June 2008 Archives

The perpetrator of a pre-9/11 jihad attack is charged. "Alleged USS Cole Mastermind Charged: Pentagon Says Guantanamo Detainee Met With Bin Laden, Purchased Boat and Explosives," by Luis Martinez and Theresa Cook for ABC News, June 30 (thanks to JMB):

The Pentagon has charged a Guantanamo Bay detainee with planning and participating in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

The Pentagon has charged Saudi 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri with planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen. Al-Nashiri is in custody at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The U.S. military claims that Saudi 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri masterminded the plot in which two men appearing to be civilians piloted their small boat toward the Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen, and detonated explosives hidden inside the vessel.

The attack killed 17 sailors, wounded another 47 and left a 40-foot hole in the side of the ship.

The charges say al-Nashiri met with Osama bin Laden to reorganize and plot the Cole attack after a similar plot against the USS the Sullivans failed in January 2000....

As the right to free speech is threatened as never before, here comes this decision: this fellow is free to make a political statement by scaring the daylights out of passersby -- at least, unless his Volkswagen van looks too ludicrous to scare anyone, which is likely.

I am glad in these dark days to see any ruling in favor of the freedom of speech, however nutty this fellow may be, but consider a thought experiment: what if this Volkswagen van had been painted with proclamations of hostility to jihad? What if it announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped (which it patently should, given the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims)? What if it announced that Islamic groups in the U.S. are carrying out a stealth jihad to subvert American institutions and Constitutional government (which they patently are, as per the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that came to light at the trial of the Holy Land Foundation last summer, the Islamic supremacist statements made by CAIR leaders and others, the initiatives to force American businesses and public institutions to make special accommodation for Muslim practices, etc.)? What if it even quoted statements such as the one by CAIR's Omar Ahmad: "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"?

Then that there is no telling how this ruling may have come out. Then it would be "hate speech." And even if the court decision had been the same, CAIR would be issuing "Action Alerts" and "Incitement Watch" pieces about "hatred of Muslims," and the mainstream media would fall into line behind them. But say you're a jihadist with a WMD? Fine, fine, be on your way!

"Ninth Circuit Holds Van’s Message of ‘Jihad’ Protected Speech," by Sherri K. Okamoto for the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles), June 30 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A Grass Valley man’s proclamation via block letters on his 1970 Volkswagen van that he was a terrorist carrying a weapon of mass destruction was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

A three judge panel concluded that police officers violated Matthew Fogel’s constitutional rights by arresting him and impounding the van upon which he had painted the message, as well as other slogans and paintings, but declined to impose liability against the officers, holding that a reasonable officer could have concluded the message was not protected under existing precedent.

Fogel painted block letters on the back of his van indicating he was a suicide bomber, and declaring “jihad” on the First Amendment and invoking Allah to praise the Patriot Act. The rest of the vehicle was decorated with slogans and paintings added by Fogel and his friends that had no political or threatening character.

When a citizen in the town located between Sacramento and Reno complained about the van, a police officer responded, but told his supervisor that the writing was merely satire. The supervisor disagreed, however, and ordered the officer to treat the situation like a bomb threat.

Mild-Mannered

Officers testified that, upon being questioned about the van’s messages, Fogel said he wanted to “scare people into thinking.” The interviewing officer stated in a deposition that he found Fogel mild-mannered, and that he did not take the writing as a threat.

The officers did not follow standard bomb threat procedures at the scene or during a subsequent search of the van, but impounded the vehicle and arrested Fogel, who spent one night in jail before being released when the district attorney declined to press charges. The police department released Fogel’s van once he removed the writing.

[...]

Fletcher also pointed out that the officers who saw the van and its message did not behave as if they believed the speech was a true threat and there was no evidence that Fogel subjectively intended the speech as a true threat of serious harm, leading Fletcher to conclude that Fogel’s message was “exactly the kind of ‘unpleasantly sharp attack’” on the government that the First Amendment “welcomes and protects.”...

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. God is great, god is great, god is great. Britain must be punished." Another convert to Islam doesn't get the memo about how Islam is really a Religion of Peace.

"Muslim convert left fake nailbomb on bus, court told," from the Yorkshire Post, June 30 (thanks to Twostellas):

A WHITE Muslim convert planted a hoax bomb on a bus full of people with a note saying that 'Britain must be punished', a court was told today.

Nicholas Roddis, 22, is thought to have disguised himself with a long black beard before planting the fake home-made nailbomb on a crowded bus in Rotherham, in May last year.

Leeds Crown Court was told Roddis, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, had recently learnt the teachings of Islam in a move to convert over to the religion and had even recorded the preachings of disgraced cleric Abu Hamza.

Prosecutor Edward Brown QC told Leeds Crown Court Roddis's conversion had been noted by work colleagues and he had alienated a childhood friend by talking about bomb-making.

On May 8 last year, a man disguised with a long black beard boarded a bus with two carrier bags, he told the jury.

Not long after he disembarked, leaving one bag behind. A passenger checked inside and saw three packages with nails, wire, a working clock and a note with foreign writing on it.

"Obviously this man was convinced he was looking straight at a bomb and shouted to the driver and the police were called," Mr Brown said.

Fifty homes were evacuated and a 100 metre cordon was thrown up around the bus, while the bomb was detonated in a controlled explosion and found to be a hoax.

"That was to be no consolation to the passengers at the time, to those on the bus looking at what they thought was a bomb," he added.

The writing on the piece of paper was in Arabic and read "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. God is great, god is great, god is great. Britain must be punished." It was signed Al Qaeda Organisation of Iraq....

But who will lie in them?

"Iran digs thousands of graves ready for enemies," from Agence France-Presse, June 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

IRAN is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said today. "In implementation of the Geneva Conventions ... the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers,'' the Mehr news agency quoted General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh as saying.

"We have plans to dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves in each of the border provinces or a total of 320,000,'' the general said, adding that some of them would be mass graves if necessary.

Mr Bagherzadeh said Iran was keen to "reduce the suffering of the families of the fallen in any attack against our country ... and prevent any repetition of the long and bitter experience of the Vietnam War''....

Sura 32, “The Prostration,” dates from the middle of the Meccan period, and repeats many familiar preoccupations we have seen in other chapters of the Qur’an. Maududi says that “the main theme of the Surah is to remove the doubts of the people concerning Tauhid [the absolute oneness of Allah], the Hereafter and the Prophethood, and to invite them to all these three realities.”

The attentive reader of this Blogging the Qur’an series, particularly over the last few weeks, may have noticed that these themes — removing doubts of the people concerning the unity of Allah, the Day of Judgment, and Muhammad’s status as a prophet — are concerns of many, many other passages of the Qur’an outside of this chapter, and so sura 32 essentially stands as a kind of recapitulation and review of many things we have seen thus far. Repetition, of course, is a pedagogical tool, particularly in an oral culture.

Even though Dhimmi Watch admirably noted the recent attack on the Abu Fana Coptic monastery in Egypt, after just watching a graphic video detailing the affair on the Arabic satellite program Hiwar al-Haq—which makes clear that the raid (ghazwa) was far from being motivated by a “land dispute,” as the Egyptian authorities insist—I figured I’d do a little translating and relaying, thereby giving readers more perspective on the matter:

For starters, Father Antonias, who was there, said that many “disparaging” words were hurled against Christianity by the Muslim assailants during their rampage, which, incidentally, included the destruction of altars and torching of Bibles. As the Bedouin terrorists were destroying the monastery, for instance, one monk reached for the cross, to which one of the Arab assailants mocked: “Hah! Let’s see if the cross saves you!” to which the stoic monk replied, “Truly, you do not know the power of the cross.”

The gravity of the situation is well demonstrated by the fact that Coptic Pope Shenouda, who, no doubt due to his delicate and precarious position—being the head of a Christian island in an Islamic ocean—often portrays Coptic-Muslim relations as being more amicable than not, said, “This is the first time they kidnap and torture monks. The issue is becoming critical” (from Sawt al-Muhajir, vol. 9, issue 60, p.2).

By indicating that this is the “first time” for Copts to be kidnapped and tortured, Pope Shenouda clearly means first time since the inception of the modern Egyptian state in 1952. Compared to what Copts, including their monks, who are supposedly “immune” from molestation in Islam, have experienced over the course of fourteen centuries of Islamic domination—such as having their tongues sliced off for talking in Coptic during the Mameluke era—what the Abu Fana monks experienced is, sad to say, child’s play.

But it seems that the good ol’ days of Islam’s domineering face are back again, in full swing. While the Coptic pope was visiting one of the critically wounded monks in the Burg Mina hospital, the latter told him: “Sir, the situation is constantly getting worse.” Indeed, this is the 17th time this particular monastery gets attacked.

"A statement Monday by the prosecutor said Wilders made his anti-Muslim remarks in the context of a legitimate debate."

A victory for free speech and common sense. But there remains the Jordanian effort to use Interpol to secure his arrest and extradition. "No charge in Dutch Muslim incitement," from the Associated Press, June 30:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The public prosecutor's office says it will not charge right-wing legislator Geert Wilders with inciting hatred for his film denouncing the Quran.

The prosecutor says the film and statements Wilders wrote in Dutch newspapers were hurtful and insulting but not criminal.

A statement Monday by the prosecutor said Wilders made his anti-Muslim remarks in the context of a legitimate debate, and he could not be charged for incitement or discrimination.

Wilders told The Associated Press he was not surprised by the decision because he had stayed within the boundaries of the law.

Wilders' film, titled "Fitna," appeared on the Internet in March. It aroused protests around the Muslim world.

Charles Enderlin is the French journalist responsible for the notorious Muhammad Al-Dura footage that ignited an orgy of mass murder by Palestinian Arab jihadists. The footage has been proven to be a hoax. But journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet finds that her journalistic colleagues are somewhat less enthusiastic about admitting a hoax when it exonerates the Israelis and the "extreme right."

"L'Affaire Enderlin: Being a French journalist means never having to say you're sorry," by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet in the Weekly Standard, July 7:

[...] Having dug in his heels in time-honored fashion, Enderlin, a seasoned journalist and a French-Israeli dual national who'd spent most of his adult life at the same job, never imagined the al-Dura story would dog him. He was covered by his superiors in the hierarchy, affording him the Zen-like serenity achievable in large French organizations, which are profoundly top-down and basically unchanged in spirit since the court of the Sun King. His coverage of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, while regularly criticized by pro-Israeli groups, was highly esteemed by his peers. He had produced a well-informed documentary series on the Oslo Accords, the peace process, and the 2000 Camp David talks, tied to a book that has been published in English; and, while it could be argued that he was perhaps too close to some of his sources (several of the parties to the peace talks actually held discussions at the France 2 bureau, loaned by a helpful Enderlin as discreet neutral ground), this was a notable achievement. Such a person could not, in the order of things, be seriously threatened by a bunch of activists or scruffy bloggers behind their computer screens questioning his professional judgment. When he dismissed accusations of a cover-up by explaining that he had chosen "not to show the full footage of the child's agony," which would have been "unbearable," he fully expected to be taken on trust.

Yet the bloggers and the activists refused to let the story die. In fact the unlikely alliance of, among others, a professor of medieval history from Boston University, a hot-headed former financial executive, and a former Le Monde reporter soon brought to light practices that would surprise no journalist with experience working in a totalitarian state. Most foreign correspondents covering the Palestinian territories from Israel rely on local stringers, cameramen, fixers. These Palestinian nationals do not benefit from the protections routinely granted international journalists. They and their families can be subjected to all sorts of pressures by a system not known for its respect for human rights and free speech niceties. The staging of scenes for the benefit of photographers is common.

The medieval history professor, Richard Landes, a soft-spoken American who spent his childhood in France and got his early education in a Paris public school, now one of the case's most devoted parsers, coined a word for Palestinian manipulation of the media: "Pallywood." He believes the whole al-Dura incident was staged. Using footage taken by other cameramen on the scene that day, he argues his case forcefully on two well-visited and regularly updated websites (theaugeanstables.com and seconddraft.org) as well as in countless articles and interviews.

It is unclear what concrete gains the Olmert government expects to secure by returning a live jihadist convicted of murder as part of an exchange for two Israeli soldiers who are now presumed dead. It may seek some sense of political closure on the 2006 war in order to move forward in its dealings with Syria and Lebanon, regardless of how fruitful those may or may not be. Or, perhaps they may hold onto the hope, official positions notwithstanding, that Goldwasser and Regev are still alive. But the willingness to swap Samir Kuntar for their remains will be interpreted by Israel's enemies as a sign of weakness; indeed, obtaining Kuntar's freedom constitutes a net gain for Hizballah's kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers and the ensuing war. It is a clear signal to jihadist groups that kidnappings are effective, and, worse yet, it may encourage Hamas to increase its demands in exchange for the release of Gilad Schalit.

"Palestinians disappointed PA prisoners won't be included in swap for Regev, Goldwasser," by Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post, June 30:

Palestinians on Sunday reacted with mixed feelings to the news about the Israel-Hizbullah prisoner exchange agreement.

While many Palestinians expressed joy over the decision to release Lebanese prisoner Samir Kuntar, they also voiced disappointment because the deal did not include Palestinian inmates.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum hailed the agreement as a "victory" for Hizbullah. "This is an achievement for the will and steadfastness of the Lebanese resistance," he said. "This also proves that rights can only be restored by force." However, Fatah and Hamas representatives criticized Hizbullah for failing to demand the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. They said Hizbullah could have easily secured the release of several hundred Palestinians in return for IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.

"This is a very bad deal as far as the Palestinians are concerned," said a top Fatah operative in Ramallah. "Hassan Nasrallah has betrayed the Palestinians by signing a separate deal with Israel." A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip also expressed disappointment with Nasrallah, saying the majority of the Palestinians couldn't understand why he "turned his back on us." He said that following the kidnapping of the two soldiers, many Palestinian factions and families sent Hizbullah lists with the names of Palestinian prisoners whom they wished to be included in a future prisoner swap with Israel.

"Nasrallah has shown that he does not really care about the Palestinians," the Hamas official said. "There is no doubt he could have got much more from Israel in return for the two soldiers. But we don't understand why he chose to act in this way." The Palestinians have long referred to Kuntar as a "hero." According to Palestinian Media Watch, the Palestinian Authority regarded Kuntar as an "ideal" prisoner.

"On the one hand, Kuntar embodies what the PA considers the 'heroism' of terrorists fighting Israel," the group said. "On the other hand, he's the ultimate symbol of all terrorist prisoners who have murdered Israelis and will eventually be freed as a result of future kidnappings or through some other means." PA Television, controlled by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, recently broadcast a picture honoring Kuntar, who is depicted beside a map of Israel completely covered by the Palestinian flag.

In Beirut, Hizbullah said the Israeli approval of the deal was a reflection of the Islamist group's strength.

Well. A fine lot of good Pakistan's efforts since 2006 to make peace with the Taliban have done. The Taliban certainly got what it wanted, but did anyone in Pakistan or elsewhere learn anything about negotiating with jihadists, or about Islamic teachings on calling for a truce?

"Peace talks broken-off, Taliban enters Peshawar," from CNN-IBN, June 28:

New Delhi: The Taliban has broken-off peace negotiations with the government and it's followers have entered Peshawar, threatening and intimidating. They say only the Sharia law can now prevail.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps is on the offensive in the Khyber Agency adjoining Peshawar.

Seven hundred troops have been deployed in an operation to flush out the Taliban fighters of Beitullah Mehsud entrenched in the mountains not far from Peshawar. The army is on standby as concerns grow over whether Peshawar will fall to the Taliban.

“Some of the Taliban and the religious militants have made incursions into Peshawar. They have been visiting various local shops and hotels, threatening the people and it is the same kind of movement that has been taking place in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas earlier, “ says Dawn News correspondent, Arshad Sharif.

Mehsud says he has no plans to take Peshawar but adds the rider that he can capture it anytime he wants. He's broken-off peace negotiation with the government after the offensive got underway.

In recent days, his followers have entered Peshawar and intimidated judges. They have warned people that only Sharia law can prevail and they've also shut down women's polling stations.

People say that religious elements have kidnapped some people from Nauthia area of Peshawar. They also point out that the people living around the area are very insecure.

However, not all people feel that way.

Some say that the people of this city are involved in these incidents. They also add that nobody is coming from outside. “In the end I will say long live Taliban. We want the Taliban to rule.”

For the moment the Frontier Corps is enforcing curfew on the outskirts of Peshawar, while also carrying out what is a limited action against Beitullah Mehsud. However, it may not be long before a full-scale conflict breaks out.

"For the moment," perhaps, in more ways than one.

This would be a win-win situation for Fatah: The truce would fail, making Hamas look incompetent, and both of Fatah's enemies would inflict casualties on each other. Now that they've been caught, will that change the PA's relationship with Western powers in any meaningful way, or will it be swept under the rug in order to continue to uphold Mahmoud Abbas as a "pragmatic" partner for peace?

More on this story. "Taped confessions claim Gaza peace double-crossed," by Aaron Klein for World Net Daily, June 29:

JAFFA, Israel – A Hamas investigation replete with video confessions has discovered that militants from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization received instructions to disrupt a cease-fire that Israel agreed to last week with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip.

WND last week exclusively quoted sources in Fatah's declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, stating they received "understandings" from Abbas' office they are to fire rockets into Israel to sabotage the truce.

U.S. and Israeli policy considers Abbas to be "moderate."

Hamas has been abiding by the truce while Fatah's Brigades took responsibility for firing at least three rockets from Gaza last week.

Now Hamas officials told WND yesterday an investigation concluded that Abbas' officials instructed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to launch rockets into Israel.

The Hamas officials said they obtained videotaped confessions from Brigades members allegedly admitting to receiving attack instructions from Fatah. Hamas said it may release the videos on the group's Al Aqsa Television Network later this week.

A senior source in Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades told WND last week his group received "understandings" from Abbas' officials that Fatah wants to see the cease-fire "collapse."

The senior Brigades source hinted a top Abbas official gave the Brigades specific instructions to launch Gaza-based attacks against Israel to precipitate an Israeli military response that would initiate a cycle of Hamas reprisal attacks that would, in turn, scuttle the cease-fire.

The Brigades source refused to say which Abbas official may have given his group instructions, but WND understood from informed sources it was Tayir Abdul Al-Rahim, the secretary-general of Abbas' office, who communicated specific instructions to the Brigades to shoot rockets at Israeli population centers. [...]

Earlier this week, WND quoted a top PA official complaining the truce between Hamas and Israel enhances the position of Hamas and amounts to the Jewish state's tacit recognition of the terrorist group's control of the Gaza Strip.

Officially, the PA, headed by its president, Mahmoud Abbas, endorsed the Gaza truce agreement, which went into effect 11 days ago, hours after Hamas and other local Palestinian groups took responsibility for firing nearly 30 mortars and rockets from Gaza into nearby Jewish communities.

But unofficially, the PA has been expressing to Israeli and American diplomats its strong opposition to the truce, explaining the cease-fire puts Hamas in a more powerful position.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "sold us out," said the top PA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Darrick Jackson, 38, left his Muslim name off the application, prosecutors said, to conceal his ties to a local imam known for inflammatory comments."

An update on this story. "Air Base Ex-Guard Convicted of Hiding Muslim Name," by Henri E. Cauvin for the Washington Post, June 28:

A Southeast Washington man who did not disclose his Muslim name on an application for a job as a private security guard at Andrews Air Force Base was convicted yesterday of making a false statement.

Darrick Jackson, 38, left his Muslim name off the application, prosecutors said, to conceal his ties to a local imam known for inflammatory comments.

Jackson, whose first trial ended last year with a hung jury, was tried again this week in federal court in Greenbelt. After deliberating for about a day and a half, the jury found Jackson guilty.

He faces up to five years in prison. U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, who presided over the trial, is scheduled to sentence Jackson on Sept. 22.

Jackson was trying to avoid being linked to Abdul Alim Musa, prosecutors said. Musa has led a mosque in Southeast for almost 20 years and is known for his provocative comments about the United States, Israel and other subjects.

Jackson's attorney, John Chamble, has argued that his client misunderstood the question -- "Have you ever used or been known by another name?" -- thinking it referred to a woman's maiden name.

But assistant U.S. attorneys David I. Salem and Emily Glatfelter said the omission during a 2005 background investigation was a deliberate attempt to keep his ties to Musa and the mosque secret.

On the application, Jackson indicated that he had no other names. And in an interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Jackson did not disclose any other names, prosecutors said. Jackson also is known as Abdul-Jalil Mohammad, prosecutors said. (In some prosecution filings, the last part of Jackson's Muslim name is spelled "Mohammed.")

In an interview last night, Musa said the prosecution was "hassling Muslims."

"We regard all of this as just harassment, just the federal government playing around," Musa said.

The U.S. attorney for Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein, has defended the prosecution of Jackson, saying it is not about the defendant's religion but about ensuring the security of U.S. government installations.

Their asylum bid failed on a technicality. But they are clearly in danger, ironically, for the same reason as ex-Muslims who may even be citizens of the U.K., as the government looks the other way from the present-day application of Islamic teachings like the death penalty for apostasy. "11th-hour bid to save family from threats," by David Maddox for the Scotsman, June 30:

A PAKISTANI family who sought asylum in Scotland because they received death threats over their religious beliefs are hoping that a last-minute appeal will stop their deportation tomorrow.

Asad Gull, who worked as a Christian publisher in Pakistan and arrived in the UK with his family nine months ago, lost his asylum case on a court technicality last week. He had not realised he needed to produce a letter from his wife's sister in London.

Then on Thursday, the day after the ruling, when he went to register with the police, he and his whole family were taken to Dungavel Prison without warning.

It meant his five-year-old daughter, Miriam, was taken from her P1 class at school, and his wife, Gull, and other two children, Abishir, two, and Nadab, three, were all put in confinement awaiting deportation on Tuesday.

His solicitor has since received a letter from his wife's sister and it is hoped a legal challenge will see the family's case reopened. Supporters believe if the appeal fails then they are returning to Pakistan and near certain death.

The family have been living in Pollok in Glasgow since they arrived in the UK and have been active members of two churches – the Christian Asian Fellowship and Carnwadrick Church of Scotland parish.

They are being supported by Rev Graeme Bell of Carnwadrick who said he was optimistic that the court would at least reopen the case.

"This is a desperate situation," he told The Scotsman. "We are literally talking about people's lives here.

In Pakistan if somebody converts from Islam to Christianity then they have broken the law and legally they can be put to death."

Per Muhammad's own words.

The Home Office said that they are unwilling to discuss individual cases.

Here is the story of another of the untold number of child brides in Yemen, most of whom are voiceless and defenseless. If there is one promising aspect in this report, it is the acknowledgment in this New York Times article of Muhammad's own example as a factor in the persistence of child marriage in Yemen: Public awareness of the nature of the problem will better focus efforts to solve it, keeping apologists from passing the buck on the basis of "culture" rather than religious practice.

"Tiny Voices Defy Child Marriage in Yemen," by Robert F. Worth for the New York Times, June 29:

IBLA, Yemen — One morning last month, Arwa Abdu Muhammad Ali walked out of her husband’s house here and ran to a local hospital, where she complained that he had been beating and sexually abusing her for eight months.

That alone would be surprising in Yemen, a deeply conservative Arab society where family disputes tend to be solved privately. What made it even more unusual was that Arwa was 9 years old.

Within days, Arwa — a tiny, delicate-featured girl — had become a celebrity in Yemen, where child marriage is common but has rarely been exposed in public. She was the second child bride to come forward in less than a month; in April, a 10-year-old named Nujood Ali had gone by herself to a courthouse to demand a divorce, generating a landmark legal case.

Together, the two girls’ stories have helped spur a movement to put an end to child marriage, which is increasingly seen as a crucial part of the cycle of poverty in Yemen and other third world countries. Pulled out of school and forced to have children before their bodies are ready, many rural Yemeni women end up illiterate and with serious health problems. Their babies are often stunted, too.

The average age of marriage in Yemen’s rural areas is 12 to 13, a recent study by Sana University researchers found. The country, at the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

“This is the first shout,” said Shada Nasser, a human rights lawyer who met Nujood, the 10-year-old, after she arrived at the courthouse to demand a divorce. Ms. Nasser decided instantly to take her case. “All other early marriage cases have been dealt with by tribal sheiks, and the girl never had any choice.”

But despite a rising tide of outrage, the fight against the practice is not easy. Hard-line Islamic conservatives, whose influence has grown enormously in the past two decades, defend it, pointing to the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a 9-year-old. Child marriage is deeply rooted in local custom here, and even enshrined in an old tribal expression: “. [...]

Poverty is one reason so many Yemeni families marry their children off early. Another is the fear of girls being carried off and married by force. But most important are cultural tradition and the belief that a young virginal bride can best be shaped into a dutiful wife, according to comprehensive study of early marriage published by Sana University in 2006....

"No compulsion in religion..."

And of course, the penalty for apostasy is death, as directed by Muhammad himself. "Iran - Convert couple arrested, tortured, threatened," from Compass Direct News, June 24:

LOS ANGELES, June 25 (Compass Direct News) – Security police officials in Tehran this month tortured a newly converted couple and threatened to put their 4-year-old daughter in an institution after arresting them for holding Bible studies and attending a house church.

A Christian source in Iran said that 28-year-old Tina Rad was charged with “activities against the holy religion of Islam” for reading the Bible with Muslims in her home in east Tehran and trying to convert them. Officials charged her husband, 31-year-old Makan Arya, with “activities against national security” after seizing the couple from their home on June 3, forcing them to leave their 4-year-old daughter ill and unattended.

Authorities kept them in an unknown jail for four days, which left them badly bruised from beatings, with Rad “very ill” and unable to walk, said the source. Rad was released on bail of US$30,000 bail, and her husband was freed on payment of US$20,000.

“The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus,” a female security police officer told Rad during interrogation, according to the source. Under Iran’s strict Islamic laws, Muslims who convert from Islam to another religion can be executed.

A draft law before the Iranian parliament would make the death penalty mandatory for “apostates” who leave Islam.

“They went to a court hearing just for show,” the source said, “as secret police had already taken their signatures by force with a statement that they had not changed their religion.”

The charges, however, are still open, said the source, a close friend of the couple.

The female security police official warned Rad that if she and her husband continued attending a house church and holding Bible studies, they could be imprisoned “for a very long time” and would lose their daughter, Odzhan Arya. An officer also told Rad that authorities could concoct a drug case against them, “and you will be punished as drug smugglers.” [...]

An officer also told Arya that authorities could place his daughter “in a protected religious institution.”

Anyone who values freedom of expression should support Wilders as vocally as possible against this threat to his freedom of speech and movement. Otherwise, they may later note with regret: "First they came for Geert..."

From Gates of Vienna, via Atlas Shrugs:

Geert Wilders fears he will be arrested soon when traveling abroad, due to his movie Fitna. Jordan is working on an international warrant for the arrest of the PVV leader in order to prosecute him. Last Monday the court in Amman found the complaint filed to be acceptable. Wilders expects that the court will soon appeal for an international warrant for his arrest, reports De Volkskrant. Jordan can possibly make a request through Interpol. Such an appeal can be fought by the Dutch government. It is also possible Jordan will ask individual nations visited by Wilders to extradite him. In any case, the Wilders' freedom of movement will be severely restricted. Wilders complains about the uncertainty.

"One never knows when it will happen. My freedom of movement will be enormously limited and I cannot operate as a politician," according to Wilders in De Volkskrant. The risks are being mapped by the ministry of Foreign Affairs.

No comment.

"TV show contestant ‘shamed herself and insulted Muslims," from The Times, June 29:

A muslim woman has been accused of shaming herself and insulting her religion by taking part in a reality TV motor-racing show.

Durban beauty therapist Nadira Dasoo has come under fire from a Gauteng Muslim organisation, Know Islam, believed to be behind an e-mail lambasting her for being a contestant in the Ultimate Grand Prix Drive, screened on SABC3 on Sunday nights.

Show contestants race in go-karts and cars and must perform various tasks.

Dasoo, a 29-year-old mother of two who maintained her religious dress code throughout the contest, was eliminated from the show last week.

The e-mail said : “This Muslim sister of ours has made a mistake and we are here to remind her of the wrong she did.

Take heed, Nadira; the next “reminder” may well consist of hurled stones.

“In your headscarf you participated in a kaafir (non-Muslim) male-dominated show, bringing shame to yourself and insulting Muslims throughout the world.

“You allowed your body to be touched by a kaafir in a manner which will create excitement in any man ... you seemed to be enjoying this.

“It was called ‘exercise’ and ‘training’, while this kaafir carried you up and down the stairs. What a travesty indeed!”

It went on to say that the majority of Muslim scholars and jurists had determined the minimum requirements for Muslim women’s dress, including:
* That clothing must cover the entire body, with the exception of the face and hands; and
* That the clothing should not be form-fitting, sheer or eye-catching as to attract undue attention or reveal the shape of the body.

Dasoo agrees she has “done wrong as a Muslim girl”.

“But when I was approached with the competition, I saw it as an opportunity, because this is something that I actually enjoy, Formula 1 racing, and I had the support of my husband.

Guess who also just got in trouble?...

“I took this opportunity, but I do realise I have done wrong as a Muslim woman,” she said. […]

Women’s rights activist Shabnam Mohamed said: “I don’t think that certain aspects of the show can be justified according to Islamic principles. I think being carried by a man is deemed inappropriate. I do, however, think that there was a more sensitive way of managing the concerns expressed in this e-mail.

Mind you, this is coming from a “women’s right’s activist.” Oh wait, her name is “Mohamed.” Confusion solved.

Caption: "You can't stop them. But you can protect yourself. Your creator has your best interests at heart."

France 24 has posted this image, which is circulating via e-mail in Egypt to promote the use of the hijab and niqab by Egyptian women. The message is the same as that of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, who in 2006 outraged Australians by comparing un-veiled women to uncovered meat.

As usual, the notion of men having the responsibility to control themselves, or even being able to do so, is completely absent.

Now, let me get this straight: these men were studying at an Islamic seminary in Pakistan, and they're being deported. Pakistan's Islamic educational institutions have been called factories for jihad, and these guys were apparently too extreme even for them, and are being deported in accord with Pakistan's recent attempts to show that its alliance with the United States actually has some reality (unless, on the other hand, these guys are being deported for being too moderate and peaceful!).

Anyway, who are these Americans? Where will they go now? What will they do? Is anyone paying attention? "Pakistan orders deportation of 8 foreigners studying at Islamic seminary," from The Associated Press, June 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

KARACHI, Pakistan: An Islamic seminary says the Pakistani government is deporting eight foreign students.

Mufti Naeem Ahmed, head of the Jamia Binuria seminary, says the Interior Ministry is ordering the students to leave the country within 15 days. The students are from the United States, Thailand and Fiji.

Ahmed says the government gave no reason for the order and the seminary will appeal to have it rescinded. About 500 of the seminary's 5,000 students are foreign....

My friend Doc Washburn is a former talk radio host whose show I had the honor of appearing on numerous times. He recently got into a Letter-to-the-Editor dustup with Dr. Hashem Mubarak of Florida's Bay County Islamic Society, in which Dr. Mubarak repeated some soothing half-truths and untruths with which regular Jihad Watch readers will be quite familiar.

It happened awhile ago, but I just happened upon it and believe it is illuminating: Doc's reply shows how valuable it is to be informed about the true nature of the jihad threat, so as to be able to keep from falling for the smooth deceptions that are so commonly retailed by those who would prefer that we remain ignorant and complacent in the face of the advancing jihad threat. He also, at the end, refuses to accept the tired "bigotry" charge that jihadists and their allies and dupes always make whenever anyone points out the violence and supremacism jihadists retail on a daily basis.

"Positive proof of terror links exist," from the Panama City News Herald, May 22:

Dr. Hashem Mubarak recently responded to my letter in the 42-cent Forum criticizing the Bay County Islamic Society for bringing in a speaker who is a member of two organizations (Fiqh Council of North America and the European Council for Fatwa and Research) with ties to terrorism ("Suspicious links," letters, April 30). I had also criticized the society for earlier hosting a talk by a representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In his letter, "Muslims maligned," Dr. Mubarak stated that the Fiqh Council had "issued a religious fatwa explicitly prohibiting all acts of terrorism" and that "none of these organization's members have ever spoken favorably of terrorism" (May 6). He issued a challenge for me or anyone else "to bring a single piece of evidence proving otherwise."

I hereby accept his challenge.

First, the following link is all the evidence anyone would need to establish CAIR's ties to terrorism. It is a 10-part series devoted to CAIR that includes great detail on its origins, funding, ties to Hamas, terrorismrelated indictments of their officials, etc. (www.investigativeproject. org/profile/172).

Second, the fatwa issued by the Fiqh Council (and publicized by CAIR) was anything but explicit. It has been criticized roundly as a bogus document "designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate." It does not condemn, renounce or even mention the jihad ideology behind Islamic terrorist attacks. It does not condemn by name any person or group responsible for jihad attacks. Although it condemns violence against "innocent men and women," it conveniently ignores what the jihadists keep saying: There is no such thing as an "innocent" non-Muslim (www. jihadwatch. org/archives/ 018961.php).
The fatwa condemns going after "civilians," but again ignores the fact that (as far as jihadists are concerned), the concept of "civilians" does not exist in Islamic law (www.jihadwatch.org/archiv es/007125.php).

The fatwa is so vague that even jihadists could agree with it!

The Fiqh Council's chairman, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to the federal felony violation of providing assistance and support to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist organization. Evidence in Al-Arian's trial showed that Alwani-funded Islamic Jihad front groups in Florida.

Also, Abdurrahman Alamode (a past trustee of the Fiqh Council) is serving a 23-year prison sentence for immigration fraud and illegal financial dealings with Libya. He has been named by the U.S. Treasury Department as having been a financier of al-Qaida. For good measure, he also admitted being a part of a plot to assassinate the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah (counter terror.typepad.com/ the_counterterrorism_blog/ 2005/07/the_american_is. html).

As I mentioned in my previous letter, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has been vocal in his support of "suicide bombings." Here is more proof: www.experience festival.com/a/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi_-_Qaradawis _opinion_on_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict/id/19555 01 and http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3874893. stm.

In his letter, Dr. Mubarak accused me of "ugly bigotry and racism." I did not realize that Islam is a race. He also claimed that I "deliberately lied" and that when I did my radio talk show in Panama City, I "repeatedly incited hatred against the Muslim community and made false, libelous, and defamatory statements." So in closing, I have a challenge for him: Prove it.

Bravo.

Reza Alavi Update. "Iranian engineer pleads guilty in nuke plant case," from AP, June 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PHOENIX (AP) — An Iranian engineer has pleaded guilty to transporting stolen property he obtained at a former job at the largest nuclear plant in the United States.

Mohammad Reza Alavi, 50, pleaded guilty to the charge in a deal reached Tuesday with federal prosecutors. Another charge against him was dropped.

A federal jury convicted Alavi last month of illegally accessing a protected computer but deadlocked on the two other counts.

He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison a Sept. 29 sentencing hearing.

"We are pleased to have achieved a resolution with the government which fits the case and which enables Mr. Alavi and his family to move forward with their lives," defense attorney David Laufman said.

Alavi, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Iran, worked for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix for 17 years.

Authorities said when Alavi quit the station in 2006, he brought a laptop to Iran containing training software with design schematics and other details of the plant. His unauthorized use of the software did not contain enough information to pose a security threat, Palo Verde officials have said....

Abu Qatada was not enough. "Second al-Qaeda leader to be freed in Britain," from the Times, June 28 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Secret negotiations have taken place to arrange the release from a British jail of one of al-Qaeda’s most important operatives in Europe, The Times has learnt.

The prisoner, who can be identified only as U, is expected to be released from the high-security wing at Long Lartin jail next week.

Appeal Court judges ruled in April that the man, a 45-year-old Algerian veteran of al-Qaeda’s Afghan training camps, should be freed on bail. But discussions between security agencies and U’s lawyers became deadlocked over the conditions restricting his movements and whom he can meet when he leaves prison.

The authorities are understood to have sought bail terms more stringent than the 22-hour curfew imposed on the radical cleric Abu Qatada when he was freed last week. These conditions would require U to spend all his time indoors.

Security agencies blocked requests for U to live in London claiming that he has extensive contacts among extremist Islamist groups there. They also objected to an address in Brighton. U will be required to wear an electronic tag, subjected to round-the-clock monitoring and forbidden to use the internet or a mobile phone.

When the agreement is finalised the details will be passed to a judge who can release U from the prison in Worcestershire without any further court hearing. The Home Office refused to comment on the situation beyond saying it was seeking “the strictest bail conditions” possible.

While Abu Qatada is a preacher whose role in the al-Qaeda network is to justify and encourage jihad, U is alleged to be a terrorist leader who recruited, trained and facilitated operations. Members of his group, which was formed with the personal approval of Osama bin Laden, have been convicted in the US of a plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999 and, in Germany, of a plan to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market a year later....

"Islam is real threat to church, says Synod member," from Telegraph, June 26:

[...] But Alison Ruoff, an evangelical lay member of the Synod and a former magistrate who is at the Gafcon summit in Jerusalem, told The Daily Telegraph that the church needs to get past these divisions and concentrate on fighting the rise of Islam in Britain.

True, but in a way, the “cause” behind all “these divisions”—including the rise of Islam—is one: postmodernism, which equally disdains religious “truths” as much as it does objectivism and an appreciation for “reality.” In other words, the day Brits develop a renewed sense of their own spirituality is the same day they will see the growth of Islam for what it is.

She says that under an Archbishop of Canterbury who said it is inevitable that elements of Sharia will be introduced in the UK, the church has not done enough to put its message across.

And she believes the Government, out of politically correct sensitivity, is not preventing the growth of Muslim communities which do not integrate with those around them.

Mrs Ruoff, who earlier this year called for a halt to mosque building in Britain, said: "The problems of homosexuality and women bishops which face the Church of England are minor compared with the threat to the church and the nation from Islam.

"The church is sleepwalking into an Islamic state. Hopefully we can unite against it.
"The leaders of the church have lost their confidence in the Gospel. We have got an Archbishop of Canterbury who doesn't stand up for Christianity but wants a degree of Sharia law.

"The church should be getting out with the Christian message.

Imagine that! A church that actually seeks to spread the Good News of freedom under grace, instead of willingly and in grand dhimmi fashion submitting to the draconian mandates of sharia law. How radical is that?

"Our Government is allowing it to happen out of political correctness, but it should be protecting our values and heritage."

This will never happen as long as people think the number one value is blind “tolerance”—tolerance of hate, racism, violence, and misogyny, all in the name of “religion”—and that their Western, Christian heritage is the source of the world’s woes, from crusades to colonialism, and naught but a source of shame and guilt.

She added that many people share her fears but do not like to speak out about it in case they are criticised.

Oh yeah, that one peculiar quality of the Western heritage—free speech—is also another source of shame to be eschewed at all times.

"People are genuinely worried. There's a general concern in the nation about its building blocks being rapidly eroded.

"But we are very afraid of the law and of being persecuted. The police in many respects are standing up for Islam rather than Christianity."

Mrs Ruoff believes the problem with the growth of Islam in Britain is that some communities do not integrate, and that some immigrant imams do not learn English, leading to segregation.

She fears that if these communities introduce Islamic law, all non-Muslims and women will be treated as second-class citizens by them.

A well-grounded fear.

Though not often reported on in the mainstream press, the jihad in and around Chechnya has not gone away. "Nine dead, four injured in North Caucasus clashes," from Deutsche Presse Agentur, June 28:

MOSCOW - Nine people have been killed and four injured in several exchanges of gunfire in the disputed Russian North Caucasus region, Interfax news agency and regional authorities said Saturday.

Four police officers and two rebels were killed and four police officers injured in a gun battle near the village of Dargo in the semi-autonomous Russian republic of Chechnya, Interfax and the authorities reported.

In mid-June, Islamist rebels shot dead three villagers in Benoy- Vedeno and set several houses alight.

In the semi-autonomous republic of Dagestan, three members of a rebel gang were killed in the capital Makhachkala during a police raid.

The heavily armed members of a terrorist group, which included a woman, had holed up on the fourth [floor] of a high-rise building, a spokesman for the authorities said.

After they refused to respond to requests to give themselves up, a special unit stormed the flat and killed the three of them, the spokesman said.

The four police officers in Chechnya were killed Friday evening during a operation by the security forces, the spokesman added.

Grenade launchers were found with the two rebels who were shot dead during that operation.

The rebels managed to hit an armoured personnel carrier during the clashes.

The troubled North Caucasus region has remained restive even under new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

The situation in Chechnya has improved greatly since two wars were fought there in the 1990s, but there are still frequent skirmishes.

Islamist groups in neighbouring Dagestan and Ingushetia also clash frequently with the pro-Russian authorities.

A case study in why Somalia is a mess, and has been for years. "Somali Islamists snatch Danish, Swedish aid workers: UN," from Agence France-Presse:

MOGADISHU (AFP) - Islamist militants kidnapped a Dane and a Swede working for the United Nations and a Somali aid worker when the fighters seized control of a town Saturday, several sources told AFP.

Local residents and aid workers said the insurgents attacked the town of Hodur, 370 kilometres (235 miles) west of the Somali capital Mogadishu, around 4:30 am (0130 GMT) but then withdrew.

"The two UN mine action workers were taken from the IMC (International Medical Corps) compound. We don't know their whereabouts and they were taken after Islamists took control of the town," a UN official told AFP.

First reports said the two foreigners abducted were Swedes, but it later emerged that one was Danish and the other Swedish.

"According to our sources on the ground, they are a Dane and a Swede working for our organisation, carrying out a demining training assignment on behalf of the United Nations," said Aake Svensson, a spokesman for the Raddningsverket, the Swedish government's risk assessment and emergency management agency.

A UN security official in Nairobi said: "Local authorities in the zone are negotiating with the kidnappers and calling for their immediate and unconditional release. [...]

The latest abductions take the number of humanitarian workers kidnapped recently in this Horn of Africa country to nine: two Swedes, two Italians, one British national, one Kenyan and three Somalis.

"The crowd erupted in cheers of "God is great!" and gunmen fired in the air in jubilation."

"Thousands Cheer as Pakistani Militants Decapitate, Shoot Afghans Accused of Spying for U.S., " from the Associated Press, May 27:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A gang of Pakistani militants executed two alleged U.S. spies in front of thousands of cheering supporters Friday as a top U.N. official expressed fears that Pakistani government peace deals with the gunmen were sparking a wave of human rights abuses.

At least 5,000 people gathered by a stream in the Bajur region to watch the executions, which highlighted the power of local Taliban forces in the lawless tribal areas near the Afghan border.

Masked militants pulled the two blindfolded Afghans from a car and forced them to kneel on the ground.

Waliur Rehman, a local Taliban commander, told the crowd that the two men confessed to aiding in a suspected U.S. missile strike on a house in the border town of Damadola that killed 14 people last month. The men disclosed the names of others involved, and they would be killed as well, he said.

"Whoever, for the sake of money, for the sake of America, harms the interest of the Islamic world will meet the same fate," he said.

Gunmen with daggers then pounced on one of the men — identified as Jan Wali, 36 — decapitated him and waved his bloody head to the cheering crowd.

The militants then argued over how to kill the other man because he may have been a teenager, before one lost patience and shot him with an assault rifle.

The crowd erupted in cheers of "God is great!" and gunmen fired in the air in jubilation. The celebratory gunfire killed two bystanders and wounded six, local official Fazal Rabbi said.

The recently elected Pakistani government has supported negotiations that would give local tribes and militants broad authority over some tribal areas. The U.S. says those deals will only give Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in the border region more freedom to attack Afghanistan.

A deal has not yet been reached over Bajur, but the militants are clearly able to operate freely in the area.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said Friday she was concerned that the peace deals undermined state authority and left residents vulnerable to a range of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings.

There are so very many stories like this -- most of them I don't post here. But as our new Jihad Watch contributor Raymond Ibrahim noted the other day, "Why are we not constantly exhorted, day after day, that Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Scientology are 'misunderstood'? Why only Islam?"

Why indeed? Why is there a concerted effort all over the Western world to clear up "misconceptions" of Islam for well-meaning unbelievers, but no effort anywhere to clear up the "misconceptions" of Islam that jihad terrorists have -- the ones who, we're constantly told, are twisting and hijacking the religion? Where do the "misconceptions" that Westerners constantly seem to fall prey to come from? Could they possibly come from those jihad terrorists, committing acts of violence and justifying them by referring to Islamic texts and teachings? Will a pleasant evening (over chicken and pita, as Hugh would point out) assuring non-Muslims that those people aren't true Muslims clear up that problem?

Or are these evenings, carried on more or less daily all over the West, more likely to make their bemused audiences less likely to understand what is happening in the world, and to respond to it appropriately?

"Get the lowdown on Islam, Northern Territory style," by Daniel Bourchier for the Northern Territory News, June 29 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

RELIGIOUS and cultural understanding and tolerance will be debated as part of Islamic Awareness Week today.

The celebration aims to explain what the religion is all about and its role in the Northern Territory.

As part of the week, the Darwin Islamic Centre was officially opened by Chief Minister Paul Henderson last night.

Organiser Ishfaq Haider said the idea of this third Islamic Awareness Week is getting to know each other.

"We invite all local people to come and see what we do,'' he said.

"With so many misconceptions about Islam, this is a good chance to ask questions.''

Highlights today include lectures about Muslim youth in Australia -- and the question of female oppression under Islam....

“This speaks of a complete lack of control by the government over the situation.” "Taliban bring vigilante law to Peshawar," from Reuters, June 28 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

PESHAWAR: The Taliban are no longer at the gates of Peshawar, they’re inside, making their presence felt in the largest city in the NWFP.

Their brazen movement is a chilling demonstration of the political and military failure to resist a militant Islamist tide rolling in from the Pashtun tribal belt on the Afghan border.

“This speaks of a complete lack of control by the government over the situation,” said Mehmood Shah, a former tribal region security chief.

President Pervez Musharraf warned more than two years ago that Talibanisation, the spread of the militants’ puritanical culture, was the greatest threat that Pakistan faced.

These days Taliban fighters do not sneak in to Peshawar. They arrive in broad daylight on the back of pick-up trucks, brandishing automatic weapons, and threatening owners of music stores to close down. “They had long hair and flowing beards, and were carrying Kalashnikovs. They told me to close down the shop or face the consequences,” said Abdul Latif, a clean-shaven 20-year-old, whose video store received a visit from the vigilantes last week. “I asked police for help but they said they are helpless,” he said.

Even Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chief Fazlur Rehman, a member of the ruling coalition known for his past support for the Taliban and opposition to Pakistan’s alliance with the US, has rung alarm bells.

“It’s just a matter of months before news comes that the entire NWFP has slipped out of control,” Fazl warned parliament. Officials said they (law enforcement agencies) were getting ready to go on the offensive within weeks to free Peshawar from the creeping insurgency, and an anti-terrorist force of 7,000 men had been raised.

“If we don’t take timely action, we will be facing a much bigger problem,” said Malik Naveed Khan, provincial police chief, whose cousin was killed by a suicide bomber two years ago.

“If we don’t take timely action, we will be facing a much bigger problem.” Ain't that always the way?

The Saudis recently arrested 700 people they said held to a “deviant ideology.” Actually the "deviant ideology" is to mistake the princes, princelings, princelettes of the Al-Saud family, and their spaniel-courtiers, for bad people, greedy people, decadent people who, some claim, have been robbing the country blind.

How could anyone think that? Surely they must have embraced a "deviant" ideology to mistake for criminals the members of the benevolent and wonderful family whose ancestor, having defeated the Shammar tribe in Nejd back in 1920, proceeded to take Arabia. The Al-Saud had already driven the Hashemites out of their position as the Guardians of the Two Holy Places and into exile, with one Hashemite son, Faisal, plumped on the newly-created throne of newly-created Iraq, and another, Abdullah, being given as his consolation prize by the British all of Eastern Palestine.

Keystone Kops Alert. I expect that the Keystone quality of this particular story can be attributed to multiculti witlessness, in which authorities assumed that the pious young men wouldn't dream of taking advantage of the opportunity offered by Friday prayers to elude them. To do so, they probably assumed in their befuddled, befogged Openness to Other Cultures, would have been "un-Islamic."

"Bailed terror suspect goes on the run after leaving suicide note," by Richard Edwards and Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, June 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A terrorist suspect on bail for charges linked to an alleged major suicide plot involving mass casualties has gone on the run, Scotland Yard has disclosed.

The 23-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is understood to have fled during Friday prayers and left a suicide note at his home.

Under strict bail conditions, he was due to report to police at 7am on Friday. It was reported on Friday night that he escaped while at prayers in a mosque near his home, which he was allowed to attend as part of the conditions. His family are said to have contacted police after they found the note.

"Strict bail conditions." Not all that strict, evidently.

Scotland Yard has launched a massive manhunt, amid fears for the man's welfare. Detectives are playing down the suggestion the note implied he was on a suicide mission to target others.

Yeah, that couldn't be.

The suspect was due to stand trial later this year charged with conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit explosions, amongst other alleged offences.

He was given strict bail conditions, which amount to being under house arrest, and would have had his passport confiscated. The exact details of the conditions are unknown because the application was made in secret at court.

House arrest that involved his being able to go to mosque unsupervised?

Police sources said they are "furious" that another terror suspect has gone on the run after being granted bail.

They should be.

They have also faced problems with suspects slipping their control orders and at least three others are being hunted by police having absconded in the past year.

Zeeshan Siddiqui, a former London Underground worker linked to the leader of the July 7 bomb plot, has been missing since September last year.

He disappeared after leaping from the window of West Middlesex University Hospital in Isleworth, west London, where he had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Raised in Hounslow, west London, he once said he planned to run away to join the mujahideen [holy warriors] in Lebanon. He was also said to have been a friend of British suicide bomber Asif Hanif, who blew himself up in Israel in 2003.

One of the most embarrassing examples of terror suspects flouting control orders occurred in May last year.

Three men - all of whom had been placed under control orders - went on the run after failing to report to the authorities....

And yet procedures have still not been toughened up enough to keep this from happening.

It is dar al-Islam, you see. Three people have been killed, and the rioting continues. "Land Transfer to Hindu Site Inflames Kashmir’s Muslims," from AP, June 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SRINAGAR, Kashmir (AP) — Tens of thousands of Muslim demonstrators filled the streets in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Friday, burning flags and effigies of Indian leaders on a fifth day of protests against the transfer of land to a Hindu shrine.

Protesters clashed with riot police officers in several parts of Srinagar, the main city in the region, which has a Muslim majority. The police responded with tear gas, said Prabhakar Tripathi, a spokesman for the Central Reserve Police Force.

Three people have died and dozens of others, including at least 22 police officers, have been wounded since Monday, as the police have struggled to control angry mobs protesting the transfer of 99 acres of land by the state government to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, a trust running the popular Hindu shrine.

Protesters accuse the Indian government of planning to build Hindu settlements in India’s only Muslim-majority state in an effort to change the demographic balance in the region....

This strike is recommended in this report, which exposes Pakistan's support for the Taliban. "Pakistan launches strike at Taliban hideouts," by Kathy Gannon for Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):

KHYBER AGENCY, Pakistan - Pakistani forces bombarded suspected militant hideouts with mortar shells Saturday as the government launched a major offensive against Taliban fighters threatening the main city in the country's volatile northwest, officials said.

The offensive in the Khyber tribal region marked the first major military action Pakistan's newly elected government has taken against the militants operating in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

The government had said it preferred to try to defuse tension with the groups through negotiations, but with threats by Islamic militants to the city of Peshawar growing in recent weeks, the military decided to take action.

Khyber also is a key route for moving U.S. military supplies into neighboring Afghanistan.

By Saturday afternoon, the paramilitary Frontier Corps began shelling suspected militant hideouts in the mountains in Khyber.

"We have occupied, captured all important heights, and we have taken control of the area," said Maj. Gen. Alam Khattak, the Frontier Corps' head. He said his troops destroyed three militant centers and killed a gunman. The operation was expected to last up to a week.

In response to the operation and other recent confrontations with security forces, Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban leader in Pakistan, said he was suspending talks between his allies and the government. He implied his forces could cause trouble in Pakistan's main cities.

"Peace cannot be brought with force and aggression. This will be very unfortunate for the Pakistani nation if fighting starts again," he told The Associated Press by telephone....

1939 Alert. "Report: Iran to hit Israel if attacked," by Ali Akbar Dareini for Associated Press, June 28 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

TEHRAN, Iran - The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that Tehran would respond to an attack against it by barraging Israel with missiles and controlling a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, said a newspaper report published Saturday.

The report in the conservative Jam-e-Jam newspaper comes after the disclosure of a recent Israeli military exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that was seen as sending a message to Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions.

Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said there were strong deterrents against striking Iran, including the country's missile power, the vulnerability of Israeli and U.S. forces in the region and the low probability of a successful attack....

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all of its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam, which is affiliated with Iran's state-run radio and television network.

In 2006, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if the United States attacked Iran. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer. About 60 percent of the world's oil passes through the strait.

"Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue. ... Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action," Jafari was quoted as saying....

Jafari also warned that an attack against Iran will also prompt Muslims, including Shiites, to harm U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the Middle East in retaliation to any attack against Iran. He mentioned the Tehran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Now why would Muslims do that, over a localized struggle over a small bit of land?

The father was recently charged with first-degree murder. Now it looks as if this killing was a family affair, as are many honor killings.

"Police charge brother in murder of his teenaged sister, hint others involved," by Suzanne Steel in the National Post, June 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A 27-year-old man originally charged with obstructing justice in the murder of his teenaged sister, has now been charged with first degree murder.

Peel Regional Police said Friday that Waqas Parvez is to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice today to face the new charges

The murder of Aqsa Parvez, 16, gained international attention after high school classmates claimed that the girl had clashed with her devout Muslim family about her refusal to wear traditional clothes. The strained relations drove Aqsa out of her home and to another Muslim family, who described her as a “typical” teenager who yearned for acceptance while straddling the Muslim and Western cultures. They disputed the claim that the friction was over a hijab, and said the girl was repairing her relationship with her family in the days leading up to her death.

On the morning of Dec. 10, 2007, her brother picked her up at a bus stop and took her home, where police say she was strangled to death before 8 a.m. Police say a man called 911 and said he had killed his daughter.

Muhammad Parvez, 57, was arrested that day and later charged with second-degree murder. The charge was later upgraded to first degree, which suggests premeditation and planning....

However, in British Columbia the ugly little circus continues. "Rights panel rejects action against Maclean's," by Jamie Komarnicki for the Globe and Mail, June 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint against Maclean's magazine over a controversial article on the future of Islam, magazine officials said yesterday.

Meanwhile, a decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal over the same issue isn't expected for several months.

The Canadian Islamic Congress launched the dual complaints over an article by Maclean's journalist Mark Steyn. The article, The Future Belongs to Islam, came under fire by Muslim critics who claimed it spreads Islamophobia....

When the truth spreads "Islamophobia," maybe it's time for a bit of introspection.

It is refreshing to see this prosecuted, rather than being pandered to by bemused multiculturalists.

"Parents convicted of genital mutilation," from Swissinfo, June 26 (thanks to Writer Mom):

Two Somali-born parents who had their daughter circumcised in Zurich in 1996 have been handed suspended prison sentences of two years.

The sentences to the parents of the girl, now aged 14, were read out in a Zurich court on Thursday. The judge's ruling was in line with what prosecutors had requested and was the first time anyone has been convicted for carrying out genital mutilation in Switzerland.

The parents had claimed they were unaware that female genital mutilation – sometimes referred to as female circumcision – was illegal in Switzerland.

They had been charged with grievous bodily harm, a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison.

The court heard that imprisoning the parents would have broken up the family, which the parents say is now better integrated.

The family's two younger daughters have not been subjected to the practice, something the parents say was part of their Muslim religion....

Uh oh. Better notify the OIC, Ibrahim Hooper, and the whole posse of Islamic apologists in the West: these people think that genital mutilation has something to do with Islam. Everyone knows that only Islamophobes think that. So now we have the specter of...Muslim Islamophobes.

In case you've left your scorecard at home, the State Department's version is that Hamas are the bloodthirsty jihad terrorists, while Fatah are the peaceful, pragmatic moderates. Of course, Fatah has never actually been that, and here is yet more proof.

"Hamas slams Fatah for shelling," from JTA, June 27 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Hamas criticized Fatah militants for undermining the Palestinian national interest by firing rockets into Israel.

In a statement carried by the official Palestinian news agency, Maa, Hamas leaders warned other militant factions against taking actions that threaten Hamas' cease-fire with Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Fatah's armed wing, the Al-Aksa Brigade, has fired several shells into Israel from Gaza since the June 19 cease-fire went into effect, and Islamic Jihad has fired rockets into Israel. Israel's military has not responded, but Israel has delayed reopening border crossings along the Gaza-Israel line.

After firing its rockets into Israel, Islamic Jihad reportedly said it will adhere to the truce terms.

After breaking the truce, Islamic Jihad reportedly said it will adhere to the truce terms.

CAIR is in his corner, of course, and everyone is working hard to make him seem to be a martyr. But what does he have to hide? What would he be able to reveal about the IIIT, which was listed in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as one of the organizations involved in a "grand jihad" to destroy Western civilization?

Al-Arian Update: "Former Professor Indicted In Muslim Charities Case," by Jerry Markon for the Washington Post, June 27 (thanks to Writer Mom):

A former Florida professor who had pleaded guilty to aiding a terror organization was indicted yesterday on criminal charges that he refused to testify before a grand jury investigating whether Islamic charities in Northern Virginia were financing terrorists.

The indictment of Sami al-Arian triggered outrage from his family and Muslim groups that have mounted a national campaign to secure his release from prison. Arian had already been jailed for a year on civil contempt charges. Legal experts said it is rare for the government to then add criminal counts.

"This is a really dirty game the government is playing," said Arian's daughter, Laila. "They've already put him through enough. Enough is enough. This will have repercussions in the American Muslim community and throughout the world."

Arian was accused in Tampa in 2003 of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder and to aid the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, but his trial ended two years later in an acquittal on some charges and a mistrial on others. He later pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy in one of the nation's highest-profile terrorism cases. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison, which he finished serving in April. He was expected to be deported, but prosecutors in Alexandria are seeking his testimony.

He was charged again yesterday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria with two counts of criminal contempt. He could face additional jail time if convicted, but there is no maximum or minimum penalty. [...]

Prosecutors in Alexandria want Arian to reveal what they think are his ties to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, a Herndon think tank that is one of the key organizations under investigation, according to Arian's lawyers and court documents. The six-year-old probe, which federal officials have called the nation's largest terrorism-financing investigation, is focused on a Herndon-based network of Muslim charities, businesses and think tanks. They have denied any terrorist ties.

The Northern Virginia investigation burst into public view in March 2002, when federal agents raided homes and businesses in Herndon and elsewhere in the region. Muslim groups have labeled the probe a fishing expedition, but law enforcement officials have defended it as highly complicated, involving a complex trail of international transactions among corporations and charitable entities.

Arian, who taught computer science at the University of South Florida, twice refused to testify before the grand jury in Alexandria, on Oct. 16, 2007, and on March 20, according to yesterday's two-page indictment. His daughter said that he views it "as a matter of conscience" and that "he has nothing to offer."

Arian's attorney, Jonathan Turley, said his client has given prosecutors two detailed affidavits saying that he knows of no criminal activity involving IIIT and that the government has acknowledged he is a "minor witness." Turley said the indictment "is a continuation of a long campaign of abuse that has drawn international criticism."

After Arian was found guilty of civil contempt by a federal judge in Alexandria in 2006, he drew the strong backing of Muslim organizations, which held a news conference at Justice Department headquarters in Washington and called for a worldwide fast in support. Arian has gone on at least two hunger strikes in prison.

Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called yesterday's indictment a "ludicrous decision" that is "growing evidence that the kangaroo prosecution of Professor Al-Arian in fact extends beyond the pursuit of justice and into the realm of vindictive political persecution."

Not a single one was free. "Jews but no Muslims at Racism Conference," from The Jewish Chronicle, June 27:

The first conference to compare antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe was held in London this week — but without any Muslim speakers.

Now, we all now that it’s only the “radical” Muslims who exhibit animosity and intolerance towards Jews; so why did Muslim academics—they who most insist that Islam teaches “coexistence” and “dialogue”—eschew this opportunity? Perhaps they didn’t want to discuss the “differences,” the main one being well represented by the Greek words “anti” (-Semitism) and (Islamo-) “phobia”: the former denoting general opposition to something, the latter, fear of something.

The aim of the conference, held at University College, was to explore the “connections, commonalities and differences between” antisemitism and Islamophobia from both geographical and historical perspectives.

A worthy and objective endeavor—the latter element perhaps being behind Muslim reticence to participate?

But the organisers failed to find any Muslim academics who were free to participate.

Key word: “free.” To be sure, many a Muslim, academic or otherwise, is not “free to participate” in any number of things.

Co-organiser James Renton, senior lecturer at Edge Hill and honorary research fellow in the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at UCL, said: “It surprised me, as we put things together, how really tough it was to find people working in this area doing academic research. There were Muslims who wanted to come on board but they couldn’t, for one reason or another.

UPDATE June 27, 9:39AM PDT: It looks as if the dogs will be sniffing around Muslims after all. Muslims objected, but their objections were overruled. See "Muslims will be searched by sniffer dogs despite religious objections, say police," from the Daily Mail, June 27.

------

Britain just keeps outdoing itself for nutty manifestations of dhimmitude. In an age when terrorists are most likely to be Muslim, and these dogs are supposed to be helping find terrorists, the dogs won't touch Muslims. Dogs, after all, are unclean.

"Sniffer Dogs Offend Muslims," by Tom Whitehead in the Daily Express, June 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers – after complaints that it is against the suspects’ religion.

A report for the Transport Department has raised the prospect that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable”.

In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”. But banning them from touching passengers would severely restrict their ability to do their job. The report follows trials of station security measures in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks. In one trial, some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip.

British Transport Police last night insisted it would still use sniffer dogs – which are trained to detect explosives – with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers would remain aware of “cultural sensitivities”.

Critics said the complaints were just the latest example of minority religions trying to force their rules and morals on British society.

Well, duh, as the great philosopher once said.

Russia’s ultimate motivation is the deciding factor on whether this is a good or bad move: Is Russia funding “the translation and publication of books on Islam in Russian” in order to objectively learn more about the truths of the religion, or are they simply providing blind “material support for Islamic institutes” which will, no doubt, be turned toward funding the “Islam means Peace” propaganda campaign?

"Russia to allocate $1.5 million for support of Islam," from Interfax, June 26:

Moscow, June 26, Interfax - A project of joint efforts has been signed by Russia's Fund for the Support of Islamic Culture, Science and Education and the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), the fund told Interfax-Religion.

The agreement provides for grants and stipends to students of Russian Islamic institutes for research, the translation and publication of books on Islam in Russian, and for material support to Islamic institutes.

In addition, the agreement provides for international seminars on "The Role of Russia and the Islamic World in Strengthening the Alliance of Civilizations."

This surprisingly honest account from the New York Times shows the jizya -- the tax on the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) by Qur'an 9:29 -- for what it is: protection money. Pay up, or get killed. In a hadith, Muhammad says:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. [...] When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. [...] If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.... (Sahih Muslim 4294)

In other words, bid them to convert to Islam, pay the tax and submit, or die.

This mandate comes from Qur'an 9:29. Ibn Juzayy says that this verse is “a command to fight the People of the Book” and, in a reference to v. 30, “denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, ‘Uzayr [Ezra] is the son of Allah’ and the words of the Christians, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’” Muslims must also fight them because “they do not enter Islam.” He says that “scholars agree about accepting jizya [a religious-based poll tax] from the Jews and Christians,” and that it signifies “submission and obedience.”

According to the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or:

The poll tax was extorted by torture. The tax inspectors demanded gifts for themselves; widows and orphans were pillaged and despoiled. In theory, women, paupers, the sick, and the infirm were exempt from the poll tax; nevertheless, Armenian, Syriac, and Jewish sources provide abundant proof that the jizya was exacted from children, widows, orphans, and even the dead. A considerable number of extant documents, preserved over the centuries, testify to the persistence and endurance of these measures. In Aleppo in 1683, French Consul Chevalier Laurent d’Arvieux noted that ten-year-old Christian children paid the jizya. Here again, one finds the disparity and contradiction between the ideal in the theory and the reality of the facts. (The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, pp. 78-9).

As-Sawi specifies that the payment of the jizya signifies that the non-Muslims are “humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.” As-Suyuti notes that the jizya is “not taken from someone in a state of hardship,” although that was a stipulation at times honored in the breach. For example, a contemporary account of the Muslims’ conquest of Nikiou, an Egyptian town, in the 640’s, says that “it is impossible to describe the lamentable position of the inhabitants of this town, who came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month…”

This was a manifestation of the “state of abasement” specified by this verse and spelled out by the Bedouin commander al-Mughira bin Sa’d when he met the Persian Rustam. Said al-Mughira: “I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.”

Rustam replied, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?”

Al-Mughira explained: “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head.”

Similarly, Ibn Kathir says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.” The seventh-century jurist Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” As-Suyuti elaborates that this verse “is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.” He adds, however, that “this is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, ‘This manner is invalid.’” Zamakhshari, however, agreed that the jizya should be collected “with belittlement and humiliation.”

Asad, Daryabadi and other Western-oriented commentators maintain that the jizya was merely a tax for exemption for military service. Asad explains: “every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God’s cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperiled…Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden.” But they pass in silence over the latter part of v. 29, which mandates the humiliation of non-Muslims.

In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.

This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:

1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
17. “Beat any Muslim.”

Meanwhile, the Christians will:

With a bit more bite than The Age, the great Andrew Bolt weighs in on the Australia polygamy controversy: "Polygamy - the right to put down women," from the Herald Sun, June 27:

WE haven't heard the last of this call by Muslim leaders for the right to polygamy.

After all, how can a society that's moving to give a man the right to marry another man then refuse a man the right to marry two women?

Give way on gay marriage, you must give way on polygamy. In both cases it's about consenting adults, right?

So I couldn't blame the sheiks who thought it was time this week to demand we change our laws to make polygamy legal.

Sheik Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, said we already had Muslims in polygamous marriages here, and should protect them with legal status.

These weren't just polygamists who had somehow slipped through immigration checks, either: "There are a lot of sheiks here . . . (who) conduct that marriage no problem at all."

Chami soon had backers. Sheik Isse Musse of Werribee mosque said Melbourne had some 20 polygamous families from Africa, mainly Somalis and mainly refugees. The second wives deserved to have their marriages recognised so they weren't seen as having sex outside wedlock but, alas, "the Australian law is unfortunate".

Keysar Trad, translator for the former mufti of Australia and head of the Islamic Friendship Society, agreed, saying he'd even proposed to a second wife. And the current Mufti, Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam, said this was an issue for the Australian National Council of Imams to discuss.

And relax, crooned Yasser Soliman, one of the Muslim advisers handpicked by then prime minister John Howard: "I don't think it should be discussed in terms of any threat to the Australian way of life."

Except, of course, that it is.

It's not just a threat in the obvious way, being a challenge to the way we regard women in this country.

Women have slowly, painfully won the right to be considered equal to men in status and freedoms. Do we betray that ideal now by approving a form of union in which women are inevitably subservient?

It's no coincidence, after all, that these sheiks are utterly against giving women the equal right in turn to several husbands. And you need only hear Trad argue for polygamy to suspect they feel a woman's place is under a man, literally.

Trad this week said he'd proposed to a second woman because he'd fallen in love and thought it sinful to commit adultery. His wife, Hanifa, said she'd approved, because it would mean "having (sex) in the right way instead of having it like go to a prostitute . . ."

A second wife as a prostitute substitute? How could any woman resist such a sweet offer? No wonder Trad's proposal was turned down....

Read it all.

Extra lettuce? Special orders might upset us. (Are you willing to take that risk?)

From our ever-expanding You-Can't-Make-This-Stuff-Up File: "Lebanon's 'Buns and Guns' Fast-Food Restaurant Celebrates Hezbollah's Shiite Militants," from the Associated Press, June 26:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — At the "Buns and Guns," the chefs wear military helmets, the food is wrapped in camouflage paper and the advertising slogan is "a sandwich can kill you."

The fast food eatery with a tongue-in-cheek military theme opened three weeks ago in Beirut's Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs and is drawing in residents proud of the Shiite militant group's battlefield successes.

Done up like a military outpost, the restaurant is located in the heart of a neighborhood heavily pounded by Israel during its 2006 war with Hezbollah, which fought the Israeli military to a standstill.

Neatly stacked sandbags cover the exterior, while the inside is festooned with camouflage nets, defused mortar shells and live ammunition. Employees in military uniforms serve meals to the taped sounds of gunfire as "background music."

"We thought at the beginning that it was a weapons store but later we discovered that it was actually a fast food restaurant," said customer Amr Nahas as he ordered a "magnum," a grilled chicken sandwich, with a side order of "grenades" or potato wedges.

And nothing else about the English name of the establishment raised any eyebrows?

"The sandwiches are really delicious," he added.

The restaurant's founding comes during a particularly tense period in Lebanese politics. Fighting between supporters of the government and the Hezbollah-led opposition in May killed 81 people and raising fears of a renewed civil war. It ended only after a political deal that gives Hezbollah and its allies a strong portion of a unity government.

But the restaurant's owners say the military motif has nothing to do with the security situation in Lebanon, but is meant to attract customers.

"The idea came before all the clashes that happened in Lebanon," co-owner Ali Hamoud told Associated Press Television News on Tuesday. "But in the end, (the fighting) helped in advertising the restaurant."

While many Lebanese have been sickened by the renewed fighting — including clashes Monday in the north that claimed another eight lives — many in the Hezbollah strongholds of south Beirut express pride in the movement's strength and gains.

"Establishing a military restaurant is a new fancy idea — there are people who like anything that deals with weapons," said one employee, who declined to give his name because his boss hadn't given him permission to speak to the media.

He said the restaurant had no direct connection with Hezbollah. But it could not operate in the heart of Hezbollah's south Beirut stronghold, where the guerrilla group's word is law, without its blessing — and Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV ran a story about the restaurant, a sign of the movement's support.

Customers enter the restaurant under a sign bearing the restaurant's name — in English — and the slogan, "a sandwich can kill you," a reference to the large portions.

The glossy camouflage menus feature burgers with names like "the mortar" and "the 155 mm howitzer," while grilled chicken sandwiches can be a "magnum" or a "rocket-propelled grenade." Lebanon's most common and popular weapon, the AK-47 Klashnikov assault rifle, is a beefsteak sandwich served in long baguette-style bread.

A pizza topped with peppers, onions, mushrooms, olives, corn and tomatoes is rather disturbingly named Claymore, referring to the devastating anti-personnel mines.

The Age editorializes about the Muslim push to legalize polygamy in Australia. "Gender equality and polygamy are not compatible," June 27:

[...] As The Age has argued before, there are fundamental values that must be accepted by all who live in this society if the broader diversity is to be sustained. Among those core values is an acceptance of the civil equality of men and women, and that equality would not be possible if men were allowed to take more than one wife. (The same consideration would preclude a change in the law allowing women to take more than one husband, although no one has publicly argued for polyandry.)

As Ms El Matrah noted, women in polygamous marriages suffer emotionally and psychologically, and in practice their property rights and capacity to earn a livelihood are compromised. It might be argued that in some other societies legal polygamy serves to protect these things, but that is not the way it could be expected to function in Australia in 2008. If the law were amended to regularise the status of the very few refugee families affected, how might it be exploited by others who do not come into this category? As Sherene Hassan, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, has said: "Fourteen hundred years ago it was altruism. These days the motivation behind polygamy is probably less honourable."

Probably!

Melanie Phillips explores a modern-day blood libel that has caused innumerable actual deaths. "Faking a Killing," in Standpoint, July 2008 (thanks to Dave):

On September 30 2000, two days after Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition Likud Party, went for a walk on Temple Mount, Palestinians mounted a demonstration at Gaza's Netzarim Junction. A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.

The footage, with a voice-over by France 2's Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.

That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.

Al-Dura became a poster boy for the Palestinian and Islamist war against Israel and the West. The day after the France 2 broadcast, the second intifada erupted in its full fury; according to the 2001 Mitchell report, the two events were directly connected. Twelve days later, a mob of Palestinians shouting, “Revenge for the blood of Mohammed al-Dura” lynched two Israeli army reservists and dragged their mutilated bodies through the streets of Ramallah.

When al-Qaeda decapitated the journalist Daniel Pearl, the video of this atrocity was punctuated with references to al-Dura. After -September 11 2001, Osama bin Laden said: “Bush must not forget the -image of Mohammed al-Dura.” Several Arab countries issued postage stamps with his picture. On Palestinian Authority TV and in its school books, al-Dura’s example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of “sacrifice”.

But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 -seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.

It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries.

How do we know the footage was a lie? Because many of us have seen the evidence for ourselves in a French courtroom. Ironically, this blood libel was only exposed to public view because France 2 and its correspondent Enderlin brought a libel suit against a French media watchdog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the “killing” was “pure fiction” and that al-Dura wasn’t dead at all.

To begin with, a Paris court ruled in favour of the TV station. But in May this year, the appeal court ruled that Karsenty had every right to say what he said in the light of the evidence. This included the “inexplicable incoherence” of footage, whose images did not correspond to Enderlin’s commentary; the “inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions” in Enderlin’s explanation; and the lack of credibility of France 2’s Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, upon whose -account of the events at Netzarim Enderlin — who was in Jerusalem at the time — had depended.

Read it all.

Surprise, surprise. But will their Saudi connection bail them out? I would guess that it probably will. "Virginia’s Islamic Academy on Shaky Legal Ground," by Patrick Poole for Pajamas Media, June 27:

An investigation by Pajamas Media has found that more trouble may be on the horizon for the Islamic Saudi Academy and the Saudi Embassy.

PJM first reported on the academy, a school sponsored by the Saudi Embassy, two weeks ago when law enforcement authorities raided it, looking for evidence that the school’s director, Abdullah Al-Shabnan, had covered up sex abuse allegations by a 5-year old student. The raid occurred just three days after the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors had renewed the school’s lease despite evidence that the school continued to use textbooks promoting violence and religious hatred.

Since then Abdullah Al-Shabnan has been charged with failing to report the child abuse allegations and obstruction of justice. A protest was held last week in front of the academy and it received considerable local media coverage, including from the Washington Post. That coverage no doubt played a role earlier this week when in a stunning about-face the Fairfax Board of Supervisors sent a letter to the State Department asking them to determine whether the lease should be renewed or not in light of the report earlier this month by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) that reviewed the academy’s textbooks and found that incendiary and hateful passages had not been removed.

The school has issued a press release claiming that the passages have been “mistranslated and misinterpreted,” and saying that the “textbooks are no longer at use at the Academy.” That contradicts statements made last week by school officials to the media that textbooks will be rewritten and reissued before the beginning of school. Why would the textbooks need to be rewritten if those under scrutiny are no longer in use?

The textbooks are not the only elements of the school that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Virtually all of the establishment media press reports have wrongly claimed that the school operates independently of the embassy as a private entity. Even Tom Casey, the State Department’s deputy spokesman, made this error during his June 24 daily press briefing:

QUESTION: I understand that you’ve received a letter from the — from Fairfax County asking you whether you could give an opinion on the lease of the Saudi school in Alexandria and whether the county should extend that lease, which I am told it’s worth $2.2 million a year. But — just, I mean, do you expect to pronounce yourselves on that? Is that something that you –

MR. CASEY: Well, I think it’s something we’ve just gotten. We’ll certainly take a look at it and see what kind of response would be appropriate, but I — you know, it’s not something we’ve had a chance to really look through. As you know, this is a school that is incorporated and overseen through the county there. It’s not an institution that we have any sort of formal role in accrediting or managing. But certainly, we’ll take a look at the letter and if there’s some thoughts or advice that we can offer, we’ll certainly do it.

And State Department spokesman Nichole Thompson has also said:

This is a private school. It is not a part of the Saudi embassy. It is not part of a diplomatic mission.

These claims by State Department officials make clear their position that the Islamic Saudi Academy has maintained a separate corporate identity from the Saudi Embassy. But a review of the corporate records on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission finds that the Islamic Saudi Academy’s corporate charter was terminated by the state on December 27, 2004. There is no indication from state records that the incorporation has been revived or renewed, and the last corporate report the school has filed with the state of Virginia that we could find was 2004 — the same year its corporate charter was terminated. A check of corporations in neighboring District of Columbia and Maryland found nothing for the academy.

Shocked? Don't be. Why should they have to obey kaffir laws?

Read it all.

This sounds great until one remembers that they have long been financing that "deviant ideology" outside the Kingdom. "Saudi Arabia arrests 700 preparing 'oil attacks,'" from AFP, June 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia has arrested 701 Islamists in recent months who were preparing attacks on oil industry installations, the interior ministry said on Wednesday.

Security forces "carried out several operations against followers of the deviant ideology and arrested a total of 701 people of various nationalities", said a ministry spokesman quoted by the official Spa news agency.

Of those arrested, "520 are still being held for their implication in the organisational and ideological plans of the deviant ideology".

Deviant ideology is the term used by Saudi officials to describe Al-Qaeda.

Irony. They're being accused of violating the truce and they can't even decide to fight back at all. War Is Deceit Update: "Terrorists: Israel Violated Truce; Livni Wants IDF To Act," by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for Israel National News, June 27 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

(IsraelNN.com) Islamic Jihad terrorist leaders have accused Israel of violating the temporary Gaza ceasefire 15 times since it went into effect eight days ago. The alleged violations include IDF surveillance drones over Gaza skies and the shooting of Arab fishermen and farmers by soldiers.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declared Thursday that Israel should respond with military force every time terrorists attack Israel with rockets and mortar shells. She told visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, "It doesn't interest me who fired it, we need to respond militarily and immediately to every infraction."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has limited his response to verbal statements that Israel considers the attacks truce violations. In addition, Israel has closed crossings into Gaza that had been opened under the agreement, and they remain shut on Friday, except for the Nahal Oz fuel depot. Terrorist leaders have warned that the closures will be considered as violations of the ceasefire.

The Islamic Jihad organization previously has taken responsibility for breaking the truce and attacking Israel with Kassam rockets and a mortar shell on Tuesday. It explained the bombardment was in retaliation for Israel's killing two terrorists in Shechem, part of Judea and Samaria where Islamic Jihad unilaterally extended the truce.

The Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reported that United Nations sources claimed Israel has violated the agreement seven times and that Arabs violated it only once. Arab terrorists have fired at least seven rockets on three separate days this week.

Most of the alleged Israeli violations involved IDF soldiers shooting at Arabs who approach the separation barrier, where they often plant bombs to explode when IDF vehicles pass. Hamas has maintained that the Arabs were farmers trying to work their land.

IDF spokesmen said they knew of only one incident when soldiers fired warning shots in the air without injuring anyone. Islamic Jihad claimed that the IDF shot and seriously wounded two farmers, ages 67 and 80.

The Indian government subsidizes the Hajj. Can't Christians get comparable consideration? Or do Muslims have the privileged status in India that they are trying to win in the West?

"Christians seek Haj-like sops," from The Hindu, June 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

THANJAVUR: Christians Vazhvurimai Iyakkam of Thanjavur Diocese has appealed to the Tamil Nadu Government to provide Haj-like concessions to Christian pilgrims who visit Jerusalem, the birth place of Jesus Christ.

In a resolution adopted at a meeting held here recently, the Iyakkam said that concessions were given to Christians in Andhra Pradesh. The Iyakkam also appealed to the Government to give the concessions and privileges given to SCs and STs to SC and ST Christians also.

"The area is not under our control, it's under the militants' control and no one can go there."

And another peace accord bites the dust. Hudaibiyya, anyone?

"Militants torch Pakistani ski resort hotel: police," by Junaid Khan for Reuters, June 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MINGORA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Islamist militants burned down a hotel at Pakistan's only ski resort on Thursday as security in a northwestern tourist valley deteriorated despite a month-old peace pact, police said.

The Swat valley, several hours drive on mountain roads from the capital, Islamabad, was until last year a prime tourist destination with ancient Buddhist ruins, a golf course, trout streams and the ski resort.

"Half of the hotel has been burned down," said Swat's police chief, Waqif Khan, referring to the only hotel at the Malam Jabba ski resort. The hotel is owned by the state tourism authority.

Khan said authorities had not been able to get to the resort to tackle the blaze or inspect the damage.

"The area is not under our control, it's under the militants' control and no one can go there," he said.

Militants infiltrated the valley from the Afghan border last year to support a radical cleric based there. The army began battling the militants in November after the militants resorted to violence in their campaign to impose Taliban-style rule.

The hotel shut down last August as tension in the valley increased. It later dismissed its staff as visitors stopped coming....

Militants have attacked security posts, and police and army patrols and they blew up several girls' schools. Fifteen people have been killed in recent days.

But a militant spokesman denied setting the hotel on fire.

"Our target is the security forces, we have nothing to do with the hotel," said the spokesman, Muslim Khan....

An update on this story. "Tajikistan's Jews despair as only synagogue razed," from Reuters, June 25:

Tajikistan has knocked down its only synagogue to make way for a new presidential palace, casting the Jewish community into despair, community members said on Wednesday.

The 19th century building is due to be replaced by a park adjoining the new palace for President Imomali Rakhmon, who has ruled the impoverished, mainly Muslim nation since 1992.

Community leaders said the weekend demolition of their synagogue - a wooden, one-story house adorned with stars of David - put their 350-strong community under threat.

"It's painful to lose something very dear, something that cannot be valued in money terms," Rabbi Mikhail Abdurakhmanov said after the building was bulldozed.

"At the moment the existence of Tajikistan's only Jewish community is under threat. It's also a threat to elderly people who came here for help," he told Reuters.

The Jewish community in Tajikistan - descendants of Persian-speaking Bukhara Jews who have lived in Central Asia for centuries - has dwindled since the country's independence from Soviet rule with many leaving for Israel.

The mayor's office of the capital Dushanbe declined to comment but the government has previously promised to allocate a new plot of land for the synagogue .

Abdurakhmanov said he had yet to hear from the city authorities about its fate.

It will be interesting to see when, where, or if that materializes.

The building technically belonged to the state because Soviet officials nationalized it in 1951 while allowing Jews to continue to worship there.

Before its demolition, the synagogue ran a daily canteen for the poor and allocated humanitarian aid to its mainly elderly community members with an average monthly income of about $20.

Lev Leviev, head of the world Bukhara Jews congress and an Israeli businessman, said he had discussed the synagogue's reconstruction with Tajikistan's president.

But, addressing reporters after talks with Rakhmon, Leviev declined to give further details, saying it was a "subtle and delicate issue."

As was the case with the last truce, jihadists are pressing additional demands -- namely, the extension of the truce to the West Bank -- now that the cease-fire is in place. And despite these violations, if Israel acts, it will be cast as the aggressor, and if it doesn't act, it is at the mercy of Hamas to control the behavior of other jihadist groups in the Gaza Strip.

An update on this story. "Gaza truce broken again as Kassam rocket hits w. Negev," from the Jerusalem Post, June 26:

The Gaza truce was violated again on Thursday as terrorists fired a Kassam rocket at the western Negev.

The rocket landed near a gas station in the Sha'ar Hanegev region, causing no casualties or damage.

The Fatah-affiliated Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. In a text message sent to reporters, it said "the truce must include the West Bank and all sorts of aggression must stop."

Nevertheless, Israel has stated on numerous occasions that it holds Hamas responsible for any attack emanating from Gaza, irrespective of which faction carries it out.

The rocket attack was the third time that the cease-fire was broken by Palestinians since it went into effect last Thursday. On Tuesday, Islamic Jihad fired three Kassam rockets at the South, damaging a Sderot home, and a mortar shell was fired at Israel the previous day.

Thursday's rocket fire came as Hamas accused Israel of violating the terms of the cease-fire after the Defense Ministry decided to keep the Gaza border crossings closed for the day, except for special humanitarian cases, in response to Tuesday's attack.

"If the crossings remain closed, the truce will collapse," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

Defense officials had said Wednesday night that they planned to open the crossings between Gaza and Israel on Friday if there were no more violations of the cease-fire.

Also Thursday, Islamic Jihad spokesman Daoud Shihab said that from now on, the group would coordinate its "responses to Israel's actions" with Hamas.

At the end of a meeting in Gaza between representatives of both groups, Islamic Jihad spokesman Daoud Shihab said that while his Gaza faction could not, therefore, immediately respond to Israeli actions, the move would not stop the Islamic Jihad from operating in the West Bank.

Islamic Jihad official Nafez Azzam said that while the truce agreement applied to Gaza only, Israeli "crimes" like its "targeted killing" in Nablus on Monday night "embarrassed the Palestinian factions."

On Wednesday, an aide to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the decision to end talks on reopening the Rafah border crossing between Sinai and Gaza was a response to the cease-fire violations. The aide was responding to a report in Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper, according to which Israel had agreed to refrain from responding to Tuesday's rocket attacks.

A national version of New York State's "Rachel's Law" is gaining bipartisan support:

Please - SUPPORT passage of the NATIONAL version of New York State's "Rachel's Law"---THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT (S-2977 & H.R. 5814)----

The "Free Speech Protection Act" was introduced by Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.

The bill has been assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

If free speech is important to you, PLEASE contact the House and Senate Judiciary Committees' Members and staff (contacts below) and urge them to approve the bill and vote for its passage as soon as possible.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism," Senator Specter said. "There is a real danger that American writers and researchers will be afraid to address the crucial subject of terror funding and other important matters without these protections."

"Discovering the truth requires full and open debate, which is not possible when courts are used to chill inquiry and research," Senator Lieberman said. "The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

"Our journalists provide us with insight on issues that affect all Americans, such as war and terrorism," Rep. King said. "We cannot allow their voices to be silenced by those who prefer to keep secret the inner details of these issues. American authors and journalists should be able to practice their first amendment right without the fear of a lawsuit."

This legislation will create federal jurisdiction and a federal cause of action allowing federal courts to determine---when foreigners sue U.S. journalists, speakers, or academics in foreign courts for their U.S. speeches or publications---whether defamation has occurred under U.S. law. The bill will authorize a U.S. court to bar enforcement in the U.S. of a foreign judgment or damage awards.

The impetus for this legislation is litigation involving Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which was published solely in the United States by a U. S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian and his family financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11. Although only 23 books were sold in the United Kingdom, the Saudi sued Ehrenfeld for libel there.

Defamation plaintiffs around the world have made the U.K. a popular venue for libel suits since English law does not require a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is does U.S. law. Until now, U.S. journalists or publications named as defendants in such cases were not protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. Rather, they were forced either to take on the massive expense, inconvenience and distress of fighting a foreign libel case, or of accepting the defamation inveighed on them by the courts otherwise certain to rule against them by default.

To protect U.S. writers, publishers and free speech rights against frivolous foreign libel suits---and a bedrock foundation of U.S. Democracy---it is critical that all Americans urge members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to support this measure.

Below is a sample letter---and links to websites of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee Members and their staffs.

Thank you.

Dear....

PLEASE SUPPORT THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT (S-2977 & H.R. 5814),
aka "Rachel's Law"

"Rachel's Law" was introduced to provide legal protections from "libel terrorism" to New York authors and publishers. In a tremendous victory for free speech rights, the bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by Governor Patterson on May 1, 2008.

Legislation to protect authors and publishers in all states has now been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (bill number H.R. 5814) and Senate (bill number S-2977). Entitled the "Free Speech Protection Act," introduced by Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

This bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign courts that do not have the same protections for free speech that are found in the U.S. Constitution.

I urge you to support efforts to approve the bill and vote for its passage as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Below is contact information for the Senatorial Judiciary Committee, the Congressional Judiciary Committee, and Staff.

With opposition from the Sharia Committee. "MPS say: no to genital mutilation, 18 is minimum marriage age, juveniles cannot be punished as adults," by Kawkab Al-Thaibani for the Yemen Times, June 24 (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

SANA'A, June 24 — A two-day workshop in Parliament concluded that the minimum marriage age in Yemen should be 18, and the sponsors of both brides and grooms should be punished if they allow them to marry under this age. [...]

They further recommended laws banning female genital mutilation.

The workshop covered three main areas: the criminality of juveniles, female genital mutilation, and the minimum age of marriage. These three subjects were chosen because the existing laws concerning them are not specific enough and are often ignored.

This workshop was arranged by Parliament, the Higher Council for Motherhood and Childhood, and the Yemeni Network Combating Violence Against Women known as SHIMA, under the sponsorship of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), OXFAM International, and Save the Children, a worldwide children's rights organization. Attendees included members of the Sharia Committee, who matches the constitutional laws with Islamic sharia law, Parliament members (MPs), doctors and human rights activists.

“The main purpose of the workshop is to amend the laws that did not provide protection to children,” said Naseem Ur-Rehman, UNICEF's communications director.

Ur-Rehman said that he heard about Nojoud Al-Ahdal Nasser, the young girl who went to court to ask for a divorce from her almost 30-year-old husband. He added that there are many cases like Nojoud's which go unnoticed. “We want to end the silent suffering,” he told the attendees.

In April, after Nojoud’s case was published in news sources around the world, the Safe Maternity Act presented by the health committee failed to pass in Parliament. The act included a minimum age of 18 for marriage, punishment for families who marry their children off earlier and a ban on genital mutilation. The Sharia Committee refused the act because they said that the minimum age for marriage in Islam is not definite. [...]

The suggestion to specify the marriage age faced more objections than the other two subjects addressed during the workshop. Specifically, the Sharia Committee found it difficult to define a specific minimum age of marriage. Hassan Al-Sheikh, a scholar and Sharia Committee member, said that he was confused after what he heard in the workshop. “I am afraid that if we stop early marriage, we could create troubles for young people,” said Al-Sheikh.

Jabr Abdullah, a religious scholar, said that the ability to have sex could start from the age of nine.

Gee, where did he get that idea?

Law professor Ali Hassan Al-Sharafi told the scholars that nothing in the proposal should worry them. He mentioned two main things about adopting a minimum age for marriage. First, he pointed out the dispute among Islamic scholars about the acceptability of early marriage. “This is a good thing to use in our favor; we should consider the most suitable opinion,” said Al-Sharafi. He added that in Islam, there are things considered mobah [neither forbidden nor obligated], which he said would include creating a minimum age for marriage.

The attendees objected to the current law that states that the young girl can be married if she is ready for sex. Attendees said that readiness is not measurable, and that young girls are vulnerable to exploitation.

Scholar Al-Rukaihi said that he was really moved when he understood the negative health impacts of early marriage brought up during the workshop, such as obstetric fistula [a common ailment among child brides who give birth that causes permanent incontinence and physical pain]. “Honestly, I was affected by what I saw,” he said.

Another attendee, Huda Al-Yafe’i, the head of the orphan sector in Al-Saleh Social Foundation for Development, said that legislators have to differentiate between early marriage and early pregnancy. “As a teacher, I have seen many girls who go astray and to stop them from marrying is not good.”

Others objected to the idea of differentiating between early marriage and early pregnancy because to control that is not attainable, and marriage is not limited to pregnancy. PM Shawqi Al-Qadhi said that marriage is not only about sex, it is a whole new life for girls who are often unprepared for its stresses.

Attendee Jamila Al-Ra’abi said that early marriage does not solve any problems, but rather creates more. “Early marriages makes lots of orphans, and causes a lot of pain for young mothers,” she said.

According to a study by the Gender Development Research and Studies Center in Sana’a University in 2005 early marriages trigger social, psychological and health problems like obstetric fistula, malnutrition, psychological trauma, maternal and child mortality. Early marriage also increases a girl’s vulnerability to domestic abuse by both the husband and her in-laws. Early marriage forces girls to drop out of school, which dramatically affects the country's development as a whole. Other groups like the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have also condemned the practice. [...]

Despite the fact that most of the PMs said that they did not believe that Yemenis perform female genital mutilation, the Health Survey of the Yemeni Family, conducted by the government in 2003, showed that over 21 percent of Yemeni women are exposed to this extremely harmful practice.

Yemen has five main governorates that still perform female genital mutilation: Hodeidah (97.3 percent), Mahrah (96.6 percent), Hadhramout (96.5 percent), Aden (82.2 percent), and Sana’a Capital Secretariat (45.5 percent).

“I do not think that genital mutilation is rampant, but it is neither forbidden nor an obligation and therefore it is acceptable if we stop doing it to prevent the damage,” said Al-Sheikh.

Genital mutilation has dangerous consequences for female reproductive health in both the short- and long-term, according to the UNFPA and the WHO, among a large number of non-governmental organizations.

Grossly exaggerated. See, they really only intended to blow up half of the airport.

"Three deny JFK terror plot claims," from the BBC, June 26 (thanks to Charles Martel):

Three men from the Caribbean have appeared in court in the United States, accused of plotting an attack on New York's John F Kennedy airport.

Kareem Ibrahim, 62, Abdel Nur, 57, and Abdul Kadir, 59, who all pleaded not guilty, were extradited from Trinidad on Wednesday.

A fourth man, Russell De Freitas, is awaiting trial. He denies conspiracy.

Prosecutors say the four men plotted to blow up buildings, fuel tanks and pipelines at the airport last year.

'Exaggerated claims'

Abdul Nur's lawyer, Daniel Nobel, said the charges were completely unsubstantiated and a trial would prove his client's innocence.

"I'm confident that we'll be able to demonstrate that this is one more in a significant chain of cases in which charges of this nature have been grossly exaggerated," he said.

Abdul Kadir's lawyer, Kafahni Nkrumah, said that the men were victims of post-9/11 hysteria.

"I think that if you see what has occurred since 9/11 and what's happening to the detainees in Cuba and the like, I would characterise this in that vein," he said....

"White boy, 12, suspected of being Islamic extremist recruit after he showed beheading videos to classmates," from Daily Mail, June 25:

A 12-year-old white schoolboy is among 120 people being dealt with by police in a new project combating Islamic-inspired violent extremism, it was revealed today.

Why is it necessary to indicate that he’s white? If he was black or Muslim—or better, both—would the headline have dared to indicate as much?

The child, who has only been identified by the initials BC, was reported by his school in West Yorkshire after he was found circulating video clips of terrorists beheading Westerners.

Sick films were distributed to classmates on their mobile phones, prompting a teacher to march the boy to the local police station.

Police revealed the child arrived in Britain as an asylum seeker in July 2005, and at the age of eight allegedly assisted a nine-year-old and a 12-year-old boy in the forced rape of his sister, although he was never prosecuted.

Where exactly did this “white boy” arrive from? And had he been prosecuted for his role in this rape then, or at least taught a lesson, maybe today he wouldn’t be distributing “sick videos.”

West Yorkshire Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison revealed: 'The white child that we are working with has been downloading Jihadist beheading videos and circulating them around school.

'That was bad enough, but he also has an unnatural interest in guns and weapons. He spoke openly of his wish to be a sniper and spoke of his curiosity of what it would be like to kill someone.'

Ah, there’s the connection: jihad and violence (“guns,” “weapons,” and a “curiosity for killing”). Clearly, the white boy has—like many of his race—misinterpreted the “true,” “peaceful” meaning of “jihad.”

Sir Norman described BC as an 'angelic looking boy' and a police mugshot shown to delegates depicted a fair-haired child so short that his face was barely in the frame of the camera.

Newsflash: physiognomy is a defunct science.

'He is at risk of being a violent young man and a threat to society,' the chief constable said.

'He is not a Muslim. He is not driven by ideology - he is too young to spell the word. But he is being influenced and intoxicated by the imagery and appeal of Jihadist and other internet violence.'

Could it be because his suppressed sense of “masculinity”—his innate need to be “mischievous,” as only boys can—has few other outlets in the increasingly neutered and emasculated culture of Western Europe?

Sir Norman also warned the Association of Chief Police Officers' annual conference in Liverpool that Islamic extremism was spreading like a 'virus' and urged every parent - particularly Muslims - to address the issue with their children.

'The al Qaida brand of violent extremism continues to spread like a virus infecting young minds,' he said.

[…]

Sir Norman said of BC: 'His schoolteacher pitched up at a local police station with him, because they were at their wits' end as to what to do with him. We are working with him (BC), and his father and his school.'

The chief constable said the pilot project, which is being operated by West Yorkshire, the Metropolitan and Lancashire forces, had been running for nine months.

The number of suspects so far uncovered was 'higher than expected', he added.

Already 124 people have been referred to the police and other agencies for attention by schools, community leaders, mosques and others.

'It is a means of bridging between the community and the police and identifying people who might be attracted to, or vulnerable to, being radicalised,' said Sir Norman. [...]

But why would non-Muslims be in danger of succumbing to Islamic—jihadi beheadings—“radicalization” in the first place?

'Throwing the book at them in terms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act would be complete overkill,' the chief constable said.

'We are not talking about criminal actions. We are talking about vulnerable kids.'

The 12-year-old boy came from a single parent, working class family with siblings living elsewhere, said the chief constable. [...]

A lot more truly “vulnerable” kids—homeless, orphaned, sexually-abused, destitute, poverty-stricken, name it—are not in the habit of gleefully circulating video clips of jihadist beheadings. (Not to mention the fact that they probably can’t afford mobile phones in the first place.)

Two other cases highlighted by the senior policeman were Muslim youths, known only as NH and YH, who were both 15 when they were reported by their communities because they were showing extremist and racist tendencies.

Since most of the indigenous population of the UK is white and non-Muslim, “showing extremist and racist tendencies” are code for “they hate infidels.”

Surprise, surprise.

"Women must not marry non-Muslim European men, says imam," from AKI, June 25:

Rabat, 25 June (AKI) - An imam in Morocco's eastern city of Fez has said that marriages between Moroccan women and European men who are not Muslims are forbidden under Islam.

What a shock!

Each summer in Morocco, a growing number of local women are reportedly marrying young European men.

"This kind of marriage, between Moroccan women and European men, is forbidden by the Koran (the Muslim holy book) and the Sunna (the way or deeds of the Prophet Mohammed)," Sheikh Mohammed al-Tawil said in a TV interview.

"A Muslim woman may not marry an unbeliever while a Muslim man may marry Christian and Jewish women," he told Arabic satellite TV network al-Arabiya.

Since the man is in charge—of the household, children, but especially the woman—the wife’s religious identity (much like the rest of her identity), is a moot point anyway. Hence, Islam’s “tolerance” of the woman’s faith.

Moroccan women may however marry European men who convert to Islam shortly before the wedding, according to al-Tawil.

"Islam only required two witnesses for someone to be able to convert and such a marriage is valid," he said.

Easy enough for no doubt many a godless but “romantic” European man: get two Muslims, utter, “La illah ila Allah” and wham: onto the honey-moon (or honey-hilal).

"If a European then decides to abandon Islam, Mohammed's words apply to him: those who renounce their own religion must be killed, as they are an apostate."

Sounds much more poetic in Arabic: men irtad min deenu—fa-iqtallhu!

Each summer in Morocco, a growing number of local women are marrying young European men. Al-Tawil's position however contravenes the 2005 reforms of Moroccan family law (known as the Mudawana).

These reforms gave women greater freedom to choose their husbands and made it easier for a foreigner to marry a Moroccan woman.

Notice how these last two paragraphs suggest that the Mudawana allowed for Muslim women to marry “young European men” and that it gives them “greater freedom to choose their husbands,” but nowhere in this article does it clearly state that the Mudawana allowed Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men. Odd that.

Could it be? A show of infidel defiance from none other than the Queen of Great Britain -- the fabled land where “underground” sharia law permeates regions such as Londonistan. After outraging the umma a year ago by announcing that Salman Rushdie -- variously known in the Islamic world as apostate-heretic-blasphemer -- would be knighted, the Brits are actually going through with it. More kudos to them.

"Queen Confers Knighthood on Salman Rushdie," from Associated Press, June 25:

Queen Elizabeth II conferred a knighthood on "The Satanic Verses" author Salman Rushdie on Wednesday, a year after the announcement of the knighthood provoked protests from the Muslim world.

Some Muslims accused Rushdie him of blasphemy in the book and Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pronounced a death sentence on him in 1989. […]

Rushdie was forced to accept round-the-clock protection after "The Satanic Verses," was published in 1988. The Iranian government withdrew the death sentence in 1998 and Rushdie has gradually returned to public life. [...]

Many Muslims are of the opinion that the only one capable of retracting a fatwa — in this case, the late Khomeini — must be the same one who issued it. In other words, a fatwa issued by a dead Ayatollah is a perpetual fatwa.

He added: "At this stage ,you know, it's certainly not a day to talk about controversy, it's a day for myself and my family to celebrate this."

Though surely not in complete ease and security.

War Is Peace Alert: those nukes are not hard to make from our peaceful nuclear program if you give us trouble, says Larijani. "Iran issues warning over nuclear program," by Ali Akbar Dareini for Associated Press, June 25 (thanks to JCB):

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's parliament speaker warned the West on Wednesday that it may face "a done deal" if it provokes Iran, a stern hint that Tehran could build nuclear weapons if attacked.

The speaker, Ali Larijani, who was once Iran's top nuclear negotiator, also warned that a "short opportunity is left" for a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, which the U.S. and some of its allies fear is aimed at producing a bomb.

Iran has long denied it intends to build a nuclear weapon, saying its program is meant only to generate electricity. Larijani, one of Iran's most powerful politicians, did not directly warn that Iran could change its intentions, but his vague comment appeared aimed at raising that possibility.

Larijani pointed to recent comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, who said in an interview last week that a military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire" and "prompt Iran, even if it didn't produce a nuclear weapon today, to resort to an emergency plan to produce a nuclear weapon."

Larijani said the West should "take Mr. ElBaradei's warnings seriously."

"Don't provoke Iran otherwise you will face a done deal that will block the path of your return to a compromise with Iran," Larijani told an open session of the parliament broadcast live on state radio Wednesday.

The phrase he used in Farsi, "amal-e anjam shodeh," means literally "an accomplished act" or "fait accompli." [...]

A hard-line newspaper also hinted on Wednesday that Iran may weaponize its nuclear program if attacked.

"Even if Iran's nuclear facilities are totally destroyed — a possibility that is precisely zero — it will easily be revived within a short period of time, but with the difference that it may prompt a fundamental reconsideration in intentions," the daily Kayhan said in an editorial.

A top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday warned that an attack on Iran would draw the U.S. into "a new tragedy."

"If you want to move towards Iran, make sure you will bring artificial legs and walking sticks because you will not have any legs to return on should you come," the television quoted Mohammad Hejazi, a top Guards figure, as saying.

Iran has spread its nuclear facilities throughout the country and has built key portions underground to protect from possible Israeli or American airstrikes....

Over the years I've gotten a great deal of abuse for telling the truth about Islam and jihad here, but probably more for pointing out that Islamic tradition says that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine, and that he is exemplary in this for Islamic law, than for anything else. See, to take just one of many examples, here. Of course, the righteous indignation over my alleged misrepresentation of this issue is simply another manifestation of the general deceptive smokescreen that Islamic supremacists deploy in the West.

But this MEMRI clip proves the only point I have ever wanted to make about this issue: that Muhammad's example in this has been taken and is still taken as worthy of imitation.

"Dr. Ahmad Al-Mub'i, a Saudi Marriage Officiant: It Is Allowed to Marry a Girl at the Age of One, If Sex Is Postponed. The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married 'Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine," from MEMRITV, June 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008:

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage – having sex with the wife for the first time – is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife... But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries, they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen.

[...]

The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.

Interviewer: When she was six...

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model.

Interviewer: My question to you is whether the marriage of a 12-year-old boy with an 11-year-old girl is a logical marriage, which is permitted by Islamic law.

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: If the guardian is the father... There are two different types of guardianship. If the guardian is the father, and he marries his daughter off to a man of appropriate standing, the marriage is obviously valid.

[...]

People find themselves in all kinds of circumstances. Take, for example, a man who has two, three, or four daughters. He does not have any wives, but he needs to go on a trip. Isn't it better to marry his daughter to a man, who will protect and sustain her, and when she reaches the proper age, he will have sex with her? Who says all men are ferocious wolves?

Yeah!

Cultural Collapse Update: "Muslim Father Demands Removal Of Crucifix From French Catholic Hospital Room," from Covenant Zone, June 24 (thanks to Paul), where this item from the French newspaper Le Figaro is translated:

After vehement demands, a muslim obtained the removal of a crucifix hanging from the wall of the room of a Catholic clinic in Bourgoin-Jallieu (Isère) where his daughter was being treated…

Monday afternoon, at the Saint-Vincent de Paul clinic, the father of a young girl, who had just underwent scheduled preventative surgery, demanded that personnel unfasten a crucifix from his daughter’s room.

"For almost 15 minutes, the father, in the presence of his wife, verbally ranted, demanding that the crucifix be taken down", reported a witness. The establishment’s personnel eventually gave in to this demand.

The management of the clinic expressed their astonishment. The director of the clinic, Marie-Thérèse Besson, declared that this demand was "surprising [given that it’s] from a family that freely chose our establishment."

"When people choose to be treated in our establishment… they know that they are in a Catholic maternity hospital", she added.

Oh, I'm quite sure they know.

It was a "mistake," not a jihad. Cut Babul Islam some slack. After all, I mistakenly beat someone up just the other day. Mistakes will be made. "Youth walks free after gang attack on priest," by Suzy Austin in Metro.co.uk, June 24 (thanks to Shirley):

A drunken teenager who beat up a priest walked free yesterday after the judge accepted the attack was a 'one-off mistake'.

Babul Islam was one of three Asian youths who attacked Canon Michael Ainsworth in his churchyard.

The 19-year-old punched the vicar in the head while others kicked him ' one allegedly shouting 'f*****g priest' ' only stopping when passers-by intervened....

The shop assistant admitted being extremely drunk during the attack but denied it was religiously-motivated ' a claim upheld by Judge Glenn Brasse.

Islam and the two other assailants set upon Mr Ainsworth in March, leaving him with cuts and bruises....

Islam, of nearby Limehouse, deserved a prison term for his crimes, Judge Brasse told him at Snaresbrook Crown Court. But he was told 'under the circumstances' a four-month suspended sentence, paying his victim £1,000 and 100 hours of unpaid work would suffice.

In the days following the attack, the Rev Alan Green, Dean of Tower Hamlets, said there were 'faith hate' incidents in the area every month.

But they're not religiously motivated, doncha know. Now, if an Anglican attacked an imam -- that would be religiously motivated. But not this.

A morsel of cultural self-defense. "No recognition for polygamous marriage: A-G," from Australia's ABC News, June 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Federal Government has rejected calls from two Muslim leaders to recognise polygamous marriage.

The President of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, says women should be allowed to enter into a polygamous marriage if they choose to.

His view is supported by Sheikh Khalil Chami from the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney.

The Sheikh says he is regularly asked to perform polygamous marriage ceremonies but declines.

But of course!

Attorney-General Robert McLelland says the practice is against the law.

"There is absolutely no way that the Government will be recognising polygamist relationships," he said.

"They are unlawful and they will remain as such."

Good. But what will the multiculti relativists say? This one bears watching.

...but is rebuffed, I'm happy to say. "Mich. man: Judge can't be fair because he's Jewish," from AP, June 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

DETROIT (AP) — A judge rejected a Lebanese-born defendant's request that he remove himself from a case involving terrorism because the judge is Jewish.

Fawzi Mustapha Assi, 48, has pleaded guilty to providing support for a terrorist group. He addressed the court Monday against the advice of his attorney, saying he heard rumors that U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen is a Zionist and might have pro-Israel sympathies.

Assi said he was concerned the judge could not be impartial when sentencing him for supporting "one of the most hated enemies of the state of Israel."

Rosen said Assi's request was "a little late" and that the court "has bent over backwards" to ensure fairness.

Assi, a former resident of Dearborn, was arrested in 1998 when he tried to board a plane to Lebanon with visual and navigational equipment for Hezbollah. He pleaded guilty in November 2007....

Bruce Bawer has a thought-provoking piece in Pajamas Media today, "The Times, It Ain't A-Changin'," about what we have pointed out here many times: that "just as it once did with the dangers of Stalinism and Hitlerism, the New York Times is doing its best to whitewash the threat of Islam." That's why we call it the New Duranty Times.

Just imagine the world picture of somebody whose primary — or even (God forbid!) sole — source of news is the New York Times.

In particular, imagine that person’s image of Islam — and of the problems and issues surrounding the growing presence of Islam in the West today. At the Times — as at other important news organizations — the slant on Islam has been shaped almost exclusively by apologists like Karen Armstrong (author of Muhammed: A Prophet for Our Time) and John Esposito (director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University). In March, the New York Times Magazine published a long essay by another major apologist, Harvard law professor and Times Magazine contributing writer Noah Feldman, who took (shall we say) an exceedingly generous view of sharia law and its proponents. Last Sunday, the magazine ran a new piece by Feldman, arguing that Muslims are Europe’s “new pariahs” and that the only real problem related the rise of Islam in Europe today is — guess what? — European racism. [...]

Since 9/11, the kind of brazen sugarcoating of Islam that Feldman served up last Sunday has become a convention in the Times and other mainstream media. Routinely, news organizations suppress, downplay, or misrepresent developments that reflect badly on Islam; they go out of their way to find stories that reflect (or that can be spun in such a way as to reflect) positively on it; and they publish professors and intellectuals and “experts” like Feldman, who share the media’s determination to obscure the central role of jihadist ideology in the current clash between Islam and Western democracy and to point the finger instead (as Feldman does) at European racism....

Read it all.

In Human Events today I discuss the latest developments in the Islamic world's war on free speech (news links in the original):

“We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.”

That sounds like the statement of a victor in a war, dictating terms to the vanquished. And it may well be: free speech is under attack in Canada -- the prosecution of Macleans Magazine and author Mark Steyn -- and in the United States as well by Islamic governments and groups whose goal is to end free speech when it is aimed at exposing the truth about Islamic terrorism and its roots.

Their goal is positively Orwellian. Replace “Big Brother” with the “Organization of the Islamic Conference” and you have the world the OIC wants to impose on us all.

In FrontPage today I discuss the death of free speech at the UN Human Rights Council (news links in the original):

The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.” Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.

"It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims."

Islamic Tolerance Alert. "Iraqi Christians are targets of cleansing, committee told: One in three a refugee, but Chaldo-Assyrians want to remain in country," by Jennifer Green for The Ottawa Citizen, June 18 (thanks to Nicolei):

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.

It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century....

Read it all.

Jihad Watch reader Nicolei, who kindly sent this in, comments: "The Iraqi Christians are just as poor if not worse off than the Iraqi Muslims. Yet the Christians don't resort to suicide bombings. Have the Muslims ever wondered why the 'evil Zionists and Americans' had not or could not recruit any of the poor Christian widows and children whose husbands and fathers were killed by the Muslims to be suicide bombers to exact revenge against the Muslims?"

"Iraq: 'Hardship' behind women and child suicide bombers," from AKI, June 23 (thanks to Nicolei):

Baghdad, 23 June (AKI) - Poverty, social deprivation and widespread unemployment are making women and children across Iraq vulnerable for recruitment as suicide bombers, according to a report released on Monday.

As recently as Sunday, a female suicide bomber killed at least 15 people and wounded some 30 others in the central city of Baquba, north of Baghdad, local police were quoted as saying.

Baquba is the capital of the volatile al-Qaeda stronghold of Diyala province.

"There around a million widows and hundreds of thousands of marginalised divorcees. This is made difficult by onerous procedures to receive social welfare, which is inadequate for the large numbers of impoverished women," said the report.

The report was published by Iraq's Rights and Constitutional Freedoms Observatory, which describes itself as an independent research institute.

"Furthermore, the grave economic and social crisis coupled with unemployment has led to the breakdown of traditional family structures, placing upon many women the economic burden of keeping their families," the report said.

Extremists can lure women embittered by the loss of their husbands and children in acts of violence, according to the report....

Sharia Alert: “Afghanistan: Death penalty call for man who spread Koran translation,” by Syed Saleem Shahzad in AKI, June 23:

Islam of course carries the death penalty for any number of “transgressions,” but one wonders if Muslims ever ask themselves why it is that so many would-be reformers and organizations are bent on “reinterpreting” their Koran? Is it simply because they, as this article states, are trying to turn Muslims into “Christians and atheists”? If so, why isn’t there a Western campaign trying to reinterpret the scriptures of Hindus and Buddhists, to turn them into Christians or atheists as well? In fact, the vast majority of non-Muslims could care less whether Muslims perform their “five” pillars; it’s the animosity, hatred, and violence towards those who don’t want to perform them—i.e., non-Muslims—not to mention those misogynistic “tendencies” that are behind the international desire to reinterpret the Koran. Go figure.

Karachi, 23 June (AKI) -- An Afghan journalist accused of distributing an unacceptable translation of the Koran should be put to death, says former Prime Minister Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai. Former journalist Ghows Zalmay, who was also the spokesman for Afghanistan's Attorney-General, was arrested in November last year for distributing a translation of the Koran into Dari, one of Afghanistan's two official languages. Ahmadzai, who ran in the 2004 presidential election against current President Hamid Karzai, told Adnkronos International (AKI) he supported the death penalty for Zalmay. "Today Afghanistan is full of vices. Several Afghan restaurants serve liquor, despite it being illegal and on top of it, such material is distributed," Ahmadzai told AKI. "I am in favour of his death."

If this eager-to-slay-a-“blasphemer” Ahmadzai was a contender for the Afghan presidency—after the overthrow of the Taliban—and its current Prime Minister, one wonders what the “average” man on the Afghan street thinks. Incidentally, this same Ahmadzai fled Afghanistan when the Taliban came to power and is prime minister now thanks only to Americans (“infidels”).

Muslim scholars in Afghanistan reportedly said that the new version of the Koran misinterpreted verses about alcohol, begging, homosexuality and adultery […]

In other words, it did not portray them as capital offenses worthy of draconian punishments? Actually, there is room for interpretation in the Koran regarding these topics: there’s a verse which speaks well of wine (now “abrogated”); many Koranic interpreters have taken the beautiful “serving” boys in paradise as representative of homosexuality; polygamy or sex with conquered concubines can actually be deemed “adulterous.”

Ghows, 50, is reportedy in jail after being accused of blasphemy and his lawyers say he risks the death penalty. He is expected to face charges in an Afghan court within the next week. "This is all an American conspiracy to deviate Afghans from their faith," said Al-Hajj Farooq Hussaini, […]

“American” only? Why so modest? What about the Jews, Christians, the papacy, apostates, secularists, puppets, cartoonists, et al, who are also on the litany list of “conspirators” against Islam??

"They want us to be converted Christians or simply atheists […]

Not so: we merely want you to grant people the freedom—the right—to be “Christians or simply atheists.”

Hussaini also referred to the case of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Christian convert who was granted asylum in Italy in 2006. Rahman escaped a possible death sentence in Afghanistan for becoming a Christian. "Earlier they protected Abdul Rahman who left Islam and converted to Christianity and now they are encouraging the distribution of the fake translations of Koran," said Hussaini who is also the leader of a group led by Ismail Khan, Afghanistan's Energy Minister.

In the mind of Afghan’s Energy Minister (technically, a “friend,” and no doubt benefactor of the US) converting to Christianity is as bad a crime as intentionally distorting and adulterating his god’s words—the greatest crime. Why again did we overthrow the Taliban?

"Ghows Zalmay should be given an exemplary punishment for his crime," he said.

Death.

I have pointed out many, many times that there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Here is yet another indication of that. But the implications of this remain unexplored, in Iraq and domestically.

"U.S.-allied Iraqi politician opens fire on U.S. troops, killing 2," by Mohammed Al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam for McClatchy Newspapers, June 23 (thanks to H.):

MADAIN, Iraq — A U.S.-allied Iraqi council member sprayed American troops with gunfire Monday, killing two soldiers and wounding three and an interpreter, Iraqi authorities and witnesses said. The attack occurred minutes after they emerged from a weekly joint meeting on reconstruction in this volatile town southeast of Baghdad.

Raed Mahmoud Ajil, a former high school principal in his mid-40s, was known as a respected city council member and devoted educator who'd recently returned to Iraq after completing his master's degree in India, stunned colleagues said. U.S. troops shot and killed him at the scene.

Ajil's colleagues said they could think of no motive for the deadly rampage, which is thought to be the first incident of a U.S.-allied Iraqi politician carrying out such an attack. Ajil comes from a distinguished Sunni Muslim family. His brother is security chief for the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and a cousin is a high-ranking judge, relatives said.

He Must Be Crazy Explanation in 3, 2, 1...

Ajil's family said that he'd suffered from bouts of depression and sporadic epileptic seizures, which he masked in his role as a public servant. Relatives knew him to be friendly to U.S. troops and said he had no qualms about working alongside them, even though many in this mixed Sunni-Shiite Muslim town view American forces as occupiers.

"(The Americans) used to love him. They gave him a contract for a project he was working on. He spoke English fluently with them and they used to like him so much," said Sherif Abdullah Aziz, 47, a cousin. "There is no explanation that we know of for what happened." [...]

Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil's killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, "God rest his soul," and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, "the pigs deserved this." [...]

The superb analyst Bill Warner measures our dhimmitude:

If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.

THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic “Bible” is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.

The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors--Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa’d. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq’s Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.

Buy these products!

The goal of the boycott, you see, is a "universal law" forbidding "defamation of religions" -- which in practice will mean forbidding honest discussion of the jihad and Islamic supremacism.

"Boycott campaign moves ahead, issues new poster," by Linda Hindi for Jordan Times, June 20 (thanks to Diana West):

AMMAN - The multilateral Danish-Dutch boycott campaign is moving ahead with the addition of a major brand, the removal of others and an ongoing lawsuit, while Jordanian importers still suffer losses.

Launched in late February to protest against the republication of disturbing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, “The Messenger of Allah Unites Us” campaign was relaunched in mid-June to add products from the Netherlands after Dutch MP Geert Wilders posted an anti-Islam film on the Internet.

The ultimate goal, according to campaign spokesperson Zakaria Sheikh, is to enact a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion, similar to the international legislation banning anti-Semitism.

Sheikh told The Jordan Times that the boycott will assist them in providing proof of the harm of “hateful messages” when advocating for the law....

Don't miss Diana West's perceptive comments on this.

In writing about the Khawaja trial in Canada, Christie Blatchford exposes with a single observation the utter intellectual vacuity of the "Islam Is A Religion Of Peace That Has Been Hijacked By A Tiny Minority Of Extremists" idea: "Not a soul appears to have said, 'Brother, you know this stuff ain't sanctioned by the old Koran.'"

Because, of course, it is.

"'Down with the J,' and out of their senses," by Christie Blatchford in the Globe and Mail, June 24 (thanks to Mentat):

[...] Though the group was arrested for the specific bomb plot, they spoke of other possible targets, everything from assassinating Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to sending one man to Israel on a suicide mission to dreamy operations such as contaminating the English waterways with poison, poisoning the beer at soccer stadiums (how British!) or opening up fast food stands that would sell - guess what - poisoned food. [...]

He allegedly convinced an Ottawa Muslim woman to do some terrorist banking for him (she will testify here later) and he told the ex-fiancée (she will testify via video link) once that "Not a day goes by that I don't wish to be on the front lines with the mujahadeen" and that "civilian deaths are inevitable and permissible" in the Koran. He allegedly told the fiancée's online replacement that Osama bin Laden was his "most beloved person" and that he longed "to kiss his beloved hand." When he heard, once, that Pakistani troops had Al-Qaeda members cornered, he allegedly was on the phone to the cell leader, offering to ride to the rescue.

And of all the people in all the places that Mr. Khawaja went, in person or online, in Ottawa or London or Pakistan or cyberspace, the fiercest resistance he seems to have encountered consisted of gentle, qualified cautions - to tone down the rhetoric or take more precautions.

Not a soul appears to have said, "Brother, you know this stuff ain't sanctioned by the old Koran."

No surprise to anyone who is informed on these issues -- as few as those people may be. Read it all.

Well, that took even less time than usual -- making it even clearer than it was already that the truce offer itself was just an attempt to buy a respite for the jihadists and get Israel to put its guard down. "Rockets hit Israel, which says truce broken," from AP, June 24 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

JERUSALEM - Police say three Palestinian rockets have hit southern Israel and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office says the cease-fire that took effect last week has been broken.

Islamic Jihad militants in the Gaza Strip says they carried out the attack to avenge an Israeli military raid that killed one of their fighters in the West Bank early Tuesday....

The West Bank is not formally part of the truce. But Islamic Jihad says it "cannot keep its hands tied" when its "brothers" in the West Bank are being targeted.

However, the Gaza Strip's ruling Hamas group says it remains committed to the truce.

Sure.

"A closer look at Islam," by Joe Sarnicola in The Citizen, June 21:

About 20 people gave up a warm and sunny Saturday afternoon to learn more about Islam at the Unitarian Universalist Church. The church's Social Responsibilities Committee sponsored the event, which consisted of the playing of a film called “The Reformation of Islam” by Irshad Manji followed by a question and answer session with Imam Abdur-Rahim Muhammad of Auburn.

Here’s to the day that Muslims in the Islamic world—say, Saudi Arabia—give up a Saturday afternoon to host a seminar about Christianity in their local mosques.

Irshad Manji is a journalist and the author of “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Musilm's Call for Reform in Her Faith.” She is also the director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University. The goal of the project is to develop leaders who will challenge political correctness, intellectual conformity and self-censorship. […]

Noble endeavors, to be sure….

The colorful and controversial woman gave answers such as “I believe the Quran absolutely teaches the dignity of women,” […]

What kind of female dignity—the kind understood by the West, i.e., full equality with men, or a specific kind of dignity, one hemmed in by sharia law as well as the hejab, and which makes women inferior to men in so many ways? One wonders if the typical Western woman would find polygamy, sanctioned beatings by the husband (stoning for extreme cases of infidelity), and being accounted half as valuable as men in court and inheritance cases a “dignifying” experience. But wait: Muhammad did ban the beduin practice of burying unwanted female babies alive, thereby dignifying womankind. Anything else?

Locally, Imam Muhammad is the head of the Community-Wide Dialogues in Auburn and is the Muslim chaplain at three area correctional facilities.

“I was invited to this forum,” he said. “We'd like to see as many new people enter into dialogues as possible, so we can better understand each other. We're trying to bring together Muslims, Christians and people with no professed faith. Neighbors can be friends. Not necessarily agreeing with each other, but retaining our identities.”

As part of his own presentation, Imam had several books on an information table for attendees to examine. One was “War, Peace and Non-violence, an Islamic Perspective” by Imam Muhammad Shirazi and the Quran according to Tajweed Rules. Muhammad explained that Tajweed Rules referred to the pronunciation of the text of the Quran, which when read aloud is more like a chant than a simple oral reading.

Fascinating, to be sure, but how the Koran is supposed to be chanted is hardly germane to the Imam’s professed task at hand: “trying to bring together Muslims, Christians and people with no professed faith” to become “friends.” Perhaps he would do better to address those many verses and hadiths that incite hostility against Christians and those “people with no professed faith”—i.e., idolaters, al-mushrikin, lowest as they are on the infidel totem pole.

“Islam is often misunderstood,” Muhammad said.

Why, I wonder? Why are we not constantly exhorted, day after day, that Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Scientology are “misunderstood”? Why only Islam?

“The most outstanding characteristic of Islam is the same as that of Christianity, charity."

Yes, when I read the New Testament, charity—as well as grace, hope, love, mercy, and forgiveness—abound; when I read Islam’s sacred texts, I do indeed see charity—but I see a whole lot of other things that are, well, the antithesis of charity (you know, jihad, dhimmitude, draconian sharia punishments, enmity for all things non-Muslim, female inferiority, etc.). So yes, there is charity is Islam, but it is hardly the “most outstanding characteristic,” and is in no way near as prominent as in Christianity.

Muslims are very caring and compassionate people. Of course, there are exceptions.

Such as those Muslims who try to follow Islam’s laws literally; the ones who would have non-Muslims paying the jizya while feeling themselves “utterly subdued” in accordance with Koran 9:29.

The people of Islam have made many mistakes, and some of those mistakes have been exploited by some people outside of Islam. […]

Note, after actually admitting to mistakes being made by—gasp!—Muslims, Imam Muhammad, immediately and in the selfsame sentence, also blames those outside of Islam, and so subtly exonerates the former. So much for a Muslim sense of responsibility.

When asked about some of Manji's claims about women within the Islamic community Muhammad said, “The Quran says, 'Reverence God and reverence the womb that bore you.' A mother is the first teacher. The woman's place in Islam is very revered.”

Tell that to Islam’s polygamist prophet who, after getting a glimpse of hell in a “vision,” informed his companions in an authentic hadith that the vast majority of the denizens of hell will be—drum roll please—women!

Muhammad said that in order for the world's people to come together, individuals have to reach out to other individuals.

“World events are forcing us to look beyond our comfort barriers,” he said. […]

Read: “Internationally speaking, we are currently not in a position to antagonize, let alone subjugate, our traditional enemies, the infidels; so let’s, for the time being, break our ‘doctrinal barriers’ and play the role of friend.”

Levar Haley Washington Update. "Man sentenced in California terrorism probe," from the Associated Press, June 23:

One of four men accused of plotting from behind bars to attack military sites, synagogues and other targets in California has been sentenced to 22 years in federal prison.

Levar Haley Washington was sentenced Monday by US District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney after pleading guilty last year to conspiring to levy war against the United States and using a firearm to further the conspiracy. Authorities say Washington was in a California prison gang cell of radical Muslims.

This weaselly, mealy-mouthed statement from the Thought Police comes from April 9, but I just saw it today, and so although I don't usually post archived material, I believe it provides important background on what the Thought Police are thinking as they close in on free speech. "Commission Statement Concerning Issues Raised By Complaints Against Maclean's Magazine," from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, April 9 (thanks to Alan):

In a recent decision, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to an article “The future belongs to Islam”. The complainants alleged that the content of the magazine and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights.

Denying a service because of human rights grounds such as race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through the complaints process.

It is good that they're not proceeding with the complaint. But they're doing it not because the complaints represent an attempt to quash freedom of speech and impose Sharia restrictions on the free West, but on narrow, weaselly jurisdictional grounds.

Nevertheless, the Commission has a broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario, forward the dignity and worth of every Ontarian and take steps to alleviate tension and conflict in the community, including by speaking out on events that are inconsistent with the spirit of the Code.

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians. The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.

Truth, as Peter Worthington points out, is not a defense. If there are Sharia supremacists in Canada working to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, you must not speak about it! To do so could provoke "Islamophobia"!

The Commission intends to further consider these issues in the coming months as it embarks on its new mandate, which places a renewed emphasis on addressing human rights tension and conflict through inquiries, consultation, public education, policy development and constructive debate and dialogue. [...]

Yet while ignoring jihadism and Islamic supremacism, the Orwell Commission declares that we must acknowledge the existence of racism, which actually plays no part in the assertiveness of this supremacist Islamic ideology -- except as a vehicle to advance that ideology in the cowed and pusillanimous West:

The Commission has long emphasized that forms of racism exist in all of society’s institutions. In order to effectively respond to racism, it is necessary to clearly acknowledge its existence.

Racism exists in the media and the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it. Islamophobia is a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.

The Commission is concerned that since the September 2001 attacks, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including an unwillingness to consider accommodating some of their religious beliefs and practices.

Maybe some people realize that there is always more Sharia to accommodate, and once you get into the habit of accommodation, there's no telling where you could stop -- unless you're willing to draw the line somewhere.

Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West’, this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others. An extreme illustration of this is a “blog” discussion concerning the article that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among many things, called for the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians.

The "blog" discussion had nothing to do, of course, with Maclean's or Mark Steyn, and we have seen Islamic supremacists planting such comments here. But in any case, this is all nonsense. Even if Steyn's article did portray "Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’" which it did not, there is no doubt that some Muslims are a threat to the West, and are working to subvert it in the name of Islam. Can that be discussed in Canada at all, or would any broaching of it be ipso facto hate speech?

The Commission strongly condemns the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community by the media as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Code. The impact on a community both in terms of the intolerant messages being conveyed and the knowledge that society is willing to accept their dissemination is profound. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism has confirmed the role of the media in contributing to a sharp increase in Islamophobia and its acceptance as normal in ‘the West’. Further, the Commission’s 2003 report Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling illustrates the social cost of stereotyping to individuals, families, communities and Ontarians as a whole.

Here again: is it true? Is there an Islamic supremacist enterprise? Are there Islamic groups waging, in the words of a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum, "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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions”?

If so, this must be discussed. And if "Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community" really stands against this enterprise, they should not fear or oppose such a discussion.

"Violence has erupted in various parts of the country in recent days between supporters of the ruling majority and militants from the opposition backed by Syria and Iran."

"Fierce clashes rage in north Lebanon," by Omar Ibrahim for Agence France-Presse, June 23:

Fierce sectarian battles raged in north Lebanon for a second day on Monday as the army vowed to use force if needed to contain the violence threatening to derail an accord to end the country's political crisis.

Two people were killed and two others died of wounds sustained a day earlier, bringing to eight the death toll from the clashes that erupted on Sunday in the port city of Tripoli, a security official told AFP.

He said 45 other people were wounded.

The clashes in the densely populated Bab al-Tebbaneh and Jabal Mohsen districts pitted Sunni supporters of the Western-backed majority against members of an Alawite sect loyal to the Hezbollah-led opposition.

Fighters traded heavy machine-gun fire, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, prompting residents to flee the area or to hide in underground shelters.

Several homes as well as a gas station were burned.

A Lebanese army spokesman said troops planned to resort to force if necessary to stop the fighting.

Back-up troops could be seen deploying in the area where the battles were taking place by late afternoon.

"We will use force if needed to end all armed presence in the combat zones where we are sending reinforcements following a unanimous accord between the warring sides calling for a ceasefire," the spokesman said.

Representatives from the Sunni militant side and the Alawites, a secretive offshoot of Shiite Islam to which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad belongs, had agreed to a ceasefire on Sunday but the accord was not respected.

The clashes in Tripoli have raised fears of a nationwide deterioration of the security situation amid stalled efforts by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to form a national unity government following a deal last month that ended an 18-month political crisis.

And handed veto power to Hizballah.

Violence has erupted in various parts of the country in recent days between supporters of the ruling majority and militants from the opposition backed by Syria and Iran.

A bit of projection there. This guy was plotting to attack civilian targets in London, including possibly a night club and power grids, and he says that unbelievers understand only death and destruction."Khawaja lived for jihad, Crown alleges," by Colin Freeze in the Globe and Mail, June 23 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

OTTAWA — Mohammad Momin Khawaja thought of little else but holy war, an Ottawa court heard yesterday.

As the trial of the first man charged under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act got under way four years after police raided his home in the Ottawa suburb of Orleans, the Crown gave a two-hour summary of its case, in which it will present dozens – perhaps hundreds – of intercepted conversations to show that the accused admitted he had a one-track mind. Mr. Khawaja, the court was told, wrote that “that devotion to the effort of jihad is part of me” and said that not a day went by in which he didn't want to join the mujahedeen, or holy warriors.

He also allegedly said, “The kuffar [infidels] are treacherous and understand only death and destruction.”

The Crown alleges Mr. Khawaja, now 29, was involved in a trans-Atlantic conspiracy dating back to two years before his arrest in 2004. It is alleged that he met fellow extremists in London and learned at a training camp in Pakistan how to fire AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. He is accused of trying to build a remote-controlled detonation device for a British cell that wanted to attack civilian targets in London, including possibly a night club and power grids.

Prosecutors said yesterday that Mr. Khawaja was so deep into the idea of holy war that even his attempts at marriage foundered after he told a prospective bride she had to understand he was “down with J” – or armed jihad, battles aimed at changing world governments or, at the very least, securing martyrdom for himself.

The Crown also said he was caught wiring funds to terrorist co-conspirators through a female friend selected because, as Mr. Khawaja wrote to her, “sisters don't get caught, brothers, if they send money, they get caught.”

As the charges were read, the soft-spoken Mr. Khawaja, shaven and with long hair parted in the middle, said “not guilty” seven times, responding to each charge against him.

His family is of course playing the race card:

Members of his family, who have frequently accused the RCMP of building a racist case, sat in the courtroom in silence. Counterterrorism experts and international journalists looked on with interest, as the trial promises to provide insight into both radicalization and the incestuous nature of international jihadi schemes....

There is nothing "racist" about not wanting to get blown to bits in a nightclub.

"And the French envoy said that she will present several issues with the Israeli side concerned with the commencement of the execution of the Industrial zone such as easing movement in Bethlehem and the subject of providing the Industrial zone with sufficient electricity and water, in the hope that the Israelis will fulfill the promises they gave to facilitate and help the Palestinian economy." -- from this article

The "hope that the Israelis will fulfill the promises..."? Israel has scrupulously fulfilled all the promises it has made, ever since the 1948-1949 Armistice Agreements that set what are now known as the “1967 borders” that it was then willing, if the Arabs would agree, to make permanent. It was the Arabs who refused, because they had high hopes of attacking again. They wanted to have those lines regarded by what was not yet called, so hideously, the "international community," as most impermanent, as merely temporary armistice lines.

And nowadays that impermanence of Israel is in that phrase "first they must go back to the 1967 borders [i.e. armistice lines] and then we'll see." It is also in the Fatahstan phrase: "we are willing to choose peace as a strategic option" [meaning: we can't make open war just yet, but let's give the salami strategy that our "peace" means its piecemeal chance].

“‘The foundation of religion, I learned in school,' said Mr. Bou Bekeur’s son, Abdel Rahman, 25. 'We pray more than them and we know religion better than them,' he said of his father’s generation. 'We are more religious. My father used to drink. I never drank. My father asked me if it was O.K. to take a car loan. I told him, no, it is haram,' forbidden in Islam.

So his father did not take the loan. His father is a quiet man in a house of strong-willed people. He can barely help his children with their homework, because his Arabic is poor. And he worries about their future, and the future of his country." -- from this article

And the new generation in Algeria, raised in a society suffused with Islam, is told that the highest aim for a Believer is to become a "slave of Allah" and to fulfill all of the duties of a "slave of Allah." This generation will gradually unlearn to think as the older generation managed, in some small degree, to do -- the one that had some exposure to French schools and French non-Muslim ways of thought. That exposure also came, of course, from contact with the more than a million non-Muslims who once lived in Algeria, and gave it what civilizational advances it at one time enjoyed.

The secular classes, those who studied in the French-language schools or who travel back and forth to France, or the Berbers, have never been “slaves to Allah.” The Berbers, of course, are a special case, as they always have been in Algeria. Their non-Arab identity offers them a conceivable way out of Islam, and their resentment of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism, which has been felt most strongly since the protecting French left, helps to make Berbers in Algeria and in France more accessible to the message of proselytizers, or of other forms of quiet apostasy.

So says Canadian journalist and politician Peter Worthington, and he's right. "Anyone care about free speech?" by Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun, June 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The tragedy of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine over alleged "hate" mongering because of Steyn's views on Islam, is that most people don't give a damn.

Oh, many sympathize with Steyn because the issue seems so silly, but most don't see the destructive effect of hate legislation, or how it threatens our freedom.

Of all the benefits embodied in our county, free speech is -- or should be -- among the most precious. Without the freedom to express opinions on any matter, we cease being a free society. The implications are as simple as that.

The villains in the Steyn case are not Muslims who complained to the HRC that Steyn's writings foster "Islamophobia" and hate. Nor is the Human Rights Commission at fault for hearing the allegations.

At fault is the government of Stephen Harper for not rescinding a law that the Liberals introduced and makes a mockery of both justice and freedom.

Harper is PM with the power to right a wrong. Instead, he's been silent and betrayed his own values....

Indeed he has, and the implications involve more than Canada alone. Read it all.

Because it is always the woman's responsibility to pose no temptation, not the man's to control himself. "The rest is up to them. If they want to follow the 100 percent Islamic way, it's up to them." Oh, sure -- no pressure.

"Malaysian city reminds Muslim women to avoid bright lipstick, high heels," from Associated Press, June 24 (thanks to Cindy):

Authorities in a northern Malaysian city are calling on Muslim women not to wear bright lipstick and noisy high-heel shoes if they want to follow the "Islamic way," an official said Tuesday.

The municipal council in Kota Baru, run by a conservative Islamic party, is distributing pamphlets that recommend women refrain from wearing heavy makeup, including bright lipstick, and loud high-heel shoes to work, council spokesman Azman Mohamad Daham said.

"We just distribute pamphlets. Our minimum guideline is they must wear headscarves," he said. "The rest is up to them. If they want to follow the 100 percent Islamic way, it's up to them."

He said the suggestions aim to prevent rape and protect women's dignity and morals. The campaign started in 2006, but new pamphlets are circulated each year, he said....

The problem here, of course, is that while "almost all Western governments including the USA had made categorical statements rejecting any linkage between Islam and terrorism," there are Muslims who keep linking them up again. But the OIC has nothing to say about that. The obvious elephantine fact is that Islamic terrorism and supremacism are what cause resentment of Muslims, and that punishment, not the lack thereof, would have led to more resentment of Muslims -- but the OIC doesn't really want to end that resentment at all. What they want to do is end free speech about Islam and jihad in the West.

"Danish cartoon ruling may prompt 'Islamophobia': OIC," from Reuters, June 23 (thanks to Henrik):

RIYADH (Reuters) - The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a league of 57 Muslim nations, said on Monday a Danish court's rejection of a suit against a paper for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad could provoke "Islamophobia."

The High Court for western Denmark on Thursday rejected a suit against Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published cartoons of Islam's prophet, leading to deadly protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

The court said the editors had not meant to depict Muslims as criminals or terrorists, the cartoons had not broken the law, and there was a relationship between acts of violence and Islam -- comments that provoked outcry among Muslim groups in Denmark.

"It is a known fact that acts of terror have been carried out in the name of Islam and it is not illegal to make satire out of this relationship," the court said.

The Saudi-based OIC, the largest grouping of Muslim countries, said the ruling could encourage "Islamophobia," a fear or dislike of Islam, which the group has identified as existing in the West.

"The Danish ruling came as a surprise to the OIC at a time when almost all Western governments including the USA had made categorical statements rejecting any linkage between Islam and terrorism," an OIC statement said.

"The linkage drawn by the Danish court ... could create a precedent for exacerbation of Islamophobia."...

Barry Rubin marks the first anniversary of Hamas' power in Gaza with an apposite prescription: "any Westerner favoring a strategy that strengthens Hamas should be forced to live under its rule."

Hamas celebrated its first anniversary of power in the Gaza Strip amidst massive misinterpretations regarding the situation there.

Ironically, Hamas's victory and survival has less to do with Israel than the rotten strategy of Yasir Arafat. He ruled the Palestinian movement for 35 years by establishing a weak, anarchic, corrupt, and factionalized structure which he played like a violen. After Arafat's death, Fatah paid the price by collapsing in the Gaza Strip, first electorally then militarily. Having proved a failure in government, Fatah then showed itself a failure as an opposition.

Hamas's power rests repression, radical ideology, international protection and an incompetent enemy. A Palestinian storeowner told an American reporter, "What can we do? Hamas is even stronger than a year ago. They can take me and put me away whenever they want." This is the kind of situation which elsewhere makes the West, especially the left, sneer at dictatorships that--as was once said of Italian fascist Benito Mussolini--take away freedom but take credit for making the trains run on time.

Yet while the world prevents Israel from defeating Hamas through military action and very tight sanctions, Fatah is its own worst enemy in combating Hamas.

President George Bush recently stated that a Fatah-ruled Palestinian state should be quickly developed since, "It will serve as an alternative vision to what is happening in Gaza."

This is rubbish. No matter how much money the West pumps in, the nationalists are not going to offer an attractive regime. Fatah's lower level of still-considerable repression is counterbalanced by the corruption and anarchy included in the package. Jawad Tibi, a former Fatah cabinet minister, explained, "Hamas is Fatah with beards."

True and that lack of differentiation is the problem. Moreover, Fatah continues its own old tricks. When it does arrest those involved in terrorism, they are quickly released. Incitement to commit violence continues on the Palestinian Authority (PA) media, and the PA is far more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel.

Yes, the PA's survival is a U.S., Western, and Israeli interest but let's not get sentimental or naïve about these weak, corrupt, and largely radical allies of necessity.

As for Hamas, it possesses three key weapons.

* The mainstream appeal of extremism and terrorism. "Hamas is strong and brutal but very good at governing," Eyad Sarraj told the New York Times, which describes him as a British-trained psychiatrist and secular opponent of Hamas, After all, he continues, it's distributing gas coupons, getting people to pay electricity bills, and keeping the city clean.

Suddenly, people considered "progressive" see the up side of having a police state. Imagine this kind of thinking applied to other dictatorships all over the world: they are brutal but boy do they keep law and order! Sarraj also forgets that Hamas's war policy resulted in reducing the gas and electricity supply.

But Sarraj is no moderate. In 1999, he wrote that Palestinians were better off without the peace process. Refusing to recognize Israel had been a "nuclear weapon" and armed struggle a great asset. Giving these up was a mistake, Sarraj insisted, and might lead to ending the conflict without eliminating Israel.

Sarraj, while a member of Gaza's tiny left, advocated a strategy parallel to that of Hamas today. Perhaps that's why he protested Arafat's repression but now seems content to accept Hamas's, however much he dislikes its Islamism. The continued extremism of mainstream Palestinian activist opinion makes Hamas's rule seem an acceptable tradeoff because of its militancy.
* The success of ideological demagoguery. One Hamas supporter told a reporter: "Israel is trying to pressure us to make us forget that the real problem is the occupation." Of course, there is no Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip, which is one reason why Hamas was able to seize power. "We can take it," she continued, "The Koran teaches that in the end we will be victorious."

This expresses widespread sentiments: Israel is the only enemy; everything else is irrelevant, suffering isn't important, victory is inevitable. Shortly after Hamas seized power, Sarraj told a Canadian reporter about how Hamas threw Fatah men off the tops of buildings, murdered them in hospital beds, and tortured them in a "horrific" manner.

But that isn't important. Whether Hamas brutalizes Palestinians, creates conditions that destroy living standards, drags people into endless war, turns Gaza into a mini-Iran, or causes numerous casualties, its militancy and refusal to compromise is what counts. That may seem irrational to Western observers but that's how Palestinian politics work.
* Pretended moderation as a scam. Since Westerners can't understand the culture of ideology and extremism, they're sure Hamas will moderate. This is supposedly proven when Hamas leaders say that if Israel only returns to the 1967 borders; gives the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip to a Hamas-ruled state; and lets millions of Palestinians live in Israel, they'll make a truce until they decide otherwise.

This is a very silly evaluation, reminding me of an American high school textbook which said Israel should try this idea and if that didn't work we would all know better.

Finally, there's the strange conclusion that since Hamas isn't about to fall from power, this proves sanctions have failed. One could say it shows economic and military pressures should be raised further. But at least it should be understood that the sanctions' purpose is to make Hamas less able to kill even more people, take over the West Bank, damage Israel, or turn Gaza into--to stand Bush's view on its head--an "attractive alternative."

Any policy that prevents those things seems pretty valid; any Westerner favoring a strategy that strengthens Hamas should be forced to live under its rule.

More of the usual: any open talk about the religion of peace – even from Muslims – is treated as “anti-Islamic.”

“Taboo topic sparks critical debate,” by Kathy English in the Toronto Star, June 21:

In the month since the Star published its investigation into the secret world of polygamy in our community, reporter Noor Javed has braved a firestorm of criticism,

As we shall soon see, luckily she is not living where Sharia is implemented, as she would be braving a “firestorm” of something more tangible than “criticism” -- say, stones?

So too has the Star itself, with several complaints about Javed's groundbreaking articles about polygamy within the Muslim community in the GTA coming to the public editor's office. I've spent considerable time looking into these concerns and I think that the Star's reporting on this was accurate, fair and balanced…

As if these three objective standards ever matter when discussing Islam’s more -- how shall we say? -- “troubling” aspects.

I also believe it was a courageous act of journalism for Javed, a Muslim woman who has written illuminating articles for the Star in the past about her spiritual journey to Mecca to fulfill the holy Muslim pilgrimage called the hajj, and also about her choice to wear the Muslim head scarf, the hijab.

So far, all well and good, since she is only expounding on her “spiritual journey” – you know, the “greater jihad” which infidels should focus on, and her choice -- connoting that beautiful but, according to many, abrogated verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” -- to wear the hijab.

As a journalist and a "visible" Muslim who chose to expose evidence of polygamy within the GTA's Muslim community, Javed well knew she would come under fire. But she also believed that reporting on this controversial, "taboo" issue, which is clearly illegal in Canadian law, could spark critical debate among Canadians. I, however, was surprised by the personal attacks against her.

Get used to it.

Javed's commitment to her faith has been questioned by other Muslims…

Here comes the all-accusing finger of takfir.

…and some have even suggested it was improper for a Muslim reporter to report on this.

One "open letter" that came to my office, the Star's letters page, and is now circulating in the online blogosphere, accuses Javed of demonizing Islam itself. "If your intention was to spark debate on polygamy in the community then the Toronto Star was not the forum for it," the letter states. "There is already ample anti-Islamic sentiment in the world and it is not befitting for a Muslim to add to it.

Or, according to Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, “Sharia forbids us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them to our secrets.”

"As a Muslim woman, you had an Islamic obligation, to defend this aspect of your faith, not to deliver a further blow to an already bruised community."

And here it is: a “subtle reminder” to Javed that she needs to follow that divisive Islamic doctrine, “Loyalty and Enmity” -- wala’ we bara’: she is kindly reminded of her “obligation” (Sharia law, anyone?) to “defend” Islam -- i.e., to go out of her way to mask, equivocate, and simply dissemble (taqiyya anyone?), not to “deliver a further blow,” i.e., not simply to speak the truth, which may well only expose the “problematic” aspects of Islam to the infidel host, who far from aiding, Muslims are commanded to disavow.

While many North American Muslims have widely, and sometimes justly, criticized the media for anti-Islamic bias in the days since 9/11, I don't think the Star's reporting on polygamy was either anti-Islamic or unfair. Javed spent several months investigating this, talking to dozens of people including four local Muslim women who believe they have been victimized by polygamy. This has not been about "airing dirty laundry," as some have accused Javed of doing, but of airing these concerns.

Javed's reporting put the issue into context, explaining the perspective on polygamy of both the Muslim faith and Canadian law. She wrote that while polygamy is generally among the "last taboos" in Western society, it's practised in more than 850 societies worldwide, including within the fundamentalist Mormon community in Bountiful, B.C. She also spoke to several legal experts who believe polygamy will soon be forced to face a constitutional challenge.

But as Star columnist and editor emeritus Haroon Siddiqui also pointed out in a follow-up column to Javed's articles, those practising polygamy in Canada are breaking the law as it now stands: "Muslims are obliged to obey the law of the land where they live" he wrote.

Some Muslims may think that contradicts many Koranic verses, such as “Do not take each other as lords in place of Allah” (3:64). However, the mere utterance of it is in keeping with “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28).

Aly Hindy, the iman of Saluhuddin Islamic Centre who openly told Javed that he has "blessed" numerous polygamous unions, now accuses the Star of bias…

In other words, “free debate.”

…against the Muslim community.

Which is haram, or at least “mukruh” (“disliked,” “discouraged”).

In an email to several hundred people, now posted online, Hindy's son, Ibrahim, states that the Star has an "agenda" to "caricature" the Muslim community and Hindy as "backwards, as anti-women and even anarchist ..."

One newspaper is hardly necessary for such caricatures; the media, TV, and web – which offer pictures and images of Muslims stoning women and rioting over cartoons (often worth a thousand words in any newspaper) has been more than sufficient at “caricaturing” Muslims.

Last week, Hindy submitted a lengthy opinion article suggesting that Javed had quoted him out of context and was inaccurate in her reporting. In fully investigating this, including listening to Javed's tape-recorded interviews with Hindy, I found these charges to be without merit. The Star declined to publish Hindy's article. We did tell him that the Star would publish a letter to the editor to clarify his perspective. He has thus far declined to submit a letter.

When lies, sophistry, and shoutdowns don’t work, silence often follows…

I am very pleased to announce that Raymond Ibrahim will now be contributing to Jihad Watch. Raymond is a historian and writer on the Middle East and Islam, and is the author of the superb and essential Al-Qaeda Reader.

Fluent in Arabic, Raymond has studied with Victor Davis Hanson, has an MA in History from California State University, Fresno, and has done graduate work in the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies of Georgetown University. He is currently working on a PhD in Medieval Islamic history at Catholic University. His op-eds, essays, translations, and al-Qaeda related analyses have appeared in publications including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times Syndicate, United Press International, The Washington Times, Financial Times, National Review Online, The Washington Post, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, and The Jewish Press, as well as in international publications. He has lectured at colleges and universities, as well as at governmental agencies, such as the U.S. State Department.

Raymond works at the Near East section of the African and Middle Eastern division of the Library of Congress, where he discovered many of the never-before-translated Arabic texts that make up the bulk of The Al-Qaeda Reader.

I am highly honored that Raymond Ibrahim will be gracing us with his writing at Jihad Watch.

"We do not recognise the validity of international law." Only Islamic law. Not, of course, that this has anything to do with Islam. One would hope that the OIC and the State Department will send al-Libi a strongly worded letter telling him to stop linking Islam with terrorism.

"Terrorism: Al-Qaeda leader calls for new jihad in Somalia," from AKI, June 23 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Dubai, 23 June (AKI) - A senior al-Qaeda leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, has released a video on Islamist websites calling for a new jihad in Somalia.

"I want to speak to you today of a new very important front of our jihad," he said. "Somalia is the goal of the Zionist crusader campaign."

The Libyan hardline theologian dedicated his latest speech to the 'young Mujahadeen' fighting Ethiopian troops and the temporary Somalian government.

"I have decided to do something after the recent endorsement of peace agreements between the opposition factions and the government in Mogadishu," he said.

"The mujahadeen do not recognise these agreements and will not adhere to them because they offer help to criminals and combine the truth with falsehoods."

In the message entitled, "There is no peace without Islam", which lasts for 19 minutes, al-Libi criticises every possible reconciliation between Somali parties, inviting 'young mujahadeen' to continue their jihad.

"You must fight and not accept anything but an Islamic state," he said.

"Your leader Adam Hiroo has been killed and that changes nothing on the way to Jihad. Before him, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, Abu Ibrahim Mustafa in Algeria and Dadallah in Afghanistan but they continued to fight."

Al-Libi questioned the paragraph of the peace accords signed two weeks ago in Djibouti between the government and the Somali opposition that foreshadows the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops and the arrival of international troops.

"The presence of any forces, Ethiopian, from the African Union or the United Nations is unacceptable, because we do not recognise the validity of international law."

In this article, the devout Muslim youth incline toward violent jihad. It is noteworthy that the Islamic revivalism is taking place among the young people, who know more about Islam than their elders, and that it causes them to listen favorably to the jihadist message. The Times, of course, does not explore the implications of that.

"Generation Faithful: In Algeria, a Tug of War for Young Minds," by Michael Slackman in the New York Times, June 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ALGIERS — First, Abdel Malek Outas’s teachers taught him to write math equations in Arabic, and embrace Islam and the Arab world. Then they told him to write in Latin letters that are no longer branded unpatriotic, and open his mind to the West. [...]

The confusion has bled off the pages of his math book and deep into his life. One moment, he is rapping; another, he recounts how he flirted with terrorism, agreeing two years ago to go with a recruiter to kill apostates in the name of jihad.

At a time of religious revival across the Muslim world, Algeria’s youth are in play. The focus of this contest is the schools, where for decades Islamists controlled what children learned, and how they learned, officials and education experts here said.

Now the government is urgently trying to re-engineer Algerian identity, changing the curriculum to wrest momentum from the Islamists, provide its youth with more employable skills, and combat the terrorism it fears schools have inadvertently encouraged.

It appears to be the most ambitious attempt in the region to change a school system to make its students less vulnerable to religious extremism.

But many educators are resisting the changes, and many disenchanted young men are dropping out of schools. It is a tense time in Algiers, where city streets are crowded with police officers and security checkpoints and alive with fears that Algeria is facing a resurgence of Islamic terrorism. From 1991 to 2002, as many as 200,000 Algerians died in fighting between government forces and Islamic terrorists. Now one of the main terrorist groups, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or G.S.P.C., has affiliated with Al Qaeda, rebranding itself as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

There is a sense that this country could still go either way. Young people here in the capital appear extremely observant, filling mosques for the daily prayers, insisting that they have a place to pray in school. The strictest form of Islam, Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia, has become the gold standard for the young.

And yet, the young in Algiers also appear far more socially liberal than their peers in places like Egypt and Jordan. Young veiled women walk hand in hand, or sit leg to leg, with young men, public flirtations unthinkable in most other Muslim countries.

[...]

Malek says he hopes to graduate from high school next year and now wants to join the military, just like his father. He is a long way from being the person who had accepted what he says the terrorist recruiter told him — that soldiers, like his own father, are apostates and should be killed. His resolution lasted for three days, until his imam found out and persuaded him not to go.

But the call to jihad still tugs at him. In his world, jihad, or struggle, is a duty for Muslims, but as Malek explains, the challenge is who will convince young people of the proper form that struggle should take.

“They really convince you,” he said of the extremists.

Then later, with great sincerity, he asked: “Can you help me? I want to go to New York and rap.”

The Family

In Algeria, your sense of identity often depends on when you went to school.

Hassinah Bou Bekeur, 26, enjoys watching the Saudi satellite channels and the news in Arabic. She watches with her mother and four younger sisters in one room. But her father, Nasreddin, 60, stays in another room so he can watch in French, the language of his education.

“He is not very strict,” she said of her father, with a touch of affection and disappointment in her voice. “We have more awareness of religion now.”

She took the veil when she was 20; one sister did so at 17, and another sister at 15. The youngest, Zeinab, is only 12 and does not yet wear the veil. The veil is a symbol of the distance between father and children. While Mr. Bou Bekeur studied the Koran, Islam was not the cornerstone of his identity. He says he even drank alcohol — which is prohibited by Islam — until 1986. “I never knew that,” said Amal, his 17-year-old daughter, and then with a smile, she waved her fist at her father and said, “I will kill you.”

[...]

“The foundation of religion, I learned in school,” said Mr. Bou Bekeur’s son, Abdel Rahman, 25. “We pray more than them and we know religion better than them,” he said of his father’s generation. “We are more religious. My father used to drink. I never drank. My father asked me if it was O.K. to take a car loan. I told him, no, it is haram,” forbidden in Islam.

So his father did not take the loan. His father is a quiet man in a house of strong-willed people. He can barely help his children with their homework, because his Arabic is poor. And he worries about their future, and the future of his country.

[...]

Four years ago, Amine Aba, 19, one of Malek’s best friends, decided it was time to take his religion more seriously, to stop listening to music, to stop dancing, to stop hanging around with Malek — most of which he accomplished most of the time.

“Muslim countries have been influenced by the Europeans,” Amine said, explaining why he thought he had not been religious enough for most of his life. “We have neglected our religion,” he said.

“Like us,” said Malek, who was nearby with a new buddy, Muhammad Lamine Messaoudi, a baby-faced 18-year-old with a bit of a paunch and a constant smile. The two burst into nervous laughter.

Malek, Amine and Lamine are each dealing with the forces shaping their world in slightly different ways. Amine has chosen religion; Malek, who has gelled hair and a slight stutter, has taken a middle road of religion, girls and rap; and Lamine appears a sentry of the left, interested in beer, girls and, he hopes, a life in France.

Each has felt the push and pull of the political-ideological fight going on in Algerian schools, between those who want to maintain the status quo and those who hope to reopen a window to the West. The messages the young men receive through teachers and the curriculum are still, almost uniformly, aimed at reinforcing their Arab-Islamic identity. But that is changing, slowly, and not without a fight.

“We would never have imagined Algeria could one day be faced with violence that would come from Islam,” said Fatiha Yomsi, an adviser to the minister of education.

Students go to school amid subdued tension because many educators do not like the changes that are coming.

“He is an Islamist. He would not shake my hand before,” Ms. Yomsi said as she introduced an Arabic teacher during a morning tour of Al Said Hamdeen high school here. Then as she walked around, she pointed out the front line in the struggle, keeping boys and girls together in class.

“You see, all these classes are mixed,” she said. “It is very important. We fought for this. That is why I am targeted for death.”

[...]

After he left, Lamine was asked how he felt about Amine. He has frequently teased him, suggesting that they go together to the bar for a beer. Lamine does not go with Malek to pray, talks often about drinking alcohol and said that two years ago he was arrested trying to sneak onto a ship to get to France.

“He’s O.K.,” Lamine said. “I’d like to be like him. I’d like to be religious someday, too.”

Ihsanoglu says: "The OIC has become an indispensable player at the international level, in many domains, notably in the realms of dialogue among civilizations, defending the image of Islam, and combating the phenomenon of Islamophobia." He also says: "We have established an OIC Group in Washington D.C., with the aim of playing a more active role in engaging American policy makers."

What will the OIC be engaging those policy makers about? The OIC hasn't ever acknowledged the obvious fact that it could end "Islamophobia" right away by rejecting Islam's doctrines of violence, supremacism and conquest and moving strongly against those Muslims who are acting upon those doctrines. It will be working with American policymakers to restrict free speech -- that is, honest discussion of the elements of Islam that the jihadists use to justify their actions and gain recruits.

As he says below, "In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film 'Fitna', we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed." We are going to have to shut up, and get in step, and passive and mutely acquiesce to our Islamization.

Well, I will not submit. And I suspect there are a few others in the U.S. who won't either.

Free Speech Death Watch Update: "Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the organisation of the Islamic conference," from the OIC, June 18 (thanks to Paul):

In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels:

First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds.

Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue.

Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Eurabia Alert. "Jewish teen brutally beaten in apparent anti-Semitic attack in Paris," from Reuters, June 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A 17-year-old French Jew was attacked on Saturday night in Paris, an assault condemned by President Nicolas Sarkozy and said by Jewish organizations to be an act of anti-Semitism.

The young man, identified as Rudy Haddad by one Jewish organization, was attacked by youths of African origin, a police source said, and the National Agency of Vigilance Against Anti-semitism said he had been attacked with iron bars.

Police said five youths had been held for questioning, and one police source told Reuters the victim was suffering "serious neurological problems."

The Union of French Jewish Students said Haddad had been identified as Jewish because he was wearing a kippa (skullcap), and had suffered several broken ribs and a fractured skull and was in intensive care at a hospital in central Paris.

"The victim was wearing a kippa and was on his way back home when his attackers, after identifying him as Jewish, started to beat him," the union said.

The number of attackers was not known, varying from 6 or 7 to 30, depending on sources. Haddad's father told French radio RTL there were around 15 attackers.

Two police sources said the attack took place right after a skirmish between two groups of youths, one Jewish and the other of North African origin. They said it was unclear whether Haddad had taken part in the confrontation.

They said such skirmishes were a regular feature in the multi-confessional Buttes Chaumont neighbourhood in the 19th arrondissement of Paris....

Compare and contrast.

From "Turkey's Turning Point" by Michael Rubin in National Review, April 14 (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

While Gülen supporters jealously guard his image in the West, he remains a controversial figure in Turkey. According to Cumhuriyet, a left-of-center establishment daily — Turkey's New York Times — in 1973, the Izmir State Security Court convicted Gülen of "attempting to destroy the state system and to establish a state system based on religion;" he received a pardon, though, and so never served time in prison. In 1986, the Turkish military — the constitutional guardians of the state's secularism — purged a Gülen cell from the military academy; the Turkish military has subsequently acted against a number of other alleged Gülen cells who they say infiltrated military ranks.

In 1998, according to Turkish court transcripts cited in the Turkish Daily News, Gülen urged followers in the judiciary and state bureaucracy to "work patiently to take control of the state." The following year, the independent Turkish television station ATV broadcast a secretly taped Gülen telling supporters, "If they . . . come out early, the world will squash their heads. They will make Muslims relive events in Algeria," a reference to the Islamic Salvation Front's overwhelming 1991 election victory in the North African state. After party leaders spoke of voiding the constitution and implementing Islamic law, the Algerian military staged a coup leading to a civil conflict that killed tens of thousands.

Because of his statements and veiled threats, the judiciary in 1998 charged Gülen with trying to "undermine the secular system" while "camouflag[ing] his methods with a democratic and moderate image." Convicted in absentia, but free to run his organized from his U.S. exile, Gülen continues a rather inconsistent approach to tolerance and secularism. He often equates the separation of religion and state with atheism, an assertion many of Turkey's most secular officials find offensive: Believing that religion is best kept to the individual rather than state sphere does not equate with any lack of belief in God. In 2004, Gülen equated atheism with terrorism and said both atheists and murderers would spend eternity in Hell.

"Islamic scholar voted world's No 1 thinker," by Robert Tait in The Guardian, June 23 (thanks to High):

A hitherto largely unknown Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gülen, has been voted the world's top intellectual in a poll to find the leading 100 thinkers.

Gülen, the author of more than 60 books, won a landslide triumph after the survey - which is organised by the British magazine, Prospect, and Foreign Policy, a US publication - attracted more than 500,000 votes.

The top 10 individuals were all Muslim and included two Nobel laureates, the novelist Orhan Pamuk, who is also Turkish, at No 4, and the Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, in 10th....

A Gülen supporter, Bulent Kenes, who is editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman newspaper, denied the poll had been hijacked. "There are many people who promote Gülen's ideas, which contribute to world peace by urging international dialogue and tolerance."

Gülen, 67, is known for a modernist brand of Islam. He was cleared of trying to topple the state in 2006 after being charged over footage in which he apparently urged civil service supporters to await his orders to overthrow the system. He said the film had been doctored.

Gülen, who has lived in the US since 1998, is credited with establishing a global network of schools which preach Islam in a spirit of tolerance. He has been praised in the west for promoting dialogue and condemned Osama bin Laden as a monster after September 11.

After many passages in which the unbelievers ask Muhammad for a sign that he is a genuine prophet, but are rebuffed (6:37; 10:20; 13:7; 13:27), in sura 30 he delivers an actual prophesy – although this Meccan sura likely predates most, if not all, of the recorded demands for a sign. The prophecy regards the fate of the Byzantine Empire: the title of this surah is Ar-Rum (الرُّومُ), which literally means “The Romans,” but refers to the forces of the Eastern Roman Empire, commonly known today as the Byzantine Empire. I have thus entitled it here “The Byzantines.”

Allah says that the Byzantines have been defeated (v. 2), but will be victorious within a few years (v. 4). The Persians defeated them in 615 A.D., taking Jerusalem. According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the pagan Arabs used this news to taunt the Muslims: “The Meccan disbelievers rejoiced in this [defeat of the Byzantines] and said to the Muslims, ‘We shall vanquish you as the Persians vanquished the Byzantines.’” But Muhammad was right: in 622, the Byzantines defeated the Persians and soon drove them out of Asia Minor. In 630, they retook Jerusalem.

It is ironic that many people use "Islamism" as a figleaf term to avoid speaking about Islam itself; they pretend that the political and imperialistic and supremacist elements of Islam are not deeply rooted within it, but are merely "Islamist" inventions that can with relative ease be eradicated and are already rejected by the Islamic mainstream. Yet here, The Independent assumes that to speak about Islamism is to speak about Islam, and suggests that British authorities might think the same thing.

Free Speech Death Watch Update: "'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview," by Peter Popham and Thais Portilho-Shrimpton in The Independent, June 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he "despises" it and accusing it of "wanting to create a society that I detest". His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today's febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a "hate crime".

In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues "because I have to be careful to protect my privacy". But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter's attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter's strong opinions.

"A dear friend had been called a racist," he said. "As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist.

"This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well."

McEwan – author of On Chesil Beach and the acclaimed Atonement and Enduring Love – has spoken on the issue of Islamism before, telling The New York Times last December: "All religions make very big claims about the world, and it should be possible in an open society to dispute them. It should be possible to say, 'I find some ideas in Islam questionable' without being called a racist."

But his words in the Corriere interview are far stronger, although they do fall short of the invective deployed by Martin Amis. He has said "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order", and told The Independent's columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim, in an open letter: "Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me – it wants to kill you."

McEwan's interviewer pointed out that there exist equally hard-line schools of thought within Christianity, for example in the United States. "I find them equally absurd," McEwan replied. "I don't like these medieval visions of the world according to which God is coming to save the faithful and to damn the others. But those American Christians don't want to kill anyone in my city, that's the difference."

What absurdity. Where are these hard-line Christians who want to kill people? What doctrines of Christianity do they invoke?

But in any case, if McEwan faces charges, it will be because of what he said about "Islamism," not about Christianity.

Although the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the most fanatically Muslim of regimes, there is hope that Iranians, fed up with corruption and constraints that they rightly connect to the mullahs who represent a mental underclass, will begin to see, or are seeing, Islam in a new light.

And they have the possibility of doing so -- a possibility denied to the Arabs. The Arabs’ entire civilizational being is wrapped up in Islam, so that Islam and 'Uruba, or 'Uruba and Islam, are regarded as inseparable. But the Iranians are in a very different situation, because Iran has a long pre-Islamic history, one that is given great attention. And because many of its physical remains still exist, any Iranian can, if he wishes, ride in mental triumph through Persepolis, and consider how passing brave it is to be a Persian. Not a Muslim, mind you, but a Persian. The great hope is that this other identity will reassert itself. It is, after all, an identity that predates Islam, and is one that sometimes has been in opposition to Islam: see how Firdowsi, by writing his epic of the Persian kings, the Shahnameh, managed to help Iranian culture withstand the linguistic and cultural imperialism of the Arabs that in so many places effaced, or reduced to almost nothing, the pre-Islamic or non-Islamic portions of this or that people's or region's history.

A laudable goal. From "Law, order and economy main priorities: Gilani" in the Daily Times, June 21 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Islam: Gilani said Yemen and Pakistan should work together to dispel “the negative image of Islam being projected in the western media”. Yemen’s ambassador, who is about to finish his four-year term in Pakistan, said he would take away pleasant memories of Pakistan, adding that Pakistan was an important country of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and that its contributions towards world peace were commendable.

"Its contributions toward world peace were commendable." That Yemeni ambassador is quite the kidder!

Anyway, how can Yemen and Pakistan dispel “the negative image of Islam being projected in the western media”? Hmmm. That's a tough one. You know how unscrupulous those venomous, greasy Islamophobes can be. But here are a few humble suggestions:

1. Rein in the people who kidnap Christians.

2. Stop sending jihadists wanted by the U.S. on their merry way.

3. End government support for Al-Qaeda.

4. End government support for the Taliban.

These actions, committed by jihadists and motivated by Islamic principles, tarnish the name of Islam in the West. So do many, many others like them, in Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Like so many others, Gilani is projecting, blaming the "Western media" for the negative image of Islam, and directing his efforts at correcting that, rather than dealing with the root cause. Yet no one would ever have conceived of a negative image of Islam if Muslims hadn't killed people and explained that it was their religious duty to do so. And as long as such killing continues, people will have a negative image of Islam, no matter how insistent and energetic (and they are growing more insistent and energetic by the day) the Orwellian efforts to paper over that.

By "unidentified militants," but it seems very likely that they regarded these Christians as infidels at war with the true religion.

"25 Christians kidnapped in Peshawar," from the Daily Times, June 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PESHAWAR: Unidentified militants kidnapped 25 Christians from Academy Town in Peshawar, sources told Daily Times on Saturday.

The sources said militants kidnapped them from the Banarasabad area of Academy Town from the house of Yousaf Masih. Superintendent of Police (SP) Cantonment Imran Shahid confirmed that armed militants driving in five or six vehicles kidnapped eight to nine people on gunpoint and moved them to an undisclosed location at around 8pm. He said however that the kidnapped did not number 25, and that militants have probably moved them to the Tribal Areas....

Speaking of the lengths to which some people will go to make sure that the truth doesn't come to you, consider this: this is exactly what the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other entities want to bring to the West. When they speak about banning "hate speech," they mean banning any speech that they consider insulting to Islam. That will mean speech about religious freedom, not killing apostates, and much, much more.

"Supreme Council Bans Hassan Saeed’s Book," by Judith Evans in Minivan News, June 18 (thanks to M.):

The government’s Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs has banned a book co-authored by former attorney general and presidential candidate Dr Hassan Saeed, Freedom Of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, on the grounds that it “violates Islamic principles”.

It is the first time the Council has banned a specific title since a short-lived bar on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2005, which was retracted a week later.

Ah yes, the week the mask slipped.

The ban was requested by the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP), which has now called for Saeed to stand down as a presidential candidate – but denies its action was politically motivated.

Banned

According to a Wednesday press release from the Supreme Council, importing copies of Freedom Of Religion, Apostasy and Islam or possessing the book in the Maldives is now forbidden.

As well as “violating Islamic principles”, the book contains “phrases that may mislead the public”, according to the council. But it has not specified which parts of the book are at fault.

“If anyone sees the book in the country, please inform the Supreme Council,” the press release continues. “And if anybody has the book, please send your copy to the council without delay.” [...]

Hey, will do!

The party is now calling for websites that show the text of the book to be blocked.

If anyone has it, please send it here and I will post it.

Well, duh. Of course, my entry isn't so much inaccurate as it is an extended smear, and it has only gotten worse since I wrote that in March, replete with whole sections full of guilt by association, unsubstantiated attacks, etc.

And it isn't just me, of course. In varying degrees, every anti-jihadist and every Islam-related and jihad-related topic comes in for the same treatment.

The bottom line is that anyone who cites Wikipedia, or simply uses Wikipedia, as a reliable source for anything does not realize the lengths to which some people will go to make sure that the truth does not come to you.

The "littered with inaccuracies" story is here.

Note how the emphasis in this story is entirely about what the British government ought to be doing to combat "radicalization" and "extremism," with virtually nothing about Muslim communities' responsibilities save the fact that many "distrust police and are reluctant to inform on extremists, preferring to deal with problems inside their communities." That must not be allowed to serve as a cop-out for civic responsibility (or a cover for more sinister motives), particularly given the emphasis that has been placed on integration of immigrant communities in the country, and the stated unacceptability of "no-go zones" of any kind.

"Young Muslims 'are turning to extremism'," by Patrick Sawer for the Telegraph, June 21:

Increasing numbers have become so alienated from mainstream society that they could even lend their support to jihadi terrorism, the study claims.

While most reject violence, many distrust police and are reluctant to inform on extremists.

The report was commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) after last year's failed bomb attacks in London's West End and at Glasgow Airport. It is to be discussed at Acpo's annual conference this week.

In the most comprehensive research of its kind to date, Prof Martin Innes, of the Universities' Police Science Institute in Cardiff, led a team of researchers which carried out face-to-face and telephone interviews with more than 600 Muslims in London, Birmingham and Oldham.

They found that the radicalisation of young British Muslims was more widespread than previously feared, with "a disturbing proportion" expressing support for extremist elements.

The report, which is being distributed among senior officers, Whitehall officials and ministers, finds that:

• Anger and disaffection are "widespread in sections of Muslim youth".

• There is tacit support for extremist violence within sections of the Muslim community.

• Police need to do more to win the trust of Muslim communities if they are to tackle radicalisation.

• Many Muslims distrust police and are reluctant to inform on extremists, preferring to deal with problems inside their communities.

The study, entitled Hearts and Minds and Eyes and Ears: Reducing Radicalisation Risks Through Reassurance Orientated Policing, warns that "the threat to the UK from jihadist terrorism may increase in the future".

It concludes: "Increasing numbers of young Muslim people are becoming sufficiently disaffected with their lives in liberal-democratic-capitalist societies that they might be willing to support violent terrorism to articulate their disillusionment and disengagement."

Across Britain, the security services have said they are tracking 2,000 individuals suspected of having links to terrorism, investigating 200 networks and monitoring 30 plots.

Professor Innes's report warns that Islamist terror groups are increasingly operating away from traditional Muslim areas, and are seeking new ways to radicalise vulnerable young people. It comes as police investigate alleged terror plots in Exeter and Bristol.

Anti-terrorism detectives have remarked on the speed with which young people have been converted to extremism and become involved in operations.

And still they are unwilling, for fear of causing offense, to examine and confront the traditional Islamic teachings that provide such fertile ground in which the "extremist" message can take root, even in the ostensibly "moderate."

There are several angles to the choice of Spain for the site of this "dialogue": One, obviously, is that it would be rather awkward to invite a large contingent of religious leaders to a place where they are forbidden from carrying bibles and other sacred texts, and from displaying religious symbols. And, of course, they certainly couldn't hold the meeting in Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina, since no non-Muslims are allowed there. That might lead to uncomfortable questions when one considers that Rome, Jerusalem, and other cities are open to all visitors.

But beyond that is Spain's history as an Islamic possession and the trumped-up myth of the nearly utopian, Islamic Andalusia of yore; the idea of going back to those "good old days" will surely be a source for much of the propaganda that will come out of this Saudi-led venture.

What won't happen is any meaningful, critical engagement of Islamic intolerance and the inequality of believers and unbelievers, and of men and women under Islamic law. In fact, the most likely result of this occasion will be a joint statement asserting that all major religions are peaceful and condemn the killing of "innocents" (a term always left undefined so that the uninitiated will assume the best), and that Islam "respects" other religions, so the rest of the world should straighten up, fly right, and respect Islam, too, and stop identifying it with oppression and terrorist acts. Thus, one can hardly call the event a dialogue; a more accurate term is "interfaith monologue."

"Saudi-sponsored interfaith meet to be held in Spain," from Reuters, June 21:

Saudi Arabia and Spain have agreed to hold an interfaith dialogue of Muslims, Christians and Jews in Madrid in July, Saudi media reported on Saturday. The dialogue will be held on July 16-18 by the Saudi-based World Muslim League.

"Prominent figures among followers of the divine messages will take part in dialogue concerning life in human societies, international cooperation, human rights, and issues of security, peace and living together in the world," said a statement carried by the agency.

Vanessa Jones reports in FrontPage, June 20:

President Sarkozy will arrive in Israel on Sunday. According to a June 13, 2008 article (translation provided below) in the Arab media, based on French sources, the American Jewish Committee’s Paris representative, Valerie Hoffenberg, visited Bethlehem on June 12, 2008, in order to do advance work for Sarkozy’s stay during which he will lay the cornerstone on a planned industrial park in Bethlehem. Concurrently, he is expected to make serious demands of Israel that will further the economic, diplomatic and strategic interests of France and the Palestinian Authority.

But, who owns the AJC/France? Does the organization serve the interests of French Jews? Is it the handmaiden of the French government? Or is it a friend and mentor to the Palestinian Authority? If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, do these divided loyalties spell conflict of interest?

Act of war. "US Army arrests four insurgents in Iraq," from KUNA, June 21 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

BAGHDAD, June 21 (KUNA) -- US forces in Iraq have detained five insurgents with connections to Iranian intelligence during a two-day raid on militia groups in Baghdad and Hilla that started on Friday.

The US Army said in a statement released on Saturday that an operation carried out in Baghdad led to the arrest of an Iranian-trained militia group leader, who also held information leading to several sources from the Iranian secret intelligence....

Seperatly [sic], another raid was carried out in the city of Hilla, south of Baghdad, leading to the capture of the head of a terrorist training and assassination network.

The terrorist network is a division of the Mahdi Army and receives backing from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Intelligence to carry out acts of violence against security forces and civilians in Iraq.

It could easily happen, given the prevailing multiculturalism and new court rulings on marriage. If marriage can be redefined once, it can be redefined again. And it will be, unless a sufficient number of people say no, they don't want polygamy, or child brides, or any other aspects of Sharia, in the United States.

"Polygamy, child brides coming to U.S.? Editor of Islam book says recent court rulings pave the way," from WorldNetDaily, June 21:

WASHINGTON – Polygamy and child brides may make a comeback in the U.S. as a result of recent court rulings and the simultaneous rise of Islam, says the editor of a book of stories about Muslims leaving the faith.

"In light of the recent California court ruling and the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints) legal fiasco in Texas, is the time coming when we in the U.S will be forced to tolerate child brides and multiple wives?" asks Joel Richardson, editor of the provocative new book "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out," published by WND Books.

The book is a compilation of the stories of 23 men and women who left Islam. The contributors are explicit about the danger that is posed by incrementally yielding traditional western moral and beliefs to Islamic tradition, a process that is called "soft sharia."...

And stealth jihad.

The Ahmadiyyas are a sect considered heretical by mainstream Muslims (not least because they reject violent jihad), and are consequently often persecuted in Muslim countries. And now, courtesy of our mad failure to halt immigration from Muslim countries despite the fact that no attempt is even made to determine the attitudes toward jihad and Islamic supremacism of the Muslims entering the country (and such efforts would be extraordinarily difficult anyway, although a screening process would at least allow for prosecution and deportation of Muslims who renounced Sharia principles when entering the country and then agitated for them once here), we see this ancient hatred imported into the United States.

"Publisher draws criticism from Muslims: Coverage of sect by Urdu weekly is an insult to faith, some residents say," by Purva Patel for the Houston Chronicle, June 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Pakistan Times publisher Sheikh Najam Ali has been looking over his shoulder every day for a month since running an ad that proved controversial in the local Muslim community.

The ad, announcing a local Ahmadiyya celebration and describing the faith as Muslim, prompted death threats from anonymous callers, cancellations from advertisers and the removal of his papers in bulk from various distribution sites, he said.

The ad and subsequent coverage of the event has drawn criticism from some Muslims who say Ali has insulted them by giving authenticity to a sect that they consider non-Muslim.

"I had no idea there would be this kind of reaction" said Ali, whose free Urdu weekly has a circulation of 15,000 in the Houston area.

Members of the Ahmadiyya faith, an estimated 70 million worldwide, follow Islam's main tenets.

But contrary to mainstream Muslims, they don't recognize Muhammad as the final prophet. Instead, they believe another prophet followed in the 19th century named Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who came in the spirit of Christ to revive the religion of Islam, said Mohammed Zafarullah, a local imam for Ahmadiyya followers.

Established in 1889 in Punjab, India, the faith is considered non-Muslim by Pakistan's constitution and heretical by some Muslims.

[...]

The Pakistan Times isn't the first Urdu publication to be targeted in the U.S., says the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Last year, the publisher and editor of the Urdu Times as well as the editor in chief of the Pakistan Post, both based in New York, received threats for their coverage of alleged criminal activities by Pakistani-Americans living in New York City and opinion pieces by Jewish authors.

[...]

Advertiser Amer Zaheer, owner of a vitamin company called Herbal Pharma, canceled his ads via e-mail.

"My suggestion to you is pray to Allah to forgive you and guide you not to commit such a sin in (sic) future," Zaheer's e-mail reads. He declined to comment. [...]

Those against the ads are displaying their lack of tolerance for other faiths, said Rodwan Saleh, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.

He noted that the newspaper was within its legal rights to run the ad and news story.

"In America, everybody has a right to exist and worship," Saleh said. "What difference does it make if the Ahmadiyya group came and claimed whatever they claimed and asked to be part of the mainstream? What if this was a Jewish group or a Buddhist group?"

"In America, everybody has a right to exist and worship." How long will that last, if no one stands up to this sort of thing? What is Saleh doing within the Islamic Society of Greater Houston to combat the attitudes of those who have issued these threats?

Israel pushes for Hamas's international legitimization. "Column One: Israel's darkest week," by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post, June 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's liquidation sale of Israel's strategic assets opened officially this week. Iran's proxies have pounced on the merchandise.

The first asset sold was the security of southern Israel. The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's "cease-fire" with Hamas transferred all power to determine the fate of the residents of southern Israel to Iran's Palestinian proxy.

Under the "agreement," Hamas will refrain from attacking Sderot, Ashkelon, Netivot and surrounding kibbutzim for as long as it serves its interests. Since temporarily halting its attacks on southern Israel is the only thing that Hamas has agreed to do, it will use the lull in fighting to build up its arsenal and its military infrastructures in Gaza. When it has built up its forces sufficiently, or when its Iranian overlords give it the order, Hamas will again attack southern Israel. And when it reengages, it can be assumed that it will do so with a vastly expanded missile range. So under the guise of the "cease-fire," Hamas will place hundreds of thousands more Israelis at its mercy.

The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government's agreement with Hamas does more than sell out the security of the South. The agreement also divests Israel of its former ability to isolate Hamas diplomatically. Fatah's renewal of negotiations toward reconciling with Hamas is a direct consequence of Israel's actions. As these talks unfold, it is clear to all concerned that they will not lead to any sort of power sharing agreement between the two parties. Hamas today holds all the power in Palestinian society. Israel's acceptance of Hamas's power over the safety of Israeli citizens only amplified this fact. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas - who cannot even travel to Nablus without IDF protection - is not approaching Hamas as an equal, but as a supplicant.

Moreover, Israel's willingness to allow Gazans to enter Israel, and its acceptance of Hamas's control over the Rafah international terminal that separates Gaza from Egypt, constitutes de facto Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime in Gaza. And the direct consequence of Israel's diplomatic and strategic capitulation to Hamas is that no one in either the Arab world or the West today will agree to isolate or boycott Hamas.

But the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government apparently doesn't care. Israel's leaders actually don't want anyone to isolate or boycott Hamas anymore. The government's reported negotiations regarding the deployment of an all-Arab "peacekeeping" force in Gaza in a later phase of the "cease-fire" make clear that Israel is pushing for Hamas's international legitimization.

Read it all.

The courageous Ali Sina of Faith Freedom says here what I've also said many times: that the only possible reformation in Islam can only come from a rejection of Qur'anic literalism, and that possibility itself is extremely unlikely. Rather than wait for moderates who all too often turn out to be pseudo-moderates, the West needs to defend itself culturally as well as militarily.

"Muslim Mindset: 'The hatred is in Muhammad himself,'" by Sam Ser in the Jerusalem Post, June 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] Sina grew up a non-practicing Muslim. Raised in Iran, educated in Pakistan and Italy and now living in Canada, he began jousting with believers in the 1990s. What bothered him, he tells The Jerusalem Post, was not the penchant for jihad and intolerance that certain fanatical Muslims displayed, but the foundation for such ills in the Koran and core Islamic texts.

(Through the Faith Freedom Web site, Sina lists canonical references to Muhammad's actions and offers $50,000 to anyone who can disprove Sina's charge that Islam's prophet was "a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a mad man and a looter." Respondents relentlessly attack Sina's motives, but none has won the prize.)

With violent conquest and contempt for non-believers central to the tenets of the faith, Sina argues, attempts to forge a moderate form of Islam are doomed.

"The idea that Islam can be reformed is a fallacy," he scoffs. "It's like saying we can reform Nazism and it will be a wonderful party."

No, says Sina, "The only way to reform Islam is to throw away the Koran; 90 percent of it should be thrown away. You also have to throw away the history of Islam, and you have to completely disregard the Sira" - the Arabic term used for the various traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad, from which most historical information about his life and the early period of Islam is derived.

For this reason, Sina says, Western suggestions that extremism in Islam can be eradicated if certain imams are quieted, or if Muslims are encouraged to embrace the universalist elements of their faith - but without addressing the extremism inherent in the religion's texts - are based on a mistaken comparison of Islam to Christianity.

"In the West, people ask whether Islam can undergo a reformation like the one that Christianity underwent. That's a poor parallel," he says. "In Christianity, it wasn't the religion that needed to be reformed, but the church; what Jesus preached was good."

On the other hand, Sina continues, "In Islam, it's not the community that is bad, but the religion. Islam has nothing like 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Islam is full of hatred, and the hatred is in Muhammad himself. I argue in my book that Muhammad was insane - and that Muslims, by emulating him and by emulating his ways, his insanity is bequeathed to them."...

Read it all.

One of the problems is the attitude of Egypt, with OIC backing. Following the scandalous “Sharia Affair” late on June 16 at the 8th Session of the Human Rights Council, this is a follow-up by David G. Littman, NGO Representative of Association for World Education (AWE) and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ). The attitude of Egypt is once again indicative of the rotten atmosphere that reigns at the UNHRC.

On June 16 (just before item 8), David G. Littman was given the floor by President Doru Romulus Costea to deliver a joint statement for the AWE and WUPJ under item 7. While quoting from the Report of Special Rapporteur John Dugard and on the subject of Hamas, he was stopped on a point of order within the first minute by the Egyptian delegate. The next morning, Littman took the floor on behalf of the WUPJ to read a statement by Rabbi François Garaï, who was unable to be present. Again, within a minute, the delegate of Egypt intervened on another irrelevant point of order. The verbatim transcript in both cases has been left exactly as spoken; it speaks volumes and can be seen and heard on the UN live webcast under item 7 and 9 -- scroll down here.

Item 7: Human rights violations … particularly in the Gaza Strip (HAMAS)

Mr. President , this is a joint statement for the AWE and the WUPJ.

Sir, in the final Report of Special Rapporteur John Dugard, we note his opinion that the UN should withdraw from the Quartet. He also rejects the Quartet’s Road Map. [In his words: “the road map is an inappropriate and unhelpful framework for negotiations.”(A/HRC/7/17 of 21 January 2008, §56)].

Instead of finding a way forward in an environment of negotiation and international commitments to end terror – as in the Road Map – he refers to “the seizure of power in Gaza by Hamas in June 2007, followed by the seizure of power in the West Bank by Fatah” – and to “the internecine conflict resulting in the deaths of several hundred Palestinians, mostly belonging to Fatah.” He then stated: “there is no immediate prospect of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.” [§49]

Currently, there are several efforts to find a framework for negotiations among Palestinian groups, between Israel and Syria, and with Hamas via Egyptian efforts, which it is hoped will lead to more direct discussions between the parties, thus avoiding a regional catastrophe.

However, reconciliation depends on an end to the demonization of the other. Instead, in the midst of this conflict among Palestinians and between Palestinians and Israelis, we find stereotypes, falsehoods and demonization of "the Other" in school text-books and TV programmes for children and youth. The indoctrination of youth insures that tensions carry over into the future. There is a special danger of the maintenance of such stereotypes when they are incorporated in documents that serve as a foundational presentation of the Hamas movement such as its 1988 Charter which, inter alia, has a preamble, quoting the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna as saying: “Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egypt [Amr Roshdy Hassan – interruption on a ‘point of order’]:

Mr. President, I don’t claim that I know by heart the statements made by the speaker, but at least twice I hear the same statement. Another occasion: I don’t think mention to the Muslim Brotherhood or anything has anything to do with the item. The item is the situation of the occupied Palestinian territories. We are not hear to give lectures about what Egypt is doing and what Egypt is not doing. We don’t want any praise from anybody. This is nobody’s business but the parties concerned. I claim the speaker should stick [sic] themselves and not just repeat their old statements. He should stick themselves to the item. If he [has] nothing new to say then let’s save the time and look at it for NGOs, but this statement was made at least twice before. Thank you.

In the course of this interview about his book, Andy Bostom says: "As I was putting the first book together, I came across Ahmad Sirhindi. He was an Indian Sufi who was enraged by the reforms of Moghul Akbar, who abolished the jizya [poll tax]. This enraged the orthodox ulema [scholars], one of the chief representatives of whom was Sirhindi. Amongst his virulent tracts against the moghul he says, 'Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.' Now, this is a 16th-17th century anti-Hindu ideologue, and there's no evidence that he ever had contact with a Jew. So I was like, 'Where on earth did this come from?'"

It certainly did not come and could not have come from Christianity, although the common charge is that Islamic antisemitism was imported from Christian Europe. But a "16th-17th century anti-Hindu ideologue" is unlikely to have had extensive contact with Europe.

"'Anti-Semitism inherent in Islam can only be eradicated,'" by Sam Ser in the Jerusalem Post, June 19 (thanks to Sylvia):

[...] In his writing, Bostom tries to chase away a different kind of demon: the pervasive belief that the anti-Semitism common to so many Muslims today is a modern, and alien, influence on what more than 1 billion people call "the religion of peace."

One look at the cover art of The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism is all it takes to discern what Bostom thinks of that. Alfred Dehodencq's vividly colorful but starkly ominous painting "Execution of a Moroccan Jewess" is a recreation of the actual public execution, in Tangier in the 1830s, of 17-year-old Sol Hachuel, who was falsely accused of converting to, and then renouncing, Islam. In an introductory note on the painting and on the heartbreaking tale, Bostom asserts that Sol's cruel fate was shared by countless Jews over more than a dozen centuries, wherever Muslims ruled. Then, in the several hundred pages that follow, he proves it.

The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism calls to mind the work of Bat Yeor, who over the past 20 years has practically single-handedly forced recognition of the oppression inherent in what she calls dhimmitude - the institution of inferiority, humiliation and obedience that Muslims demand of non-Muslims under their control.

But Bostom, who considers Bat Yeor a mentor, goes a step further. He provides an extraordinarily thorough look at the history of Islamic anti-Semitism in practice, from the dawn of the religion until today and in every place where Muslims predominated, using first-hand accounts of renowned Muslim scholars and historians as well as Western observers. The questions facing Muslims today - Will they deny this religiously motivated hatred? Excuse it? Use it for political gain? Reject it and reform Islam? - all require an in-depth examination of the Koran, the hadith (sayings and deeds of Muhammad and his companions), and the sira (the biography of Muhammad) as the textual roots of this hatred. And that is what Bostom provides in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism.

What makes this work truly unique, though, is that Bostom had virtually no knowledge of Islam prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He is an epidemiologist and clinical nutritionist from New England who spends the vast majority of his time researching renal diseases.

"I wanted to know what had motivated the terrorists," says Bostom, who grew up in New York. So, on the afternoon of September 11, "I grabbed a couple of books at a bookstore on the way home and read them that night. But they were so treacle-y and so transparently apologetic." The contradiction between the Islam espoused by the terrorists and the religion described in the books, he says, "just didn't make any sense."

In search of deeper analyses of Islam, Bostom began exhausting the resources of local libraries.

"I was quite interested in learning more about the history and the theology of jihad," he says. (The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism is essentially the continuation of his 2005 book The Legacy of Jihad in Islam.) "The model for me was to go back and look at essays written by great Orientalists and materials that I felt had fallen by the wayside. Of special interest were materials that were not available in English, for which I sought out Arabic and Farsi translators. Almost all my primary sources were Muslim scholars."

WHILE SEARCHING for the roots of jihad, Bostom found the roots of Islam's Jew-hatred. More often than not, they were intertwined.

"As I was putting the first book together, I came across Ahmad Sirhindi," he explains. "He was an Indian Sufi who was enraged by the reforms of Moghul Akbar, who abolished the jizya [poll tax]. This enraged the orthodox ulema [scholars], one of the chief representatives of whom was Sirhindi. Amongst his virulent tracts against the moghul he says, 'Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.' Now, this is a 16th-17th century anti-Hindu ideologue, and there's no evidence that he ever had contact with a Jew. So I was like, 'Where on earth did this come from?'"

Bostom looked first to the Koran for an explanation.

"When I put together the Koranic verses on the Jews," he continues, "they read like an indictment, prosecution and conviction. It was virulently anti-Semitic. Going into the hadith and the histories of Muhammad - where his assassination is attributed to a Khybar Jewess, for example - only strengthened this conviction.

"So when I juxtaposed that with the notion that there was no theological anti-Semitism in Islam, it was stunning. It's just so in-your-face that to claim that the foundational sources don't create anti-Semitism or aren't inherently anti-Semitic... it's absurd."

Indeed. Read it all.

The European essayist Fjordman contributes an important essay on an important book.

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom asked me earlier to write a review of his latest book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, which I am more than happy to do. I consider his previous book The Legacy of Jihad to be the most complete book published to date regarding the history of 1400 years of Islamic Jihad, from Indonesia to France.

Islam is hostile to everybody, but Jews are singled out for particular hatred. If you believe the prominent historian Bernard Lewis in his book What Went Wrong?, "The earliest specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East occurred among the Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to European originals." In other words, everything bad in the Islamic world is imported from Europe. This view fits well with the general anti-European bias of modern media and academia.

It is true that anti-Semitism exists elsewhere, too. I discuss this in my essay The Causes of Anti-Semitism at the website Atlas Shrugs. But according to Robert Spencer in Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, "While Christian anti-Semitism has been minimized, it still exists, particularly in the Middle East where some Christians have absorbed the anti-Semitism of the Islamic culture which surrounds them."

As Ibn Warraq – be sure to read his latest book, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism – says in the forward to The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism:

"During the last fifteen years, certain Western scholars have tried to argue that, first, Islamic antisemitism—that is, hatred of Jews—is only a recent phenomenon learned from the Nazis during and after the 1940s, and, second, that Jews lived safely under Muslim rule for centuries, especially during the Golden Age of Muslim Spain. Both assertions are unsupported by the evidence. Islam 1, that is, the Islam of the texts, as found in the Qur'an and hadith (the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions) and in the sira (the biography of Muhammad, which obviously overlaps with the hadith), and Islam 2—that is, the Islam developed or elaborated from those texts early on by the Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults, and then set in stone more than a millennium ago—and even Islam 3, in the sense of Islamic civilization—that is, what Muslims actually did historically— have all been deeply antisemitic. That is, all have been anti-infidel, so that Christians too are regarded with disdain and contempt and hatred, but the Jews have been served, or been seen to have merited, a special animus."

The myth of the tolerance of Muslim Spain lives on, as my text Refuting God's Crucible demonstrates. The connection between Nazism and Islam has been made by many observers before, but usually with the emphasis that Nazism was like Islam, not the other way around:

"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future." - Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939)

"Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message." - Winston Churchill on Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf, in The Second World War, Vol. I (The Gathering Storm).

According to his architect Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler was fond of saying things such as: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Nazism was essentially a new religion of Jihadism, which had much more in common with Islam than with Christianity. The admiration was mutual. In 2005, Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf was among the top bestsellers in Turkey, behind a book about a Turkish national hero detonating a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C. At the same time, Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan stressed that Islamophobia must be treated as "a crime against humanity." It is banned by law to discuss the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Would a country the size of Germany, with a history of a thousand years of continuous warfare against its neighbors and where Adolf Hitler is a bestselling author, be hailed as a moderate, Christian country?

An update on the "Al-Qaeda Pipeline" and the establishment in European countries of forward operating bases for jihadist attacks around the world. "Intelligence Officials: Dozens of Europeans Have Trained in Terror Camps in Pakistan," by Pierre Thomas and Jack Date for ABC News, June 20:

Dozens of white Europeans have trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan's tribal regions in recent months, U.S. intelligence sources tell ABC News, in what officials fear may be the beginnings of a new breed of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorism.

Government officials suspect the terrorists, recruited in Europe, have been dispatched to plan attacks against Europe and possibly the United States. The alleged terrorists hail from Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Romania and Estonia, sources said.

There is growing evidence that some European recruits may have already gone operational. Two of the suspects arrested in a September 2007 plot to kill American soldiers in Germany were native Germans, and U.S. officials say they are investigating whether they were trained in Pakistan.

An April 2008 report from Europol also noted that an increasing number of European nationals attended training in Pakistan "and were later involved in, or suspected of, terrorist offences in the EU."

An increasing number misunderstanding their religion, we're told.