October 2008 Archives

February 12, 2009: New addendum added below. Charles Johnson is libeling me outrageously, ultimately because of a couple of weblinks. The whole absurd and tedious story of his descent into madness follows.

NOTE, November 10, 2008: The controversy between Charles Johnson and me began when I linked to Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna, although he has never shown similar anger toward others he counts as allies who also link to those sites. He assumes that to link to these sites implies agreement with everything they say, which it doesn't. He and his followers insist that to link to these sites means one endorses the Belgian party Vlaams Belang. He says they're fascists, although they support Israel; they say they're not, which for him makes them crypto-fascists. I say I don't endorse them (or any party); he says I do, which I guess for him makes me a crypto-crypto-fascist. He says I'm encouraging genocide (because of a comment someone unknown to me left at his site), I say I'm not, and he says that my defending myself constitutes a "vicious attack" against him.

These serpentine and Orwellian absurdities unfolded over the course of several days, beginning on Halloween. I have now written two posts about Charles Johnson, entitled "Excommunicated" (October 31) and "Charles Johnson hits bottom, digs (part 2)" (November 6). It has been brought to my attention this morning that the second of these has mysteriously disappeared from Google's Search tool, although it still appears on this site.

I have written to Google about this. But meanwhile, for the ease of readers who may be searching, and for anyone offended by juvenile thuggery, I decided to create this new post and place it in the archives. It contains the content of both posts about Charles Johnson. And if this one also disappears from the Google Search, I will create another, because there should be a place where people of good will can hear the truth amid the increasingly shrill libels that Charles Johnson and his followers are directing my way.

EXCOMMUNICATED
October 31, 2008

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has denounced me and he and his followers are slinging wild accusations against me because I have linked -- under a disclaimer saying that I don't necessarily agree with everything at every linked site -- to two sites he doesn't like.

To read the whole story of his unprovoked attack, and this petty and needless conflict, read on.

I'm sorry to say that my old friend Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has written this:

I'm done with Robert Spencer. And very, very disappointed in him.

And:

Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are out of our RSS feeds. I'm not going to support people who link to vile sites like Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.

He also wrote me, asking me to take down the "Designed by Little Green Footballs" logo that had been up on this site.

What heinous crime have I committed? Last month I restored the links here to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, after speaking with Baron Bodissey, Paul Belien, and Geert Wilders in Washington, and wrote that I doubted that Fjordman was a neofascist or race supremacist.

Of course, for many, many months my list of links has carried this disclaimer: "Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site." One might have thought that my linking to both LGF and Gates of Vienna was indicative of an openness to perspectives even from people who disagreed with one another and also with whom I might disagree, and not a blanket endorsement of either one or any other site. That, however, was too subtle for some LGF commenters, who dressed me up in jackboots right away, accusing me of an "apparent embrace of the neo-Nazi movement" and claiming that I support genocide.

So apparently my doubting that Fjordman et al are racist neofascists who support genocide makes me a racist neofascist who supports genocide. Linking to groups that are accused of being neofascist, although they deny it, makes me one who embraces neo-Nazis. Unfortunately Charles himself has endorsed this loopy leap of logic in the past. Richard Miniter and Diana West both disagreed with him that several European parties, especially Vlaams Belang, were fascist. In response Charles wrote this:

I've learned recently that neo-fascists are much more prominent in conservative circles than I had previously realized. There are other well-known pundits who are sympathetic to the fascists, too -- I've drastically revised my opinion of more than a few people, e.g. Diane West, Richard Miniter, and several others.

Whatever one thinks of Vlaams Belang, that just makes no sense. West and Miniter don't think Vlaams Belang is fascist, and Charles is representing that as meaning that they are "sympathetic to the fascists."

In speaking the way he did about Miniter, Charles seems to have been assuming that anyone speaking favorably about European individuals or groups who are accused of being neofascist, or accepting their denials that they are neofascist, must himself be a fascist sympathizer, or one who believes we should ally with white nationalists. Roger Kimball, meanwhile, had commented favorably on a Diana West piece on people in Europe who are accused of being neofascist, and that National Review Online had also linked to the piece. He called upon Charles to be consistent and label NRO and Kimball as neofascists also. There are others also, besides Kimball and NRO. At LGF I put it this way:

The statement that I have "embraced the neo-Nazi movement" is false, and libelous. Charles, you and your friends here are now in the position of saying that everyone who doesn't believe these people (Fjordman, Belien, etc.) are neo-Nazis must themselves be neo-Nazis. Well, Ian Buruma recently published an article in the LA Times saying that the European anti-immigration parties were not neo-Nazis. Diana West has written the same thing in articles that have been picked up at the National Review and quoted favorably by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media.

Unless you all are prepared to say that Buruma, the LA Times, West, Kimball, and National Review have "embraced the neo-Nazi movement," you can't logically say it about me.

I forgot to mention John Rosenthal, who also wrote a piece doubting that some of the European parties accused of being neo-Nazi are actually neo-Nazi.

Also, when we start playing guilt by association games, how much guilt do you incur for how much association? If one who links to the Brussels Journal has thereby become someone who "apparently embraces the neo-Nazi movement," or at least someone who has done something so "disappointing" as to warrant being removed from RSS feeds, etc., then why does Charles still link to Pajamas Media? For on PJM's blogroll you will find...Brussels Journal. Has Charles, by linking to PJM and appearing on PJTV, become one with whom we should be "very, very disappointed"? Has he become one who is "sympathetic to the fascists"? Why is PJM's link to Brussels Journal not something that makes him "very, very disappointed," but mine is?

Is that not absurd? I have gone on record many, many times explaining why I reject race-based approaches to the jihad threat -- most recently in connection with the Cologne conference. Hugh and I have been clear here in our rejection of LePen, the BNP, and all those who traffic in such approaches. We have been consistent in maintaining that anyone who advocates genocide in comments here will be banned and find his comment deleted. The controversy here is over whether or not some other individuals and groups belong in that category, not over whether one should support race supremacism and genocide or not. Charles has done a grave disservice by acting as if those who reject his judgments about these groups and individuals, or who even -- like me -- are willing to entertain differing points of view on these matters, are ipso facto neo-Nazi or white supremacist sympathizers. He is in this behaving much like the Islamic supremacist bullies of East Tennessee, who are convinced that anyone who says something they don't like must be a liar, a bigot, a racist hater.

I'm done with Charles Johnson. And very, very disappointed in him.

UPDATE: The links to LGF above no longer work; click on them and you'll get a "Forbidden" notice. Well, Charles, old friend, you stay classy -- this only confirms the impression that what we are dealing with here is the bully's fear of actually having to answer for what he said. But his comments are still at LGF; you can go there and see them, or copy the link location from here and paste it into the address bar -- it will become visible that way.

Meanwhile, I note also with sorrow that the mendacious Kejda Gjermani ("medaura") is spreading her libelous attacks on me at LGF yet again, as she has been allowed to do for months. It is telling.

SECOND UPDATE: The comments over at LGF are getting really vile -- accusing me of actually posting pro-genocidal material there, or sending someone to do so, or inspiring someone to do so apparently by what I post here. As well as all the accusations of race supremacism, fascism, etc., that he has for months allowed to become standard over there when my name comes up.

Bear in mind that all of these attacks are based on guilt by association. None of them are based on anything I have actually ever said or written. And the case against those whose association so taints me is, contrary to Charles's repeated and strident assumption, unproven.

Charles ought to be ashamed of himself, both for his bullying and inconsistency, and for his allowing this to go on. In any case, he has rendered himself irrelevant (at best) in the struggle to defend the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and Constitutional pluralism against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. His demand of an absolute ideological lockstep is ultimately at variance with those principles of freedom anyway.

THIRD UPDATE: As you can see from my comment here, Charles himself has now begun defaming me with hints that I support genocide -- because of a comment that some idiot who has nothing to do with me put up at LGF. Probably he will block the link again, but you can paste it into a new window and it will work.

1023 Charles 10/31/2008 7:28:22 pm PDT

Unbelievable.

If I were you, Robert, I'd ask myself some serious questions about what I was doing to encourage the open support for genocide expressed by jdow.

Good luck indeed.

The background of this is that this "jdow" character posted a pro-genocide comment there, and this is supposed to be my fault. The evidence? Well, apparently "jdow" has commented here too.

Do I know who "jdow" is? No, I do not. Is he any different from anyone else who posts here whom I don't know? Is he any different from Abdullah Mackay, who posts here often, and sharply disagrees with everything I write, or from any other commenter here?

The only possible way that I could be responsible for someone promoting genocide is if I promote it myself. So: can Charles Johnson or anyone else produce a scrap of evidence from my writings to show that I have encouraged open support, covert support, or any support for genocide? Charles should either produce evidence that I do, which he cannot do, or he should retract his libelous insinuation. That he will almost certainly do neither is evidence that he has become a deeply dishonest and untrustworthy man.

But that he would stoop to this defamation shows what he really is, and what he is about. It makes me sorry that I ever counted him as a friend or ally.

FOURTH UPDATE: Paste in this link:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/25/6143272

It reads thusly:

25 Charles 11/01/2008 10:18:32 am PDT

Note: please use the report button if you see anyone posting ugly comments related to Robert Spencer's vicious attack on me this morning. I expect some meltdowns.

And Charles knows meltdowns! Note well: falsely accusing me of encouraging genocide -- that's not a "vicious attack." Asking for supporting evidence for the charge or a retraction, and doubting I will get either (and I won't) -- that's a "vicious attack."

Charles seems to be working from the playbook of the jihad enablers who have nothing to say about jihad attacks but are quick to label the reporting of jihad attacks as "Islamophobia."

Charles, have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

FIFTH UPDATE: I want to emphasize that I have not endorsed the Vlaams Belang. This whole controversy is not about the Vlaams Belang, but about whether or not one can disagree with Charles Johnson and not be defamed as a result. I have merely recognized that people of good will, who are not "seriously deluded" (as someone calls them below) and are not racists or neofascists, have mounted a case opposing Charles Johnson's assessment of the Vlaams Belang. In other words, the question is not whether or not we should support neofascists, but whether or not Vlaams Belang is neofascist. That question is hotly disputed, and those who think that Johnson has not made his case are not evil just for thinking that.

If Vlaams Belang were openly neo-Nazi, it would be an open-and-shut case, and no one should support them. But this is a search for crypto-fascists, and people assess the evidence differently. It is an issue warranting further study. And until Charles demanded that his link be removed from here, I had both sides represented in my links.

All this has eluded them, however, such that over in his LGF echo chamber they say -- and even Charles suggests -- that I have embraced the neo-Nazis and encourage genocide. He ought to be monumentally ashamed of himself for this defamation.

SIXTH UPDATE: Heartfelt thanks to all those who have expressed their support and appreciation of my work. I am grateful to each one of you.

As far as the ongoing discussion of the BNP goes, it is their race-based membership requirement and race-based emphasis that makes me unable to support them. I have explained why elsewhere, more than once.

The libels and misrepresentations of my positions at LGF, and the fascist/Stalinist snap-to of instantly excoriating someone who had been a valued friend as an evil and dangerous foe, should be illuminating to anyone who wonders what is going on. And remember, this all happened not because of anything I said or did, but because of a couple of blog links under a disclaimer.

The LGF commenters, however, have begun -- here again in true Stalinist fashion -- searching for previous signs of my ideological deviation.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/1145/6142955

In that comment someone quotes something from my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers: "Begin to regard Muslim immigration as a national security issue, and take steps to limit it and end it if possible. (And of course all illegal aliens should be made to leave immediately.)" This is evidence of my secret wickedness.

So apparently Muslim immigration is not a national security issue: the stealth jihad, the sleeper cells, the jihad plots are all chimeras. And illegal aliens should make themselves at home.

Then there is this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/1146/6144662

This links to a Gates of Vienna post about the honor killing of the Said sisters in Texas. I am not sure what the point is here -- perhaps it is that it is terrible and neo-Nazi to suggest that there could have been an honor killing in Texas. Unfortunately, the facts demonstrate otherwise.

With comments like these going unchallenged, it is hard to argue against the proposition that LGF has ceased to be concerned about the spread of Islamic supremacism in the U.S.

Those who exhort both Charles Johnson and I to cut the crap should recall that Charles Johnson is entirely, wholly, and solely responsible for provoking this rift, and for the overheated rhetoric of support for genocide, fascism, etc.

I see also that Charles Johnson is also charging me with personally betraying him by "embracing" people who have attacked him.

It is odd that he would make this charge after allowing his comments fields to become the arenas for repeated libels of me and my work by Kejda Gjermani ("medaura"), Michael Hussey ("mph"), "Killgore Trout" and others.

And even if he had not done that, his charge would only make sense if I had dropped the link to LGF while restoring the link to Brussels Journal etc. In fact, I had links to all sides here, which I had hoped would become the foundation for a gradual reconciliation of people who, let us not forget, had once been friends. That Charles would get so angry about a couple of blog links is reminiscent of a second-grade lunchtable where one kid gets angry with another kid for inviting other kids to sit at the table also.

It was Charles who chose to see these links as a repudiation and betrayal, when there was no necessary reason for him to have done so. Gates of Vienna has criticized me in the past, so I could have followed Charles' path and considered that anyone who even suggested they were not evil was no longer my friend. I have links to other people I don't always agree with and have had public disputes with -- such as "Allahpundit" at Hot Air. Yet no one at LGF is insisting that I must share all of Allahpundit's views because I link to Hot Air. They only insist that I share all of GoV's views because of the link here to them. Why is that? Because insisting on the latter is consistent with the picture of me as a neofascist that they want to paint.

In any case, LGF commenters are now saying I have restored "VB" to my links, when Vlaams Belang was never there, and I have stated above that I have not endorsed VB. And they're saying that soon I will be bringing white supremacists to speak at anti-jihad conferences in the U.S. This is arrant, libelous nonsense, and it illustrates that the commenters there simply aren't interested in the truth, but are here again falling into Stalinist lockstep.

Charles also has stated that he did thousands of dollars of work for this site, for which I never paid him. In reality, he did a great deal of work for which he was duly paid. Then he did some work here and there for which I repeatedly asked him to bill me. (I just found half a dozen requests from me, asking him to bill me, in a moment's search of one email box.) He never did. Ultimately, it seemed clear at the time that he considered the unbilled items minor tweaks, but to imply that I ripped him off his, to put it mildly, untrue. That he would attempt to use against me something over which I had no control and that was against my repeatedly expressed wishes is a measure of the man. He is essentially saying, "Hey, I tried to buy Robert Spencer's friendship, and he betrayed me by not being for sale."

And finally, Charles has referred repeatedly to my "vicious attack" upon him, yet he has never answered the points I made in the "vicious attack," which could only refer to the above post. For instance, why is it OK for LGF to link to Pajamas Media, which links to Brussels Journal, and Pajamas Media is not fascist, but if I link to Brussels Journal, LGF must delink from me and call me a fascist? Charles Johnson doesn't answer that question, and he can't answer it, because in fact when it comes to a "vicious attack" and a "stab in the back" he has been the perpetrator, not the victim.

Charles Johnson, let us remember, initiated this whole thing and wrote he was "done" with me, etc.

I responded, defending myself, and have added updates responding to his increasingly shrill attacks, most notably that I am encouraging genocide.

This is what constitutes in his eyes a "vicious attack."

Apparently the only way I could have avoided "viciously attacking" Charles Johnson would have been to roll over and allow him to defame me without response.

Call this one "Charles Johnson Hits Bottom, Digs."

SEVENTH UPDATE: Charles Johnson is going CAIR one better by blaming me not for unmoderated comments made here at Jihad Watch, but for comments left at LGF and emails he has received that oppose the lunatic course he has taken. So for the record I am stating here now that I have never asked anyone to write to Charles Johnson or to comment at LGF in my defense, and have no responsibility for anything anyone says while doing so. And I ask those who support me not to write to this man, or to comment at his site. Thank you.

UPDATE, November 10, 2008: A later post on this, "Charles Johnson hits bottom, digs (part 2)" has mysteriously disappeared from Google's Search tool, although it still appears on this site. (I have written to Google about this.) Thus for the ease of readers who may be searching, and for anyone offended by thuggery, I decided to paste that page into this one. Here it is:

I had not intended to write about Charles Johnson anymore, but tonight he has posted a video of two antisemitic idiots singing a song making fun of Holocaust victims. One of them turns out to have been a member of the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, although apparently he has been expelled from it due to this video. Anyway, this has become the occasion for Charles and his sycophants to renew their libels -- and since one person encouraged people to contact me, as if I have something to do with these people, I thought this occasioned another statement.

Anyway, whatever the relationship of these people is or was with the VB, as I said here: "I want to emphasize that I have not endorsed the Vlaams Belang. This whole controversy is not about the Vlaams Belang, but about whether or not one can disagree with Charles Johnson and not be defamed as a result." It was occasioned not by my linking to Vlaams Belang, as someone at LGF falsely claimed, but because I restored links to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. I did this not because I agree with everything written there, any more than I agree with everything written at any site to which I link. In fact, Dymphna of Gates of Vienna has been sharply critical of me in the past. But there are some noteworthy things being written there. In fact, yesterday I was told that Gateway Pundit and Michelle Malkin linked to a Gates of Vienna post. Will Charles Johnson denounce them as neofascist sympathizers?

Charles Johnson says of me in this LGF thread, "I won't have anything to do with him. He's behaving despicably." You can see that here -- he has classily blocked links from this site, so you can't just click and go, but you can paste this link into your address bar and see it: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/287/6184151. He has also fabricated out of whole cloth the claim that "if you believe what Spencer has written, Geert Wilders has apparently softened his opposition to groups like the Vlaams Belang too." That one is here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/555/6184555. In reality, I have never written a single thing about what Geert Wilders thinks of Vlaams Belang, and I have no idea what Geert Wilders thinks about Vlaams Belang.

In fact, it is Charles who is behaving despicably, and not only because he is lying and being completely inconsistent in his denunciations. In the first place, I have a disclaimer above my links -- he has completely ignored that. In the second place, he blamed me for a genocidal comment left at LGF, with no evidence that I had anything to do with it -- and I didn't. This is the sort of thing that is outstandingly despicable, as I can remember times when his opponents blamed him for unmoderated comments at his site, and he rightfully took exception. And in this case, mind you, he blamed me not for a comment left here, but for a comment left at his site.

Third, he is again inconsistent, linking to others who link to Brussels Journal, and not denouncing others who don't share his views of the situation in Europe. Even the Wall Street Journal links to Brussels Journal. Is the Wall Street Journal a genocide-encouraging, fascist-sympathizing rag, Charles?

Charles Johnson continues to defame me without just cause or provocation. He is encouraging in his followers the idea that my work is worthless and I am evil, and providing a platform for their Orwellian Two-Minutes' Hate, because of a couple of weblinks. He ostensibly champions liberty and free speech, but in reality LGF has little to do with either and everything to do with its owner's singular narrative, featuring his moves to quash all dissent and demonize all dissenters. This is ironic at best and fatuously and pathetically hypocritical at worst. Charles Johnson is, therefore, hardly the kind of ally one needs in the struggle that looms before us, the defense of free speech.

ADDENDUM, November 9: Family Values' comment below, at November 9, 2008 12:55 AM, makes reference to this LGF comment:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/73/6197660

I was sent the text of this comment. In it, the man who wrote me, Walter L. Newton, claims that I am monitoring LGF closely. In fact, I only see what people send me from there. This was sent to me, and I went over there to check it out -- the first time I had been there in awhile, and the last time I hope to go there.

Anyway, for the record: Walter L. Newton asked me about my intention to "investigate" the groups that Charles Johnson says are neofascist. I wrote this:

Actually, I am fighting jihad, and have no interest in or intention to investigate these groups. Insofar as they are fighting jihad, I applaud them. Insofar as they are doing anything else, my endorsement is not implied.

Walter L. Newton, perhaps unsurprisingly, takes this to mean that I don't care if they are Nazis, as long as they are fighting jihad. In fact, as I have said many times, I will not make common cause with neofascists, white supremacists, or neo-Nazis. Just weeks before Charles Johnson and his frenzied hordes decided I was "embracing the neo-Nazi movement" and encouraging genocide, I wrote here that I could not endorse the Cologne anti-jihad meeting because of the involvement of LePen and Jorg Haider. I retract nothing in that post, which you can find here.

What is at issue here is whether Vlaams Belang is indeed a neofascist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi party. That is indeed a matter that requires investigation, since they are not openly or obviously any of those things. Charles Johnson believes he has marshaled a great deal of evidence that shows that they are. Sensible and well-informed people (in fact, much better informed about Europe than is Johnson himself) believe Johnson has not made his case. As I have remarked several times, Johnson himself has become so manichaean and paranoid that he appears to believe that those who doubt that he has made his case are white supremacist neofascists themselves. He has defamed Richard Miniter and others on this basis - which in itself doesn't say much for Charles' credibility. He has now even defamed Ilana Mercer, the daughter of an anti-apartheid crusader, as a white nationalist - apparently basing his case on false statements from Wikipedia linking her to a white nationalist organization with which she has no connection. Ilana Mercer wrote to him, asking him to take down the defamatory post, and he actually complied -- the first time I know of that he has shown any compunction for his erratic leaps of logic and rushes to judgment. Meanwhile, Charles Johnson's paranoia increases, and credibility decreases, with every new denunciation.

Anyway, if determining VB's true nature requires investigation, why did I tell this Walter L. Newton that I wasn't going to investigate? Actually, I had just told him in a previous email that I was still looking into this matter - which the LGF commenters, true to form, took as a contradiction. It was only a statement of priority. I am going to keep fighting jihad. I will never make common cause with neofascists. I am going to continue examining the situation in Europe in general, and VB, and sifting the evidence. But I am not going to turn Jihad Watch, as Charles Johnson has turned LGF, into a site devoted almost entirely to this question - and certainly not into the witch-hunting hatefest that LGF has become.

But yes, I am going to continue to monitor the situation in Europe. In fact, as far as Vlaams Belang goes, I asked a Dutch speaker to examine the video Charles Johnson posted, of VB leader Filip Dewinter supposedly visiting a neofascist book fair. This is the information he sent me:

In fact, it does seem to be some book fair of student organizations. The title of the video says:

Livres sur le nazisme et le Voorpost (milice nazi du Vlaams Belang) en vente pendant les conférences du Vlaams Belang - Vlaams Choc de Peter Boeckx (2005) 2/8

(Books about Nazism and Voorpost (the Nazi militia of Vlaams Belang) for sale during conferences of Vlaams Belang -- Vlaams Choc of Peter Boeckx (2005) 2/8)

"Vlaams Choc" was an anti-Flemish television program on Walloon (=Belgian French-language) television. This apparently is from the program shown on August 2, 2005.
Belgium is dominated by the French-speaking Walloons. VB wants the independence of Flanders and wants to free the Flemings from Walloon domination.

The book fair is definitely NOT from 2005. Mark the orange logo of Vlaams Blok, visible on the background during the video (on the ribbon against the wall: you see the Flemish lion flag (yellow with black lion) and the Vlaams Blok logo). The Vlaams Blok was officially disbanded in 2004. The logo was no longer in use afterwards. Hence, this video is NOT from 2005 and has to be older. Vlaams Belang was founded in November 2004. It has an entirely different logo.

Here is what the video shows:

0:1 VB members with poster saying "Geen stemrecht voor vreemdelingen" ("no voting rights for foreigners") and the Vlaams Blok logo
0:2 a student of KVHV putting out posters and books for display on a table.
KVHV = Katholiek Vlaams Hoogstudenten Verbond (Catholic Flemish University-Student Association)
KVHV is a conservative Catholic organisation. Good guys, anti-Socialist, very Catholic (support the Pope). Their enemies call them "fascists", which they are not, just traditional Catholics.
0:9 Display of "Ons Verbond" (Our Association), the magazine of KVHV. There is also a poster with a stop sign over a communist hammer and sickle.
0:12 Dewinter entering and asking "Where is the president?" (= the KVHV president?)
He shakes hands with a man. Not a student, hence not KVHV.
0:19 Mark the Vlaams BLOK logo on the ribbon against the wall.
0:23 display of booklets, magazines about Flemish volunteers on the Eastern Front during WWII.
0:28 book about Joris van Severen (see below. JvS was a Belgian fascist, pro-Belgium, anti-Flemish independence in the 1930s. He was an admirer of Mussolini, but an opponent of Hitler. JvS was murdered in May 1940 by French soldiers.) There is also a booklet marked "Voorpost". Voorpost is a small right-wing Flemish organization. They are very anti-American. Voorpost is independent from VB, but many of its members vote VB. They often speak aggressive language and seek confrontation with enemies such as leftists and Walloons. I think they are infiltrated by the Belgian state security and deliberately provoke incidents in order to give VB bad press.
0:30 book display of Hitler: une fatalite allemande by Ernst Niekisch, a Communist opponent of Hitler. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ernst-Niekisch Niekisch was imprisoned by Nazis from 1937 to 1945. Also there is the anti-immigration novel Camp des Saints of Raspail, and "The Fenian Movement" (the Fenians were 19th century Irish nationalists fighting the British domination of Ireland).

It is not clear whether this is the KVHV bookstand (I doubt it since the books are in French). It is not clear either whether these are the books that Dewinter is looking at.

0:36 an open book with a picture of Joris van Severen.
0:40 picture of German soldiers.
0:42 Dewinter at a book stand (PS Not clear whether it is the book stand shown before).
0:50 Dewinter grabs a book. I cannot see which one. He says "Vu de Droite" (The Right-wing View). Vu de Droite is a book by French philosopher Alain de Benoist. De Benoist is anti-American, anti-Christian, and calls himself a "neo-Pagan." (Btw: Benoist opposes Le Pen and called on his followers to vote Communist. He also admires Muslims for their fighting spirit. For Benoist and his followers Christianity has caused the weakness of the Europeans. They Europeans have to rediscover their pagan fighting spirit.)
1:00 Dewinter asks a KVHV member (recognisable by his red-brown student cap and the ribbon with the KVHV arms) whether he has already read this book. The student says he has not read it because he is "illiterate". (If the book is. indeed, Benoist's book, the Catholic student does not seem very impressed with it. It is possible that Dewinter is joking: showing the anti-Catholic book to the Catholic student).
1:08 Dewinter asks whether the magazine (on the table) is the KVHV magazine. The students say he is allowed to take some copies.
1:18 Dewinter at another book stand. Apparently with literature from the independence movement in Brittany (a Celtic-speaking region in the West of France).
He asks the man: "You are a Breton?"
1:20 The man says he is indeed a Breton and tells Dewinter "You are an example for us. Your party is a model for us."
1:32 Dewinter says: "If we can help you we will do so."
PS Dewinter is no longer carrying the Benoist book, but has a glass in his hand, the other hand is free (as we can see when he is shaking hands with the Breton).

Here is what Charles Johnson says about Dewinter's conversation with Andries, the Catholic student:

Filip deWinter: "Have you read this, Andries?" (asks as he points to book)

Bookseller : "No I am illiterate." (Sarcasm... meaning he actually read it)

Filip deWinter: "Is this a good book?" (asks about another Nazi book on display)

Bookseller: "It served my beliefs."

In reality Dewinter showed the anti-Catholic book to Andries, who answered he had not read it because he is "illiterate." I do not hear Andries and Dewinter talk about another book that "served his beliefs." Andries says he is illiterate. Then Dewinter asks whether the magazine on display is their (KVHV) magazine. They say it is, and tell him he can take some copies. I do not hear Dewinter asking "Is this a good book?" Nor do I hear anyone saying "It served my beliefs."

I do not know where Charles Johnson gets this from.

On the table there are a lot of books on Flemish volunteers to the Eastern Front and the Verdinaso movement of the Belgian fascist Joris van Severen. Van Severen began his political career as an MP for the Flemish nationalists (and a democrat) in the 1920s, but later became pro-Belgian and founded a Belgian-nationalist fascist party 'Verdinaso,' modeled on Mussolini's party.

He admired Mussolini, but loathed Hitler, and called on his followers to fight the Nazis in the event of an invasion of Belgium. Nevertheless, he was arrested by the Belgians in the beginning of the war and murdered by French soldiers on May 20, 1940, together with a group of Belgian communists and Hungarian and Czech Jews, who had also been arrested by the Belgian authorities.

After his assassination his party fell apart. Some of his followers joined the resistance, others collaborated with the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joris_Van_Severen says this:

Joris Van Severen ideological thinking was also influenced by Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès, whilst failing to come to any accommodation with the Rexists or the Flemish National Union. Van Severen was equally opposed to Adolf Hitler and on the outbreak of World War II he banned his followers from producing any material in support of Nazism.

Execution

When Germany began executing Fall Gelb (the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany) in 1940 the Belgian government arrested him, together with many other Flemish-nationalist en communist politicians, and thousands of foreigners, and transported him to France for lack of space in Belgium. Van Severen belonged to a group of prisoners who was imprisoned in Abbeville, where, during havy German air attacks at May 20, he was shot with 20 other prisoners by French soldiers who thought they were dangerous spies.

The death of its leader left the Verdinaso without a leader and it soon began falling apart. Some Verdinaso-members joined forces with the Germans, others joined the (now almost completely unknown) resistance group Dietse Eenheid and others just stopped involving themselves in politics.

But aren't the book fair operators wearing neo-Nazi uniform caps? No: "the caps are student caps. Flemish student organisations have caps (cfr German student organizations). You can recognize the organization by the cap's colour. The KVHV color is brown-red with a black and yellow (colors of Flanders) ribbon beneath it."

So we have a book fair selling one book by a fascist, another by a Communist, and an anti-Catholic book. This is a neo-Nazi book fair? Dewinter is a neo-Nazi for going in and glad-handing people there?

Even if Vlaams Belang were everything Charles Johnson says it is (and it clearly isn't), nothing about it is established from this video. Nor is anything established by the activities of people who were expelled from the party for those very activities. Charles Johnson will no doubt keep witch-hunting, and I will keep approaching all the groups in Europe, without exception, with open-eyed reserve. But no one should be under the impression that Charles Johnson is fairly or dispassionately presenting evidence about them.

SECOND ADDENDUM, 7PM PST, November 9:

Charles Johnson is a liar, and even the Lizards -- some of them -- are beginning to wake up to it. I was just sent this comment from someone who is braving the stench and reading LGF:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/608/6201404

In this one Johnson brushes aside the fact that he had posted a tissue of fabrications regarding this book fair jaunt by Dewinter:

608 Charles 11/09/2008 5:33:00 pm PST

re: #601 brotherofchronos

I'm not defending that. I'm simply saying that the video was badly translated, which could be used to cast doubt on your other evidence. I don't understand why you would want to take that risk.

At this point, it's far beyond any nitpicking that comes from those people. Let them go ahead and "cast doubt" all they like - it's all they have left.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/616/6201420

Then the commenter "BrotherofChronos" dares to respond to The Master by reminding him that truth and integrity are, well, important:

Nevertheless, the translation was wrong. It's not right, charles. I realise it's your site and you can do what you like with it but I can't see any moral justification in using what is effectively manufactured evidence to prove this. The video says one thing. The translation you were provided with says something completely different. If you're not careful it could bounce back at you.

Oh, it's bouncing! Bouncing just like a...little green football...

And so honest readers are bouncing right out of the defamation and lie factory that is Little Green Footballs.

UPDATE November 12: I have been informed that Charles Johnson has completely revised his presentation of this book fair, removing without explanation (in the main post, anyway) the false translation he earlier posted. Now, apparently, the big problem is the book Dewinter picks up, Vu de droite by Alain de Benoist.

I'm not sure how Johnson and his Little Green Moonbats can rationalize the idea that picking up a book means that one endorses it, but of course rationality has nothing to do with this. The book that Charles Johnson called a "Nazi book," and that his sycophants at LGF are apparently calling a "fascist book," actually received the Grand Prix de l'Essai from the Académie Française in 1978. The Académie Française did not in 1978 and does not now award prizes to "Nazi books." The neofascist rag known as the New York Review of Books reviewed the book in 1980 and said that de Benoist condemns "fascism of the left and right." His book Vu de droite, in Charles's world so unforgivably handled by the demonic Dewinter, according to this actually won praise from that noted fascist...François Mitterrand.

Little Green Moonbats now devotes a considerable amount of time wringing its hands over the horrors of Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Human Events, and the Conservative Book Club. I would rather fight Osama bin Laden, Omar Bakri, Anjem Choudary, Abu Bakar Bashir, and people who share their ideology -- people who are much less of a concern at LGF than they used to be.

------

And here is the original post:

------

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has denounced me and he and his followers are slinging wild accusations against me because I have linked -- under a disclaimer saying that I don't necessarily agree with everything at every linked site -- to two sites he doesn't like.

To read the whole story of his unprovoked attack, and this petty and needless conflict, read on.

I received this email this morning from Paul Kamolnick, a professor at East Tennessee State University who was instrumental in bringing me to the campus. He kindly gave me permission to publish it.

Dear Robert,

I want to sincerely thank you for your presentation. I also very much enjoyed the time we were able to spend before the talk talking about these questions more generally. My thoughts on the evening's events.

1. I felt that your presentation was excellent, eloquent, and your argument, very well substantiated. I was very impressed with your public speaking skills and found you a delight to be with.

2. The Muslim leadership of the mosque obviously took this opportunity to organize a forceful Da'wa event for themselves; treat you with hateful disrespect; and as you have pointed out in your writings and in our earlier conversation, did not challenge the facts upon which your case rests. I consider it a personal insult that Taneem Aziz misrepresented the Muslim presence to me. His last communication to me suggested that some members of the Muslim community might attend, but it is obvious that this was a leadership-organized affair.

3. I was asked by several persons how the event went, and my response has been: It was extremely unpleasant, and not at all what I had hoped for. When I went home I began pondering the evening's events and thinking seriously about what you had said about the limits of engaging the 'modernist' apologetic, and why it is not enough.

4. I apologize to you Robert, for the rudeness and hate you experienced. I am deeply impressed with you as a human being, and student, and speaker.

5. The lessons learned by me were enormously productive, and I think at least a few persons in attendance got to witness something that will lead them to research for themselves, the 'peaceableness' of this faith, when confronted with the prospect of its own imperialist past.

I wish you the best Robert, and hope that sometime our paths cross again.

Sincerely yours,
Paul

Over the last year, during three different Islamo-Fascism Awareness Weeks, I've spoken at seventeen university campuses all across the country. I've never been shouted off the stage, as have some other speakers. I have, however, been threatened, heckled, protested, and made the subject of libelous hate-sheets passed out to people attending my talks, but I have never encountered a bolder or more brazen display of Islamic supremacist denial, obfuscation, lies, slander, intimidation, apologetics for mass murder and open hostility to reasoned discourse than I did Wednesday night at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee.

East Tennessee State, of course, is that bastion of free inquiry and open debate that denied funding for my address for fear that my speaking there would make Muslim students feel "ostracized." Through a donation from the Middle East Forum, supplementing the David Horowitz Freedom Center's covering of the costs of travel, lodging and a bodyguard (all of which should have been paid for by the University, whose students evidently can't be expected to behave civilly), I was able to go anyway, and university officials need not have worried: Muslim students had no reason to go away feeling ostracized. Indeed, they were anything but ostracized: along with some Muslim leaders from the area, they were responsible for an evening strongly reminiscent of the denunciation sessions once held in the Soviet Union and Communist China for those who deviated from the ideological line of those who held power. The same furious hatred, the same frenzied personal attacks, the same emotionalism and defiance of reason and fact -- it was all on display in spades, and it was all directed at me.

Boo!

Trick-or-treaters to the Jihad Watch offices in Secure Undisclosed Locationville will be given a free copy of Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Fewer calories than a Milky Way, and more informative!

I'm working now on my report on my speech at East Tennessee State University Wednesday night, and thought this deserved a separate post. The tone for the evening was set by a folder that Muslim students were handing out at the door to everyone who entered the hall. A sticker on the front read "ISLAM: Religion of Peace" -- the topic for the evening was "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

Inside the folder was a piece libeling me; a flier, "30 Facts About Islam," laden with taqiyya and detours; and two handsomely printed cards headed "Find Your...Bridge to Faith," and breathlessly announcing, "THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR: Find Out The Truth About The Fastest Growing Religion From An Ex-Preacher!" These cards announced six appearances between November 6 and 9 of Sheikh Yusuf Estes, a convert from Christianity to Islam, in Johnson City and Knoxville. "Sheik Yusuf," it read in part, "helps many new people to Islam using straight talk & funny jokes, while answering harsh attacks against Islam & the Muslims. He makes it fun & easy for all of us to understand."

I am sure that at these events Yusuf Estes will present a sugar-coated version of Islam, shorn of jihad violence and supremacism, in line with the directives of the book Methodology of Dawah by Shamim A. Siddiqi. This is a guide written by a Muslim for a Muslim audience on how to make American (particularly black American) converts, and it specifically tells Muslim proselytizers not to tell prospective converts the whole truth about Islam. On pages 48 and 49 of that book (corresponding to pages 70 and 71 of the pdf here) you will find this:

Through their Dawah activities, these communities approach the Afro- American people, who are already depressed and deprived, and are in quest of their true 'identity'. Islam is presented to them. The concept of Tawheed (Oneness of God) is explained to them in an academic fashion without telling what this Kalimah [declaration of faith] demands from a Muslim. Aqidah [Islamic belief] is explained without giving the details of the impact of Iman Billah [faith in Allah] and Iman Bil- Akhirah [faith in the afterlife], and without telling what revolution it must bring in the life of an individual and the society in which he lives.

Some rituals of religion and traditions of the Muslim Community are explained. A short account of the Prophet's (S) life is presented, without the revolutionary aspect. When Islam is acceptable to the new entrants in this concocted or abbreviated form, the ceremony of Shahadah [the profession of Islamic faith] is performed with great reverence. A non-Muslim thus becomes a Muslim, obedient to Allah (SWT) alone. The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, himself is not conversant with it. [Emphasis added.]

Yet while Estes is certain to present, in line with this, a "concocted or abbreviated" form of Islam, shorn of its "revolutionary aspect," he is clearly quite conversant with the "revolution" that Islam "must bring in the life of an individual and the society in which he lives." Sure, Yusuf Estes is always laughin', havin' fun, and here he is making the Islamic death penalty for apostasy fun and easy for all of us to understand:

[...] Yet another example that occurred at the time of our blessed prophet, peace be upon him, was that of some who pretended they wanted to be Muslims only to take advantage of the believers, gain some worldly benefits and then abused and slaughtered an entire group of shepherds that memorized the entire Quran, who were caring for them.

They killed them in cold blood and took everything for themselves. The prophet, peace be upon him, was very disturbed over this and ordered them to be severely punished and left to die without any food or water.

3. The proper punishment

From this example we learn how to deal with traitors and terrorists who have no intention of doing anything except evil and spreading fitnah (evil and terror) throughout the land.

Qur'an 5:33 mandates crucifixion or amputation of a hand and a foot on opposite sides for those guilty of fasad, which is similar to fitnah.

Over the centuries since the inception of Islam, we can find cases of people leaving Islam and what was their example and what the prevailing jurists decided in their particular situation.

Most all of these were not punished except in the cases of treason, other acts of violence or for propagating corruption, dissention and promoting evil along with their apostasy. [...]

Now let us consider the realities of balance in Islam in light of today's world.
There is no existing Islamic state with a khilafah. This means the hudud (punishment according to Islam) of the Shar'iah (Islamic Law) cannot be appropriately applied.
Additionally, anyone not being a citizen living in an Islamic state could hardly be tried and convicted by the state in a proper manner.

In other words, of course Islam has a death penalty for apostasy, but it can only be fully enforced within the caliphate, and the caliphate doesn't exist today, so the punishment cannot be applied.

[...] To conclude, Islam comes from Allah, the actual Creator and Sustainer of the universe. [...]

If a person wants to accept this belief and way of life, then they should be free to do so. If another person would reject this even though the evidence is clearly in favor of Islam, they are free to make this choice but would live in the society still receiving the benefits and services available, such as food, shelter, clothing, protection and charity.

However, they would pay a larger tax on their wealth due to their not being conscripted to serve in the military and so on.

In other words, they would be made to "pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Conditions are really what bring about the different rulings on dealing with those who enter Islam and then leave it, with the clear intention of bringing about dissention and unrest amongst the people.

Also, those who seek to convert people away from Islam into other faiths or to destroy the Islamic government would naturally be considered as traitors and then dealt with as such.

So in other words, Yusuf Estes teaches that missionaries should be killed, in line with Muhammad's example in brutally killing people he considered to be traitors.

What a fun guy!

Mass wedding celebration, courtesy Hamas

According to Hamas, marriage is like jihad not (necessarily) because it is full of "struggle," violence, and perpetual animosity between the Dar al-Husband and the Dar al-Wife, but rather because it begets children, who become jihadis and "martyrs." Hamas: always pragmatic.

"For war widows, Hamas recruits army of husbands," by Taghreed El-Khodary for the International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2008 :

GAZA: The grooms were resplendent in white shirts while the brides all wore black. At a sports stadium one recent October evening, thousands of Palestinians — 300 newly married couples along with relatives and friends — gathered for a mass wedding celebration, the 10th here this year courtesy of Hamas.

Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza, has been observing a truce with Israel since June, allowing its underground fighters to resurface but leaving them without much to do. At the same time, hundreds of the group's women have been recently widowed, their husbands having been killed either in confrontations with Israel or in the fighting last year between Hamas and its secular rival, Fatah.

Taking advantage of the pause in violence, the Hamas leaders have turned to matchmaking, bringing together single fighters and widows, and providing dowries and wedding parties for the many here who cannot afford such trappings of matrimony.

"Marriage is the same as jihad," or holy war, said Muhammad Yousef, one recently married member of the Qassam Brigades, the Hamas underground. "With marriage, you are producing another generation that believes in resistance."...

Such "intolerance" towards the Taliban. What, just because they threatened to hurl acid on the faces of unveiled women?

"Afghan women decry Taleban talks," by Martin Vennard for the BBC, October 29 :

Representatives of women from across Afghanistan have called on President Hamid Karzai not to undermine their position by talking to the Taleban.

The president's brother recently sat with former Taleban leaders at a religious meal hosted by the Saudis.

The meeting was regarded as a possible prelude to talks between the Afghan government and the Islamist movement.

Mr Karzai told a conference of about 400 women that any talks with the Taleban would respect the constitution.

'No compromises'

The women fear that the talks could lead to a reversal of the gains they have made since the overthrow of the Taleban in 2001.

They called on President Karzai to make sure their rights are guaranteed.

The president reassured the women that their position was safe

The Minister for Women's Affairs, Hasan Bano Ghazanfar, said that women were against "any political compromises" that did not take into consideration their constitutional values and human rights.

President Karzai said nothing would be agreed with the Taleban which threatened the rights of women.

"All our efforts are for peace. Those Taleban who aren't against this country are welcome to take part. My sisters, you should not be worried: they are not against you. Those who want to usurp your rights are the enemies of this land and we should defeat them."

But President Karzai rejected calls from some delegates for public hangings for those convicted of rape and abductions of women.

On Tuesday political and tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to establish high-level contact with the Taleban in an attempt to end the insurgencies in both countries.

A meeting between Afghan officials and former Taleban members took place in Saudi Arabia last month.

The women's conference is the biggest of its kind in Afghanistan since 2001. Under the Taleban women were banned from working and girls could not attend school.

The situation of Afghan women has undoubtedly improved since then. Around one and a half million girls have returned to school, while women sit in parliament and the government.

But there are still major problems. The delegates have also called for more to be done to improve women's security, health, education and employment and to combat domestic violence.

One would've thought that, if more needs to be done, the last thing to do is get cozy with the Taliban.

If you go to the BBC link, you'll see two pictures: one of a mosque in Germany which is about to be drastically enlarged by the largely Turkish population; the other of a church in Turkey which is run as a museum, you know, like the Hagia Sophia. So:

"Do Christians and Muslims have equal rights?" from the BBC, October 31:

Catholic and Muslim leaders are meeting from 4th-6th November to launch a new Catholic-Muslim forum.

It is an unprecedented initiative by the Vatican to improve relations between the two faiths.

The BBC's Christopher Landau has been looking at the state of Catholic-Muslim relations.

In the first of two reports, he travelled to the German city of Cologne, where the largely Turkish Muslim community plans to build one of Europe's largest mosques.

Civic and Christian leaders have backed the right of Muslims to worship freely, but they are also calling for increased religious freedom for Christians in Turkey.

While they're at it, they can also start "calling for increased religious freedom for Christians" in the entire Muslim world. Throw in a couple of churches in Saudi Arabia as well.

Muslim apostate to Christianity, Magdi Allam, who was recently baptized by the Pope asks the latter to "make a pronouncement in 'a clear and binding way' on the question of whether Islam is a valid religion." In olden days, no Christian, let alone pope, would've had any difficulties answering this question -- just as no Muslim today would have any problems answering this question if directed at Christianity. At any rate, how does the Pope see Islam? Better yet, how does the typical Christian, or follower of any other faith, see Islam? How do atheists and secularists see it? If all such people (the vast majority of humanity, i.e., the non-Islamic world) believe Muhammad was not a "prophet," what was he? If the Koran was not revealed from Gabriel, based on the verbatim words of Allah, what is it? Honest answers to oneself regarding such otherwise taboo questions will in and of themselves go a long way in explaining the state of affairs of the Islamic world.

"Muslim convert to Catholicism tells pope Islam is not inherently good," by Cindy Wooden for the Catholic News, October 29:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Muslim-born journalist baptized by Pope Benedict XVI at Easter asked the pope to tell his top aide for relations with Muslims that Islam is not an intrinsically good religion and that Islamic terrorism is not the result of a minority gone astray.

As the Vatican was preparing to host the first meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum Nov. 4-6, Magdi Allam, a longtime critic of the Muslim faith of his parents, issued an open letter to Pope Benedict that included criticism of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

In the letter, posted on his Web site Oct. 20, Allam said he wanted to tell the pope of his concern for "the serious religious and ethical straying that has infiltrated and spread within the heart of the church."

He told the pope that it "is vital for the common good of the Catholic Church, the general interest of Christianity and of Western civilization itself" that the pope make a pronouncement in "a clear and binding way" on the question of whether Islam is a valid religion.

The Catholic Church's dialogue with Islam is based on the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ("Nostra Aetate"), which urged esteem for Muslims because "they adore the one God," strive to follow his will, recognize Jesus as a prophet, honor his mother, Mary, "value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."

The council called on Catholics and Muslims "to work sincerely for mutual understanding" and for social justice, moral values, peace and freedom.

Allam told Pope Benedict he specifically objected to Cardinal Tauran telling a conference in August that Islam itself promotes peace but that "'some believers' have 'betrayed their faith,'" using it as a pretext for violence.

"The objective reality, I tell you with all sincerity and animated by a constructive intent, is exactly the opposite of what Cardinal Tauran imagines," Allam told the pope. "Islamic extremism and terrorism are the mature fruit" of following "the sayings of the Quran and the thought and action of Mohammed."...

"The Iranian people hate the US." But surely if we just sit down and chat we can hash things out and reach an understanding.

Meanwhile, the saber-rattling steps up in intensity: "Iran threatens US with suicide bombers," from the Media Line News Agency, October 30 (thanks to James):

Only a few days ahead of the American presidential election, Iranian parliamentary speaker 'Ali Larijani and Supreme Leader Ayatollah 'Ali Khamanai have launched harsh verbal attacks against the United States.

Referring to the US army's attacks in Pakistan and Syria, Larijani said they would not be answered with diplomatic protests.

"The US method and conduct, expressed by this aggression, will only be stopped by a clear-cut and unexpected response, whose grounds were set by the martyr Hussein Fahmida," Larijani said during a parliamentary session on Wednesday.

Fahmida was 13 when he detonated an explosive device he carried on him, destroying an Iraqi tank during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

"America should be aware not to put its huge body on top of the suicide bombers' explosive devices," Larijani said.

On the same day, Khamanai said the differences between Iran and the US were far beyond differences of opinion.

"The Iranian people hate the US… [because of] the various plots the US government has hatched against Iran and the Iranian nation for the past five decades," Khamanai said.

The Supreme Leader added that any nation that would not honor Iran's identity and independence would have its "hands cut off."...

Wednesday evening I spoke at East Tennessee State University in the most virulently hostile atmosphere I've encountered on any campus in the country, courtesy the school's Muslim students and Muslim leaders from the local community. By tomorrow I hope to have completed my own report, but I just noticed this comment by an ETSU student named Ryan, and thought it worth putting up as a separate post both so that you don't have only my word on how these things go, but also as a witness to, and a protest against, the atmosphere of thuggery and propaganda, and hostility to reasoned discourse, that increasingly prevails in American universities.

Succinct questions, intellectual honesty, and good manners somehow eluded the audience at East Tennessee State University on Wednesday night. I was appalled at the crass grandstanding of the attendees, who seemed to have had an immutable opinion and came only to heckle. Though perhaps understandably aggrieved by the information, the mob chose to flog the messenger instead of reevaluating the documents Mr. Spencer was referring to.

Any information coming to light that injures one’s understanding of one’s religious faith is going to trigger an emotional reflex in the innermost of one’s sense of existence. The factual accuracy of this new information to the believer is inconsequential in many cases; the only permissible behavior or interpretation is the one a person has been socialized and taught to accept as correct.

Mr. Spencer’s faux pas with this audience occurred precisely at the moment they noticed he was challenging their orthodoxy with their own texts. Instead of asking questions related to the lecture, the degenerates began frothing at the mouth with excitement and elected to respond without even a modicum of tact and assassinate Spencer’s character in the most insidious ways, referring to him as a “liar” while not offering even so much as an iota of textual substantiation. After a few schmucks gave ten to fifteen minute rambles on their personal lives, I began wondering whether those audience members venerated themselves or Allah to a greater degree, or if I should attribute the behavior to some inebriate condition.

The courtesy of letting Mr. Spencer address a certain point was thrown out the window as some inquirers opted for raising their voices, interrupting the speaker, and were apparently trying to goad those who did not agree with them into a shouting match. While the school may be a refuge for the area’s young, immature, and often harmless pinkos, the behavior of this audience was beyond the pale and was some of the worst mob mentality I’ve unfortunately had to experience anywhere.

In all fairness, this isn’t an issue relating to Islam; it is simply amazingly poor manners by an intolerant group of people. I am a student at East Tennessee State University and attended this lecture, and apologize to Mr. Spencer, the readers of JihadWatch, and all present who witnessed the thuggery. There are reasonable people everywhere, but a professional attitude and scholarly detachment are often drowned by de facto censures by the ideological public that is unwilling to delve into an issue beyond a stale talking point.

The "Ramadan gift" that this law was intended to be came a little late, but in the end, creeping sharia took a significant step forward. "The Indonesian parliament adopts anti-pornography bill," by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, October 30:

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – With opposition MPs absent, Indonesia’s parliament approved an anti-porn bill that was welcomed by supporters who loudly rejoiced with prayers to Allah. In online newspaper forums many ordinary citizens reacted angrily however, slamming what they consider a step backward for Indonesia and an “obscurantist” decision.

Today the lower house in Indonesia’s parliament approved the controversial anti-pornography bill, known in Bahasa Indonesia as Undang-undang Pornografi, Uu App. Since it was tabled it has been at the centre of intense discussions because it is seen as a step towards introducing Sharia law into the country’s legal system along the lines of Saudi Arabia.

In recent weeks human rights activists and representatives of political and religious minorities, including the Catholic Church, have strenuously objected to the law.

According to its critics, the law eliminates “cultural” differences and undermines “national unity”. As it stands it is all but an attempt by Muslim fundamentalists to introduce Islamic law into the country’s legal system.

The anti-porn law was approved almost unanimously but MPs for the Indonesian Democracy Struggle Party (PDIP) and the Christian-based Prosperous Peace Party (PDS) were not in the house in protest against the bill.

A supporter of the new law named Lasmiantini, a member of a group called Salima or Muslim Sisters, felt great about it.

“Inshallah, God willing, Indonesia shall finally see the rebirth of morality,” she said.

“We are happy,” she added, “because we won the battle to defend our children and it [the law] will also protect women.”

“Educational TV programmes” will be promoted “to improve moral values as the basis of society.

Pro-law activists said that the legislation can be improved to “avoid excesses”, denying at the same time that negative views were expressed “against the bill in some provinces.”

Meuthia Hatta, daughter of Mohammad Hatta, one of Indonesia’s founding fathers, noted that the law “does not violate the principles of freedom of expression” but instead protects people from the harm done by pornography...

Interestingly, that sounds a lot like Eklemeddin İhsanoğlu's contention that people should be allowed to "criticize" whatever they wish, but there are "red lines" that must not be crossed. What becomes all-important is who is in charge of drawing those "red lines," and in both cases, the agenda influencing where and how they are drawn is obvious.

Eklemeddin İhsanoğlu insists that "Everybody is entitled to criticize anybody or anything," but he also says there must be a "red line" that places "insults" and mockery off-limits. Who draws that line? What if, for example, the criticism is found to be insulting?

And there is much more, including an attempt to bolster the "racism" angle by presenting "Islamophobia" as the new anti-Semitism (never mind the raging hatred of Jews that is encouraged and sustained by Islamic texts), and a glossing over of the countless bloody battles waged in Islamic history over theological disputes (obviously some "red lines" were crossed there, and then all bets were off). It's tempting to say you can't make this stuff up. But on the other hand, İhsanoğlu just did:

"Islamophobia worse than racial prejudice," from Today's Zaman, October 30:

The secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Eklemeddin İhsanoğlu, has told a Danish newspaper that Western institutions which deal with Islamophobia agree that hatred against Islam and Muslims is worse than racial discrimination.

"Incitement to religious hatred is a new form of racism, and Western institutions dealing with Islamophobia are unanimous in saying that the phenomenon of Islamophobia is worse than racial discrimination," he stated in a recent written interview with the Danish Jyllands-Posten daily. İhsanoğlu stressed that discrimination is discrimination whether on religious or racial grounds. İhsanoğlu also clearly expressed that the OIC is neither against criticism of religion nor is it calling for a ban on any criticism of religion.

The full text of the written interview with the questions of Jyllands-Posten, a copy of which was also sent to Today's Zaman, is as follows:

Can you explain why you believe that criticism of religion can be defined as racism?

First of all, let me be very clear on one point. We are neither against criticism of religion nor do we call for a ban on criticizing religion. The history of religions, including Islam, is a history of criticism and debate which has led to the formation of different sects and schools of thought. These debates have always been there at the academic, scholarly or theological level. As for debates which are conducted at the level of public opinion, we have no problem with any criticism, as long as they are objective, fair and conducted in a responsible manner.

The problems start when the religious beliefs of individuals belonging to any religion or venerated religious figures, i.e., prophets, whether Muhammad, Jesus or Moses, are ridiculed, denigrated or targeted with campaigns of insults with apparent or declared intent to incite hatred against the followers of this or that religion. I am quite surprised to see in the Danish press insinuations that I and the OIC are opponents of freedom of expression, endeavoring to stifle this freedom by calling for a ban on the criticism of religion. [...]

But it all depends on your definition of "criticism."

Can you give an example of the kind of criticism that should be defined as racism?

We believe that incitement to religious hatred is a new form of racism. Western institutions dealing with Islamophobia are unanimous in saying that the phenomenon of Islamophobia is worse than racial discrimination. In practical terms, in many instances it is difficult to determine what constitutes incitement to religious or racial hatred, which are both proscribed as against international human rights. For example, when a Muslim immigrant is discriminated against or physically attacked by extremists, the causes could be on either racial or religious grounds, or both. The daily attacks, either physical or verbal, against Muslims throughout the West are the proof of the negative effect of hate speech campaigns which have resulted in an eroding of the human rights of those Muslim victims.

We should not forget that anti-Semitism, which caused horrendous tragedies for European Jews last century, cannot be explained technically or lexically as discrimination based solely on race, since the Jews subject to the Holocaust were Europeans from different parts of the continent; it was also because of their religious affiliation. Within the same context, one should realize that the Palestinians, who have been suffering a grave tragedy for the last 60 years, are ethnically Semitic, but what happens to them is not defined as anti-Semitism. What I am saying is that discrimination is discrimination whether on religious or racial grounds. I believe we are facing a gross campaign of disinformation on the part of some extremist quarters in the West and some European politicians who have little understanding of the matter and try to exploit the issue for domestic political gain by creating unnecessary fear of "the other."

Why should it not be possible to criticize a religion?

What follows is a massive conflation of insults (real or perceived) and incitement. This should be familiar, as many Islamic advocacy groups in the West persist in their efforts to classify any criticism of Islam or exposure of unpleasant aspects of Islamic law and belief as hate speech and incitement.

In my previous answers, I have tried to explain my views about this. If I may elaborate; the criticism of religion has been there for centuries. Trying to humiliate, insult others and jeopardize their basic human rights solely over their religious beliefs, particularly in the case of Islam, which is followed by 1.5 billion people, is understood as an act which falls outside the borders of critical dialogue or civilized criticism.

Narrowing down the discussion on the freedom of expression to demanding the freedom to be able to denigrate even the most sacred religious values is neither civilized nor intellectual. Yet, at the diplomatic level, we are not even focusing on this aspect. What we are saying is that incitement to hatred should not be allowed, particularly if this specific act constitutes a crime within the parameters of international human rights documents. Article 20 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requests governments to take measures at the national level against incitement to religious hatred.

What we are also advocating is that we should all abide not only by domestic laws and blasphemy laws, codes of conduct or ethics regulations, if they exist, but also by internationally agreed legal instruments.

According to The Washington Post, you recently said that there is a "red line" that should not be crossed. What do you mean by that? And what will happen if the "red line" is crossed?

I think there has always been, and there should be, a "red line" for any irresponsible attitude, whether it is on the individual or group level. Nobody can deny that in the exercising of any particular freedom, one should act with a sense of responsibility. We might differ on the point where freedom stops and responsibility starts. I would like to remind that all legal documents always strike a balance between freedoms and responsibility. With regard to the freedom of expression, the responsibility starts when there is an act of incitement to hatred proscribed by international law. It is important to recall that with the provision of freedom under human rights, it is only the freedom of expression which is linked with responsibility.

Read it all, preferably sitting down.

Not that he is endorsing any party, Reuters hastens to assure us. "Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video," from Reuters, October 30 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies....

Funny thing. Now, why is that? Reuters doesn't tell us, of course, about the sharp division between the believers -- the "best of people" (Qur'an 3:110) -- and the unbelievers -- the "most vile of created beings" (Qur'an 98:6) -- that runs through Islam. Nor does it discuss the geopolitical and supremacist implications of these prayers for the "defeat" of their enemies.

Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said....

And indeed, although of course there still are a few days left, those who have counseled that it is best not to mount a violent jihad attack against the U.S. before the election seem to have won out.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."

One of the most striking elements of the response to the talks that I have been giving on university campuses all over the country is the never-yielding unwillingness of Muslim questioners to admit even the smallest point. They will dismiss the evidence that I bring from authoritative Islamic sources of the jihad imperative to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law as the ravings of a few extremists, not hesitating to repudiate any authority, no matter how influential it may be in the Islamic world.

This may seem to be a canny tactic, as most of the non-Muslims in any given audience have no idea who is an authoritative voice in Islam and who isn't, and so it gives the impression that I am quoting marginal people to whom the vast majority of Muslims don't listen. But as an approach it carries with it some serious risks: anyone in the audience who does know anything about Islamic theology and law, and about who the authoritative voices are in the Islamic world, will know they are lying. Also, anyone who is reasonably well informed about the extent of jihad activity worldwide, from Europe to Indonesia, will wonder just how tiny this Tiny Minority of Extremists™ really is.

Depending on what one means by "al-Qaeda," perhaps. If this official means a leader in the core unit of al-Qaeda issued it, that would be unlikely; if by "al-Qaeda" the official means Islamists with the same ideologies, who may nonetheless have no formal connection with al-Qaeda, bingo. It's most likely from al-Shabaab.

"Somalia bombings have markings of Al-Qaeda: US official," from AFP, October 30:

NAIROBI (AFP) — The deadly coordinated suicide car bomb attacks against key targets in two Somali breakaway states Wednesday have the markings of Al-Qaeda, Jendayi Frazer, US assistant secretary of state for Africa, told reporters in Nairobi.

"Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but they have the markings of Al-Qaeda," she said after attending a summit on Somalia in the Kenyan capital.

"We believe that these senseless attacks highlight the determination of violent extremists to undermine peace and stability throughout Somalia and the Horn of Africa."

Frazer said Washington will continue to support regional efforts to combat terrorism.

"There is a serious terrorist threat in the Horn of Africa, concentrated in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland and we have to address it as a region," she said.

Frazer called for action against Eritrea for hosting Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, an influential Somali cleric listed as a terrorist by Washington and who has rejected recent peace talks and ceasefires.

"What I can say is Aweys is sitting in Eritrea... he is in the UN and US terror list. Eritrea is giving a safe haven to a terrorist, we need to act accordingly," she said.

"He is not for peace in Somalia, he is not for good governance in Somalia, he is making terrorism threats, we need to treat him accordingly," she told AFP.

And this from Dhimmi Jack! Of course, he gets himself off the hook by explaining to Muslims that "the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming.'" Read: "It's not my fault!" Still, he did say the right thing; good for you, Jack.

"Jack Straw: Muslim courts will ALWAYS remain subservient to English law," by James Slack for the Daily Mail, October 30:

Muslim courts will always remain 'subservient' to English law, Jack Straw declared last night.

In a speech to an Islamic conference, the Justice Secretary said the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming'.

His remarks come less than a week after one of his junior ministers, Bridget Prentice, appeared to clear Islamic courts to deal with family and divorce disputes, including how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children.

Mr Straw said that - while courts could consider a Sharia ruling - they would make their own judgments on the welfare of the children.

Mr Straw, who is also Lord Chancellor, added: 'It is ultimately up to the court to decide whether the agreement complies with English law. No court will endorse an agreement which conflicts with English law.'

In the strongest passage of last night's speech, he continued: 'There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law.

'There is no question about that. But English law will always remain supreme, and religious councils subservient to it.'

Mr Straw earlier told the audience that 'many dreadful things have been done in the name of mainstream religions. Barbaric practices such as stoning have been – quite wrongly – justified by reference to Islam, for instance'.
[...]

But he added: 'Crucially, any member of a religious community – or indeed, any other community – has the right to refer to an English court, particularly if they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way in which they feel uncomfortable.'...

Nice in theory, hard to implement in practice -- especially for already subservient, broken women, terrified of questioning their men, let alone dragging them before infidel courts to reassess a sharia court ruling.

Insulting artwork involving Islam, that is. Along with smashed windows and doors, the gallery has been receiving "12 abusive phone calls a day and emails condemning the show. Staff had to call police last week after an angry woman came in to complain. 'She was in a full burqa and was irate and upset. Her behaviour was quite threatening.'"

"Gallery attacked over 'insulting' artworks," by Arifa Akbar for The Independent, October 30:

A gallery showing inflammatory images of veiled Muslims, including a bare-breasted woman partially clad in a burqa, is under police surveillance after being attacked earlier this week.

Windows and doors at the SaLon Gallery in west London were smashed after a series of abusive, anonymous phone calls and angry protests about the images from Muslims. The gallery has complained to police.

The solo exhibition of paintings by Sarah Maple includes a veiled woman holding a pig, which is interpreted as a flagrant disregard of the Islamic ban on eating pork. The show – entitled "This Artist Blows" – also includes two self-portraits: one of Maple wearing a headscarf has an image of Kate Moss's naked breast attached to it; another shows Maple in a T-shirt bearing the slogan "I love jihad". In another, a veiled Muslim woman wears a badge that says "I love orgasms".

Last night, Maple, a 23-year-old of Kenyan and British parentage, defended her work, saying she had not meant to cause offence but to explore her Britishness and her Muslim faith. She voiced concern about her safety and said she hoped the exhibition of 39 pictures, which opened this month, would not be taken down before its official closing date of 23 November.

"I do think some people have just reacted to my work without thinking about the concepts behind it," she said. "I'm a practising Muslim and initially, when I started making the work, it was really personal, about my background with my father being British and my mother who is a Muslim and how I felt growing up. I was exploring the question of fusing those two together and whether it could be done."

Maple, from Sussex, has upset the Islamic world before. An exhibition by her earlier this year showed Muslim women in provocative poses, including one suggestively sucking on a banana. She won the Saatchi Prize last year for her self-portraits, some of which showed her in a headscarf smoking a cigarette. "People interpreted it as being related to sex, and that it was a post-sex light up," she said.

A spokeswoman for SaLon said the gallery in Bayswater, a part of London with a large Muslim population, was receiving about 12 abusive phone calls a day and emails condemning the show. Staff had to call police last week after an angry woman came in to complain. "She was in a full burqa and was irate and upset. Her behaviour was quite threatening," added the spokeswoman.

A small victory for the idea that workers should be treated equally and held to a uniform set of expectations, with none "more equal" than others. An update on this story. "Muslim worker loses out in Tesco booze bid," from the Evening Telegraph, October 29 (thanks to Eleutheria ´H Thanatos):

A DERBY Muslim who sued Tesco for religious discrimination after he was asked to handle crates of alcohol has lost his case.

Mohammed Ahmed, who worked in a warehouse, said the job was against his Islamic beliefs.

The 32-year-old, of Upper Dale Road, Normanton, also accused Tesco of victimisation and harassment during a three-day employment tribunal in Birmingham.

His job at the supermarket giant's Lichfield depot involved the transportation of various goods, including alcoholic drinks, on fork-lift trucks.

The Saudi Arabian national told the tribunal he was not informed that he would be handling alcohol when he started the job last year.

He said he was considering appealing against the decision after being told his legal action had failed.

He said: "It's not fair but what can I do? They [Tesco] were not taking into account my religious beliefs. I will consult with solicitors."

The situation came to a head before Christmas last year, when more alcohol was ferried to the Tesco warehouse in preparation for the festive season.

Mr Ahmed told the tribunal that he was not made aware he would be required to handle alcohol when he started the job, a claim denied by Tesco.

He also said he had not visited any of Derby's three Tesco stores and was unaware alcohol was served by the shop. He admitted, however, that he had been to Sainsbury's, Asda and Lidl stores.

He refused to touch alcohol because it was against his religious principles as a Muslim, he said, and asked to be found other work.

He told the tribunal that Tesco failed to co-operate and alleged he was told by a supervisor, "You do the job or go home", a claim also denied by the store.

Mr Ahmed, who moved to Derby in 2006, complained to Tesco but claimed he was treated unfairly as a result. After eight months working for the company, he left in protest.

Speaking after the three-day tribunal in Birmingham, he had said: "It's in our religion that we are not allowed to handle alcohol. In the UK there's equal opportunities that should protect me and my beliefs."

Tesco said Mr Ahmed was made aware during his employment induction course that he would be handling alcohol, and that every effort was made to find him an alternative role in the warehouse.

In Human Events today I discuss how the Secretary of Defense seems to be wooing our media-anointed President-to-be by taking a hyper-PC line on the global jihad:

Is Robert Gates hoping that if Barack Obama is elected president, he will keep him on as Secretary of Defense?

It sure looks like it. Last week, while speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Gates tacitly endorsed Obama’s famous identification of Afghanistan as the central front in the war on terror. After a few brief and perfunctory remarks about Iraq, Gates spent most of his address talking about Afghanistan, which he proclaimed to be “the test, on the grandest scale, of what we are trying to achieve when it comes to integrating the military and the civilian, the public and private, the national and international.”

Nor was that the only indication that Gates is extending a virtual CV in Obama’s direction. In his address, Gates noted that “in the wake of the end of the Cold War, a new threat has emerged to menace peace-loving people of all nations and all religions.” That threat? “Violent extremism,” which Gates said “seeks to eject all westerners and western influence from the Middle East and Southwest Asia, to destroy Israel, and overthrow all secular and western-oriented governments in the region.” He explained that these “violent extremists” have “unlimited ‘ideological zeal,’” but he never even came close to explaining the content of that ideology, which would of course have required him to talk about Islam. This politically correct tack is sure to endear him to those who may soon be deciding who will oversee Obama’s Pentagon.

Note the usual insistence that sharia law itself is just, but isn't being carried out properly. Part of that hinges on widely divergent views of what constitutes justice in the first place, but it is also worth noting how readily sharia lends itself to further abuses on top of those enshrined in the letter of the law. The lack of real accountability of an Islamic government to its citizens, alongside the government's claiming license to mete out divine wrath on sharia's terms creates a particularly flexible atmosphere for additional brutality.

"Stoned woman 'screamed for her life'," from Reuters, October 29:

Kismayu - Relatives of a Somali woman who was publicly stoned to death by Islamists have reacted with fury.

Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, 23, was stoned to death after being accused of adultery, witnesses said. It was the first such public killing by the militants for about two years.

"The stoning was totally irreligious and illogical," said Dhuhulow's sister, who asked not to be named.

"Islam does not execute a woman for adultery unless four witnesses and the man with whom she committed sex are brought forward publicly," she said.

Dhuhulow was placed in a hole up to her neck for the execution late on Monday in front of hundreds of people in a square of this southern port, which the Islamist insurgents captured in August.

"A woman in a green veil and black mask was brought in a car as we waited to watch the merciless act of stoning," one resident, Abdullahi Aden, said.

"We were told she submitted herself to be punished, yet we could see her screaming as she was forcibly bound, legs and hands. A relative of hers ran towards her, but the Islamists opened fire and killed a child."

Stones were hurled at Dhuhulow's head, and the woman was brought out of the hole three times to see if she had died.

The Islamists last carried out public executions when they ruled Mogadishu and most of south Somalia for half of 2006. Allied Ethiopian and Somali government forces toppled them at the end of that year

The Islamists controlling this port provide security, but impose fundamentalist practices such as banning entertainment seen as anti-Islamic.

"Restoring order."

Islamist leaders at the execution said the woman had breached Islamic law. They promised to punish the guard who shot the child.

"...Pressure from outside has embarrassed the Algerian government very much."

An update on this story. "Algeria - Christians acquitted in blasphemy case," from Compass Direct News, October 29:

ISTANBUL, October 29 (Compass Direct News) – A court in northwestern Algeria today acquitted three Christians charged with blaspheming Islam and threatening a member of their congregation who re-converted to Islam.

The acquittal was announced in a court at Ain El-Turck, 15 kilometers (nine miles) west of the coastal city of Oran. The defendants believe the judge’s decision to acquit was due to the spurious evidence used against them.

The acquittal also comes as part of a larger trend of the Algerian government bowing to negative international media attention and government condemnations of such cases, they said.

Defendant Youssef Ourahmane said that as a result, a recent government crackdown against evangelical Christians has eased off in recent months.

“We had noticed the last four or five months the government is trying to back down a little bit,” Ourahmane said. “I think the pressure on them has been strong, such as condemnations from the U.S. and foreign ministries from France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Spain. This pressure from outside has embarrassed the Algerian government very much.”

Algerian courts have handed several suspended sentences to local evangelicals in the last year under a recent presidential decree that prohibits proselytizing Muslims. No Christian, however, has served prison time on religious charges.

Ourahmane, Rachid Muhammad Essaghir, and a third man were charged in February with “blaspheming the name of the Prophet [Muhammad] and Islam” and threatening the life of a man who claimed to have converted to Christianity but who “returned” to Islam when his fundamentalist ties were exposed.

The first hearing of the three men took place on Oct. 21 in Ain El-Turck. A lawyer appointed by the Ministry of Religion also joined the hearing and surprised the defendants by supporting their plight.

The lawyer affirmed the rights of religious minorities such as Christians in Algeria. The Christians present said she would like the case to be closed.

A prosecutor in the case had sought three years of prison for the three men and a fine of 50,000 dinars (653 euros) for each.

Taking the stand last week, the three men were asked whether they had blasphemed Muhammad and threatened Shamouma Al-Aid, the convert and plaintiff. Al-Aid had professed Christianity from July 2004 through July 2006, when he attended a church near Oran. It was there that he met the Christians, against whom he later filed the blasphemy complaint.

Essaghir, an evangelist and church elder for a small community of Muslim converts to Christianity in Tiaret, has been one of the most targeted Christians in Algeria.

In the last year he has received three sentences, one for blasphemy and two for evangelism. Police stopped Essaghir and another man in June 2007 while transporting Christian literature. As a result they were convicted in absentia in November 2007 and given a two-year sentence and 5,000-euro fines. The Protestants requested a retrial, and the charges were dropped at a hearing in June.

Asked if he could explain why he and other Christians were under fire by Islamists, he told Compass that Muslims felt menaced by the existence of Christianity and its rise in Algeria.

“We are attacked because Muslims feel threatened by us,” said Essaghir. “There are many people who are coming to Christ.”

When the three accused Christians met Al-Aid, he claimed that his family was persecuting him, so they took him in to their church community. But in 2006 the Christians learned that Al-Aid in fact had links with Islamic fundamentalists.

After excommunicating Al-Aid, in October 2007 the three Christians were summoned by police when Al-Aid registered his complaint that they had insulted Muhammad and Islam and threatened his life.

“But the accusations against us are unfounded,” Essaghir told Compass last week by phone. “There is no proof, but we are being condemned because there is no justice.”

Ourahmane said that Al-Aid had shown the police text messages to support his claims, but that police said the number had not been registered with telecommunications services.

With their fresh acquittal, the three Christians could open a case against Al-Aid for bringing a case against them based on spurious evidence, according to Algerian law.

Instead, they want to offer their forgiveness, Ourahmane said.

“We have decided to forgive him and will communicate we are all ready to help him if he needs any help,” he said. “We are in touch with him through one of our team members, and if he is thirsty or hungry we are more than happy to help.”

We have seen in many cases that Muslim casualties are a major liability for jihadist groups. Politically, it is a safer bet to stick to infidels, whose lives are worth less under Islamic laws concerning blood money (diyya) and retaliation (qisas), not to mention the fact that they become targets as soon as they are deemed to have violated the dhimma protection racket.

"In Jakarta Christian priests and activists first target of Islamic terrorists," by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, October 29:

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Islamic terrorists are moving to a new strategy, opting for attacks against Christian clergymen and activists, targeting vital installations across the country instead of US interests, this according Police spokesman Inspector General Abubakar Nataprawira. Equally the threat of attacks linked to the November execution of three men sentenced for the October 2002 Bali bombings remains high.

Inspector General Nataprawira spoke at a press conference, unveiling the results from investigations sparked by the arrest on 21 October in Kelapa Ganding (North Jakarta) of members of a new terror group called Tauhid Wal Jihad.

“They were planning attacks against Christian priests and peace activities involved in peace actions and interfaith activities against terrorism,” the inspector said.

North Jakarta’s main fuel depot in Plumpang owned by Pertamina was also the group’s target list. Also the group was planning to bring weapons into the country and launch a six-month mass drive to recruit new members.

Wahyu, who has been involved in various terrorist attacks in Poso and Ambon (during the 2005-2006 sectarian clashes) and against the police, is among those arrested. He had been on the run since 2005.

Meanwhile some people are wondering whether the brutal assault against Fr Benny Susetyo was part of this strategy.

The clergyman, who is the secretary of Interfaith Dialogue Commission of the Indonesian Bishops of Conference, was savagely beaten by unknown assailants on 11 August in South Jakarta.

In some cases, it will be difficult to distinguish where a new trend may have begun from the persecution of Indonesian Christians that has been going on for years.

Will he follow through with the annulment? Or will this move simply get the media off his back until the uproar dies down? In any event, this story has yielded one important development: The assertion that, at least for now, Indonesian civil law still trumps sharia law in this area. What remains to be seen is the strength of the political will to keep it that way. An update on this story. "Indonesian cleric reconsiders marriage to minor," by Yunita Rovroy for Radio Netherlands, October 29:

In Indonesia, the controversial marriage between a Muslim cleric and an underage girl will probably be annulled. Wealthy businessman and Muslim cleric Pujiono Cahyo Widiyanto, aged 43, married 12-year-old Lutfiana Ulfa in August. Lutfania is the daughter of a poor family in the city of Semarang in central Java. The marriage has led to widespread protest.

Seto Mulyadi, chairman of the national children's rights commission Komnas Perlindungan Anak, feels reassured. He met Widyanto on Tuesday. He believes that the Muslim cleric has understood that his marriage constitutes a violation of the law. Widiyanto, who until now insisted that his marriage was in compliance with Islamic law, has eventually come around. He reportedly intended to conclude two other marriages with girls aged seven and nine.

Mulyadi believes the Indonesian government should take the initiative to create better social conditions for children:

"The government could achieve this in the cities, but also in villages. I hope these measures will better safeguard children's rights. In addition, children should be better protected against all kinds of forms of violence and abuse."

Decision welcomed

Mulyadi is pleased with Widiyanto's decision to have his marriage to Lutfiana annulled. His commission has succeeded in convincing the Muslim cleric that he made a mistake. By admitting his mistake, Widiyanto also acknowledged that national law takes precedence over Islamic Sharia law. Mulyadi hopes Widiyanto's step will make others realise that marriages with minors cannot be tolerated.

Indonesia's 1974 Marriage Act forbids marriages involving persons under the age of 16. Nevertheless, marriages to minors are quite common in rural Indonesia.

Even though the marriage will be dissolved, Professor Agnes Widanti of Jaringan Perempuan dan Anak Jawa Tengah (the Central Java Women's and Children's Network) speaks of a regrettable and embarrassing case. Widiyanto promised Lutfiana a good job with his company. The marriage was concluded with the consent of both the girl's parents. Widanti says money and power played an important role.

Physical and psychological problems

Widanti argues that for a minor, a marriage results in both physical and psychological problems. Lutfiana, says Widanti, will eventually feel locked out in society. As a child, she won't feel at home in the company of adults. And she will always remain the odd-one-out in the company of her peers.

"She will carry a heavy load. She will have to take responsibility for her family at a very young age. From a physical perspective, sexual intercourse with a child under 16 can lead to injuries and an increased risk of contracting a wide variety of diseases. These traumatic events in turn can leave their marks. All in all an extremely worrisome situation."Azyumardi Azra, an Islamic scholar, is also opposed to marriages involving minors. Even though according to Islam Lutfiana is ready to marry - she had her first period at a young age - in Indonesia national law takes priority over Islamic law.

"This marriage is in violation of the law, in this case, the 1974 Marriage Act puts the minimum legal age at 16. The marriage is also in violation of the international treaty on the rights of the child [which has also been ratified by Indonesia]." Media reports prove there is widespread opposition in Indonesia against marriages with minors, also in Islamic circles. It is not clear exactly when the marriage between Widiyanto and Lutfiana will be annulled.

The northern part of the country had been relatively peaceful, but, you see, it was a completely wrong variety of peace (i.e., not the kind the jihadists promise), and thus, absolutely had to be stopped by any possible means.

Somalia Jihad Update. "Suicide attacks kill dozens in Somalia," by Xan Rice for the Guardian, October 29:

A wave of synchronized suicide attacks on UN, diplomatic and government institutions in northern Somalia killed up to 31 people today.

Three car bombs detonated in Hargeisa, the capital of the breakaway Somaliland region. Another two vehicles exploded in neighbouring Puntland, which, like Somaliland, has been relative peaceful compared to the rest of the country.

The careful coordination and nature of the attacks is unprecedented in Somalia and marks a serious deterioration in an already dire security situation. Suspicion immediately fell on the radical Shabaab militia, which is part of much broader Islamist-led resistance fighting against the Somali government and occupying Ethiopian troops.

In Hargeisa, the Ethiopian consulate suffered the greatest damage, with up to 20 people reported dead. An attack on the president's palace killed at three people, including the presidential secretary, while two workers died at the headquarters of the UN Development Programme (UNPD).

"A vehicle forced its way into the compound and then exploded," said a UNPD spokesperson in Nairobi. "It appears that the driver of the car was still inside."

The suicide bombers, who were reported to have used driving four-wheel drive vehicles, struck within a few minutes of each other.

In Bossaso, Puntland's main city, explosive-laden cars detonated at separate interior ministry offices responsible for combating terrorism, killing six people. Dozens were injured in the five attacks.

"I fear that this is exactly what it looks like - the Shabaab," said a military expert on Somalia, who cannot be named because of his position. "We expected them to launch high-profile attacks, but this was extraordinary, requiring a large coordinated and concealed effort."

Analysts believe the timing of the bombings was no accident. Regional heads of state, including Somalia's president, Abdullahi Yusuf, were meeting yesterday in Nairobi to discuss the country's future. Peace efforts had received a boost over the weekend when Yusuf's government and the opposition Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) signed a deal in Djibouti agreeing to a ceasefire, and a phased withdrawal of Ethiopian troops.

The jihadists will only allow peace (or the absence of shooting) and order to take hold on their terms. Then, if either ever comes into effect, they will take credit as the "only" group that could achieve it (see also: Hamas, and the Taliban).

But a breakaway wing of the ARS, as well as the Shabaab, rejected the deal. They refuse to enter negotiations before the complete withdrawal of the Ethiopian forces that invaded Somalia in December 2006 to oust an Islamist authority from power.

Previously during peace negotiations the Shabaab has launched large attacks, mainly in Mogadishu, to demonstrate that they have control on the ground.

"It's clear that the Shabaab, or jihadis or whatever you want to call them, are trying to make a statement that they target any place in Somalia, not just the south," said a Western diplomat in Nairobi. "But we cannot let this undermine the Djibouti agreement, and we have to expect and accept that these sort of attacks may continue in the short term."...

"Duped" into thinking he was only killing NATO forces, not UK civilians

His "high-profile" lawyer insists that his client "was duped by the extremists into believing the group intended to wage an attack on NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting civilians in the U.K." More telling is the fact that the word "Islam" does not even show up anywhere in this report. Rather, we are told that the accused followed a "unique brand of ideological hatred." What, pray tell, could that be?

"Khawaja guilty on some but not all terror charges," from CTA.CA, October 29 (thanks to Sounder):

An Ottawa software developer whom prosecutors accused of promoting a unique brand of ideological hatred has been found guilty of some terror-related charges against him, but not all.

Momin Khawaja, the first person charged under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, faced seven charges in connection with a foiled U.K. bomb plot.

An Ottawa judge found him guilty on five counts of financing and facilitating terrorism and two Criminal Code offences related to building a remote-controlled detonator with the intent of causing an explosion.

However, the judge said the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Khawaja, 29, was aware his U.K. associates planned to bomb domestic targets using the so-called Hi-Fi Digimonster detonator he built.

As a result, the charges related to the detonator weren't counted as terrorism-related charges, said CTV's Rosemary Thompson, outside the courtroom.

"So he faces a very stiff sentence down the road but the one caveat in this is his lawyer did convince the judge that his client wasn't aware of plans to bomb a night club and shopping centre as this cell was planning to do," Thompson told CTV Newsnet.

Sentencing has been scheduled for Nov. 18.

Khawaja's high-profile Canadian lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, has argued his client was duped by the extremists ["extremist" what, rock band?] into believing the group intended to wage an attack on NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting civilians in the U.K.

Crown Prosecutor David McKercher has pointed out that the British plotters bought and stockpiled a large quantity of fertilizer that could be used in a home-made bomb. He also said there was no chance Khawaja believed the plotters were going to carry the fertilizer into Afghanistan for use there, but that he knew they were planning to hit U.K. targets.

Evidence submitted in the case also indicated Khawaja met with people involved in the British plot to discuss remote-control technology, attended a terrorist training camp and that he supported the 9/11 terrorist bombings.

A shopping mall, night club, and electric and gas facilities were said to be on the group's list of U.K. targets.

Five of Khawaja's alleged co-conspirators were convicted in London last year and sentenced to life in prison.

Apparently they believe that "the Taliban is not monolithic. Reports out of Afghanistan reflect a splintering among Taliban leaders, with some offering to take part in a democratic system and allow girls to go to school." More here. "Our view on Afghanistan: Talk to the Taliban?" from USA Today, October 29 :

Negotiations might help as part of broad strategy to defeat al-Qaeda. A new, once preposterous, idea is gaining ground: Negotiate with the Taliban. Yes, that's right — the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who once ruled Afghanistan, who harbored 9/11 masterminds Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and their terrorist training camps before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and who continue to be al-Qaeda's allies and protectors.

After the invasion,Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders fled to Pakistan's wild northwest region, where they launch attacks on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence agencies say any new attack on the U.S. would likely originate in the Taliban/al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan.

Yet opening communications with the Taliban is an option being considered by a range of leaders and experts, including the former U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who's now in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan as head of Central Command.
[...]

Talking to the Taliban might be a long shot, but perhaps not quite as long as some suspect if the goal is simply to get its leaders to betray al-Qaeda. On Tuesday, Pakistani and Afghan political and tribal leaders agreed to establish contacts with the Taliban. Saudi Arabia has already facilitated informal talks.

Further, the Taliban is not monolithic. Reports out of Afghanistan reflect a splintering among Taliban leaders, with some offering to take part in a democratic system and allow girls to go to school. It's not unimaginable that they might, with the right pressure or incentives, help deliver al-Qaeda leaders. The point is that no options are possible unless explored.
[...]

The U.S. badly needs a winning strategy in Afghanistan — one that does not cripple the U.S. economy and military for many more years in pursuit of the unattainable. Talking to the Taliban? Time to hold our noses and at least be open to the idea.

Islamist Propaganda Alert. More on this story. "Guantanamo Yemeni claims 'al Qaeda's best video,'" by Jane Sutton for Reuters, October 29:

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - A Yemeni prisoner watched an al Qaeda recruiting video with his Guantanamo interrogator and proudly admitted producing the work, the interrogator testified in the U.S. war crimes court on Wednesday.

"He considered it one of the best propaganda videos al Qaeda has to date," former FBI special agent Ali Soufan testified in the U.S. war crimes trial of defendant Ali Hamza al Bahlul.

Osama bin Laden was so impressed with the video that he promoted Bahlul to become his media secretary, the FBI agent quoted Bahlul as telling him.

Bahlul is on trial at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on charges of conspiring with al Qaeda to commit murderous attacks, soliciting to commit murder and providing material support for terrorism. He faces life in prison if convicted.

Bahlul was captured near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and sent to the Guantanamo detention center in early 2002. When Soufan showed him the video during an interrogation, Bahlul said it had taken him six months to piece together on his laptop computer using Adobe software, television news images and footage of bin Laden speeches.

The production summarized the state of the Muslim world and blamed America and Israel for all its woes.

It included a segment titled "The Destruction of the American Destroyer USS Cole," praising the suicide bombers who drove an explosives-filled boat into the side of the American warship at the Yemeni port of Aden in 2000. The blast blew a hole in the side of the Cole and killed 17 U.S. sailors.

Prosecutors said the video was shown at al Qaeda camps to persuade trainees that becoming suicide bombers was a righteous cause.

Soufan said Bahlul told him al Qaeda expected the Cole attack would lure a new wave of recruits to the anti U.S.-war that they believed to be the start of Armageddon, the final battle between good and evil.

Prosecutors showed the video to the jury of nine U.S. military officers on Wednesday. It showed starving and crying children, mangled and blood-spattered bodies and scenes of Muslims under attack in Bosnia, Chechnya and the Palestinian territories.

Gruesome images alternated with footage of Osama bin Laden saying, "The Jews are free to do whatever they wish with Muslim women ... the child dies in the arms of his mother."

In the piece, bin Laden urges Muslims to abandon their fear of dying and avenge the bloodshed.

The work is titled in flaming letters and punctuated with the sound of gun blasts, sobbing and Koranic verse. Bahlul used special effects to superimpose a cartoonish blast over a news photograph of the damaged Cole.

Bahlul sat at the defense table beaming with pride during some segments and nodding in agreement at the bin Laden portions. He pounded his fist on the table once at the mention of the defilement of Muslim women.

Soufan testified that Bahlul had told him, "Everything I believe is in that tape."

Bahlul, a slightly built man with a short, dark beard, was denied permission to act as his own attorney. His U.S. military lawyer is honoring his request not to put on any defense in the tribunal that Bahlul previously called "a farce."

His trial is the second full test of the special tribunals created to try non-U.S. citizens outside the regular civilian and military courts.

About 255 suspected members of al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups are now being detained at Guantanamo. More than 750 non-U.S. captives suspected of terrorism have been held without trial at the base in the seven years since President George W. Bush declared a war against terrorism.

(Edited by Jim Loney and David Wiessler)

He claims to have fooled al-Qaeda; did he fool the court as well?

"Australia's 'Jihad Jack' free," from the Straits Times, October 29:

MELBOURNE - AN AUSTRALIAN Muslim convert walked free on Wednesday after a years-long legal battle when a judged sentenced him to jail for holding a falsified passport, but released him due to time already served.

Joseph (Jack) Thomas was the first Australian to be convicted under anti-terrorism laws introduced after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US and subsequently dubbed 'Jihad Jack' by the media.

But the conviction for receiving money from the Al-Qaeda terror network while he was in Afghanistan was later quashed and a second trial last week cleared the 35-year-old of the charge.

He was sentenced on Wednesday to a nine-month jail term for possessing a falsified passport but was immediately released because he had already spent that time in custody.

The decision ends Thomas' five-and-a-half year legal battle which has seen him undergo two trials and spend some 265 days in jail in Australia.

The court heard that Thomas had changed the Taliban visa for Afghanistan in his passport because he felt that leaving it there would be a 'one way ticket to Guantanamo Bay'.

Thomas entered Afghanistan in 2001 before the September 11 attacks and was arrested in neighbouring Pakistan in January 2003 as he attempted he return to Australia. He was held in detention in Pakistan for six months without charge.

In 2006, an Australian court convicted him of accepting funds from Al-Qaeda.

He was released that August when the court of appeal quashed the conviction, ruling that an Australian police interview with Thomas in Pakistan in 2003 was conducted under duress and was therefore inadmissible.

Thomas' lawyer Jim Kennan said his client was relieved at the outcome.

'We're just pleased that the matter has now finally concluded,' he said outside court. -- AFP

But what is the alternative when mounting evidence indicates that the Pakistanis are double-dealing, and sometimes pre-warning the terrorists. Friend and Ally Update.

"Pakistan summons U.S. ambassador over missile strikes," from China View, October 29 (thanks to Dionysios):

ISLAMABAD, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani foreign ministry on Wednesday summoned the United States ambassador to Pakistan and expressed its strong protest over the missile strikes by American drones in the country's tribal regions, Pakistani Foreign Office said in a statement.

"The U.S. ambassador was called to the Foreign Office today and a strong protest was lodged on the continued missile attacks by U.S. drones inside Pakistani territory," said the statement.

"It was underscored to the ambassador that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the missile attacks, which resulted into the loss of precious lives and property," the statement noted.

A copy of the Senate resolution adopted on Monday against the missile strikes was handed over to the ambassador, it said.

"It was emphasized that such attacks were a violation of Pakistan sovereignty and should be stopped immediately," the statement stressed.

The U.S. drones based in Afghanistan have carried out 34 strikes and intrusions into Pakistani territory in the last seven months, according to News Network International news agency.

Suspected U.S. drones fired missiles targeting local militants in South Waziristan tribal region who gathered to offer prayers last Sunday night. As a result, at least 20 people were killed, according to local media reports.

Dangerous kafir practice for Muslims; may cause "straying"

"Why should we look for other alternatives to exercise and search for peace? Yoga could cause (Muslims) to stray from their faith because its movements are according to the style and traditions of Hinduism."

"Ban on yoga for muslims?" from the Straits Times, October 29:

KUALA LUMPUR - MUSLIMS in Malaysia may be barred from the ancient practice of yoga if they engage in Hindu 'religious elements' during the exercise, a top Islamic cleric said on Wednesday.

Mr Harussani Zakaria, a controversial cleric from the northern Perak state, said the government-backed National Fatwa Council would soon release a decree, or 'fatwa', which would decide if Muslims were allowed to practise yoga.

'If it involves any faith or religious elements it is definitely not permissible but if it is just a form of exercise that is all right,' Mr Harussani said.

'Muslims cannot practice yoga in its original form because it involves another religion,' he said in response to a call to ban Muslims from engaging in yoga.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, where more than 60 percent of the population of 27 million are Muslim Malays who practice a conservative brand of the religion.

The practice of yoga, a popular stress-buster in Kuala Lumpur, dates back thousands of years in India, where it was a favorite of holy men before becoming hugely popular internationally, especially among western celebrities.

Prof Zakaria Stapa, a professor in the Islamic faculty of the National University of Malaysia, had called on Muslims to stop practising yoga, saying it could cause them to 'deviate from their faith', news reports said on Wednesday.

Muslims in Malaysia practised yoga not just for exercise but also as part of the growing urban lifestyle and involved 'chanting mantras while in various positions', he said.

'Why should we look for other alternatives to exercise and search for peace? Yoga could cause (Muslims) to stray from their faith because its movements are according to the style and traditions of Hinduism,' he said.

The fatwa council, one of Malaysia's highest Islamic bodies, last Friday banned women from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion. -- AFP

But he counters the accusations against him with the most believable, bulletproof explanation of all time for the offensive content of the letter: His son wrote it! Of course!

"Top Muslim doctor faces sack for saying 'transsexuals are twisted and society needs protection from gays'," by James Tozer for the Daily Mail, October 27 (thanks to Alex):

A leading Muslim doctor called for gays to feel 'the stick of the law' to protect society from their 'ravages', a disciplinary hearing was told yesterday.

Dr Muhammad Siddiq, president of the Islamic Medical Association, wrote to a magazine for GPs accusing homosexuals of spreading disease with their ' irresponsible behaviour', it was claimed.

The 65-year-old, who is currently suspended, faces being struck off after the General Medical Council called for him to explain the comments.

The letter to Pulse magazine, signed by Dr Siddiq and dated July 2, 2007, stated that 'the gays are worse than the ordinary careless citizen, they are causing the spread of illness and they are the root cause of many sexually transmitted diseases'.

It added: 'Gays and homosexuals, they neither need sympathy or help, what they need is the stick of the law to put them on the right path and mend their ways and behaviour.

We need to protect society from their ravages. They are preying on society.'

It also criticised transsexuals, referring to a depressed patient undergoing a sex change as 'twisted'.

The letter sent by Dr Siddiq - who trained in Pakistan in the 1960s and worked at the Luqman Medical Centre in Walsall - provoked outrage when it was published, yesterday's hearing was told.

Bernadette Baxter, counsel for the GMC, said that when Walsall Primary Care Trust contacted the doctor for an explanation, he insisted that the letter laid out his personal views and he had done nothing wrong.

But just days later, he wrote to the PCT to apologise, saying he had been under intense stress at the time.

He wrote: 'I have thought long and hard about what has happened and I have had the opportunity to discuss it with my family.

'I categorically and unreservedly apologise for the hurt and offence I may have caused to anyone who may have read my letter.

'I have practised as a GP for more than 30 years and have never discriminated on any grounds. I would never refuse any treatment because of someone's sexuality.

'I just cannot understand how or why I could have said this in my letter.'

The letter concluded: 'I know that all of the above does not excuse my letter or the things in it.'

The story changes:

Dr Siddiq promised to send a retraction to the magazine, but the fitness to practise hearing was told he gave a completely different explanation just a few days later, claiming his original draft letter had supported better treatment for gay patients.

His son, Khubaib, who typed the letter, had also added the inflammatory remarks as 'a spoof', Dr Siddiq said, expecting him to spot the changes and throw it away.

Khubaib told the hearing: 'It was written and addressed and I expected my father to laugh and throw it away.'

Miss Baxter said Dr Saddiq then claimed he was 'so busy and overworked, he didn't read the letter, he simply signed it and sent it off without being aware of its contents'.

However, she told the panel: 'The GMC's case is that when Dr Siddiq realised his letter retracting his statement was not going to do the trick and bring an end to the matter, he strayed from the truth and set out a new explanation.

'Within a matter of days, Dr Siddiq had changed his explanation for the letter saying that, far from him being the author, it was his son who had effectively written it as a spoof.' [...]

Meanwhile, Abu Qatada lives, eats, and shops on the government dole. That'll show 'em. "Just one 'preacher of hate' deported in last three years," by Andrew Porter and Caroline Gammell for the Telegraph, October 28:

Ministers unveiled a 12 point plan to crack down on fanatics in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

But three years on it been revealed that only one person has been deported from Britain, in 2006, for "fomenting extremism." Only two people have been stripped of UK citizenship as part of measures promised by Tony Blair.

In addition only nine people have been deported on "national security grounds" since 2005.

The figures - published in Home Office answers to questions from Tory MP James Clappison - came as Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, attempted to launch a new push designed to stop fanatics entering Britain.

Her efforts were attacked by Mr Clappison, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He said it amounted to little more than a re-announcement and admission of failure.

He said: "The Government has been promising to draw up a list of preachers to be excluded since 2005 and failed to do so. They are treating the public with contempt by failing to deliver on a number of points in its 12-point plan.

"The Government's implementation of what was supposed to be a proper clamping down on serious threats to this country has been feeble. They have a woeful record on these matters."

Deporting preachers of hate living in Britain was a key element in a 12-point-plan announced by Tony Blair in August 2005 after the terrorist attacks in London. He said the measures would see foreigners deported or barred from entering Britain for justifying terrorism and encouraging hatred between communities.

The Home Office published a list of "unacceptable behaviour" which was part of an attempt to deal with radical clerics. Three years on Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, yesterday attempted to launch a renewed push to stop extremists entering Britain.

Miss Smith yesterday said that 230 people have been barred from entering the UK - 79 of them religious extremists.

She said in the future, the names of all those barred from Britain will be shared with other countries, as well as community groups and leaders in the UK.

Speculation that the Government would "name and shame" yesterday (tues) all those already on the list proved unfounded and led to the accusation that the announcement was little more than a "tawdry gimmick".

A Home Office spokeswoman said names would not be drip-fed to the public, but revealed if there was genuine public interest.

"These new rules will make it easier to exclude those who want to come to the UK to stir up religious or racial hatred - our presumption will be to keep people involved in these behaviours out of our country.

"For the first time we will name and shame preachers of hate and share our exclusions list with other countries to help them decide who should be excluded from their countries."

Alleged extremists will have to prove their innocence under rules designed to target radical Islamists, neo-Nazis and violent animal rights activists. Currently the burden of proof rests with the Government.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "Through these tough new measures I will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life."

Among those already banned are Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, who ran the radical group Al-Muhajiroun, and Abdullah al-Faisal, a Mulsim [sic] preacher who influenced July 7 bomber Germaine Lindsay.

That's right: "Honor killing" as a defense, in yet another study in moral standards and priorities.

"Another 'honor killing': 17-year-old Pakistani girl murdered," by Qaiser Felix for AsiaNews, October 2:

Islamabad (AsiaNews) - Another honor killing against a girl in Pakistan: the murder took place in the district of Khairpur, in the southern province of Sindh. It took place last March, although the news has come out only in the past few days.

Tasleem Solangi, a 17-year-old girl, was accused without any proof of "immorality": the young woman was accused of having an "extramarital" relationship, for which reason she was punished by relatives. From the initial reconstruction, it emerges instead that a land dispute was at the origin of the brutal killing. The girl was murdered solely in order to convince her father to sell.

On March 7, 2008, Tasleem was killed with shocking ferocity: first, dogs were released on her, biting her legs repeatedly, until she fell to the ground. The dogs continued to maul her until her uncle, Zameer Solangi, shot her to death with a pistol. Tasleem's father had to watch helplessly as the massacre took place. He had been expected to sell some land to the uncle and his associates. The killing was also supported by a tribal judge in the area, Karim Bux, who exerted pressure on law enforcement to keep them from opening an investigation. In May, Karim gathered a jirga - tribal assembly - to judge the case, which "exonerated" the killers and "guaranteed them impunity."

Gul Sher, the girl's father, held a press conference in Karachi on Monday, October 27, denouncing the killing and calling for justice: he insisted that problems related to "a land dispute" were at the basis of the action, denying the charge of "immoral behavior" or infidelity on the part of his daughter. He also denounced the "false accusations" made against the young woman. Security forces have arrested her husband, Ibrahim Solangi, who has volunteered to confess to the crime.

More information about the cover-up and disputes about the dog attack (perhaps that would be "going too far"): "President orders re-probe into Tasleem Solangi case," from GeoTV, October 29:

KHAIRPUR: PPP MNA Nafeesa Shah Tuesday visited Hajan Shah Village near here to conduct probe into allegations that a young married women Tasleem Solangi had been thrown before dogs over a honour killing issue.

Addressing a press conference, here Tuesday, she said she was conducting the probe on the order of President Asif Zaradri, adding the report would be submitted to him in a couple of days.

She said her preliminary findings suggest that Tasleem Solangi was not put before hungry dogs as reported in the Press.

Earlier, a pregnant Pakistani teenager was reportedly mauled by dogs and then shot dead by her in-laws over a property dispute, the girl's parents and a human rights group said.

But 17-year-old Tasleem Solangi's death was later justified as an honour killing by a local jirga or tribal council over allegations that she had illicit relations with other men, they claimed.

The incident, which happened on March 08 but details of which have only emerged, is the latest honour killing that has claimed the lives of more than 150 women this year.

Gulsher Solangi, from Khaipur district, 425 kilometres (265 miles) from the southwestern city of Karachi, said his daughter's new family, who deny any wrongdoing, repeatedly beat her after her marriage and demanded she transfer land and pay money to them.

Reason? "Breaking Muslim rules by drinking alcohol." Couldn't they have simply taken him to one of the UK's sharia courts?

"Somali youth was killed 'in row over alcohol and Islam,'" by Angela Balakrishnan for the Guardian, October 28:

A gang of five men beat a Somali teenager to death because of a row over Muslims drinking alcohol, a court heard today.

Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim, 17, was repeatedly hit across the head with a samurai sword, baseball bat, machete and metal pole after being chased in Sefton Park, Liverpool, in March this year.

The teenager became embroiled in the fight after accompanying his cousin, Ahmed Mahamoud Ahmed, 16, to a "straightener" – a one-on-one fight – with the alleged killer Ali Mohammed, 19.

Liverpool crown court heard how Mohammed is believed to have accused Ahmed of breaking Muslim rules by drinking alcohol and held him down while a friend hit his head with a bat.

The 16-year-old boy was chased home where his mother's car windows were smashed, said Tim Holroyde QC, prosecuting.

The next day, Ahmed was lured to the fight - where Mohammed, his two brothers Khadar, 23, Essa, 22, and two cousins lay in wait, it was claimed.

During this attack, part-time student Ibrahim of Ritson Street, Toxeth, was killed and another cousin Abdhullah Mohammed Ahmed, 17, was severely injured and lost a finger.

"One of the defendants was heard to shout 'He's still alive'," Holroyde said.

"All five defendants then joined in a continued attack with weapons on the deceased as he lay, obviously helpless, on the ground.

"The deceased was left lying in the road with obvious and severe injuries to his head which were bleeding profusely.

"A passing motorist stopped to assist, an ambulance was called and the deceased was taken to hospital, but nothing could be done to save his life and he died about two hours later, at 1.20am."

A pathologist confirmed that there was "extensive fracturing of the skull… and other damage to the brain within the skull".

The three brothers from Toxteth deny murder. As do their cousins Ibrahim Ahmed, 23, of, Toxteth and Ahmed Kayse Ahmed, 30, of Greenwich, London.

The three brothers deny wounding with intent - relating to the attack on Abdullah Mohammed Ahmed. All five also deny violent disorder the night before the murder.

The murder weapons were found hours after the killing in a bin bag outside a house Khadar Mohammed used, the seven men and five women of the jury heard.

The metal pipe was stained with the dead boy's blood and hair, said Holroyde, and his blood was on the sword handle and baseball bat.

The prosecutor told the jury that when the defendants were arrested, the victim's blood was found on clothing belonging to the three brothers and Ahmed Kayse Ahmed.

The trial is scheduled to last six weeks.

Though not quite up to the neck, it must've been something like this

The sharia court issuing this "punishment" says that she not only confessed to adultery, but insisted on being "punished for the crime she committed."

"Woman stoned to death for adultery after Somali court ruling," from AFP, October 28:

MOGADISHU (AFP) — Thousands of people gathered Monday to witness 50 Somali men stone a woman to death after an Islamic court in the southern port of Kismayo found her guilty of adultery, witnesses said.

Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow, who had been found guilty of extra-marital intercourse was buried in the ground up to her neck while the men pelted her head with rocks.

"Our sister Aisha asked the Islamic Sharia court in Kismayo to be charged and punished for the crime she committed," local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah told the crowd.

"She admitted in front of the court to engaging in adulterous sexual intercourse," he added.

"She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply."

The execution was carried in one of the city's main squares.

The port of Kismayo was seized in August by a coalition of forces loyal to rebel leader Hassan Turki, and the Shebab, the country's main radical Islamist insurgent organisation.

Turki is listed as a terrorist financier by Washington.

The new administration formed there began implementing a strict form of Sharia (Islamic law).

"This afternoon we are telling the people of Kismayo that we are practising a punishment that is rare in this region and was carried out in Kismayo for the first time," Sheikh Hayakallah said.

Cameras were banned from the public stoning but print and radio journalists were allowed to attend.

Expect Muslims in America to denounce and demonstrate against Ali Hamza al Bahlul's misuse of the word "jihad" forthwith. Expect MSA's on campuses all over the country to hold rallies denouncing Bahlul's linking of jihad with blood and destruction.

What's that? None of that will happen? Instead they will call me an "Islamophobe" for daring to point out what Bahlul said? Oh, of course. I forgot how things work there for a minute.

"Al Qaeda media man waged 'jihad by pen,' U.S. says," by Jane Sutton for Reuters, October 28:

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - An accused al Qaeda media director waged "jihad by word and pen" and made a video aimed at overcoming trainees' resistance to carrying out suicide attacks, a prosecutor in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunal said on Tuesday.

The prosecutor, Army Maj. Dan Cowhig, outlined the case against Yemeni captive Ali Hamza al Bahlul at his trial at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base in Cuba. His opening statement suggested the nine U.S. military officers on the jury will have to decide whether creating propaganda is a war crime.

Cowhig read from Bahlul's journal, which was seized in Afghanistan, and from letters he said Bahlul wrote from Guantanamo to al Qaeda leaders, lamenting that he could not join the September 11 hijackers he hailed as heroes.

..."Only jihad by word and pen is left," he quoted Bahlul as writing.

"I am an officer of al Qaeda," he quoted him as writing elsewhere. "Blood, blood, destruction, destruction."

Bahlul also is accused of scripting the videotaped wills of his former roommates, September 11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Ziad al Jarrah. He set up a satellite link so bin Laden could hear news reports of those attacks on his laptop computer, but couldn't get the audio portion to work, Cowhig said....

History or Propaganda?

According to the executive producer's reasoning for making the movie -- "to bridge the gap of understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims" -- one can't help but conclude the latter.

"Prophet Mohammed film The Message set for remake," by Chris Irvine, for the Telegraph, October 28:

A remake of The Message, a movie about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, is to be filmed, its producers have said.

"The Messenger of Peace", to be shot around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, was originally a 1977 Hollywood film made by Moustapha Akkad and starring Anthony Quinn.

It is often applauded by Muslims as an example of how commercial Western cinema can respect Islam.

Producer Oscar Zoghbi, who worked on the original, said: "We have only the utmost respect for Akkad's work but technology in cinema has advanced since the 1970s and this latest project will employ modern film techniques in its renewal of the first film's core messages."

Executive producer of the new movie, Hajja Subhia Abu Elheja, said: "Since 9/11, Islam's image has suffered tremendously.

"Now more than ever it has become important to bridge the gap of understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims."

"It is telling that only one great historical film has ever been made about Islam, a religion with 1.5 billion followers, whereas Christianity has been the subject of over 30."

The film's scriptwriter Ramsey Thomas, said: "In the 21st century there is a real need for a film that emotionally engages audiences on the journey that led to the birth of Islam."

In the original Message, Mohammed was not seen or heard. Instead Syrian-born director Akkad signified the Prophet's presence with light organ music and occasionally framed the film from the prophet's point of view.

Two versions of the film were shot - one in Arabic and one in English. The remake will be only the second English-language film of its kind ever made.

Akkad, who was the executive producer behind Hollywood's Halloween horror films, was killed in a suicide bomb attack on a luxury hotel in Jordan in 2005.

Portrayals of Mohammed have sparked anger in recent years - Danish cartoons of him in 2006 triggered protests by Muslims in many countries.

Random House US recently cancelled the publication of The Jewel of Medina, a book about one of Mohammed's wives, over fears it would offend Muslims.

It was also pulled in the UK when publisher Martin Rynja's house was targeted in a firebomb attack.

Why again are film-makers not too enthusiastic about making a movie about Muhammad?

Listen for yourself and see if you too have "religious right" ears

More on this story. "Minnesota Religious Right: Mattel’s new dolls support radical Islam," by Andy Birkey for the Minnesota Independent, October 27:

Jan Markell of the end-times movement Olive Tree Ministries in Maple Grove, Minn., says a doll marketed by toy-making giant Mattel is indoctrinating children into Islam. The Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo dolls are designed to make baby sounds — cooing, giggling, and baby babble. But that’s not what the religious right is hearing.

It does seem to be saying, ‘Islam is the light.’ I don’t think too many people would argue with that, so I think they’re being a little disingenuous,” Markell told OneNewsNow.

“And this is not a healthy thing to be putting out in the marketplace when we’re in a war on terror, and little children are so susceptible to the messages they hear — even from a doll — then to take them into the school and talk about them. So yeah, this is a serious thing.”

Markell is a prominent Minnesota Christian radio host having had right-wing politicians, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, as regular guests on her show.

Mattel says the doll only says the word “mama” and the rest is baby babble, but they plan to reconfigure the babble sounds to ensure there are no misunderstandings.

Just another reason to be prepared with follow-up questions when you hear Muslim interest groups and speakers issuing blanket condemnations of "terrorism": Since terrorism is a tactic, and not an ideology, the term can be applied strictly or loosely to a wide range of situations, while not saying anything more substantial, objective, or even accurate about them. "Jihad," on the other hand, is highly specific; the more one is aware of the jihadist ideology and its basis in Islamic texts and teachings, the less room there is for dissembling by apologists. And hope springs eternal that this fact may yet dawn on the U.S. government.

An update on this story. "Syria: Foreign minister accuses US of 'terrorist aggression'," from AdnKronos International, October 27:

London, 27 Oct.(AKI) - Syria's Foreign Minister, Walid Muallem, on Monday accused the United States of "terrorist aggression" over an alleged weekend raid on a village near the Iraqi border. Speaking in London after talks with British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, Muallem said the attack was in breach of international law.

"We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government," he told a media conference in London.

"Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression," he added, in the first comments by a Syrian minister since the reported attack on the village of Al-Sukkariya, eight kilometres from the border.

Earlier on Monday, Iran joined Syria in condemning the alleged US attack.

Asked if Syria would use force if the Americans mounted a similar operation again, he said: "As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our territories."

Muallem stressed that all the victims were unarmed Syrian civilians who were killed on Syrian territory.

The Syrian minister said that four American helicopters had crossed the border around 5 p.m/ on Sunday local time. Two of them landed at the village site, while the other two aircraft protected them.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, refused to comment on the reported attack. However, media reports say that an unnamed US military official confirmed the attack.

More information: "Syrian foreign minister criticizes US raid," from the Associated Press, October 27 (thanks to Eleutheria ´H Thanatos):

[...] The US military said it was targeting the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria to help fight in Iraq. Syria said troops in four helicopters attacked a building and killed eight people, including four children.

"They know full well that we stand against al-Qaida," al-Moallem said. "They know full well we are trying to tighten our border with Iraq."

Shocking? Not at all. But the official confirmation from a Revolutionary Guards commander suggests he doesn't anticipate anyone trying to stop them. "Iranian commander: Iran arms Mideast 'liberation armies'," from the Associated Press, October 27 (thanks to Eleutheria ´H Thanatos):

A government web site in Iran quoted on Monday a top Revolutionary Guards commander as saying that the country is supplying weapons to "liberation armies" in the Middle East.

The report by Borna news provides the first official statement from a top military commander that Iran is providing weapons to armed groups in the Middle East.

Monday's report quotes Gen. Hossein Hamedani, deputy commander of a volunteer militia that is part of the elite Revolutionary Guards, as saying Iran is self-sufficient in weapons production and is supplying arms to "liberation armies" in the region.

Hamedani didn't provide further details, but Iran is widely believed to provide weapons to Lebanon's Hizbullah group.

In addition to supplying Shi'ite jihadist groups in Iraq and Hamas, along with its alleged role in Shi'ite insurrections in Yemen.

"According to the [12-year-old] girl's parents and some witnesses, the marriage between Pujiono and her is valid according to religion (kawin siri), but it is not registered with the state."

It's clear which brand of law Pujiono is going with, after the example of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha.

More on this story. "Cleric may face criminal charges: Commission," by Erwida Maulia for the Jakarta Post, October 27:

The Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) is planning to report to police a rich Muslim cleric in Semarang, Central Java, who married a 12-year-old girl, accusing him of having illegal sex with a minor.

KPAI secretary Hadi Supeno said Sunday the commission's fact-finding team sent to Semarang at the weekend found that cleric Pujiono Cahyo Widianto, 43, owner and head of an Islamic boarding school there, had married and very likely slept with 12-year-old Lutfiana Ulfa.

"According to the girl's parents and some witnesses, the marriage between Pujiono and her is valid according to religion (kawin siri), but it is not registered with the state," Hadi told The Jakarta Post.

"What surprises us is that she was selected through a contest involving Puji's first wife and followers as a panel of judges. Puji married the girl after she beat her competitors."

He said Lutfiana's parents admitted they had married her to Pujiono because of their financial difficulties.

"They said they couldn't afford to send their children to school and hoped the marriage would improve their economic situation."

Hadi said the commission would immediately report Pujiono, his 26-year-old first wife and Lutfiana's parents to the Central Java Police for a criminal investigation.

All those involved in the case, he said, could be charged under Articles 81, 82 and 83 of the 2002 Law on Child Protection. If found guilty, they would face a maximum sentence of 15 years in jail and a fine of Rp 300 million (US$30,000), for "forcing", "swindling" and/or "trading" a minor to sleep with another person.

The law defines a minor as anyone under the age of 18.

Hadi said Pujiono and the minor's parents might have also violated the 1974 Marriage Law, which states a person must be at least 16 to marry.

Hadi said it would require a psychological test to prove whether the cleric could be termed a pedophile.

"We hope the police or the court, if the case is brought to trial, can determine this," he added.

Pujiono reportedly married Lutfiana as his second wife in August and has declared he plans to marry two even younger girls -- a seven-year-old and a nine-year old. The "eccentric" cleric refused to name the children out of concern it would spark "wider criticism"....

"If Israel's indirect talks with Syria were aimed at testing whether it might be possible to pull Damascus out of Iran and Hizbullah's orbits, then so far the test has failed."

"Yadlin: Syria-Hizbullah ties growing stronger," by Herb Keinon for the Jerusalem Post, October 26:

If Israel's indirect talks with Syria were aimed at testing whether it might be possible to pull Damascus out of Iran and Hizbullah's orbits, then so far the test has failed, Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin indicated in the cabinet Sunday.

Despite the talks, not only has Damascus not lessened its cooperation with Hizbullah, it has actually stepped up its relationship with the organization.

"[Syrian President Bashar] Assad currently trusts Hizbullah more than his own army," Yadlin said during a briefing. "Hizbullah operatives are working from within Syria. The Syrians are loosening all restraints, and [are irresponsibly giving] Hizbullah access to almost all of their strategic capabilities."

Assad "is continuing to open up his warehouses to Hizbullah," Yadlin continued, adding that Syria was "turning into the arms granary" for Hizbullah.

He also said that Iranian and Syrian involvement in Lebanon was a means of taking control of the country.

And Hizballah has proven itself an indispensible tool in undermining the control of the Lebanese government.

"Syria and Iran are buying the regime in Lebanon and are pouring substantial money into buying parliamentary representatives and into conducting dubious business deals," the MI chief said. "The Iranian offer to assist in the building of the Lebanese Army is a ruse to take control of Lebanon." [...]

Regarding the diplomatic process with Syria, Yadlin said Assad was interested in an agreement with Israel on Syria's terms, but wanted to wait until after the US elections and the establishment of a new administration before moving anything forward.

Yadlin said Hizbullah was still trying to avenge the assassination of its commander Imad Mughniyeh, but was concerned about a harsh Israeli response. As such, he said, Hizbullah was working through indirect channels, including attempts to carry out attacks through Gaza.

Yadlin said this was creating some tension between Hizbullah and Hamas, since Hamas had an interest in preserving the current calm in the Gaza Strip. He said Hamas had, in fact, recently arrested Hizbullah terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, Yadlin said Teheran was exploiting the transition period and current political uncertainty both in Israel and the US to advance its nuclear program.

"The changing of the governments in the US and Israel, and the world economic crisis, are being exploited by the radical axis in order to improve its situation," Yadlin said. "Iran is exploiting the weakness in the international theater, in anticipation of the new government in the US, in order to move forward on its nuclear program and to soften the network of international opposition."

Mansuur Mohammed: This offends no one

Last week at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Muslim students rolled their eyes and smiled with exasperation when I noted that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence taught that the penalty for apostasy from Islam was death, in accord with Muhammad's words, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." One young man, who was unusually polite, actually wrote a piece about it in the school paper, which I still intend to answer. But the consensus in any case was that I was representing a minority view as a majority one. Very well: I expect, therefore, that the UWM MSA will be organizing a rally in memory of Mansuur Mohammed, denouncing his killers, and calling upon Muslims everywhere to defend the freedom of conscience.

Is that too much to ask?

"Somalia: Christian Aid Worker Beheaded For Converting From Islam," from Compass Direct, October 27:

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) – Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness.

Muslim extremists from the al Shabab group fighting the transitional government on Sept. 23 sliced the head off of Mansuur Mohammed, 25, a World Food Program (WFP) worker, before horrified onlookers of Manyafulka village, 10 kilometers (six miles) from Baidoa.

The militants had intercepted Mohammed and a WFP driver, who managed to escape, earlier in the morning. Sources close to Mohammed’s family said he converted from Islam to Christianity in 2005.

The eyewitness, who requested anonymity for security reasons, said the militants that afternoon gathered the villagers of Manyafulka, telling them that they would prepare a feast for them. The people gathered anticipating the slaughter of a sheep, goat or camel according to local custom.

Five masked men emerged carrying guns, wielding Somali swords and dragging the handcuffed Mohammed. One pulled back Mohammed’s head, exposing his face as he scraped his sword against his short hair as if to sharpen it. Another recited the Quran as he proclaimed that Mohammed was a “murtid,” an Arabic term for one who converts from Islam to Christianity.

The Muslim militant announced that Mohammed was an infidel and a spy for occupying Ethiopian soldiers.

Mohammed remained calm with an expressionless face, never uttering a word, said the eyewitness. As the chanting of “Allah Akubar [God is greater]” rose to a crescendo, one of the militiamen twisted his head, allowing the other to slit his neck. When the head was finally severed from the torso, the killers cheered as they displayed it to the petrified crowd.

The militants allowed one of their accomplices to take a video of the slaughter using a mobile phone. The video was later circulated secretly and sold in Somalia and in neighboring countries in what many see as a strategy to instill fear among those contemplating conversion from Islam to Christianity....

Will Sanaa Nadim be outraged? What do you think?

The duty of Jihad has to be defined accurately, but also in a way that can easily be grasped by auditors, so that it does not exclude, but clearly includes, all of the current instruments that Muslims employ to further Jihad.

The initial smokescreen, or deception, offered both by Muslims and by such non-Muslim apologists as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, was to suggest, or even insist, that the very recent, and most secondary, definition of “Jihad,” formulated primarily by some “reforming” Muslims in the last century (at a time when Muslims were weak, and in apparent disarray), was the widely-accepted one. But this has been impossible to sustain, given the widespread use by Muslims themselves – now copiously quoted at such sites as MEMRI, and in newspaper and radio and television accounts – of the real meaning of Jihad.

Obama once upon a time took tuition from, or at least listened intently to, the likes of Rashid Khalidi, a practiced performer on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And there were others too, who similarly presented the Arab case, with a practiced air of indignation, victimhood, and sweet reasonableness.

But like Prince Harry, when he becomes Henry V, Obama will have to reconsider, and not just for election purposes, some of the dangerous innocences and perhaps enthusiasms and misunderstandings of his youth, especially on a subject where, apparently, he never received any countervailing presentation from those capable of offering it. Jewish financial backers of the Peace-Now variety are not what one means by those capable of offering a countervailing presentation as to the history of Arabs and Jews, not only this year, or twenty years ago, but over the history of the Middle East since Islam arrived -- and put in the context of the Arab and Muslim treatment or attitude toward all non-Muslims and, as well, toward non-Arab Muslims such as the black Africans in Darfur.

Sanaa Nadim: Offended

Last Thursday night when I spoke at SUNY-Stony Brook, the new tactics about which I have written here, here and here were not as much in evidence as they had been at other campuses: students did not try to disrupt my remarks, but the MSA did show up in force, and were ready with hostile and contemptuous questions.

The fireworks began with the first question. Sister Sanaa Nadim, the chaplain of the Stony Brook MSA, stood up to declare how incredibly offended she was by my taking Qur'anic verses out of context in order to portray all Muslims as extremists. She launched into full-bore counter lecture mode (despite requests from me and the student organizers not to try to hijack the lecture during the question period, but to ask a brief question), repeatedly attempted to talk over my answers, and only retreated a bit when I pointed out what a splendid example of courtesy and fair play she was giving to her students.

When I did get a chance to speak again, I listed some of the Islamic authorities who taught that offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers was the final and lasting stage of jihad, including Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, etc., and asked her to save her offense for those people if she truly opposed this point of view, but not to pretend that I had originated this perspective.

But of course, it is likely that she, like most of her coreligionists in the U.S., has never expressed any outrage toward any of them or their modern exponents, allowing bland condemnations of an undefined "terrorism" to suffice. I think it that the outrage she was directing at me seemed manufactured, perhaps to give gullible audience members the impression that she had never heard before of this interpretation of Islam -- as none other than Mahdi Bray once claimed during a Q-and-A after a talk I once gave in Boston.

I also cautioned Sanaa Nadim and the MSA members in attendance that it was dangerous to believe their own propaganda: I had not said that all Muslims were "extremists" during that speech or in any other speech or in anything I had ever written. (In fact, I don't even generally use the term "extremist.") Nadim and her MSA students at Stony Brook, like the shrieking self-righteous harpy who descended upon me at Penn State and her allies in the audience there, seem to have memorized a few talking points that have been cooked up somewhere about what I supposedly say, and were working from that rather than dealing with what I actually said.

At the same time, however, the MSA's furious reaction and eager distortion of my remarks at both Penn State and SUNY Stony Brook highlights the other side of the coin, a point I have also often emphasized: the limited value of the fact that not all Muslims are "extremists." That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact, but it does not follow from that fact that there is any significant body of Muslims who are actively or seriously opposing the jihadists and Islamic supremacists. There are a few courageous individuals here and there, but as I have pointed out many times using Ibn Warraq's phrase, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And while some people are cultural and nominal Muslims who are ignorant of and/or indifferent to the jihad imperative, it cannot be assumed (as many Western government and law enforcement officials assume) that any given peaceful Muslim opposes the jihad simply by virtue of the fact that he is not actively engaged in violence or participating in plotting in a violent jihad group.

Moreover, when Muslims in America get angrier at me for discussing how other Muslims are using Islam to justify and spread an expansionist, totalitarian, and discriminatory ideology, than they do against those Muslims, it does not inspire confidence. In fact, it should make every non-Muslim who witnesses it wonder at their misplaced priorities, and at just how insincere are their protestations of moderation. I am not saying that Sanaa Nadim and her students in the SUNY Stony Brook MSA are jihadists. But if they really want to show that they accept American Constitutional pluralism, they would do well to start by acknowledging the existence of the Islamic supremacist ideology and repudiating it in specific terms, and backing up that repudiation with deeds (beginning with transparent, honest, inspectable programs teaching against it in mosques and Islamic schools in America), instead of getting angry at anyone who brings it up.

I can illustrate my point here by reference to one of Sanaa Nadim's own writings. In 2002 she contributed a chapter to the book Women for Afghan Women: Shattering Myths and Claiming the Future, edited by Sunita Mehta. Nadim's chapter is called "Women and Equality In Islam." In it, she attempts to show that "the realities that we have seen in recent history regarding the status of women in so-called Muslim countries do not reflect authentic Islam." Indeed, "extremist Muslims -- the West shudders at the phrase -- have given all sincere Muslims a bad name." She declares that "Islam brought true freedom to women." One may be led to believe from all this that Sanaa Nadim in her essay takes up and refutes some of the reasons that those "extremist Muslims" give for their oppression of women, but no such luck. The most glaring omission is that Nadim, even while discussing some of the Qur'an's statements about women, never mentions Qur'an 4:34, which declares that "good women are obedient" -- and what of those who aren't? "Beat them."

She could have argued, as many Islamic apologists in the West have done, that no Muslims take this verse literally (it's okay for them to assume that Islam is a monolith), or that Muhammad mitigated it in the Hadith. Both of those positions are weak, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, but at least they aren't pretending that the verse doesn't exist at all. For Sanaa Nadim to ignore this verse in an essay about the status of women in Islam is extremely strange, and whatever her reasons may have been for doing this, they can't have had anything to do with genuine reform. Real reform doesn't happen by ignoring what needs reforming, but by confronting it. I think it's likely, however, that if during my talk I had mentioned 4:34, and the high incidence of wife abuse in Islamic countries, Sanaa Nadim's outrage would only have heightened. But the fact that it isn't turned against those Muslims who invoke 4:34 to justify spousal abuse, and that she passed up a golden opportunity to condemn them and call for reform in her book about women in Afghanistan, is telling.

As was the MSA's playing of the victim card Friday night in Stony Brook. One MSA member stood up to complain that MSA events at the university were not as well-staffed with campus police as mine was. I refrained from replying that I doubted that MSA events on campus were preceded by the threat that if they went on as planned, there would be "repercussions" -- which was a threat that the sponsoring group received in connection with my talk, and which police thoroughly investigated. I didn't refrain from telling him this out of politeness, but simply because I didn't think to mention it; I was too busy replying to his complaints about how difficult life had become for Muslims after 9/11.

I told him that I too was often singled out for extra searches in airports, and once while stuck in an airport was working on Jihad Watch when suddenly I found myself surrounded by police, several of whom were holding back hungry-looking police dogs. Someone had seen "jihad" on my screen and reported me, and I was taken away for questioning. I told him I didn't mind any of this, since I loved America and knew about threat we were all facing, and so didn't mind putting up with inconvenience for the sake of national security, knowing that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, it would all come out all right in the end anyway.

But of course if one doesn't hold in high regard the safety of innocent Americans, and would rather use the alleged mistreatment of Muslims in the war on terror as a means to halt those anti-terror efforts, one would not be interested in putting up with such inconveniences. Is that really the impression that this young man intended to leave with me and with the rest of the audience Thursday night?

From "Is America really going to do this?," by Melanie Phillips in The Spectator, October 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves.

It's true: Obama adopts the jihadists' grievance-based analysis, which is based on the proposition that the anger toward the U.S. in the Islamic world stems from something the U.S. has done, not from imperatives within the Islamic world itself. This is not just a Leftist point of view: in this Obama has something in common with many on the Right, such as Dinesh D'Souza, who insists that the Left provoked 9/11 by making American pop culture so rotten that when it was exported it aroused the ire of straitlaced moralists like Osama bin Laden.

The problem with all of these analyses, whether from the Obamaite Left or the D'Souzaite Right, is that they completely ignore what underlies the shifting lists of grievances that the jihadists produce -- and that is the jihad and Islamic supremacist imperative to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law. This imperative that is not based on anything those unbelievers have done or not done, but solely upon their status as unbelievers. This imperative is rooted in the Qur'an (9:29), the Hadith (Sahih Muslim 4294) and Islamic jurisprudence (all the orthodox schools of Islamic law accept the principle that it is a responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against unbelievers until they convert or submit). The contents of the grievance lists will change, but this will remain constant.

Yet virtually no one in public life dares even to face the fact of its existence.

Can't we all just get along?

According to the Associated Press, Saudi King Abdullah recently said that he plans on attending a meeting in November at the United Nations in New York to further his "initiative to promote interfaith dialogue.” The King further remarked that “extending Muslims' hands to non-Muslims will help ‘purify’ the reputation of Islam at a time when the world is criticizing the faith.”

Of course, none of this is new; Abdullah has been “reaching out” to infidels for some time now. Prior to the much touted interfaith conferences in Madrid, the Saudi monarch is said to have “made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews” — going so far as to refer to the latter two as “our brothers.” The Jerusalem Post further wrote that such talks would be geared toward developing “respect among religions.”

The Arabian kingdom, however, is famous for tenaciously upholding and exporting “Wahhabism/Salafism,” that literalist brand of Islam that preaches absolutely no tolerance, murders apostates, and condemns all non-Muslims as infidels. It is also famous for having supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11, “educating” fellows such as Osama bin Laden, and boasting, of all things, a sword on its national flag. One can’t help but question the old monarch’s motives. Moreover, while the Saudi king was/is beguiling infidels with his calls for “dialogue,” that the textbooks of his kingdom are still instructing the youth of Saudi Arabia to hate all non-Muslims, is further demonstrative of Abdullah’s sincerity, or lack thereof.

Here’s another telling anecdote: days before the Madrid conferences, prominent Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman Barrak issued a death-fatwa against two Saudi writers. Their crime? They wrote articles in the Saudi paper Al-Riyadh questioning the Muslim position that holds all non-Muslims — whom the Saudi king would otherwise call “brothers” — as infidels. According to the Arab News, Barrak had said: “Anyone who claims this [that non-Muslims are not infidels] has refuted Islam and should be tried so that he can take it back. If not, he should be killed as an apostate from the religion of Islam.”

Does this mean that King Abdullah truly believes Christians and Jews are not infidels, and if so, does that also mean that Barrak should issue a fatwa for his life, for having apostatized?

At any rate, is the Saudi king aware that “dialogue” is supposed to be held by two or more singular participants who nonetheless genuinely believe that they share some basic human rights — such as the freedom to practice whatever religion they wish without being molested? Only civilized peoples who are agreed to such fundamentals can move on to more temporal matters, such as territorial disputes (e.g., Israel/Palestine). But what is the point of having “dialogue” over secondary matters when the primary issues — basic human rights — are not endorsed by all participants?

In Saudi Arabia, the facts remain: native citizens who dare apostatize must be slain; absolutely no churches, synagogues, or any other symbol of non-Muslim worship (e.g., crosses, Stars of David, Bibles) is permitted on the peninsula; non-Muslims are barred from entering Mecca or Medina.

These are just the visible forms of intolerance practiced in the home of Islam and its founder. Theoretically — or rather, theologically — speaking, the juridical worldview of Islam is little better: whenever the opportunity presents itself, the whole world must be brought under Islamic rule, either willingly or by the sword, following the pattern of the Islamic prophet and the first “righteous” caliphs. What is even more troubling is that this Muslim view of world conquest isn’t merely a product of certain obscurantist schools of Islamic thought; nor is it a “hijacking” by Bin Laden and his likes. Rather, it is the codified worldview of all four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. In fact, it is a communal duty (a fard kifaya) imposed on Muslims.

In light of all this, where exactly does Abdullah get the gall to call for “dialogue”? The measure of any community’s sincerity and tolerance toward the “Other” is how well that community treats the “Other” when the latter is under its authority.

Why? Because "once he said the Palestinian people are suffering most in the world." Clearly Ibrahim Abu Jayyab thinks that Barack Obama is on the Palestinian side in their jihad against Israel. He hates Hamas, but of course Hamas is the fault of ... George W. Bush.

"Voices for Obama resound from afar," by Carolynne Wheeler for the Globe and Mail, October 27 (thanks to Writer Mom):

NUSSEIRAT REFUGEE CAMP, GAZA STRIP — For every point that U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama gains ahead of the Nov. 4 election, a young student in a sparsely furnished room an ocean away is taking enormous satisfaction.

For months, Ibrahim Abu Jayyab has been working through the night, telephoning American voters at random to plead in broken English that they support his favourite candidate.

Never mind that most of the people Mr. Abu Jayyab calls don't even know where the Gaza Strip is, much less understand why this man with heavily accented English crackling down the phone line should care about the U.S. presidential race.

"Obama is the best candidate. He has leadership qualities, he is charismatic. Once he said the Palestinian people are suffering most in the world," Mr. Abu Jayyab says, his eyes heavy after another late night, already back at the computer that is his pride and joy in a life otherwise dominated by poverty. On screen is an enormous photo of Mr. Obama in a classic pose - which has, perhaps, inspired Mr. Abu Jayyab's recurring dreams, of Mr. Obama putting a hand on his shoulder and promising peace.

A media student at Gaza's al-Aqsa University, Mr. Abu Jayyab, 23, has chafed at the strict religious rule enforced since the Islamist Hamas organization took control 17 months ago. A heavy economic embargo, imposed by the international community after Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence, has collapsed Gaza's economy and squelched any hope of finding a decent job after graduation.

Like most in Gaza and across the Arab world, the young man blames U.S. President George W. Bush for the mess, in part for his unwavering support of Israel. So when a young, black American senator emerged as the front-runner in the Democratic primaries, he found himself hoping for change, even here in the never-changing Middle East.

Mr. Abu Jayyab, who speaks little English and at first left only practised messages on telephone answering machines, has since enlisted the help of 15 friends to use computer VOIP programs, including iCall, to randomly call U.S. telephone numbers. They frequently meet in a nearby Internet café, where they work in fear that Hamas forces or even more radical groups will burst in.

Of the dozens of calls they'll make each night between midnight and 4 a.m. - early evening in most of the United States - Mr. Abu Jayyab and his friends say they may only speak to one out of every 10 households. They've encountered answering machines, small children, and often people impatient with their Arabic-accented English....

How could he not do so, given Muhammad's example? Sharia Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: "Indonesia: Islamic leader defends child marriages," from AKI, October 27 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Jakarta, 27 Oct. (AKI) – An Islamist party leader has defended child marriages in Indonesia saying it is normal to marry children as young as 11 or 12. Hilman Rosyad Syihab, deputy leader of the Islamic party Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS), shared his views with Adnkronos International. The comments came after a Muslim cleric provoked public outrage in Indonesia by marrying a 12-year-old girl, and reportedly has plans to marry another two girls aged nine and seven.

Pujianto Cahyo Widianto married the girl in the central Java city of Semarang, during an unofficial religious ceremony.

Widianto, used Islam's Prophet Mohammed's marriage to a seven year-old, Aisha, in the 7th century A.D. to justify his actions.

He reportedly chose her from a pool of 20 girls, and gained her parents' approval before flying to Singapore with his new bride. He also .

"Many parents give their children for marriage when they reach 11 or 12 years of age," Hilman told AKI. "It is a normal practice even if it is in decline."...

The Christians in Iraq, although they have lived there longer than the Muslims have and have nothing to do with the United States, are considered, because they share the religion of the American "Crusaders," to be kuffar harbi -- infidels at war with Islam -- and thus by the terms of Islamic law their lives are forfeit. Persecution of Christians in Iraq Update: "'We are killed because we are Christians,'" by Deborah Haynes in the Times, October 27 (thanks to James):

One grey-haired woman understands more than most the fear that has gripped Iraq's beleaguered Christian community over the past month.

Her brother, Bashar al-Hazim, was among the first to be murdered in a wave of targeted killings that has forced more than 2,000 Christian families to flee the northern city of Mosul.

Masked gunmen walked up to Mr Hashim as he stood with his two children outside their house in the east-side of Mosul in late September.

They demanded to see his identity card, confirmed he was Christian and executed the 41-year-old on the spot.

"I could have died when I found out. He was a dear brother and was killed in a very despicable way," said the woman, 60, who was too afraid to give her name.

She, like thousands of other Christians who have left the city since the start of October, claims to have no idea who carried out the attack. Fear of potential repercussions appears to prevent many in the region from speaking their mind.

"We're peaceful people. When my brother was executed he had no enemies. Why was he killed? He was not a member of a party. There was no reason except for being Christian," the woman, dressed in a black gown, said....

Read it all.

If this really had been an "Islamophobic hate crime," of course, it would be front-page news all over the world. As it is, since the perpetrators were most likely jihadists, it will get no notice beyond this story. "Attackers 'gouge out Afghan man's eyes,'" from AP, October 27:

Armed assailants have attacked a man, gouging out his eyes in front of his family in southern Afghanistan, officials say....

Ghulam, 52, said three armed men knocked on his door in the Sangin district of Helmand province late Thursday. After he opened the door, they punched him in the face, put the barrel of a Kalashnikov rifle in his mouth and gouged out his eyes with a knife in the presence of his wife and seven children....

Daoud Ahmadi, the spokesman for Helmand's governor, blamed Taliban fighters for the attack, saying the militants often kill innocent Afghans.

"This guy Ghulam was just a normal man, a farmer," Ahmadi said.

"He didn't have any link with the government or NATO forces. He was a normal man, but these killers took out his eyes in front of his family. I don't know what kind of heart these killers have."

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi denied that Taliban fighters were involved....

Ghulam, whose head was almost completely wrapped in a large white bandage, said his attackers were wearing black turbans on their head like many Taliban fighters, but that he didn't know who carried out the attack.

Taliban militants sometimes carry out harsh punishments for people they accuse of being thieves or "spies" for the Afghan government. Such punishments have included cutting off people's hands or tarring and parading them publicly, but few reports of people having their eyes gouged out have surfaced in Afghanistan in recent years.

The Guardian makes no mention, of course, of the fact that this girl's status as a slave and a concubine is sanctioned by Islamic law. "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hands possess..." (Qur'an 4:24). Until that changes, hardline Muslims will reject rulings like this. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Niger.

"Niger guilty in landmark slavery case," from The Guardian, October 27:

A court in west Africa today convicted Niger of failing to protect a young girl sold into slavery in a landmark judgment with potentially far-reaching implications for the tens of thousands of people who remain enslaved in the region.

The justice arm of the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) ruled that Niger, where slavery remains common in rural areas despite being officially abolished five years ago, had failed in its obligations to protect Hadijatou Mani.

Mani, who brought the case with the assistance of British-based anti-slavery groups, has said she was sold into slavery at the age of 12 for around £325 and regularly beaten and sexually abused.

"I am very happy with this decision," she told reporters after the ruling was announced, Reuters reported.

The court, sitting in the Niger capital of Niamey, ordered the state to pay her 10 million CFA francs (about £12,000) in damages and accumulated interest.

The ruling by the panel of judges from Senegal, Mali and Togo will bring hope to the more than 40,000 people being held as slaves in rural Niger and across the region.

Speaking before the judgment, Mani said: "It was very difficult to challenge my former master and to speak out when people see you as nothing more than a slave. But I knew that this was the only way to protect my child from suffering the same fate. Nobody deserves to be enslaved."

The life of a sadaka, or sexual slave, was described in detail by Mani during the court case. She explained how she had been born a slave, sold and then transferred as a child against her mother's wishes to a man named El Hadj Souleymane Naroua. She testified that she had been raped at 13 and constantly forced to have sex with her 63-year-old master, who owned seven other slaves.

In 2005, two years after Niger enacted a law forbidding slavery, Mani was presented with a "liberation certificate". This proved to be worthless, as she was immediately forced into a "wahiya marriage", with the status of a concubine....

"Officials said that they remained unsure of the motive for the killing and were investigating the guard’s background," although infiltration is being acknowledged as a possibility. The grave difficulty that Westerners have in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is that there is no reliable way to determine who is really on their side and who is on the side of the jihadists, no matter how many bridges have been built and how many hearts and minds won.

"Briton and his colleague killed by their Afghan security guard," by Tom Coghlan for The Times, October 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A British man and his South African colleague became the latest victims of deteriorating security in Kabul when they were shot dead outside their office by a security guard who then killed himself.

The shootings occurred on the eve of the funeral of Gayle Williams, the British charity worker killed last week, who was buried yesterday in the Afghan capital’s British cemetery.

The British Embassy named the dead Briton as David Giles, 42, the country director of the international courier DHL in Afghanistan. He died with Jason Bresler, the freight company’s South African deputy director, when an Afghan security guard at the DHL offices sprayed their car with automatic fire as they arrived for work on Saturday. The guard placed the gun under his chin and shot himself.

Officials said that they remained unsure of the motive for the killing and were investigating the guard’s background. Some reports suggested the man joined the British-run security company that protected DHL only a month ago. “No one knows if this person was recruited [to carry out the killing] or there was infiltration of the enemy,” said Zmarai Bashery, spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry.

A spokesman for the Taleban denied involvement in the killings. Privately, Western officials said that Taleban involvement in the latest attack was not thought likely....

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions." A "developing situation."

"'US troops' strike inside Syria," from the BBC, October 26 (thanks to Paul):

US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night.

The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.

Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions," a government official said....

Its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus, our correspondent adds....

"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 1645 local time [1345 GMT] on Sunday," Sana said.

"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters and "attacked a civilian building under construction and opened fire on workers inside - including the wife of the building guard - leading to [the deaths] of eight civilians", it added.

"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," Sana said.

The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages....

All while Saudi children textbooks continue to teach hatred of all things non-Islamic. "Saudi king to attend November UN interfaith dialogue," from the Associated Press, October 26:

The Saudi king said that he would attend a meeting at the United Nations in New York in November that will discuss his initiative to promote interfaith dialogue.

King Abdullah said that it is the duty of every human being to support such dialogue.

In remarks made late Saturday, the king said that extending Muslims' hands to non-Muslims will help "purify" the reputation of Islam at a time when the world is criticizing the faith.

Abdullah helped bring together Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists among other religions at a conference hosted by Spain in July.

The company's invoices contained statements such as, "We certify that the goods enumerated in this Invoice are not of Israeli origin and do not contain any Israeli materials."

"Texas company fined for complying with Arab boycott," by Michael Freund for the Jerusalem Post, October 25 (thanks to Dionysios):

The US government has imposed a civil penalty on a Texas-based subsidiary of a German firm for repeated violations of American law regarding compliance with the Arab boycott of Israel.

In a settlement announced earlier this month, Rohde & Liesenfeld Inc., a freight-forwarder based in Houston, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $108,000 to settle charges leveled against it by the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

The bureau, which oversees enforcement of US anti-boycott rules, had accused the company of 36 violations of the law between July 2002 and March 2003 in a series of dealings with the Syrian petroleum company Al-Furat.

In the transactions in question, Rohde & Liesenfeld supplied the Damascus-based firm with invoices stating: "We certify that the goods enumerated in this Invoice are not of Israeli origin and do not contain any Israeli materials."

Various Muslim and Arab states regularly ask foreign firms to supply documentation confirming that they have no business or financial ties to Israel. US law requires American companies, as well as their subsidiaries, to report requests for such information to the Commerce Department....

More on this story. "Al-Qaida appears to claim Glasgow attack," from the Associated Press, October 24:

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq has said his group is focused on attacks outside the country in a new audiotape in which he seemed to claim responsibility for the June 2007 attack on Glasgow International Airport.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, did not specifically mention the Scottish airport in the nearly 45-minute interview posted on the Internet on Thursday.

But he said his group carried out its "last operation in Britain, a good part of which was launched on the airport and the rest was not carried out due to a mistake made by one of the brothers."

Two men were arrested and charged with conspiring to murder after a burning Jeep loaded with gas cylinders was driven into Glasgow airport in June 2007. A day earlier, police discovered two cars packed with explosives in central London.

British authorities indicated at the time that they thought the plotters may have had links with al-Qaida.

Masri said that a few days before the airport attack, one of the plotters "got in touch and informed [al-Qaida in Iraq] that the operation is about to happen."

Many terrorism analysts have expressed concern that well-trained fighters from al-Qaida in Iraq and other Islamic extremists groups in the country could seek to export violence to places like Western Europe and Afghanistan as Iraq becomes more stable....

More on this story. "Mixed Swimming Worries Swiss Muslims," by Hadi Yahmid for Islam Online, October 26:

BERN — A Swiss court ruling against exempting Muslim students from compulsory, mixed swimming classes has sparked a hot debate over respecting the religious beliefs of minorities.

"Muslim students in Europe should be granted the right to take swimming lessons that fit their religious beliefs," Chakib Benmakhlouf, head of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), told IslamOnline.net.

"Some Western countries violate the principles of freedom by laws and court rulings that transgress on the rights of their minorities."

A Swiss court turned down on Friday, October 24, a request by a Swiss Muslim father to exempt his two sons from attending mixed swimming classes.

It argued that exempting students from mixed swimming classes for religious reasons must be very restricted.

Equality between the two sexes and the success of the integration process should be given priority over religious considerations, argued the court.

The verdict runs counter to a 1993 court ruling which allowed the exemption of a Muslim schoolgirl from attending mixed swimming lessons that violate her religious tents.

There are more than 340,000 Muslims in Switzerland, which has a population of 7.4 million.

Islam is the second religion in the European country after Christianity.

Necessity

Some Swiss schools have taken measures to encourage Muslim students to attend swimming classes by allocating separate pools and changing rooms for boys and girls.

But many Muslim students had to dropped out from the mixed swimming classes when such accommodations were not make.

Sheikh Ounis Guergah, the head of the fatwa section of the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF), said people should strike the right balance.

"In principle, people should ne be very rigid when it comes to children who have not yet reached puberty," he told IOL.

"But even in this case, parents must teach their kids modesty and chastity."

Sheikh Guergah stressed that the case is different with adults and grown-ups.

"We recommend that they dress the way Islam dictates," he said, noting that international swimmers in the Beijing Olympics wore swimming suits that almost covered all their bodies.

The scholar said Muslim students should abide by their religious dressing code as much as possible and seek exemption when possible.

"But if this will lead to expulsion from school as was the case in many French schools, it would be in the best interest of students to attend these (swimming) lessons."

The cognitive dissonance between what these students say and what I hear from Muslim students on university campuses in the U.S. is enormous. These students openly acknowledge the Islamic imperative of violent jihad; on American campuses, Muslim students profess outrage and wounded indignation, exhorting me to "Stop the Hate" and pretending that I made up this Islamic imperative, and that it doesn't really exist at all. But if they consider Muslims such as the students at the Darusy Syahadah Islamic school -- and those who taught them -- to be twisting Islam and distorting its teachings, why is it that they never seem to do anything within the Islamic community to fight the spread of these teachings, but instead reserve all their ire for me simply for pointing out that many Muslims understand Islam to be exhorting them to violence and supremacism?

I've asked this question innumerable times, of course, and never gotten an answer, because there is no answer. Or rather, there is only one answer, and it is obvious, but Islamic groups in the U.S. still seem to be banking on the majority of Americans not noticing, or caring about, this obvious answer and its implications.

"Islamic students praise Bali bombers," from AFP, October 26 (thanks to JE):

FOR the skullcapped students of the Darusy Syahadah Islamic school there is no question that the three radical jihadis behind the 2002 Bali bombings are heroes.

Sheltering from the equatorial sun on the steps of the school's mosque, the students crowd to offer their approval of bombers Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudra.

Authorities say the three bombers will face the firing squad by early November for their role in the attack, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

"They're holy warriors, that's how I respond, they're holy warriors,'' said Sir Muhammad Royhan Syihabuddin Ar-Rohmi, a slight 18-year-old.

His friend Nawawi, also 18, leaned forward in agreement: "They are like us, they wanted to do good deeds.''

Good deeds, i.e., killing 200 infidels.

With its peeling buildings, stray sheep and low-hanging mango trees, Darusy Syahadah in Central Java has long been a key hub for recruitment and indoctrination in the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) militant network, experts say.

While authorities have wound up JI cells and killed and imprisoned key militants, JI-linked Islamic boarding schools across Indonesia have been left to spread the network's radical ideology.

If a new generation of JI bombers were to emerge, it would be from schools like this. Alumni include Salik Firdaus, a suicide bomber who obliterated himself in the 2005 Bali bombing that killed 20 people.

If the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims™ really deplored the jihad ideology, as everyone from George Bush and Colin Powell to students at the MSA's around the country at colleges where I have been speaking would have us believe, it would be reasonable to assume that their highest priority, or one of their highest priorities, would be to educate their own people against it. After all, if "a new generation of JI bombers were to emerge, it would be from schools like this," it is because the teachers at the the Darusy Syahadah Islamic school are teaching their students the propriety of killing or subjugating unbelievers. This is an ideology that is spread by education. Yet nowhere in the world -- not in the U.S., not anywhere else -- is there any counter-pedagogical effort by self-professed anti-terror Muslims.

However, analysts say the picture is not quite that simple.

Hurt by the police crackdown and facing public disgust over bombings, JI is deeply split, said Sidney Jones, a JI expert at the International Crisis Group think-tank.

A small minority faction behind fugitive Malaysian Noordin Mohammed Top still supports and is working towards bombing local and foreign targets, she said.

The other more numerous faction, dominating the schools, continues to glorify jihad, or holy war, but many of its members have been influenced by a government "deradicalisation'' strategy that has helped halt attacks.

"I think the schools are still problematic, they are inculcating the idea of the glory of jihad. But there isn't a jihad to fight now,'' Jones said.

"The question is: what will these graduates be doing five to 10 years from now?''

Finding a jihad to fight, of course, and one that will probably end up being on the doorstep of many people who today are insisting that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ and that those who are concerned about massive Muslim immigration into the West are just bigots and racists.

For Mustaqim, the principal of Darusy Syahadah, the watchword is preparation.

The school encourages exercise and self-defence and aims to strengthen and defend Islam, said Mustaqim, sporting white robes, a wispy beard and bruises on his forehead from frequent prayer.

"It says in the Koran that infidels will strengthen each other and wage a war of falsehood. We have been instructed to strengthen Islam against falsehood,'' he said.

That's rich, given how the entire edifice of Islam in the West is built on falsehood -- a well thought-out, carefully orchestrated campaign of falsehood, that meets with furious indignation and cries of "bigotry" anyone who dares to examine the stated motives and goals of the jihadists.

On suicide bombings against civilians - the hallmark of Noordin's faction - Mustaqim stressed that the aim is noble but the methods incorrect.

"In the methods (Noordin) has taken, we're not on the same path. Methods, that's what I'm talking about, methods,'' emphasised Mustaqim, whose wife is the sister of Ubeid, a JI militant jailed for helping the fugitive Noordin.

Methods, that's what he's talking about, methods. Yet in the U.S. Lawrence Wright wrote a much-lauded piece in the New Yorker about how some jihadists were changing their methods, and innumerable commentators, conservatives and liberals alike, could scarcely contain their excitement: Muslims were denouncing al-Qaeda! The Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims™ was finally asserting itself! The end of the War On Terror was at hand!

It never seemed to occur to these learned analysts that all that was being discussed was a change of methods, not of goals, as was patently clear from Wright's piece itself, although even Wright seemed to miss it. But since they have been focused on methods (terrorism) rather than goals (Sharia supremacism) all along, they missed this one also.

There are indeed peaceful Muslims, and there are indeed some among those who aren't interested in waging any kind of jihad. They either don't know or don't care about the imperative to struggle against unbelievers. They may have what they consider to be better things to do. Of course, such people are everywhere being challenged by Muslims who insist that they represent pure and true Islam, and that those who are not waging jihad are not good Muslims. Such people, being indifferent to or ignorant of these matters, are not going to stand up against the jihadists, and the jihadists regard them as a large recruiting field.

There is a very small group of Muslims who are actively trying to reform these Islamic imperatives, but don't kid yourself: it is a very small group, and not an influential one. The group of Muslims who feign indignation when non-Muslims discuss the jihad ideology, and who claim never to have heard of such a thing or that it is a heretical version of Islam cooked up by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ -- they are much more numerous. They are dangerous, also, because they fool so very many people.

Outside the mosque, student Nawawi said it was "up to God'' whether he would follow the example set by the Bali bombers.

"Not everyone has to follow them,'' he said.

He is quite right. In Islamic theology there are many ways to aid the jihad. Nawawi can wage the jihad of the tongue or the pen, or the jihad of the pocketbook. He may also be referring, although this is unlikely, to the fact that in classic Islamic theology jihad warfare is fard kifaya, an obligation of the community as a whole but not of every individual believer. Jihad becomes fard ayn, obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in some way, when a Muslim land is attacked. I say that it is unlikely that he was referring to that distinction because jihadists today generally argue that Muslim lands have been attacked, and that therefore jihad is fard ayn. On the other hand, he may be referring specifically to Bali, where it would be hard to argue that a Muslim land has been attacked.

At the al-Mukmin boarding school founded by alleged JI spiritual head Abu Bakar Bashir in the nearby town of Ngruki, the bombers are honoured but opinions are similarly mixed.

About 1,600 students attend classes in rooms bedecked with cardboard cutouts of assault rifles and posters extolling the virtues of "martyrdom''.

Cardboard cutouts of assault rifles in a religious school. Yet no Muslim who gets so indignant at me seems to be upset about this. Now, why is that? Is it really so unclear?

Sitting on the floor of his lounge in the school grounds, the acid-tongued Bashir blamed the main 2002 blast on a CIA "micro-nuclear'' device fired from a ship off the Balinese coast.

"The bomb Amrozi set off, the first one, at most it shattered glass and didn't wound people, or at most wounded them a little,'' he said.

''(The bombers) struggled in that way, not as terror, but with the aim of defending Islam, which is being terrorised by America and its friends ... they are counter-terrorists, not terrorists,'' he said.

Remember that one the next time you hear a Muslim say that he condemns "terrorism," without defining his terms.

But al-Mukmin school principal Wahyudin said the bombers' indiscriminate bombing of nightclubs on the island was a disproportionate response to the global oppression of Muslims.

"What I can fault is that Bali is not a conflict area, it's not an area of war. Although we can say there certainly were enemies there, there were also non-enemies. That has to be avoided. That was a mistake there,'' he said.

What Wahyudin is saying is that jihad violence is fine in a conflict area, but not in an area in which there are present in significant numbers people who are not considered to be at war with Islam. But he has no problem with the concept of violent jihad in principle.

Karen Hughes: She was tested too

The Medinan Sura 60 calls for an examination of the all-important but completely overlooked question of frames of reference: what is said is not always heard the way it is meant. Consider these remarks by President Bush and Karen Hughes, his former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, on the Islamic Feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the Hajj and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son.

In December 2006, Bush issued a statement that read in part:

For Muslims in America and around the world, Eid al-Adha is an important occasion to give thanks for their blessings and to remember Abraham’s trust in a loving God. During the four days of this special observance, Muslims honor Abraham’s example of sacrifice and devotion to God by celebrating with friends and family, exchanging gifts and greetings, and engaging in worship through sacrifice and charity.

And the previous January, Hughes said:

Eid is a celebration of commitment and obedience to God and also of God’s mercy and provision for all of us. It is a time of family and community, a time of charity....I want to read to you a message from President Bush: “I send greetings to Muslims around the world as you celebrate Eid al-Adha. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham placed his faith in God above all else. During Eid al-Adha, Muslims celebrate Abraham’s devotion and give thanks for God’s mercy and many blessings.”

"Their organization campaigns for women's rights and against female genital mutilation but it was unclear who was behind the attack." My guess would be that it was militant Christian Fundamentalists.

"Aid worker killed in Somalia," from AP, October 26 (thanks to Eleutheria ´H Thanatos):

The head of a Somali aid agency says a gunman shot dead a Somali woman employee in the latest of a string of attacks on the humanitarian community.

Ali Sheik says Duniya Sheik Daud was killed Saturday evening as she returned from work at the Iida organization in the central Somali town of Gurilel. Their organization campaigns for women's rights and against female genital mutilation but it was unclear who was behind the attack....

An update on this story. "Pakistan: Girl's account re-opens custody fight for sisters," from Compass Direct News, October 24:

ISTANBUL, Turkey, October 24 (Compass Direct News) – Lawyers for two underage Christian sisters who were kidnapped plan to renew a custody fight for the older girl, a 13-year-old allegedly coerced into marrying her captor, based on new statements from her 10-year-old sister that they were raped and forced to convert to Islam.

The plans come after the court last month allowed 13-year-old Saba Masih to decide whether to return to her parents or remain with her husband; apparently still terrified from death threats, she chose to remain with her captor. Amjad Ali married Saba Masih shortly after the girls were kidnapped on June 26.

In the Sept. 9 ruling the court ordered the return of her 10-year-old sister, Aneela Masih, to her parents, a move lawyers hail as a rare and significant victory for human rights in Pakistan.

Since her release Aneela Masih has told her uncle, Khalid Raheel, previously unknown details of the sisters’ capture, including rape and forced conversion to Islam, according to the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS).

Aneela Masih told Raheel that she and her sister were kidnapped when they stopped to buy fruit en route to their uncle’s home. The sisters were taken away by taxi and then raped, she said. After being tied up and locked in a room, she told him, the two were forced to make professions of Islamic faith.

She described how the pistol-toting captors threatened the girls with death. The kidnappers told the girls that their parents would also be killed, she said, if the sisters did not do everything asked of them.

“These poor little kids, they threatened them,” said Akbar Durrani, a lawyer from CLAAS who fought in court on the sisters’ behalf. “They were terrified. She said they were terrified.”

In light of these revelations, Durrani said he plans to file a new custody case for Saba Masih based on their abduction. This move, however, could jeopardize progress gained in the legal quest to free the sisters from their captors.

“The court statement never mentioned kidnapping,” Durrani said. “We are still working on it, because the Supreme Court may say to us, ‘We will reverse the position, get both the girls back and hear the case afresh.’”

Avoiding this scenario while convincing the court to allow further proceedings is the challenge Durrani now faces.

Saba Masih’s insistence that her age is 17 and that her conversion to Islam was real will also make regaining custody of her extremely difficult, according to lawyer Rashid Rehman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Rehman also represented the girls’ family in the case.

Saba Masih’s husband, Ali, had obtained the backing of a medical committee possibly under pressure from Islamic groups in his claim that she was 17 and thus of legal age. He also claimed that her conversion removed her from the jurisdiction of her father.

It was a branch of the Lahore High Court in Multan that ruled on Sept. 9 that Aneela Masih should be handed back to her parents. When Saba Masih, whose birth certificate indicates that she is 13 but who testified that she was 17, said she did not want to return to her parents, she also tried to keep her younger sister from returning to them. Attorneys said the Muslim kidnappers had repeatedly threatened the girls that their parents would harm them if they returned.

Uncle Threatened

Throughout the case the girls’ uncle, Raheel, who has spearheaded the campaign to free the girls, has received death threats from supporters of Ali, he told Compass by telephone this week. With a tired voice, he said that he remains determined to explore every avenue to return Saba Masih to her parents.

“They are threatening me also, because I was proving the case,” he said. “They tell me also that if I keep on doing like this one day they will shoot me. I said, ‘Okay, no problem, you shoot me, but up to now I am alive. I will look after Saba. I will find her someday.’”

Various options remain open to CLAAS. The group’s lawyers are seeking advice from three local deputy inspector generals about how they should proceed.

“[We] can file a private complaint in the court of magistrate if a FIR [First Information Report] about kidnapping is not registered,” Durrani said. “If we are not getting any relief from this side, we will go to the Supreme Court.”

Lawyers told Compass that the court ruling for the return of the younger sister to her Christian parents, despite questions over her conversion to Islam, was an unusual decision and a significant victory for human rights in Pakistan.

“We have two or three cases in Islamabad [where] the judges did not allow minor girls to be given back to their parents,” Durrani said. “So in this context it was very important to at least get Aneela back.”

To attempt to deter America from attacking Iran, in a roundabout, Rube Goldberg sort of way. But the NATO agreement about mutual aid in the event of attacks would throw a bit of a wrench in the works. "Iranian official calls for attack on UK," by Jonny Paul for the Jerusalem Post, October 25:

Fearing a US strike on Iran during President George W. Bush's last months in office, a senior Iranian official has suggested the Islamic regime should target London to deter such an attack.

In an article on the Iranian Web site Aftab last week - translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute - the head of the Europe and US Department in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Wahid Karimi, said that an attack on London would deter the US from attacking Teheran.

"The most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Gulf] region, is to take action against London," Karimi said.

In the article, the Iranian official said that an attack might also stem from the fact that presidents in their second terms are "usually adventuresome."

Citing some examples he said: "US presidents are usually adventuresome in their second terms... [Richard] Nixon, disgraced by the Watergate scandal; [Ronald] Reagan, with the 'Irangate' adventure; [and Bill] Clinton, with Monica Lewinsky - and perhaps George Bush, the sitting president, will create a scandal connected to Iran's legitimate nuclear activity so as not to be left behind."

He speculated that a US attack on Iran could come between next month's presidential election and when the new president enters office in January 2009.

"In the worst-case scenario, George Bush may perhaps persuade the president-elect to carry out an ill-conceived operation against Iran, prior to January 20, 2009 - that is, before the regime is handed over and he ends his presence in the White House. The next president of the US will have to deal with the consequences," he warned.

Bush may persuade the president-elect to carry out an operation against Iran before the president-elect is inaugurated? Or... Bush will ask permission of the president-elect? Alright, then.

Admitting that previous Iranian warnings to paralyze "the Jerusalem-occupying regime" to deter "American adventurism" has not worked, Karimi said that "the most appropriate means of deterrence" for Iran would be to attack London.

More on this story. "Sharia rulings on divorces and disputes to be rubber-stamped by English courts," by Chris Hastings for the Telegraph, October 25:

A Government decision to allow Islamic courts in Britain the right to rule on family disputes and divorces has been condemned as discriminatory to women.

Civil rights campaigners are angry that ministers have approved plans to allow Sharia councils in Britain the right to settle disputes regarding money, property and access to children.

They say such tribunals are institutions for male domination which treat women like second-class citizens.

Couples who choose to use the Sharia system must get the ruling rubber-stamped by a judge sitting in an ordinary family court.

But neither party has to attend this hearing and approval can be obtained by filling in a two-page application.

The endorsement of Sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior minister, in answer to a parliamentary question.

She said Sharia councils would still have no jurisdiction in England, and rulings by religious authorities would have no legal force.

But she added: "If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgement in Sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets."

Campaigners condemned the plans as unacceptable and said that the rulings were not compatible with English law, while the Conservatives insisted that should be safeguards for women.

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.

"It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women's rights are protected and judgments are non-binding."

Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: "There must be one British law for everyone."

Dr David Green, the Director of the Civitas think tank, said: "I think there are a number of problems with regards to Sharia law. These Sharia councils are supposed to operate under the Arbitration Act which allows citizens in a free society to settle their disputes on a voluntary basis if they so wish.

"But that legislation assumes that both parts are regarded as being equal. I think the problem is with tribunals like these you can't always be sure that women would be treated equally.

"Under Islam a man can divorce a woman just by saying I divorce you three times. But a woman must go to a Sharia court to seek a divorce. Often the ruling goes in favour of the woman, but I think on the whole these councils are institutions for male domination. As a result I do not believe these rulings and proceedings should be recognised under British law.

"Under the traditions of Sharia law the voice of a women is not equal to that of a man."...

Daring Question's Rashid

Unbeknownst to most English speakers, Islam is currently “under attack” (at least that’s how many Muslims depict it) from Christian, Arabic missionary satellite stations. Spearheading this phenomenon is Al-Haya (or “Life TV”), a station dedicated to discussing issues relating to Islam and Christianity, specifically, demonstrating the many shortcomings and problems of the former, while pointing out how those problems are not present in the latter.

Life TV has been extremely successful in winning converts from the Islamic world. Unprecedented in all ways—Middle Eastern Christians (dhimmis) being confrontational and critical towards Islam, while unabashedly proclaiming their faith—Life TV has rocked the Islamic world.

Perhaps most (in)famous is Coptic priest Zakaria Botros. After finding out about him and watching some of his shows on the Internet, I wrote about him for NRO. (I am told that mine was the first major and widespread article about Botros, which subsequently led to many reporters inquiring and writing more about the priest—a natural result considering that what he and Life TV are doing is both extremely newsworthy and practically unknown in the Western world. I’m only happy that it worked out this way.)

Aside from Zakaria Botros’ shows (Questions about Faith and Dialogue of Truth), there in another program I’ve been recently following called Su’al Jari’, that is, “Daring Question.” Hosted by apostate Muslim converts to Christianity known only by their first names, Rashid and Ahmed, the show’s no-holds barred style has made it, along with Zakaria’s shows, one of the most watched programs on Arabic satellite. And, as with the Coptic priest’s shows, theirs has come under increasing attack from the Muslim world—not least because it is instrumental in gaining converts from Islam. (The above YouTube video is an English sub-titled clip of Rashid and Ahmed talking to a weeping Muslim woman living in England who wants to convert to Christianity but is afraid of her Muslim husband.)

The show typically deals with a theme in Islam—most recently, the absurdities of recent fatwas. Next the hosts, who, as former pious Muslims are evidently very learned in their former faith, proceed to describe the legitimacy of that theme straight from Islam’s sources—first the Koran, followed by (often little known) hadiths, and then the words of the ulema—that is, usul al-fiqh. After demonstrating the problem, as well as Islam’s support for it—recently, that drinking camel’s urine is salutary—they discuss the issue, as well as welcome calls from viewers, some sympathetic apostates, some on-the-fence Muslims, others Muslim zealots who promise the hosts death and misery in this world and the hereafter.

Though all this is important, it is also all done in Arabic, preventing English speakers from following the debate, the issues, the outbursts, and the threats. While the show is geared towards proselytizing Muslims, it does this by exposing Islam—and it is this latter aspect which should be of particular importance to Jihad Watch readers, regardless of their religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

I will, therefore, begin watching Life TV more regularly, summarizing the more important episodes—including making better known otherwise obscure hadiths and ulemaic verdicts and fatwas, as well as modern day Muslims’ views on these issues—thereby keeping Jihad Watch readers informed of this very important debate going on in the Islamic world and exclusively in Allah’s language.

When challenged, he "qualified" that assertion by saying "his comment about Islam was meant to address the threat of Islam to America's belief system, not its infrastructure."

"WAAY-TV pulls ad about Griffith's 'Islam' remark," by Niki Doyle for the Huntsville Times, October 25:

A local TV station has pulled the latest National Republican Congressional Committee ad in the 5th Congressional District campaign, apparently because of disputes over Democratic candidate Parker Griffith's statements about "radical Islam," according to an NRCC spokesman.

WAAY-TV Channel 31 did not air the ad, which features black-and-white footage of several terrorist bombings and the Sept. 11 attacks before airing audio of Griffith saying, "We have nothing to fear from radical Islam."

NRCC spokesman Brendan Buck said the station told him that some of Griffith's words were taken out of context.

Station mangers at WAAY-TV Channel 31 did not return phone messages left Friday afternoon.

Buck said the NRCC is working with the station to clear up any misunderstandings and hopes to have to the ad back on the air early next week.

"It's just like any other campaign ad where you show video and then take a sentence from a newspaper or other publication and show it," he said. "I don't see a difference between that and this. We're working with the station ... but it's indisputable that Parker Griffith said radical Islam is not a threat to America."

A statement issued from Griffith's campaign accused the NRCC of creating an ad that was "misleading and false."

Griffith, a state senator running against Republican Wayne Parker, told The Times last week that his comment about Islam was meant to address the threat of Islam to America's belief system, not its infrastructure.

The comment was recorded during a question-and-answer session with the Colbert-Lauderdale Baptist Association in September,

"I don't think anyone in the room misunderstood what I was saying," Griffith told The Times. "I was in a room full of Baptist ministers, and we were talking about religion, not matters of national security. The point I was making was that if we are strong in our Christian beliefs, that is stronger than any Islamic threat."

This is the second NRCC ad that WAAY-TV has chosen not to air without modifications. The station and WAFF-TV Channel 48 yanked an ad that attacked Griffith's medical career. The ads were aired a few days later with revisions.

Israel: damned either which way. So now, all the civil strife between Hamas and Fatah is due to those organizations losing sight of the real enemy, Israel. Makes sense -- especially since this sort of thing has plenty of precedents in Islamic history. Take the Islamic conquests, for example. Immediately after Muhammad's death (632), most of the Arab tribes tried to break away from Muslim authority, which led to the Ridda Wars (or "Apostasy Wars"), dominating the first caliph, Abu Bakr's, short reign (632-634). These civil wars were extremely bloody; tens of thousands of apostates were slain. Second caliph Omar, upon ascension, knew that the best way to put an end to the civil strife was to direct the Arabs' collective bellicosity to other peoples -- all in the name of jihad -- setting off the Islamic conquests. Ironically, one of the very first infidel regions to be conquered was Jerusalem. Thus today, since Muslims are losing focus on Israel, they fight and kill each other in Palestine -- or at least that's Islamic Jihad's take on it.

"Islamic Jihad Movement considers a slow down against Israel as leading to difficulties for the Palestinian people," from Al-Summaria, October 25 (my translation):

During the ceremony of the 31st anniversary of the assassination of the the Islamic Jihad Movement's founder, Fathi al-Shiqaqi, the current leader, Nafidh Azzam, considers a slowing down [of operations] against Israel as creating only difficulties for the Palestinian people's jihad, leading to only an increase in division and internal strife. He called on the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to halt negotiations with the Hebrew state. Similarly, Azzam demanded a halt to political arrests between Fatah and Hamas, stressing the need to support a reconciliation and end the division, easing the way for dialogue.

A good corrective by Walid Phares to the liberal media's insistence that al-Qaeda prefers McCain over Obama, and is actively trying to see to it that the former wins the election.

"Walid Phares explains al-Qaeda 'endorsement' of McCain," by Rick Moran for American Thinker, October 23:

Liberal blogs and websites were falling all over themselves yesterday, breathlessly and gleefully reporting that an al-Qaeda sympathetic website had come out and "endorsed" John McCain for president.

The reason they did this is because back in 2004, John Kerry said his loss to George Bush was not because he was one of the most boring, flip flopping, far left liberal candidates in history but because Osama Bin Laden released a tape a few days before the election that echoed many of the same talking points being pushed at the time by Democrats.

Well the simple minded fools now believe that this "endorsement" of McCain will have the same effect. Aside from the laughably ridiculous notion that anyone believes John McCain would be a better president for al-Qaeda than Barack "root causes" Obama, frequent AT contributor Dr. Walid Phares gives us the real reason behind this move by the terrorists:

[Writes Phares:] "If McCain is elected, al Qaeda knows that there will be different teams of advisors to wage a different type of campaign. The Jihadists are very knowledgeable about American and European intellectual debates. They also know the thinking process of the counterterrorism teams under Obama. Hence, there is a difference between what al Qaeda's decision-makers and their analysts know, and what their propagandists wish to instill in the U.S. election debate. What they state should be translated and understood only within the greater picture of what they want to achieve.

Al Qaeda's propagandists operate within the realm of what the Jihadi machine has created in terms of political culture over the years. The main ideas are that the U.S., under President Bush, tried but failed to destroy al Qaeda; hence, the Jihadist narrative says that any next U.S. President who continues the policies of the Bush Administration will give victory to al Qaeda. Inserting their arguments in the ongoing Presidential debate, this means that the candidate who advances Bush strategies will be better for the goals of Bin Laden. Hence the site's assertion that al Qaeda welcomes a McCain victory (in a sarcastic style).

But this tactic used by the Jihadi propagandists is part of a reverse psychology. It aims at sending a message to the American voters: if you want al Qaeda to win, vote for McCain. The Jihadi web sites cannot state it otherwise, such as if you want the U.S. to win, vote for Obama, because in Jihadi war doctrines there cannot be a victory for America, under any President. Hence, what al Qaeda seems to be attempting to achieve is to affect the perception of the undecided voters by stating to them that the strength of McCain in the war on terror is not really strength. Therefore, in the end, the move is aimed at sinking the chances of the former U.S. Navy Pilot by crumbling the support among undecided voters who might ultimately have come to his camp as late as D Day.

Of course, such subtleties are too much for our leftist friends on the internet. It won't alter either their political perception nor would any of this change their belief that a McCain election actually would be inimicable to our efforts to destroy al-Qaeda - that is, if destruction of the terrorists is what they want. They would much prefer to send them food, educate them, teach them how to improve their economies - all the things al-Qaeda could care less about. What they want are dead westerners and anything that furthers that goal - say, endorsing the stronger candidate believing it will adversely affect his chances thus electing someone weaker than McCain - seems to escape our leftist friends who are doing a victory dance over the terrorists endorsing McCain.

Hoping President Obama might let him keep his job, Gates toes the PC line and opts to ignore the one single explanation of their own motives and goals that the terrorists have offered to us.

"As Obama era looms, Gates drops 'Islamist' from characterization of terrorism," from the World Tribune, October 24 (thanks to Rosanne):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week referred to Islamist terrorism by the politically-correct term “violent extremism” during a speech to the U.S. Institute of Peace. The use of the non-Islamist terminology highlights the ongoing debate in government over the use of terms like jihad and Islamic extremism in public discussions of terrorism.

Gates said Oct. 15 that “in violent extremism, we face an adversary today that seeks to eject all Westerners and Western influence from the Middle East and Southwest Asia, to destroy Israel and overthrow all secular and Western-oriented governments in the region.”

In a second reference, he said “the long reach of violent extremism emanating from failed and failing states, from ungoverned spaces brought terror to America's shores and subsequently brought America and our allies to Afghanistan.”

The State Department and Department of Homeland Security recently issued guidelines for U.S. government officials that said American Muslim groups had recommended not using “jihad” or Islamic extremism in labeling Muslim extremist violence in order not to offend Muslims.

A U.S. Central Command Red Team of experts however, stated in a recent report that honest reports require labeling the terrorists as Islamic and jihadist since the roots of the violence lie in Islamic law. The controversial report called for “freedom of speech in jihad analysis” and sought to debunk the State and DHS reports claiming that the use of Islamic terms in describing terrorists was offensive speech and was opposed by some U.S. Muslim groups.

Several Democrats in recent weeks have said Gates should stay on if Barack Obama wins the presidential election, an appeal that has not been rejected by Gates, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

Rashid Khalidi is a supporter of the jihad against Israel. He is a Columbia University professor whom Hugh Fitzgerald terms a "long-time propagandist for the Arabs and quasi-academic engaged for decades in the 'construction-of-the-Palestinian-identity' project." He is also not always honest about his own statements about this -- and is apparently a close friend of Barack Obama.

The ever-vigilant Andrew McCarthy has details, via Stanley Kurtz, at The Corner.

Of course, what Musa Abu Zaid doesn't tell you is that "instability" will continue even after the "Palestinians" get a state, as is made clear by his own organization's insistence on the total destruction of Israel.

"Middle East: PNA, Without Own State Instability Will Remain," from ANSAmed, October 24 (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSAmed) - RENDE (COSENZA), OCTOBER 24 - The Palestinian people are "asking for a fair and total peace", which can only be reached "through the proclamation of a sovereign State, with Jerusalem as its capital and within the territory occupied in 1967. This is the basis for "peaceful coexistence with the Israeli people". Otherwise, "the region will encounter yet further problems and will remain a cause of instability in the world". These are the words of the Palestinian National Authority's Vice-Minister for Youth and Sport, Musa Abu Zaid, who was speaking today in Rende at the Euro-Mediterranean conference on the charity sector, which is linked to the 2008 Rexpò forum on social responsibility. "The Palestinian people", added the PNA's government representative, "have played an active and guiding role in the resistance of the occupation of Israel, acting in the love of liberty and independence. Consequently, they have paid a high price in terms of martyrs, wounded people, and those who have been arrested and expelled, just as they have suffered the destruction of economic, social and educational infrastructures, which has had a serious impact on the younger generations, in particular".

The younger generation, of course, has suffered most from the inculcation of the violent jihad ideology.

Asking everyone in the country to abide by the same laws. How racist! How Islamophobic!

"Federal Court overturns swimming ruling," from Swissinfo, October 24 (thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater):

Children cannot be exempted from compulsory swimming lessons at school even for religious reasons, the Federal Court has ruled.

In making the ruling, announced on Friday, the court overturned its own decision of 1993.

The case was brought by the father of two primary schoolchildren in the northern canton of Schaffhausen, who wanted permission for his sons to opt out of swimming classes. His request had been turned down at every level before failing at the federal court too.

In the 1993 case the court had ruled that it was permissible for a schoolgirl to be exempted from mixed swimming lessons.

It justified its change of position by saying that society had changed in the last 15 years. Exempting children from compulsory lessons would undermine efforts at integration.

The president of the relevant court said the judgement was not aimed against the Muslim community or against freedom of religion. It was designed to help schools fulfil their task of integration....

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. -- from this news article

But "pre-emptive wars never ever work." Just ask H.D.S. Greenway, who continues to be a bow-tied contributor, even in his anecdotage, to the Boston Globe, now on its uppers. And for more on Greenway, see my article "A Tribute to H.D. S. Greenway.”

The other day Greenway reported on a talk by Andrew Bacevich, who has recently (and far later than the JW articles on Iraq) understood that both McCain and Obama misunderstand the Jihad and what must be done about it. McCain shows this with his complete misunderstanding of what would constitute victory in Iraq (because McCain refuses to think through what outcome would divide, demoralize, and hence weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad), and Obama does so with his belief, real or feigned, that he can only get out of Iraq if he shows just how rough-tough he intends to be in Afghanistan (and with Pakistan), who says, equally incorrectly, that Afghanistan is "the central front" in the "war on terror."

There is no "central front" in the "war on terror," and it is not even a "war on terror." It is a war, not yet recognized, and therefore clumsily and ineffectively fought, and fought with a tremendous waste, a quite-unnecessary squandering of men, money, and materiel.

When that old-time-religion comes back, and that religion, or rather Total Belief-System, is Islam, that can only mean disruption and danger for Infidels. This holds true whether they are in Muslim-dominated lands (Copts in Egypt, Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq) or in non-Muslim lands if Muslims with innate supremacism and a triumphalism gain power and influence. That triumphalism alternates with pessimistic and sullen passivity, when their inculcated impulse to make raids on and overcome non-Muslims must be held, for now, and only temporarily, in check.

When Islam was seen as obviously weak relative to the West-- as it was for about a century and a half (roughly, from 1820 to 1970) -- then Muslims were relatively quiet. In fact, they even made moves to placate the West in meaningless ways. For example, both Azzam Pasha, the first Secretary of the Arab League, in 1951 did remember to convey his good wishes to Christians at Christmas time. This was the same Azzam Pasha who promised that the war against the Jews in 1948 would result in a "massacre" the likes of which "had not been seen since the days of the Mongols," the man who is also the great-uncle of Ayman Al-Zawhiri (I am apparently the only one who finds this of note, for I keep mentioning it, and no one picks up on it). And for the same political calculations, when the Ayatollah Khomeini had not yet solidified his power, for one time, and one time only, he similarly wished Christians of the world his best wishes at Christmas time. We know, as the world's Christians did not know then, what Khomeini's real views, what Azzam Pasha's real views, are on what the rights of non-Muslims should be in a well-ordered society, and a well-ordered world. They are the same rights as dhimmis possess under the Shari'a, which means no rights other than those temporarily granted by benevolent Muslims, as long as the conditions of their dhimmi status are never broken, are faithfully and completely kept. And even then, Muslims have over time, whenever they felt like it, managed to find excuses for pogroms and mass forced conversions, or slaughter on the flimsiest of pretexts, whether of Copts in Egypt, or of Jews and Armenians in Tabriz under Shah Abbas II, or in the massacres of every Jew in Granada in 1066.

The learned European essayist Fjordman here reviews Ali Sina's Understanding Muhammad. Since Fjordman has been accused of being a white supremacist and a neofascist, some people have also accused me of being a white supremacist and neofascist, because I publish his fine essays on jihad and the Islamization of Europe. So I thought I would take this opportunity to say that while white supremacism and neofascism are wrong and should everywhere be opposed, I do not believe Fjordman is a white supremacist or a neofascist. What many have taken as "white supremacism" is his interest in trying to stem the tide of immigration into Europe, which threatens to make Europeans into minorities in their own countries, and -- because the immigrants are overwhelmingly Muslim -- to create a series of Sharia states across Europe. In 2006, well before he began to be accused of race supremacism, Fjordman wrote this:

We shouldn’t idealize mass-immigration too much. When one group of people move into a territory where another group of people already live, this has usually throughout human history ended in war. Either the newcomers will be expelled, or they will subdue or wipe out the previous inhabitants, or the groups will divide the country between them.

I see little reason to expect any different result where the indigenous population happens to be white. [...]

I do not see why I should have to choose between White Supremacy and White Worthlessness. It is one thing to reject the idea that your culture should be forced onto others, it is quite another thing to say that you shouldn’t be allowed to retain your culture even in your own country. The latter is simply a matter of self-preservation, the most basic instinct of all living things down to bacteria level.

I have a right to preserve my culture, too, even though I have blue eyes, and cannot see anything “racist” in not wanting my children to become a persecuted minority in their own country through mass immigration. That you are denounced as a White Supremacist for just stating the obvious shows how deeply entrenched and internalized this anti-white bias has become.

More recently (two weeks ago), the genuinely neofascist VNN Forum (an evil site to which I will provide no link) criticized one of Fjordman's articles about Europe for not blaming Jews for the problem. VNN Forum writers called Fjordman "a neocon jew-ass-kisser who is either oblivious of the fact that jews are responsible for what is happening or is aware but doesn't have the guts to name the jew." They also pointed out that "the Brussels Journal is never critical towards the Jew" and went on to complain that "multiculturalism stops when the Jew is down and out. Those Islamophobic 'nationalist' parties accomplish nothing....I would rather see anti-synagogue marches over anti-mosque ones. The mosques become a non-issue if you defeat the wretched sheeny."

I would rather stand with Israel, and Fjordman, than with those racist neofascists.

So without further ado, here is his review of Ali Sina's book:

If I make a shortlist of people who have significantly influenced my views on Islam, the Iranian ex-Muslim writing under the pseudonym Ali Sina has to be one of them. Now based in North America, he has founded the website Faith Freedom International (FFI), www.faithfreedom.org, to inform non-Muslims about the violent nature of Islam and help Muslims leave Islam. Sina has published the book Understanding Muhammad on the psychological nature of Islam's founder as he appears from Islamic sources.

The book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out from 2003, edited by Ibn Warraq, contains the personal stories of several former Muslims, among them Ali Sina. Ibn Warraq is the author of several books, among them the modern classic Why I Am Not a Muslim and his most recent Defending the West. I will start with a few quotes from Sina's testimony in Leaving Islam and continue with quotes from his own book. I will provide page references to make it easier for others to quote and use the material.

In Leaving Islam, Ali Sina describes how, growing up in Iran, he had illusions of a "real Islam" which was good and tolerant. He advocated the real Islam as he thought it should be and criticized the mullahs and their deviations from the "true" teachings of Islam. Page 138:

"I idealized an Islam conforming to my own humanistic values. Of course, my imaginary Islam was a beautiful religion. It was a religion of equality and of peace. It was a religion that encouraged its followers to go after knowledge and be inquisitive. It was a religion that was in harmony with science and reason. I thought science got its inspiration from this religion. The Islam that I believed in sowed the seeds of modern science, which eventually bore its fruits in the West and made modern discoveries and inventions possible. Islam, I used to believe, was the real cause of the modern civilization. The reason the Muslims were living in such miserable state of ignorance in comparison to the un-Islamic West was all the fault of the self-centered mullahs and the religious leaders who, for their own personal gain and dominance, had misinterpreted the real teachings of Islam. Muslims honestly believe that the great Western civilization has its roots in Islam. They recall great Middle Eastern scientific minds whose contributions to science have been crucial in the birth of Modern science."

He mentions some of these scholars, like the mathematician and astronomer Omar Khayyam, the physician and alchemist Rhazes (al-Razi) and the physician and philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina), all of them worthy of respect. I should mention that they were all Persians, not Arabs, and that Rhazes in particular didn't believe a word of Islamic teachings. He was a good scholar, but he wasn't a good Muslim.

Sina tells about his education abroad. His father didn't want him to go to an immoral Western country. Page 139:

"Pakistan, being an Islamic country, was safe. People were religious and therefore moral. This, of course, proved to be untrue. I found people there to be as immoral and corrupt as Iranians. Yes, they were very religious. Yes, they did not eat pork and I saw no one consuming alcohol in public, but I noticed they had dirty minds, they lied, they were hypocrites, and they were cruel to the women and, above all, filled with hated for the Indians. I did not find them better than Iranians in any way. They were religious, but not moral."

However, he was appalled by the general disdain Pakistanis had for non-Muslims:

"I learned about the reasons for the partition (of India) and for the first time about Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He was presented as a very intelligent man, the father of the nation, while Gandhi was spoken of in a derogatory way. Even then I could not but side with Gandhi and condemn Jinnah as an arrogant and ambitious man who was responsible for breaking up a mighty nation and causing millions of deaths. I did not see difference of religion enough reason to break up a country. The very word Pakistan seemed to be an insult to the Indians. They called themselves pak, or 'clean' to distinguish themselves from the Indians, who were najis ('unclean'). The irony is that I never saw a people dirtier than the Pakistanis, both physically and mentally. It was disappointing to see another Islamic nation in such intellectual and moral bankruptcy."

Personally, I have a slightly more critical view of Gandhi, whom I believe was extremely naïve. His non-violent methods might leave an impression on a civilized nation such as Britain but clearly wouldn't have had any impact on a Genghis Khan, nor did they have any value against Muslims. I have noticed that where Westerners have "Islamophobia," Indians have "communalism." That's what it's called when non-Muslims talk about one thousand years of Jihad, a war which continues to this day. Non-Muslim communities have been virtually decimated in Pakistan and are in serious decline in Bangladesh, yet the Muslim population in the Republic of India has actually grown since the partition, not just in actual numbers but as a percentage of the overall population. Whereas the few remaining non-Muslim communities in Pakistan face brutal discrimination, Muslims in India enjoy special rights, including limited use of sharia law. They have more political freedom and a higher average income than Muslims in neighboring countries, but they still attack non-Muslims.

"[F]or combining the sacred words of the Qur'an with sexual themes. If convicted the poet could face up to three years in jail." Really, this is not so bad. After all, when the poet Ka`b bin al-Ashraf composed some amorous verse concerning Muslim women during Muhammad's time, the latter exclaimed in front of his followers, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Naturally a young, ambitious Muslim accepted the task (and was given permission to lie to Ka'b simply in order to assassinate him). Sure enough, the poet was slain and his head taken to Muhammad in triumph, who reacted with an exclamation of (according to the account of Ibn Sa'd V1P37) "Allah Akbar!" An update to this story.

"Jordan arrests poet for insulting Islam," from the Guardian, October 24 (thanks to Shechild):

Jordanian police arrested a local writer on Tuesday for incorporating verses of the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, into his love poetry, a judicial official said.

The poet, Islam Samhan, published his collection of poems, Grace like a Shadow, which allegedly insults the holy book, without the approval of the Jordanian government, the official added. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.

Samhan was charged with harming the Islamic faith and violating the press and publication law for combining the sacred words of the Qur'an with sexual themes. If convicted the poet could face up to three years in jail.

Jordanian law bans the publication of any books or articles that could be seen as harmful to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad. More than two years ago, the court convicted the editors of two weekly newspapers of insulting Islam and sentenced them to two months in prison after they reprinted Danish political cartoons of Muhammad.

Jordanian writers and artists urged the government in a collective petition to immediately release the poet, saying the arrest is a "retreat in the freedom of expression," and called for an end to the "oppression of freedom and intimidation practiced against intellectuals."

Can you spot the difference between these two passages? If you can, I'll buy you a beer.

Both are from The Western Heritage, by Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. Ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 2007. It's an advanced high school world history text.

Passage #1:

The authors of the Gospels believed Jesus was the son of God and that he has come into the world to redeem humanity and to bring immortality to those who believed in him and followed his way. To the Gospel writers, Jesus' resurrection was striking proof of his teachings. At the same time, the Gospels regard Jesus as a figure in history, and they recount events in his life as well as his sayings. (p. 161)

Passage #2:

At about age forty, [Muhammad] began to receive revelations from the angel Gabriel, who recited God's word to him at irregular intervals. These revelations were collected after his death into the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an [literally, a "reciting"], which his followers compiled between 650 and 651. The basic message Muhammad received was a summons to all Arabs to submit to God's will. (p. 200)

Wait a minute. Does this have anything to do with the jihad? Oh yes it does.

Morality: gambling? No way! Armed kidnapping? Fine.

"Gunmen kidnap up to 15 in Russia's Ingushetia," from Reuters, October 24 (thanks to James):

NAZRAN, Russia (Reuters) - Armed men drove into Russia's Ingushetia region and abducted up to 15 people including policemen from a checkpoint and a slot machine parlour, police and witnesses said on Friday.

Witnesses said the gunmen, dressed in camouflage, entered Ingushetia from neighbouring Chechnya late on Thursday and presented themselves as police officers. Chechen authorities said they had nothing to do with the raid.

Islamist groups fighting an insurgency in Ingushetia against Moscow's rule frequently target gambling halls and shops selling alcohol, saying they contradict Islam....

Tuesday night at the University of Scranton some members of the sponsoring group were nervous. The university had taken much longer to approve my speaking at the campus than they had taken to approve other speakers, and had made the students answer all sorts of questions about whether the event would be in keeping with the mission of the university.

How about this for the mission of a university? Should it perchance be "the place to which a thousand schools make contributions; in which the intellect may safely range and speculate, sure to find its equal in some antagonist activity, and its judge in the tribunal of truth" Should it be a place where "inquiry is pushed forward, and discoveries verified and perfected, and rashness rendered innocuous, and error exposed, by the collision of mind with mind, and knowledge with knowledge"? (Thus Cardinal Newman.) Or should it be an indoctrination house for propagandists to stifle inquiry into and speculation about issues they wish not to be explored, as they interfere with the thrust of their propaganda?

Fort Dix Jihad Update. "Jurors in Fort Dix terror trial view tape from seized computers," by John P. Martin for the Star-Ledger, October 23 :

Jurors at the Fort Dix terror trial today watched videos of beheadings and al Qaeda propaganda seized from one defendant's computer, footage investigators contend proves the young Muslim men were studying terror tactics and preparing to attack.

One video opened with background music and a man singing "Blood shall be spilled" in Arabic.

Then two Iraqi captives appeared in succession on camera, each sitting before a red tapestry and confessing they had been spies for America and Israel.

An FBI language specialist, Gassan Hajjar, then described for jurors what happened next: Using a knife, the captors sliced off the hostages' heads, taking four to six minutes to complete the decapitations, he said. They held the severed heads aloft, placed them back on the bodies and celebrated.

Prosecutors aired the videos as the first week of testimony in the Camden courtroom came to an end, letting the images potentially linger in jurors' minds as a searing coda to the week.

Agents extracted the videos from a computer seized last year at the Cherry Hill home of Shain and Eljvir Duka, illegal Albanian immigrants who prosecutors say were radical Islamists plotting to attack Fort Dix or another area installation.

Being tried with them on charges of conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers are their brother, Dritan Duka, of Cherry Hill; Mohamad Shnewer, a native of Jordan and nationalized U.S. citizen from Cherry Hill, and Serdar Tatar, a legal permanent resident from Turkey who lived in Philadelphia.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Hammer and William Fitzpatrick have argued in court filings that the men watched al Qaeda videos of religious lectures, political propaganda and violent attacks to mentally and emotionally prepare themselves for a jihad, or holy war.

The clips jurors watched were among hundreds of jihadist photos, articles and Internet links agents found on the defendants' computers after the May 2007 arrests ended a 15-month FBI investigation.

Jurors were spared the actual scenes of beheadings after attorneys objected the explicit brutality wasn't proof of any conspiracy by their clients and would unfairly prejudice the jury against them. U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler refused to ban the videos altogether, but ordered that prosecutors show an "antiseptic" version that stopped the videos right before the decapitations.
[...]

Defense attorneys have argued there was no terror plot. They claim the alleged conspiracy was created and encouraged by paid FBI informants hired to infiltrate the plot and agents eager to win a terrorism conviction.

Last Monday night I spoke at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This was the campus I was most looking forward to visiting and simultaneously least looking forward to visiting, for a variety of reasons: I lived in Chapel Hill for seven years myself, graduated from the university, and still have some close personal connections there; I've had unfriendly exchanges with the academic propagandists Carl Ernst and Omid Safi, both of whom are professors there; and as I anticipated arriving there and then walked through the campus again it was hard to keep from thinking about the 2006 freelance jihad attack of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, which took place in a central area of the campus, a place I know very well and of which I have many memories -- a place which upon revisiting, even though there is no sign that anything out of the ordinary ever happened there, brought even to me a peculiar and unsettling vividness to this issue.

Before the talk I walked through campus with an old friend, and in due course we passed through Saunders Hall, home of the Religious Studies Department -- a place where I spent a great deal of time many years ago, the place where I first began reading the Qur'an and studying Islam, the place where so many things happened that have proven to be decisive in the course my life has taken. I found Omid Safi's office, but didn't find Safi, and neither he nor Ernst showed up for my talk. As it happened, James Taylor was in town playing a concert for Obama, and as Taylor is a big local hero, few people turned out to discuss the global jihad. But Taylor wasn't the only reason why people stayed away: Aisha Saad of the campus chapter of the Muslim Students Association told The Daily Tar Heel that the MSA decided not to come out to see me: "We do not see it setting the stage for a productive discourse but rather falling into a circular discussion that perpetuates stigmatized and superficial conceptions of a diverse community."

Uh huh. Well, pardon me if I find that a bit odd, not to mention disingenuous. I myself am always ready to defend my views. Ernst and Safi have both consigned me to the circle of hell reserved for "Islamophobes," but neither has ever deigned to point out even a single inaccuracy in anything I have written about the global jihad or Islamic supremacism, and neither of them had the decency or courage to come out to my address and talk things over. Neither did the MSA.

Short hair is out too. Saudi Arabia, of course -- always at the forefront of this sort of thing -- takes it one step further. Though many Saudi women are overweight, they are discouraged from going to gyms and disrobing around other women, as that too may transform them into lesbians.

"Muslims Ban Lesbians In Malaysia," from Sky News, October 24:

The National Fatwa Council also forbade the practice of girls behaving or dressing like boys.

Lesbianism has been banned under an edict issued by clerics in Malaysia who ruled that "tomboy" behaviour was against Islam.

Abdul Shukor Husin, chairman of the council, said many young women admire the way men dress and behave - and branded it a denial of their femininity and a violation of human nature.

He said: "It is unacceptable to see women who love the male lifestyle including dressing in the clothes men wear.

"It becomes clearer when they start to have sex with someone of the same gender, that is woman and woman.

"In view of this, the National Fatwa Council have decided and taken the stand that such acts are forbidden and banned."

Under the edict, girls are forbidden to sport short hair and dress, walk and act like boys.

Male homosexuality - specifically sodomy - is illegal in Malaysia and punishable with up to 20 years in jail.

Accusations of sodomy have twice been levelled against the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in what he says are politically motivated attempts to destroy him.

But lawyers say there is no provision banning lesbian sex in Malaysia's civil code.

The latest fatwa appears to be an attempt to push lesbianism towards illegality.

Harussani Idris Zakaria, the mufti of northern Perak state, said the council's ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are "immoral".

He said: "It doesn't matter if it's a law or not. When it's wrong, it's wrong. It is a sin."

How long before the sharia courts in England begin handing down similar sentences? "Three Algerian Christians Face 3 Years in Prison for Blasphemy," from ICC, October 23 (thanks to Kyros):

Algeria (International Christian Concern)-On October 21, 2008, an Algerian court held a hearing on the case of three Christians who face three years of prison and a fine of 500 euros. The Court held the hearing in Ain Turk, a town 267 miles away from Algiers, the capital of Algeria.

The three Christians are Youssef Ourahmane, Rachid Seghir and Hamid Ramdani. The public prosecutor accused them of "insulting Islam, its prophet and threatening the former professing Christian that complained against them.”

Earlier, a lower court agreed with the prosecutor and handed down a 3 year prison sentence and 500 euro fine. The defendants were not present at the time of the decision. The defendants then appealed the decision of the lower court on July 15, 2008. The appeal court postponed the hearing until October 21, 2008.

The case against the three Christians was brought by the public prosecutor with the help of Mr. Shamouma Al-Aid. Mr. Al-Aid "converted" from Islam to Christianity for a period time during which he also attended a Bible school. According to Compass Direct News, Mr. Al-Aid continued to maintain relations with radical Muslims while attending churches and the Bible school.

Later he "reconverted" to Islam and alleged that the three Christians were blaspheming Islam and its prophet Mohammed. He also alleged that the Christians were threatening him for "reconverting" to Islam.

The Judge, after hearing the arguments of the parties, scheduled to decide the case on October 29, 2008.

ICC's Regional Manger for Africa, Jonathan Racho, stated, "As a member of the international community, the Algerian government has the obligation to respect the freedom of religion for its Christian minorities. It is time for Algerian officials to carry out their obligations by ceasing to interfere with freedom of worship of the country's Christian minorities."...

At last, someone takes up the issue of the nearly forgotten elephant in the living room. "Candidates On Fighting Islamic Extremism," from CBS, October 23 (thanks to Twostellas):

Obama:

* Says if he gets a shot at bin Laden, he will take it - with or without Pakistani permission.
* Would send in more troops to Afghanistan.
* Wants to give Pakistan $7 million to build schools, roads and health clinics.

McCain:

* Says it’s a mistake to be so explicit about violating another country territory, but leaves little doubt he would go after bin Laden even if that would be necessary.
* Would send in more troops to Afghanistan.
* Supports non-military aid to Pakistan, but has put no price tag on it.

(CBS) To help you make an informed decision in the presidential election, CBS News is devoting a large part of our broadcasts until Nov. 4 to telling you where the candidates stand on major issues - from the war in Iraq to health insurance to education … and a lot more. Each piece will be an in-depth look at the issues facing the 44th president. In this installment, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports on how what Barack Obama and John McCain propose to do about Islamic extremism would affect the world.

The Issue

The driver of an orange-and-white car shown in a video tape is a suicide bomber. He just barely misses an American convoy. The threat of Islamic extremists on the battlefield is so deadly, the only way to win is to shoot first.

But to Greg Mortenson, the real battleground is in the Hindu Kush, where Muslim children have no schools. For him, a classroom is the best weapon against terrorists.

"I think they fear education and literacy much more than they fear a good gun battle," Mortenson said.

Since 1993, Mortenson has been building schools in mountains so dangerous you take your life in your hands just crossing a river.

"Fifteen years later, now we have 78 schools, about 28,000 students and our primary focus is on girls' education," he said.

He is competing against religious schools called madrassas, teaching jihad to young boys who graduate to terrorist training camps. And his 78 schools are badly outgunned.

"Today, there's about 25,000 extremist madrassas with about four million mostly boys going to school, learning about militant ideology," he said.

Why is that? Does anyone know or care? Do they really think that there are 25,000 "extremist madrassas" because people don't have roads or scholarships?

"Doesn't sound like a fair contest," Martin said.

"It's just a drop in the bucket," Mortenson said.

A drop in the bucket against a fanatic ideology that, for a decade now, has spawned monstrous attacks on Americans.

The Candidates

There is no more visceral issue than the battle against Islamic extremism. And from the beginning, both candidates have put it at the center of their appeal to voters.

For both men, it begins with hunting down Osama bin Laden and other top terrorists - wherever they are.

"We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I will not," Sen. Barack Obama said in May. "We must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Obama makes no bones about it - if he gets a shot at bin Laden, he will take it - with or without Pakistani permission.

Sen. John McCain says it’s a mistake to be so explicit about violating another country's territory, but leaves little doubt he would do exactly the same.

"There's a guy out there in Afghanistan or Pakistan," McCain said in March. "You know his name: Osama bin Laden. And if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I'll get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."

The battle against bin Laden and Islamic extremism began in Afghanistan. Seven years later, the United States has 32,000 troops there, and it is still not clear which side is winning.

"Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades - and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them," McCain said.

Both candidates say they would send in more troops.

"As Commander in Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists that threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban. That's why I've called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades," Obama said.

The U.S. military is already planning to send four more combat brigades - about 15,000 troops - and both candidates seem likely to approve. Both also recognize that's not enough. It will take what's called "soft power."

Obama wants to give Pakistan $7 million to build schools, roads and health clinics. McCain also supports non-military aid, but has put no price tag on it.

Has either one even been asked about the evidence that the Pakistani government has jihadists in high places, and that much of the money we have given them to fight "extremists" in the past has...gone astray?

In Los Angeles, McCain said: "Our goal must be to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs."

Does study of the roots of "violent extremism" enter into this struggle against it and attempt to win hearts and minds? Are we too politically correct even to allow ourselves to know what we're dealing with? Does McCain, does Obama have a plan for combating the Islamic supremacist ideology that renders so many of our attempts to win hearts and minds fruitless?

Does anyone even wish to know or care where this problem came from? They continue to assume that it's all about poverty, despite the fact that so many studies have shown that jihadists tend to be wealthier and better educated than their peaceful peers. Scholarships and roads will fix it. But have they even considered the possibility that some Muslims may wish to wage jihad against the West even after they receive scholarships and schools and roads and health clinics?

Is it forbidden even to raise the possibility that some Muslims will consider that an attempt to buy them off, and will hold all the more tenaciously to their ideology of violence and supremacism?

"[Safe] Bourada was one of 36 Islamic militants convicted a decade ago for providing support for bombings that terrorized France in 1995. He received a 10-year term, but won early release in 2003 under police surveillance."

"9 convicted in Paris terror trial," by Pierre-Antoine Souchard for the Associated Press, October 23:

PARIS (AP) — A Paris criminal court convicted nine people on Thursday including a French-Algerian former prison inmate who admitted establishing an Islamic group that called for armed jihad in France.

Safe Bourada, 38, was sentenced to 15 years in prison while eight others received penalties of one to nine years on charges linked to financing of and association with a terror group.

Bourada admitted in court to creating a militant group called "Ansar al-Fath," or Partisans of Victory. The group was suspected of planning attacks on the Paris Metro and Orly airport. It was dismantled in 2005 after French authorities received a tip from Algerian counterparts.

In 2005, Christophe Chaboud, head of the counterterrorism unit of the national police, told The Associated Press that the group had had "indirect" contacts with Iraq's former al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June 2006 in Diyala province.

The court ruled that one of the group's members — Kaci Ouarab, 31 — had received weapons training in Lebanon in 2005 that was designed to help carry out bombings in France.

Ouarab, who the court considered "the natural, legitimate and even operational successor" of Bourada, was sentenced to nine years without the possibility of parole for at least six.

Kais Melliti, 36, considered an important organizing and financial operative, was given eight years — without the possibility of parole for at least two-thirds of that term.

Another suspect, Djamel Badaoui, 31, was sentenced to five years. The court ruled he was in charge of "seizing goods" — notably by extorting money from prostitutes on three occasions, to fund terror attacks.

Two French converts to Islam — Stephane Hadoux, 40, and Emmanuel Nieto, 34, — were given three-year sentences, half of which were suspended by the court.

Bourada was one of 36 Islamic militants convicted a decade ago for providing support for bombings that terrorized France in 1995. He received a 10-year term, but won early release in 2003 under police surveillance.

Under Thursday's verdict, he will not be eligible for parole for at least 10 years.

Two studies in priorities: First, Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, which should -- should -- have its hands full with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, is devoting time and resources to cases like this.

Second, where did those resources come from? How are Western countries responding to their aid and support for Karzai's government being used in this fashion? Are they responding at all?

More on this story. "Journalist sentenced to die in Kabul lives to tell his tale," by Jessica Leeder for the Globe and Mail, October 23:

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- On the morning of Oct. 27, 2007, Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh got the call that changed his life.

The phone rang early, before Mr. Kambakhsh had started his day as a second-year journalism student. The caller identified himself as an official from the notorious National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's national intelligence agency.

"They said come to the NDS office," Mr. Kambakhsh recalled. At the time, he couldn't fathom what the visit was about. "I arrived over there at 10 a.m. And I waited until 3 p.m., when I asked for the manager to see if I could go home," he said. "It was my working time. They said to me, 'You cannot go. You are under arrest.' Then, they arrested me."

This week Mr. Kambakhsh narrowly escaped the death penalty over alleged actions that - even had he committed them, which he denies - would be nothing more than a typical classroom debate for a journalism student in the West.

Rather than execution, Mr. Kambakhsh now faces 20 years in prison.

In an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail from his central Kabul jail cell, the 24-year-old recounted for the first time his final moments of freedom and the events that led to his conviction.

His case has made headlines since the arrest - international justice and journalism advocates began a lobbying surge early this year after he was convicted of blasphemy for allegedly asking questions about the role of women in Islamic society.

The death sentence was reduced this week after a witness confessed to lying about Mr. Kambakhsh's alleged indiscretions, but a Kabul court still upheld the conviction.

And so, at an age when most Afghan men are raising young families, Mr. Kambakhsh finds himself locked alone in prison, pleading for justice and for a chance simply to be heard.

"I am not at fault," he told The Globe, speaking through a Pashto translator. "I am a Muslim and I respect Islamic rules and regulations. I respect the Holy book of Koran. I respect the Prophet. I am an innocent person. I must be free."

Back in October, Mr. Kambakhsh tried, to no avail, to tell the intelligence service this very same thing. [...]

Ultimately, Mr. Kambakhsh came to believe that his conviction was a sort of consolation prize, one meant to satiate local warlords who were incensed at his older brother.

Also a journalist, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi Kambakhsh's passion was to publish works outlining "how the people of Afghanistan are the victims of warlordism and extremism," he said.

"They couldn't do anything against me directly because ... I was very exact about my pieces," Yaqub Kambakhsh said yesterday.

Still, warlords and their militias had previously attempted to deter him by sending him death threats, and one pointed a gun at his head.

"They are afraid of me because ... they are linked with war crimes. If there was real freedom of expression and freedom of media, they would go to war crimes trials."

He said that the reason the warlords were deterred from killing him was likely because of his international media ties and the "international problems" that coverage of his murder would create.

And so, he said, indirectly killing his brother became their solution.

"They wanted to put pressure and shock me and shock the critical journalists of Afghanistan who are really working for democracy and freedom," he said.

To a degree, their strategy has worked. Yaqub Kambakhsh has stopped working as a journalist so he can focus on his brother's case full time. Other journalist friends, he said, have stayed away from sensitive and controversial stories in hopes of preserving their own lives. [...]

Mr. Kambakhsh's brother, Yaqub, said foreign nations investing in Afghanistan's redevelopment should press President Hamid Karzai to intervene. The President has yet to comment publicly on the case.

"If Karzai doesn't have a clear position about this case, countries like Canada must stop their support with this regime, which doesn't respect the values of democracy," he said.

"It seems that the Afghan government has two faces, one for foreign countries and one for the people of Afghanistan," he said. "The real face is very dark and extremist."

"We want the officer in question to be more responsible for his words because they touched on the sensitivities of Muslims."

How many times have we heard or read similar words? How often are similar phrases uttered in Western educational institutions? Every time one hears this sort of argument, this case may serve as a reminder of what lies farther down the slippery slope of sharia-based accommodation, and of the all-important question of where accommodation for the sake of avoiding conflict and ill will must stop. "Student officer’s remarks on Islam to be probed," from The Star, October 23:

PETALING JAYA: The Islamic Development Department will investigate a Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) student affairs officer over statements he had allegedly made on Islam.

The officer had allegedly told two female UPM students that it was “useless to be devout when one does not pay college fees.”

It was learnt that the two girls -- Nursha Fiqa Mohd Ali and Farhana Farzieana Azmi, both 21 -- were studying at UPM Serdang when they were banned on Oct 15 from living on campus a week before their examinations, which started Oct 20.

The two alleged that the officer had accused them of not paying their tuition fees when the bank had already disbursed the payments.

According to Nursha, the university took care of the loan transfer from the bank and the loan was released in early July.

“He gave no valid reason. He also made an excuse that we were evicted from the hostel because there were no rooms,” she said on Thursday.

The Islamic Student Association reported the matter to the Department in Putrajaya on Thursday.

Wanita PKR said the alleged remarks were irresponsible and confusing to Muslims, and wanted the Islamic Development Department to investigate the matter.

“We want the University to explain the matter,” said Wanita PKR chief Zuraida Kamruddin.

“The administration is supposed to set an example to students and not confuse them or display bad behaviour,” she said in a statement on Thursday.

“We want the officer in question to be more responsible for his words because they touched on the sensitivities of Muslims,” Zuraida added.

Or, from an Islamic perspective, jizya: "Payment to Afghan Governor's family part of bid to win 'hearts and minds,'" from ABC News, October 23 (thanks to Dumbledoresarmy):

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the ex gratia payment to the family of a dead Afghan Governor is part of the overall approach to the war in Afghanistan.

The Government will make a payment to the family of the Chora district Governor Rozi Khan, who is believed to have been accidentally killed by Australian soldiers during a battle with enemy forces.

Mr Fitzgibbon says the investigation into the death is not finished but it is important to make the act of grace payment.

"The project is largely about winning the hearts and minds of the local people," he said.

"We will be successful in Afghanistan when we convince the majority of Afghans that the democratic social and economic system we are offering is better than anything being offered by any other group.

"Payments like this are very important in terms of making progress in that regard."

The musician behind the Koranic phrases -- "Every soul shall have the taste of death" and "All that is on earth will perish" -- that have offended Muslims turns out to be a pious Muslim himself, who does not "want anybody to joke with Islam and to not respect Islam." The plot thickens. More on this story.

"Musician defends Sony game song," from the BBC, October 23:

The Malian musician whose song is being removed from a Sony video game because of concern it may offend Muslims has denied the music was blasphemous.

Grammy award-winning Toumani Diabate said the song celebrated the Koran.

"In my family there are only two things we know - the Koran and the kora [West African harp]," he told the BBC.

The release of the much-anticipated LittleBigPlanet was delayed when it was found that a background music track included two phrases from the Koran.

Copies of the game are being removed from shops around the world.

Diabate, a Muslim, said it was normal in Mali to mix religion and music.

"I'm really sad and I'm disappointed," he said.

"I don't want anybody to joke with Islam and to not respect Islam."

Warning

The game's creator, Media Molecule, said it was alerted to the problem by a Muslim gamer who had been playing a trial version.

The gamer had warned in an e-mail that mixing music and words from Islam's most holy text could be considered deeply offensive by Muslims.

A Sony spokesman said earlier this week that the company had decided on global recall to make sure there was "no possible way anyone may be offended by the music in the game".

At the time, a spokesman for the Muslim Forum think-tank praised Sony for its decision, saying the Koran should not be set to music because the words are seen to have come directly from God.

Diabate said his song, Tapha Niang, was recorded in 2004.

It was released on the album Boulevard de l'Independance in 2006.

The changed version of LittleBigPlanet will now go on sale on 3 November in the UK and 29 October in the US.

The little known but miserable facts of being Christian and living in Egypt. "The jihad on Egypt's Christians," by Michael Coren for the National Post, October 23 (thanks to Patrick P.):

Last week I was supposed to interview Father Zakaria Boutros on my television show. It would have been the second time I had spoken to this gentle, thoughtful man, one of the leading figures of the Egyptian Coptic Christian community and now obliged to live in exile in the United States after twice being arrested in his homeland. But on this occasion the interview was suddenly cancelled. A $60-million bounty had just been put on his head by Muslim extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda were thought to be intent on fulfilling the fatwa and it was considered too dangerous to allow him to travel to Canada. The fact that the United States government bounty on Osama Bin laden is a mere $25-million rather puts the case of this disarmingly gentle and jovial priest into proportion.

Because while he is anonymous to most North Americans, Boutros is famous or notorious throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, where his daily television broadcasts attract enormous audiences and his Web site millions of hits. His style is uncompromising. Speaking in Egyptian accented Arabic, and fluent in Islamic scholarship and the various sub-cultures of the Muslim world, he carefully unwraps the layers of the Koran and the life and teachings of Muhammad and presents his viewers with a virtually unprecedented critique of their faith. It’s the combination of accessibility and originality that makes him so threatening to militant Islam.

“We know people are leaving Islam because of what I say and they know people are leaving Islam because of what I say,” he explains. A long pause, then: “People in the West simply don’t understand the significance of this in a world that has not and probably will not embrace pluralism. The Islamic response is not to argue with me but to try to kill me.”
[...]

Egypt is a particularly acute and troubling case because of the size of the Christian minority, the horror of their treatment and the systematic and cynical denial by the Egyptian government and their puppets and fellow travellers abroad. There are between eight and ten million Christians in Egypt, around 10% of the population and for the last 30 years in particular they have faced organized discrimination in the law, education, employment and housing. As a consequence they leave Egypt in disproportionately large numbers.

Beyond this now regular, degrading oppression there are numerous cases of grotesque violence. In January, 2000, for example, in El-Kosheh, Upper Egypt, 21 Christians were killed in rioting by local Muslims, aided by the police. When authorities eventually reacted, they arrested more than a thousand local Christians, many of whom were tortured. There are numerous cases of Coptic girls being kidnapped by Muslim gangs and then being forcibly converted and married to Muslim men. If they flee these marriages and try to return to Christianity they are killed as apostates.

Church desecration is common, as are public burnings of Bibles and Christian literature. There are also documented cases of Christians being ritually crucified, the rape of Christian girls and the prolonged beating of children, some of them babies. These are not isolated incidents condemned by the state, but part of a reoccurring pattern often ignored and, in some regions, actively encouraged by police and militia. Egyptian apologists will point to certain Christians in positions of influence or, more frequently, argue that these accusations are propaganda -- lies told by Christians and Jews in North America and Europe.

They are not. Spend time with an Egyptian Christian living in forced exile and the stories and the pain tumble forth as the toxins of dark experience flow from their memory. Or speak to Father Zakaria Boutros, if he is allowed to travel and manages to survive the multi-million dollar bounty on his head.

"Look, Barack, another unsavory CAIR op! Let's go shake his hand!"

I have never credited the "Obama is a secret Muslim" rumors, but that is not the end of the story of Obama and Islam. In "Obama Would Fail Security Clearance" in the Philadelphia Bulletin, October 21, Daniel Pipes traces (and documents with numerous links) Barack Obama's ties to questionable Islamic individuals and groups:

With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democratic candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism." [...]

Pipes concludes:

That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

Be sure to read it all.

Eighty thousand Somalis, almost all of them Muslims, have been allowed into this country. What they have done can be seen in Lewiston, Maine, where their enormous burden on the benefits system left so little for the native poor, who had been paying into that system for decades, that the Mayor of Lewiston publicly expressed his alarm at the Somali influx. For his pains he was mechanically, and roundly, denounced as a "racist.”

Or it can be seen in the places where some Somalis do work, rather than live on benefits, such as those meat-packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado where the non-Somali workers, who bear the brunt of the behavior and attitudes of the Somalis in their midst, revolted when the meat-packing company was prepared to supinely give in to Muslim demands, demands that would have given preferential treatment to Muslim workers. One of the non-Muslim workers was widely quoted: "The Latino is very humble," said Garcia, 73, who has worked at the plant, owned by JBS U.S.A. Inc., since 1994. "But they are arrogant," he said of the Somali workers. "They act like the United States owes them."

You can find online complaints about Arab racism from black Muslims (or Black Muslims, that is members of the Nation of Islam, who are not considered real Muslims by the Arabs) in this country. Despite the universalist claims made for Islam, it is, and has always been, a vehicle for Arab supremacism. The reasons are not hard to find. As Anwar Shaikh (an ex-Muslim who was born in Pakistan and died in Wales in 2006) noted in his book Islam, The Arab National Religion, the Arabs consider themselves to be superior to other Muslims because they "received" the message from Allah. It was given to them and was in their language. Non-Arab Muslims are supposed to read the Qur'an, or listen to its recital, only in Arabic. Any other version, in any other language, is not the same thing.

Compare this to the missionaries for Christianity, who in some cases became extraordinary linguists in order to study native languages and dialects and translate the Bible into them. And they did this for languages that in many cases had never had a written form -- thereby helping to preserve the language for use, and for study.

What was AP's first clue? Anyway, it is clear from this article that the Salafists are gaining strength because they are able successfully to present themselves as the adherents of authentic Islam. This shows up most pointedly the ridiculousness of the line the American government is following, with its new a priori assumption that the Salafis are inauthentic in their practice of Islam: it leaves American analysts no way to evaluate, or to develop ways to challenge, the Salafist appeal.

"Ultraconservative Islam on rise in Mideast," by Paul Schemm for Associated Press, October 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

CAIRO, Egypt – The Muslim call to prayer fills the halls of a Cairo computer shopping center, followed immediately by the click of locking doors as the young, bearded tech salesmen close shop and line up in rows to pray.

Business grinding to a halt for daily prayers is not unusual in conservative Saudi Arabia, but until recently it was rare in the Egyptian capital, especially in affluent commercial districts like Mohandiseen, where the mall is located.

But nearly the entire three-story mall is made up of computer stores run by Salafis, an ultraconservative Islamic movement that has grown dramatically across the Middle East in recent years....

Critics worry that the rise of Salafists in Egypt, as well as in other Arab countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, will crowd out the more liberal and tolerant version of Islam long practiced there. They also warn that the doctrine is only a few shades away from that of violent groups like al-Qaida — that it effectively preaches "Yes to jihad, just not now."...

Salafist groups are gaining in numbers and influence across the Middle East. In Jordan, a Salafist was chosen as head of the old-guard opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. In Kuwait, Salafists were elected to parliament and are leading the resistance to any change they believe threatens traditional Islamic values.

The gains for Salafists are part of a trend of turning back to conservatism and religion after nationalism and democratic reform failed to fulfill promises to improve people's lives. Egypt has been at the forefront of change in both directions, toward liberalization in the 1950s and '60s and back to conservatism more recently.

The growth of Salafism is visible in dress. In many parts of Cairo women wear the "niqab," a veil which shows at most the eyes rather than the "hijab" scarf that merely covers the hair. The men grow their beards long and often shave off mustaches, a style said to imitate the Prophet Muhammad.

The word "salafi" in Arabic means "ancestor," harking back to a supposedly purer form of Islam said to have been practiced by Muhammad and his companions in the 7th century. Salafism preaches strict segregation of the sexes and resists any innovation in religion or adoption of Western ways seen as immoral....

Its preachers often glorify martyrdom and jihad — or holy war — but always with the caveat that Muslims should not launch jihad until their leaders call for it. The idea is that the decision to overturn the political order is up to God, not the average citizen.

But critics warn that Salafis could easily slide into violence. In North Africa, some already have — the Algerian Salafi Group for Call and Combat has allied itself with al-Qaida and is blamed for bombings and other attacks. Small pockets of Salafis in northern Lebanon and Gaza have also taken up weapons and formed jihadi-style groups.

"I am afraid that this Salafism may be transferred to be a jihadi Salafism, especially with the current hard socio-economic conditions in Egypt," says Khalil El-Anani, a visiting scholar at Washington's Brookings Institution.

The Salafi way contrasts with the Islam long practiced in Egypt. Here the population is religious but with a relatively liberal slant. Traditionally, Egyptian men and women mix rather freely and Islamic doctrine has been influenced by local, traditional practices and an easygoing attitude to moral foibles.

But Salafism has proved highly adaptable, appealing to Egypt's wealthy businessmen, the middle class and even the urban poor — cutting across class in an otherwise rigidly hierarchical society.

In Cairo's wealthy enclaves of Maadi and Nasr City, robed, upper-class Salafis drive BMWs to their engineering firms, while their wives stay inside large homes surrounded by servants and children.

Sara Soliman and her businessman husband, Ahmed el-Shafei, both received the best education Egypt had to offer, first at a German-run school, then at the elite American University in Cairo. But they have now chosen the Salafi path.

"We were losing our identity. Our identity is Islamic," 27-year-old Soliman said from behind an all-covering black niqab as she sat with her husband in a Maadi restaurant.

"In our (social) class, none of us are brought up to be strongly practicing," added el-Shafei, also 27, in American-accented English, a legacy of a U.S. boyhood. Now, he and his wife said, they live Islam as "a whole way of life," rather than just a set of obligations such as daily prayers and fasting during the holy month of Ramadan.

A dozen satellite TV channels, most Saudi-funded, are perhaps Salafism's most effective vehicle. They feature conservative preachers, call-in advice shows and discussion programs on proper Islamic behavior.

Cairo's many Salafist mosques are packed on Fridays. Outside Shaeriyah mosque, a bookstall featured dozens of cassettes by Mohammed Hasaan, a prolific conservative preacher who sermonizes on the necessity of jihad and the injustices inflicted on Muslims.

Alongside the cassettes, a book titled "The Sinful Behaviors of Women" displayed lipstick, playing cards, perfumes and cell phones on the cover. Another was titled "The Excesses of American Hubris."

Critics of Salafism say it has spread so quickly in part because the Egyptian and Saudi governments encouraged it as an apolitical, nonviolent alternative to hard-line jihadi groups.

These critics warn that the governments are playing with fire — that Salafism creates an environment that breeds extremism. Al-Qaida continues to try to draw Salafists into jihad, and its No. 2, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, praised Salafists in an Internet statement in April, urging them to take up arms.

"The Salafi line is not that jihad is not a good thing, it is just not a good thing right now," said Richard Gauvain, a lecturer in comparative religion at the American University in Cairo.

The Salafis' talk of eventual jihad focuses on fighting Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, not on overthrowing pro-U.S. Arab governments denounced by al-Qaida. Most Salafi clerics preach loyalty to their countries' rulers and some sharply denounce al-Qaida.

Egypt, with Saudi help, sought to rehabilitate jailed Islamic militants, in part by providing them with Salafi books. Critics say President Hosni Mubarak's government sees the Salafists as a counterweight to the opposition Muslim Brotherhood....

And which race is Islam again? An update on this story. "Council rejects plan for Islamic school," from the Australian Associated Press, October 23:

A Sydney council says race played no part in its decision to reject a proposal to build an Islamic school.

Bankstown Council reaffirmed last night its earlier decision to block a proposed 1200-student Islamic school in Bass Hill, in Sydney's south-west, saying the Al Amanah College had failed to address traffic and environmental concerns.

The council first voted against the proposal in December. But in July the college took a revised development plan to the Land and Environment Court, which asked the council to comment on the amended proposal.

Councillors voted last night to reject the proposal in their submission to the court.

The issue of race was raised after Independent councillor Max Parker asked whether a study had been done on the impact on racial harmony in the area.

''There's a fear of Muslims, as they are in the world today, moving into that area,'' Cr Parker said.

A council spokeswoman denied yesterday race had anything to do with the decision, saying Bankstown prided itself on its racial diversity.

''We have about five Islamic schools in our area already. We also have Greek schools. We have Catholic schools. We have state schools,'' she said.

''Bankstown is very proud of its diversity. It's what makes Bankstown so special and so interesting.''

Community opposition to Islamic schools came to public attention in May, when Camden Council, in Sydney's south-west, rejected a 1200-student development on planning grounds.

That decision attracted widespread condemnation because of the Camden community's strident anti-Muslim campaign against the school. A campaign also accompanied Bankstown Council's decision, with the Bass Hill Resident Action Group opposing the Islamic school.

But as with the council, they have also repeatedly denied race was an issue. The council spokeswoman said parking and overdevelopment of the site were the reasons for the initial rejection in December.

The amended plans voted on last night ''weren't any better'', she said.

''In that area already there is a school, there is another housing development going through. The area borders the Hume Highway, which is a major highway,'' she said.

''We're not talking a little quiet suburban area. We're talking an area that has a lot of residential housing, but already has a lot of busy roads on it.

'So you put 1200 students, teachers, a 30-place child-care centre, next to an existing high school, and we are talking a genuine traffic issue.'' After the council rejected the plan in December, any decision on the development was up to the court, the spokeswoman said.

''We weren't voting on the development itself. We don't have the development power.

''The development power is with the Land and Environment Court,'' she said.

''What we were doing last night is determining what our feedback on the amended plans would be to the Land and Environment Court.''

There are promises of action from the prime minister, but it would be pleasantly surprising to see concrete steps taken faster than could be measured on the scale of geological eras. "More violence in Mosul: father and son killed because they were Christian," from AsiaNews, October 23:

Mosul (AsiaNews) - The Iraqi government is asking Christians to remain in Iraq, but is doing nothing to stop them from being slaughtered. Yesterday in Mosul, in the Sanaa neighborhood, a father and son were killed: no further details are available at this time on the method of the attack or the identity of the two victims, but their death must be seen in connection with the violence in recent weeks against Christians in the city.

The pogrom of the Iraqi Christians resumed at the beginning of October, and in a couple of weeks there have already been 14 deaths, plus 10,000 people who have fled from the massacre, toward the plain of Nineveh. Five homes have been destroyed in bombing attacks. An apparent calm has been seen in recent days, so much so that appeals have been launched calling for exiles to "return to their homes." According to a source for AsiaNews in Mosul, yesterday's murder could be "a signal to the Christians from terrorists or extremist groups," making clear to them that "they must leave the city."

Although half of the Christian population has left the city of Mosul because of fear of the violence, Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki is calling on them to "stay" and to "collaborate in the reconstruction of the country." Yesterday the prime minister met with a delegation of religious leaders, to whom he confirmed that "the violence in Mosul is part of a precise political plan in the country," although he did not specify who is responsible for the attacks.

Al Maliki is asking the Christians "not to give in to the criminal plan," and to remain in Iraq in order to contribute to the rebuilding of the country: in order to do this, he expresses his hope that there may be "the help and collaboration of the entire society," so that it may be "the Iraqis themselves who defeat those who want to drag the nation into chaos and wipe out the presence of Christians." The prime minister also promised that the guilty "will be punished," and that their supporters will also be stopped.

Finally, the prime minister promises that "the presence of Christians among the security forces and police will be increased, including at the officers' level": previously, the rank of officer had always been reserved for Muslims. Al Maliki says that the presence of Christians within the army should help them to "remain in their homes and on their land," feeling safer and better protected. He recalls that the destruction of the community would do "enormous damage to the entire Iraqi people," and calls upon the Iraqi ministry for migrants to do everything it can "to facilitate their return home."

Yesterday, Louis Sako, archbishop of Kirkuk, once again denounced the campaign of extermination against the Christians, emphasizing "the political game connected to the upcoming elections," and to the plan, which he has always opposed, to create "a Christian enclave in the plain of Nineveh." Now it is a matter of understanding what concrete action the central government will take in order to defend the Christians from persecution. On October 21, a delegation of the faithful from Mosul met with local and national political leaders, including the deputy prime minister, Rafeaa al-Eissawi, the mayor of the city, and the governor of Nineveh. The Christian delegation gave the deputy prime minister a letter asking for the return home of families that have fled, action from the government to protect them, complete security for students returning to school and adults returning to work, and compensation for the people whose homes have been destroyed.

Reason? He converted to Christianity. "Somali Christian shot at Muslim wedding," from Mission Network News, October 23 (thanks to Kyros):

Somalia (MNN) ― According to International Christian Concern, a 22-year-old Somali Christian, Ahmadey Osman Nur, was murdered last month during a wedding ceremony.

The Muslim wedding Nur was attending was performed in Arabic, the language of Islam. Even though most Somali Muslims don't speak Arabic, it is considered the "language Allah hears" and is therefore used in Muslim ceremonies.

Due to the lack of comprehension of the service by any of the guests, Nur asked that the contents of the wedding be translated into the Somali vernacular. The Sheik performing the ceremony was aware of Nur's conversion to Christianity, however, and took offense to the request. He declared him to be guilty of apostasy and asked a guard to "silence" him.

Nur was encouraged to leave the ceremony, and upon exiting, he was shot and killed by the armed guard.

Nur is not the first Christian to be put to death for his faith in Somalia. It seems as though many Islamic extremists are looking for reasons to kill believers, and they often do so without much justification.

In the past nine months, six Somali Christians have been martyred, including Nur.

Ironically, Nur is now remembered for his generous compassion for those in need, a quality necessitated in the Five Pillars of Islam...

Hate Crimes Racket Update: here are some interesting new developments on the Great Dayton Islamophobic Hate Crime Mosque Attack Hoax.

The police report states that the "victim" claimed that the alleged attackers were black males wearing baseball caps. Given that the entire incident appears at this point to be a fabrication, why would the "victim," or those who were coaching her, want to conjure up an image of menacing, Obsession DVD-watching black males spraying poison gas into the mosque? It seems like an odd choice for this little fictional account, given that Muslim spokesmen generally dismiss resistance to jihad violence and Islamic supremacism as "racism," and that such a false allegation could stoke racial tensions in downtown Dayton, as well as spark mutual suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslim black Americans.

The answer may be that the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton is moving its mosque to the distant and white suburbs of Sugarcreek Township -- a plan approved just days before the alleged incident, as this pre-incident Dayton Daily News article records. Whoever was behind this hate crime hoax may have calculated that any resistance to the mosque in Sugarcreek Township might be weakened by the proposition that Muslims were being threatened by black males in the mosque's present location.

Meanwhile, another hint that the people at the mosque know this was a hoax is that CAIR, which was actively involved in strong-arming the zoning board to approve the new mosque, makes no mention of the incident on its website, even though CAIR is vitally interested in such incidents and prepares an annual report on alleged anti-Muslim hate crimes. Certainly CAIR was initially interested: the CAIR-Cincinnati office even prepared and issued the mosque's initial press release on the "attack."

Also noteworthy is that Chris Rodda, the Daily Kos blogger who blamed Obsession and John McCain for this "hate crime," is now trying to walk back her story -- after the Dayton Daily News cast doubt on her report (after the Daily News itself walked back its coverage, much to Rodda's consternation).

Rodda built her libelous article on a third-hand report, from someone she admits wasn't at the mosque. But, hey, when you can score cheap points against conservatives, both against McCain a few weeks before the election and against the Clarion Fund at a time when CAIR was stoking the flames over the Obsession DVD, why not lie or at least exaggerate a little?

Finally, I'm told by my source for all this that the magic pepper spray can that was initially claimed to have been discovered several hundred yards from the mosque several days afterwards (and after police and fire personnel had already searched the area -- as the police report notes), but was later admitted to have come from inside the mosque, was conveniently found by the mosque treasurer. My source says that it seems clear that either the boy who was questioned or the girl who claimed to be the victim got into someone's purse inside the mosque, discovered a key chain pepper spray, and started playing with it (not knowing what it was) when it discharged. He says that it is highly doubtful that any charges will be filed or anything further will be said -- so as to protect the guilty (and to prevent police receiving the full wrath of CAIR for embarrassing anyone at the mosque for their fraud).

And for all of the innocent black males in the area of the mosque who were falsely placed under suspicion, along with the Clarion Fund, no apology will be forthcoming.

UPDATE: The estimable Aziz Poonawalla, an associate of the raving psychotic blogger Dean Esmay, was among those who rushed to blame Obsession and "Islamophobia" for this "hate crime." Subsequently he termed the discovery that the pepper spray was found inside, rather than outside, the mosque a "strange twist" -- which is an egg-on-the-face euphemism for "the attack was a hoax." But has Aziz Poonawalla issued a retraction and an apology? What do you think?

How many more girls must die as they did?

Over at Pajamas Media, in "The FBI Was Right. Why They Stopped Calling Yaser Said an Honor Killer," Phyllis Chesler says that the FBI's decision to stop calling the murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their father "honor killings" is tactical, not politically correct:

So here’s what I think: If indeed Yaser Abdul Said is still hiding in the United States–and is being sheltered by other Muslims–imagine it from their point of view. If they are strangers, not blood relatives, would they be more or less likely to turn him in if they learned he was a common murderer or if they learned that the FBI was pursuing him because he was a Muslim? Or a Muslim honor killer? Since the FBI is clearly interested in capturing him, perhaps they concluded that advertising Said as an honor killer might limit their chances of success.

Some Muslims view honor killings as the only way a family can cleanse itself from having been dishonored. To them, an honor killer might be seen as a hero. Thus, designating Said as an honor killer might endear them to him and lead to his being safely sheltered for a longer period of time. Other Muslims may disapprove of honor killings entirely but might also see the designation as a way in which Western culture might choose to unfairly stigmatize all Muslims. Thus, the more moderate Muslims might also be less inclined to “get involved” in turning another Muslim in.

There is no doubt in my mind: Said did honor kill his two young and vivacious daughters. But, I understand why the FBI might have changed the wording on the poster.

I sure hope she's right. On the other side of the balance is the fact that, as Chesler notes, CAIR was livid over the "honor killing" designation -- and some sectors of the FBI have been extremely solicitous of CAIR over the years.

Ultimately, whether or not the FBI terms this an "honor killing," the primary question is this: will American law enforcement officials ever begin to call upon the Muslim leadership in America to go beyond their bland affirmations that this practice has nothing to do with Islam, and actually do something about it? It is absolutely true that honor killing takes place in other cultural contexts. It is also true that the Qur'an says nothing about it. But it also cannot be denied that the stipulation in Islamic law that a parent who murders his or her child is exempt from penalty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2) creates a legal and cultural atmosphere in which this sort of thing is tolerated. And our own multiculturalist blinders render officials too ignorant and/or bemused to confront this.

The case at hand concerns a woman who would have her child taken away from her under sharia law if she were to be repatriated to Lebanon. It is, of course, highly ironic that Britain itself has now imported the same set of issues into its own legal system by allowing rulings in domestic sharia courts to be legally binding. It may not be long before the high court must take up sharia rulings within the U.K. -- an unfortunate and costly eventuality.

"Law lords say sharia is 'arbitrary and discriminatory'," by Joshua Rozenburg for the Telegraph, October 22:

The law lords ruled this morning ruled that it would be a “flagrant breach” of the European Convention on Human Rights for the government to remove a woman to Lebanon where she would automatically lose custody of her 12-year old son under Lebanon’s sharia family law.

The woman – referred to only as EM – came to the UK on false documents in 2004 with her son, AF, then aged eight. She has had sole custody of AF since birth but fled from her allegedly violent husband in Lebanon because of laws that automatically award fathers physical custody of their children from the age of seven.

Today’s decision reversed earlier rulings by the Court of Appeal, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the Home Secretary that returning the woman and her son to Lebanon would not violate her right to family life despite the automatic separation of mother and child.

But the judges stressed that the case was exceptional. The family had to satisfy what Lord Bingham described as a "very hard test": whether removal to Lebanon would so flagrantly violate their rights to family life as to completely nullify those rights there. Lord Bingham said "the effect of return would be to destroy the family life" of the mother and son as it is now lived.

The first judgment was delivered by Lord Hope. His comments on sharia are worth reading in full:

“The appellant came to this country as a fugitive from sharia law. Her son had reached the age of seven when, under the system that regulates the custody of a child of that age under sharia law in Lebanon, his physical custody would pass by force of law to his father or another male member of his family. Any attempt by her to retain custody of him there would be bound to fail. This is simply because the law dictates that a mother has no right to the custody of her child after that age. She may or may not be allowed what has been described as visitation. That would give her access to her son during supervised visits to a place where she could see him. But under no circumstances would his custody remain with her.

“The close relationship that exists between mother and child up to the age of custodial transfer cannot survive under that system of law where, as in this case, the parents of the child are longer living together when the child reaches that age. There is a real risk in all these cases that the very essence of the family life that mother and child have shared together up to that date will be destroyed or nullified.

“This system was described by counsel during the argument as arbitrary and discriminatory. So it is, if it is to be measured by the human rights standards that we are obliged to apply by the Convention. The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company is a fundamental element of family life.

“Under our law non-discrimination is a core principle for the protection of human rights. The fact is however that sharia law as it is applied in Lebanon was created by and for men in a male dominated society. The place of the mother in the life of a child under that system is quite different under that law from that which is guaranteed in the Contracting States by article 8 of the [Human Rights] Convention read in conjunction with article 14. There is no place in it for equal rights between men and women.

“It is, as Lord Bingham points out, the product of a religious and cultural tradition that is respected and observed throughout much of the world. But by our standards the system is arbitrary because the law permits of no exceptions to its application, however strong the objections may be on the facts of any given case. It is discriminatory too because it denies women custody of their children after they have reached the age of custodial transfer simply because they are women. That is why the appellant removed her child from that system of law and sought protection against its effects in this country.”

But Lord Brown sounded a word of caution:

“It is certainly not the arbitrary and discriminatory character of the rule of sharia law dictating that at the age of seven a child’s physical custody automatically passes from the mother to the father (or another male member of his family) — wholly incompatible though such a rule is with certain of the basic principles underlying the Convention — which, uniquely thus far in the jurisprudence both of Strasbourg and the UK courts, qualifies this particular ‘foreign’ case as one for protection under article 8. Rather it is the highly exceptional facts of the case (as set out in my Lords’ opinions) which in combination provide utterly compelling humanitarian grounds against removal."

More on Hizballah's activities across South and Central America. "Colombia says smashes drug ring with Hezbollah ties," from Reuters, October 22:

BOGOTA - Colombian authorities said on Tuesday they broke up a drug and money-laundering ring in an international operation that included the capture of three people suspected of shipping funds to Hezbollah guerrillas.

More than 100 suspects were arrested in Colombia and overseas on charges they trafficked drugs and laundered cash for Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel and for outlawed paramilitaries in a network that stretched from South America to Asia, the attorney's general office said.

"The criminal organization used routes through Venezuela, Panama, Guatemala, Middle East and Europe, bringing in cash from the sale of these substances," the statement said.

Among those arrested in Colombia were three people suspected of coordinating drug smuggling to send some of their profits to groups such as Hezbollah, the office said.

Those suspects -- Chekry Mahmoud Harb, Ali Mohamad Abdul Rahim and Zacaria Hussein Harb -- used front companies to send drug cash overseas, it said without providing further details.

Colombia, a key U.S. ally, remains the world's No. 1 cocaine producer, although over the last seven years Washington has sent more than $5 billion in aid that has helped weaken the country's FARC rebels and reduce violence from its conflict.

Washington has often complained that Iran-backed Hezbollah and other Islamic groups that it considers terrorist organizations are active in Arab communities in South American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

As this report indicates, though Iran had claimed it was going to commute juvenile executions, it has not. Same thing happened in 2004: Iran said it would ban the executions of minors, but failed. Welcome to taqiyya land (Shia Iran) where lying to bide time -- such as when Iran insistis it wants nukes simply for energy (until it actually gets them) -- is a constant prerogative vis-a-vis gullible infidels.

"Iran youth hangings 'to continue'," from the BBC, October 20:

A senior judicial figure in Iran has cast doubt on reports that Tehran will stop executing juveniles.

Deputy prosecutor general Hossein Zebhi told a newspaper that under Sharia law only a murder victim's family could commute a death sentence.

He had suggested last week that judges were being told to stop imposing the death penalty on young offenders.

Iran has been widely condemned for being one of the few remaining nations to execute offenders aged under 18.

Amnesty International says at least six youths have been executed in Iran this year alone.

Mr Zebhi was quoted by the daily Etemad-e Melli newspaper as saying: "The principle of retribution... is not up to the government, rather it is up to the private plaintiff."

"Only if the next of kin give their consent can there be a reduction in the punishment," he added.

Blood money

His earlier comments suggesting a possible ban on juvenile execution had been welcomed by human right campaigners, including Amnesty International.

Critics say Iran's practice of handing down the death penalty to juvenile offenders - those aged under 18 at the time of the crime - is explicitly banned by the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Tehran is a signatory.

Many convicted juvenile offenders have been on death row for years, as negotiations continue over whether victims' families will accept blood money - cash to avoid execution.

If he had only stopped at beating her, all would be well. One imam explains it thusly: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]. It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard."

"Saudi is beheaded for beating his Yemeni wife to death," from M&C, October 22:

Riyadh - A Saudi national was beheaded Wednesday after being found guilty of beating his Yemeni wife to death with a stick, an interior ministry satetment said.

It said the killing happened in the southern Jizan region. A Saudi national had already been executed Tuesday in Jeddah for killing his wife during an argument.

The latest executions bring to 78 the number carried out this year in the kingdom, where Islamic sharia law pertains.

And the outcome of the presidential election will help them make up their mind. "Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel," by Barak Ravid for Haaretz, October 22 (thanks to James):

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government....

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race....

More on this story. "Al-Qaeda websites 'hit by Western cyber attacks,'" from the Telegraph, October 22:

Three al-Qaeda propaganda websites have closed down after reportedly coming under cyber-attack from Western intelligence agencies.
The al-Ekhlas, al-Buraq and al-Firdaws websites, all linked to al-Fajr the propaganda wing of al-Qaeda, have been out of action since September this year, but al-Fajr denied the sites had "fallen into the hands of the enemy".

The websites were due to broadcast videos celebrating the September 11 attacks, but have blamed technical problems for their silence, the Guardian reports.

The sites, which users access with a password, are closely monitored by intelligence agencies and academics studying al-Qaeda movements.

Suspicions of a deliberate campaign of disruption have been fuelled by the fact that a fourth website, al-Hesbah, continues to operate.

Several experts suggest al-Hesbah may be being used by Saudi intelligence to monitor and entrap jihadi militants.

The sites routinely post video clips of "martyrdom operations", such as suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, plus statements purportedly from Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Joint Anglo-US cyber-attacks have been rumoured but neither government will confirm involvement. UK security officials have spoken of an "aggressive" new effort to counter al-Qaida internet propaganda.

William McCants, a consultant at West Point military academy, New York, who runs the Jihadica.com website said: "I think it's probably being orchestrated by several governments and it would have to be on the black operations [illegal but deniable] side," McCants said.

"Whoever is doing this knows what they are doing. They are being surgically precise."

"I think the Americans are behind this," said Egyptian security analyst Dia Rashwan. "I believe there has been a decision by the US to close down these internet forums as part of their strategy of defeating al-Qaida and to stop it getting attention in the Arab world."

So much for the notion that political concessions -- such as withdrawing from Iraq -- would make Spain safe from al-Qaedist terror strikes. A month after the Madrid bombings, the newly elected Socialist government withdrew Spanish forces from Iraq, adding "The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster [and] the occupation continues to be a disaster. It has only generated violence." Bin Laden later hailed this move as a "positive initiative," adding his famous line "reciprocal treatment is part of justice," implying that, now that Spain has stopped "oppressing" Muslims, they are no longer a target. Apparently that's no the case; after all, al-Andalus is still part of the umma and needs "cleansing."

Spain remains Al-Qaeda target: report," from the AFP, October 20:

MADRID - Spain’s remains a target for Al-Qaeda four years after the Madrid bombings that killed 191 people, the intelligence service said in a report quoted by a Spanish newspaper Monday.

“The counter-terrorist activities by the state security forces since the March 11, 2004 attacks shows that Spain remains a target of the Al-Qaeda network and its allies as well as a source of human resources,” the intelligence service said in a report, a copy of which was seen by the El Pais daily.

“Al-Qaeda has not lost sight of the global jihad and, in exchanges with the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), it has told them to quickly attack local targets and reminds them that their real goal is to cross into Al Andalus,” it said.

Al Andalus is the Arabic name for the parts of the Iberian peninsula that were under Muslim, or Moorish, control for almost 800 years until the late 15th century.

The GSPC last year changed its name to Al-Qaeda’s Branch in the Islamic Maghreb.

In September 2007, Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri called for Al Andalus to be restored to the Islamic world, saying the first step needs to be the “cleansing’ of Spaniards and French from the Maghreb.

The Al-Qaeda inspired bombings on four packed commuter trains on March 11, 2004 killed 191 people and wounded hundreds of others.

Spanish courts last year ordered 21 people jailed for life over the attacks. Four have since been acquitted after appeals.

Spanish police last week arrested 12 north Africans suspected of links to the bombings.

Another one bites the dust. For a small, shadowy organization, al-Qaeda certainly has many "leaders." In the last two weeks, the media has reported the killing of any number of al-Qaeda leaders in various Muslim countries.

"Saudi leader of Al Qaeda killed in Iraq," from Al-Sumaria, October 20:

Defense Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Mohammed Al Askari reported that a special force killed on Sunday a Saudi leader of Al Qaeda called Abu Ubaida and his Iraqi assistant in a crackdown operation in Fatimiyat region in north eastern Baghdad. Al Askari noted that Abu Ubaida wearing an explosives belt was killed before he was able to detonate himself.

In a separate incident, two citizens were killed and tens others wounded including two policemen in a car bomb explosion near a fuel station in Al Zaafaraniya region.
Hours after the first explosion, a second explosion detonated in the same region in the crowded Al Kubaisi market wounding seven citizens. In Daquq District, a member of Kurdish Asayesh security forces was killed in an explosion targeting his car as he was heading to work.

Moreover, awakening forces in Samarra uncovered a mass grave including remains of 11 people from the city residents who were kidnapped by Al Qaeda last Ramadan.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, death to you

So now, along with the I-was-only-kidding line of defense used by jihadis and their lawyers, we can add "I-was-only-exploiting-al-Qaeda." Jihad-Jack Update.

"Terror suspect Jack Thomas fooled al-Qaeda, trial told," from the Australian, October 20:

JACK Thomas deceived al-Qaeda by accepting money from the terrorist organisation while not intending to carry out an offer of "work", a court has been told.

Crown prosecutor Nicholas Robinson SC said Mr Thomas was not naive as he described himself, but calculating.

"He was the one who used the term naive, but look at what he did,'' Mr Robinson told the court in his closing address today.

"He took tickets and money from (Khaled) bin Attash who was clearly a member of al-Qaeda ... and he took them intending not to work.

"He deceived al-Qaeda.''

Mr Thomas, 35, is on trial in the Victorian Supreme Court for receiving funds from a terrorist organisation and possessing a falsified passport.

The Crown alleges the Melbourne man accepted $US3500 ($5053) and a plane ticket to Australia from al-Qaeda operative, Khaled bin Attash, in Pakistan between November 2002 and January 2003.

During that period, Bin Attash approached Mr Thomas claiming to have a message from Osama bin Laden that the terrorist leader wanted a "white boy'' to work for him in Australia, and that he, bin Attash, could offer $US10,000 ($14,438) immediately to anyone willing to carry out an attack.

Mr Thomas travelled to Afghanistan in March 2001, originally with his wife and child, to train with the Taliban to fight in the civil war.

He ended up in an al-Qaeda camp but says he didn't know it was run by the terrorist group until he saw Osama bin Laden at the camp for the first time, before September 11.

His barrister, Jim Kennan SC, said Thomas was certainly naive because he travelled to Afghanistan in the belief he could help stop the civil war.

"If that isn't the height of naivety, what is?'' Mr Kennan told the court.

"We say it's the height of naivety.''

Mr Kennan said the proposition by the Crown that Thomas defrauded al-Qaeda showed what a "thin and desperate Crown case this is.

"That's really ... a very desperate interpretation of that evidence,'' he said.

Mr Kennan argued there was no evidence before the jury to suggest bin Attash was a member of al-Qaeda.

He said the money and ticket were organised by Pakistani well-wishers, with whom Attash was involved.

The case before Justice Elizabeth Curtain, is continuing.

As we all celebrate this minor victory (it seems almost weekly now that an "al-Qaeda #" from country X is slain) we should also ponder this far more reaching question: will the slaying of individual terrorists -- be they Zawahiri or bin Laden -- have any real effects on the long term goals of the jihad? Will it eliminate the theological mandate of jihad and the division of the world into two perpetually warring halves -- Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb? Killing them off one by one is of course a very good thing. But let's always keep in mind the differences between symptom (terrorist) and cause (ideology).

"Top Al-Qaeda operative believed killed in Pakistan," from the Regional Times, October 20:

ISLAMABAD: A missile attack from a remotely piloted US aircraft is believed to have killed a senior member of Al Qaeda in South Waziristan, a former member of a militant group in the region said. The operative, Khalid Habib, an Egyptian who was chief of operations in Pakistan’s tribal region, was described by the CIA as the fourth-ranking person in the Qaeda hierarchy.

Never mind that Kuwaiti women are not required by law to wear them. But when the country allowed women to run for office, legislators added the vague stipulation that they must abide by "Islamic law." And they have wasted no time in playing that card.

An update on this story. "Two female Kuwaiti ministers risk "dismissal" for not wearing the veil," from AsiaNews, October 21:

Kuwait City (AsiaNews/Agencies) - The only two women in Kuwait's executive branch risk being driven out from the government. The parliamentary legal committee has decided that their presence violates the constitution and the law, because they do not wear the hijab, the Islamic veil. The committee's statement will now be submitted to voting by the fifty members of parliament.

The Kuwaiti parliament is dominated by conservatives, who had four of the seven seats on the committee. But three "liberals" also voted against the two women. "The committee unanimously decided that appointing the two ministers in the cabinet violated article 82 of the constitution and article one of the election law for failing to abide by Islamic regulations," says Ali al-Hajeri, spokesman for the legal and legislative committee.

The two women under accusation are education minister Nuriya al-Sebih and administrative development minister Mudhi al-Humoud. Appointed following the elections on May 17, the two women immediately met with negative reactions from conservatives. At its first session, on June 1, parliament approved submission of the matter to the committee, which has now decided. That same day, as cabinet members took the oath, nine parliamentarians left the hall in protest against the "un-Islamic" attire of the two women.

In inaugurating the second parliamentary session today, emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah made no reference to the matter.

Striving for spectacle and economic impact, along with loss of life. "Indonesian police arrest 5 over fuel depot 'plot'," from CNN, October 22:

JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Police in Indonesia arrested five suspected militants Tuesday who they said were planning to attack a major fuel depot in Jakarta.

Brigadier General of Police Sulistyo Ishak said a raid on a house in north Jakarta also yielded a stash of explosives and weapons. Investigators found 21 bullets, 6.6 lbs. (3 kgs) of explosives, PVC pipes and bomb-making manuals, he said.

The suspected militants are believed to have ties to the al Qaeda-linked terror network, Jemaah Islamiyah, which aims to create a Muslim "superstate" across much of southeast Asia.

Authorities blame Jemaah Islamiyah for the Bali nightclub bombings of 2002, which killed more than 200 mostly Western tourists.

Investigators also suspect the group in subsequent attacks on the Australian Embassy and J.W. Marriott hotel, both in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta.

The house that police raided was rented under the name of one of the suspects, Wahyu Ramadhan. Authorities accuse him of being involved in violence in Poso, on Indonesia's eastern Sulawesi island.

Fighting between Christians and Muslims in the region killed more than 1,000 people in the late 1990s. Clashes still break out periodically and sometimes turn deadly.

Police have accused Jemaah Islamiyah of sending armed militants to Poso.

In Human Events today I discuss two recent anti-Muslim hate crimes -- and what really happened:

Students at Illinois’s Elmhurst College can rest easy: an arrest was finally made last Thursday in the alarming case of Safia Jilani, a Muslim Elmhurst student who told police two weeks ago that a masked man hit her on the head with a gun in a campus restroom -- and that on the mirror was written the blood-chilling words, “Kill the Muslims.”

When Jilani originally reported this incident, college officials acted quickly, locking down the campus for a thoroughgoing police search. Hundreds of students out of the 3,300-member student body held a rally protesting the “hate crime,” and campus police offered Muslim students free rides and escorts around campus.

But now the crisis is over: the culprit has been arrested and charged with a felony -- and turns out to have been…Safia Jilani. After investigating the incident all week, police announced Friday that no one had hit Jilani on the head at all, and charged her with filing a false police report -- a felony that could get her three years in prison.

Islamization of Turkey Alert: "Turkey: Suspect In Malatya Murders Expected State Support," from Compass Direct, October 21:

MALATYA, Turkey, October 21 (Compass Direct News) – Lawyers and judges in the case of three Christians murdered here in April 2007 are continuing to investigate whether the attack was masterminded by troubled youths or shadowy elements of the Turkish state.

Plaintiff attorneys believe the first witness at the hearing on Thursday (Oct. 16), local journalist Varol Bulent Aral, incited the suspected ringleader of the attacks to murder by convincing him foreign missionaries were connected to the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), a domestic outlawed terrorist organization. The suspected ringleader, Emre Gunaydin, testified that Aral promised him state immunity for the planned attacks.

Two Turkish Christians, Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel, and a German, Tilmann Geske, were brutally tortured and killed at a publishing house in this southeastern city on April 18, 2007.

Gunaydin, along with Salih Gürler, Cuma Ozdemir, Hamit Ceker and Abuzer Yildirim, who have been in jail for the past 18 months, are accused of the murder. They are all between 19 and 21 years old.

The court subpoenaed Aral for the last four hearings, but he failed to show at each one. The 32-year-old testified at Thursday’s hearing at Malatya Third Criminal Court under police custody since he was arrested on Oct. 2 for carrying a false ID.

Gunaydin said during the hearing that Aral had promised him state protection for the murders.

“He had promised me state support,” he said. “[Aral] should explain this to the court.”...

Read it all.

AP plumps openly for the mujahedin, and drops all pretense of the idea that jihad is a spiritual struggle: "There is a degree of public sympathy for Saudis who carry out jihad in occupied Muslim countries." But still there is no indignation, in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Islamic world, over the proposition that jihad warfare against unbelievers, and their subjugation, is justified. These men have been indicted for waging jihad against the wrong people, not because the idea of waging jihad in a violent manner is itself wrong, or because jihad against unbelievers is wrong.

"Saudis indict 991 terrorism suspects," from Associated Press, October 22:

Saudi authorities have indicted 991 suspected militants for participating in terrorist attacks carried out over the past five years, the interior minister said yesterday.

The legal proceedings mark a big step in the country's fight against terrorism. Saudi Arabia has so far been reluctant to resort to trying suspects on terrorism charges that could result in death sentences until it can show the public that every effort has been made to give the defendants a chance to repent.

"The kingdom has been the target of an organised terrorist campaign linked to networks of strife and sedition overseas," said the interior minister, Prince Nayef, in a statement. "This campaign targeted the way of life, economy and principles of Saudi society and sought to create chaos.

"It has direct links to a deviant group that adopts the [mindset] of al-Qaida."

The 991 suspects, he said, have been responsible for more than 30 attacks in Saudi Arabia since May 2003, killing 164 people, including 74 security officials. A further 160 attacks have been foiled, he added. The statement did not specify the nationality of the suspects or whether all were in custody.

The Saudi government fears a public backlash against its crackdown if it takes overly harsh measures against those indicted, and wants to avoid accusations it was doing so to please the US.

There is a degree of public sympathy for Saudis who carry out jihad in occupied Muslim countries. Many of those who have returned from imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay or Iraq have been placed on rehabilitation programmes to encourage them to renounce terrorism.

Nayef said the militants' actions had damaged the reputation of Islam and charity work, "attaching the label of terrorism to Islam and Muslims"...

I thought it was only "Islamophobes" who did that.

An update on this story. "Denmark: Two men found guilty of terror plot," from AdnKronos International, October 21:

Copenhagen, 21 Oct. (AKI) - A Danish citizen of Pakistani origin and an Afghani national were found guilty on Tuesday of preparing a terrorist attack after they were filmed mixing explosives.

Hammad Khuershid was sentenced to 12 years in prison, while Abdoulghani Tokhi was sentenced to seven years by a court in the town of Glostrup, just outside the capital of Copenhagen. Both are in their early 20s.

The men were arrested after an anti-terror raid that saw Danish agents filming them as they were carrying out a test blast. The explosives were reportedly the same as those used in the 2005 London bombings that killed 52 people.

Both men claimed the explosives were going to be used for fireworks.

At the trial prosecutors alleged that Khuershid had ties to an Al-Qaeda operative but they were unsure whether the attack was going to take place in Denmark or abroad.

Investigators claimed to have found bomb-making manuals in the men's homes.

Tokhi has a residency permit to live legally in Denmark, but authorities said he would be deported after completing his sentence.

There have been several anti-terrorism raids, arrests of terrorism suspects and a terrorism trial in Denmark since 2005. That was the same year that the country attracted widespread condemnation from Muslims around the world after Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

Denmark is also involved in the war in Afghanistan and maintains a small contingent of troops in Iraq.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh Update. "Afghanistan: Student gets 20-year term for downloading rights material," from AdnKronos International, October 21:

Kabul, 21 Oct. (AKI) - A journalism student who downloaded and distributed an article on women's rights from the Internet has been sentenced to 20 years in prison in Afghanistan.

Seyyed Parwiz Kambakhsh, arrested a year ago, was sentenced to death by a court in Balkh. But a Kabul appeals court on Tuesday reduced the sentence to 20 years in prison.

"This is an unjust sentence," defence lawyer, Mohammad Afzal Nourestani, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

"We will appeal to the Supreme Court. During the hearing they did not consider that my client is not the author of the article, that it was downloaded from an Iranian site and he had to ask several friends to read it."

During the appeals process, Parwiz Kambakhsh was tortured and mistreated.

"My client says he was tortured in Balkh prison and during interrogation was forced to admit to being the author of the article that appeared to be the work of an Iranian blogger."

On 28 November Seyyed Parwiz Kambakhsh will receive the Information, Safety & Freedom watchdog's Press Freedom award in Siena.

Last year the award was given to Iranian Kurdish journalists, Adnan Hassanpour and Hiwa Boutimar, both of whom have been sentenced to death by an Iranian court.

Speaking of modern, moderate Jordan, here is yet another honor killing.

"Jordanian Man Kills Sister to Cleanse His Family's Honor," from the Associated Press, October 21:

AMMAN, Jordan — A Jordanian judicial official says a 30-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly killing his sister to cleanse the family's honor.

The official says the man, who lives in the southern city of Aqaba, used his traditional robe to strangle the woman.

The official spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the media.

The man confessed to Sunday's killing, saying his sister would leave the family home without their approval.

In conservative Jordanian society, unsupervised movements by women damages a family's honor.

An average of 20 Jordanian women are murdered annually in honor killings. The government has tried to solve the problem with harsher sentences to perpetrators.

They could be doing a lot more.

The Islamic jihad as a program of Sharia expansionism began in the 7th century in Arabia. Today's jihadists consider themselves to be only the latest warriors in a 1,400-year-old struggle. But here is some good news from the UK: that 1,400-year-old struggle will end by 2038!

This will be a miracle of immense proportions: an ancient and deeply entrenched ideology that is aggressively asserting itself all over the globe today will -- with what is from a historical perspective an amazing suddenness -- evanesce and disappear utterly. And the most amazing part of this is that this ideology will disappear without even being challenged. Apparently no one has to confront the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism as such for them to be defeated by 2038. All we have to do is continue "anti-terror" efforts, and the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims will take care of the rest.

What's that? Peaceful Muslims aren't confronting the spread of the jihad ideology now, so why should we assume that they will begin doing so, and indeed, defeat it within three decades? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

"MoD scientists 'deployed in UK,'" from the BBC, October 21 (thanks to Edward):

Scientists from Porton Down have been deployed in the UK a "number of times this year", the government's head of counter-terrorism has told MPs.

The lab mainly specialises in nuclear and biological warfare but the reason for the deployments is not known.

Brigadier Chip Chapman told a committee of MPs he could not go into details for national security reasons.

The Commons defence committee is probing the UK's level of readiness for a terrorist or other emergency.

Lord West said ministers did not know the location and capability of all deployable troops in the UK at any one time but he was confident they could find out "straight away" in the event of an emergency....

How reassuring!

Brigadier Chapman told MPs "immediate response" teams from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) had been deployed on a number of occasions in the past year.

"The number of occasions they have been used and the circumstances I can not go into in this forum," said Brig Chapman, director of counter-terrorism and UK operations at the ministry of defence.

The DSTL, which is based in Wiltshire, is the UK's leading biological and chemical defence research centre.

It also develops a range of other technologies for military and civilian use, including X-ray scanning equipment and armour.

On the broader question of whether the UK was prepared for a major incident, Lord West confessed he did not know how many hospital beds could be made available in the event of an emergency of the order of 10,000 deaths.

But he said the Department of Health "would know" the figures and plans would be coordinated by the government's emergency planning committee Cobra.

Radicalisation

The security minister also said progress was being made on preventing young people becoming "radicalised" but he said it was going to be a long process.

He said he accepted Britain's foreign policy was a "problem" for some young Muslims but the government was now "engaging" with them.

Imagine how surprised he will be when Britain changes its foreign policy to suit its Muslim population, and then discovers that Muslim "youth" are still being "radicalized." But no initiative is being made to address the jihad ideology as such. It's all about trying to "engage" with Muslims so as to accommodate Muslim "anger" over British foreign policy.

"This isn't going to change just like that. To stop this radicalisation and extremism is going to take - and I get into trouble for saying this - about 30 years, I think....

I have been and will soon again be hurtling through the air in a tin can today, but my kindly video expert has sent me this sixth and last segment of my recent conversation with the great Geert Wilders, producer of Fitna. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, part 3 here, part 4 here, and part 5 here.

An update on this story in modern, moderate Jordan (the king rides a motorcycle, you know). "Jordan arrests poet accused of insulting Islam," by Shafika Mattar for the Associated Press, October 21 (thanks to Alex):

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Jordanian police arrested a local writer Tuesday for incorporating verses of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, into his love poetry, a judicial official said.

The poet, Islam Samhan, published his collection of poems, "Grace like a Shadow," without the approval of the Jordanian government, and authorities say it insults the holy book, the official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Samhan was charged with harming the Islamic faith and violating the press and publication law for combining the sacred words of the Quran with sexual themes.

If convicted, the poet could face up to three years in jail.

Jordanian law bans the publication of any books or articles that could be seen as harmful to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.

A book of love poems can harm Muhammad from beyond the grave?

More than two years ago, the court convicted the editors of two weekly newspapers of insulting Islam and sentenced them to two months in prison after they reprinted Danish newspaper caricatures of Muhammad.

Jordanian writers and artists urged the government in a collective petition to immediately release the poet, saying the arrest is a "retreat in the freedom of expression," and called for an end to the "oppression of freedom and intimidation practiced against intellectuals."

No word on whether those arrested were disgruntled Methodists or something else. But there is the detail that "key community leaders in the relevant areas have been contacted."

"Five arrested under Terrorism Act," from The Press Association, October 21 (thanks to Alex):

Five men have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, police said.

The men, aged 29 to 36, were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, West Midlands Police said.

Officers swooped on five residential addresses in Birmingham at about 6am on Tuesday.

A further two business properties were also searched following a "long and complex investigation" by the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit.

A police spokeswoman said the arrests were not related to any immediate plot or threat to public safety.

Officers later confirmed that the arrests took place at five addresses in the Sparkhill, Ward End, Hodge Hill, Bordesley Green and Aston areas of Birmingham.

The police spokeswoman said: "The properties are now being searched.

"As part of the investigation, a further residential address in Stechford, Birmingham, and two business properties in central Birmingham and Kenilworth, Warwickshire, are also being searched."

Police are not currently seeking anyone else in relation to the arrests.

The spokeswoman added: "The families of the men are being supported by specially trained officers, and key community leaders in the relevant areas have been contacted."

Former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke recently suggested that al Qaeda may be trying to influence the outcome of the upcoming presidential elections. After describing al Qaeda’s recent attacks in the Middle East (Yemen, Pakistan), Clarke stated that these strikes may have been primarily geared at aggrandizing al-Qaeda’s capabilities via the media.

He then concluded that “Even more likely is the possibility that al Qaeda would hope the [“media-amplified”] attack would benefit John McCain. Opinion polls, which, as noted above, al Qaeda reads closely, suggest that an attack would help McCain. Polls in Europe and the Middle East also suggest an overwhelming popular support there for Barack Obama. Al Qaeda would not like it if there were a popular American president again.”

Clarke does not, however, explain why it is that al-Qaeda eschews a “popular president” or what that even means. Nor does he explain why al-Qaeda would want McCain, of the two candidates, the one who has been more forthright about associating Islamic ideology with al-Qaeda.

Moreover, the recent attacks in Yemen and Pakistan reveal very little: Islamist organizations have been attacking “apostate” governments from the beginning, well before 9/11; there is no reason to tie these events to American elections and certainly not see them as benefiting McCain.

That said, there is plenty of evidence that al-Qaeda has long been interested in influencing the outcome of American elections. Their primary method is propaganda -- those many chastising al-Jazeera communiqués by Osama bin Laden and his Second Ayman Zawahiri that have become mainstays over the years. The most obvious example is when a long bin Laden video surfaced days before the 2004 presidential election (Bush and Kerry).

Then, bin Laden repeatedly portrayed the Bush party as war-mongering racists (Bin Laden once even managed to sneak in a remark about the treatment of the American natives at the hands of the white man, and Malcolm X-quoting Zawahiri the treatment of his “black brothers” in America). Bin Laden further depicted Bush Sr as a wanna-be “monarch,” who established his sons on “thrones,” and was responsible for “the mass slaughter of [Muslim] children.”

Bush Jr was portrayed as being “blinded by the black-gold [oil],” which he killed “millions of children in Iraq” for. Bin Laden even managed to mock Bush for the now infamous anecdote -- thanks to Michael Moore -- concerning the president reading a goat-story to children when the strikes of 9/11 commenced.

Bin Laden concluded by saying that peace and security do not revolve around presidential candidates, but are rather in the hands of the people. But he also knew that the people’s will is made manifest in the president they elect. In other words, by mercilessly bashing Bush, his father, and his party, with nary a word about Kerry, he simultaneously implied that, if anyone, only the latter has a chance of ushering in peace and security.

More interestingly, in this same pre-2004 election harangue, bin Laden voiced no complaints or grievances concerning the eight year interval separating the father from the son -- the “Clinton era” -- further fueling the notion that the liberal clintonesque Democrats, ever celebrating diversity, tolerance, and equality, will set the world to right.

When stories like this appear, apologists are quick to claim that this isn't the "real" sharia. And the sharia law creeping forward in the U.K. has nothing -- nothing -- to do with this brand of sharia. And yet wherever there arises an effort to impose sharia law more robustly, the same issues concerning the rights of women and unbelievers also appear. But we're always told it's a misunderstanding of the tolerant and pluralistic principles of the "real" Islam.

"Sharia in force on atolls of the Maldives," from AsiaNews, October 20:

Malè (AsiaNews) - It is a natural paradise, an archipelago of more than a thousand islands, but that's not all. The tourists don't realize it, but the Maldives is also one of the few countries in the world that allow only a single religion for its inhabitants: Sunni Islam. The human rights organization Forum 18 has carried out a survey on the situation of religious freedom in the country in view of the second round of the presidential election. On October 28, the population of the archipelago is called to the ballot box to vote on the leader of the Maldives. The favored candidate is Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, in power since 1978.

The tourists should realize it, and take their business elsewhere.

According to the official statistics, out of a population of 300,000 inhabitants, there are no non-Muslims. Nonetheless, ten years ago 50 Christian inhabitants were locked up in the prison of Dhoonidho, and once released continued to live under surveillance, prohibited from meeting together, praying, or reading religious texts not approved by the government.

It is only in the last few years that there have been a few small signs of change in the country. 2007 brought a new movement, called New Maldives. Identifying itself as reformist, the new organization has promoted a campaign on behalf of democratic renewal in the country. Nonetheless, New Maldives has never expressed clear condemnation of the total absence of religious freedom in the archipelago. Also in 2007, attorney general Hassan Saeed resigned in protest against the president, charged with blocking reforms.The first terrorist attack also took place last year, with Islamic militants accused over an explosion in the park of Malè, which wounded a number of tourists.

This past August, when Gayoom announced the implementation of a new constitution, many international observers hailed the event as a first positive sign. It nonetheless emerges from the analysis of Forum 18 that very little has changed in the life of the country, and almost nothing in the area of religious freedom.

According to the revised constitution, in article two, it says that the republic "is based on the principles of Islam." Article nine says that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives"; number ten says that "no law contrary to any principle of Islam can be applied in the Maldives." Article nineteen states that "citizens are free to participate in or carry out any activity that is not expressly prohibited by sharia or by the law."

Where have we seen items similar to Article 10 above? The constitutions of Afghanistan (Article 3) and Iraq (Section 1, Article 2).

At the beginning of October, the country faced multiparty elections for the first time. Of the six candidates, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the leader of the main opposition party, Mohamed Nasheed, made it to the second round: neither of them has addressed the topic of religious freedom. According to the report by Forum 18, this silence discourages the beginning of a real process of democratization in the Maldives.

The mastermind

Hot on the heels of last year's Spy Squirrel bust comes this victory for counter-espionage. "Iran arrests pigeons 'spying' on nuclear site," from the Telegraph, October 20:

One of the pigeons was caught near a rose water production plant in the city of Kashan in Isfahan province, the Etemad Melli newspaper reported. It said that some metal rings and "invisible" strings were attached to the bird, suggesting that it might have been somehow communicating what it had seen with the equipment it was carrying.

"Early this month, a black pigeon was caught bearing a blue-coated metal ring, with invisible strings," a source told the newspaper.

The source gave no further description of the pigeons, nor what their fate might be.

Natanz is home to Iran's heavily-bunkered underground uranium enrichment plant, which is also not far from Kashan.

The activity at Iran's controversial uranium enrichment facility is the focus of Iran's five-year standoff with the West, which fears it aims to develop nuclear weapons. The Tehran government insists its programme is intended to generate power for civilian use only.

Last year, Iran issued a formal protest over the use of espionage by the United States to produce a key intelligence report on the country's controversial nuclear programme.

It is also highly suspicious of Israel, whose extensive intelligence activities are not known to include the use of pigeons.

Yet he denies terrorism charges. At any rate, forget about the "inconvenience" of metal detectors in the airport; thanks to these jihadists, now playing paintball and hanging out around donut stores may soon be deemed suspicious activities. Fort Dix Jihad Update.

"Trial starts for Muslims accused of plotting 'jihad-inspired' attack on US base," by Tom Leonard for the Telegraph, October 20:

Five Muslim men amassed an arsenal of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades for an al-Qaeda-inspired attack on a US army base, a court heard yesterday.

The suspects may have trained by playing paintball but the alleged plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey has been presented by the US government as one of the most serious examples of home-grown terrorism since the September 11 attacks.

The five men, all born outside the US but resident in the country, were charged in May 2007 with planning but not executing the attack on the base, which trains troops for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the start of their trial yesterday, prosecutors said the defendants were inspired by "jihad".

"Their motive was to defend Islam. Their inspiration was al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Their intent was to kill members of the United States armed services," said William Fitzpatrick, prosecuting.

The government alleges that in 2006 and 2007 the men turned paintball games into terrorist training sessions and met at places like Dunkin' Donuts to discuss killing soldiers on the army installation in New Jersey.

The jury was told it would see jihadist videos that the defendants watched and would learn many details of the alleged plot, including claims that one of the men went on reconnaissance missions at Fort Dix and other military installations.

The men, all aged in their 20s, have denied terrorism charges. They include three Albanian-born brothers, illegal immigrants who ran a roofing business in New Jersey.

The others are a Jordanian-born taxi driver and a Turkish-born convenience store assistant.

Their lawyers are expected to question the role of two paid government informants who made hundreds of hours of secret recordings in the case.

Addressing such potential claims, Mr Fitzpatrick said the FBI had to find people who would have credibility with aspiring terrorists.

One of the informants was interested in citizenship and the other was interested in money, he said.

The court heard that conversations recorded by the FBI included one in which Mohamad Shnewer, the Jordanian-born defendant, referred to being tailed by a car.

Quoting Shnewer in the recording, Mr Fitzpatrick said: "They are the ones, we are going to put bullets in their heads, God willing."

A sixth man who admitted supplying firearms to the group was jailed for 20 months in March.

Complete with "Imam briefing packs." More on this story. "Drive to sell halal car insurance to British Muslims," by Jeremy Grant for the Financial Times, October 20:

In the past few months, residents in some parts of London, Leeds, Birmingham and Cardiff in the UK will have noticed a glossy leaflet dropping through the letter box. It looks like any other promotional literature, except for the slogan on the front: "Halal car insurance that's right for your faith."

Appeals to a consumer's religious beliefs are unusual in a sales pitch in the UK and probably unheard of in its car insurance industry. But Principle Insurance Holdings believes the time has come for car insurance aimed at Britain's 2m Muslims.

Bradley Brandon-Cross, a former GE Capital executive - and non-Muslim - who was recruited to Principle as chief executive, says Islamic finance is growing globally. The UK government has encouraged its use in Britain and many Muslims living in poorer regions of the country have for too long had fewer insurance choices than consumers in better-off areas.

"For a long time, Muslims have not been able to buy insurance products compliant with their beliefs so they have had to make do with products that are not empathetic with those beliefs," he says.

In July, Principle became the first shariah- compliant insurance provider in the UK with the launch of products under the Salaam brand - taking its cue from the Arabic word for peace.

Salaam Insurance is a trading name owned by Principle, which has 54 shareholders - mostly from the Gulf region.[...]

Islamic consumer finance is relatively new to Britain. But, partly because of a push by the UK Treasury , services for Muslim consumers have sprung up, including the establishment of the Islamic Bank of Britain, a retail bank, in 2003. However, the sector has grown slowly. Mr Brandon-Cross says research before the launch showed many British Muslims understood the concept of halal but their knowledge of Islamic finance was "limited".

In response, Salaam has embarked on some creative initiatives. To reach as many of the estimated 600,000 Muslim car owners in Britain as possible, it has undertaken extensive "outreach" to religious leaders. "Imam briefing packs" are being sent to religious leaders to provide background information about the religious aspects of Salaam's car insurance product in case they are asked about it.[...]

One in five quote inquiries on the Salaam phone line - where sales agents speak Arabic, Urdu, Gujurati and Bengali as well as English - results in a sale, the company claims. This is comparable to industry norms, it says.

Now Salaam is about to promote to non-Muslims. Mr Brandon-Cross says: "We have always believed that certain elements of the product - its focus on ethical investments, transparency and ability to get something back - would appeal beyond the Muslim community."

Apparently the two Koranic expressions uttered in the "LittleBigPlanet" game are "Every soul shall have the taste of death" and "All that is on earth will perish." An update on this story.

"LittleBigPlanet delayed," by Jason Hill for the Age, October 20:

One of the biggest releases of the year has been delayed because music lyrics in a background song could have caused offense to Muslim players.

Sony is now hastily recalling all copies of LittleBigPlanet that had been sent to retailers and manufacturing new discs of the PlayStation 3 blockbuster with the offending music track removed.

"During the review process prior to the release of LittleBigPlanet, it has been brought to our attention that one of the background music tracks licensed from a record label for use in the game contains two expressions that can be found in the Qur'an," says a Sony statement.

"We have taken immediate action to rectify this and we sincerely apologise for any offence that this may have caused."

LittleBigPlanet was set for release in Australia on Thursday. A Sony Computer Entertainment Australia spokesman said the company does not yet have a new release date for the game but is confident the delay will be reasonably short.

A post on the official PlayStation forums from "Yasser" says "we Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Qur'an deeply offending (sic)" and that it was not the first time that games had contained material offensive to Muslims.

He said the offending musical track was in the first level of the third world in the game (Swinging Safari) and featured Arabic words from the Qur'an translated as "Every soul shall have the taste of death" and "All that is on earth will perish".

The question is Why? Is this just general oppression or does the Chinese government see a growing threat in the Koran, prayer, and mosque "sermons"? Maybe this is why sharia does not grant dhimmi status to al-mushrikin (idolaters), who must either convert or die: they don't make very good dhimmis.

"China Tightens Rules For Practicing Muslims," from All Headlines, October 19:

(AHN) - The Chinese government is attempting to limit prayer time and areas of worship for practicing Muslims in the northwestern part of the nation, which some see as an effort to control the growth of Islam.

Posted signs outside some mosques reportedly direct Muslims not to go longer than one half-hour in prayer and also not to pray outside of them, as well.

Khotan residents are also prohibited from worshipping at moques outside of their town, reportedly angering some citizens.

People who are upset with the rules do not express their concerns, however, for fear of retribution from the government.

China's rules on Islam stretch from public into other facets of life, as well, as only official versions of the Quran are acceptable to use and Imams are forbidden from teaching from the book in private.

Government officials have said the measures are necessary to contain forces from inside and outside China from tearing the region apart.

Scholars outside the region argue that the tactics being used to stifle Islam could backfire and result in more terrorist groups and activities.

I'm in an airport now, on my way to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I'm speaking tonight to resume my college tour that took me to Penn State and the Universities of Wisconsin in Madison and Milwaukee last week. One of the most common questions I get on college campuses involves moral equivalence -- and really, students, if any of you are reading this, why not throw out the canned talking points (who is feeding them to you, anyway?) and ask some real questions? You have no idea how often I get asked the same thing. Anyway, one of you will probably ask me about "Christian extremists" tonight. My answer is summed up by stories like these. My tongue-in-cheek headline is meant to illustrate a serious point: we never see stories like this in reverse. Now, why is that?

"Taliban gunmen kill Christian aid worker in Kabul," by Amir Shah for Associated Press, October 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

KABUL, Afghanistan – Taliban gunmen killed a Christian aid worker in Kabul as she was walking to work on Monday, and the militant group said it targeted the woman because she was spreading her religion.

The dual South African-British national, who worked with handicapped Afghans, was shot to death by gunmen who drove by on a motorbike in western Kabul, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary.

The Taliban claimed responsibility.

"This woman came to Afghanistan to teach Christianity to the people of Afghanistan," militant spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press. "Our (leaders) issued a decree to kill this woman. This morning our people killed her in Kabul."...

Islamic law, of course, forbids Christians to proselytize among Muslims. They should rather adopt a posture of "willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

In evaluating the threat of Islam and Jihad, for the colin-powells of this world what counts is the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence. He takes the sentimentalism of our depraved politics at face value: "and then there is Mary, who lives in Sioux City, Iowa and makes $13.42 an hour." In this he recalls Bush at one of his State-of-the-Union farces, pointing to an Iraqi woman, who had been deliberately seated next to the parents of a Marine killed in Iraq. He asks her to stand up and acknowledge the applause of the crowd, applause presumably due her because she is "an Iraqi woman" who has not tried to kill Americans, and may even support what they are doing, or think they are doing, in Iraq -- which makes her, of course, a hero.

In an interview yesterday, Powell reached new heights or depths (they are the same in this case) of anecdotal absurdity. He offered up this:

There are crazy people who kill their families all the time. Christians, Hindus, Druids, whatever. Heck, most murders are committed by someone who knows the victims well.

Those things are indisputably true. It is also indisputably true that Islamic law is unique in giving divine sanction to certain kinds of abuse of women and children.

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." -- Qur'an 4:34

And...

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

It is the job, or it should be the job, of Muslims in the U.S. who profess to embrace Western values and pluralism, and to reject Islamic supremacism, to teach against the attitudes that lead to this kind of thing. In any other context this would be axiomatic: womens' rights advocates in the West have fought long and hard against certain Western cultural attitudes that they have linked to the abuse of women. But when it comes to Islamic cultural attitudes that may lead to such abuse, and particularly to Islamic cultural attitudes that are linked to Islamic teaching, those same womens' rights advocates grow curiously silent.

Welcome to the New Multicultural Midwest: "Man throws wife, daughter out window in south St. Louis," from KMOV.com, October 18 (thanks to Paul):

St. Louis (KMOV) -- Police said late Saturday afternoon a 51-year-old man living with his family in a second floor apartment threw his wife and their 13-year-old daughter out the window.

The second floor apartment, located across the street from the Bevo Mill restaurant in south St. Louis, is nearly 17-feet above the sidewalk.

The woman and her daughter are in stable condition. A witness said the mother seemed almost in shock and the daughter was bleeding profusely.

The family is from Afghanistan and police said the father spoke little or no English. Other family members acted as interpreters....

Men traveling in civilian clothes to find work, although they claim that many of them were soldiers. In any case, the beheadings are sanctioned by Qur'an 47:4, which tells Muslims to "strike at the necks" of the unbelievers -- a verse routinely ignored by the televised pundits who have assured us repeatedly that the Qur'an says nothing about beheading.

"Taliban beheads bus passengers," from Agence France-Presse, October 20:

TALIBAN militants hijacked a bus in southern Afghanistan last week and killed as many as 40 passengers, authorities said, although only six beheaded bodies were recovered by today.

A spokesman for the insurgent group confirmed the militia had seized the passenger bus in Kandahar province and said 27 on board were killed because they were soldiers.

The defence ministry denied they were troops.

Kandahar provincial police chief Mutihullah Khan Qatah said there were 50 passengers aboard the bus when it was ambushed on Friday in Maiwand district about 50km east of Kandahar city.

"Among them 10 people were released after they were said to be civilians. The rest of them were killed," he said.

Six bodies were in the district clinic and about two dozen more were believed to be in a Taliban-controlled area, Mr Qatah said later.

"We are still trying to find them."

The police chief said the men, all apparently aged between 20 and 25 and in civilian clothes, were from Kabul and travelling to Iran to seek work in the neighbouring country. Hundreds of Afghans work illegally in Iran....

Moral priorities in order: girl severely burned and in danger of death -- fine. Girl wearing lipstick -- way out of bounds.

Sharia Alert: "Girl set alight for wearing lipstick," from AAP, October 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

An 11-year-old girl has been set on fire by a relative in India's northern city of Jaipur for wearing lipstick and being inappropriately dressed.

Police say the girl suffered burns over 90 per cent of her body and her chances of survival are bleak.

They've arrested her great uncle who allegedly poured kerosene on the girl and set her alight yesterday.

Investigators say the 55-year-old man, a conservative Muslim, told the police he was enraged at the girl wearing lipstick and being scantily dressed.

But relatives have accused the man of trying to molest the girl and setting her on fire when she objected.

A refreshing departure from the desire on the part of the State Department and Homeland Security to avoid naming the enemy. "Military report says terms 'jihad,' 'Islamist' needed," by Bill Gertz for the Washington Times, October 20:

A U.S. military "Red Team" charged with challenging conventional thinking says that words like "jihad" and "Islamist" are needed in discussing 21st-century terrorism and that federal agencies that avoid the words soft-pedaled the link between religious extremism and violent acts.

"We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict," said the internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The report, "Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words," was written by unnamed civilian analysts and contractors for the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and South Asia. It is thought to be the first official document to challenge those in the government who seek to downplay the role of Islam in inspiring some terrorist violence.

"The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."

The report contributes to an ongoing debate within the U.S. government and military over the roots of terrorism, its relationship to Islam and how best to counter extremist ideology.

It cites two Bush administration documents that appear to minimize any link between radical Islam and terrorism.

A January 2008 memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties stated that unidentified American Muslims recommended that the U.S. government avoid using the terms "jihadist," "Islamic terrorist," "Islamist" or "holy warrior," asserting that would create a "negative climate" and spawn acts of harassment and discrimination.

Dan Sutherland, Homeland Security officer for civil rights and civil liberties, said the document is not department policy.

"This was a compilation of recommendations and thoughts provided to us by some prominent American Muslim thinkers and never was intended to be Department of Homeland Security policy," he said in an interview.

"If a paper from another part of government says this doesn't make sense, that's a valid point. This memo is a thought piece meant to stir discussion."...

Read it all.

All humans generally live according to some set of priorities. A person may make a priority of health, of pleasure, of study—of absolutely anything, really. But it is practically a law of nature that a person must make a priority of something. Even those who lead unstructured existences unconsciously live according to some set of unarticulated priorities, if only according to something so basic as the primal need for food, drink, and shelter.

For many people, religious practice — striving to obey God’s commandments — is a high priority, the highest, even. Yet this priority can come into conflict with the character of the society in which one lives. This is undoubtedly the case for devout Muslims who voluntarily relocate to Western nations. This invariably will compromise what many of them profess to be their ultimate priority: living in accordance to the divine laws of Allah (i.e., sharia — most of which is derived from the words and deeds of seventh-century Mohammad).

Some of these Muslims arrive in the West and refuse to compromise. Consider the following news stories:

A few Muslim cashiers working at Target stores in Minneapolis last year refused to scan customer purchases that may have contained pork products. Instead of swiping the products themselves — which is their job — they inconvenienced the customers or fellow employees by having them do it.

Muslim cab drivers have long been discriminating against customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. Officials at the St. Paul International Airport estimate that, on average, alcohol-bearing customers seeking cab rides are denied 77 times per month. Some blind customers have also been turned down on account of their seeing-eye dogs.

Muslims in Seattle have requested (and been granted) regularly scheduled hours for their exclusive use of public pools; an all-Muslim-girls basketball team at a Chicago university demanded that men be barred from attending their matches; some 200 Muslim women signed a petition at a Michigan fitness center demanding separate workout times for men and women, or at least the erection of a screen divider between the men’s and women’s section (which was granted).

More recently, Muslims have been demanding special rights in regards to prayer time during Ramadan.

All of these issues revolve around the Muslim desire to live according to Allah’s laws — which, among other things, ban contact with pigs, dogs, and alcohol, insist on punctuality concerning prayer, and have rigid social guidelines, especially in regards to public interaction between the sexes. From a religious point of view, then, the anti-social behavior of these Muslims is logically consistent. They are doing only what their religion commands them to do. And their refusal to compromise on these points demonstrates that adherence to the commandments of Islam is a priority of the utmost importance to them.

However, if living in strict accordance to sharia is the first priority of some Muslims, one wonders: Why have they voluntarily come and immersed themselves in infidel countries that do not recognize sharia law and, indeed, allow many things that run counter to it, such as the selling and consumption of alcohol and pork and the liberal intermingling of the sexes?

Most of the Muslim countries that Muslims abandon for the West are much more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle and uphold many if not all aspects of sharia law. Yet, each year, thousands of supposedly “ultra-devout” Muslims forsake these countries and, of their own free will, come and surround themselves with wine-imbibing, swine-eating libertines. Why?

John VI Cantacuzenes Alert from AP, October 19 (thanks to Eleytheria ´H Thanatos):

China has won new friends in Pakistan with its pledge to build two nuclear power plants in the energy-starved nation just weeks after rival India signed an atomic deal with the United States....

While Qureshi gave few details, enhanced cooperation with China will likely help offset Pakistan's resentment of a recent deal allowing US businesses to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to neighboring archrival India.

The cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K. must now be staggering. The cost includes putting non-Muslim agents -- or paying Muslims who may not always be, and who very often may not be, reliable -- to monitor nearly two million people. The thousands (by now) of mosques, the madrasas, the coffee shops, the curry-shops, the convenience stores, the very monica-ali streets, reeking of Rawalpindi in the midst of John of Gaunt's once-sceptered isle (the scepter being quite different from the decapitatory knives of today), have to be patrolled, not only for the usual crime, but for the Islam-promoted schemes and plots, of which are so many.

There are, at the moment, about 2,000 groups or individuals that are apparently being watched. What does that take, in round-the-clock manpower? How many policemen or security agents are left for the task of protecting British citizens from ordinary crimes, when so much time and money must go into the monitoring of Muslims?

"So I think you can't write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we're looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading." Of course! Why didn't anyone think of this before? If we just do what Muslims want, they won't fight against us!

"Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction' - ex-MI5 chief," by Richard Norton-Taylor for The Guardian, October 18 (thanks to Mark):

A former head of MI5 today describes the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction" and says the invasion of Iraq influenced young men in Britain who turned to terrorism.

In an interview with the Guardian, Stella Rimington calls al-Qaida's attack on the US "another terrorist incident" but not qualitatively different from any others.

"That's not how it struck me. I suppose I'd lived with terrorist events for a good part of my working life and this was as far as I was concerned another one," she says.

In common with Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired as MI5's director general last year, Rimington, who left 12 years ago, has already made it clear she abhorred "war on terror" rhetoric and the government's abandoned plans to hold terrorism suspects for 42 days without charge.

Today, she goes further by criticising politicians including Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, for trying to outbid each other in their opposition to terrorism and making national security a partisan issue.

It all began, she suggests, with September 11. "National security has become much more of a political issue than it ever was in my day," she says. "Parties are tending to use it as a way of trying to get at the other side. You know, 'We're more tough on terrorism than you are.' I think that's a bad move, quite frankly."

Rimington mentions Guantánamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, and the invasion of Iraq - three issues which the majority in Britain's security and intelligence establishment opposed privately at the time.

She challenges claims, notably made by Tony Blair, that the war in Iraq was not related to the radicalisation of Muslim youth in Britain.

Asked what impact the war had on the terrorist threat, she replies: "Well, I think all one can do is look at what those people who've been arrested or have left suicide videos say about their motivation. And most of them, as far as I'm aware, say that the war in Iraq played a significant part in persuading them that this is the right course of action to take."

She adds: "So I think you can't write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we're looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading."

She doesn't know, of course, because she probably knows next to nothing about history or about Islam, that the war in Iraq is just a pretext, and if it weren't there, some other pretext would be found. The pretexts always shift, but the jihad imperative behind them remains.

Convenient conversion. Sharia Alert from Dubai, via PTI, October 19:

New Delhi, PTI: A 39-year-old woman living in Dubai was allegedly deserted by her husband who converted to Islam and married another woman.

Vibha Suri, who now lives in the United Arab Emirates city, got to know in January this year that her husband Vikram Suri had married one Wassima Khan in October 2007, only after a letter from the Indian Consulate in Egypt reached her parents in Lucknow informing them about their son-in-law's second matrimony.

Vikram remarried in Egypt after converting to Islam.

"It has been a year now that my trauma and grief started. Vikram had violated our marriage by committing bigamy after he converted to Islam," Vibha said over phone from Dubai.

Vibha is now fighting a legal battle at the Delhi High Court as she accuses Vikram of restricting her children from travelling outside Dubai and violating an MoU that was finalised between them in February.

"Vikram used Shariat laws in UAE courts to restrict my children's travel outside the country. The MoU was agreed on issues relating to transferring of past financial assets and Vikram's moving out of our house in Dubai," she said.

Vikram, however, contested her claims. "Vibha threatened me of taking my kids away and now that I have transferred financial assets of more than Rs 11 crore in her name, she is trying to defame me," Vikram said over phone from Dubai.

She should have moved the Dubai courts regarding the travel ban but she chose to do it in Delhi in order to delay the matter, he alleged.

Concerned over her daughters' uneasy state of mind, Vibha rues that she received no help from women's rights organisations and other government agencies.

"My daughters are trapped here in Dubai, I just want to take them to my parents in India," Vibha said....

Delusions of grandeur. But also a revelation of aspirations, just in case anyone still doesn't have a clue (and many, of course, don't). "Islamist group claims responsibility of US financial meltdown," by Mustafa Amarah at Fact International, October 16 (thanks to Gates of Vienna):

CAIRO- Members of the Egyptian Jihad group have declared that Islamic Jihad groups are responsible for the financial meltdown in the US as they distributed hundred of millions of US dollars in the world stock markets.

Fact International (FI), received a copy of the statement made by members of the Jihad Group in Abu Zabal Prison in Egypt, which said that the Jihad groups distributed the millions of dollars in the world’s stock exchanges, to hit the US economy, which resulted in the global financial crisis.

This issue is related to the collapse of the US Empire, after the main banks in the world collapsed and the world stock markets lost billions of US dollars.

The statement which was signed by prisoners who will not be mentioned by FI, said that, “the US failed in the war on Iraq and Afghanistan and had massive military, human and economic casualties.”

The statement also mentioned that a plant had to be set up for producing artificial limbs in the Occupied Palestine to overcome the loss. Another plant was established for producing the tyres of the US military Bradley as they had been damaged by the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Banu Nadir Jews submit to the Muslim forces

At the beginning of the Medinan sura 58, Allah tells Muhammad that he has heard the pleas of the woman whose husband attempted to divorce by telling her, “You are to me as my mother’s back.” A woman thus divorced could not remarry, and indeed had to remain in her ex-husband’s household as, effectively, a domestic servant (see Asad’s explanation in his commentary on Qur’an 33:4 here). Allah directs that such a divorce is not final, but can be reversed if the husband frees a slave (v. 3), fasts for two months, or feeds sixty poor people (v. 4).

According to Islamic tradition, the woman mentioned here was named Khawlah bint Tha’labah, and her husband Aws bin As-Samit, and Gabriel gave this Qur’anic passage to Muhammad after Khawlah complained to the Islamic prophet about her plight. Here again, then, the reader of the Qur’an faces two choices: either Muhammad was fabricating revelations from the supreme God in order to solve problems and settle issues he encountered in the course of his daily life, such that what claims to be an eternal book is actually filled with incidental minutiae from Muhammad’s life, or every detail of his life was mapped out for all eternity by the deity in order to teach some eternal truths, and he was therefore the most important person who ever existed. There doesn’t seem to be any other alternative.

"you did not live up to your reputation of being a crazy, muslim-hater."
-- from a note to Robert Spencer by a student at the University of Wisconsin

Puzzle: why don't students, instead of listening to others who pass on stuff-and-nonsense -- which then becomes, in the case in point, an apparently unquestioned "reputation of being a crazy, Muslim-hater" -- actually find out for themselves by going to Jihad Watch and reading what RS or others involved in the effort (and since comments are only very perfunctorily moderated, not attributing to, or blaming, the site for some of the postings that are irrelevant or unacceptable in other ways) have actually written. There are thousands of articles and postings by those contributors to choose from.

The implication of the writer is that had she not seen Robert with his own eyes, she would have continued to believe in that "reputation" of RS "being a crazy, Muslim-hater." Really? There is no other way to check that "reputation" fostered by CAIR and its determined collaborators, including not a few professors who are paid-up members of the Army of Apologists as well as of MESA Nostra (about which see here), than by seeing someone in the flesh? No way to find out what he actually writes, and whether what he writes is based on truthful rather than false quotations from the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira? No way to check these matters at all?

A Muslim student who said a masked gunman assaulted her after he wrote anti-Muslim slurs in a women's restroom at Elmhurst College has been arrested for filing a false police report, officials said today. – from this news article

One hopes the girl will be given a large fine and a prison sentence. This kind of thing has to stop. The entire campus was shut down and searched. The expense, in money and in time and in disruption of learning, is an expense ultimately borne by the students. They should understand that. They are the victims of a one-woman Muslim plot. They are the ones who have suffered, and what's more, been cynically mocked and manipulated. They should be not indignant at some imagined anti-Muslim "hate-criminals," but at the Muslimah who committed the crime and caused the expensive and time-consuming brouhaha. They also might ask themselves how many of her fellow Muslims on campus knew or strongly suspected it was all a put-up job (as with the pepper-spray-in-the-mosque farce), but were happy to go along, and happy to express in exaggerated form, their feigned indignation and baseless "worry," in order to create a rally-round-the-Muslim-victims atmosphere.

Rally around the victims, all right -- the victims of Jihad, violent and otherwise, all over the world. Start with those who are definitely non-Western -- blacks in the southern Sudan, two million of whom have been killed by Arab Muslims, and others enslaved, or Hindus persecuted and humiliated, and murdered, in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yes, start there, and let that indignatio, aimed rightly, become just as Swiftily saeva as you please.

Soon, a secretive group of worshipers tried to recruit the young widow, telling her that she could help bring the holy figure back to Earth. All she had to do was sleep with the group's male followers. – from this article

What a line. Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker, so what can a young Muslim male do when in a Muslim country there's very little candy, and liquor is haram, and besides, marriages are arranged, and you often can't see the girl you are about to marry, much less do anything else with her? You use whatever comes to hand, and what comes to hand to these randy rapists with their crazed stories is patter about hastening the Great Day.

For in Muslim societies, everything -- political dissent, or the search for sexual solace -- must be put in Muslim terms, seen as part of the universe of Islam. Here the con men in question tried both men and women: the widow-woman seeking comfort, and the unemployed man, also at his wit's end, seeking his own solace in a speeded-up messianism. She is supposed to offer herself; he is supposed to offer up his wife, his sister, his daughter, to the fine fellows in the Shi'ite group he wishes to join.

The reason for the delay is that LittleBigPlanet will have to have part of its soundtrack changed, as it could possibly be an offence to Muslims. Sony released a statement that it had been brought to its attention that a track on the background music contained two expressions which can be found in Qur’an.

Sony said that they are now rectifying the situation; they also offered an apology for any offence that it might have caused. LittleBigPlanet will now be released on October 27, a week late. The worldwide release will now be on November 14. – from this news article

Any language will contain phrases that are inadvertently echoed in other languages, or could be detected in the nonsense-patter of a comic (say, Sid Caesar, pretending to speak French or German or Italian in one of those old "Show of Shows" skits from the 1950s). Even what is meant to be background gobbledygook, even static, if listened to by someone, may in fact seem to be uttering a phrase to which he takes offense.

This is the classic behavior of paranoid schizophrenics, the kind who "hear" themselves being talked about -- talked about on every radio and television show, their names being slyly conveyed, and only the schizophrenic himself can actually understand that it is he they are talking about, and "they" are doing it -- don't you see? can't you hear it? -- all day long, and day in, day out.

More myopia in Europe, via the Brussels Journal, October 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Jacques Barrot is the European Commissioner for Justice. In an interview at Café Babel [in French] he gives some revealing answers which indicate that the European suicide is underway. He calls immigration an economic and moral necessity, adding that Islam is welcome in Europe.

Mr Barrot is a former deputy in the French National Assembly, from 1967 to 2004. He was one of the founders of today's UMP party, an institution that claims to be conservative. UMP is the party of Nicolas Sarkozy, who is known to the media and the world as a politician of the "Right." Barrot had previously supported Jacques Chirac, and before that had been a leader of the centrist movement. In 2000 he was convicted in a French court of "abuse of confidence". The case involved the diverting of government money to his party. He received an eight month suspended prison sentence but was pardoned by Jacques Chirac. Since 2004, Barrot has been a European Commissioner. He is also a Vice President of the European Commission.

Below are excerpts from the Barrot interview:

Does Europe need immigration? Barrot: Yes. The demographic situation of Europe requires a migration that must be concerted. Europe's mission is also a desire to facilitate exchanges between countries. Immigration is both an economic and a moral necessity. […] Islam is perceived by some as incompatible with European values of democracy, peace and equality of the sexes. What is the EU's position with regard to this problematical situation? B: This way of looking at Islam as antagonistic to European values is a totally partial and erroneous view. Islam is a monotheistic religion that seems to me to be compatible with our principles of laïcité. What is not compatible, are all the fundamentalists, not only Islamic, who wish to segregate and exclude other religions.

But is this really true? Christian fundamentalists are routinely equated with Islamic jihadists, and in reality it is an extraordinarily unfair comparison. Christian fundamentalists are not blowing anything up. Christian fundamentalists are not crowing about how they will soon take power and replace Constitutional rule with religious law. Christian fundamentalists are not preaching that non-Christians must accept a second-class status and pay a special tax for the privilege of not being robbed from and killed.

Here Barrot seems to be setting clear conditions for a large-scale presence of Muslims in Europe. Yet what apparatus is he setting in place, or advocating be set in place, to make sure that "pluralism" is or will be "accepted by Islam"? He seems to realize that it isn't accepted by many Muslims now. What is he doing to change that? Or is he simply favoring massive immigration of non-pluralist Muslims into Europe, and hoping for the best?

Islam was born in the desert. Thus the modern, Western notion that "deserted" and desolate regions are "safe" should be adjusted in regards to the habitation of Islamic terrorists.

"Al-Qaeda desert base looks abandoned, but is it?" from AFP, October 18:

AL-UDAIM DESERT, Iraq (AFP) — Wrecks of old vehicles. Passing Bedouins herding emaciated goats. And as far as the eye can see, a dusty, beige, lunar landscape.

The Al-Udaim desert is one of the last refuges in Iraq of Al-Qaeda fighters, who the US army and Iraqi authorities say are increasingly on the defensive.[...]

"They are finished, period. The ones who haven't been killed are in disarray. The last ones are wandering hungry in the desert," Colonel Mohammed Khaled Abdelhamid, chief of police in Dhuluiyah, told AFP.

The "Arab" fighters, a reference to the non-Iraqi fighters who spread terror in the region and have assassinated hundreds of civilians [i.e., jihadists], have gone away, Abdelhamid says.

Their local supporters, once very numerous, are keeping quiet, waiting for better days.

"The only one left is him", the police chief said, calling up on his mobile phone a picture of a smiling 30-year old in Arab head-dress -- Khaled Habib al-Juburi, the last local Al-Qaeda leader known to be still alive.

A visit to Al-Udaim still involves an impressive escort of around a dozen Hummer vehicles, each crowned with a 14.5 mm machine gun.

Only two months ago, however, the district was completely inaccessible. Al-Qaeda fighters had made it their holiday camp, a little "caliphate" serving as a rest and recuperation centre, though many of their victims ended up abandoned to the vultures.[...]

"The last time I saw men from Al-Qaeda go by was two months ago," said Salah Saif Iasem, his tanned skin contrasting with the immaculate white of his dishdasha robe.

"They leave us in peace," the Bedouin added. Have the jihadists really been "wiped out" as the authorities claim? "I don't think they've gone very far..."

Yet another example of how the ends (Islamic hegemony) justify the means (depravity, debauchery, and, in general, disgusting activities). More on this story.

"Al-Qaeda's paedo files," by Brian Flynn for the Sun, October 18:

TWISTED al-Qaeda terrorists are transmitting secret messages inside hardcore child porn images on the internet, police chiefs believe.

Scotland Yard fear the Islamic fundamentalists are embedding coded material in depraved pictures of children and using paedophile websites as a secure way of exchanging information.

One key case was that of so-called “Whitechapel Rapist” Abdul Makim Khalisadar — a former mujahidin fighter jailed for ten years in March.

Although never convicted of any terror charges, the 26-year-old first fell under scrutiny due to his links to a militant later caged for terrorism.

When police investigated, they found child porn on his computer, while DNA taken after his arrest linked him to the rape of a 27-year-old attacked in her home.

In another anti-terror swoop, officers discovered 40,000 vile images on their target’s computer.

MI5 officers are already aware of the bizarre link and are pushing for research to help them understand the mindset of terrorists.

One security services source said: “It’s surprising as terrorists are at the extreme end of Islamic beliefs where you’d expect them to be vehemently opposed to child pornography.

“They may simply be taking advantage of the technological expertise used in transmitting paedophile material for their own ends. Or they may be getting sexual gratification.” Terrorists are thought to be exploiting techniques built up by paedophiles and organised gangs to store, encrypt and transmit information securely over the web.

These include steganography — concealing digital information within computer files including photographs and word documents. The recipient can use special applications to reverse the process and access the hidden files.

Experts warn that advances in encryption techniques are now outpacing the ability of police and the security services to crack them and monitor their use.

After all, 23% of the world's Muslims believe 9/11 was legitimate, from an Islamic point of view.

"Young Midland Muslims support suicide bombings new poll reveals," from the Sunday Mercury, October 18:

ALMOST a quarter of young Muslims support suicide bombings, according to a shock new poll on an internet website.

Radicalised youths from the Midlands are among those to have posted messages backing terrorists on the www.ummah.com forum.

One member had started the survey by asking users: “Do you agree with suicide bombings?”

Of those who responded, an alarming 24 per cent said they supported suicide attacks like the 7/7 tube bombings in London and the 9/11 atrocity in America.

One posting on the poll said: “I agree with suicide bombers. They should target Muslims too. They should also target those coward sleeping Muslims.”

Another, calling himself Abu Mubarak, wrote: “I don’t particularly subscribe to the suicide bombings myself, if I were to go into battle, I would want to die in a blaze of gunfire, not by pushing a button.

“I will not say it is suicide, nor condemn them, or say they are cowards, or the rest of that nonsense, because it is NOT suicide, it is a form of fighting that instils a great terror into the hearts of the koffar (non-believers).”

Others argued that suicide bombings were unacceptable, with one contributor saying: “I don’t regard people who blow themselves up in market places packed with non-combatants as legitimate Mujahideen...

Offensive

Apparently the game may have a couple of "Koranic expressions" in the soundtrack? But when a "Baby-Coo" doll utters in between gibberish, "Islam is the Light," and non-Muslims complain, no rectifications or apologies were made; instead, Mattel stood staunchly by its product.

"LittleBigPlanet Delayed: possible offence to Muslims," from Product Reviews, October 18:

Sony were hoping to have a strong holiday season with the launch of LittleBigPlanet, but has now been dealt a huge blow as they are to delay the release of the much anticipated game. The game has been released to reviewers, but the public has yet to see the game and will have to wait a little longer now.

The reason for the delay is that LittleBigPlanet will have to have part of its soundtrack changed, as it could possibly be an offence to Muslims. Sony released a statement that it had been brought to its attention that a track on the background music contained two expressions which can be found in Qur’an.

Sony said that they are now rectifying the situation; they also offered an apology for any offence that it might have caused. LittleBigPlanet will now be released on October 27, a week late. The worldwide release will now be on November 14.

Pious hoaxer

Another spurious attempt to claim victim status that is gaining wide publicity -- despite the fact that it is completely fabricated.

"Cops: Student made up campus attack," by Russell Working for the Chicago Tribune via ChicagoBreakingNews, October 17 (thanks to Axel and Peter):

A Muslim student who said a masked gunman assaulted her after he wrote anti-Muslim slurs in a women's restroom at Elmhurst College has been arrested for filing a false police report, officials said today.

A week after the incident roiled the small college, Elmhurst Police Chief Steve Neubauer said officers had cited Safia Z. Jilani, 19, of Oak Brook, on a single count of filing a false police report. Filing a false police report is a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison.

The announcement -- made jointly by Elmhurst Police, the college and the DuPage County state's attorneys office -- concluded there was no merit to her complaint.

"The totality of all the evidence, and interviews with staff and students at the college ... concluded that this incident never happened," Neubauer said in a phone interview.

Jilani's report followed several weeks of tension on campus that began when some students allegedly called anti-Muslim slurs at students protesting the treatment of U.S. captives at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

As officials at the private college affiliated with the United Church of Christ last Friday called the incident a hate crime, hundreds of students rallied to show solidarity with their Muslim peers, who constitute about 25 of the school's 3,300 students.

The college beefed up security, including foot and car patrols by Elmhurst police, and campus security offered to escort Muslim students around the campus.

And all because of a lie.

More details here: "Police: Student made up story of being attacked," from the Chicago Sun-Times, October 17 (thanks to Axel):

A Muslim student who claimed she was attacked at Elmhurst College in what school officials described as a hate crime has now been charged with making up the story.

Safia Z. Jilani, 19, of Oak Brook, told police that on Oct. 9, a masked, male attacker struck her in the head with a handgun after she entered a restroom in the Schaible Science Center on campus, according to a release from Elmhurst police.

Police found threatening graffiti -- "Kill the Muslims" -- written on a mirror in the restroom, students and police said. Earlier Thursday, the victim had spoken at a demonstration called to denounce anti-Islamic slurs and a swastika she had discovered Oct. 2 on her locker, school officials said.

But late Friday afternoon, Elmhurst police announced that a weeklong investigation determined the assault never occurred; there was no gunman; and Jilani was arrested on a warrant for filing a false police report, a Class 4 felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison.

Bond was set at $10,000 for Jilani, who posted $1,000 and was released, according to DuPage County State’s Attorney’s office spokesman Paul Darrah. Her next court hearing is Nov. 17 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Kathryn Creswell.

The initial report of the attack triggered a lockdown at the college while police searched the campus and prompted hundreds of students to rally again the following day to protest the incident.

Officials at the 3,300-student private college -- which has about 30 Muslim students -- denounced the attack and promised to increase security on campus, including offers of rides for Muslim students to and from classes.

Mahdi-Alert. Apparently some Shia groups in Iraq are operating under a doctrine that maintains if people engage in debauched behavior -- sowing corruption in the earth -- that would only speed up the return of the Mahdi. As with taqiyya, yet another example of how in Islam, the end often justifies the means, as in this hadith about niyya, or "intention": "Actions are what they are by virtue of intent." Timothy Furnish (author of Holiest Wars, which examines Mahdism) discusses this story here.

"Shiite cults seek to wreak havoc in Iraq," by Usama Redha for the Los Angeles Times, October 15:

A few fringe groups seek to sow chaos, convinced it will hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, the Shiites' 12th imam who they believe will bring peace.

BAGHDAD — Falling into a depression after her husband was killed last year, Iman immersed herself in religious studies and became fixated on a Shiite Muslim saint.

Soon, a secretive group of worshipers tried to recruit the young widow, telling her that she could help bring the holy figureback to Earth. All she had to do was sleep with the group's male followers.

Horrified, Iman, now 20, refused.

Her experience shines a light on the rise in Iraq of fanatical cults devoted to Imam Mahdi, the Shiites' 12th imam. A descendant of the prophet Muhammad, he disappeared more than 1,000 years ago.

The Shiite faithful believe that in the world's darkest hour, Imam Mahdi will return and bring justice and calm. But where mainstream Shiite believers wait patiently for that day, groups such as the one that tried to enlist Iman are convinced that they can hasten his reappearance by spreading chaos.

Devout Sunnis also believe in the Mahdi's coming, but do not think it involves the Shiite imam.

Already, two Shiite cults have tried to stage violent uprisings in Iraq. In January 2007, as many as 250 followers of a group called Heaven's Army were killed when they massed to attack the Shiite shrine city of Najaf. A year later, as many as 80 people died in battles with the police and army during a revolt in Basra by another cult, Supporters of the Mahdi.

Some experts speak of the cults nervously, afraid of being tracked down by the groups for talking about their mysterious practices.

Dr. Hassan, a psychology professor at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University who declined to give his full name because of worries about his safety, explained that some Iraqis had embraced conservative Shiite traditions with zeal after the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein, who had oppressed the country's Shiite majority.

"Before the war, the situation was different. To talk about religious things was forbidden and one could be arrested," Hassan said. "All these feelings bottled up inside and started to appear after Saddam's fall."

Iman, who also declined to give her full name, discovered the world of cults as she sought solace in religion in the months after her husband's death. A friend suggested she do something positive while waiting for Imam Mahdi's return.

"Her talks charmed me and made me think about heaven," Iman said. She opened up to her friend in a way she couldn't with her family. She told her friend how she had been lonely since her husband's death.

"I liked to talk about my needs as a woman, and we were joking about many things. Unfortunately, sometimes I went too far talking about things I should never have talked about, but I was just joking," she said.

The woman suggested that Iman sleep with her husband if she wanted to help speed up the Mahdi's return.

"I looked at her and laughed. I thought she was joking. I told her, 'No, he is too old for me. I want someone younger,' " Iman said. "She said, 'I'm serious -- all you have to do is sleep with my husband.' "

Others shared similar stories about the group, called Mumahidoon, or "those who prepare the way."

Abu Jassem said the group preyed upon him when he was unemployed.

His recruiter was a good friend who knew of his religious fervor, and of his need for money. The friend sweetened the deal with the promise of a stipend for joining the cult. But then he told Abu Jassem of the one catch: He had to let his fellow believers sleep with his wife, daughter and sister.

"I was stunned but didn't show my astonishment. Later I told them I refused the idea because these things were against my traditions and religion."

Although Iraqi security officials dismiss the idea that such cults pose a genuine threat, Hassan is not convinced. "The cults in our society," he warned, "could pose a danger."

Times staff writer Ned Parker contributed to this report.

I've been on the road so much that I am a bit late with this, but it is worth putting up even at this late date because of the use that Islamic advocacy groups and apologists for Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism make of incidents like this. Just last week, when I spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one young man asked me about the increase in hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S., and cited this Dayton mosque incident -- apparently he was unaware of the fact that it has been exposed as a hoax, or didn't care because it was still useful. Another young man wrote a column in the campus newspaper in which he claimed that "it’s no secret that attacks against Muslims in America have been on the rise ever since the tragedies of Sept. 11." In fact, many of these attacks have been exposed as hoaxes, and Jews in the U.S. suffer five times more hate crimes than do Muslims, who are way down on the list behind many other groups.

Hate crimes against Muslims are useful to Islamic advocacy groups, as they allow them to deflect attention from jihadist and Islamic supremacist activity, and to claim protected victim status for Muslims, thereby absolving them from criticism and scrutiny. But it appears that the decency of Americans is making these stealth jihadists desperate, such that, in the absence of real hate crimes, they have to be fabricated.

"Police: Can of pepper spray was found inside mosque," by Lucas Sullivan for the Dayton Daily News, October 7 (thanks to Axel):

DAYTON — The can of pepper spray found four days after someone sprayed a 10-year-old girl in the face at a local mosque was discovered inside the mosque, a Dayton police lieutenant said.

The girl said she was sprayed about 9:40 p.m. Sept. 26 through an open basement window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, Lt. John Huber said.

The girl told police one of two men outside the basement window sprayed her with something from a white can with a red top as she watched children whose parents and relatives had gathered at the mosque to celebrate Ramadan.

A can of pepper spray was found Sept. 30 in another room in the basement inside a red and white-striped bag, Huber said. He said it was initially reported to him that the can was found near the mosque, but he later learned it was inside the mosque.

Police have interviewed a 10-year-old boy about the incident. The boy and his family are members of the mosque. Police are not ruling out that someone inside the mosque sprayed the girl, Huber said.

Chief Richard Biehl has said there is no evidence the girl was the victim of a hate crime.

She and another woman were taken to local hospitals after feeling nauseous, according to police.

A few of the 300 people celebrating the last 10 days of Ramadan with dinner and a prayer session were treated for eye irritation at the scene.

The bag and can are being checked for fingerprints by the FBI, Huber said. The FBI has also taken the girl's clothes to determine if there are any chemicals that match what was in the can. HAZMAT crews found no traces of chemicals in the mosque or on the girl.

The incident happened days after the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War With the West," was circulated in a paid advertisement in the Dayton Daily News and other newspapers across the country.

Islamic Society of Greater Dayton President Dr. Tarek Sabagh said the DVD created an atmosphere of "fear" among Muslims, but said he was not sure it was related to the incident at his mosque....

A prudent uncertainty, Dr. Sabbagh!

No justice for these poor girls

A few days ago, as we discussed here, the FBI designated the murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their father Yaser Said an honor killing. The wanted poster for Yaser Said said this:

Yaser Abdel Said is wanted for murder. On January 1, 2008, Said took his two teenaged daughters for a ride in his taxi cab, under the guise of taking them to get something to eat. He drove them to a secluded park in Irving, Texas, where he allegedly shot both girls to death. They died of multiple gunshot wounds. The 17- and 18-year-old girls were dating American boys, which was contrary to their father's rules of not dating non-Muslim boys. Reportedly, the girls were murdered due to an "Honor Killing." Said may have fled to New York or Egypt.

But the intrepid Pamela has noticed that the wanted poster has been revised, and now says this:

Yaser Abdel Said is wanted for murder. On January 1, 2008, Said took his two teenaged daughters for a ride in his taxi cab, under the guise of taking them to get something to eat. He drove them to Irving, Texas, where he allegedly shot both girls to death. They died of multiple gunshot wounds. Said may have fled to New York or Egypt.

The sentences about honor killing have been removed. Pamela called the FBI and got the runaround from an agent, as you can see at her site. The agent said: "We are not labeling it an honor killing. It's a double murder....You are asking me to read his mind -- we know it's a double homicide. It is not our job to label."

Maybe not, but it would seem to me that at least entertaining the possibility that these two murders were honor killings would open up investigative avenues that should be explored, rather than closed off a priori. Also, if the FBI had stuck to its guns and not altered its wanted poster, the fact that it was at least considering this as a possible honor killing case would have made it much easier for opponents of honor killing to point out that it is now happening even in the U.S., and to call upon Muslim leaders here to end their denial and obfuscation, and take genuine steps to teach against this practice in mosques and Islamic schools in America.

But it seems instead that political correctness has gotten to them again.

Traveling to three universities this past week, I was ready with a flip camera: I had planned to film for Jihad Watch Video the most rabid displays of Peace and Tolerance from the learned young men and women who objected to my presence on their campuses. However, I came up empty: after being shrieked at by a harridan and lectured by a self-righteous liar at Penn State (whilst I did not, alas, think to turn on the camera), the crowds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee were generally quiet, and while there were hostile questioners (including a handful who in their courtesy insisted on talking over my answers to their questions), my talks were not disrupted.

This does not, however, turn out to result from a newfound respect for freedom of speech and civil discourse. Rather, it is just a change of tactics, akin to the shift represented by the movement from the riots over the cartoons of Muhammad to the UN anti-free speech initiatives after the film Fitna. It appears to be a decision to pursue the stealth jihad rather than open confrontation. In this case, you can call it the YouTube Effect. The jihadists, their allies, and their dupes have realized how bad they look when they try to intimidate and shout down anti-jihadists. Evidence comes from an email circulated this week by the Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of California at Berkeley:

Dear SJP members,

In the next few weeks, other campus organizations will be sponsoring vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian speakers, including Daniel Pipes and Walid Shoebat.

While we are deeply offended by the racist logic and arguments that these speakers present, we would like to emphasize that disruptions are not a productive use of time. If you feel pressed to attend one of these events, please do so, but do so in a manner that is respectful of student organizers who have spent their time putting these events together, and also other audience members who do want to hear the speakers.

If the fact that these people are so blatant with their racism makes you angry, then you have every right to feel that way, but consider writing an op-ed, Facebook note, blog post, starting a Facebook group, or coming to the next SJP meeting instead, as a constructive alternative. The time to make opposing arguments is during question and answer sessions, and by setting up alternative events or passing out flyers-- not by creating loud disruptions or preventing the speakers from talking.

Thanks to those who attended our successful event tonight with Professors Norman Finkelstein and John Dugard. During the event, members of another student organization loudly and rudely disrupted the speakers and began to yell obscenities at them. You can see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNkFwb4MS6Q

The video speaks for itself, but let it also serve as a reminder to all of us in our activism: before you do anything, imagine what it might feel like to see yourself doing it on YouTube first. If it still seems like a good idea, go for it. But if you're going to look like a moron, try not to.

They may also have figured out that when they act like fascist thugs, their behavior becomes national news -- David Horowitz was on FoxNews last year talking about the treatment he received at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- but when they behave in a reasonably civilized manner, the anti-jihad message doesn't get on Fox or anywhere else beyond the people who were in the hall. Nevertheless, this strategy has a downside: the people who are present can see for themselves that their slander and propaganda is...slander and propaganda. Witness these comments by one student who attended my talk in Madison and sharply disagrees with me:

I went with a feeling of apprehension and expectations of a repetition of last year’s charade during David Horowitz’s lecture. And I have to admit I was wrong. Spencer was very respectful in his speech, he laid out his case without attacking anyone, and he even thanked the audience for not interrupting his speech. I personally had a brief exchange with him during the Q-and-A session which was very calm and respectful. And for that, I thank him.

And here is another from a student in Milwaukee:

[...] I would like to tell you that just as our university did not live up to the rumors you had heard, you did not live up to your reputation of being a crazy, muslim-hater. I was very nervous to hear you speak, and was afraid that I would be hearing more of the same hate. All of your points were well-spoken, well-researched, and quite frankly I do not see the controversy of it. [...] I think that what you are doing is very great, you are drawing attention to a problem in the face of opposition and I hope to do the same with my life. I would like to say that yesterday before the lecture I expected you to be more of the same, but I have to say that you are the closest thing I've found to someone I can call a role-model. Thank you for influencing me, you will be someone that I will look up to for a long time to come.

That's the beauty of free speech. Just as I allow open comments at this website, so that people can sift through the evidence and make their own judgments, so at these talks, people of good will inevitably will see the truth -- which is just what the jihadists and their allies do not want.

Thus as long as we can protect the freedom of speech, the jihadists and Islamic supremacists will lose. They are in a lose-lose situation: if they shout me down, they're exposed as the fascists they are. But if they let me speak, people will begin to see through them. The truth will come out either way.

Those of you who read the comments here may be familiar with a commenter named "Abdullah Mikail," who is an American convert to Islam. This delightful gentleman sends me emails from time to time, in which more than once he has issued veiled threats to this site. And why not? How do you attempt to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah" (Qur'an 8:60) while sitting comfortably behind a computer screen? Abdullah, bless his little heart, is doing his level best to find a viable answer to that question, and he at least deserves points for effort.

In an email to me last night, after railing against FrontPage Magazine for awhile, he added this:

...another blog I know of will go down rather suddenly.

Uh, gosh, which one, Abdullah? He himself kindly provides the answer in an earlier email:

Jihad Watch...clock's ticking, games almost up, what to do when the curtain comes down?...one does wonder?

Apparently our friend has forgotten that it is Muslim women, not men, who wear veils (unless, of course, we're talking about cowards who don burqas to flee the cops or noble mujahedin putting in practice Muhammad's timeless dictum, "war is deceit"). But anyway, is Abdullah threatening a cyber attack (which, after all, has just been given sanction by some of the foremost scholars in Sunni Islam) or some frivolous legal action? Another veiled threat he sent hinted at the latter:

I only question you. Have you followed all the rules? The wonderful thing about law, Robert, is that it is written down and anyone with a mind and reason can understand them if one applies ones self to the matter. So I ask, have you followed all the rules...every single one them...to the last nuance of the letter and intent of the law? And I am speaking of US law. Hind sight is 20/20. Some day, and maybe soon, you may remember that comment of mine and then understanding will dawn like a new day for you, although I feel your face will not shine then, yet only frown.

Uh, have I broken any laws, Abdullah? Well, if the Organization of the Islamic Conference gets its way and criminalizes all criticism of Islam, including examination of how jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify their action and gain recruits, then you can have me hauled off to jail. But until then, the answer is no.

But anyway, if Jihad Watch suddenly disappears, folks, for information look for our friend the "moderate" threat-issuer Abdullah Mikail. He'll be the one in the burqa.

It sounds promising, but what does the U.N. plan to do differently, when UNIFIL's presence has had quite the opposite effect from curbing Hizballah in any way? Not much, apparently: Just more talk.

"UN chief: Hizbullah must be disbanded," from the Associated Press, October 17:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Lebanon will not be a fully sovereign state until Hizbullah, and other militia groups are disbanded.

"Hizbullah's maintenance of separate military assets and infrastructure is a fundamental challenge to the government's attempts to consolidate the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese state," he wrote in a six-month report to the UN Security Council, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"In addition, several Palestinian militias operate in the country, inside and outside of refugee camps," said the secretary general, adding that they also undermine the stability of the country and the region. [...]

The secretary-general said that clashes in May and violent incidents since then raised concerns "that groups on all sides of the political spectrum may be re-arming."

In the report, Ban called on Lebanese parties to immediately halt all efforts to acquire and build paramilitary capabilities.

He reiterated that disarming and disbanding all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias should be done through a political dialogue "that will lead to the monopoly on the use of force by the government of Lebanon throughout all of its territory."

"The ultimate purpose of disarmament is the establishment of a strong Lebanese state for all inhabitants of Lebanon," he said.

That's not all: She was forced at the age of 13 to marry a 37-year-old -- child marriage, of course, being after Muhammad's own example. "Afghan girl enslaved in U.S., indictment alleges," from the Associated Press, October 17:

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Five Afghan immigrants enslaved a teenage girl they brought to the United States, with some forcing her to do chores and one beating and sexually assaulting her, according to a federal indictment unsealed this week.

The girl is from an impoverished single-parent home in Afghanistan, and she was informally adopted by another family there that forced her to marry at age 13 in 2005, Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, said Thursday.

The girl's 37-year-old husband is Mohammad Atahee, a friend of the adoptive family; U.S. officials don't recognize the marriage.

Atahee and three of the family's members were already living in the south Seattle suburbs when the girl's adoptive mother, Nasima Yousuf, 70, brought her from Afghanistan in 2006, as part of what prosecutors say was a plot to enslave her. Yousuf's husband, Mohammad, 84, had filed an immigration petition to bring the girl to the U.S., claiming his wife was her biological mother.

Once in the country, the girl, identified only as JV1, was forced to live with Atahee, who beat her and sexually assaulted her, the indictment said. She was forced to spend at least three days a week at the Auburn, Washington, home of Maruf Yousufi, 42, and his wife, Nahid, 29 -- caring for their children, doing laundry, cooking and cleaning. Maruf Yousufi is Mohammad Yousuf's son.

The girl escaped after some good Samaritans helped her report Atahee to the police in January 2008 for sexual assault, prosecutors said. Since then, she's been at a safe house, but they won't say where.

She also called police in August 2006 to report her case, but Nahid Yousufi threatened her and persuaded her to recant the allegations, the indictment said.

All five defendants are charged in U.S. District Court with one count of conspiracy to engage in forced labor, and the Yousufs also face a visa fraud charge for allegedly lying on immigration applications.

Atahee and Mohammad Yousuf pleaded not guilty, while the others did not enter pleas during their initial court appearances Wednesday. Atahee and the Yousufis were detained pending further hearings, while the Yousufs were released pending trial, set for December 23.

Several of their lawyers did not return calls Thursday or said they could not comment. Ralph Hurvitz, who represents Mohammad Yousuf, said he didn't know anything about the case beyond what the indictment said, and that his client doesn't speak English.

All the defendants have legal status in the U.S., Langlie said. The girl, however, does not, because of the Yousufs' alleged lies on immigration applications. She could stay in the country by obtaining a visa for victims of human trafficking.

"Questioning the special position of Malays 'can lead to disunity and racial strife that can undermine the peace and harmony,' the state rulers said in a statement."

In other words, prevent strife by accepting injustice. Sharia Alert. "Malaysians warned not to question Islam," by Vijay Joshi for the Associated Press, October 17 (thanks to PRCS):

An influential council of Malaysia's state rulers has warned people not to question the supremacy of Islam or the special privileges enjoyed by the country's ethnic Malay majority.

Those privileges are known as the Bumiputra system. And the "supremacy of Islam" and that of the Malay majority are fundamentally interrelated, as Article 160 of the Malaysian Constitution states that "'Malay' means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, [and] conforms to Malay custom."

Racial and religious tensions have increased in the past year as minorities have become more vocal in their complaints about an affirmative action program that they say unfairly favors Malays. They also complain that their religious rights are being ignored.

In an unprecedented comment on current affairs, the sultans of nine states did not directly accuse the Chinese and Indian minorities of stoking anti-Malay feelings, but said recent statements and forums "held by certain quarters" had "caused provocation and uneasiness among the people."

Questioning the special position of Malays "can lead to disunity and racial strife that can undermine the peace and harmony," the state rulers said in a statement.

The warning underscores the social tensions in Malaysia, where Muslim Malays are about 60 percent of the nation's 27 million people. Chinese and Indians, who are mostly non-Muslims, comprise a third of the population and friction among the three ethnic groups is always below the surface.

The lengthy statement issued Thursday night follows a two-day meeting of the sultans, known as the Conference of Rulers. The hereditary sultans, who are Muslim Malays, occupy ceremonial offices but wield considerable moral authority among Malays.

"It (the warning) is quite unprecedented and I think it is coming in response to what the country is facing — what the rulers perceive as the fracturing of racial harmony," said Tricia Yeoh of Center for Policy Research think-tank.

Last month, an ethnic Chinese opposition lawmaker was accused by a Malay newspaper of being anti-Islam. She was detained by police for a few days but no charges were filed. In August, lawyers were forced to abandon a conference on religious conversion after protesters stormed the forum.

The statement reiterates the supremacy of Islam, the special position of the Malays and the guarantee to protect minority rights — all enshrined in Malaysia's constitution.

"Non-Malays should not harbour any apprehension or worry over their genuine rights because these rights are guaranteed," the statement said.

Thailand Jihad Update: Jihad against teenage boys and a fruit-trader. "Three killed in Thailand's south," from Agence France-Presse, October 17 (thanks to Dumbledoresarmy):

Suspected separatist insurgents have shot dead two teenage boys and a man in Thailand's Muslim-majority far south, police said.

Two 15-year-old boys were killed and another teenager critically injured in a drive-by shooting in Pattani province on Thursday afternoon, police in the restive region said.

In a separate attack in the same province that evening, a 32-year-old fruit trader was killed in a teashop.

More than 3,400 people have been killed since separatist unrest erupted almost five years ago in the far southern region.

Tensions have simmered since Thailand annexed the mainly ethnic Malay sultanate in 1902.

But that annexation was the result of aggression on the part of that same Malay sultanate. More on that can be found here.

More indications that "moderate" Morocco is not deserving of that epithet. "47 people convicted in Morocco terror trial," by Hassan Alaoui for the Associated Press, October 17:

RABAT, Morocco (AP) — A Moroccan court convicted 47 people and sentenced them to up to 30 years in prison over a suicide bombing last year at a Casablanca Internet cafe, a lawyer said Friday.

A criminal court in Sale, near the capital Rabat, gave the longest jail term of 30 years to Abdelkrim Ougard late Thursday, said lawyer Khalil Idrissi, who defended two other suspects on trial. Ougard was accused of forming a criminal gang with the aim of committing terrorist acts, making explosives, theft, forgery and failure to denounce terrorism.

All those convicted were accused of links to a March 2007 suicide bombing at a Casablanca cybercafe. Abdelfettah Raydi, 23, detonated his charge after the cafe's owner caught him surfing an Islamist Web site.

After the 2007 bombing, a police investigation turned up an alleged plot involving dozens of suspects to attack Casablanca's port and police stations and tourist sites around Morocco, a moderate Muslim nation and popular tourist destination.

Youssef Khouidri, who was with Raydi at the time of the cybercafe bombing but dropped his bombs and fled, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He and two of the others convicted were minors at the time of the explosion, the state news agency MAP said.

Twelve others were given six to 15 years, and four people were acquitted, lawyer Idrissi said. Idrissi said most of the sentences were overly harsh and based on flimsy evidence.

Half a dozen terrorism cells have been dismantled recently in Morocco, a strong ally of the United States in its war against terrorism.

In a sweep last year, police shot one suspect dead, while three others blew themselves up to avoid capture. The blasts killed a policeman and wounded 21 other people. Days later, two others blew themselves up near the U.S. Consulate in Casablanca.

This North African country of 33 million has also seen a rise of political and radical Islam in recent years. Suicide bombings in Casablanca in 2003 killed 45 people, and about 1,000 suspected Islamic militants are behind bars, either awaiting trial or sentenced on terrorism charges.

Another major Moroccan terrorist trial opened Thursday in the same court in Sale, involving a Belgian of Moroccan descent, Abdelkader Belliraj, accused of running a cell of 36 people and ordering the murder of a Muslim moderate leader killed in Brussels in the 1980s. The proceedings were immediately adjourned until Nov. 14.

If dancing and jumping around is offensive to sharia, apparently so too is lying around.

"Islamic court jails Nigerian man for six months for idleness," from Africasia, October 17:

An Islamic Sharia court in northern Nigeria has jailed for six months a 20-year old man for idleness and belonging to a group of delinquents, a court official said Friday.

A lower sharia court in Tudunalkali neighbourhood in Bauchi handed down the sentence on Jamilu Samaila on Thursday, after his father dragged him in because he was tired of his son's "nefarious" deeds.

"Judge Tanibu Abubakar sentenced Jamilu Samaila to a six-month prison term for having no job and also for associating with bad friends, which is an offence contrary to... sharia penal code," court clerk Tasiu Musa told AFP in a telephone interview.

"The convict was brought to court by his father Samaila Tahir who complained of his son's refusal to be engaged in any trade and refused to go to school," he said, adding that he asked the court to put him behind bars "for as long it deems fit."

Cited by the official News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the father told the court: "He is not listening... and he is bringing shame to my family.

"I am tired of his nefariuous deeds. Please put this boy in prison so that I can be free," Tanir pleaded with the court.

The court also ordered that he be caned 30 times. The strokes were administered shortly after sentence was delivered, according to NAN.

Since the return of Nigeria to civil rule in 1999, a dozen predominantly Muslim states in the north have re-introduced a version of the Islamic Sharia legal system.

And yet, Western leaders and thinkers often describe them as moderate, potential allies against the more radical elements,such as al-Qaeda.

"Muslim Brotherhood Website: Jihad Against Non-Muslims Is Obligatory," from MEMRI, October 17:

On a website devoted to Ramadhan, the Muslim Brotherhood posted a series of articles by Dr. Ahmad 'Abd Al-Khaleq about Al-Walaa Wa'l-Baraa, an Islamic doctrine which, in its fundamentalist interpretation, stipulates absolute allegiance to the community of Muslims and total rejection of non-Muslims and of Muslims who have strayed from the path of Islam.

In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by hating all non-Muslims - Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists - and by waging jihad against them in every possible manner.

For full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2877.

“It shows that these people are very confused. Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff.”

"Link between child porn and Muslim terrorists discovered in police raids," by Richard Kerbaj and Dominic Kennedy for Times Online, October 17 (thanks to Kyros):

A link between terrorism plots and hardcore child pornography is becoming clear after a string of police raids in Britain and across the Continent, an investigation by The Times has discovered. Images of child abuse have been found during Scotland Yard antiterrorism swoops and in big inquiries in Italy and Spain.

Secret coded messages are being embedded into child pornographic images, and paedophile websites are being exploited as a secure way of passing information between terrorists.

British security services are also aware of the trend and believe that it requires further investigation to improve understanding of terrorists’ methods and mindsets. Concerns within the Metropolitan Police led to a plan to run a pilot research project exploring the nature of the link. One source familiar with the proposal said that this could eventually lead to the training of child welfare experts to identify signs of terrorist involvement as they monitor pornographic sites.

Concerns have already been expressed at Cabinet minister level about the risk of vulnerable Muslim youths being exploited by older men.

Officers have noted that child sex abuse images have been found during investigations into some of the most advanced suspected plots. However, it is understood that the proposed research project was never implemented because the AntiTerrorism Branch was overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases it was having to deal with.

It is not clear whether the terrorists were more interested in the material for personal gratification or were drawn to child porn networks as a secure means of sending messages. In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000.

British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. “It shows that these people are very confused,” a source said. “Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff.”

Baroness Neville-Jones, Conservative security spokeswoman and former chairwoman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: “The information about a possible link between extremism and child pornography potentially provides useful insight into three things: the methods that extremists use to communicate; the methods they use to target vulnerable people in society; and the techniques they seek to use to conceal their online activities.” She added: “There is no doubt that these possible linkages should merit further research.”

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP and chairman of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, said: “This is an important development. We have to do more than just the police work. It needs child protection, criminological and psychological work. It could become a very important weapon in the fight against terrorism.” He urged researchers to review cases where terrorists had been convicted to look for this link.

The first British suspicions of a link between child sex abuse and jihadis emerged in London in 2006 when antiterrorism police in two unrelated investigations were shocked to find computerised images of hardcore child pornography. The key case that tipped off the security services to a plausible link involved the “White-chapel Rapist”, Abdul Makim Khalisadar. A former Mujahidin and a preacher at the East London Mosque, he was being examined for his links to a hardcore Islamic militant who was later convicted of terrorism. Khalisadar was never convicted of terrorist offences. The other investigation involved a young religiously observant Muslim.

The Times has learnt that a criminal investigation also found child pornography on computers after a raid in 2001 at a mosque run by an al-Qaeda recruiter in Milan. Italian police believe that the images were encoded with messages. At a forthcoming terrorism trial in Spain, the alleged mastermind of a Muslim cell has also been accused of downloading hundreds of child sex abuse pictures and videos.

Meanwhile, police uncovered a right-wing terrorist plot when they raided a home after being tipped off about pornographic images. This June, the Nazi sympathiser Martyn Gilleard was jailed for 16 years after being found guilty of terrorism. Police found 39,000 indecent images of children at his flat in Yorkshire.

Copts demonstrating in Egypt

A good assessment of the Coptic situation in Egypt. "Coptic Christians Are Still Marginalized," by Lee Jay Walker for the Seoul Times, October 17:

Egypt is viewed to be a moderate nation, however, if you scratch under the surface and study the laws of this land, and how Coptic Christians are treated, then your opinion may change. So when will the Christians of Egypt be given genuine equality? Also, are Coptic Christians best served by the estranged democracy of President Hosni Mubarak or open democracy which may unleash Islamic forces? This issue is very complex because if we look at the crisis in Iraq, then change can sometimes usher in an even more dangerous period. So what are the best options available to the minority Christian community?

Before focusing on this it must be stated that the Coptic Christians of Egypt resided in this land a long time before the Arabs invaded their nation and colonized Egypt in the distant past. Also, despite massive past historical persecution, colonialization, jizya tax, massive inequality, pogroms, massacres, and Dhimmitude, many still remained loyal to their Christian faith because of the strength of the Coptic Christian church which was extremely tenacious. Of course many Muslim leaders were very moderate and many Christians were protected providing they paid jizya tax. Therefore, the plight of Christianity often relied on the respective Muslim leader and the moderation of leading Islamic clerics.

However, it only took one major spark or crisis of confidence within the Muslim community to cause havoc. Therefore, Copts understood that being passive was their only option when we focus on past history and the same applied to accepting Dhimmitude for many centuries. More recently, Coptic Christians have been divided because many in the diaspora are outspoken but many Christians in Egypt feel that "a quiet approach" is best.

Again if we look at past history it doesn`t look good. After all, when Camp David was signed between America, Israel, and Egypt, all three nations were happy; however, the same Anwar Sadat persecuted the Christian community via anti-Christian laws. Therefore, just like the Christian community in Iraq which doesn`t count and which isn`t protected, it is clear that Western nations have different interests. This fact alone should worry the Coptic Christian community because America supported the introduction of Sharia Islamic Law in Sudan in 1983, and they of course did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Shia, Sunni, Druid, and Copt share "common ground"

And, while condemning violence, they "find no justification in Islam or Christianity for those promoting the insecurity or perpetuating the violence evident in parts of Iraq." A half-truth if ever there was one. Yes, there is very little "justification" for violence in Christianity. Remember that whole thing about "turning the other cheek"? But why is Christianity brought into this in the first place? The issue is Muslims persecuting Christians in Mosul -- not Christians persecuting Muslims nor Christians persecuting Christians, for that matter. As for Muslim persecution of Christians (or "infidels" in general), Islam does indeed offer "justification" -- indeed commandments -- to subjugate them and dominate the world.

"Christians and Muslims condemn violence," by Bill Bowder for the Church Times, October 17:

ISLAMIC and Christian leaders and scholars condemned religious viol­ence in a communiqué issued on Wednesday at Lambeth Palace, at the end of a three-day conference to mark the first anniversary of the Muslim letter “A Common Word”.

In a two-page text, 17 religious leaders and scholars from Europe and the Middle East say they are “deeply troubled” by the threats to the Christian community in Mosul, northern Iraq.

“We find no justification in Islam or Christianity for those promoting the insecurity or perpetuating the violence evident in parts of Iraq.” The conference, entitled “A Com­mon Word and Future Muslim-Christian Engagement”, built on the letter sent by Muslim scholars to Western and Eastern church leaders last year. It proposed that the two faiths draw together on the basis of all that they had in common.

In the communiqué, they also announce that in the coming year they will translate “significant texts” from each tradition to be used by the other; promote educational material that provided “a fair reflection of our faiths”; and link academic institu­tions together to work on shared values.

During a press conference on Wednesday, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr Ali Gomaa, rejected press reports that he had praised suicide- bombers in Palestine. The reports were wrong and had “muddied the picture. . . We are against any per­secution of any minorities,” he said.

"It is very important for the whole country to understand the hugely positive impact that Islamic inventors have had upon the world, and for Muslims to take pride in it." Because, you know, that's the one thing Muslims need more of: Pride.

"Teach children what Muslims did for us, says minister Jim Knight," by Martin Beckford for the Telegraph, October 17:

Children should be taught about the contribution Muslims have made to civilisation in order to combat the threats of extremism and discrimination, according to a Government minister.

Jim Knight, the schools minister, claimed lessons in the scientific and cultural innovations of Islam over the centuries would give young Muslims a sense of worth and reduce their risk of becoming alienated and falling under the spell of radicals.

He said it could also bring divided communities closer together, by teaching children from other backgrounds about the debt we all owe to Muslims – from coffee and pinhole cameras to the three-course dinner and advancements in maths.[...]

"This offers a whole series of remedies and an education for the rest of us. It is very important for the whole country to understand the hugely positive impact that Islamic inventors have had upon the world, and for Muslims to take pride in it."

Salim Al-Hassani, the honorary chairman of FSTC, added: "At present there is a widespread mis-conception among many people worldwide that the state of science and technology during the period known as The Dark Ages was that of stagnation and decline.

"Learned intellectuals are challenging this myth and showing how, during the same period, the Muslim civilisation flourished and contributed to thousands of essential inventions that still affect our daily life.

"We believe that open recognition of the contributions of all civilisations to our present civilisation should be reflected in the National Curriculum."

And don't forget "the Jews." Of course this is to be expected since Muslim academics in America also claim that 9/11 was the work of the US and Israel. "Cleric blames CIA for Bali bombing," from ABC News, October 17 (thanks to Dumbledore's Army):

An Indonesian Islamic cleric linked to the three extremists awaiting execution for the Bali bombings said the 2002 attack which killed more than 200 people, including 88 Australians, was the work of the CIA.

Abu Bakar Bashir says the US intelligence agency had fired a nuclear missile at the Bali tourist strip from a ship off the coast.

"It has been mentioned as being a micro-nuclear bomb, not a regular bomb... The bomb was made by the CIA, it could be no one else," he said in his house at the Al-Mukmin Islamic boarding school on Indonesia's Java island.

He said the attack was a conspiracy between "America, Australia and the Jews" and the three convicted bombers - Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Ghufron - had been framed.

"The bomb Amrozi set off, the first one, at most it shattered glass and didn't wound people, or at most wounded them a little," he said.

Amrozi had been "used by the CIA in coordination with America, Australia and the Jews. The police and the prosecutors aren't brave enough to prove it."

The coordinated October 12, 2002 bomb attacks ripped through packed nightspots on the holiday island's main tourist strip and killed 202 people, mostly foreign visitors including 88 Australians...

Last night I spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and I am still here to tell the tale. I didn't actually expect to shuffle off this mortal coil last night, but after all the security arrangements that the university had in place for my talk, I did come away feeling a bit like a presidential candidate, or...Salman Rushdie: I was escorted through corridors and secret passageways by men with earpieces who were communicating with other personnel elsewhere; I had a meeting before my talk with the very courteous, knowledgeable and efficient security chief for the university, who explained to me the measures they had in place, including placing a large number of security personnel at various points all over the hall, and having everyone who entered the venue pass through a metal detector.

Everyone who entered also had to have a ticket. On one side the ticket said, "Robert Spencer Lecture, October 16, 2008, 7:30PM. Tickets do not guarantee entry. All patrons must pass thru security screening for entry." On the other side were printed "Audience Behavior Guidelines." These included: "Audience Members Must Remain Seated...No Sticks or Standards...Noise levels that impede the program's progress or the audience's ability to hear shall not be permitted....Objects may not be thrown: The throwing of any objects will not be tolerated" and "Force or Violence Notification: Behavior that infringes on the safety of others or endangers university property shall not be permitted.

The Rushdiean security precautions and these warnings were all necessary because of the fascist tactics of trying to intimidate and shout down opponents that students and others at UWM have employed in the past against speakers such as David Horowitz and Walid Shoebat. It also became necessary after the MSA published a highly defamatory advertisement about me in the student paper last week -- apparently free of charge (our ad is headed "Paid Advertisement," while the MSA's hit piece, which is the same size as our ad, is headed "Advertisement.") It is also noteworthy that the paper required evidence for the truth of every assertion we made in our ad, or they would not print it -- we happily complied, but clearly the MSA was not asked for any evidence for their wild assertions, or their ad never would have appeared.

In any case, last night the university officials I met with appeared determined not to witness a reprise of the fascist thuggery that the Left and the apologists for Islamic terror employed before, and I commend them for that. The student group was also well organized and determined in the face of enormous opposition, and I am in awe of these students who live day in and day out in these hostile environments and maintain their hope and determination to fight for what is right.

And ultimately the clear signs that fascist intimidation was not going to succeed this time paid off: the crowd stayed quiet all through my talk, I didn't even see any protest signs, and even the question period was generally a fruitful discussion rather than a series of hostile and arrogant counter-lectures (although there were a few attempts at those). This was rather surprising given the fact that some MSA members had told students who organized the event that they were planning to disrupt it. Maybe they were bluffing, of course, but I also suspect that one reason why audiences at my talks this week and in the past have several times been quieter and more courteous than anyone expected them to be is that I am not the hate-filled "Islamophobe" or fire-breathing idiot that the MSA and other Brotherhood-linked Islamic groups have made me out to be in their propaganda. Leftist and Muslim students believe the lies their leadership feeds them and come expecting one sort of person, and a very different kind of person ends up giving the talk. This is not to say that my talks have never been disrupted or never will be again; but I have seen articles before along the lines of Wisconsin-Madison student Ammar Al Marzouqi's "Spencer: Better than I anticipated," in which he says,

I went with a feeling of apprehension and expectations of a repetition of last year’s charade during David Horowitz’s lecture. And I have to admit I was wrong. Spencer was very respectful in his speech, he laid out his case without attacking anyone, and he even thanked the audience for not interrupting his speech. I personally had a brief exchange with him during the Q-and-A session which was very calm and respectful. And for that, I thank him.

Of course, Ammar Al Marzouqi goes on to detail all the ways in which he thinks I'm wrong, but that is what makes his generous words above all the more valuable: with civil discourse so rapidly eroding in the U.S., and with threats to the freedom of speech being energetically pursued by powerful entities around the world, and with libelous propaganda heaped upon me on a more or less daily basis by the Islamic groups in the U.S., this was refreshing -- as was the civility of the audience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last night.

Can we then see, in all the precautions that were taken last night, that a strong stand against the thugs and enemies of free speech will stop them in their tracks? I think there's a lot to be said for that point of view. The only difficulty is finding people in sufficient numbers who are willing to make a strong stand.

His relatives went to the mosque seeking consolation, and this is what they got. "Bangladesh - Christian Convert's Life Threatened," from Compass Direct News, October 16:

DHAKA, Bangladesh, October 16 (Compass Direct News) – Muslim clerics and neighbors have ordered the father of a man who converted to Catholicism to remain confined to his house until retaliatory punishment can be exacted from the convert.

“Are you not ashamed that your son became Christian?” the founder of a mosque here asked Ruhul Amin Khandaker, father of a 32-year-old businessman who went to Australia earlier this year to court a Philippine Catholic woman, converting to her faith in April. “Why did you not sacrifice your son like cattle before telling the news to us?”

Khandaker has become a social outcast whose family lives under threat from fellow Muslims, in violation of Bangladesh’s constitution and international human rights safeguards. His son, Rashidul Amin Khandaker, has applied for protection from Australian immigration officials as he believes police in 88 percent-Muslim Bangladesh would do nothing to protect him from Islamists threatening to kill him.

Per Muhammad's own instructions: "If anyone changes his religion, kill him."

“They will try to kill me anywhere, any time in Bangladesh, and the police and the authority will not protect me,” Rashidul Khandaker wrote in his plea to Australian authorities. “There are records that show a converted person is not protected by the police, authority and society.”

Khandaker’s life would be in danger if he returned to Bangladesh, said his brother-in-law, identified only as Siddik, adding that “we are also surviving in the society at our own peril.”

Rashidul Khandaker’s brother wrote him in May to cease all contact with the family. Rakibul Amin Khandaker stated in the letter that Muslim authorities had threatened to ostracize the family because of his brother’s conversion, and that his life would be in danger if he returned to Bangladesh as Muslim extremists believe they would get to heaven by punishing him.

Logically, then, Muhammad was an Islamic extremist. How very Islamophobic.

Muslim leaders in Dhaka have ordered Khandaker’s 65-year-old father to disown his son and exclude him from his wealth and property.

“If he comes to Bangladesh, you must hand him over to us and we will punish him,” the founder of the mosque told the elder Khandaker.

Khandaker, who operates an oil lubricant refining business in the Kutubkhali area under Jatrabari police jurisdiction in central Dhaka, told Compass of the grief he experienced when his son informed the family from Sydney that he had become a Christian.

“My other sons and relatives informed it to the nearby cleric of the mosque so that the cleric could console me,” he said. “Unfortunately the cleric was so furious . . . [He] told me that, ‘You cannot keep any relationship with your son. A man of a noble Muslim family cannot be a Christian, and the society cannot accept it.”

Home Ransacked

When Rashidul Khandaker, who worked as director of marketing in his father’s business before going to Australia to pursue a relationship with a woman he met over the Internet, telephoned friends in Dhaka about his conversion, seven or eight of them broke into his house to loot his computer, scanner, printer, documents, sofa and other valuables, his father said.

“They told me, ‘We will return everything when your son comes back. Whenever he will come back, you must hand him over to us – we will take revenge for his activities. Until he comes, don’t mix with the people in the society and stay in your house.’”

The elder Khandaker said his son’s former friends also threatened to harm the family if they informed police about the looting...

Eurabia Alert. "Spain: Eighteen arrests during nationwide anti-terror raids," from AdnKronos International, October 16:

Barcelona, 16 Oct. (AKI) - Spanish police have arrested at least 18 terror suspects of Moroccan origin with alleged links to Al-Qaeda in the provinces of Catalonia, Andalucia and Madrid on Thursday, reported Spanish media.

The suspects helped some of the suspects in the deadly bombings of Madrid commuters in March 2004 to escape and were allegedly in charge of recruiting militants and financing Islamist activities, prosecutors allege.

The raids were carried out in the northeastern town of Santa Coloma de Gramanet where eight suspects were nabbed. The other arrests took place in the towns of Badalona near Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valles and Villanova i la Geltru among others.

The raids were ordered by top Spanish prosecutor Baltasar Garzon.

Still working to create that Shi'ite client state.

"U.S. official has new evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq," by Barbara Starr for CNN, October 14 :

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has new intelligence indicating Iran is reorganizing in an effort to assert its influence inside Iraq and may be behind several recent attacks, according to a senior U.S. official who spoke with CNN Monday.

The information underscores a view by Gen. David Petraeus, who assumes command of U.S. Central Command later this month, and Gen. Raymond Odierno that progress in Iraq remains fragile and that it is too soon for a major additional U.S. troop drawdown.

The senior official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the intelligence, said the U.S. military had recently arrested an Iraqi general who says he was paid by Iran to derail a pending agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the end of the year.

The general was arrested a few weeks ago at the Iranian border carrying large sums of cash, according to the source. The man has known ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the U.S. official said.

The United States believes the IRGC has ties to terrorist operations and Iran's programs to develop chemical and biological weapons....

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

From AP, October 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Palestinian man from a refugee camp has shot to death his 17-year-old daughter allegedly to cleanse the family's honor, a Jordanian judicial official said Thursday....

Forensic doctors said an autopsy showed the girl was still a virgin.

Whoops!

Every time the Council on American-Islamic Relations injects itself into an issue or incident, it invites the question: What is CAIR? Who have been among its founders? Who is still among its leading staff? Where does its funding come from? Where does it stand, how clearly has it expressed itself, on the use of violence as an instrument of Jihad? How clearly has CAIR urged its members to cooperate fully with the American government in its attempts to protect people from Muslim terrorists? How clearly has CAIR distanced itself from those many passages in the Qur'an, those many stories in the Hadith, those many details in the Life of Muhammad (the Sira) that would alarm any intelligent non-Muslim made aware of them?

What has CAIR done to insure that Muslims will not "interpret" those passages "incorrectly"? And do those who run, or belong to, or support CAIR really think that closer inspection of the texts, and tenets, of Islam -- which they always unwittingly invite -- are to their advantage?

"But we don't burn or close down schools if they are in accord with Islam." Not that this has anything to do with Islam, of course. The Taliban is setting up Sharia courts and ruling according to Islamic law, and Western Islamic apologists (and angry, arrogant, and self-righteous MSA college students) would have us believe that they are all Misunderstanders of Islam.

"Some Afghans live under Taliban rule – and prefer it: In provinces just south of Kabul, the insurgents have a shadow government that polices roads and runs courts," by Anand Gopal for the Christian Science Monitor, October 15 :

Porak, Afghanistan - After a gang of thieves had continually terrorized an Afghan neighborhood near here months ago, locals decided they'd had enough. "We complained several times to the government and even showed them where the thieves lived," says Ahmad, who goes by one name.

But the bandits continued to operate freely. So the villagers turned to the Taliban.

The militants' parallel government here in Logar Province – less than 40 miles from Kabul, the capital – tried and convicted the men, tarred their faces, paraded them around, and threatened to chop off their hands if they were caught stealing in the future. The thieves never bothered the locals again.

Amputation for theft is mandated by Qur'an 5:38.

In several provinces close to Kabul, the government's presence is vanishing or already nonexistent, residents say. In its place, a more effective – and brutal – Taliban shadow government is spreading and winning local support.

"The police are just for show," one local says. "The Taliban are the real power here."...

When President Hamid Karzai's government first took power in 2001, "authorities gave every family in Logar two kilos of food," says a local resident who works with an international nongovernmental organization and identifies himself as Abdel Qabir. "When that ran out each family received $200 assistance. But that, too, ran out, and people had no money and there were criminals everywhere.

"So people turned to the Taliban," Mr. Qabir continues. "They may not provide jobs, but at least they share the same culture and brought security."...

An Islamic scholar heads the judicial committee of each district under Taliban control and usually appoints two judges to try cases using a strict interpretation of sharia law, according to locals and Taliban members. "We prefer these courts to the government courts," says Fazel Wali of Ghazni city, an NGO worker. Taliban courts have a reputation of working much faster than government ones, which often take months to decide cases and are saddled with corruption, he says....

Abdul Hakim, a Taliban "Emir of Education and Culture" in Ghazni Province, says his group checks all schoolbooks to ensure that they adhere to their version of sharia law. "We want to ensure that our youth are trained in Islamic education," he explains. "First, they should learn sharia law and religious studies. Then comes science and other subjects.... But we don't burn or close down schools if they are in accord with Islam."

However, locals say that the number of schools in Taliban-controlled territory is dwindling fast. Of the 1,100 schools operating three years ago in Ghazni, only 100 are left, according to the Ministry of Education. Almost no girls' schools remain, except nearly a dozen in the government-controlled provincial center.

The group also brings its austere interpretation of Islam to the areas they control, banning nonreligious music and flashy wedding parties. In Logar, guards at Taliban checkpoints regularly stop vehicles and beat drivers playing music....

"We have no TV. We can't listen to music. We don't have parties," says Abdul Halim of Ghazni Province, who, like others in the area, is a Taliban supporter. "But at least we have security and justice."

Justice, you say?

"They need to exist, you have to understand them."

"France make anthem threat to fans," from the BBC, October 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Football matches in France will be called off immediately if spectators jeer during the French national anthem, says the country's sports minister.

France's national anthem was booed in Tuesday's friendly win over Tunisia.

"Any match at which our national anthem is whistled at will be immediately stopped," said Roselyne Bachelot.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the booing was "insulting" and that in the event of a repeat it would be necessary "to call off matches".

"It's insulting for France, it's insulting for the players of the French team, it should not be tolerated," he added.

"I think we should stop the matches when the anthems, whichever they are, are booed."...

President Nicolas Sarkozy has demanded an investigation into the matter.

President Sarkozy's aides said he had summoned French Football Federation president Jean-Pierre Escalettes following the "scandalous incidents which occurred at the Stade de France".

Bachelot added: "Government members will immediately leave the arena where our national anthem has been whistled.

"When whistling of our national anthem happens, all friendly games with the country concerned will be suspended for a period yet to be determined by the federation president."...

There have been similar problems in recent years in matches against Algeria and Morocco.

Friendlies against North African sides traditionally attract widespread support from sizeable immigrant communities in and around the French capital.

Some booed when the names of the French players were read out over the PA system before kickoff, reaching a crescendo for Hatem Ben Arfa, born in France to Tunisian parents.

Arfa opted to play for the country of his birth despite overtures from the Tunisian Federation.

"I'm not really angry with them," said Ben Arfa. "It's a bit of a shame but it's not a major problem. They need to exist, you have to understand them."

One would have thought, one would have hoped, that those running the Obama campaign and the candidate himself would understand the need, now and especially after the election if he is successful, to reassure the many Americans, and others in Europe, who are unsure of him. They worry about whether he has some kind of sentimental family attachment to Islam -- one that would prevent him from recognizing Islamic realities for other reasons than George Bush's naive belief in the essential goodness of anything called, for want of a better word, a "religion." Islam is far more than a religious faith in the ordinary sense; it is a politics, it is a geopolitics. It presumes to Command or Prohibit in every area of life, and thus constitutes a Complete Regulation of Life. That is what is so dear to the hearts and minds of those who are confused and thrown into mental disarray by modern life, and these, the psychically marginal, can find Islam to be The Solution, or at least Their Solution.

Obama has to demonstrate not merely that he is "a Christian" but that he grasps, as his predecessor did not grasp, what the ideology of Islam inculcates. He must understand, and cleverly share that understanding with those whom he presumes to instruct and protect, that Jihad, properly defined, is the duty -- not tangential but central -- of Muslims to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles, of every kind (the American Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, constitute such an obstacle), to the spread, and then to the certain dominance, of Islam.

I got off the phone a little while ago with one of the student organizers of my address tonight at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He told me that I would be led to and from the stage via secret passageway; that thirty security personnel would be on hand (in addition to my own); that attendees would have to pass through metal detectors; and that a bomb-sniffing dog would also be on hand.

It is rather amazing to me that all this would be necessary anywhere in America today -- and all because I am saying things they don't like. MSA students have been accusing me this week of fostering an atmosphere of hate that leads to innocent Muslims being victimized. This is a preposterous charge to make to anyone who is trying to defend human rights, but it is also a noteworthy case of projection: it is they who are fostering an atmosphere of hate and thuggery, with all their lies, smears, and hysterical rhetoric, which combined with the way they and their allies have behaved at talks by previous speakers they disliked has made all this security necessary.

The Left and the MSA's on campuses all across the country are fostering a very dangerous atmosphere that is completely opposed to the classic spirit of the university. The increasingly apparent fact that all too many universities have become nasty little propaganda camps suggests that the principles of free inquiry, of honest and open discussion and dissent, and of the old adage, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," are far more endangered than most people realize.

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: this week I am speaking on college campuses where Muslim and Leftist students angrily lecture me about "hate" and insist that if there are any Muslim "extremists," it is a tiny minority that is twisting Islam's peaceful teachings and is rejected and abhorred by most Muslims.

And then the foremost, most respected voice in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University, has to throw a wrench into these students' propaganda machine.

"Egypt: Sunni scholars sanction 'electronic Jihad,'" from AKI, October 16 (thanks to C.C.):

Cairo, 16 Oct. (AKI) - Attacking American and Israeli websites by hacking and sabotage is allowed under Islamic law and is a form of 'Jihad' or holy war, top Muslim scholars have decreed.

The religious edict (fatwa) issued by a committee from the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Egypt's Al-Azhar University in Cairo, was published on the website of the Islamist Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement on Thursday.

"This is considered a type of lawful Jihad that helps Islam by paralysing the information systems used by our enemies for their evil aims," said the fatwa.

"This Jihad is not different from the armed one. In fact, it might be more important if you consider the global dimensions of the Internet.

"Whoever wins this war will become the strongest in the realm of information," the fatwa continued.

The Muslim Brotherhood praised the fatwa, which comes in response to dozens of questions from radicals asking to be allowed to destroy Israeli and United States websites....

The importance of this story is to remind that al-Qaeda appears to have intentionally attacked Spain (Madrid bombings) three days before its national elections simply to influence the outcome of the latter. And it worked: according to a number of analysts, Jose Zapatero and his Socialist Party became more popular than ever immediately after the attack. The Spaniards apparently rationalized that they were targeted because of their involvement in Iraq. After all, that's what al-Qaeda said -- and surely anything they say should be taken at face value?

Thus, the very day after winning the elections, Zapatero promised to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 troops from Iraq, saying, “The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster [and] the occupation continues to be a disaster. It has only generated violence.” One month later the last of Spain’s troops left Iraq. More telling is the fact that the first question Jamal Zougam (one of the arrested suspects of the Madrid bombings) asked upon arriving at the Courthouse on 15 March 2004 was: "Who won the election?' He must've been pleased to know that their terrorist attack achieved the desired result.

As November 4 approaches, such al-Qaedist tactics -- we hate and attack you because of your current policies -- as well as the sheepish response made by some of the populace -- we promise to be good, see! we elected a friendly president who will play nice -- should be borne in mind. Especially since foreign policy is not the reason they hate and attack.

"Spanish Police Arrest 8 Moroccans Suspected of Helping Al-Qaeda," by Emma Ross-Thomas for Bloomberg, October 16:

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Spanish police arrested eight Moroccans suspected of helping al-Qaeda members implicated in the Madrid train bombings to flee.

The men were detained in Barcelona, Madrid and Algeciras before dawn today, the Interior Ministry said in an e-mailed statement. They are being investigated over the flight of eight men, including five who were suspected of involvement in the March 11, 2004, attacks, the ministry said.

Groups linked to al-Qaeda killed 191 people in the bombings of four commuter trains in the Spanish capital. The attacks, just three days before national elections, helped bring to power Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who subsequently withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. Police have continued to foil attacks since then and have arrested 52 people in connection with Islamic terrorism this year, including today's raids.

Police were searching the homes of the detained men, the ministry said.

My Human Events column today (many news links in the original):

Last Friday, Fox News -- one of the few media outlets that isn’t entirely in the Obama camp -- revealed that yet another Muslim outreach adviser for the Obama campaign has questionable ties to jihadist groups.

Minha Husaini replaced Mazen Asbahi as Obama’s Muslim liaison after Asbahi resigned over revelations that groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood featured him as a speaker. The Muslim Brotherhood, according to a 1991 internal memorandum revealed during last summer’s Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, is engaged “in America [in] 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.” The HLF is accused of funneling charitable donations to the jihad terror group Hamas.

Way back when I was in college my friend Jeff proposed "Not as bad as you might think" as the state motto and license-plate slogan for one of the great states of this Union, and I was reminded of it last night as I spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before the talk began I had a delightful dinner with the small and valiant College Republicans group that invited me there, and they told me about the abuse they put up with for representing a voice that dissents from the stifling Leftist campus orthodoxy. One member had a cup of urine poured on his head at a Michael Moore event; thugs and louts have tried to shout down speakers including David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes; and as for last night's event, the campus paper yesterday contained a sneering editorial entitled "Republican guest will distort Islam," by one James Sonneman, a "a senior majoring in political science and history," who affects cigarette-smoking cool in his column photo but has little actual knowledge behind the smoke.

With the smug assurance of the semi-educated, Sonneman asserted in his piece that I confuse "the term Islam with radical-Islamism," and that I claim that "moderate Muslims simply do not understand what their Holy Book means, even to themselves, so we should not draw a distinction between their religion and radical-Islamism." He goes on to say that "the claim is as preposterous as the conclusion," and it's true: to say such a thing would be preposterous, but what is actually preposterous is this young man's claim that this is my position. What Sonneman is mangling here is my pointing out the fact that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence and all the sects of Islam that Muslims generally accept as orthodox teach that warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers is part of the religious duty of the Islamic community. That claim is open to objective verification or debunking, as is my further rather commonplace observation that significant numbers of Muslims are not on board with this agenda. This is not because they do not understand their religion, as Sonneman claims is my entire explanation for the fact, but because they have not been taught that this is an important religious obligation for them to fulfill, or because they are simply not that fervent, or any number of other reasons, including but not limited to the very real possibility that some who identify themselves as believers may not be well instructed in the tenets of their faith -- particularly because prayers and Qur'an recitation must be in 7th-century classical Arabic, and most Muslims today are not Arabs, and most Arabs themselves are not fluent in 7th-century classical Arabic.

Anyway, the point of all this, of course, is that I am a "racist" who is trying to stir up "fear," and many on campus got the message: outside the talk the MSA was distributing a pamphlet entitled "Who Is Robert Spencer? What He's Not Telling Us," which says it was "funded in part by the Associated Students of Madison," although the "ASM does not necessarily endorse the beliefs and actions of this organization." Not necessarily! It also has a section headed "A Special Thanks to All Our Friends," and there lists the Muslim Students Association, the Multicultural Student Coalition, the Lutheran Campus Center, the College Democrats, the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, Americans for Informed Democracy, and MadPAC: Madison Israel Public Affairs Committee. ("MadPAC" sounds apt.)

Anyway, the pamphlet contains the Fatihah, the first sura of the Qur'an and the most common prayer in Islam, along with the ridiculous FAIR "Smearcasters" report on me that I discussed here. The welcoming atmosphere was reinforced by several students who came into the talk carrying large signs with the predictable slogans, "Stop the Hate," "Students Against Hatred," etc. I told the young woman carrying the latter sign that I was against hatred too, and thanked her for bringing it in.

Everyone was expecting disruptions. A campus policeman told me beforehand that they believed in the students' freedom of speech, and would not remove hecklers or people trying to shout me down. "So they have freedom of speech, but I don't?" I asked. "That's right," said the cop. Surprisingly enough, however, no one disrupted my talk. I thanked the crowd of about 300 for its courtesy; even the question period, although there were the usual hostile questions, was marked by little of the shouting and the self-righteous grandstanding that marred the event at Penn State.

The questions ran in the usual vein. Several students tried to give self-righteous and hectoring counter-lectures of their own, as is quite common when I speak at universities, but Sara Mikolajczak and the rest of the College Republicans had an excellent handle on the situation, and made sure that the students actually asked questions and kept it brief. Still, one fellow began by trotting out the tired canard that I had to know Arabic to be able to speak about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. I know far more Arabic than he assumes, although I am not fluent, and in any case the issue itself is a red herring: I asked him why, if one has to know Arabic well in order to understand Islam, Muslim publishing houses turn out so many translations of the Qur'an, Hadith, and other material, and whether he was ready to declare that the Muslims worldwide who do not know Arabic (who constitute the majority now) do not understand Islam and are not capable of doing so. I also asked him whether or not Arabic was a human language like any other, capable of being translated, and why it was that all of the translations of Qur'an 4:34 into English render the verse as mandating the beating of a disobedient woman, with the exception of one non-traditional and highly apologetic translation? And was there some secret decoder ring that would reveal that when 4:34 says "beat her" in Arabic it actually means "give her a hug"? But the arrogant and self-righteous lout, who turns out to be (according to the Badger Herald) Rashid Dar, MSA public relations chair, would not deal with any of this, and instead tried to shout me down -- lest the crowd hear some inconvenient facts. (Oh, and speaking of the Badger Herald, I never used the silly term "Muslim extremisms," with which reporter Kevin Bargnes leads his article. But when it comes to college newspapers I have even less expectation of accuracy or journalistic integrity than I do from the mainstream media.)

Another questioner tried to read a self-righteous lecture about all the poor victimized American Muslims. He claimed that Muslims are increasingly facing persecution in the U.S., blaming this (spurious) increase on the nationwide distribution of Obsession and citing as an example the "hate crime" at a mosque in Dayton, Ohio -- an event that turned out to be a complete hoax. He tried to beard the monster in his lair, asking me about my real motives and warned me not to talk about peace and justice in my answer -- but I refused to oblige, telling him that that was what I was all about, peace and justice and human rights for all, and I wasn't going to be intimidated by his manipulative and contemptuous question or by the MSA allegation that to speak up in defense of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all constituted "hate."

Then there was the inevitable question about why I wasn't concerned about wicked Christian fundamentalists scheming to take over the government. I explained the difference between working within the political process, which any group should have a right to do, and trying to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within in order to establish the hegemony of one's religious law, which the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups are in their own words trying to do in the United States.

But mixed in with all the arrogant and self-righteous posturing were a few genuine questions, and one Muslim questioner (my hat is off to you, Ammar), while maintaining that he disagreed with me on many points, actually asked a serious question about my presentation of Islamic apostasy law, and we had a good discussion about it. Another asked me if I would come to an MSA event the following week. I will be at another college, but if the MSA in Madison wants to organize a debate or discussion including me, I will be happy to participate.

So all in all, it was...not as bad as you might think, which I hereby suggest as the new motto for the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

More on this story. "A Somali influx unsettles Latino meatpackers," by Kirk Semple for the New York Times, October 16:

GRAND ISLAND, Nebraska: Like many workers at the meatpacking plant here, Raul Garcia, a Mexican-American, has watched with some discomfort as hundreds of Somali immigrants have moved to town in the past couple of years, many of them to fill jobs once held by Latino workers taken away in immigration raids.

Garcia has been particularly troubled by the Somalis' demand that they be allowed special breaks for prayers that are obligatory for devout Muslims. The breaks, he said, would inconvenience everyone else.

"The Latino is very humble," said Garcia, 73, who has worked at the plant, owned by JBS U.S.A. Inc., since 1994. "But they are arrogant," he said of the Somali workers. "They act like the United States owes them."

Garcia was among more than 1,000 Latino and other workers who protested a decision last month by the plant's management to cut their work day — and their pay — by 15 minutes to give scores of Somali workers time for evening prayers.

After several days of strikes and disruptions, the plant's management abandoned the plan.

Economy, healthcare, et. al. -- move over for the real decider: the question of "Islamophobia," and which candidate will go out of his way to condemn it. As with every debate, CAIR once again issued its famous "reminder" prior to yesterday's presidential debate.

"Muslim Group Asks Candidates to Reject Islamophobia in Debate," from News Unfiltered, October 15:

"We urge both Senator McCain and Senator Obama to use tonight's debate to speak out against anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stereotyping and bias in our society," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "No candidate benefits by throwing swing voters like American Muslims and Arab-Americans under the campaign bus."