U.S. Detains Sunni Politician's Bodyguard for Planning Suicide Attacks

Multiple suicide car bombings were to occur inside the Green Zone, hence today's lockdown of Baghdad. From AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A bodyguard detained at the home of a leading Sunni Arab politician is suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, thought to be involved in planning a major suicide car bombing assault inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, the U.S. command said Saturday.

Guard Khudhir Farhan was taken into custody Friday at the home of Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press.

"The detained individual is suspected of involvement in the planning of a multi-vehicle suicide operation inside Baghdad's International Zone," the U.S. military said in a statement without identifying the suspect.

The zone in downtown Baghdad is home to the Iraqi government, parliament and the U.S. and other western embassies.

"Credible intelligence indicates the individual, a member of Dr. Dulaimi's personal security detachment, and seven members of the detained individual's cell were in the final stages of launching a series of (car bomb) attacks inside the International Zone, possibly involving suicide vests," the military said.

The man is suspected of having links to a car bomb network operating in the southern area of Baghdad, the military said.

"He is believed to be a member of the Al Qaeda in Iraq group," the military said.

Immediately after the arrest Friday afternoon, al-Dulaimi denied the guard had any terrorist links, but when contacted Saturday he seemed to be retreating slightly from his previous comments.

"That individual joined my residence as a guard no more than a month ago, therefore I haven't got complete data about his background," al-Dulaimi said. "Anyhow, they are only suspicions about his involvement, which have not been proved."

The military later issued another statement saying al-Dulaimi cooperated with the soldiers when they showed up to apprehend the guard.

"This operation in no way implies Dr. al-Dulaimi was associated with any illegal activity; he was not the target in this operation," the U.S. command said.

Following the arrest, the Iraqi government ordered a complete lockdown of Baghdad to pedestrian and vehicular traffic through Sunday morning. The curfew was put into place on the advice of U.S. forces, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Kaim Khalaf told the AP.

"They have information terrorists entered Baghdad," Khalaf said. "The prime minister agreed to (the curfew) to give our security forces the freedom of movement to raid certain places."

Salim Mansur: "I'm sorry...for the terrible crimes committed by Muslims"

An extraordinary column in the Toronto Sun (thanks to Nooze):

In a recent column, Michael Coren, my colleague here at the Sun, demanded Muslims apologize for wrongs too numerous to list.

Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize without equivocation or reservation for the terrible crimes -- small and big -- committed by Muslims against non-Muslims and against Muslims, as in Darfur, who are weak and easy prey to those who hold power in the name of Islam.

I imagine, however, Coren is not seeking an apology from a person of Muslim faith such as I, who maintains no rank and cannot speak on behalf of the institutionalized world of Islam.

Like many others who share his frustration and legitimate anger, Coren is asking to hear a contrite voice from within institutionalized Islam -- to repent for Muslim misconduct, past and present, that is indefensible by any standard of civility and decency, and seek forgiveness.

But Coren and others might well wait indefinitely for such an apology from those representatives of institutionalized Islam convinced of their own righteousness, even as they are engineers of a civilization's wreckage and prosper in it by the art of bullying.

Muslims and non-Muslims often point to the fact there is no Vatican in contemporary Islam -- no figure like the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury who authoritatively represents the Muslim world....

And here comes a point with extraordinary implications:

Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombings.

For such representatives of institutionalized Islam, all things are political. They are the authoritative guardians of the ideology that in Islam religion and politics are inseparable, and jihad -- holy war -- is its defining aspect.

Hence, since this institutionalized Islam is at war with the West, for Coren or anyone else to expect an apology from its generals is rather naive.

Well, not naive at all really, given the repeated insistence from Muslim and non-Muslim authorities alike that the overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor jihad violence. But in any case, search for Qaradawi at Jihad Watch and at Dhimmi Watch. Find out what he has said about jihad, about martyrdom-suicide bombings, and about a host of other issues. And reflect for a moment on the implications, if Mansur is correct that he is "the face of institutionalized Islam."

Jihad seen in upward trend in Morocco

Data emerging in Morocco puts another dent in the frequently encountered notion of poverty as the principal catalyst for turning seemingly "normal" people into jihadists. From AP: "Extremist Islam may be rising in Morocco"

RABAT, Morocco - Little would seem to connect a soldier, a shopkeeper, airline pilots' wives and a woman known for helping people in need. But all have been named as suspects in a purported Islamic terrorist plot, suggesting extremism may be leaping Morocco's class divides.

In all, Moroccan authorities arrested 56 people last month for allegedly being part of a network that was planning attacks on military and tourist sites in hopes of bringing down the government of this North African monarchy.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States and suicide bombings two years later that killed 33 people in Casablanca, this country's economic capital, Moroccans have grown accustomed to police crackdowns on Islamic militants.

[...]

What's new in the latest case is the wide range of people accused. Middle-class women and security force members allegedly formed the core of a group that authorities say called itself Ansar al-Mehdi, or Supporters of the Mehdi -- a divine figure in Islamic tradition who will establish justice on Earth before Judgment Day.

While the Mahdi is more commonly associated in the media with Shi'ite Islam, it is worth noting here that Sunni Islam -- to which Moroccans are adherents -- also teaches the coming of a Mahdi, though of a different identity from the hidden twelfth imam in the Shi'ite tradition.

Previously, Islamic extremism was most evident in Morocco's urban slums like Sidi Moumen, the cinderblock jungle in Casablanca where many of the 2003 suicide bombers lived. If the charges are true, the new case would suggest Muslim militancy is spreading into the middle class.

Penetration of the army would be a particular blow because the Western-equipped force has traditionally stood as a pillar of state power. After the sweep, King Mohammed VI fired the head of military intelligence and the head of Morocco's general security forces.

Morocco ended compulsory military service this month, but officials said it had nothing to do with the Ansar al-Mehdi revelations.

Officials have released little information about the Mehdi suspects and their alleged targets, divulging just a few names. The Justice Ministry says judges are preparing for public hearings originally planned for mid-September but now delayed until late October.

Two of the four female suspects are wives of Royal Air Maroc pilots, and Interior Minister Chakib Benmoussa alleged they were recruited by alleged Ansar al-Mehdi chief Hassan Khattab to carry out suicide attacks in Morocco.

Khattab spent two years in jail for involvement in the May 2003 suicide bombings.

Another woman in custody, Fatima Zahra Rehioui, 51, is described by authorities as a central figure in the alleged plot. In a rare news conference in August, Benmoussa said Rehioui was a confidant of Khattab and knowingly gave him $17,280 for terrorist activities.

As always, someone steps up to say what a swell person the accused is:

Rehioui's lawyer tells a different story, describing her as someone who helps people. Attorney Khalid Idrissi said Khattab asked Rehioui for the money so he could see a doctor about a heart condition and she gave the money freely, with no questions asked.

"She's known as a very charitable woman who helps poor families in her area, especially during Ramadan and at other religious festivals," Idrissi said.

Moroccan authorities say that Badr Bouziki, a 27-year-old shopkeeper, also was deeply involved with Ansar al-Mehdi and that he helped test explosives in forests near Sale, just outside the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

[...]

Mohamed Khalouki, 27, whose family lives in an outlying village of Sale, is one of five soldiers arrested in the terror sweep.

[...]

Drawn early to music, he became a drummer in the army band, traveling to Europe for concerts and shifting his ambitions to a musical career. Denied permission to quit the army, he deserted in 2005 and was captured this year, serving three months in jail, the family said.

"On the day he was supposed to get out, I went to pick him up, but he wasn't there," a brother said. Khalouki had been transferred into police custody for alleged involvement with four fellow band members in Ansar al-Mehdi.

Islamic rebels warn India against executing militant

More jihadists claiming the carrying out of sentences for serious crimes as a pretext for committing more crimes. From AFP:

SRINAGAR, India - Islamic rebels warned on Friday of "dire consequences" if India executes a Kashmiri Muslim convicted over a 2001 attack on parliament, amid a paralysing protest strike in Indian Kashmir’s main city and a third day of clashes between demonstrators and police.

The turmoil erupted in the Muslim-majority state after a New Delhi judge ordered that Mohammed Afzal, found guilty last month of helping to mastermind the attack, should be hanged on October 20.

"We warn of dire consequences if the death sentence is carried out," said Sadaqat Hussain, a spokesman for the United Jihad Council, Indian Kashmir’s main militant alliance which is battling New Delhi’s rule here.

Hussain, who said Afzal was innocent, did not make any specific threats in the statement published in local Indian Kashmiri newspapers.

Shops, businesses and schools were closed in Srinagar to protest the planned execution of Afzal.

Teacher forced into hiding after writing article describing Qur'an as "book of extraordinary violence"

Say we're peaceful, or we'll kill you. Robert Redeker Update: "Teacher forced into hiding after attacking Islam," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

A philosophy teacher today described how he was forced into hiding after a newspaper article in which he attacked Islam provoked death threats against himself and his family.

Robert Redeker, 52, from Toulouse in south-west France, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate".

He told French media today that he had no regrets about writing the article and that it was part of his job as a philosophy teacher to ask difficult questions.

In an interview with i-TV he said that he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist internet sites.

"There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ’This pig must have his head cut off’," he said.

Another e-mail says: "You will never again be safe on this earth. One billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill you."

And interviewed over the telephone from a safe house by Europe 1 radio, he complained that the education ministry had left him alone and abandoned. He said the ministry "has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help."

He accepted that his detractors had "already won a victory of sorts."

"I cannot do my job. I have no freedom of movement. I am in hiding. Already they have succeeded in punishing me ... as if I was guilty of holding the wrong opinions."

Dominique de Villepin, the French Prime Minister, said that the threats were "unacceptable".

He said: "We are in a democracy, everyone has the right to express his views freely -- of course while respecting others. That is the only restriction that is acceptable on this freedom.

"This shows to what extent we live in a dangerous world... and how vigilant we must be to ensure people fully respect one another in our society."

The Paris state prosecutor’s office today launched a preliminary inquiry for "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist enterprise", asking the intelligence agency to look into the death threats.

Gilles de Robien, the Education Minister, yesterday expressed "solidarity" with M Redeker, but also warned that "a state employee must show prudence and moderation in all circumstances".

Even when "one billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill" him.

Michelle Malkin has the text of Redeker's article, along with the one by German historian Egon Flaig that was banned in Egypt.

Pakistan's intelligence agency backs Al-Qaeda: British report

Friend and Ally Update: "ISI backs al-Qaeda: British report," from Associated Press, with thanks to F.:

London, September 28: A leaked British document accuses Pakistan's intelligence agency of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaeda, and it calls on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to disband the agency.

Musharraf, who is scheduled to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London on Thursday, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he rejected the assessment and would raise the matter with his counterpart.

"ISI is a disciplined force, breaking the back of al-Qaeda," Musharraf told the broadcaster, claiming his intelligence service had secured the arrests of 680 suspected terrorists.

Sure, Pervez. They started breaking the back of al-Qaeda right after Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age, right?

Al-Qaida urges 'month of jihad'

Ramadan mubarak! Abu Hamza al-Muhajir adds to the love note just received from Al-Zawahiri. More on this tape from China Daily:

Al-Qaida's leader in Iraq called for the kidnapping of Westerners to swap for a Muslim cleric jailed in the United States, according to an Internet audio tape issued yesterday.

"I call on every holy fighter in Iraq to strive during this holy month (Ramadan)... to capture some dogs of the Christians so that we can liberate our imprisoned sheikh," said the speaker, identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

He accused US jailers of "torturing" Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman, held over links to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.

The speaker also called for attacks on US military camps in Iraq using "unconventional bombs such as biological and dirty bombs."

The tape's authenticity could not be verified but it was posted on major websites used by militants....

But it is the holy month, after all, and so he offers clemency for those who collaborated with the enemies of Islam:

"As for those who supported the occupiers and their agents, becoming their eyes and ears, and who betrayed their religion, honour and land for material or social gains ... I declare a general amnesty during this month of generosity and forgiveness," the speaker on the tape said.

"We waive the right to (avenge) the blood that was shed by your hands and your betrayal," he said.

Somali jihadists close down radio station for reporting on protests

Sharia Alert and Somali Jihad Update from News.com.au: "Somali Islamists close down media"

ISLAMIST gunmen who captured the Somali port of Kismayo have forcibly closed a private media network there which they accuse of distorting news about protests against the takeover, journalists said today.

Islamist fighters on battle-wagons turned up at HornAfrik Radio's Kismayo offices late yesterday, ordering staff to stop operations, the National Union of Somali Journalists said.

"We are strongly bothered by this show of aggression against this media house, which is a conscious attack on the freedom of the press and fundamental freedom of expression," said union secretary general Omar Faruk Osman.

[...]

... there have been anti-Islamist protests this week in Kismayo, and Somalis in general are becoming increasingly worried about signs of hardline practices by the movement, which was born out of sharia courts.

The Islamists' rise has challenged the aspirations of Somalia's western-backed interim government - based in the provincial town of Baidoa - to restore central rule to the Horn of Africa nation for the first time since 1991.

Islamist sources said HornAfrik had made false broadcasts about this week's protests in Kismayo, including reports that a boy had died and women were mistreated in the violence.

The Islamists say they are simply restoring law and order to Somalia after 15 years of anarchy since the ousting of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. They are also openly calling for mainly Muslim Somalia to be ruled by a sharia system.

The above paragraph seems to separate the aims of the jihadists to "restore law and order" and to establish Sharia law. But a decline in crime rates is only part of their larger agenda, which would impose the entirety of the Islamic social order, including the governance of minute details of individual behavior.

A prescription from the Good Doctor Al-Zawahiri

In a new video from the boys at Al-Qaedawood, ol' Doc Zawahiri, like his boy Adam Gadahn, prescribes conversion to Islam as the cure for what ails ya -- or else, of course. Sounds as if the Good Doctor has been reading off Howard Dean's teleprompter.

"A Video Speech from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri: Bush, the Pope of the Vatican, Darfur, and the Crusader Wars, by as-Sahab Productions," from the SITE Institute, with thanks to Schoolraider:

As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s multimedia production arm, issued today, Friday, September 29, 2006, a 17:51 minute video speech featuring Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and titled: “Bush, the Pope of the Vatican, Darfur, and the Crusader Wars”. He appears in two scenes: one, subtitled in English, with an office-setup background with a lamp, flag bearing “No God, but Allah”, and a cannon; the other is without a background, and depicts Zawahiri dressed entirely in white, without subtitles.

To U.S. President George W. Bush, Zawahiri brands him a "deceitful charlation" and liar, and questions: “why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and it's allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order to increase your profits?” He questions his motives for initating the War in Iraq, ridiculing the false prexets under which it was conducted. To this end he cites the purported links of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, and the presence of weapons of mass destruction. He also addresses the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and questions that if it helped in the "war on terror" then “why are your troops retreating in secrete from the south and east of Afghanistan?... Bush...be aware that the liberation of our captives is a debt on our shoulders which we must fulfill”. Other individuals who have been captured, such as Ramzi Yusef, Omar Abdul Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") and Abu al-Faraj al-Libi are also cited.

That, I trust you understand, is a threat of violent actions to free these jailed jihadists.

Then al-Zawahiri retails some jihad recruitment pretexts:

In the Arabic portion, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri discusses the issue of the Pope Benedict XVI's slanderous comments to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, by prefacing such attacks as beginning with the Satanic Verses of Salmon Rushdie, followed by desecration of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay, and banning of the hijab in French schools. He states that the current pope is reminiscent of Pope Urban II, who "provoked the people of Europe to fight the Muslims" in the Crusades. Zawahiri disregards Christinaity due to its "supersitions" and alleged irrationality, but avers that Muslims are not enemies of Jesus as Pope Urban II claimed. On the pope's comments directly, Zawahiri adds: "if Benedict attacked us, we will respond to his insults with good things. We will call upon him, and all of the Christians to become Muslims who do not recognize the Trinity or the crucifixion, and say that Allah united with the human."

What a generous offer!

SITE has made available a one-minute clip of this masterpiece.

Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops

This is, of course, a consequence of the failure to consider the nature and implications of the jihad ideology and the Sharia imperative. Democracy On The March Update from AP:

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in
Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

_Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll.

"We vow to God that we will never recognise Israel even if we would be all killed"

Holding-Political-Power-Will-Exert-A-Moderating-Influence-On-Hamas Update: "Hamas rally in Gaza draws tens of thousands, denounces Israel," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters held a peaceful rally in Gaza on Friday to denounce the state of Israel and declare that they would never recognize its right to exist.

"We ask God to punish the so-called Israel and the allies of Israel and to punish those who recognize Israel and those who called on us to recognize Israel," Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri told the crowd that thronged the Jabalya refugee camp.

"We vow to God that we will never recognise Israel even if we would be all killed," Masri told the cheering audience of men, women and children, many of whom were wearing green Hamas baseball caps and held aloft Hamas banners.

Masri, a popular young lawmaker, also aimed criticism at Fatah, a rival movement headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, saying it was trying to pressure Hamas, which now runs the Palestinian government, into recognizing Israel.

"Those people are demanding us openly to recognize the occupation and that will never happen," Masri said.

Islamic prison chaplain sentenced to year at his New York home

Warith Deen Umar Update from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The former head Islamic chaplain for the state prison system was sentenced Thursday to a year of home detention by a judge who said he deserved leniency on a gun charge after decades of achievements that followed childhood poverty.

Warith Deen Umar will be permitted to leave home for work, medical care and religious services, Judge Robert P. Patterson said.

Earlier this year, Umar, 62, pleaded guilty to a gun charge after admitting he waved an empty shotgun at an angry tenant who struck him at a Bronx building he owns. He also owned a .22-caliber rifle and four shotgun shells.

The government charged Umar with gun possession, saying he was not allowed to have one because he had been convicted in 1971 of possession of a dangerous weapon.

The judge rejected efforts by the government to get him to take into consideration a published report that quoted Umar as saying in an unpublished memoir that even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud the Sept. 11 hijackers.

That would be this Wall Street Journal piece (subscribers only). Prison officials took it seriously enough to ban him from the prison system:

Umar was banned from state prisons shortly after the article was published in 2003 despite his assertion that his comments were taken out of context and that he never said the terrorists were martyrs or honored them.

The judge said he considered the article and two others cited by prosecutors "unreliable for sentencing purposes."...

He said he was shunned by many in his religious community after a false report that he had sympathized with Sept. 11 hijackers. He said one New York mosque has permanently banned him.

Good for them.

He said he had been comforted by neighbors around his home in Glenmont, N.Y., near Albany, where he said a mostly white group of people including Christians, Jews and gays came to his defense.

"These are Americans," he said....

Yes, probably. And besotted dhimmi fellow travelers also, probably.

Umar has said he believes "they are persecuting me because I'm Muslim and I'm black and I speak out and because I was the Muslim chaplain in the state prison system for 25 years."...

Get real, Umar. Being Muslim and black, if you were an outspoken anti-jihadist, would get you front-page, above the fold coverage, plus seats on all the pseudo-fearless conservative talking head shows. There is nothing that American officials and media want to find more than an outspoken, passionate, articulate moderate Muslim. If you were one, you'd be everyone's hero.

The judge told Umar that some Christians and others in the United States had trouble understanding how some Muslims could interpret the Quran in a way to permit people to blow themselves up in Afghanistan and Iraq in an effort to kill others.

"I happen to be Christian," the judge said. "That's very difficult for me to understand."

Well, judge, why don't you explain to us how you think Muslims should interpret the Qur'an? Here is another non-Muslim lecturing a Muslim about how to understand a book that he probably hasn't actually even read.

Tel Aviv car bomb kills one

Jihad in Israel continues. From Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

A SUSPECTED car bomb exploded in a town south of the coastal city of Tel Aviv today, killing at least one person and wounding up to six others, Israeli rescue and ambulance services said.

And from AFP: Israel seals Palestinian territories for Yom Kippur

As Yom Kippur falls during Ramadan this year, that is a prudent move.

Islamic militia open fire on demonstrators in Somalia

Apparently not all Somalis are thrilled with the Talibanization of Somalia, even if the mujahedin do make the trains run on time. From the Mail & Guardian, with thanks to DFS:

Islamic fighters opened fire on stone-throwing demonstrators in a key Somali seaport on Thursday, in a third day of protests over their seizure of the town. No casualties were reported.

Seven women were arrested by the Islamic militia after they joined demonstrations that have erupted in Kismayo, Somalia's third largest town, residents told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The stone-throwing crowds chanted that the fighters "are not Muslims" and "use Islam as a cover".

The Islamic militia has swept through southern Somalia since taking over the capital in June. Its strict and often severe interpretation of Islam raises the spectre of Afghanistan's ousted Taliban militia, and contrasts with the moderate Islam that has dominated Somali culture for centuries. Some Somalis, though, have welcomed the order the militia have brought after years of anarchic clan rule.

In Kismayo on Thursday, demonstrators, most of them women and children, blocked roads with trees and rocks to prevent Islamic militia using their armoured trucks, many of which were flying the black flags associated with Islamic extremism, to break up the protests.

U.S. Says Iran Buys Iraq Militia with Arms, Cash

Iran's "long-term influence is bound to wane." Among Iraqi Shi'ites? Really? Why?

And of course they don't want a "destabilized Iraq." They want a Shi'ite client state in Iraq, and they're doing all they can to establish one.

From DefenseNews.com, with thanks to DFS:

Iran is funneling weapons and cash to buy the loyalty of armed groups in Iraq, but its long- term influence is bound to wane as Iraqis focus more on their own interests, a senior U.S. military official said.

The United States and Britain have in the past accused Iran of fostering violence in Iraq. The Islamic Republic denies it.

But the official gave far more detail, and said the latest weapons finds -- including explosives bearing factory stamps indicating they come from Iran -- show that the policy of arming Iraqi militia is supported at high levels in Iran and not the work of rogue Iranian operatives.

"You see them enabling all comers," he said. "And by the way, nobody in this country stays bought. You’re rented."

The senior military official was discussing intelligence issues under condition he not be named, in a briefing with journalists in Baghdad on Sept. 27, the transcript of which was made available on Sept. 28.
He estimated that Iran has sent "millions of dollars" to the Mehdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, including rogue elements that had slipped out of Sadr’s direct control.

Iranian weapons found in Iraq include surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank rockets like those used by Hizbollah in Lebanon against Israel, as well as tank-destroying Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) that have become common in roadside bombs used to attack U.S. and British troops....

But the official said parties seen as pro-Iranian were already falling behind in Iraq, losing ground to groups like Sadr’s who portray themselves more as Iraqi nationalists.

"For them to function effectively inside Iraq, they have to make a decision to be Iraqi," he said.

"Iran only has a window of opportunity to influence Iraq before Iraq -- and its natural tendencies as both an Arab state and one who’s got a whole series of friction points with the Islamic Republic -- will start to take over."

He said Iran had fomented violence in Iraq, especially places like Basra in the south, but this could be counter productive because of mainly ethnic-Persian Iran’s own worries about unrest among its Arab and Kurdish minorities.

"It’s not in their best interest to have a destabilized Iraq, because guess what? There are Arabs in the south (of Iran) and Kurds in the north that pose significant challenges to Iranian internal stability," he said.

"But nonetheless, they’re not sure who is going to come out on top. And so basically they fund everybody."

U.S.: Afghan attacks triple since truce

Pakistan's "peace agreement" with the Taliban is quickly yielding predictable results. From AP:

KABUL, Afghanistan - American troops on Afghanistan's eastern frontier have seen a tripling of attacks since a truce between the Pakistani army and pro-Taliban tribesmen that was supposed to stop cross-border raids by militants, a U.S. military officer said Wednesday.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry rejected the U.S. claim and said home-based insurgents were behind the violence in Afghanistan, where at least 25 militants were reported killed in fighting Wednesday.

Raising further questions about the cease-fire, a Pakistani political leader maintained Taliban leader Mullah Omar approved the deal. A government official denied that.

The developments could add to the feuding between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who were having dinner Wednesday night with President Bush at the White House to try to patch up their dispute over how to quell Islamic extremists.

The U.S. officer said the cease-fire that began June 25, cemented by the signing of a peace accord Sept. 5, contributed to the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan. He said ethnic Pashtun insurgents are no longer fighting Pakistani troops and are using Pakistan's North Waziristan border area as a command-and-control hub for attacks in Afghanistan.

Pakistani tribal elders brokered the truce between Musharraf's government and militants, which ended years of unrest in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

But the agreement appears to have bolstered Taliban infiltrators, with the number of attacks in eastern Afghan provinces rising threefold since July 31, said the U.S. officer, who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name due to the sensitivity of the issue.

"That's why they had the chance to rest and refit, because they were in a sanctuary," he said, referring to a surge in Taliban attacks over the last several months without giving specific numbers for incidents before or after the truce.

[...]

Meanwhile, Latif Afridi, a top official in Pakistan's Awami National Party, said he received a letter containing Taliban leader Mullah Omar's approval of the North Waziristan peace deal.

He said the letter also claimed Pakistani militants who back the Taliban in North Waziristan would fall under the command of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a front-line Taliban commander.

[...]

The U.S. officer said the Taliban's connections with Pakistan run so deep that wounded fighters seek treatment on the Pakistani side of the border and even carry their dead to Pakistan for burial.

Some of the suicide bombers in Afghanistan have been recruited in Pakistan, including a 17-year-old boy who blew himself up in front of a U.S. military convoy in Kabul this month, killing a bystander and wounding three American soldiers, Afghan police say.

Al Qaeda in Iraq leader calls scientists to jihad

Better dying through chemistry. From AP: "Iraq terrorist calls scientists to jihad"

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Qaida in Iraq's leader, in a chilling audiotape released Thursday, called for nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war and urged insurgents to kidnap Westerners so they could be traded for a blind Egyptian sheik who is in a U.S. prison.

The fugitive terror chief said experts in the fields of "chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences -- especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts" should join his group's jihad, or holy war, against the West.

"We are in dire need of you," said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir -- also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri. "The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them."

The 20-minute audio was posted to a Web site that frequently airs al-Qaida messages. The voice could not be independently identified, but it was thought to be al-Masri's. He is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June, as head of the al-Qaida-linked organization.

Thursday's message focused attention on Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy for his advisory role in a plot to blow up five New York City landmarks, including the United Nations.

Barghouti isn't the only one scheming about prisoner swaps:

"I appeal to every holy warrior in the land of Iraq to exert all efforts in this holy month so that God may enable us to capture some of the Western dogs to swap them with our sheik and get him out of his dark prison," said al-Masri, who is also Egyptian.

He also said more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- the first known statement from the insurgents about their death toll.

It was unclear why al-Masri would advertise the loss of the group's foreign fighters, but martyrdom is revered among Islamic fundamentalists, and could be used as a recruiting tool. Analysts said the announcement was likely a boast aimed at drumming up support.

"It's showing the level of dedication to their cause, the level of sacrifice jihadists are making," said Ben N. Venzke, director of the Washington-based IntelCenter, which monitors terrorism communications.

"In a strange kind of way, it's almost showing a sense of strength and purpose in their cause to other people around world who might be thinking about joining the fight," Venzke said in a telephone interview.

The statement followed the release of a U.N. report Wednesday that said fewer foreign fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq in the last few months, "suggesting that the flow has slackened." The report also said some fighters had expressed dissatisfaction they were asked to kill fellow Muslims rather than Western soldiers and that the only role for them was to be suicide bombers.

Still, the report said al-Qaida "has gained by continuing to play a central role in the fighting and in encouraging the growth of sectarian violence; and Iraq has provided many recruits and an excellent training ground."

Brussels: Muslims riot for 3rd straight night

Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal has kindly alerted us to some alarming developments in Belgium: "Third Night of Ramadan Rioting in Capital of Europe" (many news links in the original):

It looks as if immigrants youths want to turn nightly rioting during the Islamic holy month of ramadan into an annual tradition. Around 8:30pm last night violence erupted again in Brussels, the capital of Europe. The riots centered on the Brussels Marollen quarter and the area near the Midi Train Station, where the international trains from London and Paris arrive. Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St.Peter’s hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine.

During the month of ramadan Muslims are required to fast during the day and are only allowed to eat after sunset. As Esther pointed out “What should be noticed about the riots is that they start after sunset. Besides the fact that they start after dark, it also gives the rioters enough time to break their fast and enjoy the traditional family meal. Sunset is around 7:30pm.” Tuesday’s and Monday’s riots began around 8:30pm.

Writer of 'anti-Islam' article gets death threats

He "accused Islam of 'exalting violence,'" and they threaten to kill him. Doesn't anyone notice the irony here?

From AFP, with thanks to Fjordman:

SAINT-ORENS-DE-GAMEVILLE, France, Sept 28, 2006 (AFP) — A French philosophy teacher was under police protection Thursday after receiving death threats over an article he wrote in a national newspaper that accused Islam of "exalting violence", school and police officials said.

Robert Redeker has not attended classes at his secondary school near Toulouse in southern France since September 19, when his opinion column appeared in the right-wing daily Le Figaro.

"He received written death threats in the form of emails. On the face of it they were pretty serious," said the lycée's headmaster Pierre Donnadieu.

Police confirmed the threat but refused to comment on the protection Redeker is receiving.

Under the heading "In the face of Islamist intimidation, what must the free world do?", Redeker described the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate".

Likening Islam to Communism, he said that "violence and intimidation are the methods used by an expansionist ideology ... to impose its leaden cloak on the world".

"In the face of Islamist intimidation, what must the free world do?" Above all, not give in. Not stop speaking the truth. The fact that for all too many Muslims "violence and intimidation" are indeed the methods by which they impose their will has been proven again by the threats to Redeker. The way to respond to intimidation is not to allow oneself to be intimidated.

And Muslims who proclaim their moderation should make it clear that they reject all this, whether directed against the Pope, or Redeker, or Salman Rushdie, or anyone else. They should work against the beliefs and assumptions within the Islamic community that lead to this kind of intimidation. Or if they don't, then rational observers will have every reason to suspect the sincerity of their moderation.

Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing

After retailing nonsense since 9/11 about how all this jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, someone in the Pentagon actually took a look at the Qur'an itself, and -- lo and behold! -- discovered what I have been trying to tell people for years now: that the jihadists have a broad justification within the Qur'an and Islamic theology and law, and that fact has to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims if anything effective is ever going to be done about it. "Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing: Tasked with pinpointing motivation, analysts find terrorists 'rational actors' following 'holy book,'" from WND, with thanks to all who sent this in:

With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.

Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.

In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.

"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.

But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."

Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

Particularly 9:111, which guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah.

Jihad Watch at Hot Air

At Hot Air today I am talking about Pope Rage on a new videoblog.

Jihad Watch will henceforth be a weekly feature at Hot Air.

Esmay boils over, Preston and Malkin respond

Dean Esmay is at it again, ranting and raving in yet another Ralph-Peters-esque (credit Michelle Malkin with the phrase) substanceless hit-and-run attack, this time on Michelle herself -- plus a few swipes at Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs and the Jawa Report in his comments fields.

I wouldn't have noted it at all except that his initial sally was linked at Instapundit, which demonstrates that despite all of Esmay's frothing hysteria and foaming-at-the-mouth slanders and distortions, some people evidently still take him seriously. How anyone could possibly do so after his foul-mouthed raging in the comments that Michelle Malkin links to is a mystery to me.

Bryan Preston and Michelle Malkin respond cogently.

You can read the whole sorry history of Esmay's frenzied attacks on me and my responses here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Barghouti to Israel: Failure to release top prisoners will invite more kidnappings

Blaming the victim, Barghouti claims the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers -- which sparked the month-long war with Hizballah and escalated operations in the Gaza Strip -- is Israel's fault for not releasing its Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners. Of course, Barghouti has a vested interest in this, as he sits in an Israeli prison serving five life sentences for the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk. From YNet News: "Barghouti: More kidnappings if top prisoners not freed"

If senior Palestinian security prisoners are not released as part of the prisoner swap deal to free kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, more kidnappings will likely ensue, jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti said.

Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison, expressed this view during a one-and-a-half hour meeting Wednesday with MK Taleb El-Sana at the prison's visiting quarters. In addition to Shalit’s release, the two discussed the pending PA unity government and the implications of the war in Lebanon.

El-Sana said he came away with the impression that Barghouti was in heightened spirits and that he was familiar with the smallest details of the political realities in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

According to El-Sana, during their conversation Barghouti charged Israel with responsibility for the kidnappings. If Israel had agreed to free Samir Kuntar, the kidnappings in Lebanon could have been avoided, and Israel’s release of Palestinian prisoners would have not only prevented the snatching of Shalit, but also strengthened Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' leadership.

Samir Kuntar (whom Palestinian Authority media has called a "beacon of light") is serving multiple life sentences for killing an Israeli father and his two daughters in 1979. Barghouti would like this, and his own crimes, swept under the rug, lest the Palestinians kidnap more Israelis to use as bargaining chips for their release.

Barghouti added, "Just as Gilad Shalit is important to his family and country, so is every Palestinian prisoner."

It has already been proven that the prisoners are the true leaders of the Palestinian people, he declared, as only they could draft the list of principles which became a basis of unity for the Palestinians, and came to be known as the ‘Prisoners’ Document.’

He noted that any step towards a prisoner swap deal must be approved by the prisoners themselves, and therefore if the deal doesn’t include senior detainees -- it will only invite additional kidnappings.

OIC to revive news agency, TV network to counter Western ‘bias’

Not content with simply buying influence in world media, which could take a while, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has decided to reconstitute two of its news outlets, which will no doubt bring you the human interest stories behind the effigy burnings, showcase the latest fashion in niqabs, and, yes, blame Israel and the West for all the world's problems. One question remains: Will they lure away the in-house talent at Hizballah's al-Manar? From AP:

KUALA LUMPUR - The world’s largest Islamic grouping would revive two Saudi Arabia-based news organisations to counter Western media’s "skewered view" of Islam, a Malaysian official said on Wednesday.

The 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, would restart the International Islamic News Agency and the Islamic States Broadcasting Organization -- both set up in the 1970s, Malaysia’s deputy Information Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamid said.

Malaysia is the current chairman of the OIC.

"We want to revive it," Zahid said, adding the Saudi information minister has asked Malaysia to head the task.

It wasn’t clear how long or why the two organizations -- which would provide text and video -- have been dormant. Zahid didn’t provide details.

"The negative view of Islamic countries must change. The foreign media often has a bias against us," he said. "They have a skewered view."

No starting date or costs were provided.

Muslim nations, including Malaysia, have said media coverage by Western news organizations, particularly in the Middle East, is lopsided and portrays a negative view of Islam.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, after a tour of Lebanon, recently complained images and stories displayed a bias toward Israel.

Zahid said Malaysia has offered to set up a center for journalists from Islamic countries, which would be funded by the OIC, the world’s largest political grouping of Muslim nations.

Four Buddhists shot dead in unrest

No doubt because of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
From NEWS.com.au:

In one attack, two teenagers in Islamic students' dress and riding a motorcycle, shot and killed three Buddhists in Yala, the capital of a province of the same name.

“The militants exploited the fact that the men were shopping at a grocery store and could not defend themselves, even though they had a gun,” police Colonel Somsak Wannawak said.

The fourth man was shot while riding a bus.
Do you think we will hear that the attackers suffer from Buddhiphobia?

Palestinian media calls pope 'stupid,' 'criminal'

While both items from Palestinian media mentioned below occurred before Pope Benedict's meeting with Muslim envoys, no one seems to be in a hurry to apologize either for the cartoon or the content of the sermon following that meeting, which was clearly not enough for those who would demand the Pope grovel for forgiveness like a proper dhimmi, or convert to Islam. From YNet News:

Pope Benedict XVI is "arrogant," "stupid," and "criminal," and will be judged by Allah on the day "when eyes will stare in terror," declared a sermon delivered this past weekend on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' state-run television station.

The sermon coincided with a cartoon also published this weekend in an official Hamas-run daily newspaper in which the pontiff is depicted holding a swastika while wearing a scarf of American and Danish flags.

The cartoon, published by the Hamas paper Al-Risala ("the message"), can be found here at Palestinian Media Watch. Will Al-Risala's publishers be disappointed when Catholics don't riot, engage in shootings and bombings, and call for the conversion or death of Ismail Haniyeh?

"To this arrogant Pope -- criminal and arrogant -- this message is from Allah the Elevated and the Exalted, as it was said: 'Think not that Allah is unaware of what the wicked do. He but gives them a respite until a day when eyes will stare (in terror),'" stated Gaza preacher Osama Al-Mazini in a sermon broadcast by the official television station of Abbas' Fatah party.

"For this ignorant and stupid pope, who has no one to attack besides Islam and the prophet (Muhammad) ... (the pope) characterized Islam as a cruel religion and characterized Muhammad, may the Creator have mercy on him and protect him, as a cruel man, spilling blood, who strove to kill," Al-Mazini said in the sermon, which was translated by Palestinian Media Watch.

"The only dialogue we will accept is when all other religions agree to convert to Islam"

An answer from Sheik Abu Saqer, "leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement," to the Pope's invitation to Muslims to dialogue: "Pope in 'Crusader conspiracy' with Bush," from WorldNetDaily.com, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

JERUSALEM – Pope Benedict XVI's meeting this week with a delegation of Muslim leaders and his calls for interfaith dialogue following earlier remarks about Islam are really "Crusader conspiracies" to subjugate the Islamic faith and force "Christian-Zionist" worldviews upon Muslims, a prominent Gaza Strip preacher told WorldNetDaily in an interview.

Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called the pope a "puppet" for "that Crusader George Bush."

The Gaza imam said the only Christian-Muslim dialogue that is acceptable is one in which "all religions agree to convert to Islam."

"The call for so-called dialogue by this little racist pope is a Trojan horse with the main goal of reaching a new system in which the ideals [of Christianity] are a new ideology that will rule relations between nations and people. The dialogue he wants is dangerous," said Abu Saqer, speaking to WND from the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis.

"The pope is the spiritual and religious wing of the Crusader ideology," Abu Saqer said. "He is totally coordinated with Bush. Through this dialogue he hopes to break the lines of unity between Muslims and polarize the Muslim world, which has some partisans who will accept this new dialogue. But true believers know Islam must rule all relations. The only dialogue we will accept is when all other religions agree to convert to Islam."...

In an interview with WND last week, Abu Saqer called for holy war against the pope. He declared the "green flag of Muhammad" would soon be raised over the Vatican.

"We did not need the words of the pope in order to understand that this is a Crusader war against Islam and it is our holy duty to fight all those who support the pope, who follow him and who did not condemn what this small racist had to say," said Abu Saqer.

Fitzgerald: The problem of Pakistan

Pakistan has a nuclear program based on the thefts of secrets by "Dr." A. Q. Khan, national hero of Pakistan, and willing sharer -- a Secret Sharer -- of such secrets with Iran and North Korea. Pakistan has been the incubator and promoter and supporter of the Taliban, the same Pakistan that has just announced plans to make 40-50 nuclear weapons a year.

Pakistan is a land of impoverished masses who find their solace in Islam and only Islam, while the anglophone families of zamindars and generals are hardly Muslims in their own lives. Their children enjoy English and American universities. Some of those children -- such as the son of the untrustworthy, but bearing-the-allure-of-rectitude Musharraf -- choose to remain (and why not? You would too), making their permanent lives in the Infidel West. (Did Musharraf himself pass out from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurt, like so many of those "trustworthy" and "pro-Western" Terry-Thomas-mustachioed Pakistani generals who for decades won the heart of American geneals and civilian policymakers?) It is understandable that military men stay in Pakistan, for if you are not a zamindar, it is the best way to obtain power and money, but your children may head geographically Infidel-wards. English is not a problem. Musharraf’s son, when last he was in the news, was working as an accountant in Massachusetts.

Many of the richest Pakistanis, though they have chosen the sanity and safety of Infidel lands for their children (and for temporary frequent retreat for themselves), have apparently not used their mental freedom sufficiently. They have not bethought themselves about the nature of Islam and its connection to the hideous condition of Pakistan itself -- its political, economic, social, and intellectual failures. They have not considered the failure of Islamic countries in general, a failure directly attributable to the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam. Some of the most famous are sly defenders of the faith, even as they deplore terrorism. Ahmad Rashid, for example, for so long a correspondent for The Telegraph, and now made famous as an "expert" on the Taliban, declares in his "Jihad" that the word's primary meaning is that of the inner struggle rather than the outward war on Infidels.

Meanwhile, those zamindars permit or do not try to stop, and many of those generals support (see General Malik's book-length treatment of Jihad) the role of Pakistan in promoting terrorism against Hindus in Kashmir, and deep within India. And they offer refuge as well to Indian Muslims implicated in such terrorism. Where is that leader of the Mumbai underworld, the one now hiding from Indian authorities after the last terrorist attack? In Pakistan. Where is the ISI that has done nothing to stop, and much to promote, Lashkar-e-Toiba as it once promoted the Taliban? In Pakistan.

But it is not Pakistan alone that is the problem. It is India's appeasement of Pakistan, an appeasement possibly born of fear of local Muslim reaction. The Indian government, as Tavleen Singh points out in a recent article, continues to avoid admitting to itself, and is keeping carefully from the people of India, the existence of domestic Muslim terrorists who are self-propelled -- for fear of the reaction of Hindus, and what measures might then might be demanded, or might need to be taken. The government of India, just as governments of the Western world, is hiding the evidence of support of every kind for Muslim terrorists in Mumbai and elsewhere in India.

Pakistan is to blame, yes. But not Pakistan alone. A better formulation would be: Muslims, in India and in Pakistan, are working to terrorize the non-Muslims of India, and not only those in that part which gets attention in the West, the part known as Kashmir.

India and Pakistan began as independent states at the same time, under roughly the same conditions of development, and their different trajectories can be traced and compared. In political freedom, India has had steady or sometimes unsteady democracy, and Pakistan, a succession of mild or un-mild despots, zamindars or generals or zamindars-posing-as-men-of-the-people. In Hindu-dominated India, the Muslim population has increased, while in Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan), the Hindu population has gone from 14% to 1.5% of the population. In Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), it has gone from 35% to 7% of the population.

In economic development there is no comparison. Pakistan is kept afloat, and has been kept afloat, only by Infidel aid -- whether through the disguised Jizyah of foreign, especially American, aid (which helped provide the money, beyond the level needed for subsistence, that was no doubt diverted for A. Q. Khan's nuclear project), or through the money received by Pakistanis, often in the form of welfare benefits, in England. The latter is a system riddled with fraud. These transfer payments within Great Britain is a kind of Jizyah as well, for it has led to unmerited transfers of wealth from the Infidel taxpayers of England to the Muslim recipients of every kind of benefit.

Socially, the position of women in both Pakistan and Bangladesh remains far below what it is in India, though in village India, among Hindus, it is hardly ideal. One has been made aware, by one famous example, of the continued mistreatment of rape victims in Muslim societies -- which are quickly attributed only to "cultural" factors.
Morally, the level of Pakistan and Bangladesh can be examined in the light of the attacks by the former on the later in 1970-71, and the mass killings by the Pakistani Army of Bangladeshis, in which local Muslim fanatics who believed that Pakistan had to remain one country “for the sake of Islam” aided them. They took pleasure, during the 1971 civil war, in killing fellow Bangladeshis. Nearly 2 million civilians were killed. Millions of Hindus fled, to be joined even by Muslims who were given refuge in India. These Muslim did not, however, offer the Infidel nation-state of India their loyalty; their loyalty remains, as it must, to Islam, and to the Umma.

Shall one go on? Shall the possibilities for art and literature, and a free press, be compared in India, and in Pakistan? Do it yourself.

Musharraf writes of those terrorists who managed to become citizens of England (England's great mistake) as if they were completely English. They are not. They are Pakistanis-in-England. By loyalty to Islam, to its tenets, by attitude and atmospherics, they have grown up in societies suffused with Islam, even if the streets they once played on were named Brick Lane or Balfour Crescent. They retain close ties to Pakistan, a source of brides, a place to send English entitlement money or even live on more cheaply than could be done in England. They are England's problem -- but they are also Pakistan's problem. Musharraf has spent much of his recent existence avoiding responsibilities, and not only to the United States, but also to Great Britain, to India, and to Afghanistan. Despite the ostentatious rectitude of his presentation of self, he is looking more meretricious every day. And now we will be treated to even more of the same, to study at our leisure.

Thanks to Simon. Thanks to Schuster.

Spencer: Keith Ellison, CAIR, and Hamas

In FrontPage this morning I examine the CAIR connection of the Muslim candidate for Congress, Keith Ellison (news links in the original):

Keith Ellison (D-MN) is shaping up to be the first-ever Muslim member of Congress, and the mainstream media is treating his candidacy as a huge human-interest story and a triumph of multiculturalism. The Christian Science Monitor gushed that “when Keith Ellison arrives at the Karmel Square, one of Minneapolis’s Somali malls, a rock star might as well be walking by the bustling stalls of bright fabrics, jewelry, phone cards, and videos.” It quoted Larry Jacobs of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota exulting: “You think of the stereotype of Minnesota -- Garrison Keillor and white Norwegian farmers. The first Muslim congressman coming from Minnesota? It says a lot about the changing face of the United States and Minnesota.”

Of course, not all is rosy: the Monitor notes that “conservative bloggers” and Ellison’s Republican opponent, Alan Fine, have raised questions about Ellison’s alleged ties to the Nation of Islam, as well as about a number of unpaid parking tickets that led to the suspension of his drivers’ license. But the Monitor doesn’t mention the most troubling aspect of Ellison’s record: the support he has received from the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Journalist Joel Mowbray has been virtually the only journalist who has pursued this connection, exploring in a recent column “Mr. Ellison’s seemingly tight connection with Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom he met almost two decades ago at the University of Minnesota.” Mowbray reports that “Mr. Awad headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR’s co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)” Faced with this evidence, Ellison’s backers have “attempted to paint attacks on the candidate as overtly partisan or even bigoted. A Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist, for example, recently suggested that Mr. Ellison is under attack solely for being Muslim.”

What is so troubling about Ellison’s connection with Awad and CAIR? Mowbray quotes the assessments of two leading Democrats: Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois has declared that CAIR “is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.” New York Senator Charles Schumer, once said that CAIR “has ties to terrorism” and that Ellison’s supporter Awad has “intimate connections with Hamas.” Mowbray establishes the latter point from Awad’s own mouth, quoting his 1994 statement: “I’m in support of the Hamas movement.”

Awad himself responded to this in an AP story about Ellison’s candidacy: “I don’t support Hamas today,” he explained. “My position and CAIR’s position is extremely clear -- we condemn suicide bombings. We are mainstream American Muslims.” AP reporter Frederic Frommer added that a Republican charge that Ellison had received “financial support from a self-identified supporter of Hamas” was a “reference to Awad's 1994 statement that he preferred Hamas to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In an interview, Awad said that was before the group engaged in suicide bombings and was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.”

But of course, saying flatly that “I am in support of the Hamas movement” is not simply stating a preference for Hamas over the PLO. In any case, if Awad supported Hamas before 1994, it is useful to examine what that means. I have here preserved the old Hamas website’s “glory record” of attacks against Israelis – the terrorist organization’s own record of its murderous actions. Here are some of Hamas’ self-described exploits from before 1994:

3. Boureen Operation: The militant Hamdan Hussein Al:najar, a member of Hamas, killed the Israeli settler Ya’coub Berey using a big rock as his weapon. The militant was shot down as a martyr after he had ambushed an Israeli patrol using the dead settler’s weapon....

6. Bus No. 405 Operation: Militant Ahmed Hussein Shukry, a member of Hamas, was able to lead an Israeli soldier to a secluded place in Tel Aviv where the militant hit the soldier with a chisel and killed him on 8 September 1989. The following day, the militant got on bus No. 405 and stabbed the driver to take over the bus; however, the passengers were able to stop the militant....

12. Keryat Youval Operation: The militant Mohammed Mustafa Abu Jalala stabbed four Israelis and injured another at a bus station in Keryat Youval in Jerusalem before he was arrested by the Israeli forces.

13. Askalan Road Operation: While driving a taxi, the militant Jameel Ismail Al:baz, a member of Hamas, ran over a group of Israelis waiting on this road on 19 July 1991....

15. Shailou Operation: A military group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli bus carrying some settlers on their way to Tel Aviv to participate in demonstrations organized by the extremist party Likud against the peace process. The bus was completely destroyed; two Israelis were killed and five more were injured....

17. Eid Al-maskhara Operation: The militant Ra’ed Al:reefy attacked an Israeli crowd in Jaffa on 17 March 1992. He was able to kill 2 and injure 21 Israelis who gathered to celebrate Eid Al:maskhara, also known as Al:boureem.

18. Beit Lahya Operation: On the third anniversary of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's arrest, a group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli settler at Beit Lahya and shot him down then withdrew safely....

21. Carlo Factory Operation: Four militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades broke into a citrus packing factory (Carlo) near Nahal Oaz at 2:30 p.m. on 25 June 1992. Three militants stabbed two Israelis while the other was guarding....

Suicide bombings? No. Terrorist attacks on civilians? Sure. And there are many, many more on the list dating from before 1994. So are we to understand that Awad supported such operations and only stopped supporting Hamas later, although these was no change in its ideology and no change in its taste for victimizing civilians?

When Awad says that he and CAIR do not support Hamas today, it should be recalled that in March 2004, when Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin was killed by Israel, CAIR condemned his killing -- without ever mentioning that Yassin was the mastermind and director of suicide killings for Hamas: “We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon's out-of-control government. Israel’s extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence.”

When did CAIR stop supporting Hamas? On Monday I searched the CAIR website for “Hamas.” There are three possible searches: News Briefs, Action Alerts, and Press Releases. Only News Briefs turned up anything at all: an old article from Haaretz attacking Ariel Sharon.

So if CAIR now condemns Hamas, where is it saying so? Just in the lower paragraphs of articles about other subjects? We can’t even get one press release about it? Not one Action Alert calling on Muslims everywhere to condemn Hamas?

Before Minnesotans elect Keith Ellison to Congress, they need to know the answers to these questions.

Turkey: Army will protect country from Islamists

And the the EU has expressed objections to this, remaining all too eager to extend the rights and privileges of membership to a country where jihadists can -- and will, if allowed -- exploit the democratic process to achieve their goals. From AP:

A top Turkish general said Monday that increasingly powerful Islamist forces threatened Turkey's secular system and that the army would play its role in defending the country against them, the state-run news agency reported.

General Ilker Basbug's comments appeared aimed at both the Islamic-rooted government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and at EU officials who have repeatedly called on the Turkish military to limit its role in state affairs.

The military views itself as the protector of Turkey's secular identity. Fiercely secular generals have directly led three coups since 1961 and ousted a government from power in 1997 for what they saw as an excessive Islamist bent.

Islamic foreign ministers press pope to apologize

The Pope respects them and is committed to dialogue? So what? He must kowtow. Nothing less than full submission will be acceptable. Pope Rage Update from Reuters, with thanks to Rudi:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - An organization of 56 Islamic nations pressed Pope Benedict on Tuesday to apologize for his comments linking Muslims and violence, keeping alive a two-week-old controversy.

Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, approved a statement urging the Vatican to "retract or redress" the comments, in which the pope cited quotes saying the Muslim faith was spread by violence.

The group issued its statement a day after Pope Benedict assured diplomats from some 20 Muslim nations and the leaders of Italy's Muslim community that he respected them and was committed to dialogue.

It was the fourth time he had tried to make amends, without actually apologizing directly, for his September 12 speech at a university in his native Germany....

The OIC statement said Islamic nations' foreign ministers "believe that it is befitting to the Vatican to retract or redress the said statement, in demonstration of the correct spirit of Christianity in dealing with Islamic issues."

That "correct spirit" is to the OIC apparently utter deference and submission, in line with dhimmi status.

Egyptian Cleric Explains His Fatwa Sanctioning the Killing of Israelis Visiting Egypt

"I was dreaming a beautiful dream..." From MEMRITV, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi, which aired on Dream2 TV on August 26, 2006:

[...]

When I said what I said, I was dreaming a beautiful dream, which I hope will come true, and that we all agree upon it. I dreamt that we are the Arab Islamic States, not just Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. I was truly dreaming that we are the Arab Islamic States. Get a map of the Arab homeland, and erase the borders... Or maybe these can be borders between counties or states, like the USA, in which 49 states were united into one country. I had a dream that we were one country, called the Arab Islamic States. The capital of this country is Egypt, and the president of Egypt and its government head this country. This is the dream I dreamt.

[...]

I said that these Israelis... I specified the Israeli Jew, not just any Jew. I said, word for word, that these are American Jews, Dutch Jews, and Jews from all other nationalities - and to them this does not apply. He must be a Jew and an Israeli, and not just any Israeli, because there are Israeli Arabs, there are Muslim Israelis from the 1948 Arabs, there are Christian Israelis... He must be an Israeli Jew, and, in parentheses - a Zionist. This was the first condition to my fatwa. The second condition is that he must be a combatant - in other words, a reserves soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces.

[...]

The third condition was that this action must cause no damage. I even said that it was entirely forbidden for someone to wear an explosives belt and blow himself up, and destroy a car in the street, just in order to kill an Israeli.

[...]

The fourth condition I mentioned was that no innocent person be killed. If we apply these four conditions of the fatwa in order to kill an Israeli, one must make sure that he is a Jew, an Israeli, and that he is between 21 and 54, the age of the reserves, and if she is a woman, she must be between 21 and 34, which is the age of the reserves [for women], and even then, he must make sure that she has no children, because a woman of this age with children is no longer a soldier in the IDF.

[...]

In an unusual display, someone spoke up against this madness:

Salah Issa, Al-Qahira editor-in-chief: He said: "I was imagining that this has become the Arab Islamic States, and that is why I said this." No. Excuse me, but you live here, in Egypt. Egypt has a peace agreement with Israel. Whether or not we accept it, this agreement exists. According to this agreement, any Israeli who comes here enjoys our protection, as Muslims.

Hizballah moving rockets to Palestinian camps, rebuilding bunkers

Ceasefire Update from YNet News: "Hizbullah moving rockets to Palestinian camps"

Hizbullah has been transporting rockets and heavy weaponry to Palestinian camps in south Lebanon just a few miles from the Israeli border, according to Lebanese officials.

The officials told WND the office of Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Sinora sent a letter last week to Abbas Zakir, the Palestinian Authority's most senior representative in Lebanon, outlining the alleged Hizbullah weapons transfers into Palestinian camps. The letter noted "unusual activity" in and near the Palestinian camps, including the coming and going of trucks suspected of carrying weapons.

Palestinian groups, including Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, maintain armed bases in Lebanon, mostly in the al-Naemeh province just south of Beirut and in the Bekaa Valley, near Lebanon's border with Syria and Israel. Fatah is the party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The reports follow a WND article last month quoting Lebanese officials claiming Hizbullah, with the help of Iran, started building underground war bunkers in Lebanon's Palestinian camps.

During its 34-day confrontation with Hizbullah in Lebanon that began July 12, Israel destroyed scores of complex Hizbullah bunkers that snaked along the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border. Military officials said they were surprised by the scale of the Hizbullah bunkers, in which Israeli troops reportedly found war rooms with advanced eavesdropping and surveillance equipment they noted were made by Iran.

[...]

A senior Lebanese official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND Hizbullah started building a new set of bunker systems, this time in Palestinian refugee camps.

"The Lebanese Army doesn't have the authority to patrol inside the camps," said the official. "Hizbullah knows it is safe there to rebuild their war bunkers, and they began doing so with Iranian help." Israeli security officials did not deny Nasrallah's claims of continuing to maintain a large rocket arsenal.

[...]

"The message sent is that Hizbullah absolutely maintains the capability of firing hundreds of rockets per day into Israel," commented the official. "Wasn't one of the (Israeli) military campaign's main goals to eliminate the rocket threat?"

Indeed. Where is the political will to secure Israel from those who would wipe it off the map?

Intimidating the West, from Rushdie to Benedict

Daniel Pipes has a terrific piece in today's New York Sun (there entitled "A Look at Islamic Violence," but it bears the title above at his website.) In it, he notes that "the violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world."

Those six are the Rushdie incident; the refusal of the Supreme Court in 1997 to remove a statue of Muhammad from the main court chamber; Jerry Falwell's calling Muhammad a terrorist in 2002; the Qur'an-flushing affair; Cartoon Rage; and now Pope Rage.

Pipes notes how these displays of outrage are orchestrated from above, and concludes:

No conspiracy lies behind these six rounds of inflammation and aggression, but examined in retrospect, they coalesce and form a single, prolonged campaign of intimidation, with surely more to come. The basic message – "You Westerners no longer have the privilege to say what you will about Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an, Islamic law rules you too" – will return again and again until Westerners either do submit or Muslims realize their effort has failed.

Precisely. Diana West and Cliff May have also noted the same thing.

Somali jihadists seize port city, fire on protestors

Somali Jihad Update from AP: "Demonstrations turn violent in Somalia"

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Fears of regional conflict soared as angry demonstrations against Somalia's radical Islamic militia grew Monday into deadly violence in a southern port city, and the militia for the first time acknowledged getting help from foreign Muslims.

[...]

As it has established authority in the capital and across much of the south starting in June, the Islamic group's strict interpretation of Islam has sparked comparisons with Afghanistan's ousted Taliban. The United States has accused the Islamic group of sheltering suspects in the 1998 al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden has portrayed Somalia as a battleground in his war on the U.S.

Islamic militiamen wearing white headbands opened fire on several thousand people demonstrating against them in the port of Kismayo, 260 miles southwest of Mogadishu, killing a 13-year-old boy, said resident Abdiqadir Filibin.

Two other children were injured, witnesses said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. Sporadic gunfire could also be heard in other parts of the town.

The militia had seized Kismayo, one of the last remaining ports outside their control and Somalia's third-largest city, on Sunday without a fight.

[...]

Hassan Turki, leader of the Islamic militia, told a demonstration in support of his group in Kismayo earlier Monday that foreign militants were helping his fighters.

"They are your brothers in Islam," Turki said.

Bin Laden lieutenant killed by British troops

A key jihadist who had escaped from the Americans in Afghanistan. From Reuters:

BRITISH troops in Iraq said they killed one of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's top global lieutenants, who escaped from a US prison in Afghanistan last year.

Omar Faruq was shot dead while resisting arrest during a raid by about 200 British troops in Iraq's second biggest city, Basra, British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge said.

US leaders have described Faruq as the top al-Qaeda operative in South-East Asia. He was caught in Indonesia in 2002 and held at a high-security detention centre at Bagram airbase, north of the Afghani capital Kabul, until his escape last year.

“The individual had been tracked across Iraq and was in hiding in Basra,” Major Burbridge said, calling him a “very, very significant man”.

Faruq, once believed to be the main link between bin Laden's followers and the Jemaah Islamiah militant group blamed for bombings in Indonesia, was one of four men who escaped from Bagram in July last year.

Islamic jurisprudence based on reason and wisdom: clergyman

Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani misrepresents the Pope's words and speaks of jihad as "effort to save mankind from idolatry" -- whether mankind likes it or not, of course. From Iran's Mehr News Agency, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

TEHRAN, Sept. 25 (MNA) -- Most Western jurists know that reason and wisdom are the main sources of Islamic jurisprudence, Imam Sadiq Institute Director Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani said on Monday in an open letter addressed to Pope Benedict XVI.

“Normally, monarchs and tyrants refer to clergymen to legitimize their rule over the people. But now the opposite has happened, in that a religious leader has referred to the words of a medieval emperor to legitimize his own ideas, and thus accused a great community of ignorance and irrationalism,” the senior member of the Qom Seminary’s Council of Mujtahids stated.

Sobhani added, “You have in fact defied the text of the Bible, in which Jesus (AS) says: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.’

“You shouldn’t have based your words on a medieval emperor’s sayings.”

He explained, “Islam uses the appealing term of jihad, not massacre. Jihad means effort to save mankind from idolatry… Before, some tyrants did not allow preachers to promulgate their divine religion and used to kill the believers. Islamic jihad was meant to pave the way for the divine religion to be genuinely presented to the people...."

Musharraf: M16 'didn't tell us that 7/7 bombers were in Pakistan'

Musharraf Meltdown Update: "M16 'didn't tell us that 7/7 bombers were in Pakistan,'" from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF of Pakistan says he is angered by the failure of British police and intelligence services to stop young British militants such as the 7/7 suicide bombers visiting his country before staging their terror attacks.

He claims that British security services did not tell him until three weeks after the 7/7 bombs that Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the suicide bombers, and another of the gang, Shehzad Tanweer, had slipped into Pakistan only months before the attacks, which killed 52 innocent people.

He claims that British Intelligence kept secret its information about the two Yorkshire-born bombers for 17 months and their links with known Pakistani terror suspects. His disclosure will again raise questions about whether Scotland Yard, MI5 and MI6 have told all they know about the British bombers, three of whom were of Pakistani origin.

Calls by survivors of the attacks for an independent inquiry to determine what the authorities knew about the bombers will be given fresh weight by the allegations.

General Musharraf revealed this apparently serious breakdown in Pakistan’s dealings with MI6 in a TV interview in the US to promote his memoir, In the Line of Fire, which is being serialised in The Times. He told 60 Minutes on CBS News: “It disappoints me, yes. But at the same time it annoys us also. They are not Pakistani. They are born and bred in Britain and they are British.” He did not say why the 7/7 bombers and other convicted British-born terrorists visited Pakistan and denied that their attacks were planned there.

My citizenship has been revoked!

I have received this email from a "Charles B. Hoff," revoking my citizenship as well as that of Jihad Watch Board Vice President "Huge" Fitzgerald:

I as than born amererican want you and Huge to leave America as you are criminality racist for being hateful toward Islam so back to the homeland anster came from I revoke your citzship since you and Huge are so anti-muslim immigment to America I also than removeing federal court power from the federal court as they are failing to protect muslim cival right 100% from criminal bigot racist like you and Huge so leave America as america like me donot want your criminal kind here anymore.

Hear that, Huge? You and I better start packing. And here I didn't even know Islam was a race at all, and it turns out I've been "criminality racist" according to a "than born amererican."

This guy is about as convincing as those "University Educators" and "graduate students" "reviewing" my new book at Amazon, but never quite getting around to specifying any actual inaccuracy in it. It seems, you see, that "even the leader of Constantine made writings attesting to [Muhammad's] character and strength"; funny thing, when I was in college I never did learn where "Constantine" was. Of course, given the level of discourse that comes from real university educators (such as Carl Ernst and Omid Safi) these days, maybe those reviews are authentic.

CAIR's Awad denies support for Hamas

In the course of an article about the Muslim Congressional candidate, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, CAIR's Nihad Awad declares his support for Ellison -- and his rejection of Hamas.

"Muslims rally around congressional candidate," from AP, with thanks to Mike:

Republicans are trying to make an issue of a contribution from another Council on American-Islamic Relations official - executive director Nihad Awad, who gave Ellison $2,000.

In a fundraising letter last week, state GOP Chairman Ron Carey said Ellison has received "financial support from a self-identified supporter of Hamas."

That was a reference to Awad's 1994 statement that he preferred Hamas to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In an interview, Awad said that was before the group engaged in suicide bombings and was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Actually, Awad said flatly: "I am in support of the Hamas movement." He said this in 1994. It just so happens that I have preserved the old Hamas website's "glory record" of attacks against Israelis here. Here are some of Hamas' self-described exploits from before 1994:

3. Boureen Operation: The militant Hamdan Hussein Al:najar, a member of Hamas, killed the Israeli settler Ya'coub Berey using a big rock as his weapon. The militant was shot down as a martyr after he had ambushed an Israeli patrol using the dead settler's weapon....

6. Bus No. 405 Operation: Militant Ahmed Hussein Shukry, a member of Hamas, was able to lead an Israeli soldier to a secluded place in Tel Aviv where the militant hit the soldier with a chisel and killed him on 8 September 1989. The following day, the militant got on bus No. 405 and stabbed the driver to take over the bus; however, the passengers were able to stop the militant....

12. Keryat Youval Operation: The militant Mohammed Mustafa Abu Jalala stabbed four Israelis and injured another at a bus station in Keryat Youval in Jerusalem before he was arrested by the Israeli forces.

13. Askalan Road Operation: While driving a taxi, the militant Jameel Ismail Al:baz, a member of Hamas, ran over a group of Israelis waiting on this road on 19 July 1991....

15. Shailou Operation: A military group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli bus carrying some settlers on their way to Tel Aviv to participate in demonstrations organized by the extremist party Likud against the peace process. The bus was completely destroyed; two Israelis were killed and five more were injured....

17. Eid Al-maskhara Operation: The militant Ra'ed Al:reefy attacked an Israeli crowd in Jaffa on 17 March 1992. He was able to kill 2 and injure 21 Israelis who gathered to celebrate Eid Al:maskhara, also known as Al:boureem.

18. Beit Lahya Operation: On the third anniversary of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's arrest, a group belonging to Al Qassam Brigades attacked an Israeli settler at Beit Lahya and shot him down then withdrew safely....

21. Carlo Factory Operation: Four militants belonging to Al Qassam Brigades broke into a citrus packing factory (Carlo) near Nahal Oaz at 2:30 p.m. on 25 June 1992. Three militants stabbed two Israelis while the other was guarding....

Suicide bombings? No. Terrorist attacks on civilians? Sure. And there are many, many more on the list dating from before 1994. So are we to understand that Awad supported such operations, and only stopped supporting Hamas later, although these was no change in its ideology and no change in its taste for victimizing civilians?

Now Awad says:

"I don't support Hamas today," Awad said. "My position and CAIR's position is extremely clear - we condemn suicide bombings. We are mainstream American Muslims."

Is that so? It wasn't very long ago that Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin was killed by Israel. CAIR condemned his killing, without ever mentioning that Yassin was the mastermind and director of suicide killings for Hamas. At that time -- March 2004 -- CAIR said:

"We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon's out-of-control government. Israel's extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence."

See also here for more on the CAIR/Hamas ties.

When did CAIR stop supporting Hamas? I searched the CAIR website for "Hamas." There are three possible searches: News Briefs, Action Alerts, and Press Releases. Only News Briefs turned up anything at all: an old article from Haaretz attacking Ariel Sharon.

So if CAIR now condemns Hamas, where is it saying so? Just in the lower paragraphs of articles about other subjects? We can't even get one press release about it? Not one Action Alert calling on Muslims everywhere to condemn Hamas?

Car dealer caves to CAIR, drops 'Jihad' radio ad

CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper: would you buy a used car from this man?

I have canceled my trip to Columbus, Ohio, where I had planned to buy a new car. Dennis Mitsubishi is now kowtowing to the good folks over at the Council on American Islamic Relations, no doubt not realizing the record and lingering questions about that organization. An update to this story: "Car Dealer Drops 'Jihad' Radio Ad: Dealership Draws Fire For Ad Declaring Jihad," from NBC4i.com:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A car dealership's tongue-in-cheek radio advertisement declaring "a jihad on the automotive market," will not be aired, according to a press release issued on Monday from the Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Several stations rejected the spot from Dennis Mitsubishi, which boasts that sales representatives wearing "burqas" -- head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women -- will sell vehicles that can "comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."

An official with Dennis Mitsubishi told CAIR-Ohio that the dealership has issued an apology for any misunderstanding caused by "an attempt at humor that fell short."

In a statement, Dennis Mitsubishi owner Keith Dennis said his company ultimately decided not to air the spots.

"The public reaction to this story has been significant," Dennis said in the statement. "A large number of people have contacted us. Lots of them have seen the humor we were trying to convey, but far too many were clearly bothered by it. This was simply an attempt at humor that fell short.

"I wish to offer my sincere apology to anyone who was offended. We do not wish to alienate anyone in our community -- all of whom are potential customers."

While Dennis on Saturday defended the ad as a harmless attempt to bring levity to a serious situation, the Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations decried it as disrespectful.

"We appreciate the dealership's constructive reaction to feedback about the proposed advertisements," said Adnan Mirza, director of CAIR-Ohio's Columbus office. "We accept the apology from Mr. Dennis and hope that it and the decision not to air the spots will bring this incident to a close."

Spencer to discuss Pope Rage on Mike Reagan Show tonight

I am scheduled to be on the Mike Reagan Show this afternoon at 4PM PDT with guest host Jed Babbin. We are scheduled to be discussing Pope Rage.

Spy agencies: stop fighting back

Imagine a report from 1944: "This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe." Leaving aside the question of whether or not the attempt to democratize Iraq is the best way to defeat the jihad, the idea that resisting the jihadists is inadvisable because it causes them to fight back is beyond asinine. What do these "spies" expect? That the jihadists would crumble at the first sign of resistance?

"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight," from the Bandar Beacon, aka the Washington Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

Obvious. Is that what it is? If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi'ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position. But instead, the report just seems to be noting that Iraq has become the latest pretext for jihad recruitment, and buys into the false assumption that if we just address the pretext, the jihad will end. It won't, however. It will just find another pretext, because ultimately the jihad is not being waged because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or any other commonly-retailed pretext. It is being waged to extend Sharia over the world, in accord with imperatives spelled out in the Qur'an and other core Islamic sources.

Pope says Christians, Muslims must reject violence

A report on the Pope's meeting with Muslims from Reuters:

CASTELGANDOLFO, Italy (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that Christians and Muslims must reject violence, in an unprecedented meeting with Islamic envoys to defuse anger at his use of quotes saying their faith was spread by the sword.

The Pope expressed his "esteem and profound respect" for members of the Islamic faith in a speech to diplomatic envoys from some 20 Muslim countries plus the leaders of Italy's own Muslim community at his summer residence south of Rome.

He did not specifically mention the quote that angered Muslims, saying the circumstances that made the meeting necessary "are well known." But he called for greater dialogue between the two religions.

"Christians and Muslims must learn to work together ... in order to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence," the 79-year-old Pope said at the meeting in a frescoed hall of the papal summer palace.

It was the fourth time he has tried to make amends to Muslims, without actually apologizing directly, for a speech at a university in his native Germany on September 12.

The Pope is facing the toughest international crisis since his election in April, 2005, and the severity of some reactions has raised doubts about a planned trip to Turkey in November.

Mario Scialoja, an adviser to the Italian section of the World Muslim League who attended the audience, told Reuters afterwards he thought it was a "very good and warm speech."

"He recalled the differences but expressed his willingness to continue in a cordial and fruitful dialogue, said Scialoja, who added that he "had not been expecting another apology."

The atmosphere at the 30-minute meeting, which was broadcast live on
Vatican television and radio, appeared cordial. After delivering his speech the Pope greeted each of the envoys personally and chatted with them briefly.

The leader of more than one billion Catholics has expressed regret at the response to his quoting 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said the Prophet Mohammad commanded "to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

LEARN FROM THE PAST

The Pope said Christians and Muslims had to learn from the past and work for a better future.

"I sincerely pray that the relations of trust which have developed between Christians and Muslims over several years, will not only continue, but will develop further in a spirit of sincere and respectful dialogue ...," he said.

Iraqi ambassador Albert Edward Ismail Yelda also said he was satisfied with the speech.

"I pray to almighty God the crisis will be behind us," he told reporters. "We need to sit together -- Muslims, Christians, Jews and the rest of the world, the rest of religions, in order to find common ground for peaceful coexistence."

The Pope has said his intention in using the quote in Germany two weeks ago was to explain that religion and violence do not go together but that religion and reason do.

His speech to Muslim envoys, delivered in French but which the Vatican also made available in Arabic, made repeated references to the need for dialogue between faiths.

"I am profoundly convinced that in the current world situation it is imperative that Christians and Muslims engage with one another in order to address the numerous challenges that present themselves to humanity ...," he said.

The envoys invited included those from the major Muslim countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, among others, plus the League of Arab States.

Fitzgerald: Fighting against the Jihad in Latin America

At this website, the part of the world least discussed is Latin America. A few things are alluded to: one knows about the triangle between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, a supposed no man's land full of Muslim Arabs, engaged in all kinds of louche activities, and where support for Hizballah is high. Is it beyond the wit of those whose duty it is to make us secure to clean out, using whatever local forces may be able and willing to help, the entire area? There are a number of local militaries that could do the job.

One knows that there are "Palestinians" who have achieved high office in Central America (e.g., Shafik Handal). One has read that among those who control the Chilean fruit trade -- all those off-season raspberries and kiwis -- are some "Palestinian" families, and one naturally wonders about how easy it is to use large shipments of fruit to smuggle in other things.

One knows that Muslim terrorists have been interested in infiltrating Mexico for its own sake, and also as a way to enter the United States. One hears on NPR of the campaigns of Da'wa in this country aimed at women from Latin America -- presented merely as uplifting stories of those who have "found in Islam" just what they were looking for, a belief-system that apparently will protect "modesty" (and how), and a comforting Total Regulation that relieves one of the need to think for oneself. When there are so many different cell phone company plans to choose from, so many detergents to consider, why not choose the belief-system that 'splains it all to you, and at least get that part of your life settled, once and for all?

What one does not know is what the American government knows or intends to do about all this, and what it is now trying to halt or undo -- or if the business in Iraq, the bringing of "freedom" to "the Iraqis," is the sum of all half-hearted parts. If, by chance, there is actually a part of the Pentagon now devoted to tracking and checking campaigns of Da'wa -- understanding this is a mortal threat and not merely one more innocent missionary activity -- then what role, if any, has been or will be played by Spanish-speaking Americans? What role has been or will be played especially by those who may have had direct experience of Islam and Muslim societies in Iraq, and who would or could usefully help to monitor and counter these Da'wa campaigns both in the United States and in Latin America?

And what effect, if any, is the link -- such as it might be -- with Spain? Hispanidad, a cultural notion akin to French francophonie, with ties of language and culture, might be enrolled. As Spain is threatened by islamization -- see the disturbing ceremonies that took place three years ago, in which Muslim spokesmen came to mark the opening of the new mosque in Granada by urging Muslims to work for Europe's downfall. Surely some of this filters back to the press of Latin America. Surely there are some -- including the many, such as Ecuadoreans, now working in Spain -- who have been made aware of the problem, and may communicate their thoughts to others at home.

What can the former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar do, and what can Gustavo de Aristegui do, to awaken and alarm, and thereby help to protect, not only their own country, but also other countries? Chiefly, what can they do to awaken awareness of the activities of the Islamic Jihad (and its attendant thrusts of Da’wa and demographic) in Latin American countries, which are quasi-members of what might once, less self-consciously, long ago (about the time of Ortega and Unamuno) have been considered, culturally, a single Hispanidad? Or is that connection today so etiolated that what happens to Spain does not matter, or cannot be made to matter, as a way of waking those who might otherwise be preoccupied only with the power and the perceived mistakes, and possibly at times even the admirable qualities of the Colossus of the North?

What about Brazil’s Lula da Silva? Like Musharraf, he could be made an offer he cannot refuse: trade sanctions, for a start, might not necessarily win his support in disrupting centers of financial aid for terrorists, and centers as well for what is equally dangerous, da'wa, but his cooperation -- which is all, ultimately, that we need.

There are a goodly number of Spanish-speaking people, well versed in every conceivable local dialect, in the United States, who would willingly prove their value as agents against the Jihad both within this country, and in South America. Let them -- ojala (a word, of course, from the time of Muslim subjugation of Spain) -- be given the support, and given the chance.

Russia Selling Iran Missiles to Protect Bushehr Nuclear Reactor — Source

If this is true, it shows that Russia is continuing its short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating policy of accommodation with Iran. From
MosNews, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Russia, pledging to complete the Bushehr reactor, has offered to sell a range of surface-to-air missile systems to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Middle East Newsline reports.

Russian diplomatic and industry sources said Moscow has been negotiating to sell Iran a range of anti-aircraft systems to protect Bushehr from Israeli or U.S. air strikes. The sources said contracts could be signed when Bushehr was ready to begin operations in a move expected to take place in late 2007.

“Russia has already installed and manned SAM systems around Bushehr,” a diplomatic source said. “The current talks regard an air defense umbrella that would protect all strategic sites in Iran.”

In November 2005, Russia reached agreement for the sale of 29 TOR-M1 short-range anti-aircraft systems to Iran in a deal valued at more than $700 million. The sources said Iran has also sought the strategic S-300PMU SAM system, capable of detecting and intercepting enemy aircraft at a distance of 300 and 150 kilometers, respectively.

Jordan works on mosque law

Laws like this, carefully defined and stringently enforced to prevent propagation of the idea of Islamic supremacism and attendant ideas, are needed all over. From AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

AMMAN, Jordan - Jordan's parliament moved Sunday to tighten state control over mosque preachers, amending legislation that aims to prevent the kingdom's mosques from being used to propagate extremist ideas.

Jordanian lawmakers have approved several pieces of legislation in recent weeks that aim to weaken extremists and prevent terror attacks.

The parliament added a provision to a bill to require prior written approval from the government before someone enters the pulpit. The changes came just three weeks after members of the lower house of parliament approved the law.

The latest changes require that the religious affairs minister approve in writing any new mosque preachers and anyone teaching the Quran, the Islamic holy book, in mosques.

King Abdullah II, the ultimate authority in Jordan, is expected to sign the bill into law soon, replacing legislation enacted in 1986.

Islamic opposition legislators argued Sunday that the law curbed religious freedoms and that the government pressed for the changes to appease the United States and Israel by cracking down on Muslim hard-liners.

Karzai: Time to close hate schools

Great idea, Karzai! (What made you think of it? Have you by any chance been reading Jihad Watch?) But one question: how will you prevent those who take your advice from being branded as apostates by the authors and supporters of these "hate texts," who can quote Qur'an and Sunnah to support their positions? This is a serious question, for such intimidation stymies Muslim reformers everywhere.

From the Herald Sun, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

AFGHAN President Hamid Karzai has urged the world to put an end to Islamic schools that teach hatred and produce suicide bombers.

Madrassas, or Islamic schools, are "teaching hatred rather than religion, (teaching) that some people we must hate, that some people we must destroy," Mr Karzai said on the eve of summits with the US and Pakistan.

He said it "will take a lot of sacrifice from Afghans, and from the rest of the world . . . to get rid of those places who . . . in the name of religious schools . . . are actually training suicide bombers against us".

Mr Karzai also said neighbouring Pakistan must find the political will to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds if Afghanistan is to know peace. He said other nations had to pressure them to do so.

"We have to convince them that it is not in their interest, that it is going to hurt all of us eventually," he was quoted as saying.

The Rise of Jihadistan

"The people know we are returning to power." From a Newsweek report on the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan:

Oct. 2, 2006 issue - You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village.

In a parched clearing a few hundred yards on, more than 100 Taliban fighters ranging in age from teenagers to a grandfatherly 55-year-old have assembled to meet their provincial commander, Muhammad Sabir. An imposing man with a long, bushy beard, wearing a brown and green turban and a beige shawl over his shoulders, Sabir inspects his troops, all of them armed with AKs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He claims to have some 900 fighters, and says the military and psychological tide is turning in their favor. "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

Read it all.

Afghan women's affairs chief dead

Jihad against women's rights in Afghanistan. From Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) -- Gunmen riding motorcycles shot dead the head of a women's department in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar on Monday, a security official and a relative said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the shooting of Safia Ama Jan. Taliban insurgents have killed numerous government officials as part of their war against the government and foreign forces supporting it.

Ama Jan was on her way to work, getting into a car outside her house, when the gunmen struck, said her nephew, who identified himself as just Farhad.

"She died on the spot," he told reporters.

Farhad declined to speculate on the identity or motive of the gunmen, except to say: "We had no personal enmity with anyone."

Ama Jan had served as the head of the province's women's affairs department since shortly after U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

Musharraf: 'America paid us to hand over al-Qaeda suspects'

What? You mean they didn't do it readily, out of their own righteous indignation that these terrorists were hijacking their peaceful religion? Musharraf continues courting the jihadists who would remove him from power: "'America paid us to hand over al-Qaeda suspects,'" from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

PRESIDENT Musharraf of Pakistan says that the CIA has secretly paid his government millions of dollars for handing over hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects to America.

The US government has strict rules banning such reward payments to foreign powers involved in the war on terror. General Musharraf does not say how much the CIA gave in return for the 369 al-Qaeda figures that he ordered should be passed to the US.

The US Department of Justice said: “We didn’t know about this. It should not happen. These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI’s most wanted list, not foreign governments.”

The revelation comes from General Musharraf’s memoir, In the Line of Fire, which begins serialisation in The Times today and will further embarrass the White House at a time when relations between the US and Pakistan are already strained.

General Musharraf claimed last week that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” if did not co-operate with the US after the 9/11 attacks.

The latest revelation will embarrass the White House days before General Musharraf is due to meet President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan to discuss how to combat a resurgent Taleban.

The disclosures are also causing consternation in Pakistan. Members of General Musharraf’s Cabinet and senior diplomats apparently did not know he was writing a book and are worried that relations with its allies and Western intelligence agencies will be damaged by the revelations.

The CIA refused to divulge the size of its bounty payments, saying: “Our relationships with international leaders is not something we are prepared to talk about.” One senior CIA figure added: “Nor do we expect these leaders to do so.”

Among the suspects surrendered to the US was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 operation and many other terror plots in the UK, including a planned attack on Heathrow airport, the plot never came to fruition.

Car Dealership Decried for Jihad Ad

Another intolerable insult: Fatwa Friday via Fox with thanks to all who sent this in.

A car dealership's planned radio advertisement that declared "a jihad on the automotive market"has drawn sharp criticism for its content but will not be changed, the business said Saturday.

Several stations rejected the Dennis Mitsubishi spot, which says sales representatives wearing"burqas"_ head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women _ will sell vehicles that can"comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."

"Our prices are lower than the evildoers'every day. Just ask the pope!"the ad says."Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies." A fatwa is a religious edict.

Dealership president Keith Dennis said the ad does not disrespect any religion or culture. He said it was"fair game"to poke"a little fun at radical extremists."

CAIR, predictably, is not amused:

It exploits or promotes misunderstanding in terms already misunderstood or misused.

CAIR is over and over again in the absurd position of asking us, "Who are you going to believe about Islam, us, or your own lyin' eyes?" Whether CAIR likes it or not, there is an Islamic element to Islamic terror.

Explosion near Iraqi church kills 4, wounds 14

The jihad against Iraqi Christians continues. From DPA, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

BAGHDAD - A car bomb blast near a Christian church in Baghdad on early Sunday killed four civilians and wounded 14 others including four Iraqi policemen, witnesses said.

The explosion, apparently detonated via remote control, occurred while worshippers in the Church of the Virgin Mary attended Sunday mass.

The policemen who were killed were members of a security patrol, employed to guard the church. No information was available as to the condition of the wounded, or whether the church was the primary target of the attack.

Lebanese Christian leader: War was disaster, Hizballah must disarm

Tens of thousands turn out in defiance of Hizballah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors. From Haaretz: "Lebanese Christian leader: War was disaster, Hezbollah must disarm"

BEIRUT - A Lebanese Christian leader said Sunday that Hezbollah's war with Israel was a disaster for Lebanon and rapped the Shi'ite Muslim group for rejecting calls to lay down its arms.

"We don't feel [there was a] victory because the majority of the Lebanese people doesn't feel victory," Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces militia-turned-political party, said at a rally attended by thousands of supporters north of Beirut.

"The majority of the Lebanese people feel that a major catastrophe has befallen them, throwing their present and future up in the air," he said.

His speech was a response to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's vow, made at a rally Friday in Beirut's southern suburbs, not to disarm despite international pressure. Some 800,000 Hezbollah supporters cheered Nasrallah at the gathering.

[...]

Geagea said a strong state could only emerge after Hezbollah surrenders its weapons.

"Betting on maintaining weapons through force is a wrong bet... No weapons will make us surrender to this de facto reality," he said referring to Hezbollah keeping it arms.

Tens of thousands turn out

Tens of thousands of right-wing Christians turned out at the tumultuous rally north of Beirut, in a show of strength two days after a massive gathering by the rival Muslim Shiite Hezbollah.

[...]

The guerrillas' fight with Israel sent their support soaring among Shiites. But a large sector - particularly among Christians and Sunni Muslims - opposes Hezbollah and resents it for provoking the fighting by capturing two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

Afghan officers arrested for smuggling weapons to Taliban: report

Why does this sort of thing happen? Because the question of whether or not these officers adhered to the ideology of jihad and the subjugation of infidels is something that the Americans wouldn't care, and the Afghans wouldn't dare, to ask about.

From the PakTribune, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

KABUL: Several Afghan officers were detained for trafficking weapons and ammunition to Taliban militants, a local newspaper reported.

"The National Security Directorate arrested some Afghan military personnel in Charasiab district of the central Kabul province 28 days ago when they were trafficking arms and ammunition to Taliban rebels in the neighboring Logar province," Arman-e-Millie said.

The traffickers were carrying 150 boxes of Kalashnikov rounds and other arms by a truck, which was marked with UN emblem and escorted by a military Ranger vehicle.

Several Afghan officers, including Brigadier Abdul Faqir, chief of weapon depots in Khirabad, south of Kabul, have been arrested for being involved in the smuggling case, the newspaper said.

House intel committee chair warns of jihadists home-grown in Europe, puzzles over lack of al Qaeda links

There are two noteworthy components to this story. One is that the US government has expressed particular concern about home-grown jihadists in the West. The other is how the notion of al Qaeda as the source of jihad ideology puts blinders on the policymakers overseeing the "War on Terror." In fact, Rep. Hoekstra appears to use the name of al Qaeda and "Islamic extremism" interchangeably in his assessment below, and the result is confusion over where all these "self-radicalized terrorists from Europe, with no criminal records and no formal links to al Qaeda" are coming from.

From the Washington Times: "Hoekstra warns of European terrorists"

The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is warning that "self-radicalized" terrorists from Europe, with no criminal records and no formal links to al Qaeda, are quietly infiltrating the United States to proselytize, raise money and possibly plan attacks.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, [Michigan] Republican, said that the United States has to quickly adapt to the ever-changing threat if it is going to win the global war against Islamic extremism.

Terrorists coming to the United States from Western Europe "are difficult to identify because they are self-radicalized," Mr. Hoekstra told the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) at a breakfast meeting with reporters Wednesday.

"They may have no formal association with al Qaeda, no criminal record. There's nothing in their past to draw the attention of law-enforcement officials to the individuals," he said.

He released a committee report titled, "Al Qaeda: The Many Faces of an Islamist Extremist Threat," which described how the nature of the threat has changed against the United States since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The war is now one against entities inspired by al Qaeda, including homegrown terrorist cells composed of second- and third-generation radicalized Muslims in the United States, the report says.

"Radical Islam has changed the way that it operates," Mr. Hoekstra said. "Al Qaeda has moved into a decentralized entrepreneurial organization."

He said that by setting out a clear vision, objectives and providing resources, al Qaeda has empowered its appendages "to carry out actions independent of centralized control and then get out of the way."

"They develop a very simple message [that] is appealing to the young generation of Muslims," Mr. Hoekstra said. "They keep their message simple and they keep it consistent."

The intelligence committee chairman insisted that the United States has to overhaul its approach on the war against Islamic terrorists and learn to be as nimble and adaptable as its enemies.

AEI foreign policy analyst Michael Ledeen argued that al Qaeda is not as all-powerful as Mr. Hoekstra suggested.

"They are not 10-feet tall, and they are not that terrific," Mr. Ledeen said.

The question of al Qaeda's relative strength is immaterial when the subject at hand is how the current crop of jihadists planning and executing attacks in the West has little or no association with al Qaeda. But on the basis of Ledeen's assertion that al Qaeda is "not that terrific," there must be something else motivating "self-radicalized terrorists": The ideology of jihad, rooted in the Qur'an, ahadith, and Sunnah.

But you can't say that out loud in D.C.

One in 10 Muslims 'ignore terror'

Nine out of then would contact police. That's good news. It's also good to see that two-thirds note the British Muslim community's failure to root out "extremists" as one factor involved in the continuing threat of jihad terror attacks.

Now what are those nine out of ten doing about the tenth?

From The Guardian, with thanks to John Doe:

Almost one in 10 British Muslims would not inform police if they suspected that someone of the same faith was involved in a terror attack, a poll suggested.

The ICM poll for the News of the World found 9% of the 502 questioned would not tell police if they had such suspicions about a fellow Muslim.

With a Muslim population aged over 16 in Britain of around one million, that would translate to 90,000 "turning a blind eye", the newspaper said.

However, almost nine out of every 10 (86%) would contact police, according to the survey.

Among young Muslims, the figures for keeping quiet were higher with 15% of 16 to 24-year-olds saying they would not tell police and 81% saying they would.

The poll also found that one in 20 Muslims thought attacks like the July 7 bombings were justified. And more than half (56%) said they did not believe a police warning that there are thousands of extremist British Muslims willing to carry out attacks here....

More than eight in 10 (86%) said the Prime Minister should shoulder some of the blame and 72% blamed non-Muslims for racist and "Islamophobic" behaviour.

However, two thirds (66%) said the Muslim community's failure to root out extremists was a factor. Meanwhile, 83% accepted that the terrorists themselves were to blame although one in 10 said they were not.

Bin Laden not dead again

Update to this story: "Spies reject ‘Bin Laden is dead’ claim," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to all who sent this in:

PRESIDENT Jacques Chirac ordered an investigation last night into the leaking of a French intelligence report that suggested Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, may have died from typhoid in Pakistan last month.

The eight-line document, which was published yesterday in a French provincial newspaper, L’Est Républicain, was greeted with scepticism by security and government officials from the United States to Pakistan itself.

Yet the DGSE, the French secret service, had judged the report significant enough to send it on September 21 to the offices of Chirac and the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin. The report claimed that “a usually trustworthy source“ had persuaded the Saudi secret service Bin Laden was dead.

“The head of Al-Qaeda, while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, reportedly suffered a very strong case of typhoid which led to a partial paralysis of his lower limbs. His geographical isolation, caused by a permanent flight, reportedly made any medical assistance impossible,“ the report said.

Intelligence of Bin Laden’s supposed death apparently reached Saudi security services on September 4. “They are said to be awaiting additional details, and in particular the exact location of his final resting place, to announce the news officially," the report said.

Chirac said after a summit with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, that Bin Laden’s death had not been confirmed in any way. “I was a bit surprised to see a confidential note from the DGSE had been published,” he added. He told his defence minister to find out how it had happened.

Aftab Khan Sherpao, Pakistan’s interior minister, responded to questions about Bin Laden last night by saying: “We have no such information. I have never heard anything about this.”

Intelligence officials in America and Asia insisted they would have known about the report if it had been true, and said no such information had crossed their desks in recent days. One Washington-based official said: “I don’t think this is a piece of information that would remain secret for long — no one would have any interest in keeping it quiet.”

A source with indirect links to Al-Qaeda claimed Bin Laden had been seen alive by one of his commanders earlier this month.

This guy is getting to be like Sasquatch.

Kerosene tanker bombing targets Shi'ites in Baghdad's Sadr City, 34 dead

Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update from Reuters: "Ramadan bomb kills 34 in Iraq"

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A bomb killed 34 people in Baghdad's Sadr City Shi'ite slum on Saturday as Iraq's minority Sunnis began the fasting month of Ramadan, which U.S. commanders said might see a rise in sectarian bloodshed.

The bomb -- most likely a car bomb, according to police -- struck near a tanker distributing kerosene for stoves in Sadr City, whose poor residents are the power base of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army militia.

In addition to the 34 people killed, 35 were injured, many badly burned.

Sunni militants claimed responsibility, declaring the attack revenge for killings by Shi'ite militia.

"This operation comes in reaction to the crimes of the Mehdi Army against our Sunni kin in Baghdad," the Jamaat Jund al-Sahaba -- Soldiers of the Prophet's Companions -- said in a claim posted on the Internet. "Our swords can reach the depth of your areas, so stop killing unarmed Sunnis."

U.S. commanders had warned for weeks that they expected a surge of violence to accompany the holy month, having observed similar patterns in previous years.

Feds seek to block Oregon spying case

More fallout of the politicizing of the resistance to jihad. Courtroom Jihad Update from AP:

PORTLAND, Ore. - U.S. Justice Department lawyers filed an appeal Friday aimed at blocking a lawsuit by a former Islamic charity that has challenged a Bush administration secret surveillance program.

U.S. District Judge Garr M. King ruled earlier this month that a lawsuit by the defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation chapter in Ashland could go forward without damaging national security.

But government lawyers argue that state secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.

The case hinges on a classified document that U.S. Treasury officials inadvertently turned over to Al-Haramain lawyers after the charity was declared a global terrorist organization.

The charity's attorneys say the document shows that two U.S. lawyers for Al-Haramain and at least one of its officials were under electronic surveillance in 2004.

Justice Department lawyers have argued the document falls under the "state secrets privilege," allowing a judge to dismiss a lawsuit if it could damage national security by revealing state secrets.

The appeal filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said "the district court is wrongly attempting to create some form of secret adversarial proceedings, and, in doing so, is raising a serious danger of disclosure of important national security information."

Somalia: Jihad registration office to open in Mogadishu

Jihad registration. If this catches on worldwide, it will give Western officials something new to do: just as now they assure us that this or that incident had nothing to do with terrorism on the basis of the perpetrator not being a known member of Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, so then they will assure the public that the latest incident of violence and terror wasn't really jihad, since the perpetrator was unregistered.

From Garowe Online News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Islamic Courts officials told hundreds of supporters at a rally in Mogadishu that an office would be opened for would-be fighters to register.

The Islamist officials, who were speaking to supporters at Friday's anti-foreign peacekeepers rally in Mogadishu, said the office would be used to register fighters for a jihad against foreign troops.

The Islamists have repeatedly threatened to wage jihad against a proposed plan to deploy African Union peacekeepers to reinforce the Baidoa-based interim Somali government.

Ramadan — month of prayer for Muslims, of “holy war” for extremists

Every year now since Jihad Watch began in October 2003 we have chronicled how jihad violence increases during Ramadan, which was characterized last year by the jihadist site Jihad Unspun as a time of "battles of glory and victories over the unbelievers." Ramadan this year, for all too many, offers similar glories -- particularly since it comes during Pope Rage.

From AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

DUBAI - Islam’s holy fasting month of Ramadan began on Saturday in most of the Middle East, with bloodshed in Iraq, threats of violence across the region and many Muslims still incensed over remarks by the pope.

In the first reported bloodshed of the holy month, at least 31 people were killed by a bomb in a Shiite stronghold of Iraq where calls for “jihad’, or holy war, echoed earlier threats of attacks in the Gulf and on Israel.

A day of protests on the eve of Ramadan saw no let-up in demands for Pope Benedict XVI to apologise for quoting a medieval Christian emperor who criticised some teaching of the Prophet Mohammed as ”evil and inhuman”.

The pope has invited ambassadors of Muslim countries to the Vatican for a meeting on Monday as part of a diplomatic offensive to repair rifts caused by his remarks.

But Jordan’s Islamic Action Front derided the pope’s call.

“The pope committed a great wrong against Islam and a meeting with Muslim countries’ ambassadors is not sufficient. There must be a clear apology,” said Zaki Saad Beni Rsheid, the front’s secretary general.

As the religious row rumbled on, the shadow of more violence during Ramadan hung over security forces.

US military commanders in Iraq warned of an upsurge in violence while several other countries were fingered as Ramadan targets in a message to Western leaders from Ayman Al Zawahiri, the number two in Al Qaeda.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States, Zawahiri threatened Israel and countries in the Gulf.

Zawahiri’s message came three days after the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al Muhajer, urged the country’s Sunni minority to rise up and kill at least one American in the next 15 days, in a video on an Islamist website.

“These multiple messages could be a prelude to a series of attacks by Al Qaeda or by its supporters, especially during Ramadan, the month of jihad and martyrdom,” said Yasser Sirri, who heads the Islamic Observatory in London.

Churches attacked in Gaza, W. Bank

More violence in service of the proposition that Islam is peaceful. From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Palestinian police guarding a church in Nablus exchanged fire with assailants and chased them away early Saturday, witnesses said.

Shortly after midnight, the sound of heavy gun fire was heard outside the Roman Catholic Church in the West Bank city .

Resident Abdel Salam Abu Rob said police guarding the church were exchanging fire with wouldbe assailants. Police guards were posted at churches in the West Bank and Gaza last weekend, after a first spate of attacks.

Residents said they heard intensive fire for about 20 minutes. There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage to the church.

Ealier Friday evening, three small pipe bombs were thrown at a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza city , a church official and police said.

A church official in Gaza City, Nabil Ayad, said one bomb was thrown at the facade of the church, shattering glass windows of a nearby van. The main entrance was blackened.

Two other small bombs were thrown inside the church compound, Ayad said. The extent of damage was not clear yet, Ayad, the caretaker of the church said.

Indianapolis: Police find chemicals, al-Qaida literature in north side apartment

This too has nothing to do with terrorism -- by which authorities mean that Joseph Bagley has no known ties to Al-Qaeda. And no doubt he doesn't -- if he was indeed up to no good, it looks as if he was most likely a lone (and probably non-Muslim) nut who admired Al-Qaeda for its destructiveness. That in itself, however, is noteworthy: bin Laden's boys have become the idols of homicidal nutjobs everywhere.

"Police find chemicals, al-Qaida literature in north side apartment," from WTHR.com, with thanks to JDH:

Indianapolis - The FBI says it does not suspect a terror plot on the city's northside, but police want to know why a man stored and mixed chemicals in his apartment and had al-Qaida literature.

At the suspect's apartment near 96th and College crews pack the stores of cleaning and other chemicals found inside.

And the sheriff has moved the suspect from court to jail

They're holding Joseph Bagley for 72 hours, that could give police more time to check the computer the took from his apartment.

Capt. Phil Burton of the Marion County Sheriff's Deptartment says police also found, "A lot of hazardous chemicals, a gas mask, some literature about al-Qaida, about Saddam Hussein and how to make bombs. He admitted to mixing several chemicals and in so doing used his gas mask and exhaust fan."

At the lock up, a released prisoner who talked to Bagley told us, "He said he wasn't making bombs, he said there was carpet cleaner out. He said that whosever was cleaning his apartment was just terrified of everything laying out. (It) Didn't really look dangerous at all."

"This doesn't sound like any kind of international criminal conspiracy, it sounds like a lone operation involving one person," said Professor Douglad Woodwell of the University of Indianapolis. "There is definitely an inspiration al-Qaida offers to a lot of people around the world these days. They can perhaps play their own role in an epic battle."

And professor Woodwell says he could very well be a guy who just likes mixing chemicals.

Trucking jihad?

A plot to obtain commercial licenses to haul hazardous materials. Hmmm.

"15 charged in driver’s license conspiracy," from The Kansas City Star, with thanks to DL:

Operators of truck driving schools in Kansas City and southern Missouri conspired to help more than 70 Somali and Bosnian nationals illegally obtain commercial licenses, federal prosecutors alleged Thursday.

Many of those students went on to obtain certification to haul hazardous materials on the nation’s highways, authorities said in announcing the 62-count grand jury indictment. Fifteen defendants face charges of mail fraud, making a false writing and illegally causing identification documents to be produced....

Then comes the by-now pro-forma assurance that, although this involves Muslims plotting to do something with potentially catastrophic results, this has nothing to do with terrorism. The possibility -- and it is just that and only that, a possibility -- that this was part of a freelance jihad, a la Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, is not even on their radar screen -- although this time a U. S. attorney does make a partial acknowledgment:

Although the Heart of America Joint Terrorism Task Force handled the investigation, Bradley Schlozman, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri, emphasized that the indictment did not allege that any of the defendants were involved in terrorism.

“That having been said, I would think it obvious that commercial driver’s licenses are an extraordinarily powerful tool, and a potential weapon, in the hands of someone seeking to do large-scale harm,” Schlozman said at a news conference Thursday.

Schlozman said the key defendants in the case showed a “flagrant and reckless disregard for our national security.”

Although the indictment referred to dozens of test applicants by name, investigators think between 200 and 300 students got their licenses through the conspiracy.

Of those, 150 to 200 later obtained certification to haul hazardous materials.

“I’m not saying we stopped a terrorist act from occurring,” Debby Stafford, an FBI official, said at the news conference. “But this is a clear example of our preventive efforts and of what we do to make our territory safer.”...

The defendants included Ernest A. “Mustafa” White, 49, of Kansas City, who owned the Muslim Brothers and Sisters trucking company in Kansas City, Kan., and Howard E. Schneider, 39, of Overland Park, owner of H.E. Schneider Trucking Co. and co-operator of Muslim Brothers, officials said....

Also charged were Dean P. Proffitt, 71, superintendent of the South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School in West Plains, Mo., and Orbin Dale May, 63, a truck-driving tester from West Plains....

After a search warrant was served in February, West Plains School District Superintendent Karla Eslinger said that Proffitt had contacted troopers in 2003 to report that a large number of people taking the test had names that sounded Middle Eastern in origin....

Information obtained by The Associated Press under Missouri’s open records law indicated that more than 300 of about 520 people who took the test at the school between May 2004 and December 2005 but did not train there had names that might be Middle Eastern in origin.

FBI agent Mark Wagoner said White converted to Islam while in prison.

“Many of the people he came in contact with were Somali nationals,” he said.

Schlozman said that the awarding of licenses to individuals “from an area as dangerous as Somalia was a matter of particular concern to the community.”

Prosecutors said the others who were indicted generally helped in the conspiracy by driving students to West Plains for testing or helping to arrange the fake tests.

Those other defendants are:

Hiram C. Oliver, 33, Raytown; Osman Abdullahi, 30, a Somali citizen living in San Diego; Elias Mohamed, 25, Ahmed Muhidin Sharif, 27, Abdulfatah Osman Farah, 24, Abdirizak Abdi Mohamed, age unknown, and Yusuf Kalmole, 34, all citizens of Somalia living in Kansas City; Abdiwahab Mohamud Mohamed, 37, a Somali citizen living in Minneapolis; Adil Majlovic, 19, and Mersud Kajtazovic, 31, both citizens of Bosnia living in Kansas City; and Samir Hasanovic, 22, of Arnold, Mo.

Second Assyrian Christian Killed in Retaliation for Pope's Remarks

More murderous Pope Rage. From AINA, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Baghdad (AINA) -- Sources at Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital announced on Saturday the death of a second Assyrian Christian who fell victim to multiple stab wounds at the Assyrian market in the Doura District. His murder comes a day after the attack on Syriac Catholic Church in the Ashar district of central Basra where another man was murdered.

Christian Leaders in Iraq have asked their parishioners to be extremely cautious and not to leave their homes as a new group called the young Brigades of Fundamental Islam ' has distributed papers announcing the slaying of all Iraqi Christians in three days if the Pope does not Apologize.

Creed of the sword

"Creed of the sword: Islam has to accept that its militants find support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform, writes Mark Durie." Durie in The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in) makes some pointed observations and shows the hollowness of the moral and theological equivalence arguments that are so common, and not just from Rosie O'Donnell:

THE world has witnessed a flood of reaction this week to Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra, and apparently the killing of an elderly Italian nun in Mogadishu, together with her guard. Some have called for the Pope to be executed....

On the other hand, no less a figure than the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it."

Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.

Funny thing: when I point out Muhammad's three options, which are amply attested in Islamic tradition (see, for example, Sahih Muslim 4294), Islamic apologists call me an ignorant Islamophobe. Will they call Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh an ignorant Islamophobe also? Ah, but you see, Spencer (I can hear them saying now), that's just it: Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh is a Wahhabi leader, and you're just playing into the hands of the extremist Wahhabis by validating their twisted interpretations of Islam.

However, I did not write Sahih Muslim 4294. If a Wahhabi works from a sahih hadith, an Islamic tradition generally considered reliable by Muslims, and I note that it is indeed considered a sahih hadith, I am not helping the Wahhabi -- I'm just reporting. If Muslim reformers sincerely desire to mitigate the aspects of Islam that give rise to violence, they need to try to convince people like Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh and his followers that such ahadith should not be considered sahih (reliable), or that they should be set aside in the modern age. But they will not and cannot accomplish simply by denying that such traditions exist, or that any significant body of Muslims pays attention to them.

Abdel went on to urge people to read the Koran and Sunnah (the record of Mohammed's teaching and example) for themselves, pointing out that the Koran, Islam's equivalent of scripture, has been translated into many of the world's languages: "Those who read the Koran and the Sunnah can understand the facts."

On this at least the Archbishop of Sydney and the Saudi Grand Mufti do agree, for in an address earlier this year, Pell also urged people to read the Koran.

Accessing the facts: So what are these facts contained in the Koran and Sunnah that the Grand Mufti would have us read? As it happens, reading the Koran is not without its difficulties. There is, for a start, the thorny problem of context. The Koran gives little help with this: it does not mark off specific passages one from another and its 114 chapters (suras) are not laid out in chronological order.

The keys to unlocking the context for individual passages of the Koran can be found in the life of Mohammed, the Sunnah. The sources for the Sunnah are the traditions (hadiths), of which Sunnis recognise six canonical collections, and biographies of Mohammed (sira literature). Although the volume of this material is considerable, it is now largely available in English translation, much of it on the internet.

In addition to the inherent difficulty of the sources, many secular Westerners rely on certain crippling preconceptions. One is the often-heard mantra that "all religions are the same". Another is the claim that "anyone can justify violence from any religious text". This idea stretches back at least to Rousseau, who considered any and all forms of religion to be pernicious.

Either of these views, if firmly held, would tend to sabotage anyone's ability to investigate the Koran's distinctive take on violence.

There is another obstacle, and that is Western culture's own sense of guilt and suspicion of what it regards as Christian hypocrisy.

Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find themselves demonising Muslims.

But does the Koran incite violence, and how does its message compare with the Bible?

The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)

On the other hand, it is equally clear that there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Yes, but jihadists and proponents of Sharia in general have never had any trouble reconciling this verse with aggressive warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims. After all, those subjugated were not (in most cases) forced to become Muslims, were they?

Resolving apparently contradictory messages presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran is the correct one.

Nevertheless, a consensus developed very early in the history of Islam about this problem. This method relies on a theory of stages in the development of Mohammed's prophetic career. It also appeals to a doctrine known as abrogation, which states that verses revealed later can cancel out or qualify verses revealed earlier.

The classical approach to violence in the Koran was neatly summed up in an essay on jihad in the Koran by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid [actually, Humaid], former chief justice of Saudi Arabia: "So at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory: (1) against those who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) ... (2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah."

At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (16:125)

Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors." (2:190)

As the Muslim community grew stronger and conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam. Sura 9 distinguished idolators, who were to be fought until they converted - "When the sacred months are past, kill the idolators wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Sura 9:5) - from "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), who were to be given a further option of surrendering and living under Islamic rule while keeping their religion: "Fight ... the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled." (Sura 9:29)

The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)

The popular Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and al-Jazeera television personality, in July 2003 invoked the classical dogma of the Dar al-Harb or "domain of war" that encompasses all the regions of the world in which Islam is not yet dominant. In the Dar al-Harb the lives and possessions of non-Muslims are muba'a, or "licit", making them a legitimate target for military action: "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb is not protected ... in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilised to participate in the war, to aid its continuation and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies."

All this explains Sheikh Abdel Aziz's response to the Pope's speech.

Alluding to the distinction between the Meccan and Medinan periods of revelation, the Grand Mufti invoked the doctrine of Sura 9:29 (cited above), that fighting against People of the Book continues until non-Muslims convert or surrender.

Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of "defensive jihad" - including the Palestinian struggle - but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad. Most would emphasise the defensive aspects of Mohammed's numerous military campaigns, claiming that his attacks on others were only to pre-empt future aggression against Muslims. It is also often asserted that Mohammed's military exploits were context-specific responses to the unique situations he encountered in his lifetime, and not binding on later generations of Muslims.

However the idea of a purely defensive jihad is hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years. For centuries the validity of the doctrine of expansionist jihad just seemed self-evident to Muslim scholars, as it was validated by the military victories it had delivered across the greater part of the Christian world, as well as Zoroastrian Persia and Hindu India.

The New Testament: It is not difficult to find examples of religious violence in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, he was instructed by God to destroy all who dwelled within its walls.

The New Testament takes a completely different approach.

Throughout the New Testament there is a systematic rejection of religious violence. The key to this is Jesus' message that his kingdom was spiritual and not political. Jesus explicitly and repeatedly condemns the use of force to achieve his goals: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)...

Durie then goes on to explain how the New Testament's message is quite different from that of the Qur'an. Read it all.

And one final word from Durie for the moral-equivalencers:

The New Testament's teachings on the state continue to sustain the more than 300 million believers who live in more than 60 countries where Christians are persecuted. In none of these countries has persecution resulted in Christian terrorism or violent Christian insurgencies aimed at overthrowing civil authorities.

Thousands Rally Against Pope in Mideast

Pakistani protesters shout slogans to condemn Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks about Islam which hurt the sentiments of Muslims, Friday, Sept. 22, 2006 in Lahore, Pakistan. Protests continued to demand that Pope apologize fully for his remarks on Islam and violence. Placard on right reads 'Enemy of Islam, down with the illiterate Pope.' (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

JERUSALEM (AP) - Thousands of Muslim worshippers staged marches against Pope Benedict XVI in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza on Friday, waving green Hamas banners and denouncing him as a "coward" and an "agent of the Americans."

The demonstrations in the Middle East, as well as smaller rallies in Pakistan and Malaysia, came as Benedict invited representatives of Muslim countries to meet Monday at his summer residence, the Vatican said....

At Islam's third-holiest shrine, the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, hundreds of worshippers hoisted black flags and banners that read, "Conquering Rome is the answer." Protesters chanted, "The army of Islam will return." The march dispersed peacefully.

In the West Bank city of Nablus, Hamas supporters took to the streets after prayers, shouting slogans against the pope and waving Hamas flags. Raising their hands to the sky, the more than 2,000 protesters chanted: "We put up with hunger, detention and occupation, but we won't put up with the offending the prophet. We sacrifice our lives for you prophet."

Marching in the streets of Nablus, the protesters called the pope a "coward and agent of the Americans."

In northern Gaza, more than 1,000 Islamic Jihad supporters shouted in praise of the prophet, and waved black flags. Khader Habib, an Islamic Jihad leader, told the crowd that the pope's comments "indicate that this pope doesn't understand Islam or the prophet."

Actually, the murderous violence, threats and intimidation of Pope Rage suggests that he, or Manuel II Paleologos at least, understands Islam and the prophet quite well.

In Ramallah, hundreds of Hamas supporters marched around the city center.

Hundreds of radical Islamists chanting "Down with the pope" rallied in several Pakistani cities.

More than 500 supporters of a coalition of six Islamic parties, called Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, or MMA, demanded the pope's removal and accused him of supporting the policies of President Bush.

"If I get hold of the pope, I will hang him," Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior MMA leader, told protesters in Islamabad, who carried placards reading "Terrorist, extremist Pope be hanged!" and "Down with Muslims' enemies!"

Strange that "...on the cross," the second part of Hafiz Hussain Ahmed's threat, seems to have vanished.

In Karachi, another MMA leader, Ghafoor Ahmed, accused the pope of wanting to force "Christians and Muslims against each other."

"We condemn the pope. We will not tolerate insulting remarks against Islam or our Prophet Muhammad," Ahmed said at a protest that drew about 300 people.

Another 200 rallied in the eastern city of Lahore, while several dozen protested in Multan.

The demonstrations came a day after 1,000 clerics and religious leaders met in Lahore and called for the pope's removal and warned the West of consequences if it didn't change its stance regarding Islam.

Thursday's meeting was organized by radical Islamic Jamaat al-Dawat group, which runs schools, colleges and medical clinics. In April, Washington put the group on a list of terrorist organizations for its alleged links with militants fighting in the Indian part of Kashmir.

After the meeting, a statement was issued demanding the West "change its stance regarding Islam (or) it will face severe consequences." It did not elaborate.

It also said that jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword."

Malaysia's opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party staged demonstrations outside mosques nationwide, calling for the pope to fully retract his remarks. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's largest city, some 150 party members chanted "Stop the insults" and held a banner that read "We Muslims are peace-loving people."

Of course. Just pay no attention to that nun-shooting, or to the thousands upon thousands of acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam since 9/11.

500,000 attend Hizballah "victory" rally

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Defiant Hezbollah chief returns for 'victory' rally," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

HEZBOLLAH held a huge “victory” rally in southern Beirut yesterday, drawing more than 500,000 people in a display of strength aimed at domestic and foreign critics who want to see the disarming of the Iran-backed Shia group.

Greeted by an ecstatic crowd of supporters cheering and waving yellow party flags, a smiling Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, made his first public appearance since going into hiding on July 12 at the beginning of the month-long war with Israel.

“We are not frightened of death. We have God on our side,” the cleric said. “Our presence here is not without any danger. However, my heart and soul would not allow me to address you from a distance.” The rally passed peacefully despite intense speculation that Israel might take advantage of Sheikh Nasrallah’s presence to fulfil its pledge to kill the Hezbollah leader.

Is Bin Laden dead again?

You may recall that he was widely believed to be dead for several years after 9/11. I therefore take this report with reserve. In any case, if he is dead, the jihad will continue. It is not based on the charismatic power of any single leader, but on an ideology.

"Bin Laden believed dead: report," from Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A newspaper has quoted a French secret service report as saying Saudi Arabia is convinced Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.

The French regional newspaper, L'Est Republicain, has printed what it says is a copy of the report, dated September 21.

It says the report was shown to French President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and France's Interior and Defence Ministers on the same day.

"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama Bin Laden is dead," the document said.

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of Al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid, which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

The report, stamped with a "confidential defence" label and the initials of the French secret service, says Saudi Arabia first heard the information on September 4 and is waiting for more details before making an official announcement.

And also from Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph): France orders probe into bin Laden death report leak

Oslo synagogue shooters planned to kidnap, behead Israeli ambassador

Four jihadists (including one Norwegian national) who were arrested on charges of shooting at an Oslo synagogue this past Sunday were found to have plans and equipment to carry out much worse. Oslo Jihad Update from the Jerusalem Post: "Oslo terrorists targeted ambassador"

The terrorists who shot at an Oslo synagogue on Sunday also planned to kidnap Israeli ambassador to Norway Miriam Shomrat and cut off her head, Norwegian press reported on Friday.

According to Army Radio, Norwegian security services had been tracking the four suspects who, when apprehended, were found in possession of equipment necessary to implement their plan. Two of the suspects were reported to be Pakistani nationals, one was Turkish, and the fourth Norwegian.

Sunday's shooting caused damage to the synagogue but wounded no one. Police who arrived on the scene after the incident identified at least ten bullet holes in the shul's windows and exterior wall.

[...]

Sunday's shooting came less than a week after an Al Qaida plot targeting the site was uncovered. Following the exposure of an Italian cell's intention to attack the synagogue, police had said that they would take steps to secure the synagogue, but did not detail what they intended to do.

Somali jihadists tighten Sharia enforcement, eye port city

Somali Jihad Update from AFP: "Islamist movement tightens Sharia law"

SOMALIA'S powerful Islamist movement says it will tighten Sharia law on its territory and has vowed to fight the proposed deployment of foreign peacekeepers.

Already in control of the capital Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia, the Islamists said they would seize the port of Kismayo and close the nation's border with Kenya to prevent an east African peacekeeping force entering the country to shore up the Government's limited authority.

[...]

Sheikh Mohamed Nur Duale, a top SICS member in the Lower Juba Valley, said the Islamists had surrounded Kismayo, about 500km south of Mogadishu, and would soon take it from a local militia.

"We will not attack our Muslim brothers in Kismayo or any other place in the region. Our objective is to defend the country from the enemies of Allah," he told AFP.

"No-one should dare stand in front of this holy objective."

Kismayo is currently held by the Juba Valley Alliance, a militia led by the defence minister in the government. But it has been encircled for several days by Muslim forces, who are negotiating what they say will be a peaceful handover.

Duale said the Islamists were intent on taking Kismayo because African Union-backed plans for the regional peacekeeping mission called for troops to land there.

Meanwhile, witnesses and Muslim militia commanders said the Islamists had boosted their presence along Somalia's remote and largely unpatrolled frontier with Kenya, where the vanguard of the 8000-strong peacekeeping force from the seven-nation Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is to gather.

"We will close our border with Kenya before foreign troops can set foot on our soil," said one commander from the town of Dhobley, close to the Kenyan border.

[...]

SICS Sharia law enforcers also arrested a karate instructor and six female students at a training facility in Mogadishu, alleging they had violated Koranic precepts on the mixing of the sexes and dress, officials said.

"The detainees were involved in un-Islamic behaviour," said Sheikh Kadar Abdirahman Keyse, who runs the Islamic court in the capital's southern Hamarweine district.

Can you feel the love?

More Peace and Tolerance on the Day of Rage from those who would never, ever insult or disparage a religious figure. Note the "Zionist" pendant. From AP:

A Palestinian protester holds an unflattering picture showing Pope Benedict XVI during a demonstration against his recent speech about Islam, following prayers in front of the Dome of the Rock mosque in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem's Old City, Friday, Sept. 22, 2006. Thousands of Muslim worshippers staged anti-pope marches in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza on Friday, waving green Hamas banners and denouncing the pontiff as a coward. The Arabic writing on the poster reads, 'There are many lies that go out of their mouths. ' (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

"If the pope comes here we will hang him on the Cross"

Words of peace and tolerance from a Muslim cleric in Pakistan on the Day of Rage.

Why crucified? Because it's in the Qur'an, of course -- immediately following the oft-quoted verse about how killing an innocent person is like killing the whole world. That's Qur'an 5:32. 5:33 says: "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."

"Pakistanis protest, cleric says Pope should be crucified," from AFP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Hundreds of Pakistani Islamists held street protests to condemn Pope Benedict XVI for remarks they regard as anti-Islamic, with one leader saying the pontiff should be crucified.

Demonstrators Friday poured out of mosques after the main weekly Muslim prayers in Pakistan's largest city Karachi, the eastern city of Lahore, the capital Islamabad and other urban centres.

"If the pope comes here we will hang him on the Cross," Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior leader of Pakistan's main alliance of radical parties, told around 200 noisy demonstrators in Islamabad.

The alliance, called the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal or United Action Front, forms part of the parliamentary opposition and is often heavily involved in street protests in mostly Muslim Pakistan.

Ahmed also said the pope had joined US President George W. Bush's "crusade" against Muslims, referring to Christians who fought against Muslims from the 11th through the 13th centuries.

"Illiterate Pope should be handed over to Muslims"

...who no doubt wish to treat him, once he is "handed over," with the gentleness and civility for which they have become justly renowned.

Note also the paucity of calls from any Muslim groups for Osama bin Laden to be "handed over."

From AP:

Pakistani protesters shout slogans to condemn Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks about Islam which hurt the sentiments of Muslims, Friday, Sept. 22, 2006 in Lahore, Pakistan. Protests continued to demand that Pope apologize fully for his remarks on Islam and violence. Placard on left reads 'Illiterate Pope should be handed over to Muslims.' (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)

"I'm so mad at the Pope, I think I'll burn an Israeli flag"

Now if only Christians and Jews (and Hindus and Buddhists and atheists and what have you) would indeed get the bright idea to stand together against the global jihad. From the Pope Is A Zionist Department, via Reuters:

Palestinian supporters from Hamas burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration against Pope Benedict's remarks in the West Bank city of Ramallah September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel

OK, but only if you stop jihad

More Pope Rage, this time from Karachi, from Reuters:

Supporters of opposition Islamic alliance Muthidda Majlis-e-Amal hold a banner to protest against Pope Benedict's remarks about Islam during a demonstration in Karachi September 22, 2006. (Akbar Baloch/Reuters)

"Conquering Rome is the answer"

Palestinian Muslims express their rage -- and thirst for conquest -- on the Day of Rage. From Reuters:

Palestinian Muslims hold up a portrait reading 'Conquering Rome is the answer' during a demonstration against Pope Benedict's remarks about Islam, after Friday prayers in the Al Aqsa compound, a mosque at a holy site sacred to both Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem, September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Ammar Awad (ISRAEL)

'Green flag of Allah will fly over Vatican'

More Day of Rage rage, from WND, with thanks to Davy:

JERUSALEM – Pope Benedict XVI's apologies for worldwide reaction to his remarks about Islam and his invitation today for Muslim leaders to meet with him next week are "mere diplomatic acts" and prove the pontiff does not really regret his words, a prominent Gaza Strip preacher told WorldNetDaily.

Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called for holy war against the pope.

He said Christian leaders such as Benedict are "afraid" because they realize Islam is Allah's favorite religion and they are going to hell unless they convert. The Gaza preacher declared the "green flag of Muhammad" would soon be raised over the Vatican.

"We did not need the words of the pope in order to understand that this is a Crusader war against Islam and it is our holy duty to fight all those who support the pope, who follow him and who did not condemn what this small racist had to say," said Abu Saqer, speaking to WND from the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis.

"The day will soon come when the green flag of La Illah Illah Allah (There is no god but Allah) and Muhammad Rasul Allah (Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) will be raised upon the Vatican and all around the world and on the fortresses of those who want to destroy Islam, because they know that this religion obliges them to face the truth that Islam is Allah's favorite religion. And until they join Islam, hell is their last station," Abu Saqer said.

"Pope should know that had it not been for Islam and its divine book, nothing would have been left of Christianity and Judaism"

The Day of Rage is in full swing, and we are certain to see more, now that Friday prayers are wrapping up. From Iran comes this gem: Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi Amoli informs the Pope that without the Qur'an, "American Christianity and the Zionists would not left anything of the divine Christianity and Judaism." Amoli, of course, is working from some core Muslim assumptions: that Judaism and Christianity as we know them today are corrupted versions of the original messages of Moses and Jesus, and that Moses and Jesus were actually Muslim prophets who taught Islam. Thus only the Qur'an preserves true Christianity and Judaism.

It is noteworthy that he would casually reassert this theological supremacism, which leaves no room for Christians and Jews as anything other than renegades from Islam, over against the Pope's alleged insult.

"Major cleric condemns Pope's vilifying claims against Islam," from the Islamic Republic News Agency, with thanks to Arc:

Qom's Friday prayers leader, Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi Amoli, condemned recent vilifying and anti-Islamic claims of the world Catholic church leader Pope Benedict XVI.

"Pope should know that had it not been for Islam and its divine book, nothing would have been left of Christianity and Judaism," said Ayatollah Amoli in his Friday prayers sermons.

Amoli noted that had the brilliant and refreshing Quranic verses on the life of such great prophets as Jesus (AS), Moses (AS) as well as Saint Mary (SA) not been revealed to holy Prophet of Islam Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH), the American Christianity and the Zionists would not left anything of the divine Christianity and Judaism.

Javadi Amoli emphasised that Christianity is not in need of Pope and Bush today, but of an honest leader.

Qom Friday prayers leader called as "double-standards" the stance taken by Pope against Muslims' protests and said the world Catholic church leader should specify what he meant by "I am sorry." He further said, "Mr. Pope should make it clear whether he is sorry for his unfounded and baseless claims or why Muslims have not understood his intention?"

The cleric said that regarding Pope's stance, one should be watchful against enemies of Islam and Christianity that are bent on waging another crusade war.

He invited specialized organizations and communities to conduct research and collect Quranic reasons and justifications on all subjects and put them at the disposal of the religious figures and followers of other divine religions, including Pope, so that they get to know that Islam is the religion of reason and logic.

And supremacism and rage.

Hamas refuses to recognize Israel but offers truce

In traditional Islamic law, Muslims may only agree to a truce (hudna) for up to a 10-year-period, and only when they are at a disadvantage and need to gather strength to fight again more effectively. Thus the offer of a truce is an acknowledgement of weakness by the forces of jihad, and the most unwise move Israel could possibly make would be to accept the offer.

From AP, with thanks to Sara:

Palestinian PM's aide says Hamas will not join unity government if recognizing Israel is a condition, adds group prepared to agree to 'long term truce' with Jewish state until it withdraws from territories

The Palestinians' ruling Hamas group will not join a planned coalition government if recognizing Israel is a condition, a close aide to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said Friday. At the United Nations on Thursday, the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the planned national unity government between his Fatah Party and Hamas would recognize the Jewish state.

But Haniyeh's political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, told The Associated Press on Friday that "there won't be a national unity government if Hamas is asked to recognize Israel." The two parties announced last week that they would team up to govern, in an effort to ease crushing international sanctions imposed on the Hamas government to pressure it to soften its violent anti-Israel ideology.

Their preliminary agreement says the new government would strive to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel - implying recognition of the Jewish state. But coalition talks have faltered because the West and Israel want Hamas to clearly state its willingness to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

5 to 10 year truce

Yousef said instead of recognizing Israel, Hamas was prepared to agree to a "long-term truce for five or 10 years, until the occupation withdraws." He was unclear on what Hamas would do if coalition talks break down.

Fitzgerald: Emile Nakhleh: One worries, and one wonders

"...the CIA program's former director, Emile Nakhleh, played down the problem and estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active."

"'Political Islam is not a threat,' Nakhleh, who retired from the CIA in June, said in an interview posted on the web site of Harper's magazine. 'The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence.'" -- from this article

There is a good deal to note in the paragraphs above.

Let's stat with that figure of "1.4 billion Muslims" given with such suave assurance by Emile Nakhleh, the "CIA program's former director," and left unchallenged, or even uncommented on, by the reporter for Reuters. By now we are all familiar with the way in which Muslim spokesmen constantly exaggerate the figures for Muslims; we have all seen how, in the last few years, the figures suddenly have pushed up, in increments of 100 million -- 1 billion, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and even, the other day, 1.6 billion. Any figure given that is over 1.2 billion (which, I think, is also exaggerated, and have written about here) is part of that campaign, part of the same campaign designed to scare non-Muslims, or overawe them, with the theme of "Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion."

Yet how many people, reading these remarks by Emile Nakhleh, "retired since June" from the C.I.A., would even stop to note that "1.4 billion" figure that is just tossed off?

And then there is the estimate, by Emile Nakhleh, that of these "1.4 billion" Muslims, only "two to three percent" are "politically active." What does that mean? What could it conceivably mean when in Islam there is no division between politics and religion? Is "politically active" a term for those who are engaged directly in terrorist acts? Is it a term meaning those who engage directly in terrorist acts and those who support them with money, with guns, with ardent approval? Is it a term that means those who actively take an interest in terrorism and also running for Town Meeting in a New England village? What does it mean? It means nothing. It is simply one more bit of nonsense and blague. Or could he mean, rather, that it his unsupported view, very few Muslims wish to become suicide bombers -- even if very many Muslims proudly named their sons Osama after the attack of 9/11/2001, and very many Muslims, in the Muslim-ruled countries and in the Lands of the Infidels, have expressed their approval of Osama Bin Laden, of Hizballah, and of other terrorists and terrorist groups?

Unless we know what Emile Nakhleh, "the CIA program's former director," means by that strange phrase "political Islam," we cannot really examine that "two to three percent figure" he also provides. But we have reason to think all he is doing is engaging in an effort at ludicrously minimizing the problem posed by the theologico-politico-geopolitical system of Islam, and that can only be in order to allay fears, to keep the Infidels unalarmed, as unconcerned, even as somnolent, as possible.

In Western Europe for decades, those who ruled, and whose duty it was to both instruct and protect others from threats as early as possible in their detection, failed to instruct and protect enough early on about Nazism, and about Communism, and about energy policies and problems, and about AIDS, and Mad Cow Disease, and possibly irreversible environmental changes. They also failed to learn themselves, and then to instruct others, in what Islam is all about, and what Muslim migrants would necessarily be carrying with them in their mental baggage, and why what they carried would mean, necessarily, disaster for the countries of the Bilad al-kufr to which those Muslim migrants came. For who can deny at this point, even if there are disagreements over what is now to be done, that the large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has lead to a situation, for the indigenous Infidels and even for other, non-Muslim, migrants to those same lands (Hindus, Buddhists, Caribbean and African Christians, Chinese), of greater unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity than would otherwise be the case?

Finally, Nakhleh asserts, in a tone of remarkable self-assurance, that "[p]olitical Islam is not a threat. The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence.'"

By "people" he means "Muslim" people. And he is telling us that not only is the teeniest tiniest possible percentage -- "two to three percent" -- of the world's Muslims (who, by the way, are now up to "1.4 billion") -- "politically active" but that also there is trouble only when "people" (that is, Muslims) become "disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence."

Now I'm confused. Now I need Emile Nakhleh to help me out. Are the "two to three percent" of the world's Muslims who are "politically active" the ones who are not "disenchanted with the political process and democracy"? Are they the ones we don't have to worry about because they are engaged in political activities, and therefore must not yet be "disenchanted with the political process and democracy" and are not opting "for violence," as Emile Nakhleh demurely describes terrorist groups and suicide-bombers? Or are they the ones who, being the only “politically active” ones out of those "1.4 billion Muslims," therefore the very ones who soon become "disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence"?

If it is the latter case, then one must ask why 97-98% of the world's "1.4 billion Muslims" manage to avoid being "politically active," and instead are politically passive or inert? One wonders what would be the reasons for that. One wonders if we Infidels should indeed wish that those 97-98 percent of the Muslims who are now, according to Emile Nakhleh, not “politically active” to become active. For can this lead to anything other than many more of them then becoming “disenchanted with the political process and democracy” and then opting “for violence”? (How demure that choice of verb, incidentally -- “opt for violence.” I “opt for violence,” you “opt for violence,” we all “opt for violence.”)

Societies suffused with Islam are suffused with a belief-system that encourages despotism, not least because Islam locates the source of political legitimacy not in the will of those ruled -- the political theory that undergirds the advanced Western democracies -- but rather in the degree to which any government and any rulers adhere to the expressed will of Allah and of his messenger, as located by clerics and interpreters long ago in Qur’an and hadith, a will to be found in the Holy Law of Islam, or Shari’a. And since, further, the belief-system of Islam is a collectivist system, ignores the rights of the individual, and sees the individual Muslim as owing his entire allegiance to that belief-system and to the collective of fellow Believers, the Umma al-Islamiyya, it is difficult for Muslims to conceive of recognizing, much less making the center of their polities, the rights of individuals -- rights such as freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, including the right to abandon a religion. That is why no Muslim country adheres to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though the Shah of Iran signed the document), and why instead a “Muslim version” that completely vitiates the entire meaning and sense of the original was created and presented to the world as an acceptable alternative, when it at every point undermined the letter and spirit of that original.

And if what Emile Nakhleh, who retired from the C.I.A. last June as head of its “program” dealing with “political Islam,” means (oh, what a tangled web we weave, Mr. Nakhleh, and Miss Reuters, when ‘ere we practice to deceive) is that the 97-98 percent of Muslims who are not “politically active” should become so, and we Infidels have a duty to somehow prevent them from becoming “disenchanted” and thus becoming “politically active” in another bombs-and-explosives sort of way, he is therefore essentially saying that it is up to us, the Infidels, to bend our efforts to encouraging democracy in Muslim societies. And he wants us to do this despite the fact that everything necessary to democracy beyond mere head-counting at the purple-thumbed polls, including the legitimacy of governments arising from a social contract theory and the necessity of post-electoral compromise between political rivals (a spirit of compromise completely unknown in Islam, and the results of which we see in Iraq today), as well as the enshrinement of individual rights, is not part of Islam, is inimical to Islam. Yet we are not permitted to discuss this, to worry about it, to wonder how Islamic societies can be brought a kind of democracy that means anything at all. We are not permitted to wonder how they can make democracy into more than what it has meant in the farcical elections in Egypt (where the Ikhwan gained seats), in the “Palestinian” “Authority” (where Hamas won power), in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and anywhere that the tiniest, phoniest, and for-western-consumption-only steps are taken to supposedly begin that process of “democratization.” Everywhere that process has led to an increase in the power of the less corrupt, but much more threatening, true Believers -- less tainted by corruption than the more worldly thieving-ruling families, for they would be Believers purs et durs.

Emile Nakhleh’s two paragraphs of nonsense deserve to have some sense imposed on them. We’ve tried above. We’ve really tried.

And Emile Nakhleh himself deserves attention. Is he one more of those C.I.A retirees who, like Raymond Close, “retired” early in order to go into business – perhaps something in the public-relations line – with some of those he was supposed to worry about? Is he now a “lecturer” by any chance, on “political Islam,” a writer of Op-Ed pronouncements, someone who might be supplementing his government pension with the kind of remarks that are reuterized above? Or is he simply one more example of the unintelligent “experts” in the Central Intelligence Agency, of whom we have had a troubling sampling – including schoolboyish Scheuer – over the past few years, each one more naïve and confused than the next?

One worries: these are the ones we find out about, these are the ones whose intelligence and understanding we can judge because they have retired from the C.I.A., and are now speaking publicly. But what about those who haven’t retired, but whose capacity for comprehension, or whose loyalties, are similar to those of Emile Nakhleh, or Raymond Close, or others?

One worries, and one wonders.

Qaradawi: Today is "Day of Rage"; ABC: No It Isn't

Ignore those burning Pope effigies -- no one is really angry

Consistent with the prevailing assumption among most Western analysts that when Islamic jihadists tell us they are waging a jihad, they are in fact mistaken, and what they are doing has nothing really to do with jihad at all, so now in this ABC story about today's "Day of Rage" against the Pope we are told, with Orwellian aplomb, that rage isn't really rage. It's just Islamic culture, doncha know.

As long as this unreality continues to pervade virtually every aspect of analysis of the problem of Islamic jihad, we will never get anywhere in defending ourselves against it.

"'Day of Rage': Anger Not Jihad," from ABC, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

LONDON, Sept. 18, 2006 — - Three words suddenly have a lot of Westerners worried and, it must be said, likely making some wrong assumptions about modern Islam. "Yaum al Ghadab" is Arabic for "Day of Rage."

When the Qatari Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for a Day of Rage this Friday in response to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks about Muslims, it might have sounded like a call for street violence.

But if there is trouble Friday, and there could well be, it will not be because of language but because of what some people choose to do after they have answered the call for "Yaum al Ghadab."...

But why do Islamic leaders use what many Westerners regard as inflammatory language?

Because it is not inflammatory, at least not in the context of Islamic culture. "We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas," said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture "ghadab" means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges.

Mimi Daher, a Muslim woman working in the ABC Jerusalem bureau, explained that the Grand Multi [sic] in Jerusalem reflected this cultural mindset today when he said, "Muslims have to express their anger. Was the pope expecting Muslims to clap their hands to him while hurting their faith and prophet? Of course not. We call on Muslims throughout the world to react in a disciplined manner, according to our Islamic faith."

"Disciplined manner" is a repeated theme among Islamic moderate leaders who encourage people to protest. As Gerges reminded me, when the cleric al-Qaradawi called for a day of rage, he stressed repeatedly that it should be civilized, urging Muslims to behave with civility and dignity. "We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved," he said.

Even so, shouldn't Westerners be worried about the use of words like "rage"? As an ABC News Muslim colleague of mine in Egypt, Hala Abukhatwa, put it, "'Yaum al Ghadab' means 'come to the streets,' 'protest,' maybe 'burn a flag.' But it doesn't mean hurt someone. In our culture, expressions are usually in black and white, not nuanced like in the West," she continued. "We are either happy or we are sad, glad or angry. We don't say 'come to the streets and be ambivalent.'"...

So a day of rage, as a term, is deeply rooted. Freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, has improved in parts of the Islamic world, but the old words, the old terms of reference, are so deeply rooted in the language that "Yaum al Ghadab" is still used.

And what about the brittleness of Muslims over criticism of the Prophet Mohammed? Many in the West have a hard time getting their head around the idea that any leader is above ridicule.

There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, "Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."

Fine. The question is how.

CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program director: "Political Islam is not a threat"

This story contends that the U.S. still lacks understanding of Al-Qaeda, but it reveals a much larger problem. Not only does the intelligence community have "only a single office devoted to understanding political Islam," but the director of that one, Emile Nakhleh, says: "Political Islam is not a threat. The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence."

Political Islam is not a threat, but Al-Qaeda is? All right. So evidently the attempt to accomplish by peaceful means what Osama bin Laden wants to do by violent means is perfectly fine. Only the means matter, not the end. It's perfectly all right if we all end up living under Sharia, with its institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, as long as nobody gets hurt on our road to Islamization.

The implications of this wrongheadedness are massive. This explains why there is no official notice taken of the Islamization of Europe, or of the necessity to revise immigration procedures to screen applicants for attachment to Sharia. This explains why a group like CAIR, whose spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has expressed a desire to see the U.S. become an Islamic state, is considered moderate: after all, they're not setting off any bombs, and this struggle is all about "terrorism" and only "terrorism."

Imagine if there had been a group in the U.S. in 1940 that declared that it wanted to see a National Socialist America, but intended to accomplish our Nazification through education, not violence. What would authorities of the day have thought of such a group? What might they have done about it? Ah, you will say, but Sharia isn't Nazism. Of course it isn't. But it is nevertheless inimical to Western values and Western civilization, and harmful to all non-Muslims, in a host of ways. And it is Sharia that is the goal of those we fight. The manner in which they are advancing it is simply a question of their tactics, not of whether or not they are enemies of our way of life.

"US still lacks understanding of al Qaeda - report," from Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - Five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration still does not fully understand the threat from al Qaeda, a congressional report released on Wednesday said.

"(Al Qaeda) still remains the single greatest threat ... Unfortunately, there are still gaps in our understanding of Islamist extremist groups, which leaves America vulnerable," the report said.

The document, "Al-Qaeda: The Many Faces of an Islamist Extremist Threat," was part of a series of reports released by the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on threats facing the United States.

Democrat members distanced themselves from them and accused the Republican majority of trying to frighten voters about such threats in advance of elections in November.

The latest report found "significant shortfalls" in the government's knowledge of both Islamist militancy abroad and the potential extremist threat at home and said it had failed to counter the rhetoric of anti-American Islamist extremists.

The intelligence community has only a single office devoted to understanding political Islam -- the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, created in 2004 to study the issue, advise policymakers and engage academics worldwide, it said.

It said the effort should be expanded, and called on U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte to create similar operations at other agencies.

The CIA had no immediate comment on the report.

But the CIA program's former director, Emile Nakhleh, played down the problem and estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active.

"Political Islam is not a threat," Nakhleh, who retired from the CIA in June, said in an interview posted on the web site of Harper's magazine. "The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence."

Hizballah: "Gracias, Chávez"

Hugo Chávez behaves as one who is looking to enhance his credentials as a "revolutionary" by associating himself with more famous leaders of rogue states; in doing so, he continues to sell out his country and his people, and to grant Hizballah an ever stronger foothold in the Western Hemisphere. From AFP: "Hezbollah adopts Chavez as hero"

BEIRUT - Venezuela’s outspoken President Hugo Chavez, who lashed out at his US counterpart George W. Bush from the podium of the UN General Assembly, has scored a big hit with Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

"Gracias Chavez," proclaimed large posters hurriedly put up on Thursday by Hezbollah activists in their Shia stronghold of Beirut’s southern suburbs on the eve of a "victory" rally following the group’s war with Israel.

The portrait, showing Chavez in a red shirt and punching the air with a fist, also calls for Israel "to be taken to court for its crimes" during the 34-day war which ended in mid-August after more than 1,200 people were killed in Lebanon alone.

Caracas pulled the Venezuelan charge d’affaires out of Israel in early August to protest its operations inside Lebanon, with Chavez charging that Israel "had lost its mind".

Another poster, next to a road bridge destroyed in an Israeli air raid, shows Chavez and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and announces the launch of a petition of thanks for the Venezuelan leader.

It also hails "our coalition from Gaza to Beirut, to Damascus, to Tehran, and with our brother Chavez", quoting Nasrallah.

[...]

Earlier this week, Chavez hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and renewed his support for Tehran’s disputed uranium enrichment programme, which the United States and other Western countries fear would be used for the development of a nuclear bomb.

Bangladeshi Muslim editor faces sedition charge, death penalty for pro-Israel views

After a pattern of harrassment lasting several years, Bangladesh has found a pretext on which to try Salah Uddin Shoaid Choudhury for a crime punishable by death: Sedition, for advocating ties between his country and Israel. Sharia Alert from the Jerusalem Post: "Bangladeshi Muslim editor faces death penalty for moderate views"

A Bangladeshi Muslim journalist arrested in the past for advocating ties with Israel now faces charges of sedition, a crime punishable by death in Bangladesh, and will likely be put on trial by the end of the month, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

In a court session on Tuesday in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, a state-appointed judge ruled that the government's case against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury could proceed to trial and that the hearings would commence within 15 days.

As editor of The Weekly Blitz, an English-language newspaper published in Dhaka, Choudhury aroused the ire of Bangladeshi authorities after he printed articles favorable to Israel and critical of Muslim extremism.

Bangladesh does not recognize Israel's existence and refuses to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

In November 2003, Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's international airport just prior to boarding a flight on his way to Israel, where he was scheduled to deliver an address on promoting understanding between Muslims and Jews. His visit to Israel would have been the first by a Bangladeshi journalist.

Choudhury was charged with sedition, held in prison for 17 months and was reportedly tortured before being freed in April 2005. But the authorities in Bangladesh, which is ruled by a coalition government that includes Islamic extremists, decided to continue pursuing charges against him.

Dr. Richard Benkin, an American Jew who led the fight to win Choudhury's release, told the Post that the situation facing the beleaguered journalist was dire.

"Choudhury has angered the Islamists, who both engineered his arrest and continue to see this as an important case," Benkin said. "He is a pro-Israeli, anti-terrorist Muslim who will not be cowed into silence."

After his release from prison last year, Choudhury proceeded to reopen his weekly newspaper, continuing to publish articles calling for greater interfaith understanding and warning of the dangers posed by fundamentalist Islamic terror.

Last month, unknown assailants set off explosives outside the newspaper's offices and planted a bomb in the press room that failed to detonate.

According to Benkin, Choudhury's family has been subjected to various forms of what appear to be orchestrated harassment. These have included pressure from the Bangladeshi authorities to denounce Choudhury, angry crowds gathering outside their home and even physical attacks. The intimidation has stopped "for the moment," he said.

In a May 20, 2005 opinion piece published in the Post, Choudhury wrote: "As a journalist, I counteracted the biased 'news' that promoted hatred of Israel and Jews, condemned terrorism, promoted the free exchange of ideas and urged Bangladesh to recognize Israel."

Describing the moments immediately before his 2003 arrest, he wrote: "Though physically still in Dhaka, my heart ached to kiss Israel's holy soil."

General Explains Decision to Refrain From Targeting Taliban Funeral

"The general noted that the enemy has no such values." From the American Forces Press Service, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2006 – Much has been made in recent days of an aerial photograph taken in Afghanistan that reportedly shows hundreds of Taliban fighters attending a funeral and the decision to refrain from wiping out the gathering militarily.

At a Pentagon news conference today, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan said the rules of engagement provide all the flexibility needed to take the fight to the enemy and to protect coalition forces, but the decision in this case was not as simple as it might appear to be.

Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry said the intelligence available to the coalition commander on the ground did, indeed, support the belief that the gathering was for the funeral of a mid-level Taliban operative. “It was also reasonable to believe that, as he looked down at that photograph or looked down at the video, that a number of the people that were standing there at that funeral were Taliban fighters,” the general added.

But it’s what the picture didn’t show that ultimately led to the decision not to strike, Eikenberry said. Just outside the frame, he said, was an Afghan village.

“And it also was reasonable for the commander to conclude from that village that there were probably innocents -- maybe sympathetic to Taliban, but innocents, noncombatants -- that had moved to participate in that funeral,” the general said. And the photo couldn’t rule out the possible presence of women and children, he added.

“So that commander made a decision, based upon our values as a people, based upon our values as a nation, that he would not strike,” Eikenberry said.

The general noted that the enemy has no such values.

“I would point out to everybody that (the coalition commander’s decision not to strike the funeral gathering) stands in very sharp contrast to an enemy that will kill religious leaders wantonly, that will kill teachers in order to intimidate parents to keep their children out of school houses, that will -- as they proved themselves last week -- throw a suicide-bomber at a patriotic governor of Afghanistan who came from his home in Australia to serve his nation. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy,” he said.

Pakistan: Shi'ite leader assassinated

Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad Update. From AKI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Islamabad, 21 Sept. (AKI) - A Shiite Muslim religious leader was killed by unidentified gunman in Pakistan's eastern province of Punjab on Thursday, according to a report on the Chinese Xinhua news agency. Men on motorcycles opened fire on Syed Bashir Hussain Bukhari, 85, in the main market in Sargodha, 175 kilometres north-west of Lahore, Punjab's capital. Bukhari was seriously injured in the attack and died later in hospital, local sources said. No one has claimed responsibility for the killing.

Xinhua reported that as news spread of the assassination, people demonstrated in the streets to protest the killing. Tyres were reportedly burnt and roads blocked.

Local police believe that the attack may have been caused by sectarianism. The Shiite religious leaders surivived an attempt on his life in 1994. He was a witness in a case in which two prominent Shiite leaders were killed in a terrorist attack in 1994.

Jihad Watch Daily Digest not going out -- but it will

A few days ago we switched to a new server and blocked traffic from some friendly places from which the recent attacks on Jihad Watch were launched.

That seems to have taken care of a number of problems. Unfortunately, the Daily Digest has not been sent out to subscribers since then. I apologize for the inconvenience. Please be assured that I am aware of the problem, and there is no need to resubscribe. Thanks for your patience.

Jihad is our way, but which way is up?

Check out the sign the woman is holding at the top of the photo. From Reuters:

Supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League party burn an effigy of Pope Benedict to protest against his remarks about Islam, during a demonstration in Multan September 21, 2006. European Union countries should take 'very seriously' the threat to Pope Benedict after his comments on Islam sparked outrage in the Muslim world, the EU's top security official said on Thursday. REUTERS/Asim Tanveer (PAKISTAN)

Palestinian video: 'Martyrs' get paradise with maidens

Pop Culture Jihad Update from YNet News:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' state-run television the past few weeks has broadcast a music video in which viewers are encouraged to "martyr" themselves in exchange for eternal paradise and beautiful "maidens."

The video can be viewed here at Palestinian Media Watch.

The Israeli-based monitor Palestinian Media Watch reports the video, airing on television controlled by Abbas' Fatah party, depicts a Palestinian woman who is shot in the back by Israeli soldiers. The woman then is transported to "paradise" where she joins white-robed "maidens" dancing in water while waiting to marry a male Palestinian who "martyrs" himself.

In the next scene, according to PMW, a grieving Palestinian man is shot in the back by Israeli troops while visiting the grave of the woman killed at the start of the video. The man immediately is brought to "heaven" where he is rewarded with several white-robed "maidens," including the original woman he was mourning.

A suicide bomber's prayer

"This recurring image of the martyr being rewarded by receiving the Maidens (is) part of the multifaceted Palestinian Authority campaign glorifying and encouraging terror, and promoting suicide terror as idyllic," states a PMW report.

PMW cites other recent instances in which Palestinian television encouraged suicide terrorism for the reward of paradise ripe with beautiful women.

In one recent video, a Palestinian about to blow himself up among Jewish civilians is depicted reciting a prayer hoping for "paradise."

"Angels of mercy, escort our souls to Heaven after we fulfill this duty of crushing the descendents of monkeys and pigs. Dear father and mother, blessings of honor and respect to you, while you escort me to the Maidens of Paradise as a Martyr," states the soon-to-be suicide bomber.

'All sins are forgiven'

In a sermon broadcast on PA television, Ismail al-Radouan, a prominent Palestinian sheikh, declares, "When the Shahid meets his maker, all his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood. He is exempted from the torments of the grave; he sees his place in paradise, he is shielded from the great shock, and marries 72 Dark Eyed (Virgins)."

More jihad camps in Somalia

While the first report of a jihadist training camp emphasized the presence of foreign fighters, these are more domestically oriented, focusing on indoctrinating Somali youth. From AP: "Islamic militia to open 'holy war' camps in Somalia"

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- The hard-line Islamic militia that controls much of southern Somalia said Tuesday it will open training camps in schools to prepare students for holy war, an ominous development amid fears that a Taliban-style regime is emerging in eastern Africa.

[...]

Tuesday's announcement of holy war training camps was the militants' latest attempt to discourage foreign interference in the country. Last month, seven African countries, known by the acronym IGAD, endorsed a plan to send 3,500 Ugandan and Sudanese soldiers here.

"Our policy is to fight against countries in IGAD who are our foes," said Fuad Mohammed Kalaf, the Islamic group's education official. He said the training camps in high schools will be established soon but officials were still working out the details.

"There is nothing wrong with our plan to train students," he said. "There are a lot of countries in the world that carry out such exercises."

CAIR's Hooper: "To my knowledge we don't take money from the government of Saudi Arabia"

A few days ago Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations was on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show to discuss Pope Rage, and Carlson did a fairly good job pressing him on some points -- although Hooper was so combative that Carlson twice had to calm him down and reassure him that he agreed with him.

At the end of the segment, however, after he got Hooper to tell the Saudi government that execution for apostasy was wrong, Carlson challenged Hooper on CAIR's receiving money from the Saudi government. Hooper declared: "To my knowledge we don't take money from the government of Saudi Arabia."

Well, I know that Ibrahim Hooper words his statements as carefully as the Pope does, as in the memorable incident when Hooper told Rachel Neuwirth about allegations that CAIR supported Hamas and Hizballah: "CAIR does not support these groups publicly." So I'm not quite sure how to take this new statement. Does he mean that they don't take money from the Saudi government, but from individual Saudis? Or that CAIR may take money from the Saudi government, but if it does, no one is telling Ibrahim?

Your guess is as good as mine, but here is some information about the connections between CAIR and Saudi Wahhabis.

According to Frank Gaffney:

The Saudis have been key financiers of CAIR activities and projects for years. For example, the Weekly Standard reported in June 2003 that the construction of the Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters was subsidized by a $250,000 grant from the Islamic Development Bank, an international financing organization based in Jeddah and run by a Saudi national, Dr. Ahmad Mohamed Ali.

American Libraries gratefully reported in February 2003 that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to a CAIR project that aims to put Wahhabi Islamic reading materials in public libraries across the United States. Given the January 2005 Freedom House report that documented the placement by Saudi Arabia in American mosques of officially published and disseminated materials that are rabidly anti-semitic, anti-Christian and pro-jihadist, we would be foolish to view the CAIR/Saudi library initiative as a gift-horse.

Finally, no less a source than the Saudi Gazette declared in November 2002 that the World Association for Muslim Youth (WAMY) – a government-funded organization responsible for radical, Wahhabi proselytizing and recruitment – gave financial support for a 2002 CAIR weekly advertising campaign in American publications. This gift to CAIR alone was valued at $1.04 million.

And from Daniel Pipes:

A couple of items from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington concerning its support for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are worth noting and pondering. The first dates from August 15, 1999, and is listed under "IDB Approves New Projects Worldwide":

President of the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Dr. Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ali announced today that the bank has approved a number of new grants for Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries worldwide. These include U.S. $395,000 to build a school in Tanzania, $250,000 as a contribution to the purchase of land in Washington DC to be the headquarters for an education and research center under the aegis of the Council for American Islamic Relations, and $30 million for Islamic associations in India.

For those not familiar with the Islamic Development Bank, it appears to be an international institution but is in fact an arm of Saudi foreign policy.

Pipes has more info at the link.

Remember, as Warith Deen Muhammad put it: "In Saudi Arabia it's the Wahabi school of thought...and they say, 'We're gonna give you our money, then we want you to...prefer our school of thought.' That's in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached."

U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf

And there have been several occasions since then when the threat might have been profitably renewed, given the widespread support in Pakistan for the jihad, even at the highest levels of the Musharraf government. "CORRECTED: U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark."

Rude, eh? Well, Pervez, you'll have to pardon Armitage. He may have been a bit wrought up after 3,000 office workers went to work one morning and ended up meeting a horrible death at the hands of believers in an ideology that you have done little or nothing to eradicate.

Pakistani clerics, scholars demand pope's removal, warn West of consequences

Enraged over the Pope's suggestion that Islam might be violent, Islamic clerics and scholars demand his removal and threaten jihad violence if their demand goes unheeded. Pope Rage Update from AP:

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) — About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.

Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The meeting was organized by the radical Islamic group Jamaat al-Dawat, which runs schools, colleges and medical clinics. In April, Washington put the group on a list of terrorist organizations for its alleged links with militants fighting in the Indian part of Kashmir....

The clerics and religious scholars said they did not regard Benedict's latest comments as an apology.

"The pope has neither accepted his mistake, nor apologized for his words," it said.

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.

For this relief, no thanks.

Ahmadinejad, at UN, calls for the coming of the Mahdi

But he didn't mention that the Mahdi will make war against Islam's enemies and Islamize the world. "Iran leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view: Ahmadinejad evokes return of messianic Islamic 'madhi,'" from WND:

WASHINGTON – While most of the reporting and analysis of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. focused on what he had to say about the West and specifically the U.S., his chilling closing remarks were lost on most listeners – and apparently all reporters.

The last two paragraphs of his remarks revealed his steadfast and driving conviction, as previously reported in WND ,that a messianic figure, known as the "Mahdi" to Muslims, is poised to reveal himself after an apocalyptic holocaust on Earth that leaves most of the world's population dead.

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet," Ahmadinejad said. "Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

With Iran on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and already in possession of sophisticated medium-range missiles, mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah is of particular concern because of Iran's potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi. In a Nov. 16, 2005, speech in Tehran, he said he sees his main mission in life as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world....

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon"). Some interpretations of the events that precede his coming include a war that wipes out most of the world's population....

Ahmadinejad made reference to the Mahdi in his first speech to the U.N., too. He called on the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Read it all.

Indonesian jihad chief: naked women worse than the Bali bombings

Abu Bakar Bashir, whose outrageous utterances we have covered here since the beginning, didn't specify which naked women he meant. "Alleged Indonesian terror chief says naked women worse than Bali bombings," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Alleged terror leader Abu Bakar Bashir said TV shows featuring scantily clad women were more harmful than the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people, the state news agency reported.

The remarks were likely to anger Australia, which lost 88 citizens in the attacks on two crowded nightclubs.

Likely, but not certain to anger Australia, because Australia is a civilized country that doesn't erupt into violent rage at the slightest imagined provocation.

Bashir, recently released from jail after serving 26 months for conspiracy in the bombings, said images of naked or semi-naked woman on television were sinful and chipped away at the moral fiber of Muslim believers.

"So, if I am asked which is more dangerous, naked women or the Bali bombs, then my reply is of course those women in skimpy clothes," Antara quoted him as saying at a public rally calling for the imposition of Islamic law in Indonesia.

The Thug-In-Chief speaks

A few observations on Brian Williams' fawning interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Brian Williams: Mr. President, thank you so much. I was interested. You wanted to be able to gesture with your hands while you spoke. What else should Americans know about you as a person, sir?

For pete's sake, what kind of a leadoff question is that? "What is your favorite motion picture, Herr Hitler?"

Ahmadinejad: About me? I'm an individual amongst the many of the Iranian people.

Yes sir, just a humble man of the people.

Williams: You are traveling with your wife on this trip.

Ahmadinejad: Yes.

Williams: May we know anything about her?

Ahmadinejad: She is an Iranian woman. And just as I am an Iranian too.

Williams: All right.

Ahmadinejad: And she is my friend and my companion. And I am her companion.

But not, evidently, her friend.

Williams: Mr. President, you're here as a guest of the United Nations. Under the protection of the United States. What is your message to the American people?

Ahmadinejad: I have talked about this in the past. In the letter I sent to Mr. Bush, I also addressed the American people. We think that the American people are like our people. They're good people. They support peace, equality and brotherhood. They like to see the world in peace. We think that, together, nations can uphold the peace and justice around the world.

Ahmadinejad said in Jakarta in May, but not to Brian Williams in September, that his letter to Bush was an invitation to Islam. Then he confirmed that this was an invitation coupled with a threat, in the Islamic tradition going back to Muhammad (see Sahih Muslim 4294), in his interview with Mike Wallace in August, when he gave Wallace a veiled threat for Bush: "We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate...."

So Williams could have asked him: does your vision of nations together upholding peace and justice require that they accept Islam? Was your letter to Bush coupled with a threat of violence if the invitation was not accepted? But instead, Williams asked him if he'd like to See Rock City And Beautiful Ruby Falls:

Williams: On that point, sir, you've expressed a desire to perhaps tour and see more of the United States. Do you think that day could ever come?

Ahmadinejad: It might.

Williams: Where would you like to go?

Ahmadinejad: I don't really know that if I am here it's possible to see different parts of America. Right now the time pressures are immense, and I, there's really no time.

Williams: Is there any city or attraction you've...

Ahmadinejad: No. It's the entire country... American people are good people.

Williams: The president of the United States, speaking to the United Nations today, said to the people of Iran, "The United States respects you." But he said, "Your government is using resources to fund terrorists. And pursue nuclear weapons." He said he looks forward to the day when America and Iran can be good friends. And close partners in the cause of peace. How do you react to the statement of the American president today?

Ahmadinejad: We have the same desire, to be together for the cause of world peace. But we have to — see what the impediments are. Is it Iranian forces that have occupied countries neighboring the United States, or is it American forces that are occupying countries neighboring Iran? If Mr. Bush is saying that he can (unintelligible) the distance between the Iranian nation and the Iranian government, he is wrong. I am a normal person. A very average, regular person in Iran. The nation decided that I become the head of the state. The nation and the government are one and single. And together, we share everything. But we too like to rise at a point where we can pursue the cause of world peace. But we have to remove the barrier. That's where the question lies.

So the impediment to world peace, or at least peace between the U.S. and the Islamic world, is America's presence in Iraq. But this of course couldn't be true, since jihad violence predates that presence. But Williams asks him nothing about that either.

Ahmadinejad goes on to excoriate the U.S. for supporting the Iranian revolution, and makes outlandish assertions to the effect that life was worse for Iranians under the Shah than it is now. Williams lets it go by. Even when Ahmadinejad asserts that "from the day one, the U.S. government has been against our nation," Williams doesn't ask him about Carter's enabling of the Khomeini regime, which of course was reciprocated by the hostage crisis of 1979.

Later on the Thug-In-Chief utters a howler for the ages:

Williams: Do you believe the pope is a decent man? And do you accept his words of apology?

Ahmadinejad: I think that he actually takes back his statement. And there is no problem. He should be careful that those who want war do not take advantage of his statements and use it for their own causes. People in important positions should be careful about what they say. What he said may give an excuse to another group to start a war. Where the religion should support peace and brotherhood. Christ was a prophet for peace, as was Moses. And as was the prophet Muhammad.

Speaking of people in important positions being careful about what they say, and not giving anyone an excuse to start a war, how about this one? "I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 2005

But while bypassing all sorts of important questions, Williams makes sure to get in this one:

Williams: Mr. President, this is not a matter of great concern, this next question, but we have gotten used to seeing you in the tan jacket with the zipper. Today, you are dressed differently. Is that jacket a symbol of your standing or upbringing in Iran?

Ahmadinejad: No. It depends on which one I'm more comfortable wearing. And it of course depends on my colleagues and friends, too. I knew that you were going to wear a suit, so I decided to wear this jacket.

A little later comes this:

Ahmadinejad: [...] The time for world empires has ended.

"The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, March 2006

[Ahmadinejad:] ...We never speak of war.

Oh, no. Not war. Just surrender: "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender."

After retailing Palestinian propaganda, Ahmadinejad defends jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing:

Williams: And you talk about children. You and I are both fathers. Recently in your country, thousands of people have signed up to be part of suicide brigades. How would you feel if your own children chose to do such a thing?

Ahmadinejad: Well, what is your feeling about that? Think if America is attacked. What would you like your son to do? Do you want him to defend America or not? I think you would like your son to defend America. It's the same with our son. When you don't have arms, when you don't have power, what can you do? You will sacrifice yourself for your country. It's not a bad thing. Although we are against war. We hate it.

Oh, I'm sure he does.

Is Islam Dying? Europe Certainly Is

Paul Belien makes some interesting observations in the Brussels Journal (thanks to Mackie):

Dr Koenraad Elst, one of Belgium’s best orientalists and an occasional contributor to this website (if I had time I would translate more of his Dutch-language contributions into English), told me last week that he thinks “Islam is in decline, despite its impressive demographic and military surge” – which according to Dr Elst is merely a “last upheaval.” He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority religion in Europe before collapsing.

I am not a specialist of Islam. Hence, I do not know what to think of this analysis. Perhaps it can be argued that Islam is in agony, and that this is precisely the reason why Muslims reacted so sensitively to twelve, mostly inoffensive, Danish cartoons earlier this year and why they respond in a fury beyond all reason to the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor quoted last week by Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope emphasized that he did not approve of the quote, but the reactions of Muslims to the Emperor’s words “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” only lends credibility to what the Emperor said.

If a person is incapable of tolerating criticism, including mild criticism, and especially if he perceives criticism where there is none, this is often a sign of this person’s deep psychological insecurity. Rude aggression and wild rage, too, are usually not the normal behaviour of a self-confident person, but rather of someone who knows that he will lose an argument unless he can bully others into silence. Last Sunday, Catholics going to Holy Mass in London’s Westminster Cathedral were confronted by Christophobic Muslims, carrying hate posters such as “Pope go to hell,” “Benedict watch your back,” “May Allah curse the Pope,” “Jesus is the slave of Allah, “Islam will conquer Rome,” and the like. An English blogger has some photos here. What must one make of these Muslim protestors? Do they look like self-assured people?

It looks as if Muslims cannot cope with an open society and the modern globalized world. Should we interpret their aggression – the result of their inability to cope with the world – as a token of strenght, or rather as a sign of inherent weakness – a sign, as Dr Elst says, that the decline of Islam has visibly begun?

Read it all.

Spencer: The Guardian of Islamic Extremism

No, not me. Karen Armstrong is the guardian of Islamic extremism, so called because of her recent attack on the Pope and justification of Pope Rage in The Guardian. Here is my response, from this morning's FrontPage (links in the original):

As the global Muslim reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s recent remarks on Islam threaten to eclipse last winter’s Cartoon Rage in irrationality and violence, there has been the usual and by now predictable undercurrent of sympathy on the Left for those breathing threats and murder against the Pope and the West. Notable among the spokesmen for appeasement and accommodation of violent Islamic intimidation was Karen Armstrong, author of the popular books Islam: A Short History and Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.

Armstrong on Monday published a piece in The Guardian entitled “We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam: The Pope’s remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic.” It is exquisitely ironic that she would term the Pope’s remarks, rather than the Muslim reaction to them, “dangerous” – particularly after a nun in Somalia and a lay Christian in Iraq were murdered in apparent expressions of anger against the Pope. The Pope’s words didn’t kill these people, violent Muslims did; but that fact, and the inappropriate violence of their reaction, forms no part of Armstrong’s calculus. As far as she is concerned, violent Islamic rage against the West, including the rage against the Pope, is all the fault of the West.

And it is long-standing. “Our Islamophobia,” intones Armstrong, “dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism.” Armstrong, like Bill Clinton, who in a similar vein explained 9/11 as part of the debt “we are still paying” to the Islamic world for the Crusades,[1] never mentions that centuries of jihad aggression and imperialism that preceded and provoked the Crusades. After the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632, Muslim armies swept out of Arabia and, under the banner of jihad, conquered the lands that now form the heart of the Islamic world. In the Holy Land, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression; Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: early in the eighth century sixty Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesaria seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies — except for a small number who converted to Islam. Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn’t pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the special poll tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay (Muslims were exempt) as ordained by Qur’an 9:29, and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow-believers.

Brutal subordination and violence became the rule of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered Christians and Jews in Jerusalem to be stamped on their hands with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of St. Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. Fresh persecutions in 923 saw more churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.[2]

After a period of Byzantine resurgence, in 1004, the sixth Fatimid Caliph, Abu ‘Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim (985-1021) turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were Patriarchs) and ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order: he commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rebuilt by the Byzantines in the seventh century after the Persians burned an earlier version, marks the traditional site of Christ’s burial. Bizarrely, the church had served as the model for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Caliph al-Hakim commanded that the tomb inside be cut down to the bedrock. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and Jews heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam or leave his dominions.[3]

The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution and even returned much of the property he had seized from the Church.[4] Some of al-Hakim’s changed attitude probably came from his increasingly tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. In 1021, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances; some of his followers proclaimed him divine and founded a sect based on this mystery and other esoteric teachings of a Muslim cleric, Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Darazi (after whom the Druze sect is named).[5] Thanks to al-Hakim’s change of policy, which continued after his death, in 1027 the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.[6]

Nevertheless, Christians were in a precarious position and pilgrims remained under threat. In 1056, the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.[7] When the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks swept down from Central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims (whose pilgrimages they blocked). After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them — and their advance was virtually unstoppable. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.[8] The same year the Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from here they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains.

The Christian Empire of Byzantium, which before Islam’s wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if its death at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent. The Church of Constantinople considered the pope a schismatic and had squabbled with him for centuries, but the new Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: it was a response to the Byzantine Emperor’s call for help. The Crusaders were responding to the emperor dialing 911.

The Crusaders and the Crusades were not perfect, but this brief survey should establish that they were in no sense a gratuitous proto-colonial attack by the Christian West against a hitherto peaceful and benign Islamic world. On the contrary, they were a response to centuries of violence by Muslims against Christians – violence that made it perfectly understandable that the 12th century Abbot Peter the Venerable would reproach Muslims for “bestial cruelty.” Yet in Armstrong’s world Peter’s words were an early manifestation among Christians of an “entrenched loathing of Islam,” a loathing that evidently had no cause or justification beyond xenophobia and sheer prejudice. And, says Armstrong portentously, “this medieval cast of mind is still alive and well….Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn.” But this hatred, as far as Armstong is concerned, sprang only from the West’s own actions. Again like Clinton, she invokes the Crusaders’ sack of Jerusalem in 1099, explaining that “it is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not -- or feared that we were.”

This silly psychologizing ignores the fact that the sack of Jerusalem, while brutal and heinous, was nothing singular. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders’ behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period — since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance. In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitated to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler, Count Bohemond VI, had already left the city. So he wrote to Bohemond to make sure he knew what his men had done in Antioch: “You would have seen your knights prostrate beneath the horses’ hooves, your houses stormed by pillagers and ransacked by looters, your wealth weighed by the quintal, your women sold four at a time and bought for a dinar of your own money! You would have seen the crosses in your churches smashed, the pages of the false Testaments scattered, the Patriarchs’ tombs overturned.”[9]

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists’ entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they — like the Crusaders in Jerusalem in 1099 — finally broke through a prolonged resistance to their siege. Like the Crusaders, who violated the sanctuary of both synagogue and mosque, the jihadists raided monasteries and convents, emptying them of their inhabitants, and plundered private houses. They entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom, killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery. The magnificent old church was turned into a mosque; hundreds of other churches in Constantinople and elsewhere suffered the same fate. Millions of Christians joined the wretched ranks of the dhimmis; others were enslaved, and many martyred.[10]

Yet to Armstrong, acts of Islamic aggression were nothing more than “fearful fantasies created by Europeans.” Among these “fearful fantasies” she also mentions the anti-Semitic blood libel that circulated among Christians during the time of the Crusades – the charge that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make Passover matzo. But she of course makes no mention of the fact that the blood libel is alive and well today, not in the Christian or post-Christian world, but in the House of Islam. Syria in 2003 and Jordan in 2005 aired during Ramadan a viciously anti-Semitic TV series dramatizing the murder of a Christian child by wicked Jews, who then used the child’s blood in baking Passover matzo. The blood libel has also been spread recently on official Iranian TV. Why have Muslims taken up this ancient Christian slander? Armstrong doesn’t say.

Armstrong’s other charges are similarly wrongly focused and lacking in substance. She points out that “the Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of ‘hypocrisy’, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.” Leaving aside Armstrong’s repetition of the by-now common slander of Pope Pius XII, which has been thoroughly refuted by Rabbi David Dalin in his book The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, no one is actually claiming that Muslims have or have ever had a monopoly on religious violence. What Armstrong does not acknowledge is that Islam is unique among the religions of the world in having a doctrine of religious imperialism. Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, tells his followers to call people to Islam, and if they refuse, to offer them second-class dhimmi status or war: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action….Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them (Sahih Muslim 4294).”

Conversion, subjugation, or war: there is not and never has been a theological imperative of this kind in Christianity. Yet Armstrong alleges that “until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.” It is true that forced conversion is forbidden by Islamic law, although the choice of conversion, subjugation or war contains a level of coercion that Westerners may find incompatible with the notion of free choice. Muslims did not impose conversion to Islam by the sword, but they made life so difficult for non-Muslims in their domains that conversion became their only path to a better life. Armstrong’s observation that “until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own” is largely true, but for a reason she does not mention: converts no longer paid the tax, jizya, that was collected from the non-Muslim dhimmis. Too many converts would destroy the tax base.

But Armstrong has never had an overly strong attachment to accuracy. Daniel Pipes has noted about her book Islam: A Short History that “Armstrong goes out of her way to soften every hard edge, explain away every unpleasantness, and hide what she cannot otherwise account for.” An egregious example of this comes in her biography of Muhammad: according to Islamic traditions (hadith) reported by Bukhari, the hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslims, the Prophet of Islam married his favorite wife, Aisha, “when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” He was at this time in his early fifties. Embarrassed by this, many Islamic apologists claim – in the teeth of this evidence – that Aisha was actually older. Armstrong obligingly asserts that “Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents’ home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.”[11] Unfortunately, her readers are unlikely to have volumes of Tabari on hand to check her assertion; contrary to Armstrong’s account, the Muslim historian quotes Aisha thusly: “The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine.”[12] Did Aisha go through puberty at nine, or was Armstrong covering up one of the more embarrassing aspects of Muhammad’s career?

The time for such disingenuousness is over, as is the time, if there ever were time, for the unseemly self-recrimination to which Armstrong is calling the West. The Muslim rage against the Pope’s call to eschew religious violence reveals an Islamic world in deep denial, as irrational as it is unable to take responsibility for its own actions. And in this it has Karen Armstrong and other Leftist haters of Western civilization and culture as willing accomplices.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Bill Clinton, “Remarks as delivered by President William Jefferson Clinton, Georgetown University, November 7, 2001.” Georgetown University Office of Protocol and Events, www.georgetown.edu.

[2] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 473-476. To his credit, Caliph al-Muqtadir did respond to the 923 persecutions by ordering the church rebuilt.

[3] Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, p. 376.

[4] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I, (Cambridge University Press, 1951), pp. 35-6; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, (Routledge, 2000), pp. 16-17; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (Yale University Press, 1987), p. 44.

[5] Bernard Lewis, The Assassins, (Basic Books, 1967), p. 33.

[6] Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I, p. 36.

[7] Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I, p. 49.

[8] Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, p. 412.

[9] Thomas F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades by (Rowan & Littlefield, 2005), pp. 181-182.

[10] Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, pp. 145ff.

[11] Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, p. 157.

[12] Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Volume VII, The Foundation of the Community, M. V. McDonald, translator, State University of New York Press, 1987, p. 7.

Pope Rage in the funny papers

From Brian Fairrington (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair)

From Mike Lane (thanks for this and all the rest to Mark)

From Chuck Asay

From Gary Brookins

From J. D. Crowe

Muslim rioters torch ten churches in Nigeria

This story is very carefully worded, so that it is not clear that the "religious rioters" who set ten "worship centres" ablaze are Muslims torching churches until we are informed that those fleeing the wrath of the "irate youths" were Christians. Apparently the situation in Nigeria is so delicate that even the facts of the case, simply stated, might enflame murderous passions anew.

"Religious rioters torch 10 buildings in Jigawa," from Nigeria's The Guardian, with thanks to Sky:

NIGERIA once again relapsed into sectarian violence yesterday as a band of irate youths went on rampage in Dutse, Jigawa State capital. They looted and set ablaze 10 worship centres.

Although no life was lost, the Police appeared helpless in stopping the rampaging youths.

The anger was said to have been sparked off by an alleged blasphemous comment on Prophet Muhammed by a Christian woman, who reportedly spoke in reaction to a similarly irreverent statement about Jesus Christ by a male Moslem.

As the state capital was thrown into turmoil, Christians and other non-indigenes fled to Police Barracks to escape the wrath of the rampaging youths.

The North-West Zone Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Rev. Joseph Hayab, in a telephone call to The Guardian, gave the name of the female Christian as Jummai, a resident of Kaduna.

Hayab expressed surprise that a mere altercation between two people could lead to such wanton destruction in the name of religions.

He said: "This is a heinous crime in the name of religion. Why should some people always think that they have monopoly of violence? At this critical moment in the chequered history of the nation, we need to preach peace and not violence under the guise of defending a religion."....

The Sultan of Sokoto and the spiritual head of Nigerian Moslems, Alhaji Muhammadu Maccido, also decried the use of religion as a tool for violence. He said: "No religion will support violence, harassment, victimisation and all vices, let alone murdering of innocent people. No religion will encourage segregation, discrimination and suppression."

Roger that.

British Muslim on terror charges

The Reid incident is giving us a glimpse into the mindset of all too many British Muslims. This kind of story then comes as no surprise.

It is to this case that we owe the memorable and telling phrase, "Keep up the dawah and the psychological warfare."

From the UK's Life Style Extra, with thanks to DFS:

A British Muslim accused of plotting terror attacks against the US Navy appeared in court today facing extradition to the United States.

Syed Talha Ahsan, who turns 27 tomorrow, is also alleged to have been recruiting and raising money for the Taliban and of having US Navy battle plans detailing American warships' vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

He is also alleged to have been in touch with a US Navy enlistee sympathetic to his views and urged him to "keep up the psychological warfare"....

Ahsan was arrested at his Tooting home in July after a court in Connecticut returned a three count indictment alleging terror offences spanning seven years. This followed a long investigation by FBI and customs agents and naval and anti-terror investigators.

US authorities say Ahsan ran websites with another Briton, Babar Ahmad, in an organisation called Azzam Publications, which supported terror groups.

The alleged conspirators, through websites hosted in the US, are said to have provided expert advice for terrorists and helped raise money and recruit personnel for guerrilla groups in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Mum's the Word, Lest We Provoke a Lethal Tantrum

James Lileks nails it (thanks to Doc Washburn for the link).

If you mock Islam with a drawing or a novel, you get riots and dead people. News of mishandled holy books yields riots and dead people. Insufficiently reverent short films by a Dutchman yields a dead person, specifically the Dutchman.

Now we add this detail: Quoting medieval religious colloquies is a reasonable justification for burning churches, shooting a nun and holding up signs demanding that the pope convert to Islam or saw off his own head. (There have been reports of carpal tunnel syndrome among radical Islam's enforcers, and they have requested we all help out.)

This is a new twist: Now history itself cannot be discussed. Since it's difficult to predict what else will enflame the devout, Islam has to be treated with unusual deference, like a 3-year-old child with anger management problems.

But it's not what we say that truly offends. It's what we are. The West's lack of interest in joining the Ummah is an affront in itself, and we broadcast our sins in High Infidelity. If you believed that the West's apostasy was an affront to God, you'd spend your leisure hours torching straw popes too.

Progressives at home and abroad seem oddly unconcerned. "Islamophobia," after all, is just a product of the BushCo junta's relentless fearmongering, and Benedict is the Nazi pope who personally swipes the condoms from people's bedroom drawers.

But it's an inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, when the ranters show up with vibrating uvulas demanding the pope's assassination. (Would they be satisfied with a docudrama version? It would go over big at Cannes.)

Read it all. Read it again. Pass it around.

Islam's special standard

Brent Bozell III speaks truth to power about Islam and the media's double standard:

There are moments where it becomes painfully apparent that the media elites think that the only thing redeeming about Western culture is its ability to regret its existence. Their dream president is a lip-biting man from Arkansas, traveling the globe apologizing for every historic fault, real or imagined, America has ever committed.

This was exactly their mentality with Pope Benedict XVI over his remarks at the University of Regensburg. One wonders if any of his critics had bothered to read his address, the theme of which was the inseparability of faith and reason.

He quoted a Byzantine emperor -- who argued that God could never countenance the coercive violence of radical Islam, and therefore a radical Islam invoking God is irrational. Lost on the outraged was the other argument posed by Benedict: A religion that embraces reason but not faith is also bankrupt. That message was directed at radical Catholics. His call was for a serious and urgent "genuine dialogue of cultures and religions" based on faith and reason.

You would think that this call for a religion based on love and peace, not force, would ring well in peace-loving liberal newsrooms. But this lecture was ignored by the secular press until Muslim riots and threats broke out. Then, predictably and incredibly, the media demanded apologies -- but only from the pope. They treated him like a bumbling candidate for political office, a man too unschooled in the art of public relations, which they know so well. They called him "heavy-handed" and "clumsy." They auditioned on TV and radio shows to explain how the pontiff could be less "tone deaf."

They did not ponder how Muslim violence, from assassinating a nun in Somalia to blowing up Canadian solders in Afghanistan as they hand out candy to children, might be, to say the very least, "tone deaf."

This mind-numbing double standard was set perfectly (and ridiculously) by the New York Times editorial page on a sleepy Saturday, which lamented the pope's desire for a "uniform Catholic identity," which is "not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue." These people seem to have no clue that the holy father's first duty is to maintain a Catholic Church that is united and true to its historical roots. His first duty is to defend an ancient deposit of faith and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. This, to the sages of the New York Times editorial board, is an inherently offensive mission -- exclusive, intolerant, conservative.

Read it all.

"The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah"

No, Ahmadinejad didn't say that. It was his buddy Hugo Chavez, who seems all too ready to make common cause with the global jihadists: "Chavez Says U.S. Empire Will Soon Fall, Calls Bush 'Devil,'" from AP, with thanks to Rob:

UNITED NATIONS — The United States will soon lose its place as leader of the world, and the United Nations is a broken organization that is beyond repair, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday.

“The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing."

Not only Muslims, but also many Arabic-speaking Christians use this phrase, but in context, it is unlikely that Chavez was intending to reach out to Christians.

Thomas Haidon: Some reflections on the death of Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed and Islamic reform generally

Thomas Hamza Muhammad Haidon is a Muslim reformer in New Zealand. He here offers a series of provocative observations on the recent murder of his friend Mohammed Taha in Sudan, and the prospects for reform in Islam.

The Islamist junta of Sudan is often considered the second most despotic republic in the Muslim world. An Islamically based regime since 1983, the central government in Sudan has been responsible for the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of black Christians and animists in Southern Sudan, and is undertaking a second genocide in the region of Darfur. The sources of Islam (along with a literalist interpretation of those sources) have served as the primary roadmap for these events. Political dissension in Sudan (and most Muslim states) is often equated with religious dissension, and far too often leads to accusations of blasphemy and apostasy. The purpose of this essay is to highlight (not necessarily memorialise or eulogise) a recent victim of this trend, and to discuss the impact and repercussions for the West and Muslim liberals of failing to respond accordingly to the burgeoning wave of Islamically inspired violence, which is becoming increasingly organised and sophisticated.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha and the Muslim Brotherhood

On 4 September 2006, Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha, the chief editor of the independent Sudanese daily Al-Wifaq, was kidnapped and later beheaded, presumably by terrorists sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. By all accounts, Ahmed was an Islamist. He was a founding member of the National Islamic Front (NIF), which established the murderous Islamist regime in Sudan, and also established close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan. In his capacity as journalist and editor, on a number of occasions he both supported and challenged the government’s position on a number of issues. On a number of occasions he challenged the treatment of the peoples Southern Sudan, supported the liberalisation of shariah’ [Islamic law], questioned the regime’s brutal tactics in the West and criticised the economic direction of Sudan. However, in 2005, Ahmed as publisher undertook the measure that would unleash an irreversible and deadly chain of events by commissioning an article that dared to question the ancestral lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. At the time of publication, it is said that Ahmed vehemently criticised the article, but nonetheless printed it in the spirit of discourse.

As a consequence of the publication, thousands of Islamists from Khartoum Itnein to Khartoum As-sharq converged on the central Court in Khartoum, calling for the had’ [punishment] of death for Ahmed for the crime of blaspheming the Prophet, and for the crime of murtad’. Despite apologies and immediate retraction, Ahmed was prosecuted for blasphemy and apostasy by the government, which sought the penalty of death. Leading the charge was the notorious Musa Mohamed Ali, a prosecutor well known in Sudan for his penchant for apostasy prosecutions. While the government of Sudan has attempted to shift responsibility of the killing to Al-Qaeda, it is well known on the ground that the Muslim Brotherhood (with which myopic Western commentators have implored Western governments to engage) is responsible.

The responsibility of the Brotherhood is more apparent when looking at the crime of “intellectual apostasy”, which the spiritual emir of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi, recently articulated. Intellectual apostasy, according to Al-Qaradawi, is a:

[k]ind of apostasy among people who do not declare their explicit disbelief and openly wage war against everything that is religious. Those apostates are far smarter than that. They wrap their apostasy in various coverings, sneaking in a very cunning manner into the mind, the same way that malignant tumors sneak into the body. These people are not noticed when they invade or begin to disseminate their falsehood, but they are mostly felt when they affect the minds. They do not use guns in their attacks; however, their attacks are fierce and cunning. This apostasy, is noticed everyday in circulated newspapers and books, in radio and TV programs, and in laws legislated to govern people's affairs.

Qaradawi considers this form of apostasy “more dangerous than openly announced apostasy; for the former works continuously on a wide scale, at the same time, it cannot be easily resisted in the same manner as the latter, which always makes much fuss, attracts attention, and stirs up public opinion.”

I met Ahmed while working with the United Nations in Sudan in 2003. I met with him in several social settings, most notably through the French and German social clubs in central Khartoum (a place frequented by “liberal Islamists”, who often held no-holds-barred discussions on everything from the Prophet’s relationship with Aisha to the role of ijtihad [reasoning to a legal judgment] in contemporary Islamic jurisprudence). While he was an Islamist in many respects, he shared some of views of the “liberal” Hasan al-Turabi on the liberalisation of shariah’ and the empowerment of women, among other things. Above all, he believed that Islam must be questioned from all angles without fear of death or repercussion. While I disagreed with him on many points, I respected him.

To some, Sudan is a nation of oddities in terms of national Islamic practices. While the teachings of Ibn Tamiyya, Azzam Abdullah, Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb are prevalent and form the backdrop of the state theocracy, there are strong elements of mysticism and modernism which have led “Sudanese Islam” to be presented in at least two different faces. For its part, Sudan has also produced a number of liberal Islamic reformers such as Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (executed under the Bashir regime for apostasy, for advocating the rejection of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad) and Abdullahi Na’im. Sudan has also produced Hasan Al-Turabi, the man partially responsible for hosting Osama Bin Laden in Khartoum in the 1990’s. While Al-Turabi is clearly an Islamist, he has questioned the infallibility of the Prophet Muhammad, openly challenged Islamic jurisprudence’s understanding of the role of women, homosexuals and apostates, and has openly called for the re-introduction of itjihad into the contemporary Islamic discourse. Of course, Turabi has done this while simultaneously supporting the jihad against the Southern Sudanese and the Darfurians. Adding to the “confusion” is the unique influence of Sufi thought on Islamist movements in Sudan. (The Sufi community was among the most vocal in seeking the death of Ahmed).

Discussion

There is an underlying and sympathetic assumption by Western commentators, however, that that the ideologies espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and its progeny are the primary source of Islamism in Sudan. This understanding is of course incorrect. A significant proportion of extremism in Sudan also emerges from the Sufi community, which built strong religious and social ties with Bin Laden during the 1990’s. Many in Sudan consider Bin Laden to actually follow Sufism. The implications of this development are significant, as they undermine the popular understanding that “extremism” in Islam is somehow limited to Sunni/Shia or Wahabbism/Salafism.

Ahmed’s death is a stark warning to moderate Muslims and Islamists, not only in Sudan but in the region as a whole, which has developed a fervent sympathy to the stricter Islamic interpretations of Ikhwahn an Muslimuun [the Muslim Brotherhood] or other Islamic based groups. In Egypt, those sympathetic to Ikwhan murdered Farog Foda and have menaced Ayman Nour, Sa’id Ebrahim, and Abu Za’id for infractions against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Ahmed’s murder, however, can be distinguished from those of his predecessor Mahmoud Mohammed Taha and others. Ahmed was in many respects an ally of the regime and a fervent supporter of the Islamist revival. Further, Ahmed did not openly or constructively advocate the views supported in the particular article, and immediately condemned it.

Ahmed’s death demonstrates that liberalisation and grass roots reform movements in Sudan and the region, spoken of by many “moderate” Muslims in the West, are regressing -- if they truly exist at all. More importantly, it further demonstrates the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its unequivocal understanding of Islam, and the implications of its ascendancy in the region. Many Western commentators and policy makers (including officials in the State Department) have implored states to actively engage the Muslim Brotherhood, with the view that the Brotherhood is a conglomerate of “moderate Islamists”.

Substantive Islamic reform cannot take place under such circumstances. Such discussions will be relegated to the quiet corners of social clubs and not through the khatib [preacher] at Juma’ prayers [congregational Friday prayers]. Reform in Islam (rightly or wrongly) is often viewed by non-Muslim (and Muslim) commentators as an impossible exercise, as the Qur’an, Sunnah and entire body of Islamic jurisprudence is immutable. As long as the current Islamist revival rejects critical evaluation, rejects ijtihad, rejects new principles of usul al fiqh [study of Islamic jurisprudence], and is allowed to murder those who not only call for such reforms but who provide a forum for these discussions in the region and in Muslim countries in general, liberalisation and reformist movements will never have the impetus to progress.

The current Islamist/Brotherhood revival is not a phenomenon limited to Dar al Islam [the House of Islam, or Islamic world], but also in the Dar al Harb [the House of war, or the non-Muslim world]. The Brotherhood operates, in some capacity or another, with impunity in almost every non-Muslim country where Muslims reside. Is there any wonder why many Muslims are silent, particularly in the West? The fear of social and community exclusion, and of course of physical harm, is a contributing factor in the collective Muslim silence or failure to do more than retort “Islam is a religion of peace” in the face of terrorism. The elimination and/or marginalisation of such movements from the West provide the opportunity to test this theory.

Western support/dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organisations, whether in government or opposition, or whether in operation through Muslim advocacy groups or Islamic centres in the West, not only harms Western interests, but also contributes to the constraints on Muslims who wish to openly speak on the reform of Islam, or who wish to leave Islam altogether. Governments must take a multifaceted approach in confronting Islamist movements (as well as “moderate Islamist movements”) and their supporters through foreign policy and domestic legislation.

At the same time, truly moderate Muslims cannot heed the advice of Brother Ahmed that reform can only occur through gradualism. While gradualism has played an integral role throughout the development of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not a luxury that moderate Muslims can afford. As each passing day is accompanied by countless examples of Islamic intolerance, the West’s tolerance wanes correspondingly. Moderate Muslims must begin to immediately distinguish themselves from Islamists not through words or assurances to non-Muslims, but through internal academic discourse which comprehensively identifies the failings of Islam, and attempts to reconcile these failings with radical re-evaluation and re-interpretation of the various sources of Islam. This is possible because the shari’ah is partially capable of adaptation and modernisation. A significant portion of shari’ah is not based in divine guidance but on rules of law developed by fuqaha [jurists] over centuries, which have stifled any chances of Islamic liberalisation. Nonetheless, the risks of “rushing” reform however are also substantial, as the examples of Kassim Ahmed, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and countless others demonstrate. Effective reform which is able to reach the masses must still maintain, and sustain to a degree, the orthodoxy of Islam, or such movements will be reviled and eliminated (e.g. the Qur’anic movement).

Even comprehensive reform/liberalisation, when viewed through a Western perspective, may be of limited probative value, because many aspects of a “watered down” version of Islam may not sit well with contemporary Western notions of human rights and justice. (This is something that over-ambitious reformers and non-Muslim commentators must grasp). This is because, while the body of shari’ah contains manmade jurisprudential elements, the ability to interpret the Qur’an is limited by the fact that it is considered a direct divine revelation, as opposed to divine revelation explained by human beings. The introduction of liberal hermeneutics cannot invalidate the concept of nansakh (abrogation). Blunting the force of seemingly clear commandments is difficult when the Qur’an is viewed as the direct word of Allah (e.g., the Qur’an provides clear direction on the treatment of non-Muslims in a Muslim state). Further , the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (which is technically not divine revelation, but is often treated as if it were) is a primary source of Islamic law, which is often used (and misused) to “clarify” the Qur’an..

In summary, the challenges facing moderate Muslim reformers are formidable, and are constrained by the need for immediate reform (and at the same time by the gradualism needed in order to establish credibility at a grass roots level), as well as by the fact that even comprehensive reform may not reconcile all of the key and important differences between Islamic and Western civilisations.

Nevertheless, such work must be undertaken within Islam and externally, in order to marginalise and relegate Islamism and render it as innocuous as possible. Before any liberalisation can occur in Islam, there must be established forums to discuss these issues, and to clearly and comprehensively identify problems facing Islam which impact the West and the development of solutions. Such a forum/discourse must also provide those Muslims who wish to leave Islam with safe passage and effective mechanisms to facilitate their decision.

The death of Ahmed, an Islamist and at the same time a reformer, is a stark reminder and an escalation of the challenges that face Muslim liberals today.

FBI Raids Missouri Islamic Leader's Home

No reasons given for the search, but it may be linked to this. "FBI Raids Mo. Islamic Leader's Home," from AP, with thanks to Mackie:

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- FBI agents searched the home of a prominent Islamic community leader and Iraq war critic, a bureau spokesman said, declining to reveal any reasons for the search.

A dozen agents searched the home of Shakir Abdul-Kaf Hamoodi and his wife on Monday, FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said. Agents removed boxes and computer equipment throughout the day, neighbors said....

Federal agents on Monday also raided the offices of a Southfield, Mich., Muslim charity organization, Life for Relief and Development, where Hamoodi has worked.In that raid, the warrants were based on a criminal assertion, but the affidavits were sealed, William Kowalski, an assistant special agent in the FBI's Detroit office, told the Detroit Free Press.

The Michigan charity's head of legal services, Ihsan Alkhatib, said the agents are investigating whether the charity conducted business in Iraq before the 2003 war in violation of legal sanctions against the country.

Alkhatib said the organization "did everything by the book."

Lanza declined to discuss whether the Michigan and Missouri searches were connected.

Hamoodi, 54, is a former University of Missouri engineering professor who now owns an international grocery store. He said he has worked as a paid organizer and fundraiser for the organization for several years. He said he cooperated fully with federal investigators.

"They came in, asked questions, I told them the answers and they left," he told the Columbia Missourian.

Hamoodi, who grew up in Iraq but has lived in Columbia for 21 years, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and recently had his home defaced with graffiti.

The search came three days after bureau officials met with Muslims at a local mosque to try to improve community relations.

Thai Military launches coup, Muslim general takes power

"Recently, Sondhi urged negotiations with the separatists in contrast to Thaksin's hard-fisted approach." Yeah, those origami were pretty tough.

"Thai Military Launches Coup, Takes Power From Prime Minister Thaksin," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Across the capital, Thais who trickled out onto barren streets welcomed the surprise turn of events as a necessary climax to months of demands for Thaksin to resign amid allegations of corruption, electoral skullduggery and a worsening Muslim insurgency in the south. Many people were surprised, but few in Bangkok seemed disappointed.

A few dozen people raced over to the prime minister's office to take pictures of tanks surrounding the area. "This is exciting. Someone had to do this. It's the right thing," said Somboon Sukheviriya, 45, software developer snapping pictures of the armored vehicles with his cell phone.

Thaksin recently alienated a segment of the military by claiming senior officers had tried to assassinate him in a failed bombing attempt. He also attempted to remove officers loyal to Sondhi from key positions.

Sondhi, who is known to be close to Thailand's revered constitutional monarch, will serve as acting prime minister, army spokesman Col. Akarat Chitroj said. Sondhi, well-regarded within the military, is a Muslim in this Buddhist-dominated nation.

Sondhi, 59, was selected last year to head the army partly because it was felt he could better deal with a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand, where 1,700 people have been killed since 2004. Recently, Sondhi urged negotiations with the separatists in contrast to Thaksin's hard-fisted approach. Many analysts have said that with Thaksin in power, peace in the south was unlikely.

Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.

Two considerations about this:

1. There were warnings in November 2003 to Muslims to leave major American cities. For whatever reason, they came to nothing. I am not saying this is another empty threat -- I have no information on it one way or the other -- but when Ibrahim Hooper leaves the country, I'll really be concerned.

2. Hamid Mir may be entirely correct, but he is just one source. There is no way to verify what he is saying at this point.

From WND, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.

Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.

"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."

As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil....

"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."...

"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.

"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."...

"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."

Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.

"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."

Jihad Watch Board member Tashbih Sayyed honored as Muslim reformer

From Reuters:

Author Salman Rushdie (C) poses with fellow honorees Salim Mansur (L), Tashbih Sayyed (2nd L), Wafa Sultan (2nd R) and Nonie Darwish before the American Jewish Conference's 30th Annual Dinner, 'Profiles in Courage: Voices of Muslim Reformers in the Modern World,' in Beverly Hills, California, September 17, 2006. Rushdie was presented with the organization's highest honor, the Stephen S. Wise Humanitarian Award, during the event. REUTERS/Chris Pizzello (UNITED STATES)

Congratulations, Tashbih, and congratulations to all these courageous people. I had the honor of speaking on a panel with Nonie Darwish in Los Angeles last week, and she is doing immensely valuable work, as is Wafa Sultan. I look forward to the day in which you are all lionized by Muslim groups around the world.

Ahmadinejad denounces US, Britain at UN General Assembly

And the American media gives him a free pass about his genocidal statements regarding Israel, and the statements by other Iranian leaders threatening to construct nuclear weapons. From DPA:

New York - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the United States and Britain late Tuesday as 'hegemonic powers' undermining the UN Security Council's credibility and effectiveness.

The much-anticipated address by the Iranian leader to the United Nations General Assembly offered no solutions to the dispute over his country's nuclear activities. Instead, Ahmadinejad blasted United States for waging the war in Iraq and Israel for occupying Palestinian territories.

He said that no organization in the UN can resist the will of the US and Britain, two of the five Security Council permanent members, along with Russia, France and China.

'Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision-making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security,' he said.

As long as the Security Council is unable to act on behalf of the international community, it 'will never be legitimate nor effective,' Ahmadinejad said.

His country's nuclear activities are 'transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors.' He charged that the governments objecting to Iran's nuclear programme are themselves benefiting from nuclear energy.

'Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity,' he said.

Papal assassin warns Pope Benedict his 'life is in danger' if he visits Turkey

And he should know. Agca also called upon the Pope to resign. It seems as if almost everyone in the world, including Western leaders who should know better, wants him to bow before Islamic intimidation in one way or another. From the Evening Standard, with thanks to Mackie:

Pope Benedict faces a growing chorus of demands to make an unequivocal apology for remarks seen as portraying Islam as a violent faith, despite attempts by Western leaders and churchmen to defuse the crisis.

The calls came as it emerged papal hitman Mehmet Ali Agca, who is serving a life sentence for the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in May 1981, has written to Pope Benedict XVI from jail, warning him not to go to Turkey as planned in November in the light of his remarks.

Agca, a Turk gave his ominous warning in a letter to an Italian daily newspaper....

In his two page letter to leading Italian Rome based daily La Repubblica, Agca, who was a member of the Turkish terrorist cell the White Wolves, wrote: "Pope Ratzinger listen to someone who knows these things very well.

"Your life is in danger. You absolutely must not come to Turkey. Pope Benedict you must know that between 1980 and 2000 I was in contact with various Western intelligence services and with the Vatican.

"In those twenty tears I learnt many things and I came into possession of many classified secrets."

The letter closed with Agca imploring Pope Benedict to resign for his own safety he wrote: "For your own welfare you must make a grand gesture of honour and resign.

"Then you must return to your native land (Germany) and in your place an Italian cardinal can be elected Pope, possibly (cardinal Dionigi) Tettamanzi or (cardinal Tarcisio) Bertone.

"Then the Vatican should become a centre of peace and fraternity. The world has a need of this it does not need hatred and vendetta."

The hatred and vendetta is coming only from one side, Agca.

One answer to jihad

Because the global jihad is advancing on many fronts, not all involving terrorism or violence, a strong military is not the only thing we need to defeat it. But it is -- especially when properly deployed -- an indispensable prerequisite. I have been reminded of this while reading Don't Tread On Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting by H. W. Crocker.

This book is not only briskly and brightly written, as are all his books, but it underscores the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending.

Benedict Denounces Nun's Murder, Calls for More Religious Tolerance

By reminding the world of the nun's murder, the Pope intentionally or unintentionally puts the focus back where it should be: not on those whose words hurt others, which includes all of us at one time or another, but on those who kill because they are hurt by the words of others. From the Telegraph via the New York Sun, with thanks to Ruth King:

ROME — Pope Benedict condemned the killing of an Italian nun in Somalia, whose death has been blamed on a backlash by Muslims offended by his contentious speech last week.

Sister Leonella, born Rosa Sgorbati, 65, was shot in the back in Mogadishu last Sunday, a day after the Vatican issued a statement of regret for the worldwide uproar that followed the pope's decision to quote a 14th-century emperor who called Islam "evil and inhuman."

The pontiff said yesterday that Sister Leonella had been "barbarously killed" but expressed hope that her "spilled blood would become the seed of hope to build a real relationship between people." In a telegram of condolence to the nun's missionary order, Benedict XVI said he deplored "every form of violence" and that there should be more "respect for each other's religious beliefs."

Three people have now been arrested in Somalia for Sister Leonella's murder, although one accomplice is still on the run. The head of security for the Islamic party currently running Mogadishu, Sheik Yusuf Mohamed Siad, said the motive for the killing is still unclear.

President Bush and Secretary of State Rice underlined their support for the pope yesterday, as Western leaders rallied to defuse the crisis.

President Bush said Benedict XVI had been "sincere" in his apology, while Ms. Rice said the pope had a "love for humanity." She tried to portray the pope's use of the quote during a speech at Regensberg University as a naïve slip. "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we do not see it," she said.

Of course he was sincere. He just wasn't apologizing for anything but that he had been misunderstood, and that those who misunderstood him took their misunderstanding to violent extremes.

But in any case, it is unseemly for Bush and Rice to be hastening to assure the Islamic world that the Pope's apology was sincere. In doing this they are both acting as if he did something that was actually wrong, which he did not, and that the Muslim response to his words was reasonable, which it wasn't. Instead, they should both be saying that the Muslim response of violent protests and killings is outrageous and intolerable, and that the protestors should find something more important to be upset about. Or even better, they should concentrate on trying to live productive lives as decent human beings.

Technical difficulties note

We are moving to a new server, and things may be a little weird for awhile.

(Yes, I know that many articles are "Not Found." We're working on it!)

Thanks for your patience.

Gazan Muslims Form Group to Attack Christian Targets

The irony meter has shorted out from overload.

From Israel National News, with thanks to Tom:

Muslims in Hamas-controlled Gaza have formed an ad hoc terrorist group promising to attack Christian targets to avenge the Pope’s choice of a quotation insinuating that Islam is prone to violence.

The group, which calls itself the “Army of guidance,” sent an announcement to news agencies based in Gaza saying that “every place relevant to Christians will be a target until the cursed infidel – the Vatican – apologizes to Muslims.”...

Last Friday, the 1,400 year old St. Perfidious Greek Orthodox church in Gaza was among seven Christian targets burned or vandalized throughout PA-controlled areas....

Perfidious indeed.

Spencer on Medved show today

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to notify you before it happened, but I just finished a marathon two-hour segment of the Michael Medved Show, debating Jeff Siddiqui of American Muslims of Puget Sound. You can still catch it in many places, including on a Podcast at Medved's site.

Young children fight U.S. troops in Iraq

Where are the human rights advocacy groups on this? From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shiite militias are encouraging children — some as young as 6 or 7 — to hurl stones and gasoline bombs at U.S. convoys, hoping to lure American troops into ambushes or provoke them into shooting back, U.S. soldiers say.

Gangs of up to 100 children assemble in Sadr City, stronghold of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, and in nearby neighborhoods, U.S. officers said in interviews this week.

American soldiers have seen young men, their faces covered by bandanas, talking with the children before the rock-throwing attacks begin — and sometimes handing out slingshots so the volleys will be more accurate, the troops said.

"It's like a militia operation. They'll mass rocks on the last or second-to-last vehicle" in a U.S. patrol, said Capt. Chris L'Heureux, 30, of Woonsocket, R.I. "There's no doubt in my mind that they're utilizing these kids in a deliberate, thought-out way."

Al-Sadr's followers insist they are not organizing attacks by children.

"Such behavior by Iraqi children is spontaneous and the natural reaction from innocent children who are witnessing horrible deeds committed by the occupation forces in Iraq," Ali al-Yassiri, an aide to al-Sadr, told The Associated Press.

Sure, Ali. Tell me another.

Enough Apologies

Excellent observations from Anne Applebaum in, of all places, the Washington Post (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

...we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?

CAIR, eh? Once again: don't hold your breath, Anne.

Fitzgerald: "Islamic courts restore order"

The restoring of "order" by the Islamic courts in Somalia recalls the Restoration of Order after the supposed chaos and confusion (otherwise known as life itself, so damn messy without the Ordnung of the Totalitarian State) of the Weimar Republic. Watching of sports – strengst verboten. Playing of sports, also haram, unless participation in them is related to skills needed for Jihad. Here is how Al-Qaradawi, in his widely-read “The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam” (Al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam) puts it:

“There are many kinds of games and sports which the Prophet (peace be on him) recommended to the Muslims as a source of enjoyment and recreation which, at the same time, prepare them for worship and other obligations. These sports, which require skill and determination, and which also involve physical exercise and body-building activity, are related to the amrtial arts, training Muslims for the battlefields of jihad in the cause of Allah. Among them are the following.”

Al-Qaradawi then goes on to mention foot racing, wrestling (Abdullah’s sport at Deerfield), archery, spear play (not yet a varsity sport), and hunting (all those rich Arabs who go bustard-hunting in Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia, consistently ignoring all the laws designed to conserve certain species). Even paintball, if it improves one's aim (a skill that could be transferred to guns) would -- as a substitute encouraging the same skills -- would be okay.

Soccer? Well, in order to justify the soccer teams of Muslim states, Muslim clerics have apparently decided that soccer can be justified because improving one’s general physical fitness, or honing one’s “strategic” skills, might be interpreted -- and would have to be to meet the demands of Muslim clerics -- as being transferable to Jihad. The same would naturally apply to the Pakistani cricket team. When English gentlemen exclaimed “Well bowled, Anthony Ashley Cooper!” (a queer little chap I knew in London, in the days of the Yellow Book and the Café Royale), little did they know that they were appreciating a sport that prepared for war.

But of course one supposes the Muslims would argue something like “Well, don’t you Christians do exactly the same? Wasn’t it some Christian general who said the war against Napoleon was won on the playing-fields of Eton”? And as always, this kind of thing will confuse the Infidels. They will not be able to spot the difference between the supposed character-building of sports and the quite different view in Islam, which is that if something cannot be related to the aims of Islam, if it cannot be made part of the Total System of Islam, then it is haram, not halal, and must be forbidden. In contrast, that character-building used to be regarded in the same manner in which the study of the classics was supposed to prepare England’s leaders for the responsibilities of rule (as Balliol—not to be unduly confused with Borstal -- boys in the mid-to-late 19th century would have been taught to believe): it was not used to justify the activities, but was merely an observation upon them.

If Saudi Arabia’s clerics permit the fielding of a Saudi soccer team, it is only because the argument has been accepted that the improvement of physical fitness by Muslim youth (with the late Sheik Bin Baz doing his impersonation of Baden-Powell) makes one better able, should the need arise, to personally participate in violent Jihad. But making the case for watching soccer is a much harder one, and apparently the Somali Enforcers of Islam, those Horn-of-Africa versions of the Saudi mutawwa, remained adamant. Watching soccer does nothing to prepare for the Jihad.

The Enforcers of Islamic Order know perfectly well what soccer stadiums are for. They are not for watching soccer. They are, rather, for watching men being beaten half-to-death if they dared to fly kites or sing at weddings in Afghanistan. They are places for killing Enemies of Islam and stoning to death, women accused of adultery (verdict first, trial afterwards; Red Queen’s rules apply), girls convicted of stolen kisses or worse.

And after the spectacle, just as at the end of some television programs in the Western world, the whole audience at the soccer stadium is invited to Come On Down. Come On Down, and participate in the fun. Stomp those corpses, smash them till those bones and flesh become one oozy puddle.

It happens in Afghanistan with islamized Afghanis, it happens in Bangladesh with Islamized Bengalis, it happens in Baghdad and Fallujah, in Gaza and the West Bank where Arabs, to the Muslim manner born, invite onlookers to come and kick and mutilate the bodies of those who have offended Islam, have somehow violated the Shari’a, the dream-goal of so many primitive Muslims, a goal that the “moderate” Muslims refuse to renounce because…. Well, because, how can they and still remain true to Qur’an and Sunnah?

Oriana Fallaci noted this also:

"To make you cry I’ll tell you about the twelve young impure men I saw executed at Dacca at the end of the Bangladesh war. They executed them on the field of Dacca stadium, with bayonet blows to the torso or abdomen, in the presence of twenty thousand faithful who applauded in the name of God from the bleachers. They thundered "Allah akbar, Allah akbar."…..After the twelve impure young men they killed a little boy who had thrown himself at the executioners to save his brother who had been condemned to death. They smashed his head with their combat boots. And if you don’t believe it, well, reread my report or the reports of the French and German journalists who, horrified as I was, were there with me. Or better: look at the photographs that one of them took. Anyway this isn’t even what I want to underline. It’s that, at the conclusion of the slaughter, the twenty thousand faithful (many of whom were women) left the bleachers and went down on the field. Not as a disorganized mob, no. In an orderly manner, with solemnity. They slowly formed a line and, again in the name of God, walked over the cadavers. All the while thundering Allah–akbar, Allah–akbar. They destroyed them like the Twin Towers of New York. They reduced them to a bleeding carpet of smashed bones."

New "jihad" video game targets Bush, US Forces, Shi'ite leaders

CNN astutely notes that the game appears to use the engine and many graphics from id Software's 1993 landmark title Doom. It may be a simple coincidence or a matter of the availability of the game platform (or that the game designers in question are writing on 1990's-vintage PCs). But on the other hand, the storyline of the original title and the sequels that followed -- that of a lone fighter taking on the minions of Hell, partly to save humanity, and partly to avenge his fallen comrades -- significantly parallels the jihadist mindset, especially among lone attackers like Mohammed Taheri-azar and Naveed Haq.

In any event, the game is another example -- like pro-jihad rappers -- of attempts to graft jihadist ideology onto pop culture, and by associating itself with something "cool," turning the medium at hand into a vehicle for indoctrination and incitement.

From the SITE Institute (images available at their page): "'Night of Bush Capturing' A Computer Shooting Game from the Global Islamic Media Front"

A first-person perspective computer game called "Night of Bush Capturing," was released to jihadist forums today, Friday, September 15, 2006, by the Global Islamic Media Front, a jihadist mouthpiece, and visual and print media organization. The game, which is a modification of an older game, "Quest for Saddam," features six-levels, culminating in a gun battle with a character representing U.S. President George W. Bush. Each of these stages, given titles such as: "Jihad beginning," "American’s Hell," "Searching for Bush," and "Bush hunted like a rat," contain a Mujahid with several weapons traveling around a U.S. forces’ camp, which is covered with pictures of Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. War nasheeds, jihadist songs, play in the background of each level. Upon completion of the game, "Takbir Allahu Akbar" is shouted.

The Global Islamic Media Front announced recently the game with a video trailer and images of in-game action. According to the advertisement, the game was distributed for "terrorist children".

Moderate Muslim Journalist to be Tried for Sedition

This sort of thing is the fate of all too many would-be Muslim reformers in Muslim countries. Expect CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper and other "moderate Muslim" leaders in the U.S. to speak out forthwith on behalf of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. But don't wait up. From Asian Tribune, with thanks to Twostellas:

Dhaka, 19 September, (Asiantribune.com): At approximately 1:30 PM Bangladesh time, a judge ruled that the government would begin its sedition trial of journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, possibly within fifteen days.

Choudhury is the Muslim journalist who was arrested by the Bangladesh government in 2003. He was imprisoned under often deplorable conditions and tortured after angering the government and radicals by warning his country about the rise of Islamist terrorism there, urging Bangladesh to recognize Israel, and advocating interfaith understanding and religious equality.

A letter from a Muslim

I received this kind email from a Muslim reader of Jihad Watch recently, and he has just given me permission to publish it on this site. We get so much hate mail in our Jihad Watch mail bags that it is refreshing and humbling to receive a message like this one.

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I have been reading your articles for quite some time.

I wanted to send you a private note, to let you know that I have come to have an extremely high regard for you, and the work that you do. I struggle to find anyone who can claim the same level of intellectual
honesty.

As one who is always searching for truth, your articles have begun to change my views on religion and politics.

I was raised a British Muslim. I held all of the stereotypical anti-western and anti-Israel views that I am sure you are familiar with.

However, after working and living in the US for some years, I have come to realize that all that I was told about Americans, were largely untrue. They are the kindest and most generous people I know.

I began to study the history of the founding fathers, and the great tradition of Liberty, on which America was founded. It was a revelation for me. I only wish that our Muslims knew more of the great contribution to civilization that was made by Jefferson, Washington, Adams and many others.

Whenever I return to my native England, I consider myself a humble ambassador of sorts. I tell my fellow Muslims that I have seen no people more friendly to peaceful Muslims, than Americans.

We might not have the same political views. I am against the Iraq war. I'd prefer to live in a Republic, as opposed to a Democracy. But through writings like yours, I find myself evermore informed and hence my own views constantly evolving. I see now that there is no room for today's Islam in any form of government, that Muslims complain far too much about being victims, and that we Muslims have a far greater responsibility to deal with the problems internal to our religion and culture.

I hope that you will continue to write, in the same manner that your many readers have come to admire. I hope that you will accept my humble thanks for all of the hard work you have put into informing readers, like me.

Pope again asked to convert to Islam

Some Muslims will not be satisfied until the Pope actually becomes a Muslim. The Pope's first "invitation" to Islam came from Gaza. Now another comes from Qaddafi's son -- who challenges Benedict on the faith-and-reason grounds of the pontiff's original speech. "Pope asked to convert to Islam," from AFP, with thanks to Ray:

Tripoli - The elder son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called on Pope Benedict XVI to convert to Islam immediately, dismissing last week's apology from the pontiff for offending Muslims.

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately," Mohammed Gaddafi told an awards ceremony on Monday evening for an international competition to memorise the Qur'an.

"We say to the pope - whether you apologise or not is irrelevant, as apologies make no difference to us."

Gaddafi junior also hit out at "those Muslims who look for comfort in the words of a non-Muslim".

He said Muslims "should not look for charity from the infidel... but should fight Islam's enemies who attack the faith and the Prophet Muhammad".

Where on earth did Mohammed Gaddafi get that idea? I expect he will soon be receiving a strongly-worded letter from Ibrahim Hooper.

Muslims want further apology from pope

Some Muslims will not be satisfied with the Pope until his apology is sufficiently abject, his dhimmitude sufficiently secured. From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

ANKARA, Turkey - Muslims in Turkey, Iraq and the Palestinian territories demanded Tuesday that Pope Benedict XVI make a clear apology for his remarks on Islam, instead of saying only that he was "deeply sorry" that Muslims had taken offense.

The prime minister of Malaysia, which chairs the world's biggest Muslim bloc, said that Benedict's expression of regret was acceptable.

In Turkey, protesters said Benedict must make full amends before a planned November trip that would be his papacy's first visit to a Muslim nation.

"Either apologize, or do not come," read a banner carried by a group of demonstrators from a religious workers' union.

Iraq's parliament also rejected Benedict's explanation of his remarks, saying it was insufficiently clear.

The parliament "demands the pope take practical steps to restore respect to the Islamic world and its religion, and a clear-cut apology for what he said," lawmakers said in a statement read at a press conference.

Iraq's Parliament might consider doing their own bit to "restore respect to the Islamic world and its religion," by moving decisively and actively against violence committed daily in Iraq in the name of Islam. No, don't hold your breath.

"The Muhammad that he describes is not my Muhammad"

As promised in last week's Publishers Weekly interview with me, this week's issue contains "a contrasting view of Muhammad and Islam," courtesy of Amir Hussain, author of a new introduction to Islam intended for a Christian audience, entitled Oil & Water: Two Faiths, One God.

RBL: What do you have to say about author Robert Spencer's assertion (RBL Q&A Sept. 6) that Muhammad founded the world’s most intolerant religion?

Hussain: The Muhammad that he describes is not my Muhammad.

Very well. But the Muhammad I describe is the Muhammad of the earliest biographers of the Prophet of Islam: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, as well as of the hadith collections Bukhari and Muslim, which Muslims generally consider most reliable. So if Amir Hussain's Muhammad is not this Muhammad, from where is he drawing his information?

RBL: Do you think he faces danger in writing a biography of Muhammad? And do you, in writing this book, put yourself in peril?

Hussain: If the book puts me in peril, it’s only because it puts me in touch with a larger audience. I think there might be people that are offended by the portrayal Spencer makes of Muhammad. Is there danger? Yes, there is. Will it happen? Probably not in North America.

I appreciate Amir Hussain's concern, and invite him to undertake large-scale efforts to convince his coreligionists that his benign picture of Muhammad is the accurate one, and that it is imperative for the survival of civilization itself that criticism even of Muhammad and Islam be allowed with no violent response.

Pipes: The West Should Be Free To Criticize Islam

Daniel Pipes hits the nail on the head in the New York Sun:

...The head of the Benedictine order, Abbot Notker Wolf, said the pope's quote was "a blatant allusion to Ahmadinejad," Reuters reported. Vatican insiders told the London Sunday Times that Benedict "was trying to pre-empt an aggressive letter aimed at the papacy by the president of Iran, which was why he cited the debate involving a Persian."

First reflection: Benedict has offered elusive comments, brief statements, and now this delphic quotation, but he has not provided a much-needed major statement on this vital topic of Islam. One hopes it is in the offing....

Second reflection: This new round of Muslim outrage, violence, and murder now has a routine quality. Earlier versions occurred in 1989 (in response to Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses"), 1997 (when the U.S. Supreme Court did not take down a representation of Muhammad), 2002 (when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist), 2005 (the fraudulent Koran-flushing episode), and this February (the Danish cartoon incident)....

Third reflection: The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order.

Hear, hear. Read it all.

Trifkovic: Farewell to a Good European: Oriana Fallaci (1929-2006)

Srdja Trifkovic eulogizes my late and much-missed friend Oriana Fallaci at Chronicles:

Of course she prompted countless howls of rage from coast to coast and from one side of the Atlantic to another, among the degenerates, cowards, masochists, madmen, and villains. (Christopher Hitchens, who is all of the above, has described Fallaci’s work as “a sort of primer in how not to write about Islam.”) They can relax now, and write mean-spirited obituaries of this “controversial author” who’s been “harshly criticized” for “inciting hatred against Islam.” She will be sorely missed by those of us who know what she knew, and who abhor what she abhorred.

Read it all.

I myself answered those "degenerates, cowards, masochists, madmen, and villains" in the person of Boston Globe writer Cathy Young, who may be none of those things but is certainly a blinkered dhimmi, here, here, and here.

Alas, we will not soon see another like you, Oriana.

CAIR's Hooper defaming Jihad Watch on radio

I just got a call from a friend, telling me he was listening to CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper on an Atlanta radio station, and that Hooper named Jihad Watch in complaining about "Islamophobia."

Of course, he has done this in print as well.

As I have said before, the idea that we are provoking "Islamophobia" by reporting on jihad violence, but Muslims are not provoking it by committing those violent acts, is laughable. I again invite Hooper to consider matters for a moment from the infidel point of view. Here he is defaming Jihad Watch freely on America's airwaves, wringing his hands about "Islamophobia" and posing as a victim, when in fact several members of his organization have been arrested and convicted of various terrorism-related activities, and his organization no longer contests Anti-CAIR's characterization of CAIR as a "terrorist supporting front organization" that "wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America" and is a group that was "founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection."

Don't think infidels haven't noticed the dichotomy there, Ibrahim. For I believe that you, Mr. Hooper, are one of those who are responsible for the anger some non-Muslims feel toward Muslims today: these non-Muslims are not fools. They can see through posturing and disingenuousness. They see all the things that don't tally with your professed anti-terrorism, and see that you have never answered lingering questions about where your organization really stands. They can see how you trump up anti-Muslim hate crimes. But of course, I doubt any of this will cause you concern: after all, you are entirely willing to use that anger for your own purposes, with radio talk show hosts as your willing dupes.

I think it may be useful at this point to repeat a few suggestions I have made for how Muslims can improve non-Muslim perceptions of Islam and wipe out "Islamophobia" once and for all:

1. Focus your indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Do those five things, Ibrahim, and voila! "Islamophobia" will vanish.

Bush: "If it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose"

From "An evening with Ann… and Lynn," in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, with thanks to Mackie:

First, Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher.

He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.

Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

Fair enough. Certainly Christianity as such doesn't seem to have the unity, will, or moral strength for such a conflict right now. But the jihad is advancing not just against Christians. This is an opportunity for President Bush to call for a coalition of all the actual and potential victims of jihad violence and oppression -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims who reject the jihad ideology of conquest and subjugation, atheists, whatever -- to join together to defend the civilization of the West and universal human rights. There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later.

I will not, however, be expecting Bush to do this anytime soon.

Arrest Ahmadinejad

A superb New York Sun Editorial:

Hardliners in the war on Islamic extremist terrorism have long called for it to be treated as a war rather than a law-enforcement issue. Yet by allowing, in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of an Axis regime to come to New York and stay on Park Avenue at the Intercontinental Hotel The Barclay, President Bush is signaling that he's less than serious in his approach to a regime he marked, at the outset of his presidency, as evil. Those who recognize the Iranian threat are left with the law-enforcement option. Police Commissioner Kelly, District Attorney Morgenthau, or any enterprising federal prosecutor or G-Man has a perfect opportunity at hand to seize Mr. Ahmadinejad and to hold him as a material witness or even as a suspect. Years ago the Jewish Forward newspaper made a similar argument in respect of the Hafez al-Assad of Syria. It didn't happen, of course, and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon grew worse until the murder of Rafik Harari and the new outbreak of war.

An ample American legal record already holds the Iranian government responsible for terrorist attacks by Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. As our Josh Gerstein reported on April 3, dozens of rulings, many of them by a federal judge in Washington, Royce Lamberth, have found Iran civilly liable for murders; courts have made verdicts against Iran totaling about $6 billion. A December 2003 fact sheet from the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives lists at least 52 Americans murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists since 1993. Many of the victims are New Yorkers, and Iranian funding and training figured in many of the attacks, according to American and Israeli government and non-government reports on terrorist organizations.

Mr. Bush himself said earlier this month, "The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans." The president said that Hezbollah, which Iran funds with hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is "directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans abroad. It was Hezbollah that was behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans. And Saudi Hezbollah was behind the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, an attack conducted by terrorists who we believe were working with Iranian officials."

Read it all.

Protest tomorrow against the Thug-In-Chief's UN appearance

There will be a protest tomorrow in New York City against the United Nations granting the Thug-In-Chief of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a platform to speak -- despite the fact that he is in violation of the U.N.'s own charter by calling for the total destruction of a fellow U.N. member state.

Please be there if you can.

National Solidarity Rally
Wednesday, September 20
12 Noon, Rain or Shine
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
2nd Ave. at 47th Street
New York City

Was the Pope Wrong?

Timothy R. Furnish, a perspicacious Assistant Professor of History at Georgia Perimeter College and author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005), and with whom I recently participated in a FrontPage Symposium, has some excellent observations on Pope Rage (thanks to Tex):

One might think that Muslims would be offended because the head of the world’s largest Christian denomination considers them, well, unreasonable. But the rent-a-mobs in Gaza and Kashmir are proving the truth of his assertion in that regard. As for the numerous statements by Muslim spokesmen that the pope is “ignorant” of Islam and Islamic history—well, the reality is that they simply can’t handle the truth.

First, Muhammad was not just a man claiming that God spoke through him; he was also a political and military leader. Driven out of Mecca and taking the reins of power in Medina, Muhammad and the Muslims spread their faith not just via da`is (missionaries), but by the sword; in fact, Jews in Medina who refused to accept Muhammad’s prophethood (and who, to be accurate, were accused of plotting against King Muhammad) were killed or enslaved. The conquest of Mecca in 630 CE was accomplished at swordpoint, not by persuasion. The creation of a huge Islamic Empire by the first four caliphs, the Umayyads and the Abbasids (between 632 and the end of the first millennium CE) was carried out via conquest—not by handing out brochures. Granted, Jews and Christians within the Muslim-ruled territories from the Pyrenees to the Indus were not all forced to convert—but the relegation to second-class status known as dhimmah led, eventually, to the majority of people in North Africa and the Middle East converting to Islam.

The initial phase of Islamic conquests resulted in about half the territory of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire switching hands. For several centuries the borders stabilized and the Byzantines ruled a state pushed back into Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula. But in the 14th century CE a new wave of Muslim jihadists, the Ottoman Turks, were again moving on Byzantine lands. This was the situation facing Manuel II, and no doubt his view of Islam as “evil and inhuman” was in no small measure influenced by watching what was left of his empire disintegrating. (Indeed, less than three decades after his death Constantinople would fall to the Ottoman ruler Mehmet II.) One might ask how many Muslims setting fire to Christian churches, or to effigies of the pope, are even aware of this? I suspect that even if they were, it would make no difference.

For, in the view of some Muslims, it is not unreasonable to spread their religion by violence, for two reasons: 1) it is the final revelation of God to humanity and 2) the Qur’an enjoins it. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones (Indiana’s father): “goose-stepping morons like yourselves should be reading your holy book instead of burning churches.” If they did, they would discover that:

* Surah Muhammad [47]:3 says “When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads….
* Surah Anfal [8]:12 says “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:74 says “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God….”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:56 says “The true believer fights for the cause of God, but the infidel fights for the devil.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:101 says “The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies.”
* Surah al-Ma’idah [5]:51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.”

Only in a truly Bizarro world can those passages NOT be an incitement for some to violence, to “evil and inhuman” acts. Are there other passages in the Qur’an mitigating these? Yes.4 But many of these more benevolent passages are also considered by many Muslims to have been abrogated by the more martial ones.

Read it all.

"Islam: What the West Needs to Know" DVD Set for Release 10/17

A press release:

LOS ANGELES, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- September 18, 2006 -- Quixotic Media, LLC announced today the upcoming DVD release of the feature documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" -- An examination of Islam, Violence, and the Fate of the Non-Muslim World, following the limited theatrical release in July.

The DVD will be available nationwide on October 17.

As acts of Islamic terrorism have multiplied over the past years, numerous Western leaders have insisted that Islam is a "religion of peace," and that violence committed in its name contradicts the teachings of the Koran and the example of the prophet Muhammad. However, it's rare for this claim to receive serious scrutiny.

Now the question is finally being asked, "Is Islam itself violent?"

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts, and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary establishes, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. 'Jihad,' while best translated as 'struggle,' as represented in the Koran and the life of Muhammad, means nothing less than organized warfare against unbelievers. Furthermore, Muhammad's life is the sacred and holy model that all faithful Muslims must follow today. Just as Muhammad waged war throughout Arabia in the 7th Century, his followers continued to conquer, enslave, and devastate other peoples and cultures on three continents.

An examination of Islam's doctrines is necessary now in order to understand the motivations of its faithful followers and the present violent conflicts around the globe.

Produced and directed by Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly, the film features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.

The film running time is 98 minutes and is unrated but does not contain nudity, obscenity, or explicit violence.

Irked Turks: Arrest Pope during visit

Employees of Turkey's Directorate General for Religious Affairs want the Pope arrested when he sets foot in Turkey -- on the fanciful grounds that he has violated freedom of belief and thought. But they don't evidently think that this violates freedom of belief at all.

"Angry Turk workers urge Pope's arrest during visit," from Reuters, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Employees of the state body that organizes Muslim worship in Turkey asked the authorities on Tuesday to open legal proceedings against Pope Benedict and to arrest him when he visits the country in November....

Employees of Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, presented a petition to the Justice Ministry asking it to launch a probe into the Pope's remarks and to detain him when he arrives, the Anatolian news agency said.

They said the Pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by "insulting" Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.

The protesters held banners that read "Either apologize or don't come."

It is not uncommon for individuals or organizations in Turkey to seek legal action against world leaders whose actions they disapprove of. They have never succeeded.

Benedict is due to pay an official visit to Turkey on November 28-30, his first to a Muslim country since he became Pope.

Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has described the Pope's comments on Islam as "ugly" but the government has said it still expects the visit to go ahead on schedule.

The Diyanet controls all imams in Turkey, writes their Friday sermons and sends prayer leaders to Turkish communities abroad....

Fitzgerald: CAIR's Qur'ans, and ours

CAIR and other tireless conductors of Da'wa will never send out copies of the Hadith, unless of course they have carefully gone through them and left only the most anodyne or most impenetrable. They will not distribute, either, the life of Muhammad -- that is, the life of Muhammad that Muslims learn about, with the decapitation of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the marriage to little Aisha, aged nine, the attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the treachery -- "war is deceit" said Muhammad -- of the treaty made in 628 A.D. with the Meccans at Hudaibiyyah.

But the Qur'an they do distribute. They know that the recipients will scarcely be able to make their way through a work which is so confused, in parts so utterly incomprehensible (as Christoph Luxenberg and hundreds of other Western scholars have noted), so strange to Westerners in its arrangement, with passages that in English (or French for that matter) sound much milder than they are in the original, and of course, simply unlikely to be read all the way through, with proper understanding.

Take, for example, the Arabic phrase "Jihad fi sabil Allah." Jihad in the path of Allah. Christian readers will immediately think that is a fine sentiment -- just a Muslim version of "walk in the ways of the Lord." But it isn't, not at all. Those who know what the word "Jihad" means, and not only from the Qur'an itself, but from the gloss provided both by the Hadith and by the life of Muhammad, the sira that depicts the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, who must be obeyed, and emulated, in all things, will realize that "jihad fi sabil Allah" is a sinister phrase.

The Qur'an is unlikely to be read with proper comprehension, but just to ensure that the unwary Infidel, curious about Islam, is carefully directed, those who distribute the Qur'an are also careful to point out a handful of semi-plausible passages. No pointing out of 9.5 and 9.29 or indeed of Sura 9 at all. Much more 2.256 ("no compulsion in religion") and 5.32 but without 5.33 (Bush fell for that -- one wonders who's been teaching him).

After all, they have to provide something. They provide the Qur'an, but do what they can to make it a case of directed reading, directed away from the essential meaning of the Qur'an, to a few bits, abrogated by later verses (but why point this out to Infidels?), that offer the thinnest of reeds on which to hang one's hopes for a "good" Islam somewhere in the middle of all that "bad" stuff. ("But don't the Jewish and Christian texts say terrible things" etc.) Muddy the waters, keep muddying them -- isn't that what you would do, if you were a Muslim? Of course you would.

So as the waters are muddied, it is our job to clear them. Why not give the Qur’an out yourself? But first, highlight the verses from sura 9 about war. Highlight 4:34 about wife-beating. Highlight the others that have been quoted here so many times (search the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch archives for “Qur’an,” and you’ll find hundreds.) Print these verses out together. Make many copies. Keep them handy, possibly in your car.

When engaging others in conversation -- the man at the meat-counter, someone standing behind you, or in front of you, at the checkout counter, the man who sells you the paper, the woman at the drycleaners, the parents with whom you carpool, the people at a party -- use your wiles to bring the talk around to the subject of terrorism. Express your unhappiness at the failure of the government and media to speak the truth about Islam, or even to do so obliquely, by ceasing to call this, idiotically, a "war on terrorism" (terrorism is only one tactic, one instrument, of Jihad), but by calling it, not a "war on Islam," but a "war of self-defense against the Jihad." And then add (placing Muslims in an obvious bind as to whether or not they should object): "Of course not all Muslims believe in Jihad. Most do not. Most do not want to force Islam on the world, either by arms or by other means. Most are pluralists, and just as they want to enjoy equal rights here, they are doing everything they can to ensure that non-Muslims have equal rights in Muslim countries. But Bin Laden and the extremists are using texts like these to portray themselves as the exponents of the real Islam."

Bush, given his reputation in Europe and elsewhere for being an ignorant cowboy, is perhaps just the man to carry this off with a straight face.

One becomes a bit tired about lecturing and advising -- without being able to bill for consulting services -- the grand panjandrums of Washington on what they should be doing. Can you please get on with it, all you well-paid consultants and civil servants in Washington? Readers of Jihad Watch should not have to be doing this for you. We did not volunteer to become the Johnny Appleseeds of information about Islam. We would all like to lead our own, potentially interesting and entertaining lives. Some of us need desperately to make a living. Islamic jihad is a real menace, but it is also rather a bore. Spare us. Please.

Iran wants more Pope Rage

The Iranians are apparently hoping to use Pope Rage to stoke up the world war they've been wanting. "Iranian leader urges more papal protests," from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

[...]

"The pope's words have caused a deep wound in the hearts of Muslims that won't heal for a long time, and then only after a clear apology to Muslims," Egypt's religious affairs minister, Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, wrote in a column in the government daily Al-Ahram on Monday.

An influential Egyptian cleric, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, called for protests after weekly prayers on Friday, but maintained they should be peaceful.

Extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.

Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay the "jizya" tax, though those who convert are exempt. The tax, sometimes called a head tax, has not been imposed in Muslim nations in about 100 years, though Islamic militant groups have tried to force non-Muslims to pay it on a local level in some countries.

"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations."

"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."

In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an "excuse for suppressing Muslims" by depicting them as terrorists.

"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," he said, referring to the United States.

Dean Esmay's Unbelievably Pretentious And Tedious Nonsense

This morning Bryan Preston published a piece, "When Atheists and Secularists Quote Scripture," at Hot Air, that got blogger Dean Esmay's back up. Esmay has responded to it with a characteristically gracious and well thought-out post entitled "Unbelievabily Pretentious And Tedious Nonsense."

Now, I had some exchanges with Esmay some time ago, and had not intended to revisit his nasty little blog, but he makes some assertions in this that are simply false, and since some people may fall for them, they bear debunking.

Oy vey. The world seems full of silly people today. First, it was Kevin D. and his ridiculous slander of Muhammed (see "A (Re)Definition of Terms" below), and now I see Bryan Preston has an even sillier, and far more pretentious bit of Islamophobic tripe. I should know by now not to engage people who take Robert Spencer seriously, but what the heck.

Esmay never offered the slightest substantive response to my arguments here or here. Instead he continues to snipe -- an easy refuge for the intellectually unarmed.

His argument here is likewise substanceless, where it isn't simply false. The part that stuck out most for me was this:

Furthermore, it is fundamentally wrong to say that a scripture that was written later necessarily takes precedence over verses written earlier. That's utter mumbo-jumbo, and isn't even a Biblical principle let alone a Koranic one.

It is unfortunate actually that Preston has phrased part of his argument this way: "Spencer’s argument is that if any Koranic verses have abrogated any others, then the weight has to be given to the later verses–and they’re the violent ones." That is in fact not my argument, and it certainly isn't based on some principle that later verses necessarily cancel earlier ones, as Esmay misrepresents Preston as saying.

Abrogation in general is in fact a Qur'anic principle ("None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?" -- 2:106), although Islamic theologians have argued and do argue over what material specifically has been abrogated.

Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that the violent verses of sura 9 abrogate more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view "cherry-picked" by Osama bin Laden, as Esmay says; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn't begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful, an intriguing answer comes from a Qur'an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”

Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”

This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur'an's verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.

Ibn Kathir states this explicitly in his commentary on another “tolerance verse”: “And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know” (Qur'an 43:88-89). The commentator explains that “say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’” However, that is not the last word on the subject. As Ibn Kathir notes: “But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”

In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.

A modern-day Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, has taught that in the Qur'an, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the Suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

This understanding of the Qur’an isn’t limited to the Wahhabi sect, to which Sheikh ‘Abdullah belongs. The Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik’s 1979 book The Qur’anic Concept of War (a book that made its way to the American mujahedin Jeffrey Leon Battle and October Martinique Lewis, and which carried a glowing endorsement from Pakistan’s then-future President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who said that it explained “the ONLY pattern of war” that a Muslim country could legitimately wage) delineates the same stages in the Qur’anic teaching about jihad: “The Muslim migration to Medina brought in its wake events and decisions of far-reaching significance and consequence for them. While in Mecca, they had neither been proclaimed an Ummah [community] nor were they granted the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. In Medina, a divine revelation proclaimed them an ‘Ummah’ and granted them the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. The permission was soon afterwards converted into a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful.”

Anyway, back to Esmay.

My objection to those who point to specific verses in the Koran that seem to endorse violence is that they're often quoted out of context. Christians who do that to their own Bible are annoying enough; those who do it to the holy works of other faiths are often practicing slander.

Would Esmay then say that Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, as well as Humaid and Malik are slandering their own faith? This is a widespread understanding within Islam. It is based, quite precisely, upon the context in which the various verses were revealed. Esmay is trying to pretend that Bryan Preston or I made it up, and then charge us with "Islamophobia" for doing so.

There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Koran which says that it's okay to kill civilians in the name of Jihad--indeed, that's strongly forbidden.

I wonder if Dean Esmay has ever actually read the Qur'an. Anyway, what he is searching for is actually in the Hadith, such as this one that says: "During some of the Ghazawat [battles] of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."

However, unfortunately in this as in so many other things Muhammad's words cut both ways, for there is also this: "The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

In other words, if you're exposing the pagans to danger, you can expose their civilians to danger also. Certainly there is abundant testimony from Islamic history to show that Muslims understood Muhammad's words here as allowing for action against civilians.

Nor does Esmay even mention the widespread contention among Muslim theologians, even the "moderate" Qaradawi, that civilians aren't civilians at all under some circumstances.

And it absolutely forbids suicide, with no exceptions made for warfare. Which means that everything that suicide bombers do, or that the 9/11 hijackers did, is completely contrary to the plain text of the Koran....

It forbids suicide, but promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111). This is the rationale behind suicide bombing. Did I make it up? No, it is commonly quoted by jihadists. Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of Al-Qaeda, quotes it in recounting why he went to Afghanistan to wage jihad. Cherry-picked? Ripped out of context? Contrary to the plain text of the Qur'an? Great. But it's easy for Esmay to convince his credulous readers. It's harder for peaceful Muslims to convince jihadists of this, because the jihadists actually know what's in the Qur'an.

Much is often made, for example, of the fact that Muhammed was a warrior for part of his career. Those who point this out rarely note that almost all of Muhammed's campaigns were defensive in nature; that the one time he endorsed something that we'd consider an atrocity (the murder of the men of a Jewish tribe that had attacked the Muslim community repeatedly) was less horrible than things that Moses endorsed when he was a military leader in the Bible; that all Muhammed's military campaigns were marked by very strict rules against killing innocents; and yes, some were given the choice to become muslims or die, but only those who had repeatedly attacked muslims and violated treaties with muslims were ever forced to make such a choice. In his entire 10 year career as a warrior, Muhammed's body count was probably well under 1,000 total, almost all of it defensive. And once he took control of Mecca from those who'd been attacking his followers, his military career promptly ended. That is what most muslims believe, anyway, and most historians I've read see little reason to dispute it.

Esmay has asserted all this about Muhammad but provides no source citations, so in effect he's asking us just to take his word for it. Well, no thanks. As it happens, I have a book coming out very soon about all this: The Truth About Muhammad. It is entirely based on the earliest sources for Muhammad's life -- all written by pious Muslims. And all it says is just what they say about Muhammad's words and deeds. Anyone and everyone, even Dean Esmay, is invited to go back to those sources and see if I what I say about Muhammad is accurate. Anyway, in tracing Muhammad's career, it illuminates why jihadists invoke his example, and what moderate Muslims must address about that example in order to bring about genuine Islamic reform, instead of the shallow evasion and denial that Esmay and his ilk take for the real thing.

Muslim harrassment increases

Jihad Watch reader Cindy has alerted me to this story in the Bandar Beacon, aka the Washington Post, and comments: "Mind you, the article is not about how Muslims are increasingly harrassing us -- this is CAIR complaining that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks both on the street and on the Internet. Not that they named names...Too bad I'm not a statistician, otherwise I might be tempted to believe that reported incidents of harrassment would increase in direct proportion to the attacks upon the West by Muslims. Call me a cynic."

On CAIR's trumped-up hate crimes, see this piece by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha.

"Anti-Muslim Harassment Complaints Jump 30 Percent," from the Post:

Complaints of anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment registered with a national Muslim civil rights group jumped 30 percent in 2005 from the previous year, the group said today in releasing its annual report.

The 1,972 complaints made to the Council on American-Islamic Relations are the most the group has received since it began the annual reports following anti-Muslim incidents after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. The group said it actually received 2,300 reports but deemed some of them illegitimate.

The number of complaints has continually risen since 1995, but began spiking significantly in 2003, the report said. CAIR officials said the jump between 2004 and 2005 seems to be due to "a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric fed by the Internet and also on talk radio," group spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said at a news conference. "You can't turn on the radio without hearing negative, bigoted comments about Islam."...

The highest number of complaints fall into the "due process" category, said CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar; those include complaints such as racial profiling and unreasonable arrest or interrogation. Second are complaints of religious accommodation being denied and third are complaints of employment discrimination, according to the report.

CAIR officials pushed at the conference for law enforcement authorities to investigate complaints thoroughly. Federal officials "do a very good job," at investigating whether crimes such as arson or assault have a religious bias, but "you get more resistance at the local level."

However, the group said some post-Sept. 11 policy initiatives -- including the "infamous" Patriot Act, as the group described the law in announcing the report on its Web site -- have unfairly focused on Muslims. "Muslims take the brunt of it," Hooper said.

Unfortunately, Ibrahim, Al-Qaeda and other groups have also unfairly focused on Muslims in their recruitment efforts. Oddly enough, Al-Qaeda doesn't have too many Presbyterian members.

In an effort to combat ignorance about the faith, CAIR began offering free copies of the Koran and copies of a PBS documentary about the prophet Muhammad earlier this year after deadly rioting about the Danish cartoon controversy. The group said that 30,000 copies of the Koran and 14,500 copies of the documentary have been requested.

Of course, it's always all because of ignorance. If only we were enlightened, we wouldn't notice all the jihad violence all over the world every day.

Michigan: Federal agents raid Muslim charity

Aiding the jihad in another way. "Federal agents raid Muslim charity in Southfield," from the Detroit Free Press, with thanks to the indomitable Debbie Schlussel, who gives important background here:

Federal counterterrorism agents raided a Muslim charity in Southfield on Monday morning, according to the FBI.

Agents with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force executed search warrants at the headquarters for Life for Relief and Development, a Southfield-based charity that works in Arab and Muslim countries around the world....

At about 9 a.m., agents raided the Southfield office, hauling away documents, letters and ledgers, said Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Agents told officials with the charity that the raid was related to some sort of criminal activity, Walid said.

The charity has worked in Iraq, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, among other countries. According to its Web site, the charity “has provided over $50 million in humanitarian assistance to more than 13 million beneficiaries worldwide.”

Cardinal Pell: Pope Rage "showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence"

The Archbishop of Sydney speaks truth to power again. "Pell links Islamists to violence," from the Sydney Morning Herald, with thanks to David:

...Cardinal George Pell says "the violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world" to a speech by Pope Benedict justified one of the very fears expressed in that address. "They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence," Cardinal Pell said in a statement yesterday.

He described as "unfortunately typical and unhelpful" attacks on the Pope's comments by two local Muslims, Taj el-Din al Hilaly, the Mufti of Australia, and Ameer Ali, from the Government's Muslim advisory committee....

Cardinal Pell begins by saying it is a sign of hope that "no organised violence has flared here in Australia … No one compared the Pope to Hitler or Mussolini (as in Turkey) or called for his murder as Sheik Malin did in Somalia. No group like the League of Jihadists in Iraq promised 'that the soldiers of Muhammad will come sooner or later to shake your throne and the foundations of your state'."

He adds: "Our major priority must be to maintain peace and harmony within the Australian community, but no lasting achievements can be grounded in fantasies and evasions."

He then details his criticisms of Sheik Hilaly and Dr Ali.

"It is always someone else's fault and issues touching on the nature of Islam are ignored.

"Sheik al-Hilaly often responds to criticism by questioning the intelligence and competence of the questioner or critic. So too with the Pope, whose speech he claimed was not what was expected of a holy person and indeed 'the Church needs to re-examine its thoughts about someone who doesn't have the qualities or good grasp of Christian character or knowledge'."

Cardinal Pell said Dr Ali misunderstood the Pope's speech and "called on Pope Benedict to be more like Pope John Paul II than Pope Urban II, who called the First Crusade. In fact the Pope's long speech was more about the weaknesses of the Western world, its irreligion and disdain for religion and he explicitly rejected linking religion and violence. He won't be calling any crusade."

But Cardinal Pell added: "Today Westerners often link genuine religious expression with peace and tolerance. Today most Muslims identify genuine religion with submission (Islam) to the commands of the Koran. They are proud of the spectacular military expansion across continents especially in the decades after the prophet's death. This is seen as a sign of God's blessing. Friends of Islam in Australia have genuine questions, which need to be addressed, not regularly avoided. We are grateful for those moderate Muslims who have spoken publicly."

Sheik Hilaly said Muslims had a right to be angered by the Pope's "veiled and not-so-veiled insults". But he agreed Muslims must answer hard questions and that terrorists misquoted religious texts to justify murders.

UK: The Pope must die, says Muslim

More threats and murder, this time in the UK. "The Pope must die, says Muslim," from the Evening Standard, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

He insisted he was "deeply sorry" but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered.

A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

He added: "I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out.

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah".

Gazans warn pope to accept Islam

As I have had occasion to explain many times lately, this accords with Muhammad's instructions to offer non-believers conversion to Islam or dhimmi status, and to fight them if they refused both.

From the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Citing the words of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslim religious leaders in the Gaza Strip on Sunday warned Pope Benedict XVI that he must "accept" Islam if he wanted to live in peace.

The warning, the first of its kind, came as many Christians in the West Bank expressed anger over a spate of attacks on churches in protest against remarks made by the pope about the Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

Two more churches in the West Bank were targeted on Sunday in protest against the pope's remarks, bringing to seven the number of churches that have been attacked over the past three days.

In Tulkarm, arsonists set fire to the only Orthodox church in the area, causing heavy damage to the 150-year-old structure. Local residents said the attack occurred shortly after 4 a.m, when a number of assailants forced their way into the church and tossed several fire bombs into the building.

Some Christian families said they were living in fear because of the attacks and called on the Palestinian Authority to do its utmost to protect churches and Christians.

At a press conference in Gaza City, a number of Muslim clerics said the pope's statements were "the result of his hatred for Islam and not the result of ignorance."

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

Some Muslim scholars, however, have endorsed a more moderate interpretation of the term, arguing that its real meaning was that those who surrendered to the will of God would find peace.

Hamto and his colleagues accused Christians of "resorting to the power of the sword in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine."

They also called on the pope to direct his words to the Jews who, they claimed, were "spreading corruption and destruction."

Al-Qaeda group vows jihad over Pope's speech

Jihadists not mollified by the Pope's disavowal of any agreement with Manuel II Paleologos. "'Jihad' vowed over Pope's speech," from Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.

Islam, like Christianity, is not above criticism

Trenchant words from the Telegraph, with thanks to Ruth King:

The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?

The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.

Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.

We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to take it.

Somali jihadists shoot to stop English soccer viewing

Sharia Alert and Soccer Jihad Update from Reuters: "Somali Islamists shoot to stop English soccer viewing"

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somali Islamist militia shot in the air on Sunday to disperse hundreds of youths watching an English Premiership soccer match, with two people injured in the melee, witnesses said.

Somalis have welcomed the Islamists' pacification of their capital since they took it over in June, but they are increasingly unhappy at signs of religious extremism such as closing down public viewing of films and sport.

Nearly 400 youths packed into the Duale cinema during the afternoon for the big game between Chelsea and Liverpool.

But they scattered when 30 militiamen rolled up on a battlewagon and ordered them out, witnesses said.

When some of the youths started throwing stones and burning tyres in protest, the militiamen opened fire.

"Two youths were injured, one was shot in the thigh while the other sustained hand injuries," local resident Abdullahi Mohamed told Reuters on the scene.

[...]

The movement's leaders want Somalia to be ruled by sharia law, but insist they have no intention of instituting a strict Taliban-style system. They say their main aim is to re-impose law and order after 15 years of anarchy and chaos since warlords ousted a dictator in 1991.

Muslims from Israel bring fresh views to Hub

Some good news from Boston, via the Boston Globe, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

NEWTON -- Al Qasemi College , which was founded in 1989 as the first institute of Islamic higher education in Israel, is trying to export revolutionary openness and liberalism to the wider Islamic world, leaders of the faculty told educators, Jewish leaders, and local Muslims during a four-day visit to the Boston area that ended yesterday.

Speaking at campuses, mosques, and the homes of Muslims, the Al Qasemi faculty said that it is time for Muslims to quit blaming others and examine their own responsibility for the troubles of Islamic civilization; time for Arab Israelis to call themselves Israelis, not Palestinians; and, above all, time for women to have full equality with men in the Muslim world.

All these assertions are considered radical, even incendiary, in much of the Arab Muslim world. But Mohammad Essawi , the president of the college, said such changes in thinking are needed to transform an education system in the Islamic world ``that is still in the 12th century and does not have an open mind."

``There is a huge opportunity to teach openness and pluralism in these societies," Essawi said yesterday.

Read it all.

Orthodox Church Archbishop attacks 'Islamic fanaticism'

Expect more threats and murder until he apologizes also. "Orthodox Church Archbishop attacks 'Islamic fanatism,'" from AND, with thanks to Tommy:

Johannesburg (AND) In yet another furore to grip the Christian community, the head of the Orthodox Church of Greece has joined the Pope controversy by attacking what he calls Islamic fanaticism in Africa. In a scathing attack, barely 48 hours after a Somali Islamic cleric called for Muslims to kill the Pope for his Tuesday utterances, Archbishop Christodoulos told a sermon in Athens that Christians in Africa were suffering at the hands of ‘fanatic Islamists'.

"Many Christians on the Black Continent (Africa) suffer from fanatic Islamists. The example of Roman Catholic monks who were slaughtered last year... because they wore the cross and believed in our crucified Lord is still recent,” said Christodoulos.

The Archbishop’s remarks come as the Muslim world is seething with anger over Pope Benedict XVI’s quoting of a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who said innovations introduced by the Prophet Mohammed (the Islamic supreme leader) were "evil and inhuman".

The Pope has already been forced in submitting that he was "deeply sorry" after hisremarks sparked outrage in the Muslim world, with Morocco calling back its envoy and Turkey casting doubts of Benedict’s scheduled visit in November – the first to a Muslim country.

"Pope Benedict watch your back"

In London, more manifestations of Pope Benedict's great error in implying in any way that Islam was not peaceful. From Joee Blogs (thanks to all who sent this in):

Holy Mass on a Sunday is the very source and summit of the Catholic week, so my family decided this Sunday to make the trip to Westminster Cathedral together. As we came out about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans such as "Pope Benedict go to Hell" "Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way" "Pope Benedict watch your back" and other hateful things.

Israeli-US plot behind pope's remarks: Iran hardline press

Well, we should have known all along: the Zionists are behind Pope Benedict's remarks! Of course! From AFP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Iranian hardline newspapers said there were signs of an Israeli-US plot behind remarks by Pope Benedict XVI that linked Islam to violence and created a wave of anger across the Muslim world.

The daily Jomhuri Islami said Israel and the United States -- the Islamic republic's two arch-enemies -- could have dictated the comments to distract attention from the resistance of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah to Israel's offensive on Lebanon.

"The reality is that if we do not consider Pope Benedict XVI to be ignorant of Islam, then his remarks against Islam are a dictat that the Zionists and the Americans have written (for him) and have submitted to him."

"The American and the Zionist aim is to undermine the glorious triumph of Islam's children of Lebanese Hezbollah, which annulled the undefeatable legend of the Israeli army and foiled the Satanic and colonialist American plot," it said.

Italian nun killed in Somalia

Another Pope Rage killing, or just a general jihad against nuns? "Witnesses: Italian nun killed in Somalia," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

MOGADISHU, Somalia - An Italian nun was fatally shot Sunday at the Somali hospital where she worked, eyewitnesses said.

The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot at the entrance to S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen armed with pistols, said Mohamed Yusuf, a doctor at the facility, which serves mothers and children.

"The nun was shot in the back," Yusuf said. "She died of her injuries."

Security around pope beefed up

Security will be tight around the Pope to protect him from those who are enraged that he would call for an end to religious violence. From Ynet News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Italian media reported that security around Pope Benedict XVI has been beefed up following the harsh responses to his remarks on Islam.

[...]

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday that the pope’s comments were "ugly" and said the pontiff should withdraw them.

"The Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion," Erdogan said.

“We cannot accept these statements. The Islamic world cannot accept them. I think these statements cannot be accepted by the Christian and Catholic world either."

Hizbullah and Lebanon's top Sunni Muslim religious authority denounced the pope’s remarks, with the militant Shiite Muslim group warning of a global religious schism.

Hizbullah called on the Vatican to review the pope's "declared attitude which can lead to world divisions and from which the enemies of humanity - the neo-conservatives led by (US President George W.) Bush and the neo-racists and Nazis, the Zionists who attack civilians and the land - can benefit.”

'We will blow up all of Gaza’s churches'

The spiritual leader of Lebanon's Sunnis, the Grand Mufti Sheik Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, said the pope's remarks emanated either from "Ignorance and lack of knowledge or were deliberately intended to distort Islam."

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said “there should be no controversy; the pope has already explained his true intentions. The religious dialogue and the respect for every religion is a necessity, and religion doesn’t justify violence.

Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said of Benedict XVI: He is a great pope, with great intelligence.

Right-wing politician Roberto Calderoli said “I ask myself some crazy member of the Left will come forth and demand the pope’s resignation. According to the crazy people, he has offended the Muslim world. The holy father’s message is that of peace and dialogue.”

Five churches throughout the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs.

Firebombings left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of Nablus' Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches. At least five firebombs hit the Anglican church and its door was later set ablaze. Smoke billowed from the church as firefighters put out the flames

In a phone call to The Associated Press, a group calling itself the "Lions of Monotheism" claimed responsibility for those attacks, saying they were carried out to protest the pope's remarks in a speech this week in Germany linking Islam and violence.

Later Saturday, four masked gunmen doused the main doors of Nablus' Roman and Greek Catholic churches with lighter fluid, then set them afire. They also opened fire on the buildings, striking both with bullets.

In Gaza City, militants opened fire from a car at a Greek Orthodox church, striking the facade. A policeman at the scene said he saw a Mitsubishi escape with armed men inside. Explosive devices were set off at the same Gaza church on Friday, causing minor damage.

On Friday night about 2,000 protesters gathered outside the Palestinian parliament building to express their anger at the pope's statement. "This is a new crusade against the Arab Islamic world. It comes in different forms, in cartoons or lectures ... They hate our religion," Ismail Radwan, a local Hamas official, told the rally.

During one rally gunmen in Gaza city opened fire at the Greek Orthodox church; no injuries or damage were reported. An unknown organization named “The sword of Islam claimed responsibility for the incident.

“We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches,” the group said in a statement.

And that will show the world how peaceful Islam is.

Pope: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address"

A carefully worded statement from Benedict XVI. "Pope says sorry to Muslims," from AFP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

“I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,” he told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence.

“These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

“I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect,” he said.

Arab op-ed: Pope’s remarks may lead to war

Pope Rage continues to heat up. From Ynet News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The recent remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI on Islam are threatening to ignite the entire Muslim world. Op-Eds published in the Arab newspapers slammed the pope even after the Vatican’s apology. The most extreme opinion was voiced by Hani Pahas in the London-based Arabic-language daily newspaper Al-Hayat, who wrote “the pope’s comments may lead to war; we fear that the pope’s statements may lead to a war that we, Muslims and Christians alike, are trying to prevent through dialogue between East and West.

Hussein Shabakshy wrote in an article published by the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat “It is clear that such remarks only contribute to the fueling of the fire raging between Islam and the West. There is no difference between Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri speaking from their caves in Tora Bora and the stage of an important Christian saint. Both parties contribute to the world verbal weapons for mass destruction.”

Is that so? Which towers did the Pope bring down, and whom did he behead?

“The pope’s latest statement cannot be considered a slip of the tongue or a comic bit from a TV show; the situation here is different, and his remarks are indicative of an important and highly symbolic stance toward the religion (Islam) and the prophet of about a billion and-a-half Muslims,” he said.

“These are ignorant comments previously made by Adolf Hitler, who spoke of a supreme white race against all the other races, especially the African race.

Of course, the Pope didn't speak of races, or the superiority of anyone, and Islam is not a race.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said a Vatican statement on Saturday saying Pope Benedict was sorry for upsetting Muslims with his comments on Islam did not go far enough.

"We want a personal apology (from the Pope). We feel that he has committed a grave error against us and that this mistake will only be removed through a personal apology," Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Leader Mohammed Habib told Reuters.

The Grand Imam of the Al – Azhar University in Cairo, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi said the pope’s statements stem from complete ignorance regarding all that is related to Islam.

Other religious leaders throughout the Muslim world, including Iran, also slammed the pope.

The spiritual leader of Lebanon's Sunnis, the Grand Mufti Sheik Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, said the pope's remarks emanated either from "Ignorance and lack of knowledge or were deliberately intended to distort Islam."

"Reason is the substance of Islam and its teachings ... Islam prohibited violence in human life. Anyone who wants the truth (about Islam) must take it from Islam's holy book, the Koran, rather than from a dialogue or excerpts," he said.

Why don't all these Islamic clerics who are assuring us yet again that Islam has nothing to do with violence do something to rein in the Muslims who are committing acts of violence out of rage against the Pope?

"We are all papists now"

From India's Daily Pioneer (thanks to Jack) comes "Pope is right on Islam," by Swapan Dasgupta:

At the height of the war in Lebanon two months ago, an assortment of Arabs, British Muslims, radical socialists and bleeding heart liberals marched through the streets of London with placards proclaiming "we are all Hezbollah." Since Pope Benedict XVI delivered his scholarly but contentious lecture in Regensburg last Wednesday, an equally unlikely assortment of individuals bound by a common distaste for Islamist terrorism have been whispering the counter-proclamation: "We are all Papists now."

Before rushing to take rival positions in the trench warfare of civilisations, it is prudent to remember that the contemporary Islamist assault on the "decadent" West, epitomised by "American imperialism", has long enjoyed the backing of influential Muslim theologians. This is, perhaps, the first time that the philosophical gulf between Islam and Western civilisation has been delineated by someone who wields authority in the Christian world.

Pope Benedict, unlike many of his colleagues in Rome, has not succumbed to either the pretensions of Christian universalism or the mumbo jumbo of inter-faith dialogue. He has rightly viewed both Christianity and the Catholic Church as load-bearing pillars of Western civilisation. He has disavowed the growing secularisation of national cultures and, by implication, called into question the moral relativism which accompanies the practice of multiculturalism in the EU.

In an article If Europe Hates Itself written when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope despaired about Europe's growing inability to distinguish good from evil: "The West reveals ... a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West ... no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."

In November 2004, he despaired that secular ideology which is "imposed through politics... does not give public space to the Catholic or Christian vision (and) runs the risk of becoming something purely private and, thus, disfigured."

[...]

What the Pope argued last week is not strikingly original. Many of the contemporary critiques of Islam have dwelt at length on the fact that the apparent finality of the Quran has made it difficult for Islam to experience a Reformation. What is also undeniable is that whereas the claims of Islam to be a religion of peace have been unceasingly made, almost all the Islamists have justified their terrorism in terms of religious obligation.

Heinous crimes have been committed and justified in the name of religion. Concern has also been voiced that the tenets of brotherhood in Islam do not always extend to non-believers, making them incompatible with multi-religious existence.

These are issue which warrant dispassionate debate and dialogue. The Pope may have been injudicious in citing a 14th century assessment by a Byzantine emperor but the questions he has raised are relevant both in theological and political terms. What is alarming is the fierce reaction to his lecture. They suggest that any debate on Islam based on critical scrutiny is bound to be accompanied by threats and intimidation. Far from encouraging sympathetic understanding of Muslim societies, this climate of intolerance is certain to fuel Islamophobia.

Political correctness necessitates debunking the clash of civilisations but realities on the ground are beginning to suggest otherwise.

Al-Qaeda-linked Algerian cell targeted sites in Oslo, including main synagogue

Eurabia Alert From the Jerusalem Post: "Al-Qaida cell targeted Oslo synagogue"

An al-Qaida-linked Algerian terror cell that was broken up by Italian police last fall was planning to carry out attacks on targets in Oslo, Norway, including the city's main synagogue.

Anne Sender, president of Norway's Jewish community, told The Jerusalem Post during a telephone interview from Oslo that local authorities had informed her shortly after the suspects were arrested in November that there existed a credible terrorist threat against the synagogue.

The plot came to light only this week in the wake of a report on Monday in the Norwegian Verdens Gang (VG) newspaper.

"At the time, we were informed by the government that some people had been caught in Italy and that police had found plans indicating that they were targeting the synagogue in Oslo," Sender said.

She added that the threat was considered sufficiently serious that, in its wake, Norwegian police decided to adopt additional, unspecified measures to boost security at the synagogue.

The terrorists, who resided in Italy but were allegedly plotting attacks against sites in Oslo, belonged to an Algerian-based group known as the GSPC, a French acronym which stands for the Salafist Group for Call and Combat.

The GSPC, which has links to al-Qaida, is a splinter faction that broke away from Algeria's Armed Islamic Group in 1996.

The GSPC is not only "has links" to al-Qaeda, but very recently pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

[...]

In the past few months, Oslo has been the scene of a number of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist incidents, including an attack on the synagogue last month, where an unknown perpetrator smashed glass windows and scrawled graffiti on the site after defecating near the entrance.

"99 percent of the time it is fine, it is safe, and there is no problem at all, but we do have these incidents," added Sender. "Maybe we are a little naive, but we always seem to think that Norway is separate, that it is different and that it is unaffected by what goes on in the rest of the world."

Iraqi jihad group threatens Vatican with suicide bombers in Internet message

Pope Benedict XVI's statement that "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God" continues to prove itself incomprehensible to those who embrace the Verse of the Sword (9:5) as divine fiat.

From Haaretz: "Iraqi militant group threatens Vatican in Internet message"

An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the pope's remarks on Islam, according to a statement posted Saturday in its name on the Web.

The statement, which came days after Pope Benedict XVI made comments deemed offensive by many Muslims, does not state the seat of the Holy See directly, but is addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups.

The message, the authenticity of which could not be independently verified, also contained links to video recordings of what the group claimed were rocket attacks on U.S. bases.

[...]

The Mujahedeen Army's statement vowed, "our minds will not rest until we shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

Christian Killed in Iraq in Response to Pope's Speech: Islamic Website

That'll teach him to preach against religious violence. From AINA, with thanks to Tom:

(AINA) -- According to the website Islam Memo, one Christian was killed in Baghdad after the Pope's speech two days ago. The speech created a wave of anger throughout the Islamic world, including Iraq. A poster has been placed in many Baghdad mosques for the previously unknown group, "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed.

Those Boy Scouts should have stuck to wood carving.

Mental and moral balance

Somali Islamic cleric: the Pope must die

And this ain't no Robbie Coltrane movie. Hunt him down and kill him, says Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin. "Somali cleric calls for pope's death," from AFP, with thanks to News4U:

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.

Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.

"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.

"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.

"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said.

Expect Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin to be burned in effigy by Muslims worldwide, for daring to suggest anything other than the proposition that "Muslims have no violent character." (Actually, of course, all too many self-proclaimed Muslim moderates are much more likely to criticize those who report on the Sheikh's words than they are to criticize the Sheikh himself. Hmmm. Now why is that?)

The Insult

Raw Data from the Vatican: the Pope's speech at his meeting with the representatives of science in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006.

Rioters' madness shames Muslim world

Father Raymond J. de Souza speaks truth to power in the National Post (thanks to Twostellas):

The eruption of rage in some quarters of the Islamic world against Pope Benedict XVI requires that several tough things be said.

Painful though it may be, speaking frankly is necessary if there is to be honest and open dialogue between the Abrahamic faiths. Given the reaction to Benedict's address, though, one wonders if that dialogue is even possible.

[...]

Benedict was quoting a 14th-century Christian emperor, under siege from the Ottomans, defending the position that spreading religion by violence is contrary to the nature of God. The Emperor, quite reasonably given his circumstances, suggested to his Persian interlocutor such a view did not prevail in Islamic thought.

In response to this historical excursus in an academic lecture by one of the world's most erudite theologians, we are witnessing a wave of madness and malice, no doubt an embarrassment to millions of Muslims.

Roman Catholics are likely angry. Relations between adherents of the two religions simply cannot develop without all conducting themselves as mature adults.

It does a disservice to children to call the wild-eyed statements and deranged behaviour of the past days childish.

It is not only the obscenity of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist terrorist band suppressed in several Muslim states, demanding an apology from anyone, let alone the Holy Father.

It is not only the grandstanding Pakistani politicians passing resolutions condemning a papal speech few read, and even fewer understood. It is not only the extraneous charges about the Holocaust and Hitler by the agitated and excited.

It is that we have seen this before.

When Pope John Paul II made his epic pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Palestinian Muslim representatives jostled him on the Temple Mount, shouted at him, and, in one episode of maximum rudeness, abandoned him on stage during an interfaith meeting. Bashir Assad, the Syrian President, treated him to an anti-Semitic rant when the late pope visited Syria.

Catholic goodwill toward global Islam is severely attenuated by such continued maltreatment of our universal pastors.

And it is well past time that the maltreatment of history ceased too.

The irony of the accusations that Pope Benedict has a "Crusader mentality" is that he was speaking about the period in which the Crusades themselves took place.

Catholics have for quite some time now confessed the sinful and wicked shadows that marked the Crusades, but any suggestion the whole affair was about rapacious Christians setting upon irenic Muslims must be rejected.

After all, the formerly Christian lands of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor were not converted to Islam by Muslim missionary martyrs. Those lands were conquered by the sword.

The Crusader idea was that they could be recovered. Who wronged who first is a fruitless historical inquiry, but historical honesty requires an admission that Muslims wronged as much as they were wronged against.

Actually, the recapture of all the lands conquered and Islamized by the warriors of jihad was never part of the Crusader program. But in any case, this is an excellent and, under the circumstances, courageous piece. Read it all.

A moderate Muslim renounces the jihad ideology

Yesterday a Muslim named Alykhan Velshi was given space at NRO's The Corner to accuse me, in the course of attacking the Pope's remarks, of "not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists." I responded here, and now Velshi has written "A response to Robert Spencer" at his website; his response is also linked at The Corner.

Robert Spencer replies to my post in the Corner.

Essentially, Robert challenges me, as he does all moderate Muslims, to "renounce definitively, the elements of Islamic theology that jihadists are using to wage war against non-Muslims around the world."

I do. Though the ease with which I do so will probably dissatisfy Robert Spencer.

It doesn't. Why do you think it would?

Robert wants me to admit there is a problem with Islam. Of course there is - thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name. That's a very serious problem. But admitting there is a problem doesn't mean I'm agonising at the (minor) epistemological leap it took for me personally to renounce violent jihad. I think Robert Spencer and people who support him consistently trumpet the most violent interpretations of Islam, and then go on to make it seem as though those Muslims who are not violent are somehow betraying the essence of the faith.

"...make it seem as though..." Let's stay on firmer ground, shall we, Velshi? In fact, I have never said this. What I have actually said, many times, is that there is no universally recognized authority in Islam that can say what is true Islam and what isn't, but that jihadist Muslims will accuse and do accuse moderates of "betraying the essence of the faith."

Although I concede that those who advocate violent jihad point to actual texts in the Quran and early and subsequent Islamic practice, I believe their interpretation is wrong and the historical examples they cite are opportunistically chosen. This doesn't mean I'm denying the violent aspects of Islam that come from a literal reading of religious texts, just that I, as Muslims have for centuries, reject that literalism is the only way to interpret religious documents - in fact, I'll readily admit that the bin Ladenists aren't creating doctrine out of thin air, but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism, which has less of a basis in Islam than common intuition would suggest. I don't want to get into the weeds of Islamic history and Quranic exegesis on a Friday evening, though.

All right. Now it's Saturday afternoon. When do you want to get into it? Not for me, mind you, but for those Muslims who are falling prey all around the world to this erroneous jihadist exegesis. If you could show them that it is erroneous, Velshi, you would be doing the world a great service.

I hope my response still satisfies Robert: I admit that there is much violence and intolerance inherent in verses in the Quran and elsewhere (although I disagree that it's as bad as Robert says it is) - still, I "renounce [it] definitively."

I couldn't possibly be more satisfied. Thanks. But in fact, it isn't all about me. I am still looking for a group of Muslims to mount some viable Islamic challenge to the jihadists, so as to curb their violence and combat their recruitment. I am assured by people all the time that it exists, but no one has ever managed to show it to me.

I can't speak for other Muslims - indeed, I refuse to do so, cherishing as I do my individuality and respecting theirs - but I can say that the doctrines of my particular subsect of Islam, the Shia Ismailis, make it easy for me to renounce violent jihad.

Great. Is there any chance that the Ismailis might be accepted as orthodox Muslims by the larger bodies of Sunnis and Shi'ites at any point in the near future, which would be an indispensable prerequisite for the wider dissemination of this perspective?

I don't know - maybe I should agonise over it more, but somehow I don't. With respect to my religious faith, I agonise more over memorising difficult prayer verses and singing religious songs in tune.

I don't however agonise over whatever it is that bothers the violent jihadists.

With respect, sir, maybe we do need a bit more agonizing, in the sense that we need more active challenges to the jihadists from Muslims who claim to reject their deeds and perspective. I hope we will see more in this vein from you in the future, and in the meantime I thank you for taking the time to write this reply, which in itself suggests that you have modified your earlier erroneous view that I leave Muslim reformers and would-be reformers no "wiggle room."

Pope 'sorry' for Islam comments?

Bertone's words were reported here as that the Pope is "extremely upset that some portions of his speech were able to sound offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers..." But in the story below, Bertone says that the Pope is "is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers..." That sounds like the same statement to me. So is the Pope "upset" or "sorry," or both? Further clarification is needed.

"Pope 'sorry' for Islam comments," from AFP, with thanks to JE:

The Vatican's new Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone today said: "The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions".

"The Pope is unequivocally in favour of dialogue between religions and cultures," he said.

He says the pontiff respects believers in Islam and hopes they will understand the true sense of his speech.

There had been widespread calls from political circles in Islamic countries for Pope Benedict to issue an apology.

In Turkey, the country the Pope is due to visit in November, a senior religious figure said the Pope should reconsider his trip for his own safety.

For his own safety? You mean, there are non-Muslims in Turkey who might threaten the Pope? Of course, we all know that "Muslims have no violent character."

Plan to blow up Parliament 'was just a joke', gang leader tells bomb plot trial

Ha ha! Omar, you hockey puck! Stop it, you're killing me! From the Telegraph, with thanks to JE:

One of the leaders of a gang of Muslims allegedly planning to attack Britain joked about bombing the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions, a court was told yesterday.

Omar Khyam, from Crawley, West Sussex, said he had joked with friends about attacking Parliament but never meant it to be taken seriously.

Giving evidence in the second day of his defence at the Old Bailey, Khyam, 24, said he had been watching television in the flat he shared with Mohammed Babar, an American. "I remember watching, on Wednesday, Prime Minister's Questions. I said 'Imagine if you dropped a bomb right then and there. It would take out all the MPs'."

Ha ha! Somebody call Leno! This guy is priceless!

He said Babar and two other friends from Britain, "just laughed" and claimed that it was neither a serious proposition nor a plan.

But asked if he had ever met any members of al-Qa'eda, Khyam admitted: "Yes, probably."

Khyam admitted paying for a training camp on the Afghan border but said it was "just two tents and a few guns" and denied there had been any explosives training.

Just two tents and a few guns? Oh, well, then, it must have been peaceful.

Pope upset that Muslims offended

Apology looming? From CNN:

(CNN) -- Pope Benedict XVI has said he is "extremely upset" that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith, according to the Vatican.

Vatican spokesman Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement on Saturday the pope's position on Islam was unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

The pope is "extremely upset that some portions of his speech were able to sound offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers and have been interpreted in a way that does not at all correspond to his intentions," Bertone added, according to The Associated Press.

The statement came as outrage over the pontiff's comments continued to mount around the world. Unknown assailants threw fire bombs on Saturday at two churches in the West Bank city of Nablus, following a day of Palestinian protests against the pope's remarks. No one was hurt.

And in Indonesia, up to 1,000 Muslims rallied in protest at the comments made earlier in the week by the pope, who was citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," video of the scene showed.

Outside the Palestinian Embassy in Jakarta, police looked on as protesters stood behind the gates waving flags while organizer Heri Budianto shouted, "God is great."

"Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims," Budianto told the crowd. "Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

Of course they don't. Those fire bombs just flew into those churches by accident.

And here comes another veiled threat of more violence from those who have no violent character:

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Saturday urged the pope to apologize and withdraw his controversial comments, according to The Associated Press.

"The pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created," the Bernama news agency quoted Abdullah as saying, AP said.

"The Vatican must now take full responsibility over the matter and carry out the necessary steps to rectify the mistake."

Grenade blast as Muslims protest Pope's 'insult'

Pope Flap edging toward violence. From The Australian, with thanks to JE:

CAIRO: Muslim leaders yesterday condemned Pope Benedict XVI over comments he made about Islam on a visit to Germany and demanded he apologise.

A grenade exploded near the oldest church in Gaza City, injuring no one, and hundreds of Muslims in Indian Kashmir held a day-long strike with protests in the capital, Srinagar, as a statement from the Vatican failed to quell the anger in the Muslim world.

The Vatican's statement said the Pope had never meant to offend Islam when he quoted a Byzantine emperor on the prophet Mohammed's "evil".

It said a careful reading of Benedict's lecture at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday would show that "what really matters to the Holy Father is a clear and radical rejection of religious motives for violence".

And many in the Islamic world respond with outrage and violence. Bravo.

Islamic Movement Leader: Caliph will sit in Jerusalem

The AP has described the Islamic Movement as "Israel's largest Arab organization." Raed Salah is the leader of the "northern branch" in Umm al-Fahm, which, while it does not publicly call for the destruction of Israel, "denounces secular life and denies the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state."

From YNet News: "Salah: Caliph will sit in Jerusalem"

Head of the northern faction of the Islamic Movement Sheikh Raed Salah said Friday that "soon Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate, and the caliph’s seat will be there."

Salah addressed an audience of 50,000 attending the Islamic Movement’s 11th annual rally in Umm al-Fahm. ...

Salah noted that history tells of many occasions in which the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was occupied by foreign conquerors, but the occupiers left after a short time, and thus will also be the fate of the Israeli occupation.

The Israeli occupation will leave Jerusalem soon. It will happen sooner than is thought," Salah said at the rally, which was held under the slogan "Al-Aqsa endangered".

[...]

Salah declared that ideas to divide the site still exist, but he reassured his audience: "There are all sorts of plans to divide the al-Aqsa mosque but they will not succeed."

During his speech the sheikh called on Arab nations to provide financial support, whether with cash or with gold, to help save the mosque and Jerusalem. He even called for the establishment of a fund for the purpose.

[...]

The former mufti of Jerusalem Ekrima Sabri and the archbishop of the Greek-Orthodox church who is considered close to the Palestinian Authority also spoke at the rally. Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Musa also sent his blessings to the assembly.

Mahathir: Muslims should have nuclear weapons

Mahathir's on a roll. From the Daily Times: "Muslims should have nukes"

ISLAMABAD: Muslim nations in the Middle East should arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter Western enemies from attacking them, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Friday.

"They should have tanks, warplanes, warships, guns and missiles," Mahathir said. "Yes, they need to have nuclear weapons too, because only with the possession of such would their enemies be deterred from attacking them."

Mahathir, 81, who retired as prime minister in 2003, remains highly respected and influential throughout the Muslim world. He is currently on a lecture tour of Central and South Asia, and was addressing a conference on religious tolerance in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

[...]

When asked whether Muslim nations in the Middle East should acquire nuclear weapons, Mahathir replied, "Well, if you allow Israel to have them, why should the others not have them too?" Israel -- which has neither confirmed nor denied reports that it possesses nuclear arms -- is generally believed to have the world’s sixth-largest stockpile of such weapons, including hundreds of warheads.

Mahathir, a frequent critic of the Jewish state and its nuclear arsenal, stressed that he believed in a world free of nuclear weapons.

A quotation from Reuters:

"While I think we should not be selective in determining which nations should have, and should not have, I think the best thing we could do is to say is that all nations should not have nuclear weapons and in particular this very, very, very belligerent United States," Mahathir said.

The Daily Times article continues:

He said that the US-led war against terrorism had turned into a war against Islam and Muslims, because only countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria were currently being targeted.

Well, it's just that there hasn't been much state-sponsored terrorist activity being directed at the United States and its allies from, say, Bhutan.

Muslim anger over papal comments grows

Violent protests feared. Seething spreading elsewhere -- because the Pope dared suggest Islam is violent. None of those protesting seem to have realized that the best way to refute the Pope's statement that religious violence is unjustified would be to eschew religious violence.

From AP:

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.

Ralph Peters will no doubt be along presently to call the pontiff a right-wing bigot with genocidal longings.

Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad....

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Even Turkey's staunchly pro-secular opposition party demanded the pope apologize before his visit. Another party led a demonstration outside Ankara's largest mosque, and a group of about 50 people placed a black wreath outside the Vatican's diplomatic mission.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the pope should explain and "tell us what exactly did he mean. ... It can't just be left like that."

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi has tried to defuse anger, saying the pope did not intend to offend Muslim sensibilities and insisting Benedict respects Islam. In Pakistan, the Vatican envoy voiced regret at "the hurt caused to Muslims."

But Muslim leaders said outreach efforts by papal emissaries were not enough.

"We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him (Benedict) to offer a personal apology — not through his officials," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's most senior Shiite cleric, told worshippers in Beirut....

In Cairo, some 100 demonstrators stood outside the al-Azhar mosque chanting: "Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the pope!"...

In Britain, the head of the Muslim Council, a body representing 400 Muslim groups, said the emperor's views quoted by the pope were bigoted.

"One would expect a religious leader such as the pope to act and speak with responsibility and repudiate the Byzantine emperor's views in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council's secretary-general.

Many Muslims accused Benedict of seeking to promote Judeo-Christian dominance over Islam....

Few in Turkey, especially, failed to pick up on Benedict's reference to Istanbul as Constantinople — the city's name more than 500 years ago — before it was conquered by Muslim Ottoman Turks.

Actually it remained Constantinople, although under the Turkish yoke, until the early 20th century.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood.

"It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary," she said Friday. "What Benedict XVI makes clear is a decisive and uncompromising rejection of any use of violence in the name of religion."

In the United States, a Muslim group, the Council for American-Islamic Relations, asked for a meeting with a Vatican representative and urged more efforts at improving understanding between Muslims and Catholics.

"The proper response to the pope's inaccurate and divisive remarks is for Muslims and Catholics worldwide to increase dialogue and outreach efforts aimed at building better relations between Christianity and Islam," the group said.

Great. Memo to Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR: I'm a Catholic, and I volunteer for this dialogue.

Ralph Peters and the truth

Ralph Peters has followed up his mudslinging attack on no one in particular with a stinging email to California Republic, in response to an invitation to reply to my recent article about him. In this email, he names me and makes a number of false accusations. For the record, I will correct them here.

Thanks. No, I don't intend to reply to Spencer, Bostom and Co. Replying only gives them what they crave so desperately: Attention. Bostom, for example, has been panting for attention for his book and his views in my columns for years (he doesn't mention that, does he?). I'm tempted to publish some of the sycophantic e-mails this crowd has sent me over the years--just to let their groupies know how little integrity they have.

In fact, I have never sent even one email to Ralph Peters, sycophantic or otherwise. I do not even have his email address.

But this shouldn't be a personal matter--it's about ideas, about freedom, about defending our country, about getting it right. And I simply don't find close-minded loonies helpful--so I don't respond to their pleas for my time.

By the way, that's why I didn't "name names." First, it would have given them attention. And, second, it's my belief that it's okay to attack those more powerful than me by name, but it's ungentlemanly to attack the weak as individuals. And you shouldn't exaggerate the reach of these guys. The blogosphere inflates the image of a lot of little men, from the Timothy McVeigh Fan Club to pedophiles. If their views had genuine merit, they would be widely published in forums where they have to get past the editorial gates. But they're not widely published because they don't pass the quality or sanity tests. Their stuff is just self-important net-dweller hate-porn. And in a nation of 300 million, they'll be able to find a good number of fellow haters.

And please note that my attack was on their positions--their attacks (very poorly written, by the way) have been on me personally...on my integrity, my military services, etc.

It's interesting that he calls the work of those he hates "self-important net-dweller hate-porn" and then claims to take the high road. But again, he is making false statements. And if we are indeed the ones he meant in his column, and we are so insignificant, why did he see fit to spend a Post column attacking these shadowy evildoers at all?

Anyway, when "Spencer, Bostom, and Co." is the apparent group meant in the phrase "their attacks...have been on me personally," this is simply false on the face of it. Here is my full reply as it appeared in FrontPage. In it, this is everything I say about Ralph Peters: I say he is a "retired military officer and author of several books on this present conflict"; that his NY Post piece was "one of the most confused and irresponsible pieces I have ever seen in an American newspaper"; that he doesn't tell us who he is attacking in the piece, and that by not doing so he is "allowing himself the coward’s retreat of being able to deny, if challenged by anyone, that he had him in mind"; that he is "setting up straw men, blurring distinctions and drawing unnecessary conclusions"; and that he makes several "false assumptions."

Does that look like a personal attack to you? Do you see anything in there about his military service? I don't either. Do you see anything in there about his integrity, other than that his hit piece on a nameless, faceless "rotten core of American extremists" is cowardly -- which I stand by? Nope. My response was actually just what he says it wasn't: a reply to his positions, and an explanation of mine.

I have not attacked their personal lives, and won't.

Other than comparing us to Tim McVeigh and pedophiles, and saying we publish hate porn.

That's Brownshirt stuff. I've been out there risking my life, often alone, in the Muslim world while they've been sitting at home. They're like professors who've never really done anything but only know the world (in this case, Islam) from books. If they haven't seen the Muslim world first-hand, how do they know what it's really like? Just reading about it here in the USA is like trying to understand what sex is like just from the manuals.

Here Ralph Peters simply doesn't know what he is talking about. He has no idea what I have done or where I have been, and it is irrelevant anyway: jihadists are manifestly using Islamic teaching to further their goals, unchallenged by any significant movement of moderates, whether or not I have kissed the ground in Karachi or sunned myself in Kuala Lumpur.

As you know, I'm for waging a harder war on terror than we currently do. But what is the point of alienating a billion Muslims with our own hate speech? These guys are bigots. Period. No matter how they dress up their prejudices with quotes from dead Muslim clerics.

Oh, I have plenty of quotes from live ones, Ralph.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone nuts over another person (me, in this case) expressing his views. They cannot bear dissent from their narrow doctrines (sounds rather like the case they put against Islam).

I can bear dissent just fine. In fact, I'd be happy to debate you on this. I gave you a reasoned response to your piece, and all I get back from you, Colonel, is another shower of abuse and insults. Looks as if the one who can't bear dissent is not me.

They are resolutely against free speech and insist that their views are the only possible views--a very good definition of a fanatic.

The irony is getting a little thick in here, don't you think?

Finally, conservatism has always defended the individual against the mass. The left has raised the mass above the individual. Bostom, Spencer and co. describe Muslims as an undifferentiated mass.

Is that so? Can you quote me on that? Because if you can't, you might think twice about saying it. And of course, you can't come up with such a quote.

Of course, Peters is probably referring here to my assertion that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers. Not in ancient times only, but today. Of course, unanimity does not equal an "undifferentiated mass," but never mind. If I am wrong in this, Colonel, show me the evidence, please. Enlighten me. Be so kind as to pull me out of the darkness. Show me the Islamic school or sect that teaches peaceful coexistence on an indefinite basis with non-Muslims, and is accepted as orthodox by the others. I'd love to see it.

Is that conservatism? Sounds like a bizarre form of anti-Muslim Marxism to me. Of course, in the end extremists are all the same--whether they end up on the ultra-right or ultra-left is just an accident. We forget that Nazi was an abbreviation for "national socialist."

Conservatism should be a big tent--but we have to keep the tentpoles out of the sewer.

I just have to draw the line at damning Islam as totally beyond hope.

Contrast this crude caricature with my words here, and tell me who is the frothing fanatic.

I'm not optimistic about the religion in the Middle East, that's certain. It faces self-imposed handicaps that may prove insurmountable. But Muslims elsewhere offer at least some glimmers of hope. Let's not extinguish those glimmers ourselves.

Finally, Spencer and Bostom are whiners and fear-mongers. But they don't offer serious solutions. Spencer, for example, never addressed the questions I've raised in interviews (he edits and mis-edits my remarks very selectively, lifting things wildly out of context--he'd be boohooing from here to Christmas if someone did that to him):

Actually, people do that to me more or less on a daily basis, and I just don't have that many hankies. But anyway, gee, I'm sorry about mis-editing your remarks, Colonel. I assure you it was unintentional. Perhaps you could furnish me with some examples of this misuse?

First, if Islam is totally hopeless, what do they propose to do about it (and I don't mean silly nonsense about a Muslim Vatican II)?

I have never said that "Islam is totally hopeless." If you think I have, produce the quote. Nor have I ever recommended a "Muslim Vatican II." If you think I have, produce the quote.

Anyway, to answer your question: What I have said, many times, including earlier today, is that the Muslim reformers on which you place so much hope need to repudiate the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to recruit terrorists and incite violence. Why is that so farfetched or unreasonable?

Second, if all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us, why have the overwhelming number of victims of Islamist terror been other Muslims? Not just Sunni killing Shia, but Sunni killing Sunni.

I have never said that "all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us." If you think I have, produce the quote.

As for Muslims killing Muslims, this happens because of the phenomenon of takfir, or the declaring of other Muslims to be apostates or heretics or hypocrites, and thus lawfully killed.

How about our Kurdish allies? Are they in on the jihad?

Some are, some aren't, as with all groups.

Do Sunnis and Shi'as get together at secret-handshake meetings to plan our doom?

I would doubt it.

On the contrary, the great bloodshed looming ahead for Islam is the next round of Sunni-Shi'a warfare--they hate each other with an even deeper passion than Catholics and Protestants hated each other a few centuries ago.

Some do, some don't. There is an old Arabic saying with which I am sure Peters is familiar, given his extensive travels in the Middle East: "my brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin." Sunnis and Shia will fight, but will also unite against non-Muslims. Witness the Shi'ite Iranian support for Sunni Hamas, etc.

Islamist terror must be dealt with ferociously. But we must not suggest that a hundred-billion Muslims are all Salafist violent jihadis. They're just not.

Nor have I said they are. If you think I have, produce the quote.

We all need to apply a little common sense.

You can say that again, Ralph. You can say that again. I thought that myself today when I read your new piece saying that violence in the Middle East is the fault of the Middle East itself, not of Islam. So by the logic of your first piece, does that mean that you are a bigot who thinks that all Middle Easterners, Muslim, Jewish, Christian whatever, are Untermenschen?

Also, what about non-Middle Eastern terrorists like Adam Gadahn or Richard Reid, etc. etc.? How did they get infected with Middle Easternism?

Anyway, just so I understand: if someone thinks the problem of terrorism comes from the Middle East as such, he's enlightened. But if he thinks that it comes from one aspect of one religion that originated in the Middle East, he's a bigot. Got it!

Personally, I would rather stand side by side with an honest Muslim-American than with a bigot whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

My ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower. They came over after World War I as exiles from the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

Conservatism doesn't engage in mass hatred. And America gives the individual a chance.

Best regards,

Ralph

Mass hatred, verboten: check. Defamation and misrepresentation: apparently a-ok.