May 2008 Archives

The man was just joking about AK-47s, you see. And he happened to take a pleasure trip to...Pakistan's northwest frontier...to go shooting with his family (you know, that skeet shortage in England and all). Nothing to see here. How dare anyone think that suspicious! It must be yet another attack of Islamophobia!

"Muslim leader’s protest at police 'spy tactics,'" by John Bynorth for the Sunday Herald, June 1 (thanks to D.L.):

STRATHCLYDE POLICE are facing accusations that it operates a covert intelligence monitoring unit which is infringing the rights of Muslims, after the force launched an investigation into claims that a group of Asians on a clay pigeon shoot had behaved "like terrorists".

Osama Saeed, chief executive of the Scottish Islamic Foundation, has written to Strathclyde's chief constable, Stephen House, expressing concern at the way Special Branch officers are questioning Asians about their lifestyles, religious and political beliefs and internet activities. He added that the continued use of the tactics would lead to "further marginalisation of Muslims", and is already leading some to think twice about practising their beliefs for fear that police will disrupt their lives.

His comments came as one solicitor claimed police have also been secretly "recruiting" Muslims to provide information about their community in return for payments.

The 10-strong shooting party were questioned informally at their homes and businesses by two policemen a year after their November 2006 trip to Kypeside Farm, an activity centre near Lesmahagow in Lanarkshire. The officers, believed to be from Special Branch, were reacting to a tip-off from a member of the public who claimed the group had been overheard discussing "shooting AK-47 rifles in Pakistan".

The 29-year-old trip organiser, who declined to be identified, said: "They wanted the names of my family and friends and my thoughts on Afghanistan, Iraq and what I would do if I encountered an extremist at my mosque. I replied that I didn't think I would go to them because they were so ignorant, but would speak to the imam.

"I had my solicitor present, who told me that it was no coincidence several men were standing trial for involvement in a terror camp in the Lake District. It hadn't even crossed my mind what we did could be seen as terrorist activity and I found it very sinister."

Glasgow businessman Saheed Sadiq, 44, another member of the party, told officers he was behind the AK-47 remarks, as he had visited Pakistan's northwest frontier to take part in the shooting activity with his family. He believes the fact that the comment was reported and investigated is evidence of the problems Asians face.

Sadiq added: "I have a beard because of my faith, but it doesn't make me want to commit a 9/11. The police treated me decently, but I couldn't understand why we were being investigated over a year later. It's made me uneasy, and I look at everything I do and say now in case it is picked up wrongly. I won't be going clay pigeon shooting again."

In his letter, Saeed urged House to be more open about police activities and added: "There is much hesitation in joining in with civic religious activity for fear of crossing the police radar. I hope you will agree that, from a counter-terror perspective, if someone is angry about foreign policy, that it is better for them to join with democratic public work than to be left to whatever devices may be on the internet. It makes our job of engaging young Muslims harder."...

But Anthony Glees, director of Brunel University's centre for intelligence and security strategy, said: "A whole string of recent convictions, involving young Muslims, many of whom have pleaded guilty, shows the police and MI5 are doing well at the moment in very difficult circumstances."

Strathclyde Police said they were "duty-bound" to examine the concerns raised and, although no action was taken, would "continue to encourage members of the public to contact police on any matter of suspicious activity."

Good.

They want to join in the fight to impose a system that would give their husband the right to beat them and have multiple wives, give them half the inheritance of a male relative, and make their testimony in court worth half that of a man. But to restrict them from waging armed jihad to that end -- well, that's just too much!

"Al Qaeda to Muslim Extremist Women: Stay Home, Raise Kids," from the Associated Press, May 31:

CAIRO, Egypt — Muslim extremist women are challenging Al Qaeda's refusal to include — or at least acknowledge — women in its ranks, in an emotional debate that gives rare insight into the gender conflicts lurking beneath one of the strictest strains of Islam.

In response to a female questioner, Al Qaeda No. 2 leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri said in April that the terrorist group does not have women. A woman's role, he said on the Internet audio recording, is limited to caring for the homes and children of Al Qaeda fighters.

His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists. The statements have also created some confusion, because suicide bombings by women seem to be on the rise, at least within the Iraq branch of Al Qaeda.

A'eeda Dahsheh is a Palestinian mother of four in Lebanon who said she supports al-Zawahiri and has chosen to raise children at home as her form of jihad. However, she said, she also supports any woman who chooses instead to take part in terror attacks.

Another woman signed a more than 2,000-word essay of protest online as Rabeebat al-Silah, Arabic for "Companion of Weapons."

"How many times have I wished I were a man ... When Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri said there are no women in Al Qaeda, he saddened and hurt me," wrote "Companion of Weapons," who said she listened to the speech 10 times. "I felt that my heart was about to explode in my chest...I am powerless."

And you're just noticing that now.

Such postings have appeared anonymously on discussion forums of Web sites that host videos from top Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden. While the most popular site requires names and passwords, many people use only nicknames, making their identities and locations impossible to verify.

However, groups that monitor such sites say the postings appear credible because of the knowledge and passion they betray. Many appear to represent computer-literate women arguing in the most modern of venues — the Internet — for rights within a feudal version of Islam.

"Women were very disappointed because what al-Zawahiri said is not what's happening today in the Middle East, especially in Iraq or in Palestinian groups," said Rita Katz, director of the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors militant Web sites. "Suicide operations are being carried out by women, who play an important role in jihad." [...]

Al-Zawahiri's comments came in a two-hour audio recording posted on an Islamic militant Web site, where he answered hundreds of questions sent in by Al Qaeda sympathizers. He praised the wives of mujahedeen, or holy warriors. He also said a Muslim woman should "be ready for any service the mujahedeen need from her," but advised against traveling to a war front like Afghanistan without a male guardian. [...]

Indeed, would they be safe among the supposedly pious male mujahedin?

The Internet is the only "breathing space" for women who are often shrouded in black veils and confined to their homes, "Ossama2001" wrote. She said al-Zawahiri's words "opened old wounds" and pleaded with God to liberate women so they can participate in holy war.

Women bent on becoming militants have at least one place to turn to. A niche magazine called "al-Khansaa" — named for a female poet in pre-Islamic Arabia who wrote lamentations for two brothers killed in battle — has popped up online. The magazine is published by a group that calls itself the "women's information office in the Arab peninsula," and its contents include articles on women's terrorist training camps, according to SITE.

Its first issue, with a hot pink cover and gold embossed lettering, appeared in August 2004 with the lead article "Biography of the Female Mujahedeen."

The article read:

"We will stand, covered by our veils and wrapped in our robes, weapons in hand, our children in our laps, with the Quran and the Sunna [sayings] of the Prophet of Allah directing and guiding us."

The message is obvious, but one can't help but wonder: How can you stand with your children in your lap?

Unindicted co-conspirator CAIR teaches a class, with the school principal defying orders not to let it happen.

"Islam-promoting principal defied order to protect kids: Students required to attend CAIR indoctrination event," by Bob Unruh for WorldNetDaily (thanks to all who sent this in):

A public school principal in Texas who arranged for an Islamic instruction presentation for students by an organization whose leaders have been linked to terror groups apparently arranged for that indoctrination after being told not to by her district's superintendent, parents have told WND.

The issue developed this week when public school students at Friendswood Junior High in the Houston area were herded into an assembly scheduled by Principal Robin Lowe that suddenly replaced a scheduled physical education class, according to reports.

There, two women from the Houston division of the Council on American-Islamic Relations instructed students that Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets, announced "there is one god, his name is Allah," taught the five pillars of Islam, told students how to pray five times a day, and instructed what Islamic religious rules require for dress.

Pastor Dave Welch, spokesman for the Houston Area Pastor Council, confirmed the indoctrination had taken place and called it "unacceptable."

"The failure of the principal of Friendswood Junior High to respect simple procedures requiring parental notification for such a potentially controversial subject, to not only approve but participate personally in a religious indoctrination session led by representatives of a group with well-known links to terrorist organizations and her cavalier response when confronted, raises serious questions about her fitness to serve in that role," the pastors' organization said in a statement.

A parent, whose name was withheld, reported the presentation was 30 to 40 minutes long and handled by Muslims from CAIR, which, as WND has reported, is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad....

Read it all.

In accord with the new guidelines. Or actually, since he is in Britain, it probably said, "Join our anti-Islamic activity."

"Dad denies jihad call," from the Manchester Evening News, May 31 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A FATHER-of-one has denied publishing a pamphlet encouraging terrorism.

Amjad Mahmood, 29, and his wife Shella Roma, 27, of Chester Road, Oldham, are accused of circulating a document telling others to go abroad and fight a jihad.

Mahmood denied two charges - dissemination of a terrorist publication and encouragement of terrorism - at Manchester Crown Court.

The offences were allegedly committed between October 10 and January 31. The couple, who have a six-month-old baby, were arrested two months ago....

What is always striking about stories like this is the eagerness with which proponents of Sharia-approved practices regarded as unacceptable in the West attempt to invoke Western human rights laws to defend their behavior, while in countries enforcing Sharia law, Western standards of human rights are disregarded out of hand, or even deemed licentious.

The demands boil down to this: In the name of Western human rights, let us implement practices from Sharia law that are wholly incompatible with Western human rights. And the case cited in the editorial below demonstrates that Islamic polygamy results in the same oppression and deceit in North America as anywhere else.

"Sharia by stealth — Ontario turns a blind eye to polygamy" by John Turley Ewart for the National Post, May 29:

It’s an issue the Liberal govenrment of Ontario, led by Premier Dalton McGuinty, doesn’t want to deal with — polygamy in the Muslim community. Last week the Toronto Star told the story of Safa Rigby, a 35-year-old mother of five children who recently learned her husband of 14 years had two other wives. Ms. Rigby’s life is in tatters. She followed her husband’s advice that she leave Toronto and live in Egypt for a year on the grounds that it would be better for their children to spend more time in a Muslim country. Now she knows it was a ruse. He used her time there to marry two other women.

Ms. Rigby does not support polygamy, which has been illegal in Canada for more than a century. But Toronto Imam Aly Hindy, who runs the Toronto Salahuddin Islamic Centre, does. He married Ms. Rigby’s husband knowing he already had a wife and counselled him to keep the marriage secret from Ms. Rigby for as long as possible. Hindy has by his own admission performed 30 ceremonies in which men were married who already had wives. When Ms. Rigby confronted Hindy his response was reportedly cold and unsympathetic: “You will have to stand beside him in these difficult times,” Hindy told her. “You should stop causing problems to (sic) him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life” he went on to say.

For Hindy this is not about Ms. Rigby or her husband’s desire to marry another woman — but making a broader political point.

Hindy is using polygamy as a proxy for his fundamentalist version of Islam, something he wants to see legitimized in Canadian society as a whole. It is part of an attempt at empire building, a bid that if successful will enhance his influence within the Muslim and demonstrate that Ontario and Canada is too ignorant and too afraid of Islam to uphold its own laws. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario’s government to dare stop him. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that,” he told the Star. Interviewed after the Star story appeared on the John Oakley Show on AM 640Toronto, Hindy was not apologetic and argued that freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumped prohibitions against polygamous marriages.

When he and another Imam from Toronto, Steve Rockwell, were challenged on the appropriateness of polygamy by a Muslim caller to the Oakley Show, the caller was immediately attacked and his identity as a true Muslim questioned because he did not follow Hindy’s view that polygamy is a foundational pillar of Islam that grows out of Sharia Law. This speaks to a troubling absolutist interpretation of Islamic law, which runs against the reality that Sharia law is much more flexible that Hindy allows for, a fact well documented by Anver Emon, a specialist in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. Moreover, as noted in the Star article on Ms. Rigby, there is grave doubt that the Charter protects Islamic polygamy, as Hindy believes. Nik Bala, who teaches family law at Queen’s University, points out that “Islam permits polygamy, but doesn’t require it to be a practising Muslim.” This is key, and may mean Hindy’s attempt to find shelter behind the Charter will fail. Moreover, the impact polygamy has on women's equality and children could also sway the courts to uphold Canada's ban on polygamy.

But there is little chance at the moment that this will become a Charter issue down the road. Dalton McGuinty’s government has responded to the revelations about polygamy in the Muslim community by denying its existence. On Wednesday Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin responded to a question on the issue in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario saying:

“Polygamy is a serious crime in Ontario . It’s not something that’s tolerated. As you know, the best advice I can give the honourable member opposite is that if she has any evidence that someone is engaging in multiple marriages, she should report it, because our Registrar General and our official reporting mechanisms have no evidence that that’s happening. As you know, Mr. Speaker, marriage is a contract. A contract require a licence, and once a marriage occurs, it has to be registered. There are no multiple marriages being registered in the province of Ontario.”

Mr. McMeekin’s response is a shameful twisting of the law. The criminal code is clear. Section 293. (1) reads: “Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

There is no provision in the law, contrary to Mr. McMeekin’s assertion in the Ontario Legislature, that a polygamous marriage has to be registered before the government can act. The opposite is in fact true.

By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty is giving licence to Sharia by stealth.

Exactly. Read it all.

Again, we see the argument that using those terms somehow "legitimizes" or "aggrandizes" the jihadist movement. But honestly, is the public deflection of the Islamic aspect of Islamic jihad going to hinder jihadists from making the connection, or will it hinder ordinary citizens seeking information? Obviously, it will be the latter. And when the public is discouraged from understanding the jihadist enemy's ideology, whom does that ultimately help?

An update on the new governmental lexicon of acceptable terms for talking about... you know. And that was a story that we broke here, by the way. "Agency urges caution with terrorist language," from CNN, May 31:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.

"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.

"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.

Dan Sutherland, head of the agency's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.

Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term "mainstream Muslims" in meetings.

Sutherland's nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.

"The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists' ideology," the paper says.

The paper emphasizes that the recommendations do not constitute official government policy. Instead, they represent guidance from influential Muslim leaders who met with Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff in May 2007 to discuss ways that the Muslim community can help the department prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims.

The paper suggests that government officials may want to avoid using theological terminology altogether.

"Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent," the paper says. "It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately."

The paper, titled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims," was designated "For Official Use Only" and distributed internally in January.

Sutherland said the paper was not released publicly because the Department of Homeland Security did not want Muslim leaders to believe their meeting was an attempt to garner publicity. But the document was widely distributed in government and was published in late April by The Associated Press, "The Investigative Project on Terrorism" and others.

Now, this is interesting:

A story about the terminology concerns on the "Jihad Watch" Web site was followed by dozens of comments, most critical of the suggestions.

There will be more of that.

"Every day, I read another story which angers me. This whitewash of Islam, by our highest-ranking officials is unacceptable!" one commenter said.

Some argue that "war" is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.

"There are two legitimate sides to wars?" Baloney. The Nazis didn't have a legitimate cause in World War II. Recognizing a threat is not an endorsement of its existence.

"We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency," Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.

For those who would attempt to explain away worldwide jihadist activity as a series of unrelated regional disputes, networking like this poses an obvious problem, by pointing to common motives and a common goal: fighting non-Muslims in order to impose Sharia law.

As Iraq is listed as one possible destination for Indonesian jihadists, some may also claim that grievances about the Iraq war must have "radicalized" them. But these groups and that mindset certainly predate the Iraq war; the prospect of killing Indonesians -- particularly Indonesian Muslims -- has become a serious political liability. As noted below, "They see Iraq as a more clear-cut case for jihad than Indonesia."

And it wouldn't be the first time going abroad has occurred to Indonesian jihadist leadership: in the summer of 2006, JI leader Abu Bakar Bashir said Indonesia should send jihadists to Israel.

"AP Exclusive: Police arrest reports give picture of Indonesia's international terror links," by Chris Brummitt for the Associated Press, May 30:

JAKARTA, Indonesia - After months on the run, two alleged leaders in a Southeast Asian militant group were holed up in a cheap Malaysian hotel, ready to fly to the Middle East to link up with other Islamic extremists, possibly in Iraq.

The pair had bribed Indonesian immigration officials to smooth their way out of the airport in Jakarta, where they started their journey. An Algerian gave them fake passports, airline tickets and militant contacts in Syria.

But they never made it farther than Kuala Lumpur. It is unclear what led police in the Malaysian capital to their room early this year, but _ befuddled by sleep _ they did not resist arrest.

The foiled flight of Abu Husna and Agus Purwantoro, who were sent back to Indonesia in late March, is just part of the story outlined in police investigation reports obtained by The Associated Press.

The documents detail how the regional terror group Jemaah Islamiyah has maintained the ability and desire to forge international links despite a crackdown that most experts believed left it severely weakened and isolated, with hundreds of its members behind bars.

Therein lies a cautionary tale against complacency.

The papers also provide rare details on the inner workings of the network, showing how Husna and Purwantoro were able to travel around Indonesia, using passwords to meet up with other wanted men at mosques, bus stations and cheap restaurants before fleeing the country.

Members and associates of Jemaah Islamiyah are blamed for a string of suicide bombings in Southeast Asia _ which have together killed more than 240 people, most of them Western tourists _ as well as a number of failed terror plots. The group had ties with al-Qaida and other foreign extremists before 2002, but most experts have thought the links had been broken since then.

"If there is a North African in Jakarta assisting the Jemaah Islamiyah network, then that is not a good thing," Sidney Jones, a leading authority on Southeast Asian militants, said about the Algerian sympathizer that the captured pair identified as "Jafar." [...]

Nasir Abbas, a former Jemaah Islamiyah commander in Sulawesi who knew Purwantoro well, said he thought it likely the men were traveling to Iraq because they believed Indonesia was no longer a suitable venue for jihad, or holy war.

"They see Iraq as a more clear-cut case for jihad than Indonesia," said Abbas, who now works closely with police. "Even if they get arrested on the way, they believe that every step they take to that goal gets them reward in heaven."

According to the police documents' accounts of their interrogations, Husna and Purwantoro allegedly met with Jafar in both Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur.

"It suggests an international network with a base in Jakarta and raises all sorts of questions about who else might be here," Jones said....

Friend and Ally Update. "U.S. questions Pakistan force's allegiance, funding," by Kristin Roberts for Reuters, May 30:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S.-backed paramilitary force in Pakistan's lawless border area may be aiding Taliban fighters, according to American officials who say the support may cause Congress to freeze some security funds for Islamabad.

Congress should feel a much greater sense of urgency about holding Islamabad accountable for the sake of national security, not to mention the matter of squandering taxpayer money.

Signs that Pakistan's Frontier Corps is helping Taliban and al Qaeda-linked groups cross into Afghanistan only exacerbates U.S. frustration over Pakistan's plans to secure peace deals with fighters in that region, where Osama bin Laden is thought to hide.

"We cannot rely on Pakistan to stop the traffic of terrorists crossing that border despite the strong statements of its leaders," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate's committee on armed forces.

Levin and some U.S. defense officials said Taliban fighters may also be getting assistance from Pakistan's army.

"If that's our intelligence assessment, then there's a real question as to whether or not we should be putting money into strengthening the Frontier Corps on the Pakistan side because if anything there's some evidence that the Pakistan army is providing support to the Taliban," Levin told reporters after visiting Afghanistan and Pakistan this week.

The United States set up a program last year to train and equip the paramilitary Frontier Corps, which is recruited from the tribal areas to counter Islamist militants.

Under the program, Washington planned to supply equipment like helmets and flak vests to the Frontier Corps, but would not provide weapons or ammunition, the Pentagon said last year.

U.S. Army trainers would instruct the paramilitary force and Washington allocated $52.6 million for the program last year.

A defense spending authorization bill for the 2009 fiscal year, which starts October 1, includes $75 million for Frontier Corps training, but Levin said questions about the force could lead him to reconsider those funds. [...]

Uncertainty about the Frontier Corps' allegiances and the security impact of peace deals Pakistan strikes with al Qaeda-linked groups in its tribal areas is raising worry among U.S. commanders and defense officials.

They say a permissive environment in that region, known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, has a direct effect on the number of attacks against Afghan, NATO and U.S. forces across the border in Afghanistan.

Despite concerns about stability in that area and the allegiances of Frontier Corps members, the Pentagon has moved forward with its training program for the force.

It has chosen two sites for training, one in the Peshawar area and one farther south, according to Michael Vickers, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for special operations.

And therein lies an inadvertent admission of the presence and number of "very extreme imams or religious teachers" in Australia. Whoops.

An update on this story. "Islamic school imbroglio takes new turn in Australia," by Neena Bhandari for New Kerala:

A new dimension has been added to the ongoing furore over the rejection of a plan to build an Islamic school on Sydney's south-western fringes by some muslims warning that it would lead to extremist Islamic teaching.

Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel told the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that Islamic schools monitored by the State Government should be encouraged "or else Muslim children will be given their religious education in backyards and garages by... teachers whose credentials no one could vet. You may have some very extreme imams or religious teachers getting through to the children."

Meanwhile, the developers of the A$19 million 1,200-student school, the Quranic Society, will be appealing to the Land and Environment Court against Camden Council's rejection of its proposal on planning, which includes increased traffic and lack of public transport, and environmental grounds.

"We have complied with the law, we have done everything right, we hired master planners. There was no reason for it to be rejected. Even the council could not say what was wrong with the plan," Quranic Society board member Fouad Chami told The Australian.

When asked if he believed the decision was racist, Chami told Channel Ten: "Of course, there is no reason to say no if you're complying 100 per cent with the rules.''

Five years ago, the Baulkham Hills Shire Council in Sydney's north had rejected a businessman's plans for building a Muslim prayer hall on the grounds that it did not fit with community characteristics. The decision was overturned by the Land and Environment Court.

The project's consultant, former Mayor of Sydney and lawyer, Jeremy Bingham told the SMH from London: "There's a vocal group of local residents who are very opposed to this school because of the religious beliefs of the Australian citizens who want to establish the school. That's not the Australian way and it's not the Australian law."

The Quranic Society has said the school - for primary and secondary students on a 15-acre block - would cater to both Muslim and non-Muslim children and would follow the New South Wales State curriculum.

The unanimous decision by the Camden Council is being seen as motivated by prejudice and fuelled by racial and religious passion.

"[The decision] is hysteria based on fear and misunderstanding. If it was a Catholic, Anglican or Jewish school there would be no objection," Bingham told SMH. [...]

Camden is a historic town, located less than an hour's drive from the Sydney Central Business District, and is the birthplace of the Australian wool, wheat and wine industries. It has a semi-rural feel with sandstone buildings and jacaranda trees. According to census figures, it has about 150 Muslim families.

"Camden is only the latest venue in a list of planning setbacks for mosques, Islamic centres and schools, all denied on planning grounds. This is despite the fact that almost half of Australia's Muslim population lives in Sydney," writes Laura Beth Bugg, a postgraduate student researching multiculturalism and urban planning in the faculty of architecture at the University of Sydney, in the SMH....

It bears repeating that Camden is on the outer edges of the Sydney metropolitan area, and, as noted above, only has 150 Muslim families.

Almost seven years have passed since 9/11, and we're hearing the same thing from our leaders that we've heard since 9/12. It is a reminder that, at the highest level of government, policy decisions are driven -- hijacked, if you will -- by willful blindness to the roots of the ideology that motivates not only al-Qaeda, but is also common to Hizballah, Hamas, and other jihadist groups. Does anyone at the State Department, Homeland Security, or elsewhere, ever puzzle at how ingrained and widespread jihadist activity is, even outside of the Wahhabi sphere of influence, if it's supposedly all just a big misunderstanding and "hijacking" of an otherwise peaceful belief system?

"'Islam has been hijacked by ideologues'," from the Associated Press, May 29:

US Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said Thursday that progress is being made in the war on terror but it is being sabotaged by critics of American foreign policy in the West.

Chertoff was speaking at a security conference in Jerusalem with counterparts from around the world, aimed at sharing information and techniques to fight terrorism.

He said that the US was making inroads in the "battle for hearts and minds" in the Muslim world, but that the effort was being undermined by "sources of cynicism in our society that cannot distinguish between our actions and the actions of terrorists, that treat everything as equivalent, that view appeasement as the best course of dealing with the enemy."

He said Muslim communities "have seen their religion hijacked by a group of ideologues." But he noted that there was a new trend of Muslim clerics in the Middle East and the US that have begun to speak out, preaching that "the ideology of bin Laden and others is at odds with what Islam is about," he said.

Specific examples of such clerics would be nice, of course, especially if they denounce something more substantive than the usual, vague terms like "terrorism," "extremism," and the killing of "innocents."

"There was no reason why a country would need to possess such a document unless they wanted to produce uranium hemispheres for a nuclear weapon."

Alarming, yes. Surprising, no. "US: Strong reasons to suspect Iran was working covertly to build atomic bomb," from Agence France-Presse, May 29:

Inspectors from the UN atomic watchdog are "alarmed" that Iran has in its possession a document describing the process for making what could be the core of a nuclear weapon, a western diplomat said Thursday.

And at a closed-door meeting with diplomats, the International Atomic Energy Agency's chief for inspections, Olli Heinonen, revealed that the agency had gathered intelligence from around 10 countries suggesting Iran was engaged in weaponization studies in the past, the diplomat said.

Tehran has repeatedly dismissed the intelligence as "fabricated," and the allegations that it was seeking to build a bomb as "baseless".

At a briefing to prepare IAEA board members for a meeting of the full board next week, Heinonen talked about the so-called uranium metal document, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

The 15-page document describes the process of machining uranium metal into two hemispheres of the kind used in nuclear warheads.

"And the term he used for this document was 'alarming'. He essentially said there was no reason why a country would need to possess such a document unless they wanted to produce uranium hemispheres for a nuclear weapon," the diplomat said.

Iran has told the IAEA that it received the document back in 1987 along with design information for the so-called P1 centrifuges used to enrich uranium.

Tehran insists it did not request the uranium metal document.

But the IAEA said in its latest report that it needed to understand the precise role of the document so that it could determine the true nature of Iran's disputed nuclear program.

When contacted by AFP, Heinonen declined to comment on what he had said at the briefing, which he described as an "informal technical meeting".

But another diplomat close to the Vienna-based IAEA confirmed that Heinonen, who is the agency's deputy director general, had used the term "alarming" in the context of the uranium metal document.

In a sternly-worded report released on Monday, the IAEA expressed "serious concern" that Iran is hiding information about the alleged weaponization studies, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

'Intelligence forged and fabricated'

Experts and observers detected a tougher tone in the language of the report, suggesting that the IAEA was becoming frustrated by Iran's persistent stonewalling of its investigations.

"It's one of the toughest I've seen," a western diplomat said Thursday.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, said the IAEA was "of the view that Iran may have additional information" regarding intelligence that suggested it may have looked into high explosives of the sort used in implosion-type nuclear bombs, and explored modifications to missiles consistent with making them capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, speaking to reporters after the briefing Thursday, again dismissed the intelligence as "lousy" and "fake" and accused the United States was trying to influence the IAEA inspectors for its own political ends.

This roundup comes in the wake of a great deal of negative press about Yemen's counter-terrorism efforts, which have been so half-hearted that even al-Qaeda has discouraged attacks on Yemeni authorities since they haven't been "tools in the hands of the crusaders."

But now that they have those eleven suspects, will the track record on prosecutions and detentions actually improve?

"Yemen arrests 11 suspected Al-Qaeda members," from Agence France-Presse, May 30:

SANAA: Yemeni security forces have broken up an 11-member Al-Qaeda cell in the capital Sanaa, the Defense Ministry's online newspaper reported on Thursday. The suspects, who were arrested over the past few days, revealed during their interrogation "important information regarding terrorist attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda," the September 26 Web site reported. Al-Qaeda's wing in Yemen has carried out a series of attacks in recent months targeting the US and Italian embassies and a residential complex which is home to US oil workers. "Six Saudi Arabians and three Chadians are among the people arrested," a source close to the inquiry said. "The Saudis are jihadists who originally wanted to go to Iraq but ended up coming to Yemen because of the strict measures taken by authorities in their country for monitoring the border with Iraq."

Somalia Jihad Update. "Somali Islamist group claims responsibility for deadly bomb attack in Ethiopia," from the Associated Press, May 29:

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - A little-known Somali Islamist group claimed responsibility on Thursday for a bomb attack that killed three people in Ethiopia on the eve of national celebrations to mark the 17th anniversary of the current government's ascent to power.

"We will keep on fighting until we liberate our country from the Ethiopian invaders,"

said Haji Abukar, a spokesman for the Islamic Guerrillas, after claiming responsibility for Tuesday's bombing in Nagele, 560 kilometers (347 miles) south of the capital, Addis Ababa. "Our fighters will continue their holy war against the enemy of Somalia and we will target them everywhere."

The Guerillas are a relatively little known group in Somalia and Ethiopia, and only began making public statements three months ago.

It was not possible to independently verify their claim.

"We are an Islamic group that stands for the liberation of Somalia and have a good relationship with the rest of the insurgents in Somalia," Abukar said.

Ethiopian troops have been supporting the shaky Somali government since December 2006, when they helped drive out an Islamic group from Mogadishu, the capital, and much of the rest of southern Somalia. The Islamists vowed to fight an Iraq-style insurgency and thousands of Somalis have been killed in the subsequent fighting....

Updates on the separate cases of six men and one woman detained for activities that could "shake the faith of Muslims." As one of the defendants asked: "How can six people shake the faith of 40 million unless the court is convinced that the faith of the 40 million is not based on strong foundations?"

"Algeria - Prosecutor demands 2-year sentence for converts," from Compass Direct News, May 28:

ISTANBUL, May 28 (Compass Direct News) – A state prosecutor in western Algeria demanded two-year jail sentences and large fines for six Muslim converts to Christianity yesterday in one of two trials against Christians that have caught the north African nation’s attention in the past week.

The same court in Tiaret city yesterday delayed the verdict of a Christian woman facing three years in prison for “practicing non-Muslim religious rites without a license.”

Under intense scrutiny from Algerian and international observers, the Tiaret judge delayed Habiba Kouider’s ruling to ask for further investigation. The case gained notoriety last week when Algerian newspapers reported that court officials in the agricultural town mocked the Christian for her conversion and pressured her to return to Islam.

France’s State Secretary for human rights, Rama Yade, spoke out in support of Kouider on Sunday (May 25), calling the charges against her “sad and shocking,” Agence France-Presse reported.

Speaking to Algerian daily El Watan following yesterday’s hearing, Kouider’s defense lawyer said that international attention had caused the verdict to be delayed.

“The court wants to buy time and remove the pressure exerted on it,” said Khelloudja Khalfoun.

Plucking her off an inter-city bus outside of her home town of Tiaret on March 29, police found several Bibles and books on Christianity in Kouider’s hand bag that she said were for her personal use. Officials held the Christian woman for 24 hours and then brought her before a state prosecutor, who offered to drop charges if she reconverted to Islam. She refused.

At last week’s hearing, the state prosecutor claimed that Kouider had been carrying a dozen copies of the same Christian book, proof that she had been planning to distribute them.

Under Ordinance 06-03 passed in February 2006, distributing, printing or even storing materials with the purpose of “shaking the faith” of a Muslim is punishable with up to five years in prison.

But Khalfoun, Kouider’s defense lawyer, argued that accusations of proselytism had nothing to do with the initial charge of “practicing non-Muslim religious rites without a license,” a charge that she claimed had no legal base.

Speaking to El Watan, Boudjemaa Ghechir of the Arab League of Human Rights agreed with the defense lawyer’s assessment and called for Kouider’s case to be dropped.

“There is absolutely no legal text which requires such an authorization [to practice religion],” Ghechir said in the May 25 article.

A New Charge

Khalfoun, a Tizi Ouzou-based human rights lawyer, is also representing six Muslim converts to Christianity on trial in Tiaret for proselytism and holding an illegal religious gathering.

A large contingent of journalists, as well as Islamists, attended their initial court hearing yesterday, one eyewitness told Compass.

Detained on May 9 while leaving a prayer meeting at the home of one of the men in Tiaret, the six converts were held for 24 hours and initially charged with “distributing documents to shake the faith of Muslims.” At yesterday’s hearing, the state prosecutor raised a second charge of illegally practicing non-Muslim worship and demanded two-year jail sentences and 500,000 dinar (US$8,145) fines for each suspect.

Ordinance 06-03 requires that religious services be held in specific locations intended exclusively for worship.

“How can six people shake the faith of 40 million unless the court is convinced that the faith of the 40 million is not based on strong foundations?” said Djillali Saibi, one of the Christians on trial, referring to Algeria’s majority-Muslim population. Christians, mostly converts, make up less than 1 percent of the country’s people.

Testifying before the Tiaret court yesterday, all six men denied that they had been distributing any religious materials.

“I had nothing on me except a CD of [U.S. cartoon] Tom and Jerry that I had bought for my daughter and a book on faith, a personal book,” one of the men told the court according to El Watan today. “If one accuses us of distributing documents they must have proof.” ...

Andy McCarthy wonders, since "war" and "terror" are no good, if it's okay if we call this present conflict the "On" -- "or would that offend all the moderate prepositions?"

"War on terror" has always been a stupid and misleading term. But this recommendation to abandon it is even more stupid and misleading.

New adventures in Washington's absurd flight from reality: "Security chief decries ‘war on terror,’" by Demetri Sevastopulo in the Financial Times, May 28 (thanks to Jed Babbin):

The west needs a more comprehensive strategy to counter al-Qaeda propaganda and the US should stop using the term “war on terror”, according to a top intelligence official.

Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, says the phrase is counter-productive because it creates “animus” in Islamic countries.

“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”...

It has everything to do with political correctness, Mr. Allen. The jihadists say they are fighting an Islamic jihad. Understanding the jihad theology gives us unique insight into the motives and goals of the jihadists. If the Muslim world sees our resistance to these people as a war on Islam, maybe they aren't all that reliable as friends of the United States in the first place. But if they're really upset about this, they ought to be directing their ire against the Muslims who use Islam in this way -- which they are not doing -- instead of against non-Muslims who merely take note of the usage.

Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, does not agree with suggestions that the phrase is equated with a war on Islam, says Russ Knocke, his spokesman.

“We are at war with terrorism, and its underlying ideology – not Islam – and we’ve gone out of our way to make that point,” says Mr Knocke. “In truth, war has been declared upon us.”

Indeed you have gone out of your way to make that point, Mr. Knocke -- even to the point of dealing in half-truths and comforting falsehoods and avoiding unpleasant truths. But in truth, war has been declared upon us -- by Muslims, in the name of Islam. No amount of denial or sugarcoating this fact will make it go away.

Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, in an interview said the phrase ”war on terror” was the “dumbest term…you could use”. The Michigan lawmaker, who criticises the Bush administration for using an overly aggressive tone, says he has urged Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, not to use the expression.

It is indeed a "dumb" term. It is war on a tactic, not on a foe. But this foe we are afraid to name.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Mr Hadley, said the White House recognises that “the use of the word ‘Islamic’ before the word terrorist can be heard by Muslims…as lacking nuance, which may incorrectly suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or that we are at war with Islam”.

"Islamic terrorists" suggests neither, although the fear of using it suggests knee-knocking abject dhimmitude in the White House. "Islamic terrorists" no more suggests that all Muslims are terrorists than the phrase "Italian fascists" suggests that all Italians are fascists, or than the phrase "courageous intelligence analysts" suggests that all intelligence analysts are courageous. And it doesn't suggest we are at war with Islam, either, unless all Muslims are terrorists -- which is the very point that these politically correct mau-mauers would strenuously deny.

“While we want to be mindful to the way our messages are heard by Muslim audiences, we also think war on terror accurately describes the fight we are in,” he added.

Well, think again. It no more accurately describes this fight than "war on bombs" or "war on hijacked airplanes that crash into skyscrapers" would.

While the military in general tends to echo the langauge [sic!] of the president, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs who recently met with moderate Muslim leaders to hear their concerns, tries to ensure his language does not create the perception of a war against Islam, Captain John Kirby, his spokesman, said.

“The chairman is aware of the concerns voiced by many in the Muslim community about the phrase ‘war on terror’,” Captain Kirby said.

“He is committed – when speaking of it – to focusing his language and efforts on the violent extremists we are fighting. This is not a war on Islam. It’s a war against lethal enemies who are using a warped view of that faith to justify killing innocent civilians.”

And part of their warped view is that they present themselves to peaceful Muslims as the true and pure Muslims, as we have seen again and again -- and they get recruits that way. But that is too politically incorrect a fact for us to notice, much less try to counter. We are to swallow the dogma that the jihadists' Islam is warped, and that virtually all Muslims see it as such, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

That is part of the message that Mr Allen would like the US to emphasise in countering al-Qaeda propaganda around the globe. He says the west needs to orchestrate a “very structured”, almost cold war-style communications strategy to accomplish this....

In the Cold War we were against Communism. There was not this politically correct word-mincing going on at high levels.

Frank Cilluffo, a terrorism expert at George Washington University and former special assistant to Mr Bush for homeland security, says the US government can take a series of steps to help counter al-Qaeda. He agrees that the US should abandon the concept of a “war on terror” – which “fuels the adversaries narrative” – and “decouple religion from ideology”.

Cilluffo is terminally naive if he thinks the U.S. can accomplish this and have any credibility among Muslims in doing so. He is also apparently unaware (although he has heard a couple of presentations by me, and I was in there pitching, folks) that Islam traditionally has had a political and social, i.e., an ideological component. This aspect of Islam wasn't invented by bin Laden, or Khomeini. It is as old as Muhammad, and central to Islam. Does he really think that the U.S, by playing word games, can eliminate or "decouple" it from Islamic piety? Good luck with that.

In the long term, however, Mr Cilluffo says the solution will have to come from within the Muslim community, partly by imams and Islamic scholars stressing that al-Qaeda has deliberately misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence, which he adds will help “take the jihadi cool out of the narrative”.

Here again is that ever-elusive unicorn, the interpretation of the Qur'an that rejects violence. Frank Cilluffo and everyone else in Washington fervently believe it exists, and are ready to buy all kinds of snake oil in search of it. Unfortunately, there is no such traditional or mainstream understanding of the Qur'an that fits this bill. One could conceivably be invented, although then it will be denounced in Islamic communities as bid'a -- innovation.

One would think that it would be worthwhile to understand all this, so as to formulate a realistic strategy based on genuine reality. But instead, official Washington is retreating farther and farther into Fantasy Based Policymaking.

Dr. Foroud Fouladvand

This message comes from an Iranian ex-Muslim and lover of freedom in London:

Urgent Attention
Another free thinker is to be executed in Iran in the coming days

It is with great regret that I inform all freedom loving people of the world that the Mullahs' terrorist regime is about to execute one of Iran's finest thinkers, a true patriot, scholar and historian.

Dr. Foroud Fouladvand is a dedicated monarchist, a Ferdousi expert as well as expert on the history of Iran and Islam.

A confirmed report sent to the office of Dr. Fouladvand in London from inside Iran suggests that Dr. Fouladvand and two of his compatriots are going to be executed on Saturday, May 31, 2008 or possibly even sooner.

The two men to be executed alongside Dr. Fouladvand are Mr. Nazem Schmidtt, an Iranian/American citizen, aka Simorgh, and Mr. Alexander Valizadeh, an Iranian/ German citizen, aka Koroush Lor.

Dr. Fouladvand, a British citizen, was known throughout the Iranian community for his open criticism of Islam and the Mullah's tyranny.

Dr. Fouladvand, who is an expert on Islam, openly challenged the Qur'an in his daily television broadcasts for listeners both inside and outside Iran. His Television discussions were offensive to the Mullahs. On March 10, 2006, in a preplanned action, about 65 of his supporters refused to leave a Lufthansa plane in protest of the European Union's policy of appeasement of the Mullahs' regime.

Dr. Fouladvand was led to believe by an agent of the Mullahs' regime posing as a monarchist activist from within Iran that there were many Iranian patriots inside Iran who believed in him, and that a meeting with them would be fruitful in organizing and uniting people inside Iran to oppose the Mullahs. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Fouladvand and a number of his friends, including the above-named men, left London for the Turkish/Iranian border. The last news of Dr. Fouladvand's whereabouts was on January
17, 2007, when he was expected to meet the supposedly Iranian activists in the Kurdish province of Hakkary in Iraq, which is close to the Iranian border.

In January 2007, the agents of the Mullahs' secret police arrested and smuggled these three men into Iran, where they were imprisoned and were subjected to torture.

Please contact anyone you can. Alert government officials, the press, the Amnesty International and the human rights organizations in your country of residence.

Since there is so much high hopes put on these calls for "dialogue," such as the letter from the 138 scholars to the Pope, it is useful to remember some of the core assumptions involved.

Note also that the idea that the Jews and Christians altered their holy books is one of the foundations of the jihad imperative. The Jews and Christians are renegades who have rejected the truth about Muhammad. Consequently, they must be fought and subdued, per Qur'an 9:29. However, this claim has no basis in fact. This alteration had to have happened after Muhammad came, since Allah refers Muhammad to those who received the Scriptures before him in order to assuage his doubts (Qur’an 10:94-95). That assumes that the real Torah and real Gospel existed as of around 620 AD, and that the corruption happened after that or around that time — which is historically preposterous for both Torah and Gospel.

Also, what the heck is this guy talking about -- what "attack on the White House"?

"Former Saudi Minister of Information Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: We Tell Christians and Jews in Interfaith Dialogue That Their Holy Books Are Distorted and That We Want to Bring Them Back to the Original Religion," from MEMRI, May 25 (thanks to B.):

Following are excerpts from an interview with former Saudi information minister Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani, which aired on Iqra TV on May 25, 2008.

Interviewer: How come calls for dialogue with [the West] were only made following 9/11?

Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: The main reason is that we have inadvertently given in to this accusation, and accepted the fact that 9/11 was pinned on us, as if Islam calls for such a thing, but when acts worse than 9/11 were perpetrated by Christians and Jews...

Interviewer: Such as?

Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: Attacks within America itself... Why wasn’t the attack on the White House labeled a “Christian” or “Jewish” attack? We’ve been dragged into accepting that 9/11 was an Islamic attack. This group [Al-Qaeda] carried it out, and unlike this group, we do not sanction the killing of any human being, because according to the Koran and the guidance of the Prophet, we are not allowed to harm any dhimmi [non-Muslim living under Muslim rule], as long as there is a covenant between us. We have accepted the blame...

Interviewer: Who has?

Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: The Islamic world has accepted the blame, and apologized by saying: “We are sorry for what Islam did.” Islam did not do this! Why don’t you say that it was carried out by a group that made a mistake, like the men and women among you who make mistakes every day? Why do you pin this on Islam, as if the religion of Islam calls for terrorism, which is absolutely untrue. We were dragged into this, and then they began attacking us, people with vested interests started maligning Islam, and we’ve begun to give in. So we had no choice but to declare a “Jihad” that includes dialogue with the other side, and to explain the facts accurately, so they would know what Islam is all about, what the Koran is, and who the Prophet is.

Now, I'm all for explaining the facts about the Qur'an and Muhammad accurately.

The [Judeo-Christian] religion is monotheistic. They did not create it. This religion was sent down to Jesus and Moses...

Interviewer: But Islam got rid of it, in order to remain all on its own.

Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: It was not Islam that got rid of it. It was caused by the contamination that occurred in this religion. They changed, altered, and distorted their holy books, and Islam came to rectify this. Islam has not changed a thing in the teachings of Moses.

Interviewer: So one of the basic principles of this dialogue is to accept that the [Jews and Christians] have a religion.

Muhammad Abduh Al-Yamani: Yes, and we respect this religion, but we say to them: “You’ve changed it, and you know that the books you have are not the divine gospel and the divine Torah. You have changed them. You yourselves admit that your books were written by priests and others who altered them. We want to bring you back to the original religion.”

1938 Alert. "Search Is Urged for Syrian Nuclear Sites," by Joby Warrick and Robin Wright for the Washington Post, May 29:

The Bush administration is pressing U.N. inspectors to broaden their search for possible secret nuclear facilities in Syria, hinting that Damascus's nuclear program might be bigger than the single alleged reactor destroyed by Israeli warplanes last year.

At least three sites have been identified by U.S. officials and passed along to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is negotiating with Syria for permission to conduct inspections in the country, according to U.S. government officials and Western diplomats. U.S. officials want to know if the suspect sites may have been support facilities for the alleged Al Kibar reactor destroyed in an Israeli air raid Sept. 6, the sources said.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which has been seeking access to the Al Kibar site since shortly after the bombing, has acknowledged receiving requests to expand the scope of its inspections, but provided no details.

U.S. government officials declined to describe the specific sites that have drawn interest, or to discuss how they were identified. However, the United States and other Western governments have long been interested in identifying possible locations for a facility in Syria that might have supplied nuclear fuel rods for a Syrian reactor. Although the Al Kibar site was described as nearly operational at the time of the Sept. 6 bombing, it had no clear source of the uranium fuel necessary for operation, according to U.S. intelligence officials and diplomats familiar with the site.

Syria, which has denied having a nuclear weapons program, has not yet responded to IAEA requests for a firm date for inspections.

U.S. intelligence officials contend that the Al Kibar facility was built with North Korean assistance, to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview that the intelligence community's insight into Syria's nuclear ambitions has deepened since the Israeli raid.

"Do not assume that Al Kibar exhausted our knowledge of Syrian efforts with regard to nuclear weapons," Hayden said. "I am very comfortable -- certainly with Al Kibar and what was there, and what the intent was. It was the highest confidence level. And nothing since the attack last September has changed our mind. In fact, events since the attack give us even greater confidence as to what it was."

He predicted that Syria would "almost certainly attempt to delay and deceive" the IAEA. But he added: "We know what they did."...

Will Syria claim the facilities in question are part of Iranian-style projects toward the "peaceful generation of electricity?" Or will the Syrians also suddenly embark on a "space program?"

"Missile-related shipment to Syria stopped, U.S. says," by Arshad Mohammed for Reuters, May 29:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four countries last year prevented Syria from receiving equipment that could be used to test ballistic missile components, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday.

U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley described the previously undisclosed incident in a speech to members of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a network of countries that seeks to stop illicit weapons of mass destruction shipments.

The Bush administration has portrayed the PSI effort, which was launched five years ago and has more than 90 nations as members, as a significant success in its drive to prevent biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism.

Analysts say it is hard to judge its effectiveness because members are reluctant to disclose successes to avoid betraying sources that provide intelligence needed to stop shipments.

"One example of its success occurred in February 2007, when four nations represented in this room worked together to interdict equipment bound for Syria -- equipment that could have been used to test ballistic missile components," Hadley said at a conference to mark PSI's fifth anniversary.

"Interdictions like this one have been successful all over the world -- and have stopped many shipments of sensitive materials destined for Iran, North Korea, and Syria," he said, providing no further details...

Uh oh, he said "Islamic." Will Condi call him on the carpet?

"Bush likens war against Islamic extremism to fight against fascism," from AFP, May 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (AFP) - US President George W. Bush on Wednesday likened America's efforts to quell Islamic extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan to the US fight against fascism during World War II.

During the Second World War, "our nation faced evil men with territorial ambitions and totalitarian aims, who murdered the innocent to achieve their political objectives," Bush said at a commencement speech for new graduates of the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs....

"Now, in the 21st century, our nation is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- the ideology of Islamic extremism," said Bush, who earlier this month asked the US Congress for 70 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into early next year, when his successor takes over....

"In today's struggle, we are once again facing evil men who despise freedom, and despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule. And once again, our nation is called to defeat these adversaries -- and secure the peace for millions across the world.

"And once again, our enemies will be no match for the men and women of the United States Air Force," the US leader said.

"After World War II we helped Germany and Japan build free societies and strong economies," he told the freshly-minted air force officers.

"These efforts took time and patience, and as a result Germany and Japan grew in freedom and prosperity. Germany and Japan once were our enemies and are now allies of the United States," he added....

But of course, after World War II the ideologies that had fueled German and Japanese militarism were discredited. The jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism have not been discredited. In fact, Bush isn't even challenging them as such.

Today marks the anniversary of the real Nakba, or perhaps more precisely the καταστροφή -- the Catastrophe: on this day in 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, marking the end of the Eastern Roman Empire, more commonly known as the Byzantine Empire.

If anything deserves to be called an occupation, and a nakba, it is this, although it has, like so many other bloody conquests in human history, been legitimized by time. Still, if the descendants of the Christian inhabitants of Constantinople and Anatolia were to demand, and receive, a right of return, rapidly-Islamizing Turkey would look vastly different from how it looks now.

On this day in 1453, the conquerers were extraordinarily brutal. Historian Steven Runciman notes that the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit." (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)

Some jihadists "made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces." (P. 146.)

The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls to pray during the city’s last agony. The Muslims, according to Runciman, halted the celebration of Orthros (morning prayer); the priests, according to legend, took the sacred vessels and disappeared into the cathedral’s eastern wall, through which they shall return to complete the divine service one day. Muslim men then killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery.

Once the Muslims had thoroughly subdued Constantinople, they set out to Islamize it. According to the Muslim chronicler Hoca Sa’deddin, tutor of the sixteenth-century Sultans Murad III and Mehmed III, "churches which were within the city were emptied of their vile idols and cleansed from the filthy and idolatrous impurities and by the defacement of their images and the erection of Islamic prayer niches and pulpits many monasteries and chapels became the envy of the gardens of Paradise."

It has come to be known as Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World. Tuesday has been regarded as unlucky by superstitious Greeks ever since. But they're about the only ones who remember. The world has forgotten what happened on Black Tuesday, and on so many other days like it from India to Spain, and persists in the fantasy that Islam does not contain an imperialist impulse and that Muslims can be admitted without limit into Western countries without any attempt to determine how many would like ultimately to subjugate and Islamize their new countries, the way their forefathers did to Constantinople so long ago.

Oh, and there are a few others who remember as well. Sheik Ali Al-Faqir, former Jordanian minister of religious endowment, said this on Al-Aqsa TV on May 2, 2008: "We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once..." Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunis Al-Astal said this, also on Al-Aqsa TV, on April 11, 2008: "Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad."

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi remembers also. In writing about "signs of the victory of Islam," he referred to a hadith: "The Prophet Muhammad was asked: 'What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: 'The city of Hirqil [i.e. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius] will be conquered first' - that is, Constantinople… Romiyya is the city called today 'Rome,' the capital of Italy. The city of Hirqil [that is, Constantinople] was conquered by the young 23-year-old Ottoman Muhammad bin Morad, known in history as Muhammad the Conqueror, in 1453. The other city, Romiyya, remains, and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered]. This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice - once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens."

Mehmet the Conqueror was motivated by exactly the same religious ideology that motivates the Islamic warriors of the contemporary era. Historian Halil Inalcik says of the Ottomans that their "culture was dominated by the Islamic conception of Holy War or ghaza." Ghaza refers to warfare to expand the land under the hegemony of Islam -- and thus it is not identical to jihad, but is one of the chief means of jihad. Inalcik continues: "By God's command the ghaza had to be fought against the infidels' dominions, dar al-harb (the abode of war), ceaselessly and relentlessly until they submitted." (The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1A, Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 269)

And Mehmet himself explained as he argued for the necessity of conquering Constantinople: "The ghaza is our basic duty, as it was in the case of our fathers." (The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1A, p. 295)

He was pursuing offensive jihad against the infidels, in accord with the mandates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. If anything today's jihadists are less radical than he was: because there is no caliphate today, they do not consider themselves authorized to wage offensive jihad, since that is the prerogative of the caliph only. They characterize all their jihad activity as defensive.

May 29, Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World, the true Nakba: today should be a day for all those threatened by Islamic jihad supremacism to redouble our efforts to resist, so that more such catastrophes may never again destroy the lives of free people.

CAIR's Corey Saylor asks: "Has faith moved from a personal choice to probable cause?" He asks this, mind you, about apparent surveillance of The Islamic Center of San Diego, where, according to the article, "two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped in early 2000."

He asks this, mind you, as a member of a "civil rights" group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case in 2007, and which has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on various terror-related charges.

He asks this, mind you, in the context of protesting against the surveillance of several Southern California mosques, suggesting that there is no probable cause here despite the testimony of the Muslim Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, as far back as 1999, that 80% of American mosques were controlled by "extremists," and the findings of the Center for Religious Freedom in 2005, that hatred of Jews and Christians and Islamic supremacism were widely taught in American mosques.

"Reports concern Muslims: Alleged checks on San Diego, L.A. mosques spark calls for hearings," by H.G. Reza for the Los Angeles Times, May 29 (thanks to Twostellas):

A report that mosques in Los Angeles and San Diego are under federal surveillance has resurrected fears in the Muslim community about government monitoring and led two civil rights groups Wednesday to call for congressional hearings.

The request for public hearings followed a newspaper article last week that cited FBI and Defense Department files pertaining to surveillance of mosques and Muslims in Southern California.

Corey Saylor, Washington spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune "has again raised concerns that our community is being watched."

"We've heard about this in the past, but this article appears to be the first confirmation that surveillance is taking place," Saylor said. "Has faith moved from a personal choice to probable cause?"

Council chapters in Anaheim and San Diego joined the American Civil Liberties Union and Islamic Shura Council of Southern California in asking the U.S. House and Senate judiciary committees and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for hearings. In a letter to the committee chairmen and ranking minority members, the groups said hearings are needed to determine the extent of the surveillance and whether people are being monitored because they are Muslim.

[...]

The civil rights groups also want the hearings to determine if the U.S. military has engaged in domestic surveillance in violation of federal law. The Islamic Center of San Diego, where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped in early 2000, was the only mosque mentioned in the San Diego Union-Tribune article. The report did not specify which other mosques in Los Angeles and San Diego were allegedly under surveillance. But Saylor said it would not be surprising if mosques in Orange County were also monitored.

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, members of the Islamic Center of Irvine and other local mosques have complained about FBI agents questioning them about imams' sermons and how often they attend services. In 2006, J. Stephen Tidwell, then-FBI assistant director in Los Angeles, met at the Irvine mosque with about 200 people who questioned him about government monitoring.

The meeting was prompted by media reports that the FBI was monitoring Muslim students at UC Irvine and USC. Tidwell denied that monitoring was taking place, telling the audience that "we still play by the rules."

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the congressional hearings would compel the government "to say why they're amassing this information." "There's a lot of suspicion of the Muslim community," she said.

ACLU lawyers regularly go to mosques to advise worshipers that they do not have to answer questions from FBI agents about how long they have been in the United States, how often they attend services and what they get out of the sermons, Ripston said.

Why can't they answer questions like that? Which side is the ACLU on? As if we didn't know already.

"Reform in UNRWA"?

UNRWA is at this point a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PLO, or the "Palestinian" Authority, or of the Arab League, or of the two slightly-diverging branches of the PLO, the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, who share the same ultimate goals but differ only on tactics and timing. Those goals are an end to a non-Muslim nation-state called Israel, with its Jews being forced to cry "give me dhimmitude or give me death."

The personnel of UNRWA, save for a camouflaging handful at the top, are all Arabs -- all "Palestinian" Arabs, adept at promoting the Arab cause, and in misusing funds, and demanding still more, as those funds are used to promote that cause. The cause is not of Arab well-being, but of Arab rage, and Arab propaganda, against the scarcely-to-be-discerned-on-a-world-map tiny Infidel nation-state of Israel.

The clear subtext here is that Christians will assimilate better into Germany than Muslims will. The addition of Mandaeans and Yazidis also suggests that there is a tacit recognition, among the CDU at least, that Muslim refugees bring with them a program of supremacism and a challenge to non-Muslim societal structures.

This statement, then, is a small hint that the stranglehold of the multiculturalist orthodoxy that threatens to destroy Europe may be loosening.

"Germany's CDU Interested in Accepting Refugees from Iraq," from Spiegel, May 28 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats on Wednesday said they would like to see Germany take on thousands of refugees from Iraq. The hitch? They only want the Christians.

For months, ethnic violence has been on the ebb in war-torn Iraq. But that has done little to ease the pressure of over 2 million refugees seeking shelter in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Indeed, for many of them -- particularly those once part of Iraq's Christian minority -- going back may never be an option.

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party said it would like to see Germany do its part to help out. At a press conference in Berlin, parliamentarian Erika Steinbach, the CDU's human rights spokeswoman, said her party wanted to see Germany accept thousands of Iraqi refugees. In particular, she said, the CDU wants to extend its welcoming hand to Iraqis who have suffered religious persecution in Iraq. In particular, that means the Christians.

"One would be doing a good thing were a long-term solution to be found," Steinbach said.

According to Steinbach, the CDU envisions bringing a large group (possibly as many as 10,000) of non-Muslim refugees to Germany with the understanding that they would not be treated as asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in Germany, and Steinbach said that it is unrealistic to think that Christian refugees from Iraq would ever be able to return. For this reason, their ultimate integration in Germany should be supported.

Members of Yazidis and Mandaean religious minorities would also be among those allowed in, according to the party's proposal. The CDU argues that, in contrast to Muslim refugees from Iraq, religious persecution makes it unlikely that Christians, Yazidis and Mandaeans would ever by able to return....

The Cardinal's point is well-taken, and one we have made many times here: violent jihad and Islamic supremacism are deeply rooted in the Qur'an, so the only way Muslims could possibly reject them would be to reject Qur'anic literalism -- and that is extremely unlikely. And unfortunately, when he says, "There is no worldwide authority who can interpret the Qur'an, so it depends on the person you have in front of you," he is perhaps unaware that there is a broad consensus (ijma, إجماع, which is a very important concept in Islamic theology) among the schools of Islamic jurisprudence that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic umma to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers.

"Cardinal urges Muslim leaders to oppose violent jihad," by Riazat Butt for The Guardian, May 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Muslim leaders must be more outspoken about violence in the name of religion, a senior Vatican official urged yesterday.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Pope's principal adviser on Islam, said that while the majority of Muslim clerics condemned acts of terrorism, they needed to be more vocal about jihad, especially because of its frequent appearances in the Qur'an.

The cardinal made the remarks after a lecture, given in London to an audience of students, Catholic clerics and figures from other religions. It was one of several public appearances during a rare visit to the UK.

He said: "In the Qur'an you have several interpretations of jihad - violent and holy. Most Muslims are condemning war made in the name of religion. The problem is that in the Qur'an you have good and bad jihad, so you choose.

"There is no worldwide authority who can interpret the Qur'an, so it depends on the person you have in front of you. Sometimes you should like religious authorities to be more outspoken about violence in the name of religion. But Muslims believe the Qur'an is the divine word of God, so it is a problem."

Indeed it is.

A fearless Christian cleric makes a series of extraordinary and enormously important observations. "Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Radical Islam is filling void left by collapse of Christianity in UK," by Martin Beckford for the Telegraph, May 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The decline of Christian values is destroying Britishness and has created a "moral vacuum" which radical Islam is filling, one of the Church of England's leading bishops has warned.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, claimed the "social and sexual" revolution of the 1960s had led to a steep decline in the influence of Christianity over society which church leaders had failed to resist.

He said that in its place, Britain had become gripped by the doctrine of "endless self-indulgence" which had led to the destruction of family life, rising levels of drug abuse and drunkenness and mindless violence on the streets.

The bishop warns that the modern politicians' catchphrases of respect and tolerance will not be strong enough to prevent this collapse of traditional virtues, and said radical Islam is now moving in to fill the void created by the decline of Christianity.

His claims, in an article published in the new political magazine Standpoint, come just days after he accused the Church of England of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

Dr Nazir-Ali claims in the new article that Britain, previously a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes", would never have become a global empire without the arrival of Christianity.

But he said the Church's influence began to wane during the 1960s, and quotes an academic who blames the loss of "faith and piety among women" for the steep decline in Christian worship.

He says Marxist students encouraged a "social and sexual revolution" to which liberal theologians and Church leaders "all but capitulated".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place."

The bishop, who faced death threats earlier this year when he said some parts of Britain had become "no-go areas" for non-Muslims, said Marxism has been exposed as a nonsense but went on: "We are now confronted by another equally serious ideology, that of radical Islamism, which also claims to be comprehensive in scope."

Asking what weapons are available to fight this new "ideological battle", the bishop said the values trumpeted by modern politicians such as "respect, tolerance and good behaviour" are "hardly adequate for the task before us".

"The consequences of the loss of this discourse are there for all to see: the destruction of the family because of the alleged parity of different forms of life together; the loss of a father figure, especially for boys, because the role of fathers is deemed otiose; the abuse of substances (including alcohol); the loss of respect for the human person leading to horrendous and mindless attacks on people."

The bishop added that Christian hospitality has been replaced by the "newfangled and insecurely founded" doctrine of multiculturalism, which has led to immigrants creating "segregated communities and parallel lives".

He said many values respected by society, such as the dignity of human life, equality and freedom, are based on Christian ones. But he warned that without their Christian backbone they cannot exist for ever, and that new belief systems may be based on different values.

"Radical Islamism, for example, will emphasise the solidarity of the umma (worldwide community of the Muslim faithful) against the freedom of the individual.

"Instead of the Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety and the importance of 'saving face'."

In an implicit criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent claim that the adoption of some parts of Islamic law is unavoidable, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "Recognising its jurisdiction in terms of public law is fraught with difficulties precisely because it arises from a different set of assumptions from the tradition of law here."...

Recently Pamela Geller, Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin pointed out that a new Dunkin' Donuts ad featured Rachael Ray wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh.

What's wrong with that? People in the Middle East, including Arabic-speaking Christians, wore it long before the establishment of the State of Israel and the invention of the "Palestinian" nationality. But there is no doubt that it has become a symbol of the Palestinian jihad. Charles posts a piece explaining the kaffiyeh as a "symbol of resistance and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle." Michelle Malkin accordingly asks, "It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing?"

Dunkin' Donuts pulled the ad, causing the company to be named "Worst Persons in the World" by Keith Olbermann. In the course of his fulmination in the video above (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist), he says this:

They pulled the ad? Because of the possibility of misperception? By the right-wing equivalents of jihadists -- the people in this country who most closely share the mentalities of the terrorists. Who act the most like Middle Eastern nutjobs. Who rail against diversity, try to murder dissent, and care more about flags than about people. You know, the Michelle Malkins of the world....How about the rest of us boycott Dunkin' Donuts, for giving in to fascists like Michelle Malkin? And for giving weight to perhaps the most absurd idea the lunatic fringers have ever belched forth: that there are terrorist scarves! Terrorist scarves!

This is another example of the witless moral equivalence that I devoted a book to refuting last year. It's just stupid rhetorical overheating, but it is worth noting because it distracts from the reality of the global jihad, and that keeps us from defending ourselves against it. If American conservatives really were the "equivalents of jihadists," Keith Olbermann's head would some time ago have been separated from his body. But the obverse is even worse: if jihadists are just like American conservatives, why, then they're just "nutjobs" who "rail against diversity" -- worthy of mockery, but not of serious concern.

And so meanwhile, they continue to advance.

"Staff appear reluctant to challenge inappropriate behaviour ... for fear of doing the wrong thing."

"Muslim prison gangs 'taking control'," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, May 27:

Muslim gangs are threatening to take control of one of Britain's top security prisons where inmates include al-Qa'eda terrorists, a report reveals.

Staff at Whitemoor jail, Cambs, believe a "serious incident is imminent" as several wings become dominated by Muslim prisoners.

There is an on-going theme of fear and instability among employees, says the Prison Service's Directorate of High Security report.

"There is much talk around the establishment about 'the Muslims'," it says.

Some staff believe the situation has resulted in Muslim prisoners becoming more of a gang than a religious group.

"The sheer numbers, coupled with a lack of awareness among staff, appear to be engendering fear and handing control to the prisoners," the report says.

The situation has become so bad that white prisoners are warned about the Muslim gangs by staff on arrival.

The concern about Muslim prisoners is in danger of leading to hostility and Islamophobia, the report warns.

What a strangely worded and ultimately meaningless sentence: Whose concern? The guards? They're duty-bound to enforce regulations professionally and equitably, and to keep prisoners safe from one another.

If anything, when they do take action to reduce the level of tension and the eroded sense of control, they certainly will be accused of hostility and Islamophobia.

"Staff appear reluctant to challenge inappropriate behaviour, in particular among black and ethnic minority prisoners, for fear of doing the wrong thing," the report adds.

"This is leading to a general feeling of a lack of control and shifting the power dynamic towards prisoners."

"This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims."

"Religious trends and our religious future," from the Church of England News (thanks to LGF):

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Perhaps most importantly the government has chosen to allow hard-liners to act as representing all Muslims, and more liberal Muslims have almost completely failed to produce any leadership voices to compete, leading many Britons to wonder if there are indeed many liberal Muslims at all, surely a mistake.

Surely!

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.

While men-only gentlemen’s clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally ‘Muslim’: the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with ‘C of E’ on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates. Charles Taylor’s new and classic work on the Secular Age charts the rise of the secular mindset and what he calls the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity as it is levered out of state policy and structures. Christianity is now regarded as bad news, the liberal elite’s attack developed in the 1960s took root in the educationalist empire, and to some extent even in areas of the church.

Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace. There needs to be some fresh thinking in this area where the claims of Christ are sensitively explained. Our church leaders must develop ways of explaining this, as our feature on mission and evangelism this week demonstrates.

There is a great deal of whining victimology in this article. I have not reproduced below the material about the disproportionate percentage of Muslims in European prisons. There is in the article, of course, no consideration at all of the possibility that they might commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population, out of their contempt for non-Muslims and non-Muslim society and law.

But note below Parvez Ahmed's wild claims that the PC American establishment, for all its fear of talking about jihad and its tiptoeing around the ideology that motivates the jihadists, is actually at war with Islam, and his relativistic "terrorism is in the eye of the beholder" nonsense. And then remember: this guy is, in the eyes of the government and media establishments, a leading American "moderate."

"War on terror is war on Islam, says advocate," by Nisa Islam Muhammad in Farrakhan's The Final Call, May 28 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - The global war on terror has become a thinly veiled excuse to wage a global war on Islam with increased arrests of Muslims, calls for regime change in Muslim countries and racial profiling, according to a leader with a national Islamic organization.

“The tactic of terrorism—and yes it is a tactic, not an ideology—has been deployed by a multitude of groups of different religions, ethnicities and ideologies and yet the Islamic faith, unlike any other, is erroneously and incessantly associated with terrorism,” said Dr. Parvez Ahmed, a national board member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. “The association of a faith practiced by 1.2 billion people worldwide to terrorism creates the perception that the GWOT is a war against Islam.”

Around the world since 2001 there have been increases in the arrest and detention of Muslims.

Dr. Ahmed explained that right after 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, the federal government subjected 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants to fingerprinting and registration, sought out 8,000 Arab and Muslim men for FBI interviews and imprisoned over 5,000 foreign nationals in anti-terrorism preventive detention compounds.

“These arrests and detentions did not result in the conviction of a single person for a terrorist crime. Thus the U.S. government’s record for the largest ethnic profiling campaign stood at 0 for 93,000,” he said.

[...]

“Between 1980 and 2003, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan, a group that recruits from the predominantly Hindu Tamil population in Sri Lanka and whose ideology is intertwined with Marxism, was the world’s leader in suicide terrorism. Despite this, Islamic groups receive the most attention in the Western media,” said Dr. Ahmed.

“Suicide bombings are the product of modern political violence. Suicide bombings by Muslims are not the result of any Islamic ideology, but rather they are the result of the sociopolitical conditions of occupations (such as Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq) and the outcome of proxy wars fought in Afghanistan, where America not only armed the mujihadeen, but also enabled a culture of drugs and violence,” he said.

Dr. Ahmed also noted that terrorism is a word generally applied to “one’s enemies or those with whom one disagrees.”

“Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization ‘terrorist’ becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned,” he said.

“If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or worst, an ambivalent) light; and is not terrorism,” Dr. Ahmed said....

UPDATE: Patrick Poole kindly points out that Parvez Ahmed is simply parroting Osama bin Laden.

Eliot Engel speaks truth to power. "US congressmen demand UNRWA reform," by Etgar Lefkovits for the Jerusalem Post, May 27 (thanks to Louis):

A group of bipartisan US congressmen is urging reform in UNRWA, the UN body that deals exclusively with Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and calling for alternative solutions to the containment of refugees in squalid camps.

"The Palestinian refugees have been used as political pawns for the past 60 years by people who don't want peace in the Middle East," said Congressman Eliot Engel (D-New York) at a meeting of international parliamentarians hosted last week by the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, a bipartisan pro-Israel parliamentary group.

"The UN has been part and parcel of this conspiracy," he said.

Engel, who co-chairs the parliamentary group - established as a sister-caucus to the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus - said that UNRWA, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1949 to carry out relief and works programs for Palestinian refugees, was actually designed to perpetuate the festering sore of the refugee problem.

"Instead of resettling them, UNRWA keeps them in refugee camps," Engel said. "The Palestinians are in the refugee camps because the Arab nations want them in refugee camps in order to perpetuate political hatred against Israel."...

That'll do it, all right. Here is yet another update from our bulging "Not Just Al-Qaeda" files: "Jamaat-e-Islami Leader: We Are Fighting For Islamic Revolution In Pakistan," from the MEMRI Blog, May 27 :

Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami leader Muhammad Hussain Mehnati has said that his party is fighting for an Islamic revolution in Pakistan. The Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang quoted Mehnati as saying that the purpose of creating Pakistan was the establishment of an Islamic system in the country.

According to the report, the Jamaat-e-Islami leader said: ‘‘Jamaat-e-Islami is fighting for an Islamic revolution in Pakistan so that people can be liberated from their problems and difficulties.’’

Islamic Tolerance Alert from the Islamic Republic.

"Iran: Ten Christian converts arrested," from AKI, May 28 (thanks to Religion of Peace):

Tehran, 28 May (AKI) - Ten Iranians who converted from Islam to Christianity in recent months have been arrested in the southern city of Shiraz.

According to Goodarz, a spokesperson for the Iranian converts, more than 35 of them have been arrested since the beginning of the year. Goodarz himself has taken refuge in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

The new Majlis or Iranian parliament which met for the first time on Tuesday will be discussing in the coming weeks proposed laws presented by the government to reform the penal code.

Under the new law, anyone born to a Muslim father who decides to renounce Islam and convert to another faith, faces the death penalty.

The punishment is currently absent from the Iranian penal code even though in the past, dozens of Christian converts and followers of the Bahai faith have been hanged.

It is, of course, the traditional Islamic legal penalty for apostasy.

The New Republic shares this naivete with many, many analysts in the West. From "Dangerous naivety" in The Spectator, May 28 (thanks to Mick):

The New Republic has published an article by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank which claims that al Qaeda is unravelling because former supporters are turning against it, and that as a result Muslim moderates are on the march against the jihadis. While there is undoubtedly some truth in their argument, in that – as we can see in Iraq – the mass killings of Muslims by al Qaeda are clearly turning increasing numbers of Muslims against it, the authors’ apparent naivety and ignorance have nevertheless led them to some dangerously wrong conclusions, particularly in their analysis of what is happening in Britain.

They have fallen into the trap of believing that the only extremists are al Qaeda and others who support terrorism in Britain. They thus extol as moderates those who oppose al Qaeda and terrorism in Britain. But this view – which is shared by many in British security circles, alas -- presents an entirely false and indeed lethal dichotomy. For there are Islamists who oppose al Qaeda and terrorist action in the UK as a tactical mistake but nevertheless subscribe to the same strategic goal – to restore the medieval Caliphate, overturn British and western society and institute the rule of Islam instead.

Precisely.

Guess who

Belgian authorities ought to see this as sedition, for Malika El Aroud would certainly want to see Sharia come to Belgium, and non-Muslims and women subjugated. And she is working for that end by agitating for jihad.

"Al Qaeda Warrior Uses Internet to Rally Women," by Elaine Sciolino and Souad Mekhennet for the New York Times, May 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BRUSSELS — On the street, Malika El Aroud is anonymous in an Islamic black veil covering all but her eyes.

In her living room, Ms. El Aroud, a 48-year-old Belgian, wears the ordinary look of middle age: a plain black T-shirt and pants and curly brown hair. The only adornment is a pair of powder-blue slippers monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY.

Powder-blue slippers monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY are the ordinary look of middle age?

But it is on the Internet where Ms. El Aroud has distinguished herself. Writing in French under the name “Oum Obeyda,” she has transformed herself into one of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe.

She calls herself a female holy warrior for Al Qaeda. She insists that she does not disseminate instructions on bomb-making and has no intention of taking up arms herself. Rather, she bullies Muslim men to go and fight and rallies women to join the cause.

“It’s not my role to set off bombs — that’s ridiculous,” she said in a rare interview. “I have a weapon. It’s to write. It’s to speak out. That’s my jihad. You can do many things with words. Writing is also a bomb.”

Ms. El Aroud has not only made a name for herself among devotees of radical forums where she broadcasts her message of hatred toward the West. She also is well known to intelligence officials throughout Europe as simply “Malika” — an Islamist who is at the forefront of the movement by women to take a larger role in the male-dominated global jihad....

“Vietnam is nothing compared to what awaits you on our lands,” she wrote to a supposed Western audience in March about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Ask your mothers, your wives to order your coffins.” To her followers she added: “Victory is appearing on the horizon, my brothers and sisters. Let’s intensify our prayers.”

Her prolific writing and presence in chat rooms, coupled with her background, makes her a magnet for praise and sympathy. “Sister Oum Obeyda is virtuous among the virtuous; her life is dedicated to the good on this earth,” a man named Juba wrote late last year.

[...]

Ms. El Aroud reflects that trend. “Normally in Islam the men are stronger than the women, but I prove that it is important to fear God — and no one else,” she said. “It is important that I am a woman. There are men who don’t want to speak out because they are afraid of getting into trouble. Even when I get into trouble, I speak out.”

After all, she said, she knows the rules. “I write in a legal way,” she said. “I know what I’m doing. I’m Belgian. I know the system.”

I'm sure she does.

Al-Sistani, who doesn’t want jihad against the Americans for the “time being,” was, some will recall, "nominated" in print by excitable Tom Friedman, always-ready-to-declare-his-latest-enthusiasm Tom Friedman, grand-simplifier Tom Friedman, as a suitable candidate for a Nobel Prize for Peace. That neither latest, nor greatest, of a long succession of friedmanian ludicrous remarks (not too ludicrous apparently for him to continue to ask for, and receive, $45,000 per public appearance, for a collection of shallow plongitudes and endless platitudes, but so eager-beaverly presented, that some may come away complacently thinking that they have actually "learned something") was mocked here. Al-Sistani's listing of "najis" (unclean) things at his website -- you know, blood, sputum, sperm, feces, Infidels, dogs, that sort of thing -- must have gotten to Friedman somehow, for he promptly put a lid on his exploding enthusiasm for Al-Sistani, and we never heard from him again on the matter.

But Al-Sistani was also deeply impressive to The Man Who Never Mentions Islam, Fouad Ajami. His The Foreigner's Gift, it has been noted here, should have been called The Infidel's Gift. But Islam, any hint of discussing how Islam forms the Arab mind, the Arab polity, the Arab everything and anything, is never even hint-glinted at in the pseudo-poetic, and comically annoying prose (described by one amazonian review as "luscious") in which Ajami presents his works. These works apparently meet with favor, for he has been much-rewarded in this country, possibly for Services Rendered Against Edward Said, with prizes, foundation grants, all the conceivable Recognitions that academic flesh is heir to.

But the wedding guests fought back.

"7 killed in Thai south: police," from AFP, May 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

YALA (Thailand) - THREE Thai soldiers and four suspected separatist rebels have been killed in a series of incidents across Thailand's far south, including a shootout at a wedding party, police said on Wednesday.

One soldier was killed and two of his colleagues injured in a blast in Pattani province late on Tuesday, police there said....

Later on Wednesday, in Yala, a group of militants ambushed a wedding convoy, but some of the villagers headed to the celebration were armed and fought their attackers, killing one suspected rebel, police said.

Ten members of the wedding party were injured.

Thai security forces also shot dead three suspected militants during a search of a village in Yala on Wednesday, police said.

Note also AFP's casual placing of blame for the conflict on the non-Muslim Thais who imperialistically annexed the Malay Sultanate, thus provoking tension. AFP does not mention, of course, that the Malay Sultanate was making war against the Siamese during the war between Siam and Burma, and Thailand conquered it in that context -- making it Thai by a right of conquest that has been universally recognized throughout human history -- except, of course, when it comes to Israel and to any Muslim land that is conquered by non-Muslims.

More than 3,000 people have been killed since separatist unrest broke out in January 2004 in the south, which was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until mainly Buddhist Thailand annexed it in 1902, provoking decades of tension.

Have you ever noticed how many of these things happen in Minneapolis? The Sharia cab controversy, the Target checkout personnel refusing to handle pork, the publicly-funded Islamic school, and now this. The Muslim Brotherhood -- the Muslim American Society -- was behind the cab controversy. Might it be behind these other things as well?

"Muslim workers file complaint with EEOC over firings for refusal to wear uniforms," by Chris Serres for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

MINNEAPOLIS - A group of Muslim workers allege they were fired by a New Brighton, Minn., tortilla factory for refusing to wear uniforms that they say were immodest by Islamic standards.

Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that is representing the women.

The women have filed a religious discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

''For these women, wearing tight-fitting pants is like being naked,'' said Valerie Shirley, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. ''It's simply not an option.''

CAIR issued a press release calling on Mission Foods to reinstate the women in their jobs. However, the group declined to disclose the names of the women and would not make them available for interviews Tuesday.

Gruma Corporation, the Irving, Texas-based parent company of Mission Foods, released a written statement Tuesday denying that any employees were terminated or disciplined at the New Brighton plant. However, the company made clear the six women have been relieved of their responsibilities for the time being, and may ultimately lose their jobs if they don't wear uniforms.

''Should these employees choose to adhere to the current Mission Foods uniform policy, they may return to their positions with the company,'' the company statement said. ''However, these positions will need to be filled as soon as possible and cannot be held indefinitely.''...

Last year, some Muslim cashiers at Target Corp. were shifted to other positions inside stores after they refused to scan pork products because doing so would violate their religious beliefs. And in 2005, a group of 26 workers were either fired or suspended by an Arden Hills electronics manufacturer for violating the company's prayer rules, which set limits on the times they could break for prayers.

These women could just find jobs that don't require them to violate their standards of modesty. But instead, non-Muslims must adapt and accommodate Muslim demands. It is all part of the stealth jihad.

A couple gazillion people sent me the story yesterday about the Australian council's refusal to allow an Islamic school. I didn't put it up, since council officials insisted that the refusal had nothing to do with resisting Islamic supremacism or preserving Australian culture. "The proposed development was flawed on environmental and planning grounds" -- surmountable problems, no?

But now the Muslims behind the mosque are claiming, predictably enough, that the refusal was motivated by "racism." What race is Islam again?

Both sides are talking past each other. One is talking about planning problems and the other about racism, when the real issue is, What are the intentions of Muslims in Australia regarding the eventual imposition of Sharia? But no one dares talk about that.

"Australian Muslim group says school refusal is 'racist,'" from AFP, May 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SYDNEY (AFP) - An Australian Muslim group charged Wednesday that a Sydney council's refusal to allow an Islamic school to be set up in its area was a "victory for racism".

Camden Council, on Sydney's south-western outskirts, unanimously rejected the application for a 1,200-pupil school on Tuesday night, prompting cheers from hundreds of residents who attended the meeting to oppose the plan.

While the council said the decision was based on planning issues, the proposal sparked ugly protests, including two pigs' heads impaled on spikes at the school site last November with an Australian flag draped between them.

Muslim community organisation Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations (FAIR) said it did not accept the council's explanation.

"Planning grounds is only a smokescreen for the real issues which were related to community tensions and potential social upheavals if the school was approved," executive director Kuranda Seyit said.

"I see this as a victory for racism."

Yeah, sure, Seyit. Maybe if you and your coreligionists addressed the question of "potential social upheavals" honestly, you wouldn't encounter so much "racism."

She wanted to live like a German, as did Hatin Sürücü. And so again, the same question that was asked when Hatin Sürücü was murdered: "How many more women have to die before this society wakes up?"

"Honor Killing Victim Wanted to Live Like other German Girls," from Spiegel (thanks to all who sent this in):

At age 16, all Morsal Obeidi wanted was to live the way other girls in Germany do. She paid dearly: Obeidi's brother stabbed her 20 times. Her murder has sparked a renewed debate in Germany about the failure of many immigrant families to integrate into Western society.

[...]

Morsal met with Mohammed, her cousin, on the evening of May 15, a Thursday. They were sitting in a McDonald's restaurant. Morsal had only been back in the city for a few months, after a prolonged visit with relatives in Afghanistan. It was spring in Hamburg. As they ate, Mohammed thought about the plan that he was keeping a secret from Morsal. It seemed harmless enough. Mohammed said later that Ahmad, Morsal's brother, had asked him to bring his sister to the Berliner Tor train station. "He said to me: 'I want you to meet Morsal today. Then walk to the Berliner Tor with her. But don't tell her anything. I just want to talk to her."

It seemed harmless enough.

Morsal and Mohammed arrived at the suburban railway station shortly after 11 p.m. They walked around the corner to a small parking lot next to an apartment building, where they sat down to smoke a cigarette. At 11:20 p.m., Ahmad suddenly appeared out of the darkness. Morsal recognized him -- and froze. Ahmad approached his sister and then, without saying a word, began stabbing her. He stabbed her a few times. "I think he must've taken something first. Drugs. Or maybe he got drunk. I tried to stop him, but he pushed me away," says Mohammed.

Ahmad Obeidi, 23, is a strong, athletic young man. Morsal tried to run away, but she stumbled and fell. Ahmad stood over her and continued to stab her, five times, ten times, still silent as he swung his right arm up and down over his sister's body. He seemed intoxicated. The police counted 20 stab wounds, inflicted with such force that Ahmad would later wear a bandage on his right forearm.

Morsal screamed, waking up the residents of the apartment building. Passersby called the police. Ahmad fled to a nearby subway station, and Mohammed followed him. The two cousins boarded a train, where they sat silently across from each other, a killer and his accomplice.

Morsal died.

[...]

In the days following the crime, it was frequently referred to as an "honor killing." A murder for the sake of honor? Is this even possible? Doesn't a man who cold-bloodedly kills his own sister, a girl seven years his junior, little more than a child, in fact lose all honor?

A Criminal for Whom Germany Was Foreign

The family was certainly not without its problems. But there was a critical difference between Morsal, who wanted nothing more than to be free, and Ahmad, who was a criminal to whom Germany had always been a foreign place. He staggered through life, unstable, a failure in life. He killed his sister for having become too comfortable in the ways of the West. He resented her for her uncovered hair, her makeup and her short skirts.

[...]

Morsal, unlike her older sister, was obstinate. She was 14 when she began to resist her parents' authority. She was tired of being complacent, of living according to the old Afghan rules, which seemed irrelevant to her life in Hamburg. She argued with her parents about her appearance and her behavior, her uncovered hair, her makeup, her tight jeans and about smoking and drinking. They argued about her friends and acquaintances. For former fighter pilot Ghulam-Mohammed Obeidi, the family's reputation was at stake. It was the only thing he had left to lose.

A Father and Son Turned Violent

The police say that he became violent, and so did his son Ahmad. They were losing control over Morsal, and losing their self-control in the process. "You are bringing shame to the family," they said to her.

[...]

A number of attacks on Morsal are also noted in his police file. But most of the attacks were never reported -- or documented. According to police records, Ahmad beat up his sister on Nov. 1, 2006. The older sister, the report reads, scratched Morsal in the face as she was lying on the ground. There were more blows on Nov. 8, 2006. This time Ahmad threatened her with a knife, but without using it. He shouted at Morsal, accusing her of violating the family honor. Morsal filed a complaint against her brother, and she was returned to the KNJD. On Jan. 19, 2007, Ahmad allegedly beat her up again, this time in the office of the family's used car and bus dealership. His sister dressed like a slut, Ahmad told the police.

[...]

The Obeidis are not a noticeably conservative family. Nevertheless, it valued traditions, and one of them was to defend the family's property: zar (gold), zamin (property) and zan (women). In their traditional world, it was set in stone that these things are the property of the man....

Read it all.

"Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said that a minority of Muslims take second wives, and that Islamic scholars would differ on whether one could do so while living in the United States." He didn't say anything about obeying American law.

Sharia Alert: "Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy," by Barbara Bradley Hagerty for NPR, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

All Things Considered, May 27, 2008 · Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages, some Muslim men in America have quietly married multiple wives.

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

[...]

Group member Sarah says that in her native Guinea, the husband springs it on his wife that he's going to marry someone else. Sarah, like the others interviewed for this story, would give only her first name.

"Sometimes he say, 'OK, I am going to be married tomorrow,' or 'I'm going to be married today.' He's going ask you like that. It happened to me," she says.

Sarah begins to cry. Others nod in sympathy. These women are all Muslim. The Koran states that men may marry up to four women. The Prophet Mohammad had multiple wives.

But there's a restriction, says Sally, another group member. The husband cannot favor one woman over another – with his wealth or his heart.

"You have to love them the same way, share everything the same way, equally," says Sally. "Nobody can do that. It's impossible."

Indeed. But that doesn't stop it.

Still, Muslims practice polygamy in the U.S., despite state laws prohibiting it.

Here's how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad.

Many women keep quiet for fear of retribution or deportation.

For example, Sally's husband moved to the United States from the Ivory Coast before she did. When Sally joined him, she found he had married someone else in America. But without legal immigration papers, she didn't dare come forward and report him to the authorities.

She said when she arrived in the U.S., her husband and his new wife put her in the basement.

"They told me to cook, clean, do everything. I didn't speak English. And he told me, 'Don't say nothing. You say something, she's going make you deported. And me, I'm going to be in jail.'"

Eventually, Sally left the house with her children, and now works at a hair braiding salon. But that fear of deportation prevents many from leaving their polygamous relationships.

"Legally, they're invisible," says Julie Dinnerstein, a senior attorney for Sanctuary for Families. "If you are the second or third or fourth wife, that marital relationship is not going to be recognized for immigration purposes. It means if your husband is a citizen or green card holder, he can't sponsor you. It means if your husband gets asylum, you don't get asylum at the same time. The man is always going to be in a position of greater power."

Secret Ceremonies

In the past decade, Muslim clerics began to notice that some men who wanted a religious wedding were already married to someone else.

According to Daisy Khan, who heads the American Society for Muslim Advancement and is married to an imam, polygamy is more common among conservative, less educated immigrants from Africa and Asia. It is rarer among middle-class Muslims from the Middle East. She adds that nowadays, imams do background checks on the grooms to make sure they're not already married in their home countries.

Some clerics in the U.S. perform second marriage ceremonies in secret....

They ought to be prosecuted for that, when discovered.

Read it all.

Sounds a lot like university students stateside.

"Afghanistan: Secret Taleban cells spread lessons of jihad in Kabul University," by Jeremy Page for the Times, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

To his professors and peers at Kabul University, Abdul is the epitome of a model student.

The 21-year-old law undergraduate takes copious notes in class, always finishes assignments on time and hopes to become a teacher when he graduates.

What they do not know is that when class is over he spends his time on less wholesome activities - watching videos of bomb attacks on American troops and plotting to overthrow the Afghan Government.

Abdul is not just a Taleban sympathiser: he is a member of a secret Taleban cell at Kabul University that claims several hundred members and is a worrying new sign of the movement’s expanding influence. [...]

“I’ll fight until I die but I won’t do suicide because it’s forbidden in Islam,” said Abdul, who claims to have recruited nine other students.

It's interesting that other Taliban members don't hesitate in the same way.

The university cell illustrates how the influence of the Taleban has spread beyond its traditional support base in the south - and right to the heart of Afghanistan’s most prestigious educational institution and its largest with 12,000 students. It also shows how the movement appeals to educated young Afghans as well as the poor, illiterate farmers who make up the bulk of its fighting force.

At the same time it suggests that the Taleban is divided between extremists, who target civilians and reject all forms of modernity, and relative moderates, who want development but oppose foreign troops. [...]

The pair also said that their leaders, while wanting to introduce Sharia, tolerated music, films, men without beards and women’s education.

They said that there was nothing moderate about their hatred of President Karzai and the international community, which they said had brought nothing but corruption to Afghanistan. “They haven’t done anything in seven years,” Javed said. “The international community isn’t here to bring peace and security, but to destroy our country and to kill Muslims.”

Let me list some of them:

1. The correct definition of "victory" in Iraq should be an outcome that weakens Islam -- the Camp of Islam and Jihad -- not only in Iraq but elsewhere. There is no other justification for spending two trillion dollars, and enduring 4,300 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded.

2. The Administration -- Bush, Rice, et al. -- and everyone who defends the policy of remaining in Iraq, never explains exactly how what is being attempted in Iraq, that is, the attempt to make the Shi'a government and the recently-dislodged-from-power Sunnis come to some accommodation, will make Infidels safer.

I'm sure he only wanted the nuclear information in order to generate electricity. "Iranian engineer guilty in Arizona nuclear plant software case," from The Associated Press, May 27 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

PHOENIX: An Iranian engineer has been convicted of illegally accessing a protected computer to use software he obtained at a former job at the largest U.S. nuclear plant.

Mohammad Reza Alavi faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 (€158,600) fine after being convicted Tuesday of illegally accessing a computer. A sentencing hearing has not yet been set.

The jury deadlocked on two other charges of stealing protected software from Phoenix's Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and illegally exporting it in violation of the U.S. trade embargo with Iran....

The horror, the horror? Nah

Is Osama bin Laden dead? Yet? Still? More importantly, does it really matter? It does not. The jihad, as Joe Biden and almost everyone else doesn't realize, is not a movement organized around a charismatic figure. It is an ideologically driven movement, and that movement will not die with Osama.

"Osama Bin Laden is not in Pakistan he is dead says Taliban leader," from the Pakistan Daily, May 26 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud has rejected reports that al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, and other leaders are hiding in his region.

"The al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, are not in our territory," he said in an interview broadcast by a satellite television network.

Funeral prayers have been said for Osama bin Laden over the years with one reported by a Pakistani news organisation, and another in an Egyptian newspaper as far back as December 2001.

This report quoted an official of the Taliban saying that he had suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death.

The news has been reported that he died of heart and kidney disorders. Americans and Pakistani leaders have suggested that he was one, killed in the US bombing of Afghanistan, died of illness later, or just died....

Buds

In case Hamas can't seize enough American-made weapons from Fatah, they can always fall back on Iran. The pretext here is the Israel-Syria talks, which makes this even more of a cruel joke, since -- as always -- the only ones who will be called upon to make any significant concessions will be Israel.

"Arab paper: Iran to give Hamas more arms, funds," from the Jerusalem Post, May 25 (thanks to Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi):

Iran has promised Hamas new rockets and more funds, an expression of the Islamic Republic's displeasure with recent news of renewed Israeli-Syrian peace talks, the London-based newspaper, Asharq Alawsat reported on Sunday.

According to the report, Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who held a press conference in Teheran with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Saturday, expressed his concern over statements issued simultaneously by Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara last Wednesday in which a renewal of talks between Syria and Israel under Turkish mediation was declared.

Mashaal reportedly told his Iranian hosts that despite commitments he was given by Damascus that peace with Israel would not come at the expense of Syria's ties with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, he was still aware of the fact that Syria would have to make some concessions.

He emphasized that he understood that Syria could not sign a peace agreement with Israel, exchange ambassadors, end the state of war and make the Golan Heights demilitarized and at the same time continue to allow Iran to use its territory to transfer weapons to Hizbullah, train Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists and help in the financing of those groups....

Labeling Syria a strategic ally of Iran, Defense Minister Mustafa Mohammed Nejad called on "Islamic states to strengthen their relations in order to defend themselves against the dangers which threaten the region."

Rebels with a cause

Al-Qaeda forms a youth group, but campfires and archery are not quite what they have in mind. "Iraq: Al-Qaeda creates teenage terror cell, says report," from AKI, May 27 :

Baghdad, 27 May (AKI) - A new al-Qaeda cell has been created for Iraqis under 16 years old, according to a report in the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.

Known as the "Youths of Heaven", the report said that the cell has been active for some days in various suburbs of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

In an interview with Al-Hayat, Sayd Aziz Salman, the head of the Awakening Council in Taji, north of Baghdad, said that the cell was the latest danger in the country....

"It was a member of this new cell of attackers who hit one of our councils on Monday in Tarimiya," said Salman.

"The bomber was in a car when he detonated the explosives killing six people and wounding 18. A large number of the suicide attacks that hit our offices are now carried out by al-Qaeda through these young people who have recently been recruited," he said.

Last week, the military stopped six adolescents who were allegedly part of the "Youths of Heaven".

"After interrogation, we discovered that the head of the group, who gave them the economic and logistical support, was 16 years-old," said Salman.

"We found out that they used certain camps outside Taji and Tarimiya for training, with the help of some local farmers.

"Every cell in this new group has five members. In some of these groups, the young people are between 11 and 13 years old," he said.

As the last paragraph shows, this is a reaction to the recent return of alcohol to Basra. A What-Are-We-Fighting-For Sharia Alert from Iraq: "Iraq: Alcohol banned in southern city of Basra," from AKI, May 22 (thanks to Stlreader):

Baghdad, 22 May (AKI) - Alcohol has been banned in the southern Iraqi province of Basra.

The provincial Basra Council has approved a new law enforcing the ban in the territory, the Voices of Iraq news agency cited Council president Nasif al-Ibadi as saying.

The alcohol in the province was approved late on Wednesday, al-Ibadi said.

"You will not be able to cross the borders between Iraq and other neighbouring countries carrying loads of alcohol to other parts of the country," he stated.

The local administration applied the change under Article 2 of the Iraqi constitution that includes the application of Sharia law.

The alcohol ban appears to be one of several changes in the area following an offensive by Iraqi security forces against the Shia militias of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr a month ago.

Several local bars reopened in Basra recently after being closed for four years. They began serving alcohol after soldiers arrived from Baghdad to carry out the military offensive.

To avoid offending Poles? Come on. It is clear which immigrant group, and the only immigrant group, that this hyper-PC police officer had in mind.

"Motorist told flag could be racist," by Charley Morgan for This Is Wiltshire, May 23 (thanks to The Omega Man):

A TEENAGE motorist was told to remove an England flag from his car by a police officer because it could be offensive to immigrants.

Ben Smith, 18, was driving back home to Ingram Road in Melksham on Thursday evening after filling up with petrol, when the officer stopped him on a routine patrol.

He checked the tax disc and tyres on his Vauxhall Corsa but when he noticed the flag of St George on the parcel shelf he told Mr Smith to take it down.

Mr Smith, who works for G Plan Upholsterers on Hampton Park West, said: "He saw the flag and said it was racist towards immigrants and if I refused to take it down I would get a £30 fine.

"I laughed because I thought he was joking, but then I realised he was serious so I had to take it down straight away. I thought it was silly - it's my country and I want to show my support for my country."

Mr Smith had recently installed new speakers in the parcel shelf of his car and wanted to cover them up so they did not get stolen.

He used the flag and laid it out flat on the shelf so it was not obscuring his view out of the rear window.

But it was only there a couple of days before he was stopped by the officer at about 9.30pm close to Melksham Enterprise Park and made to take it down.

He said he is used to getting stopped by the police because he is a young male driver and is often mistaken for a boy racer'.

But he thought it was "a bit strange" to be asked to take down the England flag when the officer found nothing else wrong with his car.

PC Dave Cooper, of Chippenham Road Policing Unit, said he had never come across an officer asking someone to remove an England flag from their car because it could be racist.

He added: "It all depends on the context of a stop. If they are going past a lot of Polish people, for instance, and abusing them, then we possibly would ask them to take the flag down."...

A noble aspiration for "whores," or anyone. "Iran: Cleric 'calls all feminists whores and foreign spies,'" from AKI, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - A top Iranian cleric from the northeast, Ayatollah Ahmad Elmalhoda, has reportedly called feminists "whores and foreign spies".

"These whores, clutching a piece of paper in their hands to gather signatures, are working for foreign powers and want to destabilise the Islamic Republic," said Elmalhoda.

He is the highly influential prayer leader in the northeastern holy Shia city of Mashad.

Elmalhoda has called on the government to "intervene decisively against these whores, because it is improper to leave them to act with impunity."

A few weeks ago, Elmalhoda said women who do not wear the Islamic veil as instructed "turned men into animals."...

I am all for non-Muslim officials reading the Qur'an in order to gain more insight into Islam, but I doubt that any genuine insight that they get from reading it will be encouraged by Amsterdam police authorities.

Also, I get the impression that this new translation is a whitewash. If any Dutch readers have any insight into that, please let me know.

From Expatica, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

AMSTERDAM - Police officers in Amsterdam are to get a special deal if they buy Dutch writer Kader Abdolah's new translation of the Qur'an. The capital's police authority reckons that the new version, designed to be more accessible to the Dutch public, will give officers more insight into Islam.

It is subsidising police purchases of the book by 50 percent. A police spokesman explained that while many officers have some knowledge of the Bible, the Qur'an is often unknown territory.

Right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) MPs are outraged by the plan, with Sietse Fritsma calling it "Islamic propaganda" and saying that public money should not be spent on it.

On Tuesday, the PVV will demand the government intervene to scrap the plan.

As a great philosopher once told me, "Well, duh."

"Iran: Tehran pursuing its nuclear programme, says UN," from AKI, May 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - Iran is ignoring United Nations' demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment programme, according to the organisation's nuclear watchdog.

"Contrary to the decisions of the (UN) Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities," the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in its latest report released on Monday.

The IAEA said Tehran had 3,500 uranium enrichment centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear facility, slightly more than earlier this year.

The organisation has been pressing Tehran for a response to western intelligence claims that Iran has covertly studied nuclear bombs.

Iran has denied that its uranium enrichment programme is being used for a nuclear weapon, insisting it is only for generating electricity.

Yeah, sure, that's it.

Jihad Watch reader Vince has alerted me to a review of my book The Truth About Muhammad by the respected blogger Gay Patriot. Vince has been kind enough to post my response there, but this review by "Average Gay Joe" was so curiously far from what the book actually says that I thought I'd post my response here also.

This reviewer seems to have read the book through thick lenses of his expectations. This is in no conceivable sense a work of “religious apologetics.” I do not argue for the falsehood of Islam or the truth of Christianity in it. I merely present the picture of Muhammad that is presented in the earliest Islamic sources about him, and show how modern-day terrorists invoke Muhammad to justify their actions. In the last chapter I advocate various measures to defend ourselves against and limit the power of political Islam, which threatens to overwhelm free and pluralistic societies in the West. To see this as some kind of call to return to medieval Christendom is to disregard entirely the words I actually wrote and to enter the realm of sheer fantasy. If “Average Gay Joe” would like to review what I actually wrote in The Truth About Muhammad, I would welcome that, but he does not do so here.

I might add that this book has been denounced by Hamas and Al-Arabiya, was banned in Pakistan, and got me numerous death threats. But amid all that none of those denouncing it ever took it to be a work of Christian apologetics. It took "Average Gay Joe" to imagine that.

Is it a coded message? An attempt to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah" (Qur'an 8:60)? Or something more?

"Terrorism: New al-Qaeda video calls for nuclear strike," by Hamza Boccolini for AKI, May 27 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Dubai, 27 May (AKI ) -- A new video called "Nuclear Terrorism" has been posted on the worldwide web calling for jihadists to use nuclear or chemical weapons to strike the west....

"Strike civilians in the west without mercy using weapons of mass destruction" is one of the calls made in the 39-minute video.

The question now being asked is whether the video is presenting a coded message or signalling an imminent terrorist attack.

Before the video was posted on the Arab internet forum Ekhlas a banner headline appeared on the website that said: "Pray, pray, Allah is great. America is destroyed by a fatal jihadist nuclear strike."

Clicking on the banner gives the viewer access to a documentary which shows diverse images - from al-Qaeda speeches to western documentaries and other Islamist videos.

The objective appears to be to incite followers of al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction to strike the west, but there may be more to it.

The video opens with two verses of the Koran that emphasise "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It then says "Fight them until there is no more persecution and Allah is the only object of worship. If they desist, there will be no hostility, except against those who are dishonest."

"Attack those who attack you. Fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

Not that this has anything to do with Islam. Read it all.

The way to divide the Camp of Islam and Jihad is to first identify those pre-existing fissures, large and small, that exist, and to figure out what should, or should not be done, to widen them.

I have written many times about what I think are the three main divisions or fissures:

1) The sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shi'a that may not be of great significance worldwide, given that the Shi'a constitute only about 15% of the world's Muslims.

However, those 15% are concentrated, are to be found mostly around the Gulf: in Iran, a Shi'a state, and in Iraq (65-70% Shi'a, especially in the south where the major oilfields are located), and in the oil-bearing Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and in various Gulf sheikdoms -- Bahrain (70% of the population), Kuwait (25%), and in two places that do not possess oil but are significant for local stability. The first is Lebanon, where the overbreeding by Shi'a now makes them the largest group in that country, and in Yemen, which, though without oil wealth, is populous and a potential threat to stability in both Saudi Arabia and in the Horn of Africa -- and with a population that is almost evenly divided between Sunnis and Shi'a.

A poster here at Jihad Watch recently made a series of statements in attempted rebuttal of my position, long available here, at the "Articles by Hugh Fitzgerald" link, from early 2004 -- a position from which I have not wavered, and which the news that arrives with each passing day convinces me, ever more deeply, that I have nothing to regret or to change.

I will number those statements, and answer them in turn.

#1. "So you are going to weaken the hold of Islam by directly telling the people who believe in it that it's a cult? And by insulting them? What's next - an inquisition? Convert of die?"

Infidels are not, in the West, fully aware of what Islam is all about. We cannot refrain from learning, ourselves or, still worse, refrain from disseminating to others, what Islam is all about, for fear that this will offend Muslims who in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere will eavesdrop on our own, internal discussions of what Islam is all about.

There are two different audiences. You apparently care more about the sensibilities of Muslims. I care about the understanding of non-Muslims, especially in Western Europe and North America. If one is too solicitous of the former, one does great harm to the latter.

Furthermore, you misunderstood me. I did not say that I think Americans or other Infidels should go out of our way to tell the inhabitants of Dar al-Islam that Islam bears all the hallmarks of what we would consider a cult, with its collectivism, and the fierce punishment it imposes on those who dare to decide for themselves what beliefs they wish to accept, and what to reject. We are the ones who should take Islam's measure, and be sure of it. Whether Muslims overhear us or not, as we start to learn more, should not inhibit us in the slightest.

You then write the following, like a fanatical civil libertarian who claims, as if it is an argument, that the slightest enlargement of investigative powers will inevitably lead to the Gestapo knocking on all our doors at night and that sort of thing: "What's next -- an inquisition? Convert or die?" This is too absurd to warrant a reply. I do hope that others will not have failed to notice it, and will, as I did, draw the appropriate conclusions.

In Human Events today I discuss the strange circumstances surrounding the departure of Ahmed Bedier from CAIR, and what it all may and may not mean. Joe Kaufman has a better piece on the same issue today at FrontPage, but meanwhile here is mine (links in the original):

Some mysterious dealings at the Tampa chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) highlight some of the peculiarities of that unsavory group. As terror expert Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project has noted, Ahmed Bedier, up until recently a rising star in the organization, has left his position as the executive director of CAIR-Tampa, and no one is saying why. Since Bedier has espoused numerous questionable positions in the past, could this parting of the ways could herald a new attempt by CAIR to leave behind some of its more radical positions?

CAIR has for years presented two faces to the American people. It says that its mission is “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” And it is a high-profile, active, successful organization. Law-enforcement officials all over the country have received sensitivity training from CAIR. The mainstream media routinely seeks it out for a moderate Muslim perspective.

“In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said--indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.” -- Winston Churchill

No kidding. "Al-Qaeda urges attacks on US interests in Yemen," from Deutsche Presse Agentur, May 26:

Sanaa (Yemen), May 26 (DPA) The Al Qaeda terrorist network asked Monday its supporters in Yemen to limit their attacks to “effective” operations against US and foreign interests in the Arab country. In a statement posted on the Islamic al-Ikhlas network website, Al Qaeda has purportedly urged its loyalists to “bring back the days of attacks, such as the one on the USS destroyer Cole and the French ship.”

“Those operations are bound to have an effect on people now,” the network said in the statement.

Al Qaeda was behind attacks on the USS destroyer Cole in 2000 while it was harboured in the Yemeni port of Aden and the French tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen in 2002.

The network advised its supporters to focus on US targets and to avoid attacks on other targets for the time being.

“Targeting a house of (President) Ali Salih will not serve the purpose. Neither will the killing of a Yemeni soldier in a Yemeni village,” al-Qaeda said.

It's bad for business. Stick to infidel targets.

The Yemeni and Iraqi police forces are not similar because the Iraqi police serve as tools in the hands of the crusaders, the network said.

Al Qaeda sanctions attacks on Iraq’s security forces and members of government and administration, saying they serve US occupation forces.

Last March, scarcely a day after Geert Wilders's film Fitna was released on LiveLeak, LiveLeak pulled it, explaining:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else....

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

LiveLeak restored the film shortly thereafter. Apparently they made security arrangements that made them think they could take the risk. But in their announcement, they enunciated a principle that could fittingly serve as the epitaph of the West: In the end the price was too high.

That is exactly the opposite of the great principles of those whom we remember today, who fought and died so that we could today live free.

It is the polar opposite of John Stark's "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

It is the mortal enemy of Patrick Henry's "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Ελευθερια η Θανατος!

Libertad o muerte!

Today, we remember and honor those who made the supreme sacrifice for us. Let us not let them down by choosing the chains and slavery of dhimmitude because in the end the price -- the price they paid -- was too high.

Why is this controversial? Christianity, like Islam, is a missionary faith. Muslims, as Mohammed Rasheed/Nicky Reilly newly reminds us, are energetically proselytizing among Christians. But no, say the dhimmi bishops, it is not a two-way street.

If no coercion is involved, why should anyone object to proselytizing appeals? Close the front door if you don't want to talk to the Mormons. But they haven't hurt you by knocking. Islam is the only faith that carries an earthly penalty for those who reject the invitation to convert -- and that is what ought to be a matter of concern for these bishops, but of course it isn't.

"Church of England row over Muslim conversion," by George Pitcher in the Telegraph, May 26 (thanks to Christopher):

A row has erupted within the Church of England over calls for British Muslims to be converted to Christianity.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, accused the Church of failing in its duty to "welcome people of other faiths" ahead of a motion at July's General Synod in York urging a strategy for evangelising Muslims.

However, his comments were condemned by senior figures within the Church. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said: "Both the Bishop of Rochester's reported comments and the synod private members' motion show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."

A Church of England spokesman added: "We have a mission-focused Christian presence in every community, including those where there are a large number of Muslims. That engagement is based on the provisions of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

The spokesman played down the likelihood of the synod agenda being hijacked by those whose priority was a perceived threat from Islam: "The agenda has not yet been confirmed."

Pakistan-born Dr Nazir-Ali told the Mail on Sunday that, while Church leaders had rightly shown sensitivity to British Muslims, "I think it may have gone too far."

He added: "Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith and that is the basis of welcoming people of other faiths. You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge."...

“And the Poets, it is those straying in Evil who follow them…”

This is a Meccan sura; its name comes from v. 224, which tells us that only those who are going astray follow the poets. The import of this is that Muhammad, of course, is not a poet, and the Qur’an not merely a poetical work, but a divine revelation, although the pagans of Mecca persistently refuse to accept this.

And that refusal causes Muhammad constant distress (verses 2-9). Allah worries that Muhammad will fret himself to death over their unbelief (v. 3), and assures him that if he willed, he could send down a sign that would make them all believe (v. 4). However, there no sooner comes a new message from Allah than they reject it (v. 5) – but soon they will discover that it really is true (v. 6). Haven’t they even seen on earth the many signs of Allah’s power (vv. 7-8)?

In February, Hussain and 24 other Muslims joined a statewide lawsuit against Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI for what they called unusually lengthy delays in processing their citizenship applications. Some waited as long as five years.

''The lawsuit helped my application. I have been waiting so long,'' said Hussain, an Orlando machinist from Iraq. -- from this article

Why is Hussain, a "machinist from Iraq," here in the United States? If he were ever a "refugee" he is a refugee no longer. He has no special skills that are desperately needed in this country. Why isn't he back home, working hard to build the new Iraq? If he is a Shi'a Arab, then Shi'a Arabs have, thanks to the American invasion, inherited Iraq, or at least Baghdad and all points south, including the major oilfields. If he is a Sunni (not everyone named "Hussain" need be a Shi'a) he has all of the area west and north of Baghdad, save where the Kurds now run things.

Why is he here? Is he here because he must be here to avoid persecution? From Muslim countries, the only justified immigration should be that of non-Muslims. They are the ones who have a legitimate case to be here to avoid persecution. Does Hussain, the machinist from Iraq, fully support the American Constitution? Does he even understand its contents? Or is such understanding no longer necessary in order to obtain American citizenship?

The Alawite despotism may seem to be calling the shots in Lebanon, but it is Hizballah that, by enraging the Sunnis in Lebanon, may cause all kinds of problems for the Alawites of Syria.

The Alawites who rule Syria constitute 12% of the population. Though they make up the officer corps, still -- there are those pesky non-Alawites among the men to worry about. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood started to attack the Alawites in force. They murdered 82 Alawite cadets -- the entire graduating class -- of Syria's military academy, as part of an anti-regime, anti-Alawite campaign. They attacked police and other symbols of government authority.

"In a statement to ABC News about Parsley's comments, McCain's campaign said the senator 'obviously strongly rejects such statements.'” -- from this article

Senator McCain both "obviously" and "strongly" rejects "such statements"?

Why "obviously"?

And why "strongly"?

If he wishes to object to "such statements," he should not fall back on the word "obviously," but tell us what about those statements he objects to. For it is not "obvious" at all what about them is objectionable.

In the Times a few days ago Ethan Bonner notes that most Israeli "strategists and generals" have "said that giving up the strategic advantage of the Heights in exchange for promises or even written treaties makes no sense."

And he quotes Dore Gold: "In a world in which Iran is on the march and extending its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider giving up the Golan barrier would be a strategic error of the highest order."

But, having given that side its due, he gives more weight to those who think what Olmert is doing is just the ticket:

"On the other hand, many other [how many other?] Israeli officials and analysts see great benefits for Israel. Syria is a prime sponsor of Hezbollah and provides it with rockets and arms, many from Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have headquarters in Damascus, and Israel will seek, in these negotiations, to have them closed.”

And he ends with this, that is not attributed to the beliefs of "many others" but stated, as if it were a fact of which we have all taken judicial notice:

What would Israel get for giving up the Golan Heights, a tangible and, many generals think, an indispensable asset?

Oh, it would get a promise, by the trustworthy Syrian government, to end its support of Hizballah. But how likely is it that that promise would be kept? Doesn’t the Syrian elite depend for its wellbeing on what it can milk from cash-cow Lebanon? And isn’t Hizballah the best, or by now the only way, that Syria can continue to hold onto its role, and that moo-cow milking, in Lebanon? Besides, given how Hizballah has managed to arm and re-arm again and again, and given that Hamas itself, without any Syria to trans-ship Iranian arms, is threat enough, why would one give up such a tangible asset for the sake of a promise when, if the Syrian Alawites are to stay in power, they must always try to placate the real Muslims by being plus royalists que le roi, and the currency of that is always, for Muslim Arabs, how fervent one is in anti-Israeli activities?

The Golem of Hebrew legend is a creature who is formed of inanimate clay, but is wonder-working and beneficent. However, in modern Hebrew slang the word “golem” is used, presumably because only the “made from inanimate clay” part is implicated, to refer to someone who is stupid, who is a fool.

It is hard to believe that at this moment Olmert, the current Prime Minister of Israel, whose popularity level is below 10%, who is widely seen has having been responsible for unnecessary Israeli casualties toward the end of the 2006 war against Hezbollah, who is now under investigation -- as he has been so often in his life -- for suspected corruption, and who is, therefore, pulling a Sharon, attempting to divert attention from his legal troubles, is trying to win at least some temporary popularity for his putative peace-making by agreeing to discuss the possibility of handing back the Golan Heights to Syria.

Earlier today I posted denials from the Iraqi press, via Gateway Pundit, that Ayatollah Sistani was issuing anti-American fatwas. I did not, however, look closely at what the denials actually said. The ever-perceptive Diana West did, however, and she kindly sent in the following comments on the Iraqi announcement:

This is from a source close to the Office of the religious authority, Mr. Ali al-Sistani in Najaf today, Friday, blasted some news sites and denied that op-Sistani "is preparing to issue a fatwa calling for armed resistance against occupation".

West: "The AP reported he was issuing fatwas privately, not preparing to make a general announcement."

The source, who asked to remain anonymous, in an interview with "Newsmatik", "There is no truth to this irresponsible rumors in whole or even in part."

Source added that from the beginning of religious authority from the outset is that "Iraq is not ready for jihad or a military confrontation for the time being, after the devastation left by the great wars of the former regime."

West: "Iraq is not ready for jihad ... for the time being???"

The source said that Sistani "supports the resistance to the occupation, but not by military means, for the time being."

West: "'Occupation'? Not by 'military' means? Great. 'For the time being'? This is not exactly an overwhelming endorsement of US efforts!"

Indeed not. Sistani is, as his infamous list of unclean things shows, an orthodox Shi'ite, and these statements make it clear that he is also an orthodox believer in jihad, and as such supports Sharia and opposes the American presence in Iraq. In other words, he is about as far as anyone can get from the moderate supporter of democracy that American analysts have made him out to be.

More evidence of this comes from Juan Cole (thanks again to Diana West). Now, the only thing that Juan Cole and I have in common is that we are both carbon-based life forms, and I have never known him to be particularly fair or accurate in dealing with the realities of the jihad ideology, but I have no reason to believe he is fabricating this material. If anyone has any such information, please send it to me and I will post it. But this is in character with Sistani as we have always seen him and reported about him here at Jihad Watch:

Fars News reproduces in Persian on May 24, 2008, another anti-American fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. It says that its correspondent in Najaf reports that an Iraqi Shiite submitted the following to Sistani:

'I sell foodstuffs. Sometimes the Occupying Powers or their associates come to my establishment. May I sell them foodstuffs?'

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani replied:

' Selling foodstuffs to the Occupying Powers is not permitted.'

Last I knew, the US military in Iraq does not buy its food from Iraqis but rather imports it, for fear that Iraqi nationalists might poison it. But I'm told US soldiers do buy food and snacks from Shiite shops in Baghdad when out on patrol. So the fatwa would affect the latter but not the former. But if Sistani is laying the grounds for a Gandhi-style non-cooperation movement, he certainly could put a crimp in the American military's style in Iraq. I can't imagine US troops could function in the Shiite south or much of Baghdad without Shiite cooperation. Sistani still has a great deal of moral authority, and would be backed by less cautious clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Jawad al-Khalisi.

This fatwa is significant in light of the reports that Sistani has been orally permitting attacks on US troops by Shiite militiamen loyal to the Shiite religious authorities in Najaf.

Then an Iranian news service reported yesterday that Sistani is also coming out against the proposed mutual security agreement between the United States and Iraq that is intended to serve as a Status of Forces Agreement after the United Nations Security Council authorization for US troops to be in Iraq expires in December.

See also Diana's post at her blog about Sistani's reaction to the Qur'an-shooting.

What the Mohammed Rasheed (Nicky Reilly) case tells us.

"MI5 fears jihadis will use mentally ill as suicide bombers," by David Leppard and Abul Taher for the Sunday Times, May 25 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Islamic terrorists may be targeting mentally disturbed or disabled people in Britain in a bid to form a new “brigade” of home-grown suicide bombers, security officials fear.

MI5 and police say the case of Nicky Reilly, who is being held over a nailbomb attack last week in Exeter, may indicate a new strategy of targeting vulnerable people with mental health problems to carry out attacks.

A counterterrorism official said MI5 was investigating the extent to which Reilly had been manipulated by a “charismatic” Al-Qaeda recruiter.

“It is a grotesque concept but they are using people who are clearly mentally subnormal,” the official said. “We know they have clever radicalisers who will take advantage of anyone they think they can manipulate, whether they have an IQ of 60 or 140,” he said.

Reilly, 22, is a Muslim convert who has spent time detained in a mental health hospital. He has been described as a shambling introvert with the mental age of a 10-year-old. He is believed to have Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, and may also suffer from schizophrenia.

Security officials say Al-Qaeda appears to have exported the tactic from Iraq, where disabled “foot soldiers” have been used to devastating effect....

Devon and Cornwall Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said Reilly appeared to be a "vulnerable" individual who had been "preyed upon" and "radicalised".

He said: “Our investigations so far indicate that Reilly, who has a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith.

We believe that he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of."

Reilly was arrested by police at the scene of the explosion. He suffered lacerations to his eye and some facial burning after one device exploded. -- from this story

Mohammed Rasheed, aka Nicky Reilly, is said to be a half-wit -- not a half-wit in the Garaudy or Galloway or Chomsky sense, each quite capable of low cunning, but a half-wit in the literal sense. And it is a quite plausible claim. For Muslim "activists" (fine word, activists -- its awfulness reflecting the awfulness of all "activists") are good at identifying, for the purposes of Da'wa, target populations of the economically and psychically marginal.

The explosive Mr. Reilly of Exeter turns out, unsurprisingly, to be a man with a history of mental illness, who was "preyed upon and radicalised" by Muslims.

At Jihad Watch we have never shared in the general enthusiasm for the Ayatollah Sistani, with his classification of unbelievers as "unclean" on a par with blood, urine, and feces, but there is no doubt about which side the mainstream media is on in Iraq, and it appears that the AP story we posted here on May 22 is inaccurate.

Gateway Pundit (thanks to Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi) has details from the Iraqi press, including a denial from Sistani's office.

This instance of media irresponsibility and dishonesty illustrates yet again the "Good News is No News" dictum about which the estimable David Chavarria writes at Outside the Wire: "It is an interesting look at how news from Iraq is 'made.' As I watched and listened to this interview, I couldn't help asking myself, 'Is this the way all / most reporters are? If it is, how much does that skew the news we get?'"

A great deal, my friend. A great deal, and not just in relation to Iraq, either.

UPDATE: Not so fast.

In "UC Irvine Still Enforcing Sharia Law" by Jonathan Constantine Movroydis and Reut Cohen at Pajamas Media, May 22, we see how dhimmi university administrators allow Muslim students to enforce Sharia provisions (no filming of the "sisters") on the campus of a public university:

...The featured speaker last Thursday, May 15, was Amir Abdel Malik-Ali, a radical imam from Oakland who is all too familiar to UCI students. Malik-Ali frequently engages in anti-Western rhetoric and is a vocal supporter of terrorist groups. Not only has he praised Hamas, Hezbollah, and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan as “Islamic resistance” movements struggling against Western “oppressors,” he has called any scrutiny of these terror groups mere “propaganda.” Following Ali’s speeches to UCI’s MSU, the audiences of keffiyah-wearing Muslim students always repetitively recite the battle cry “Takbir! Allahu Akbar!” This year’s audience was no different.

While his rhetoric is lurid and apocalyptic, Malik-Ali’s speech is protected under the First Amendment. What’s alarming is the administration’s willingness to enforce the MSU’s prerogatives on other students who attend their events — hence the application of Sharia law where the Bill of Rights is applicable. For example, while videotaping Malik-Ali’s speech, we were confronted by a school administrator. Dean of Student Services Sally Peterson told us that, on behalf of the male students, we would have to stop filming the female activists, or as she called them “the sisters.” Aware of our rights, we refused her orders and continued covering the event.

As we continued our coverage of the festivities, members of the MSU ultimately decided to enforce what appears to be their own principle of just retribution. After Thursday’s event, the MSU walked up and down the main campus road chanting anti-Israel slogans and blocking off the entire walkway for several minutes while police and administrators stood by idly.

A male individual, who was filming the hateful procession, had at least three Muslim males charge at him for daring to film as the females from the group walked past. One of the males, a student named Yasser Ahmed who purportedly threw a cinderblock at an FBI vehicle last year, said to the cameraman: “You wanna get jacked! We can go get jacked right now! C’mon Emanuel, we’ve learned a lot about you let’s go! Lets go get jacked, Lets go get jacked!”

The UCI police department treated this incident unprofessionally and took no action. The student journalist gave his statement to a UCI police officer and explained how he was assaulted. The officer then went to take statements from the males MSU members. The police would not, however, take statements from those who witnessed the assault against the student journalist. After the police officer took statements, he told the student journalist that one of the males who charged at him had apologized and that nothing more could be done.

A Christian preacher on campus, Michael Venyah, also had his rights violated last Thursday. This preacher, who believes that all people must accept Jesus in order to get into heaven, began preaching about the prophet Mohammad and his crimes. Evidently, MSU members didn’t like hearing what he had to say and opted for charging and running into him. This was clearly an incident of assault. The cops present did nothing, and Dean of Judicial Affairs Edgar Dormitorio suggested that Mr. Venyah should leave.

Another case of MSU’s vigilantism occurred when a young Jewish female was followed back to her car and surrounded by six members of the MSU. A community member who witnessed the harassment also had her civil rights violated when the Muslim students noticed her. As UC Irvine police offers stood idly by, the Muslim students proceeded to situate themselves on the hood of her car in order to photograph her face, her vehicle identification number, and her license plate. When she later called the police department for answers, they justified the criminal behavior as the culmination of a tit for tat ethnic squabble. Put simply, they justified the need for Muslim students to “vent,” as they were just getting back at the Jews.

One group at UC Irvine has monopolized freedom of speech and expression. MSU organizers have taken it upon themselves to restrict the freedoms of others on the university campus and have managed to avoid significant criticism from the administration. Conversely, those who voice concern over MSU’s actions are depicted as stirring up trouble....

Read it all.

$300 a month. "Iran 'paid Iraq insurgents to kill UK soldiers,'" by Sean Rayment for the Telegraph, May 25 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Iran has secretly paid Iraqi insurgents hundreds of thousands of American dollars to kill British soldiers, according to a leaked government document obtained by The Telegraph.

The allegations are contained in a confidential "field report" written by a British officer who served in Basra during one of the most dangerous periods of the conflict. The report, which has never been made public, shows the full level of Iran's involvement in the insurgency for the first time.

The document states that the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) – also known as the Mahdi Army – one of the most violent insurgent groups operating in Basra, used money from Iran to recruit and pay young unemployed men up to $300 (£150) a month to carry out attacks against the British. The findings have been passed to the highest levels in the military....

The unindicted co-conspirator CAIR tries to stop a police training course that sounds more realistic than most. "But Solomon Bradman, CEO of Security Solutions International, which is conducting the program, said, 'I can't take the responsibility of my course linking their religion to terrorism. I think their religion got linked to terrorism a long time ago.'"

Solomon Bradman is a clear-sighted and honest man.

"Does course on Islam give law enforcers wrong idea?," by Janet I. Tu for the Seattle Times, May 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Some local Muslim community members are upset about a training course for local law enforcement, saying it could promote stereotypes and ethnic and religious profiling.

The program, called "The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World" and conducted by a Miami-based company, began Thursday and continues today at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission campus in Burien.

It is billed as providing insight into the formative phases of Islam, the religion's different branches, radical Islam and how to respond to terrorist acts.

But Arsalan Bukhari, president of the Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the program appears to be linking an entire religion to terrorism.

"Most police officers don't have a basic grounding in Islam, so before you teach them about Islam, how can you teach them about radical Islam?" he asked. "It just makes you nervous because when a law-enforcement person pulls someone over, when they see a Muslim person or someone who appears Muslim to them — all this information they just learned kicks in."

See? If you inform police about the violent teachings of Islam, they will end up victimizing innocent people!

It's a canny charge. He is trying to push the victim buttons that have always worked so well for CAIR. But on what is it based? Absolutely nothing.

Bukhari believes the need for police training on issues of profiling and bias was highlighted by an incident last summer in which the FBI launched an international search for two men who took photos below deck on a Washington state ferry. The FBI announced earlier this month that the men were tourists, not terrorists.

Even if that is true, it has nothing to do with what they have learned or not learned about Islam. According to reports at the time, these two men "had more than the average interest in the working parts of the ferry, the layout of the ferry, the size of it -- more than you would see in normal passenger."

If Islam is a religion of peace, are we supposed to be not concerned about Muslims acting suspiciously, even if an investigation shows that there was nothing untoward going on?

Bukhari said law-enforcement agencies need to learn about Islam, but not just in the context of terrorism.

But Solomon Bradman, CEO of Security Solutions International, which is conducting the program, said, "I can't take the responsibility of my course linking their religion to terrorism. I think their religion got linked to terrorism a long time ago."

The purpose of the course, Bradman said, is to teach officers how to protect people from terrorism. His company has provided training to hundreds of agencies, including the FBI, the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security.

The two-day program covers some of the history of Islam to provide an "understanding of the terror mind-set and reasons for global jihad," Bradman said. It's not intended to be an all-inclusive course on Islam.

There are other organizations, such as CAIR, that have worked with law-enforcement agencies to provide that broader training, he said....

Quite so.

"Islam does not recognise boundaries and jihad (holy war) in Afghanistan will continue," said Mehsud, as we noted earlier. This kind of talk has made the Karzai government nervous, and for very good reason.

"Afghanistan urges Pakistan to stop attacks," from AFP, May 24 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

KABUL (AFP) — Pakistan must not allow its soil to be used to launch attacks in Afghanistan, the government said Saturday after a Pakistani militant vowed to continue "jihad" while pursuing peace talks with Islamabad.

The statement by Pakistani Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud Saturday was "naked interference" in Afghanistan's affairs, defence ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told AFP.

"Our hope from the Pakistan government is to prevent its soil being used against our country," Azimi said.

One would hope, but it may not even be able to do so even if it wanted to.

Last December, this article noted: "Families in predominantly Kurdish southeast Turkey are pressing young daughters or wives to take their own lives to spare the men of the family from serving time." Given the prevalence of honor killings in the region, one can't help but wonder if the surge in suicides is more of the same.

"Surge in violence against women in Iraqi Kurdistan," by Shwan Mohammad for Agence France-Presse, May 24:

Medics in Iraqi Kurdistan said on Saturday that they had seen a surge in violence against women in May, with both so-called "honour" killings and female suicides on the increase.

"At least 14 women died in the first 10 days of May alone," a doctor told AFP in the region's second largest city of Sulaimaniyah.

"Seven of them took their own lives, the other seven were murdered in still unexplained circumstances" -- apparently the victims of "honour" killings.

"Over the same period, we recorded 11 attempted self-immolations. These women were so desperate they set fire to themselves," the doctor added, asking not to be identified.

According to Kurdish regional government figures, in Sulaimaniyah province alone more than 50 women attempted suicide by burning in the first four months of the year and another eight tried to hang themselves.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq has regularly highlighted "honour" killings of Kurdish women as being among the country's most severe human rights abuses.

Most such crimes are reported as deaths caused by accidental fires in the home.

Aso Kamal, a 42-year-old British Kurdish Iraqi campaigner, says that between 1991 and 2007, 12,500 women were murdered for "honour" reasons or committed suicide in the country's three Kurdish provinces.

The Kurdish autonomous region runs its own affairs and has enjoyed relative peace and growing prosperity since the US-led invasion of 2003, while Arab areas of Iraq have been plunged into sectarian warfare.

But crimes against women continue despite campaigns by human rights activists and repeated condemnation by women members of the regional government and parliament.

Most of the attacks are carried out by close relatives who believe the victims' behaviour to have been immoral. Desperate to escape the cycle of domestic violence, many women turn to suicide.

The Kurdish region's first centre dedicated to tackling domestic violence against women opened in Sulaimaniyah last October, and provides psychological support and legal advice to victims in complete confidentiality.

"Even if the phenomenon is deeply embedded in the historical roots of our region, it has become alarmingly commonplace in recent months," Layla Abdullah, president of the separate Kurdish women's rights group the Aram Shelter, said.

"In 2004, 48 female victims of domestic violence found refuge at the association in order to escape death," Abdullah said.

"The number rose to 71 in 2007, and now it stands at 25 for the first four months of this year," she added.

In 2002 the Kurdish government abolished a law which reduced the penalties for those convicted of "honour" crimes, but this has still not eradicated the violence, according to those fighting to protect Kurdish women's rights.

In November 2007, Kurdish human rights minister Aziz Mohammed acknowledged that domestic violence occurred in northern Iraq.

"Domestic violence, sexual abuse, death threats, insults, forced marriages, kidnapping, being forced to leave school... these are the problems which confront the women of Kurdistan," a ministry report said, adding that most victims were between 13 and 18 years old.

Paradoxically, Kurdish women are deeply involved in the region's political process with 28 in the 111-seat parliament and three holding ministerial positions.

"Suicide attempts by traumatised women are on the increase," said Bakhshan Zangana, who heads the parliamentary women's group.

"We must discuss and find a solution to this situation. Suicide is clearly one of the consequences of domestic violence and cruelty."

Islamic Tolerance Alert. "Algeria: Court pressures woman to renounce Christ," from Compass Direct News, May 23:

ISTANBUL, May 23 (Compass Direct News) – An Algerian public prosecutor has demanded a three-year sentence for a convert to Christianity in western Algeria for practicing her faith “without license.”

Habiba Kouider, 35, was plucked off an inter-city bus outside of her home town of Tiaret on March 29 when police found several Bibles and books on Christianity in her hand bag. Held for 24 hours and interrogated by police regarding her conversion, Kouider was eventually brought before a state prosecutor.

“You reinstate Islam and I will [drop the case]; if you persist in sin you will undergo the lightning of justice,” the prosecutor told her, according to French daily Le Figaro.

Algerian daily el Watan reported on Wednesday (May 21) that Kouider “refused to give up her new faith under the pressure,” prompting the prosecutor to bring charges against her. She is accused of “practicing non-Muslims religious rites without a license,” according to a copy of the written charge obtained by Compass.

“It’s as if they are saying that if someone becomes a Christian they have to get permission,” said one Christian from Tiaret.

A Tiaret city court judge reportedly mocked Kouider for her conversion four years prior.

“The priests made you drink the water which leads to paradise?” asked the judge, according to a May 20 article in Le Figaro.

Mocking and conflating baptism and John 4:4-26. We're told Islam respects all monotheistic religions and prophets, but clearly all bets are off once one tries to convert to from Islam to one of those faiths.

At the hearing, Kouider’s defense lawyer told the court that the charge against her client did not exist in the law.

“There is no trace of a possible reason to try individuals for the ‘practice of non-Muslim worship without authorization,’” Khelloudja Khalfoun said, according to el Watan. She added, “Which authority, moral or administrative, is entitled to authorize the practice of this or that religion?”

Baseless Charge

A well known human rights lawyer and a native of Tizi Ouzou, 200 miles west of Tiaret, Khalfoun agreed to take Kouider’s case after local lawyers refused to represent the Christian.

Passed in February 2006, a law governing non-Muslim worship has been cited in a number of arrests and trials of Algerian Christians this year. The law, known as Ordinance 06-03, outlaws proselytism of Muslims, as well as the distribution, production and storing of material used for this purpose.

Khalfoun said she believed there was no evidence with which to try her client for proselytism, outlawed under Article 11 of Ordinance 06-03.

“When my client was stopped, she was not preaching,” the lawyer told the court. “She did not distribute Bibles. She was alone on a bus.”

The public prosecutor countered with arguments that Kouider’s Christian literature was meant for more than personal use, based on the fact that she was carrying several copies of the same book.

“What were you doing with a dozen copies of the same book?” he asked, according to el Watan. “You planned to distribute them, to preach the Christian word.”

Algerian human rights defenders said that charges against Kouider were baseless.

“Having Bibles in one’s possession is not an offense,” Mustapha Bouchachi of the Algerian League of Human Rights told el Watan. “Absolutely no legal text exists that requires such an authorization [to practice non-Muslim religious rites].”

The Tiaret court is scheduled to deliver Kouider’s verdict on Tuesday (May 27), the same day as the first hearing in the trial of six other Tiaret Christians detained this month. Picked up on May 9 while leaving a prayer meeting and released 24 hours later, the converts are charged with “distributing documents to shake the faith of Muslims.”

‘Witch Hunt’

A total of 10 Christians visiting or residing in Tiaret have been detained or tried on religious grounds since January. More than half of the country’s 50 Protestant churches, many of which meet in homes, have been ordered to close down.

In addition, a barrage of news articles has warned of sinister plans by Christians to evangelize Algeria.

Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, explains why May 21, 2008 is a date that should live in infamy.

“If you have tears, prepare to shed them now…. Oh, what a fall was there… Then I, and you, and all of us fell down.” .--William Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar,” Act 3, Scene 1 May 21, 2008, is a date—like December 7 (1941) and September 11 (2001)—that should now live in infamy. Yet who will notice, mourn, or act the wiser for it?

On that day, the Beirut spring was buried under the reign of Hizballah.

Speaking on October 5, 1938, after Britain and France effectively turned Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill said, “What everybody would like to ignore or forget must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat….”[i]

In contrast, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said that the agreement over Lebanon was, "A necessary and positive step." At least when one sells out a country one should recognize this has happened rather than pretend otherwise. But this is precisely what took place at Munich, when the deal made was proclaimed as a concession that brought peace and resolved Germany’s last territorial demand in the region.

Churchill knew better and his words perfectly suit the situation in Lebanon today:

“The utmost [Western diplomacy] has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia…has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.”

Yes, that’s it exactly. On every point, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, got all they wanted from Lebanon’s government: its surrender of sovereignty. They have veto power over the government; one-third of the cabinet; election changes to ensure victory in the next balloting; and they will have their candidate installed as president.

This is the fruit, of course, of talking about terrorism rather than jihad. In "Republicans and Our Enemies" in the Wall Street Journal, May 23 (thanks to George), Senator Joe Biden shows that he, like almost everyone else, still has no idea of the ideology motivating jihad terrorists:

The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.

Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

"If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win." That is true. But if Biden can't see the ideology unifying significant numbers of Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, people in Iraq and Iran, and al Qaeda and Shiite militias, he is just as clueless as those he is criticizing.

Here, Senator, is a good recent capsule description of that ideology.

We're still waiting for a government to say, "Grow up." An update on this story.

"Japan says Muslim offense at cartoon 'regrettable,'" from Japan Today, May 24 (thanks to Twostellas):

TOKYO — The government said in a statement Friday that it is ‘‘regrettable’’ that a section of a Japanese cartoon has sparked an outcry in the Muslim world and stressed the need to foster understanding to prevent similar incidents in the future. ‘‘While it resulted from carelessness, the Japanese government considers it regrettable that Muslims’ feelings were hurt by the content of some of the cartoon,’’ Foreign Ministry Press Secretary Kazuo Kodama said. ‘‘In any case, we think it is important to prevent a recurrence by fostering understanding and respect for other religions and cultures.’’

The statement came a day after Japanese publisher Shueisha Inc and Another Push Pin Planning Co, which created the animated images, apologized for offending Muslims but insisted the detail had simply been overlooked and there was no intention of showing any disrespect for the Quran. At issue is a 90-second segment from ‘‘JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure,’’ which depicts Dio Brando, a villain, picking up a Quran from a bookshelf and apparently examining it as he orders the execution of the hero and his friends.

Oh, that never happens!

I thought they were just nationalists fighting against American imperialism. What are you, al-Libi, some kind of Islamophobe?

"Terrorism: Al-Qaeda halts spread of the church in Arab world, claims leader," from AKI, May 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Dubai, 23 May (AKI) - A senior al-Qaeda leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, claims that the terror organisation has stopped the expansion of the church in the Arab world.

"If it wasn't for our heroes, today we would have many churches in the Arabian Peninsula, as we have already seen with the opening of one in Qatar," said al-Libi in a video message posted to Islamist websites.

He was referring to the Catholic church inaugurated in the Qatari capital, Doha, in March this year.

Al-Libi also talked about the "danger" posed by inter-religious dialogue between the Arab Ulema or Muslim religious leaders and their Christian counterparts.

The 40-minute message entitled, "The moderation of Islam and the moderation of defeat", seeks to refute the notion of a moderate Islam.

"At this moment there is a crusader campaign against Islam and that has succeeded in corrupting the personalities in our religion," al-Libi said.

"Changes in Islamic thought are happening in particular in the most important Arab countries. With the excuse of moderation, they are corrupting our faith."

Here again we see the jihadist claim to represent Islamic purity.

"Neighborhood Bully," 1983:

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.

Mehsud affirms the traditional supranational unity of the Islamic umma, and portrays himself as a "true Muslim," which is always and everywhere the substance of the jihadist appeal in the Islamic world. "Pakistani Taliban vows jihad in Afghanistan," from Reuters, May 24 (thanks to Twostellas):

KOTKAI, Pakistan - The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, vowed on Saturday to carry on fighting NATO and U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan regardless of negotiations for a peace deal with the government of Pakistan.

The Taliban leader told a group of journalists, invited to his stronghold in the tribal lands of South Waziristan, that he wanted to stop fighting the Pakistan army.

"Fighting between the Taliban and Pakistan is harming Islam and Pakistan. This fighting should come to an end immediately," the black-bearded, short, muscular Mehsud said.

But he made no commitment about halting attacks in Afghanistan, and said the jihad, or holy war, would carry on.

"Islam does not recognise frontiers and boundaries. Jihad in Afghanistan will continue," Mehsud said, as guards carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles looked on.

Mehsud emerged as a notorious militant commander over the past year, having been linked to a string of suicide attacks, including one that killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto last December....

Mehsud said he had never met al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or Taliban chief Mullah Omar.

"But, like every true Muslim, I wish to have a glimpse of these two great leaders," he added....

Imagine my surprise, after Benazir Bhutto attacked me from the grave, when I received this email from Bilawal Zardari. This one immediately lays claim to being the second-best money-scam spam ever:

Hello,

I want to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation to you for your support during the hour of need. The enemy gave us a huge blow when they took the life of my dear mother. As a matter of fact, I do not know you personally except your contact details I got from her address book but I just have to pass on my sincere appreciation, also for the feat we were able to record at the last elections despite her absence as she was the party leader until her brutal assassination. The victory was to all Pakistanis as it clearly demonstrated their commitment to the course she stood and died for.

Losing her is the hardest thing I've been through all my life, but knowing that she was a hero to many people does comfort me. I know she would appreciate what everyone did for her. All we just crave for now is for her killing be probed by an international team under the United Nations. It is the only hope we have of getting the possible plotters of her murder properly investigated. Only this would help us convince our supporters that there was some element of collusion between her murderers and agents of President Musharaf who were determined to get rid of her.

While acknowledging receipt of this correspondence please do advise if you are capable of taking custody of some funds she deposited with a private vault in the Netherlands till I find a safe way to receive it here.

Very sincerely,

Bilawal Zardari.
(Co-Chairman, PPP)
www.ppp.org.pk

What? No "hate" here! This Mohammed Rasheed (Nicky Reilly) character, he had trouble pronouncing his T's, and so he must have been mentally ill, and so he must have been led into "extremism" that way.

UK Nail Bombing Update. "Islamic Friend Of Reilly 'Stunned' At Bomb Plot," from thisisplymouth.co.uk, May 24 (thanks to Twostellas):

An Islamic friend of terror suspect Nick Reilly says he is stunned at his suspected bomb plot.

Reilly, aged 22, converted to Islam about six years ago and worshipped with him at Plymouth University and the Islamic Centre at Greenbank Avenue.

He became friends with Omar Siddiqui, aged 22, who is president of the Islamic Society at the university.

Omar knew him by his adopted name of Mohammed Rasheed and says he is amazed at what he is alleged to have attempted.

He says the 3,500 strong Muslim community in Plymouth are moderate and he knows of no groups which would have preached hate.

Of course not! Never mind that the Channel 4 documentary uncovering jihadist preaching in British mosques has been vindicated. Nope, no jihadists here!

Fellow worshippers at the mosque at a former Labour Party office in Plymouth said they were shocked at the arrest.

Shocked!

Reilly stood out among the congregation because he is 14 stone, 6 ft 3 inches and white.

He had grown a long beard in the past but in recent months has been clean shaven.
Neighbours say Reilly had become increasingly extreme in his religion and had images of the Twin Towers attack as the screensaver on his computer.

Devon and Cornwall deputy chief constable Tony Melville named Reilly as the suspected bomber and said:"He has a history of mental illness and had adopted the Islamic faith.

"We believe that despite his vulnerable state he has been preyed upon, radicalized and taken advantage of."

Omar, who plays cricket for Plymouth University where he is the racial equality officer at the student union, says he cannot believe Reilly was radicalized in the city.

Omar said: "The Islamic community in Plymouth is very peaceful and we have never had any problems her at the mosque or the university.

"We get a lot of racial abuse in Plymouth, especially females, but we have always encouraged everyone to integrate with the local community.

"I absolutely hate terrorism. Islam does not condone it. It says if you kill someone you are destroying a creation of God which is a major sin.

"Terrorism is not an entry to paradise, it is to be punished and is an entry to hell.
"We do not go out to convert anyone to Islam or force our views on anyone but if someone wants to learn we can teach them.

"I cannot imagine anyone being radicalised in Plymouth and if anyone has taken advantage of this guy it is quite sick.

"I don't know of anyone who would do such things and our community works well with the police's diversity unit.

"If it is the same guy I knew him as Mohammed Rasheed and he prayed at the University sometimes or here at the Islamic Centre.

"He had converted himself a couple of years before I first met him which was when I came to Plymouth four years ago.

"He always struck me as being not quite well in the head but he seemed a nice guy. He was always polite and greeted me nicely.

"I just cannot understand why someone like him would carry weapons. He did seem to be extremely religious after his conversion.

"I don't know where the sort of thing he has been accused of comes from. I don't think there are any other groups in Plymouth he could have been involved in.

"He seemed to be a student but was not at the university so I thought he was at college.

"I asked him why he converted and he said the whole beauty of Islam attracted him to the religion and when he converted he felt a lot more at one with God.

"We never discussed how he practiced his religion because I felt that was a personal matter. He studied Islam very hard for many years.

"I have no idea if he was acting alone. I believe the Islamic community will be stunned by what he is alleged to have done because he always seemed so calm and nice.

"The people who knew him from prayers will be quite broken by the news.

"I guessed he had some mental problems because he spoke very slowly and had a problem pronouncing his Ts.

"I hope he gets help and learns from this and nothing bad happens to him and he never does anything like this again."...

Jihad Watch reader James sends me this from Digby's Hullabaloo:

In response to my question about how the new Muslim Apostate meme got started, Gavin at Sadly No emailed with this link to Jihad Watch from David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine. This makes sense. After all, David Horowitz has made his career out of being an apostate so it figures his project would be behind the propagation of this nonsense. It's his thing.

We're dealing with some very, very deep thinkers here. A few observations:

1. I wrote the piece linked at Jihad Watch. David Horowitz did not. JW is a Horowitz Center operation, but I am solely and wholly responsible for its content.

2. In the post in question, I explained that Obama would not be considered an apostate according to Islamic law if he left Islam before puberty, as it appears he did. I have never claimed that Obama was an apostate from Islam -- in fact, I have argued just the opposite -- and these geniuses keep attributing just the opposite position to me.

3. Can't Leftists read? Perry Bacon, Washington Post "journalist," made the same mistake.

UPDATE: Welcome, geniuses from Sadly, No! It's tough when your only intellectual weapon is scorn, isn't it? As for the Is-Obama-An-Apostate rumors, is this clear enough for you? This is what I said about them in March 2007:

This is it for CAIR wannabe Omer Subhani: he has had eleven tries to produce even one error on my part, and like so many other Islamic spokesmen in the West when confronted with the teachings of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, all he has come up with are eleven forays into desperate logic-chopping and brazen falsehood. In this, the last part of his series, he concludes by accusing me of either "ignorance or dishonesty," and so we finish this exercise with another example of the projection that we often see from jihadists, their allies, and their dupes. Palestinian and Muslim propaganda accuses Israel of genocidal intentions and plots to control the world, when actually it is Islamic leaders who have expressed genocidal designs on Israel, and aspirations to impose Islam upon the world. And so in a much smaller arena we see here one of the most ignorant and dishonest of commentators accusing his target of just those things.

Here are Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X.

And finally we come to the end, "Exposing Robert Spencer Part XI: Gender Issues":

More gibberish from the world's leading example on how not to be a scholar on Islam. I respond to Spencer 's comments below.

Islamic spokesmen in the West routinely claim that non-Muslims are only suspicious of Muslim intentions out of “ignorance” of the true, peaceful Islam. This, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is not Muslims, but non-Muslims (like Geert Wilders in Fitna), who are responsible for linking Islam with violence. This approach deftly shifts the focus away from acts of violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and onto the alleged “Islamophobes” who are supposedly victimizing Muslims by connecting Islam with violence.

Actually, non-Muslims are probably suspicious of Muslims because people like Spencer routinely attempt to connect Islam and violence through the guise of simply reporting on the activities of radicals, while continuously mentioning that such actions and ideology are actually part of pure Islam. If you mean misunderstandings about the faith, such as the garbage you write in this piece, then maybe that qualifies. There's a very simple way to solve the dilemma Spencer is faced with. "Islamophobes" do not simply connect Islam with violence. They are saying that Islam is violent. It's a political movement, as Pat Robertson comments, and one bent on world domination. While it is true that there are Muslims committing crimes and justifying them by using Islamic texts that does not mean that Islam, per se, is violent in of in itself. Those "Islamophobes" then are in fact "victimizing" the great majority of Muslims because they are saying that the Muslims who commit violent actions are simply following "Islam" when in fact those criminals have distorted Islamic teachings to justify their own criminal actions.

Let's unpack that. I say, in the paragraph Subhani quotes above, that it is not non-Muslims like Geert Wilders who are guilty of linking Islam with violence. Rather, it is Muslims like Osama bin Laden and others, who quote Qur'an and Hadith to justify their actions, who are guilty of linking Islam with violence.

In response, Subhani says no, it is people like Pat Robertson and me who make this link, for the fact that Muslims commit crimes and justify them by using Islamic texts does not mean that Islam, per se, is violent in of in itself. The jihadists are distorting Islamic teachings, you see.

Very well. So when the Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal said on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008 that Islam would, "thorough da'wa and military conquests," conquer Europe and the Americas, Subhani would have us believe that he was distorting Islam, and that I have done something wrong by reporting on this because it gives some impression that there is some idea in Islam that Muslims should bring non-Muslims under the rule of Islam by preaching ("da'wa"), causing some to convert, and by military conquest and the subjugation of those who do not convert.

All right. I think it's entirely reasonable for people like Pat Robertson or anyone to get the impression that, as Subhani puts it, "Islam is violent" and is a "political movement...bent on world domination," when Muslims say things like this. For it isn't just Yunis Al-Astal, of course; Ahmadinejad has said much the same thing. So has Qaradawi, and many others also.

My question to Omer Subhani here is, if he really opposes this expansionist program, what is he doing to counter it? Is he working on some program at CAIR-South Florida to teach against Islamic supremacism and the ideology of conquest expressed by Ahmadinejad, Al-Astal, and the rest?

Or is his ire directed only at me?

What do you think?

Subhani then goes on to quote some statements I've made about the mistreatment of women in Islam, and begins playing tu-quoque games about Christianity and women. He even says some good things about how it would be wrong to force a woman to cover her hair, although here again I doubt he is actually doing anything to counter that impulse within the Islamic community, since his emphasis, like that of so many others, is solely on finger-pointing at outsiders.

Then, speaking of women being oppressed in the Islamic world, he says this:

The right to inherit, the choice to accept or decline a marriage proposal, to speak out politically, and the right to learn were all included in the Qur'an and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him. Now to say that "any oppression of women in the Islamic world is simply a remnant of pre-Islamic culture" is obviously a false claim. Many people use religion to justify their actions - like beating up their wife or blowing people up. A justification is only that, a justification. It does not mean one's justification is in accordance with the facts.

True. But it then remains to be established that the justification is indeed not in accord with the facts. Subhani then attempts to do this:

Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).

This verse has nothing to do with men using women in whatever way they want or that the Qur'an thinks of women as less equal than men. It has to do with sexual relations between man and wife - specifically about positions couples can use when having sex as long as it is vaginal intercourse. The "tilth" reference is a metaphor for the woman's vagina, as Imam al-Qurtabi relates: "The ayat uses the word "harth" (fields) and so this must apply to the vagina, because that entails fertility (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, translated by Aisha Bewley, p. 569). This verse does not mean that a husband can do whatever he wants to his wife, as Spencer portrays it. Nor does it imply that women are just sex slaves for men. From the Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "Your women are a tillage [tilth or field] for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back: this was revealed in response to the Jews saying that if a person had vaginal intercourse with his wife from behind, the child would be born cross-eyed... " The commentators also say this verse was revealed about Ansari women who were not comfortable with having intercourse in different positions, as Qurayshi men were accustomed to. Qurayshi men who married Ansari women were told through this verse, and all Muslim couples afterward, that having sex in different positions is perfectly fine, as long as it is vaginal intercourse, sodomy being prohibited of course.

Here again Subhani assumes I don't know something I wrote about months ago, but anyway, gee, that all sounds great! Women are equal to men, and aren't sex slaves. Logged and noted. The whole tilth thing is just about different positions. It doesn't mean that men can use women, no, not at all. Islam teaches gender equality! That hadith in which Muhammad says, "When a man invites his wife to his bed and she does not come, and he (the husband) spends the night being angry with her, the angels curse her until morning"? Just ignore it! Nothing to see there!

This verse has something to do with gender equality though: "If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them" [4:124]. It is abundantly clear from this verse that the Qur'an looks upon males and females as equals.

No, it is abundantly clear from that verse that the Qur'an says that faithful Muslims will enter Paradise, whether they are male or female. It doesn't say anything about equality. Qur'an 4:34, however, says, according to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other." N. J. Dawood translates this passage as "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other."

The Qur’an also declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

Dr. Said Ramadan al-Buti says: "The reason for which the Qur'an lays the condition of two women to testify in place of one man in financial case has nothing to do with the woman's femininity as some people imagine. It springs from a basic condition in the testimony itself, represented in the witness's being highly related to the subject to which he testifies no matter whether the testifier be a man or a woman." What this means is that a Muslim woman's testimony is not regarded as reliable if she is not familiar with what is being arranged, but if she is then her testimony is equal to that of a man. Some Muslim scholars went further and said that if the woman was competent and known to be intelligent then her testimony was sufficient without the need to bring another woman. This is not a modern interpretation either, but this opinion was held by notable Muslims scholars like ibn al-Qasim, ibn Taymiyya, and ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as by Imam al-Tabari, the dean of Qur'anic commentators. Spencer's words are nothing more than miserable propaganda.

It's true: 2:282 refers specifically to financial matters, and Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya argued that in other cases testimony should be admissible from both men and women, rejecting the two-women-equal-one-man rule. However, most Islamic scholars have agreed that in hudud cases, the serious crimes for which punishment is dictated by Allah (such as theft, Qur'an 5:38), women's testimony is completely inadmissible. Islamic authorities disagree over whether a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man in general, or just in financial cases, but in any case, the view advanced by Ibn Taymiyya and his student is certainly not dominant. The Shafi'is allow two women to testify as the equivalent of one man in cases concerning property; in cases that do not involve property, i.e., marriage cases, only men can testify, although the Hanafis allow two women as the equivalent of one man to testify in marriage cases also.

It's also interesting to note that Ibn Taymiyya is quite popular with the jihadists today, because of his fierce statements about jihad warfare against unbelievers. Noting this, Islamic apologists in the West have frequently been eager to throw him under the bus. But as we see here, they'll happily drag him out from under the bus when he becomes useful in other contexts.

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, 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, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).

Yes, a man can marry four women in Islam. So? If a man decides to do so he must treat them all equally in regards to taking care of them financially. Didn't Abraham have two wives? But no Christian gets bent out of shape over that. As far as having "sex with slave girls" this was allowed under Islamic law with conditions, such as the slave women could only be given over to men by the state authority, and it is not as if the men could just treat these women as garbage either. This legal area is essentially a dead letter though.

Is it really? Yet as long as these provisions remain part of the Qur'an and Islamic law, they can be revived when the conditions are right, can't they? And what about continuing instances of slavery in the Islamic world today?

As far as polygamy goes, it reduces women to the status of commodities. No orthodox Christian sect allows it or has ever allowed it, and none consider the Old Testament polygamists normative as examples for contemporary behavior.

On Qur'an 4:11 Subhani agrees with me, although he argues that the fact that sons receive double the inheritance of daughters is just dandy, so let's move along to the infamous wife-beating verse, 4:34:

It's amazing what happens when you don't use tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) to discuss a verse. I've already addressed this issue in detail here. Spencer either deliberately or mistakenly did not use a commentary when discussing this issue. Translations only lead to the mistaken understanding that Muslim men can "beat up" their wives when in reality they are allowed a light tapping or patting if their wife indulges in inappropriate activities, which was defined by the Prophet Muhammad himself during his final sermon where he told the Muslim men their right over their wives: "And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste." So, can a Muslim man beat up his wife? Absolutely not. The tapping or patting is only allowed when a very, very serious issue like adultery comes up. And that is only after the other means in the verse are taken (admonishing, banishing, etc.). Even this "beating" is only allowed as a rukhsa or dispensation, not as something that is recommended.

I'm sure Spencer owns a copy of the Reliance of the Traveler, the Shafi'i fiqh manual that he routinely brings up. It was written by ibn Naqib al-Misri in the fourteenth century and he described the "beating" as such: "His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family" (Reliance, section m11.0, p. 542). How do you beat someone without injuring them? Obviously the meaning is that some form of physical encouragement is needed only when such a situation between man and wife is on a seriously bad level, and should only be used when a husband believes it will help the situation.

We've already been down this road here. "Physical encourgement"! That's rich. All this "tapping and patting" nonsense is absurd, because tapping and patting doesn't constitute any kind of warning, or punishment, or inducement to correct one's behavior. We are to believe that a woman must obey a man, and that if a man finds his woman disobedient, he is to tap her lightly and invite her to be obedient. I can't imagine that Subhani finds any infidels gullible enough to swallow this, but I'm sure he does. I, however, will not join them. The whole idea of 4:34 is that a man is authorized to administer corporal punishment to a disobedient woman. He is, in other words, to cause her pain in order to demonstrate to her that disobedience is profitless. Then the Islamic apologists come and say, Oh, no, he isn't to cause her pain. In that case, the entire substance of the verse is voided. 4:34 contains a three-step trajectory: a man is first to warn the disobedient woman, then send her to a separate bed (depriving her of the bliss of her man's companionship), and then beat her. Subhani would have us believe that this means warn her first, then send her to a separate bed, then tap her lightly as a...warning. So we're back to step one.

In any case, Subhani is so tangled up in apologetic nonsense that he doesn't even notice when he contradicts himself. He says that "the tapping or patting is only allowed when a very, very serious issue like adultery comes up. And that is only after the other means in the verse are taken (admonishing, banishing, etc.). Even this 'beating' is only allowed as a rukhsa or dispensation, not as something that is recommended." If the Qur'an is really only talking about a light tap or pat, why is it such a serious thing that it is only allowed as a dispensation and a last resort, and only for a very, very serious issue? One would think a light tap or pat would not need to be so restricted!

Anyway, back in the real world, as I've said before, one man's light tap is another man's brutal beating.

Toward the end of his windy piece, Subhani says: "It's more important and relevant to ask to what end are you, Robert Spencer, retailing these half-truths and distortions?"

Well, Mr. Subhani, I haven't distorted anything. As I've shown in these eleven replies, I have reported accurately on the texts and teachings of Islam, as Subhani has not. I have not misrepresented their contents, as Subhani has. I have not claimed he has not read or does not own books that he has read and does own, as Subhani has done with me. I have not ignored, denied, or downplayed unpleasant realities, as Subhani has repeatedly.

And so I ask him in turn: to what end, Mr. Subhani? Why are you retailing these half-truths and distortions, and defaming me instead of working within the Islamic community to reform the elements of Islam you profess to oppose?

So evidently Mohammed Rasheed (Nicky Reilly) wasn't a freelance jihadist or a random fellow acting out his random mental illness at all. He seems to have been part of a jihadist group. And two more men have been arrested in connection with the attack.

"Exeter explosion: 'bomber' Nicky Reilly was sent text of encouragement," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, May 23 (thanks to John):

A Muslim convert accused of trying to set off three homemade nail bombs in a packed shopping centre in Exeter received a text message of encouragement on the day of the attacks, the Daily Telegraph has learned.

Investigating officers suspect Nicky Reilly, 22, who has learning difficulties, planned to commit suicide but do not think he could have constructed the bombs without help.

He received a message on his mobile phone on the day of the attacks which officers believe amounted to a "message of encouragement."

“He has a very low IQ and has received treatment on more than one occasion for mental illness. He would be very easily led," a police source said.

“This really does mark a low point for Muslim extremists. We are all horrified by what has happened here."

The comments came as armed police investigating the bombing arrested two men outside a cafe today....

Reilly had allegedly been using a type of rudimentary bomb not employed by Muslims [sic] extremists in Britain before which was constructed from sodium hydroxide, aluminium foil strips and an essential oil, combined with kerosene.

The source confirmed that there were nails in the bag containing the devices, one of which partially detonated in the toilets of a restaurant in the Princesshay centre. The other two failed to go off....

"If it had gone up it would certainly have caused a huge fireball and the idea he was doing that in a family restaurant packed with children is awful."

Special Branch officers were monitoring a group of alleged radicals in Plymouth, where Reilly lives with his mother, which was based at a local mosque but Reilly was on the fringes of the group.

The source said: "As part of our operations to monitor the activities of radical groups across the country we were aware of this group and of Reilly himself but he was right on the fringes of a group that did not appear to be planning any attacks....

Local people claim Reilly, who changed his name to Mohammed Rasheed, was "brainwashed" by a group that met at a fish and chip shop.

"Do not think this is a defeat for us, but it will create enthusiasm to stand up more for this religion."

"Sunni preachers denounce Quran shooting by sniper," by Hamid Ahmed for the Associated Press, May 23 (thanks to JCB):

BAGHDAD - Sunni preachers on Friday denounced the shooting of a Quran, Islam's holy book, by a U.S. sniper in Iraq following a series of apologies by American commanders and President Bush.

The use of Islam's holy book for target practice has triggered an angry response in Iraq and protests in Afghanistan as U.S.-led forces work to maintain their alliance with Sunni Arabs who have turned against al-Qaida in Iraq.

"The enemies of Islam have launched their campaign against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and recently against the holy Quran," said Sheik Omar Mohammed during his sermon at a Sunni mosque in Baghdad.

"A bullet that might have shot at an Iraqi believer, was directed toward the holy Quran instead," Mohammed said. "Do not think this is a defeat for us, but it will create enthusiasm to stand up more for this religion."

The U.S. military said Sunday it had disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used the Quran for target practice May 9. Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled book two days later on the field of a firing range in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad.

Bush apologized to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the incident after several U.S. military officials tried to soothe anger over the shooting, particularly among Sunni Arabs who have become key allies in the fight against insurgents.

A NATO soldier and two civilians were killed Thursday during a violent demonstration in western Afghanistan over the incident. But there has been relatively little protest in Muslim countries despite fears of a repeat of the worldwide violence sparked by similar perceived insults against Islam, including Prophet Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.

The imam of Abu Hanifa, the main Sunni mosque in Baghdad, also condemned the shooting and criticized the leaders of fellow Muslim states for not speaking out against it.

"We Muslims condemn the act committed by this malicious person and at the same time we express our regret that Muslim leaders all over the world did not condemn this crime ... it indicates their weakness and cowardliness," Sheik Dawood al-Alusi said....

Still more evidence of how the Palestinians try to provoke civilian casualties which they can then use for propaganda purposes. "Gaza Schoolyard Missile Launchers Discovered," by Hana Levi Julian for Israel National News, May 23 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

(IsraelNN.com) IDF soldiers uncovered missiles and anti-tank rocket launchers in a Gaza schoolyard in late Thursday. The anti-tank missile launcher and a stack of missiles were found at a school in Sajaiya, in northern Gaza, during routine counter-terrorism operations....

''The lawsuits say: Listen this is ridiculous and prejudicial. 'They force the FBI to finish the background check and immigration to act.'' Horror of horrors! The FBI has to finish a background check before Muslims can become citizens? Why, it's...racism!

"Muslim immigrants sue CIS for delays in citizenship process," by Babita Persaud for The Orlando Sentinel, May 22

ORLANDO, Fla. - For three years and three months, Ali Hussain has waited to become a U.S. Citizen.

On Thursday, his wait was over - but not before he sued the federal government.

In February, Hussain and 24 other Muslims joined a statewide lawsuit against Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI for what they called unusually lengthy delays in processing their citizenship applications. Some waited as long as five years.

''The lawsuit helped my application. I have been waiting so long,'' said Hussain, an Orlando machinist from Iraq.

In a post Sept. 11 era of fingerprinting and thorough background checks, legal action is also becoming part of the naturalization process, say some area attorneys.

''These lawsuits bring attention to the government that (processing delays) is a big problem,'' said Shahzad Ahmed, an Orlando attorney who represents several Muslim clients.

Of the seven Central Florida plaintiffs in the statewide lawsuit, five have since become U.S. Citizens.

Four plaintiffs were sworn in as citizens Thursday at the Orange County Convention Center, including Hussain and his brother, Aso Hussain, a graphic art student at Valencia Community College.

''We are so happy for this day,'' said Aso Hussain, 25, waving a miniature American flag and citizenship certificate.

Nationally, lawsuits against the immigration agency are becoming more common, especially in places with large Muslim populations. Central Florida has an estimated 40,000 followers of Islam.

''The lawsuits say: Listen this is ridiculous and prejudicial,'' said Lisa Krueger Khan, Orlando liaison for the American Immigration Lawyer Association Central Florida chapter. ''They force the FBI to finish the background check and immigration to act.''

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that processes citizenship applications, does not comment on pending lawsuits, but Ana Santiago, an agency spokesperson in Miami, said the delays are not targeted toward any one group of people.

''Religion isn't asked on the form,'' said Santiago.

[...]

For Muslims, it is often the FBI name check - a security screening tool - that holds up the application. Nearly 200 databases and offices are checked before a name is cleared.

According to a 2007 report from Homeland Security, 64 percent of the FBI name check cases had been pending more than 90 days; 32 percent were pending more than a year.

Muslim names are often singled out, advocates say.

''You are at the mercy of the FBI checks,'' said Gail S. Seeram, an Orlando attorney who also represents Muslims.

Some of her clients have even changed their name.

''They drop the 'Muhammad,''' she said.

[...]

When Hussain, 34, approached the Orlando office of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which is helping the plaintiffs, he was unsure if he wanted to add his name.

''He said, 'Am I going to go against the government?''' recalled Danette Zaghari-Mask, Orlando executive director.

But he had tried every avenue to speed up his citizenship application, including calling and visiting immigration offices in Orlando. The holdup, he was eventually told, was his name....

More mental illness, no doubt. From the Daily Mail, May 23 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

A Muslim English teacher today pleaded guilty to threatening to blow up the giant Bluewater shopping centre.

Saeed Ghafoor said he was going to bomb Europe's largest shopping complex using three limousines with gas canister explosives.

But when questioned further, the former English teacher said Bluewater was in Exeter, the Old Bailey heard.

When told it was near the Dartford tunnel in Kent, Ghafoor said he had not 'finalised' his plans, the Old Bailey was told.

Ghafoor, 33, of Southampton, pleaded guilty to threatening to cause criminal damage.

He was remanded in custody for reports before sentencing next month.

The Bluewater centre was the target for a gang of terrorists led by Omar Khyam who were jailed for a fertiliser bomb plot last year....

It was a long descent from the Rubaiyat.

Yet more on the UK restaurant nail-bomber: they're already playing the ever-present "mental illness" card, as we have often seen in freelance jihad cases. Why "mental illness" seems again and again to play itself out in this way when found among Muslims is never explained. "Police question 'vulnerable' Islam convert over Exeter bomb," by Haroon Siddique in The Guardian, May 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Police will today question a "weak and vulnerable" Islamic convert suspected of attempting to explode a homemade bomb in a restaurant in Exeter.

Nicky Reilly, 22, who officials believe has a history of mental illness, was arrested at the scene of the explosion at the city centre branch of the Giraffe restaurant chain.

No one was hurt in the incident apart from Reilly. He suffered serious injuries to his face, but they are not thought to be life threatening. Another unexploded device was found close by.

Toby Melville, the deputy chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, said: "We believe, despite his weak and vulnerable state, he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of."...

Neighbours described him as an introvert with few friends.

Scott Allen, 19, who lives in the flat below, said Reilly had been teased and probably "felt rejected by local people". He said people he believed were Muslims had been gathering in the area "in increasing numbers".

Aly Turner, 17, who lives two floors above Reilly, said he thought his neighbour had been "brainwashed."

He said he had been in Reilly's flat and had seen his computer screen saver, which was an image of the burning World Trade Centre in New York.

"He was a bit of a recluse; he did not have many friends locally," said Turner.

Officials believe an attempt was recently made to radicalise another vulnerable man in the West Country, an area thought unlikely to become a terrorist target....

More on this story. "Man arrested over Exeter blast a 'radicalised' convert to Islam," by Vikram Dodd and Matthew Weaver in The Guardian, May 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A man arrested in connection with a city centre explosion was tonight named by police as 22-year-old Nicky Reilly - who police believe had adopted the Islamic faith.

Reilly was arrested by police at the scene of the lunchtime explosion in the Giraffe restaurant in the £230 million Princesshay shopping complex in Exeter, Devon.

He suffered lacerations to his eye and some facial burning after a device he had on him partially exploded.

Another device found in the vicinity of the restaurant did not explode.

Deputy chief constable Tony Melville said: "Witnesses described how a male entered a toilet in the restaurant shortly before an explosion was heard."

He said police and other emergency services went to the scene and the man was arrested in connection with the explosion.

"This male, who we now know is called Nicky Reilly, suffered serious facial injuries but these are not life threatening. He is currently in police custody undergoing treatment at a hospital."

Melville said police investigations had indicated Reilly, who had a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith and "was preyed upon and radicalised".

Note that the Indian Mujahideen have accused Khalid Rasheed and his colleagues of apostasy. This is the jihadists' consistent line: that they represent the truth and purity of Islam, and those Muslims who reject their perspective are, in effect, rejecting Islam. It is a potent appeal in the Islamic world, and one it would behoove us to understand -- but instead, the PC straitjacket has both liberals and conservatives ignoring, denying, or downplaying it, and pretending that the battle within Islam has already been won by the "moderates" -- who in reality haven't even articulated an Islamically consistent position that has won any widespread acceptance among Muslims.

Nor do they do so here -- just once again the flat and unsupported assertion that "Islam is a religion of peace."

"Indian Muslim clerics reject terror despite threats," from Reuters, May 22 (thanks to GM):

LUCKNOW: Senior Muslim clerics in India rejected terrorism as anti-Islamic on Wednesday.

Khalid Rasheed, the head of the oldest madrasa in the northern city of Lucknow, said the militant group Indian Mujahideen had accused him and his colleagues of apostasy over their pacifist stance.

Indian Mujahideen threatened Rasheed last week in an email sent to local media channels in which they also claimed responsibility for last week's blasts in Jaipur that killed 63 people.

"The reaction of terrorists to our stand against terror has shown that we are moving in the right direction," Rasheed told reporters. "We will continue not only to raise our voice against terror but also educate Muslim masses about the grossly un-Islamic practices adopted by terrorist bodies."Rasheed said they had received support from the influential radical Darool-Uloom Deoband madrasa in northern India. "Islam is a religion of peace," madrasa vice chancellor Ahmad Khazir Shah said in a statement on Wednesday.

As we come close to the end of CAIR minor leaguer Omer Subhani's eleven-part attempt to "expose" me, we find our hero scraping the bottom of the barrel, tossing kitchen sinks, trying anything he can to prove me wrong -- except, of course, doing what he hasn't yet managed to do in nine attempts: actually showing what I say about Islamic supremacism, the jihad ideology, etc. is false.

And I am answering here to show the all-too-common mudslinging method of argumentation that Islamic spokesmen in the West use, and the hollowness of their arguments. Here are Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, VII, VIII, and IX.

His Part X is called, with an admirable flair for numeration that he hasn't displayed before, "Exposing Robert Spencer Part X."

Blissfully unaware, or hoping you haven't noticed, that the arguments he has made have veered from the absurd (Muhammad was made victorious through "terror," not "terrorism"!) to the fictional (Spencer doesn't have books that were photographed on my shelf a year earlier), Subhani begins this one with a bit of chest-beating that is, once again, all too common. The Muslim Debater's Handbook must contain a passage that says something like, When Victorious, Claim Victory. When Defeated, Claim Victory. When Utterly Shredded and Humiliated, Claim Victory. Just as they will never, ever admit that any Muslim at any time or any place did anything that could ever be deserving of any kind of criticism whatsoever, so they will never, ever admit that they could possibly have been bested. So Subhani keeps on offering up his ad hominems, knowing that the hopelessly blinkered and the ideological die-hards will back up his claim to victory no matter what.

I recently added my refutations of Robert Spencer to the side of my blog for quick and easy reference for those interested in the continual blunders of a demonstrated anti-Muslim moron. When Spencer replied to my article on Juvenile Hadith Interpretations he demonstrated that he clearly could not counter a single point I raised against him. But more importantly for this thread he made more errors of scholarship in his rebuttal, errors that actually had me laughing out loud. Among them were:

1. He stated that when the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was given the most concise words he was referring to the Qur'an. As I showed in my reply to Spencer, the Prophet Muhammad was speaking about his own speech contained in ahadith and not about the Qur'an, which are considered God's words.

In this Subhani refers to this passage from his Part VIII, which I passed over when I replied, since it is so utterly insignificant. But since he has brought it up again, let us let Subhani grasp at his straws. Here is the bit from his Part VIII:

...Spencer makes two mistakes there as well. The first isn't on the topic we are discussing, but I will mention it anyway. When the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was give the most concise words he was speaking about his own speech - the hadiths that were collected. He was not speaking about the Qur'an, as Spencer mistakenly says in his book. The evidence is in many books, but the most famous is the book entitled Al-Shifa by Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi, the great Maliki faqhi and muhaddith. Iyad says about the Prophet "He learned the dialects of the Arabs, and would speak to each of their communities in their own dialect and converse with them in their own idiom. He answered their arguments in their own style of rhetoric so that, more than once, a large number of his Companions had to ask him to explain what he had said. Whoever studies his hadiths and biography will know and verify that" (Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad translated by Aisha Bewley, 39). One can read this section of the book under the title of "His eloquence and sound Arabic" in Chapter 2, Section 5 of Bewley's translation.

This all sounds impressive, but there are just a few problems.

1. Muhammad said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings," or, as Subhani explains it above, "the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was given the most concise words." According to the traditional Islamic understanding, Muhammad was not given the Hadith, he was given the Qur'an. He was not sent with the Hadith, he was sent with the Qur'an. Subhani says the Qur'an is not Muhammad's words but God's words, but one is not "given" one's own words. One might be "given" God's words. Thus even as Subhani explains the statement itself, he shows that my interpretation is more likely than his.

2. When Subhani quotes Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi to support his claim, he gives us no indication that Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi is actually referring to this statement of Muhammad.

3. What possible difference does this make to the larger question of whether Islam teaches violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers? None. It's just a diversion, a red herring.

2. Spencer said the Muslims attacked the "workers of Khaybar" at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made. His own citation proves him otherwise. For him to come to such a conclusion is a total disregard for the very source he uses where it said clearly that the workers turn and fled away.

One of the best ways to tell when guys like this are lying is when they start saying that their opponent is lying. Here again is the passage from Ibn Ishaq, a pious Muslim who in the 8th century wrote the first biography of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq is quoting one of the Muslims who was at Khaybar with Muhammad:

“When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him….We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”

Let's break that down:

Subhani: "Spencer said the Muslims attacked the 'workers of Khaybar' at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made."

Jihad warrior who was actually at Khaybar: "We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets."

Who's lying, Subhani?

Let's be even clearer: they didn't just "meet" the workers of Khaybar. They attacked Khaybar. The Muslim advance was inexorable. “The apostle,” according to Ibn Ishaq, “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.” Ibn Sa‘d reports that the battle was fierce: the “polytheists…killed a large number of [Muhammad’s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them….He killed ninety-three men of the Jews…” Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants’ wealth. Kinana bin al-Rabi, a Jewish leader of Khaybar who was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of the Banu Nadir, was brought before Muhammad. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, Muhammad bin Maslama, killer of the poet Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, beheaded him.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar go into exile, allowing them, as he had the Banu Nadir, to keep as much of their property as they could carry. However, he commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: “I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.” He warned them: “If we wish to expel you we will expel you.” They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators’ land. A hadith notes that “the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.”

Then come more minutiae. Subhani takes issue with this statement from one of my Qur'an blogs on Sura 18: "Some consider Khidr to be immortal (Ibn Taymiyya thinks so)."

Ibn Taymiyya never considered Khidr to be immortal - free from death. That would be akin to saying Khidr and God would live for eternity - that's complete blasphemy. I found a more thorough rebuttal of Spencer's erroneous comment at a site called seekingilm.com. You can see the relevant text by ibn Taymiyya stating clearly that he believed Khidr was alive, but not immortal as Spencer stated.

Subhani's problem here comes from his equating being immortal -- free from death -- with being eternal -- always existing. One might never die but have a beginning, and so would not be equal with God. Ibn Taymiyya, as Subhani admits, says that Khidr was still alive. Since the Qur'an depicts Khidr as talking with Moses, who lived in the thirteenth century BC, and Ibn Taymiyya died in 1328, for Khidr to have been alive in Ibn Taymiyya's day would have made him, oh, about 2600 years old. That would already place Khidr in the realm of supernatural beings.

Subhani's source for disputing this quotes an Islamic authority saying that Khidr will remain alive "until the Day of Judgement because of having drunk of the water of life." The writer then goes on to assert that this means that Khidr "shall taste death at the time of the day of judgement."

But this, of course, makes no sense at all, since at the Day of Judgment, in the Islamic view, all the dead will rise to be judged, and will then be in Paradise or in hell. So now we are supposed to believe that while everyone else who has ever lived will be rising from his or her grave, Khidr alone will be dying. Got it! (One could conceivably argue this on the basis of Qur'an 3:185, "Every soul shall have a taste of death." But at very least, especially if he has tasted the "water of life," the case of Khidr is ambiguous.)

Then we move on to honor killing, where I have aroused Subhani's ire by suggesting that the culture of honor killing might have been inspired in part by the curious incident in Sura 18 in which Khidr kills a young man because he knows he will become evil and grieve his parents:

Moving on to the first point raised about Spencer's Qur'an blog, namely the remarks about killing children. I don't even know what to say about where Spencer's mind goes or how he thinks because I find him to be more and more idiotic everyday and with every article he writes and with every comment he makes.

The first thing I'll point out is that the hadith Spencer mentions is taken from the USC hadith compendium. It's found in Sahih Muslim and there are FOUR variations of the hadith of which Spencer chose only this version:

Book 019, Number 4457:

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.

The other three versions mention that Yazid bin Hurmus related that "Najda b. 'Amir al-Haruri wrote to Ibn Abbas asking him about the slave and the woman as to whether they would get a share from the booty (it they participated in Jihad) ; about the killing of (enemy) children (in war) ; about the orphan as to when his orphanhood comes to an end; about kinsmen (of the Holy Prophet) as to who they are." The three other versions of this hadith all mention explicitly that Ibn Abbas was asked about the killing enemy children, not Muslim children. I think that needs to be clarified since Spencer, for whatever reasons, used the only version of the four that leaves out the fact that this question was about enemy children.

I chose the hadith that I referred to because in it, Muhammad says that one should not kill children "unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer)." The part about growing up to be a believer or an unbeliever is not in the other versions, and it is what I wanted to highlight: the idea that one could kill a child based on this criterion is in Islamic tradition as per this hadith, and referring to other ahadith doesn't change that fact.

There are two points that need to be clarified in regards to what Spencer said. The first I just highlighted above, that the issue was about the children of the enemies of the Muslims, specifically the polytheist enemies, as mentioned in one of the versions of the hadith. The second point is what did Ibn Abbas mean when he said "thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed." I do not have any hadith exegesis to support my interpretation

Ah.

...but I believe what he was saying was that unless you know the unseen (ghaib) like Khadir/Khidr knew the unseen (because God had given him such knowledge, while other mortals did not have that knowledge including Moses who was his companion on that journey) then you cannot kill the enemy child even if you suspected that the child was going to become an unbeliever when they grew up. This correlates nicely with basic principles of Islamic fiqh, namely that a judge can only judge what he or she sees as plain evidence and cannot make a judgment on subjective evidence.

And so on, to the peroration:

Can Spencer provide one example of a Muslim killing their relative based on such an absurd interpretation of this hadith, that a Muslim can kill a child based on one's subjective notion that such a child may become an unbeliever? I would like just one example because I've never heard of such a thing in relation to honor killings. They are called honor killings for a reason because someone's or some group's honor had been tarnished.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters. There are no reports that state any Companion killed their child because they knew that they would grow up to become an unbeliever and that they had the knowledge to make such a judgment, such as the knowledge that Khidr had.

Spencer out does himself again by making ridiculous statements about things he apparently has very little knowledge of. It just goes to show you what happens when someone like Spencer roams into territory that he is obviously unfamiliar with. It demonstrates clearly that his scholarship is "utter twaddle."

Subhani is sidestepping the real issue. Aqsa Parvez was strangled in Canada by her father for refusing to wear hijab. Amina and Sarah Said were shot dead in Texas by their father for dating non-Muslims. Might either of these fathers have had the idea that their deaths were better than their growing up to be unbelievers?

But of course, it is easier to abuse me than to tackle that issue.

"A longtime official at al-Sistani's office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later."

A call for what, now? That would make it sound like it has something to do with religion -- one Religion of Peace in particular. And you know how the State Department frowns on that. "Powerful Iraqi cleric flirting with Shiite militant message," by Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra for the Associated Press, May 22:

BAGHDAD - Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The two met Thursday at the elderly cleric's base in the city of Najaf south of Baghdad.

So far, al-Sistani's fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Al-Sistani — who is believed to be 79 or 80 — has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August 2004, shortly after returning from London for medical treatment for an unspecified heart condition. But his mix of religious authority and political clout makes him more powerful than any of Iraq's elected leaders.

For American officials, he represents a key stabilizing force in Iraq for refusing to support a full-scale Shiite uprising against U.S.-led forces or Sunnis — especially at the height of sectarian bloodletting after an important Shiite shrine was bombed in 2006.

It is impossible to determine whether those who received the edicts acted on them. Most attacks — except some by al-Qaida in Iraq — are carried out without claims of responsibility.

It is also unknown whether al-Sistani intended the fatwas to inspire violence or simply as theological opinions on foreign occupiers. Al-Sadr — who has a much lower clerical rank than al-Sistani — recently has threatened "open war" on U.S.-led forces.

The U.S. military said it had no indications that al-Sistani was seeking to "promote violence" against U.S.-led troops. It also had no information linking the ayatollah or other top Shiite clerics to armed groups battling U.S. forces and allies.

A senior aide to the prime minister, al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the "rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle" and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.

Fatwas are theological opinions by an individual cleric and views on the same subject can vary. They gain force from consensus among experts in Islamic law and traditions.

In the past, al-Sistani has avoided answering even abstract questions on whether fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq is allowed by Islam. Such questions sent to his Web site — which he uses to respond to followers' queries — have been ignored. All visitors to his office who had asked the question received a vague response.

The subtle shift could point to his growing impatience with the continued American presence more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

It also underlines possible opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July.

Al-Sistani's distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret. In his public fatwas on his Web site, he blames Washington for many of Iraq's woes.

But a more aggressive tone from the cleric could have worrisome ripples through Iraq's Shiite majority — 65 percent of the country's estimated 27 million population — in which many followers are swayed by his every word.

A longtime official at al-Sistani's office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later....

You guessed it: yet another convert to Islam who misunderstands his new, peaceful religion. Watch for a new crop of "backlash fear" stories!

Watch also for the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all sorts of Muslim leaders to protest against this ongoing "hijacking" of Islam, and to call on Muslims everywhere to speak out against it -- oh, wait...I'm sorry to say they won't do that about this incident. They're too busy protesting the Qur'an-shooting, Fitna, Motoons, and the rest. Doing violence in the name of Islam just isn't important enough to warrant a protest.

"Exeter explosion at Giraffe restaurant: man injured is suspected Islamic extremist," by Duncan Gardham and Richard Savill in the Telegraph, May 22 :

A suspected Islamic extremist has attempted to attack a restaurant in a shopping centre in the middle of Exeter.

The man suffered cuts to his eye and facial burns in the attack when his device went off in the toilets of the restaurant in the brand new, £230m Princesshay centre.

Police sources believe the man was arming a bomb when it partially exploded in his face.

Whoops.

He then tried to detonate a second device in the crowded street outside the restaurant.

Bomb disposal teams have recovered canisters of a sodium-based homemade explosive, it is understood, and there were reports that nails may have been part of the devices.

Police sources told The Daily Telegraph the man is a white male, aged 22, from the South West and is thought to be a convert to Islam....

What about Iranian client states?

Are bow ties also out in the Islamic Republic? What about ascots? Just curious. "Iran's new enemy: Imported ties," by Dudi Cohen for YNet News, May 22:

Iran's war on neckties: The importation of ties, which "contradict the nature of Iranian culture," must come to an end, a senior Iranian customs official said Thursday.

"We must adopt serious actions in order to put an end to the importation of ties," Iranian Customs Deputy Director Asgar Hamidi was quoted as saying by Iranian news agency Fars. "We must change import laws to that end."

In addition to his customs duties, Hamidi also heads the Iranian program for the "development of culture, modesty, and headdress."

The custom of wearing neckties developed in Iran during the Shah's regime. However, in the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution, ties were banned by authorities because they were perceived as a sign of westernization. Since then, senior Iranian officials and government ministry employees have shunned ties.

Notably, volunteers for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard walk the streets with scissors in order to cut ties should they encounter them. [...]

An update on this story:

Meanwhile, Iranian police said this week that it will be doubling "modesty patrols" on the country's streets. The patrols are undertaken by special vehicles carrying women wearing black veils and a police officer who reprimand Iranians caught violating modesty regulations.

Last year, Iran launched an unprecedented campaign aimed at enforcing Muslim dress code, particularly among women, in a bid to hide any trace of Western haircuts. Thousands of women were reprimanded on the streets in the framework of the campaign, and some were taken to a police station in order to be "briefed."

Qur'an-Shooting Rage turns lethal. "1 NATO soldier killed in Quran protest," by Alisa Tang for the Associated Press, May 22:

KABUL, Afghanistan - Gunfire broke out Thursday at a protest in western Afghanistan against a U.S. sniper in Iraq who used a Quran for target practice and officials said a NATO soldier and two civilians were killed.

Police opened fire on demonstrators who threw rocks and set tents on fire near a military airfield in western Ghor province, said NATO spokesman Maj. Martin O'Donnell.

Two civilians were slain and seven others were wounded, he said.

Gunfire also killed one NATO soldier and wounded another, but it was not clear who shot at them, O'Donnell said.

"We don't know if it was one of the protesters, an insurgent among the protesters or an insurgent sniper outside the protest. We have no indication that it was the Afghan National Police," O'Donnell told The Associated Press.

That such a denial is even needed says a lot about the state of affairs there.

Ghor provincial police chief Shah Jahan Noori said about 1,000 demonstrators had gathered to protest the Quran shooting.

"Among these people were rebels who opened fire," Noori said, adding that 10 policemen were also wounded.

Provincial council member Ahmad Khan Rahimi was among the protesters and estimated the crowd at 2,000 people.

He said they chanted "Death to America!" and "America is against Islam!"

Genocidal dreams. From the Islamic Republic News Agency, May 22 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Iranian Justice Seeking University Students Movement and University Students Mobilization Basij will jointly sponsor International Conference on Israel's End on May 26th, 2008.

According to public relations of the above mentioned Students Movement, the timing of the conference is adjusted to coincide with the sad 60th anniversary of Palestine's occupation by the Zionists.

The guests of the conference that would be attended by Iranian and foreign students of universities in Tehran will be intellectuals and university professors from Egypt, Venezuela, Morocco, Lebanon, Indonesia, the United States, Pakistan, Argentina, India, Iraq, Syria, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, France, Tunisia, and a number of other countries.

It will be interesting to see who goes from the U.S. Columbia profs?

Supporting the Palestinian nation's righteous liberation movement and signs of the illegitimate Zionist regime's upcoming downfall are among the axes of the international conference.

"Among the axes."

America was founded in order to destroy Islam? Statements like that give the anti-jihad movement a wingnut patina that, of course, ABC is happy to perpetuate in this anti-McCain hit piece, which breezes by the fact that his campaign has strongly disavowed these statements.

But when McCain's campaign strongly disavows these statements, is he disavowing them all -- including the manifestly true statement that some Muslims quite obviously intend to conquer and Islamize the world? Is McCain completely unaware of the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," in which Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram explains that the Brotherhood's work in America is "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions"?

Probably he is.

"McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil,': by Brian Ross, Avni Patel and Rehab El-Buri for ABC News, May 22 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

May 22, 2008 — Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."

McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.

At a campaign appearance in Cincinnati, McCain introduced Parsley as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide."

Campaign aides positioned Parsley right behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about Parsley's well-established denunciations of the Islamic faith in a book "Silent No More" and on DVDs of sermons about Islam.

"Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world," Parsley says on the DVDs reviewed by ABC News.

"America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed," Parsley says, "and I believe Sept. 11, 2001 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

[...]

In a statement to ABC News about Parsley's comments, McCain's campaign said the senator "obviously strongly rejects such statements." The campaign did not answer the question of whether it was aware of Parsley's widely publicized statements prior to seeking his endorsement in February.

McCain has not disassociated himself from the pastor, but the campaign statement said, "Just because someone endorses John McCain doesn't mean he endorses all of their views."

McCain has repeatedly urged the U.S. to show respect for Islam. "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists," McCain told the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on March 26.

But well before he was asked to endorse McCain, Pastor Parsley took a much different view about moderate Muslims in his book and sermons. "I would counter respectfully that what some people call extremists are instead mainstream Muslim believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam," he said....

This email just came in from a UK email address:

salamun alaikum brothers,,, my name is rashid and i will get married soon and i want to know in islam which sex intercourse is haram and which sex intercourse is halal and which practical sex is haram between wife&husband please could you explain clearly to me because i dont want to be guilty in front of allah ..thank you very much allah bless you and ( jazakumu allah)

Hmmm. Interesting question, but I'm not quite sure how to answer. What constitutes "practical sex," and how would it be distinct from...impractical sex? And mabruk!

Here we go again. All over the world, there are Muslims reading the Qur'an and committing acts of violence because of what it says, and peaceful Muslims don't do a thing about it. But when a Japanese cartoon depicts a Muslim doing this, all hell threatens to break loose.

"Publisher to suspend cartoon sales after Muslims say it insults Islam," from Japan Today, May 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

CAIRO — A popular Japanese cartoon is sparking off outcries in the Muslim world where some fear it could fuel a backlash not seen since European papers carried cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and a Dutch lawmaker released a controversial film earlier this year.

Shueisha Inc, a Japanese publisher involved in the production of the cartoon ‘‘JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure’’ and its animation version, suspended sales of some of the original comics and the DVD series Thursday, but said the material was not intended to be offensive.

At issue is a 90-second segment from “JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure,” which depicts Dio Brando, a villain, picking up a Quran from a bookshelf and apparently examining it as he orders the execution of the hero and his friends.

The animated movie is based on the wildly popular comic book by Hirohiko Araki, which has been carried in Shonen Jump, a weekly magazine, from 1987 to 2003. The cartoon series’ pirated version with Arabic subtitles has been distributed on websites since March 2007.

After a viewer posted negative comments and the still scene, it sparked off more protests. Eventually responses were carried on more than 300 Arab and Islamic Web forums with some accusing Japan of insulting the Quran.

Sheikh Abdul Hamid Attrash, chairman of the Fatwa (religious edict)
Committee at Al-Azhar, the highest Sunni authority based in Cairo, dismissed the cartoon as an insult to Islam.

‘‘This scene depicts Muslims as terrorists, which is not true at all,’’ he said. ‘‘This is an insult to the religion and the producers would be considered to be enemies of Islam.’’

Uh huh. The producers are enemies of Islam, but what about the actual Muslim terrorists? Are they enemies of Islam as well? And if so, what are you doing about them?

And the response? Cowering dhimmitude:

In responding to the accusation, the Shueisha official explained that it was ‘‘a simple mistake.’’

‘‘Neither the original comic nor the animation intends to treat Muslims as villains. But as a result, the cartoon offended Muslims.’’ said the official. ‘‘We apologize for the unpleasantness that the cartoon may have caused and will carefully consider how to deal with religious and culture themes.’’ [...]

Other reactions included website postings citing their offense as the suggested correlation between the villain and his reading of the holy book, as well as the underlying message suggesting that children who read the Quran will become villains.

‘‘There are prejudiced pictures about the greatest and purest divine book, our Great Quran, in a new cartoon series called JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure...what is the purpose of putting these pictures?’’ a well circulated Internet message asks.

[...]

‘‘There is a wicked man in a cartoon series called JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure and this villain appears in a clip while reading Holy Quran...even the Japanese began to depict Muslims as evil persons and terrorists in their cartoon films,’’ said Qannas al-Jazira, one of al-Hesbah most active members.

Al-Hesbah is a major Islamic website used as a clearing house for Islamic militants’ statement.

Despite the apology from the company, some such as Aly Yassin, are not willing to accept the error.

As an Egyptian Internet cafe owner in Cairo, Yassin, believes the objective of the Japanese producers is to say, ‘‘This evil character derives its subversive ideas from this book, the Holy Quran...this indicates the deep-rooted rancor against Islam and the misconceptions about Quran meanings.’’ ‘‘This is unjustifiable,’’ he said.

Still others, such as Gamal Qutb, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar, were even tougher, suggesting that Muslims would boycott Japanese products unless Japan takes action against the controversial video.

‘‘Muslims will be forced to adopt a position toward their civilization, from arguing their worship through boycotting their products to responding in the same manner if necessary,’’ he noted....

No Muslims protested this Quran shooting (click on the pic for details)

No, he didn't catch a stray bullet. Anyway, look: "Husseini called on the UN to formulate a plan that would prevent the desecration of the religion's holy articles." I.e., a plan that would outlaw freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

"Iranian FM: US soldiers' attitude towards Koran 'hurtful,'" by Dudi Cohen for Ynet News, May 21 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Husseini condemned US soldiers' "hurtful" attitude towards the Koran, following the discovery of a bullet-ridden Koran book at one of the American shooting ranges in Iraq.

Husseini called on the UN to formulate a plan that would prevent the desecration of the religion's holy articles.

Oh, and by the way, yes: "Qur'an" shooting. Yesterday evening I was asked why I favored the "PC" spelling Qur'an over the "English" Koran. Qur'an is simply a more accurate rendering than Koran. The word in Arabic is قرآن, and the letter ﻕ (qaf) that begins the word, which is usually rendered nowadays with a q, is quite a distinct sound from that of the letter ﻙ (kaf), which is usually rendered with a k. And the apostrophe is also appropriate given the fact that there is a hamza glottal stop at that point -- which I pronounce.

PC? Honestly, I don't know how some of these things get started. This is simply a more accurate way to render the Arabic, and it is no more PC than was the earlier change in English from "The Alcoran" (which literally means "The The Qur'an") to "The Koran."

In any case, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. After I finish Stealth Jihad, which will be out this November from Regnery Publishing, I will begin work on a book that will be out next year from Regnery: The Infidel's Guide to the Koran. Yes, Koran -- they want it that way. And that's just fine with me.

Omer Subhani is a CAIR-South Florida rep (maybe we should ask him what happened to our old pal Ahmed Bedier, although I'm not sure we could believe the answer) who is one of the very few people who has had the courage (got to give the man credit where credit is due) actually to try to show where what I've said is wrong, instead of merely (like so many vaunted academics -- hi, Dr. Esposito! Hi, Dr. Ernst! Hi, Dr. Safi! Hi, Dr. Ahmed!) asserting that it is and leaving it at that, knowing that that in itself will be enough to gull the easily-led. Subhani, however, despite his energy (here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, VII, and VIII) is not doing so well in the truth and accuracy department, but give the man a break: what CAIR rep has ever done well in that department?

His Part IX is called "Condemning Attacks on Non Muslims," and my oh my, is he steamed about my post here:

Robert Spencer is whining again how Muslims have not (according to him) condemned attacks on non Muslims by radical Muslims. He says the following: "It would be refreshing to see Muslim spokesmen in the West who say they oppose Al-Zawahri to explain why his reasoning is wrong here, and why American civilians killed by Al-Qaeda on 9/11 are indeed innocent and cannot lawfully be killed even on Islamic grounds. But I won't be holding my breath. For one thing, you will notice that the questioner asks him about the legitimacy of killing innocent civilians in a way that makes it clear that he is only angry about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. Where is the indignation, where is the anger from Muslims when Al-Qaeda kills non-Muslims?"

There are three requests here that I see. I will answer them one by one as briefly as possible.

1. Why is Zawahiri's reasoning wrong?

Because he and his group of fanatics go against the very basic rules of combat laid out in practically every school of fiqh. The Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said very clearly that non combatants are not allowed to be harmed. The very wise and erudite Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti said in his fatwa that "Imam al-Subki ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: "[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence" [al-Nawawi, Majmû', 21:57]."

He added further that "even a novice student of fiqh would be able to see that the first dâbit above concerns already a non-Muslim opponent in the case of a state of war having been validly declared by a Muslim authority against a particular non-Muslim enemy, even when that civilian is a subject or in the care [dhimma] of the hostile non-Muslim state [Dâr al-Harb]. If this is the extent of the limitation to be observed with regards to non-Muslim civilians associated with a declared enemy force, what higher standard will it be in cases if it is not a valid war or when the status of war becomes ambiguous?" Indeed. If Zawahiri had been trained in traditional fiqh he would know this, and he possibly does, but ignores it or is unaware of it and thus commits major crimes that he should be brought to justice for in this life and will most certainly be taken to task for in the next, God willing.

Al-Akiti's fatwa, linked above, is just great. I have long regarded it as one of the very few clear and theologically coherent (from an Islamic standpoint, of course) attempts to argue that today's jihad is not legitimate. And he is very clear that non-Muslims such as those in the World Trade Center are non-combatants who should not be fought. In that he clearly disagrees with Zawahri, Anjem Choudary and other jihadists who have declared non-Muslim civilians to be kuffar harbi, infidels in a state of war with Islam, and thus legitimately to be fought.

It is also worth noting, however, that Al-Akiti's fatwa (which is well worth studying closely) is only about whether today's jihad is legitimate. In arguing against that legitimacy, it is of great value, but it leaves intact the entire traditional framework of Islamic jurisprudence, which creates a theological foundation justifying warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

I am grateful for Al-Akiti's fatwa, but I would have even more regard for him if he had overturned this framework instead of leaving it intact, declaring unequivocally that Muslims and non-Muslims should live in peace as equals in a state that is not governed by Islamic law on an indefinite basis. As it is he allows someone else to argue that circumstances are such that it is now opportune to wage jihad against and subjugate the unbelievers.

But as for Subhani, he just gets worse later on:

The organization I work for, CAIR, has been persistent in its condemnations of terrorism perpetrated by such radicals against Muslims and non Muslims. Immediately following the events of 9-11, CAIR issued a strong condemnation of the murderous acts. CAIR continues to condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and anyone else who commits unjust violence in the name of Islam.

CAIR condemns Hamas and Hizballah? Where and when? I myself once wasted an hour of my life on a contentious radio show with CAIR's vile, vicious and venomous Hussam Ayloush, and I asked him repeatedly to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations. He hurled a lot of insults, but never quite got around to condemning either. And this is a story that has been repeated again and again. Here is another example of it. And here is a dhimmi trying to explain away the manifest fact that CAIR doesn't condemn either of those jihad terror groups.

And now here comes Omer Subhani saying practically offhandedly that CAIR condemns both. All right, I'll bite. Where and when? "Bring your proof, if you be truthful," Mr. Subhani!

Meanwhile, as far as CAIR's general condemnation of terrorism goes, it is far more vague and paltry than Al-Akiti's. And how much is it worth? Let's look at the record.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad. Awad had been the President of the Islamic Association of Palestine, and Ahmad its Public Relations Director. Ibrahim Hooper worked for the IAP too. The IAP, which was shut down by the government in 2005 for funding terrorism, was founded in 1981 by a Hamas operative, Mousa Abu Marzook. According to a report dated August 14, 2001, from the Immigration and Naturalization Services report, the IAP was dedicated to "publishing and distributing HAMAS communiqués printed on IAP letterhead, as well as other written documentation to include the HAMAS charter and glory records, which are tributes to HAMAS' violent 'successes.'" The same report also stated that IAP had received "approximately $490,000 from [Mousa Abu] Marzook during the period in which Marzook held his admitted role as a HAMAS leader."

A former chief of the FBI's counter-terrorism department, Oliver Revell, called the IAP "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants." Nihad Awad stated in 1994 at Barry University in Florida: "I'm in support of Hamas movement.” (However, now he says he isn't, although he has not, to my knowledge, actually condemned the organization.)

Then there are the arrest records of some former CAIR officials.

Randall Todd ("Ismail") Royer was CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator. He was part of the "Virginia jihad group," which was indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas." They were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a jihad terrorist group.

Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project has said that Royer helped recruit the other member of the group to the jihad while he was working for CAIR.

Royer was also among those charged in a separate indictment saying that they conspired to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fight against American troops in Afghanistan. And Royer admitted to a grand jury that he had already waged jihad warfare in Bosnia – with and that his commander took orders from Osama bin Laden.

According to Daniel Pipes, “Royer eventually pleaded guilty to lesser firearms-related charges, and the former CAIR staffer was sentenced to twenty years in prison.”

Then there is Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter. He was charged in July 2004 with giving Hamas more than 12 million dollars while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the charity that has earned CAIR the designation of unindicted co-conspirator.

Elashi was convicted in July 2004 of illegally shipping computers to two state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Then he was convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, the senior Hamas leader who founded the IAP.

Elashi was convicted of conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist.

Bassem Khafagi was CAIR's community relations director. He pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks, and he was deported. Before he worked for CAIR, he was president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA) -- which is under investigation by the Justice Department for terrorism-related activities. According to court documents, the IANA was devoted to spreading “radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."

Rabih Haddad was a CAIR fundraiser. He was arrested in December 2001 and deported. Again the charges were terror-related.

Maybe all these men were radical either before or after working for CAIR, but completely moderate while working for it. Maybe. But this is just part of the picture. A moderate group has several onetime employees arrested on terror charges. A moderate group came out of another group that has been identified as the “primary voice in the U.S.” of a terror group. A moderate group traffics in legal threats and intimidation against those of which it disapproves. A moderate group.

According to reporter Lisa Gardiner in the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR's co-founder and former Board Chairman, Omar Ahmad, told a Muslim audience in 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." In 2003, when these words started to get publicity, Ahmad denied saying this. He denies he said it, and he denies that he believes this. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner was contacted and she stands by her story.

Nonetheless, Ahmad has denied saying or believing this in no uncertain terms. He evidently disagrees, therefore, with Ibrahim Hooper, who said in 1993, before CAIR was founded: “I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." Radio host Michael Medved has told me that he has repeated this sentiment on his show more recently.

I don't see that as moderate. It is simply Islamic supremacism by different means.

The Pakistan Daily has apparently removed the detailed exposition of jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism, explaining that jihad is not spiritual struggle, but war, and that it is offensive, not defensive, that I linked to this morning.

Could it be that this is the sort of thing that the dirty kuffar are not supposed to know about?

Good thing I copied the whole thing, eh?

UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Tom D has pointed out that the text appears to originate from a posting dated May 4 at a blog called Islamic Revival. Did the article disappear from Pakistan Daily because it was copied and not properly credited, or because the content was bad for business?

Here it is again:

"Her information caused a lot of American attacks on the position of the mujahadeen, their killings and arrests."

By Syed Saleem Shahzad for AKI, May 21 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Karachi, 21 May (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - Taliban fighters in Afghanistan claim to have killed a woman by slitting her throat after accusing her of spying for US forces in Afghanistan.

They said they killed the alleged female American informer in the Afghan valley of Kunar on Monday.

"Bachagai, 32, was part of an American proxy network in the Sarkano district's village Barogai," a Taliban spokesperson Zubair Mujahid told Adnkronos International (AKI) from the Kunar valley.

"Her information caused a lot of American attacks on the position of the mujahadeen, their killings and arrests," said Mujahid.

"We throughly investigated the matter and confirmed her links with Afghan intelligence and American troops. She also received cash rewards on the information she provided against the Taliban," he said.

Mujahid told AKI that once all the evidence against the alleged spy was gathered, they slit her throat with a knife and killed her....

"In acquitting Philippe Karsenty, the court ruled that he had acted in good faith and 'exercised his free criticism against a power, that of the press'."

An update on this story. If the ruling holds up to promised challenges from France 2, it will establish a favorable precedent for exposing the use of the media as platform for jihadist propaganda without fear of frivolous legal retribution. "Paris court acquits media watchdog of libel over al-Dura footage," from the Associated Press, May 21:

A Paris appeals court ruled in favor of a self-styled media watchdog accused of libel for claiming that French footage of the shooting death of a Palestinian boy was faked, his lawyer said.

In acquitting Philippe Karsenty, the court ruled that he had acted in good faith and "exercised his free criticism against a power, that of the press," said his attorney, Patrick Maisonneuve.

The court confirmed the acquittal but said it would not explain its ruling before Thursday.

France 2 network's images from Sept. 30, 2000, showed the death of Mohammed al-Dura, cowering terrified with his father amid furious gunfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

On his Web site Media-Ratings, which casts a critical eye on the reliability of French mainstream media, Karsenty had claimed that the report was "pure fiction."

The public broadcaster and its Israel correspondent, Charles Enderlin, filed a libel suit against Karsenty, and a Paris judge ruled in their favor in 2006. Karsenty appealed.

France 2 said Wednesday it would challenge the latest ruling.

In the network's report, the father gestured frantically to try to stop the shooting as the boy screamed in terror. It then cut to a shot of the motionless boy slumped in his father's lap. The report asserted the gunfire came from nearby Israeli positions but the circumstances remain in dispute. several independent investigations have determined Enderlin's claim may have been erroneous.

Did the court ever receive a completely unedited version of the film?

The IDF, after completing a full military investigation into the incident, said it was "quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets in the course of an exchange of fire."

"These girls are usually kidnapped, forcefully converted to Islam, and then married out to other Muslim men against the will of both the girls and their parents."

And this is nothing new. "Nigeria: Rescue of Girls Ignites Islamic Rampage," from Compass Direct News, May 19:

NINGI, Nigeria, May 19 (Compass Direct News) – Islamists under the auspices of a paramilitary force last week destroyed six churches to protest a police rescue of two teenage Christian girls kidnapped by Muslims in this Bauchi state town.

Police recovered the two Christian girls, Mary Chikwodi Okoye, 15, and Uche Edward, 14, on May 12 after Muslims in Ningi kidnapped them three weeks ago in an attempt to expand Islam by marrying them to Muslim men. Police took the two girls, who had been under foster care, to safety in southeastern Nigeria where their biological parents live.

The kidnappers had taken the girls to Wudil town in Kano state. Following the rescue of the girls, Muslims under the auspices of the Hisbah Command, a paramilitary arm of Kano state’s Sharia Commission, responsible for enforcing Islamic law, went on a rampage on Tuesday (May 13), attacking Christians and setting fire to the churches.

The destroyed churches were the Deeper Life Bible Church, St. Mary’s Catholic Church, All Souls Anglican Church, Church of Christ in Nigeria, Redeemed Christian Church of God, and the Redeemed Peoples Mission.

Joseph Abdu, pastor of Deeper Life Bible Church, told Compass that damages to his church property in the Muslim rampage of May 13 amounted to about 13 million naira (US$112,857) – and that his congregation had shrunk to 40 people from the 130 who attended before the attack.

Abdu said the Christian foster parents of the two rescued girls, Kanayo Chukwu Osakwe and Robinson Ajolokwu Ozuagbunna, noticed the teenagers were missing three weeks ago and reported it to police and to Ningi’s Emirate Council.

“The Christian community in Ningi, having reported the matter to the police, organized a search team to search for the missing girls,” Abdu said. “Word eventually got to the search team that the girls were being held in the town of Wudil in Kano state by a Muslim leader in that town.”

The search team of Christians along with two policemen went to Wudil, only to be told that the Hisbah Command had returned the girls to Ningi to the Muslim leader of the town, the Emir of Ningi, Alhaji Muhammadu Yunusa Danyaya.

“The team returned to Ningi and confirmed that the girls were in the palace of the Muslim leader, but that they would not be released to their parents until the Emir, who was out of town, returned,” Abdu told Compass.

Kidnapping of teenage Christian girls by Muslims, the pastor said, has become a recurring practice in Ningi. Muslims have kidnapped at least 13 Christian girls in the town, Christian sources said.

“These girls are usually kidnapped, forcefully converted to Islam, and then married out to other Muslim men against the will of both the girls and their parents,” Abdu said.

Two months ago Muslims in Ningi kidnapped another Christian teenage girl, Maryann Chinenye, converted her to Islam and then married her to a Muslim man, he said.

No compulsion in religion: Just arrests and possible execution for leaving Islam. "Iran: Police arrest 12 Christian converts," from Compass Direct News, May 21:

ISTANBUL, May 21 (Compass Direct News) – Police in the southern Iran city of Shiraz this month cracked down against known Muslim converts to Christianity, arresting members of three Christian families and confiscating their books and computers.

The arrests began at 5 a.m. on May 11, when two couples were taken into custody before boarding their flights at the Shiraz International Airport and sent directly to jail. All four were subjected to hours of interrogation, questioning them solely “just about their faith and house church activities,” an Iranian source told Compass.

The detained Christians were identified as Homayon Shokohie Gholamzadeh, 48, and his wife Fariba Nazemiyan Pur, 40; and Amir Hussein Bab Anari, 25, and his wife Fatemeh Shenasa, 25.

Although the two wives were released the same day of their arrest, Anari was detained until May 14, and Gholamzadeh remains jailed.

Two hours after the early morning arrests of May 11, police authorities invaded the home of Hamid Allaedin Hussein, 58, arresting him and his three adult children, Fatemah, 28, Muhammed Ali, 27, and Mojtaba, 21.

All the family’s books, CDs, computers and printers were hauled off as well.

Hussein, his daughter and one son were released later the same day, but son Mojtaba remains in prison.

Two days later, local police picked up two more former Muslims involved in a separate house church in Shiraz as the Christian converts were talking together in a city park. Both men, Mahmood Matin and a second man identified only as Arash, are still jailed.

Still another arrest incident was reported last month in the northern city of Amol, in Mazandaran province near the Caspian Sea. Two of the arrested converts to Christianity, one a pregnant woman, are still imprisoned, with no news of their whereabouts.

Mushrooming House Churches

Over the past two years, Iran’s harsh Shiite Muslim regime has continued to arrest, harass and intimidate dozens of citizens involved in the nation’s mushrooming house church movements.

One such movement confirmed last month that its indigenous groups of Iranian converts to Christianity are doubling in size every six months.

Converts from Islam are routinely subjected to both physical and psychological mistreatment while being held for days or weeks, usually in solitary confinement. Huge bail amounts are demanded for their release, under the threat of further detention or formal criminal prosecution if caught worshipping or spreading their faith. [...]

In January of this year, the Iranian parliament drafted a proposed criminal code that would make the death penalty mandatory for “apostates” who leave Islam for another religion.

Buy a legit copy, will you?

Drug dealing and now film piracy -- no criminal activity is off limits to the jihadists. "Islamic militants may be behind film piracy: Philippines official," from AFP, May 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

MANILA - Al-QAEDA linked Islamic militants are suspected of rampant intellectual piracy in the Philippines, particularly of Hollywood films, to raise funds, a senior media industry official said on Wednesday.

The Abu Sayyaf, blamed for the worst terrorist attacks in the Southeast Asian country, were likely behind the illegal copying of movies onto DVDS, which are then peddled at Manila shops by migrant Muslim traders, Optical Media Board chairman Edu Manzano said.

The government agency has been cracking down on the trade, but he said in an interview over ABS-CBN television that this has not stemmed the tide of counterfeits.

Mr Manzano said many armed groups around the world traffic in counterfeits to raise funds, and the Abu Sayyaf would be no exception.

'In the same way that the Yakuza (crime gangs) are behind them in Japan and the Hezbollah are involved in (counterfeiting) the Middle East, they are suspected of this,' he said, referring to Abu Sayyaf.

Although the government lacked 'documentary evidence' linking the Abu Sayyaf to the trade, he said recent government raids on suspected intellectual pirates in Manila's Muslim communities have turned up counterfeit DVDs and fake luxury goods packaged with illegal drugs, grenades and even mercury....

Hizballebanon Update. "Lebanese Rivals Reach Agreement Seen as Major Triumph for Hezbollah," from the Associated Press, May 21:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Lebanon's feuding factions reached a breakthrough deal Wednesday that ends the country's long political stalemate, but also gives the militant Hezbollah group and allies the key power they sought — a veto over any decision of the U.S.-backed government.

The deal, reached with the help of Arab mediators, was immediately praised by Hezbollah's backers Iran and Syria. But it seems certain to accelerate fears in the West over Hezbollah's new power.

Pro-government politician and parliament majority leader Saad Hariri seemed to acknowledge that his side had largely caved in in the talks — spurred by a sharp outbreak of violence earlier this month after 18 months of deadlock.

"I know that the wounds are deep and my injury is deep, but we only have each other to build Lebanon," he said after the deal was announced in Qatar.

Parliament is now expected to elect a compromise president — the head of Lebanon's mostly neutral army — on Sunday, the state news agency reported.

The Hezbollah-led opposition won both its demands with the deal: veto power in a new national unity government, and an electoral law that divides the country into smaller districts with the aim of better representation of the various sects.

Hezbollah's chief negotiator, Mohammed Raad, downplayed Hezbollah's win.

"Neither side got all it demanded, but (the agreement) is a good balance between all parties' demands," he said.

The Bush administration seemed to try to put the best face on the deal even though it gave more power to Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by Washington and Israel. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch called the agreement "a necessary and positive step."

A few bursts of celebratory gunfire broke out in Beirut after the announcement. Television stations, which broadcast the Qatar ceremony live, showed Lebanese politicians and their Arab hosts congratulating and hugging one another.

The mood in Beirut's streets was jubilant, with Lebanese, tired of the protracted deadlock, greeting each other with "Mabrouk," or "Congratulations" in Arabic.

The talks in Qatar and the deal were a dramatic cap to Lebanon's worst internal fighting since the 1975-90 civil war — a series of violent street clashes between pro-government groups and the opposition raging in Beirut and elsewhere earlier this month. At least 67 people died.

As Lebanon came close to an all-out war, Arab League mediators intervened and got the sides to agree to hold negotiations in Qatar on resolving the crisis that has paralyzed the country.

The deal that resulted was a major victory for Hezbollah.

Opposition-allied Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said an opposition tent encampment across from the government building in downtown Beirut would be dismantled Wednesday.

Berri, who participated in the Doha talks, called that action a "gift" from the opposition and hailed the agreement.

Within an hour, pickup trucks began hauling mattresses and supplies away from the encampment, which has paralyzed the commercial heart of the Lebanese capital for more than a year. Opposition supporters dismantled tents.

In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the deal was an "example of regional integration for achieving stability and tranquility."

Syria also promptly endorsed the deal.

No surprises there.

Surrender. "Pakistani authorities, militants agree peace deal for insurgency-torn valley," from The Associated Press, May 21 :

PESHAWAR, Pakistan: Pakistan's new government signed a peace deal Wednesday with Islamic militants in a valley of northwestern Pakistan, in a process that Western officials worry could take the pressure off Taliban and al-Qaida hardliners.

The agreement covers Swat, a former tourist destination 150 kilometers (90 miles) from the capital, Islamabad, where followers of a fundamentalist cleric have been battling security forces for almost a year.

But in a sign that the accord could be tough to enforce, suspected militants shot dead a policeman at a checkpoint in the valley on Tuesday, the army said.

The 15-point plan was announced Wednesday after the latest in a series of negotiations between the two sides in the regional capital, Peshawar.

Bashir Bilour, a senior minister in the government of North West Frontier Province, said the militants agreed to recognize the government's authority, halt suicide and bomb attacks and hand over any foreign militants in the area.

In return, the government will release an unspecified number of prisoners and make limited concessions on the demands of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, for the imposition of Islamic law in the region, he said.

Bilour also said the army would withdraw "gradually" from the area. [...]

Information Minister Sherry Rehman insisted Wednesday that the government was "negotiating with peaceful representative groups, not with terrorists."

But Western officials have expressed concern that any deals would be poorly enforced and would simply allow Taliban and al-Qaida militants to execute more attacks in Afghanistan and plot terror strikes in the West.

Pakistani officials "say they don't want to give free space to extremist elements ... But I think this is something we're going to have to watch very carefully," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told senators in Washington on Tuesday....

Another "success" story for Sharia law, which the jihadists want to impose on all of us. "Iraqi: 'I killed her with a machine gun'," by Arwa Damon for CNN, May 21:

BASRA, Iraq (CNN) -- The man, blindfolded and handcuffed, crouches in the corner of the detention center while an Iraqi soldier grills him about rampant crimes being carried out by gangs in the southern city of Basra.

"How many girls did you kill and rape?" the soldier asks.

"I raped one, sir," the man responds.

"What was her name?"

"Ahlam," he says.

Ahlam was a university student in the predominantly Shiite city of Basra. The detainee said the gang he was in kidnapped her as she was leaving the university, heading home.

"They forced me, and I killed her with a machine gun, sir," he says.

The suspect, who is unshaven and appears to be in his 20s or 30s, was arrested by Iraq security forces after they retook most of Basra in April.

CNN was shown what authorities say was his first confession. On it are the names of 15 girls whom he admitted kidnapping, raping and killing. The youngest girl on the list was just 9 years old. [...]

Women bore the brunt of the militias' extremist ideologies. The militants spray-painted threats on walls across Basra, warning women to wear headscarves and not to wear make-up. Women were sometimes executed for the vague charge of doing something "un-Islamic."

In the wasteland on the outskirts of Basra, dotted with rundown homes, the stench of death mixes with the sewage. Local residents told the Iraqi Army that executions often take place in the area, particularly for women, sometimes killed for something as seemingly inocuous as wearing jeans.

Militias implemented their own laws with abandon, threatening stores for displaying mannequins with bare shoulders or for selling Western music. Many store owners are still too frightened to speak publicly.

But the horrors of militia rule are now surfacing as some residents begin to feel more comfortable speaking out.

Inside her rundown home, Sabriya's watery eyes peer out from under her robe. She points to the first photo of one of her sons on the wall.

"This one was killed because he was drinking," she says.

She draws her finger across her neck and gestures at the next photo.

"This one was slaughtered for his car."

"This one the same," she adds, looking at the third.

Her three sons, her daughter and her sister were all killed by the hard-line militia. Her sister was slaughtered because she was a single woman living alone.

"They said [to her], 'Why don't you have a husband?' " Sabriya says. "They came in at night and put a pillow on her face and shot her in the head."

Sabriya lives on what was once dubbed "murder street" for the daily killings that happened there last year. [...]

Now, "murder street" is part of a citywide effort to get Basra back on its feet. In a project funded by U.S. forces, Sheikh Maktouf and others are being paid $20 a day and upwards to clean up trash.

Basra may be part of the country's oil rich south, but it wallows in its own sewage and trash. The stench of filth is impossible to escape. The effort also helps with the massive unemployment plaguing the city.

British forces officially handed over responsibility of Basra to Iraqi forces in December.

"The situation was so bad because the security forces were controlled by the militias," says Brig. Gen. Aziz al-Swady, who commands the 14th Iraq Army Divison....

Demands for the soldier to be put on trial (for what?), and for more kowtowing to Islamic Sharia norms. "The people of Afghanistan can tolerate anything but we would never tolerate insult to our religion and the Koran."

"Afghan MPs protest Koran desecration in Iraq," from AFP, May 20 (thanks to Twostellas):

KABUL - A number of Afghan MPs walked out of parliament on Tuesday to protest at the shooting of the Muslim holy book the Koran by an American soldier in Iraq, demanding the troop be tried, witnesses said....

About 70 lawmakers took part in the protest on Tuesday, according to the witnesses.

"The people of Afghanistan can tolerate anything but we would never tolerate insult to our religion and the Koran," said Sliman Yari, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament.

"The soldier who has committed this unforgivable crime must be tried," said another MP, Arsala Jamal, as others shouted "Down with Americans, down with the infidels."...

In "liberated" Afghanistan they shouted this.

While the gay rights campaigners in the West target Christians for opposing gay marriage, this is what is going on elsewhere in the world. Sharia Alert from Gambia: "President plans to kill off every single homosexual," from Afrik.com, May 19 (thanks to Ruth King):

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh says he will “cut off the head” of any homosexual caught in his country.

Addressing supporters at the end of his meet the farmers tour here Sunday, Jammeh also ordered any hotel or motel housing homosexuals to close down, adding that owners of such facilities would also be in trouble.

He said the Gambia was a country of believers, indicating that no sinful and immoral act as homosexual would be tolerated in the country.

Believers -- that is, believers in Islam.

He warned all homosexuals in the country to leave, noting that a legislation “stricter than those in Iran ” concerning the vice would be introduced soon....

Why just 11 years? Because maybe he "was only a troubled man who gathered the material for no apparent reason." Yeah, that's it!

"Translator Who Took Classified Iraq Maps Is Sentenced," by Joseph Goldstein for the New York Sun, May 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Brooklyn man who stole classified documents while serving as a translator in Iraq was sentenced yesterday to 11 years in prison after a federal judge showed leniency, saying he could not tell with certainty whether the translator was spying for the insurgency or was only a troubled man who gathered the material for no apparent reason.

The documents in Noureddine Malki’s possession included battle maps showing routes used by American troops and lists of locations that troops suspected were used to hide weapons of mass destruction. Authorities found the documents in Malki’s Hoyt Street apartment in 2005, upon his return from a third tour in Iraq.

Taking the witness stand in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn for the first time since his jailing nearly three years ago, Malki, now 48, testified that he believed the government was going “hard” on him because of his “cultural background” — he is Muslim and from Morocco. He said that he never used the contents of the documents to harm American troops.

“I love this country just as I love myself,” Malki, who moved to America in 1988 by way of France, said. “I will never ever bite the hand of the person that feeds me. The United States is the person who feeds me. I made an honest mistake. I overlooked the return of the classified material.”...

I turned to "Clarifying the meaning of Jihad" in the Pakistan Daily, May 21 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist), expecting more of the same old denial and obfuscation we see so often from Muslim spokesmen -- as we saw yesterday from Pakistan's National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza.

But instead, to my great surprise, I found a detailed Qur'anic exposition of the ideas that jihad means offensive warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Sharia, and that the idea of jihad as spiritual struggle has scant foundation within the core Islamic texts.

Of course, this is what I have said that the Islamic texts say all along. Will Islamic apologists in the West -- Ibrahim Hooper, Salam Al-Marayati, Ali Eteraz, Stephen Schwartz, and the like -- direct any effort at all toward showing the author of this Pakistan Daily piece that his understanding of jihad is all wrong? Will the Administration realize that it has been sold a bill of goods by Islamic apologists, and acknowledge that jihad as warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers is deeply rooted within Islam, and the implications of that fact are manifold and must be faced?

No on both counts, I'm sure. But the next time someone calls me an "Islamophobe" for pointing out that mainstream Islam teaches violent jihad and Islamic supremacism, I'm going to tell him to take it up with the editors of the Pakistan Daily, not with me.

Another part of Bush's speech dealt with the supposed spread of "democracy" in the Muslim world:

"He [Bush] also offered plenty of praise for democratic advances, naming countries like Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco and Jordan.

'The light of liberty is beginning to shine,' he said."

Is he crazy? In Turkey, the so-called "light of liberty" is undoing Kemalism, putting the secularists in the universities, the judiciary, and the army, under great pressure, and bringing Islam back, step by grim step, as Erdogan and now Gul, cleverly backed by all kinds of people, including the shadowy millionaire Fethullah Gulen, probe and prod at every possible weak point in the Kemalist system. Is this "liberty"? Is this the goddam "light of liberty"?

In Afghanistan, after all the vast American and NATO effort, the Taliban are back. And even without the Taliban, the democratically-elected members of the Afghani Parliament have shown, every step of the way, that they are mostly moved by the ideals of the Shari'a, and are happy to punish "blasphemers" with death. They are happy to deny women equal rights. They are happy to undo every bit of the reforms that Westerners initially managed to accomplish, in the legal rights of women and non-Muslims. The notion that "liberty" has come to Afghanistan is false. Indeed, had the Soviets won their war, and installed a puppet Communist regime, and had that regime acted with the kind of ruthlessness that the Soviet authorities did toward Islam during the 1920s and 1930s, that might have done more in the vein of Ataturk to eventually make Afghanistan a plausible candidate for democracy.

This is how the part of Bush’s recent Knesset speech that dealt with democracy has been reported:

"Bush rebutted what he said are the many arguments from 'skeptics about democracy in this part of the world,' without specifying who they are. He said democracy is not 'a Western value that America seeks to impose on unwilling citizens' and nor is it incompatible with the religion of Islam.

He made clear how he defines democracy.

'Some say any state that holds an election is a democracy,' Bush said.

'True democracy,' he said, requires 'vigorous political parties allowed to engage in free and lively debate,' institutions that ensure legitimate elections and accountability for leaders, and an opposition that can campaign 'without fear and intimidation.'"

Bush, then, simply asserted -- he did not argue, he did not present the semblance of an argument or any evidence but simply asserted -- that Islam and democracy are compatible.

But assertion will not do.

Here is the argument that Bush should have addressed, and answered, if he had an answer.

Iranian freedom-fighters would like to see the U.S. act against the mullahcracy. "Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say," by Kenneth R. Timmerman for NewsMax, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

As Barack Obama and John McCain thrash it out over how they would deal with Iran, voices from inside Iran are weighing in with an unusual message: If the United States strikes hard and fast, we will support you.

Emissaries from inside Iran have been meeting with Iranian exiles in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere in recent weeks to deliver this provocative message, which they claim comes from pro-U.S. dissidents at the upper-most levels of the regime.

“U.S. airstrikes must be powerful and sustained enough to break the myth of the regime’s absolute power and reveal the weakness of the leadership,” a former official who traveled outside of Iran recently said.

The United States should target the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards Corp, the offices of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that of his predecessor and rival, Mullah Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Iranian sources say.

The goal should be to carry out sustained airstrikes over a 48-72 hour period that would “decapitate” the regime.

Such a strike would send a clear message to the Iranian people and to disgruntled officials throughout Iran’s faction-ridden government that the United States is serious about confronting the regime over its bad behavior in Iraq and is willing to strike the leaders responsible for that behavior, the Iranian sources argue....

Read it all.

In "How Would Iran Read Obama?," the feature article at Human Events today, I discuss the Let's-Sit-Down-And-Talk stance of Obama the Unready:

Reeling from President Bush’s criticism of the proposition that we should negotiate with terrorists, “as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Barack Obama was at first indignant, declaring: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” But apparently he doesn’t consider Iran, for all the genocidal bellicosity of its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a terrorist state: on Monday he reaffirmed that he would indeed sit down with the leaders of Iran (as well as with those of Cuba and Venezuela), and that no one should be disturbed by this, since these countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”

And speaking specifically about Iran, the presumptive Democratic nominee continued: “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.”

Omer Subhani is the CAIR rep who has undertaken in a multipart series to expose my "errors," but, typically, all he ends up exposing is his utter disregard for truthfulness and honesty. Here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, and VII.

And in his Part VIII, "Utter Twaddle Indeed," he actually responds to what I wrote in Part VII (which I had posted earlier, before I was informed that it was part of a series) -- but only with more of the same.

After a few paragraphs of introductory chest-beating and irrelevancy, Subhani says that I am "validating" the Salafist interpretation of Islam:

Yes, Robert, you are "validating their interpretation of Islam." Most Muslims who speak out against violence done in the name of their religion are denounced by you as being apologists or using taqiyya. This is a common phenomena on your web sites.

Since Subhani is not specific, I can't specifically reply, except to note that his own organization, CAIR, has signed on twice to the Fiqh Council of North America's condemnation of terrorism. I explain here why that condemnation of terrorism actually contains nothing that would move a jihad terrorist to lay down his arms: it doesn't challenge any of the theological bases by which they justify violence against unbelievers.

Nor do I know of more than a handful of "Muslims who speak out against violence" who are specific, condemning by name Hamas, Hizballah, and others, and rejecting the Islamic texts and teachings that justify violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers under the hegemony of Islamic law. If Mr. Subhani would like to do this, I welcome him to do so, and will post his statement prominently.

Then, after repeating at length his attempt in Part VII to draw a distinction between "terror" and "terrorism," and his false charge that I didn't quote the full text of the hadith in which Muhammad says "I have been made victorious through terror," he again tries to make something of the distinction:

Never does he attempt to clarify the difference between terrorism and terror - as I had noted. If there is any confusion created it is that Spencer is now backtracking by trying to place blame of this so-called confusion on Al-Arabiyya. If the matter was convoluted then all Spencer had to say at the outset was that "I never said that 'terrorism' made him victorious, but that 'terror' made him victorious." The matter would have been resolved there.

Resolved, maybe, but muddled, certainly. In reality, I did explain that "terror" for Muhammad meant "striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy" and that "terrorism," taken as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets," is a good way to accomplish that: "Striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy sounds to me like something one could do rather efficiently by committing 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.'" Then I went on to explain a instance in which Muhammad perpetrated "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."

But, after more irrelevancy, Subhani doggedly repeats his point:

Again, Spencer is equating terror with terrorism. They are not the same thing. When the Prophet said that he meant that fear was put in the hearts of his opponents and not that they were fearful because of the raids and battles he engaged in with his Companions. Al-Arabiyya didn't say Spencer "fabricated" anything, they said that he was equating what the Prophet had said about terror with terrorism. They are absolutely right about that and Spencer does nothing to refute Al-Arabiyya or myself. His quote from his book offers only proof against him.

When the Prophet said that "terror" made him victorious he was speaking about it being cast into the hearts of his enemies - by God - not by his own actions, which Spencer argues when he says "Striking abject fear into the hearts of the enemy sounds to me like something one could do rather efficiently by committing 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.'." Like I had said before, this fear or terror was placed into the hearts of his opponents not through his own doing (the raids and battles Spencer speaks of), but by God and this is what the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, meant in that hadith. The last sentence Spencer writes demonstrates his inability to distinguish between the two terms: terror and terrorism. He keeps believing that the two are synonymous regarding the Prophet's life, but fails to distinguish between the hadith about "terror" that he quotes in support of his argument that the Prophet resorted to "terrorism." I don't know what Spencer attempts to accomplish here, but he's avoiding the issue that he made a glaring mistake and continues to do so when he makes terror placed into someone's heart and terrorism synonymous. They are not the same thing because what he is doing is attempting to use this hadith as proof that the Prophet was a terrorist of seventh century Arabia.

Subhani goes on to quote what I quoted from Islamic tradition about the Khaybar raid, about which one of the Muslims later remembered: “We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets." That sounds like noncombatants to me. "When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”

Was this Allah striking fear into the hearts of Muhammad's enemies, or were they perhaps terrified by the sight of the Muslim armies, which they were unprepared to meet? You be the judge! But Subhani has something to say about Khaybar also:

Here is yet another mistake made by Spencer. The question arises, did the Muslims attack these "workers of Khaybar?" Absolutely not. Let us turn to Martin Lings' Muhammad. He says about Khaybar "The sun rose, and when the land workers came out with their spades and mattocks and baskets they were astonished to find themselves face to face with a grimly silent army. 'Muhammad and his hosts,' they cried, and fled back into their strongholds"(Lings, 265). This is not much different than what Spencer says...

Whoops!

...but again the question arises, did the Muslims attack these "workers of Khaybar?" No they did not. Those "workers" "fled" back into their "strongholds." There was not any fighting between the Muslim army that was standing before them and the "workers of Khaybar." Those "workers" then proceeded to run back into their fortresses and prepare for battle. The Muslim army led by the Prophet never attacked non-combatants at Khaybar as Spencer alleges here. The "workers" were the same soldiers the Muslims would eventually fight at Khaybar. One thing Spencer fails to mention was that the people in Arabia at the time partook in combat as a side job. All of these people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, had day jobs. As we all know, the Prophet was a merchant and so were Abu Bakr and Uthman. Ali, his cousin, used to to do odd chores around Madinah to make money for his family. None of the armies were professional, and so it was with the Jews of Khaybar. They were obviously farmers and that's why they were out in the morning ready to farm when the Muslim army approached them. Nowhere does it say, and Spencer should know this, that the Muslim army attacked these farmers. He himself quotes a hadith that says these workers "turned tail and fled" so where is the engagement with non-combatants that Spencer says took place? It didn't and that is just another mistake he makes.

All right. So the soldiers had day jobs, and they fled to defenses. This justifies the attack on the Khaybar oasis? Clearly they weren't ready for the Muslim attack -- they were not in combat mode. Also, I suppose Subhani would have us believe that there were no women in the square at Khaybar when the Muslims raided -- nope, the only people there were off-duty soldiers!

Was that "terror" or "terrorism"? I don't care. That's a distinction without a difference.

Actually, as demonstrated above, there is a huge difference between the two terms. Your inability to clarify the matter demonstrates your pride more than anything else.

No, it demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to face the truth: that the core Islamic texts teach violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Whether you ignore, deny, and obfuscate this because you believe in it and want to further the cause through deceit, or because you are embarrassed by it and are trying to wish it away, I do not know. But ultimately it doesn't matter. A genuine reformer doesn't deny what needs reforming, he identifies it and goes to work against it. Whatever you are, Subhani, you are no reformer.

After a bit Subhani accuses me of missing subtleties:

Yes, there is a subtlety that you are missing and that subtlety is that Al-Arabiya charged you with saying "the Prophet would tempt his Companions with Paradise in order to fight his enemies." What you are attempting to do is show that all you meant was that the Prophet promised his Companions paradise if they fought in jihad - that's not what you are being accused of. What Al-Arabiya said was that you said the Prophet "tempted" his followers into fighting by promising them paradise. It's another subtlety that you may not have noticed. What they accused you of and what I wrote about was that you are portraying the Prophet's calls to his Companions to fight in jihad as a scheme and a form of manipulation in order for the Prophet to coax his Companions into fighting for him. That's the subtlety. Like I said in my original post, you're free to interpret the hadiths as you want.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Muhammad promised Paradise to his companions who were killed, but he didn't "tempt" them with it (oh, and never mind those bits about the virgins). Logged and noted!

And then, regarding the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. I dismissed as apologetic hair-splitting the claim that Muhammad didn't break the treaty by refusing to send back women who had fled to him from the Quraysh, because the treaty only stipulated that men should be sent back. Subhani responds:

No, it's a loophole like I had said. The treaty didn't say "women cannot return." It was a general statement about men generally (Ling quotes the treaty: "on condition that whoso cometh unto Muhammad of Quraysh without the leave of HIS guardian, Muhammad shall return HIM unto them"(Lings, 253)) and the Quraysh acknowledged as much by not fighting over the issue. Spencer is correct that the Quraysh were not as strong as they once were, but that did not mean that the Muslims had become more powerful or that Qurayshs weakness was a concern for the Muslims because as was shown at the Battle of Badr they had defeated an army three times as large as theirs. But the issue over women in the Treaty of Hudaibiya is just "legalistic hair-splitting," according to Spencer and not an error on his part.

I already explained in Part VII that there were many reasons why the Quraysh didn't protest. In this Subhani merely repeats his original point, as if reassertion makes it so. But even he acknowledges that Muhammad exploited a "loophole" in the treaty. I think that in itself establishes my point.

Then he upbraids me for not providing the context of Muhammad's statement, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power," even though it was he (and Al-Arabiya) who ripped this statement out of my book, ignoring the surrounding context, which as I showed in Part VII, I fully supplied. And so a question for Mr. Subhani: Why not deal honestly with what I have written, instead of playing straw man games?

And finally he ends up by playing the victim card:

In his book, Spencer becomes the ultimate apologist for Jewish and Qurayshi threats of violence against the Muslims, but that's another story for another time.

Yes, all this is a Zionist plot!

Then Subhani returns to "Kill every Jew," brushing aside my explanation that it was not a universal command, since the Jews were later offered the option of becoming dhimmis, and then claiming I offer no explanation:

As far as this quote goes, it cannot be in reference to anything in Surah al-Tawba because those verses were revealed almost at the end of the Prophet's life. The Qurayzah were already executed by that time. There was no "dhimmitude" as Spencer suggests because those verses were not revealed yet. The Jews of Qurayzah were not subjugated in any sense at this time - they lived in another area of Madinah all to their own where they were free to practice their religion and were not paying any poll tax or the like. But in any case, the www.answering-chirstianity.com web site said, in regards to this alleged statement of the Prophet about killing all Jews, that this hadith is weak and unreliable. Also, that Ibn Hisham, the Prophetic biographer, said that this incident about killing all Jews occurred during the executions of the treacherous Bani Qurayzah.

Then he helpfully provides a hadith in which Muhammad makes a very similar order:

In any case, I don't know the context of this particular hadith nor have I seen any scholars I trust say it is weak, but here is the narration from Abu Dawud's hadith collection: Book 19, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

This narration is different than what Spencer reports in his book so there seems to be some ambiguity about this report. It would be nice if Spencer shared with us why this narration occurred - you know context helps solve a lot of disputes.

Sure, Subhani! This is simply a variant of the story in which Ibn Ishaq has Muhammad saying, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." This was right before the Battle of Uhud. Subhani is right that this was before the verse regarding dhimmitude was revealed, but misses the point I was making, which is that the very fact that the dhimma was revealed indicates in itself that the order to kill any Jew was not understood as applying for all time.

One would think, meanwhile, that the violence and brutality of this narrative (and speaking of noncombatants, what's this about beating and killing a Jewish merchant?) would give Subhani pause in his attempts to whitewash Muhammad's bloody history, but no such luck.

Anyway, I am aware that this Daily Subhani is growing tiresome, and apologize for that. It seemed wise, a week ago anyway, to craft a series of replies for the record, but it has been abundantly established already that his essays are simply yet another example of CAIR's scurrilous campaign to throw anything they can at me and hope something will stick. (Yes yes, Subhani assures us he is doing this attack on his own time, but he works for CAIR, and CAIR will certainly use it if they can, as they have used outlandish libels crafted by a pathetic thrice-convicted felon in the past.) It is a campaign unworthy of an organization that claims to be all about "building bridges," and it belies that claim.

Here at last is Qaradawi the reformist, about which we have heard so much and seen so little. He readily admits that his is a minority view, not supported by more than one school of Islamic jurisprudence, but hey, this is the 21st century, eh, Qaradawi? He doesn't seem to have said anything, however, about the church's cowering dhimmi character. "Churches are ‘allowed,’" from Gulf Times, May 21 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

The establishment of churches in Qatar is permissible in the light of the Christian community’s presence here in large numbers and their need to perform their religious duties, says a report published in a local Arabic daily.

Quoting an edict issued on this subject by Qatar’s well-known Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the report says that since Christian expatriates have come to this country in increasingly large numbers it is but natural that they should be allowed to have the facility to fulfil their spiritual needs.

“Such an accommodation is in keeping with the principles of the Islamic Shari’ah which lays great stress on the overall good and the public interest in a Muslim country which includes a sizeable number of non-Muslims,” he added.

However, Qaradawi added to his edict by stating that the position taken by him is not in line with the majority of the traditional schools of thought on Islamic jurisprudence. “It is only Imam Abu Hanifa of the 10th century who had espoused such a view,” he said.

Qaradawi has issued the edict in response to a query from an expatriate living in Qatar on the Shari’ah point of view on participating in a tender to build a non-Islamic place of worship – a church.

The Baha'i World Centre and many other shrines and administrative centers are located in Haifa and Acre. In fact, according to the Baha'i website, the religion's connection to this area goes back to the 1860's when the Bahaullah and his followers were exiled from Persia to an Ottoman penal colony.

Obviously, then, it's rather hard for the Baha'i leadership in Iran not to have connections with Israel and other "foreigners." And the Baha'i faith is illegal in Iran, with its members regarded as unbelievers for revering a prophetic figure after Muhammad. So they certainly can't bypass the controversy with Israel by setting up parallel offices in Iran. Catch 22.

An update on this story. "Iran: Bahai leaders detained over ‘connection with Zionists’," by Dudi Cohen for YNet News (with additional reporting by Agence France-Presse), May 20:

Iran confirmed on Tuesday that it arrested leaders of the Bahai community for “anti-Iranian” activities. Last week it was reported that intelligence officials arrested six Bahai community leaders at their homes.

Government Spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham confirmed the matter and said that “this group worked against the state’s interests and had connections with foreigners, especially Zionists.”

Elham also said that “our intelligence service has acted based on legal criteria and it is pursuing the issue as a duty and as part of every country's rules."

Last week, Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier expressed concern over the arrest and called for their release. The Canadian minister accused Iran of arresting them, "Solely on the basis of their faith," but the Iranian spokesman said that “this (arrest) does not have to do with ideological issues or if you want to call it beliefs, which we basically do not approve of."

One of the estimations is that the Bahai leaders were arrested as a result of a bombing which occurred last month in a Shiraz mosque that killed 14 people. The bombing occurred while a local clergyman was preaching against the Bahais.

However, Iran officially blamed a local terror organization and arrested more than a dozen suspects, who according to the government admitted that they received funding and instruction from the United States, England, and Israel. However, Iran has not yet shown any proof of this.

In January, Iran announced that it tried 54 Bahais over propaganda against the regime charges. Three of them were sentenced to four years imprisonment and the rest were sentenced to a year’s imprisonment on probation. Justice officials said that the Bahais held missionary activity in Shiraz under the guise of assistance to the needy.

The Bahai religion developed in Iran in the 19th century, but since the 1979 Islamic Revolution is considered illegal in the Islamic Republic. According to estimations, 300,000 Bahais live in Iran. They are considered infidels according to the government and are forced to practice their religion in secrecy.

The Bahais view the Bahaullah, born in 1817, as their last prophet, sent by divine intervention to the world. The Bahaullah was banished from Iran and buried in Haifa, Israel, the most sacred place for the Bahai religion.

Or do something to stop those who do this.

"NA Speaker for removing West’s misperceptions about Islam," from Associated Press of Pakistan, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

ISLAMABAD, May 20 (APP): Speaker National Assembly Dr. Fehmida Mirza said Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that abhors terrorism and extremism in all it forms and manifestations and it was the responsibility of religious scholars to play their role to remove the misperceptions of the West about Islam.

She was speaking to the delegation of the Guardian Council Islamic Republic of Iran, headed by Ayatullah Ahmed Jannati, that called on the Speaker in the Parliament House Tuesday.

The Speaker said Ummah was confronting challenges that can be resolved through forging unity among the Muslim countries. She said there were misperceptions in the western countries about Islam and urged religious scholars and media to play their role to dispel the misperception of west.

The Speaker said Pakistan and Iran are bonded in the eternal ties of religion, culture and history and there was commonality of views and perceptions of both the countries on all regional global issues....

Keeping hate alive. "Top militant leaders threaten to wage a 'war in Pakistan' if government softens its stand in talks with India," from RTT News, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

(RTTNews) - On the day India and Pakistan resumed bilateral talks, top leaders of the Islamist militant groups Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujahideen have threatened that they will wage a "war in Islamabad and Lahore" if the Pakistani government "retreats" on the Kashmir issue during the discussions.

Syed Salahuddin, the chief of the militant conglomerate United Jihad Council, told a conference in Sialkot that the Kashmir issue's importance has increased as India, Israel and the U.S. have "targeted Pakistan."

The Hizbul Mujahideen leader blamed the Pakistani government for "extending a hand of friendship towards India".

Yes, how heinous!

In FrontPage today I discuss the Qur'an-shooting incident and the abject and counterproductive apology that followed it. The subhead on FrontPage's front page reads: "Accidentally shooting a Qur'an was stupid; the way we apologized may have made matters worse." This line was apparently based on the Qur'an-shooter's denial that he knew the book he was shooting at was a Qur'an. I noted his denial in the article, but in fact I think it's much more likely that he did know what book he was shooting at, and that the shooting was in no way an accident.

Last Saturday, Major General Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, issued a formal apology to leaders in Radhwaniya, in western Baghdad, after an American soldier used a Qur’an for target practice.

The soldier said he didn’t know that the book he used was a Qur’an, but military brass rejected this and announced plans to reassign the soldier to duty within the United States.

During what CNN called the “apology ceremony,” Major General Hammond told the assembled Iraqis: “I come before you here seeking your forgiveness. In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.” A member of Hammond’s staff kissed a Qur’an and presented it to the Iraqi leaders, calling it a “humble gift.”

Assuming that the soldier really did know that the book he was shooting at was the Qur’an, this story illustrates many things:

“There is no harm in taking ‘jehad’ (holy war) for the right cause” -- yet more Misunderstanders of Islam think jihad has something to do with warfare. Ibrahim Hooper, call your office!

"Boy, 12, Beheads Man In Al Qaeda Video," by Farhan Bokhari for CBS News, May 20 (thanks to Writer Mom):

Amid cries of ‘Allah o Akbar’ (god is great), a young boy, barely 12 years old, lifts his machete and strikes at his victim who is lying on the ground, all tied up for the kill.

Waving a ‘V’ for victory sign with his right hand, the boy picks up the severed head and shows it around to the chants of applause from an audience gathered in a remote part of the region straddling the mountainous range which divides Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The performance in this chilling episode which may simply shock most people around the world, is the case of militant justice meted out to supposed traitors. It involves Al Qaeda and the Taliban slapping exemplary punishment to an individual suspected to be a spy for the government.

[...]

“There is no harm in taking ‘jehad’ (holy war) for the right cause” read the sign board in a training class, documented in yet another Pakistani intelligence video, secretly captured ahead of the operation, through the use of hidden cameras inserted around the front compound of the school. A teacher, who wrapped himself up to his face with a piece of cloth, pointed towards a list of “recommendations for students” while surrounded by teenagers, urging them to embrace virtues such as “accept the way forward through sacrifice” and “accept that laying down your life for the right cause is not a waste”.

"The Arabs who became refugees in 1948 were not expelled by Israel but left on their own to facilitate the destruction of Israel" -- so we have pointed out here many times, and yet the received mainstream media version of history, as we have seen again in stories marking Israel's 60th, is that the refugees were expelled by Israel. Now, however, here is a collection of statements from Palestinians, admitting that that isn't true.

"PA daily: Arabs left homes on their own to facilitate destruction of Israel -- and thus became refugees," a bulletin by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook for Palestinian Media Watch (thanks to Chetz):

The Arabs who became refugees in 1948 were not expelled by Israel but left on their own to facilitate the destruction of Israel, according to a senior Palestinian journalist writing in a Palestinian daily. This plan to leave Israel was initiated by the Arab states fighting Israel, who promised the people they would be able to return to their homes in a few days once Israel was defeated. The article in Al-Ayyam concludes that these Arab states are responsible for the Arab refugee problem.

A backbone of Palestinian English-language propaganda is the myth that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Israel and created Arab refugees. But in recent years, PMW has documented an increasing willingness among Palestinians to openly blame the Arab states and not Israel.

Following are five such statements of blame, starting with this most recent article and including testimony from refugees themselves and corroboration by Palestinian leaders. Clearly, there is a growing Palestinian willingness to blame the Arab leaders, which corroborates Israel's historical record.

1. Jawad Al Bashiti, Palestinian journalist in Jordan, writing in Al-Ayyam, May 13, 2008

"Remind me of one real cause from all the factors that have caused the "Palestinian Catastrophe" [the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem], and I will remind you that it still exists... The reasons for the Palestinian Catastrophe are the same reasons that have produced and are still producing our Catastrophes today.
During the Little Catastrophe, meaning the Palestinian Catastrophe the following happened: the first war between Arabs and Israel had started and the "Arab Salvation Army" came and told the Palestinians: 'We have come to you in order to liquidate the Zionists and their state. Leave your houses and villages, you will return to them in a few days safely. Leave them so we can fulfill our mission (destroy Israel) in the best way and so you won't be hurt.' It became clear already then, when it was too late, that the support of the Arab states (against Israel) was a big illusion. Arabs fought as if intending to cause the "Palestinian Catastrophe". [Al-Ayyam, May 13 2008]

2. Mahmoud Al-Habbash, Palestinian Journalist in PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006

"...The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the "Catastrophe" in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those "Arkuvian" promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events..." [Term "Arkuvian," is after Arkuv - a figure from Arab tradition - who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies."] "
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006]

3. Asmaa Jabir Balasimah, Woman who fled Israel in 1948, Al-Ayyam, May 16, 2006

"We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the "Catastrophe" [1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours."
[Al-Ayyam, May 16, 2006]

4. Son of man who fled in 1948, PA TV 1999

An Arab viewer called Palestinian Authority TV and quoted his father, saying that in 1948 the Arab District Officer ordered all Arabs to leave Palestine or be labeled traitors. In response, Arab MK Ibrahim Sarsur, then Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, cursed those leaders, thus acknowledging Israel's historical record.

"Mr. Ibrahim [Sarsur]. I address you as a Muslim. My father and grandfather told me that during the "Catastrophe" [in 1948], our district officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine and in Majdel [near Ashkelon - Southern Israel] is a traitor, he is a traitor."

Response from Ibrahim Sarsur, now MK, then Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel:
"The one who gave the order forbidding them to stay there bears guilt for this, in this life and the Afterlife throughout history until Resurrection Day."
[PA TV April 30, 1999]

5. Fuad Abu Higla, senior Palestinian, Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, March 19, 2001

Fuad Abu Higla, then a regular columnist in the official PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, wrote an article before an Arab Summit, which criticized the Arab leaders. One of the failures he cited, in the name of a prisoner, was that an earlier generation of Arab leaders "forced" them to leave Israel in 1948, again placing the blame for the flight on the Arab leaders.

"I have received a letter from a prisoner in Acre prison, to the Arab summit:
To the [Arab and Muslim] Kings and Presidents, poverty is killing us, the symptoms are exhausting us and the souls are leaving our body, yet you are still searching for the way to provide aid, like one who is looking for a needle in a haystack or like the armies of your predecessors in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave [Israel], on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians...So what will your summit do now?"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 19, 2001]

Conclusion
It is clear from these statements that there is general acknowledgement among Palestinians that Arab leaders bear responsibility for the mass flight of Arabs from Israel in 1948, and were the cause of the "refugee" problem. Furthermore, the fact that this information has been validated by public figures and refugees in the Palestinian Authority media itself confirms that this responsibility is well-known - even though for propaganda purposes its leaders continue to blame Israel publicly for "the expulsion."

This email just in:

we are against satan and chiristian satanism we are the enemy of christian not jewish not budhism not hindusm

because chrisrian is our rael enemy

Logged and noted!

In 70 years, from roughly 1918 to 1988, with its Comintern, and Willi Munzenberg, and subventions to "The Morning Star" and "L'Humanite" and "L'Unita," and to such people as Gus Hall, and to pay for all those Peace and Youth Conferences -- in Helsinki, for example, with its trademark Dove of Peace by Picasso -- and with all the magazines about the wonders of the Soviet Union and the Building of Communism, and pull-the-wool-over-the-eyes trips for journalists, and all kinds of other propaganda designed to fool or inveigle the West, the Soviet Union spent between eight and nine billion dollars.

The total amount spent by just one Muslim country (admittedly the richest), Saudi Arabia, in furthering the cause of Islam over the past three decades, is close to 100 billion dollars. Think of all the mosques built and maintained, all the imams on the payroll, all the missionaries conducting Da'wa in American and British prisons, all the Western hirelings, in the capital of every Western country, whose full-time job is to explain away the Al-Saud, and the mutawwa of Saudi Arabia, and Islam itself, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics.

The "German"'s name is Sajed Aziz. What do you think? A neo-Nazi? Or maybe...just possibly...influenced by Islamic antisemitism?

"German jailed for stabbing rabbi," from the BBC, May 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A German court has jailed a Muslim of Afghan origin for three and a half years for stabbing an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in the stomach in the street.

The court in the south-western city of Frankfurt convicted Sajed Aziz, 23, of grievous bodily harm.

Witnesses said he had shouted anti-Semitic insults at the victim, Rabbi Zalman Gurevitch, 43.

The case sparked a discussion in Germany about whether there were no-go areas for Jews in some cities....

However, he noted that Aziz had clearly called Mr Gurevitch a "Jewish pig".

Aziz admitted in court that he had stabbed his victim on a Frankfurt street on 7 September 2007 but called it self-defence, saying Mr Gurevitch had grabbed him by the collar.

The rabbi said Aziz had first shouted anti-Semitic slurs at him, then plunged a nearly three-inch (7-cm) blade into his lower abdomen.

We have at this point two candidates. Neither one is nearly sufficient in his grasp of this problem. One, McCain, apparently is willing to go down with the ship of fools that is the Administration, and its mad effort, and squandering of men, money, materiel, to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. McCain talks of "victory" in Iraq without telling us in what that "victory" would consist -- and a "victory" can only consist, for Americans, in an outcome that weakens the Camp of Islam and therefore the Camp of Jihad. A unified, even prosperous Iraq, will not weaken the Camp of Islam. It will not have allowed the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq to grow, and to have desirable destabilizing effects on the immediate neighbors, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

McCain is too easy on himself, for he does not follow the matter further, until even he would see that the Iraq policy, or the Tarbaby Iraq policy, does not make sense. McCain, like Bush, is a sentimentalist. He wishes good things for people rather than seeing some of them as a dangerous enemy that needs to be weakened. Nor does he see that the very best policy will be one that will force Muslims themselves (and long before that, force Infidels) to understand that the political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures of Islamic states and societies are a direct result of Islam itself. That is not hard to show. The themes have been adumbrated, and more than adumbrated, at this website many times. McCain will have to jettison his insistence on clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, and he has to begin by seeing that "war" is much more than a matter of the merely military.

This is what I have been saying for years. It is surprising, and refreshing, to see it said in the New York Daily News.

"Call radical Islam by its name," by Tawfik Hamid in, of all places, the New York Daily News, May 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Recently, the Bush administration opened up a sad new front in the war on terrorism: a battle against words. Yes, the federal government has begun a concerted effort to make certain terms effectively off-limits in official communications. It's all included in a new memo prepared by the Extremist Messaging Branch of the National Counter Terrorism Center, called "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication."

"It's not what you say but what they hear," says the memo, in bold, italic lettering.

Among the verboten (or think-twice-before-you-say-them) words: "Jihadist" and "Mujahedeen" (which should be replaced by "violent extremist" or "terrorist") and "Islamo-fascism."

In the eyes of the feds, the use of such terminology boosts support for radicals by giving them an air of religious credibility, and turning off moderate Muslims who might otherwise sympathize with our anti-terror cause.

As a Muslim reformer - who once counted himself among the world's Islamists and jihadists before turning away from terrorism and toward liberalism - I consider this a tragically flawed understanding of the war on terrorism in which we are now engaged.

The real way to strengthen moderate Muslims in their fight against the radicals is to spotlight radical teachings and flush out those who believe in them.

Among the most important qualities of any professional are honesty, objectivity and forthrightness - the ability to determine and present facts as they are, irrespective of the preconceived notions of any particular audience.

This is especially true in war: define your enemy correctly, and you will rally legitimate allies to your side. Blur what a battle is about and, stuck in the muddle, you are bound to lose.

Yes, the word "jihad" has several, including some peaceful, meanings - but that doesn't change the fact that most authoritative Islamic texts and systems of jurisprudence maintain that its primary meaning is "warfare to subjugate the world to Islam." Closely allied with this predominant concept of jihad is the threefold choice given to infidels: conversion, submission and tribute or death. And it is simply a fact that jihad, as taught by Sunni Islam's four schools of jurisprudence, is either a war to defend Muslims or to impose Islam on non-Muslims.

It may be uncomfortable to admit these facts - and doing so may run certain risks. But it is true, and the costs of ignoring reality are far higher than the benefits of glossing over it....

Yes. Read it all.

I have gotten out of the habit of posting radio appearances here -- lately I've been on Mancow, Mike Reagan, Jerry Doyle, and some others. And in a few minutes I'll be on the G. Gordon Liddy Show. You can listen live here (link on the right side of the page).

It has been an ironic day up in Lake Wobegon: one week after Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, blamed me for death threats supposedly received by the operators of the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, an Islamic school that receives public funding, there has indeed been a violent incident at the school.

Wretched Islamophobes terrorizing poor pious hijabbed schoolchildren? Nope. It was school officials who attacked a news cameraman, giving him minor injuries. Marisol posted the story here last night.

Cameramen were there because the Minnesota Department of Education asked the school to change two of its practices regarding the teaching of Islam at the school -- indicating that the allegations reported by Katherine Kersten in the Star-Tribune, which I commented on in my column, were correct.

Will Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, retract his defamatory claim, apologize, and address the question of why school officials would react to publicity in a violent manner?

Let's just say I won't be waiting by the phone.

Wonder of wonders, even the New York Times has noticed, and has written about Jane without the customary superciliousness and venom it reserves for anti-jihadists.

Send your letter as part of her "Protect Media Freedom in Yemen" campaign here.

"A Living-Room Crusade via Blogging," by Robert F. Worth in the New York Times, May 20:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Jane Novak, a 46-year-old stay-at-home mother of two in New Jersey, has never been to Yemen. She speaks no Arabic, and freely admits that until a few years ago, she knew nothing about that strife-torn south Arabian country.

And yet Ms. Novak has become so well known in Yemen that newspaper editors say they sell more copies if her photograph — blond and smiling — is on the cover. Her blog, an outspoken news bulletin on Yemeni affairs, is banned there. The government’s allies routinely vilify her in print as an American agent, a Shiite monarchist, a member of Al Qaeda, or “the Zionist Novak.”

The worst of her many offenses is her dogged campaign on behalf of a Yemeni journalist, Abdul Karim al-Khaiwani, who incurred his government’s wrath by writing about a bloody rebellion in the far north of the country. He is on trial on sedition charges that could bring the death penalty, with a verdict expected Wednesday.

Ms. Novak, working from a laptop in her Monmouth County living room “while the kids are at school,” has started an Internet petition to free Mr. Khaiwani. She has enlisted Yemeni politicians, journalists, human rights activists and others around the globe. Her blog goes well beyond the Khaiwani case and has become a crucial outlet for opposition journalists and political figures, who feed her tips on Yemeni political intrigue by e-mail or text message.

She says her campaign is a matter of basic principle. “This is a country that lets Al Qaeda people go free, and they’re putting a journalist on trial for doing his job?” she said. “It’s just completely crazy.”

Yes. Read it all. Brava, Jane!

Almost as lopsided a deal as Nolan Ryan, Leroy Stanton, Frank Estrada and Don Rose for Jim Fregosi. Or Paul O'Neill and Joe DeBerry for Roberto Kelly. Or maybe Rico Carty for Jim Panther. Or Manny Trillo, Julio Franco, George Vukovich, Jay Baller, and Jerry Willard for Von Hayes. Shoeless Joe Jackson for Braggo Roth, Ed Klepfer and Larry Chappell. Jay Buhner, Rich Balabon and Troy Evers for (arrrrgh) Ken Phelps.

"Pakistani militants savor a sweet deal," by Syed Saleem Shahzad for Asia Times, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

KARACHI - Pakistani authorities claim that no deal was made regarding the release at the weekend of the country's envoy to Afghanistan, Tariq Azizuddin, who had been in the captivity of the Pakistani Taliban for three months.

But this is pure fantasy. There certainly was a deal, orchestrated by pro-al-Qaeda Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, and far from indicating any move on the part of the militants to negotiate, they are expected to launch more and more attacks on Pakistan to build up pressure and minimize Islamabad's role in the United States-led "war on terror".

To underscore this, a suicide bomber on Sunday killed 11 people and wounded 22 at a market in Mardan close to a Pakistani military camp in North-West Frontier Province.

On Saturday, Islamabad freed 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance and also paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants. In turn, Azizuddin, who had been abducted in Khyber Agency, and dozens of Pakistani security officials were released by the militants.

The freed Taliban included the top commander from eastern Afghanistan, Mufti Yousuf, who had been arrested in Peshawar in Pakistan by a team of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and who was being held in detention at the IB's Karachi's office. Muslim Dost, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who was in the custody of the Inter-Services Intelligence, was also handed over to militants in Razmak, North Waziristan.

Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. Aziz was apprehended during the military operation against the radical mosque last year....

Sharia Alert: "Iran launches fresh crackdown on websites: report," from AFP, May 20 (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

TEHRAN (AFP) — Iranian authorities have blocked access to several websites and blogs of women's rights advocates and journalists critical of the government, a press report said on Tuesday.

The move follows a new directive sent out by a committee tasked with identifying illegal websites to Internet service providers, the reformist Etemad Melli newspaper said without giving a source.

"There seems to be a tougher approach this time as some sites and weblogs belonging to women's rights and human rights campaigners, writers critical of the government and well-known journalists" have been singled out, it said....

Adding to Major General Hammond's abject apology from Saturday, Bush apologizes, although apparently without using the word "apology." Whatever that means.

"Bush calls Iraqi leader about soldier's Quran desecration," from CNN, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- President Bush has apologized to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for an American soldier shooting at a Quran, the prime minister's office said.

President Bush called Nuri al-Maliki over the incident, al-Maliki's office says. The leaders are seen in September.

Bush made the call to al-Maliki on Tuesday morning, the office said.

But National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president stopped short of using the word "apology" in his remarks. [...]

On Monday, the Iraqi Islamic Party, the movement of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, condemned what it said was a "blatant assault on the sanctities of Muslims all over the world."

The party said it reacted to the news "with deep resentment and indignation" and wants the "severest of punishments" for the action.

"What truly concerns us is the repetition of these crimes that have happened in the past when mosques were destroyed and pages of the holy Quran were torn and used for disgraceful acts by U.S. soldiers," al-Hashimi said.

"I have asked that first this apology be officially documented; second a guarantee from the U.S. military to inflict the maximum possible punishment on this soldier so it would be a deterrent for the rest of the soldiers in the future."

Kill him?

The source says Bush and Cheney are pro, Gates and Rice are con. From the Jerusalem Post, May 20 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.

The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for.

However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.

The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack....

Omer Subhani is a CAIR-South Florida rep whose talent for ad hominem smears and outright lies is such that he might have a bright future with the national organization. Over the last few days I've been responding to his rather ridiculous series purporting to "expose" me, not because it contains anything substantial, but to illuminate yet again the fact that jihad apologists and their allies and dupes simply cannot answer the arguments I have made, and so resort to distortion and mudslinging as a matter of course. I also rather suspect that all the mudslinging in which Subhani and his ilk engage comes from their supremacist assumptions -- how dare an uppity dhimmi claim to show what Muslims believe about the Qur'an and Sunnah? The insolence! Don't I know my place?

No, I don't.

Here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, V and VI.

And while I posted a response to his Part VII before I knew it was part of a larger series, I am reposting it here with some revisions, for the sake of continuity. This go-round is called "Exposing Robert Spencer: Juvenlie [sic!] Hadith Interpretations."

One very distinct similarity between Robert Spencer and modern day Salafis is their inability to distinguish between hadith and fiqh....

Yes, that's why I write things like this, in a post from May 2006: "This is a matter of fact, abundantly established by the texts not just of the Qur'an, but of Hadith and fiqh." Not that I know the difference between those last two. I'm just repetitive and redundant that way.

Anyway, there follows a paragraph stating commonplaces that I have never disputed, and so will not bother to reproduce here. And then:

One of the things that I have noticed about Robert Spencer is how similar he is in his interpretations of hadith to Salafis. [...]

I would guess that somewhere someone had a meeting and decided this was the line on me: I'm just like the Islamic extremists. Even that stooge who doesn't know that he is a stooge, Dinesh D'Souza, has picked up on this. I report on how jihadists use the Qur'an, Sunnah, and fiqh to justify their actions, so therefore I am validating their interpretation of Islam.

For example, when I noted in connection with my Blogging the Qur'an series that traditional Islamic theology denies free will, Zahed Amanullah of Alt.Muslim responded not by refuting my evidence or even offering evidence for an opposing point of view, but merely by saying, "Robert allies himself with the extremists in their common interpretation of Islam being a religion of endless conflict."

Oh. That must mean the Islamic texts I quote don't say what they say!

Tarik ibn Zayad Academy Update. "News crew attacked during report at TiZA charter school," by Nicole Muehlhausen for KSTP, May 19 (thanks to Itachi):

The state Education Department on Monday directed a Minnesota charter school to "correct" two areas related to religion at the school.

Tarik ibn Zayad Academy, which focuses on Middle Eastern culture and shares a mosque with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, came under fire after a teacher alleged that the school was offering religious instruction in Islam to its students.

"The Minnesota Department of Education goes to great lengths to make clear to charter schools and their sponsors that, while schools should appropriately accomodate students' religious beliefs, they must be 'nonsectarian' under the state's charter school law," said the state's education Deputy Commissioner Chas Anderson.

The allegations first surfaced after an article by a columnist for the Star Tribune. The Education Department subsequently began a review of the suburban Inver Grove Heights school and released its findings Monday.

The agency said it was concerned about the school, with about 300 students, accommodating communal prayer and providing transportation to an after-school religious program.

"We have directed the school to take appropriate corrective actions regarding these matters and will continue to provide oversight to ensure that the school is in compliance with state and federal law," Anderson said.

In an attempt to report about the new findings from the Department of Education, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS went to TiZA. While on school grounds, our crew was attacked by school officials. The two men were able to grab our camera and kept it until police arrived.

Our photographer was treated by paramedics after suffering minor injuries.

Poisoning food with feces is detailed as a tactic in the Al-Qaeda manual found a few years ago by British intelligence.

Also, there are precedents, both involving Muslims, as does this story:

UK: Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Man Caught On Tape Sprinkling Fecal Matter On Pastries

"Man remanded after 'urine' attack," from the BBC, May 19 (thanks to Jeff):

A man has been remanded in custody charged with spraying urine at two supermarkets, a pub and a book shop.

Sahnoun Daifallah, 42, of Bibury Road, from Gloucester, appeared before magistrates and pleaded not guilty to four charges of contaminating products.

He was arrested on Friday after a substance, believed to be urine, was sprayed over produce at Tesco in Quedgeley and Morrisons at Abbeydale. [...]

In court prosecutor Liz Thomas said two days earlier Mr Daifallah used an improvised device to shower hundreds of children's books at Waterstones in Cirencester.

He is also charged with releasing the liquid over food in the Air Balloon pub, near Cheltenham....

Geert Wilders for President! "Analysis: Dutch critic of Islam warns Bush," by Leander Schaeraeckens for UPI, May 19 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

BRUSSELS, May 19 (UPI) -- As President George W. Bush wraps up his trip to the Middle East, controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, a passionate supporter of Bush and the U.S. war on terrorism, called on him to drop his "double agenda" in the region by ending support to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia.

Wilders, who briefly achieved global notoriety when he released his anti-Koran film "Fitna" in March, told United Press International that the United States should not overlook Saudi Arabia's flagrant bad governance and human-rights abuses.

"American relations with Saudi Arabia should be revised," he said, adding that Saudi Arabia's status as a major oil producer should not mean that its track record ought to be overlooked. "Saudi Arabia is no good and won't be for the foreseeable future," he said.

"I think supporting Saudi Arabia is a bad policy and shows a double agenda," said Wilders. But he demurred at the suggestion of sanctions or military action -- "it's not like they should invade tomorrow" -- suggesting only that the desert kingdom be subject to the same standards as other U.S. allies like Israel. [...]

"I think Islamization presents a threat to the public safety of the entire West, including the United States," he told UPI. "Direct and indirect dangers are present in (Muslim) politics and culture."

He said the shared enemy demanded closer trans-Atlantic ties.

"Islam's growth is the greatest threat of this century and we need to interact more on how we (the United States and the European Union) will protect traditional Christian and Jewish (territory)," Wilders said. "I see America as an ally in that fight."

He lambasted cultural relativism and said Islam was incompatible with democracy and Western values. "We shouldn't pretend that all cultures are equal and let equality rule. We've witnessed attacks on America and Europe, so we're all in danger."

Yep.

"The man was sentenced in March on an assault charge to one year and five months without possibility of probation ... The man had requested his March sentence be deferred, prosecutors said. He was notified in writing on Wednesday - a day before the stabbing - that the request had been rejected."

"Suspect in Hamburg 'honour killing' had assault record," from The Local, May 19:

A 23-year-old Hamburg man suspected of stabbing his sister to death in an honour killing last week had already been prosecuted for assaulting her and others, prosecutors confirmed on Monday.

The man was sentenced in March on an assault charge to one year and five months without possibility of probation, the Hamburg prosecutor's office told German press agency DDP on Monday, confirming media reports.

The man had requested his March sentence be deferred, prosecutors said. He was notified in writing on Wednesday - a day before the stabbing - that the request had been rejected.

Police were also investigating earlier claims that he assaulted two of his sisters, including the girl stabbed last week.

Police arrested the man on Friday after the stabbing death of his 16-year-old sister early Friday morning in Hamburg's Sankt Georg district. Neighbours and a passing group of youths heard the girl screaming near the Berliner Tor metro stop and called police at 11:21 pm on Thursday. The girl died about an hour later at the scene of the stabbing.

The girl's oldest brother - like her a German citizen of Afghan origin - admitted to police he had killed her because she had turned away from her family, DDP reported. The family immigrated to Germany from Afghanistan 13 years ago, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported in its online edition.

The brother was charged in February with assaulting the 16-year-old girl and another of his sisters, DDP reported. Senior prosecutor Rüdiger Bagger denied reports that the man had already been sentenced in that case, saying that it was still pending.

The girl's cousin, Mujda O., told Der Spiegel's television unit that the 23-year-old had been getting into fights every two weeks.

"If you were to call this an honour killing, you would be correct. Very correct," the girl, who was not identified with her last name, told Der Spiegel.

An apology, however groveling it may have been, is not enough. More on this story. "Iraqi Sunni party demands tough action against U.S. soldier shooting Quran," from Xinhua, May 19:

BAGHDAD, May 19 (Xinhua) -- A key Iraqi Sunni party demanded Monday the U.S. military to take a tough action against its soldier who used a copy of holy Quran as a target practice, saying apology is not "enough."

The Iraqi Islamic Party, headed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, said in a statement that it "demands the U.S. administration to deal firmly with this desecration to make the soldier an example for others in the future."

The party also demanded the Iraqi government to take an appropriate position toward the "humiliation of Muslims by this heinous crime," said the statement obtained by Xinhua.

"Such offenses have occurred frequently during the past few years and apology is no more enough and the U.S. military has to take stronger measures to honor values of Muslims," stressed the statement....

Absurdity. "Top Taliban chief escapes," from The Sun, May 19 :

A TOP Taliban commander in Afghanistan with links to the killers of several British Army soldiers has escaped from German special forces because they were not authorised to kill him.

The fiasco highlights the absurd role played by the German military, which is known to other combat nations as "the bridge builders", because Berlin will not let them fire shots in any situation other than self-defence.

German special forces had an important Taliban commander in their sights in Afghanistan. But he escaped because the Germans were not authorized to use lethal force....

Once again, initial assumptions that Christianists were behind this have proved to be incorrect. "Morocco 'holds 11 over planned attacks,'" from AFP, May 19 (thanks to Louis):

RABAT (AFP) - Moroccan police have broken up a "terrorist network" of 11 people with links to Al-Qaeda that was planning attacks in Morocco and Belgium, the MAP national news agency said Monday.

The 11, who include a Moroccan resident in Belgium, were picked up in the central city of Fes and in Nador, in the north of the country, MAP said.

They had links with "groups sending volunteers to Iraq and camps of Al-Qaeda's branch in North Africa," the agency added, giving no names....

That group faces charges including murder and attempted murder with firearms, robbery, money laundering, criminal association with terrorist intent and forging official and identity documents....

No surprise here. And remember: with Saudi money comes the Saudi ideology. While Wahhabism is not the only violent or supremacist strain of Islam, it is a violent and supremacist strain, and it is the one the Saudis are bankrolling.

"Muslim leaders in pay of Saudis," by Richard Kerbaj in The Australian, May 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SIX Australian-based Muslim clerics who are leaders of the Islamic community in the country are on the payroll of the Saudi Government, receiving allowances of up to $2000 a month.

The Australian can reveal for the first time the identity of the clerics - some paid through the Saudi embassy in Canberra, others directly from Riyadh's Dawah (preaching) Office - who receive between 3500 and 7000 Saudi riyal ($1975) a month.

The payments to the six - who include former Howard government adviser Amin Hady and Melbourne Somali imam Isse Musse - are part of Saudi Arabia's multi-billion-dollar campaign to transform its hardline image in the West.

However, Sheik Hady told The Australian there were as many as 14 others in the country being paid by the Saudis...

Ali Sina, the courageous, unfoolable, and intimidation-proof ex-Muslim who runs the superb Faith Freedom site, has once again made available his book Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh’s Prophet.

The book description begins: "Why are some Muslims intolerant, violent and supremacist? Why do they bully? What spurs them to riot and murder over the silliest things? To understand Muslims, one must understand their prophet. This psychobiography of Muhammad seeks to unveil the mystery of this man."

Don't miss it. And please note this word from Ali: "Sometimes you my find Amazon.com say 'Temporarily out of stock.' Please pay no attention. They will order the book once you ask for it."

Our friend D. C. Watson weighs in on Omer Subhani, the CAIR op who has been engaged in increasingly paltry and desperate attempts to "expose" my work as inaccurate.

Over the past several days, readers of Jihad Watch have been treated to yet another in a long line of representatives from the Council on American Islamic Relations who have attempted to divert attention away from the CAIR organization's raunchy public record by targeting one of its main critics. The latest is Omer Subhani, Communications Director for CAIR-South Florida. Going into the issues that Omer Subhani attempts to raise in his exposé of Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer would be futile. Spencer certainly doesn't need me or anyone else to defend him.

Regardless of what CAIR representatives opt to declare about him, they haven't exactly been beating down the door demanding to step on stage and debate him. This is for good reason.

Here is a pdf of the full defamation complaint that the Stop the Madrassa Coalition has filed against the former principal of the notorious Brooklyn madrassa.

It is very heartening to see someone fighting back against the defamation weapon that jihadists, their allies, and their dupes have used so effectively for years against their opponents.

Lt. Col. Joseph Myers bucks the establishment. "Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror," by Matt Korade for CQ Politics, May 15:

To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers.

“The Quranic Concept of War,” by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn’t much studied in the West.

But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism.

Yes, Malik's is a very important book. I discuss it in my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers.

Malik attempts to teach his readers about the doctrinal aspects of “Quranic warfare,” said Myers, who wrote a paper on the subject published in Parameters, the Army War College quarterly, and delivered a presentation at the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa annual conference in April.

This is the religious definition of war as outlined by Malik with explanations from the Quran, and it is “infinitely supreme and effective,” the general wrote.

Because the West does not associate war with the divine, however, Western interpretations of the motivations for jihad are unaccustomed to the general’s Quranic view; the ideas, for example, that “tumult and oppression [of Muslims] are worse than slaughter,” and that because of this, “war must be waged ‘only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.’ ”...

Myers explains:

The reason I studied this work, once I was able to find it, is because I had heard or had read in an article that nowhere in our military education institutions are we studying the campaigns of the Prophet Mohammed in any similar way that we studied military campaigns that are famous and popular in Western military history. And I know that to be true because I do work in the military professional education system. Generally speaking, I believe that to be true.

So Malik’s treatise is an important contribution to what I think would be called the canon of strategic jihad studies, jihad, the Quranic and Islamic approach to warfare. It’s not widely read in the West, but then you could argue that a lot about Islam and understanding the war-fighting doctrines in Islam are not widely studied in the West, or studied at least professionally.

You asked the question about the divide between, let’s say academia, and a lot of debates over what is the meaning of the threat we’re facing in the war on terror. Who are they? What are their roots? For me professionally, as a military officer, I think our process for doing threat analysis is fairly straightforward. We have our own doctrine for it, it’s called [the] intelligence preparation of the battlefield process. Step three is evaluate the threat. If you go to the army FM [field manual] on the IPB [intelligence preparation of the battlefield] process, it will tell you that the doctrinal assessment of your enemy is based on how your enemy expresses his doctrine to you, based on the way he sees it, says it, writes it, reads it orients on it, and organizes around it. The enemy we’re facing in the war on terror, al Qaeda, says they are fighting a jihad against the West to establish the faith of Islam. Now, if that’s their doctrine, then arguably that is the doctrine that we template, irrespective of whether their interpretation of jihad or their discussion of Islam within the theological community of Muslims is correct or incorrect; that is irrelevant to our discussion and understanding of how the enemy presents his doctrine to us, and it is his doctrine that we template over the terrain....

Read it all.

This will mean, of course, the subjugation of women and non-Muslims.

"Pakistan Takes Steps Towards Shari'a State In Seven Districts," from MEMRI, May 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

On May 11, 2008, the secular government in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) finalized a deal with the Taliban groups for the implementation of shari'a in the province's seven districts. The Pashtun nationalist government in the NWFP, which came to power last month, had vowed to talk to the Taliban in order to establish peace in the region. The talks were held between the government, Pakistani Taliban and the outlawed Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e -Muhammadi (Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Shari'a).

The Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi, led by Maulana Sufi Muhammad, the Islamist leader recently released from prison under a deal with the government, is the dominant Taliban group in the NWFP. It is also a constituent of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, which is led by Baitullah Mehsud.

[...]

Under the deal between the NWFP government and the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi, which is controlled by Sufi Muhammad's son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, a shari'a system of administration and justice will be implemented in seven districts. This will effectively create the world's first mini-shari'a state within Pakistan, with the provincial government practically ceding control to the Taliban in roughly 45% of the province.

[...]

According to the Roznama Khabrain report, "the [ulema of the] department of Amr Bil Maroof will train [sic] people in Islam, Islamic teachings, Islamic norms and laws." There will be total ban on singing and dancing, and the ulema, who will not be paid a salary, will be based in the local police stations of the seven districts and offer their services as part of their work for Islam.

Courts Will Deliver Islam-Compliant Punishments

The paper stated that shari'a courts will be created in the seven districts, and that these courts will have the power to deliver Islam-compliant verdicts such as amputating the hands of individuals convicted of theft, administering 80 lashes or stoning for convicted rapists, or enforcing qisas - a principle that permits "like punishment" for a crime....

The "great jihad" in Jaipur last week

The name of this late Meccan sura is Al-Furqan (الفرقان), which is variously translated as the criterion, the canon, the standard. The word appears in v. 1, where it is identified as the Qur’an. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Qur’an is “called thus [al-furqan] because it has discriminated (faraqa) between truth and falsehood.”

Allah sent it to Muhammad, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn continues, “that he may be to all the worlds, [to] mankind and the jinn, but not the angels, a warner, a threatening of God’s chastisement.” Why not to the angels? Perhaps because the angels “resist not Allah in that which He commandeth them” (66:6), and thus have no need of Muhammad’s warning. But he has been sent to everyone on earth, as he himself explains in a hadith: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.”

Probably he had people like Mubarak and Musharraf in mind, although in my book both could be much more effective agents of the Crusaders than they have been up to now.

"Bin Laden lashes out at Arab leaders," by Omar Sinan for AP :

CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden released a new message on Sunday denouncing Arab leaders for sacrificing the Palestinians and saying the head of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah did not really have the strength to take on Israel.

In his second audio message in three days focusing on the Palestinians, the al-Qaida leader said the only way to liberate Palestine is to fight the Arab regimes that are protecting Israel. And he called on Muslim militants in Egypt to help break the blockade of Gaza.

Bin Laden said Muslims should ignore the Islamic prohibition against raising arms against fellow Muslims, claiming it was legitimate to rise up against leaders who are not governing according to Islamic law. Those leaders, he said, came to power "either by a military coup or with backing from foreign forces."

This is the phenomenon of takfir, which Salafi ("pure") Muslims practice much more frequently than do other Muslims. It is the practice of declaring fellow Muslims to be unbelievers -- in this case, Osama is saying that secular Muslim rulers are not Muslims because they do not implement Sharia.

"Those (Arab) kings and leaders sacrificed Palestine and Al-Aqsa to keep their crowns," bin Laden said, referring to Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites. "But we will not be relieved of this responsibility."

[...]

He calls Arab leaders "agents of the crusaders" and "wolves" and portrays Arab citizens as herds of sheep who have been handed over to the wolves to look after them.

"Every day, the herd wishes the wolves would stop preying on it," he said.

He said Israel was weak but the Arabs have not fought "even a single serious war to get Palestine back."...

The rollicking series continues. Here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, and V.

In today's installment, our hero begins chasing his own tail. Back in his Part II, he said this:

Taqiyya is a Shia concept that essentially allows Shias to keep their true beliefs secret while they live among Sunnis. Davis claims that the term also applies to Sunni Muslims who are living in "Dar al-Harb" or as Davis implies, the West, and thus he claims that Muslim organizations who are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace are actually lying.

[...]

Hugh Fitzgerald, the other ideologue at Jihad Watch, attempts to summarize what taqiyya means. He argues that Sunnis also practice taqiyya (his source is a work by Mervyn Hiskett, a British scholar of Islam - he does not cite a single Islamic source stating that Sunni Muslims must deceive non-Muslims [but why would Muslim scholars actually say this? It's a secret, right Hugh?] although he could find texts from Shia scholars allowing for such a thing in Sunni dominated states).

So we're to believe -- and it is widely believed -- that taqiyya, religious deception, is a Shi'ite concept that has no foundation in Sunni theology. But when I quoted Sunni authorities who do allow for it, Subhani begins to backtrack. In fact, he backtracks the whole way. In Part VI of his anti-Spencer farrago, "Taqiyya Alert!," he says:

Yea, Sunnis sure do practice taqiyya.

Oops! There goes the entire substance of Part II of his series, which was all about what evil dopes we were for suggesting that Sunnis practice taqiyya! Maybe this is why the parts of his series are misnumbered.

Subhani quotes the Tafsir al-Jalalayn for Qur'an 3:28, which says that if the Muslims "fear something," they may "show patronage" to the unbelievers "through words, but not in your hearts." It goes on to say that this provision was given "before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it."

One might reasonably get the impression from that that the believers may deceive the unbelievers in order to protect themselves in a land in which Islam does not have hegemony, but Subhani says it ain't so: "This doesn't provide dispensation to deceive non-Muslims by portraying themselves as 'moderates' so that they can secretly take over a non-Muslim country. Maybe Spencer sees that somewhere in this tafsir, but I don't think most people will. This tafsir specifically says that if a Muslim fears that he or she will be persecuted if they do not speak well of their non-Muslim ruler then they should lie. Why? To preserve their life, duh."

All right. So if a Muslim believes he will be persecuted if he does not speak well of a non-Muslim ruler, he should lie. Does this allow him to lie if he fears he will be persecuted if he does not speak well of non-Muslim rule in general? In other words, may he lie if he fears that he will face difficulties if he declares his preference for Sharia rather than for democratic pluralism? And may he lie if he is working for the institution of Sharia in a non-Muslim, democratic and pluralist state, but doesn't want the non-Muslim rulers to find out that that is what he is doing, because he may then face persecution?

I submit that Omer Subhani's distinction here is a distinction without an effective difference, and that his self-contradiction is indicative of an increasing desperation.

Also, I'd feel much more inclined to accept his indignant contention that it would be forbidden for Sharia supremacists to pose as "moderates" in order to gull unwitting infidels, if it weren't for the fact that there is so much evidence that exactly that is happening. As I've pointed out before, In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document that came to light last year, Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram explains that the Brotherhood's work in America is "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The memorandum concludes with “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Among these organizations are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); and the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), from which came in 1994 the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Muslim American Society (MAS), meanwhile, is the name under which the Brotherhood operates in the U.S.

Yet these are all widely reputed to be "moderate" groups.

The traitor Samir Khan is still in his North Carolina home advocating jihad against Americans, and law enforcement officials seem unable to figure out what to do about it.

Here is Fox's initial report, and now here is a report on his intemperate reaction to all the attention he has been getting. "Web Site Sympathetic to Terrorists Blasts FOX News for Profile," from FoxNews, May 18 (thanks to Mackie):

An English-language Web site that unabashedly promotes the work of Islamic terrorists has responded to a FOXNews.com profile of the site by assailing "the Kuffaar behind FOX News." Kuffaar, roughly translated, means "unbelievers."

After quoting FOX News.com's Friday story and citing verses from the Koran, the Revolution.Muslimpad.com blog affirms the belief that jihad is "an Islaamic obligation" rooted in Muslim texts.

"So in reality, you are calling my Prophet, Muhammad — peace be upon him — a terrorist," the blog post continues. "But of course, you guys won’t say that directly because you fear the wrath of the Muslims."...

Yes, that's true at least: most people will not speak freely about what we're facing, because they...fear the wrath of the Muslims.

What the President says here is good -- it is good to see him explaining why the West offers a better way of life. His words, although framed as criticism of the authoritarian governments of the Islamic world, could also be applied easily to Sharia states.

One important weakness of his argument here, however, is that it is one-sided. Democracy may not be incompatible with Islam, but is Islam incompatible with democracy? Does Islam contain within it a supremacist imperative that would destroy democracy once it attains sufficient power to do so? If Sharia is the law of the supreme deity, and Islam teaches Muslims that they have a responsibility to work to impose it, might there be some believers in Islam who are working in the West to destroy democracy?

And can these questions even be asked in the public sphere?

"President Bush Attends World Economic Forum," from the White House site, May 18 (thanks to LGF):

There are people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam. But the truth is that democracies, by definition, make a place for people of religious belief. America is one of the most -- is one of the world's leading democracies, and we're also one of the most religious nations in the world. More than three-quarters of our citizens believe in a higher power. Millions worship every week and pray every day. And they do so without fear of reprisal from the state. In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion. Democracy is the only system of government that guarantees their protection.

According to columnist David Brooks, who has been talking in his naive boy-scoutish way to Barack Obama, the teflon candidate believes that “the U.S. needs a foreign policy that ‘looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.’ And, again according to Brooks, “Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that ‘they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.’”

Let's start with the "legitimate claims" of Hamas. In fact, let's start with just one of the sections in the Hamas Charter, which is the clearest guide to Hamas's unswerving world-view and intentions.

Here it is:

In one of this articles criticizing Robert Spencer, CAIR’s Omar Subhani wrote this:

Fitzgerald says that when Muslims say jihad is really a spiritual struggle they are not telling the truth. He asserts that the hadith that states that the struggle against the ego is the greater jihad has weak chains of transmission and he also states that this interpretation is a "recent one in Islam." He is wrong on both counts (honestly, this is like talking to a Salafi).

First, how could the interpretation of jihad being a spiritual struggle be a "recent one" when the hadith is mentioned in so many ancient Islamic texts that it couldn't possibly be limited to the last hundred years? The fact is, it is not a "recent" interpretation. The Muhaddithun, as Fitzgerald is wont to cite, and which ones he does not mention, have mentioned this hadith in many works, including by notable hadith shcolars like: al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. These scholars have criticized the chain of narrators, but none of them have said the hadith was forged, only that the chain was weak, which Fitzgerald is correct in noting.

But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's [sic] meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged.”

First, when I wrote that the “interpretation” of Jihad as a “spiritual struggle” -- which has as its “authority” only that single, doubtful hadith (doubtful according to the most respected muhaddithin, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim) -- is a “recent one,” I did not mean, obviously, that the hadith is of “recent origin.” There are no hadith, of any level of “authenticity,” that are less than a thousand years old. Rather, I meant that the very notion of such an interpretation of “Jihad” only has gotten going in the modern period, when some Muslim would-be reformers, early in the 20th century, aware of Islam’s weakness vis-à-vis Infidels, sought ways to reinterpret the Jihad.

They did this because they knew that Jihad in the traditional sense, using the traditional means -- qitaal -- would lead to disaster for Muslims. And still later, with millions of Muslims now having managed to settle in the West -- without the Infidel elites realizing what folly they had committed, unaware of the grim but inexorable future consequences for Infidel societies, and for Infidel security -- Muslims have become keenly aware of the need to keep emitting a steady smokescreen of misinformation, diversion, blague, in order to prevent the most obvious truths about Islam from being known. Just consult any of the scholars of Islam who wrote before the curtain of the Great Inhibition descended, and the Saudi-funded School of Apology managed, step by well-financed step, to take over so much of the academic teaching about Islam.

Gee, now why might this be? "Bounties a Bust in Hunt for Al-Qaeda: Lavish U.S. Rewards Program Has Failed to Dent Network's Leadership," by Craig Whitlock for the Washington Post, May 17, 2008 :

SANAA, Yemen -- Jaber Elbaneh is one of the world's most-wanted terrorism suspects. In 2003, the U.S. government indicted him, posted a $5 million reward for his capture and distributed posters bearing photos of him around the globe.

None of it worked. Elbaneh remains at large, as wanted as ever. The al-Qaeda operative, however, isn't very hard to find.

One day last month, he shuffled down a busy street here in the Yemeni capital, past several indifferent policemen. Then he disappeared inside a building, though not before accidentally stepping on a reporter's toes.

Elbaneh, 41, is one of two dozen al-Qaeda members listed under a U.S. program that offers enormous sums of cash for information leading to their capture. For years, the Bush administration has touted the bounties as a powerful tool in its fight against terrorism. But in the hunt for al-Qaeda, it has proved a bust.

Known as Rewards for Justice, the program dates to 1984 and was originally used to track down fugitive terrorism suspects of all persuasions, from the Balkans to the Palestinian territories. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the most-wanted list was expanded -- and the rewards boosted exponentially -- as part of a push to eliminate al-Qaeda's leadership.

So far, however, Rewards for Justice has failed to put a dent in al-Qaeda's central command. Offers of $25 million each for al-Qaeda founders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have attracted hundreds of anonymous calls but no reliable leads, officials familiar with the program say. For a time, the program was generating so little useful information that in Pakistan, where most al-Qaeda chiefs are believed to be hiding, it was largely abandoned.

"It's certainly been ineffective," said Robert L. Grenier, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and former director of the agency's counterterrorism center. "It hasn't produced results, and it hasn't particularly produced leads."

The failures of Rewards for Justice can be traced to several factors: weak publicity campaigns in places where al-Qaeda's leadership is based; skepticism that the United States would deliver the money and protect informants; and a mistaken assumption that anyone's loyalty can be bought if the price is high enough....

And the mistaken assumption that the ideology of the jihadists is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

"Prosecutor Ahmad Khan Ayar told the appeals court that the primary court sentence [of death] was "the right decision" according to Islamic law and the Afghan Constitution."

Yes, Afghanistan, where the constitution stipulates that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" (Chapter 1, Article 3). How many U.S. policymakers didn't even see this one coming?

Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh Update. "Afghan Journalist Charged With Insulting Islam Appeals Death Sentence," from the Associated Press, May 18:

KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan journalism student sentenced to death for insulting Islam denied the charges before an appeals court Sunday, saying he only confessed to questioning the religion's treatment of women because he was tortured.

Back in February, an Afghan government official said Kambakhsh would not be executed. We'll see about that.

During an hour-long hearing, a judge read aloud a transcript of the Jan. 22 proceedings against 24-year-old Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh at the primary court in northern Balkh province.

It was the first time the public and the media heard full details from the closed-door trial, which highlights the influence of conservative religious attitudes in post-Taliban Afghanistan's still-nascent justice system.

Kambakhsh was studying journalism at Balkh University in Mazar-i-Sharif and writing for local newspapers when he was arrested Oct. 27.

The transcript said Kambakhsh disrupted classes at the university by asking questions about women's rights under Islam. It also said he distributed an article about the subject and wrote an additional three paragraphs for the piece.

The only people with him in the courtroom in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif were three judges, a court scribe and the prosecutor. Kambakhsh said he had no defense lawyer, and only three minutes to defend himself.

He was transferred to Pul-e Charkhi prison on March 27, and his case was moved to Kabul, where human rights groups believed he would have a fair trial.

On Sunday, Kambakhsh spoke in the court in Kabul, again without a defense lawyer.

"I'm Muslim, and I would never let myself write such an article. All these accusations are nonsense," he said during an emotional 15-minute statement.

"These accusations come from two professors and other students because of private hostilities against me. I was tortured by the intelligence service in Balkh province, and they made me confess that I wrote three paragraphs in this article."

According to the transcript from the Balkh court proceedings, the prosecutor said Kambakhsh admitted to writing three paragraphs of the article and had initialed them.

He also was accused of writing, "This is the real face of Islam ... The prophet Mohammad wrote verses of the holy Quran just for his own benefit."

Prosecutor Ahmad Khan Ayar told the appeals court that the primary court sentence was "the right decision" according to Islamic law and the Afghan Constitution.

"Kambakhsh has insulted Islam by writing these paragraphs, and he has insulted the Prophet Muhammad," Ayar said. "I ask the appeals court today to uphold the decision of the primary court of Balkh and sentence him to death."

A number of rights groups have demanded that the case be annulled and Kambakhsh set free. A U.S. State Department spokesman expressed concern that Kambakhsh was sentenced to death for "basically practicing his profession."

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said it was concerned that Kambakhsh may have been targeted because his brother, Yaqub Ibrahimi, had written about human rights violations and local politics.

A few days ago I noted that a little-known Indian jihadist group had sent an email claiming responsibility for last week's bombings in Jaipur, in which over 50 people were killed.

But the email was more than just a claim of responsibility. In "Not just a claim, a manifesto for jihad" in The Hindu, May 17 (thanks to all who sent this in), Praveen Swami explains why:

Ever since newspaper and television stations received an e-mail from the terrorists who carried out the Jaipur serial bombings, commentators have busied themselves searching for messages hidden amidst its text.

In fact, the e-mail couldn’t be more transparent: as its authors assert at its outset, the document mailed to the media quite simply is the “Indian Mujahideen’s Declaration of Open War Against India.”

Given the stark fact that the bicycles shown in the video attached to the Indian Mujahideen e-mail were those used to execute the Jaipur serial bombings, there can be little doubt the message is credible.

It would be misleading, though, to understand the e-mail only as a claim of responsibility. Like a similar document issued by the Indian Mujahideen after the bombings of three trial-court buildings in Uttar Pradesh last year, the e-mail is — despite its crude style and poor spelling — a political manifesto.

According to the authors of the e-mail, the bombings were carried out to meet two purposes: first, to “blow part your tourism structure” and, second, to “demolish your faith in the dirty mud, in the name of Hanuman, Sita [and] Ram”.

At its outset, the e-mail links the attacks in Jaipur to the broader global jihad, warning the “USA and [Great] Britain in particular that [that] we Muslims are one across the globe.” Although there is no reference to the Islamist campaigns in Afghanistan or Iraq, the e-mail threatens that western visitors to India “will be welcomed by our suicide attackers.”

But the e-mail is, for the most part, concerned with explaining just why the Indian Mujahideen are conducting terrorist attacks. Violence, the e-mail states, is a means to “to clearly give our message to Kuffar-e-Hind [the infidels of India] that if Islam and Muslims in this country are not safe then the light of your safety will also go off very soon”.[...]

Some of the sharpest invective in the document, interestingly, is reserved for the clerics who issued an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in February. After two days of discussions held at the historic Dar-ul-Uloom seminary in Deoband, Uttar Pradesh, the clerics had said terrorism was “un-Islamic,” and called on Indian Muslims to “continue their loyalty towards their motherland.”

It wasn't at all an "unequivocal" condemnation of terrorism, as explained here. Still, the fact that it upset these jihadists makes it look better.

Describing the clerics as “dogs,” a “bunch of cowards”, “puppets of Hinduism” and “ullema-e-Kuffar”, or the disbeliever’s clergy, the e-mail interrogates “what terrorism is all about and who is a terrorist”. Who, it asks, are the terrorists: the “Hindus who killed the Muslims in Gujarat [and] Maharashtra or us who took revenge [qisas] through serial blast in Mumbai local trains?”

Citing from the Koran and the Hadith, or traditions of the Prophet, the Indian Mujahideen argues its actions have theological legitimacy. Scriptural calls for forgiveness relied on by the Deoband clerics, it says, are only relevant after a decisive military victory. Dialogue, it continues, is futile: “there is no existence of compromise between a believer and a non-believer.”

Islamic law, the e-mail asserts, allows the use of collective retaliation against civilians if they are infidels. Given that “a single [Muslim] home is attacked by thousands of [Hindu] terrorists, [a] single woman is raped by hundreds of men,” it becomes legitimate for “the mujahideen to go to any extent or use anything to crush the dignity and power of the enemy.”

According to the e-mail, all Indians are legitimate targets because “they have willingly elected their leaders and representatives in Parliament who draw up the policies which murder our children, dishonour our women, occupy our houses and plunder our wealth.” Moreover, Hindus “fund the terrorist organisations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiv Sena.”

In its hostility to the Deoband clerics’ declaration, the e-mail is one with most south Asian jihadists. Soon after the declaration was issued, the Jamait ul-Mujahideen rejected it as “poison for all Islamic movements in the world.” For its part, the United Jihad Council said the declaration was “one-sided,” and promised to continue the jihad “until the Day of Doom.”...

Assuming that the soldier really did know this was the Qur'an -- he says he didn't but the military "rejected the claim" -- this story illustrates many things.

1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can't help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur'an copiously to justify their acts of violence.

2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate. If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D'Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn "moderates" into "extremists" -- D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.

3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don't want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier's action. However, kissing the Qur'an and begging for forgiveness -- and holding an apology "ceremony" in the first place -- are gestures that spring from a misunderstanding of how they are likely to be perceived by the "tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony."

Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. But to kiss the Qur'an and to beg for forgiveness are signs that one accepts its authority and the authority of those before whom one is begging. Coming from non-Muslims, it is likely that they will be interpreted as gestures of submission, and the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims is a significant concept in Islamic law -- although I am sure Major General Hammond and his staff are unaware of this. Given that, is it wise to be giving such impressions? Are such impressions not likely to create even more tension in the future?

4. "Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident 'aggression against the entire Islamic world.'" This is simply hysterical. It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier. If he has shot up a Bible, Christians who knew about the incident might have regarded him as something of an idiot, but that would have been the end of the story. No apology ceremony, no military brass kissing the book, nothing.

Of course, we are not engaged in a war in a country where the majority of people revere the Bible, but that doesn't completely account for the difference. The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That's fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything." But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense.

"U.S. soldier uses Quran for target practice; military apologizes," from CNN, May 17 (thanks to JS):

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A soldier used the Quran -- Islam's holy book -- for target practice, forcing the chief U.S. commander in Baghdad to issue a formal apology on Saturday.

Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, apologized to leaders in Radhwaniya, in the western outskirts of Baghdad, for the staff sergeant who was a sniper section leader assigned to the headquarters of the 64th Armored Regiment. He also read a letter of apology by the shooter.

It was the first time the incident -- which tested the relationship between U.S.-backed Sunni militiamen and the military -- was made public since it was discovered May 11.

"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."

Another military official kissed a Quran and presented is as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders.

The soldier, whose name was not released, shot at a Quran on May 9, villagers said. The Quran used in the incident was discovered two days later, according to the military.

Hammond also read from the shooter's letter: "I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. ... My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."

A tribal leader said "the criminal act by U.S. forces" took place at a shooting range at the Radhwaniya police station. After the shooters left, an Iraqi policeman found a target marked in the middle of the bullet-riddled Quran.

Copies of the pictures of the Quran obtained by CNN show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.

A military investigation found the shooter guilty and relieved him of duty; he will be redeployed to the United States for reassignment away from the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, a U.S. official said.

"The actions of one soldier were nothing more than criminal behavior," Hammond said. "I've come to this land to protect you, to support you -- not to harm you -- and the behavior of this soldier was nothing short of wrong and unacceptable."

Officials said the soldier claimed he wasn't aware the book was the Quran. U.S. officials rejected the claim.

Tribal leaders, dignitaries and local security officials attended the ceremony, while residents carried banners and chanted slogans, including "Yes, yes to the Quran" and "America out, out."

Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world."

A naive and muddleheaded multiculturalist ambassador impedes anti-terror efforts. "Coddling Terrorists In Yemen," by Ali H. Soufan, an FBI supervisory special agent from 1997 to May 2005, in the Washington Post :

Seven years after al-Qaeda terrorists Jamal al-Badawi and Fahd al-Quso confessed to me their crucial involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole, and three years after they were convicted in a Yemeni court -- where a judge imposed a death sentence on Badawi -- they, along with many other al-Qaeda terrorists, are free. On Oct. 12, 2000, when I flew to Yemen to lead the FBI's Cole investigation, I had no idea how uncooperative the Yemeni government would initially be. Nor could I have imagined how disconnected from reality the U.S. ambassador to Yemen then, Barbara K. Bodine, would prove.

I have hesitated in the past to share my view of the conflict between Bodine and the FBI's counterterrorism leader, John O'Neill. I feel compelled, however, to respond to Bodine's recent comments, which slander the efforts of many dedicated counterterrorism agents and divert attention from the significant terrorist problem within Yemen, our "ally" in the "war on terror."

A recent Post report on Yemen allowing al-Qaeda operatives to go free offered insight into the challenges the FBI faced. Bodine was quoted in the article not urging the Yemeni government to rearrest the terrorists but, instead, denigrating the agents who investigated the attack. She faulted the FBI as being slow to trust Yemeni authorities and said agents were "dealing with a bureaucracy and a culture they didn't understand. . . . We had one group working on a New York minute, and another on a 4,000-year-old history."

In fact, our team included several Arab American agents who understood the culture and the region. Even so, such comments were irrelevant. The FBI left Yemen with the terrorists in jail.

It is true that while tracking the terrorists we worked "on a New York minute." We owed that much to the sailors murdered on the Cole and to all innocent people who remained targets as long as the terrorists were free.

It is also true that we did not trust some Yemeni officials. We had good reason not to:

When the FBI arrived in Yemen, some government officials tried to convince us that the explosion had been caused by a malfunction in the Cole's operating systems. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh even asked the U.S. government for money to clean up port damage the United States "caused."...

Read it all.

When the Court first handed down this decision, I wrote here that "this is a small step in the right direction, but not as much of one as you might think," because some schools of Islamic jurisprudence don't mandate the death penalty for women who leave Islam anyway -- and now it looks as if it is even less of a step in the right direction, as the modern, moderate Malaysian government is going to appeal the decision.

"Appeal against woman renouncing Islam in Malaysia," from IANS, May 18 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

The Malaysian government has said it would challenge a court decision allowing a Chinese woman to renounce Islam and revert to Buddhism.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the court verdict was not final and an appeal before the higher court was almost complete.

He noted that the court decision favouring the woman, Tan Ean Huan - who called herself Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah as a Muslim - was protested by Islamist groups including a Kuala Lumpur-based political group, Hizbut Tahrir....

“This is the house of a blasphemer,” reads a sign on his house.

"Pakistan: Doctor Jailed On ‘Blasphemy’ Charges," from Compass Direct News, May 16 (thanks to Cindy):

ISTANBUL, May 16 (Compass Direct News) – Pakistani police have jailed a Christian doctor after “blasphemy” charges incited a mob attack on his home last week in Punjab province.

Officials said Dr. Robin Sardar is being held in Punjab’s Gujranwala Central Jail. His wife and six children have left their home in the town of Chak Chatta, 200 miles southeast of Islamabad.

“This is the house of a blasphemer,” reads a sign on the gates of Sardar’s now empty home where a crowd of angry villagers gathered on May 5, Union of Catholic Asia News (UCAN) reported. The group bore sticks and kerosene and chanted death threats against the doctor, family members told Sharing Life Ministries Pakistan (SLMP), a Christian prison ministry.

“A huge number of Muslims wearing green turbans surrounded our house, most of them armed with weapons and wooden sticks,” Sardar’s wife told SLMP. “They were shouting ‘The punishment of the blasphemer is death.’”

She said that police arrived at the house after several hours and used a ladder to climb the property wall and transport Sardar to safety.

[...]

Local Christians said that the incident began when a Muslim vendor filed a blasphemy complaint with police on May 4 against the Christian doctor. Sardar and the vendor had reportedly clashed over whether the merchant could set up shop in front of the doctor’s clinic.

But a May 4 First Information Report (FIR) filed by the vendor, Muhammad Rafique, claimed that Sardar had insulted Islam’s prophet Muhammad during a friendly visit between the two men two days prior.

“[Sardar] began preaching about Christianity, saying bad words against the prophet Muhammad,” Rafique said in the written testimony given to police. “He also compared the prophet Muhammad’s beard with the beard of a Sikh.”

At this, Rafique and several friends came to blows with Sardar and attempted to force him to apologize, the FIR stated.

But Sardar denied having said anything against Muhammad....

Pakistani's blasphemy law is so often used for score-settling. But once again, the indifference of the human rights establishment will allow this sort of thing to go on, and on, and on.

Omer Subhani is the Communications Director for CAIR-South Florida, and he has undertaken a multipart "exposé" of my work, which I just discovered and have been responding to this week. And as we have seen in Parts I, II, III, and IV, he's just as honest and committed to fair dealing as his colleagues in that unsavory organization.

In Part V, "Wash Sins Away with Wudu!," it's more of the same. This one is all about honor killing, with a kind of bizarre detour into wudu, which is ritual washing, and things I supposedly said on Michael Savage's show in February:

You know, if doing wudu was a sure fired way of cleansing oneself from sin then I would be a wali of Allah. No doubt about it. According to Robert Spencer, who was on the Michael Savage radio show, Muslims like to kill people, especially their shameful daughters, for reasons of purity.

He replied to a question Savage asked him regarding what Islamic rules there are that are out there that call for honor killings. Spencer replied, roughly, with the following: "Well, I think that the fundamental attitude comes from the purity emphasis, and the shame honor emphasis in Muslim culture. For example, the fact that in Islam there is no idea of the confession or being forgiven of ones sins before the end of one's life rather there is just purification you make various ablutions and wash after sin has been committed, but you can never be sure that Allah will forgive you."

"Spencer replied, roughly..."! Very roughly, indeed! I don't have a transcript or recording of this appearance on the Savage show, and certainly don't take Subhani's version of what I said as accurate, but wudu isn't for washing away sins. It is for ritual purity, undertaken before prayers and handling the Qur'an. It is broken, and hence must be performed again before prayers, if one breaks wind, urinates, sleeps, vomits, etc.

But it does not have to do with forgiveness of sins, and even in Subhani's representation of my remarks on the Savage show I don't say it does -- I was saying that there is no idea of the forgiveness of sins in Islam, only of ritual purity and impurity. But that doesn't prevent Subhani from taking my remark (as he represents it) that "you can never be sure that Allah will forgive you" and pretending that I said that wudu brings forgiveness:

Wash after the sin has been committed? This is just too easy to pass up that I have to point out the obvious stupidity of such a statement.

So if a Muslim kills his mother and father, just because he got mad let's say, then all that Muslim has to do is wash up and he or she will be fine, forgiven by God, sin free??? Really?

Of course not, and I didn't say anything remotely like this even by his own account.

That's even easier than making a confession at church, wouldn't you say Robert? I mean, think of the gas you would waste for every time you had to go run down to the church to be forgiven.

In all seriousness, I hope I misheard Mr. Spencer's brilliant analysis. The aspect of Savage's show that I found rather humorous was the idea they were promoting that "honor killings" are becoming more and more common in the U.S. The U.N. estimates roughly 5,000 or so the past year... in the whole world. There have been two incidents that have made national headlines in the U.S. related to the notion of honor killing. The Said sisters in Texas and Aqsa Parvez in Canada. May Allah have mercy upon all three of them. So... one was in the United States.

That's two more than there were in North America the year before, or at least two more that were reported, and isn't that two too many, Mr. Subhani? But of course he is too busy whipping himself up in a frenzy against Savage and me to take any pains actually to do anything to try to head off another honor killing in the U.S.

He concludes with this:

Anyway, the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters when they were born because they were ashamed that they did not have a son so I would imagine that killing your daughter because she wasn't wearing a hijab would also be similarly looked down upon. But that's just me. Allah knows best.

Yeah, that's just you. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims don't agree with you. A few years ago the Jordanian Parliament rejected on Islamic grounds an attempt to stiffen penalties of honor killings. But I'm certain that Omer Subhani hasn't had a single word to say about that. No, his venom is reserved for uppity non-Muslims like me who have the temerity to notice.

Just in case you were getting distracted by those 10,000+ jihad terror attacks since 9/11, the OIC helps you remember that Muslims are victims, not perpetrators. Got it? Victims, you Islamophobe. "OIC to adopt ‘memorial day' for massacres against Muslims," from Today's Zaman, May 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member countries plan to declare a day of memorial for massacres and genocide committed against Muslim communities in various countries throughout the 20th century.

On Friday, representatives of OIC youth organizations came together at İstanbul's Grand Cevahir Hotel for a meeting organized by the Islamic Conference Youth Forum for Dialogue and Cooperation (ICYF-DC) to discuss programs to create awareness of Muslim grievances over the past within the younger generation and foster solidarity among OIC members.

"OIC countries are being confronted by different Islamophobic groups that have developed a plethora of myths of so-called historic violence Muslim countries [perpetrated] against others. That is a conscious strategy to create an image of Muslim peoples as ruthless and Islam as a culture of violence.

Yeah, "Islamophobes" are 100% responsible for that perception. Osama? Zawahri? Abu Bakar Bashir? Omar Bakri? Zionist agents to a man!

On the other hand, the world community -- even its most educated strata -- doesn't have any idea about the genocidal campaigns Muslim peoples have been subjected to throughout the 20th century," ICYF-DC Secretary-General Elshad Iskandarov said at the conference.

April 9 was among the proposals for the observance, a date that marks the anniversary of the massacre of Palestinian villagers in Deir Yassin near Jerusalem by Israeli forces in 1948. If chosen as the memorial day for 20th century killings of Muslims, April 9 will also mark other tragedies, such as the Van massacre of Turks by Armenians on May 22, 1916; the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia and Herzegovina perpetrated by Serbs on July 8, 1995; the Sétif and Guelma massacre of May 8, 1945 of Algerians by French forces; and the Khojaly massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians on Feb. 26, 1993.

Tamer Gazioğlu, the representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC), proposed adding the Muratağa-Sandallar killings of Turkish Cypriots at the hands of Greeks in 1974 to the provisional list....

Trumped up, exaggerated, or fictional massacres, but in any case, it goes on and on: displacement, finger-pointing, tu quoque games, but never, ever, an acknowledgment of responsibility and a sincere dedication to change their own behavior.

Here again, the responsibility is entirely upon non-Muslims to foster integration. There seems to be no awareness whatsoever of the fact that Islamic leaders in Europe are discouraging integration, or any discussions of the manifold implications of that fact. "Culture Dialogue: EU Needs To Teach Coexistence At School," from ANSAmed, May 16 (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSAmed) - BRUSSELS, MAY 16 - In order to build up a European society where Muslims, Jews and Christians can live together in harmony we must act on the schools and on the children: this is the "recipe" which the EU must apply, according to what has emerged from the public debate organised by the EU Commission under the initiatives of the European Year of intercultural dialogue. "We must contribute to the conciliation by focusing on education," Education and Culture Commissioner Jan Figel said, explaining that he has just signed an agreement which multiplies by four the EU contribution for the Erasmus Mundus programme, which allows the students of the southern coast of the Mediterranean to study in Europe.

According to the leader of the Muslim Council in the UK, Abduljalil Sajid, it is necessary that the institutions try to establish a dialogue with the religious communities, "because the churches are always a resource: when there is a crisis, the religious communities are always ready to help without asking for anything in return," he said in a speech at the conference. Mario Mauro, vice-president of the European Parliament, also agreed with the work to be done in the schools: "We must promote education policies which also include religion and help to understand the differences, because the future of Europe depends on how we will integrate". (ANSAmed).

Does anyone really not know that George W. Bush believes Islam is a peaceful religion? Apparently some don't: yesterday "a young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar" scolded the President for this, telling him: "I think it comes out that you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims."

Oh, the mind reels. Yet the sentiments of this "young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar," are not all that different from the assumptions of the mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, in America today. Two of these assumptions are:

1. If you take note of the fact that Islamic jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islam texts and teachings that -- at very least by the account of the jihadists themselves -- justify violence and supremacism, it must mean that you hate Muslims.

But do Islamic texts and teachings actually contain elements that justify violence and supremacism? If they do, would it really mean that one necessarily dislikes Muslims if one points it out? Wouldn't that be rather like saying that if you point out that the Sun is hot, you must hate eskimos?

2. Those who "relate extremism to Muslims" are people like (preposterously enough, since he has bent over backwards to deny any such link) the President and other non-Muslims. There is no notice taken of the fact that the people who are really expending all their time energy to "relate extremism to Muslims" are Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their ilk.

And also: if Islam really isn't a peaceful religion, as it manifestly isn't, as it is the only religion that contains doctrines and traditions mandating warfare against unbelievers, then what exactly will George W. Bush gain by pretending that it is? Will he convince peaceful Muslims not to support the jihad? Unlikely -- his status, and the status of any non-Muslim, as a teacher of Islam is not all that exalted. Will he prevent Muslim countries that are our nominal allies from supporting the jihadists? Well, it hasn't worked so far in Egypt and Pakistan, where despite ostensibly pro-Western governments there is significant support for the jihad at the highest levels.

"U.S. not at war with Islam faith, Bush says," by Jon Ward for the Washington Times, May 17 (thanks to Cindy):

President Bush yesterday told students in Israel he hasn't done enough to dispel the idea that the United States is at war with Islam, but also blamed the "poisonous" state-run TV stations in the Middle East for mischaracterizing him.

During an extended conversation with about 12 college and high school students under an olive tree in Jerusalem, the issue of diplomacy arose, and Mr. Bush launched into a defense of his attitude toward Muslims.

"Somebody said to me, 'Well, how come you dislike Muslims?'" Mr. Bush said. "I don't."

But then a young Palestinian Christian woman, Henriette Charcar, spoke up.

"I think it comes out that you don't like Muslims because in most of your speeches you do tend to relate extremism to Muslims," said Miss Charcar, who attends the Tabitha school in Jaffa.

Mr. Bush responded: "Actually what I say is you're not a religious person if you're a murderer. But you're right. I've got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam, I talk about a peaceful religion, which I talk about a lot."...

I am glad to see this. I'm defamed on a more or less daily basis -- defamation is a staple of the rhetorical arsenal of jihadists and their allies and dupes. CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper has defamed me on national television. Because of a sustained, unrelenting defamation campaign by CAIR and like-minded groups portraying me and others who explore the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism as bigots and "Islamophobes," the mainstream media -- liberal and conservative -- won't go anywhere near this issue at this point, and even the conservative media stars who loudly proclaim their fearlessness and political incorrectness are much more likely to fawn over Ibrahim Hooper or Islamic reformers (genuine or not) who have absolutely no following in the Islamic world than to deal squarely and accurately with the jihad ideology.

For example, one of the leading conservative news feature show hosts on a national network has consistently declined to have me on, even though my publisher as a matter of course gives his show the opportunity to be the first to feature its new books, and two of my books have been bestsellers. Why does he refuse? Because, say his producers (or so I've heard, on good authority), he is afraid of being accused of being a racist. It isn't just me, of course -- his show, like almost all the others, has never dealt with this issue at all. And that shows the effectiveness of defamation.

Now, this particular lawsuit is on a different issue, but it is good to see someone with the time and resources (I myself have neither) to fight back against the constant barrage of lies and defamation that the jihadi lobby in the U.S. uses to silence and discredit its critics.

"Suit Accuses Ex-Principal of Defamation," by Andrea Elliott for the New York Times, May 17 (thanks to News4U):

Three opponents of a Brooklyn public school that teaches Arabic filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the school’s founding principal, Debbie Almontaser, claiming that she had defamed them by saying they had stalked her.

The plaintiffs, Sara Springer, Irene Alter and Pamela Hall, are members of the Stop the Madrassa Coalition, a group that has protested the Khalil Gibran International Academy, which opened in Boerum Hill last fall. The women, who filed the lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, are seeking punitive damages.

Ms. Almontaser stepped down as the school’s principal in a firestorm of controversy in August after an article in The New York Post stated that she had “downplayed the significance” of T-shirts bearing the slogan “Intifada NYC.” Ms. Almontaser said that The Post had distorted her words and that she had been forced to resign by the mayor’s office.

The lawsuit against Ms. Almontaser refers to, among other things, a statement she made on the steps of City Hall on Oct. 16 in which she said, “Members of the coalition stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments.” The suit cites a nearly identical statement in a complaint filed last fall in federal court by Ms. Almontaser against the mayor’s office and the Department of Education....

Like his Part III, Part IV of CAIR rep Omer Subhani's eleven-part farrago "Exposing Robert Spencer" is misnumbered. It's called "Exposing Robert Spencer III: On 'Beating' One's Wife." (Here are my replies to Part I, Part II, and Part III.)

In this go-round, Subhani engages in his usual ad hominem attacks and substance-free argumentation, and ties himself into knots trying to prove that when the Qur'an says to beat a disobedient woman (4:34), it doesn't mean anything like, say, beat a disobedient woman. Why, of course not! (He is referring to my Qur'an Blog on this passage.)

Along the way Subhani ditches Muhammad Asad, a twentieth-century convert to Islam (Leopold Weiss was his birth name) who penned a translation and commentary on the Qur'an that is especially beloved of Western Muslims and non-Muslim Islamic apologists, as Asad makes a sustained effort to whitewash all the unpleasant aspects of Islam that tend to make Westerners uncomfortable. But Subhani takes exception to my linking to Asad's translation and commentary online (you can find it here), and ends up equating Asad with the website where his work is hosted:

Spencer makes a glaring error in his attempt to portray Islam as a faith where beating one's wife is given sanction. It's fairly obvious where the error (or crappy scholarship) lies- he relies only on translations of the Qur'an, not commentaries - big difference. See, Spencer will quote whatever he can get his hands on. In this case he relies on his usual assortment of web translations of the Qur'an and he also uses a Geocities web site that has the Muhammad Asad translation of the Qur'an. Yup, that's our Islam scholar, Mr. Robert Spencer, using the best primary scholarship available... Geocities.

Of course, Asad ain't Geocities and Geocities ain't Asad, and here again Subhani assumes I don't have a book that I do have -- The Book Foundation's handsome edition of Asad's Qur'an is right here in my office, but Subhani apparently takes umbrage at my practice of linking to online material whenever possible, so that readers can verify the accuracy of what I say. For he is steamed, you see, that "Spencer will quote whatever he can get his hands on." It would be much better, apparently, for non-Muslims not to know that such material exists, eh, Subhani?

Anyway, Subhani then goes into the Arabic meaning of the word daraba, which is the "beat" in "beat her" in Qur'an 4:34 (iDribuhunna -- اضربوهن). He quotes all sorts of Islamic authorities who say it means a gentle tap, and then points out statistics about the abuse of women in America. There are just a few problems with this:

1. He does not, and cannot, deny the veracity of the Islamic sources I adduced that justify wife-beating. It's just swell that there are other Islamic authorities who say you should only hit your wife with something like a toothbrush, or not hit her in the face, but the problem with all of them is that if you don't say that it's wrong to hit her at all, one man's light tap is going to be another man's brutal beating.

2. No one is saying, least of all me, that only Muslims beat their wives. Spousal abuse is found in every culture. But in America, creeps who beat their wives are arrested and punished. Are they in the Islamic world? How can they be, when the practice is given divine sanction?

And here again, this magnificent example of Islamic moderation and representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations does nothing to stop spousal abuse in the Islamic world. Instead, he pours vitriol on me for daring to point it out.

These guys didn't think "jihad" was something bad

As intelligence agencies try to recruit Muslims, they don't want to give them the impression that they're against jihad!

And of course they are making no effort whatsoever to determine what kind of "jihad" the applicants think is just great.

"Intel agencies seek help recruiting immigrants," by Pamela Hess for AP, May 16 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

McLEAN, VA (AP) — The U.S. is its own worst enemy when it comes to the desperately important task of recruiting immigrants as spies, analysts and translators in the war on terror, new Americans are telling intelligence officials. The government's policies raise suspicions and fear in the immigrants' home countries and disturb potential recruits here who might otherwise want to help.

The U.S. knows it needs the help. At the heart of a Friday summit with immigrant groups was a stark reality: The intelligence agencies lack people who can speak the languages that are needed most, such as Arabic, Farsi and Pashtu. More importantly, the agencies lack people with the cultural awareness that enables them to grasp the nuances embedded in dialect, body language and even street graffiti.

At the suburban Virginia summit, not far from the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, officials gathered more than a dozen representatives of recent immigrant and other ethnic groups to get their recruiting assistance.

"We are going to ask you to open up your communities to us," said Ronald Sanders, an assistant national intelligence director, and the son of an Egyptian immigrant mother.

The officials got an earful in return — about immigration and hiring rules and foreign policies that make life harder in immigrants' old countries. The intelligence agencies' own practices also came under criticism: extraordinary rendition, holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, harsh interrogation practices that some say amount to torture.

"Basically they've scared people," said Amina Khan, of the Association of Pakistani Professionals and an attorney formerly with the U.S. Energy Department.

Immigrants "have always seen and regarded the United States as a law-abiding country," Khan said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Now we are the only superpower in the entire world. For us, when we hear things like renditions or Guantanamo Bay, which for many is considered outside the letter of the law, there is an element of fear."

[...]

Some U.S. policies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks made things worse, said Kareem Shora, of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

"The policy missteps and mistakes tended to alienate the very community they are now trying to approach and work with," Shora said. "The NSA wiretapping, rendition, waterboarding, linking the war in Iraq with the issue of radicalization and the terrorism threat. ... What I ask is that at some point that these conversations address these hard issues."

[...]

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are collaborating on a summer internship program to begin to tap that expertise. Twenty college students are coming to Washington, D.C. for 10 weeks. They will get free Arabic classes in the morning at George Washington University and spend the afternoons working in the agencies' intelligence offices.

"We need these people, their expertise, their understanding of culture, of language. We don't have it today and it is a great deficiency," said Charles Allen, a long time CIA officer who is now the Homeland Security Department's intelligence chief. "This will be an enormous augmentation."

U.S. policies have until recently forbidden recruitment of first-generation Americans who have direct family ties abroad, a practice that began after World War II, despite the fact that many code breakers in that conflict were not born in America, said National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell.

[...]

U.S. officials are trying to adjust how they talk about the war on terrorism so as not to alienate Muslims. That adjustment is needed, said Mohammed H. Ali, an imam with a Virginia Muslim community organization.

"I'm concerned about the language used to describe terrorism," he said.

McConnell said he is, too.

"We try not to refer to 'jihad' as something that's bad," McConnell noted, referring to a recent government communications policy.

It's a first and somewhat controversial step toward shaping the language the United States uses to compete with the international messages of al-Qaida. The terror group's messages are increasing: In 2005 it issued about 15 video or audio messages. In 2006, there were 50. In 2007 there were 97. There will probably be even more in 2008, including a fresh message from Osama bin Laden this week.

"We did a good job in the war against Communism. We have not done a halfway decent job of countering the virulence (of al-Qaida) and the message properly," Allen said.

"I never use the term 'global war on terrorism,'" Allen said. "I have never used it publicly, and I don't write it that way either."

"We have so much work to do because countering this ideology is absolutely central to everything that we do. This is our way of countering al-Qaida in the future. If we don't get it right and we don't do the outreach correctly, we will simply lose ground," Allen said.

You can say that again. You are already losing ground so fast, and you don't even realize it.

John McCain scores Barack Obama for saying he'd meet with the Thug-In-Chief. From LGF:

I have some news for Senator Obama: talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, (unconditional)... in unconditional meetings with a man who calls Israel a “stinking corpse,” and arms terrorists who kill Americans, will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear programs.

It is reckless, it is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.

You know, it would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that’s not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe.

Really? What are they?

From "Obama Admires Bush," by David Brooks in the New York Times, May 16 (thanks to Infidels Are Cool):

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

Good luck with that.

And when I touch you I feel happy, inside

More Fantasy-Based Policymaking over in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places, where our Saudi masters have again rebuffed the dhimmi President's humble request for a reduction of the jizya. But ANWR drilling? Offshore drilling? Manhattan Project for alternative energy sources? Still not on the horizon.

"US agrees to help Saudi Arabia develop civilian nuclear program," from the Associated Press (thanks to Bryan):

President George W. Bush and King Abdullah formalized new cooperation on Friday between the kingdom and the United States on a range of topics, including the development of civilian nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia and US protection of Saudi oil fields.

The agreements came as Saudi Arabian leaders made clear that they saw no reason to increase oil production until their customers demanded it, apparently rebuffing a request made by the president directly to the king in an effort to stay the soaring US gasoline prices.

During Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, Saudi officials stuck to their position that they are already meeting demand, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices topped $127 a barrel, a record high.

The Saudi government indicated that it is willing to put on the market whatever oil is necessary to meet the demand of its customers, Hadley said.

But even then, he said, Saudi leaders say increased production would not dramatically reduce pump prices in the United States.

The Saudis are investing in ways to increase oil production over time. Officials told Bush they are doing "everything they can do" for now to address a complicated market.

Hadley said the Bush administration will take the explanation back to its own experts and "see it if conforms."...

Islamic Tolerance Alert and Siti Fatimah Update: "M'sian muslims protest ruling on renunciation of Islam," from AFP, May 16 (thanks to Twostellas):

PENANG (Malaysia) - A GROUP of Muslims in Malaysia's northern Penang state staged a protest on Friday to denounce an Islamic sharia court's rare ruling allowing a Chinese convert to renounce her faith.

Last week the Penang Sharia Court allowed 38-year-old Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah, or Tan Ean Huang, to renounce Islam and return to Buddhism.

Siti, a cook, told the court she had never practised Islamic teachings since converting in 1998 to marry Iranian Ferdoun Ashanian.

The couple married in 1999 but her husband left her months later and she filed for renunciation two years ago.

Hizbut Tahrir Malaysia, an Islamic hardline group, gathered outside the court and submitted a memorandum urging a judicial review of the decision.

'We outrightly disagree with the court decision as it is against Islamic laws. In Islam, a person who insists on leaving the religion must be punished with death,' the group's president Abdul Hakim Othman told reporters....

I trust Ali Eteraz will soon be winging his way to Malaysia to explain the True, Tolerant Islam to Abdul Hakim Othman.

"The early morning raids on the homes of these prominent Baha'is were well-coordinated, and it is clear they represent a high-level effort to strike again at the Baha'is and to intimidate the Iranian Baha'i community at large."

Islamic Tolerance Alert. "Iran's arrest of Baha'is condemned," from CNN, May 16:

(CNN) -- Six Baha'i leaders in Iran were seized and imprisoned this week, the religious group said. The act prompted condemnation and concern from the movement and a top American religious freedom panel.

Iranian intelligence agents searched the homes of the six on Wednesday and then whisked them away, according to the Baha'i's World News Service. The report said the six are in Evin prison and that the arrests follow the detention in March of another Baha'i leader.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry could not immediately be reached for comment, and the incident has not been mentioned in Iran's state-run media.

"Their only crime is their practice of the Baha'i faith," said Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Baha'i international community to the United Nations.

The group -- regarded as the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran -- says the arrests are reminiscent of roundups and killings of Baha'is that took place in Iran two decades ago.

"Especially disturbing is how this latest sweep recalls the wholesale arrest or abduction of the members of two national Iranian Baha'i governing councils in the early 1980s -- which led to the disappearance or execution of 17 individuals," Dugal said.

"The early morning raids on the homes of these prominent Baha'is were well-coordinated, and it is clear they represent a high-level effort to strike again at the Baha'is and to intimidate the Iranian Baha'i community at large," she added.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom -- a government panel that advises the president and Congress -- condemned the Wednesday arrests, as well as another in March. The commission chairman called the acts the "latest sign of the rapidly deteriorating status of religious freedom and other human rights in Iran."

The commission said the seven were members of an informal Baha'i group that tended to the needs of the community after the Iranian government banned all formal Baha'i activity in 1983.

The commission chairman, Michael Cromartie, echoed the fears that the "development signals a return to the darkest days of repression in Iran in the 1980s when Baha'is were routinely arrested, imprisoned, and executed."

The Baha'is are regarded as "apostates" in Iran and have been persecuted there for years.

"Since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed more than 200 Baha'i leaders, thousands have been arrested and imprisoned, and more than 10,000 have been dismissed from government and university jobs," the commission said.

The commission said that since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power a few years ago, Baha'is "have been harassed, physically attacked, arrested, and imprisoned."

He could end up serving more time than some jihadists in European criminal justice systems do on terrorism charges.

More on the circumstances of Gregorius Nekschot's arrest, including the charges and possible penalties he faces. "Dutch cartoonist arrested," by Toby Sterling for the Associated Press, May 16 (thanks to GS):

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch political cartoonist is facing possible hate crimes charges.

The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday and held overnight before being released.

Officials say a criminal investigation is continuing into whether Nekschot's work targets people because of their race or religion.

Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists.

However, spokeswoman for his publisher describes him as a satirist who targets "any strong ideology." [...]

A spokeswoman for the Amsterdam public prosecutor, Sanne van Meteren, said Nekschot remains a suspect in a criminal investigation.

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate," she said.

Each is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison under Dutch hate laws - or two years for multiple offences.

Van Meteren said prosecutors were investigating a complaint that dates to 2005. They are now focusing on eight or nine published cartoons, she said, but prosecutors are not disclosing which ones.

Nekschot did not answer police questions during his arrest, she said, citing his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.

The spokeswoman for Xtra said police had seized Nekschot's computer, sketches, CDs, DVDs and telephone at the time of his arrest.

CSI meets Orwell, in a story that has all of the trappings of a counter-terror operation -- except it's about cartoons.

In his latest audio, or Whomever's latest audio, bin Laden (or Whomever) says that destroying Israel is "the most important issue for the Islamic nation." He also says, "Jihad is a duty to free Palestine."

So reports AKI in "Terrorism: 'Palestinian issue the most important' says Bin Laden message," May 16.

Now, this matters, because he is couching his appeal in religious terms designed to convince Muslims worldwide that his struggle is righteous. When he speaks of the Islamic nation, singular, he is working from the assumption that Islam creates a supranational unity that transcends nationality, and has a claim to the loyalties of Muslims beyond every other loyalty. And when he uses the word "jihad," he of course doesn't mean an interior spiritual struggle; when he says it is a duty, he is invoking the principle, affirmed by all the schools of Islamic law, that when an Islamic land is invaded, it becomes the duty of every Muslim to aid somehow in the armed conflict to rid the land of its infidel rulers.

Thus in this new audiotape he is appealing to all Muslims to wage war against Israel as as a compulsory religious obligation.

This is, I suggest, important to understand. It helps explain why his message does have resonance among many Muslims. But the new U.S. Government guidelines about word usage insist, without a shred of evidence, that from an Islamic standpoint bin Laden is misusing the concept of jihad -- and consequently they forbid American officials to use the term. This stance will also, of course, lead American officials to discount the religious aspects of Osama's appeal to Muslims. In causing this, the new guidelines have impeded our ability to understand, and hence to counter, the enemy we face.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media, of course, willingly abets this blinkered willful ignorance. The Reuters report on this, " Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow," by Lin Noueihed doesn't mention the word "jihad" at all. Neither does the AP story, " Osama bin Laden says Al Qaeda will continue its fight." CNN's story, " Bin Laden urges Muslims to liberate Palestine," mentions the word once, in the fourteenth paragraph of the story: "Bin Laden's last message came on March 20, when in an audiotape he called Iraq 'the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine.'"

Is it any wonder, with reporting like this, that so many years now after 9/11 most people still have absolutely no clue what we're dealing with?

Well, he has experience.

"Afghan hijacker 'working at Heathrow,'" by Graham Tibbetts in the Telegraph, May 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

An Afghan hijacker who forced an airliner to fly to Britain is now working at Heathrow, it has been disclosed.

Nazamuddin Mohammidy, 34, was one of a gang of nine that threatened to blow up an internal flight in Afghanistan, along with 173 passengers and crew, unless they were granted political asylum.

The Afghan hijackers forced the Boeing 727 to divert to Britain where they surrendered to police and the SAS after a 70-hour stand-off at Stansted Airport, Essex in February 2000.

Mohammidy, of Hounslow, Middlesex, is now working as an office cleaner for British Airways....

UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Anonymous has kindly alerted me to this MEMRI blog post, "Egyptian People's Council Nixes Sections Of New Children's Law," May 16. It says, "However, the People's Council did decide to ratify the section banning female circumcision."

This flatly contradicts the Ynet story below. So what did the People's Council actually do? If anyone knows, please email me at director[at]jihadwatch.org.

--------

Gregorius Nekschot is quite the equal opportunity offender, having penned cartoons offensive to Catholics and Jews (e.g., Muhammad molesting Anne Frank) alongside his emphasis on lampooning Islam and Muhammad.

What did he get arrested for? Lampooning Islam and Muhammad. Thomas Landen at the Brussels Journal has the story:

The Dutch authorities have arrested the cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot (a pseudonym. Nekschot means deathblow, litt: “shot in the back of the neck” [An interview with Nekschot here]). The judicial authorities in Amsterdam said yesterday that the cartoonist was arrested as a suspect for the criminal offense of “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.”

Prior to the Islam-related complaint, the "dark skin" aspect doesn't seem to have mattered as much. And by the way, how does a cartoon discriminate?

The cartoonist was arrested on Tuesday, while the police searched his house for “discriminating evidence.” His computer, backups, usb sticks, mobile phone and a number of drawings were confiscated. Nekschot was released two days later but it is possible that he will be charged following a complaint in 2005 by the Dutch imam Abdul Jabbar van de Ven, an indigenous Dutchman who converted to Islam.

And the poor, offended imam is on record approving of Theo Van Gogh's murder.

According to the Dutch public prosecutor Nekschot “makes his profession” of drawing cartoons of “an insulting and/or discriminating nature.” Ernst Hirsch Ballin, the Dutch minister of Justice, a Christian-Democrat, said that it took the police three years to discover the real identity of the cartoonist.

Nekschot, a friend of the late Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film maker who was ritually slaughtered by a Muslim fanatic in 2004, hides his real identity in order to avoid unnecessary risks. Hans Teeuwen, a Dutch stand-up comedian and friend of Nekschot’s, told the Dutch media yesterday that the police had told Nekschot as they released him earlier that day that “he has now lost his anonymity.” Teeuwen said this was “a rather intimidating remark.”

As spokeswoman of Xtra, Nekschot’s publisher, said today: “He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen.” The spokeswoman asked that her name not be used because the cartoonist and publisher have received death threats. Nekschot told the Dutch newspaper Het Parool today that police officers had told him: “What you draw is worse than what they did in Denmark. Do you realize what can happen to you if your identity gets known?” The cartoonist fears for his live if he is being sent to jail. “As the maker of those cartoons my life is in danger in prison,” he said.

Nekschot’s work is rude and often sexually explicit. As such it is characteristic for the Dutch liberal mentality and not beyond the limit in the Netherlands. In his cartoons, however, he mocks the multicultural society, and that does seem to be beyond all bounds.

If this is a nationalist struggle, and Palestinian Christians are just as Palestinian as Palestinian Muslims, and are united with them in their nationalist struggle against the fiendish Zionists, then why do things like this happen?

From the Associated Press, May 16 (thanks to Writer Mom):

Unknown assailants detonated a bomb outside a Christian school in Gaza City before dawn Friday, causing no injuries.

The explosion was heard in surrounding neighborhoods at around 4 a.m. Damage was visible at the entrance to the Zahwa Rosary School, which is run by Catholic nuns but caters mainly to Muslim students.

Two nuns were in their convent adjacent to the school when the bomb went off, a school official said, and were shaken but unharmed. The official declined to be named, saying she was frightened by the incident and concerned for her safety.

The incident appeared to be the work of a poorly trained individual or group, she said - police told school officials that the bomb had been set incorrectly, and it caused little damage.

The bombing was the latest in a string of attacks on Christian institutions in the overwhelmingly Muslim territory. In the most serious attack, a local Christian activist was murdered in October. His killers have not been found....

Police officials from Hamas said they were looking into the incident. But the school official said the police's inability to find perpetrators of previous attacks was cause for concern.

"We don't feel safe. There's no security here," she said.

But the dhimmis know what they're supposed to say:

Father Manuel Musallem, the leader of Gaza's Catholics, played down Friday's attack. "This is the work of a dark individual," Musallem said. "We have excellent relations with Muslims. They enter our houses and we enter theirs. There's no campaign of Muslims against Christians here," he said....

Of course not! What's a few bombings among friends?

In my office, January 2007

If you're just tuning in, Omer Subhani is a CAIR operative in Florida who has penned a massive, if not weighty, eleven-part "exposé" of my work. Since many advance the claim that what I say is inaccurate, but Subhani is among the few who ever actually explain just where and what way they think what I am saying is false, I thought it would be a useful exercise to go through these eleven parts and respond to them. Part I is here and Part II is here.

They are illuminating in many ways: they show yet again that, for all too many Muslim spokesmen in the West, personal invective takes the place of rational debate. They do all they can to portray their opponents as evil and stupid, which may impress the credulous, but it also has the unfortunate effect of poisoning the discourse and making rational discussion of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism impossible -- which is of course most likely exactly what they want to do.

One of the most common features of this personal invective is the charge of "ignorance": the Islamorealistic critic doesn't really know anything about Islam, you see, and so he can't be trusted as an analyst. Omer Subhani eagerly plays this game in the third part of his series, which is entitled -- with his characteristically careful eye -- "Exposing Robert Spencer Part II." (Really, I'm not making this up: if you go to the right-hand side of his front page and click on Part III of his "Exposing Robert Spencer Series," you get this -- a post labeled Part II, even though at the link that is actually labeled Part II he has a different post.)

But Subhani shows that he isn't quite ready for Prime Time on the CAIR Gull the Infidels Circuit, as he overreaches, and claims to know the contents of my personal library. Now, certainly if Omer Subhani showed up here at the Jihad Watch offices in Secure Undisclosed Locationville, I would welcome him in, show him around, offer him a cup of tea. But he has never been here, and he doesn't know what books I have and don't have. Even worse, he says specifically that I don't have certain books that I do have (and have read) -- and not only do I have them, but they're clearly visible on the shelf in a video I made here in the office in January 2007. I've taken a picture from that video (which is a bit crushed but you can watch it here) and posted it above, with arrows pointing to the books Subhani says I don't have.

So here's Subhani:

One would imagine that if someone was claiming to be an expert on Islam they would know Arabic, have many primary source materials at their disposal, would have an immense knowledge of secondary literature on their area of expertise at the very least. Robert Spencer, advocate of dhimmis everywhere, likes to blog about the Qur'an. Mind you, he doesn't understand Arabic and he relies on other people's translations of Qur'anic commentary because he can't access the thousands of commentaries out there because he... yea... doesn't know Arabic.

Repeating it three times in two sentences, Mr. Subhani, will do nothing to explain posts like this, this or this.

But in any case, this whole "you have to know Arabic" thing is just a dodge. The idea that you can't understand what the Qur'an or other Islamic texts say except in Arabic is undercut by the fact that Muslims themselves make translations of those texts. Also, we are evidently supposed to believe that "beat her" (Qur'an 4:34) in Arabic will somehow turn into "give her a hug." Arabic is a human language that can be translated like any other -- translation is always imperfect, but not so much as to render the meaning unintelligible. Imagine also if I worked from my own translations of Islamic texts: Subhani and Co. would be saying that I was translating them all wrong. So I use approved Islamic translations exclusively -- will he say that these translations are inaccurate?

One would also figure that if he was such a great scholar on Islam then Spencer would not have to rely on web translations of Qur'an commentaries, but he would simply flip open his primary sources at home - because he would own a copy of the Jalalalayn, the tafsir of Qurtubi, or at the very least, the Saudi tampered tafsir of ibn Kathir. Alas, he doesn't have any of that so he can only blog on the Surahs that Bewley has offered commentaries for.

Wrong: I am offering commentaries on all the suras of the Qur'an: suras 1-24 so far, and the series continues, whereas Bewley, as far as I know, has available on the web only commentary on sura 9. I did use that, as well as other sources on and off the web, because in the Blogging the Qur'an series, as in all my writings, I never ask readers to take my word for anything. I invite them to see for themselves. Bewley's web commentaries on sura 9 were useful when I went through that chapter, as I could link to them to allow readers to see for themselves that what I was saying was accurate.

Anyway, Subhani says at this point that if I really knew what I was talking about, I would own, among other things, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn (which he calls "Jalalalayn," la la la) and "the Saudi tampered tafsir of ibn Kathir." (The Saudi translation of Ibn Kathir is actually fine, but that's another matter.) Unfortunately for him, they're clearly visible in the January 2007 video, and I've pointed them out in the image above. In case you have trouble seeing exactly what they are in that picture, I've put them together and taken another picture this morning:

Yes, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn is in (gasp!) Arabic. Subhani continues by saying, "Pathetic, to say the least," and I agree: it is pathetic that a guy who gets what he knows about Islam from Wikipedia would play games like this, but there it is.

Subhani then goes on at great length to show that what I say about Qur'an 9:29 (Part I here and Part II here), which commands Muslims to make war against Jews and Christians until they "feel themselves subdued," doesn't mean what the Islamic commentators whom I quote say that it means. And he ends up with this:

In any case, my point here is that there are other interpretations that allow for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam.

Of course, this entirely begs the question, because I never denied that Islamic law allows for "peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam." It most assuredly does, as long as the Jews and Christians are indeed under Islam, feeling themselves subdued, and obeying the discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude. But he denies this also, concluding:

In reference to dhimmis, one of Spencer's favorite subjects, and I'm sure he has his copy of the Reliance of the Traveler readily at his side, the great scholar, Imam ibn an-Naqib, said that dhimmis should pay the tax... and that's it. No mention of them being "subdued." That's the orthodox Shafi'i view right there.

In the first place, note Subhani's endorsement of a religion-based tax. What would he say if some pol in the U.S. suggested taxing Muslims to pay for the War On Terror? Anyway, he claims there's no mention in Reliance of the Traveller of the dhimmis being "subdued." Oops, Omer! You missed a spot! Here's section o11.5 of Reliance of the Traveller:

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

But oh no, they're not subdued!

Professorial. "Jordanian University Lecturer Ibrahim 'Alloush Suggests Sending Suicide-Bombers Armed with 'Small Nuclear Bombs' to Israel," from MEMRITV, May 13 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Following is an excerpt from an interview with Jordanian university lecturer Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on May 13, 2008.

Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush: Whoever managed to get a martyrdom-seeker into Dimona armed with conventional explosives should consider how to get martyrdom-seekers into Dimona and elsewhere armed with non-conventional explosives and perhaps even small nuclear bombs. We should think in this direction.

Land for what, now? "Zahar: 'We will persecute the Zionists'," from the Jerusalem Post, May 14:

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said