November 2009 Archives

Anything to make a buck. "Belgian in US court admits Iran arms dealing," from AFP, November 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

AFP - A alleged Belgian arms dealer on Monday pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to export fighter jet engines and parts to Iran, US justice officials said.

The US Justice Department said in a statement Jacques Monsieur now faced a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a 250,000-dollar fine following the guilty plea at a court in Mobile Alabama.

Monsieur was arrested in August after he arrived in New York. He faced six counts of smuggling, conspiracy, money laundering, and violating weapons trafficking laws and export controls in relation to a US trade embargo on Iran.

An Iranian national named in Monsieur's indictment, Dara Fotouhi, remains at large. According to statements from Monsieur and documents filed in the case, the two men are experienced arms dealers who have worked closely with the Iranian government to procure military items....

Jihad or copycat -- in any case, an enemy of diversity. "Suspicious Note and Package at Fort Benning," by Ashley Ball for WRBL.com, November 23 (thanks to Matt):

Fort Benning investigators are launching an investigation into a suspicious note and package found last week on post.

News 3 spoke to a post representative Sunday night, they say the note and box were found Thursday morning outside a motor pool belonging to the 197th.

Officials could not release any more information, but the Army Times is reporting the box was full of twenty hollow point shells and the note threatened a re-enactment of the massacre at Fort Hood....

We've covered the dawah buses that appeared in various cities a few months ago, but has anyone seen anything like this white truck? In "A Different Kind of Ice Cream," November 23, the estimable Baldilocks recalls a strange visitor to her Los Angeles neighborhood:

[...] At midday, I was in the back of the house in my office--blogging, of course. At some point, a noise entered my consciousness. It was a voice, a tinned one and, as I listened I became aware of three things: that the voice was male, that it was coming out of a bullhorn and that it was repeating the same phrase over and over again. However, I could not make out the words at first. [...]

The voice was coming from speakers attached to the type of truck that is sometimes used by ice cream vendors. The truck was spotlessly clean and gleaming white except for the design on the side: the huge blood-red star-and-crescent symbol of Islam.

The occupant had been exhorting the residents of this neighborhood using a two-sentence phrase, most of which I have blocked out of my memory. But I do remember one part and, really, it's the only relevant part. The occupant was advising us to...

"Embrace Islam."

By the time I gained the presence of mind to grab a camera, the gleaming white truck had moved on. I haven't seen it since.

From the time that it came to light the Major Nidal Malik Hasan basically warned the FBI and the Army of what he was--if not of what he was about to do--I've been thinking of that "ice cream" truck and what that particular vendor was selling. Aren't Jihadis required to warn their infidel foes and invite them to convert before any attack?

"Embrace Islam," he said. Left unspoken was the alternative.

Read it all.

Mamoun Fandy doesn't discuss the Koranic roots of taqiyya (3:28; 16:106), which make this something that is sometimes used by Sunnis as well as Shi'ites, and he seems to continue to be a bit naive about trusting Iran, but this is nevertheless an unusually full discussion of a concept that the mainstream media usually ignores or denies outright.

"The real reason Iran can't be trusted: As they confront Iran's nuclear aims, negotiators must mind the Shiite doctrine of deceit called 'taqiyya,'" by Mamoun Fandy for the Christian Science Monitor, November 20 (thanks to Joseph):

Can Iran be trusted?

In Iran, the teachings of Shiite Islam govern all aspects of society. And taqiyya - dissimulation and concealment - is one of the key elements of the Shiite faith. While many outsiders are surprised by Iran's concealment of its nuclear installations, those who study the Shiite faith and recognize the signs of taqiyya are not.

Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Witness Israel's concealment of its nuclear capabilities. And former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping counseled his country to "hide its brightness" - for strategic reasons.

Iran's approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Certainly states do not need a religious edict to lie or obfuscate. But it helps if a state has one already in place.

What can the West do?

Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran's nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. Such context sheds critical light on the insecurities of the Iranian regime and that of the Shiite community at large.

Taqiyya doesn't mean the West should give up all negotiations with Iran, or that Iran can never be trusted. Tehran's concealment is a means to an end: It wants nuclear weapons to provide security for the clerical regime and the Shiite community. So long as Iran feels threatened, it will deceive. But if the West can ease Tehran's anxiety with strong assurances, then negotiations will be more truthful.

How a doctrine of deceit developed

Taqiyya requires the faithful to be deceitful at times of weakness. The history of Shiites in their conflict with Sunnis is a history of the downtrodden. They have been the underdogs in Islamic history, and have had to protect both their communities and their faith from being overrun by the more numerous Sunnis. Taqiyya emerged as a response.

Taqiyya offers a license to violate the strict rules of the faith in cases of extreme pressure or threat of extinction - something not unusual in Sunni-Shiite history. The doctrine allows dissimulation in the service of self-preservation, practiced by the faithful.

Our old friend Raymond Ibrahim explains the Islamic doctrines in play in Nidal Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood, and the cost of ignoring them. "Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine," by Raymond Ibrahim for Pajamas Media via Middle East Forum, November 18:

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims -- such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons -- he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" -- the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala' wa Bara'

Perhaps best translated as "loyalty and enmity," this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic -- including persons (a.k.a. "infidels"). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled "Loyalty and Enmity" (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies ... whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them" (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone -- other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme -- and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community" (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are "obligated to befriend a believer -- even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan's life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan "was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second." If his being "vocal about the war" is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him "over the edge" was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) -- his "worst nightmare."

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him." Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari's exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that "in the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, "he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq."...

There is much, much more. Read it all.

But in the article's eleventh paragraph we learn that there is an "Islamic insurgency" in the area. Fit to print -- but just barely! "21 Filipinos Are Reported Dead in Election Violence," by Carlos H. Conde for the New York Times, November 23 (thanks to Bill):

MANILA -- In one of the worst incidents of election- related violence in the Philippines in recent memory, a group of more than 40 people -- including lawyers, journalists and relatives of a local politician -- were kidnapped by armed men Monday, and military officials said 21 of them had been killed.

Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner, a military spokesman in Manila, said 21 bodies had been recovered in Maguindanao, a province on the island of Mindanao in the southern Philippines that has often been wracked by election violence. Thirteen of the dead were women, according to the military.

Maj. Gen. Alfredo Cayton, a security official in the province, said in a radio interview that the victims had been shot. But relatives of most of the victims said at least 30 abductees had been killed and many of them beheaded by a group of about 100 men.

The victims were reportedly stopped on their way to an election office to file candidacy papers for Esmael Mangudadatu, the vice mayor of the town of Buluan, who plans to run for governor of Maguindanao. Mr. Mangudadatu said on ABS-CBN television that his wife, his sister and several other female relatives had been in the group and that he had received confirmation that they had been killed.

He said they had been filing his candidacy documents in the hope that women would not be attacked. Lawyers and reporters accompanied the group, although the military did not identify the bodies they had recovered.

"We believe more bodies are buried," Colonel Brawner said, according to Reuters. "Unfortunately, the killing happened before our troops got there."...

Attacks on candidates and supporters during campaign periods are common throughout the Philippines. In 2007 local elections, nearly 100 people were killed in such attacks.

Election violence is more extreme in Maguindanao, where an Islamic insurgency and decades-old clan wars complicate the security situation. Loose firearms, many of them in the hands of criminal groups and political warlords, have worsened the situation in this and other areas....

Giving out the wrong message. Absurd Britannia Alert: "Spared jail, the forced marriage case father who told wife: 'I'll cut out your tongue,'" by James Tozer in the Daily Mail, November 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A muslim who threatened to kill his wife and cut out her tongue after she blocked an arranged marriage for their daughter has been banned from seeing his family.

In the first prosecution of its kind, Aurang Zeb has been convicted of breaching a Forced Marriage Protection Order taken out to stop him taking Rozina Akhtar out of Britain to marry.

But despite his chilling threats he escaped imprisonment and was given community service. Last night campaigners condemned the sentence, saying it sent out the wrong message.

'There's clear evidence that this man threatened to kill his wife, so how can he be given community service?' said Shazia Qayum of Karma Nirvana, a group which helps victims of forced marriage.

'He should have been locked up. The law just isn't strong enough at the moment, and it's time the Government made forced marriage a criminal offence.'...

Yes, and there is much more to be done as well.

With Obama in the White House and Holder at the Justice Department, the Danes are on their own, and they know it. "Danish Politicians Want Stricter Checks on American Travelers," from Politiken via Spiegel, November 20 (thanks to Joel):

Although Danish police are currently able to require airlines to provide passenger lists, the Danish People's Party wants a more intensive cooperation with American authorities.

Two parties in Denmark's parliament are calling for stricter checks on American travelers to the country out of terrorism concerns. Danish Justice Minister Brian Mikkelsen agrees that restrictions may be necessary.

The conservative Danish People's Party and leftist Social Liberals in Denmark are calling for increased checks on Americans wishing to travel to Denmark, including the introduction of visa requirements and pre-travel disclosures.

"We have had to admit that the Americans have not been as effective in their anti-terrorism efforts as we thought and that the threat against Denmark has grown," says Danish People's Party Justice Spokesman Peter Skaarup.

According to Visit Denmark almost 500,000 Americans visit the country each year. One of those who twice this year availed himself of easy entry into the country was a man recently arrested in Chicago on charges of conspiracy to carry out an attack on the Jyllands-Posten newspaper....

Obama is on the run. He has spent the past year in many separate, long trips all over the place. In Great Britain, he gave Gordon Brown some DVDs and Michele Obama in chummy fashion -- nobody here but us queens -- put her arm on the Queen's shoulder. In Russia, Obama decided to hold a Town Meeting to which both dissidents and members of the government, that is, of the K.G.B., were invited. He thus effectively shut up the dissidents and appalled all Russian liberals, who were distinctly unimpressed with his understanding of their situation.

In China, he received nothing for all his attempts at "dialogue" with others far more worldly and ruthless than he -- not once did he suggest, for example, that the American government, or American consumers, could stop buying Chinese goods in an organized fashion, if China did not cooperate on Iran and North Korea, though that conceivable threat should have been an obvious one to slyly make.

Then of course he went to Cairo, where he delivered a speech on Islam. Though that speech contained more grotesque misinformation about Islam -- its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics -- than any speech by any non-Muslim leader in history, it did not even have the intended effect. The intended effect was to win over Muslims. Yet they are -- our "allies" that is, never mind our declared enemies -- just as intransigent, just as corrupt, just as determined to use us and inveigle as much aid as they can, just as unwavering in their desire to create the conditions that will inexorably lead to the disappearance of the tiny non-Muslim nation-state of Israel.

International pressure sometimes works. Some unexpected good news in an update on this story: "Freedom for imprisoned Christian 'apostates,'" by Chelsea Schilling for WorldNetDaily, November 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

After millions of prayers and numerous petitions from around the world, two Iranian women jailed for no other reason than being Christian were released from a Tehran prison today.

Maryam Rustampoor, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, were imprisoned for 259 days - since March 5. They were repeatedly told to recant their faith and that they would be executed as "apostates," solely because they are Christians.

But now Open Doors USA has confirmed the women have been released from the notorious Evin prison with no bail, a rarity for Christians released from prison in Iran. [...]

Compass Direct News noted that the women may still face charges of proselytizing and "apostasy," or leaving Islam.

An Iranian source told Compass the Iranian government faced intense public pressure for imprisoning the women.

"It was from the international pressure, and also the government couldn't handle it anymore," said the source. "Already their detention was illegal. At the same time, the government wasn't ready to prosecute them for apostasy. They already have many headaches. They cannot handle everything."

According to Facebook groups that support the women, Rustampoor and Amirizadeh had been participating in religious gatherings and handing out Bibles prior to their detention. Iranian security officials searched their apartments in March, confiscated their Bibles and arrested them.

As WND reported, Rustampoor and Amirizadeh appeared before a court in Iran and were charged with "crimes of apostasy, and propagation of the Christian faith." In a display of raw courage, they told a government prosecutor that not only are they Christian, it is up to God, not a bureaucrat, to whom He talks.

According to Elam, a dramatic part of the hearing came when they refused to deny their Christian faith.

They explained that God had convicted them through the Holy Spirit.

"It is impossible for God to speak with humans," Haddad, a deputy prosecutor identified only by his surname, stated.

"Are you questioning whether God is Almighty?" Amirizadeh asked him.

To which Haddad then replied. "You are not worthy for God to speak to you."

"It is God, and not you, who determines if I am worthy," she said.

Haddad earlier had asked if the women were Christian.

"We love Jesus," they replied.

"You were Muslims and now you have become Christians," Haddad stated.

"We were born in Muslim families, but we were not Muslims," the women said.

The deputy prosecutor asked about their regrets, and they said, "We have no regrets."

"You should renounce your faith verbally and in written form," he warned.

They refused....

Free speech panel at Restoration: McCarthy, Emerson, Spencer

Andrew McCarthy, with whom I had the pleasure and honor of participating in a panel discussion on free speech along with Steve Emerson yesterday at Restoration Weekend, explains why moving the trial of the 9/11 masterminds to New York is so wrongheaded. "How Obama is courting danger: Civilian trials set back the war on terror," by Andrew C. McCarthy in the New York Daily News, November 22:

The prosecution team I led in 1995 convicted the notorious Blind Sheikh and 11 others for conspiring to wage a terrorist war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and attempting (unsuccessfully) to attack New York City landmarks.

Consequently, some observers seem puzzled that I'm a vocal critic of civilian trials for our terrorist enemies. But they are confusing litigation success with national-security success. So is the Obama administration in deciding to transfer Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 plotters to federal court in Manhattan.

We certainly can convict terrorists in civilian court. We've done it too many times for that to be a serious issue. It's also indisputable that the U.S attorney's office in Manhattan, where I was privileged to work for 18 years, is without peer in the expertise needed for such complex prosecutions. I have every confidence the Justice Department could convict KSM & Co.

The problem on this ride is not the destination; it's the journey.

We are in a hot war, overwhelmingly authorized by Congress, against vicious enemies still plotting attacks that could dwarf the carnage of 9/11. To deal with war crimes, Congress in 2006 endorsed military commission trials, which have a rich pedigree in our history, are fully consistent with our Constitution, and better enable us to withhold intelligence methods and sources.

Indeed, the Obama administration concedes that military commissions are sound: Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the bombers of the warship Cole will face one.

From a legal standpoint, it makes no sense to try the Al Qaeda quintet in civilian court. Eleven months ago, these men were prepared to plead guilty in their military commission and proceed to execution. Yet the Obama administration pulled the plug on that commission. This was a transparent sop to the left, which wants to judicialize war-fighting and is repulsed by the intelligence-centric, prevention-first counterterrorism strategy that has protected us for eight years from a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities.

Now, our enemies will be given a full-blown civilian trial with all the rights of the American citizens they are sworn to kill. They will get a year or more to sift through our national defense secrets. They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration - publicizing information about anti-terrorism tactics that leftist lawyers will exploit in their quest for war crimes prosecutions in foreign courts against current and former U.S. officials.

In the military system, we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies. In civilian court, the Supreme Court has held an accused has an absolute right to conduct his own defense. If KSM asserts that right - as he tried to do in the military commission - he will have a strong argument that we must surrender relevant, top-secret information directly to him. And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside....

Read it all.

Here is video of the main presentation and the question-and-answer session of Saturday's panel at Restoration Weekend on the Rifqa Bary case, featuring Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, and me. (Video thanks to Pamela.)

Rifqa's inexcusable isolation continues. Show her you care: send her a Christmas card. Details here.

Of course they do. An update on this story. "Sept. 11 Defendant Seeks a Trial, and a Platform," by Scott Shane for the New York Times, November 21:

The five men the Justice Department has said will be charged in the attacks of Sept. 11 intend to plead not guilty so they can express their political and religious views during a trial, the lawyer for one of the men said on Saturday.

The lawyer, Scott L. Fenstermaker, said that during a meeting at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison on Tuesday, his client, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, expressed the desire for a trial despite his intention to admit his role in the attacks and seek "martyrdom" through execution.

"He acknowledges that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and he says he's looking forward to dying," Mr. Fenstermaker said of Mr. Ali. But he said he expected Mr. Ali and his co-defendants to plead not guilty "so they can have a trial and try to get their message out."

Mr. Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief organizer of the 2001 plot. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Nov. 13 that Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali and three other alleged 9/11 plotters would be tried in federal criminal court. Mr. Fenstermaker said Mr. Ali told him all five men would seek a trial.

The report of Mr. Ali's comments may add to complaints from critics of Mr. Holder's decision who favored military trials in Cuba and have said a criminal trial will provide terrorists with a propaganda platform. Defenders of the move say military commissions, too, would have given the defendants a public showcase for their views.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Fenstermaker, who represents Mr. Ali in a civil case challenging his detention and visited him for three days last week, gave The New York Times a translation from Arabic of a two-page letter written by Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali, and a third 9/11 defendant, Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash to the military court at Guantánamo in September.

The letter was written to say that the men had no objection to a 60-day continuance in military commission proceedings. But the three men used it to condemn the United States' military presence in Muslim countries and its support for Israel, a preview of the kind of thing they might be expected to say in court.

"We were arrested in 2003 and we spent three years moving around between the black sites in the 'Dark Ages' of Bush, then we were transferred to the island of oppression, torture and terror, Guantánamo, in 2006," the letter said. The phrase 'Dark Ages' was in English in the original, the translator noted.

The letter goes on to excoriate President Obama, describing the current era as "the black ages of Barack" and calling him "a liar." The three men offer greetings to Osama bin Laden; his deputy in Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri; and the head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Since their first appearances in military court at Guantánamo, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 defendants have indicated that they would admit their role in the terrorist plot and seek to be executed. But when they are indicted and brought to New York City for arraignment, as expected sometime in the next two months, they will have the option afforded any criminal defendant of pleading not guilty and standing trial....

An update on this story. "Four charged with terror offences," from BBC News, November 22:

Four men have been charged with terror-related offences after raids last week, Greater Manchester Police have said.

Four men have been charged with terror-related offences after raids last week, Greater Manchester Police have said.

Israr Malik, 21, of Fallowfield, Manchester, has been charged with intending to commit acts of terrorism, namely violent jihad.

Huh. The semantics police let one slip by.

Three others face charges of intending to assist others to commit terrorism.

They are Munir Farooqi, 52, of Longsight, Haris Farooqi, 26, of Levenshulme, both in Manchester, and Matthew Newton, 27, of Stalybridge.

Munir Farooqi, the father of Haris Farooqi, was also charged with three counts of soliciting or encouraging another to murder on 6 July, 15 October and 16 October this year.

'Low-key'

All four are due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday.

A fifth man, aged 62, from Deane, Bolton, was released without charge. He is understood to be a Muslim cleric.

Unarmed officers from the North West Counter Terrorism Unit detained the men in what was described as a "low-key operation", following a 15-month investigation into alleged terrorist activity overseas.

About 120 people took part in a protest over the raids outside Greater Manchester Police's headquarters on Sunday.

A force spokesman said it recognised the community had some concerns regarding the investigation.

The track record of the two appointees, taken together with the administration's own ability to distinguish "moderates" from "extremists" inspires anything but confidence. After all, the Fort Hood jihadist was himself a member of a panel advising the incoming Obama administration.

At the heart of this issue are the politically correct articles of faith that few dare blaspheme, which insist that there is nothing problematic about Islam's core texts and teachings regarding warfare and the rights of women and unbelievers, and that there exists a well-defined "moderate" Islam that the West can work with. The problem is, no one ever stops to define "moderate," for fear that articulating actual standards may cause offense.

"Devout Muslims In Key Homeland Security Posts," by Judicialwatch via Right Side News, November 22:

Days after a devout Muslim terrorized a U.S. Army base in Texas several news reports remind that two key Homeland Security posts are occupied by equally devout Muslims, one of them a former Los Angeles deputy mayor who eliminated a crucial program that tracked terrorist activities in the city.

Earlier this year President Obama appointed Arif Alikhan to be the nation's Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security and Kareem Shora to the agency's influential advisory council, which provides recommendations and advice directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Alikhan, who leads a Homeland Security team responsible for developing policy issues to secure the country against terrorism, has referred to the renowned terrorist organization Hezbollah as a "liberation movement" and was responsible for killing a Los Angeles Police project that monitored terrorist activities in the city's notoriously radical mosques. The defunct Muslim terror tracking plan was designed to identify hotbeds of extremism in an area where several locals offered the September 11 hijackers support.

Shora was the head of a well-known Arab organization whose officials refer to anti-U.S. jihadists as heroes. As executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Shora had close ties to radical Ivy League professor Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian terror supporter who has reportedly worked on behalf of the extremist Palestine Liberation Organization....

Cultural genocide is a consequence of jihadist warfare, as the supremacist impulse to impose Islamic law cannot tolerate any competition, especially from the non-Islamic past, or time of jahiliyyah. Ensuring submission requires extinguishing a populace's attachment to -- or curiosity about -- its prior existence, unless it can be subsumed in a narrative leading inevitably to Islam.

Hence the Orwellian drive here, and in the destruction of shrines in Saudi Arabia and Somalia, and among those eager to rewrite the history of the Temple Mount, to erase the past when it so rudely contradicts the party line.

"Taliban suffocate Pakistan Buddhist heritage," by Sajjad Tarakzai for Agence France-Presse, November 22:

TAXILA, Pakistan -- Archaeologists warn that the Taliban are destroying Pakistan's ancient Gandhara heritage and rich Buddhist legacy as pilgrimage and foreign research dries up in the country's northwest.

"Militants are the enemies of culture," said Abdul Nasir Khan, curator of Taxila Museum, one of the premier archaeological collections in Pakistan.

"It is very clear that if the situation carries on like this, it will destroy our culture and will destroy our cultural heritage," he told AFP.

Taxila, a small town around 20 kilometres (13 miles) south of Islamabad, is one of Pakistan's foremost archaeological attractions given its history as a centre of Buddhist learning from the 5th century BC to the 2nd century.

Violence is on the rise in Pakistan as Taliban bombers and gunmen strike with increasing frequency and intensity in the cities of North West Frontier Province and around the capital Islamabad.

"Even in Taxila we don't feel safe. The local administration has warned us about a possible attack on this museum. We have taken some extra security precautions but they aren't sufficient and we lack funds," said Khan.

"For weeks we don't get even a single foreign visitor. If visitors don't come, if sites are not preserved and protected, if research stops, what do you think will be the future of archaeology?" he said.

In March 2001, Taliban militants in neighbouring Afghanistan blew up two 1,500-year-old Bamiyan Buddha statues in defiance of international appeals.

The Islamist militia has since spread into Pakistan. Their opposition to music, art, dance, girls' education and idolatry makes archaeologists fear that Pakistani Buddhist relics are in the eye of the storm.

Italian archaeologists were active in Pakistan's northwest Swat valley from 1956 until they reluctantly discontinued work in 2007 after Taliban fighters led by radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah rose up demanding sharia law.

"It is not planned to carry on any research activity," Luca Olivieri, co-director the Italian archaeological mission in Pakistan, told AFP by email.

After 17 years as curator in Swat, Khan took no risks. With the Taliban killing and bombing their way through the valley, the museum closed in 2008 and he evacuated the most priceless antiquities.

That September, the Taliban twice tried to blow up 7th century Buddhist relics -- damaging a rock engraved with images of Buddha that for centuries had been a pilgrimage site....

Read it all.

Maybe these are the sort of dolls Muhammad's pre-pubescent wife was playing with:

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)" -- Bukhari 8.73.151

"It's Barbie in a burkha: World-famous doll gets a makeover to go under the hammer for 50th anniversary," from the Daily Mail, November 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

Makers Mattel are backing the exhibition which is the work of Italian designer Eliana Lorena.

The auction is part of Barbie celebrations for her 50th anniversary this year. The UK's biggest Barbie fan Angela Ellis, 35, has a collection of more than 250 dolls....

Acting upon a rumor. "Egypt Muslims burn Christian shops: police," from AFP, November 21 (thanks to Mackie):

CAIRO -- Hundreds of Muslim protesters on Saturday burnt Christian-owned shops in southern Egypt and attacked a police station where they believed a Christian accused of raping a Muslim girl was being held, a police official said.

Police repelled the demonstrators in the town of Farshut using tear gas and also arrested 60 people during the clashes in which seven Coptic Christian-owned shops were destroyed, the official said.

The protesters hurled stones at the police station after they heard that a Coptic Christian man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old Muslim was being held there, he said....

One would have thought that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims would rise up and not allow Saeed to preach. But once again, no such luck. Tiny Minority of Extremists Alert: "'Mastermind' of Mumbai attack preaches at mosque in Lahore," by Zahid Hussain in The Times, November 21 (thanks to Kris):

Come Friday prayers in Lahore, it is not hard to find the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is neither in hiding nor in jail. The founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba is instead delivering a sermon to thousands of devoteees at the Jamia al-Qadsia mosque -- one of the biggest in the city.

"God has promised to make Muslims a superpower if we follow the right path," Mr Saeed told his followers, who listened in rapt silence.

Outside, policemen with machineguns stood guard and bearded security men frisked all those entering. "Our rulers are the slave of America and have sold their conscience for a few dollars," continued the diminutive former university teacher, his long beard dyed red with henna.

In imitation of Muhammad.

Timothy Roemer, the US Ambassador in Delhi, backed Indian calls this week for Pakistan to bring Mr Saeed and six other Mumbai suspects to justice. "We need to see actions and results from Pakistan," he said after India handed Pakistan a seventh dossier of evidence on the Mumbai attacks.

Analysts say that the problem lies with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which backed Mr Saeed when he founded Lashkar-e-Taiba in 1990 to fight Indian rule in the disputed region of Kashmir. Under pressure from the US, Pakistan banned the group in 2002, but it continued to operate under the banner of Jamaat-ud Dawa, which Mr Saeed also founded and calls a charity organisation....

Pakistan's #1 export takes root in Italy. "Mumbai attack suspects arrested by Italian police," from BBC News, November 21:

Italian police have arrested two Pakistanis suspected of providing logistical support for last year's attacks in Mumbai.

The father and son were detained in an early morning raid in the northern city of Brescia, police said.

They are accused of supplying cash from their money transfer agency to pay for an internet phone account used by people in contact with the attackers.

More than 170 people, nine of them gunmen, died in the November attacks.

Mohammad Yaqub Janjua, 60, and Aamer Yaqub Janjua, 31, are accused of aiding and abetting international terrorism as well as illegal financial activity.

They were identified after leads from India and the FBI, police said....

Last Tuesday, while I was speaking at NYU, Leftist students created a diversion and threw pies at me and the other speaker, Elan Journo (they missed me, but got Journo on the shoulder).

In brief:

1. This is assault.
2. This shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. They can't answer arguments, so they try to shut down the speakers instead.
3. This shows the Left's thuggery and lack of commitment to free speech and free inquiry.
4. The choice of pies as weapons is intended to ridicule the victims, even if the pies were filled with noxious and/or poisonous substances, thus accomplishing not only the disruption of the event but the portrayal of the victim as a clown, not worth taking seriously (which of course is one of the Alinsky rules).

Here are two accounts of the event (thanks to James):

"NYC: Racist Warmonger Gets Pied," from Infoshop News, November 21:

NYU students disrupted a university event this evening featuring Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch" and Elan Journo from the "Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Freedom." Students called out the panelists for their Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric, shouting and launching pies at the speakers. One student was detained, and several were escorted out of the building.

Ironically enough, the "Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric" that prompted the little Stalinist to stand up and start shouting was my quoting Maulana Maududi, the internationally influential Pakistani jihad theorist.

The event, entitled "The Jihad Still Threatens America," encouraged viscous Islamophobia and promoted aggressive military intervention in majority Muslim nations.

"Viscous" Islamophobia, as opposed to the usual clear and thin Islamophobia.

Speaker Elan Journo actively promotes devastating attacks on Iran, claiming that "victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan.... Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile." Fear-mongering comments such as these promote the expansion of US imperialism, and contribute to the wave of anti-Muslim hate that is sweeping our nation....

Where? What anti-Muslim hate? And note that Muslim hate and terror appears to be just fine with these guys.

While it is disturbing to see hate being expressed on such institutional levels on our campuses, the students' refusal to be silent is an inspiration to us all.

Yes, violence in the name of suppressing free speech sure is an inspiration.

Here is the other, apparently mocking the self-contradictory stance of the "tolerancemongers":

"NYU Tolerancemongers Attack Intolerance With Pie," by Hamilton Nolan for Gawker, November 19:

Last week, Forbes columnist and NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan won our Outrage-off for his column about crazy Muslim murderers lurking amongst us. NYU radicals have struck back with a revolutionary pie-ing of Varadarajan's Islamaphobic allies!

A member of the NYU revolutionary vanguard alerted us to the pie-ing, and her note is reprinted in full below. The victims were Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch," both of whom were there to talk about how there is apparently a Jihad, threatening America? Did you know about this?

Anyhow the kids were not about to let this intolerance of opposing viewpoints stand, so they interrupted the guys with a pie assault. Spencer himself writes about his close brush with whipped cream here. One eyewitness account says the two speakers "ended up largely unscathed." Our tipster tells us that the revolutionary cameraperson assigned to film the pie-ing for propaganda purposes "was tackled by security at the very beginning and didn't get any footage."

How are we supposed to repel the Jihadists if our military-age youth can't even stage a proper pie attack? Very troubling indeed....

The bill is full of tolerance, however: it allows non-Muslims to worship in private homes.

This is one of those stories where it becomes bitterly ironic -- those who report on this will be called "Islamophobic," but no one will particularly mind that the Maldives is systematically stamping out the freedom of religion in the name of Islam.

Islamic Tolerance Alert: "Islamic President requests ruling on non-Muslim worship," by Ahmed Naish for Minivan News, November 21:

President Mohamed Nasheed said yesterday he would seek advice from religious scholars on Islam's position on allowing non-Muslims to worship in an Islamic community.

In his radio weekly address, the president said the constitution was "very clear" that laws contrary to Islam could not be made or enacted.

"It has become very important for me to find out what Islamic sharia says about not allowing foreigners who want to worship other religions in the Maldives," he said.

"When this bill comes from the People's Majlis for the president to ratify, the question before me will be what is the ruling in Islamic sharia on people of other religions living in an Islamic community to worship?"

The president said he needed an answer to the question before ratifying the bill. "When I know, it will be easier for me to make a decision on ratify the bill before it becomes law," he said.

Banned

Last week, a bill proposed by independent MP Ibrahim Muttalib Fares-Maathoda on outlawing places of worship for non-Muslims was sent to committee for further review with unanimous consent of all MPs who participated in the vote.

At the sitting, Muttalib said he learned that inquiries had been made with the government on establishing places of worship for expatriates and there was no law to forbid it.

"The other thing we have to think about today is that the government is considering establishing wedding tourism in the country and this will indirectly set up churches in the country," he said.

Horror of horrors!

While the bill states that foreigners or expatriates will be allowed to worship in the privacy of their homes, involving Maldivians or encouraging them to participate will be an offence.

The bill specifies a jail term of three to five years or a fine of between Rf36,000 (US$2,800) and Rf60,000 (US$4,669) for those in violation of the law.

Several MPs called for longer jail terms and higher fines, while others said foreigners in violation of the law should be deported.

But, some MPs argued the law was unnecessary as the constitution states that Islam shall be the basis of all laws and non-Muslims cannot be citizens.

Most MPs said laws were needed to seal off all avenues to freedom of religion being established in the Maldives.

Rights for Muslims

Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, state minister for Islamic affairs, told Minivan News today the president's office had not officially asked for the ministry's advice.

"But the matter has been sent to the Fiqh academy and they will issue a decree on it," he said. Shaheem said he believed laws should be made to protect Islam and strengthen Maldivians' faith.

"Right now, Muslims aren't getting their rights," he said. "For example, there's no way for students to pray at schools, you can't get some jobs if you wear the burqa and there are some jobs where you can't grow beards."

He added the ministry had drafted regulations under the Religious Unity Act of 1994 together with the police and sent it to the president's office.

The regulations will be published in the government gazette next week, he continued, and would provide a legal framework to protect Islam.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Abdullah bin Mohamed Ibrahim, president of religious NGO Salaf Jamiyya, said he believed the bill was necessary to safeguard Islam.

"What the president said doesn't match what was in the bill," he said. "The bill is about making it illegal to build places of worship for non-Muslims. It doesn't make it illegal for foreigners to pray in their rooms or houses."

Abdullah said the association had information that Christian missionaries were trying to infiltrate the country and proselytize in the Maldives.

"I believe the bill is essential because the constitution does not forbid building places of worship," he said.

Another update on this story. "Sears Tower bomb plot leader Narseal Batiste jailed," from BBC News, November 20:

The leader of a group which plotted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago has been sentenced to 13-and-a-half years in prison.

Narseal Batiste, 35, also planned to bomb FBI offices, along with four other men who have already been jailed.

Prosecutors said the men conspired to provide material support to al-Qaeda but defence lawyers said the plot was never serious.

Prosecutors in Miami had sought the maximum 70-year sentence for Batiste.

But he maintained he only went along with the plot to seize the $50,000 (£30,000) offered by an undercover FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative.

The men, most of whom have Haitian backgrounds, were arrested in Miami in 2006.

They had been caught on tape by the FBI informant discussing plans to cause an anti-government insurrection.

Batiste was heard on audio and video tape saying they should start a "full ground war" that would "kill all the devils".

'No threat'

Sentencing Batiste, US District Judge Joan Lenard said: "You've done great harm to yourself, your family, the young men who were your followers, and you've violated the trust of your country."

Batiste apologised for the plot in court, saying he had "wanted respect"....

Fiend, er, Friend and Ally Update. "EXCLUSIVE: Taliban chief hides in Pakistan," by Eli Lake, Sara A. Carter, and Barbara Slavin for the Washington Times, November 20 (thanks to Alan):

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Afghan Taliban, has fled a Pakistani city on the border with Afghanistan and found refuge from potential U.S. attacks in the teeming Pakistani port city of Karachi with the assistance of Pakistan's intelligence service, three current and former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Mullah Omar, who hosted Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders when they plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had been residing in Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban shura -- or council -- had moved from Kandahar after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Two senior U.S. intelligence officials and one former senior CIA officer told The Washington Times that Mullah Omar traveled to Karachi last month after the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. He inaugurated a new senior leadership council in Karachi, a city that so far has escaped U.S. and Pakistani counterterrorism campaigns, the officials said.

The officials, two of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI, helped the Taliban leaders move from Quetta, where they were exposed to attacks by unmanned U.S. drones.

The development reinforces suspicions that the ISI, which helped create the Taliban in the 1990s to expand Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan as the Obama administration prepares to send more U.S. troops to fight there.

Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran and analyst on al Qaeda and the Taliban, confirmed that Mullah Omar had been spotted in Karachi recently.

"Some sources claim the ISI decided to move him further from the battlefield to keep him safe" from U.S. drone attacks, said Mr. Riedel, who headed the Obama administration's review of policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring. "There are huge madrassas in Karachi where Mullah Omar could easily be kept."

Mr. Riedel also noted that there had been few suicide bombings in Karachi, which he attributed to the Taliban and al Qaeda not wanting to "foul their own nest."

A U.S. counterterrorism official said, "There are indications of some kind of bleed-out of Taliban types from Quetta to Karachi, but no one should assume at this point that the entire Afghan Taliban leadership has packed up its bags and headed for another Pakistani city."

A second senior intelligence officer who specializes in monitoring al Qaeda said U.S. intelligence had confirmed Mullah Omar's move through both electronic and human sources as well as intelligence from an unnamed allied service....

After this post, I decided to write to Umar Lee (with whom I've had some interaction in the past) and ask for an interview. Here is our exchange, in which he endorses the death penalty for apostasy in principle, just not at the moment in America. At very least, his honesty about Islamic teaching is a refreshing departure from the deceptions and diversions of Honest Ibe Hooper, Brave Ahmed Rehab, and their ilk:

1. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Umar

How you doing? It's been a long time. I hope you're well.

I've read your post on Muslims in the military with great interest, and am posting about it now at Jihad Watch.

Would you be up for an interview with me on this and related issues?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Your friend as ever,
Robert Spencer

2. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Mr. Spencer, i do not have time to grant interviews at this time. Regarding my position on muslims in the military i stand by the fatawa posted on my blog and that is why i encorage all muslims in america to not join. My feelings on the ft hood shooting and brother nidal hassan will be in the next edition of muslim quarterly magazine in an article titled why the fort got hood.

3. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Thanks for your kind and informative note. I respect the fact that you base your position on Sharia norms as delineated by the Qur'an and Sunnah. In line with that, I was wondering about what you thought on a tangential but related matter: in light of all the publicity that the Rifqa Bary case has gotten, and the many statements by Muslim leaders in the U.S. denying that Islam mandates death for apostates, do you uphold the traditional death penalty for apostasy as taught by Muhammad and by all the madhahib?

Thanks and regards
Robert

4. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Im not that up on that case. What i do know is we live in a very imoral society and teens are bombarded with negative messages. Any teen girl who is not a serial fornicator is seen as square and if she has good muslim parents making sure she is not acting like a ho she may rebel. I am not a scholar but the ruling on apostacy is clear. In an ideal world the apostate would face death but there is no authority to implement the shariah in america so no she shouldnt be killed and besides this girl may very well be making the whole thing up.

Ace videographer Dave Miles kindly sent along these superb videos from the Rifqa Rally for human rights and religious freedom, Columbus, Ohio, November 16.

The identity of the masked gunman is not yet known, but the number of threats against Fr. Sysoyev that already existed because of his work among Muslims is itself noteworthy. And Russian prosecutors are also proceeding with the theory that "religious motives" are behind the murder.

"Russian Priest Gunned Down in Church," by Alexander Marquardt for ABC News, November 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Russian Orthodox priest known for his missionary work among Muslims was gunned down in his Moscow church, Russian officials said Friday.

Thirty-four-year-old Daniil Sysoyev was shot at least four times at in the head and chest in the Church of St. Thomas by a masked gunman Thursday night, according to the Prosecutor General's Investigative Committee. The assailant also wounded the church's choirmaster, Vladimir Strelbitsky.

Sysoyev died on the way to the hospital. Strelbitsky is in critical condition.

"The main theory is that religious motives are behind the crime," a prosecutor's office spokesman told reporters.

Sysoyev routinely denounced Islam and actively reached out to Muslims and various religious sects to convert them. In a recent interview with a Russian newspaper, Sysoyev boasted that he had baptized 80 Muslims.

But with his ambitious missionary work came death threats.

"They've threatened to cut my head off 14 times," Sysoyev told Komsomolskaya Pravda in the interview. "The FSB [Federal Security Service] got in touch with me a year ago to say they had uncovered a murder plot against me."

He told a television interviewer in February 2008 that he considered it a sin not to preach to Muslims, according to the Interfax news agency.

Sysoyev was originally from the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, where a large majority of the population is Muslim. He published books titled "An Orthodox Response to Islam" and "Marrying a Muslim," which criticized the faith and drew fierce responses from Muslim organizations.

'No Reason to Kill'

Russia's Council of Muftis strongly denounced the murder Friday, saying differences should be worked out in a civilized way....

Still another "misunderstander" of Islam. Funny how that keep happening. "Sixth area Somali man is indicted in probe," by James Walsh, Richard Meryhew and Allie Shah for the Star Tribune, November 20:

A 24-year-old local Somali man has been indicted in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on charges of conspiring to provide support to terrorists.

Omer Abdi Mohamed, an unemployed employment counselor and father of a 2-month-old boy, was indicted on charges of conspiracy to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" people in foreign countries, according to an indictment filed Tuesday but made public Thursday.

Mohamed, of Minneapolis, is the sixth Somali man with local ties to be charged in connection with a two-year-old federal counterterrorism investigation aimed at finding out who recruited as many as 20 area men of Somali descent to return to their homeland and train and fight with the terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. The probe is considered to be one of the most sweeping international counterterrorism investigations since Sept. 11, 2001.

When asked if investigators allege that Mohamed was a recruiter, Peter Wold, his attorney, said: "In the end, I think you'll see that certainly wasn't the case."

The indictment released Thursday provides few details, but it links Mohamed to a broad conspiracy involving other men who returned to Somalia to fight or train with terrorists, including Shirwa Ahmed, a 26-year-old Minneapolis man believed to be the first U.S. suicide bomber.

According to the indictment, others connected to the conspiracy include: Salah Osman Ahmed, Kamal Said Hassan, Ahmed Ali Omar, Abdifatah Isse and Khalid Mohamud Abshir -- all of whom left the United States in December 2007 with a final destination of Somalia. Ahmed, Hassan and Isse all have pleaded guilty to the same charges Mohamed faces.

Wold said after the hearing Thursday that his client knew the other men through the mosque where they prayed. Isse Hussein, Mohamed's cousin, said Mohamed prayed "a lot" at Abubakar as-Saddique Islamic Center in south Minneapolis. [...]

A Minneapolis woman who described herself as an acquaintance of Mohamed said he was known by the nickname "Galeyr" and was good friends with Salah Ahmed. She said Mohamed also was related to Adarus Abdullah Ali, 25, who admitted in federal court this month to lying to a grand jury about knowing men who went to Somalia to fight.

The woman, who was close friends with Mohamoud Hassan, a local Somali who was killed in Mogadishu in September, said Mohamed and Ahmed and some of the other men who left Minnesota for Somalia often spent time at Abubakar, the largest Somali mosque in the state. [...]

The woman said she doesn't know for certain why all the men left for Somalia, but said she believes it's rooted in a combination of patriotic feelings toward the Somali homeland and religious fervor. [...]

Minneapolis has been at the center of the international counterterrorism investigation since the first of up to 20 young Somali men from Minnesota began quietly leaving to return to their homeland. In most cases, the men left without telling their families or friends of their plans.

The focus of the investigation has been uncovering the identities of those who recruited the men and financed their return to Somalia to train and fight.

The men are believed to have been recruited by Al-Shabaab, which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaida.

Since October 2008, five of the Minnesotans who left have died. A sixth man, a Muslim convert from Minneapolis, also is thought to have been killed.

It's not the whole truth. It's not "Fort Hood massacre was jihad," although even that word comes up. It's not an acknowledgment that the attack was motivated by the same murderous ideology that took down the Twin Towers and that threatens Israel and other free nations around the world every day, but it's a step.

"Senators say Fort Hood shooting was terrorism: Several lawmakers and terror experts at Senate hearings on the Fort Hood shooting Thursday called the incident a terrorist attack, and warned of the danger of homegrown jihad," by Patrik Jonsson for The Christian Science Monitor, November 19:

The Senate Homeland Security Committee Thursday began its probe into the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting with few details about what everyone really wants to know: the true motives of alleged shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Nevertheless, several lawmakers at the hearing called the rampage a terrorist attack.

That label was supported by most of the terror experts who testified at the Senate hearing. Addressing questions about how red flags were missed in the lead-up to the rampage, experts pinpointed a rise in homegrown terrorism and expressed the need for the government to establish, in the words of retired Army Gen. John Keane, "clear specific guidelines as to what is jihadist extremist behavior, how do you identify this behavior, and how does it manifest itself?"

Uh, yeah. One would think that such a thing would have been in place for years now -- long enough for clear-eyed and clear-minded people, i.e., those more interested in truth than in political correctness, to realize that there was nothing "extremist" about Hasan's actions from the standpoint of the Koran and Sunnah. But of course nothing like this is in place at all. CAIR and its allies, with their campaign of intimidation and obfuscation, have made sure of that.

The Fort Hood shooting, like no other incident, has "fueled discussion about the spectre of violent extremist ideology in our midst," said Juan Zarate, the former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.

"There is no smoking gun that reveals Hasan's true motivations and signaled intent, so the patchwork of data points and behavioral clues in light of the incident ... appear to point to a path of violence," he added. "The question then is whether the data points were seen and evaluated properly."...

No smoking gun. He passed out Korans on the day of the shooting and shouted "Allahu akbar" as he shot, but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood.

News reports have detailed the failure of the military to report up the chain of command the disturbing and delusionary behavior Hasan exhibited. Some have suggested this was partly because of the fear of appearing to be targeting a Muslim.

"Political correctness played a role," according to Keane. "It shouldn't have to be an act of moral courage on behalf of a soldier to report behavior that we should not be tolerating within the military; it should be an obligation."

Yep.

If you have been paying attention - and even if you have not - by now you know that something is going on in Yemen. You have heard about the "Houthis" - that is, a group of Shi'a, who have named themselves after a leader of one of their tribes, and who live in the northern part of Yemen, where they constitute a majority of the population. They also perhaps constitute as much as 40% of the total Yemeni population. And you know that these Shi'a are not quite like the Shi'a of iran, but nonetheless, they are Shi'a, and so, to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, they are considered to be nearly Infidels.

That didn't keep the Saudis, more than forty years ago, from supporting tribes, including "Zaidi" or Shi'a tribes, in the north of Yemen, against the dangerously "Marxist" southerners of Yemen. But that word "marxist" is treacherous. As J. B. Kelly has written, the casual application of the word "Marxist" in the context of an Arab Muslim country is misleading, for beneath that "Marxism" is Islam. The dictatorship of the proletariat, and the collective ownership of the means of production, is not exactly on the minds of Muslim tribesmen; "Marxism" has been a phrase used by one set of would-be seizers of the national wealth against whatever prior seizers of the national wealth are currently in power.

Yes, in the mid-1960s Yemen, a country that contains a larger population than its immediate northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia, was the site of what so many are content to call a "proxy war" between Nasserist Egypt (representing not so much the "Marxists" - as the American State Department appeared to think, as those who were less fanatical, and slightly more secular, in their reception of Islam) and Saudi Arabia, said to be backing people called "the Royalists." That proxy war in Yemen has no significance whatsoever save that it helped to occupy and preoccupy Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and to weaken the forces of both - an outcome that should be remembered as we try to think about Yemen today.

Secretary Gates, I can save you a lot of time and trouble: no one reported Nidal Hasan because they were afraid of the repercussions that would come to them in this politically correct age. They were afraid of being accused of being racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc. They were afraid of showing up in the next Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Alert.

But it will be interesting to see what creative fiction your investigators come up with in lieu of admitting that.

"Gates orders Army inquiry after Fort Hood killings," from the BBC, November 19 (thanks to Hildegard):

A review of US Army and Pentagon policies has been ordered by the defence secretary in the wake of a shooting at a military base.

The review will include Pentagon medical and personnel programmes, and US military base security.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates appointed a former Army secretary and an ex-Navy chief to report in 45 days.

The review is in addition to others into the Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed.

Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, was shot by police during the incident on 5 November, and remains in hospital. He has been charged with 13 counts of murder.

"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Mr Gates said at the Pentagon....

Former US Army secretary Togo West and former chief of naval operations, Admiral Vernon Clark will oversee the review.

US President Barack Obama has already ordered a review of the way intelligence agencies handled information about the major.

US intelligence authorities revealed they knew Maj Hasan had been in contact with a cleric sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

An FBI-led task force monitoring the e-mail of Yemen-based US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki said he had communicated with Maj Hasan - a US-born Muslim and army psychiatrist - on 10 to 20 occasions.

However, it was decided that further investigation was not needed, as the content of the messages did not advocate or threaten violence.

They're doing it, of course, under the cover of criminalizing "blasphemy," but the real agenda here is to compel the West to adopt Sharia norms forbidding criticism of Islam, including analysis of the jihad terrorists' motives and goals. This, of course, would leave us mute and defenseless before them.

AP thinks that the free nations of the West will oppose this. But with Barack Obama in the White House, that isn't actually certain. After all, he made sure that the U.S. not only supported, but cosponsored (with Egypt) a similar initiative at the United Nations not too long ago.

Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"?

Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.

"Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army?," by Umar Lee, November 19:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen a serious re-defining and whitewashing of what our deen is and is not. Since the Ft Hood shootings, and even before that, we have seen many Muslim organizations refer to US troops which are occupying Muslim lands, as "our troops". They have celebrated Muslims that have gone over to fight and kill other Muslims. We see Muslim spokesmen saying that the Muslims must abandon the concept of "Ummah". We are seeing Muslims and Muslim Organizations calling for American citizenship to be put above their loyalty to other Muslims around the world. This is a very strange thing as prior to 9/11 the ulamaa of Islam had many fatwas that said just the opposite, especially with regards to a Muslim joining a kufr army and going to fight other Muslims.

We find the people nowadays saying that it is perfectly permissible and even praiseworthy to join the kufr army. This is in contrast to what we saw in the past from the scholars. I would like to know what our friends at Muslim Matters have to say about the following fatwas from such scholars as Sh Ibn Uthaymeen and Sh. Al Munajid. What do they think the scholars would say about al wala wal bara (something completely forgotten about and not taught these days)?

This first fatwa is from Sh Al-Munajjid:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war. What should I do? What is the ruling if I go...?

Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa', i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them"[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters - unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da'wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter.

This one is from Sh Ibn Muhammad Saalih al-Uthaymeen, May Allah have mercy upon him:

What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country ? What is the evidence for its permissibility or prohibition? And lastly, what is the status of a Muslim working to help those in the military to fulfill their obligations to Allaah while serving in the Army, Navy, or whatever?

Praise be to Allaah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:

"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit, it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."

On this basis, if a person works as a preacher or daa'iyah or imaam or muezzin, serving the Muslims and calling non-Muslims to Islam, then there is nothing wrong with this.

And for good measure, here is one more fatwa

So can the brothers find me a fatwa from a repudible scholar of the sunnah (not one that quotes from his desires) that says that it is permissible to put citizenship above our Islam and join the kafir army and to fight against Islam and the Muslims? It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

The evidence is clearly against those who are saying that these things are permissible.

Here is a question:

If a group of Muslims in Mecca attacked the United States and the US Army wanted to retaliate by taking the haram, would it still be permissible to join the kufr army?

Since the UN, with its OIC-driven agenda, is simply the other side of bin Laden's coin, this would be a perfect fit. "Britain: Bin-Laden's son wants to work for the UN," from AKI, November 19 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

New York, 19 Nov. (AKI) - The son of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Omar, has told a British magazine that he would like to promote peace and work for the United Nations. His comments were published on Thursday in New Statesman magazine.

"I do not believe that I would be a good politician - I have a habit of speaking the truth, even when it does not serve me well. But I would like to be in a position to promote peace. I believe that the United Nations would be ideal for me," said Omar Bin-Laden.

So do I, Omar!

Last year in November, Omar requested asylum in Spain, but his application was refused.

He was travelling on a Saudi Arabian passport and was detained at Madrid's Barajas Airport after arriving on a flight from Egypt.

In the interview, Omar told New Statesman that he would seek God's advice in whether to report his father if he knew where he was hiding.

"If such a time comes, God will guide me to the correct path. But any child on earth would have difficulty with such a situation."...

Interviewed by ex-Muslim Nabil Qureshi at the Rifqa Rally, November 16, Columbus, Ohio. (Thanks to David.)

Interview from November 6 (thanks to James).

If someone in America points out that such punishments are part of Sharia, he is derided as an ignorant "Islamophobe." But the Koran is clear: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Koran 5:38

And it is also clear that this verse is taken literally and seriously by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. And so this imam is saying something that is only controversial to those who are ignorant (whether willfully so or not).

"What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks," by Christian Peregin for the Times of Malta, November 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

Imam Mohamed El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, believes chopping off the hands of thieves is a "deserving punishment".

Mr El Sadi made the statement during Monday's television programme Bondiplus, where he defended Sharia law, a judicial system used in some Islamic states and which can involve severe corporal punishments.

Contacted yesterday, Mr El Sadi stood by his comments and added the world was incurring the "wrath of God" through its permissiveness and destruction of spiritual and moral values, namely through the acceptance of "same-sex marriages, homosexuality, adultery and abortion".

Under Sharia law, such things are considered crimes that may even be punishable by death. When asked if he agreed with such punishments he said: "Yes, of course. I agree with everything Islamic."...

Mr Bondì then asked whether religion should dictate the laws of the country, through, say, Sharia law.

"What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals, he is taking from the country or the poor, so why is it wrong to cut off his hand?" the Imam replied.

Mr El Sadi said the punishment should terrify thieves and criminals, "not the good people".

When speaking to The Times about his remarks, the Imam said: "Why don't you concentrate on what is common rather than pick on what is controversial?"

He said he was not proposing this system for Europe because it would be undemocratic. But it was also undemocratic for Muslim countries not to use it because most Muslims wanted it....

He conceded there were different kinds of Muslims who thought of Sharia differently. "But whoever denies this is not a Muslim," he said, adding the law of God was perfect.

He said there were many safeguards to ensure Sharia law was applied justly, through a court system that depended on having several witnesses. "This does not apply to thieves who are poor or hungry. This is for people who have everything and want more; people who are greedy... The point is to frighten criminals."

Fr Renè Camilleri, who was also a guest on the programme, said he was "shocked" by the Imam's comments.

"I tried to insist violence is unacceptable. The concept is horrific to me. It is equivalent to the death penalty. I know it is what Sharia law dictates but, coming from him, such a moderate and tolerant person, I was shocked," he said, adding he never considered the Imam to be a fundamentalist....

Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Pamela at Atlas Shrugs:

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of "Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law". and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before she was scheduled to speak, the groups (the Debate Society and Tigers of Israel) succumbed to student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Nonie called me from her NY taxi, shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on US soil, the largest in US history, that activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

There is much more. Read it all.

Pat Robertson said: "If we don't stop covering up what Islam is. Islam is a violent...I was going to say religion but it's not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

I disagree. I don't think Islam is not a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that. But is Islam a political system that teaches world domination?

Don't take Pat Robertson's word for it, or mine. Let's go to Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Don't believe Khadduri? Very well. How about Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

Don't believe Nyazee, either? How about Iran's Thug-In-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Of course, he is no Islamic scholar, but he is a devout Muslim, and he learned Islam not from greasy Islamophobes but from...Islamic scholars. And he has said: "Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."

Don't believe Ahmadinejad? How about a Shafi'i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo? It says that the leader of the Muslims "makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax," and cites Koran 9:29 in support of this idea: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." ('Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

Evidently all these people are misunderstanders of Islam. Will CAIR denounce them? How about it, Honest Ibe? Or do you believe, Mr. Hooper, that it is just fine for Muslims to say this sort of thing anytime and anywhere, and it only becomes "hate speech" when Robertson says it?

CAIR Deception and Hypocrisy Alert: "CAIR asks McDonnell for more on Robertson, as Connolly weighs in," by Rosalind Helderman in the Washington Post, November 18 (thanks to herr Oyal):

Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell continues to face calls for him to publicly repudiate donor and ally Pat Robertson today, even after a statement issued Tuesday evening in which his spokesman commented generally about the importance of the Muslim community to Virginia.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Wednesday that McDonnell's comment "a good statement as far as it went," but said he did not believe it went far enough in directly disavowing Robertson's remarks.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said the national group is working with Muslims in Virginia to decide how to proceed on the issue. But he said he continues to believe McDonnell needs to make a clear statement indicating he does not agree with Robertson's stand on Islam. Robertson said last week that Islam is "not a religion" but a "violent political system" and called for Muslims to be treated like communists or members of a fascist party.

"[McDonnell's] sending the message that he wants it both ways--he wants the support of a Muslim-basher. And he wants to work with Virginia Muslims. I think those two things are incompatible," Hooper said.

Meanwhile, the political implications of the Robertson remarks are growing. U.S. Rep Gerry Connolly (D) has put out a statement Wednesday calling on Robertson to apologize for his comments. Connolly said he has heard from hundreds of constituents, both Muslims and others, offended by Robertson's comments, which came in response to the Fort Hood shootings on an episode of the 700 Club last week.

"My feeling is that if public officials don't speak out about this, our silence might be misconstrued," Connolly said. "I, for one, am not going to be silent in the face of that kind of unbridled intolerance."...

What courage!

Quoth the intrepid Obama in response: "... as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences."

Yeah. Take that! "U.S. warns Iran of consequences over standoff," by Patricia Zengerle and Manny Mogato for Reuters, November 19:

SEOUL/MANILA (Reuters) - World powers could have a package of measures against Iran "within weeks", U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday, warning Tehran of consequences for its failure to respond to an offer of a nuclear deal.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed talk of further punitive sanctions, saying the West had learnt from past failures.

Not much of a plan in the first place:

Iran on Wednesday rejected a deal to send enriched uranium abroad for rendering into fuel for medical purposes in Tehran, defying world powers which regarded the offer as a way to delay Iran's potential ability to make atomic bombs by at least a year by divesting the country of most of its refined uranium stock.

Under the plan brokered by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Iran would ship some 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel plates for a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer treatment.

"Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal ... and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences," Obama said at a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul.

He said Iran would not be given an unlimited amount of time, likening the Iranian nuclear issue to years of stop-and-start negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear ambitions.

"We weren't going to duplicate what has happened with North Korea, in which talks just continue forever without any actual resolution to the issue," said Obama.

He has advocated a policy of increased engagement, rather than confrontation, on thorny international issues.

In apparent response to Obama's comments, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated in a speech in Tabriz that Iran would respond positively to a change in big powers' policy.

"I am speaking to the world powers: Those who say they want to have a constructive interaction should know that if the Iranian nation sees a practical change in their behaviour and that they have given up their aggressive attitude and honestly raised a hand to Iran, then we would accept it," he said.

"But if we find they are still continuing their past domineering and hostile policies ... then the response of the Iranian national would be as firm as in the past." [...]

During a visit to the Philippines, Mottaki shrugged off the possibility of further sanctions. "Sanction was the literature of the 60s and 70s," he told a news conference in Manila.

"I think they are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences," he said, speaking through an interpreter. "Of course, it's totally up to them."

Mottaki said the Islamic Republic was willing to discuss the reactor fuel deal but only if the swap of enriched uranium for the fuel took place within Iran.

Buying time:

"Iran raises its readiness in order to have further talks within the framework which is presented," he said. "It's not our proposal to have a swap. They raised such a proposal and we described and talked about how it could be operationalised."

Hope. For change:

Obama said he still hoped Iran would change its mind and that Washington and its allies would consider a package of potential steps to indicate to Iran how serious they were.

"Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said.

He said he had confidence in the approach to Iran, which rejects suspicions that its declared programme to enrich uranium for electricity generation is a trojan horse for efforts to produce atomic bomb fuel.

"I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door. I hope they do," he said....

In Human Events this morning I discuss a few things Nidal Hasan's PowerPoint has in common with other presentations of Islam we've seen in the past:

Before he killed or wounded 54 Americans at Fort Hood on November 5, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan had raised eyebrows with his Islamic proselytizing, which he carried on even when he was supposed to be conducting medical briefings. One such presentation has come to light: the June 2007 briefing which Hasan gave to other doctors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Hasan's PowerPoint slides say many of the same things found in jihadist literature and propaganda throughout the Middle East and among its apologists here in America.

Hasan's Islam is rooted in traditional understandings of the faith as taught by the authoritative schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. It also is the same Islam that is taught by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

In arguing that the Koran mandates defensive jihad against unbelievers, Hasan invokes the same Koranic verse that Osama bin Laden used as an epigraph on his "Letter to the American People" of October 2002: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged; and surely, Allah is able to give them victory."

Hasan also explains that Muslims are obligated to wage offensive jihad against unbelievers, with ominous taglines in his PowerPoint such as "we love death more than you love life." He quotes the Koranic verse calling for war against the "People of the Book" (that is, mainly Jews and Christians) until they "pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Islamic] superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (9:29). Hasan apparently told the assembled (and no doubt stunned) physicians that Muslims had a religious obligation to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under their rule.

Hasan's Islam coincides with that of the jihad terror group Hamas, which has announced its intention, once fully and firmly ensconced in power, to collect that Koran-mandated tax -- jizyah -- from the non-Muslims luckless enough to live within its domains. Most importantly of all, however, he makes the case that Muslims must not fight against other Muslims (as is mandated by Koran 4:92). Ominously, he recommends that because of this injunction, "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Adverse events, perhaps, like his own jihad at Fort Hood. For he warned in his PowerPoint that "Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not." And further, "if Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc."

It is this desire to correct the "injustices of the 'infidels' that has led the Muslim Brotherhood, the international Islamic organization (which operates under a variety of names in the United States), to engage in what it calls a "grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." Hasan couldn't disagree -- not with his talk of offensive jihad and quoting of Muhammad the Islamic prophet saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah..."

And Allah, Nidal Hasan reminded his audience in his PowerPoint, "expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with hell." The clear trajectory of his argument is that Muslims may lay hold of that promise of heaven by waging war against Infidels, but that hell awaited those Muslims who might be foolish and traitorous enough to side with the Infidels and fight alongside them against Muslims.

No one in government or law enforcement has ever made any attempt to determine how prevalent such understandings of Islam are among Muslims in the United States. Yet it is of cardinal importance for those sworn to protect us to begin making such an attempt now. As we saw at Fort Hood, the lives of innocent people depend on it.

Spying and willful blindness don't mix. This story would be comical if the stakes weren't so high: the analysts realize there has to be "some kind of guide," some "missing" link in the "radicalization" of Muslims, but what? This is because their work proceeds according to the politically correct dogma that there is nothing problematic about Islam's core texts and teachings. And until they take their blinders off and have a good look around, what follows below will have to pass for "analysis."

You may want to read this one sitting down. "Spy Agencies' Quest: What Makes A Terrorist?" by Kevin Whitelaw for NPR (go figure), November 18:

Investigators are still trying to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan's alleged deadly rampage at Fort Hood was a calculated act of radical Islamist ideology or the deranged act of an alienated loner.

But even as military and law enforcement officials continue their probe, the incident has sparked a renewed focus on how Islamic extremists and al-Qaida sympathizers become radicalized in the first place.

The U.S. government has focused significant intelligence resources on the question of radicalization in recent years, but they admit the dynamics are still not well understood.

"We haven't completely figured out why some people are susceptible to that and some aren't," says a senior U.S. intelligence official. "There are people who argue it's cultural or economic or political or psychological, but it depends."

The al-Qaida terrorist network has worked hard to build and maintain an active media arm, which pumps out propaganda videos, training materials and other exhortations across the Internet. Much of it is aimed at inspiring extremists across the globe to join the cause, but it remains unclear how effective the messages are.

'Some Kind Of Guide'

"Generally speaking, there needs to be an intermediary -- someone who helps you along the path to radicalization," says the senior intelligence official. "For the actual embrace of the global jihad, you can be launched on that path by your own research on the Internet, but in most cases, you do need some kind of a guide." [...]

"My ability to understand the people I'm dealing with today is far different and far more difficult," Philip Mudd, the assistant director for national security at the FBI and a veteran CIA analyst, said at a conference last month. "The revolution has meant the people we're facing are al-Qaida central, they're affiliates, they're like-mindeds, [and] they're a kid in a garage, each of whom poses a unique threat."

Beyond the core members of al-Qaida, the U.S. intelligence community is trying to track affiliated groups, including offshoots like al-Qaida in Iraq; sympathetic groups, such as al-Shabaab, a Somali extremist group; and all kinds of homegrown radicals....

Read it all.

An update on this story. "Florida Man Convicted in Chicago Sears Tower Terror Plot Gets 6 Years," from Fox News, November 18:

MIAMI -- A Miami man convicted of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices has been sentenced to six years in federal prison.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard imposed the sentence Wednesday on 24-year-old Burson Augustin. Four other men are scheduled to be sentenced over the next three days.

Prosecutors sought the maximum 30-year sentence for Augustin. Lenard ruled that sentencing terrorism enhancements should not apply to Augustin, who was not the leader.

The men were convicted in May of supporting Al Qaeda, conspiring to wage war on the U.S. and other charges.

There were two mistrials, and two other men were acquitted. All denied plotting terror attacks....

Sharia Alert. This woman was killed after giving birth, following Muhammad's example:

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. - Sahih Muslim 17.4206.

In this case, the child was stillborn, so they were able to skip right to killing the mother. "Somali woman stoned for adultery," from BBC News, November 18:

A 20-year-old woman divorcee accused of committing adultery in Somalia has been stoned to death by Islamists in front of a crowd of about 200 people.

A judge working for the militant group al-Shabab said she had had an affair with an unmarried 29-year-old man.

He said she gave birth to a still-born baby and was found guilty of adultery. Her boyfriend was given 100 lashes.

It is thought to be the second time a woman has been stoned to death for adultery by al-Shabab.

The group controls large swathes of southern Somalia where they have imposed a strict interpretation of Islamic law which has been unpopular with many Somalis.

'Lenient'

According to reports from a small village near the town of Wajid, 250 miles (400km) north-west of the capital, Mogadishu, the woman was taken to the public grounds where she was buried up to her waist.

She was then stoned to death in front of the crowds on Tuesday afternoon.

The judge, Sheikh Ibrahim Abdirahman, said her unmarried boyfriend was given 100 lashes at the same venue. [...]

Meanwhile, another woman waits:

Earlier this month, a man was stoned to death for adultery in the port town of Merka, south of Mogadishu.

His pregnant girlfriend was spared, until she gives birth....

Earlier this evening I spoke at NYU on a panel with Elan Journo. I had just started explaining the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism when a young man in the middle of the audience stood up and started yelling and refused to be quiet. When the security guards went over to start moving him out of the room, they left a side door by the stage unsecured -- and sure enough, the yelling guy turned out to be a diversion. Two other young men rushed in that side door and threw pies at Elan Journo and me. They hit Dr. Journo on the shoulder but missed me altogether, as I had jumped aside when I saw them coming.

Of course a pie in the face is a staple of American comedy going back to the Marx Brothers (by far my favorite Marxists), but this was no joke. In the first place, it is yet another manifestation of Leftist thuggery, antipathy to the freedom of speech, and alliance with the global jihad; it also shows yet again the degeneration of our nation's universities into propaganda mills in which those with opposing views are hounded out or intimidated into silence. (And then there is this.)

As we continued the event with pie splattered all over the curtain behind us, it was a vivid object lesson in how much free inquiry threatens the Left, and created a nice backdrop for our discussion of the Organization of the Islamic Conference's war on free speech, which is, of course, intended to enable the global jihad to advance without challenge.

Here is an eyewitness account of what happened from the audience's perspective (thanks to Pamela).

That's one way of putting it, with Hamas as intent as ever on destroying Israel, and Fatah's remaining committed to armed "resistance" despite its attempts at putting on a friendlier face to the Western public. Not to mention the rampant corruption and misappropriation of aid for weapons. No, we're "not there yet."

An update on this story. "Mideast: EU rejects calls for a Palestinian state," from AdnKronos International, November 17:

Brussels, 17 Nov. (AKI) - The European Union on Tuesday rejected calls by the Palestinian Authority to declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, whose country currently holds the presidency of the EU, said conditions in the Palestinian territories "were not there yet" for such a move.

Bildt was speaking before a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

He said in regard to the establishment of a Palestinian state that "...there has to be one first. We would be ready to recognise a Palestinian state, but conditions are not there as of yet."

Bildt's came after US state department spokesman Ian Kelly echoed similar concerns, saying "We support the creation of a Palestinian state that is contiguous...the best way to achieve that is negotiation between two parties."

So, the policy in the coming years is to force Israel to make more land concessions, even as disastrous as past ones have proven (see also: Gaza).

Earlier this week, Palestinian officials, led by chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, announced that they would seek recognition of a state from the United Nations Security Council, without a solution to the conflict with Israel.

The US - Israel's biggest ally - however, has veto power in the Security Council, and could in theory exercise it to prevent the unilateral declaration.....

Canada welcomes in immigrants and ends up becoming a center for jihad recruitment, eh? "Officials worried group in Canada went to join Islamic radicals in Somalia," by Stewart Bell for the National Post, November 16 (thanks to Kim):

TORONTO -- Counterterrorism officials are investigating a group of youths who allegedly left Canada for East Africa two weeks ago, amid concerns they may have gone to join the Somali militant group Al-Shabab.

Two sources familiar with the case said investigators had been canvassing Toronto's large Somali-Canadian community for information about as many as five men who departed Canada together in early November.

They are believed to have flown to Kenya, the sources said. Kenya borders the region of southern Somalia controlled by Al-Shabab, an Islamist militia aligned with al-Qaeda and sometimes likened to the Taliban.

The investigation comes as the Somali conflict has become a key focus of North American counterterrorism officials. Several Somali-American youths have left the Midwestern United States to join the Shabab, and the commissioner of the RCMP said in a speech last month he is concerned about a similar trend in Canada.

"Radicalization within the U.S. Somali community may be an indicator of similar processes at work in Canada," Commissioner William Elliott said in his Oct. 30 address to the Canadian Association of Security and Intelligence Studies in Ottawa.

"As you know, we have one of the largest Somali diaspora communities in the Western world. The potential follow-on threat, from a Canadian and RCMP perspective, is Somali-Canadians who travel to Somalia to fight and then return, imbued with both extremist ideology and the skills necessary to translate it into direct action."

Al-Shabab, which means "youth," is an armed extremist group that has emerged from the lawlessness and chaos of Somalia and aims to establish an Islamic state....

The Jihad Still Threatens America

Even as many Americans grow complacent, the enemy that struck us on 9/11 grows stronger. Eight years since that fateful Tuesday, the enemy--the Islamic totalitarian movement--stands undefeated and continues to threaten our lives and our freedom, from overseas and from within.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the resurgent Taliban and their Islamist allies are waging a fierce comeback. They are actively fomenting plots against America and the West. The Islamist regime in Iran--which began the anti-American holy war decades prior to 9/11--appears poised to acquire its own nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, within America and the West, there is an overlooked drive by pro-Islamist activist groups to impose Islamic law--without guns or bombs--in the West. Their incremental advances would subvert our freedom of speech and the very foundations of our political system.

What is the Islamic totalitarian movement? What are its goals and means? Why, despite America's military response to 9/11, does it remain a threat to us? What can be done to counter this menace--at home and overseas? These are some of the urgent questions that panelists Robert Spencer and Elan Journo will address.

Bio: Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, is author of nine books on Islam, including two bestsellers. He has led seminars for the U.S. Central Command, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.
Bio: Elan Journo Elan Journo is a fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute focusing on foreign policy. He is the editor of and chief contributor to Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, and the Globe and Mail of Canada.

Tuesday, November 17th at 7:00 PM
New York University Cantor Film Center
36 East Eighth Street; New York, NY 10003 (between Greene and Washington Square East)
(Map available at http://www.nyu.edu/v40extras/nyumap.pdf)

RSVP's: http://jihadonamerica.eventbrite.com/
More information: aynrand.nyu@gmail.com

Here is video of the rally for human rights and religious freedom in defense of Rifqa Bary, yesterday in Columbus, Ohio. Speakers included Simon Deng, the courageous ex-slave from the Sudan; the knowledgeable and indefatigable ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish; Jim Lafferty of the anti-Sharia coalition that fought against the Islamic Saudi Academy expansion in Virginia; Rifqa's dear friend Jamal Jivanjee; Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs; and me.

(Video thanks to Pamela.)

Late in October in Washington, DC, Pamela Geller invited Andrew Bostom and me to participate in a panel on the Rifqa Bary case and its implications. Watch and enjoy!

(Video thanks to Pamela.)

This story is distastefully wobbly about whether there were real "war crimes" and whether there was something substantive that could push Hasan over the edge, ignoring as always the obvious jihadist element to the massacre.

At issue here is the fact that, under Islamic law, the life of a Muslim is worth more than a non-Muslim in terms of the required diyya, or compensation by blood money, and a non-Muslim who kills a Muslim is to be put to death. And that raises a question that applies to perceived Muslim grievances around the world: Would Hasan care half as much if the casualties inflicted by American soldiers during combat operations were non-Muslims? Would the Muslim world be in such an uproar over Kashmir and "Palestine" if all of the disputing parties were non-Muslim? No. Inherent in these issues is a sense of superiority and divinely ordered entitlement.

"Officials: Major Hasan Sought 'War Crimes' Prosecution of U.S. Soldiers," by Joseph Rhee, Mary-Rose Abraham, Anna Schecter and Brian Ross for ABC News, November 16:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan's military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to "war crimes" during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials

On Nov. 4, the day after his last attempt to raise the issue, he took extra target practice at Stan's shooting range in nearby Florence, Texas and then closed a safe deposit box he had at a Bank of America branch in Killeen, according to the reports. A bank employee told investigators Hasan appeared nervous and said, "You'll never see me again."

Diane Wagner, Bank of America's senior vice president of media relations, said that her company does not "comment or discuss customer relationships" but is "cooperating fully with law enforcement officials."

Investigators believe Hasan's frustration over the failure of the Army to pursue what he regarded as criminal acts by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may have helped to trigger the shootings.

"The Army may not want to admit it, and you may not hear much about it, but it was very big for him," said one of the federal investigators on the task force collecting evidence of the crime.

His last effort to get the attention of military investigators came on Nov. 2, three days before his alleged shooting spree, according to the reports....

Read it all.

But not before "the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'." You know, like a good dhimmi. At least, in this case, the Home Office was overruled, and the plight of non-Muslims and apostates from Islam in Islamic societies gained a modicum of official recognition.

"Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity," from the Daily Mail, November 17 (thanks to Rob):

An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in Britain has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.

In a landmark case, the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, used human rights rules to overturn a previous Home Office decision to refuse him asylum.

Lawyers said there were fears that, as an apostate - one who rejects the Muslim religion - the man, originally from Mazar-i-Sharif, but now living in Hounslow, west London, would face persecution, or even death, on his return.

The former Kabul hotel worker had arrived in the UK as a Muslim, but converted to Christianity, was baptised and now regularly attends a west London church and bible class.

But his conversion had met with hostility from other Afghans and Muslims, who spat at him in the street when rumours spread, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal was told.

He was even threatened with death by two Afghans with whom he had shared a house in London and warned by others that he would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.

Although the Afghan Constitution allows non-Muslims to practise their faith, the small Christian community practises exclusively underground and it is forbidden for Afghans to abandon Islam.

To avoid detection if sent back to war-torn Afghanistan, he would have to find an underground network of other Christians to worship with and keep his beliefs from everyone else.

The man who arrived on a hijacked jet would spend his life 'looking over his shoulder' in case he was recognised and could expect no protection from the Afghan government, his lawyers told immigration judges.

Contesting the man's appeal, the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and 'kept his head down'.

But, giving the tribunal decision, Senior Immigration Judge Nichols said it was not reasonable to expect someone to live and worship in such circumstances.

Although the Afghan Constitution made no mention of what should happen to apostates, Sharia Law demanded the death penalty, he said [...]

'He faces a real risk of, at the very least, detention because of his religion and, at worst, trial before a Sharia Court and harsh punishment unless the appellant recanted his conversion.

The next step would be to recognize that this aspect of Sharia comes from Muhammad's own orders: "if anyone changes his religion, kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57) -- hence its persistence.

The symbolism of Abu Hamza's sermons going through the plumbing system is just too good. More on this story. "Hate preacher Abu Hamza secretly gives lectures on Islam... through the water pipes of his prison cell," by Rebecca Camber in the Daily Mail, November 17 (thanks to Kris):

Hate preacher Abu Hamza is delivering extremist sermons to prisoners through the water pipes of his cell, it has been claimed.

The Muslim cleric is defying a preaching ban imposed by prison bosses to radicalise inmates.

He is able to give his lectures through the plumbing that connects to neighbouring cells in Belmarsh Prison....

The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think-tank, has called for the 51-year-old to be removed from the mainstream prison population.

Its report on growing prison radicalisation says the authorities have tried to stop him giving sermons openly.

But a source told the thinktank that Egyptian-born Hamza has found a way to talk to his fellow inmates - through the pipes....

"Neighbours said a 62-year-old man arrested at his home on Willows Lane, Deane, Bolton, taught the Koran at a number of mosques across the region."

So much "misunderstanding" of Islam's purportedly peaceful and tolerant message: Funny how that keeps happening. "Raids on suspected terrorist recruitment network," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, November 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Raids in Manchester and Bolton coincided with the arrest of a 26-year-old man at a hotel near Heathrow airport.

Sources were unable to confirm suggestions that he was planning to travel to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

It is thought the men had been under surveillance for some time and Assistant Chief Constable Dave Thompson of Greater Manchester Police said: "This is a complex and ongoing investigation, which has now reached the point where it was necessary to make arrests and speak to a number of people."

Officers from the North West Counter Terrorism Unit began the operation at 4am raiding houses across Greater Manchester.

Neighbours said a 62-year-old man arrested at his home on Willows Lane, Deane, Bolton, taught the Koran at a number of mosques across the region.

"I'm surprised. He carries out spiritual sessions twice-a-week. He is very spiritual," said one source within the Muslim community.

The other suspects included a 52-year-old from Longsight in Manchester, a 21-year-old arrested in Fallowfield, Manchester and a 27-year-old held in Stalybridge, Cheshire...

The moral of the story: Don't accept invitations from Gaddafi. "Food Summit: Gaddafi asks women to convert to Islam," from AdnKronos International, November 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Rome, 16 Nov. (AKI) - Libya's controversial leader Muammar Gaddafi has created headlines in Italy after inviting 200 women to a party and inviting them to convert to Islam. Gaddafi who is in Rome for the United Nations-sponsored global food summit, held the party at the house of the Libyan ambassador, Hafed Gaddur, on Sunday.

"Convert to Islam. Jesus was sent to the Jews, not for you. Mohammed, on the other hand, was sent for all human beings," he reportedly said.

Never mind that bit about "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

"Whoever goes in a different direction than Mohammed is wrong. God's religion is Islam and whomever follows a different one, in the end, will lose," said Gaddafi quoted by Italian daily La Stampa.

After arriving an hour late, Gaddafi began distributing gifts to the women, who were reportedly all Italian.

They were also each given a copy of the Islamic holy book the Koran as well as the Libyan leader's Green Book, which outlines the Libyan leader's view on political philosophy and democracy.

He then sat next to Libya's ambassador to Italy Hafed Gaddur and an interpreter with two of his renowned female guards, known as 'Amazon Guards'.

Gaddafi then began a speech in which he invited the women to convert to Islam, emphasising his support for equal rights but not equal duties.

According to the Libyan leader, women must do only "what their physical condition allows them" and spoke about the role that women played during World War II.

"What their physical condition allows them": Sojourner Truth would beg to differ: "That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman?..."

And for that matter, then, what's the point of his female bodyguards?

Gaddafi criticised the West, saying that women there "have often been used as pieces of furniture, changed whenever it pleases men. And this is an injustice."

After all, the correct Qur'anic term is "tilth" (2:223).

Gaddafi also invited the women attending the party to travel to the Islamic holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.....

.... which requires converting to Islam.

Is anyone in D.C. listening, or are they too busy playing politics and putting the supposed symbolism of the trial over the array of obvious security concerns? Louis Pepe Update, and an update on this story. "Blinded Prison Guard: Don't House Terror Suspects in NYC," by Joseph Abrams for Fox News, November 16 (thanks to Sam):

The high-security prison in New York City where 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is expected to be sent to await his trial has a supermax wing to keep even the most notorious criminals quiet -- but it isn't perfect. Just ask Louis Pepe.

Ten months before Al Qaeda in 2001 struck a deathblow in the heart lower Manhattan, one of the terrorist group's founding members plunged a sharpened comb through Pepe's left eye and into his brain, blinding the 42-year-old prison guard and causing severe brain injuries that plague him to this day.

Pepe told FoxNews.com he worries that sending Mohammed and four of his alleged fellow 9/11 conspirators to New York could compromise the safety of the guards at the MCC prison. Keeping the prisoners in one location, he said, was especially dangerous.

"Could you imagine over there what they're gonna do, God forbid?" asked Pepe, now 52, who lost feeling in the right side of his body and most of his ability to speak. "After all these years, you'd think they should know."

On Nov. 1, 2000, Pepe was ambushed in the cell of Mamdouh Mahmud Salim -- an alleged top aide to Usama bin Laden. Salim's cellmate, another Al Qaeda suspect, joined in the attack, which prosecutors say was an attempt to steal Pepe's keys to the cell block to free other prisoners and take hostages.

The two had been granted permission by a federal judge to purchase hot sauce, says Pepe's sister, which they then stored in a honey jar and used to create a blinding mace. Teaming up against Pepe, they beat and blinded him, covering the floor in his spattered blood. They then tried to rape him as he waited an entire hour for fellow guards to come to his aid, his sister said.

"They wanted to discredit the badge and what he stood for," Eileen Trotta told FoxNews.com. "After they plunged him in the eye with that makeshift knife, they did the sign of the cross on his chest."

Trotta said it would be like "deja vu" to see more Al Qaeda detainees shipped into New York for trial, where their court hearings will be just blocks from Ground Zero

"There's no reason why everything has to be in New York, especially after 9/11 and what happened to Louis," she said. "It doesn't make sense -- why bring them into the hotbed of the city?"...

Politics.

This string of attacks has focused significantly on law enforcement in various forms, targeting the government's ability to protect its citizens, and striking at symbols of insufficiently Islamic law. "Four killed, 31 injured in Peshawar suicide bombing," from the Press Trust of India, November 16:

Islamabad/ Peshawar: A suicide bomber today rammed his explosives-laden truck into a police station in this northwest Pakistani city, killing at least four persons and injuring 31 in the seventh terror attack here in 10 days. The attacker targeted a police station at Badabher on the outskirts of the provincial capital at 7.45 am, police said.

Hospital officials said four persons were killed and two women, nine children and two paramilitary personnel were among the injured. Earlier, state-run PTV had reported that five persons were killed in the attack. Hospital officials said the death toll was revised after they learnt that a body they received was that of a man killed in an accident.

A mosque and a house near the police station were reduced to rubble while 10 shops, a college and several cars were badly damaged by the powerful blast. Footage on television showed the facade of several buildings was devastated by the blast.

"The bomber came in a car from the direction of the Khyber Agency. The bomber struck the wall between the police station and the mosque. The mosque collapsed due to the blast and the police station was damaged. A nearby market was also damaged," said Shahibzada Anees, the district administration chief. Police said the bomber's truck was packed with about 250 kg of explosives.

A paramilitary trooper who was injured in the attack said the bomber detonated his explosives when security personnel fired at the truck. Policemen cordoned off the area as local residents and rescue workers removed the rubble by hand to pull out the dead and injured. Ambulances ferried bodies and the injured to hospitals, where an emergency was declared.

This was the seventh terrorist attack in Peshawar and its surrounding areas in the past 10 days. An anti-Taliban mayor in Badabher area escaped an attempt on his life by burqa-clad militants yesterday while 12 people were killed in a suicide car bomb attack on a police check post on the city's outskirts on Saturday....

No, this time, it's the Muslim "counter-extremism" Quilliam Foundation confirming what others have been warning about for years. What remains to be seen is whether their report -- unsullied by any distasteful "otherness" on the part of its authors -- will create any apparent sense of urgency to deal with this ongoing disaster waiting to happen in British prisons.

"Islamists 'promote jihad in jail'," from BBC News, November 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Radical Muslims are spreading extremist propaganda and promoting jihad from inside UK jails, a report has claimed.

Counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation said radicals were also being allowed to lead prayers.

And its report said extremist cleric Abu Qatada had issued fatwas from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire where he is awaiting deportation.

The Ministry of Justice said it had a dedicated unit to tackle the risk of extremism and radicalisation in prison.

But are they tackling it? And how does tackling "the risk" differ from tackling the actual, ongoing situation of "radicalization" in prisons? Seems like it's a bit late for the former. It's striking to note how often such statements are weaselly worded to blur the distinction between potential and genuine action, with phrases like "taking steps to ensure," or "working closely with our partners," or perhaps "actively partnering with..."

Messages released

The Quilliam Foundation said the study, to be published on Monday, was based largely on accounts sneaked out of prisons by high-profile extremists.

The report said: "Prominent pro al-Qaeda ideologues such as Abu Qatada have been able to smuggle messages out of prison to their supporters.

"Other convicted extremists have issued pro-jihadist statements from prison while others have appeared on Islamic TV stations from within prison.

"In 2008 and 2009, two of the most prominent Arab jihadists imprisoned in the UK released pro-jihadist propaganda and fatwas from within Long Lartin prison.

"Adel Abdel Bary, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, produced written pro-jihadist tracts from within prison aiming to refute criticism of al-Qaeda, while Abu Qatada issued fatwas from within prison which legitimised jihadist attacks worldwide."

Mid-Worcestershire MP Peter Luff, whose constituency includes Long Lartin, plans to raise the report's findings with Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

'Deeply dangerous'

Mr Luff said: "In my view the courts have, in the past, failed to protect us by allowing the release of dangerous individuals from Long Lartin and other prisons, and by delaying the deportation of many others.

"While these deeply dangerous men remain in British custody, we must be absolutely confident that they can do no harm - and these revelations suggest we cannot be confident of that.

"The government must move quickly to address the exceptionally serious issues this report raises."

Barry Rubin brilliantly explains how Nidal Hasan's slide show explicates his motives in the Fort Hood jihad massacre:

How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You've seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what's most amazing of all is this:

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn't enough for too many people--including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: "The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He's logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there's still a note of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept under the rug--more people will die.

In fact, I'd recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .

Follow along with me and you'll understand everything.

Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5].

Now here's Hassan's central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it's getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn't do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there's one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don't they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of "defensive Jihad" which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, "Allah forbids you...from dealing kindly and justly" with those who fight Muslims." [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must--to be a proper Muslim in his eyes--pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he'd been fighting...Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem. He sympathized with the other side....

There is much more. Read it all.

The objective here is not so much to get a state, although certainly a Palestinian state would serve as a useful base for their continuing jihad against Israel. (It would also be an international welfare state existing off jizya from the West.) The objective is to gain another resolution from the OIC-dominated UN that would portray Israel as an outlaw state, in violation of international law and consensus.

"Palestinians to ask UN to recognise state," by Nasser Abu Bakr for AFP, November 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

The Palestinians said Sunday they plan to ask for UN recognition of their independence, amid mounting frustration over the stalled peace process as Israel warned against any unilateral moves.

"We have reached a decision... to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.

He was referring to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and mostly Arab east Jerusalem that Israel captured during the 1967 Six Day War.

"We're going to seek support from EU countries and Russia and other countries" for the measure, he said.

Erakat's comments came amid growing frustration among the Palestinians with so-far ineffective US efforts to relaunch peace negotiations with Israel that were suspended during the Gaza Strip war at the turn of the year....

Rifqa Bary's case is a test case in numerous ways. It involves the question of whether American courts can successfully be compelled to follow Sharia provisions regarding the imprisonment of female apostates. It will show whether the American legal system and American society are up to the challenge of defending the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience from stealth jihadists and Islamic supremacists. It will show whether Muslim girls facing a domestic situation analogous to Rifqa's have any hope, even in the Land of the Free.

Details of the rally here.

"War is Deceit."

"Headley mapped all '26/11 targets' - US suspect posed as Jew: Police," by Samyabrata Ray Goswami for the Telegraph (Calcutta), November 15 (thanks to Esther):

Mumbai, Nov. 14: David Coleman Headley personally visited every target site of the 26/11 terror strikes last year, carrying out a recce on behalf of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, a police source said today.

Posing as a Jew, he even visited Nariman House, the Jewish Chabad centre, in July 2008.

The Mumbai police today carried out raids in Bandra, its adjoining suburb Khar and BPO hub Goregaon in search of Headley's local acquaintances and contacts.

"He (Headley) mapped the Chhatrapati Shivaji terminus, Taj and Trident hotels and Nariman House. We are interrogating (filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt's son) Rahul to find out when he went to Leopold Café. That he did is certain -- when he did that is what we need to know," a top officer said.

Headley had visited the Mumbai home of Rahul, who contacted police after learning of the terror suspect's arrest by America's Federal Burau of Investigation (FBI) last month.

The source said Headley, a Pakistani-born US national, and his associate Tahawwur Hussain Rana stayed in Hotel Outram, a seedy motel in Mumbai's Fort area, for about a fortnight in July 2008.

Born Daood Gilani, Headley, who changed his name and passport in 2006, posed as a Jewish American during his Mumbai stay. A source close to Rahul too confirmed that Headley had claimed to be a Jew.

"It is a mystery how he got into that building (Nariman House) just posing as a Jew. We are probing if he had anybody helping him locally. The FBI seized a book called How to Pray Like a Jew from him at the time of his arrest in Chicago. He had prepared himself thoroughly to pose as a Jew," the officer said.

This morning, the police detained two tourist guides near the Gateway of India for questioning. It is suspected they may have aided Headley or other 26/11 plotters....

Wait a minute. I thought opposition to the jihad was "racism," right? So that means that the anti-jihadists should have no problem with Khalid Kelly, right?

And yet, for some crazy reason I want to protect the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, legal equality, and all the other freedoms that Islamic supremacism and Sharia deny, from Khalid Kelly as much as from Abu Izzadeen. "Irishman wants to kill for Islam," by Nicola Smith in The Sunday Times, November 15 (thanks to Cindy):

An Irish jihadist living in Pakistan's Swat valley says he is preparing to wage war against British and allied troops in Afghanistan.

Khalid Kelly, a former altar boy from the Liberties area of Dublin who used to be known as Terry, told The Sunday Times he is undergoing weapons training in Pakistan's mountainous tribal region in order to fight jihad against the enemies of Islam. His dream is to face a British soldier in combat, although he would "settle" for an American, he said.

"I'm already on the path to jihad. I've already picked up a gun and done target practice to make myself familiar with weapons. The other day I learnt how to use an M-16 [rifle] in five hours," he said. "Next week, inshallah, I could be in Afghanistan fighting a British soldier."

Asked how he would feel about his own three-year-old son becoming a suicide bomber he replied: "I hope he goes to jannah [heaven] before marriageable age." His son, named Osama after Kelly's role model, lives in Britain with his Pakistani mother and two younger brothers. His father reckons Osama will be efficient with weapons by the age of ten.

Kelly says he learnt map-reading in the Scottish mountains, terrain similar to Afghanistan, although he admits he is currently out of shape. He justifies his intentions because of the West's actions against Muslims.

"Why is it such a big deal that I want to do this? Have I not got the right to do the same thing as a guy going into an army recruitment centre?" he said. "As long as we have no security, you will have no security. We'll kill and bomb you as you have killed and bombed our lands."

Ireland is also a legitimate target, according to Kelly. "Ireland has a US embassy so it is open to attack," he stated.

Kelly, 42, is an unconventional jihadist. Having grown up a staunch Catholic and trained as a nurse, he moved to Saudi Arabia in 1996 to work at the King Faisal hospital on a tax-free salary. In 2000 he was introduced to radical Islam by an Afghan when he was serving time in the Al-Ha'ir prison in Riyadh for bootlegging....

He is also unapologetic about his desire to fund, encourage and take part in terrorism. "I always believe Islam is terrorism. We are told to terrorise the enemies of Islam," he said. "The world will become a dangerous place. Everybody had better start embracing Islam or people will start flying planes into buildings again."

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." -- Koran 8:60

Read it all.

After Friday's bombing at the local ISI headquarters. "Suicide car bomb in Pakistan kills 11," from CNN, November 14 (thanks to Alan):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A suicide car bomber who blew himself up at a police checkpoint Saturday in Peshawar killed 11 people and wounded 26 -- marking the second straight day of major violence in the area, authorities said.

Shafi Ullah, deputy superintendent of police, said authorities had stopped the bomber at the post when the explosion occurred, killing three women, three children, a policeman and four other men.

The blast occurred near a police checkpoint in the neighborhood of Pushtakhara, said Peshawar police officer Idrees Khan. He said 50-60 kilograms of explosives (110-132 pounds) were used in the bomb.

Peshawar -- the capital of the North West Frontier Province -- has repeatedly come under attack in recent days. Intelligence officials say the attacks are retaliation against an army offensive to rout militants from their havens along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Peshawar is about 120 kilometers (75 miles) northwest of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

No one claimed responsibility for Saturday's blast.

However, Taliban senior commander Qari Hussein said Saturday that the Taliban claimed responsibility for Friday's dual bombings, which killed at least 17 people, including security officials, in Peshawar and nearby Bannu. Dozens of people were wounded.

Hussein told CNN there will be more such attacks in the future, and that their intensity will be much greater....

Not that any Muslims are responsible for that linkage. Oh, no. "Iran: Extremists aid West's plots against Islam," from Press TV, November 14:

Larijani, who was speaking to a group of Sunni clerics on Friday, said that the US was seeking to 'propagate' a distorted image of Islam in the Middle East.

"Over the past few years, the US and a number of its allies in the Middle East have been seeking to propagate a fake [interpretation] of Islam and to tarnish its image by linking it with terrorist moves."

"All Islamic sects should make every effort not to fall into US-Zionist trap," Larijani said, adding that any division among different Islamic sects has been brought to the region by the intelligence services of foreign forces who seek to gain a foothold in the region.

Larijani's plea for unity among Muslims comes as on Wednesday the al-Qaeda leader in Saudi Arabia urged Sunnis to confront Shias.

In an audio recording posted on the internet, Mohammed Bin Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, accused Shias and Iran of trying 'to take over Muslim countries' and 'to annihilate Sunnis'.

The al-Qaeda leader said "their(Shias) threat to Islam and its people is much bigger than that from Jews and Christians....

And they add that both Muslims and non-Muslims can misunderstand Islam, usually by taking verses of the Koran that mandate violence against unbelievers "out of context." This excuse is very, very tired at this point, but the obvious rejoinder from reporter Baylie Evans should have been this: Then what are you doing in your mosque here to make sure that all the local Muslims understand the Koran in context and hence do not misunderstand it in the same way that Nidal Hasan (and so many others worldwide) did?

If Baylie Evans had asked that question, the honest answer would have been, Why, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And that in itself is revealing.

"Local Muslims condemn acts of violence in name of their religion," by Baylie Evans for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 14:

CHEYENNE - One local Muslim, Mohamed Salih, is clear in his feelings toward the Muslim man who allegedly went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood last week. He deserves to be at the "bottom of the biggest hell," Salih said.

There is a misconception among many non-Muslims that Islam, the religion that Muslims follow, encourages hate and violence. Really, it teaches the opposite, he said.

How could anyone have ever gotten such a crazy idea?

"(Violence) has no place in this religion," he said. "There is no god out there that would accept killing innocent people."

Yes, but who is an innocent person? Jihadists consider no non-Muslim to be innocent. Consequently, it would have been refreshing if Salih had defined his terms, but as usual, no such luck.

And while non-Muslims can misunderstand Islam, so too can Muslims themselves.

Indeed, as we see here every day, Muslim Misunderstanders of Islam abound. And the funny thing is that they all seem to misunderstand it in the same way.

Any person who commits an act of violence in name of Islam gravely misunderstands the religion, Salih said. Terrorists have misunderstood the Islamic duty of jihad, which means struggle.

The "greater jihad" is within one's self, Salih said, against egos and evil within. The "lesser jihad" means actions to defend one's self and family.

Let's get that from an authoritative source. 'Umdat al-Salik is endorsed by the most prestigious authority in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy. It says this:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) [...]

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29)

Do the Muslims in Wyoming know these doctrines? Probably. But they go on in the same vein anyway:

Even nations can blur the line between religion and politics, Arshi Nisley, another local Muslim, added.

In some Islamic countries, women are not allowed to own property, divorce or have the same rights as men. But the religion allows women equal treatment and rights.

"I don't think that's religion at all," Nisley said. "I think that's politics."

Uh huh. Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Koran likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).

The Koran also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).

It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).

Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

People who have cited passages from the Quran, the religious text of Islam, that seem to encourage violence have taken them out of context, she added.

Even some Bible passages can seem to incite violence when taken out of context.

Uh huh. Actually, while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands. The Koran, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers -- see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

And how are those teachings interpreted? In fact there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach, as the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. See here for details.

Both Salih and Nisley said they haven't encountered hostility from the local community. In fact, they've felt welcomed. Salih has worked hard to try to educate people about Islam. Violent acts by Muslims set his efforts back, he said.

The religion is already misunderstood by many, and every time a Muslim kills in the name of Islam, it undoes the work that many have done to dispel myths and misinformation. The Fort Hood shooter hurt Muslims twice, Salih said: their country and their religion.

"He is lucky he doesn't have to face Muslims for justice," Salih said.

Interesting statement on many levels.

Nothing to see here. Move along. "Syrian carrying $880,000, Hezbollah ring, 9/11 videos, stopped at Canadian border," by Frank Luba for the Canwest News Service, November 12 (thanks to Cindy):

VANCOUVER -- Don't cross the Canadian border with almost a million dollars that you fail to declare -- especially when you also have a Hezbollah ring and a Palestinian scarf in your possession.

Khaled Nawaya found that out the hard way when he was arrested Oct. 6 at the Douglas border crossing in Surrey, B.C., and had to spend a month in detention while being investigated as a security threat.

He was released on Thursday with a long list of conditions after a hearing before the federal government's Immigration Division member Lynda Mackie. He remains to have no status in Canada.

Mr. Nawaya, 34, had a visa to get into the country and, according to his lawyer, Phil Rankin, has spent 18 months going through all that's required to move to Canada from the U.S. as a landed immigrant.

"It's not like this started 30 days ago," said Mr. Rankin.

But the Saudi Arabian-born Syrian citizen, who is qualified as a flight instructor and had hoped to work in B.C., complicated his situation by not declaring the money.

That's against the law, although charges have not yet been laid as his case is still being investigated.

Mr. Nawaya was reluctant to speak to the media but finally declared: "I feel great. It's an experience for life. It's one of these things."

About $800,000 of Mr. Nawaya's stash, which is still in the Canadian government's possession, was in Canadian gold coins purchased by Mr. Nawaya's brother, who lives in Texas. There was another $70,000 in cash and about $10,000 in his pockets,

Further compounding the situation was his possession of a ring with the Hezbollah emblem. Mr. Rankin said the ring was one of two specially made by Mr. Nawaya's brother....

His goods also included a Palestinian scarf and DVDs related to the 9/11 tragedy.

Mr. Rankin said the combination of possessions led to the notion Mr. Nawaya was a security threat.

Islamophobia!

No one should be surprised by this. But all the learned analysts who know how much we need Pakistan will be. Double Game Update: "Pakistani Army ran Muslim extremist training camps, says anti-terrorist expert," by Charles Bremner in the Times Online, November 14 (thanks to Kris):

The Pakistani Army ran training camps for a Muslim extremist group, at least until recently, with the acceptance of the US Central Intelligence Agency, according to France's foremost anti-terrorist expert.

Jean-Louis Bruguière, who retired in 2007 after 15 years as chief investigating judge for counter-terrorism, reached this conclusion after interrogating a French militant who had been trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba and arrested in Australia in 2003.

In a book in his counter-terrorism years, Mr Bruguière says that Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was set up to fight India over disputed Kashmir territory, had become part of the international Islamic network of al-Qaeda.

Willy Brigitte, the suspect, told Mr Bruguière, that the Pakistani military were running the Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp where he spent 2½ months in 2001-02. Along with two Britons and two Americans, Brigitte was driven in a 4x4 through army roadblocks to the high-altitude camp where more than 2,000 men were being trained by Pakistani regular army officers, he said.

"The links between the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Army are more than close. Brigitte observed this twice," Mr Bruguière said. "When the camp was resupplied, all the materiel was dropped off by Pakistani army helicopters. And there were regular inspections by the Pakistani Army and the CIA."...

In the West saying this will get you called an "Islamophobe." The Ayatollah Moezi must be an "Islamophobe." "Muslims must quit British Forces, says Iranian envoy Abdolhossein Moezi," by Richard Kerbaj in the Times, November 14:

The Iranian Supreme Leader's representative in Britain has told Muslim servicemen and women to quit the Armed Forces, saying that their involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is forbidden by Islam.

The cleric, personally appointed by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to be his special envoy to the UK, also urged Muslims to defeat the opposition to the Iranian regime and keep the 30-year-old Islamic Republic alive.

In his first interview with an English language newspaper, Ayatollah Abdolhossein Moezi, director of the Islamic Centre of England, said he regretted that protesters were killed by the Iranian security forces after the presidential election in June but that their deaths were "unavoidable".

Of course!

Ayatollah Moezi, the most senior Iranian spiritual leader in Britain with thousands of followers from the Shia sect, said that it was wrong for followers of Islam to serve in the Armed Forces, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq where Muslims were being killed.

"Not only do I not accept it for Muslims to go there, I don't accept non-Muslims to go there as well," Ayatollah Moezi told The Times through an interpreter provided by him. "We say that Muslims are not allowed to go and kill Muslims. Do you think that Christians are allowed to go and kill Muslims?"

The cleric, 65, condemned the massacre in Texas last week of 13 American soldiers at the Fort Hood base by a Muslim military psychiatrist and insisted that it should not be used to tarnish the image of the world's 1.5 billion Muslim population.

He said the September 11 attacks and the London bombings were wrong but accused the forces of "Zionist imperialism" of using the atrocities to smear Islam and its followers....

Of course!

Perhaps by getting in cars and running down all the non-Muslims. An update on this story. "Rochester man pleads not guilty after Thursday police chase," from WHEC.com, November 13 (thanks to Scott):

A Rochester man is in custody after a police chase down several Rochester streets.

Around 2 p.m., a Rochester Police officer was flagged down in front of a store on South Plymouth Avenue for the report of a man, identified as 27-year-old Munir Muthana, driving erratically.

Police tried to stop Muthana but he did not stop and then struck the officer's vehicle. A slow-speed pursuit ensued down various streets in southwest Rochester. Muthana's Nissan Maxima hit a car at Jefferson Avenue and West Main Street.

He continued driving down Jefferson Avenue, hitting a second police vehicle driven by a K-9 sergeant at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Clifton Street....

Muthana is facing five counts of second-degree assault, DWI and reckless driving. He is accused of injuring six people. They are 21-year-old Dominick Nicholson, 20-year-old Tyrese Beard, 40-year-old James Pross, 50-year-old Debra Hollis, 25-year-old Luis Cruz and 49-year-old Diane Neil. All are Rochester residents.

In his statement to police, he said he drank six cans of Budweiser in an hour. Then he started using swear words, cussing police and government. He said, "Ben Franklin was stupid. He should have made it so you *expletives* can't swerve the law. The Muslims will fix this country."

When bail was being set at $20,000, the prosecutor said that Muthana has ties to Yemen....

The Budweiser may indicate that this had nothing to do with jihad -- or that he needed to steel himself.

"Islam opposes such actions as committed by Maj. (Nidal Malik) Hasan. The Qur'an considers human life sacred."

Well, evidently one man's sacred is not another man's sacred:

"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. " -- Qur'an 2:191

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." -- Qur'an 4:89

"Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them." -- Qur'an 4:91

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." -- Qur'an 5:33

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." -- Qur'an 9:5

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain..." -- Qur'an 9:111

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

"Fort Hood attack unrelated to Islam, local Muslim leaders say," by Jennifer Chambers for The Detroit News, November 13:

Southfield -- Leaders of Metro Detroit's Muslim community gathered this morning to urge all Americans to view the Fort Hood shooting as a criminal act and unrelated to the faith of Islam.

"Islam opposes such actions as committed by Maj. (Nidal Malik) Hasan. The Qur'an considers human life sacred," Imam Steve Elturk of the Islamic Association of North America said Friday morning at a press conference called by the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan....

Post-Traumatic Wire Transfer Disorder? Maybe that's what made him "snap," because, as you know, the mainstream media insists it can't be Islam. "Fort Hood shooting suspect sent money to Pakistan, Texas congressman says," by Dave Michaels and Lee Hancock for the Dallas Morning News, November 13:

An Austin congressman said Thursday that he has confirmed that Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Malik Hasan wired money to Pakistan, which Muslim extremist groups use as a base to raise funds and carry out terrorist attacks.

Rep. Michael McCaul's statement followed a Dallas Morning News report that authorities were looking into whether such wire transfers had occurred. It also came as Army officials announced charges of premeditated murder against Hasan, who could face the death penalty.

"I have confirmed through independent sources that there were communications and wire transfers made to Pakistan," McCaul said in a prepared statement provided by his spokesman. "This Pakistan connection just raises more red flags about this case and demonstrates why it's important for Congress to exercise its oversight authority."

The spokesman, Mike Rosen, said McCaul wouldn't name his sources. The congressman's statement didn't address who Hasan's contacts in Pakistan were, when he communicated with them or how much money he sent.

McCaul is the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee's intelligence subcommittee. He typically is briefed on classified material but had yet to be formally briefed on the Fort Hood killings.

He "has been actively seeking information from as many credible sources as possible," Rosen said. "It has been more difficult than usual to obtain information from our intelligence community."

Asked about McCaul's comments, an FBI spokesman in Washington said he couldn't comment on any aspect of the investigation.

Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert who has consulted with the FBI and the Defense Department, noted that Hasan is a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent, with no known family ties to Pakistan. Kohlmann said that leaves only two reasons for the psychiatrist to wire money to the South Asian country: to support charity or to support jihad.

Westerners who want to give to a legitimate Pakistani charity typically would do so by putting money in a U.S. or British bank account, he added.

"It raises huge alarm bells," Kohlmann said of Hasan's reported wire transfers.

That doesn't do his victims a lot of good at this point.

Pakistan borders Afghanistan, the country to which Hasan was supposed to deploy soon. Pakistan is battling a radical Islamic insurgency and is widely believed to be the hiding place of Osama bin Laden.

Following the money

Dennis Lormel, a former FBI special agent who directed the agency's efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing, said investigators would take note of the large amount of disposable income Hasan apparently had. He made more than $90,000 a year, had no wife or dependents, and paid about $300 a month for a tiny apartment.

"It seems like there is a lifestyle that was beneath his means," said Lormel, now a managing director for IPSA International, a consultant to banks on combating money laundering. "Where is the money going?"

Lormel said Hasan could have used several channels to wire money abroad, including remittance services that cater to immigrant workers who send money to their native countries. If that were the case, there may be documentation of the transaction, Lormel and others said.

Banks and other money transmitters must tell the Treasury Department if an individual sends more than $10,000 outside the country.

Kohlmann said only a "breakdown" could explain the FBI's failure to dig deeper when it discovered late last year that Hasan was communicating by e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric in Yemen....

A breakdown in priorities: Believing the dogma of political correctness over one's "lying eyes."

With a card that said, "In God's eye, and those who submit, you are a hero!"

Now how could he have gotten such a profound misunderstanding of Islam?

Details here.

As the "Best Infidel Blogger" of 2008, I am happy to announce that nominations are open for the Infidel Blogger Awards for 2009. Place your nominations here.

Vote early and often!

Would liverwurst have been okay? Islamic Tolerance Alert: "Parents say son was tormented for eating salami sandwich during Ramadan," from The Daily Telegraph, November 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan.

Andrew Grigoriou said yesterday he complained to the school and to police after his son Antonios was chased and later assaulted by Muslim students after a confrontation over the contents of his lunch, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Antonios, a Year 5 student of Greek-Australian background at Punchbowl Public School in Sydney's southwest, said he and a friend had to be locked inside the library for an hour after being chased by a group of Muslim boys offended by his choice of food while they were fasting.

The Grigoriou family said the following exchange took place:

Muslim student to Antonios: "Why are you eating ham, it's Ramadan?"

Antonios: "My mum packed this for lunch today."

Muslim student: "Don't eat that. How can you eat pig, it's disgusting."

During the confrontation a Muslim boy allegedly accused Antonios of saying: "F--- the Muslims" but Antonios denied swearing.

Always with the attempt to claim provocation and victim status.

Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student....

After the salami sandwich incident a student described as "the ringleader of the group" was suspended from the school. The department said that the school had "ongoing cultural and interfaith awareness programs to improve understanding among students of events like Ramadan and Christmas".

Yeah, that'll work.

Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection.

One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. "He has been bullied from day one ... about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch," she said.

"My boy has a Greek background ... the bullying is extreme.

"He has been called a fat pig and hit on the back with a stick."

Another mother said her young son refused to go on school excursions for fear he would be bashed.

Our pal Raymond Ibrahim reviews Al Qaeda in Its Own Words, edited by Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli, over at the Middle East Quarterly:

Al Qaeda in Its Own Words provides the translated writings of four jihadis--Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and Abu Musab Zarqawi. Edited by five people with Kepel, a French sociologist of Islam, as lead editor, it contains a wealth of data that, unfortunately, is presented in a rather confused manner.

The actual words of Al-Qaeda are rarely analyzed or placed in context. Obvious contradictions--such as Al-Qaeda's constant protestations to Americans that its war on them is a response to and derives from U.S. foreign policy while telling Muslims that the jihad must persevere until the globe is governed according to Islamic law--are ignored.

Where objective analysis is wanting, apologetics and hackneyed psychoanalyses predominate: Thus, the "neocons" are akin to Al-Qaeda since "the dual undertakings of 9/11 and the American attack on Iraq ... mirrored each other"; bin Laden--that "nervous, flaccid, eternal adolescent"--opted for a life of jihad due to his "devouring" need for "recognition"; whereas Islamists such as Sayyid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri chose jihad due to the "trauma" and "humiliation" they underwent in Egyptian prisons....

Read it all.

No word yet on when Honest Ibe Hooper and Brave Ahmed Rehab will be jetting to Kampala to explain to these Muslims how they are misunderstanding Islam, the Religion of Peace™.

Islamic Tolerance Alert: "Muslim Extremists Attack Worship Service in Uganda," from Compass Direct News, November 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NAIROBI, Kenya, November 11 (CDN) -- About 40 Muslim extremists with machetes and clubs tried to break into a Sunday worship service outside Uganda's capital city of Kampala on Nov. 1, leaving a member of the congregation with several injuries and damaging the church building.

Eyewitnesses said the extremist mob tried to storm into World Possessor's Church International in Namasuba at 11 a.m. as the church worshipped.

"The church members were taken by a big surprise, as this happened during worship time," said Pastor Henry Zaake. "It began with an unusual noise coming from outside, and soon I saw the bricks falling away one by one. Immediately I knew that it was an attack from the Muslims who had earlier sent signals of an imminent attack."

The pastor said the disturbance brought the worship service to a standstill.

"There was a tug-of-war at the entrance to the church as members tried to thwart the Muslim aggression from making headway inside the church," he told Compass.

A member of the congregation who was taking photos of the worship service - and then the attack - was beaten, sustaining several injuries, church leaders said. He was later taken to a nearby clinic for treatment. During the pandemonium, some church members were able to escape through a rear door.

Pastor Umar Mulinde added that nearby residents helped repel the attack.

"At the scene of the incident were rowdy Muslims with machetes and clubs ready to destroy the church," Pastor Mulinde said. "The good neighbors of the church also came in, and we were able to overpower [the assailants]."

Police arrived and put a stop to the assault, but officers did not arrest anyone, church leaders said....

Why not?

Police are scratching their heads and wondering what Munir Muthana's motive could possibly be. And of course, maybe it had nothing to do with jihad at all. Whether it did or not, I'm sure we will hear from authorities and the media that it didn't. But this is -- as far as I know -- the fourth incident in the U.S. in recent years in which a Muslim intentionally tried to run down people with his car.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar explicitly grounded his action in the teachings of the Koran. If he had not done this, however, I'm sure the mainstream media would have constructed a non-Islamic explanation for what he did. Omeed Aziz Popal, we were told, was suffering from stress from an arranged marriage. And Ismail Yassin Mohamed, we were informed, was mentally ill, suffered from depression, and hadn't being taking his medication.

And now we have Munir Muthana. What will the explanation be? Look, maybe the explanations offered for Omeed Popal and Ismail Mohamed are perfectly accurate, but it is a mounting series of curious coincidences that these Muslims seem to have become unhinged in exactly the same way and expressed their madness in exactly the same way.

Can someone please send me stories about non-Muslims intentionally trying to run people down with their cars? Perhaps they will help put all this into perspective. Please send links to director[at]jihadwatch.org.

"Several Injuries After Driver Goes After Pedestrians," from WHAM News, November 12 (thanks to Mike G.):

A Rochester man is facing numerous charges, accused of trying to run down people with his car on Thursday afternoon.

Police say they were flagged down by people in southwest Rochester, at a parking lot in front of 700 S. Plymouth Avenue.Tthey [sic] say the driver of a Nissan Maxima had struck another car as well as several pedestrians.

The officer tried to pull the vehicle over, but the suspect's car then hit the police cruiser and kept going. Eventually, the Maxima struck a resident's car at Jefferson Avenue and W. Main and then hit a second police car at Jefferson and Clifton. The chase eventually ended on South Plymouth near Genesee where the suspect hit another resident's car.

Altogether, seven people, including the suspect were taken to the hospital for minor injuries, but police spokesman LaRon Singletary says it could have been a lot worse...

The suspect is identified as 27 year old Munir Muthana of Rochester. He faces numerous charges including assault and vehicular assault. there's no other word right now on a possible motive.

Yes, it takes awhile to think those things up!

Many, many people have sent me this, some as a response to my request here: "If anyone does come across an attempt, or the appearance of an attempt, to refute Nidal Hasan's Koranic exegesis, please send it to me at director[at]jihadwatch.org, and I will happily feature and discuss it here." But I haven't had time to look at it closely until now, and when I did, I was surprised -- and yet in a deeper sense not surprised at all -- to find that there was nothing here, just another example of the much ado about nothing that generally characterizes Western media coverage of any slight shadow of a hint of disagreement with the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.

"New jihad code threatens al Qaeda," by Nic Robertson and Paul Cruickshank for CNN, November 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- From within Libya's most secure jail a new challenge to al Qaeda is emerging.

Leaders of one of the world's most effective jihadist organizations, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), have written a new "code" for jihad. The LIFG says it now views the armed struggle it waged against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime for two decades as illegal under Islamic law.

The new code, a 417-page religious document entitled "Corrective Studies" is the result of more than two years of intense and secret talks between the leaders of the LIFG and Libyan security officials.

The code's most direct challenge to al Qaeda is this: "Jihad has ethics and morals because it is for God. That means it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like. Betrayal is prohibited and it is vital to keep promises and treat prisoners of war in a good way. Standing by those ethics is what distinguishes Muslims' jihad from the wars of other nations." [...]

But this is not some new discovery or new doctrine. Nor is it something of which Al-Qaeda is unaware. All these principles come from statements of Muhammad in ahadith that Muslims regard as authentic, and they are part of Islamic law regarding jihad. Is Al-Qaeda unaware of these stipulations? No. In fact, this controversy has been raging within the Islamic world for several years (at least). The late Zarqawi argued in a closely argued theological treatise in 2005 that "the goal must be pursued even if the means to accomplish it affect both the intended active fighters and unintended passive ones such as women, children and any other passive category specified by our jurisprudence." He cites several Islamic scholars to justify jihad attacks against unbelievers even when those unbelievers are using Muslims as a shield, if "there is no other way of reaching, separating, and killing the Kuffar."

Zarqawi was responding to arguments identical to the one put forth here. I am not saying Zarqawi was right and the Libyans are wrong -- but it cannot truthfully be maintained that this is some kind of new idea or new rebuke to the jihad doctrine.

While the code states that jihad is permissible if Muslim lands are invaded -- citing the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine -- the guidelines it sets down for when and how jihad should be fought, and its insistence that civilians should not be targeted are a clear rebuke to the goals and tactics of bin Laden's terrorist network....

The idea that jihad is permissible if Muslim lands are invaded is likewise a bit of classic Islamic theology -- that jihad becomes fard ayn, incumbent upon every believer to aid in any way possible -- if Infidels invade a Muslim land.

When Saif al Islam al Gadhafi, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, decided he wanted to open a dialogue with the LIFG he needed to convince them he was genuine so he sought out a former LIFG commander Noman Benotman, who was living in London.

The younger Gadhafi convinced Benotman he would free LIFG members from jail if they renounced their long war with the regime. He promised Benotman immunity from prosecution and in January 2007 flew him back to Libya to meet with the LIFG leaders in the high-security Abu Salim jail.

Benotman and the other leaders in the LIFG had fought together in Afghanistan in the early 1990s helping the Afghan Mujahedeen overthrow the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. During those years they'd come to know bin Laden and many other of al Qaeda leaders.

Although they'd been brothers in arms with bin Laden, the LIFG never merged its operations with al Qaeda due to differences in approach. In particular the Libyan group never endorsed bin Laden's global jihad, preferring to concentrate their attention on overthrowing the Gadhafi regime and replacing it with an Islamic state. From the mid-1990s the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's Afghan-trained fighters waged a fierce insurgency against the Libyan regime. [...]

In late 2007 as Benotman, the LIFG leadership and Libya's security officials debated the way forward al Qaeda tried to derail the peace process. Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri issued a statement declaring the LIFG had joined al Qaeda.

Benotman fired back an open letter to Zawahiri questioning his credibility. "I questioned their idea of jihad ... directly you know. This is crazy, it is not Islamic and it's against the Sunni understanding of Islam," Benotman told CNN. Zawahiri chose not to respond. As late as this August Zawahiri's video statements included praise of LIFG leaders, in what may have been a desperate attempt to head off the condemnation he could see coming....

Jannati equates opposing the Islamic regime in Iran with "waging war against God." It would be refreshing if some aggressive self-proclaimed moderate U.S. Muslim group, say, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, would explain publicly just how the Iranian mullahs are misunderstanding Islam, so as to dispel the impression that this bloody and repressive regime has anything to do with the true teachings of the Religion of Peace™.

But that won't happen.

"Iran's struggle with America should continue: cleric," from Reuters, November 13 (thanks to James):

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran must continue its struggle against the United States, a hardline cleric said on Friday a day after Washington renewed long-standing U.S. financial sanctions against Iran.

U.S. President Barack Obama offered a new approach toward Iran when he took office in January, but Iran remains locked in dispute with Washington and other world powers over its nuclear energy program.

The West suspects Iran's nuclear work aims in part to allow it to acquire atomic weapons. Tehran denies the charge.

Iran has also accused Washington and other Western countries of fomenting protests that erupted after a presidential election in June which opposition candidates say was fraudulent.

"If we are to assure that the Islamic establishment, the revolution and Islam are to stay and the people are to live comfortably, the flag of the struggle against America should always stay hoisted," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said.

"What does it mean when the U.S. Congress comes and allocates $55 million for the weakening of the Islamic Republic? It means they are waging war against God and against the people of this country. They are constantly engaging in enmity," he said in a Friday prayer sermon broadcast on state radio.

It was not clear what allocation Jannati was referring to, but Congress has in the past provided money for promoting democracy and civil society groups in Iran....

Actually, Obama has cut off that money.

If he can make it there, he'll make it anywhere

It could jeopardize counterterror programs and thereby endanger Americans, but who cares? "9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go on trial in New York," from the Telegraph, November 13 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

President Barack Obama said the September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be put on trial in New York City.

Speaking in Tokyo, Mr Obama said Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organiser of the al-Qaeda terrorist plot that killed almost 3,000 people in 2001, would face "exacting" US justice.

Bringing such notorious suspects to US soil to face trial would be a key step in Mr Obama's plan to close the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Obama initially planned to close the centre at the US naval base on Cuba by Jan 22 next year, but his administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

It is also a major legal and political test of Mr Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom.

Indeed.

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programmes begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method - waterboarding, or simulated drowning - was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned....

It's up to you, New York, New York!

Here, jihadist warfare imitates Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando: "I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last." In other words, collaborating with the jihadists has not spared the ISI, but only somewhat delayed their becoming a target.

"Blast 'hits Peshawar security HQ'," from BBC News, November 13:

A bomb has hit Pakistan's intelligence agency in the north-western city of Peshawar, killing at least seven people and injuring 35, officials said.

The blast destroyed much of the three-story building belonging to the Inter-Services Intelligence agency and many cars on the street outside.

Peshawar has been frequently targeted by militants in recent weeks.

Attacks have increased as the army continues its offensive against the Taliban in South Waziristan region.

More than 100 people were killed in a blast at a city market more than two weeks ago.

Friday's blast occurred at around 0630 (0130 GMT), Pakistani media said.

Reuters news agency said the attack was carried out by a suicide car-bomber.

Many of the wounded were rushed to local hospitals, while security sources said several more could be trapped under the rubble.

Sahib Zada Anis, the head of Peshawar's local government, said most of the victims were civilians.

Analysts have said that ordinary citizens are increasingly being targeted because the militants are cornered and under great pressure from the military in South Waziristan.

Despite the attacks, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Wednesday that the government was "fully committed" to completing the Waziristan offensive and "eliminating terrorism completely".

Jihad, on the other hand, they'd just like to move over to Kashmir.

The nonprofit organization, the Alavi Foundation, may be owned by the Iranian government. Details here.

Now can we get an apology from the Muslim community for aiding and abetting jihadists? "Windsor police chief Gary Smith apologizes to Islamic community for 'offending' their beliefs during FBI arrests," from The Windsor Star, November 12 (thanks to Simeon):

WINDSOR, Ont. -- Windsor police chief Gary Smith has apologized to members of Windsor's Islamic community for offending their beliefs after officers arresting two FBI suspects at gunpoint patted down one of their wives.

"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," writes Smith in a press release issued by police this morning. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."...

A review of the incident highlighted the need for additional "cultural sensitivity training," said the release, and Dr. Murad Aktas has been tapped to provide it. Details have yet to be worked out.

Windsor police officers assisted RCMP officers Oct. 30 in arresting Yassir Ali Khan and Mohammad Al-Sahli, who were wanted by the FBI in connection with a raid on an allegedly radical Islamic group in Michigan. They were released on bail last Friday in Windsor as their lawyer, Patrick Ducharme, cited their lack of a criminal record and their "long-standing ties to the community."

The Windsor police news release stresses the two suspects and their families were "cooperative" during the arrest and that the suspects walked out of their homes and turned themselves into police.

"In the course of the arrest, officers on the scene had interaction with the families of both men. It is this interaction that raised concerns among family members and the Islamic community about the cultural sensitivity of Windsor police officers," said police. "The review of this incident revealed that the officers needed to balance their operational requirements with the expectations of the Islamic community. Based on training provided in 2007 the officers believed they had struck an appropriate balance; the community did not."...

Thirteen counts. "Fort Hood suspect to be charged with premeditated murder," from Fox News via the New York Post, November 12:

Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan will be charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in last week's Fort Hood mass shootings, a military source told Fox News Thursday.

Hasan, 39, is suspected of killing 13 of his comrades Nov. 5 when he opened fire at a soldier processing center at the Army base in Killeen, Texas....

Hasan is accused of firing about 100 rounds at unsuspecting fellow soldiers filling out deployment paperwork before civilian police officers shot him and stopped the attack....

After all, everyone knows that Islam is a Religion of Peace™. They just figured he hadn't gotten the memo. The only problem is -- no one wants to talk about it, but there is abundant support for his views within Islamic theology. "Army sought ways to channel Hasan's absorption with Islam: Walter Reed psychiatrists ordered him to attend university lectures on religion," by Ann Scott Tyson and Dana Priest for the Washington Post, November 12 (thanks to Christopher):

Army psychiatrists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who supervised Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's work as a psychiatric fellow tried to turn his growing preoccupation with religion and war into something productive by ordering him to attend a university lecture series on Islam, the Middle East and terrorism, according to a Walter Reed staff member familiar with Hasan's medical training.

The psychiatric staff at Walter Reed did not discuss kicking him out of the service, according to the staff member. In fact, Hasan was initially considered a good medical school candidate because he had spent time as an enlisted soldier and had cared for his siblings after his parents died, both attributes that supervisors believed indicated he had a healthy work ethic.

An Army official also said that Hasan, who is believed to have killed 13 people last week at Fort Hood, Tex., did not formally seek to leave the military as a conscientious objector or for any other reason. It is unclear whether Hasan, whose aunt has said he sought to leave the military, made informal efforts to leave through contacts with his immediate superiors, and if so how his chain of command at lower levels might have responded to such efforts....

The idea that Hasan attend the lectures, which he did late last year or early this year, came up during discussions among the psychiatric staffs of the hospital and the Army's medical university about what was perceived as Hasan's lack of productivity and his constant interest in Muslims whose religious beliefs conflicted with their military duties.

"You're at an institution of higher learning. He seems to want to do work in an area no one knows anything about," the staff member, who also requested anonymity because he had not been authorized to speak publicly, said of the order. "You don't want to close him down just because it's different."

During those discussions, psychiatrists commented in passing about whether Hasan could be delusional or hurt fellow soldiers, but did not think he was dangerous and never took steps to have him evaluated either for mental fitness or as a security threat. On the contrary, his demeanor was regarded as gentle and polite, and he often responded to inquiries about his well-being by saying, "I'm doing well, thank God."

"He had his struggles, and he embraced his religion with such intensity that one wondered whether he" could have suffered from a form of "delusion," the staffer said. He cited as an example -- without speaking of Hasan in particular -- the belief that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are against Muslims rather than against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's government and then insurgents in Iraq.

Hasan came to the attention of two joint terrorism task forces in December 2008, as he corresponded by e-mail with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen and Islamic spiritual leader residing in Yemen who has exhorted followers to pursue violent jihad, or holy war. A Defense Department analyst on one of the task forces concluded that the chatter was innocent and in keeping with Hasan's research interests, two government officials said this week....

Brothel Jihad. "Egyptian Christian Man Attacked By Mob for Frequenting A Muslim Brothel," by Mary Abdelmassih for AINA, November 12:

(AINA) -- A state of fear has gripped the Christian inhabitants in the Upper Egyptian town of Mallawi after a Muslim mob tried to kill a Christian man for frequenting a Muslim-run brothel. Christian inhabitants are staying indoors, have closed their businesses, and are keeping their children -- especially girls -- away from schools. They fear wide-scale Muslim violence against them, similar to the violence which took place against Christians in Dairout on October 24,2009. (AINA 10-27-2009).

The latest incident in Mallawi was prompted when a Muslim mob learned of the presence of a Coptic man inside a Muslim-run brothel. A group of Muslims broke into the brothel, dragged him to the streets where he was stabbed 16 times. "Acid was thrown on him, before being stabbed. He was taken to Minya General Hospital where his condition is still very critical," said Wagih Yacoub of Middle East Christian Association.

The 23-year-old Copt Mina Emad Shoyeb was taken by the Muslim driver Mohamad to a brothel run by the Muslim widow, Ragaa Mosaad Ismail, together with two Muslim prostitutes, 23-years-old Eyman Ismail Abdelmalik, and 25-years-old Maha Kamel Aly. According to Copts United Mohamed had agreed on a fee of 200 Egyptian Pounds for the services of one of the prostitutes, Maha, but decided later that he wanted to pay only half of that amount, an offer Maha refused. The Copt Mina decided to pay the full fee. Mohamad left the brothel, and enticed the neighborhood Muslims to revenge for their honor for harboring a brothel in their midst, which is frequented by Christians. This prompted Muslims to congregate, break into the brothel and carry out their attack.

Reports coming out of Mallawi said that since yesterday evening, November 10th, several Muslim mobs have been wandering around the town streets, vandalizing and looting property belonging to Christian Copts; State Security forces were called in to contain the situation.

Yacoub also said that business life in Mallawi has come to a stand still and Bishop Dimitrious of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Mallawi, Ansena and Ashmonein, advised students in Deir Abu Heness, Deir Barsha and all the areas East of the Nile Delta, to avoid going to school for fear of Muslim repercussions against them....

In The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller says of the rush to exonerate Islam and jihad after the Fort Hood massacre: "Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are....This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law."

Sharia does indeed forbid criticism of Islam, but this is nevertheless hyperbole, no? Well, no. There is an avalanche of articles appearing like this unsigned editorial from the Seattle Times: "Do not slander Islam after Fort Hood," November 10. Would the Seattle Times have published such an editorial after any conceivable atrocity committed by a Christian believer? What do you think?

Do not compound the atrocity at Fort Hood with loose, slanderous talk about religion, conspiracy and political motives.

ALL of the horror and heartache of the Fort Hood shootings should not be compounded by labels and assumptions seeking motives to explain a heinous, irrational act.

The same restraint is also appropriate with a suspect in custody for the murderous assault that claimed the life of one Seattle police officer and wounded another.

The Fort Hood attack took 13 lives and wounded 41. There is a rush to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, with Islamic extremists and generally defame his faith by association.

Of course, Hasan himself made the link. He is the one who passed out Korans and then started shooting people. But the Times, of course, sweeps that under the rug.

Religious and political affiliations make for easy, slanderous links that can be pointedly selective. Little time was spent exploring Timothy McVeigh's Catholic and Republican connections after he slaughtered 168 men, women and children and wounded hundreds more with a truck bomb.

Never mind that he was an avowed atheist at the time of the attack and only became a Catholic later. Never mind that even if he had been a Catholic, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that exhorts believers to warfare against unbelievers, while there is plenty in Islam that does so exhort believers. Why should the Seattle Times worry about all that? Anything is good for a smear.

There is no more justification for Hasan's crimes in Islam than there was in the religious teachings of McVeigh's Christian faith....

Unsupported assertion. Here is some evidence to the contrary. There is plenty more, also. Here is some of it.

Care with words is essential because they have enormous power. If Hasan was an observant Muslim, then he violated his faith. The Seattle police are investigating what amounts to a murky personal grudge.

He violated his faith in what way? Again, an unexplained, unsupported assertion.

This idea was floated by the Sarkozy government in France some months ago, but I don't think anything came of it. In any case, it's nice work if you can get it. I expect that it will create a revolving-door growth industry, with unassimilable immigrants getting paid, going home, coming back, getting paid again, going home again, etc. Still, this is positive -- it is among the first official recognition that there is any problem at all with immigrants who won't assimilate.

"Denmark to pay immigrants £12,000 to go home if they 'can't or won't' assimilate," by Allan Hall for the Daily Mail, November 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):'

Denmark is boosting cash incentives to entice immigrants to return to their homelands if they 'can't or won't' assimilate into society.

The offer now on the table is close to £12,000 for every person who takes up the offer to leave.

Critics of the measure say it sends the wrong message to foreigners but the centre-right government in Copenhagen is forging ahead with the plan.

The financial carrot is ten times more than that previously offered under a scheme which as been law since 1997.

'We thought it was important to substantially increase this aid so that immigrants who want to return home because they are not able to adapt to Danish society have a strong financial basis to start a new life,' said foreign affairs spokesman Soeren Espersen of the far-right Danish People's Party....

In the wake of the Fort Hood jihad massacre, Muslim leaders in this country are preparing a fatwa on the permissibility of serving in the U.S. military. It is likely to differ from this one, but the answers from this site are on the whole more respected than anything that comes from Muslims in the West. Islam-QA is a very popular site for Muslims to get answers to questions they have, and the late Muhammad Uthaymeen is very respected as well -- even in the West.

"Military service in kaafir armies and working as a "chaplain" in those armies," from Islam QA (thanks to Axel):

What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country ? What is the evidence for its permissibility or prohibition?

And lastly, what is the status of a Muslim working to help those in the military to fulfill their obligations to Allaah while serving in the Army, Navy, or whatever?

Praise be to Allaah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:

"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit, it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."

On this basis, if a person works as a preacher or daa'iyah or imaam or muezzin, serving the Muslims and calling non-Muslims to Islam, then there is nothing wrong with this.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Then there's this:

It is not permissible for a Muslim to fight with kaafirs against the Muslims at all

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war.
What should I do?
What is the ruling if I go...?

Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa', i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them"[al-Maa'idah 5:51] [Koran 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters - unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da'wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

And this:

Working in the army of a country in which there are munkaraat (haraam deeds)

Please tell me about the ruling on one who works for the army, which is the source of his provision, but the military system and laws oblige him to shave his beard and some of them have to respect others, as the foreigners do. We have to greet others in a manner different from that enjoined upon us by Allaah and His Messenger, we have to salute the flag and we are governed by and have to refer differences amongst ourselves to laws other than those of Allaah (military law). If I fight to defend my country, but it is not under the banner of Laa ilaah ill-Allaah Muhammad Rasool Allaah [There is no god but Allaah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah], and by the will of Allaah I am killed, what is the ruling on me according to the Qur'aan and Sunnah?
Can I fight with an intention that is different to that of the army in whose ranks I am fighting? If I do the things mentioned above so as to avoid any negative consequences, am I sinning by doing that? Can a Muslim work in the army with the intention of learning fighting skills which he cannot learn anywhere else under current circumstances?
Please tell me about obedience to parents in this matter, when points of view differ in a case where the parents do not follow the Qur'aan and Sunnah, but they follow the traditions of society and whatever people are agreed upon. They think that religion is just prayer and fasting, and that anything beyond that is extremism. May Allaah help you to do that which pleases Him, correct your mistakes and protect you.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: it is haraam to shave the beard; it is obligatory (waajib) to leave it to grow.

Secondly: it is not permissible to salute the flag.

Thirdly: it is obligatory (waajib) to govern by the sharee'ah of Islam, and to refer to it for judgement. It is not permissible for a Muslim to greet colleagues or superiors with the greeting of the foreigners, because of the reports which state that it is forbidden to imitate them and because this represents exaggerated respect for them.

Fourthly: Whoever fights to make the word of Allaah supreme and to protect the Muslims and their lands from the enemy, is fighting for the sake of Allaah, and if he is killed he is a shaheed (martyr). What counts is the aim and intention. You can have an intention which is different from the intention of the army, such as intending to make the word of Allaah supreme in your jihaad (so long as it is permissible, according to sharee'ah, to fight the group against whom you are fighting), even if others have different intentions, such as fighting for their country.

Fifthly: it is obligatory (waajib) to obey your parents so long as this does not entail disobeying Allaah, because there should be no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience of the Creator.

And Allaah is the source of strength. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and grant them peace.

Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 12/22

The three men in this clip fall over themselves to make sure that nobody thinks the Fort Hood massacre has anything to Islam. So Nidal Hasan passed out Korans on the morning of his mass murders! So what? Tim McVeigh!

Here is a good summary of how this attack had nothing to do with Islam.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also says: "Let's don't accuse people of basically giving him a pass cause he's a Muslim, cause I don't think there's any evidence of that."

"But Finnell said no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan's comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory."

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI): Muslims have served selflessly in the U.S. Military, and therefore, "this is not about theology, this is about doing your duty as a soldier."

Yet theology keeps coming up. The problem, of course, is that so many Muslims point to Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. But that, of course, is never mentioned here.

In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an "Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations." In it they quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. "In God's book," asserts the letter, "he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran's 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."

Osama bin Laden's communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious "Verse of the Sword," 9:5. Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" (22:39) and "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan" (4:76)."

In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Koranic exhortation to violence as being a means to establish the truth: "Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood." The "Verse of the Sword" is Koran 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."

The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement - Osama bin Laden - down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare - if not impossible - to find a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. Britain-based jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, "It says in the Koran that we must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy." And Pakistani jihad leader Beitullah Mehsud claims that "Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world." He specified that his jihad - struggle in Arabic - was an offensive military operation: "We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia." The "jazia," or jizya, is a tax that the Koran (9:29) specifies must be levied on Jews, Christians, and some other non-Muslim faiths as a sign of their subjugation under the Islamic social order.

One pro-Osama website put it this way: "The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad."

(Video thanks to Christopher.)

Here is a first round-up on events at last week's meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a partner organization of the UN. Pax Europa, the group for which I spoke in Berlin recently, was there, and was able to achieve great things. See the video above, in which the intrepid E.S.W. quotes Koran 4:34, the infamous wife-beating verse -- much irking the Turks, who immediately denounced her intervention as "hate speech." (You see, when a non-Muslim quotes the Koran, it's "hate speech.")

This was a very important meeting: for the first time Islam was discussed in a critical manner. This was not just another UN conference -- and the OSCE concerns the US as well, since the US is a participating state.

True Islam, as we all know, is peaceful and tolerant, and Nidal Hasan's Islam is heretical, rejected by the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims.

Unfortunately, however, al-Ansari is Misunderstanding Islam in accord with a hadith of Muhammad that appears in Sahih Muslim, a hadith collection Muslims consider authoritative:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Muslim 6985)

Isn't it odd how all the Misunderstanders of Islam seem to misunderstand it in all the same ways?

"Egyptian Cleric Amin Al-Ansari - Hatred of Jews is Prevalent in Sports and in the Animal Kingdom: 'Judgment Day Will Not Come Before the Muslims Fight the Jews and Kill Them'; The Muslims Will Kill the Jews - Be Patient,'" from MEMRI, November 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an address by Egyptian cleric Amin Al-Ansari, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on October 12, 2009.Earlier this year, Amin Al-Ansari appeared on Al-Rahma TV to show footage of torture and killing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps, stating, "This is what we hope will happen, but, Allah willing, at the hand of the Muslims. [1] "

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2261.htm.

"God Has Filled People's Hearts With Loathing For These [Jews]"

Amin Al-Ansari: "God has filled people's hearts with loathing for these [Jews]. Let's take a look at the field of sports. Forget about politics, military issues, and so on. Let's look at sports on the international level. How come there are no successful Israeli athletes like in any other people? They are abhorred. God does not let people be friendly with them.

[...]

"Jews think that anybody can... No, animals can sense things. The proof is that the Prophet Muhammad said that when Judgment Day draws near, the final war between the Muslims and the Jews will take place. The Prophet said that the Muslims would kill the Jews.

"'Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.' The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be patient. All the trees and all the stones will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him - except for the Gharqad tree.' Only one kind of tree will not call [the Muslims]. It is the Gharqad tree."

"We are at war...with Islamic heretics" -- from an article in the Los Angeles Times by Judith Miller and David Samuels

Now we all know what a Christian heresy is. It is a belief that is held by some who call themselves Christians that has been characterized or defined as a "heresy" by other Christians in positions of higher authority. We can even name some of them -- Antinomianism, arianism, marcionism, millennialism, montanism, mandaeism, manichaenism, and so on. And if you go to an encyclopedia, you will find, because if you are like me you will not know, exactly in what this or that heresy was said to consist -- that is, the precise belief deemed to be heretical.

But here, with the easy use by Judith Miller and David Samuels in the Los Angeles Times of the phrase "Islamic heretics," we have not a single indication of the "heresy" of which Nidal Malik Hasan, or Osama bin Laden, or Sheikh Fadlallah, or Al-Zarqawi, or a hundred thousand or ten million or a hundred million others, are guilty.

They may think, as journalists, that they can get away with using such words as "heretics" because, you see, the very idea is so comforting. They may think that everyone or most everyone will simply accept the assertion that all these people are heretics, and will therefore drop any pretense of demanding an explanation of precisely what defines, in this case, the so-called Islamic heresy.

But there are two reasons they cannot do so. One is that there is no supreme authority, in quite the same way, in Islam, as there is in Catholicism. It is true that the closest thing to it might be Al-Azhar University, and the head of it, the Sheikh Al-Azhar, at least for Sunni Islam. For Shi'a Islam, those who have reached the rank of Ayatollah or Grand Ayatolloh might, collectively, play the same role. But it is nevertheless not quite so easy to call some Islamic belief a "heresy."

More importantly, however, the texts -- and the commentators on those texts -- of Islam are on the side of Nidal Malik Hasan, and all the others who believe in Jihad. There may be prudential considerations, wherever Muslims are perceived as still too weak, for the avoidance of violence as the chosen instrument of Jihad. Besides, other means - deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest (discussed openly by Muslims as the surest way to take over the historic enemy, "Christian" Europe) -- to conduct Jihad that are far more effective, because they are not recognized as such, and are therefore not alarming to the great heedless complacent and too-busy-to-focus masses of non-Muslims.

Judith Miller and David Samuels of the Los Angeles Times now have to tell us the following: why, in what exact way, relying on what unorthodox texts (let's be generous, let's even let them call "unorthodox" those Hadith which were not assigned to the highest rank of "authenticity" by those learned and tireless muhaddithin Al-Bukhari and Muslim), are those with whom we are "at war" properly defined as "Islamic heretics"?

Go ahead, Judith Miller. Go ahead, David Samuels. Consult, right away, with all the authorities on Islam -- those living and those dead. Yes, do look up, do wander in the pages of, the hundred greatest Western scholars of Islam who wrote between 1870 and 1970, and find in those pages any evidence, any evidence at all, that suggests that any of these scholars thought heretical the ideas of the centrality of Jihad, the natural violence of Jihad, the division of the world, in the Islamic view, between Muslim and Unbeliever, and the understanding that between the two a state of permanent war (though not always of open warfare), must exist until, at long last, the final triumph of Islam, and Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere -- go ahead, quote chapter and verse.
Show us you are not cheap journalists of the kind famously denounced by Karl Kraus. Show us you have standards. Publish your findings in the Los Angeles Times, as a follow-up to your glib article there today.

In your new piece, explain more fully, please, exactly what you mean by "Islamic heretics."

We're all ears.

I have heard on the radio, and read, a new theme about Nidal Malik Hasan. Now it is not so much "Islam has nothing to do with it" as - well, yes, come to think of it, Major Nidal Malik Hasan gave that lecture so nicely illustrating, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see and minds to think, part of the essential doctrine of Islam. This was the man who was always and everywhere talking about Islam, trying to convert others to Islam, making sure everyone, everywhere, knew of his deep faith and loyalty to Islam.

At least this is what he appears to have told all the non-Muslim officers and men. But one person, the chaplain Yahya Hendi, assured us, in his quiet and reassuring way, that in all of his private conversations with Nidal Malik Hasan, Hasan kept assuring him - now why would Hasan feel the need to assure a fellow Muslim of this? - of his loyalty to the American government and his desire to serve.

The one that struck me the most was a statement made on NPR by Tom Ricks, the Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post, who said - in the new and most fashionable formulation -- that Nidal Malik Hasan, we all know, was a "Muslim" and he was also "nuts."

I wonder if Tom Ricks, who is hardly among the most offending, and all of the others now consoling themselves, at least partly, with the notion that Nidal Hasan was "nuts" (as well as being a...oh, let me see now, yes, that's it, a "Muslim"), think that the tens of thousands of Muslims who right now are actively acting in exactly the same way in jihad groups around the world are also "nuts." They are led by such people as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. All the hundreds of thousands of members of various groups - Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Ansar al-Islam, Laskar Jihad, and so on - another hundred or two hundred names of groups could be given, and another few thousand of known groupuscules that have acted, or tried to act - are they all "nuts"? And as for the individuals - oh, just take an Ahmed and a Mohammad and an Osama and a Najib and Anwar, and add in the surnames that are similarly so similar, mix-n'-match, keep changing the first name of each of the surnames in Mr-Potato-Head play-fashion, and voila, you will have them all. And these people, too, are impelled to participate directly in violent Jihad, as was Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

More denial and obfuscation. "Our enemy is not Islam -- it's extremists: The U.S. response should be zero tolerance for political cultists who try to achieve their goals through violence, regardless of their religion," by Judith Miller and David Samuels for the Los Angeles Times, November 11:

[...] Underlying both the left- and right-wing narratives of the shootings is the belief -- or fear, on the part of many liberals -- that what happened at Ft. Hood is, in fact, rooted in Islam, rather than in a perverted political ideology that is rejected by an overwhelming majority of Muslims everywhere. The threat posed to America by the jihadist cult recalls the hysteria surrounding the late 19th century mass migrations that brought thousands of anarchists, syndicalists and communists from eastern Europe to America. Preaching their secular gospel of violently overthrowing the U.S government and returning to a mythical agrarian past, the new immigrants, many of whom were Jewish, engaged in bombings, industrial violence and assassinations that killed hundreds of people, including President McKinley.

There was no shortage of voices that blamed these attacks on immigrants, particularly "the Jews," and suggested that immigration from eastern Europe be stopped and that Jews be banned from sensitive government jobs and institutions of higher learning -- efforts that were enshrined in law and unofficial practice by 1924. In retrospect, we see these responses as products of ignorance and rank prejudice.

Question for Judith Miller and David Samuels: When and where did the leaders of these "immigrants" or "Jews" ever teach their followers that they "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands"? The rest of that passage, of course, is: "...and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

Did any of these "immigrants" or "Jews" ever teach that their belief-system wasn't "in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," and that their guiding manifesto "should be the highest authority in America"? CAIR co-founder and longtime Board Chairman Omar Ahmad said that about Islam and the Koran. (He denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her story)

Did the fundamental law of any of those "immigrants" or "Jews" ever teach anything analogous to this, from a Shafi'i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo? It says that the leader of the Muslims "makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax," and cites Koran 9:29 in support of this idea: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." ('Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

I could go on, but you get the idea. In Islam there is a clear and consistent strain, historical and contemporary, of supremacism and violence, and calls to conquer and subjugate those outside the fold. The "immigrants" and "Jews" who may have been scapegoated in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th century had no such teachings, and none of them were preaching such things. Thus the analogy adduced by Miller is not only wrong, but dangerously misleading and offensive: it implies that those who are sounding the alarm about the jihad in the U.S. and worldwide are simply bigots with some irrational hatred of Muslims, rather than people who simply listen to what Muslims say and take it seriously. So those who believe Miller will be more likely to dismiss talk of the jihad threat as bigotry, as an invention of "Islamophobes" -- and of course they will never hear about the supremacist statements I've quoted above and others like them, because Miller won't tell them.

So now we must be clear: The United States is not at war with Muslims or Islam.

Indeed not. But many Muslims believe that they, and Islam, are at war with the United States. Our refusal to engage them on that level does not mean that this fact ceases to exist.

We are at war, whether we like it or not, with Islamic heretics who argue that their own beliefs supersede traditional Islamic law, and that traitors to Islam as they define it should be killed. Our enemies are members of a violent cult that uses the language of religion to achieve political aims. Believers in such heresies have more in common with other violent political extremists -- anarchists, Stalinists, Nazis, Klansmen, Weathermen bombers and terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh -- than they do with mainstream Muslims.

But of course she does not elucidate just how their beliefs render them heretics, and how their understanding of Islam differs from traditional Islamic law. No one ever does. We are constantly told that they're heretics, but explanations of exactly how they're heretics are scarce.

Jihadists are the latest bearers of an ideological virus -- the idea that one can accomplish millenarian political aims by murdering innocents -- that has done terrible damage to human societies. Our response should be zero tolerance for political cultists who try to achieve their goals through violence, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Tamil Tigers, animal-rights activists or self-professed followers of Thoreau. No one should hesitate to call such people what they are -- terrorists.

Perhaps she means that they're heretics because they're murdering innocents, and Islam forbids that. And that's all very well, but the jihadists maintain that no non-Muslim is innocent, and putatively moderate organizations like CAIR, when they condemn terrorism, have been slow to explain just who exactly they do think is innocent.

And so here again we have a typical example of deflection, falsehood, and half-truth, all served up in defense of a totalitarian, expansionist ideology that is going to keep coming at us. Judith Miller should know better, and should know who and what for which she is running interference. What is needed now is a call to the American Muslim community to acknowledge that there is a supremacist, expansionist doctrine within Islam, and a challenge to them to formulate ways to teach against it and promote American Constitutionalism among Muslims here. Instead, we get this.

Lebanon doesn't seem to particularly mind this challenge to and erosion of its sovereignty. Hizballebanon Update. "Hezbollah says new government must keep mum about its weapons," from Agence France-Presse, November 11:

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Wednesday to cooperate with Lebanon's new unity government but warned that it should avoid the "big issues," in allusion to his group's weapons.

"Success for this government, its prime minister and ministers will mean success for Lebanon and Hezbollah," Nasrallah said in a televised address to mark Hezbollah's martyrs' day.

"But I call for patience in dealing with the big issues," he added, alluding to demands by the UN Security Council and his local rivals for the disarmament of his Shiite militant group.

"If we start with this now, we are headed straight for problems."

Nasrallah, whose party fought a devastating war with Israel in the summer of 2006, also said he hoped for a "government of national cooperation and accord."

"We do not want a government divided by barricades," he said.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of murdered ex-premier Rafiq Hariri, announced the formation of his new government on Monday, more than four months after his US- and Saudi-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led bloc backed by Syria and Iran in a general election.

The government met for the first time on Tuesday at the president palace, making it clear that it would steer clear of the thorny issue of Hezbollah's weapons.

Hariri's government includes 15 ministers from Hariri's bloc and 10 from the opposition. The remaining five were appointed by President Michel Sleiman.

The major point of contention between the two major camps has been Hezbollah's weapons, which were starkly brought to the forefront in May 2008 when the militant group staged a spectacular takeover of mainly Sunni Muslim west Beirut.

The crisis, sparked by a government crackdown against Hezbollah, left more than 100 people dead and brought the country to the brink of renewed civil war.

The distribution of portfolios in the new government means that neither side will have veto power and that Sleiman will play the role of arbiter.

Nasrallah, whose party has two ministers in the new government, played down the prospects of a new conflict with Israel, dismissing recent Israeli warnings as "psychological warfare."

But he added that Hezbollah remained ready for any eventuality.

"Send all the troops you want," he said. "We will kill all your officers and soldiers."

Hezbollah is the only Lebanese party that refused to surrender its weapons after the country's 1975-1990 civil war. It argues they are necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression.

Then there's U.N. Resolution 1701, which Hizballah was also allowed to opt out of for all practical purposes (like re-arming).

Nasrallah called on the rival Lebanese blocs' foreign sponsors Iran and Saudi Arabia to work hand in hand on regional issues.

"We call for Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, initiated by either country or any other party," he said.

"These two large, important countries should cooperate," Nasrallah said. "The region is in need of a loyal firefighter."

A what, now?

Apparently Hasan turned more than one medical lecture into a Koran presentation. "'I'm Muslim First, American Second' - Former Classmate of Suspected Ft. Hood Shooter Recalls Red Flags," from FoxNews, November 10 (thanks to Maxwell):

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," November 9, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.[...]

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we already (INAUDIBLE) Sir, tell me, how did you -- how did you know the suspect? When did you first meet him?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (FORMER CLASSMATE): Well, I met him as part of a master's of public health program at the Uniformed Services University (INAUDIBLE) health sciences at Bethesda, Maryland, in 2007 and 2008.

VAN SUSTEREN: How much contact did you have with him in 2007 and 2008?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (FORMER CLASSMATE): Just about every day for several classes that we had together for about four or five months.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did he ever say anything peculiar, red flag-ish, that drew your attention?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (FORMER CLASSMATE): Lots. Lots. The first thing that raised a red flag was one of our first courses together was an environmental health class. We had to do a project or actually a presentation at the end of that class, and we were supposed to do some kind of environmental health project. Now, people were talking about mold. People were talking about water quality.

Well, Hasan gave a presentation on whether the war on terror was a war on Islam. I raised my hand immediately. I questioned why that type of topic was being presented at because it was so off-base, and it was allowed to continue. His radicalism grow throughout the year. He would make frequent comments that he was a Muslim first and an American or an officer second, and also that, you know, Islamic law, Sharia law took precedence over the Constitution. And we all became concerned because he's a sworn officer of the United States and he's supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Yet his loyalties lied elsewhere.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you make any complaints or any -- note it to anybody else, or did anyone -- did anyone else do that, or did the professor or teacher do anything, if you know?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (FORMER CLASSMATE): Well, I made that particular complaint at that point in time. I have a very close colleague who engaged senior leadership at the university, a number of people, regarding this matter, regarding his concerns over these statements that he made.

Here is a terrific new piece at Pajamas Media by my friend and former Jihad Watch writer, Raymond Ibrahim:

In a blog entry for Islamist Watch, David J. Rusin shows how the word "jihad" continues to be euphemized in the West. Despite Islamic law's unequivocal portrayal of it as a military endeavor to empower Islam, jihad is still being peddled as "nothing more than a student laboring to pass algebra, a mom driving her kids to soccer practice, or, in the words of the Cambridge study, a civic-minded person engaged in 'lobbying, activism, and writing' -- a community organizer of sorts." Rusin concludes by observing: "Why Islamists peddle such specious definitions should be clear. More baffling and disturbing is why they gain traction among so many Westerners."

Indeed, therein lies the irony: Islamist perfidy is only to be expected; Western naivety, on the other hand, which, if anything, should have begun to dissipate in our post-9/11 world, has burgeoned to the point of nearly making the former unnecessary. For while there is no doubt that Islamists (and their misguided Western cronies) distort the meaning of jihad, increasingly, even when the true meaning is in plain sight, America's leaders and media still fail to discern it. In other words, apathy -- or willful blindness -- regarding jihad has become so deep-seated in the West that Islamists need no longer actively dissemble.

Consider: When President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the Islamic world from Cairo on June 4, 2009, he said: "As the Holy Koran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth' [Sura 9:119]. That is what I will try to do -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us." Let us for the moment put aside the fact that Sura 9, from whence Obama quotes, contains the most violent and intolerant exhortations in all the Koran (which is saying something). The problem here is that the original Arabic text of Sura 9:119 says absolutely nothing about "speaking the truth." The word "speaking" is nowhere in the text, and "truth," as an abstract, is a wrong translation for sadiqin, which refers to people. The verse most literally translates as "fear Allah and be with the truthful." In other words, Muslims should stand firm with fellow Muslims ("truthful" serving as a Koranic epithet for "Muslims" the same way "believers" often does). It is, as ever, a call for divisiveness -- of Muslims (the "truthful") versus infidels (the "false").

Had Obama or his Mideast advisors and speechwriters simply bothered to read this verse in context -- verse 9:111, a jihadi all-time favorite, looms just above, promising believers paradise in exchange for their killing and being killed -- or if they had bothered consulting mainstream Muslim exegeses, they might have known that this verse is part of a Koranic segment that deals exclusively with fighting infidels: Muhammad and several Muslims were preparing to invade Byzantine territory. Some Muslims wanted to stay behind. It was then that Allah/Muhammad threatened them with this verse to "fear Allah and be with the truthful" (i.e., join ranks with your fellow Muslims on the warpath). Sentences later, this exhortation culminates in one of the most famous calls to violence in all the Koran, regularly evoked by modern-day jihadis: "O you who believe, fight those infidels who dwell around you, and let them find harshness in you!" [9:123]....

Read it all.

Whoops, sorry -- this isn't backlash against the poor, innocent Muslims being terrorized and victimized by the thousands after the Fort Hood Nothing-To-Do-With-Islam attack. This is just the familiar Muslim backlash against non-Muslims, which will increasingly be a feature of American life in the coming years. Nothing to see here. Move along.

"Man arrested for 'anti-Christian' mall disturbance: Kiosk employee allegedly tore a crucifix from someone's neck," by Emily West for the Danville Express, November 10 (thanks to Bob):

Police arrested 22-year-old Abdul Walid Hamid of Hayward on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 4, after he reportedly tore a crucifix from a person's neck and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.

Hamid, an employee at a mall kiosk near Starbucks, has been charged with battery, terrorist threats and grand theft.

According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head. Witnesses said he shouted anti-Christian comments, said police.

Lt. Mike Elerick of the Pleasanton Police Department said the man was not provoked and didn't threaten violence, but he committed robbery when he grabbed and broke a crucifix off someone's neck.

Coworkers told police that Hamid's actions were out of the ordinary and that he had worked at the kiosk for years.

You mean, he didn't do this daily? What a relief!

Police also said they weren't aware of a prior criminal history for the man.

"We had multiple people calling 911," Elerick said. "One female was crouching down and hiding from him. He definitely scared quite a few people."...

Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.

Through an interpreter? He worked at the mall and didn't speak English?

This year, Armistice Day is marred by the recent jihad attack upon those who had dedicated their lives to protecting us. It was a vivid reminder, as was its hyper-politically correct aftermath, that the jihad against the U.S. is far from over, and we have hardly even begun to fight it.

Will we?

For many in the U.S. today, Constitutional law, including the non-establishment of religion, is as certain as the air we breathe, and we cannot conceive of the possibility that anything could weaken the principles upon which this nation was founded. The freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law -- all these things are unassailable, aren't they?

No, they are being assailed today by increasingly assertive global forces, both non-violent and violent. The mainstream media, government, and law enforcement, deathly afraid of spurious charges of "bigotry," lie about what led Nidal Hasan to commit mass murder. And hardly anyone today is even aware of, much less interested in, the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand jihad" to eliminate and destroy Western civilization "from within, sabotaging its miserable house."

That unawareness and indifference allow this endeavor to proceed apace.

Today, then, we should remember and be grateful to those who gave their lives to secure and protect these freedoms for us -- as if our gratitude could ever be sufficient or adequate. We should ponder the fact that they had to give their lives in order to secure these freedoms. We should remember that if we are not willing to give our own lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to protect the unalienable rights enumerated at the founding of this Republic, we will most assuredly lose both them and the Republic itself -- lose them for ourselves and for our children.

Let us never shrink from the task before us: the great struggle to defend human rights, human dignity, and freedom from oppression and injustice -- particularly the oppression and injustice, and assaults to human dignity that are enshrined in the Sharia that is coming, step-by-step, steadily and apparently inexorably, to a willfully ignorant and indifferent West.

Happy Veterans' Day.

"Taliban" means, of course, "students." I.e., students of Islam. But somehow they have missed the peaceful teachings of Islam that are so plain and patent to everyone else that only "Islamophobes" have trouble seeing them. How is it that these students of Islam don't know, as Obama put it yesterday, that "no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor"?

"Taliban promises repeat of Fort Hood massacre: report," by Nick Allen in the Telegraph, November 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Taliban claimed there would be more attacks like the Fort Hood shootings unless Washington ends it policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a report. It also described the US army psychiatrist who carried out the massacre in Texas as a "hero".

The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist websites, said it had picked up a Taliban message praising the attack.

The message said: "The recent attack on the military base in Texas warns that if the occupation policy of the American rulers continues in this way, without them folding the carpets of occupation and transgression in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is natural then that incidents and attacks similar to Texas will spread to the Pentagon and other American military centres.

"According to media reports, the hero of the attack is a Muslim psychiatrist and major in the American army, of Palestinian origin."...

Yesterday I was asked to participate in a Symposium at National Review about the Fort Hood massacre and the role political correctness played in it. Here is my entry:

The Fort Hood massacre wouldn't have happened were it not for political correctness. Nidal Hasan lectured on the Koran's punishments for unbelievers when he should have been discussing medicine; justified suicide bombing; and spouted hatred for America even as he wore its uniform. Yet no one filed a complaint -- for fear of seeming bigoted.

This is the fruit of long-term efforts by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others to demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. People are afraid to speak up about Muslims who behave suspiciously. And if Nidal Hasan had been disciplined or removed from his post because of his pro-jihad, anti-American statements, CAIR and others would likely have been up in arms, calling for an investigation of "Islamophobia" in the military.

Mission accomplished: "Islamophobia" was duly avoided at Fort Hood. All it cost was 13 dead and 38 wounded. Now General Casey says that if the Army loses its "diversity" because of Hasan's jihad, that would be worse than his murders; the political correctness that led to these murders is still very much in place.

"On Islam: A Reply to Rick Brookhiser," by Andrew Bostom at The Corner, November 11 -- a most illuminating exchange.

Responding to an e-mail query I posed to him about a Corner post on October 26, Rick Brookhiser (on November 3) claimed: "My correspondent [Bostom] and the Islamists say that Islam is unchanging, because the Koran says so."

First, let me point out that Mr. Brookhiser has equated me with the wrong "Islamists." Through at least the mid-1950s, dedicated students of Islamic doctrine and history — such as myself — were still referred to as “Islamists.” This “Islamism” helped me to understand, in detail, the other “Islamists” somewhat better than Mr. Brookhiser does.
 
In 19th-century parlance, “Islamism” and “Islam” were synonymous, and meant to be equivalent to “Catholicism,” “Protestantism,” and “Judaism” — not to “radical” or “fundamentalist” sects of any of these religions. Sir Henry Layard, the British archeologist, writer, and diplomat, described an abhorrent spectacle of such “Islamism” (i.e., Islam) that he witnessed in the heart of Istanbul, during the autumn of 1843: 

An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [i.e., Islam] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul, and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat. [Early Adventures in Persia, Susiana, and Babylonia, London, 1887, pp. 454-55.]

Mr. Brookhiser’s glib November 3 post replying to my e-mail omitted mention of a published essay I had included that covers the historic nature of punishment for blasphemy under Islamic Law. This detailed piece debunks his assumption that the desire to impose Islamic blasphemy law is somehow limited to a present-era “radical” version of Islam. According to Brookhiser, “the practice of Islam changed during the twentieth century, and even in her [i.e., Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s] lifetime, thanks to the evangelizing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the agendas of Saudi Arabia and post-Shah Iran.” Here, from my February 2008 essay, is an explanation of how much, sadly, has not changed:

Even in that purely mythical paragon of Islamic ecumenism, Andalusia,  Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, a pre-eminent scholar of Muslim Spain, observed that the myriad religious and legal discriminations suffered by non-Muslim dhimmis (i.e., the non-Muslim Iberian populations vanquished by jihad, and governed by Islamic law, Shari’a), included lethal punishments for “blaspheming” the Muslim prophet, or the Koran: “[For] having insulted the Prophet or blasphemed against the Word of God (i.e., The Koran)-dhimmis were executed.”

Read it all.