. When events occur, they [are] taken as justification by the government and US. They say, "See what the Muslims are doing, this is why we have to fight terrorism!"

ATol: So you are saying that bombings in safe places - like Bali and at the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta - are bad ideas that give ammunition and fuel to the Americans?

Ba'asyir: Yes.

ATol: Are there young Indonesian Muslims bent on engaging in jihad against the United States? How strong is this movement?

Ba'asyir: Among the youth, many want to fight the US because of the aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in Indonesia they attack US interests, but I think it is a mistake to do that here in Indonesia against US interests because Indonesia is a safe place, a safe country, safe from conflict.

So I, for instance, I prefer that it be done through dakwa, through preaching. America is instigating a war of ideas, therefore we should fight back with our own war of thoughts, issues, preaching.

ATol: So you are condemning the Bali bombers?

Ba'asyir: No. The bombers are actually counter-terrorists because they are opposing US terrorism. They are mujahids.

ATol: How do you fight back against what the US government is doing and saying? What is your strategy?

Ba'asyir: What we try to do is counter the lies, break down the lies. We want to uncover the truth that the Koran teaches. This activity in and of itself is much more productive and efficient than bombing because just by doing that - preaching the truth - I am being called all kinds of things. There was even an attempt to take me to Guantanamo, [Cuba] but fortunately I was saved by Allah.

ATol: You call the Bali bombers counter-terrorists, but some would argue that by calling them counter-terrorists, you are encouraging them to engage in this activity.

Ba'asyir: What I was saying before is that what they were intending to do was right. However, the method was wrong, they were bombing a safe place, so the point here is how you do it as well - the method you use.

ATol: Don't you think you are encouraging more young men to bomb?

Ba'asyir: They are not terrorists, they are not instigating terror, that is not their intention. They want to fight terror. I don't think that by saying this that it will encourage them. Only the method is wrong. But it is not right to call them terrorists. Theirs is a reaction, not an action.

ATol: Many people think that students who have attended your school here have taken their inspiration from Osama bin Laden. Can you tell me what kind of an influence he has been on students in your school and on young people in Indonesia?

Ba'asyir: Generally, the influence of [bin Laden] is good. His intention to fight the US is good. However, the methods and steps that he uses are not necessarily to be applied here in Indonesia. You have to take heed of the situation, but generally speaking it is good.

Again, the steps he uses in other countries are not necessarily applicable here. Some young Muslims here clearly idolize him and others would not. There are also students who have quit the school, my school, because they would not necessarily agree with his teachings.

ATol: Do you think [bin Laden] is a positive inspiration on young people in Islamic world in general?

Ba'asyir: Generally it is positive. What he is trying to teach, to pass on, is jihad against the US. He opposes US terrorism against countries. Jihad can be done through arms and can be done through words as I'm doing now - as preaching.

ATol: Has the US military's failure to catch bin Laden made him even more of a hero in the Islamic world?

Ba'asyir: As long as his intent is to uphold Islam, God willing he will always be safe and saved by God. You can start to see the effects now. Western power is weakening and, on the other hand, Osama has linked up with the Taliban and others and is gaining power. I always believe that in the end Islam will have victory. Whoever is trying to block or fight Islam will eventually lose. Therefore all the sacrifices will bear fruit.

ATol: What are the tools you use to fight back against George W Bush's "war on terror"?

Ba'asyir: For Islam, the truth is Islam. There were many prophets but Mohammed was the last and he trumps the others. We spread the truth, or dakwa, orally, over the radio and Internet; through all kinds of technical tools.

ATol: Do you think the US is getting the message that [in regards to Iraq] it may be inspiring more terrorists than it can possibly kill?

Ba'asyir: I'm sure that many Americans understand they are losing the battle in Iraq. We can see - at least domestically - that there is more pressure against the war. And there is no doubt that the US is failing and losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, President Bush is a very stubborn man. He is very extremist. But this is also one of God's ways of destroying his entire crusade. Allah is letting him be stubborn, be himself and, in doing so, he creates all this mess and therefore eventually it will end in defeat.

ATol: So, you think it is a message from God but that Bush doesn't understand the message?

Ba'asyir: I have written a letter to Bush saying he should not use God's name to destroy Islam. The only way that Bush can survive is for him to do what is being ordered by God which is to believe in Islam, to convert to Islam. If he wants to be safe he should take up Islam.

ATol: Do you think it is possible for the US to change foreign policy and to live in peace with Islam?

Ba'asyir: In Islam, you cannot force someone to convert to Islam. But what is fair and just is Islamic law. It is quite possible to have peace with the US, but the US has to distance itself from Israel or decide not be used as a tool by the Zionists. But peace is the objective of Islam - to live in peace.

Under the rule of Sharia, that is.

This is part of the ongoing effort to rewrite history and appropriate the holy sites of Jews and Christians. It gains a principal impetus from the Qur'anic delegitimization of Judaism and Christianity, and presentation of Islam as the true message of the founders of those religions.

"'Western Wall was never part of temple,'" by Mike Seid in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to JS):

The former mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, has made the claim that there never was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall was really part of a mosque.

"There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," he told The Jerusalem Post via a translator. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."

Sabri rejected Judaism's claim to the Western Wall as part of the outer wall of the Second Temple.

"The wall is not part of the Jewish temple. It is just the western wall of the mosque," he said. "There is not a single stone with any relation at all to the history of the Hebrews."

Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that."

"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.

Archeologists overseeing Islamic infrastructure work on the Mount announced this week that they had unveiled a sealed archeological level dating back to the First Temple period.

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century BCE, and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The Second Temple was built 70 years later, enlarged during the first century BCE by Herod, and destroyed by the Romans in the year 70.

The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aksa Mosque were constructed on the Temple Mount site in the late seventh century.

While Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week speakers have been yelled at and hectored by self-righteous tools, in Denmark one takes his life into his hands for daring to resist Islamic supremacism.

Story here.

Last night I spoke at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. There were few disruptions during the talk itself, although there was a loud group of louts toward the back, one of whom during the question period told me angrily that he didn't want to listen to what I was saying. I assured him that no one was forcing him to listen at all, and that he was quite welcome to leave.

The question period was full of the usual self-righteous lecturing by thoroughly propagandized students who have no training in critical thinking and quite obviously feel deeply threatened when their cherished ideas, which rest on such shaky intellectual and evidentiary foundations, are questioned. I see that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Left, and their Islamic supremacist allies, is that they believe their own propaganda, and don't even have the conceptual apparatus required to help them recover when its inaccuracy and dishonesty is exposed. Even at their best the questioners were clearly playing "Gotcha," trying to get me to say something they could use against the Week and the perspective I represent, rather than engaging in real intellectual give-and-take. This too is a function of how thoroughly they have been propagandized, for they have been taught that those who oppose them are morally evil, and can't even conceptualize the possibility that people of good will might disagree with them and thus should be engaged with ideas, not rants and attempted traps.

I didn't expect anything else at the beginning of the Week, and of course I have not been greeted with anything like the reception that Nonie Darwish and David Horowitz have received at other universities. In general, the hysteria, the lies about the Week and the intentions of its organizers, and the attempts to silence us all indicate how much the Week is needed, how threatened the Left and its jihadist allies are by our shining this light upon them and pointing out the hypocrisy of their "bigotry" talk, and how vitally important it is that we keep up this kind of pressure.

Here is a report from the Brown newspaper about the event, supplemented with bogeyman photo, although all in all the article is not nearly as bad as it could have been. There are a few inaccuracies and distortions: no mention is made of my explanation of the term "Islamofascism" as having originated by Algerian pro-democracy Muslims fighting against the exponents of political Islam, and being buttressed by the pro-Nazi sentiments of Hasan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and others. Instead, we get the impression that it's something non-Muslims like Horowitz have cooked up.

A Muslim student, Osman Chaudhry, is referred to as saying "that he thought the lecture unfairly cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community," which suggests that he was reading from his prepared notes from before the talk, not reacting to the talk itself -- in which I spoke repeatedly and at some length about the need for peaceful Muslims to confront and resist the jihadists.

The College Republicans President Mark Frank is quoted as saying of me that "where he was very provocative, he largely backed his arguments with solid evidence."

Largely? Memo to Brown students: wherever you may have thought evidence was lacking for points I made (and I can see how you might have missed some of the evidence I gave while attempting to talk over me), contact me at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will supply it.

It's never easy when you become estranged from a loved one.

From AP:

Al-Qaida sympathizers have unleashed a torrent of anger against Al-Jazeera television, accusing it of misrepresenting Osama bin Laden's latest audiotape by airing excerpts in which he criticizes mistakes by insurgents in Iraq.

Users of a leading Islamic militant Web forum posted thousands of insults against the pan-Arab station for focusing on excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents, including his followers.

From David Horowitz's blog

The fascists came out in force tonight at Emory University and broke up what would have been an interesting conversation. I hardly got through fiteen minutes of my scheduled talk before members of the audience who come to protest rather than to listen became so unruly that it was impossible to go on. (Video and reports on Islamo-Fascism Week available at www.incorrectu.com)

This is too bad, particularly for the students at Emory, which is a good school and whose student audiences have always been civil when I spoke there in the past. After the event became a shambles, I went over to the local Starbucks to indulge in a tall Orange Mocha. While I was sitting there the president of the Muslim Students Association came over and introduced herself, and shared her regrets at what had happened. I thanked her for that and told her I would like to continue conversation another time.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week continues to make apologists nervous, resulting in a slew of case studies in all the usual devices they use in hope of diverting discussions away from the elements of Islamic texts and teachings that fuel the jihad ideology: Fear of "backlash," denial of the connection between Islamic jihad doctrine and Islamic jihad violence, and, of course, good old slander.

"Commentary: On propaganda and Islamophobia in the US," by Abukar Arman, "a freelance writer who lives in Ohio," (whose writings have come under scrutiny at Jihad Watch before), for the Middle East Times:

The daunting reality facing people of conscience is the seemingly impossible task of controlling propaganda in a free society, and how the protected freedom of the perpetrators increases the vulnerability of their potential victims.

Interesting choice of words there: "controlling" propaganda. Not recognizing it, answering it, or critically engaging it, but controlling it. But the "control" of information and discussion is itself an exercise in indoctrination, propaganda, and the mark of a patronizing government that feels it knows better than the citizens whose consent gives it power.

In the past few years, while many positive things have happened to Muslims in America, dark clouds continue to gather over them as a result of relentless propaganda by certain special interest groups. All one has to do is to randomly listen to AM talk show radio to hear the overtly-expressed hatred that hundreds of thousands - or perhaps millions - in America internalize each day and night. And this, needless to say, makes the backlash of any terrorist attack in the US soil a nightmare scenario for all Muslims.

More on "backlash" here.

'But, these are mere words,' the proponents of the status quo argue. 'It's not like they're throwing Molotov cocktail bombs at Muslims' homes' they insist, in an attempt to minimize the power of words.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently made an observation about another common charge that is aimed at silencing criticism of Islam, namely, that noting the Islamic underpinnings of the jihad ideology creates more jihadists. Part of her response also applies here: "If we continue that reasoning, we’ll never scrutinize anything. Can we ever write? Can we ever criticize anything?"

Indeed, there is a difference between incitement to violence, and criticizing an ideology. That is, unless we're now going to treat all criticism and disagreement as a prelude to violence. I (Marisol) would disagree with that. (Uh oh. Duck!)

[...]

In this age of Reality TV where the real, the unreal, and the surreal are deeply entangled, few have the ability to decipher disinformation or propaganda for what it truly is. Few would ask themselves: is stereotyping a major religion in its entirety ethical or even prudent? Is there any historical or even a current trend supporting the so-called "Islamo-fascism" propagated by certain vociferous political and religious provocateurs?

Yes. If you like, we can just call it jihad, too. We're flexible.

And assuming their charges were correct, the question that begs an answer is: why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc? More importantly, why are these provocateurs and their Grand Wizards such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Televangelist Pat Robertson, Daniel Pipes, and Steve Emerson, and the cottage industry of fear, online outfits such as FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, and Little Green Footballs keep spewing hate speech that indiscriminately offends Muslims and only provides more fuel to the radical elements?

Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."

But Arman does not bother to attempt to provide any quotation of something he finds "hateful" from any of the men he mentions.

However, as a result of the heinous aggression of 9/11 and the subsequent fear industry, a number of people have become desensitized to the dangers of Islamophobia and its mirrored image, anti-Americanism.

[...]

And in the political spectrum, early this summer, while being critical of how, in their first two debates, the democratic presidential candidates avoided connecting terrorism with Islam, one of the frontrunner republican candidate's, Rudy Giuliani, recently had this to say: "During their two debates, they never mentioned the word Islamic terrorist, Islamic extremist, Islamic fascist, terrorist, whatever combination of those words you want to use - [the] words never came up ... Maybe it's politically incorrect to say that. I don't know. I can't imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist. You don't insult anyone who is Islamic who isn't a terrorist."

Now imagine if media routinely described the widely-reported sexual abuses committed by individual members of the Catholic clergy as 'Catholic-pedophiliac culture' and blamed everything on Roman Catholicism or the church doctrine. Or, imagine the Zionist brutal oppression of the Palestinian people being routinely referred to as Zio-Nazism or being blamed on Judaism and the teachings of the Torah.

Cheap shot. But here's the problem: Where does Catholic teaching endorse molesting children? Nowhere. It's a scandal which Catholics from the Pope to the rank-and-file parishioner have denounced forthrightly and want to eliminate with all the urgency in the world. Where does the Islamic faith demand the conversion, subjugation, or waging of war against unbelievers? Qur'an 9:29, for one.

Recently, however, realists such as Gen. John Abizaid, who have realized that the venomous rhetoric employed by anti-Muslim propagandists is in no way in the US' best interest, have also started to speak out.

"Adding the word 'Islamic' extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism ... all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people," said the former commander of the US Central Command, adding that it was crucial to: "figure out how we don't turn this into Samuel Huntington's Battle of Civilizations, and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There's nothing Islamic about [Osama] Bin Laden's philosophy, there's nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It's not that, it doesn't need to be that."

In its true essence, propaganda is different than other forms of communication, as it consciously employs half-truths, falsehoods, and misleading information to manipulate feelings and attitudes. Propaganda mainly targets the emotions, precisely because they stir the targeted subject into a frenzy of impulsive actions.

Time to play the "Hitler" card. Never mind the continuing popularity of Mein Kampf in places like Turkey, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries.

Adolf Hitler clearly understood this. In his infamous Mein Kampf, he wrote: for propaganda to be more effective, it: "must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect. We must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous."

[...]

That said, Arman moves on to single out one of the aforementioned "Grand Wizards" as a "Jewish American conservative writer."

Ironically and, perhaps, while counting on the herd mentality of the frightened masses, this same propaganda machine is promoting Jewish American conservative writer and activist David Horowitz's spread-the-hate campaign, the so-called "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week," coming to a university campus near you.

And now, outright slander. It is a well-substantiated fact that the flyers Arman mentions next were produced as a smear tactic by students opposed to the event.

Horowitz and his affiliates' hateful mission was first unveiled in George Washington University, when students promoting the event plastered provocative fliers all over the university, the most despicable among them being a poster bearing the image of a Muslim man with Islamic attire that read "Hate Muslims? So Do We!"

A retraction would be nice.

Political posturing, to be sure, but it certainly would be good to hear more candidates -- Democrat and Republican -- begin to call the jihad what it is.

"Romney: Dems have accepted defeat in war against 'violent jihad'," from the Associated Press:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Speaking in Philadelphia, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says Democrats are accepting defeat in the battle against what he calls "radical violent jihad."

Not that mainstream, passive-aggressive jihad would constitute an improvement.

In recent polls, Romney has lagged behind former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Senator John McCain - despite spending more than $17 million from his own fortune. But after attending several fundraisers in the Philadelphia area today, Romney focused his attacks mostly on the Democratic front-runners.

It's easier to score propaganda points firing on the Israelis than to confront the problem with Hizballah and the group's Iranian and Syrian backers, whose ongoing activity is the reason for such reconnaissance flights by Israel.

"Officials: Lebanese troops fired on IAF jets," from the Associated Press:

Lebanese troops opened fire Thursday on Israeli warplanes flying low over southern Lebanon, but no hits were reported, Lebanese officials said.

Lebanese soldiers opened up with machine guns and light anti-aircraft weapons mounted on armored vehicles at two planes that flew by just east of Marjayoun town near the border at midmorning, a Lebanese security official said.

A total of 150 rounds were fired, he added. A senior military officer also said the army "confronted" the Israeli planes, but gave no details.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity in the absence of a formal announcement from the military command.

Israeli warplanes frequently fly over Lebanese airspace in what Israel says are reconnaissance missions, but this was the first time the army has [fired] on the aircraft since an August 14, 2006 cease-fire ended a month-long war between Israeli and Hizbullah guerrillas.

It is also the first time since February that the Lebanese army, which deployed in the south after the fighting, has fired on the Israelis.

All they've done is pass a bill "that would institute language exams and potential DNA testing for prospective immigrants, making it more difficult for families to join loved ones in France," and the Socialists and Greens are acting as if they committed genocide. The possibility of France being overwhelmed and transformed by immigrants who bring with them a radically different societal model, one that many are determined to impose upon the larger population, is not for them a matter of concern.

By Nathalie Schuck for Associated Press (thanks to Special Guest):

PARIS - French lawmakers adopted a hotly contested bill on Tuesday that would institute language exams and potential DNA testing for prospective immigrants, making it more difficult for families to join loved ones in France.

The DNA amendment, the most controversial aspect of the legislation, is meant to ensure that claims of family ties are true. It was added as a way to ensure that visa-seekers were not using fraudulent papers, common in some African countries.

While the expensive test is optional, critics fear it would be viewed as mandatory by those hoping to join family members in France.

The opposition Socialist Party has said it would take the issue before the Constitutional Council, which ensures that all laws conform with the constitution, in the hopes of getting the DNA amendment dumped. The move delays the bill's formal passage into law.

"This law is aimed at institutionalizing xenophobia," said Communist Party lawmaker Patrick Braouezec.

France's National Ethics Committee, a consultative body, has also said it has serious reservations about the DNA amendment for fear it could erode individual freedoms.

In a bid to appease critics, the DNA amendment was watered down to an 18-month experiment in several countries, with a genetic comparison only being made between a child seeking to join a mother already in France.

The legislation is a step toward fulfilling Conservative French President Nicolas Sarkozy's goal of increasing the proportion of skilled immigrants in France from 7 percent to 50 percent and generally tailoring the profile of the immigrant community.

In September, Sarkozy proposed immigration quotas by regions of the world and by occupation.

"I want us to be able to establish each year, after a debate in parliament, a quota with a ceiling for the number of foreigners we accept on our territory," he said at the time....

"You are reimbursing your debt to the extreme right," Greens Party lawmaker Noel Mamere said Tuesday ahead of the vote, a reference to the far-right party which voted massively for Sarkozy at the expense of its own candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The rest of the bill requires that prospective immigrants take a language test and an exam on fundamental French values. It also sets a minimum income level for the relative in France to ensure the person arriving has enough financial support.

Hey, wait a minute, Osama. This Darfur thing is supposed to be all about racism. Don't disrupt the media dogmas, please.

By Mike Pflanz in the Telegraph (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Osama bin Laden has issued a fresh call for a "holy war" against a new 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur, which will include British support staff.

In an audio recording issued by al-Qa'eda this week, bin Laden also said that Muslims in Sudan and its neighbours must target the Khartoum government for agreeing to the deployment.

"This is a brazen occupation, and only an infidel apostate seeks it or agrees to it," bin Laden said.

"It is the duty of the people of Islam in the Sudan and its environs, especially the Arabian peninsula, to perform jihad against the crusader invaders and wage armed rebellion to remove those who let them in."

He always couches his appeals in this kind of language: "the people of Islam," etc. Yet the one thing the West is determined not to notice or to take into account is the religious nature of those appeals.

I am set to speak tonight at the University of Rhode Island, and a group calling itself Protest College Republicans has sent around this email. Clearly they're planning a lively intellectual exchange, marked by the civility and high standards of evidence and exposition that are the hallmark of the Left, particularly on campuses these days:

Hello,

The same URI College Republicans who brought you a White, Heterosexual Male Scholarship are now bringing you an Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. The racism, sexism and bigotry continues.

The URI College Republicans must be stopped!

Join myself and dozens of other students as we protest the URI College Republicans tomorrow night at 7PM when they host Robert Spencer, a Muslim-Hating, Bush propogandist in the Memorial Union Ballroom.

Let's put an end to this racism, sexism and bigotry!

This man wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam". What a sicko!

Protest Details:

What: Robert Spencer Speech

Where: Memorial Union Ballroom

When: Wednesday Oct 24 @ 7 PM

Of course, little do these academic titans know that I neither hate Muslims nor am a Bush "propogandist" -- whatever a "propogandist" is.

UPDATE 11PM: Just got in. The College Republicans and I were not stopped. No protests or disruptions materialized, just the usual windy bloviating during the question period, trying to hijack the presentation with an alternative lecture. But the evening as a whole went smoothly.

Originally, you'll recall, we were told by CAIR's Ahmed Bedier that they were a couple of "naive kids" carrying "fireworks." Now we hear that Megahed had no idea what was in the trunk. Did Mohamed? Or did the Tooth Fairy drop by and leave 20 feet of fuse, a box of .22-caliber bullets, a drill, several gallons of gasoline, PVC piping and gun powder in their car without either one knowing about it?

Mohamed and Megahed Update: "Student Pleads Not Guilty to Bomb Charge," by Mitch Stacy for Associated Press (thanks to Block Ness):

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - An Egyptian college student accused of making an Internet video demonstrating the construction of a detonator for terrorist bombs pleaded not guilty to federal charges Wednesday.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, remained jailed on charges of distributing information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. His arraignment was set for Thursday.

Mohamed, an engineering student suspended by the University of South Florida, and another Egyptian student, Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, also are charged with carrying explosive materials across state lines.

They were arrested during an Aug. 5 traffic stop in Goose Creek, S.C., about 15 miles northwest of Charleston and near a Navy weapons station.

In the trunk of their car, according an FBI agent's statement, police found 20 feet of fuse, a box of .22-caliber bullets, a drill, several gallons of gasoline, PVC piping and gun powder.

The agent also said Mohamed's laptop contained a video he made demonstrating how to convert a remote-control toy into a detonator.

Mohamed said he made the video "to assist those persons in Arabic countries to defend themselves against the infidels invading their countries," according to the agent's statement. He said "he considered American troops, and those military forces fighting with the American military, to be invaders of Arab countries," the statement said.

The students told authorities they were carrying fireworks; Megahed's attorney now contends that his client didn't know anything about the items in the trunk.

And I'll bet you didn't even have to read the story to know why that was. You, you, you - islamaphobes.
From AP:

One Saudi woman ignored the cancer growing in her breast because she didn't want to risk a referral to a male doctor. Another was divorced by her husband on the mere suspicion she had the disease, while a third was dragged away from a mammogram machine because the technicians were men.
Breast cancer is still considered a taboo in oil-rich Arab Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia even as the disease claims more and more victims, but some women are pushing for greater openness about the illness.

That is, a "world jihad" cell.

"Police seize 'world jihad' team," from CNN (thanks to all who sent this in):

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Six suspected Islamic militants were Wednesday arrested in northern Spain on suspicion of using the Internet to recruit for and plot a 'world jihad,' a Ministry of Interior statement said.

The arrests came in Burgos province, a few hours' drive north of Madrid.

The six, allegedly linked to international Islamic terrorist activity, were seized in an operation involving U.S., Danish and Swedish intelligence agencies, the statement said.

"A large part of the activity was carried out on restricted Internet 'chats' and forums, which shows that the cell arrested was the first one detected and dismantled in Spain that promoted 'world jihad' through the Internet," the statement said.

Police were searching the homes of the six suspects and also a butcher shop run by one of them. Documents and computers were seized, the statement said.

Some of the money raised by the group allegedly was sent to Islamic terrorist convicts or suspects in prison, it said.

The alleged ringleader is Abdelkader Ayachine, an Algerian, and his top aide, Wissan Lotfi, a Moroccan. They were allegedly preaching violent jihadi ideology to promote an international "holy war," especially in Iraq, the statement said.

If only the frothing denunciations of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week were directed at the Muslims who keep stubbornly committing acts of violence in the name of Islam -- then we might actually be getting somewhere. Salam Al-Marayati? Umar Lee? Anyone? Anyone?

"Russia detains two Muslims for train blast," from Reuters (thanks to Twostellas):

NAZRAN, Russia - Russian forces detained two Muslim men in the southern republic of Ingushetia in connection with the August bombing of a train between Moscow and St. Petersburg, an interior ministry source said on Wednesday.

Investigators had previously said Russian nationalists were the most likely culprits in the August 13 explosion that derailed the main passenger train between Russia's two largest cities. There were no fatalities in the blast.

"War is deception" is, of course, a quote from Muhammad himself. "Motion For Retrial," from Investor's Business Daily (thanks to Doc Washburn):

Trail Of Terror: The Council on American-Islamic Relations is cheering a mistrial in a major terror case as a "stunning defeat" for the U.S. government. But the celebration may be premature.

Federal prosecutors say they'll retry the case against leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, the nation's largest Muslim charity, which they accused of funneling more than $12 million to Hamas terrorists.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, also cheered a similar outcome in a federal case against Muslim activist Sami al-Arian in Florida. As in the Holy Land case, jurors deadlocked on several terror counts. But prosecutors threatened a retrial and al-Arian later pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

He was defended by the same lawyer defending one of the accused Holy Land leaders, Ghassan Elashi, who happens to also be a founding member of CAIR.

Barring plea bargains, the U.S. will narrow its charges and refile them — hopefully with a new judge. U.S. District Judge Joe Fish barred key evidence helping prosecutors prove willful intent to support terror on the part of defendants.

For example, he threw out a dozen documents seized by the Israeli government in raids of Hamas fronts that would have tied the Dallas-based charity closer to the terror group. Fish also allowed defendants to intimidate jurors.

Not long after the trial opened, after a morning of testimony by government witnesses, a visibly angry Elashi shouted and pointed as jurors exited the courtroom for lunch. The judge scolded him for the outburst — which included a rant about "a Zionist conspiracy" — but decided not to kick him out of the courtroom.

[...]

No doubt they'll streamline their evidence, highlighting the more powerful exhibits, including:

• FBI wiretaps of a meeting in Philadelphia between Holy Land and Hamas big shots in which Holy Land's director is overheard scheming to disguise payments to Hamas as charity, noting that "war is deception."

• Testimony from FBI agents that Holy Land flew Hamas clerics to the U.S. to help raise funds at mosques.

• Videos of a Holy Land defendant pretending to kill an Israeli during a Hamas fundraising skit held at one mosque.

• Key chains, videos and posters praising suicide bombers found inside the Hamas front "committees" that Holy Land helped bankroll.

The defendants also kept two sets of records at their Dallas offices — one in English, the other in Arabic — which they destroyed during the FBI's probe.

Lawyers for the accused expect us to believe that all this suspicious activity was merely an attempt to help needy Palestinians with "vaccinations" and "rice." Civil juries haven't fallen for the subterfuge.

[...]

The evidence is clear. Now it's up to the PC-plagued Justice Department to present it to jurors in a way that doesn't make their eyes glaze over. Retry the case. Only this time, don't try their patience.

Using US-made attack helicopters. "Turkish Troops Bomb Suspected Rebel Positions in Iraq," from AP:

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked positions of Kurdish rebels along the rugged Iraqi-Turkish border on Wednesday, the country's official Anatolia news agency reported.

Several F-16 warplanes loaded with bombs took off from an air base in southeastern city of Diyarbakir, private Dogan news agency and local reporters said.

U.S.-made Cobra and Super Cobra attack helicopters chased Kurdish rebels some 3 miles into Iraqi territory on Sunday but returned to their bases in Turkey after a rebel ambush killed 12 soldiers near the border, the official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Just kidding.

True to form, when this courageous ex-Muslim woman spoke at UC-Berkeley Monday night for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, all that Leftist and Muslim thugs could do in response was try to shout her down.

Zombie has photos and video (thanks to LGF).

Awhile ago the Muslim Public Affairs Council released a handbook for dealing with Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, centered around these six tips:

The guide includes information about the need for student groups to:

* demonstrate Islamic ethics and restraint
* support free speech
* not respond
* contact campus administrators
* talk to other student groups
* report hate crimes and hate incidents

Last night I was on Radio Islam out of Chicago with Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC, and I think he may want to add a seventh:

* engage in character assassination of your opponents rather than respond to the substantive points they raise.

For when I spoke of the need for peaceful Muslims to counter actively Salafist efforts at recruitment, which proceed by appealing to the Qur'an and Sunnah, he responded by likening me to Osama bin Laden.

Of course, he has done this on many radio shows we've been on together in the past, and perhaps nothing better can be expected from a colleague of Edina Lekovic, who has lied about me on national television and ignored my requests for a retraction.

As long as Al-Marayati and his allies continue to engage in this kind of mudslinging instead of dealing with the issues at hand, more and more people will wake up to his utter intellectual bankruptcy, the hollowness of his calls for dialogue, and the unhelpfulness of his organization in the struggle against Islamic supremacism. Nice going, Salam!

Robert Spencer of 1984 says, Not so fast, Umar

The Muslim American Society has declared victory in a piece by Umar Lee that characterizes Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week as a "week of incitement." That's a neatly deceptive label for an efforts that features a series of speakers and programs designed to draw attention to the deprivation under Sharia of the human rights of women, religious minorities, and homosexuals, and even Muslims whom the jihadists deem to be insufficiently orthodox.

We have thus focused on the Left's pet causes and thereby exposed its hypocrisy. All that Leftists and their allies have done in response -- and all they apparently can do -- is attack us personally and attribute to us, without a shred of evidence, all sorts of sinister motives and intentions, while simultaneously claiming that no one is paying attention to us anyway. Umar Lee is a case in point: he has never hesitated to engage in the most vile defamation of me and others, and appears incapable of holding a civil, rational discussion with those with whom he disagrees or arguing his case solely on its merits. His new MAS piece is more of the same. He wants his hapless readers to believe that we're engaging in incitement -- thus diverting their attention away from the fact that we're calling attention to oppression, and he is by his opposition to us aiding and abetting that oppression. He combines this with a bit of chest-thumping:

As the week of incitement began one of the biggest critics of Islam, Robert Spencer, gave a speech at DePaul University in Chicago and was greeted by more people in opposition to his message than supporters and from the reports that I am getting on most campuses turnout is very light for these events and in many cases those coming out to counter the event are outnumbering those in support of it.

Maybe so. But Lee may be premature in declaring victory. When I myself was in college, I held views very different from those I hold now. I would have opposed Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, had such an event existed. But the force of events and continued study over the years led me to change my views.

Most of all, however, I believe Umar Lee's crowing is premature for one primary reason: we are telling the truth, and he and his cohorts aren't. Monday night at DePaul a questioner referred to my invoking Sahih Muslim 4294, the hadith in which Muhammad tells his followers to offer unbelievers conversion, subjugation, or war. Then he asked, "What qualifies you to speak about the contents of Islamic texts?" I answered, "I can read."

And so can a lot of other people -- unfortunately for Umar Lee.

UPDATE: Several people have notified me that the MAS has pulled this article. What's the matter, Umar? Too many people able to read?

Eurabia Alert, and an update on this story. " 22 charged over 'al Qaeda network," by Al Goodman for CNN:

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A Spanish judge indicted 22 suspected Islamic terrorists Tuesday, charging them with recruiting and sending fighters to Iraq, including one who killed Italian troops there in a suicide attack in 2003, according to a copy of the indictment viewed by CNN.

A court source said the suspects managed to send four fighters to Iraq.

It notes the suicide attack on Nov. 17, 2003, by a man identified as Bellil Belgacem "against Italian troops that left 18 people dead and various others wounded," in Nasiriya, Iraq, the indictment said.

Eighteen of the 22 suspects are charged with membership in a terrorist group. The others face the lesser charge of collaborating with a terrorist group. All but two of the suspects are either in custody or out on bail.

The defendants aimed to establish their network in Spain, Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Morroco, Syria and Iraq, with "the precise aim of sending people to Iraq to join the terrorist activity directed by al Qaeda, to attack vital military and civilian, public and private targets," the indictment says.

Judge Baltasar Garzon, an investigating magistrate at Spain's National Court who has tried to untangle the web of suspected Islamic terrorist cells in Spain, issued the 38-page indictment.

The suspected leaders include Abdeladin Akoudad, alias Nadufel, identified as an alleged coordinator of a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, "a terrorist group of Salafist ideology," the indictment says.

Akoudad and another defendant, Ahmed Hissisni, are being sought on Spanish arrest warrants, the indictment says.

Another suspected leader identified in the indictment is Mohamed Mrabet Fashi, alias Aldeghafour, who allegedly had responsibility in Spain for sending fighters to Iraq to attack Western targets, the indictment says. The indictment maintains pre-trial prison for Mrabet Fashi and nine co-defendants.

Ten other defendants have provisional liberty, including three with bail of 6,000 euros ($8,400) each, the indictment says. No trial date was announced.

He wanted to commit "suicide by cop," you see. He was mentally ill, like Bilal Bajaka and so many others. It's funny how this particular mental illness so often runs in this same pattern. Tahmeed Ahmad is a mentally ill honor student who, by the way, had already been added to a terror watch list.

"Teacher who attacked base had death wish, FBI says: A Miami Central High math teacher was arrested after attacking the Homestead Air Reserve Base in a failed suicide bid, authorities say," by David Ovalle in the Miami Herald (thanks to Brad Thor):

Wielding two butcher knives bought at Wal-Mart and vodka bottles to use as explosives, Tahmeed Ahmad chanted ''Death to America'' and told Homestead Air Reserve Base guards he wanted to kill soldiers.

But Ahmad was no terrorist, authorities believe.

Rather, the Miami Central High School math teacher wanted to ''commit suicide by cop'' when he attacked military policemen stationed at the west gate just before midnight Sunday, the FBI said.

Ahmad did not get his wish. One officer fired his handgun at Ahmad. He missed.

''We take security very seriously at the base, but this was quite an unusual event,'' said Lt. Col. Tom Davis, a base spokesman. ``Our security forces are well trained and responded appropriately.''

Police quickly arrested Ahmad, 22, whose mother says is mentally ill and had recently been in a mental institution. The FBI charged him Monday with assaulting a U.S. government employee.

Ahmad is in his first year teaching math at Miami Central High, 1781 NW 95th St....

Ahmad had been added to a federal terrorist watch list, but officials had long since concluded he was not a credible threat, Davis said.

He graduated in June from City College of New York's honors program in mathematics, his mother, Gulnaz Ahmad, said from East Flushing, N.Y.

She said her son was a smart, quiet man who was elected as a student government-faculty liaison three years in a row. He was born in Kuwait and is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

He had been recruited to teach by Miami-Dade schools. Ahmad also wanted to coach football.

But last week, a mental hospital called to say Ahmad, who had been on psychiatric medication, tried killing himself but didn't know how.

''I don't why he was depressed and why he was so sad,'' his mother said, tearfully. ``He needs help.''

”Karlsruhe, Germany - A Jordanian has been indicted in Germany over a plot to set up a school for terrorists in Sudan, prosecutors said Tuesday. Thaer A, aged 33, who was picked up by Swedish police in March and extradited to Germany the following month, is the second member of the alleged ring of five men to face trial.” -- from this news article

What are the German police, the Swedish police, the Danish police, the Norwegian police, the Belgian police, the Dutch police, the French police, the Italian police, the Spanish police, the British police, and their equivalents of the FBI, and the CIA, or MI5 and MI6, all doing these days? What are the courts doing? What are the prosecutors and taxpayer-funded lawyers doing? What are all those extra security details for -- at airports and train stations and bus stations and in front of government buildings, and near embassies of the United States and Israel and Australia, and in front of churches and synagogues, and Christian and Jewish schools, and symbolic structures expressive of the nation-state's Infidel history (as at St. Denis, where the French kings are buried)? What?

And how much does all this now cost the Infidel nation-states of Europe? And how much will it cost, if the Muslim immigrants continue to come and those already here are permitted to remain, even if they do not, and cannot possibly, offer their unfeigned allegiance to Infidels, and to the political and legal institutions of the Infidel nation-state?

Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal reports on riots just yards from where we participated in the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels last week. An update on this story:

Europe’s no-go zones or SUAs (“sensitive urban areas”) are multiplying. These are areas where the police no longer dares to venture and where Islamists hold sway. Every night since the beginning of last week, immigrant youths have been torching cars and clashing with police in Amsterdam’s Slotervaart district. The incidents started on Oct. 14 when a policewoman shot dead Bilal Bajaka, a 22-year old ethnic Moroccan, whilst he was stabbing her and a colleague with a knife. The officers were stabbed in the breast, face, neck and back. Surgeons could only narrowly save their lives.

Since the incident, Slotervaart has seen rioting almost every night. The Amsterdam Moroccans are “shocked” because one of them has been killed by an infidel woman. According to his family, Bilal Bajaka was mentally deranged and had a suicide obsession. Ahmed Marcouch, the Moroccan-born Socialist mayor of Slotervaart, criticized the Dutch authorities for failing to provide adequate health care for Bajaka’s mental problems.

Bilal Bajaka was, however, a personal friend of Mohammed Bouyeri, the Jihadist who ritually slaughtered the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh in 2004. Bilal’s attack on the two police officers came exactly two years after the arrest of his brother, Abdullah Bajaka, the leader of an alleged plot to blow up an El-Al Boeing at Amsterdam airport. Bilal’s family background is not at all deprived. One of his sisters is a medical doctor, another sister is a Dutch judge.

[...]

Similar events are currently taking place in Brussels, the capital of neighbouring Belgium and of the EU. Last Sunday, demonstrating Turkish youths ransacked an Armenian restaurant in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node borough. According to the owner the police was present at the scene but did not interfere while his establishment was being demolished. The Armenian had to flee for his life.

Another man who had to run for his life was the Belgian journalist Mehmet Koksal, an ethnic Turk. He was attacked around 11 pm on Sunday evening by a group of some twenty Turkish youths in front of the American embassy in Brussels, a few yards from the Belgian parliament building. The Parliament and the US Embassy are less than one kilometer from Sint-Joost-ten-Node. Koksal fled to a nearby police car, but a female police officer refused to let him into the car, whereupon the youths savagely beat him up. Fearing that they were about to lynch him, the police officers changed their attitude and allowed the journalist to seek refuge in their car....

In this article in The American Muslim, Sheila Musaji decries “a rash of supposed Muslims or pseudo-Muslims (at least they have Muslim names) using the [the Jewish Voices for Peace Petition against intolerance and Islamophobia] petition site as a means to leave derogatory comments about Jews, Christians, America, etc.”

The “Pseudo-Muslim” entered on the petition site actual quotes from Ahmad Bahr, acting Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker; Mahmoud Al Hasan of the Hezb-ul-Mujahedeen, a group aligned to the Jamaat-e-Islami party of Pakistan; Dr. Ismail Radwan, who spoke on official Palestinian TV on March 30, 2007; Anjem Choudary, a Muslim leader in the UK; and Ahmad Bahr again.

How much did this juror know about Hamas' terror attacks against Israeli civilians -- attacks which Hamas openly celebrated? How much was this juror influenced by media whitewashing of jihad terror by the "Palestinians"?

From "Mistrial declared in Muslim charity case," by David Koenig for Associated Press, an article that Anne already referenced here.

The prosecution's key witness was a lawyer for the Israeli domestic security agency Shin Bet who testified under a false name. He said Palestinian charities that got Holy Land money were controlled by Hamas.

Neal, the juror, said he found the Shin Bet officer's testimony unconvincing — that he would expect an Israeli official to condemn an ally of Palestinians.

At least it's a direct and honest appeal: Want peace? Pay the jizya. "Muslims in 'money not words' message," by Tom Smithard in the Yorkshire Post (thanks to Twostellas):

A Government Minister was told yesterday to stop talking and start funding as he addressed a group of young Yorkshire Muslims battling to prevent members of their community becoming extremists.

Community Cohesion Minister Parmjit Dhanda was told that young Muslims were still annoyed about the war in Iraq and tensions in the Middle East.

And, in what he described as a "robust debate", he was told by members of the Leeds Muslim Youth Forum (LMYF) that they were fed up of having meetings with Ministers that appeared positive at the time but never resulted in the funding they were after.

Mr Dhanda visited the Hamara centre in Beeston, Leeds, yesterday to learn about grassroot schemes developed there to engage young people.

Representatives told him of the positive work to build links with other Leeds communities, including organising football tournaments and multi-faith visits to mosques, churches and synagogues.

They said they were about to organise a community cohesion awards night, featuring prizes for local role models, and had also recently run a cultural awareness week to help stop the feeling of alienation.

But, while tensions in Beeston had eased since the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings, carried out by members of the community, the representatives said there were still many problems that needed addressing.

Mohammed Kamran said: "We need to get young Muslims to understand the big picture. Young Muslims are p***** off with our foreign policy and the community gets all irate about politicians not engaging at a local level. We're trying to get people to engage at a local level themselves, because that's the only way it will change things."

P***** off with foreign policy? Politicians not engaging at the local level? Hmmm. I guess I'll have to become a suicide bomber myself!

Speaking afterwards, 20-year-old Fahad Khan said that it was vital for the LMYF to engage at the grassroots, through mosques and youth clubs, to reach young people before they became alienated and turned to extremism.

He said: "There is no escaping the fact that there is a lot of tension in this community, the Muslim youth is disenfranchised. They are being pulled three ways, the religious culture at home, the secular culture at school, and in-between the tension of the streets.

"Parents don't understand, many do not speak English, yet there's no translators available at parent-teacher evenings at schools. Young people also have grievances with other faiths, they focus too much on the differences rather than looking at the similarities.

"We also have 'consultation fatigue', with Ministers coming to see us but never getting anything done. We had a meeting with a Treasury Minister earlier in the summer, it was a positive meeting, but when we applied for funding afterwards it was rejected.

"We don't want to sound money hungry but we need it to progress as an organisation, to allow us to get our voices heard within the community. The problem at the moment is Ministers listen to what we say, but never act upon it."

But, but, says the government official, we've already ponied up plenty:

Mr Dhanda, a Sikh, told the Yorkshire Post: "We have invested £6m of money nationally in our Preventing Violent Extremism programme, with £17m over three years behind that.

"We had a good, frank discussion today. It's really important that we listen to what active young people in the Leeds Muslim community have to say because the projects they've been involved in locally have made a real difference.

"It's not a case of what goes wrong that we need to spend all our time focusing on. We need to find examples of what can be done to improve things. Where we have projects of real energy and vitality we need to utilise that and support that."

Why not tell them this, Dhanda? "We're going to enforce British law. You are in Britain. You must obey it. Poverty and disenfranchisement are no excuse for mayhem. Renounce Islamic supremacism and any hope to impose Sharia, accept the parameters of British society and law, work with law enforcement officials to root out jihadists from your community, and things will go well with you."

An update on this story. "Iraq: Two kidnapped clergymen in Iraq released," from Compass Direct:

ISTANBUL, October 22 (Compass Direct News) – Two Iraqi priests kidnapped more than a week ago said they returned to their Mosul parish in good health yesterday morning and immediately celebrated mass.

Captors freed Father Pius Affas and Father Mazen Ishoa at an undisclosed location in Mosul at 11 a.m., Fr. Affas told Compass today. The release came a day after two other Christians were abducted and an Orthodox priest’s son was shot to death.

“They were very good to us,” the Syrian Catholic priest said in broken English by telephone from Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Fr. Affas said that he and Fr. Ishoa had not sustained any injuries while in captivity and repeatedly thanked all those who had prayed for their release.

Kidnappers have tortured several of the seven Iraqi priests kidnapped in Baghdad during the past year.

The priests said they were healthy enough to celebrate mass for their congregation at St. Thomas’ church on the day of their release. But another Mosul clergyman told Compass that he was uncertain whether the captors had actually treated the priests well.

“It’s normal for [Fr. Affas and Fr. Ishoa] not to explain everything on the telephone, because their kidnappers have probably told them not to talk about [torture],” said the clergyman, who requested anonymity. He said that the priests’ telephones were likely tapped and their movements monitored..

“We won’t know the exact details until we meet them [in person],” the priest said..

Fr. Affas did not comment on whether the church had paid a $1 million ransom initially demanded by the kidnappers. The priests’ captors had given Syrian Catholic Archbishop Basile Georges Casmoussa until Saturday (October 20) to raise the money.

[...]

A Mosul priest told Compass that prior to his capture, Fr. Affas had received letters threatening to attack his congregation if they did not leave the city. Christians in Iraq continue to report attacks targeting their community amid the greater violence between Sunni and Shiite militias and U.S. forces..

A Vatican spokesperson registered the Pope’s happiness over news of the release and said he hoped similar kidnappings would not continue in the future. Pope Benedict XVI had appealed for the liberation of the two clergymen during a papal address in Rome last week.

More Kidnappings

Two Christians from a village outside of Mosul were kidnapped on Saturday afternoon (October 20) in Mosul city, according to a Christian source.

The captors demanded a large ransom from the family, who requested that the names of the Christians not be published for security reasons.

Separately, the son of a Syrian Orthodox priest was shot to death yesterday morning in the town of Basheeqa, 15 miles northeast of Mosul, according to Iraqi Christian website Ankawa.com. The website reported that he had just returned from the city of Dohuk and had stepped out of his car when he was killed by a single bullet.

Last night I had the great honor of speaking on a panel with Iranian freedom fighter Amir Abbas Fakhravar. We were at DePaul University, where the crowd was hostile but only made a few attempts actually to shout us down. They restricted their chanting about racism -- an absurd charge to hurl in any discussion of Islam and jihad, but particularly inappropriate to shout at a former inmate of the mullah' prison cells -- to before and after the event. It was hard to be heard at less than a shout level during the book signing after the event, when the peaceful, tolerant folks' moronic chanting made it almost impossible to carry on a conversation.

Should I be glad that nobody got hurt? On one level, I suppose so. But that that kind of gratitude would even cross my mind (and not just mine) is in itself an indication of how bad things have gotten on our college campuses. The posturing, yelling, and windy self-righteous lecturing during the question period indicated just how thoroughly the DePaul student community, with a few courageous exceptions, has been propagandized.

Freedom Folks, whom I had the pleasure of meeting there, has coverage of the evening, plenty of pictures, and video of the talk I gave.

And that reminds me: if you really like that tie, you can see it again in Atlas' video of a talk I gave at the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels last week, which comes at the end of a long and informative post about the summit itself.

But more legal action is forthcoming. An update on this story. "Ban on sharia law satire lifted," from Agence France-Presse:

Kano - An Islamic court in Nigeria on Monday lifted a ban it placed almost three weeks ago on a play written by a civil rights activist which satirises the implementation of sharia law in 12 mainly Muslim states, lawyers said.

The judge of the upper sharia court in the Tudun Wada neighbourhood of the northern city of Kaduna, Mustapha Umar, ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by "Concerned Sharia Forum", a pro-sharia group based in Zaria, 70km north of Kaduna.

Umar issued a motion restraining playwright and activist Shehu Sani on October 3 from selling or circulating his play, Phantom Crescent and banning performances of the play.

Defence lawyer Muhammad Sanusi said: "The court has thrown out the case on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction. With this ruling the earlier orders given by the court have no legality."

The play is a satire depicting how politicians, especially governors of the states implementing the sharia legal system, use it "as a tool for looting the public treasury and for stifling opposition", Sani told AFP.

"We have started preparations to appeal the upper sharia court ruling before the Kaduna state high court because we believe circulating the book and staging performances has the potential of causing a sectarian rift, not only in Kaduna but in many parts of the north," counsel to the plaintiff, Aliyu Ahmad Sharif, said.

What a guy. But the "extremism" he is addressing in this tape, addressed to Iraqi jihadists, is not religious fervor per se, but more temporal loyalties that get in the way of unity among the jihadists.

"Bin Laden Asks Iraq Insurgents to Unite," by Lee Keath for the Associated Press:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Osama bin Laden called for Iraqi insurgents to unite and avoid divisive "extremism," speaking in an audiotape aired Monday and apparently intended to win over Sunnis opposed to al-Qaida's branch in Iraq.

In the audiotape broadcast on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden said insurgents should admit "mistakes" and that he even advises himself not to be extreme in his leadership.

The tape appeared to be in response to moves by some Sunni Arab tribes in Iraq that have joined U.S. troops in fighting al-Qaida members, as well as other Sunni insurgent groups that — while still attacking Americans — have formed coalitions opposed to al-Qaida.

"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said in the audiotape. "Beware of division ... Muslims are waiting for you to gather under a single banner to champion righteousness. Be keen to oblige with this duty."

"I advise myself, Muslims in general and brothers in al-Qaida everywhere to avoid extremism among men and groups," he said, saying leaders should not build themselves up as the sole authority, and that instead mujahedeen should follow "what God and his prophet have said."

Bin Laden used the Arabic word "ta'assub," which in traditional Islamic thought means extremism in allegiance or adherence to a group, to a degree that excludes others — apparently advising flexibility to overcome divisions.

There's no "I" in "team":

"Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes," he said. "Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahedeen have to correct their mistakes."

U.S. counterterrorism authorities were studying the content and authenticity of the audiotape. However, officials often note that no one has faked a bin Laden recording in the past.

Al-Jazeera did not say how it obtained the tape.

Islamic Tolerance Alert. "I'll be Bak-ri," by Daniel Jones for The People:

Outlawed Islamic fanatic Omar Bakri Mohammed has vowed to defy a ban on him returning to Britain - and challenged anti-terror cops to charge him or leave him alone.

The cleric - accused of turning young British Muslims to al-Qaeda with hate-filled sermons - claims he must fly to London to see his sick 12-year-old daughter.

Bakri begged Government officials to give him a two-week visa, insisting he'd had NOTHING to do with terrorism during the 20 years he lived in the UK.

But then he shot himself in the foot by launching a bizarre videoed rant against the country which still shelters his wife and six children.

The video can be seen here.

[...]

Amazingly we captured him on video as he exploded. He shook his fist and shouted: "You are just a people of fish and chips and hot dogs.

"Don't tell me you are the best nation. This idea you are the best nation. You are the best nation for your culture. What is your culture?"

Later, at a seaside restaurant, he said he hoped Islam's draconian Sharia law would be global.

He said: "Yes, I do want to see the black flag of Islam over 10 Downing Street as I want to see it everywhere in the world. That is God's will.

"It doesn't matter if not everyone is Muslim so long as we get rid of this man-made law.

"Man-made law is corrupted. One minute you say homosexuals are banned then they are allowed. Man changes his mind. Sharia law is based on a message from God." And he dismissed claims he had urged Muslims to blow up Dublin airport last November, insisting it was a "sarcastic" joke because he knew he was being monitored by government agents.

Bakri - currently living in a posh three-bedroom flat overlooking the Mediterranean - was mobbed by supporters when he gave us a tour of the area and bragged: "I have got a very strong influence here."

Asked about the crowds waiting to greet him, he told us: "You are used to seeing that only when people do it with a star, a pop star. But for them they do it out of respect. They treat me like a spiritual leader."

Bakri claimed British backers help fund his lifestyle.

He said: "When people like you they have an Islamic bond with you - it is so powerful. They treat you like a brother or father - sometimes more than that."

[...]

Bakri's rants sparked fury in Britain last night.

Top Tory MP David Willetts said: "He should never be allowed to set foot on British soil again."

And the Lib Dems' Home Affairs spokesman Jeremy Browne said:

"We are a welcoming nation - but our distinctive hospitality should not be abused."

That's what the jihad is about -- imposing Islamic law. From Israel Today:

A leading Israeli Arab Muslim cleric said at the weekend that the Jewish state will very soon cease to exist and the whole of the country will come under Sharia (strict Islamic) law as another piece in the puzzle to reconstituting the Islamic Caliphate.

Indeed. "Palestine" is only a means to an end -- a "no-state solution," if you will, where nationalism is concerned.

In an interview with a local Arabic-language newspaper, Sheikh Kamal Khatib, deputy head of northern Israel's Islamic Movement, insisted that the world is "on the threshold of a new era. The future belongs to Islam and the Muslims."

Khatib said that in preparation for the coming Islamic takeover, Muslims who hold Israeli citizenship like himself should begin to actively rebel against the state by refusing to cooperate with and forming alternatives to the Israeli authorities.

Sedition. Is anyone in Tel Aviv listening?

Also at the weekend, Khatib's boss, Sheikh Raed Salah denounced current peace negotiations leading to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict as an "evil Israeli scheme." Salah, who is also an Israeli citizen, has long maintained that that Muslim world must not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Islamic Tolerance Alert. In the U.S., if you dare note that Christians do not enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims in any majority-Muslim country today, you will be vilified as an "Islamophobe." Unfortunately, however, those who do the vilifying don't say a thing when stories like this one come out.

"Asylum for Eritrean gospel singer," from the BBC (thanks to Meilor):

An Eritrean Christian gospel singer who was tortured and detained without charge for two years in her homeland has been granted asylum in Denmark.

Helen Berhane was imprisoned inside a metal shipping container and beaten in an effort to make her recant her faith.

And just what faith did her captors want her to adopt, O BBC?

Freed in December 2006, she took refuge in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, before being granted asylum.

Ms Berhane uses a wheelchair because of severe injuries to her legs and feet sustained in prison beatings....

Her account of the cruel and inhumane treatment she suffered is echoed by the testimony of hundreds of others persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Prisoners say they are routinely subjected to extremes of heat and cold, denied water and sanitation, according to testimony collected from exiles by Release Eritrea, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of religious minorities.

Charles at LGF has a roundup of the increasingly shrill and hysterical reactions to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week from campus Leftists at Columbia, Indiana, Minnesota, Penn State, Washington State, and Wisconsin.

So the campus Left is placing itself squarely on the side of those who want to implement the institutionalized oppression of women and religious minorities sanctioned by Islamic Sharia law, who deny the freedom of conscience, and want to impose upon the world a supremacist and totalitarian code.

Why am I not surprised?

Meanwhile, while calling us "fascists" and "bigots" and the like, they are going to shout us down, hurl abuse at us, and do all they can to interfere with our ability to speak freely, thus validating for themselves the "fascist" part of the Week's name.

It promises to be an interesting week.

Jihad for Kids Update from MEMRI (thanks to Twostellas):

In an investigative article in the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef, journalist Asma Nassar revealed that a popular Koran commentary for children published in Egypt contains virulent incitement against Christians and Jews, and calls on both children and adults to fight them. Nassar's critical article presents excerpts from the book and comments from Muslim scholars who participated in its writing and from senior Al-Azhar figures.

The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
How Could Al-Azhar Approve This Book for Publication?

The article stated: "This Koran commentary, intended for children, includes erroneous ideas which incite against the followers of the [other] monotheistic religions. For instance, the interpretation of the Al-Fatiha Sura [the first Sura of the Koran], states that [the expression] 'those who earn Thine [i.e., Allah's] anger' refers to the Jews, and [the expression] 'those who go astray' refers to the Christians. [2] This [rendering] contradicts the tenets and the tolerant character of the Islamic faith....

I'm glad to see someone complaining about this. Unfortunately, however, those who produced this edition were working from a strong, mainstream Islamic tradition. See here for my detailed discussion of the Fatiha, in which I list some of traditional Islamic authorities who believe that the Fatiha does indeed refer to Jews as those who have earned Allah's anger and Christians as those who have gone astray.

"We discovered that the book was first published 10 years ago by Dar Al-Sahaba Lil-Turat in Tanta, and was edited by Sheikh Magdi Fathi Al-Sayyed. Since then, there have been five more editions, and the book has been translated into several languages, including Indonesian, Malaysian, and Turkish. The question arises: How could the [Al-Azhar] Academy of Islamic Research allow the publication of such ideas? After all, [one of its] duties is to monitor [publications] that misrepresent Islam and disparage the [other] monotheistic religions. Considering [the Academy's] involvement in cultural conflicts, and its persecution of anyone who has innovative ideas in areas of thought, culture and philosophy, its [scholars] ought to revert to their original role.

Here again, the Al-Azhar scholars were just repeating a mainstream tradition. I am not defending them: the tradition itself militates against Muslims accepting the principle that they should coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis. But I am not sure Nassar is taking the best tack by acting as if the Al-Azhar scholars invented this tradition, and that it's something out of left field. Because then all they need do is point out its traditional roots, and then what comeback can she make?

"The hidden poison [of extremism] has seeped into the pages of this book, which was approved [for publication] by the Al-Azhar Academy of Islamic Research... [after being] examined by four of its scholars. [One of the authors] of the introduction is the president of Egypt's Koranic schools, and a hadith expert at Al-Azhar University, Dr. Ahmad 'Issa Al-Ma'sarawi..."

Deliberate Inculcation of Extremist Ideas

The article continued: "Overall, the book is characterized by incitement to extremism and by extremist interpretations that do not reflect the true meaning of the verses... [For example,] the book divests Islam of its most fundamental principle - [the principle of] peace - and even incites against this [notion] in its interpretation of the [following] verses: 'Forgive them, and overlook [their misdeeds], for Allah loveth those who are kind [5:13]'; 'And if the enemy inclines towards peace, then incline towards it and trust in Allah, for He is all-hearing and all-knowing [8:61].' [The book states that] these verses are abrogated by the 'Verse of the Sword,' which descended later, and which says: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Latter Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [i.e. among the Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the Islamic poll tax on non-Muslims] and they are in a state of subjection [9:29].' [According to the book], peace and reconciliation agreements [with Christians and Jews] have been forbidden since this verse was revealed.

Funny. All the Muslims who have been emailing me these days to chide me about my alleged misuse of Qur'an 9:29 and the principle of abrogation should henceforth direct their emails to the imams of Al-Azhar.

"In its interpretation of this verse, [the book] says: 'Allah commands the believers to fight all the infidels who do not believe in Allah and in the Latter Day [i.e. in the Day of Judgment], who do not follow His instructions regarding what is allowed and prohibited, and who do not believe in the true faith, which is Islam - i.e. the Jews and the Christians'...

"One of the most appalling parts of the book is a section quoting several verses from the Al-Maida Sura ['The Table Spread'], which the book labels as 'proof of the heresy of the Christians.' The ideas planted [by this section] in the children's minds are like a time bomb that will lead to civil war, since the children learn by heart [verses that indoctrinate them] to accuse the Copts of heresy. This is totally inexplicable, and also contradicts [the spirit of] the Egyptian constitution...

"In its interpretation of verse [9:41] - 'Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know' - the book says: 'Allah the Almighty told the believers - both young and old - to set out and fight for the sake of Allah.

"In explaining verse [9:66] - 'O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end' - the book says: 'Allah commanded the believers to wage jihad against the infidels by [fighting them] with the sword, and to wage jihad against the hypocrites by imposing upon them the punishments and constraints mandated for those who violate the commands of Islam..."

The article further stated: "The expected consequence of this [book] is that, in future, thousands of young children will be willing to blow themselves up [in terrorist operations] against [non-Muslims]. This is the danger [that this book represents]. [The book's aim] is not to interpret verses, but to deliberately instill children with ideas that incite [to extremism]. This is evident from its deliberate ignoring of other verses... that reflect the true [face of] Islam, which does not discriminate among the followers of the monotheistic religions but [calls for] brotherhood among them..."

A positive sign:

Dr. 'Abd Al-Mu'ti Bayoumi, member of the Al-Azhar Academy for Islamic Research, likewise expressed reservations about the book, saying: "It is ignorance on our part [to rely on] old and erroneous [Koran] commentaries without examining and contemplating [the verses anew]. Islamic thought needs to be reformed..." Bayoumi went on to warn against instilling these poisonous ideas in the younger generation.

Nassar also presented statements by Islamic scholar Gamal Al-Bana, who exposed the book in August 2007. He said: "The interpretations [found in the book] are generally similar to commentaries by [the Muslim Brotherhood theorist] Sayyed Qutub and other [Islamic scholars] of his ilk, who harmed the image of Islam with their erroneous interpretations of the Koran. Islam is pluralistic by nature, and does not aim to judge other religions or accuse others of heresy - that [role] is reserved for Allah on the Day of Judgment..." On the interpretation of the "Verse of the Sword," Al-Bana commented: "Conciliation, tolerance and peace are principles of the Islamic faith, and whoever rejects them, rejects the postulates of that faith... Children must not be exposed to these commentaries, just as they should in general be left out of arguments they cannot understand, since [religious disputes] concern only the experts."

This is all good, but just saying that we must not rely on old commentaries is not enough. There needs to be comprehensive re-examination and reform, and explicit rejection and replacement of those commentaries.

From AP

A judge declared a mistrial Monday for most former leaders of a Muslim charity accused of funding terrorism, after chaos broke out in the court when three jurors disputed the verdict that had been announced.

From WFAA's Holy Land trial blog

11:35 a.m. The Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial ended in a mistrial Monday after the jurors deadlocked on most of the counts. But a government prosecutor said the Justice Department would retry the case.

Only one official – Mohammad El-Mezain, the Holy Land's original chairman and endowments director — was acquitted on most of the counts by a unanimous jury. But he could still face prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism.

Just in from the Dallas Morning News:

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was found not guilty of supporting terrorism by sending money to charity committees controlled by Hamas. The judge will now announce the jury's verdicts on each Holy Land official. In all, the jury must make 197 decisions on guilt or innocence this morning.

Update: "Holy Land Foundation found not guilty of financing terrorism," by Jason Trahan, also from the Dallas Morning News:

The jury in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial was unable to reach unanimous decisions on three of the six defendants, U.S. District Judge Joe Fish said Monday as he unsealed their verdicts.

On two others, they were able to reach unanimous decisions on some of the counts. And on only one defendant were they able to reach unanimous decisions on all counts.

The judge is now beginning to announce the jury's verdict on each defendant. In all, the jury must make 197 decisions on guilt or innocence this morning.

Ongoing updates at WFAA's Holy Land trial blog.

At last, an anti-Sharia ruling by a U.S. Court. This ruling is significant far beyond this particular case, because there is always more Sharia to accommodate, and someone has to draw the line somewhere if we don't want to end up accommodating the whole thing.

From Associated Press (thanks to WriterMom):

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A Franklin County judge ruled that a man does not have to pay his former wife $25,000, promised as part of a dowry before their traditional Muslim marriage.

The judge says the payment is part of a religious agreement, not a legal contract.

The decision is the first of its kind in Ohio, and a departure from rulings in other states, which have enforced dowries as part of Islamic marriage contracts.

Will the Islamic response to this be more hatred and violence in the name of their religion?

"Religion must never be used to promote hatred and violence, declares Pope Benedict," from CNA (thanks to JJD):

Naples, Oct 21, 2007 / 12:23 pm (CNA).- After celebrating an outdoor Mass at the Piazza del Plebiscito in Naples, the Pope met with Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox and Protestant leaders as well as the presidents of numerous African and Latin American countries and some Nobel Peace laureates. He reminded the assembled leaders that religions must never be exploited to promote hatred and violence....

Addressing the religious leaders, Pope Benedict said, “Faced with a world torn by conflict, where the name of God is still used to justify violence, it is important to reiterate that religions must never be exploited to promote hatred and violence.” Rather, “religions can and must offer precious resources for the peaceful future of humanity.”

The Holy Father affirmed that the Catholic Church is committed to pursuing peace through dialogue. “The Catholic Church intends to continue follow the path of dialogue to encourage understanding between different cultures and religious traditions.” The Pope prayed that this spirit of dialogue, which was begun by Pope John Paul II at the first gathering for peace in Assisi, “will be spread especially in those areas of the world where tensions prevail, freedoms are denied, and where men and woman suffer the consequences of intolerance and incomprehension.”

Woe betide you if you dare to point out that in Islamic history and theology jihad has always had, and still has, a violent aspect. This in itself will be enough to earn you the label of "Islamophobe" and worse. Unfortunately, however, all too many Muslims around the world seem to have no difficulty believing that jihad involves violence against unbelievers.

Why don't those 138 Muslim scholars who wrote to the Pope and other Christian leaders write to these Muslims and explain to them how they're getting Islam all wrong?

"Nigeria: Two Christians Murdered In Kaduna," from Compass Direct (thanks to Davida):

KADUNA, Nigeria, October 22 (Compass Direct News) – One man has been killed with a sword and another bludgeoned to death in this city in central northern Nigeria following Muslim leaders’ appeal to wage violent jihad against youthful Christians.

Muslim extremists on October 12 murdered Henry Emmanuel Ogbaje, a 24-year-old Christian, at an area known as Gamji Gate. The following day, church leaders said, a young Christian identified only as Basil was beaten to death with wooden clubs in the same area.

Ogbaje was a Sunday school teacher with the Military Protestant Church at Kotoko Barracks in Kaduna, while Basil, church leaders said, was a member of the Our Lady of Apostles Catholic Church. He was from Kagarko Local Government Area.

Elder Saidu Dogo, secretary of the northern Nigeria chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), told Compass that Islamic leader Sheik Gumi had urged Muslims to wage jihad against Christians during Tafsir, the reading and interpretation of the Quran, in televised broadcasts during the Islamic month-long observance of Ramadan.

“I saw Sheik Gumi on the television, NTA [Nigeria Television Authority], during that period preaching this inciting sermon – in fact, the same sermon was again broadcast by NTA Kaduna, on September 21 and 22,” Dogo told Compass. “He specifically called for a jihad, and that when they go killing they should not kill the elderly people, because the elderly have spent their years already, but that Muslims should kill young Christians.”

Dogo said that Sheik Gumi justified his call for jihad by saying in the same way Muhammad captured the Arabian peninsula, and Usman dan Fodio influenced northern Nigeria. Sheik Gumi concluded that because the British took northern Nigeria from the Islamic reformer (1754-1817) by force, Muslims “should fight to take over Nigeria by going to war against Christians.”

The New York (aka New Duranty) Times reads Jihad Watch. A note from another Jihad Watch reader, Paul:

The Gray Lady quoted you today in a story about Internet jihadis, including the Saudi whelp Samir Khan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/weekinreview/21moss.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The story omits altogether the revelation by Rusty Shackleford that the Times’ earlier report revealing Khan’s identity compromised an ongoing investigation into his activities:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189768.php

Pursuant to which, Shackleford notes, “I was specifically asked by more than one FBI agent, and on more than one occasion, not to publicly identify Inshallahshaheed as Samir Khan.”

The Times quoted me from this Jihad Watch post, referring to their interviewing a North Carolina jihadist whom law enforcement officials seem unwilling or unable to do anything about.

Greetings, Times reporters! Please be advised that I am available for interviews. You can contact me at director@jihadwatch.org. As I've placed two books on your bestseller lists, and yet never seen those books reviewed or the perspective they represent discussed fully and honestly in your pages, perhaps your readers would be interested in learning the facts about the jihad ideology, Islamic supremacism, and more. I'll be waiting to hear from you!

This week's Jihad Watch column at Human Events:

The Vatican responded Friday to the open letter sent at the end of Ramadan by 138 Muslim scholars to Pope Benedict XVI and a wide array of other Christian leaders. The response was somewhat deflating, given the mainstream media’s enthusiasm over the Muslim letter -- an enthusiasm which the senders must have anticipated. Noting the Muslim scholars’ declaration that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians,” the Telegraph‘s headline was typical of the coverage: “Muslim scholars’ olive branch to Christians.” Reuters burbled about an “Unprecedented Muslim call for peace with Christians.” But was it really?

This week’s response from Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, hardly seemed sporting. Tauran observed that the possibility of serious dialogue between Muslims and Christians was limited by the traditional Islamic understanding of the Muslim holy book: “Muslims,” he said, “do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith.”

Mike S. Adams hits the nail on the head again.

When, in class one day, a student said that “hate speech” was not free speech, I asked him the following: “Can you even define hate speech?” After a long silence, I assured him that I, too, was unable to define hate speech. But, since then, I think I have come up with a suitable definition that helps me understand both the failure of speech codes and the success of Islamic terrorism.

[...]

Everything was put in proper perspective when a liberal sociologist properly characterized references to “civility” in higher education as intentional efforts to avoid substantive discussions. In other words, he seemed to be generalizing beyond DePaolo to all of those who play the “civility card.” I resisted the temptation to talk about sociologists who play the racism card and feminists who play the sexism card.

But I recognized immediately the connection between the sociologist’s observation and the campus speech code movement, which seeks to ban “hate speech.” And, after letting his words sink in, I formed this new definition of hate speech:

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: 1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and 2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.

Instances of the former are numerous in the society-at-large. For example, when a member of the KKK says “I may not be much, but at least I’m not a nigger” there is really no way to respond intelligently. Nor is there much hope that any response will be understood and appreciated by someone ignorant enough to make such a remark. So the speech can be properly characterized as hate speech.

Instances of the latter are numerous in academia. For example, three years ago this week, I wrote a piece explaining how speech codes produce a form of reverse Darwinism. I argued that only those who are emotionally unfit are likely to become uncomfortable simply by hearing a contrary point of view. I argued further that they are indeed quite emotionally unfit if they actually remain upset long enough to file a complaint aimed at enforcing a speech code.

Of course, after I wrote my piece a feminist started crying and went to the feminist (now former) chair who, in turn, gave me a lecture about civility. In other words, the feminists weren’t smart enough to address the substance of my remarks. Shocking, isn’t it?

Hence, I accurately predicted that the codes seek to weed out the speech of the emotionally stable majority - those who do not cry at work - through the vehicle of complaints filed by the emotionally unstable - those who cry at work but never file complaints directed towards the suppression of their own views.

The similarity between the two principal forms of hate speech is obvious:

They both induce anger in the listener, regardless of whether the speaker expressed his view with any feeling of hatred or animosity.

And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry “hate speech” (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate “hate speech” by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.

Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as “hate speech” because it induces fear, not anger.

This, of course, explains the failure of speech codes (and probably multi-culturalism in general). Since the enforcement of the codes relies largely on the emotional reaction of the listener rather than the content of the speech, the codes create insurmountable problems within both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

And, of course, it explains the success of Islamic terrorism. It is indeed a strategy that induces fear in an effort to destroy the proper function of the First Amendment through threats and intimidation too serious to simply ignore.

But, of course, this is not as it should be. And I intend to offer a solution to the problem when I speak during Islamic Fascism Awareness Week. Like true First Amendment terrorists, some Muslims are trying to prevent the week’s events from happening. But the true American patriots who outnumber them will not be deterred. They simply will not provide the fear necessary for the survival of their tyranny and the destruction of our precious liberty.

Dr. Adams’ speech will take place at Clemson University on Thursday, October 25th. It will begin at 7 p.m. in Room 100 of Hunter Hall. Anyone in the audience who does not want to risk being shot should wear an orange cap.

Basic psychology: Behavior that is rewarded is more likely to be repeated. "Nasrallah's deputy: We will continue to fight, take captives," by Roee Nahmias for Israel News:

"Experience has taught us that we will only get our prisoners back through sticking to our positions, engaging in combat and coordinated hostage-taking attempts," Hizbullah's deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qasim said in a speech Sunday.

"If you want to know the value of the latest exchange—listen to what Olmert said regarding (paying) 'a high price' for what happened," Qasim said in his speech, which marked a week since the latest prisoner/body exchange with Israel.

Meanwhile, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the Israeli soldiers whose abduction sparked last year's war, are still being held as bargaining chips over a year later.

In his speech, the deputy also discussed Lebanese internal politics and Hizbullah's weapons arsenal.

"The problem in Lebanon is Israel and its supporters and not the 'resistance.' The 'resistance' is defensive and it is a response to Israeli aggression and thus he who wants to take care of this must solve the problem by starting with the Israeli threat and Israeli aggressiveness and not with the organization's weapons," the leader said.

Not that we expected him to say, "Y'know, I think we might be part of the problem here."