February 2009 Archives

"The Kremlin has given him its staunch backing, seeing him as the key to keeping the separatists in check, and that has allowed him to impose his will."

Sharia Alert, and Myopia in Moscow. "Chechen leader imposes strict brand of Islam," from the Associated Press, February 28 (thanks to L.):

GROZNY, Russia: The bullnecked president of Chechnya emerged from afternoon prayers at the mosque and with chilling composure explained why seven young women who had been shot in the head deserved to die.

Ramzan Kadyrov said the women, whose bodies were found dumped by the roadside, had "loose morals" and were rightfully shot by male relatives in honor killings.

"If a woman runs around and if a man runs around with her, both of them are killed," Kadyrov told journalists in the capital of this Russian republic.

The 32-year-old former militia leader is carrying out a campaign to impose Islamic values and strengthen the traditional customs of predominantly Muslim Chechnya, in an effort to blunt the appeal of hardline Islamic separatists and shore up his power. In doing so, critics say, he is setting up a dictatorship where Russian laws do not apply.

Some in Russia say Kadyrov's attempt to create an Islamic society violates the Russian constitution, which guarantees equal rights for women and a separation of church and state. But the Kremlin has given him its staunch backing, seeing him as the key to keeping the separatists in check, and that has allowed him to impose his will.

"Kadyrov willfully tries to increase the influence of local customs over the life of the republic because this makes him the absolute ruler of the republic," said Yulia Latynina, a political analyst in Moscow.

Kadyrov's bluster shows how confident he is of his position. "No one can tell us not to be Muslims," he said outside the mosque. "If anyone says I cannot be a Muslim, he is my enemy."

Few dare to challenge Kadyrov's rule in this southern Russian region of more than a million people, which is only now emerging from the devastation of two wars in the past 15 years. The fighting between Islamic separatists and Russian troops, compounded by atrocities on both sides, claimed tens of thousands of lives and terrorized civilians.

Kadyrov describes women as the property of their husbands and says their main role is to bear children. He encourages men to take more than one wife, even though polygamy is illegal in Russia. Women and girls are now required to wear headscarves in all schools, universities and government offices.

Some Chechen women say they support or at least accept Kadyrov's strict new guidelines.

"Headscarves make a woman beautiful," said Zulikhan Nakayeva, a medical student whose long dark hair flowed out from under her head covering, her big brown eyes accentuated by mascara.

But many chafe under the restrictions.

"How do women live in Chechnya? They live as the men say," said Taisiya, 20, who asked that her last name not be used for fear of retribution. She was not wearing a headscarf while shopping in central Grozny, which she said was her way of protesting.

Most women now wear headscarves in public, though the scarves rarely fully cover their hair and in some cases are little more than colorful silk headbands. Women who go out without a headscarf tend to tuck one into their bag for use where headscarves are required.

Many people suspect Kadyrov is branding the seven late November slayings honor killings to advance his political agenda. He said the women were planning to go abroad to work as prostitutes, but their relatives found out about it and killed them.

Few Chechens believe that.

"If women are killed according to tradition then it is done very secretly to prevent too many people from finding out that someone in the family behaved incorrectly," said Natalya Estemirova, a prominent human rights activist in Grozny.

There are two unsettling things in the preceding paragraphs: A society where a leader can tout honor killings and expect political gain has a massive problem with respect to human rights. And the fact that Chechens don't buy their leader's story because they know that's not how honor killings are done only confirms how serious and pervasive the problem is.

"The verbal abuse is there, the intimidation is there, the feeling of helplessness is there, not only among students but among faculty." And Judea Pearl doesn't say so, but it is coming from Muslim students and their Leftist allies. Israeli consul general Avika Tor was hounded off a stage at San Jose State University three weeks ago. A photo of some of the protesters is above, and an account here.

"Slain reporter's father fearful of anti-Semitism on campus," by Stan Wilson for CNN, February 28 (thanks to Paul):

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Jewish students and faculty at California universities fear for their safety on campus because of threats aimed at them over the Middle East conflict, the father of a slain Wall Street Journal reporter said Friday.

Judea Pearl, whose son, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and killed by al Qaeda extremists while on assignment in Pakistan in 2002, told reporters at a news conference that anti-Semitic e-mail and verbal threats have escalated since Israel's three-week invasion of Gaza in January.

"I received hate messages (after a recent panel on "Human Rights and Gaza") from someone at UCLA who did not identify himself and said, 'I saw you in Ackerman Union and I know where your office is and I'm going to beat the (expletive) out of you,'" said Pearl, who teaches computer science on UCLA's Westwood campus. "I handed it to the campus police, and they did not do anything."

UCLA spokeswoman Elizabeth Boatright-Simon told CNN there is no record of Pearl's complaint to campus police but said the university plans to meet with him. On its Web site, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block issued a statement about the university's policy.

"The conflict in the Middle East and current events in Gaza are some of the most highly controversial issues of our time, stirring deep emotions on all sides," the statement read.

"We have a responsibility to protect the freedom of expression. We also all have a responsibility to listen and engage -- respectfully -- even as we must understand that not every campus forum on a controversial topic will satisfy passionate and concerned members of the campus and broader communities," said Block....

A responsibility to protect the freedom of expression, eh? Then how about, say, showing Fitna?

Bostom, Wilders, Spencer, Geller: "The Four Horsemen of the Counterjihad"!

Last night Geert Wilders spoke at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington, DC -- the site of CPAC. Pamela Geller organized a gala event that was sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Atlas Shrugs, Dr. Andrew Bostom, and Jihad Watch. Here via Pamela is a firsthand account of what happened from a reader of Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch, who was there:

The $25 Banana---priceless! If given the chance to fly back in time to hear Patrick Henry deliver his "liberty or death" speech, I probably would. No, I'm sure I would. In a very real sense, that's why I left Danville and drove almost six hours (and almost another six on the way back immediately after) to hear a man from the Netherlands named Geert Wilders.

Friday morning, after almost five hours of class time with my Humanities students, I left for Washington, D.C. to see Wilders, a modern day Henry. Of course, there was a problem I couldn't ignore. I knew that Wilder's speech to the crowd attending what had been billed as AN EVENING WITH GEERT WILDERS: FITNA, FREEDOM, FOOD .............. FIERCE! at D.C.'s Omni Shoreham Hotel would be as short as it would be inspirational. In other words, I knew that I had to be at the site within minutes of the time the event was to begin at 6:00 p.m.

Armed only with mapquest directions, I sped up US 29 North to I-66 East where I eventually exited into the maze of Washington. Thanks to directions from a man who was walking across the Francis Scott Key Bridge, I found 1900 Calvert Street and turned into an area where Omni valets parked visitors' cars.

Immediately I was told that their lot was full, that I would have to try the Marriott lot a few blocks away. There was no time to complain; it was after six. I hurried into traffic, and drove past the Marriott sign that said "TEMPORARILY FULL" then headed up Calvert. For a block and a half, there was nothing. As I neared a stop light, I looked into my rearview mirror and noticed that someone was leaving a curbside spot just behind me. Carefully, but quickly, I reversed, then took that spot.

I speedily walked to the Omni entrance, found the concierge, then headed down the corridor to the left that led to a right turn down a few stairs. There I saw the "Evening With Geert Wilders" sign. But the doors were closed, and a tall and very serious security guard told me that no one else could enter due to the excessive crowd and fire code restrictions.

"But I've driven six hours," I pleaded, too weary to be more defiant.

"Sorry," he said, "those are the rules."

I didn't move since I was next in line if someone left. But why would they? It was almost 6:30 and Wilders was sure to speak any moment. What made me so intent on coming caused me to stay put. If Wilders was brave enough to produce FITNA, a very short and controversial film that discussed the brutal tenets of Islam, and courageous enough to demand Islamic accountability for its violence and its supremacist ideology, I could at least be close.

Behind me there were others who had apparently made the same commitment. They weren't leaving either. None of us became unruly or upset. We looked at each other as if to say we were happy to have gotten this close. I shrugged just as the door opened to within a foot of where I stood. A man with wire rim glasses and a short sandy colored beard asked who I was.

"I've driven here from southern Virginia," I said, "and Robert Spencer and I..."

He stopped me. "Come on in." He waved to the others also.

Inside was standing room only. On a small platform at the other end of the room in front of the microphone was Pamela Geller, dressed in black, the bright and attractive outspoken American Jewess who produces the prize winning blog, Atlas Shrugs. Touting the work that Wilders had done regarding the defense of free speech, she commented on the size of the audience who had come to express their support. Just behind her were Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, and Robert Spencer, author of the best selling book, The Truth About Muhammad and many others. Geller thanked both of them, who, along with the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Atlas Shrugs, sponsored the event.

After rousing the crowd to repeated cheers, Geller introduced Dr. Bostom, a brilliant researcher, who briefly spoke about his reasons for being committed to defending democratic freedoms before introducing Robert Spencer.

Spencer held a thick reference book, an impeccable Islamic source regarding the true intent of sura 8, verse 60 and sura 47, verse 4 of the Koran. Both dealt with Muhammad's dictate to murder infidels, unbelievers in Islam. Both were discussed in FITNA. Spencer explained that a rational discussion of such suras, even using or relying on Islamic texts, was regarded as hate speech. When Spencer referred to handouts given the crowd by Muslims in opposition to the event, he read Muslim claims that references to the Koran in the movie FITNA were taken out of context. That's when Spencer opened the reference book and read from it.

Then he introduced Wilders who took the stage during our thunderous applause. Geller, more than a foot shorter than Wilders, was beaming as both stood at the podium. Then Geller walked away.

"Free speech is no longer a given," he said, reflecting on charges filed against him in the Netherlands, where he and his family live. "I will be prosecuted because of my film FITNA."

He described his full time protection from Muslims, how he moves from one safe house to another, how he occasionally sleeps in prison cells. He asked why free speech was being put behind bars.

"Cultural relativism is the biggest disease of Europe today." He claimed that the European left was attacking cultural values rooted in Christianity and Judaism in a vain attempt to please Muslims. Gravely, Wilders said "Their population is growing ten times faster than our local populations."

He mentioned the need for the Europeans to adopt a freedom of speech law that would allow criticism of any and all ideologies. Quoting George Orwell, Wilders said that freedom was the ability to tell people what they didn't want to hear.

When the applause that followed ebbed, he looked around the room and said, stoically, "Freedom must prevail! Freedom will prevail!"

Cheers accompanied him off the stage as FITNA began.

I saw Geller and Spencer head for the exit. Earlier I had introduced myself to them both when I ignored the security guard behind me who was warning me not to. Both recognized my name from the many messages I had sent to each of them. Geller gave me a hug. Now that they were leaving, I stopped Geller to hand her a $25 check I had written for the Wilders Legal Defense Fund.

"It's just a small donation," I said.

"No, it's a big one," she replied, as she gave me an even bigger hug, one I will never forget.

All eyes were turned to the hanging screen that was as wide as the small stage. FITNA had begun. I worked my way to the rear door. I had seen FITNA before because I had shown it many times to my classes, and would show it many more. As I reached the exit, I turned in time to see the opening image of a plane sailing into the World Trade Center.

"Bastards!" I heard a woman seethe who an arm's length away. "Yeah," I thought, acknowledging the reason that I had come. Like Wilders I knew that our freedoms were worth fighting for.

Once out the door, I patted the pocket inside my sport coat. I had taken a banana from one of the food tables for my ride home. Amused by the thought that some would say I had paid twenty five bucks for the banana, I told myself that I wished I could have given more.

B. Koplen 2/28/09

And here is another account by Judy at the superb Refugee Resettlement Watch site.

Here is part two of Alyssa A. Lappen's interview of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs at Right Side News (part one is here). In this segment they discuss a longstanding focus of Jihad Watch: Islamic law's institutionalized discrimination against women, and how it plays out in violent and oppressive behavior today.

AAL: Why do you consider the situation of women so important within the Muslim war upon Western freedoms?

Atlas: This war is for women, and about women, and the ownership of women. You can judge the health of any society by how they treat women. And obviously in Islam, women are chattel.

I grew up in the Golden Age. I grew up in post World War II America. I was a post-boomer, what they called the generation Joneses. I grew up watching Andy Griffiths and I Love Lucy --- mindless, carefree, free. Freedoms were like the air I breathe. It was not until those freedoms were threatened that I realized how privileged I was and am and how I must do everything in my power to save it. No one stomps on my neck because I wear high heal shoes and low necked sweaters.

And now, the key to our freedom, believe it or not, is the freedom of women in the Muslim world.

AAL: Changing the situation for them seems like a very tall order, almost an impossibility.

Atlas: Women in the Muslim world have to be part of the effort, although they know nothing else and they live under fear and oppression. They have no one fighting for freedom. Their situation is like that of people who've had Stockholm syndrome for 1,400 years.

If you throw a frog in boiling water, he will jump out. But if you put a frog into warm water and turn up the heat until it gets hotter and hotter, that frog will be toast. That is what has happened to Muslim women, and it's why we have to work for them. We have to stop that, because it is already happening here.

People are auto-censoring themselves. There is double speak. People say what seems correct because they are afraid of the truth. Where you are not free to speak we are all in trouble. And the battle line in North America, first and foremost, is for Muslim women.

AAL: How can we show skeptics how difficult things have already grown in the West.

Atlas: Look, all you have to to is going onto YouTube to see videos on how to beat your wife without leaving marks, what tools to use, like they would beat a dog. There are Islamic clerics who teach men to beat their wives "gently."

The long and short of it is, in Islamic countries, women are slaves. And there is still slavery in these countries. They have human trafficking. It is not part of our culture; it is not part of our rules. Of course there is illegal human trafficking here, but it is not systemic. It is against the law. Slavery was abolished with the emancipation proclamation. Slavery is still very much a part of Islamic societies.

They consider it perfectly normal.

But we currently have a United Nations that has paid no attention to the millions of people murdered in the southern Sudan and Darfur genocides. These atrocities are of no consequence to them. So women's rights are certainly not even on the playing field.

AAL: How much of this happens in the West. Do we now have an epidemic in North America, too?

Atlas: So many people ask me how many women in the West are murdered in honor killings. I can't give them an answer. Part of the problem is that even when there's unquestionably been an honor killing, officials do not want to label it. This was the case when Yaser Abdel Said murdered his daughters Amina Said, 18, and Sarah Said, 17 on New Year's Day in 2008. They were gorgeous, vibrant, quintessential girls. But they were too Western and they were dating non-Muslims. They spoke to a teacher at school. They called social services. They totally invested themselves in the West. They took honors and advanced placement classes. None of that mattered. No one helped them. Finally they ran away. The West could not save them. Their mother Patricia and brother, Islam, lured them back to Texas, to be murdered on New Year's Day. Their father Yaser fled the country, probably to Egypt and the FBI issued a wanted poster. Their great aunt, Gail Gartrell, lobbied officials to designate the crimes honor killings, which they were.

Their mother, father and brother are still at large. And it took the FBI 10 months to add the words "honor killing" to the wanted poster. I called it a pig-flying moment, when the FBI finally acted, it was so rare. They called a spade a spade. But within days, the FBI caved in to pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and revised the wanted poster, to exclude the truth.

There is much more. Read it all.

The very idea that because Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, Afghanistan has a special, irreplaceable importance in the "war against terrorism," is false.

In the first place, the fact that Al Qaeda found Afghanistan under the Taliban (a Taliban nurtured by an American-supported Pakistan, and recognized by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) useful does not mean that Al Qaeda can only regroup in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks in London were not hatched by those trained in Afghanistan, but by people living in, raised in, Great Britain. Those who bombed the Atocha station in Madrid were not from Afghanistan. Those who killed Pim Fortuyn (a weak-minded Dutchman put up to it by Muslims) and Theo van Gogh were not trained in Afghanistan. The Chechens who seized the theatre in Moscow, or the school in Beslan, were not trained in Afghanistan. Anywhere there are Muslims, ready to participate in Jihad through violence, they will be able to find sufficient weaponry and bombs. Afghanistan is being endowed with a significance it does not possess.

In the second place, the very idea that Americans and other NATO troops must be sent in large numbers to pacify Afghanistan, a vast country, remote from Western bases, difficult to get in and out of (just look at the sums demanded by Kyrgyzstan for the continued use of an airbase), and that requires the collaboration of another meretricious Muslim state that is actually far more hideous and dangerous than Afghanistan itself, Pakistan, is nonsense. Afghanistan, or rather the various ethnic groups within it, can be controlled, or at least the threat coming from them can be managed from afar. The very idea that the only choice is ever-increasing numbers of American troops, and ever more billions poured into Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries on earth, on the theory that Muslim hearts, if they are not with the Taliban, are therefore accessible and winnable, is absurd.

Extraordinarily important observations about a phenomenon that has been far too little noted by law enforcement and government officials.

"Are Acts of Staged Controversy an Islamist Strategic Tactic?," by Madeleine Gruen and Edward Sloan for IPT News, February 27:

[...]

Minnesota Imams

On November 20, 2006, six imams boarded a US Airways jet that was about to depart from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport for Phoenix, Arizona. They had attended a three-day conference of the North American Imams Federation. Three only had one-way tickets and no checked luggage.[8] Various witnesses reported observing the group praying in an unusually loud way in the waiting area prior to boarding.[9] One of the witnesses, a clergyman who was familiar with Islamic practices, described their behavior at the gate as "atypical."[10] This same witness was later seated next to one of the imams on the plane and intentionally engaged him in conversation. The imam initially expressed to the witness that he was in the United States to do work related to his Ph.D. Later in the discussion, he admitted he was not doing academic work but instead intended to "represent Muslims in the United States" by generating support for Shari'a law.[11]

Upon boarding the plane, the imams dispersed. Two sat in the front of the plane, two in the middle, and two in the rear.[12] The flight crew and passengers observed them changing seats, and several of the men requested seat-belt extenders.[13] Crew members thought the request was odd, as none of the imams appeared overweight.[14] Although the extenders were provided, they were never used and were left on floor of the plane.[15] One passenger stated that she believed that the imams deliberately acted out as a part of an attempt to intimidate airline employees.[16] Another passenger said, "I can't explain it, but it was like they were definitely trying to raise suspicion."[17] The flight was delayed and the imams were removed from the plane by the airport police, questioned, and released after their plane had already departed.

CAIR filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation, and a separate civil suit in federal court on behalf of the imams against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, citing civil rights violations. CAIR also sued the "John Does" who alerted the aircrew and authorities after becoming alarmed by the imam's behavior in the terminal and on the plane.[18] While the "John Doe" provision of a bill (designed to protect citizens who report possible terrorist-related behavior from being sued, and to protect officers acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks) was moving through Congress, CAIR persisted with its lawsuit, claiming the right to discover whether the complaints were actually made "in good faith" or if they were racially motivated.[19]

President George W. Bush signed the "John Doe" provision[20] into law on August 3, 2007 and CAIR dropped its claims against the "Does."[21] There may be a residual "chilling effect," however, that would prevent concerned citizens from reporting suspicious incidents for fear of getting sued.[22] Causing reluctance to report suspicious incidents in which Muslims are involved may be an aspect of Islamist strategy to reduce resistance to the Islamization of society.

In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation ruled that US Airways did not discriminate against the imams and that the airline's actions were reasonable. The civil suit is scheduled to go to trial in August, 2009.[23]

Giants Stadium

During a football game September 19, 2005 at Giants Stadium, five Muslim men were questioned by FBI agents after they prayed near the stadium's main air intake duct located in a sensitive area.[24] Former President George H.W. Bush attended the game and security was high. After approximately 20 minutes of questioning, FBI agents determined that the group did not pose a threat and allowed them to return to the game.

This group may have acted completely innocently. The issue, however, was not dropped by the men, and a few weeks later, on November 2, 2005, the group joined forces with the New Jersey-based American Muslim Union and the New York City chapter of CAIR for a joint press conference concerning the incident. At the conference, the men complained that they had been humiliated at Giants Stadium, and that their "main aim [in publicizing the episode] was to bring to light and educate people about what it is we're supposed to do."[25] They also took the opportunity to promote a campaign called "Pray for Understanding,"[26] which the executive director of the New York office of CAIR described as a way to teach people about Islam. The tie-in to the "Pray for Understanding" campaign at the press conference suggests the possibility that the incident at Giants Stadium may have been staged to create a platform to promote an ulterior public relations agenda.

What Islamists Might Gain from "Acts of Staged Controversy"

The Minnesota Imams and Giants Stadium incidents are just two examples where unusual but overt behavior has been investigated, dropped (because there was no clear indication of wrongdoing), and subsequently taken up and intensified by CAIR or by other Muslim groups. Due to the involvement of Islamist advocacy groups, news stories are generated and controversy stirred.

If the objective of Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is to establish Islam as the dominant global societal doctrine, then how would creating acts of controversy - or seizing on opportunities to create controversy - further their strategy to achieve their objective? If they intend to achieve their objective through non-violent means then it is logical to conclude that they would want Muslims to embrace their perspective and to eschew democratic principles..

For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:

* Cause Muslims to feel disaffection for the democratic system by promoting feelings of betrayal and abandonment.
* Convince Muslim Americans that they are not accepted as Americans. Acts of staged controversy provoke a response from authorities that can foment an "us vs. them" rift between Muslims and non-Muslims.
* Incite political divides that may ultimately cause political instability.
* Influence legislators to call for laws to outlaw profiling and/or repeal existing laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act.
* Draw attention from foreign media in an attempt to show that the U.S. rhetoric about acceptance is hollow.

Acts of staged controversy could also be exploited by groups who seek to use violence. For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:

* Desensitize security personnel by making activity that common sense would deem suspicious instead seem routine and not worth any special effort.
* Intimidate security personnel and citizens by threatening lawsuits; making them reluctant to report suspicious behavior.

Handling Acts of Staged Controversy

Unfortunately, hatred, bigotry, and mistrust exist in the United States, and it is the role of civil rights groups to respond appropriately when acts of hatred do occur. It is the duty of responsible officials to monitor political, religious, and social tensions so that violent acts motivated by hatred can be prevented. The long view for homeland security, however, cannot be compromised by hasty responses to ambiguous situations. It is possible that some Islamist groups may exaggerate the occurrence of anti-Islamic discrimination in order to validate the premise that "Islamophobia" is rampant. According to FBI statistics, out of a total 7,624 hate crimes reported in the United States in 2007, 115 were motivated by anti-Islamic bias.[27] By contrast, 2,658 were motivated by bias against blacks, 749 were anti-white, 1,265 targeted people based on sexual orientation and 969 of the hate crimes reported were motivated by bias against Jews.[28]

Law enforcement and security personnel, airline and airport managers, legislators, politicians, media, and private citizens all have roles to play to prevent the spread of extremist ideology, which could lead to radicalization and, ultimately, a possible terrorist event.

Response at the Federal, Law Enforcement and Media Levels

Politicians must acknowledge Islamist ideology is being promoted in the United States, recognize who is promoting it, and understand the subtle tactics used by the Islamist groups before they can introduce effective counter-measures against terrorism. Politicians must realize that Islamist groups are competing for hearts and minds in the United States, so commitment to democratic values cannot be taken for granted.

How does law enforcement play a role in acts of staged controversy if there is no apparent crime committed? It is unlawful to conspire and to deliberately disrupt or interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and security personnel. Engaging in deliberately suspicious behavior in order to distract security and law enforcement authorities is a tactic that has been discussed on Islamist message boards.[29] Of course, in ambiguous situations it is hard to prove the actual intent of the actors. Difficult though it may be, investigations should be conducted and cooperating witnesses sought and developed. The stakes are high, especially when the results of these incidents are considered in the aggregate and not individually.

Associations with terrorists or terrorist groups are not evidence of a crime, but are valuable data points in evaluating the true nature of an incident. If there are nefarious or questionable associations or prior activities that could shed light on possible motivations for ambiguous acts, they should be made known as much as possible. For example, one of the six imams involved in the Minnesota airport case, Omar Shahin, raised money for the Holy Land Foundation and for the Illinois-based KindHearts Foundation, which the government shut down last year for alleged support of Hamas."[30]

Additionally, the media should be aware of the possibility that it is being used to further an Islamist agenda. Media cooperation and extensive coverage is a key element of successful acts of staged controversy. Historically, global political Islamist groups have skillfully manipulated the media as part of their effort to circulate their message.[31] Statements made by spokespeople representing Islamist groups are often taken at face value by the media, and past involvements and associations often go unmentioned. Just as it is for law enforcement, it is important for the media to consider incidents in the aggregate.[...]

Read it all. There is much more, plus references for all the endnotes, at the IPT News site.

Because, you see, this will keep them from becoming "radicalized" -- i.e., turning to jihad. Living in a society that treats all equally before the law is not enough: Muslims have to be placed in a special class with rights and privileges beyond those of non-Muslims. And that, of course, is precisely the arrangement envisioned by Sharia.

"Police In Race Bias Outrage: Scottish forces ordered to give priority to crimes against Muslims," by Dean Herbert in the Scottish Daily Mail, February 28, via The Frozen North (thanks to Pamela):

Police in Scotland have been ordered to give special priority to crimes where the victims are Muslim.

In a move that last night sparked a fresh row over political correctness, a senior officer revealed that the race and religion of a victim has now become a crucial factor in how police respond to crime.

Inspector Tom Galbraith, of Lothian and Borders Police’s diversity unit, told a conference on tackling terrorism that it was important to stop Scottish Muslims feeling “vulnerable” in case they were driven towards radicalism.

Mr. Galbraith said the force encouraged officers to consider the religious or ethnic backgrounds of victims to assess their needs in dealing with hate crimes.

He said that both an attack and a perceived lack of action by police could turn Islamic youths into future terrorists.

But mind you, he is speaking about "a perceived lack of action by police," not an actual lack of action, and is recommending that preferential treatment be given to Muslims, not just that they be treated in the same way as the rest of the population is treated. And almost certainly it has never occurred to him that Muslim groups might try to use grievances to manipulate non-Muslim officials into granting them preferential treatment -- or taking the edge off anti-terror investigations. To suggest such a possibility, despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating that this kind of thing happens not infrequently, would be "Islamophobic."

Mr. Galbraith also revealed that police officers, Special Branch and BAA security staff were being given special lessons about Islamic culture after Muslims complained that being questioned when entering the country about whether they pray and attend mosques was offensive to their faith.

Speaking at a national security conference in Edinburgh on Thursday, Mr. Galbraith said, “It is not about treating everybody the same. If I have a young Asian man who has been subjected to a hate crime, I would rather put more resources into that than if it had happened to a white male because the white male is far less likely to end up becoming radicalised.”

Many times I have mentioned "the equality of rights of all people before the law" as a key Western principle that needed to be defended from Islamic supremacism. Looks as if it is dead already in Scotland.

He later confirmed that his remarks were in line with Lothian and Borders Police policy, saying that cases of hate crime were assessed “by need”.

He added: “You have to consider cases according to need. The idea of treating people all the same is a bit naive and we have to remember that there are vulnerable individuals who can be put on the path of radicalism.”

Last night, the police were criticised for being too politically correct in dealing with hate crimes.

Conservative Justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: “I’m afraid we are now living in a society in which some people are more equal than others.

“Not accepting assault against some people is a serious matter and the law is required to be proactive in each and every case.

“There is no room for political correctness in the fight against crime.”

Richard Cook, Scottish spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness, added: “I think people will be extremely concerned that victims are being treated differently according to their religion, colour of their skin and where they live.”

During the conference, Mr. Galbraith also said that police officers and airport security staff were being given lessons in Islamic culture to avoid offending arrivals.

He said: “Sometimes they will be asked “Do you pray?” or “Do you visit mosques?” when they arrive in the country.

“This kind of thing is derogatory to the Islamic faith. A lot of people then wonder what is wrong with going to mosques in this country.

“It is about making an effort in learning about other cultures and faiths.”

He later confirmed that training in Islamic culture was now on-going among officers.

Mr. Galbraith joined Lothian and Borders police in 1988.

He presently works in the diversity unit under the “prevent” strand of the UK counter-terrorism strategy.

Yeah, that's gonna work like a charm.

The government is "saddened" by the AU peacekeepers' assertive measures vis-a-vis the Islamists, who, as opposed to the former, intentionally and repeatedly kill and terrorize Somali civilians -- with, of course, nary a word from the Somali government (yes, Somalia actually has a government).

"Somalia 'saddened' by AU peacekeepers' shelling of Mogadishu residential areas," from China View, February 27:

MOGADISHU, Feb. 27 (Xinhua) -- The Somali government Friday said it was saddened by the shelling of residential areas by African Union peacekeepers in Mogadishu which it said led to the death and injury of people and the further displacement of new returnees, according to local media reports.

The statement comes after two days of intense fighting between fighters of the insurgent group of Hezbul Islam, and peacekeepers from the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) backing Somali government forces.

"We are saddened that AMISOM have bombed people who have now started to return to their homes and have restarted to flee again. We hope that would stop," Suleman Olad Roble, the Minister for Youth and Sports in the newly formed government of national unity, was quoted by Shebelle radio in Mogadishu as saying.[...]

This is an unprecedented statement from the Somali government which relies mainly on the peacekeepers for its protection against armed insurgent groups opposed to its existence.

Roble said it was important that the Somali people reconcile among themselves so that "the African Union peacekeepers can go home."

The presence of the nearly 34,00 peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi has been a thorny issue for the new Somali government as influential local clerics have demanded that the government ask the troops to leave the country within 120 days...

Moreover, the government is required to fully implement sharia law, a la Pakistan's recent capitulation in the Swat Valley, in this same 120 day period --or else.

Even though he "pledged to do his [Bin Laden's] bidding in the United States"

Ali al-Marri update. "U.S. indictment of enemy combatant unsealed," by John Schwartz for IHT, February 27 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Ali al-Marri, the only prisoner considered an enemy combatant being detained on U.S. soil, has been indicted on charges of helping the terrorist group Al Qaeda, the Justice Department announced Friday afternoon.

The two-page indictment was approved by a federal grand jury in Peoria, Illinois on Thursday and unsealed Friday. It accuses Marri of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to Al Qaeda, as well as providing the support and resources.

If Marri is found guilty of both counts, he faces as much as 30 years in prison.[...]

The government contends that Marri is a "sleeper agent" for Qaeda who had met with Osama Bin Laden and pledged to do his bidding in the United States; he had arrived in this country on Sept. 10, 2001.

Marri's attorneys have denied that he is an agent of Al Qaeda, and have challenged his detention. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which was scheduled for oral arguments in April.

The government will now move to have the Supreme Court case dismissed, the Justice Department announced in its statement about the indictment.

Marri's lead attorney, Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that "this indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts. This case is now finally where it belongs: in a legitimate court that can fairly determine whether Mr. al-Marri is guilty of a crime."

He added, however, that the ACLU would oppose dismissing the Supreme Court case.

"We will continue to pursue Mr. al-Marri's case before the Supreme Court to make sure that no American citizen or lawful resident will ever again be subjected to such treatment," he said. "It is important that the Court hears Mr. al-Marri's case and rejects, once and for all, the notion that any president has the sweeping authority to deprive individuals living in the United States of their most basic constitutional rights by designating them 'enemy combatants.' "

Why would the chair of the Islamic Dawah Foundation be upset about this? After all, Qur'an 29:46 says:

"And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender."

However, that talking point is meant to be part of a one-way conversation -- for dawah, or Islamic proselytizing. "Our Allah and your Allah" may be claimed to be the same "Allah," but the message is ultimately: You're worshiping our deity, but we're doing it right, and you're not. For that matter, the mention of that which has been "revealed unto us and unto you" is not a warm, fuzzy interfaith endorsement of the truth of non-Islamic scriptures, but an implication that the non-Muslims' scriptures have been corrupted.

Obviously, then, under Islamic law, a Christian would be forbidden from preaching to Muslims in this way.

An update on this story. "Withdraw Permission To Use 'Allah' In Christian Publications," from Bernama, February 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

KEPALA BATAS, Feb 28 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Islamic Da'wah Foundation (Yadim) today called on the government to withdraw the permission for the conditional use of the word "Allah" in Christian publications.

Its chairman Datuk Mohd Nakhaie Ahmad said the government had not acted wisely in allowing the use of the word in Christian publications, which he said could anger Muslims not only in the country but also throughout the world.

He said the government should have left the matter for the court to decide.

"To me, it's a mistake," he told reporters after opening a halal carnival here Saturday.

A government gazette dated Feb 16 has stated that documents and publications relating to Christianity containing the world "Allah" are prohibited unless the words "FOR CHRISTIANITY" are written on their front covers.

The condition was contained under the Internal Security (Prohibition on Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009.

Paragraph 2(1) of the order reads: The printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words "Allah", "Kaabah, "Baitullah" and "solat" are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words "FOR CHRISTIANITY".

Actually, a blank check would do very nicely, thank you

Even though Pakistan is constantly demonstrating its duplicitous nature, its Islamist zeal, including its greater interest to battle India as opposed to its own homegrown terrorists -- here is the U.S. government, instead of holding the Pakistani government more accountable, offering it more money. But hey -- maybe the real underlying and brilliant logic here is that more money will "make them like us"?

"Obama administration seeks more aid for Pakistan," by Anwar Iqbal for the Dawn, February 28:

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration’s budget for 2010 includes an unspecified amount of military and civilian aid for Pakistan.

Although Pakistan has asked for drone aircraft, helicopters and other equipment, the US administration has not yet said what equipment it was willing to provide.

Two top US defence officials – Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen – held extensive talks with Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani in Washington earlier this week.

Mr Gates also met a Pakistani delegation, which included the ISI chief and was headed by the foreign minister.

‘Well, I think one of the themes that, certainly, in my meetings with Pakistanis have been, how can we work more closely together? How can we help them be effective? How can we help ourselves by helping them?’ said Secretary Gates explaining what Pakistan expected from the United States.

‘Clearly, more intelligence is an important aspect of that. In terms of the drones specifically, that hasn't come up in my talks, but figuring out ways to help them have better intelligence to guide their operations, I think, is a positive thing and we ought to do as much as we can,’ he added.

Admiral Mullen also stressed the need to help Pakistan, saying: ‘It's very important that we help resource them and develop this comprehensive strategy with Pakistan over a number of years. And I'm delighted to see that kind of support in the ‘10 budget.’...

After all, it contained Shias, and "the hardline Sunni Taleban say they consider the Shias heretical." More blatantly dishonorable jihadi behavior. "Pakistan Shia children 'attacked'," from BBC, February 27:

Taleban gunmen in north-west Pakistan have attacked a school bus, killing the driver and injuring three pupils in a sectarian attack, police say.

Some reports say several children were abducted in the attack in Hangu.

Police say the children in the bus were Shia Muslims. It follows the murder of a Shia lawyer in Hangu on Thursday.

The Taleban are active in Hangu - where there is tension between Shias and Sunnis - and have imposed their version of Sharia law in parts of the area.

Hangu - in North West Frontier Province - has seen especially violent clashes in the past between Shias and Sunnis during the Shia religious ceremony of Ashura.

The hardline Sunni Taleban say they consider the Shias heretical.

What do you think CAIR's objective is here? Obviously they want the FBI to stop placing informants in mosques, and to trust their assurances that they will help them with anti-terror efforts. Yet CAIR has opposed every anti-terror initiative that has ever come down the pike, most notably the Patriot Act. It aided the Flying Imams in their lawsuit against the passengers who reported them for suspicious behavior -- a lawsuit that, had it succeeded, would have made Americans afraid to report suspicious behavior in airports for fear of being sued. And now CAIR wants informants out of the mosques -- despite the fact, as Pamela points out here, that studies show that jihad violence and Islamic supremacism are taught in the vast majority of American mosques. If the FBI turns a blind eye to what is going on in the mosques, who will be the sole beneficiary?

"SoCal Muslims Angry at Informants in Mosques," from NBCLosAngeles.com, February 28 (thanks to Pamela):

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- A Muslim advocacy organization said Friday that American Muslims are feeling "anger, disillusionment and mistrust" toward the FBI in the aftermath of reports that it used an informant to infiltrate Southland mosques.

"The American Muslim community has never wavered from its commitment to keeping America safe, nor has it hesitated from cooperating with various law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, in ensuring the security of all U.S. citizens," the Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement.

This coming from a group that has had several of its officials convicted of various terror-related crimes, and that is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

But, it said, reports that informants have been paid "to monitor and provoke law-abiding Muslims in houses of worship" and the recruitment by the FBI of Muslims "to become informants" have left American Muslims with "deeply troubling concerns."

You know something? No one ought to be able to provoke a law-abiding citizen to commit treason.

One of them is that "these coercive and intimidating methods highlight the fact that the FBI continues to view the entire American Muslim community as suspect and treat it as such," the statement said.

Maybe the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of statements like this contributes to that.

"Infiltrating mainstream mosques the way FBI informants infiltrate white supremacist groups illustrates the FBI's perception of American Muslims as a community that must be constantly monitored, instead of being treated as an equal partner in fighting crime and terrorism," according to the statement.

An Irvine man who claims he worked as an FBI informant to infiltrate mosques and gather information about a man now accused of lying about ties to al-Qaida said this week that he spent four to five hours a day with the suspect, and he now fears his life may be in danger from extremist groups.

Craig Monteilh, 46, says he recorded Ahmadullah Sais Niazi discussing jihad, weapons and plans to blow up abandoned buildings.

Monteilh filed court documents Wednesday saying he served as a confidential informant for the FBI from July 2006 to October 2007 to identify and thwart terrorist operations in the Orange County Islamic community.

The CAIR statement said Monteilh's story coupled with an FBI agent's court testimony this week in Niazi's trial regarding the use of an informant "to infiltrate" Southland mosques "have re-ignited feelings of anger, disillusionment and mistrust among American Muslims toward the FBI."

"...The FBI's counter-productive actions damage the trust between Muslims and law enforcement and trample our constitutionally mandated civil liberties," it said.

An update on this story, and another manifestation of a much broader problem in Pakistan: The increasingly strident unwillingness to respect and enforce the rule of secular law. And it is causing them to lose (or give up) ever-larger swathes of their own territory. "Pakistan - Charges filed against kidnappers of young girls," from Compass Direct News, February 27:

ISTANBUL, February 26 (Compass Direct News) – After months of legal deadlock, lawyers in Pakistan said they have new hope they can restore to her family a 13-year-old Christian girl who was kidnapped and forced to marry a Muslim.

Saba Masih might be returned to her family, the lawyers said, if they can legally maneuver around Pakistani policemen who have stonewalled their attempts to pursue a kidnapping case against the captors. On Saturday (Feb. 21) a Pakistani judge charged the suspects with kidnapping for the first time in the seven-month legal ordeal.

“The judiciary is one thing, the police are another,” said Arfan Goshe, a lawyer who has taken on the custody case. “I will prove [the three accused men] kidnapped Saba so the judiciary will force the police to arrest them.”

On Saturday (Feb. 21), Judge Mohammed Ilyas issued a First Instance Report (FIR) at a subordinate court in the Punjabi village of Chawk Munda against Amjad Ali, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammed Arif Bajwa on charges of kidnapping, trespassing, and threatening the Masih family.

Attorney Goshe, a Muslim, said the three kidnappers trespassed onto the property of Yunus Masih, the father of Saba, and threatened to kill his family and burn down his house in late December.

The decision to file kidnapping charges marks a major shift of momentum in the case. In previous hearings judges have nearly always sided with the kidnappers – based on either dubious evidence or threats from local Islamists – in the Muslims’ legal battle to retain custody of Saba and her 10-year-old sister Aneela. A court ruled the younger daughter could return to her family last September.

The two girls were kidnapped in June 2008 while traveling to visit their uncle in Sarwar Shaheed, northwest of Multan. Saba was married to Ali the next day. Bajwa and Ali registered a case with police on June 28 for custody of the girls based on their alleged conversion to Islam. The court granted them custody in July.

At nearly all the hearings, Muslim groups protested outside the courtroom against lawyers attempting to return Saba to her Christian parents. A traditional interpretation of Islamic law (sharia) does not allow non-Muslim parents to have custody of Muslim children.

In spite of the judge’s decision to begin procedures for kidnapping charges, Chawk Munda police have not followed through with the FIR by arresting the three Muslims. Today the judge contacted the local police station and ordered officers to register the kidnapping case against the three men, Goshe told Compass. He said he hopes police will file the FIR within the next few days.

“The police are favoring the accused party at this time,” he said. “Everybody knows [Saba] was abducted, and that the culprits are trying to threaten minorities everywhere.”

But others are less optimistic the kidnappers will be arrested. Khalid Raheel, Saba’s uncle, said he believes he may have to bribe the police. They would likely demand around 20,000 Pakistani rupees (US$250), he said.

Uncooperative police had also blocked the legal team’s efforts to register charges before Saturday’s ruling. As a result, the Christian family’s lawyers filed a private complaint to the subordinate court of Chawk Munda, sidestepping the need for a police investigation to file charges that would be necessary at a normal criminal court.

Goshe said the court is finally complying after months of deadlock because the multiple charges against the kidnappers cannot be ignored. Previous court hearings focused on Saba’s alleged conversion to Islam to mitigate the charges of her kidnapping, but the judiciary could not ignore the three suspects’ subsequent crimes of trespassing and attempting to burn down the Masihs’ house, he said.

In January, lawyer Akbar Durrani of the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) filed an appeal to register kidnapping charges against Ali, the husband of Saba. Durrani had tried to register these charges in December, but Judge Malik Saeed Ijaz refused the case since it was built upon the testimony of Saba’s sister Aneela, whose status as a minor invalidated her testimony.

Instead, the judge ordered Ali to pay a dowry of 100,000 rupees (US$1,255) and allow her parents to visit, both required by Pakistani marriage protocol. Saba, however, relinquished her dowry, a prerogative provided by sharia. Her family suspects that she made this decision under threat....

I was at this press conference this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Wilders stated the case for free speech forcefully. Will post video when available.

Geert Wilders will also be speaking tonight at 6PM EST at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, at an event sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, and Dr. Andrew Bostom.

"Geert Wilders: An International First Amendment and a ban on all 'hate-speech' laws; Keynotes Center-sponsored press conference," a press release from the Center for Security Policy:

Washington, DC: Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, founder and floor leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), and member of the Board of Advisors of the International Free Press Society (IFPS), recounted today before a packed audience in Washington's National Press Club the recent, alarming attacks on free speech worldwide - including legal actions and death threats to which he and other political leaders and journalists have lately been exposed.

Notably, Mr Wilders is being prosecuted in his own county because of reaction to his film "Fitna," and his remarks challenging the contention that Islam is a "religion of peace."

Attendees at the press conference co-sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and the International Free Press Society had an opportunity to view "Fitna" in its entirety and to engage in a lively question and answer session with Mr. Wilders. The film features quotations from the Koran, documentary footage of Islamic leaders inciting violence (jihad) based on those quotations, and documentary footage of the results: deaths of innocent civilians and destruction of property in various Western nations.

The film can be viewed at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

Highlights of Mr. Wilders' remarks (a copy of his entire statement may obtained here) included the following:

The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe's children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca Teheran, and Gaza?

Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West-in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

...My prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the Left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims.

I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe....In Europe, we should defend freedom of speech like Americans do....Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than Shariah....there is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty.

In welcoming Mr. Wilders to America, Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that the threats he faces are actually threats to all of us. They arise from the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah": Mr. Gaffney observed that:

The insinuation of Shariah legal codes and practices into Free World societies includes the effort to impose Shariah blasphemy, slander and libel laws in the West. According to Shariah, it is impermissible to engage in speech or writings that ‘defame' Islam or otherwise offend its followers. We must oppose all these efforts.

Diana West, the syndicated columnist and best-selling author who serves as Vice President of the International Free Press Society said:

The ideal speech protections lie in the spirit of the American First Amendment. While Mr. Wilders would clearly live and breathe more easily with such speech protections, it is important for all of us who are here today to witness him speak to note, that even under existing legal constraints, governmental efforts to further

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society, introduced Wilders and outlined the IFPS 2009 campaign to ban hate speech laws and to work for an "International First Amendment." Mr. Hedegaard said:

The hate speech and blasphemy laws that are now common in many European countries lack clarity as to precisely what they aim to criminalize. Recent experience with their implementation further shows that they are unequally applied. This state of affairs is intolerable and the IFPS must therefore demand that all such laws be repealed. The way to deal with controversial, offensive or even hateful statements-unless they are directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action-is to expose them to public debate and criticism.

A video of the entire press conference will be available shortly at the Center for Security Policy's website: www.SecureFreedom.org.

At last, a bit of good news from the Obama Administration. An update on this story: "U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference," by Ron Kampeas for the JTA, February 27 (thanks to Pamela):

The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism. Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.

Read it all.

Bitterly ironic in light of this. Projection Alert: "Egyptian Cleric Ahmad Abd Al-Salam: Jews 'Infect Food with Cancer and Ship it to Muslim Countries,'" from MEMRI, February 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Ahmad Abd Al-Salam, which aired on Al-Nas TV on January 28, 2009.

To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2035.htm.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP AND OTHERS, YOU MUST LOG IN/REGISTER FOR MEMRI TV, AT http://subscriptions.memri.org/content/en/member_registr_tv.htm. REGISTRATION IS FREE OF CHARGE.

The Jews "Invest Their Utmost Efforts... in Conspiring How to Corrupt the Islamic Nation... This Is Why We Hate Them"

Ahmad Abd Al-Salam: "The Jews 'will not fail to corrupt' the believers. What does this mean? The Jews are never remiss - they invest their utmost efforts, day and night, in conspiring how to corrupt the Islamic nation, the nation led by the Prophet Muhammad.

"I want you, Muslim viewers, to imagine the Jews sitting around a table, conspiring how to corrupt the Muslims, and how to destroy their worldly and religious affairs. The Jews 'will not fail to corrupt you,' and this is why we hate them."

The Jews "Infect Food with Cancer and Ship It to Muslim Countries"

"The Jews conspire day and night to destroy the Muslims' worldly and religious affairs. The Jews conspire to destroy the economy of the Muslims. The Jews conspire to infect the food of the Muslims with cancer. It is the Jews who infect food with cancer and ship it to Muslim countries."...

It goes on. It gets worse. Read it all, if you have the stomach.

Hypocrisy Alert: you notice there have never been any riots or protests of any kind when Islamic jihadists have used mosques in Gaza and Iraq to store weapons and launch jihad attacks.

"Afghans protest alleged NATO gunshots in mosque," from The Associated Press, February 27 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

KABUL: Hundreds of people blocked roads and fought with police in southern Afghanistan on Friday over unconfirmed reports that Polish troops fired guns in a village mosque, in a protest underscoring Afghans' growing mistrust of international forces.

Both NATO forces and Polish officials said they had no reports of any such incident. Polish troops are deployed in the province but there were no records of international troops in the immediate area, NATO added.

It is often difficult in Afghanistan's turbulent south to separate actual incidents from Taliban propaganda, but a government delegation said the mosque door was damaged by bullets and some protesters said they had witnessed the mosque raid on Thursday....

[See here for part I.] Regarding my more recent “War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam," others have written to me complaining that, by not juxtaposing more “moderate interpretations” to the mainstream ones I delineated (e.g., Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, al-Arabi, et al), I am supposedly “distorting.” While there are in fact “moderate interpretations,” most of these come from minority sects—such as the Ahmadiyyas or the Quraniyuns—who, as they make up a trivial percentage of the Islamic world, and are in fact often accused of and persecuted for apostasy by mainstream Muslims, are definitely not representative of the latter.

Other critics express dismay as to how I can interpret certain verses as being supportive of taqiyya. Of course, being neither a Muslim nor one of the ulema, I hardly ever interpret this or that verse as being supportive of taqiyya/deception, but rather always attribute such exegeses to the appropriate jurist, scholar, or theologian—the ulema, who have the final say in mainstream Islam. (Ironically, being only a 4,000 word essay, I only supplied a tithe of the numerous albeit subtle taqiyya decrees and interpretations I have surveyed in Arabic texts dedicated to this topic.)

Still other critics point to strange English translations of the Koran that do not capture the actual meaning of the Arabic—definitely not the way the ulema understand it—in an effort to obfuscate the doctrine of taqiyya. For instance, some have written to me insisting that Koran 3:28 has “absolutely nothing” to do with deceit. As evidence, they quote the following translation from the website IslamUSA.org: “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends in preference to the believers unless you very carefully guard against evil from them.”

The original Arabic says absolutely nothing about “guarding against evil from them.” (Is IslamUSA.org practicing taqiyya in regard to ayat al-taqiyya, or the verse of taqiyya?) Instead, the original Arabic most literally says, “Let believers not take infidels for friends in place of the believers; whoever does this shall have nothing left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” In other words, it does not warn Muslims against befriending infidels due to the latter’s proclivity for evil (which may contaminate Muslims who do not actively “guard” against it), but simply because they are infidels, non-Muslims—by default, the enemy. As for “guard[ing] yourselves” and “taking precautions,” once again, however one wants to interpret these, the fact is, the ulema have already settled and interpreted it as aforementioned: deceit.

(Incidentally, is it not curious that while people are nitpicking about what the latter half of that verse means, no one seems to be interested in the far from ambiguous former half, where Muslims are simply commanded to not befriend non-Muslims in the first place? Is that not, in and of itself, demonstrative of Islam’s position vis-à-vis the other, the infidel?)

Others have written to me, absolutely flabbergasted that I say Koran 4:29 or 2:195, which command Muslims to not “kill/destroy themselves,” encourages taqiyya. For the record, I said no such thing; the ulema have—such as the classical exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (see Tafsir al-Kabir, vol.10, p.98). According to him, since Muslims are commanded to not “destroy themselves,” disclosing any truths that might lead to their destruction is forbidden. Thus a mujahid (“jihadist”), according to Razi, must conceal his identity, since infidels might “destroy” him if they were to discover what he was about. And so, in this sense, 4:29 and 2:195 do permit deception.

Others are scandalized that I wrote Allah himself is described in the Koran as being the best “deceiver” or “schemer.” They write to me insisting that the Koran uses no such language (based on their trusty English translations), but rather portrays Allah as the best “planner” or “plotter”—the words used, for instance, in the widely quoted translations of Yusuf Ali and Shakir. So, who am I to ascribe the word “deceiver” or “schemer” to Allah?

Simple: in the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as “planner/plotter”—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root “m-k-r” means “to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross.” One who takes on the attributes of “m-k-r”—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as “sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler.” In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster.

My reliance on one canonical hadith as supportive of deception has also come under fire: Muhammad said, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath.” He also encouraged Muslims to do the same.

Many have written to me insisting that I “shamelessly” took these hadiths “out of context.” For the record, then, here is the context: Some Muslims came to Muhammad requesting camel mounts to ride, but “he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’” Later, some mounts fell into the prophet’s share of war plunder, and he gave these to the men. Overcome by altruism, one of the men reminded Muhammad of his oath to which the latter replied, “If I take an oath [to not give the men mounts] and later find something else better [the opportunity to give mounts presents itself], I do what is better and break my oath.”

Now, if Muhammad swore he would not give mounts, but then when he was able to, he broke his oath (“to do what is better”), why should, say, jihadists fighting to make Allah’s word supreme, after giving oaths to infidels (e.g., peace-treaties of sulh, truces, etc) not break their oaths when they too are able “to do what is better”? After all, what is “better”: breaking an oath so some men can have camels to ride, or breaking an oath to make Islam—the embodiment of all good—supreme?

Once again, and whichever way one interprets this oath-breaking hadith, the fact remains: breaking truces with infidels has a long lineage in Islam. The authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, for example, simply states: “[T]here can be no question of genuine peace treaties [between Muslims and non-Muslims]… only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict”—that is, if the opportunity to do “something better” presents itself.

In closing, it should be noted that the most revealing aspect of the recent, and atypical, barrage of disgruntled e-mails regarding my “War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam,” is that no Muslim (minus fringe Ahmadiyyas, etc.) has written to deny the more troubling aspects of the essay. For instance, while many nitpicked over the aforementioned, none have denied the fact that Muhammad permitted lying in certain situations, affirmed that “war is deceit,” and permitted Muslims to deceive and assassinate infidels—all according to canonical (sahih) hadiths (hence the reason mainstream Muslims cannot refute them).

Moreover, the main point of my essay was not to demonstrate that Islam permits deceit during war—a phenomenon I indicated also prevails among many non-Muslim strategists as well—but to show that, for Islam, warfare with non-Muslims is eternal, “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah (Koran 8:39). Yet no one wrote denying this classical Islamic formulation of the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, which must be in perpetual war until the latter subsumes the former (except of course Michael Ryan, but he is simply another non-Muslim apologist).

Usually, silence is not necessarily indicative of assent; however, when large numbers of people take it upon themselves to criticize certain (minor) aspects of an argument, it seems reasonable to assume that their silence regarding the more revealing and problematic issues—such as eternal jihad—is, in fact, implicit assent.

An Ethiopian man with HIV sent Obama letters tainted with the former's blood. Officials believe the man is "mentally disturbed" (perhaps not even fit for trial). Yet, this same man "was arrested by police in 2006 after starting a fire in the middle of a crowded Chicago intersection. When officers arrived on the scene, he was waving the Koran in the air and yelling "Allah Akbar," or "God is Great" in Arabic. Court documents said he was transported to a hospital, where he called President Bush a terrorist and criticized American foreign policy." Then as now, "He was not formally charged, but he did spend time in the mental health unit of the hospital."

"Chicago Man Arrested for Allegedly Targeting Obama With HIV-Infected Blood," by Mike Levine for Fox News, February 27 (thanks to Shechild):

A man from President Obama's hometown of Chicago has been arrested for allegedly sending Obama and his staff envelopes containing HIV-infected blood, in the hopes of killing or harming them.

It's only the second time ever that HIV-infected blood has been sent with malicious intent through the U.S. mail system, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said.

In the weeks leading up to Obama's inauguration, Saad Hussein, an Ethiopian refugee in his late 20's, sent an envelope addressed to "Barack Obama" to offices of the Illinois government in Springfield, Ill., according to court documents. The envelope contained a series of unusual items, including a letter with reddish stains and an admission ticket for Obama's election-night celebration in Chicago's Grant Park.

Court documents said Hussein, who takes drugs to treat a mental illness, later told FBI agents he is "very sick with HIV" and cut his fingers with a razor so he could bleed on the letter.

Hazmat teams were called in after the envelope was opened, and offices of the Illinois Department on Aging and the Department of Revenue were locked down for nearly two hours, locking 300 staffers in their offices, court documents said.[...]

Hussein, who has never held a job in the three years he's been in the United States, was arrested last month. An affidavit filed at the time accused Hussein of "knowingly" mailing letters "containing HIV-infected blood, with the intent to kill or injure another," in violation of federal law.[...]

After Hussein's arrest, he was placed in a Chicago correctional facility. He has yet to be formally charged. A judge ordered he receive a mental examination to see if he's fit for trial, but as of two weeks ago the court couldn't locate a translator to conduct the examination, according to court documents.

A publicly-appointed attorney representing Hussein declined comment, saying he was "not at liberty to discuss pending criminal matters."

This is not the first time law enforcement officials have had to take Hussein into custody. He was arrested by police in 2006 after starting a fire in the middle of a crowded Chicago intersection. When officers arrived on the scene, he was waiving the Koran in the air and yelling "Allah Akbar," or "God is Great" in Arabic. Court documents said he was transported to a hospital, where he called President Bush a terrorist and criticized American foreign policy. He was not formally charged, but he did spend time in the mental health unit of the hospital...

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), whose recent Hajj was paid for by a Muslim Brotherhood front group, is unhappy that Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) sponsored a showing of Geert Wilders's film Fitna at The Capitol yesterday. Yet he does not, of course, explain how anything in the film is inaccurate. And he cannot, because the film is accurate.

"Ellison Expresses Concern and Disappointment with Decision to Screen Anti-Islamic Film: Takes Issue with sponsorship of film by Senator Kyl," from Common Dreams, February 26 (thanks to Twostellas):

WASHINGTON - February 26 - Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) took issue with the screening of a film by the controversial Dutch Parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, in the United States Capitol. The film being screened, "Fitna", is said to compare Islamic terrorism to Nazism. The screening is sponsored by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ).

Yes, Islamic terrorism is much more cuddly than Nazism, eh? Aside from this absurdity there is the nagging problem that neither Ellison nor anyone else who is upset about Fitna ever addresses: the fact that it depicts only the Qur'an and the words of Islamic jihadists themselves. If it is hateful, it is because they are hateful.

"I am a strong an advocate of First Amendment free speech. However, this is not about free speech, but rather an issue of propriety, timing and venue," Ellison said. "Senator Kyl has every right to host anyone he chooses, however it becomes a question of propriety to use the United States Capitol as a venue for the condemnation of an entire religion," Ellison said.

Then it is about free speech after all, isn't it? In the first place, Fitna doesn't condemn "an entire religion," but even if it did, why isn't Senator Kyl free to show such a piece in any venue he chooses?

Mr. Wilders was denied entry by the British government because of his extremist views. A British Home Office spokesman stated: "The government opposes extremism in all its forms." The Dutch government has disavowed Mr. Wilders visit to this country and believes the release of this film "serves no purpose other than to cause offence."

Now if only the Dutch government would say the same thing about the jihadists in the Netherlands.

According to the London Telegraph, Wilders has stated that the Qu'ran should be banned.

This is the most common charge made against Wilders -- that he is inconsistent. Here is a full answer.

Ellison further stated, "At a time when President Obama has said to the Muslim world, ‘We are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,' the showing of a film that denigrates the faith of 1.4 billion of the world's citizens does not foster mutual respect or mutual interest.

Then let the Islamic jihadists stop denigrating their own faith by acting in the way the film depicts -- and when has Ellison expressed the same kind of indignation about that as he directs here against Wilders?

This hatefest will only abet the global jihad. Yet Obama still has not come out against it, and probably will not do so at all. "Why is the U.S. still entertaining Durban II? Obama should have nixed UN's hatefest by now," by Anne Bayefsky for the New York Daily News, February 26 (thanks to Paul):

Durban II - the UN "anti-racism" conference scheduled for April 20, 2009 in Geneva - is fast approaching. Well aware that the U.S. could undermine the credibility of this global human rights hoax instantaneously by deciding not to go, the Obama administration has still not announced its intentions. Canada and Israel have pulled out and, at the highest levels, Israel has asked President Obama not to attend. What lies behind the U.S.'s delay?

For one, Obama is making new friends. The administration's decision last week to participate in planning meetings for Durban II was very well received by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

On February 21, 2009, the OIC "welcomed" the move as a "positive development." OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said it "would be widely perceived by the Muslim world as a credible signal of the new U.S. Administration's goodwill and desire to introduce a fresh, fair and objective approach to the . . . Middle East peace process as well as to rejuvenate the United States' positive image throughout the Muslim nations."...

And that seems to be all that matters, even if it strengthens a jihad that ultimately the United States will have to face, and no positive image will help Americans elude it.

Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Malaysia: the Catholic Herald magazine had been forbidden to use the word "Allah" for God, despite centuries of use of the word by Arabic-speaking Christians and others Christians in the Muslim world as a synonym for "God." But now the Herald has been granted permission to resume this hallowed usage, as long as it labels its publication as clearly for Christians only. They wouldn't want Muslims to get confused, you see, and risk the capital offense of apostasy.

An update on this story. "Herald allowed to use the word ‘Allah,’" by Lourdes Charles and Loong Meng Yee for The Star (Malaysia), February 27 (thanks to Swyko):

KUALA LUMPUR: The Catholic Herald magazine is permitted to use the word Allah provided the publication clearly states the words “For Christians only” in its masthead.

Herald editor Father Lawrence Andrew said this was stated in the recently gazetted Internal Security Act signed by the Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar on Feb 16.

“The next edition of the Herald will contain the word Allah, and we will print the words “For Christians only” on the masthead so as not to contravene the Act,” he said.

It is learnt the Act also forbids the use of the words Kaabah, solat and baitullah....

The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, who is the plaintiff, had applied for a judicial review of a Home Ministry directive last year forbidding the Herald publisher from using the word Allah as a synonym for “God.”...

Muhammad commanded: "If anyone changes his religion, kill him (Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57)."

But they're keeping their grievances current, too: "Memos submitted by opposing lawyers asserted that cases such as El-Gohary’s form part of a U.S. Zionist attack on Islam in Egypt, that Christianity is an inferior religion to Islam and that Copts protect and defend converts from Islam at their own peril."

An update on this story. "Egypt - Islamic lawyers urge death sentence for convert," from Compass Direct News, February 26:

ISTANBUL, February 26 (Compass Direct News) – In the latest hearing of a Muslim-born Egyptian’s effort to officially convert to Christianity, opposing lawyers advocated he be convicted of “apostasy,” or leaving Islam, and sentenced to death.

More than 20 Islamic lawyers attended the hearing on Sunday (Feb. 22) in Maher Ahmad El-Mo’otahssem Bellah El-Gohary’s case to obtain identification papers with Christianity designated as his religious affiliation. Two lawyers led the charge, Ahmed Dia El-Din and Abdel Al-Migid El-Anani.

“[El-Din] started to talk about the Quran being in a higher position than the Bible,” one of El-Gohary’s lawyers, Said Fayez, told Compass. “[El-Din said] people can move to a higher religion but not down, so people cannot move away from Islam because it is highest in rank.”

That always raises the same question as the "people's paradises" behind the Iron Curtain (and in North Korea still): Really, how great are you if you have to kill people to keep them from leaving? It sure doesn't look good.

Memos submitted by opposing lawyers asserted that cases such as El-Gohary’s form part of a U.S. Zionist attack on Islam in Egypt, that Christianity is an inferior religion to Islam and that Copts protect and defend converts from Islam at their own peril.

“We received 150 pages from them that talked about religion,” said Fayez. “We are not in a position to talk about religion, we are only talking about the law.”

El-Gohary Beaten

El-Gohary was not present at the hearing, as attendance would put him at extreme personal risk. He had planned to obtain papers authorizing attorney Nabil Ghobreyal to act as his proxy representation in court, but staff members at the registry office swore at and beat him, lawyers said.

Judge Hamdy Yasin was forced to adjourn the case until March 28 because El-Gohary did not obtain the necessary proxy representation documents.

“I am now in a position where I can’t do anything else,” El-Gohary, who has been in hiding, told Compass. “I have to go [to court] despite the danger. I believe God will protect me. It’s a very hard decision, but I have to go.”

Copts and Christian converts have to face such systemic prejudice daily in the battle for their rights, he said.

“Our rights in Egypt, as Christians or converts, are less than the rights of animals,” El-Gohary said. “We are deprived of social and civil rights, deprived of our inheritance and left to the fundamentalists to be killed. Nobody bothers to investigate or care about us.”

El-Gohary, 56, has been attacked in the street, spat at and knocked down in his effort to win the right to officially convert. He said he and his 14-year-old daughter continue to receive death threats by text message and phone call.

But he also has received text messages, he said, of encouragement from other Muslim-born converts too fearful to take a similar stand.

“Everyday I get calls from people who have converted but are secret,” said El-Gohary. “They ask me every day about what is happening, because it affects their future....”

A predictable response, in an update on this story. "A ' fatwa' against Yemeni law setting minimum age for marriage," from Asia News, February 26:

Sana’a (AsiaNews) - Some Yemeni religious figures have launched a "fatwa" against the law recently approved by Parliament that sets the minimum age for marriage at 17. The statement, signed by the rector of Al-Eman University, Sheikh Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, and by representatives of the party Islamic Islah, is aimed at eliminating the minimum age limit.

The question of the minimum age for marriage in Yemen was brought to the attention of world public opinion last April, following the case of Nojud Mohammed Ali, an 8-year-old girl who requested and obtained a divorce after being forced to marry a 30-year-old man.

News Yemen reports that the 17 signers of the "fatwa" claim that the law has no Islamic foundation and violates Sharia, the Islamic law, which the Constitution of the country affirms as the basis of all of its laws. "The marriage age," says the assistant secretary general of the Islah party, Mohammad Assadi, "is an Islamic rule, and political parties cannot intervene in such affairs."

And that rule, after all, is based on Muhammad's own example in marrying Aisha when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine -- a "beautiful pattern of conduct," per Qur'an 33:21.

But there are also some who are asking that the minimum age be raised to 18. One researcher on Islamic questions, AbdulAziz alAsali, also a member of Islah, maintains that girls need to be given time to complete high school, and that "at 18 years they are mentally and physically ready for marriage."

For its part, the National Women's Committee has asked Parliament not to respond to the lawmakers who are asking for the marriage age limit to be lowered to 12.

If that were to happen, there would likely be sudden wave of suspiciously young looking "12-year-old" brides. As things stand now, the same could happen with alleged 17-year-olds, but it would be slightly harder to fake for very young girls like Nojud Ali. Of course, the law, as described in earlier story linked above, provides its own ample loopholes for child marriage with respect to the supposed "best interests [!] of the child."

Having written at length on various aspects of Islam, it is always my writings concerning doctrinal deceit that elicit (sometimes irate) responses. As such, the purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of deceit and taqiyya in Islam, and address the many ostensibly plausible rebuttals made by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The earliest rebuttal I received appeared last year, days after I wrote an essay called “Islam’s doctrines of deception” for the subscription-based Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst. Due to the controversy it initiated among the intelligence community and abroad, the editors were quick to publish an apologetic counter-article by one Michael Ryan called “Interpreting Taqiyya.”

For starters, Ryan is not a careful reader: he says I fail to mention ijma (consensus) among the ulema, even though I repeatedly cite and delineate the ulema’s (quite consensual) verdicts supporting taqiyya; he sardonically suggests that, of course all people, not just Muslims, engage in deception during war—a point I stressed; and he evinces shock that I say Islam has no “common sense” and is “legalistic,” when I simply wrote that sharia law is not based on common sense but rather the 7th century words of Muhammad, which may or may not rely on what we would today call “common sense.” (I had in mind anecdotes of Muhammad saying camel urine heals, people should cover their mouths when yawning (lest Satan dive down their throat), men cannot wear gold, only silver, and in order to be in each other’s company, women should “breast-feed” strange men ).

Next, Ryan makes the usual (and ultimately superficial) arguments without any backing: that I “cherry-picked citations from the Quran”; that I focused on a “very narrow use of the term taqiyya”; and that there are “other respected jurists who disagree” with the notion of taqiyya I stressed.

Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that, right or wrong, none of this denies that there are Koranic references that do permit deception; that, even if there are “broader” definitions for taqiyya, the “narrow” one I delineated is still valid; and that if there are “respected jurists who disagree,” there are still more who agree.

As expected, whereas I listed and quoted several authoritative jurists justifying taqiyya, Ryan makes only flat counter-assertions whose plausibility rests solely in the fact that they comport with the epistemology of the Western, secular reader, who cannot comprehend that a religion would actually mandate temporal conquests and permit deceit in their furtherance.

For instance, he makes comforting assertions such as “[I]t is manifestly not true that Muslims as a whole desire eternal warfare with non-Muslims,” even though I never argue that Muslims desire eternal war but rather that sharia mandates it. Regarding a verse I cited as being relied on by the ulema in support of taqiyya (2:73), he writes, “To this reader, the verse inspires admiration rather than any other emotion.” Odd that an article in a publication geared to the intelligence community and dedicated to analyzing Islam would bother evoking “emotions” in the first place—further revealing that Ryan’s rebuttal relies more on “shared feelings,” not facts.

Moreover, like most of Islam’s apologists who are obsessed with portraying the “true-peaceful-and-tolerant” face of Islam, Ryan overlooks the pivotal fact that it matters very little if the entire Muslim world believes in jihad and deception. What matters is that some Muslims have, do, and always will. If 19 surreptitious jihadists managed to cause horrific deaths and destruction on 9/11, insisting that not all Muslims accept these doctrines is neither relevant nor reassuring.

Ryan next spends time making the argument that the word taqiyya “never appears in the Quran. The root in other forms appears in various contexts, but it never means dissimulation.” As for taqiyya’s cornerstone verse (3:28), Ryan, presuming the mantle of mufasir (exegete), and after quoting an English translation, writes: “The English ‘guard against’ is a translation of a verb that is taken from the same root as the word taqiyya but it has nothing to do linguistically with lying or deception [emphasis added].”

Absolutely true. But of course, all this overlooks the fact that the Koran is not the all-in-all in Islam; more important in determining right and wrong (i.e., in articulating sharia) are the hadith-derived sunna, and the indispensable tafsirs and ijma (exegeses and consensus) of the ulema. And these do use the word “taqiyya” and do define it as lying and deception.

Moreover, there is widespread consensus among the ulema. According to Imam Tabari, whose multi-volume exegesis is a standard reference work in the Islamic world, 3:28 means: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them.” Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir recommends the advice of Muhammad’s companion: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

Perhaps Ryan thinks his non-Muslim, that is, infidel, exegesis of 3:28 will be more acceptable to the average Muslim than the exegeses of the pious Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and other ulema? And what “consensus” does he have in mind when the Muslim author of the authoritative Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam asserts, “Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it [taqiyya] and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream”?

Ironically, and despite all the above, Ryan closes his article by saying

It would be fundamentally incorrect to suggest that the strained positions of Osama bin Laden and other extremists somehow grow out of normal or mainstream Muslim thought: Al-Qaeda's deception does not grow out of valid religious duty. [Yet Muhammad said, "War is deceit."] If we fail to make the distinction between radical Islamists and valid, thoughtful and authoritative views of expert Muslim jurists, [apparently the many I delineated in my original essay don't count] we risk undermining one of the most promising tools to defeat radical thought. I am referring to recent successful programmes by the Saudis and Egyptians to persuade what the West might call radical jihadists that their extremist activities are actually against the canons of Islam as interpreted by mainstream jurists [emphasis added].

In short, Ryan’s points crumble in face of the fact that, all philology, sophistry, and appeals to emotions aside, in mainstream Islam, what ultimately matters is how the ulema—especially the “mainstream jurists” he continues evoking—have understood and articulated the doctrine of taqiyya.

This is not a new theme. In Milestones, written in the 1960s, the renowned jihad theorist and popularizer Sayyid Qutb recommended Islamic law as the viable alternative to what he termed the failed ideologies of capitalism and Communism. Here, then, is yet another aspect of the jihadists' ideological appeal that is going unanswered by the West, because Western officials are constrained to pretend that Islam contains no political program in the first place.

"Terrorism: 'New Al-Qaeda video' targets Germany," from AKI, February 26 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Dubai, 26 Feb. (Aki) - A new video purportedly from Al-Qaeda criticises the German government for squandering taxpayers' money on troops stationed in Afghanistan. The video, which has been posted to jihadist websites, urges Germany to renounce capitalism and embrace Islam to escape economic recession.

The video shows a still image of a German citizen turned Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, who calls himself Abu Talha. He delivers a 44-minute message in German with Arabic subtitles.

"Where are the German philosophers and economists, now that economic crisis besets us?" Abu Talha asks in the message.

"And what has happened to all the taxpayers' money? Much of it has been spent on keeping our soldiers here in Afghanistan," the message continues.

Abu Taba talks at length about Islamic finance and its prohibition of interest ('ribah' in Arabic), a central concept of western capitalism.

"After the end of communism, everyone in Germany believed that capitalism was the answer. But what I am saying to you is that Islam is the only way to escape from the economic crisis," he says....

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks..." Qur'an 47:4

They just want Sharia -- as always.

"Thailand: More beheadings in troubled Muslim south," from AKI, February 26 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Narathiwat, 26 Feb. (AKI) - Suspected Islamist rebels have decapitated three people in Thailand's Muslim dominated south in the past week, police said on Thursday.

Three people were killed late on Wednesday in the southern Thai province of Narathiwat , and one of the victims was decapitated, police said.

Forty-seven people, often soldiers, have been beheaded in Thailand's three Muslim-majority provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani since 2004. An estimated 3,300 people have been killed in the conflict.

Experts say the region's Islamic schools or 'pondok' are fomenting the Islamist rebellion.

Demands by Thai Muslims include the introduction of Islamic law and making ethnic Pattani Malay (Yawi) a working language in the region. They also want an improvement in the local economy and education system....

There is no problem with this as long as non-Muslim students are accorded the same privileges. However, the involvement of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case and an organization that has had several of its officials convicted of terrorism-related offenses, is a red flag, and suggests that this effort is part of the larger effort by Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups to assert a more visible presence for Islam in American public life, and pushing for accommodation of Islamic law wherever Islamic law and American law conflict.

An update on this story. "Muslim prayer-in-school controversy might be solved," by Andrea Alexander for NorthJersey.com, February 25:

WAYNE — Four students knelt on a classroom floor during lunch at the Albert Payson Terhune Elementary School today and performed the afternoon Muslim prayer ritual.

It was the first time the students had prayed in the school during school hours. And it may end a controversy over what arrangement the district should make to ensure the children’s constitutionally protected right to exercise their religion during school hours.

School parent Rola Awwad has been seeking a private place for her 10-year-old son, Adam, to pray in school since the fall. The district offered to let him pray at recess — either outside or in classroom while his classmates are there. At first, Awwad called the offer “unacceptable,” and the situation attracted attention from Muslim advocates who suggested bringing the issue to the state for resolution.

But Adam decided on his own to pray at lunch, Awwad said. He joined three friends today in a classroom with other students present. They performed the ritual in the back of a room.

“If it continues like this, it will be very nice,’’ Awwad said.

She said her 7-year-old daughter, Amana, also prayed in her second grade class, and she thanked the teacher for the arrangement.

Her son had worried other students would make fun of him if they watched him pray, but schools Superintendent John Sico Jr. assured her the district wouldn’t let that happen. As the students prayed, classmates played games, he said.

Sico said he consulted the Imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County and felt he received support for his position.

Imam Mohammad Qatanani told The Record he had had a good talk with Sico and will meet with Mrs. Awwad today “to understand the issue from her side more.”

“As far as I am concerned the issue is resolved,’’ Sico said. “We did the right thing. The kids did the right thing. No one was making fun.’’

Afsheen Shamsi, spokeswoman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has intervened with the district on Awwad’s behalf said the accommodation was a correct step.

“It’s a question of finding the right balance and making sure the student is comfortable and the district is comfortable,’’ she said.

She said CAIR had considered bringing the issue before the state Board of Education. But Awwad said she wants to wait and see if the accommodation continues to work for her children.

All students are constitutionally guaranteed the right to pray during the school day as long as it doesn't interfere with learning. Muslims pray five times a day to reaffirm their faith and submit to follow divine commandments. The prayer is said during prescribed times; in the fall, when clocks roll back at the end of daylight savings time, the afternoon prayer must be said during the school day, Awwad explained.

Federal guidelines say schools can't prevent students from praying during school, but they can't sponsor religious activities or lead students in prayer. For instance, those guidelines specifically mention a student's right to quietly read the Bible during lunch. But they are not clear on what action to take when the religious expression is more demonstrative, as it is in Adam's case....

Aasiya Hassan

In my column in Human Events today I discuss the Buffalo beheading:

Muzzammil Hassan allegedly beheaded his wife Aasiya on February 12 in the offices of Bridges TV, the Muslim-oriented cable channel that he founded in 2004 to combat the negative perceptions of Muslims that he claimed were dominating mainstream media coverage.

He said at the time the station was founded that Aasiya was his inspiration for founding Bridges TV: “Some derogatory comments were being made about Muslims that offended her. She was seven months pregnant, and she thought she didn’t want her kids growing up in this environment.”

The environment that they will grow up in instead cannot be imagined. But many people are doing their best to make sure that, whatever the other features of that environment may be, a critical appraisal of the roots of honor killing in Islamic culture, and a determination to put an end to this phenomenon, will not be among them.

They should have been prepared for this. This should surprise no one -- except, of course, those who have actually believed that the mosques in Britain have departed from Islam's traditional teaching and are not preaching jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Exclusive: Army is fighting British jihadists in Afghanistan: Top Army officers reveal surge in attacks by radicalised Britons," by Kim Sengupta in The Independent, February 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

British soldiers are engaged in "a surreal mini civil war" with growing numbers of home-grown jihadists who have travelled to Afghanistan to support the Taliban, senior Army officers have told The Independent.

Interceptions of Taliban communications have shown that British jihadists – some "speaking with West Midlands accents" – are active in Helmand and other parts of southern Afghanistan, according to briefing papers prepared by an official security agency.

The document states that the numbers of young British Muslims, "seemingly committed jihadists", travelling abroad to commit extremist violence has been rising, with Pakistan and Somalia the most frequent destinations.

MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training. The main concern until now has been about the parts some of them had played in terrorist plots in the UK. Now there are signs that they are mounting missions against British and Western targets abroad. "We are now involved in a kind of surreal mini-British civil war a few thousand miles away," said one Army officer.

Somalia is also becoming a destination for British Muslims of Somali extraction who have started fighting alongside al-Qa'ida-backed Islamist forces. A 21-year-old Briton of Somali extraction, who had been brought up in Ealing, west London, recently blew himself up in the town of Baidoa, killing 20 people. The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has raised the worrying issue of British citizens being indoctrinated in Somalia, and Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA, warned that the conflict in the Horn of Africa had "catalysed" expatriate Somalis in the West.

But it is in Afghanistan that British forces are now directly facing fellow Britons on the other side. RAF Nimrod aircraft flying over Afghanistan at up to 40,000ft have been picking up Taliban electronic "chatter" in which voices can be heard in West Midlands and Yorkshire accents. Worryingly for the military, this has increased in the past few months, with communications picked up by both ground and air surveillance, showing the presence of more British voices in the Taliban front line.

The men involved are said to try to hide their British connections but sometimes "fall back" into speaking English. One senior military source said: "We have been hearing a lot more Punjabi, Urdu and Kashmiri Urdu rather than just Pashtu, so there appears to be more men from other parts of Pakistan fighting with the Taliban than just the Pashtuns who have tribal allegiances with the Afghan Pashtuns. It is this second group, the Urdu, Punjabi speakers etc, who fall back into English in, for example, Brummie accents. You get the impression that they have been told not to talk in English but sometimes simply can't help it."...

Read it all.

"... the Taxpayers' Alliance, a lobby group, has complained: 'Polygamy is not officially condoned here, so why should British taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits for men to have two, three or four wives?'"

For that matter, how many traditional, monogamous couples and their children in Britain are suffering because of the recession while their government hemorrhages money to reward illegal behavior?

"Polygamy UK: This special Mail investigation reveals how thousands of men are milking the benefits system to support several wives," by Sue Reid for the Daily Mail, February 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

He cut a smart figure in his grey suit and crisply ironed shirt. The 6ft tall Somalian bowed to the judge, calling him 'Sir', before begging for his wife, Fatima, and their teenage son to be allowed to stay in Britain.

Fatima, with a black khimar veil covering her hair and shoulders, sat quietly next to her husband.

In her late 30s and wearing open sandals, she lowered her dark eyes as the details of the unconventional life she and her husband, Abdi, led in the West London suburb of Shepherd's Bush unfolded at a busy immigration court.

The judge listened in silence. Perhaps he knew from past experience what was coming next. Abdi went on to reveal that Fatima was not his only wife.

Indeed, he was a self-confessed bigamist who had a second, much younger wife and a 13-year-old daughter by her. They both lived nearby.

'I visit them regularly,' said Abdi, 51, who arrived in Britain in the 1990s and works in an old people's home. 'I have done nothing wrong. In Somalia, it is normal to have two wives - even three or four. Fatima is still my wife and she should not be deported.'

Exhibit A: The world map. Where are you now? It's still not "normal" in Britain.

He was unable to produce wedding certificates or valid official documents to prove where, or when, he had married both women, therefore raising questions over the validity of the unions, under either Somali or British law.

Yet his story, unravelling at an ordinary weekday hearing at Taylor House, an asylum appeals' centre in North London, is just one example of the growing phenomenon of multiple marriage in Britain.

Officially, such unions are punishable by up to seven years in prison. They were first declared illegal in England and Wales in 1604, when the Parliament of James I took action to restrain 'evil persons' marrying more than one wife. Parliament ruled that anyone found guilty of the crime would be sentenced to death.

In the four centuries since, bigamy (having two wives) and polygamy (more than two) has been frowned on by the state, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet it is clear that officialdom is turning a blind eye to such marriages.

A recent review by four Government departments - the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office - has concluded that 1,000 men in the United Kingdom are now polygamists, although some say the figure is higher.

And crime pays:

What is more, the review found, a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa.

That's right. The U.K. does recognize polygamous unions if the wedding was performed in a country where polygamy is legal.

For example, a man can receive &£92.80 a week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses.

Therefore, if he has four wives - the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings - he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer.

Controversially, a polygamist is also entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. He is also able to claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each of his growing brood.

The Government insists that polygamy has declined in Britain since the 1988 Immigration Act, which made it harder for men to bring second, third or fourth wives to the UK.

However, it's little wonder that critics claim our generosity simply encourages more Muslim men to keep several spouses. Supporters of polygamy claim the Koran states unequivocally that a Muslim man can marry up to four women so long as he treats them equally.

But the Taxpayers' Alliance, a lobby group, has complained: 'Polygamy is not officially condoned here, so why should British taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits for men to have two, three or four wives?' ...

Read it all.

They differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the goals.

Here is a pdf of the full report. See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."

And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."

"Muslim Publics Oppose Al Qaeda's Terrorism, But Agree With Its Goal of Driving U.S. Forces Out" a press release (thanks to Jeffrey Imm for all links and info):

COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. People in majority-Muslim countries express mixed feelings about al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that use violence, however, perhaps due to a combination of support for al Qaeda's goals and disapproval of its terrorist methods.

Large majorities support allowing Islamist groups to organize parties and participate in democratic elections. In some majority-Muslim countries, Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are forbidden from participating in elections....

The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. It was conducted July through September, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/- 3 to 4 percent.

In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective....

Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda's attacks on Americans....

Here is Geert Wilders' speech at the Four Seasons in New York on February 23:

Thank you.

Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons. In 1982 President Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

While hate bloggers continue to defame anti-jihadists with false and libelous charges of connections with or allegiance to white supremacism, neofascism, and neo-Nazism, back in the real world even the New York Times has begun to notice that the ones who are really echoing the Nazis are jihadists and Islamic supremacists.

"Nazis’ ‘Terrible Weapon,’ Aimed at Minds and Hearts," by Edward Rothstein in the New York Times, February 23:

WASHINGTON — The most haunting image in “State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda,” a major new exhibition at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum here, may be the first one you see after the introductory videos. At the end of a darkened corridor is a black-and-white photograph on a black background. Underneath, with unornamented simplicity, is a single word: Hitler. [...]

It is chilling because we know what that face unleashed, and as we make our way through the exhibition, we feel almost physically assailed. A muscular fist smashes into the face of a cringing, sweating Jew (1928). An enormous Hitler is superimposed on a crowd of ecstatic Germans raising hands in salute as red gothic letters shout, “Ja!” (1934). [...]

As the show, organized by Steven Luckert, winds its way from the beginnings of Nazism in the aftershocks of the First World War to the Allied attempt to eradicate Nazi propaganda after the Second, the effect is overwhelming. Conceptually everything is familiar: the foundering Weimar Republic, the celebrations of Aryan virility, the Jew as embodiment of evil, the mass rallies, the death camps, the defeat. But the effect is not in the facts but in the images and artifacts, many of which have been lent by institutions in Europe for this show.

And if this is how powerfully these images affect an early-21st-century viewer who would have been a prospective victim, imagine the power they had on believers, flattering their highest vision of themselves while reminding them that endangering this imminent utopia was the conniving Jew, known from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In one 1943 poster a giant hand points accusingly at a corpulent caricature wearing a yellow star, “Jude”: “He is to blame for the war!” This, of course, while Jews were being carried off on trains heading east to feed the crematoriums. [...]

Is anything rhetorically comparable today?

Perhaps. The exhibition points out that the Nazis financed anti-Semitic broadcasts by Haj Amin al-Husseini, “an Arab nationalist and prominent Muslim religious leader.” Now no sponsorship seems needed. Major Middle East media outlets have asserted that Jews use children’s blood to bake matzos. In recent weeks we have heard that Jews are following the nefarious plot outlined in the Protocols to exterminate all gentiles, this from the poet and former member of the Lebanese Parliament Ghassan Matar. An Egyptian cleric, Safwat Higazi, has described Jews being “as smooth as a viper”: “Dispatch those son of apes and pigs to the Hellfire.”

And an Egyptian cleric with strong ties to the West, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, has described Jews as “a profligate, cunning arrogant band of people”: “Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

The extent of these visions (chronicled by the Middle East Media Research Institute), the historical distortions they codify and the readiness with which they are taught to children and are secularized into political action suggest that the strongest contemporary analogy to Nazi propaganda may be one the exhibition leaves unmentioned.

Yep.

The genuine atrocities committed by the Milosevic regime have become an all-purpose excuse for many to ignore the growing influence of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism in the Balkans, and to defame those who oppose the jihad in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the surrounding regions as supporters of fascism and genocide. This includes people who have dedicated their lives to the defense of the principles of non-establishment of religion and the equality of rights of all people before the law as cornerstones of a just society.

For evidence of just how irresponsible and stupid -- and, above all, jihad-abetting -- this is, see this article from today's Spiegel about the spread of jihadism in Sarajevo.

"Islamists Gain Ground in Sarajevo," by Walter Mayr in Spiegel, February 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Radical Muslim imams and nationalist politicians from all camps are threatening Sarajevo's multicultural legacy. With the help of Arab benefactors, the deeply devout are acquiring new recruits. In the "Jerusalem of the Balkans," Islamists are on the rise.

The obliteration of Israel is heralded in a torrent of words. "Zionist terrorists," the imam thunders from the glass-enclosed pulpit at the end of the mosque. "Animals in human form" have transformed the Gaza Strip into a "concentration camp," and this marks "the beginning of the end" for the Jewish pseudo-state.

Over 4,000 faithful are listening to the religious service in the King Fahd Mosque, named after the late Saudi Arabian monarch King Fahd Bin Abd al-Asis Al Saud. The women sit separately, screened off in the left wing of the building. It is the day of the Khutbah, the great Friday sermon, and the city where the imam has predicted Israel's demise lies some 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) northwest of Gaza.

It is a city in the heart of Europe: Sarajevo.

"Tea or coffee?" Shortly after stepping down from the pulpit, Nezim Halilovic -- the imam and fiery speaker of the King Fahd Mosque -- reveals himself to be the perfect Bosnian host. He has fruits, nuts and sweetened gelatin served in his quarters behind the house of worship. A chastely-dressed wife and four children add themselves to the picture. It's a scene of domestic tranquility that stands in stark contrast to the railing sermon of the controversial Koran scholar.

Familiar Allegations

Sarajevo's King Fahd Mosque was built with millions of Saudi dollars as the largest house of worship for Muslims in the Balkans. The mosque has a reputation as a magnet for Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the imam is said to be the patron of the Wahhabites, although they call themselves Salafites, after an ultra-conservative movement in Sunni Islam.

Halilovic is familiar with the allegations and the usual accompanying thought patterns: Wahhabite equals al-Qaida, which equals a worldwide terror network. He says he has nothing to do with that, but he "cannot forbid a Muslim from worshiping in my mosque according to his own rites." He explains the general air of suspicion surrounding the King Fahd Mosque as follows: "The West is annoyed that many Muslims are returning to their faith, instead of sneaking by the mosque to the bar, as they used to do, to drink alcohol and eat pork."

Many Bosnians have despised "the West" since 1992, when the United Nations arms embargo seriously impeded the military resistance of the Muslims in their war against the Serb aggressors. It wasn't until four years later, and after 100,000 people had died, that the international community -- at the urging and under the leadership of the US -- finally put an end to the slaughter. Over 80 percent of the dead civilians in the Bosnian War were Muslims.

This traumatic experience left a deep mark on the traditionally cosmopolitan Muslim Bosnians -- and opened the door to the Islamists. Years later, the religious fundamentalists have declared the attacks by Christian Serbs and Croats a "crusade" by infidels -- and painted themselves as the steadfast protectors of Muslim Bosnians.

Imam Halilovic served during the war as commander of the Fourth Muslim Brigade. A photo shows him standing next to a 155 milimeter howitzer, dressed in black combat fatigues, a flowing beard and a scarf wrapped around his head. He witnessed the arrival of the first religious warriors from countries in the Middle East and northern Africa. These fighters brought ideological seeds that have now found fertile ground -- the beliefs of the Salafites, Islamic fundamentalists who orient themselves according to the alleged unique, pure origin of their religion and reject all newer Islamic traditions. [...]

Bosnia's capital city still remains a bustling town with well-stocked bars, concerts and garish advertisements for sexy lingerie. Men with billowing trousers and full beards and women with full-body veils are still a relatively rare sight on the streets. The last reports of sharia militias intervening against public kissing in parks on the outskirts of town date back two years ago.

According to a survey conducted in 2006, however, over 3 percent of all Muslim Bosnians -- over 60,000 men and women -- profess the Wahhabi creed, and an additional 10 percent say that they sympathize with the devout defenders of morals. But since the radicals and their Arab benefactors have been subject to heightened surveillance in the wake of 9/11, they tend to keep a low profile. [...]

The older generation of Muslims in Sarajevo's mosques now has to listen to lectures from bearded missionaries on what is "halal" and "haram" -- lawful and forbidden -- as if they and their ancestors had been living according to a misconception for over half a millennium. To protest this, the imam of the time-honored Emperor's Mosque has temporarily locked the doors of his house of worship -- for the first time in its nearly 450-year history.

This clash of civilizations also takes place in less prominent places, like the Internet forums of the Bosnian Web site Studio Din. Here the heirs of the officially godless, socialist Yugoslavia can learn about the Salafi doctrine. They ask questions that have to do with everyday life -- listening to music, smoking, earning money -- but also questions dealing with clothing and moral rules.

The answers from the preachers on the Web are unequivocal: "Music is forbidden in Islam, listening to instruments is a sin." "Smoking is forbidden in Islam." "Whoever works as a cleaning lady at a bank that charges its customers interest is an accessory to a sin. It's no different than having cleaning ladies in bars and brothels."

In October, 2008, the Baden-Württemberg state branch of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, conducted a study on the Studio Din Web site, which is also regularly visited by Bosnians living in exile. Entries in the forum -- which include discussions on jihad, the holy war, as a direct way of reaching Allah -- indicate time and again visitors from the Wahhabi King Fahd Mosque in Sarajevo, Imam Halilovic's flock.

Could a radical, potentially violent parallel society be emerging in the Muslim dominated region of the war-torn republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, eight months after the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union?

Explosive Belts

There are indications of this. Resid Hafizovic, a professor at the Islamic University, was the first to speak of a "potentially deadly virus" in Bosnian society. The head of the Bosnian federal police has recently admitted that there is a growing threat of "terrorism with an Islamistic character" and has cited indications that suicide bombers have begun to equip themselves with explosive belts.

"They have everything to blow themselves up. Whether they do it depends on the orders from their leaders," says Esad Hecimovic, author of a standard work on the mujahedeen in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Last March, officials of the special anti-terror unit arrested five men, including four Salafites in Sarajevo.

The Bosnian leader of the group, a former fighter in the Al-Mujahedeen Brigade, reportedly has sponsors in Germany and Austria who helped him acquire explosives. In connection with the arrests, police conducted raids in remote mountain areas and seized caches of arms and military equipment that were used for combat training exercises.

After discovering that some of the masterminds behind 9/11, such as Khalid Scheikh Mohammed, had been active in Bosnia, international pressure increased on the government in Sarajevo in 2002. Foundations were closed and police searched the Sarajevo office of the Saudi High Commissioner for Aid to Bosnia, which had until then enjoyed the protection of the United States.

Al-Qaida veteran Ali Hamad from Bahrain and Syrian-born Abu Hamza are currently in custody on the outskirts of Sarajevo and awaiting deportation. Intelligence sources say that Hamza secretly channeled money between Arab sponsors and Bosnian Salafites. The amount of €500 -- an average monthly salary -- is reportedly rewarded for every woman who decides to wear a full-body veil.

The Islamists are slowly but surely permeating the firm ground upon which Sarajevo's society stands. They are influencing men like the quiet, bearded cab driver who waits for customers day after day at the bridge where the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated in June, 1914. On the evening of Sept. 24, 2008, the cabbie suddenly appeared at the front of a protest, right in the midst of those who shouted "Allahu akbar!" at the police line in front the Art Academy of Fine Arts and attacked visitors to Bosnia's first gay and lesbian festival.

Wahhabites scuffled alongside common hooligans. Eight people were injured and all subsequent events were canceled. Srdjan Dizdarevic, chairman of the Bosnian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights -- an independent, nonprofit organization for the protection, promotion and monitoring of human rights in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- spoke afterwards of a defeat for civil society, of "fascist rhetoric" leading up to the incident, and called it reminiscent of the "pogroms that happened in the times of Adolf Hitler."

'We Are only Interested in Opening Ourselves as an Islamic Society'

The fact of the matter is that politicians from all parties are playing the background music to a radicalization that threatens not just the secular character of Bosnia, but also the unity of this country comprised of Muslims, Serbs and Croats. This includes some local politicians who have demanded that school classes be strictly divided according to religious confessions -- and in December, 2008 obtained the first ban affecting state-run daycare centers in Sarajevo. The ban concerned the Christian Santa Claus who, until then, even Muslim children had revered as "Little Father Frost." [...]

[Bosnian Mufti Mustafa] Ceric has never left any doubts about his deep roots in the liberal Bosnian Islamic tradition. But the fact that he does not shy away from maintaining close contacts with the Salafit camp, including one-time Osama bin Laden mentor Sheikh Salman al-Auda from Saudi Arabia, has drawn criticism. "Totally unfounded," says Ceric: "We are only interested in opening ourselves as an Islamic society."

Sure enough, he recently even allowed a woman and her film crew to enter the King Fahd Mosque. The huge, Saudi monumental style building made of gray-brown sprinkled marble looks like a UFO -- complete with antennas shaped like minarets -- stranded among high-rise apartment buildings on the edge of Sarajevo. [...]

The film was about a man who became an "Islamist." Read it all.

Muslims! Unite!

This report vaguely refers to "the enemy." But what "enemy" would Muslims in general -- from Morocco to Indonesia -- have if not their famous nemesis and natural counterpart, the infidel? Had Ahmadinejad urged national or regional unity, the enemy could be more particularized, more "temporalized." But no, Ahmadinejad's is simply a call to unify the umma, Shia and Sunni, perhaps in preparation of the "Hidden Imam," and the ushering of global "justice" -- sharia style.

"Ahmadinejad urges Muslim unity against enemy," from Press TV, February 24:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on Islamic countries across the world to build a united barrier against the 'enemy plots'.

"Unity and cooperation between Muslim states will thwart the enemy plot to sow discord between Muslims and spread hegemony over them," President Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with President of Djibouti Ismail Omar Guelleh on Tuesday...

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, AKA, the Pragmatist

Much has been made of former al-Qaeda leader Sayyid Imam al-Sharif's criticism of al-Qaeda. As is evident to anyone who closely examines his words, however, the man is not disavowing jihad or Islam's imperative to subjugate the world, but rather assessing al-Qaeda's tactics vis-a-vis infidels, and finding them wanting. Even the brief excerpts quoted below from his much touted book demonstrate as much. Moreover, getting caught up in what one man has to say either for or against al-Qaeda completely overlooks the fact that, the worldview that motivates al-Qaeda -- not to mention an undetermined percentage of the Islamic world -- does not begin or end with Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, or Sayyid Imam al-Sharif.

"One of the Men Who Created Al Qaeda Rips Into Usama bin Laden," by Bret Baier for Fox News, February 24:

One of the founders of Al Qaeda has written a book repudiating terrorism and railing against Usama bin Laden and deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reports Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, better known as Doctor Fadl, led an Islamist insurgency in Egypt in the 1990s. Now he writes that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were both immoral and counterproductive: "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?"

Fadl says the murder of innocent people goes against Islam: "Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers."

Why doesn't he bemoan the fact that American blood shed on 9/11 is also "the responsibility of of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers"? In fact, even though this report maintains that al-Sharif says "the murder of innocent people goes against Islam," the quote excerpted as demonstrative of this makes mention only of Muslim innocents -- which is to be expected since only the latter are truly "innocent." (The Muslim prophet himself seems to have concurred: when Muslims questioned the use of catapults during Muhammad's siege of the infidel city of Ta'if, citing that women and children might also be struck, the prophet coolly asserted,"They [innocent women and children] are from among them [reprobate infidels whose blood is halal, or permitted].”

And, of course, they already have -- at a much grander scale via the devastating strikes of 9/11. It is good that Mueller is pointing out the obvious, but also troubling that this even needs to be pointed out in the first place. "Mumbai attacks could happen in the US: FBI," from AFP, February 24:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Attacks that killed 172 people in Mumbai in November could happen in the United States, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned in a speech here.

"How many other cities around the world could fall prey to such an attack? How many cities here, in the United States?" Mueller asked Monday in a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Mueller, who took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation just days before September 11 2001, said the Mumbai attacks showed that terrorists "with large agendas and little money can use rudimentary weapons to maximize their impact."

"It again raises the question of whether a similar attack could happen in Seattle or San Diego, Miami or Manhattan," he said.

Mueller added that although Al-Qaeda remains a threat to the United States, US officials "must also focus on less well-known terrorist groups, as well as homegrown terrorists. And we must consider extremists from visa-waiver countries, who are merely an e-ticket away from the United States."

The FBI is "increasingly concerned with pockets of people around the world that identify with Al-Qaeda and its ideology. Some may have little or no actual contact with Al-Qaeda."

He also warned of homegrown threats: "A man from Minneapolis became what we believe to be the first US citizen to carry out a terrorist suicide bombing. The attack occurred last October in northern Somalia, but it appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota," Mueller said.

Don't trust any imam over 30. That'll fix it, right?

Once again, a theory that attempts to explain away the obvious nexus between Islamic teachings and violence in the name of Islam simply puts a spotlight on the elephant in the room: The matter of where all these "extremists" keep coming from, and how resilient their "misunderstanding" of the Religion of Peace continues to be. "Young Muslims at the mercy of extremists because of out-of-touch Imams," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, February 24:

Mosques dominated by elderly foreign clerics are leaving young Muslims at the mercy of extremists, a study has found.

The Quilliam Foundation, an Islamic think tank, has found that 97 per cent of imams in Britain's mosques are from overseas, although the majority of Muslims in Britain were born in the UK.

The study also found that forty-four per cent of mosques do not hold their sermons at the main Friday prayers in English.

Nearly half of Britain's mosques do not have facilities for women, "depriving half the community of access to public spaces," the study said.

It added: "Foreign imams, poorly paid and with limited proficiency in English, are ill-equipped to navigate Britain's complex, liberal and multi-faith society.

And from that, we're to infer that the social ills of Muslim communities can all be attributed to "cultural" issues, and not anything contained in Islamic teachings.

"They have neither the freedom, being at the mercy of mosque management committees dominated by first generation elders, nor the capacity to promote a British Islam informed by British values.

"By failing to reach out to young British Muslims, radical Islamists have the upper-hand. Britain's young Muslims, without a voice in mosques, are looking elsewhere for religious guidance and will continue to be drawn in by young, articulate extremists who offer an alternative narrative, cause and social space."

Quilliam's director, Maajid Nawaz said: "These findings are deeply disturbing. Our first line of defence against terrorism is the ability, commitment, and confidence of mosques and Muslim communities to root out extremism. Currently, we are failing.

"With foreign imams who are physically in Britain, but psychologically in Pakistan or Bangladesh, mosques lack the requisite resilience to challenge Islamist extremists. We cannot continue to ignore the malaise in our mosques."

The report's author, Anya Hart Dyke, a senior research fellow at Quilliam, said mosques needed to include women and young people in running mosques, make use of government support from funds aimed at preventing violent extremism, and take advantage of training opportunities as well as sharing their space with community organisations and schools, and opening their doors to non-Muslims.

She said the mosques could learn from some local initiatives introduced in some mosques as well as the way churches and synagogues operate.

Why, exactly! That must be why you don't see their youth carrying menacing placards and calling for the overthrow of governments. Not to mention the dearth of bombings.

"There are signs of hope. I have found some locally-led initiatives in mosques across the country, but this needs to become the norm amongst our mosques," she added.

Quilliam attempted to contact over 1,000 mosques by using researchers who spoke Urdu or Bengali during Ramadan in late 2008, a busy period in mosques.

Due to lack of resources at most mosques and after repeated phone calls they successfully polled 512 mosques, although not all mosques responded to every question posed.

As usual, there's not really a problem, except when there kind of is, even though there really isn't. It's complicated:

Seyyed Ferjani, chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, admitted there was a problem in mosques but said it was not on the scale suggested in the report.

"The imam in the mosque only leads prayers," he said. "We have a problem in our mosques that most, the bulk of our youth, they don't seek advice from imams, they seek advice elsewhere."

Referring to the July 7 bombers, he added: "The problem that we've got, like the people who are in Leeds and elsewhere, they are outside of mosques, who are grooming them."

An increasing trend. Where jihadists organize doesn't answer questions about their ideology.

Not against one's fellow Muslims in the Pakistani security forces. After all, many of those among those forces are on the Taliban's side, and the Qur'an forbids Muslims to kill fellow Muslims (4:92).

"Mulla Omar orders halt to attacks on Pak troops," by Mazhar Tufail in The News International, February 24 (thanks to James):

ISLAMABAD: The militants active in North and South Waziristan agencies have been directed by Mulla Omar to immediately stop their attacks on the Pakistani security forces.

In a letter to the militants, who have forged a new alliance, Mulla Omar admonished them not to fight the Pakistani security forces and kill their Muslim brethren, a reliable source told The News on Monday.

“Mulla Omar first sent an envoy to the local Taliban and then wrote a letter to the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) admonishing these leaders and told the TTP that fighting Muslims could not be described as Jihad so they should immediately cease attacks on the Pakistani security forces.

He told them that if they really want to participate in Jihad, they must fight the US and Nato troops inside Afghanistan because their attacks on the Pakistani security forces are undermining the objectives of the war against the invaders and cause of the Taliban movement.

“If anybody really wants to wage Jihad, he must fight the occupation forces inside Afghanistan,” the source quoted Mulla Omar as having told the TTP leaders. “Attacks on the Pakistani security forces and killing of fellow Muslims by the militants in the tribal areas and elsewhere in Pakistan is bringing a bad name to Mujahideen and harming the war against the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan.”

“Our aim is to liberate Afghanistan from the occupation forces and death and destruction inside neighbouring Pakistan has never been our goal,” he added. The source said according to Mulla Omar, the US was devising a new strategy and adopting new tactics to crush Mujahideen in Afghanistan so the Taliban, too, must forge unity in their ranks, and instead of operating in Pakistan, they must concentrate on actions against the US and Nato forces....

More on how Obama is abandoning the country that stands in the front line of the West's defense against the global jihad. "The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel," by Anne Bayefsky in Forbes, February 22 (thanks to Bob):

The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn't.

The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference." In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.

Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure. But late on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading."

Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, Washington Post columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based on the story orchestrated by the American delegates. In his Feb. 20 article entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he fawned: "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April."

The reality, however, was nothing of the sort. Instead, Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying silent....

Read it all.

Abandoning the country that stands in the first line of the West's defense against the global jihad. Sammy Benoit of Yid with Lid has the story in The American Thinker, February 24:

Ben Smith has confirmed that Chas Freeman has been offered and accepted President Obama's invitation to be the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's primary big-think shop and the lead U.S. governmental body in producing national intelligence estimates.

For the last dozen years, Freeman, the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has been President of the Middle East Policy Council (formally known as the American Arab Affairs Council) a lobbying group for the Arab world. One of the group’s primary functions is to publish a quarterly journal called Middle East Policy. The journal is filled with anti-Israel messages that are beyond even the broadest definition of mainstream of U.S. thinking on the region. As the President of the organization responsible for this vicious and biased journal, the appointment of Freeman as a gatekeeper for U.S. intelligence is a very disturbing matter.

The Chairman of the National Intelligence Council is just like the editor of a journal. He must review, edit, add context to, and decide what to present to the President in terms of good intelligence. Therefore it is reasonable to predict Freeman's handling of the NIC job by looking at his work as President of MPEC and the journal that is published under his authority, Middle East Policy.

As you are about to see, the vicious and distorted polemics that have passed through his editorial desk prove that Freeman is not qualified to be the "editor" of America's intelligence.

In MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. XV, NO. 3, FALL 2008, the Editor's Note perpetuates the anti-Israel slander that the Iraq war was waged for Israel:

...beginning that the war was an excuse to enlarge the U.S. strategic “footprint” (as neocon William Kristol calls it) on top of the lakes of oil in the Gulf region and make life safer for Irael, starting with the easiest problem case, Iraq. If the governments in the area did not come around, no problem; American troops were there in any case and would protect Israel....In a New York Times op-ed (July 18), Benny Morris put the matter to Bush/Cheney crudely: bomb the suspected sites now or Israel will have to use nuclear weapons on Iran later. Call it extortion, if you will. But perhaps a better term is moral hazard: having been “insured” by the United States, Israel does not have to be cautious or even sensible. The Georgians seem to have learned this lesson too, and without having to pay the high premium that a first-class standing army of lobbyists requires. Anne Joyce August 15, 2008

In another Editor's Note (July 07 ) IDF is depicted using Nazi military tactics during the Six-Day-War:

As regime-change advocates would have it, real peace talks cannot happen first; a deal with Syria involving an exchange of land for peace would cement in place the ruling Baath party of Bashar al-Asad. If he were to regain through negotiations the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since its Blitzkrieg of June 1967, he would be a god to his people, having set right what his father could not. A popular leader is very hard to topple, even in a weak state...

Read it all.

Poisoning food with feces is detailed as a tactic in the Al-Qaeda manual found a few years ago by British intelligence.

Also, there are precedents, both involving Muslims, as does this story:

UK: Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Man Caught On Tape Sprinkling Fecal Matter On Pastries

Fecal Jihad Update: "Man accused of waging spray war," from This Is Gloucestershire, February 24 (thanks to Pamela):

A man who is accused of waging a urine and faeces-spraying campaign at two supermarkets, a pub and a bookshop caused £700,000 damage, a court heard yesterday.

Sahnoun Daifallah, 42, is alleged to have squirted a brown, foul-smelling substance from a spray container at four businesses in Gloucestershire on May 14 and 16 last year.

The court heard the man from White City, Gloucester, visited the Air Balloon pub at around 12.45pm on May 14 where police were called after he asked a barmaid Susan Lawson-Bagent how much it would cost to rape her.

When officers arrived Daifallah had gone but he had left a trail of stench behind him which the prosecution say was his calling card.

Stephen Dent, prosecuting, told the jury: “He mixed up an evil potion of various biological ingredients including his own faeces and urine.

“It was not until after he had left that staff started to notice a bad smell of excrement.

“We say that this was his little calling card because he did not like the way he had been treated.”

Daifallah then moved on to Waterstone’s bookstore in Cirencester where it is alleged he sprayed the brown substance all over a toilet in the coffee shop.

Staff noticed the smell but it was not until after he had left the store that they discovered a 20-metre area of 38 shelves had been doused in the foul substance.

In total 706 books were contaminated, most of them in the children’s section.

On May 16 at around 11am Daifallah is said to have visited the Tesco store in Quedgeley.

Mr Dent said a customer saw Daifallah reach into his laptop bag and produce a jet of fluid over the frozen chips.

He allegedly moved on to the wine section where a member of staff saw a fine vapour come from bag and on to the wine, leaving brown fluid over the shelves....

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) is coming under pressure from stealth jihad groups and their allies and dupes for his plan to host a showing of the film Fitna in The Capitol.

Please contact Senator Kyl and declare your support for his courageous decision to show this honest and accurate but politically incorrect film. He needs expressions of support more than ever today!

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207

This is his website where you can send him an email:
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Who "radicalized" him? Who else was "radicalized"? Are the teachings that "radicalized" Shirwa Ahmed being taught in any mosques in America? (Of course they are.)

Shirwa Ahmed Update: "Militants Drew Recruit in U.S., F.B.I. Says," by David Johnston for the New York Times, February 23 (thanks to James):

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, said Monday that a Somali-American man who was one of several suicide bombers in a terrorist attack last October in Somalia had apparently been indoctrinated into his extremist beliefs while living in the United States.

The man, Shirwa Ahmed, was the first known suicide bomber with American citizenship. He immigrated with his family to the Minneapolis area in the mid-1990s, Mr. Mueller said, but he returned to Somalia after he was recruited by a militant group.

“It appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota,” Mr. Mueller said, speaking at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations. Minneapolis claims the country’s largest Somali population.

Mr. Ahmed was driving a vehicle laden with explosives that blew up in northern Somalia in an attack that killed as many as 30 people, according to news reports. His body was returned to the United States with the help of the F.B.I....

“It raises the question of whether these young men will one day come home, and, if so, what might they undertake here,” he said.

Indeed.

What can be said about the likes of Obama’s “Policy Review Panel Co-chair,” Bruce Riedel? One would love to get such a man, such an adviser, in a room in front of a large number of other people (ideally, with Obama, Clinton, and Holbrooke present) and ask him a series of questions about Islam. What has he read? What does he make of these dozen or five dozen passages of the Qur'an (handouts dutifully passed out)? What does he make of these Hadith, "authentic" hadith (or "ahadith") from the most "authoritative muhaddithin”? (more Handouts, silently distributed to everyone present). And what does he make of the figure of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, that Exemplar, and his own campaigns against Unbelievers? And what does he, Bruce Riedel, make of such things as the beheadings of Buddhists in southern Thailand? Oh, but that, he will tell you, is simply a case of "Islamic nationalism" (!). Very well, then, what would he like to say about the mass murder of non-Muslim black Africans in the southern Sudan, with nearly 2 million victims? And what would he like to say about the beating to death of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Or what would Bruce Riedel like to say about the relevance of the war being made on Israel by Arab Muslims to the mass killing of Christian Ibo that precipitated the attempt by Christians, and not only the Ibo or Igbo, to declare the independent state of Biafra? What does Bruce Riedel make of the treatment of the Christians in the Moluccas by Muslims, and how does he explain the burning down of thousands of churches (see the reports of the British Barnabas Fund)? What does Bruce Riedel make of the deep drop in the non-Muslim percentage of the population -- consisting chiefly of Hindus -- in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, while the percentage of Muslims in the Indian population has only gone up since Partition? What does Bruce Riedel make of the clearly articulated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, to take over this country from within? How would that be lessened by throwing Israel to the wolves?

Both last night. Thanks to Awake for the heads-up.

They were invited to lunch. They probably thought that they were doing important work winning Iraqi hearts and minds. The politically correct ethos that prevails in official Washington, and in all too much of the military establishment, prevented them from being sufficiently aware of the fact that no Islamic group worldwide has declared the jihad doctrine or Islamic supremacism to be un-Islamic, and so there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from an actual or potential jihadist.

"US soldiers hurt in Iraq attack," from the BBC, February 24 (thanks to John):

At least three US soldiers have been wounded and an Iraqi interpreter has been killed after coming under fire from police in Iraq.

The shooting took place at 1500 (1200 GMT) at a checkpoint under a bridge in the northern city of Mosul.

Two policemen opened fire before fleeing the scene in a waiting car.

The US military says the wounded soldiers have been taken to hospital and an investigation is under way. A second interpreter was also injured....

A police intelligence source the Americans were invited to lunch with Iraqi police at a checkpoint under a bridge, reports the BBC's Mike Sergeant in Baghdad.

He says when the soldiers arrived, the two policemen - a corporal and a private - opened fire on them, before making their escape.

Our correspondent says the shooting is not the first such incident, but it is the most serious of its kind for some time....

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, will not give the money to Hamas. However, with even the UNRWA halting aid to Gaza after Hamas kept stealing it, what safeguards will the U.S. have that this near-billion will not go to Hamas also? None whatsoever.

"U.S. to Give $900 Million in Gaza Aid, Officials Say," by Helene Cooper for the New York Times, February 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration intends to provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after the Israeli incursion that ended last month, administration officials said Monday.

In an early sign of how the administration plans to deal with Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza, an official said that the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations.

By seeking to aid Gazans but not Hamas, the administration is following the lead of the Bush administration, which sent money to Gaza through nongovernmental organizations. In December, it said it would give $85 million to the United Nations agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The United States considers Hamas a terrorist organization, and the Bush administration refused to have any formal dealings with the group....

Why might rule by the Taliban, or their Pakistani allies, and the imposition of Shari’a in the Valley of Swat, ever be seen as "acceptable" by the Western powers? Because the Americans are now at their wits' end, and don't know how to stop it. They are finally beginning, with their amazingly slow learning curve, to understand that Pakistan is a deeply Muslim country, and that the real Pakistan, the Pakistan that counts, is not represented by elegant and smiling anglophones, such as the meretricious Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador, who previously managed to head the International Relations Department at B.U. and even to smuggle in a fellow Pakistani onto the faculty, someone who famously has served as a comical apologist for Islam at mosque outreach nights, or those Ispahani girls, or the late Benazir Bhutto. They're all the same, really. They’re all the same in that they don't want to admit that Islam is the root of the problems that currently beset Pakistan.

With their Western educations, the members of the Pakistani elite do what they can to pretend that they, and not the vast primitive masses of Pakistan, are the "real Pakistan." In this respect, they are like all those ramrod-straight terry-thomas-moustachioed Pakistani generals who for decades fooled their American counterparts, carefully explaining that Islam was "a bulwark against Communism" and that they, therefore, were so much more deserving of American aid, especially military aid, than India. India, after all, was dominated by its New Left Book Club leader Jawaharlal Nehru and his marxisant, bandung-conferencing foreign minister, who even allowed the Soviets in to build steel mills and suchlike, Krishna Menon. And the Americans fell for it, and have been falling for that Pakistani line, or some variant on it, ever since -- right up until the day before yesterday.

Just give it up, infidels

This seems like a bold statement until one realizes that Larijani made it to former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder -- a man who believes that "it was wrong to have ignored and isolated Palestinian Islamist militant group, Hamas."

"Iran tells Gerhard Schroeder 'impossible' to stop nuclear plan," from Expatica, February 23:

Tehran -- Iran's parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani told former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder over the weekend that it is impossible to deprive Tehran of nuclear technology for peaceful uses.

"Iran has observed international regulations and depriving Iran of nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes is impossible," Larijani told Schroeder during a meeting in Tehran, according to state broadcaster.

The latest remarks by Larijani, a former nuclear negotiator for Iran, came after the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday said Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, potentially a stage in making an atomic bomb, but has slowed down the expansion of its enrichment activities.[...]

During his meeting with Larijani, the former chancellor praised Iran's "positive and constructive role in Afghanistan".

Later during a meeting with former Iranian president Akber Hashemi Rafsanjani, he said that without "US and Iran cooperating" current regional issues will not be solved.

Schroeder also said it was wrong to have ignored and isolated Palestinian Islamist militant group, Hamas, over the past years while solving the regional issues.

"It is necessary to have this group join regional solutions," he said...

Why? Muslims in Malaysia are subject to sharia law. None of those secular shenanigans apply. It is an instructive case for Western countries pondering or already embarking down the slippery slope of granting legal legitimacy to sharia rulings within their borders: Are constitutional liberties really preserved when an "alternative" system does not guarantee freedom of conscience and other freedoms unequivocally?

The question is valid even when sharia is not as officially compulsory as it is in Malaysia: Social and familial pressures are just as likely to make the idea of the "choice" of systems a farce and work against the people most in need of the legal protections of the non-sharia system.

"Clause doesn’t cover Muslims," from The Star, February 24:

FREEDOM of religion as stated in Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution does not cover Muslims who wish to convert at any time.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said Muslims who wish to renounce the religion would need to obtain an order or declaration from the Syariah Court, which has the jurisdiction under state Enactments of Islam.

The case Lina Joy vs Federal Territory Religious Department would be the guide for anyone intending to renounce Islam, he said.

In other words: No.

“The judgment in the case states clearly that a Muslim cannot renounce the religion as he wishes. If such freedom is given to Muslims, this will affect the status of Islam as the official religion, as stated in the Federal Constitution,” he said.

Replying to Zulkifli Noordin (PKR – Kulim Bandar Baru), he said Phrase 4 of Article 11 prohibited non-Muslims from spreading other religions to Muslims.

At the moment, Nazri said there are 10 states in Malaysia that limit the spread of other religions to Muslims with state laws.

The states are Terengganu, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Malacca, Kedah, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Johor and Perlis.

Nazri said a Muslim can only renounce the religion once the Syariah Court gives the order whereby the National Registration Department would delete the word “Islam” from the identity card once relevant documents are shown.

He also said that the government has no intention to amend Article 11 (1) after the Federal Court decided on the Lina Joy case.

Against all those infidels -- including Obama -- who are "carrying out acts of barbarism against innocent people": Irony. "Waziristan Taliban set up shura to wage jihad," by Haji Mujtaba for the Daily Times, February 23:

Pamphlets call for holy war against Obama, Zardari, Karzai

MIRANSHAH: The Taliban in Waziristan announced forming a ‘Shura Ittehadul Mujahideen’ (Council of United Mujahideen) on Sunday to wage jihad ‘in an organised manner’.

Pamphlets distributed in the Miranshah Bazaar and other areas of the agency headquarters said the forces led by Mullah Muhammad Omar and Osama Bin Laden were fighting against ‘infidels’ led by US President Barack Obama, Pakistani President Asif Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

They quoted verses of the holy Quran calling people to fight a holy war against ‘infidels’, who they said were killing innocent Muslims.

The announcement was made by Taliban leaders Hafiz Gul Bahadur, who is the Taliban emir in North Waziristan, Baitullah Mehsud, the top Taliban commander in South Waziristan, and Maulvi Nazir, the chief of Taliban in Wana, who said they wanted to “stop the infidels from carrying out acts of barbarism against innocent people”.

However, we're still waiting for the total closure of Guantanamo

More on this story. "Miliband: Binyam release is the 1st step towards shared goal to close Guantanamo," from the Kuwait News Agency, February 23:

LONDON, Feb 23 (KUNA) -- Foreign Secretary David Miliband said on Monday that he was pleased that Binyam Mohamed was coming back to the United Kingdom.

"His release and return from Guantanamo Bay is the result of a number of years of very hard work by officials with him and with his team.

"Obviously the release of Binyam Mohamed is the first release from Guantanamo Bay since the election of President (Barack) Obama.

"We very much welcome President Obama's commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and I see today's return of Binyam Mohamed as the first step towards that shared goal, " he added.

Mohamed just arrived back to UK coming from Guantanamo with a coverage of his arrival by media.

They got those vaunted peaceful teachings wrong again, in an update on this story."Islamic terrors [sic] suspects on trial in Spain," from the Associated Press, February 23:

MADRID — Fourteen people went on trial today in Spain on charges of involvement with Islamic terrorist groups and recruiting extremists to fight in Iraq, a court official said.

The 14, mostly Moroccans, are charged with belonging to or collaborating with Islamic terrorism groups.

They are also accused of helping several people suspected in the March 11, 2004 terror bombings in Madrid to flee Spain.

The prosecution is seeking sentences of between seven and 14 years. A court official says trial was likely to last several days.

The 14 were arrested in a series of raids in recent years, most in the northeastern region of Catalonia.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with court regulations.

The defendants are accused of belonging to a network called Tigris that is alleged to have dealings with Ansar el Islam, a radical Islamic group linked to al-Qaida.

The group had its headquarters in the town of Santa Coloma de Gramanet, close to Barcelona. According to the prosecution, the house was used to recruit, indoctrinate and prepare future jihad fighters.

The prosecution said five people linked to the Madrid bomb attacks, in which 191 people were killed, visited the house. Among them was Moroccan Mohamed Afalah, who Spanish authorities say died in a suicide attack in Iraq in 2005.

For failing to stop their “illegal and un-Islamic” business. "Faith healers: another casualty of lawlessness in Frontier," from The News, February 23:

PESHAWAR: Faith healers have either stopped practicing or have gone underground because of threats to their lives.

The faith healers of the city have been receiving threats for the past many months and the government failed to provide them security. A number of them were picked from various parts of the city and freed only after assurance that they would no longer continue their practice.

Phool Badshah — the latest victim in the city — was shot dead by unknown people at Khan Mast Colony in the Yakatoot Police Station jurisdiction. Police, as usual, are yet to work out the case.

The office of another faith healer was blown up with explosives in Kohati locality last month. He was threatened by a group to stop his “illegal and un-Islamic” business, but he refused. Abdul Nasir of Pandu, Naseer Shah of Kohat Road, two ‘pirs’ of Badaber and a number of others from across the city were either picked or attacked for practicing faith healing.

The murder of Pir Rafiullah of Taroo Jabba grieved the entire city. Armed men from picked him up from outside his residence last month and later his beheaded body was recovered from the boundary of Khyber Agency. No group claimed responsibly for his murder so far...

Algeria is several weeks away from a presidential election; unfortunately, there will likely be more attacks like this. "Algerian Islamists kill nine security guards: residents," from Agence France-Presse, February 23:

ALGIERS (AFP) — Nine members of a private security firm were killed when Islamist militants attacked their base near Jijel in northeastern Algeria, residents and local journalists said on Monday.

Three other guards were wounded in the attack on the building used by private security company Spas on Sunday evening in the town of Ziama Mansouriah, around 360 kilometres (225 miles) east of the capital Algiers, they said.

The Algerian company carries out security work for factories in the region.

There was no immediate confirmation by authorities of the attack, which came three weeks ahead of the start of a presidential election campaign in the north African country.

The extremists used a mortar to shell the security guards' building in the first such attack in the region in several years, though the company has been targeted before.

Residents were unable to say how many men took part in the offensive.

The attack is the worst in the past six months in Algeria, and follows a spate of deadly assaults on military and civilians in the northeast of the country over the past month.

Seven soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on February 15, three in in an Islamist ambush some 50 kilometres east of Algiers, and four others in Tebessa in the far east of the country, in an attack on their convoy.

Algerians go to the polls to elect a new president on April 9, with the incumbent Abdelaziz Bouteflika seeking an unprecedented third term.

Bouteflika has vowed to "press on with a policy of national reconciliation" that he launched in 2000 following two referendums, and which has enabled the release from jail or the surrender of thousands of Islamist fighters who have laid down their weapons.

But the 72-year-old head of state added that while "the door remains open to those who repent," he will "continue to fight terrorism with all necessary means."

The most serious round of recent violence took place, as frequently occurs, during and around the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, which extremists consider auspicious for armed struggle.

In the name of, you got it, "honor." Incidentally, since Pakistan is 97% Muslim, there is a 97% chance this honor-zealous man was Muslim. "Man slays sister for honour," from the Daily Times, February 23:

KARACHI: A man surrendered himself after killing his elderly sister on the pretext of honour killing.

Elahi Bux, 45, surrendered himself after axing to death his 60-year-old sister, Shehla Bibi, at his house located in Sector 15, Mehran Town, within the jurisdiction of Korangi Industrial Area Police Station.

Confessing to the crime, the accused alleged that his sister had illicit relations with a landlord of Larkana. According to SHO Ismail Lashari, Bux only dealt one swift blow to the victim’s head and when her screams attracted the neighbours, rather than fleeing, Bux waited for the police to arrive. The police have registered a case on behalf of the victim’s son.

However, according to family sources, Bux was in financial debt of the landlord and as he could not repay the money, he had married his daughter to the landlord. However, now the landlord wanted to marry Shehla Bibi, therefore, Bux thought it best to kill her rather than stain the family’s honour. The deceased was a widowed mother of five children...

An update on this story. "Death toll hits 11 in sectarian violence: Nigerian police," from Agence France-Presse, February 23:

KANO, Nigeria (AFP) — Police arrested seven people in connection with Muslim-Christian clashes in northern Nigeria as the death toll from the weekend unrest rose to 11, police and Red Cross officials said Monday.

"So far the number of those killed stands at 11," police spokesman Mohammed Barau told AFP by telephone from Bauchi state of sectarian clashes there that left 38 wounded.

Six churches and roughly a dozen houses were also torched, a Red Cross official said.

Muslim youths went on a rampage Saturday, attacking Christians and burning churches. They said their acts were reprisals for the burning of two mosques overnight in the state capital Bauchi.

Authorities in the city have deployed troops and imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew in seven areas affected by the violence.

"Normalcy has been restored," Barau said.

But dozens nursed injuries in a state better known as home to one of Nigeria's major national parks.

"We have 38 persons who sustained varying degrees of injuries in the violence," Bauchi Red Cross secretary Adamu Abubakar told AFP.

Hundreds of others displaced by the violence have sought refuge in military barracks, churches and two camps erected by the Red Cross.

Tensions have risen in Bauchi, a city of four million, since February 13 when Pentecostal Christians barricaded a pathway used by Muslims attending Friday prayers at a nearby mosque, residents said.

The initial story, linked above, offers a much different account, in which the alleged "barricade" was actually a broken-down truck.

Bauchi suffered bloody sectarian strife in 2004 when Muslim-Christian violence in the town of Tafawa Balewa, some 100 kilometres (62 miles) away, spilled over to the city, and houses, mosques and churches were burnt.

Of course multiculturalism has long manifested itself in the sorts of books Western libraries select, but this is ridiculous. "Jihad books were in library," from This-Is-Leicestershire, February 23:

A library service was stocking books which encouraged jihad and the murder of non-Muslims, a Government-backed report has revealed.

A cost-cutting measure has been blamed for the blunder, which happened five years ago.

Leicester City Council had changed its book supplier so it could buy more foreign-language books for its customers.

However, council bosses say they were poorly advised by the new provider and, as a result, brought some inflammatory material into stock.

After "several months", they realised the dangerous nature of the material and removed it from the shelves, and returned it to the supplier.[...]

A city council spokesman said: "We bought some stock from independent book sellers who, as it turned out, did not advise us very well. One of our staff identified that about two or three titles had a jihadist theme, and the books were removed from the shelves.[...]

The report also revealed the council had problems with people attempting to donate inflammatory books...

Stand up for free speech -- and the truth

Three cheers for John Kyl!

"US lawmaker hosts anti-Islamic Dutch lawmaker," by Associated Press, February 23:

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Jon Kyl is hosting a film screening at the Capitol building on Thursday for a far-right Dutch lawmaker who claims that Islam inspires terrorism.

Yes, Geert Wilders originated that idea! Osama bin Laden never thought of it!

Kyl is sponsoring the event for Geert Wilders, who was denied entry to London earlier this month because British authorities said he posed a threat to public order.

Wilders’ 15-minute film juxtaposes verses from the Quran with images of violence by Muslims. Wilders has called the Quran a "fascist book" and said it should be banned.

Kyl agreed to facilitate the event because "all too often, people who have the courage to point out the dangers of militant Islamists find themselves vilified and endangered," said spokesman Ryan Patmintra.

Thursday’s event was being sponsored by the International Free Press Society, headed by Danish activist Lars Hedegaard, and the Center for Security Policy, a think tank in Washington led by Republican Frank Gaffney....

More on the IFPS, of which I am a member of the Board of Advisors, here -- and its joining Geert Wilders to call for an International First Amendment here.

The Israelis have to decide that? The Palestinians apparently are already all on board with the idea of peaceful coexistence with Israel, and have forgotten all about that jihad business? What planet is Bill Clinton on? The same planet, of course, that is inhabited by most of the learned analysts when it comes to the jihad against Israel -- and the overwhelming evidence that the Palestinians don't want peace, but will continue to press for the destruction of Israel, never seems to disturb their comfortable analyses.

"Former US President Clinton calls for Palestinian state," from Maan News Agency, February 22 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Bethlehem – Ma’an – Former US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he is hopeful about peace between Israel and Palestine.

Speaking with the US-based Cable News Network (CNN), Clinton said the appointment of US Senator George Mitchell was a step forward in the prospects for a two-state solution.

Asked by interviewer Larry King about “any chance of the Mideast having peace,” Clinton responded that Mitchell will have to “fill in the blanks” in negotiations between both sides, “however the Israeli government is constituted.”

Clinton also warned that Israel is running out of time it wants to remain a Jewish state.

“Palestinians are having more babies than the Israelis. The Israelis have to decide whether they want to share the future in a positive way with a constructive Palestinian state,” Clinton said.

“And if they [Israel] don't, then they'll have to disenfranchise the Palestinians living outside of old Israel, pre-'67 Israel, and they won't be a democracy anymore. Or they will let everybody vote and they won't be a Jewish state anymore. That hasn't changed,” he said.

“The other thing that has happened that's really better now is the external environment is so much better," he insisted.

"The king of Saudi Arabia and I think more than 20 other Muslim countries in the whole Arab Middle East, with the exception of Syria, has been out there strongly supporting a peace process,” he noted.

“[The Arab League] will urge the Palestinians to sign it. [They] will help them succeed economically. [They] will relocate them,” Clinton said of the Arab Peace Initiative, which was first presented by Saudi Arabia in Beirut during 2002.

“Now, therefore, I think there's hope, and I don't see what the alternative is,” the former US president added.

The alternative? A realistic appraisal of the situation.

Has the Western world, and has the American government in particular, gone mad? Does it not see, with Pakistan, the hideous situation created when a Muslim state acquires nuclear weapons? The Americans now are in the position of having to protect the corrupt and hopeless government of Zardari, a crooked zamindar (whose wife, Benazir Bhutto, by the way, though no saint herself, could not stand him). The Americans must do this because they are terrified of what may happen with those nuclear weapons -- and they should be -- if the government were to fall to the Pakistani "militants" or "extremists."

And so a country that is hopeless will now become some kind of political and economic ward of the Americans, because they haven't any idea how to deal with those nuclear weapons. Just Sunday the New York Times reported that “more than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas, American military officials said.”

Mark Steyn weighs in on the National Post's Chris Selley's smear of Pamela Geller's attempt to memorialize honor killing victim Aqsa Parvez -- an attempt I have been proud to support and assist: "Aqsa to grind," by Mark Steyn, February 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

For reasons best known to himself, The National Post's Chris Selley chose to pick a fight with the few people who want to ensure that Aqsa Parvez's short life is memorialized by something more than the plot number of an unmarked grave. Pamela Geller and Kathy Shaidle can take care of themselves, and have done, but the reality is that if it weren't for the frothing loony ranting wackjob haters of the blogosphere a 16-year old girl murdered for not wanting to be imprisoned by her family's culture would be entirely forgotten.

So what's more offensive? The moral outrage of Pamela Geller at the westernization of "honor killing"? Or the mainstream coverage by a politically correct media? Here's what the lunchtime poll at Toronto's CITY-TV thought was the big issue arising from Aqsa Parvez's murder:

Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?

Gotcha. It's our fault.

Here's the weirdly contorted lengths Canada's Number One news anchor, CTV's Lloyd Robertson, went to to avoid telling his viewers Aqsa Parvez had been strangled?

Her neck was compressed, to the point she couldn't breathe.

Here's the Montreal Gazette's editorialists insisting that Mr Parvez and every pur laine papa in la belle province are merely different points on the same continuum:

Muhammed Parvez might have been fighting a losing battle trying to make Aqsa wear a hijab, but that hardly sets him apart. Few are the fathers, of any faith or none, who have not clashed with their adolescent daughters over something...

So which response to this issue is, in Chris Selley's words, "a few chick peas short of a falafel"? The Misses Geller and Shaidle? Or the sensible, reasonable, moderate, measured approach of the PC eunuchs at Canada's most-watched TV stations and major metropolitan newspapers?...

Read it all. Also, Pamela herself has further remarks here about this initiative, and why she began it.

A milk bottle incident

So says her husband, anyway. You may have seen the picture above last year, when the formerly Boston-based jihadist Aafia Siddiqui was captured in Afghanistan. The photo was widely circulated as indicating that Siddiqui had been tortured in U.S. custody; I received a large amount of hate mail like this one:

Look at before US custody and after US custody:

If that doesn't kill you and make you appalled at what your country is doing, then NOTHING will. Nothing.

However, now her husband says that the photo comes from quite different circumstances that have nothing to do with the Americans. His lengthy account in Pakistan's News International is suspect in many ways -- chiefly in his rather unconvincing attempts to exonerate himself from charges that he abused Aafia -- but nonetheless illuminating, especially this detail.

From "Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s husband breaks his silence after six years," from The News International, February 18 (thanks to Miss Kelly):

He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle) in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.

As Muhammad said, War is deceit!

Not on Pakistan International Airlines, please

It's an anti-Islamic attempt to please the West! The upshot of this, then, is that any mitigation of Sharia norms is illegitimate: Western governments should take careful note of the invoking of France at the end of this article.

"PIA banned sporting beard to please West: Jamaat," from Express India, February 21 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

Religious scholars of the country have condemned Pakistan International Airline's decision banning its employees from sporting beard.

The scholars have termed the move as violation of their constitution and fundamental rights, media report in Islamabad said.

In a joint statement, Jamaat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad, along with others, said that the PIA was trying to please Washington by banning its male cabin crew from having beard, the ‘News’ has reported.

The statement said, "PIA's new policy was a stark violation of Sunnah and an attempt to please the West."

Citing example of France where Muslim girls have been banned from wearing head-scarves, the Ulema said that most Western countries had adopted anti-Islamic policies.

And certainly there are many groups worldwide that share the same beliefs as those held by Hizballah and Hamas. "'Global jihad could be behind rockets,'" by Yaakov Lappin for the Jerusalem Post, February 23 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Al-Qaida affiliated global jihadi groups could be playing an important role in the trickle of rocket fire and border attacks being directed against Israel from southern Lebanon and Gaza in recent days, terrorism analysts have said.

On Saturday night, a Grad-type rocket struck an open area south of Ashkelon. No injury or damage was reported in that incident either. The rockets follow a Katyusha attack on Saturday, when a rocket fired from southern Lebanon struck a town in the western Galilee, injuring three people and damaging a home. No group claimed responsibility.

"When I look at the Katyusha attack from southern Lebanon, my instinct tells me a global jihad group is linked," said Yoram Schweitzer, director of the Program on Terrorism and Low Intensity Conflict at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).

No one could say with certainty who was behind Saturday's rocket, Schweitzer said, but "there is a basis for a confrontation" between radical Sunni jihadi groups stationed in southern Lebanon and Hizbullah.

Sunni jihadi groups are likely to seek a defiant stance towards Hizbullah and its patron Iran in the future, but for now are establishing their presence by occasionally firing on Israel, Schweitzer said.

Al-Qaida affiliated groups like Fatah al-Islam and Asbat al-Ansar recruit their members from Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, where disaffected residents embrace an extremist ideology, Schweitzer added....

Unimportant in himself, Tom Friedman has become important by virtue of his station: he is one of the columnists for The New York Times. He is read, and by many, and is assumed to know whereof he speaks. He has a line in name-dropping (“When I met with the ambassador” or “when I had a chat with [Indian or Chinese industrialist or American entrepreneur]”) that offers, for some, a superficial gleam. His world-traveling makes him, for some, soothing, soothing because of his simplifying, his cheerful reductionism. He is soothing also for some because of his eager enthusiasm for whatever topic that he is already preparing for his next Tom-Friedman-Splains-It-All-To-You book, to be followed by $45,000/per lectures to busy businessmen who are suitably impressed with Tom Friedman (“He must know what he’s talking about. He’s got a Pulitzer. He writes for the Times. He goes on Charlie Rose.”).

Friedman’s reductions to sound-bite, lecture-ready phrases (e.g., “the world is flat”) are not those of someone who has mastered a great deal of material and then managed to present it, after thought, in a lucid form, accessible to many because of his mastery of phrase that reflects a complete grasp of the material. No, his simplifications are truly those of someone who is a simpleton himself, and who is not so much in the business of lucidly making sense of things, but of finding a catch phrase, and then finding bits and pieces of anecdotal evidence to weave a little tale that will make no demands on reader, or listener. The perfect thing for business-babbitts wanting a complicated and disturbing world made simple. No mental activity necessary. Just listen to the self-satisfied guru, a mountebank of the updated Chautauqua circuit, who expresses no nuance, who hints at no doubts. He knows what’s going on. He’ll tell you everything you need to know.

A nice example of this was Friedman’s column the other day, about what he, Tom Friedman, had discovered on his trip to India. He had found that Indian Muslims – all 150 million of them, apparently – were responding splendidly to the Mumbai massacres, rallying around the flag of Mother India, showing that they were horrified by this “terrorism” that, bien entendu, had “nothing to do with Islam.” And so the lesson that Tom Friedman wanted millions of readers to take away was this: you have nothing to fear from Islam, rightly understood. Here are Indian Muslims, declaring in no uncertain terms that Islam and terrorism are incompatible, that Islam forbids the very things that those terrorists, in the name of Islam, in Mumbai did.

Fighting phantom Crusaders

He doesn't want Hamas to accept a truce with Israel -- despite the fact that Hamas would only do so in order to gather strength to fight the Israelis more fiercely later.

"Al-Qaida No. 2 urges Hamas: Don't agree to Gaza truce," from The Associated Press, February 23 (thanks to James):

Al-Qaida's No. 2 warned Palestinians in Gaza against accepting a truce with Israel in an audio message posted on extremist Web sites, an Internet monitoring service said Monday.

Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri said Israel's Arab aides are trying to impose a truce in Gaza to defeat the Palestinians and he called on them to be steadfast while Jewish targets are attacked around the world.

"The jihad to liberate Palestine and all the homelands of Islam mustn't cease, and if the field tightens in one place, it widens in other places, and Crusader and Jewish targets are spread all over the world," he said in a transcript of the speech provided by the U.S.-based SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic extremist Web sites....

Here's the press release:

AN EVENING WITH GEERT WILDERS

Geert Wilders, chairman of the Freedom Party in The Netherlands (PVV), maker of the film Fitna, and brave fighter for Western values, will speak in Washington, DC, this week.

Wilders, the foremost defender of free speech in the modern age, will deliver an address at a reception at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, site of the Conservative Political Action Conference, on Friday, February 27, at 6:00PM.

The reception will feature a screening of Wilders’s courageous and hard-hitting film Fitna, which demonstrates how Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an and Islamic teachings to justify acts of violence and terrorism, and which has become the focus of efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to restrict and criminalize free speech about the global jihad threat. A question-and-answer period will follow.

The reception is sponsored by the

David Horowitz Freedom Center, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, and Dr. Andrew Bostom.

It is open to the public. In light of the multiple threats on Geert Wilders’s life, security will be very tight: no bags or coats will be allowed, all materials brought in to the room will be searched, and the event organizers reserve the right to deny entry to or eject anyone at any time.

For more information, contact Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com, wildersevening@aol.com

Pamela has more on Wilders's stay in this country.

As one reads the following numerous anecdotes of Christian persecution at the hands of Islam, the one thing to bear in mind is that this is but a tithe of what really goes on in the Islamic world (and possibly the UK) -- most of which never makes it to the media. "The Bulletin of Christian Worldwide Persecution," from the Right Side News, February 22:

Bulletin of Christian Persecution, The Facts -- We Collect the Dots; You Connect Them:

Lahore, Pakistan: Two female nursing students were accused of blasphemy. The students are said to have desecrating verses of the Koran. It is believed that this is a trumped-up charge resulting from the students' roommates having been offended by a picture of Jesus hanging on the wall, which the roommates desecrated. A demonstration was staged against the students. 2/17 (Full Article and more at PoliticalIslam)

Sangla Hill, Pakistan: A 13-year-old Christian girl was gang-raped by five Muslims when she went outside to take out the trash. She was kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to their neighborhood. Sangla Hill is the same city where 3 churches, 3 clerical residences, a high school, and the houses of 3 Christian families were destroyed in a riot in 2005. 2/17

Shajwal, Pakistan: Three men murdered a Christian milkman after he demanded his paycheck. He was denied his wages for a month, and when he demanded to be paid his employers, two Muslim brothers and their nephew, taunted him with slurs and then killed him. 2/17

That's just Pakistan. Read it all and get an idea of the sort of persecution Christians suffer at the hands of Islam in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, the UK.

Persecuted for being Jewish

Considering that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad himself, said, "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim," it is difficult to find fault in the following Muslim behavior -- from an Islamic perspective, that is.

"Al Qaeda’s Rise in Yemen Prompts Jewish Immigration," by Avraham Zuroff for Israel National News, February 22:

(IsraelNN.com) The emigration of Yemen’s remaining Jews comes in wake of increased anti-Semitism, a rise in Al-Qaeda activities in the country, and the terrorist organization’s targeting of Jews.

Ten new immigrants arrived in Israel on Thursday afternoon from the Yemenite community of Raida, where Jews have recently been harrassed by Muslims. The group included Said Ben-Yisrael, one of the heads of the Raida Jewish community. Several weeks ago, Muslim extremists threw a grenade into the Ben-Yisrael family's courtyard. After receiving threats against his life, Said went to live in the capital city of Sana'a, taking his family with him. From there he proceeded to the Jewish State.

Yemen, which does not share diplomatic relations with the State of Israel, nevertheless permits the immigration of its Jews to any location, including Israel.

In an opinion piece in the London-based Arabic daily, Ash-Sharq il-Awsat, columnist Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed warns that Al-Qaeda “is transferring its men and furnishings to the mountains of Yemen.” Al-Rashed adds, “Yemen will be turned into a free-for-all, not only by the terrorists, but by all the countries that want to hound Al-Qaeda wherever it settles.”...

"[A] two-pronged attack which peddles death and misery [to infidels] with heroin while netting massive sums to pay for future terror attacks," that is, the jihad. "Asian terror gangs target UK with killer heroin," by Scott Hesketh for the Daily Star, February 22 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

TERROR chiefs plan to flood our streets with heroin in a terrifying plot to wage “chemical jihad” on Britain.

And they have been using hate-filled Muslim gangs as their UK dealers.

Pakistani and Afghan-based al-Qaida and Taliban warlords are sitting on a £6billion stash of deadly heroin.

And they have ordered their dealers to sell it only to non-Muslims.

The ruthless racket is a two-pronged attack which peddles death and misery with heroin while netting massive sums to pay for future terror attacks.

A senior security source told the Daily Star Sunday: “The Afghan poppy fields are probably the biggest financial contributor to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

“The UK’s heroin trade is increasing at an alarming rate and most of the cash helps arm terrorists with bombs and guns.”

The US has already been ­targeted in the evil campaign which mirrors a terror plot in the new James Bond novel Devil May Care.

Between 1990 and 2005 Taliban-linked drug peddler Haji Baz Mohammed raked in a staggering £17billion by pouring heroin into North America.

He told a US court that “selling heroin was a jihad because they were taking Americans’ money and the heroin was killing them”.

Now the fanatics have made the UK their top target. A whopping 30 tonnes of heroin is being smuggled into Britain every year.

The drug is grown in the Afghan badlands and bought for £1,500 a kilo in neighbouring Pakistan.

It’s finally sold on Britain’s streets, often in the backs of cabs or over kebab shop counters, at between £30 and £50 a gram.

Asian gangs are operating in South London, Luton, Preston, Manchester, Leeds, Oldham, Birmingham and Bradford.

Our investigators went on the hunt for heroin in Luton and did a deal in the back of a taxi.

Pulling out a handful of wraps, the ­driver said: “I’ll sort you a fix for £10 but a gram’s £50. It’s knockout gear.” Asked where the drugs came from he said: “Poppy fields between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“The big bosses have Taliban and al-Qaida connections and we’re often told only to deal it to non-Muslims. They call it ­chemical jihad and hope to ruin lives while ­getting massive payouts at the same time.

“I’m more interested in the money. I knock it out to anyone, ­whatever their beliefs.

“But there are lots of big-­hitters who only sell to non-Muslims – to poison them.”...

"The Swat Taliban have also announced that families with unmarried females should come forward in mosques so that the women/girls may be married off – to the Taliban. Or else, they are to be forcibly married (read raped)."

"Whither Swat’s women?" by Qurat ul ain Siddiqui for the Dawn, February 22:

WHAT happened with Shikarpur’s Maria Shah, a recent victim of an acid attack, may be considered as a random act of violence but the degree of resolve and perfection with which misogyny is being systematized in Swat is simply unprecedented in Pakistan.

Banning education for females and specifically targeting girls’ schools was, to look at the current situation on the ground, only the prelude to what is turning out to be a conscious establishment of a system of violence and sadism.

With the destruction of over 180 schools in the valley, thousands of female teachers are without a source of income and some 80,000 female students are no longer getting an education.

However, it is not ‘only’ women’s education and livelihood that are at stake here. Women can also no longer venture outside their homes without a male relative (definitely a mehram) and it is mandatory for couples to carry their nikah-namaas or they are asking for trouble. The Swat Taliban have also announced that families with unmarried females should come forward in mosques so that the women/girls may be married off – to the Taliban. Or else, they are to be forcibly married (read raped).

So would any Pakistani woman want to wake up the following morning only to find out she’s in Swat? Hopefully not.

The government has done little, if not nothing, to address this ‘institutionalisation’ of gender-specific violence in the once idyllic valley. And while a visit to the region by some in the national cabinet was in the offing, the NWFP government’s recent decision to implement ‘sharia’ in the area seems highly unlikely to rescue the population from this despotic setup.

What was done to Bakht Zeba, a 45-year-old resident of Mingora and a former member of the Swat district council, should have been enough to serve as a wake up call for those entrusted with the security of our lives and properties.

Zeba's criticism of the Swat Taliban's anti-women measures was more than enough to incur the Talibs' wrath. On Nov 26, Bakht Zeba was dragged out of her Mingora home and was shot in the head after being brutally flogged.

A mere three hour drive (less than 200 miles) from Islamabad, Swat has transmogrified into a horrific embodiment and just when one dares to think that it can’t get any worse, a whole new horrible bunch of stunts is pulled only to keep one’s optimism in check.

The rather recent decree regarding bringing unmarried girls/women to give them away in marriage to the Taliban is a truly shocking one. Going a few more steps ahead than the Afghan Taliban, this group has clearly expressed its disregard for anything and everything with a semblance of civilised behaviour. So really, what form of the sharia will satiate their appetite for brutality?...

Read it all.

Muzzammil Hassan founded Bridges TV in order to improve the image of American Muslims. He ended up beheading his wife in the Bridges TV offices. Now Faizan Haq says, bizarrely: “I think of Aasiya as a martyr. She has given her life to protect the image of American Muslims. And as an American Muslim community, we owe it to her not to let this happen again.”

The last sentence is true. But the only way Faizan Haq or anyone else can prevent it from happening again would be to confront the Islamic texts and teachings that foster the idea that women are the possessions of their husbands, that they can be beaten if they disobey (cf. Qur'an 4:34), and that honor killings are justified under certain circumstances.

"A history of abuse preceded Orchard Park beheading," by Sandra Tan, Gene Warner and Fred O. Williams for the Buffalo News, February 22 (thanks to Alan):

The lives of Muzzammil and Aasiya Hassan were quite different from their public image in the local Muslim and broadcast communities.

In the public eye, they were a dynamic couple, building their — actually her — dream of a Muslim-lifestyle TV channel in the United States.

But police reports compiled for much of their marriage tell another story:

Their home life was a nightmare. Aasiya was repeatedly subjected to controlling and sometimes violent acts by her ambitious but troubled husband.

To protect herself, she went to the police in two states. Yet for years she stopped short of pressing charges — thus preserving Muzzammil’s reputation and the venture they built together.

On Feb. 6, she filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection, barring him from their home in Orchard Park. A week later, she lay dead in their television offices — stabbed and decapitated. Muzzammil was charged with her murder.

“I think of Aasiya as a martyr,” said Faizan Haq, a local professor who helped launch Bridges TV, the station in Orchard Park that the Hassans started in 2004. “She has given her life to protect the image of American Muslims. And as an American Muslim community, we owe it to her not to let this happen again.”

The Hassans were well-known to local police, both in Orchard Park and Texas, where Muzzammil has family. Police were called to their Orchard Park home more than a dozen times for domestic issues dating back 2z years. And in 2006, Aasiya told police that the abuse had been going on “for about the last six years.”

The abuse, according to police reports, ranged from restrictive control to outbursts of violence, including a black eye and fat lip.

At various times, Aasiya accused her husband of physically preventing her from calling the police, abandoning her vehicle in Clarence so she couldn’t flee and pouring water on her to keep her from sleeping.

A nationwide debate has begun among Muslim leaders and women’s advocates about what role religion and culture may have played in this awful killing.

That debate continues....

Really? All I see in the mainstream media are denials that religion had anything to do with this at all. Where is this debate?

Incitement to hatred against non-Muslims? In the Qur'an, the Book of Peace? You gotta be kidding!

(9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(9:28) O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.;

(4:101) And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.;

(9:123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).;

(4:56) Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.;

(9:23) O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.;

(9:37) Postponement (of a sacred month) is only an excess of disbelief whereby those who disbelieve are misled; they allow it one year and forbid it (another) year, that they may make up the number of the months which Allah hath hallowed, so that they allow that which Allah hath forbidden. The evil of their deeds is made fairseeming unto them. Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk;

(5:57) O Ye who believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers.;

(33:61) Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.;

(21:98) Lo! ye (idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come.;

(32:22) And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turneth from them. Lo! We shall requite the guilty.;

(48:20) Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men’s hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path.;

(8:69) Now enjoy what ye have won [in war], as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(66:9) O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.;

(41:27) But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.;

(41:28) That is the reward of Allah’s enemies: the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment forasmuch as they denied Our revelations.;

(9:111) Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.;

(9:68) Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.;

(8:65) O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.;

(5:51) O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.;

(9:29) Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.;

(5:14) And with those who say: “Lo! we are Christians,” We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.;

(4:89) They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them;

(9:14) Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.”

(Thanks to Andy Bostom for the handy list! And there are many more where those came from -- just peruse pretty much any segment of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series.)

"B.C. man who filed human rights complaint after reading Koran has case dismissed," from The Canadian Press, February 21 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

VANCOUVER, B.C. — A B.C. man who filed a human rights complaint after buying a copy of the Koran at a Chapters bookstore has had that complaint dismissed.

John Simpson alleged certain verses of the Koran discriminate against people of Christian and Jewish faith and filed his complaint against Indigo Books & Music Inc. (TSX:IDG), the store's parent company.

Simpson's complaint came under Section 7 of the Human Rights Code.

The section states that a person must not publish any statement that is likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt because of their religion.

But B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Barbara Humphreys says Simpson didn't explain how the Koran, the central religious text of Islam that has existed for more than 1,300 years, had a negative impact on him.

Humphreys dismissed the case after ruling that Simpson's complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.

Of course. Because the purpose of the Human Rights Code is to silence criticism of Islamic jihad supremacism, not to put pressure on Muslims because of Islam's violent and supremacist doctrines.

No one has claimed responsibility at this point. We have seen jihadists target tourists in Egypt before. "Tourists hit by Cairo bomb blast," from the BBC, February 22 (thanks to Larry):

A bomb explosion in Cairo has killed at least one person and injured 17 others, mostly foreign tourists, police say.

The dead person was identified as a French tourist. An unconfirmed report from Reuters news agency said there were four dead, two of them foreigners.

The blast happened outside a cafe packed with French tourists in the historic Khan al-Khalili area.

The explosion was relatively small, most likely caused by a home-made explosive device, police believe....

U.S. "bullying" is no good, but it's OK for me to bully Israel

Here again we see, as discussed here, that appeasement only emboldens the power that is being appeased. While Ahmadinejad rails about "bullying," it is of course he who is the only one who is behaving like a bully.

"Iran's president calls for "real changes" in U.S. policies," from Xinhua, February 18 (thanks to Pamela):

TEHRAN, Feb. 18 (Xinhua) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday repeated his call for "real changes" in the U.S. policies, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"Bullying powers should make good on their mistakes by making fundamental and real changes to serve the interests of nations instead of killing them," Ahmadinejad told a rally in the central city of Yazd.

"If you... insist on committing your previous crimes and atrocities, your destiny will be no better than that of former U.S. President Gorge W. Bush," Ahmadinejad said, indirectly addressing current U.S. President Barack Obama.

In a live interview with state television Tuesday night, Ahmadinejad also called for "real changes" in Washington's policies under Obama.

"Iran, along with other world countries, is waiting to witness real changes in the U.S. (policies)," Ahmadinejad said in the live interview.

"Talking about changes is much easier than making them in practice," he said, adding that "the United States needs substantial changes in order to maintain its entity."...

Is he saying that the U.S. will cease to exist if it doesn't make "substantial changes"?

"Holy fighters carried out suicide attacks ... in the national university."

"Somali suicide bomb kills 6 peacekeepers," from AFP, February 23 (thanks to JE):

Six Burundi peacekeepers in Somalia were killed Sunday and another 20 injured in a suicide attack by Islamist rebels on an African Union base in Mogadishu.

"There was a suicide attack" against a camp of Burundi soldiers with the African Union peacekeeping force, said Colonel Adlophe Manirakiza, adding: "The toll is six dead and about 20 wounded."

"A vehicle exploded inside the camp" while the soldiers were unloading a truck that had brought in supplies, he said.

The attack, the deadliest against the AU peacekeepers in the Somali capital since early 2007, targeted the base in the south of the city.

Sheikh Muktar Robow Abu Mansur, spokesman of the hard-line Shebab Islamist rebels, claimed responsibility, saying "holy fighters carried out suicide attacks ... in the national university."

One of the suicide bombers detonated a vest filled with explosives inside the camp, he said, while another drove a primed car into the base....

Out to "settle" with infidels one way or another

But there is some "concern." For example, Lord Carlile "expect[s] a light and gentle touch to be applied to ensure that he [Mr Mohamed] is not harassed in any way by the authorities and is given every opportunity, subject to the law, to integrate himself back into British society."

"Guantanamo man 'can settle in UK,'" from the BBC, February 21:

A UK resident soon to be released from Guantanamo Bay is unlikely to face harassment by British authorities, says the UK reviewer of terror laws.

Lord Carlile said he thought Binyam Mohamed would be "given every opportunity, subject to the law, to integrate himself back" into society.

Mr Mohamed has been detained since 2002 and spent more than four years at the controversial US military base in Cuba.

It is not clear if the Ethiopian-born man will be allowed to stay in the UK.

On Friday, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said agreement had been reached with the US for 30-year-old Mr Mohamed's return "as soon as the practical arrangements can be made".

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile is the independent reviewer of terror laws for the government.

He said: "I would expect a light and gentle touch to be applied to ensure that he [Mr Mohamed] is not harassed in any way by the authorities and is given every opportunity, subject to the law, to integrate himself back into British society."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I hope very much, and I trust, that he will be given every facility available to be able to return to a normal life as a British resident."

The US had accused Mr Mohamed of involvement in a plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" in America, but all charges against him were dropped last year.

Mr Mohamed claims he was tortured into falsely confessing to terrorism and alleges UK MI5 officers were complicit in his abuse...

"[The letter] doesn't change our policy in not dealing with terrorists"

Even though the Hamas author of the letter reminds Obama, "There can be no peace without Hamas." At any rate, it appears the Hamas letter will be going to Obama, after all. But not to worry; Kerry insists this will not change policy. More on this story. "Kerry: Hamas letter doesn't change policy," from the Jerusalem Post, February 21 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

The United States will not change its policy towards Hamas, despite a letter which will be passed to the new American president requesting that he engage the group in dialogue, Senator John Kerry said on Saturday.

"[The letter] doesn't change our policy in not dealing with terrorists," Kerry said during an interview with Channel 2. "We will deal with the Palestinian Authority government, with [PA President Mahmoud Abbas], and [PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad]."

Hamas official Ahmed Yousef on Saturday said he wrote a letter to US President Barack Obama, which was received by Kerry during his visit to Gaza.

The letter was given to UN officials who passed it to the US senator during a one-day visit to Gaza on Thursday.

Yousef said that the letter was endorsed by the Hamas government.

The letter calls on Obama "to deal in a fair way with the Palestinian issue," he said, noting that many Palestinians believe that US foreign policy is biased in Israel's favor.[...]

At first, Hamas denied addressing a letter to Obama. One Palestinian official suggested that the letter was the private initiative of an adviser to the group, who wrote it without consulting with the organization's leaders.

However, according to the New York Times, Yousef, the letter's author, called on the new US administration to bring real change to the Middle East.

"There can be no peace without Hamas," Mr. Yousef told the Times that he had written.

"We also said that Mr. Kerry's visit to Gaza showed that the new administration has a clarity of vision and is not controlled by Israeli propaganda," Yousef was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

But, "mercifully," they only get 20 years in prison. More on this story. "Afghan Court Upholds Sentences in Quran Trial," by Rahim Faiez for the Associated Press, February 22:

KABUL - An appeals court in Afghanistan upheld 20-year prison sentences for two men who published a translation of the Quran that drove religious leaders to call for their execution.

The panel ruled Sunday that the men were guilty of modifying the Quran — a crime punishable by death. However, the three-judge panel reiterated a lower court ruling giving the men 20 years each.

The controversial text is a translation of Islam's holy book into an Afghan language without the original Arabic verses alongside. Muslims regard the Arabic Quran as words given directly by God. A translation is not considered a Quran itself, and it is believed that a mistranslation could warp God's word.

A host of Muslim clerics in this conservative Islamic state have condemned the translation — which was published in 2007 and handed out for free — as blasphemous and accused its publishers of setting themselves up as false prophets.

Critics have said the trial illustrates the undue influence of hard-line clerics in Afghanistan's fledgling legal system.

The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty for the two men — Ahmad Ghaws Zalmai, a former spokesman for the attorney general, and Mushtaq Ahmad, a Muslim cleric who signed a letter endorsing the translation.

Chief judge Abdul Salam Qazizada invoked Islamic Shariah law when reading out the sentence, saying death would not have been an extreme punishment.

"He who commits such an act is an infidel and should be killed" according to some interpretations of Shariah law, Qazizada said.

Qazizada did not explain why they didn't issue a harsher verdict...

Because lots of infidels would've jumped on it, bringing more unwanted attention to sharia in Afghanistan.

Hillary has made it a point to express continued support to Pakistan, implying that the government of "the land of the pure" -- which recently surrendered to the jihadis in the Swat Valley by supporting full sharia law -- is taking steps in the right direct. Indeed, according to the U.S. Defense Secretary, the U.S. too may begin to look for a similar "compromise" in Afghanistan. "Pakistan taking steps in right direction: Hillary," from the Daily Times, February 22:

LAHORE: The United States has assured Pakistan of continued support for efforts to eliminate terrorism and extremism, a private TV channel reported on Saturday.

According to the channel, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned President Asif Ali Zardari in China and assured him Washington would continue to help Islamabad in its efforts to eradicate terrorism. Clinton also said she was looking forward to meeting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Washington on Monday.

"It was the third decapitation in the insurgency-hit far south in three days after militants beheaded two soldiers on Friday."

"Couple beheaded in Thai south," from Agence France-Presse, February 22:

YALA - A married couple were shot dead by separatist rebels in Thailand's far south on Sunday, who then beheaded the husband and left his corpse in a rubber plantation, police said.

The Thai man and wife, both in their late 30s, were on their way to tap rubber in Yala province at dawn on Sunday when they were ambushed by the militants.

When security forces arrived to investigate, insurgents used a mobile phone signal to detonate explosives at the scene, injuring one policeman, officers in the province said.

It was the third decapitation in the insurgency-hit far south in three days after militants beheaded two soldiers on Friday.

"Insurgency-hit": That's a step up from the standard "restive."

More than 3,500 people have been killed since separatist unrest erupted five years ago in the Muslim-majority south of Thailand. Tensions have simmered since Thailand annexed the mainly Malay sultanate in 1902.

Attacks have become increasingly brutal as the insurgency drags on, with corpses sometimes mutilated or burnt and left in public areas.

"They came at it like a target. They attacked in a very cold-blooded manner, and then they walked away as if nothing had happened." Just doing their religious duty, as they understood it.

"Turkey Militants Attack Christian Bookshop," from Worthy News, February 20 (thanks to Richard):

ISTANBUL, TURKEY (Worthy News) -- Christian workers in southern Turkey faced a tense day Friday, February 20, after their bookshop was vandalized for the second time in a week by suspected Muslim militants, Christians said.

The Soz Kitapevi bookshop of the Turkish Bible Society in the city of Adana was reportedly vandalized for the second time in a week, after threats from Muslim nationalists.

Security camera footage showed two youths attacking the storefront of the shop Thursday, February 12, kicking and smashing glass in both the window and the door, reported Christian news agency Compass Direct News. The door frame was also damaged.

"They came at it like a target," Bookshop employee Dogan Simsek was quoted as saying. "They attacked in a very cold-blooded manner, and then they walked away as if nothing had happened."

GLASS SMASHED

The security camera apparently did not clearly capture the faces of either youth, and police were reportedly still attempting to identify the perpetrators. During the first attack on February 7, the glass of the front door was smashed and the security camera mangled. Both have since been repaired.

In published remarks, Simsek said attacks came after the bookshop received threats from Muslim "hardliners and nationalists".

Conspiracy paranoia may have had something to do with the attack:

Last November, a man apparently entered the shop accusing the store of having ties with the United States Central Intelligence Agency."You work with them killing people in Muslim countries, harming Muslim countries," the man was quoted as saying....

It all started with a broken-down truck that Muslims saw as a provocation. Then the local imams apparently fueled anger at Christians during their sermons at Friday prayers. "Five killed in Christian-Muslim clashes in Nigeria," from AFP, February 21 (thanks to Maxwell):

KANO, Nigeria (AFP) – Five people were killed and four injured Saturday in sectarian clashes between Muslims and Christians over places of worship in northern Nigeria's Bauchi state, residents said.

Government officials, however, blamed the violence on disaffected local politicians and said they had asked troops to take over security duties from the police in the immediate area affected.

Muslim youths attacked Christians and burned churches in reprisals over the burning of two mosques overnight in the state capital Bauchi, which the Muslims blamed on Christians, residents told AFP by telephone from Bauchi, 300 kilometres (200 miles) northeast of Abuja.

"I saw five dead bodies on the streets this morning, one of them was burnt," resident Muazu Hardawa said.

"One of the dead bodies was one of five Muslim youths shot by police deployed to the area to restore calm when a mob insisted on burning a church," he said.

Hardawa said three churches in nearby Kofar Dumi neighbourhood were burnt during the violence....

Tensions have risen in Bauchi since February 13 when members of a pentacostal church opposite a mosque in the area barricaded a pathway outside the church used by Muslims attending Friday prayers, residents said.

A truck had broken down in the middle of the road separating the church and the mosque, blocking the passage and the Muslims had to use a narrow path between the truck and the church, further inflaming tensions, according to resident Babayo Hassan.

He said a police detachment stationed in the area had to intervene by removing the barricades and appealing for calm on both sides.

"Angered by what they saw as provocation, an unprecedented number of Muslims attended the Friday prayers and the congregation overflowed to the church's gate but there was no incident," Hassan said.

"But around 3:00 a.m. two mosques in the area went up in flames. The Muslims accused the members of the church for the arson and enraged Muslim youths went on a rampage," he added....

Unwept, unremembered

Some time ago Pamela Geller began to take up a collection to provide honor killing victim Aqsa Parvez with a headstone -- at present Aqsa lies in an unmarked grave, plot #774 in Meadowvale Cemetery in Brampton, Ontario. I joined Pamela in this effort, which was a chance to honor Aqsa personally and to show those who commit honor killings that we in the West will not acquiesce in their devaluing and destruction of these human beings, and attempt even to erase their memories.

As things have developed, however, Aqsa's family rejected the grave marker we had offered to place at her gravesite, which contained her name and dates and the legend "Beloved, Remembered, Free." This was always their prerogative, but it is ironic in light of the fact that family members apparently stood idly by as Aqsa was brutalized and ultimately murdered by her father. They seem to prefer, in line with the honor killing ethos, that she continue to lie in an unmarked grave rather than be remembered. Meanwhile, the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, owns all the land surrounding the gravesite, preventing us from placing a monument near Aqsa's grave.

Pamela has a new update here, and responds here to "journalist" Chris Selley, who slammed the initiative in Canada's National Post. There are also numerous good comments from supporters of the initiative at the National Post site -- see especially the one by John Jay, posted February 20 at 2:58 AM.

In any case, we are not giving up, and are looking into other ways in which we can memorialize Aqsa, and show the honor killers in the West -- and the dhimmis who abet them in various ways -- that we will not let their terror and brutalization, and dehumanization of women, go unchallenged. Thanks once again to all those who contributed to Pamela's initiative. I'll continue to keep you posted.

Steyn on truth, Wilders, Muslims, and the inimitable dhimmi Jacqui Smith: "From Islamabad to Bradford: Degrees of accommodation," by Mark Steyn in National Review, February 21 (thanks to Hugo Schmidt):

Anyway, Geert Wilders’s short film is basically a compilation video of footage from various recent Muslim terrorist atrocities — whoops, sorry, “anti-Islamic activities” — accompanied by the relevant chapter and verse from the Koran. Jacqui Smith banned the filmmaker on “public order” grounds — in other words, the government’s fear that Lord Ahmed meant what he said about a 10,000-strong mob besieging the Palace of Westminster. You might conceivably get the impression from Wilders’s movie that many Muslims are irrational and violent types it’s best to steer well clear of. But, if you didn’t, Jacqui Smith pretty much confirmed it: We can’t have chaps walking around saying Muslims are violent because they’ll go bananas and smash the place up.

A fine, pious young man

This is the kind of story that is designed to tug on the heartstrings: here is a good boy, a pious boy, and all he wants is a few minutes out of the school day to fulfill his religious obligations, but the soulless wheels of bureaucracy turn in vain, and the whole thing has become a snafu. Why do things have to be this complicated? Can't you just let the boy pray?

Unfortunately, however, there are other issues involved. The ACLU has been working for decades to keep Christian prayer out of public schools. Now, as you can see in this article, school officials are anxious to be accommodating of Muslim prayer in this public school. The bottom line is that policies should be formulated and enforced consistently; the fact that Islam has obligatory prayer at specified times and Christianity does not should not become a pretext to allow Muslim students privileges in public schools that Christian students do not have.

It must also be recognized that the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house...so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions," is working in the United States to insinuate elements of Islamic law into American businesses, schools, and other institutions, and to reinforce the principle that where Islamic law and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way. I detail numerous examples of such initiatives in my book Stealth Jihad.

A cornerstone of this effort has been a campaign to bring prayer back into public schools -- Islamic prayer. Thus public schools in the Atlanta area opted in October 2004, after meetings with Islamic leaders (whose efforts were coordinated by none other than the Council on American-Islamic Relations), to allow Muslim students to be excused from class for Islamic Friday prayers. And in San Diego’s Carver Elementary School, when over one hundred Somali Muslim students enrolled after a charter school closed in 2006, school officials scheduled breaks so that Muslim students could pray during school time, and even introduced sex-segregated classes to conform to Islamic sensibilities. Pork, of course, vanished from the school cafeteria, and Arabic classes were added to the curriculum. Investor’s Business Daily went straight to the heart of the problem when it editorialized, “In effect, Carver administrators have carved out a school within a school expressly for Muslims, elevating them above Christian and Jewish students. They’ve had 15 minutes of instruction time taken away from them, so Muslims can roll out their prayer mats. It amounts to a special privilege afforded a specific religion, which plainly does not have our best interests at heart.”

Some of these accommodations were later dropped after a public outcry, but since public awareness of the stealth jihad agenda remain abysmal, these kinds of accommodations will inevitably recur, sometime, at another public school.

"Muslim boy looking for a place to pray," by Andrea Alexander for NorthJersey.com, February 19 (thanks to Pamela):

WAYNE — Rola Awwad wants a private space for her 10-year-old son at Albert Payson Terhune Elementary School to exercise his right to Muslim prayer.

The school district had offered to let him pray at recess — either outside or in a classroom while classmates are there. And that, says Awwad, is "unacceptable."

All students are constitutionally guaranteed the right to pray during the school day as long as it doesn't interfere with learning. But Wayne is struggling with what accommodations to make if a Muslim student requests privacy for prayer.

The answer in other North Jersey districts ranges from providing access to the principal's office, to providing a spare room. But school administrators in suburban Wayne have been weighing the question since fall, when Awwad asked the principal to allow her son, Adam, a few minutes of privacy each afternoon to pray.

The district says it's concerned about allowing a young pupil to be unsupervised, even for a short time, and Awwad said her request was met with resistance.

"Why can't he be on his own for five minutes praying?" said Awwad, a Palestinian who moved to the United States from Jordan 11 years ago.

She said it's important to her that her children go to public school and make diverse friends. But she also wants them to be able to practice their religion.

"All I want from the school is to let my son pray in a private place in a small room, say his prayer and go back to class," she said.

Muslims pray five times a day to reaffirm their faith and submit to follow divine commandments. The prayer is said during prescribed times; in the fall, when the clocks roll back at the end of daylight savings time, the afternoon prayer must be said during the school day, Awwad explained.

Federal guidelines say schools can't prevent students from praying during school hours, but schools can't sponsor religious activities or lead students in prayer. But the guidelines don't provide specifics on how schools should handle requests like Awwad's. And because that's left to the discretion of school administrators, North Jersey districts have responded with a hodgepodge of approaches.

In Passaic, an elementary school student is allowed to pray privately in a classroom storage closet, Superintendent Robert Holster said. A middle school principal in Cliffside Park allows a student to pray in her office, Superintendent Michael Romagnino said. If an elementary school child wanted a private place to pray, the superintendent said he would ask the principal to make an accommodation in an available office.

And Teaneck High School sets aside a room where Muslim students are allowed to go and say their prayers, said district spokesman Dave Bicofsky....

School board Attorney John Croot said the district thought it had made an "acceptable accommodation" when it offered to let Muslim students pray outside during lunch, or inside in a classroom in days of bad weather. He said the district is trying to strike a balance between constitutional principles.

For school officials, the issue is complicated by the degree of religious practice: For instance, federal guidelines specifically mention a student's right to quietly read the Bible during lunch. But the guidelines are not clear on what a district should do when the expression of religion is more demonstrative, as it is in Adam's case.

"Then you are talking about a public school district,'' Croot said. "You have to carefully weigh the constitutional issues. It's a balance between the free exercise of religion and the concept of the separation of church and state. It's a public school district and you have to consider those constitutional issues.''

Croot said he sought guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and was advised the district should have a consistent approach.

Awwad told the district in a letter that its latest accommodation "is unacceptable." Her son would have to put his prayer mat and touch his forehead on the damp ground if he prayed outside. And she said Adam was worried that other students would ridicule him if he prayed in the classroom.

Croot said "nothing has been foreclosed yet. We are still in discussions. We have indicated one possible accommodation that would have been acceptable, but there may be other accommodations that we could reach."

A small ray of hope that the freedom of conscience might gain some ground in Egypt.

An update on this story. "Egypt: Law Granting Twins To Muslim To Be Reviewed," from Compass Direct News, February 20 (thanks to Ibrahim):

ISTANBUL, February 20 (Compass Direct News) – Prosecutor General Abdel Meguid Mahmoud last week granted the mother of 14-year-old twins Andrew and Mario Medhat Ramses the right to appeal a custody decision awarding her sons to their Muslim father.

Muslim convert Medhat Ramses Labib gained custody of the boys last September, contrary to Article 20 of Egypt’s Personal Status Law, which states children should remain with their mother until age 15. The boys’ mother, Kamilia Lotfy Gaballah, won the right to appeal on Feb. 11.

“We all have a little bit of hope, new hope,” said George Ramses, the twins’ older brother. “Of course, they are a little afraid about everything, but generally they are excited.”

With support from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), Gaballah will appeal the Family Court’s decision awarding custody to the father before the Court of Cassation. Family Court decisions are not usually given recourse to the Court of Cassation, one of Egypt’s highest courts, and require special referral from a public prosecutor.

EIPR Director Hossam Bahgat stressed that the Court of Cassation will be examining the law on which the decision was based, not the decision itself.

“The Court of Cassation will pronounce a decision on the legal rule that Christian children, when one of their parents converts to Islam, should be automatically moved to the Muslim parent’s custody,” he said. “So it is very important in terms of changing the legal rule, but according to the law it will not have a direct impact on Andrew and Mario themselves.”...

The boys’ father, Labib, converted to Islam in 1999 after divorcing Gaballah to marry another woman. In 2006 Labib altered the official religious status of the boys and later applied for custody....

The Mufti of Egypt, the vaunted reformist Ali Gomaa, says that custody should be with the Muslim father "unless they change their religion with full will after puberty" -- in which case he is previously on record saying they should be punished.

The issue once again shows the contradictory stances of Egyptian civil law, which reflects both freedom of religion and Islamic thought. A fatwa (religious edict) issued by Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, regarding the case of Andrew and Mario states, “The religion of the two children should follow their Muslim father’s, unless they change their religion with full will after puberty.”

Although this statement allows Andrew and Mario the right to choose their religion “after puberty,” conversion from Islam is not only extremely difficult in Egypt but also dangerous....

And why is that? Because Muhammad said: "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update. "Islamic fundamentalism promoted on websites at some Muslim schools in the UK, think tank finds," by Tom Whitehead for the Telegraph, February 20:

Islamic fundamentalism that encourages children to despise British society is being promoted on websites at some Muslim schools in the UK, think tank Civitas has revealed.

It warns the messages are threatening social cohesion and could fuel "ghettoization" and segregation.

A site linked to one primary school said playing Monopoly or chess was forbidden and likened the latter to "one who dips his hands in the blood of swine".

Another warned children in Britain were being exposed to a culture that was against everything Islam stands for, while a third school's website had electronic links to alleged extremist sites.

Others had links to other sites or chatrooms that contain fundamental views such as forbidding the playing of cricket or even reading of Harry Potter books.

Many of the messages, sites or links mentioned in the report have since been taken down, but the Department for Children, Schools and Families last night said it would investigate the allegations it contained.

Representatives of Muslim schools angrily dismissed the study, labelling it "misleading, intolerant and divisive", but the report will reignite the debate over the growth of religious schools in the country.

In a foreword to Music, Chess and other Sins, Civitas director David Green said: "The schools that give cause for concern are being run by religious fundamentalists.

"Their aim is to capture the next generation of Muslims for fundamentalism and to turn children away, not only from Western influence, but also from liberal and secular Muslims, whom they despise perhaps with greater vehemence than non-Muslims."

The report said there are around 166 Muslim schools in the UK, which are a mixture or private or state funded, as well as around 700 part-time madrasas.

But it found some were promoting anti-Western views actively on their website.

The Madani Secondary Girls' School in East London said on its website: "Our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition with almost everything Islam stands for."

Damage control:

The school was unavailable for comment but the sentence has since been removed from the site.

The Feversham College in Bradford had links on its website for two other sites, one of which allegedly advocated jihad.

A spokeswoman for the college said the two links have now been removed and insisted the college was "unequivocally committed to community cohesion and promoting strong responsible citizenship".

"Our website pages have for some time had links with other sites which are generally informative," she said.

"It has been brought to our attention that some of the content now on two of those sites could be misinterpreted. We have therefore reviewed the position and have removed any links to those websites."

That's how jihadist violence always happens, isn't it? Misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

A third school, a primary, had links with a site which said games such as Ludo, Monopoly, draughts and chess should be forbidden.

The site added: "The Holy Prophet stated the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hands in the blood of a swine (pig)."

The site was not working last night and the school was unavailable for comment.

The report also found evidence of sites saying a woman who is raped is "jointly responsible" for the crime, that women should remain at home rather than study or that the greatest form of veiling for a woman was to stay indoors and keep herself hidden....

Read it all.

With fellow countrymen like these, who needs enemies?

Electronic devices such as "mobile phones filled with explosives, which could kill or seriously injure British soldiers patrolling on foot, and more sophisticated devices that can be used against military vehicles." Quite ingenious these British Muslims; combining their Western heritage (e.g.., technology) with their jihadi blood-lust, they can sure be quite creative.

"British Muslims 'providing Taliban with electronic devices for roadside bombs,'" by Con Coughlin for the Telegraph, February 21:

British Muslims are providing the Taliban with electronic devices to make roadside bombs for use in attacks against British forces serving in southern Afghanistan, The Telegraph can disclose.

The devices, which enable Taliban fighters to detonate roadside bombs by remote control, are either sent to sympathizers in the region, or carried by volunteers who fly to Pakistan and then make their way across the border.

Details of how British electronic components have been found in roadside bombs were given to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, when he visited British troops at their military compound at Lashkagar, in Helmand province, earlier this week.

In a briefing on British operations in southern Afghanistan by Brigadier Gordon Messenger, the Royal Marine commander of the British battlegroup, Mr Miliband was shown examples of the crude, home-made devices that are being used in attacks against British patrols.

They included mobile phones filled with explosives, which could kill or seriously injure British soldiers patrolling on foot, and more sophisticated devices that can be used against military vehicles.

Explosives experts who have examined the devices say they have found British-made electronic components that enable Taliban insurgents to detonate their home-made, road-side bombs by remote control.

The electronic devices smuggled into Afghanistan from Britain range from basic remote control units that are normally used to fly model airplanes to more advanced components that enable insurgents to conduct attacks from up to a mile away from British patrols.

"We have found electronic components in devices used to target British troops that originally come from Britain," a British explosives officer told Mr Miliband during a detailed briefing on the type of improvised explosive device (IED) used against British forces.

When asked how the components had reached Afghanistan, the officer explained that they had either been sent from Britain, or physically brought to Afghanistan by British Muslims who had flown over.

The disclosure is the latest in a string of suggestions from British commanders about the connections between British Muslims and violence in Afghanistan...

The Iranians' impeccable logic to the British infidels was this: We will stop killing some of you in Iraq now, if you allow us to develop nukes unhindered, so we can kill many more of you later. "Iran 'offered to halt attacks on UK troops' in nuclear pact," by Damien McElroy for the Telegraph, February 21 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Iran offered to halt attacks on British soldiers deployed in Iraq in return for a secret pact that would enable it to continue its nuclear programme, a senior British diplomat has said.

Sir John Sawers, the British ambassador to the United Nations, revealed that Iranian officials openly acknowledged complicity in attacks that killed scores of British soldiers in southern Iraq.

In private talks in hotels around Europe, the unnamed Iranians floated a grand bargain that would have derailed efforts to impose sanctions on Iran to stop its covert nuclear programme.

"There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other," Sir John tells the final part of a BBC documentary on the Islamic Republic's relations with the West, to be broadcast on Saturday. "They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us.

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance'."

Iran supplied arms, training and strategic direction to Shia Muslim militias that were battling British forces for control of Basra and other southern cities. Iran supplied the militias with a deadly bomb, the shaped-charge explosive device, that required precision engineering at its military factories...

Regardless, NATO hopes to eventually enlist Iran's aid in stabilizing Afghanistan.

Searching for a "political solution"

According to the UN nuclear watchdog, now that Bush is gone, a military strike against Iran is no longer an option -- followed by the same old mantra: "Force can only be used as a last option... when all other political possibilities have been exhausted. I don't think we've done that yet." No, and while we waste time exhausting "political possibilities" -- whatever that means -- it will, if not already, be too late.

"Military strikes against Iran no longer an option: IAEA," from the Times of India, February 21:

PARIS: UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed El Baradei says in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday that he believed the possibility of a military solution to the Iran nuclear crisis had been ruled out.

"I believe so," he said when asked if he thought that after US President George W. Bush stood down it was no longer likely that there would be a military strike.

"Force can only be used as a last option... when all other political possibilities have been exhausted. I don't think we've done that yet," he told Radio France International and TV5-Monde.

The comments came a day after International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran was continuing to enrich uranium, a key stage in the atom bomb making process, but had slowed down the expansion of its enrichment activities.

The IAEA report conceded that, despite six years of intensive investigation, it was no closer to determining whether Iran's disputed nuclear drive is as peaceful as Tehran claims.

Exonerated!

More on this story. "Kerry Turns Over Hamas Letter to U.S. Consulate," from Fox News, February 20:

There were conflicting reports over whether U.S. Sen. John Kerry accepted a letter from Hamas to President Obama while traveling in the Middle East -- but his spokesman now says he has turned over the letter after learning where it came from.U.S. Sen. John Kerry has turned over to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem a letter from Hamas to President Obama that Kerry had received during his trip to the Middle East, FOX News has learned.

Kerry spokesman Frederick Jones said the Democratic senator was not aware that the letter was from Hamas when he accepted it from a United Nations official, and only heard media reports of its origin, which prompted him to relinquish it.

News that Kerry had given up the letter came after the Israeli embassy and a former Bush adviser on Middle East affairs said Friday that Kerry should not act as mailman for a group labeled as a terrorist organization by the United States...

The IAEA had understated Iran's holdings by 1/3. Whoops.

Said IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei: "They [the Iranians] are not following what the Security Council asked us to do, that is: 'Please clarify this issue'."

Among other avenues for meaningful action on the part of the IAEA, the UN, and the international community, it's probably about time to stop saying "please."

"Iran uranium haul enough to make a bomb," from The Australian, February 21 (thanks to JE):

IRAN has for the first time amassed enough enriched uranium to make an atom bomb, the UN's nuclear watchdog declared yesterday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency also said Iran recently understated by a third how much uranium it had enriched. In a report issued in Vienna, it said it had discovered an extra 209kg of low-enriched uranium.

Media reports said yesterday the agency had made the find during its annual physical inventory of nuclear materials at Iran's desert enrichment plant at Natanz, 210km south of Tehran.

Independent nuclear weapons experts expressed surprise at the disclosure and criticised the atomic inspectors for making independent checks on Iran's progress only once a year.

"It's worse than we thought," Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, told The New York Times. "It's alarming that the actual production was underreported by a third."

US President Barack Obama wants to open direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. But getting the talks under way could take months, and officials told The New York Times yesterday Iran was moving quickly with its uranium enrichment.

An Obama administration official who had reviewed the new report told the paper: "There is a steady timeline of improvement, especially in terms of mastering the efficiency of the centrifuges."

This means Iran has been able to increase its output of enriched uranium. The official said there were longstanding suspicions Iran could have other uranium enrichment sites the inspectors had not seen or heard about.

"Everyone's nervous and worried about the possibility of Iran pursuing a clandestine capability," he told the paper.

The IAEA report said Iran was continuing to enrich uranium, a process potentially used to make an atom bomb.

"Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," the IAEA wrote.

Enriched uranium is used to make nuclear fuel and the fissile material for an atom bomb. The report noted Iran had produced 1010kg of low-enriched uranium.

The disclosure of the unaccounted third came to light when the report noted the new total came from the addition of 171kg of new production to 839kg of old production. But the agency had previously reported the old production as 630kg. So the Iranians had made 209kg more uranium than disclosed.

Analysts say between 1000kg and 1700kg would be needed to convert into high-enriched uranium suitable for one bomb.

According to the IAEA, there are 3964 centrifuges actively enriching uranium in Natanz, 164 more than in November. On top of those, a further 1476 centrifuges were undergoing vacuum or dry-run tests without nuclear material and an extra 125 had been installed but remained stationary.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei complained earlier this week that Tehran was not co-operating.

"Iran right now is not providing any access, any clarification with regards to the whole area of the possible military dimension," he said at a conference in Paris.

"They are not following what the Security Council asked us to do, that is: 'Please clarify this issue'," Mr ElBaradei said.

The IAEA conceded that, despite six years of intensive investigation, it was no closer to determining whether Iran's disputed nuclear drive was entirely peaceful, as Tehran has claimed.

Ahmadullah Sais Niazi's web of deceit goes back a number of years. But it looks like his lies have finally caught up with him. "Man with possible tie to bin Laden is arrested," by Salvador Hernandez for the Orange County Register, February 20:

TUSTIN A local man lied to obtain citizenship, a U.S. passport, and about a trip to Pakistan in 2005 – information he is believed to have falsified to hide alleged connections to terrorists and terrorist organizations abroad, authorities said.

Ahmadullah Sais Niazi, a 34-year-old man from Tustin who was born in Afghanistan, was taken into custody by federal authorities this morning in the 13000 block of Charloma Drive, officials said.

He is facing several charges, ranging from perjury to naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud and making a false statement to a federal agency. Court documents also show that Niazi and his wife, Jamilah Amin, had been investigated by federal authorities since at least June 2008, for several suspicious financial transactions in the Unites States and financial transfers to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While Niazi is not facing any terrorism-related charges, officials said he made several false statements to cover up what they allege are connections to organizations such as al-Qaida, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and the Taliban.

According to a federal indictment unsealed today, Niazi hid his alleged connections with terrorist groups when he applied for residency, citizenship and a U.S. passport. The arrest comes after months of investigation conducted by the Orange County Joint Terrorist Task Force, said Laura Eimiller, spokeswoman for the FBI.

According to the unsealed indictment, on Feb. 24, 2004, Niazi lied in his naturalization application by not stating other names he used in the past and lying about being associated with terrorist organizations.

“In truth, and in fact, as defendant Niazi then well knew, he was associated with one or more terrorist organizations, namely al-Qaeda, HIG, and/or the Taliban,” the indictment reads.

In 2005, Niazi is also believed to have traveled to Pakistan, where he met with Dr. Amin al-Haq, who has been identified by the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control as a global terrorist, according to officials. Al-Haq, according to the indictment, is believed to be Osama bin Laden’s security coordinator.

Niazi identified al-Haq as his sister’s husband. According to the search warrant affidavit, al-Haq was a member of the Afghan mujahedeen who fought the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Niazi said his family disapproved of his sister’s marriage and that he knew al-Haq was a member of Hezb-e-Islami, but that he didn’t know if he was a member of al-Qaeda.

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said he could not comment on why Niazi would have met with al-Haq. [...]

Federal agents had searched Niazi’s home before in June 2008, where authorities seized several documents that showed that he and his wife used an unlicensed money-transfer system to make several transfers totaling $16,400 to Peshawar, Pakistan and Kabul, Afghanistan, between 1999 and 2006, according to a search warrant affidavit.

According to the affidavit, more than $30,000 was also deposited to the couple’s bank account in a five-month period beginning in Sept. 2007. Niazi was currently involved a company named California Food Channel, which distributed fruits, nuts and berries from overseas to California markets, but his compensation was not made in cash.

Authorities also investigated transactions between Niazi’s account and another accounts under the names of his wife and his in-laws, accounts that investigators believe showed a pattern of transactions made to evade Currency Transaction Reports, which financial institutions must make when transactions greater than $10,000 are made. One of those accounts showed that almost $600,000 was deposited into one account in about a year’s time – almost a third of it was made in cash.

The indictment also alleges that Niazi lied about a two-week trip he took to Pakistan in May 2004.When he returned from Pakistan, Niazi is alleged to have said that he had traveled to Qatar to visit family.

If convicted, Niazi faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in jail.

For the record, "Swat-style" truce refers to the recent capitulation of the Pakistani government when it gave in to the Taliban's demands to enforce sharia law -- which is, after all, the ultimate motivation of jihadis everywhere. More troubling is the fact that, according to this report, NATO hopes to begin relying on Iran to stabilize Afghanistan, not "immediately," of course, but "at a certain stage" -- you know, some time after Barack and Hillary have endeared the entire Muslim world to the West, and all these silly misunderstandings, suspicions, and jihadi blood-lust just go away.

"Swat-style Afghan truce acceptable: US," from the Daily Times, February 21 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Gates says political reconciliation has to be part of long-term solution

KRAKOW: Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban along the lines of the truce in Pakistan, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday.

Gates’ comments at the close of a NATO meeting contrasted with those of Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who said he was worried that the peace deal was tantamount to surrender by Pakistan.

“We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan,” Gates said.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said at the defence meeting that a broader regional approach was needed to help put down the insurgency in Afghanistan. The focus would be on more involvement from Pakistan, but could include Iran one day, he said.

He said the suggestion does not mean that NATO plans to enter into dialogue with Iran immediately but that Tehran could be involved “at a certain stage ... in a regional approach toward Afghanistan”.

Gates told reporters in Krakow, southern Poland, later that up to 20 nations have offered to boost their civilian or military commitments to Afghanistan and more are likely to do so soon.

Slate notes that "a Muslim man was accused of beheading his wife last week" -- a cursory and uninformative way to explain what happened in Buffalo last week -- and Slate's Explainer feature today undertakes to explain whether or not there is "any special significance to beheading in Islam." And the answer that The Explainer gives us is...Well, yes, but other people do it too!

Longtime Jihad Watch readers, and particularly readers of Hugh Fitzgerald's remarkable body of work, will know that this is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque -- an attempt to mitigate one's responsibility for a wrongdoing by pointing out that others also, perhaps even the accuser, do the same thing. It is a fallacy because it doesn't matter how many men behead their wives, it is wrong in every case. If the men are Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or atheists, it is wrong. If a Christian beheads his wife, it doesn't mean that the Muslim who beheads his wife the following week is somehow less responsible for his deed than he otherwise would have been. And if that Muslim beheads his wife because he believes that to do so is in line with Islamic texts and teachings, then those texts and teachings have to be addressed in some way -- discarded, reevaluated, reinterpreted -- in order to try to prevent recurrence of the behavior. And the existence of similar texts or teachings in other traditions does nothing to make this confrontation any less necessary.

Tu quoque is also misplaced in this instance, as in most instances, because it simply isn't true. There is justification in Islamic Scripture and tradition for beheading, and Muslims throughout history have considered that in beheading people they have been following the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the example of Muhammad. And people who behead other people today are not exclusively Muslim, but they are overwhelmingly Muslims who are doing so in accord with the dictates of Islam. There simply aren't Jews or Christians beheading people and citing the example of David and Goliath, or Judith and Holofernes.

Why does this matter? Because to call attention to Biblical passages that no one believes are applicable in today's world, as if they were the equivalent of Qur'anic passages that are considered applicable today by jihadists the world over, is simply to avoid the hard work of scrutinizing how Islamic texts and teachings may have influenced Muzzammil Hassan as he came to believe that his wife must be beheaded -- and to sidestep the necessity of doing something about those texts and teachings so that there are no more Muzzammil Hassans.

"Decapitation and the Muslim World: Is there any special significance to beheading in Islam?," by Nina Shen Rastogi in Slate, February 20 (thanks to Meryl Yourish):

A Muslim man was accused of beheading his wife last week in Buffalo, N.Y. In recent years, Islamic terrorist groups have made a common practice of decapitating their political and religious enemies and broadcasting the acts in gory videos. Is there any significance to beheading in Islam?

Yes, but it's important in other cultures, too. As Lee Smith noted in a 2004 Slate piece, two verses in the Quran refer to decapitation—both in the context of religious war. Sura 47, verse 4 reads: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks." However, this line has generally been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that when facing infidels on the battlefield, one must strike with a deadly force. (The verse goes on to say that once you have fully subdued your enemy, survivors should be shown "generosity and ransom.") The same is true in sura 8, verse 12, in which it's recalled that the Lord said to the angels at the Battle of Badr, "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil [misspelling is in original] terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Both verses are traditionally understood as inspirations to ferocity and not literal calls for beheading.

Actually, the literal understanding of this verse is paramount among Islamic commentators. Ibn Kathir says that it means that when Muslims “fight against” unbelievers, they should “cut them down totally with your swords.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn spells it out further: “in other words, slay them — reference is made to the ‘striking of the necks’ because the predominant cause of being slayed is to be struck in the neck.” And Zamakhshari takes “strike at the necks” to mean that Muslims should strike non-Muslims specifically on the neck rather than elsewhere, so as to make sure they are dead and not just wounded.

Modern-day jihad groups such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Iraq a few years ago pointed to this and other Qur’anic verses as justifications for their beheadings. And when al-Zarqawi beheaded Nick Berg in 2004, he invoked Muhammad's example: "Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?... The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them... And he set a good example for us."

Islamic history does have its share of prominent beheadings, however. Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn-Ishaq, describes how the prophet approved the beheadings of between 600 and 900 men from the Jewish Quyraza tribe following the Battle of the Trench.

It is refreshing to see this acknowledged at Slate, since Islamic apologists usually deny it, despite its presence in the earliest biography of Muhammad. But fear not! Christians did it too:

Decapitation of a dead enemy on the battlefield was the "primary form of symbolic aggression among Ottoman soldiers," according to this history of the Ottoman Empire. However, Christian Crusaders were known to do likewise—Fulcher of Chartres chronicles how, in 1099, 10,000 Jews and Arabs were beheaded in the Temple of Solomon during the capture of Jerusalem.

Outside the context of warfare, beheadings are accepted as a criminal sanction in parts of the modern Islamic world. Under Sharia law, there are no crimes that specifically call for decapitation, but it is one of a range of execution methods that may be employed, along with stoning or hanging. Saudi Arabia is the only nation that continues to make regular and official use of decapitation, though as of 2004, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar had laws on their books that explicitly allow it.

But fear not! Non-Muslim countries do it too:

Among Western countries, court-sanctioned beheadings continued well into the 20th century: Murderer Johann Alfred Ander was Sweden's last decapitation in 1910; the last German to be beheaded was Berthold Wehmeyer in 1949; and the last guillotining in France took place in 1977—though death by the "national razor" remained on the books until 1981, when France abolished the death penalty.

There's at least one mention of a righteous beheading in the Bible—according to the Old Testament, David killed Goliath with a stone and then ran to the giant, drew his sword from his sheath, "and slew him, and cut off his head therewith," before carrying the trophy to Jerusalem. And in the deuterocanonical book of Judith, the beautiful Hebrew widow seduces the Babylonian tyrant Holofernes and then, after getting him drunk, cuts off his head. For the act she is "made great," becoming "the most renowned in all the land of Israel" (16:25).

Well, then! As soon as I see a squadron of Catholic militants beheading people and invoking the Book of Judith, I will retract everything in this article.

At the end of the piece, the author, Nina Shen Rastogi, thanks a number of Islamic scholars, presumably for providing her with information about beheading and Islam: Haider Ala Hamoudi of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Anver Emon of the University of Toronto, Dipak Gupta of San Diego State University, Regina Janes of Skidmore College, and...Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego State.

Khaleel Mohammed. Ah.

They knew

They knew, and apparently kept silent. "Muslim community knew of Hassan's abuse," by Mylous Hairston for WIVB, February 19 (thanks to Axel):

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (WIVB) - A grand jury will now decide whether the founder of Bridges TV will go to trial for the decapitation murder of his wife, Aasiya Zubair Hassan.

"Everyone in the Muslim community was aware that she was indeed going through abuse," said Attorney Nadia Shahram." [sic]

Did anyone in the Muslim community report Muzzammil Hassan to authorities?

Although not evident in family pictures, investigators say the 37-year-old mother endured abuse at the hands of her husband, Muzzammil Hassan.

Hassan is accused of beheading his wife last Thursday at Bridges TV in Orchard Park.

He walked into Orchard police headquarters and told them that his wife is dead. "Well, obviously that statement is part of the case and will be part of the proof the prosecution has," said James Harrington, Hassan's Defense Attorney.

Hassan founded Bridges TV following the 9/11 attacks against America. He wanted to dispel stereotypes about Muslims and to bridge cultures.

"We have to make sure act of one Muslim does not create any doubt on the religion of Islam," said Shahram.

Shahram added, "This act has no roots in the religion of Islam. It's just unfortunate that we have a bad practioner [sic] of Islam."

Yeah, there are so many of those -- Muslims who believe that violence against women is justified. The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.

The Qur'an says: “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them…” (4:34)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad was once told that “women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” whereupon he “gave permission to beat them” (Sunan Abu Dawud, book 11, no. 2141). He was unhappy with the women who complained, not with their husbands who beat them.

Muhammad even struck his favorite wife, Aisha. One night, thinking she was asleep, he went out. Aisha surreptitiously followed him. When he found out what she had done, he hit her: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim, book 4, no. 2127).

Nothing in there about killing one's wife, of course. But when it comes to honor killing, there is the fact that some majority Muslim countries, even modern, moderate Jordan, have lesser penalties for honor murders -- it is understood that such crimes are justified in the right circumstances. This is the kind of thing that has to be confronted, or there are going to be more Aasiyah Hassans in the United States.

Aasiyah had recently filed for divorce and got a court order of protection.

"Divorce means shame for Muslim woman," said Shahram.

And shame, of course, leads others to try to restore their honor.

Dr. Strangelove inspects the Natanz uranium enrichment plant

1939 Alert. "Israel: Iran, Syria secretly continuing nuclear projects," from the Jerusalem Post, February 20 (thanks to Louis):

"Iran and Syria are secretly working on nuclear technology in a manner which risks peace in the region and the world and while bluntly ignoring their international obligations," a statement by the Foreign Ministry said Friday evening.

The statement was issued following a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which indicated Iran was continuing to enrich uranium.

"The report on Iran indicates a continuation of the uranium enrichment project which goes against the [UN's] Security Council's resolutions and proves Iran's lack of cooperation with the IAEA's effort to clear up heavy suspicions over the military goals of Iran's plan," the statement continues.

Israel also expressed concern over the Syrian military facility bombed in September 2007 and was expecting the IAEA "to continue investigating, including visiting other sites to which Syria is currently blocking access."

Earlier Friday, experts said a recent report by the UN nuclear watchdog which stated that Iran has slowed down its uranium enrichment program neglected to underscore the fact that Teheran already had enough fissile material to produce an atomic bomb....

Possible victim of "all-jihadi-violence-traces-back-to-Israel" syndrome

Or simply just another delusional/wishful-thinking ex-CIA agent? "An Obama Adviser's Not-So-Bright Idea for Winning in Afghanistan," by John McCormack for the Weekly Standard, February 20:

President Obama named Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and Brooking Institution scholar, to head up a review team for overhauling U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Via the Christian Science Monitor, a big part of Riedel's grand strategy for winning in Afghanistan is, um, securing a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel:

Ultimately, the solution in Afghanistan may involve solving the age-old conflict between the Arab states and Israel, says administration adviser Riedel in a book published by the Brookings Institution, a foreign-policy think tank, last year. Al Qaeda, and the Taliban to some extent, continue to be motivated by the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Riedel argues. If that conflict is resolved, Al Qaeda may go away.

"If Palestinians choose to make peace with Israel, the most fundamental point of Al Qaeda's narrative becomes irrelevant," Riedel writes. "In other words, making peace between Israelis and Arabs is not only wise policy in its own right, but also an extremely useful strategy for pulling the rug out from under Al Qaeda."

A few points:

1. The conflict between Palestinians and Israel is not "the most fundamental point of Al Qaeda's narrative"--see bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against the United States. He cites a number of grievances regarding flashpoints throughout the Muslim world. Does the Palestinian issue really motivate jihadists in Afghanistan/Pakistan more than the conflict, much closer to home, with India?

2. The deep theological/ideological underpinnings for jihad aren't going to go away if the Palestinians agree to a peace deal. Raymond Ibrahim's recent review of The Mind of Jihad serves as useful reminder of this fact.

3. Is there any indication that Palestinians are going to "choose to make peace with Israel" in the near future? It seems delusional think that Hamas will choose to lay down its arms.[...]

If one of Obama's top advisers thinks that holding Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at Camp David will lead to victory in Afghanistan, then we may be in bigger trouble than we thought.

The jihadists and their supporters keep telling us that this is a religious issue, not a political one, and the learned analysts in the West keep refusing to believe it, and keep telling themselves and us that a concerted effort at winning hearts and minds, to the tune of a few billion here and a few billion there, will solve the problem.

"Egyptian Cleric Zaghloul Al-Naggar: The Arab World Is Ruled By the Scum of the Earth and the Garbage of All Nations; I Am 'Absolutely' Calling to Wage Jihad Against the Jews, Who Are Devils in Human Form," from MEMRI, February 20 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian cleric Zaghloul Al-Naggar, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 6, 2009.

To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2033.htm.

To view the MEMRI TV page for Egyptian cleric Zaghloul Al-Naggar, visit http://www.memritv.org/subject/en/638.htm.(1)

TO VIEW THIS CLIP AND OTHERS, YOU MUST LOG IN/REGISTER FOR MEMRI TV, AT http://subscriptions.memri.org/content/en/member_registr_tv.htm. REGISTRATION IS FREE OF CHARGE.

Al-Naggar starts with some choice conspiracy fantasies:

"The West Wanted To Avenge Its Defeat In The Crusades, So It Gathered These Dispersed [Jewish] Communities... And Planted Them In The Heart Of The Arab World"

Zaghloul Al-Naggar: "I have written about the conspiracy against the Palestinian people, and about how this abominable conspiracy was hatched by Britain and France, in collaboration with several Western countries. In our days, this conspiracy has been adopted by the U.S.

"This conspiracy has many causes. The West wanted to avenge its defeat in the Crusades, so it gathered these dispersed [Jewish] communities – the scum of the earth and garbage of the nations – and planted them in the heart of the Arab world, thus saying to us: 'We've returned, after you drove us out of this blessed land.'

"The Jews used to live a life of squalor and humiliation, and were fought and persecuted in Europe and the whole world.

"Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save (where they grasp) a rope from Allah and a rope from men. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress." -- Qur'an 3:112

I lived in Britain from the early 1960s, and many stores and restaurants still had a 'no dogs, no Jews' sign. The Jews wanted to escape the humiliation imposed on them by the West, and to shift it to the Arab nation. In this case, two goals coincided: The Jews' goal was to have a state, which would protect them from their humiliation all over the world, and the goal of the West was to avenge its defeat in the Crusades, by returning to the region.

"This conspiracy began in the 17th century CE, when the Jews convinced the British to form the Zionist-Crusader Committee. This committee devised the general outlines of the conspiracy. Later, Europe, because of its hatred for the Islamic Caliphate, launched a fierce war of attrition against the Islamic countries, and the Caliphate eventually collapsed.

[...]

"The Jews have never been faithful to agreements."

Interviewer: "Right."

Zaghloul Al-Naggar: "That is how they are described in the Koran.

"They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah)." -- Qur'an 8:56

They are not faithful to treaties or agreements. They depend upon American and Western aid. We – the Arab states, governments, and officials – made a huge mistake in dealing with this as a political issue, when it is, in fact, a religious issue."

At this point the State Department analyst will stop reading. So long, my friend! He is too invested in "Land for Peace" and "Easing Poverty Will Ease Terrorism" to hear or understand this.

Interviewer: "An issue of faith."

Zaghloul Al-Naggar: "The Prophet Muhammad said: 'If [the enemy] treads upon even an inch of Muslim land, Jihad becomes a duty, and a child should set out on Jihad even without his parents' permission, a wife without her husband's permission, and a slave without his master's permission.'"

Interviewer: "So are you calling to wage Jihad?"

Zaghloul Al-Naggar: "Absolutely. There is no solution..."

Interviewer: "But who has the right to declare Jihad?"

Zaghloul Al-Naggar: "Let me be clear. Jihad is the only way to resolve this issue. With the Jews, one cannot achieve anything by means of peace, or a settlement, or open borders, or diplomatic and commercial ties. They are devils in human form. Many people think that Judaism is a religion, but today's Jews are not really Jews, and have nothing to do with Moses and the Torah. They are a gang of evil thieves who stole this land. By nature, a thief who knows he has no right to the land imposes his presence by means of force, by bloodshed, by excessive massacres, by excessive killings, and by destruction, in order to prove that he has rights in this region."...

This manifests the Islamic belief that Judaism and Christianity are illegitimate, renegade, twisted forms of the Islamic message that was actually taught by the Muslim prophets Moses and Jesus.

A.J. Caschetta reviews Ibn Warraq's monumental deconstruction of the work of the single individual who was most responsible for the effacing of honest discussion about Islam and jihad from America's universities: Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism in the winter 2009 issue of Middle East Quarterly:

It is now five years after the death of Edward Said, the man who made it cool to hate the West, and the reevaluation of his thought and work is thankfully well underway. Said forged a career out of revisiting the past, "deconstructing" what he found and writing it anew. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism by Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, reveals just how massive a fabrication Said's version of history is. The book spells out in great detail Said's deeply flawed writings and his legacy: the modern academic fetish for examining microscopically the flaws and failings (real and imagined) of the West while simultaneously portraying an ever-peaceful East perpetually victimized by the technologically superior but, of course, morally benighted West. This is the fashionable narrative in the humanities departments of virtually every college and university in America, if not in all of Western academia. [...]

The author lays bare Said's methods of obfuscation, which often use nonsensical and impenetrable prose, insinuation, and outright falsification. Said's ad hominem attacks against those who criticized his work are recounted, demonstrating that Said was both a metaphorical as well as a literal stone-thrower. And the growing list of Said's "historical howlers" (obvious inaccuracies and misstatements of fact) unmasks an amateur historian who was either extremely sloppy or just plain dishonest.

Ibn Warraq's defense of the West centers around what he calls the "Three Tutelary Guiding Lights" (rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism), which he portrays as the cement of Western civilization. From ancient Greece to Victorian England, Ibn Warraq takes his readers on a ride through history, repairing the damage wrought by Edward Said and his Saidists, arguing that the three "golden threads" are always present. By contrast, some of Ibn Warraq's defense of the West is accomplished by a comparison to the East in which the flaws of the latter are examined. This brave and decidedly un-PC tack tells the story of Eastern imperialism (which Said largely ignored) and exposes a litany of human rights abuses in Eastern, often Islamic, nations in what will be an eye-opening experience for some readers.

In reappraising the Orientalists, Ibn Warraq defends their works as labors of love rather than exploitative endeavors. Those readers unfamiliar with these Orientalists will find themselves seeking out their work where, Ibn Warraq tells us, can be found "no disdain, but rather sympathy, patience, attentive curiosity, and the surprise of discovery." Ibn Warraq argues that rather than the conniving and condescending bogeymen Saidists portray, "Orientalists of the late nineteenth century were drawing upon a humane tradition established 250 years earlier." [...]

Those readers who were intrigued by Ibn Warraq's brief scheme of "the three Islams" in the introduction to his ground-breaking Why I Am Not a Muslim[2] will appreciate the elaboration on the idea in his chapter "The Pathological Niceness of Liberals, Antimonies, Paradoxes, and Western Values." This section would serve nicely as a stand-alone piece and as an excellent anodyne to any college freshman who has survived, mind intact, the institutionalized pabulum that passes as "global studies" in most public schools today.

Will Ibn Warraq's new book end forever the deleterious effects of more than thirty years of petulant, dishonest, self-loathing Saidism? Probably not. But any honest acolytes of Edward Said who read this book will either be forever relieved of their knee-jerk faith in the simple dichotomy of Western guilt and Eastern victimhood that is at the core of Said's thought, or they will be forced to participate in their own hoodwinking. Ibn Warraq's critique of Said's thought and work is thorough and convincing, indeed devastating to anyone depending on Saidism. It should do to Orientalism what Mary Lefkowitz's Not Out of Africa[3] did to Martin Bernal's Black Athena.[4] And it should force the Saidists to acknowledge the sophistry of their false prophet.

But it probably won't.

Read it all.