Fierce Fighting Breaks Out in Sudan's South

"...given the predictable collapse sometime in the future, of that famous 'peace accord' recently 'achieved' for the southern Sudan (one which will last just as long as the government in Khartoum thinks the West is paying close attention and not a minute longer)..." -- Hugh Fitzgerald, November 30, 2006

From Reuters, with thanks to Twostellas:

KHARTOUM, Sudan, Nov. 30 -- Hundreds of people may have been killed in the heaviest fighting between Sudan's former north-south foes since they signed a peace deal last year, a former senior rebel officer said Thursday.

Terrified civilians in the southern town of Malakal reported looting and bodies in the streets after three days of clashes, and U.N. officials in New York said 240 civilian workers had been temporarily evacuated.

"More than hundreds have been lost. The Sudan army sustained very heavy casualties, and civilians were caught in the crossfire," said Elias Waya Nyipuocs, a former senior officer in the Sudan People's Liberation Army, a rebel group that fought the government in a long civil war.

Nyipuocs said a militia allied with the Sudanese armed forces attacked the SPLA and the local commissioner of Malakal. The militiamen then took refuge in military barracks near the airport and full combat began. Nyipuocs said the armed forces fought "side by side" with the militia against the SPLA.

Thailand to close all 944 public schools in Muslim south due to arson, shootings

No more pencils, no more books, because we can't guarantee your safety. An update on this story. "Thailand to close all 944 schools in Muslim south," from AFP:

BANGKOK : Thailand will close all 944 public schools indefinitely in the country's restive Muslim-majority south after a string of arsons and shootings that left two teachers dead, an official said Monday.

"We have made a decision because we are worried about our own safety and our lives," said Boonsom Thongsriplai, the chairman of the Teachers Federation of Pattani, one of three insurgency-torn southern provinces bordering Malaysia.

All 994 [sic] public schools, ranging from elementary to high schools, in Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala would be closed from Tuesday, Boonsom said, adding that all 336 schools in Pattani and 100 in Yala were already closed.

The school closure was due to a wave of arson attacks against school buildings, as well as shootings that killed two Buddhist school teachers last week.

In Pattani, suspected Islamic militants gunned down a 48-year-old school director inside his parked car then set fire to the bullet-riddled vehicle, the federation said.

The victim was the 60th teacher killed during three years of unrest in the south, where more than 1,600 people have been killed in the almost daily violence since January 2004.

Since taking office after the September coup, army-installed premier Surayud Chulanont has offered a number of olive branches, including an offer to hold talks with militants, in a bid to bring peace to the troubled region.

But the violence has spiralled in the last month, with bombings, arsons and shootings happening every day.

The Muslim-majority area was an independent sultanate annexed by mainly Buddhist Thailand in 1902. Separatist violence has erupted periodically ever since.

The latest unrest has been variously blamed on ethnic Malay separatists, Islamic extremists and criminal gangs.

Iraqi Shi'ites angry at Saudi remark on aid to Sunnis

A glimpse at how the sectarian conflict in Iraq will widen upon the departure of US troops, siphoning off money, arms, and personnel that jihadists could otherwise employ against nonbelievers. "Iraqi Shias angry at Saudi remark on Sunnis," from AFP:

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s Shiite leaders on Thursday said they were angered by a Saudi Arabian official saying that Riyadh would support the violence-wracked country’s Sunni Arabs in the event of a US pullout.

Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki said: “We will not countenance any language interfering in Iraq on the pretext of defending sects.”

Saudi security expert Nawaf Obaid wrote in Wednesday’s Washington Post that withdrawal of US forces could see Saudi Arabia giving Iraq’s Sunnis funds, arms and supplies to counter Teheran’s alleged support for Iraqi Shiite militias.

Obaid is managing director of the Riyadh-based Saudi National Security Assessment Project and also the private security and energy adviser to the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki Al Faisal.

If the United States leaves, Obaid wrote, “one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis”.

In the southern holy city of Najaf, Mohammed Al Juburi, secretary general of the Shiite Fadhila party, reacted angrily to the article, saying: “This is a sectarian and un-Islamic statement.”

“We reject any interference in Iraq’s affairs, whether from Saudi Arabia or Iran,” he added.

Teheran is regularly accused of aiding militias linked to Iraq’s powerful Shiite politicians in the ongoing sectarian conflict with the members of the minority Sunni Arab community.

Sheikh Abdel Hadhi Al Daraji, an aide of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, called for an intervention by Riyadh by way of seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led coalition troops from Iraq.

“We advise Saudi Arabia and the neighbouring countries to seriously work over the exit of the occupying forces first and to mend fences among politicians, both Shiites and Sunnis,” Daraji told AFP.

“I think the neighbouring countries, if they wanted to interfere in Iraqi affairs, such interference should be in favour of the whole nation and not one party or another,” he said.

“This is the grave mistake neighbours are making,” he added.

Obaid wrote that Saudi King Abdullah pledged to US President George W. Bush that he would not intervene, despite the rise in bloody sectarian reprisal killings between Iraq’s majority Shiites and minority Sunnis.

However, that would change if the US begins pulling its troops out, Obaid warned.

“Options now include providing Sunni military leaders... with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.”

“Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias."

Pope hardens tone in Turkey

Don't fit the Pope for a zunnar* just yet. By Sinan Fisek for Agence France-Presse, with thanks to Mackie:

POPE Benedict XVI put the brakes on his charm offensive in EU-hopeful, Muslim majority Turkey, stressing Europe's "Christian roots" and taking a strong stand on religious freedoms and minority rights.

Flanked by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I after mass at the patriarchal Church of S. George, the pontiff complained in a speech that “the process of secularisation has weakened the hold of (Christian) tradition” in Europe.

“In the face of this reality, we are called, together with all other Christian communities, to renew Europe's awareness of its Christian roots, traditions and values, giving them new vitality,” he said.

Yes.

* The distinctive cloth belt worn by dhimmis.

Fitzgerald: Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo

The grotesque attempt to ambush the Pope on his immediate arrival, to lecture him like a schoolboy on the wonderfulness of Islam, to demand that the "theology" of this or that faith be forever beyond any discussion, was all done by Dr. Ali Bardakoglu, head of the state-run religious affairs department.

One can assume that Dr. Bardakoglu is comfortable with, since he is a participant in, the Kemalist-mandated government control of religious affairs that is supposed to ensure that “moderate” clerics reading “moderate” khutbas will prevail. Bardakoglu used and abused the Pope (so much for famed "Muslim" hospitality) and in doing so was ably assisted by Erdogan, who after a fifteen-minute private discussion with the Pope then claimed to the outside world, without any confirmation by anyone, that a Pope who had for more than a decade expressed doubts about Turkish entry into the E.U. had suddenly -- no doubt on the basis of vague and non-committal remarks twisted in timeworn Muslim fashion to say whatever Erdogan wanted them to say -- now supported the entry of Turkey into the E.U.

And that is the headline that goes out while the Pope, still a hapless guest, must refrain from setting the record straight at least while he is still in Turkey. Perhaps even when he has returned to Rome he will not find it wise to directly contradict the Turks, lest their ill-concealed fury create other Santoro-like martyrs.

The intolerable behavior of both the leading “political” figure in Turkey, Erdogan, and the leading “religious” figure in Turkey (it’s a distinction that in Islam means very little, but only Kemalism gives it some minor meaning here), and the stories they have put out about the Pope’s sudden conversion to support for Turkey in the E.U., so quickly reported by the world’s press (eager to collaborate in this nonsense, uneager to show any skepticism) simply demonstrates one more time something that we all know is true, especially when it comes to what Muslim apologists and propagandists have been able to do against the Americans, the Israelis, the Indians, the Christians of Lebanon, the Biafrans, and anyone else who stands in their way and athwart their goals:

A lie travels half-way round the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Akbar Ahmed, to take a recent example, knows this well. He is a plummy-voiced, smooth-talking "snake" (the noun, I believe, comes from Ibn Warraq). He managed somehow -- he's not the first anglophone, pseudo-"moderate" Pakistani apologist to do so, nor the last -- to get a position filling an academic seat that might, were he not sitting comfortably in it, be given to someone who might enlighten rather than buffalo his naive students.

About those naive students: that plummy voice, those English tweeds (child of zamindars? What is Akbar Ahmed's history as a most unrepresentative representative of Muslim Man?), and above all the little business of taking his students to Pakistan (who pays for those airfares?) where they then go to a mosque. There they see their champion, their soft-voiced teacher-hero, confront those "immoderate" Muslims and tell them they should "welcome" these Christian guests. And so they do. And the students, impressionable and very impressed, come away thinking what a swell guy, what a wonderful guy, what a guy to be trusted, is our own Professor Akbar Ahmed.

A crock. A predictable crock.

The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove reifies the phrase "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo." As a tactic for Muslims, it had some early success, and Akbar Ahmed and Ali Bardakoglu are doing their best in their own ways to sustain that success, but in fact such success is not capable of being sustained.

Things, you see, are not quite working out. The message of the Akbar-Ahmeds and Ali-Bardakoglus and others desperately trying to disguise or camouflage or explain away or distract Infidel attention onto the trivial isn't quite up to the worldwide task at hand. Not only Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and Nasrallah and other terrorists are getting in the way, but so too is Sheik Al-Qaradawi and so many other Muslim clerics, from Tantawi, the former Sheikh al-Azhar, to all kinds of people in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan, each more blood-curdling than the next.

The problem for Muslim apologists (and their well-paid running dogs, such as Esposito) is that as more of us begin to read and study and observe and make sense, we discover -- and so do all kinds of Infidels -- just a bit too much fortiter, and not nearly enough convincing suaviter. One is playing fast and loose with the Latin here, but what else is to be expected when someone demonstrates a liking for the adverb of manner "fast and loose"?

Bardakoglu and Erdogan know well what it means to play fast and loose. The Infidel world better learn.

Fitzgerald: Jihad in West Africa

Two centuries before the current American foreign policy, or before there was Zionism, or "Iraq" and "Palestine" to blame, long before "poverty" was pulled up as a root-cause, and the why-do-they-hate-us brigade not only did not exist, but would have been impossible to call into being, Muslims in West Africa were on the Jihad warpath.

A Muslim cleric, or mallam, Usman dan Fodio, led a Jihad against local non-Muslim rulers from 1804 to 1810. This led to the establishment of the so-called Caliphate of Sokoto, and to the spread, enforced spread by military conquest, of Islam.

The results of that can be seen in West Africa. There one can find Christian neighborhoods that are well-tended, neat, prettified even with simple touches (a few flowers), and then the sullen, dirty, rundown areas of Muslims. The comparison is remarkable.

And everywhere Christians are under assault. They have been under assault, most famously, in Nigeria, where in 1967 the Christian Ibos, far more advanced and industrious than their Muslim overlords, rebelled and declared the independence of the State of Biafra. The proximate cause were the mass murders by Muslims of Christian Ibo all over northern Nigeria. But the Western world did nothing to help the Christian Ibo, while the Muslims -- including Egyptian pilots and planes that strafed Ibo villages, killing tens of thousands of helpless villagers -- did provide aid. Only two countries in the world recognized Biafra: Israel and Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah, Osagyefo, if he did not always understand economics, did understand Islam). In 1969, in his famous Ahiara Declaration, the leader of Biafra, Colonel Ojukwu, explained that the main reason for the Biafran fight was to defend the Christians against, as he put it, the "jihad" being conducted against it. That jihad by the Muslims who control the military and have largely stolen the oil wealth of Nigeria (with a little help from some islamochristians willing to collaborate) continues today.

Elsewhere the Christians are under siege -- as in the Cote d'Ivoire, or in Togo, where the more advanced southerners, often of the Ewe tribe that, like most tribes in coastal West Africa, cuts across national borders, are leaving. They are leaving not only because the crooked son of the previous crooked leader is back in business, but because of the Islamic menace.

Black Africans are enslaved in Mali and Mauritania, but not a syllable of protest has come from the Arab League about this, though both countries are members of that league. For decades black African Christians and animists have been slaughtered or starved to death in southern Sudan, and now black non-Arab Muslims (or nominal Muslims) are being killed, their cattle destroyed, their huts and houses burned, their women raped, their men all killed. And every single person who has lived to testify has talked of how the various Arab marauders say that "they are black and must be killed." Imagine, just imagine, if there were not a hundred thousand such incidents (as have taken place in Darfur) or a million (as in the southern Sudan) but even one such event, anywhere in the Western world, by a Western government.

Then ask why there is such a different standard, such fear of telling the truth, about how Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacist ideology, and Arabs among the supreme racists of history, who persuade those they conquer to abandon, forget, despise their own pasts, and to assume pseudo-Arab identities, and to take as their own models some Arabs who lived -- if they existed at all -- in 7th century Arabia.

Is the American government fully aware of the jihad that Ibos remember so well? Does the American government have any plans should the notion of a free Biafra (with all the oil in the south, among the lands where various Christian tribes live) be revived? Does the United States understand that in the Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo has been demonized by the French government, but that the fears of the Christian Ivoiriens that they are being asked to give citizenship to Muslim migrants in the north are justified? Does the American government know about Egypt's bullying of Ethiopia in an attempt to prevent Ethiopia from diverting just some of the headwaters of the Nile for vital irrigation projects, and of how Egypt sees a Muslim Sudan not as an enemy but as an ally in the future conflict with Ethiopia? Has the American government actually talked to Christians from Ethiopia, or worried -- like people in Western Europe -- about the growing Muslim population and the demands it makes to change the very nature of Ethiopia?

Given the entirely predictable paralysis at the U.N. -- where the Islamintern International calls the shots, and focuses attention on "Palestine" and keeps it always off the local expressions of Jihad -- over Darfur, and given the predictable collapse sometime in the future, of that famous "peace accord" recently "achieved" for the southern Sudan (one which will last just as long as the government in Khartoum thinks the West is paying close attention and not a minute longer), why has the United States not used the excuse of rescuing the people in Darfur to send in a few thousand troops to seize both Darfur and the southern Sudan? Claims of government violations of the peace accords with the southerners can easily be justified.

What would an American presence do? And who could object? Not Nicholas Kristof -- he has called for such intervention in Darfur (he seems strangely uninterested in what happened to the non-Muslims of the southern Sudan over the past 20 years). Not the leftists everywhere -- how can they oppose coming in to rescue black villagers, whose pictures, with them swarming around and smiling at somewhat abashed American soldiers can be displayed worldwide? Not the black African Christians who will rightly take this as a sign of muscular American interest in confronting those who conduct Jihad, and who will be bucked up, from Kenya to West Africa.

And who will be angry? Muslims everywhere will realize that the game is up, that the Jihad can be opposed without invoking Al Qaeda, and that everywhere the Muslims have been on the offensive (slowly swallowing up, and arabizing, most of the Sudan when, a hundred years ago, it was largely un-islamized and un-arabized), they may now be challenged. Two can play this game, but the Infidels have not -- they have simply allowed the conquest. They did nothing to help the Biafrans in their fight for independence after repeated widespread jihad-massacres of Christians. They have failed to recognize that demography is a weapon of jihad, and the cross-border infiltration of Muslim populations in West Africa is a reasonable thing for local Christians to worry about. They have shown not the slightest foresight about the coming clash, over water, between Ethiopia and Egypt (which acts as if the Ethiopians have no right to that water, or only to the amounts that the Egyptians grandly will allow them). Everywhere we can, we should take the side of those threatened by Jihad, and in black Africa, the point of obvious entry, and obvious gain with little pain, is the Sudan.

Let Saudi Arabia, where slavery was still officially allowed until 1962, and where unofficially it flourishes, sputter. Let the various Arab League states in which blacks are still enslaved wax indignant. Let Libya, where there are routinely murderous riots against black Africans (in one of which a diplomat from Chad was hung from a pole in Tripoli and left dangling for the edification and delight of spectators), try to complain.

Any and every place where Islam is clearly, obviously, in the wrong, and can be confronted at little cost (unlike, say, the miasma of Iraq at present, where the post-invasion and post-destruction-of-weapons-and-the-regime makes no sense), should be investigated.

This is a war of containment, and of wearing down the morale of the other side. We have right on our side. Islam is a primitive and unpleasant belief-system. There is little or nothing to admire about it. Everywhere Islam has conquered, those conquered have emerged, when left with their lives, to live lives that are far more impoverished in every important way -- either as non-Muslim dhimmis, or as converts to Islam. Islam limits artistic expression, stifles the free and skeptical inquiry without which real science is impossible, and cripples the lives of women. Islam stunts mental growth. We need make no apologies to others or to ourselves for coming to this melancholy conclusion, so much at odds with the official ideology that we have been subjected to -- that everyone is the same, that all religions and peoples are equal in every way, that no one must ever ever challenge the self-evident truth of any of this.

Iraq offered one kind of opportunity -- the opportunity, which was taken, to destroy the military capacity of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in general. And too much is now, foolishly, being done by the Americans to build up Iraq's military and restore that capacity, undoing what was so usefully done. The best policy in Iraq would be to cease all these plans for $590 million dollar American embassies, or American bases that can be closed at a moment's notice through the whim of local Muslims. The American officer corps should stop being forced to blandly follow the bland, in repeating mantras about "success" and "bringing democracy to Iraq" that show an absence of the simplest and most obvious strategic thinking -- simplest, and most obvious, as long as one keeps in mind that the tenets of Islam, and not the absence of "democracy," are and will always be a problem for Infidels, as they have been for the past 1350 years. In Iraq, 139,000 American troops should be pulled out, or at most, 20-30 thousand stationed temporarily in Kurdistan, where they will be welcomed, or perhaps in the desert to keep out foreigners -- but always ready to pick up and leave quickly.

Leaving Iraq now makes sense -- and not least because of the effect it is having on the long-term recruitment of the kind of people the army and the Reserves and the National Guard need. This is a squandering of morale and of resources that cannot be forgiven and that shows a criminally negligent attitude toward the growing disbelief in the current Iraq venture that, in fact, is well-founded, and that comes most feelingly not from those who think there is no problem with Islam, but from those who think, who know, that there is a very great problem with Islam. Iraq, while far less important a matter than preventing the islamization of Europe or Latin America (where sustained efforts by Tablighi al-Jamaat are bearing fruit) or sub-Saharan Africa, could, if the fissures were exploited by American withdrawal, contribute its mite to helping the Infidels to contain Islam, to disrupt whatever unity it has, to cause consternation and damage morale of the enemy -- not by spending a hundred billion dollars a year, but rather by not lifting a finger.

Please, let's use Iraq properly. Let's stop pouring in men, materiel, money. Let's not lift a finger. And let's turn our attention to Da'wa in Mexico, and to Muslim immigration in France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and -- which is where this article began and by rights should return -- to the besieged black African Christians, pursued by jihadists from southern Nigeria to the southern Sudan, and to Kenya, and even to the bombed-out "immoral" cafes of Capetown.

Fitzgerald: The world is against them

Hanif Malik, an Islamic leader in Britain, said some time ago: “Yes, everyone agrees the Muslim leaders must be more pro-active in fighting radical thought. But it's just empty words when Muslims feel the world is against them.”

The world is against them? One may be able to swallow this if one does not dwell on all those passages that preach Jihad and the need for Islam to spread and for Muslims to dominate, or if one does not pay attention to all those passages that inculcate hatred of Infidels that are all over the Qur'an. One may accept this if no attention is paid to how non-Muslims -- no matter how disparate they might be, whether Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Confucians -- have historically been treated wherever Muslims have had the upper hand.

Yet those Infidels have allowed Muslims by the millions into their countries. This creates an essentially immiscible, un-integrable population, a permanent security and societal threat. This creates a presence that makes the lives of those indigenous Infidels not full of some "rich diversity" that would otherwise not exist, but rather far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be, and precisely unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous in proportion to the size of the local Muslim population. Well, that does not appear to me to be a sign that "the world is against them."

Far from it. "The world" has swallowed whole Muslim propaganda or Muslim acts everywhere. The genocide against Christians, the "Jihad" in southern Nigeria that led to the declaration of an independent Biafra, did not lead to any expression of Christian solidarity. No one came to Biafra's aid, or even recognized a free Biafra (where Christian villagers were strafed by Egyptian pilots), save for Israel and Ghana. That was in 1967-1969, and even today the army of Nigeria acts as an occupying force in Ibo lands. The Arab Muslim genocide, conducted on clear Islamic grounds and prompted by the Muslim texts, that has led to the slow-motion murder of largely helpless Christian and animist black Africans in the southern Sudan and which took place over 20 years, has only now, and only thanks to efforts by private Christian groups, received some attention.

In the Balkans, no one in the Western world even began to understand the fears of the Serbs. Even today no government in the West has analyzed carefully what Izetbegovic threatened, and which helped push fearful Serbs into supporting the awful Milosevic. Today, no one does a thing about the Muslim destruction of ancient Orthodox churches, or the mass expulsions of Serbs. The Serbs are "bad" and the Muslims are "good" -- or at least "the persecuted ones" are. That seems to be an immutable article of faith. It is nonsense.

In Pakistan and Bangladesh Hindus are persecuted, expropriated, beaten to death.

In Thailand the Muslims attack Buddhist monks, teachers, farmers, and the world appears to think that it is the "policies" of the former Thai government that are at fault. But matters have scarcely improved so far under the rule of the new Muslim leader.

In Indonesia, Muslims massacred in the 1960s 600,000 ethnic, but non-Muslim, Chinese. It was presented as a pre-emptive strike on "Communist fifth columnists." The world chose to believe that. In East Timor, which was illegally seized by the Indonesians from the Portuguese, one-third of the East Timorese population – Christians -- were killed until rescued by the Australian army. In the Moluccas, in Sulawesi, churches by the thousands have been destroyed (see the reports of the Barnabas Fund). Christians are being murdered, as are other non-Muslims.

In Pakistan, Christian schools and churches are bombed.

In India, in Indian-held Kashmir or in Delhi itself, nothing is safe from Muslim attack -- the temple at Ayodhya, the Parliament building in Delhi.

As for Israel, its entire history has been one of fighting off a Jihad.

And yet these Muslims persist in their belief that "the whole world is against them."

What the Muslims in question really mean is that it is extremely irksome to have to accommodate Infidels, Infidel laws, Infidel arrogance (meaning: refusal to give up, at least right away or on the fast-track schedule that Muslims think only right). These are for those Muslims all reasons to deplore the situation, to attack, to demand changes, to demand special recognition, to threaten, to attack. Yes, it all fits the world-view that Islam inculcates, that the model of Muhammad offers, that the Hadith support, that the Qur'an itself requires.

Why should anyone be surprised? These "angry" and "frustrated" Muslims are acting naturally. And so far the taqiyya-and-kitman "moderates" only attempt to retain their own position in society, and to deflect Infidel attention. For they know, or suspect, that the Muslims are not yet strong enough, the time is not right, and it was very silly of Bin Laden and others to strike in such a way so soon -- for things were going so swimmingly without the need for any terrorism whatsoever.

And that is the problem. For if there are no terrorist acts, will Infidels cease to educate themselves about Islam and let down their guards -- which, by the way, are hardly up at all? The mental inertia, the impulse not to find out too much, or to make sense of too much, for fear of what it might do to your own equanimity, is strong. But it has to be overcome -- not by everyone, but by enough people to put up a fight, to resist. And resistance does not mean only, or mainly, girding on body armor and marching off to Iraq.

It means a thousand things.

Mahdi Bray runs into a buzzsaw

Mahdi Bray is very slick, but the truth is not on his side in the USAirways/Imam Rage controversy, and Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham don't let him get away with anything in this interview (from Hotair). I have never heard him sound so rattled. May it happen many, many times in the future -- as interviewers ask him the questions that he should be asked instead of the softballs he usually gets.

When Mahdi Bray complains that Muslims have been questioned "inappropriately" at airports, Ingraham responds, "Too bad." Bravo. I myself have been searched and questioned at Reagan National Airport and other airports. I have never contacted the ACLU about it, and never will. Malkin is right: Bray and his group "really don't want us to do anything to prevent another 9/11." To prevent one, we will all be inconvenienced. That's life after 9/11.

He's here to say Islam is a religion of peace

By Michael Ramirez at Investors.com.

Calling Islam violent makes Muslims act violently -- Turk religious chief

This is the sort of tortured thinking that leads some otherwise perfectly sane American analyists to maintain that if we all pretend that Islam is peaceful, it will make it so. After all, Bardakoglu is affirming the other side of this coin: speaking about what within Islam gives rise to violence will only "encourage those who perform wrong-doing on behalf of religion." Uh huh.

"Insulting Islam breeds violence - Turk religious chief," from Reuters, with thanks to Twostellas:

Turkey's top Muslim official repeated in the presence of Pope Benedict that Islam was not a religion of violence and that arguing so can only encourage those who abuse religion to do wrong.

Ali Bardakoglu, who heads Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs which controls Turkish imams and writes their sermons, said all Muslims were offended by accusations that their religion was violent.

"Such accusations and attempts can only serve to encourage those who perform wrong-doing on behalf of religion by way of exploitation," he said in a speech.

Iran issues death fatwa on Azeri writer

What was that again, Mr. Ahmadinejad? "We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings"? Do we really, now? "Iran issues fatwa on Azeri writer," by Frances Harrison for BBC News, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

One of Iran's most senior clergymen has issued a fatwa on an Azeri writer said to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

The call on Muslims to murder Rafiq Tagi, who writes for Azerbaijan's Senet newspaper, echoes the Iranian fatwa against Indian writer Salman Rushdie.

It was issued by the conservative Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fazel Lankarani.

The writings of Rafiq Tagi sparked recent demonstrations outside the Azerbaijani embassy in the Iranian capital, Teheran.

The Iranian media is reporting that Grand Ayatollah Lankarani's followers inside the republic of Azerbaijan wrote to him asking for advice about what they called "the apostate writer".

They accuse the Azeri writer of portraying Christianity as superior to Islam and Europe as superior to the Middle East.

Horror of horrors! Well, this death fatwa will put paid to such notions in a hurry!

They allege that he has ridiculed all the sanctities of Islam and done it knowingly, fully aware of the consequences of his action.

In response, Grand Ayatollah Lankarani is said to have issued a fatwa calling for the death of the writer and also the person responsible for publishing his articles.

Earlier, an Iranian cleric had offered his house as a reward to anyone who killed the Azeri writer.

Hmmm. How many rooms?

Ahmadinejad calls Americans to Islam

Marisol caught the same things I note here, but I thought they deserved emphasis in their own thread:

Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, said:

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. 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.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, said:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

[...]

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

In that is the call to Islam as prescribed by Muhammad -- for Islam in the Islamic view is the only true monotheistic faith.

That call is here too:

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)

That he chose a verse that rules out "partners" of Allah indicates that he intended a swipe at Christianity, as in the Islamic view Christians associate "partners" with Allah. Since Christianity is the dominant religion of the U.S., it seems likely that he meant to do this, as part of his call to Islam.

You can read his whole letter here: Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans

Fitzgerald: A few questions for Ehud Olmert

One has a few questions for Olmert:

What do you know about Islamic teachings?

How seriously do you think Muslims take those teachings?

Do you have any reason to think that the way Muslims are suffused with the teachings of Islam, a system of Total Regulation and Complete Explanation of the Universe, is different from the way that either Judaism or Christianity impinges on, or organizes the life of, Jews and Christians?

What do you know of Muslim teachings regarding non-Muslims?

Have you ever read the Qur'an and at least a few hundred of the hadith, possibly directed by a scholar of Islam?

Are you acquainted with the life of Muhammad, as written and read by Muslims, and do you realize the role that Muhammad plays as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil?

Do you know about the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? The attack on the Khaybar Oasis? The murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak for mocking Muhammad? The marriage to little Aisha?

Are you familiar with the agreement that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. when, feeling not yet strong enough to attack them directly, he made an agreement for a truce, a period of ten years, and then eighteen months later broke that truce on a pretext and, now with stronger forces, attacked the Meccans?

Are you aware that in the entire history of Islam, this behavior by Muhammad is hailed as being exceptionally clever, and has been taken as a model for all agreements and treaties made between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Are you aware, for example, that all of the Muslim commentators on the law of War and Peace in the Law of Islam are in universal agreement that no permanent peace treaty can ever be made between Muslims and Infidels, only temporary agreements made necessary when the Muslim side is too weak?

Have you read, for example, or has anyone brought to your busy attention, Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam, with its discussion of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya?

These questions, and your answers to them, will be published in the five leading newspapers of Israel.

Please, Mr. Prime Minister, think carefully before answering.

And come to think of it, why shouldn't this little quiz, which so clearly will elicit for us information about the comprehension of Infidel leaders everywhere, be given, in one form or another, all over the world, beginning with those in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Madrid?

Why shouldn't we all demand that those who presume to protect and instruct us (they go together: protection must be accompanied by instruction on what one is being protected against, and how, and why) take this test?

This is not a multiple-choice examination. It will not be graded by some computer, measuring the little lines who shaded in with a No. 2 pencil.

No, this test requires the ability to put a few sentences together. It does not supply the pre-fabricated answers.

And it will not be graded by a whirring machine in Princeton, New Jersey.

It will be graded, instead, by all of us. And we are in no mood, the publics of the Western world, to indulge or overlook in any way. Too much depends on the understanding of these matters.

Olmert, I'm afraid, has already failed with the surpassing idiocy of his every statement and move. Bush, in his messianic missing-the-point fervor -- he had an idea and now the idea has him -- to create a Light Unto the Musiim Nations instead of exploiting the situation to weaken the Camp of Islam -- has not done much better. Almost all of the known leaders of the Western world have similarly failed.

But there are others, waiting in the wings. They should all be asked to take the test above -- all those hoping to be the next Republican or Democratic candidate. We want to know, more than anything else, what they understand about Islam. We want to know if they are fooled, or foolable, or unwilling to state things, even if not with the full freedom that one has at this website, but slightly more obliquely (that may at first be necessary, and if undertaken only for tactical reasons, may in some cases be understood and forgiven).

But they need to take the test.

Ahmadinejad sends letter to "the American people"

The Thug-in-Chief devotes most of his letter to trying to convince us that, hey, we're not all that different, a theme also present in his letter to Germany's Angela Merkel.

But note the ending, which contains the familiar call for conversion (required prior to waging war in Islamic law, per Sahih Muslim 019.4294), plus a slap at Christianity in "any partners they ascribe to him": "But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him" (28:67-68).

"Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans," from CNN:

(CNN) -- In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

That being the Mahdi, of course.

Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.

The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.

Noble Americans,

Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.

Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities.

As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.

No day goes by without a new crime.

Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn't?

For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland.

You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it.

Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.

Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.

Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq.

I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.

Noble Americans,

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

My questions are the following:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.

What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US:

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history.

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.

To sum up:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.

The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)

I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

Al-Qaida denounces Pope's visit to Turkey, calling it part of a "crusader campaign" against Islam

The disjunction between the idea that he is waging a "Crusader campaign" and what he is actually doing is of Grand Canyon proportions, but when has a disconnect from reality stopped them before? "Al-Qaida denounces pope visit to Turkey," by Maamoun Youssef for Associated Press, with thanks to CGiddens, Jr.:

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in Iraq on Wednesday denounced Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey, calling it part of a "crusader campaign" against Islam.

In Istanbul, Vatican officials said the remark shows the need for faiths to fight "violence in the name of God."

The trip is Benedict's first visit to an Islamic country as pontiff, seeking dialogue with Muslims who were angered over a speech he made in September in which he cited a medieval text that linked Islam and violence.

Al-Qaida in Iraq issued its statement on an Islamic militant Web site it often uses to post messages.

"The pope's visit, in fact, is to consolidate the crusader campaign against the lands of Islam after the failure of the crusader leaders ... and an attempt to extinguish the burning ember of Islam inside our Turkish brothers," it said.

45,000 terror-threat illegals released into U.S. population

As far as terror threats in the general population go, Arafat Nijmeh has plenty of company. From WND, with thanks to Ruth King:

WASHINGTON – Half of the 91,516 illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries and those of "special interest" apprehended at the border between 2001 and 2005 were released into the U.S. population, according to a report by the inspector general's office of the Department of Homeland Security.

The report, "Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens," released earlier this year with little fanfare or attention, suggests about 85 percent of those aliens – potentially the most dangerous – would abscond and likely never be seen by authorities again.

Acknowledging the danger such aliens pose to the national security, the report cites a DHS official testifying that terrorist organizations "believe illegal entry into the U.S. is more advantageous than legal entry for operations reasons."

Budget shortfalls were the explanations for why some 45,008 potential terrorists were released by authorities over a period of nearly five years after Sept. 11, 2001. The budget crunches prompted immigration officials to place strict limits on detention bed space, recruitment, training, travel and expansion of enforcement programs, the report explained.

Civil rights victory: man who threatened to kill Jews, castrate Bush freed from prison

Now we can all breathe easier. "Man who threatened to castrate Bush freed from prison," from AP, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. (AP) — A mental patient who threatened to castrate President Bush was sentenced to federal prison, but a judge ordered him freed because of time he's already served.

Arafat Nijmeh, 27, formerly of Belleville, was sentenced Tuesday to seven months in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of threatening the president.

He was released after U.S. District Judge David Herndon credited him with the eight months he spent in custody after being charged. Nijmeh had been jailed without bail after being declared a flight risk and threat to society....

Nijmeh was accused of threatening to harm Bush in comments March 18 to workers at the Alton Mental Health Center and to two Secret Service agents the following day.

The indictment alleged Nijmeh told the agents that his earlier threat to castrate Bush was "not too harsh, considering what he has done to my country."

Nijmeh is a Palestinian born in Israel but O'Gara said he is a U.S. citizen....

Brooks said Nijmeh also told a supervisory nurse at the center he was going to "make her life a living hell" and threatened to kill Jews.

Note for the irony-impaired: Yes, my headline and remark above are sarcastic.

Online jihadists launch "e-jihad" attack on Vatican website

Showing once again an inclination to respond to the Pope's overtures to dialogue with a slap on the face. "Online terrorists launch 'e-jihad' attack on Vatican website," from israelinsider, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The Vatican website came under attack today in an effort organized by the leadership of 'electronic jihad' to down the site.

The online Islamist terrorists, or e-jihadists, distributed programs to dozens of hackers around the world in order to stage a multi-pronged attack on the site as Pope Benedict XVI visited the Islamic nation of Turkey....

Today's attack on the website of the Holy See was cited in part as a response to the Pope's comments and anger related to his conciliatory visit to Turkey. In a speech during the visit the Pontiff declared that religious leaders must 'utterly refuse to sanction recourse to violence as a legitimate expression of religion', and referred to the situation in the Middle East as 'disturbing'.

The cyberattack that came in the wake of the Pope's visit was successfully thwarted by Vatican authorities.

One blogger, noting that the website withstood the attack, remarked, "Kudos to the Swiss Guards of the cybersphere for doing an excellent job."

Akbar Ahmed: British channel to air documentary on Islamic art because of Spencer

Khalid Hasan of Pakistan's Daily Times has been upset with me for years. In January 2003 he charged that in my book Islam Unveiled I subject "the Holy Prophet’s person (PBUH) to blasphemous criticism." In June 2004 he lamented over my book Onward Muslim Soldiers: "How one can fight such ignorance, I am unable to say." In August 2005 he picked up his lament again: "Meanwhile, Islam-bashing goes on without let or hindrance. The publishers of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) claim that it is a bestseller." It was, Khalid, it was: it stayed on the New York Times Bestseller List for four months.

However, amid all this breast-beating Hasan never gets around to specifying even one inaccuracy in any of these books. Instead, he lists their contents as if that inaccuracy was self-evident -- as if it was obviously false that while "Jews and Christians do not accept violent passages in their holy books in a literal sense, Muslims do," or that women face difficulties under Islamic law, or that the human rights record of Muslim countries is generally poor, or that "secularism" -- that is, non-religious government -- "will be unable to overcome the hurdles it faces to secure a foothold in the Islamic world."

But in his latest lament over my alleged "Islam-bashing," Hasan enlists help from Akbar Ahmed, the Islamic scholar from American University who was allowed to comment on my interview with C-Span's Brian Lamb last summer before that interview even aired. And Ahmed, as you'll see, has some harsh things to say -- which is a pity, since on C-Span he said: "I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I’ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I’m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss." But he never responded to my invitation to debate and discuss these matters. If he wants to do so, I am available.

"British channel to screen documentary on Islamic art," by Khalid Hasan in the Daily Times, with thanks to Brian of London:

WASHINGTON: The Glories of Islamic Art, a three-part documentary presented by Dr Akbar Ahmed, is to be screened by Britain’s Channel Five later this month.

[...]

Dr Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at the American University here, said old prejudices about Islam were resurfacing, and one of the world’s greatest and most humane religion was being portrayed once again, as it was in colonial times, as an inherently violent and fanatical religion that encouraged or condoned terrorism, as monolithic, backward and inferior. It is being accused of subjugating women and denying them their equal rights, making it out to be a religion incompatible with modern Western and democratic values, or even as the implacable enemy of Western civilisation.

Dr Ahmed said, “If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at the Amazon.com website and read the blurb of books, such as The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic or The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer, who is also the editor of a huge anthology of articles entitled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, and whose latest book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, is advertised as a book that ‘gives the truth about Muhammad’s convenient revelations justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule’. Books such as these do not merely disseminate a totally inaccurate account of Islam and Islamic history, but they do so in language that is outrageously abusive, and would never be tolerated if applied to any religion other than Islam.”

"A totally inaccurate account of Islam and Islamic history"? Prove it.

"In language that is outrageously abusive"? I'd like to see him substantiate that from the book itself.

"...would never be tolerated if applied to any religion other than Islam"? What utter hogwash. Does he expect us to forget the deconstruction of Christianity that goes on relentlessly in the mainstream media?

Dr Ahmed lamented that it was so rare nowadays to encounter a book or a film that had anything positive to say about Islam because several media pundits, in collusion with politicians, preferred to pander to the prejudices of the general public. “We live in the age of the politics of fear. Islamophobia clearly pays. For example, the recently released documentary ‘Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West’ has been an instant box office hit,” he said. The Glories of Islamic Art would prove to be a healthy antidote to neo-orientalist rhetoric used to malign and misrepresent Islam, he added. This television series does not aim to cover the whole history of Islamic art and architecture, but focuses on three great Muslim cities – Damascus, Cairo and Istanbul – moving chronologically from the Umayyad dynasty to that of the Fatimids and Mamluks, and finally to that of the Seljuks and the Ottomans. Other cities, such as Jerusalem, Cordoba and Granada, are briefly discussed. A future project may explore other great Muslim cities further east, such as Isfahan, Delhi and Lahore.

Well, I like Islamic art myself, and I'm sure it will be a great series. But how it will serve as an "antidote" to serious discussion of the jihad ideology and its implications, I'm sure I don't know.

Pope praises priest slain in cartoon furore

"The Pope told the world from Ankara that Islam was a religion of peace," but the death of the priest John Andrea Santoro suggests otherwise. As did the helicopters and metal detectors. From the Guardian, with thanks to PRCS:

Pope Benedict XVI today honoured the memory of a Roman Catholic priest who was killed after the publication of the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

At a small open-air mass in Ephesus next to the ruins of a house where the Virgin Mary is thought to have spent her last years, the Pope praised the priest to 250 invited guests.

He said: "Let us sing joyfully, even when we're tested by difficulties and dangers, as we have learned from the fine witness given by the Roman priest John Andrea Santoro, whom I am pleased to recall in this celebration."

A Turkish teenager shot the priest as he knelt in prayer in his church in the Black Sea port of Trabzon. The February attack occurred amid widespread Muslim anger over the cartoons. Two other Catholic priests were attacked in Turkey this year....

A paramilitary helicopter hovered low over the crowd as he arrived in a fleet of vehicles, and registered guests went through three separate metal detectors before reaching the sacred site.

On the first day of his trip, Benedict yesterday urged religious leaders of all faiths to "utterly refuse" to support any form of violence in the name of faith.

He also called for an "authentic dialogue" between Christians and Muslims based on "mutual esteem and respect.

But there was no apology for his remarks in September when he quoted a Byzantine emperor, who described Islam as "evil and inhuman."

The comments sparked outrage in the Muslim world and some Turks have demonstrated against the Pope's visit.

But the pontiff's bridge-building exercise, which included his backing for Turkey's membership of the EU, has gone down well so far with Turkish commentators.

"It started beautifully: the Pope told the world from Ankara that Islam was a religion of peace," the mainstream Hurriyet newspaper said.

Getting the news from the enemy

I am a bit late with this -- for which I apologize, I have been a bit under the weather, and am trying to get caught up. Anyway, it is important to have it on the record: the Flopping Aces blog has some key and eye-opening revelations about this story.

Thanks to all who sent this in.

Liberia: Truth Commission Member Under Fire For Calling For Jihad

West African Jihad Update. "Liberia: Truth Commission Member Under Fire," by James Butty for VOA News, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A member of Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has been given a seven-day ultimatum to resign because of an article he allegedly wrote in 1996 calling for a jihad in Liberia. A group calling itself the Forum for War Crimes in Liberia has also accused Sheik Kafumba Konneh of protecting warlords from former Muslim-dominated warring factions during Liberia’s civil war.

According to its constitutive act, members of the TRC are supposed to be persons of high integrity and honor and not known or perceived as human rights violators. The chairman of the TRC, Jerome Verdier, who is visiting the United States, said his commission is looking into the allegations and would respond accordingly. Meanwhile, Sheik Konneh said the allegations are baseless.

“Because of the civil war, there are some individuals who have been traumatized, and they have become so disgruntled, they only take pride in tarnishing the reputations of those who are prominent in the Liberian society. They have given me an ultimatum, and I have told them that I’m not going to resign because their allegation is fallacious,” he said.

Konneh would not say if he wrote an article advocating for jihad as alleged or that he supported Muslim warlords during Liberia’s civil war. He could only say that his reputation would exonerate him.

“In the first place, they have to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that I wrote an article, and that such article called for jihad, and that I was in one way or the other supporting any warring faction during our national nightmare. But I believe that my track record can exonerate myself from those malicious charges that they have meted against me,” Konneh said.

French police can't even ensure their own safety

A sobering update on the French intifada. "French police the target in urban guerrilla war" by Jon Boyle for Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

PARIS (Reuters) - Stoned, beaten and insulted, their vehicles torched by crowds of hostile youths, French police say they face an urban guerrilla war when they enter the run-down neighborhoods that ring the major cities.

"Our role is to guarantee the safety of people and property but the great difficulty today is that police are having problems ensuring their own safety," said Jerome Hanarte of the Alliance-Police Nationale union.

Bedside television interviews with officers hospitalized after beatings in "les banlieues," or suburbs, support statistics showing a 6.7 percent jump in violent crime in the 12 months to August.

Fourteen officers are hurt every day in the line of duty, unions estimate, and law and order is sure to feature prominently in next year's presidential election.

The head of the French crime statistics body told Reuters the rise in attacks on police was partly due to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's 2002 decision to order police back into tough areas, to disrupt the black economy that fuels crime.

Some residents complain the move spawned constant police harassment which has only exacerbated tensions with local youths, many of whom come from ethnic minorities.

"You can see discrimination in ID controls," complained Kader Latreche, 36, an Algerian with his own photo equipment repair shop in the La Courneuve suburb.

"Why is it always people from the Maghreb or black people who are being stopped and checked? If it happens over and over again, it gets to you. People are frustrated, that's obvious."...

"It's a false debate," said Hanarte, whose union is generally supportive of Sarkozy and wants judges to take a tougher stance against delinquents.

"Why put foot patrols in these districts if they will be systematically attacked by youngsters, who are repeatedly arrested and then systematically released by the justice system?

"Having police in these areas can only be a good idea if, beforehand ... police have arrested the delinquents in the suburbs. You have to start by that, restoring a certain calm."...

Comte says the threat to police is so great in some neighborhoods they should exercise their "right to withdraw." That means refusing to respond to emergency calls if they judge they cannot guarantee their own safety.

"Frankly, it's not worth getting your head kicked in for an end of year bonus of 200 euros ($256.8)," said the plain clothes officer.

Or for French civilization. After all, if the leadership isn't defending it, why should the police?

Two in Houston charged with planning to fund, fight with Taliban

Texas Taliban. "Local men accused of conspiring to help terrorists," from KHOU:

Two Houston men have been charged with planning to aid the Taliban, U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced Tuesday.

Adnan Babar Mirza, 29 and 33-year-old Kobie Diallo Williams, also known as Abdul Kabeer and Abdul Kabir, are both in federal custody.

Williams, a University of Houston student, pleaded guilty Tuesday. Mirza hasn't entered a plea.

Both men are accused of training with firearms so they could go to the Middle East to fight with the Taliban against coalition forces in the Middle East. They're also charged with providing cash to support terrorist groups.

In addition, Mirza is charged with three violations of federal firearms law.

To hone their skills in anticipation for battlefield jihad, the indictment alleges, Williams and Mirza agreed to train with firearms at various locations located in Harris and surrounding counties.

“While these subjects did not operate at a high level of sophistication in comparison with the 9-11 hijackers, the expressed goal was to aid the Taliban by training to carry out jihad against coalition troops in the Middle East,” said Roderick Beverly, the head of the FBI’s local office.

[...]

According to allegations in the indictment, Williams and Mirza, a citizen of Pakistan who entered the United States on a student visa on Aug. 15, 2001, allegedly viewed the United States and coalition military forces on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq as invaders. In April 2005, they agreed that they should travel to the Middle East to fight with the Taliban to engage in battlefield jihad.

On at least eight occasions between May 20, 2005, and June 17, 2006, the men engaged in firearms training, and at times in reconnaissance training.

As part of and during the alleged conspiracy, Williams and Mirza are accused of agreeing to offer financial support to Taliban fighters and their families.

Federal law prohibits contributions of goods or services to the Taliban.

As a student visa holder, Mirza is prohibited from possessing firearms. Furthermore, once his student visa expired on Dec.12, 2005, Mirza’s status changed to that of being illegally in the United States. Illegal aliens are also prohibited from possessing firearms.

The indictment charges Mirza in three counts of unlawfully possessing firearms during three firearms training sessions occurring in May 2005, March 2006 and May 2006.

If convicted of the conspiracy charge, Williams and Mirza face a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 and three years supervised release.

Each of the three firearms alleged against Mirza in Counts Two through Four carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 and three years supervised release, upon conviction.

Palestinian jihadists: Gaza ceasefire means time to reload

Direct from the jihadists themselves: The truce is only a pause in which to regroup and re-arm. Meanwhile, Olmert hopes this ceasefire is the beginning of a diplomatic breakthrough. "Terrorists: Ceasefire means chance to reload," by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily:

The ceasefire to which Israel and major Palestinian factions agreed yesterday will be used by Palestinian groups to smuggle weapons into Gaza, reinforce and train "fighter units," and produce rockets for a future confrontation with the Jewish state, the leaders of the four most significant Palestinian terror groups in Gaza told WND in a series of exclusive interviews.

"The ceasefire offers a period of calm for our fighters to recover and prepare for our final goal of evacuating Palestine," said Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a Hamas-allied terror organization in the Gaza Strip responsible for many of the recent rocket attacks against Israeli communities.

"We will keep fighting (Israel), but for the moment we will postpone certain parts of the military struggle," Abu Abir said.

Abu Abir was one of several terror leaders speaking to WND after a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants took effect yesterday morning.

Israel removed its ground forces from Gaza and agreed to not launch anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip in exchange for Palestinian promises to halt attacks against Israel, including the cessation of rocket fire against Jewish communities near Gaza.

[...]

The recent increase in rocket bombardments prompted calls by the general public here and by many in the Israeli defense establishment for a large-scale Israeli offensive in Gaza.

Israel Defense Forces officials reportedly presented multiple military plans to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to dismantle some of the terror infrastructure in Gaza, minimize rocket attacks and attempt to halt rampant weapons smuggling from neighboring Egypt into Gaza.

IDF military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin and Yuval Diskin, director of Israel's Shin Bet Security Services, both warned in recent speeches to the Knesset if Israel doesn't launch a major offensive in Gaza, Palestinian groups there will soon have military capabilities similar to those of the Hezbollah guerilla organization in Lebanon.

But Olmert yesterday said he had faith the cease-fire would work. He said it could lead to a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians.

"All of these things ultimately could lead to one thing – the opening of serious, real, open and direct negotiations between us so that we can move forward towards a comprehensive agreement between us and the Palestinians," Olmert told reporters yesterday, speaking about the ceasefire.

Olmert said he would be willing to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for peace talks in the near future.

[...]

Olmert said Israel would display "patience and restraint" in the face of Palestinian violations of the cease-fire.

[...]

Terror leaders: We need period of calm to recuperate

Meanwhile, terror leaders from every major Palestinian faction in Gaza, speaking to WND, said their groups would for now abide by the cease-fire, which they stated would be used to re-supply their arsenals and prepare for a conflict with Israel.

The Committees' Abu Abir said, "We will reinforce very quickly and rush what we are doing to prepare (for attacks against Israel) in Gaza and in the West Bank."

Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called "military wing," told WND Hamas agreed to the cease fire "because we need a period of calm to recuperate. This lull in fighting will not bring us to speak about peace."

Abu Abdullah is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared military wing.

He pointed to Hamas' doctrine, which calls for the destruction of Israel and which refuses to recognize the Jewish state.

"The political leadership (of Hamas) will never compromise on these values," the terror leader said.

Abu Abdullah said Hamas has its own political reasons to respect the truce.

More or less.

"We wish to show Islam as a ruling party is capable of leading the Palestinian people. Since Hamas was elected, we have been through only chaotic periods. We want a period of calm to prove we are not only a revolutionary movement but to show the Palestinian people our rule is without the corruption of (the rival) Fatah (party)."

But Abu Abdullah said the cease-fire would ultimately end in violence.

They all do.

"All the Palestinian people and all the Muslims will launch a direct confrontation with Israel. This may come soon or it may take some time," Abu Abdullah said.

Abu Luay, a leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, told WND Israel's call for a cease-fire "proves our rocket attacks work. The Zionists know there is now remedy for our rockets."

The Islamic Jihad leader said Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel would resume "at a time of our choosing."

Abu Ahmed, the leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, told WND his terror group would respect the ceasefire.

The Brigades, responsible for scores of suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks, is the declared military wing of Abbas' Fatah party.

"We will respect the cease-fire as the president (Abbas) has ordered us to do," said Abu Ahmed. "We keep our right to respond to any Israeli aggression. Our group does not give up any of its ideals, which is a withdrawal of the Israelis."

Jihadists to Jihad Watch: "I pray to Allah that he breaks your hands and poisons your tongue"

Yesterday I alerted you to a jihadist website, "The Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge." Well, Mr. Puzzle Pieces, who calls himself InshAllah Shaheed (Marytr, Allah Willing), was unhappy with all the attention. Today he has posted "My open letter to Jihadwatch.org."

I wrote yesterday that his site "conducts jihad recruitment through Qur'anic exegesis," so today InshAllah Shaheed responds, "As for this website, please provide proof that I have actually recruited people." But of course, I didn't mean that he was recruiting in the sense of signing up people for the great effort, but in the sense of trying to win over the hearts and minds of Muslims by appealing to their religious obligations as delineated in their holy texts. And in this "open letter," he's still at it. Who would not want to join the great struggle after reading something like this:

As for this website, please provide proof that I have actually recruited people. It is only from your evil desires that you wish to propagate that which will hurt the Muslims; and I pray to Allah that he breaks your hands and poisons your tongue so that you may never propagate your lies again. And if it doesn’t happen in this life, then only by the will of Allah, I will be the one laughing at you from Paradise – enjoying its eternal pleasures - while your body is dragged through spikes that pierce deep within your body, and you are only given to drink foul smelling pus and boiling water – which only makes you vomit and burn your insides - and eat extremely sour and thorny fruits – where if it to be dropped in one of the oceans of this earth, all of the oceans and even the lands of the earth would be destroyed.

In this the pious man demonstrates his awareness of the Qur'an's many passages about the damned being made to drink boiling water and having it poured over their heads: 6:70; 10:4; 14:16; 22:19; 37:67; 38:57; 40:72; 44:46; 44:48; 47:15; 55:44; 56:42; 56:54; 56:93; 78:25; 88:5.

Then he goes on to quote Sahih Muslim 4294, which I have quoted here many times. In it, Muhammad directs his followers to offer their enemies conversion, subjugation, or war -- and so Mr. InshAllah Shaheed offers those choices to us.

A few gems from the rest of his open letter:

Some of you seem to have a misunderstanding regarding my intentions. I did not preach that we must slaughter every single non-Muslim for the purpose of them being non-Muslim.

I don't know what he is talking about here. Obviously I have never said any such thing.

Rather, I have been repeatedly stating that we, as Muslims, are obligated to hate you for the sake of Allah because the fact is that you are non-Muslim; and if you can’t take it, then Alhamdullilah because one day, in the West, it will become extremely clear to the majority of who belongs to the Truth and who belongs to Falsehood. We will continue preaching the Truth until you feel like killing every single Muslim; and this has already started by the ones you worship the most: The Government. In fact, you worship your government more than you worship your own god – that is if you are a follower of a Religion. And only the people of understanding will know the truth in this.

Well, I know that isn't true of me, or of many people here, but I know what he means: he is referring to those who would prefer to live in a society in which there is no established religion than in one governed by religious law. I think the Founding Fathers were wise to include the provision of non-establishment in the Bill of Rights, as misinterpreted as it has been in recent decades; it is a framework by which people of different creeds can live together in peace. But if one believes that it is the will of the Almighty that Muslims should enjoy a privileged position in a multireligious society, as mandated by Sharia, then one will look upon the principle of non-establishment only with contempt. And call it government worship, or some such.

Mr. Shaheed also rails against Muslim moderates as not following true Islam -- as I have pointed out many times, jihadists do this routinely, and moderate Muslims have formulated no effective Qur'anic response.

Many of you seem to be very frightened and surprised by the fact that I openly preach Jihad for the sake of Allah, as it is ordained in our Religion. Keep in mind, I only preach that which is in the Qur’an and Sunnah; and those who tell you that preaching from these two sources is not necessary, do not listen to them; even if they call themselves Muslim since Allah says,

يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُوۤاْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلاَ تَوَلَّوْا عَنْهُ وَأَنْتُمْ تَسْمَعُونَ
وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ كَالَّذِينَ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَهُمْ لاَ يَسْمَعُونَ
إِنَّ شَرَّ ٱلدَّوَابِّ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلصُّمُّ ٱلْبُكْمُ ٱلَّذِينَ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ
O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak). And be not like those who said, ‘We hear’, and they did not obey. For the worst of creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb; they are those who understand not. (al-Anfaal: 20-22)

That's Qur'an 8:20-22.

Later on, after some grievance propaganda, Mr. Shaheed refers to some episodes from the life of Muhammad, invoking the Prophet of Islam's example as normative for Muslims today:

If you are aware of Islamic History, O American, you are then aware of what happens to the enemies of Allah. Take heed from the example of the Jews of Khaybar! Take heed from the example of the Battle of Badr! Take heed from the example of the Battle of Khandaq! Take heed from the battle between the Muslims and the Persian Empire! Take heed of the army of Salahuddin al-Ayyubi when he declared Jihad against the mammoth sized Crusader Army of 300,000 or more and was reduced to 1,000!

Know that Islam, as Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhe wassallam) said, is meant to be dominant and not dominated (Sahih Muslim). As long as we are not engulfed in the life of this world, we become the most dominant force on earth. And as you can see, O Americans, our nation is heading in this direction. Our Religion teaches us to choose the life of the Hereafter over the life here-and-now, and to live like Knights during the day and monks during the night. So beware of our emerging power and know that honor belongs to Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers.

Know, O Americans, that we have with us people who love death the way you love the dollar! And we cannot live until we die since this life is a prison for the believer and it is a Paradise for the disbeliever. You fools enjoy this life to the fullest when in reality, it is temporary and all of us will one day die and take back nothing to the grave except our souls – which were created to prepare for death by living a life of piety, truthfulness, and devotion to Allah. Paradise is real, Hellfire is real, and this world is only a test and trial from Allah, The Most High, to see who will realize the reality of this life and then act upon it accordingly.

Know, O Americans, that it was Ronald Reagan who quite rightly pointed out that, “How do you expect to defeat a people who believe that when you kill them they go to a Paradise filled with beautiful virgins and rivers of wine?” Muse over this question and you will realize that we die for the sake of Allah because Allah is real and this Religion of Islam is the only Truth until the Day of Judgment.

There is no doubt that throughout history the promise of Paradise, along with the promise of booty (cf. Qur'an, sura 8, etc.), made jihad warriors fight with extraordinary ferocity. But you will find, sir, that some Americans are not as soft, either physically or psychologically, as you imagine. And your battle will not be as easy as you dream it will be. As I am quite certain you will find out in the years to come.

Erdogan: Pope says Islam "peaceful and affectionate"

Yes, well, what else could he say after all the affection and warmth the Muslims in Turkey have shown him?

"Pope defuses tensions on visit to Muslim Turkey," by Philip Pullella and Selcuk Gokoluk for Reuters:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Pope Benedict told Turkey on Tuesday he backed its bid to join the European Union and believed Islam was a religion of peace, hoping to soothe rows overshadowing a delicate visit to the mainly Muslim country.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan hailed the comments, which he said Benedict made to him in their private talk at the airport, and Turkish commentators said they changed the tone of a visit clouded by disputes over the Pope's view of Islam.

Asked about Turkey's EU entry bid, which Benedict opposed before his 2005 election as Pope, spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the Vatican took no political stand but supported Turkey's entry "on the basis of common values and principles."

And what are those common values and principles, exactly?

Security was heavy but protests rare under Ankara's sunny skies as Benedict arrived, laid a wreath at the mausoleum of the republic's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and met Turkey's president and director of religious affairs.

Erdogan, who had originally said he was too busy to meet the Pope, greeted Benedict warmly as he descended from his airplane and held short talks with him before leaving for the NATO summit in Riga.

"He said we are not political but we wish for Turkey to join the EU," Erdogan told journalists after meeting the Pope.

Erdogan, who began his career in Islamic politics, added: "The most important message the Pope gave was toward Islam, he reiterated his view of Islam as peaceful and affectionate."

Yes. Cuddly, even. No Salman-Rushdieism here about Islam being the "least huggable of faiths." The intellectual acrobatics required for this aren't really all that difficult. Just decide a priori that all those committing violence in the name of Islam aren't really Muslims. Then all that are left are the poor victims of "Islamophobia."

Pope sells out Europe, says Erdogan

According to Erdogan, Benedict now endorses the "grave error." But it is still a grave error, regardless. "Pope Benedict Backs Turkey's European Union Bid, Erdogan Says," by Flavia Krause-Jackson and Mark Bentley for Bloomberg, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:

Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Pope Benedict XVI said he backs Turkey's bid to join the European Union, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said after meeting the pontiff upon his arrival in Ankara for his first visit to a Muslim country.

The Pope told Erdogan that while the Vatican seeks to stay out of politics it ``desires Turkey's membership in the EU,'' Erdogan said at a news conference after the 15 minute meeting that initiated his four-day visit to Turkey. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he had said in 2004 that allowing Islamic Turkey to join the EU would be a ``grave error.'' The Vatican has yet to confirm Benedict's comments today.

"I hate the Queen, I hate this country"

The nature of the incident is surprising. The utter contempt for Queen and country, and the sense of entitlement ("I am a Muslim, I am fasting, I needed to eat.") is not. "Muslim jailed for killing British queen's swan to break Ramadan fast," from AFP:

LONDON -- A Muslim man who was so hungry while fasting during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan that he killed a swan to eat was jailed for two months at a court in Britain Wednesday.

Shamsu Miah, 52, killed the mute swan at a boating pond in the north Welsh seaside resort of Llandudno September 25 - only the second day of fasting in Britain.

All mute swans in Britain belong to the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, an historical quirk dating from the twelfth century.

When challenged by police, Miah said: "I am a Muslim, I am fasting, I needed to eat."

Llandudno Magistrates Court heard that Miah had blood on his shirt and white feathers in his beard.

Prosecutor Jim Neary said: "When interviewed he said, 'I was hungry, I had to eat the swan so I killed it, I stabbed it. I did nothing wrong, it was just a bird, I needed to eat'."

"The officers told him the swan was the property of the queen and he replied, 'I hate the queen, I hate this country'."

Judge Andrew Shaw told Miah: "You killed a swan at night. It was a cruel and reprehensible act.

"I don't know how it died; there seems to be some speculation that you bit it but I accept you killed it with a knife.

"It is a taboo act and the only sentence I can pass is one of imprisonment."

Miah had pleaded guilty to intentionally killing a wild bird and possessing a bladed article.

He was released from custody having already served his two-month sentence while on remand.

Islamists dominate Bahrain elections

Two items are of interest here. One is the manifestation of "deepening social and religious conservatism" in another Mideast nation considered an ally by the US. The other is the upsurge in Shi'ite political power, and its obvious implications on the larger Sunni-Shi'ite tensions in the region, including Iran's ambitions to expand its power and influence. By Jim Krane for The Associated Press:

MANAMA, Bahrain - Islamist candidates swept to victory in Bahrain's parliamentary election, splitting the vote between hardline Shiite and Sunni Muslims while female and liberal candidates fared poorly in the U.S.-allied kingdom, preliminary results showed Sunday.

With several races headed for runoffs, Saturday's vote appeared to reinforce the sectarian divide between the Persian Gulf island's governing Sunni minority and the underprivileged Shiites who make up two-thirds of its 700,000 people.

The results also underlined a deepening social and religious conservatism in Bahrain, which has been among the most liberal of Arab states in the region and is host to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

Of 18 women running, only one won outright — Latifa al-Gaoud, who was unopposed in her district. Another, Munira Fakhro, advanced to a runoff next Saturday but faces a tough race against Salah Ali of the pro-government Muslim Brotherhood, a hardline Sunni group.

No secular liberal candidates won seats outright. At least four were headed for tough second -round battles with Islamic hard-liners.

The runoffs will decide whether parliament's 40-member elected chamber is dominated by pro-government Sunnis or an opposition alliance of Shiites and liberals. The latter would likely press for broad reforms to Bahrain's limited democracy, under which the ruling Khalifa family controls most levers of power.

The religious sweep in Bahrain mirrored results of elections in Iraq, Egypt and Palestinian territories, where Muslim hard-liners have made inroads. The vote was watched closely by neighboring Arab countries planning similar steps toward democracy or dealing with their own Shiite populations clamoring for power.

"It looks like our parliament will be dominated by people who see themselves only as Sunnis or Shiites," said Fowad Shihab, a political science professor at Bahrain University. "These are the same Islamists that are gaining control across the Arab world."

The Shiite al-Wefaq movement, which boycotted Bahrain's 2002 election, emerged with 16 seats, the best showing of any party.

"The people trusted us and we did well," said al-Wefaq leader Sheik Ali Salman, a Shiite cleric in a rolled white turban and black cloak.

Analysts expect al-Wefaq to throw their runoff support to liberals, most of whom face Sunni opponents from the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist movement.

How the imams terrorized an airliner

An important update to the US Airways Imam Rage controversy. Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times (thanks to all who sent this in) reveals that they were acting far more provocatively than previous reports have indicated.

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

More here on the slick Mr. Bray.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

That would effectively make it illegal to stop a Muslim in an airport, no matter what he was doing. It would give carte blanche to future Muhammad Attas.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

Of course. And it's all about getting that legislation passed.

Pope preaches brotherhood on Turkey trip

He asks for dialogue and brotherhood. Who in the Islamic world will reciprocate? By Brian Murphy for Associated Press:

ANKARA, Turkey - Pope Benedict XVI began his first visit to a Muslim country Tuesday with a message of dialogue and "brotherhood" between Christians and Muslims in an attempt to ease anger over his perceived criticism of Islam.

Two months after the pope touched off fury across the Islamic world with remarks linking violence and Prophet Muhammad, the Turkish prime minister — in a last-minute change of plans — was on hand at the airport in Turkey's capital to greet the pontiff.

"All feel the same responsibility in this difficult moment in history, let's work together," Benedict said during his flight from Rome to Ankara, where more than 3,000 police and sharpshooters joined a security effort that surpassed even the visit of President Bush two years ago.

The pope used his first moments of his four-day trip to try to mend fences with Islamic leaders.

"We know that the scope of this trip is dialogue and brotherhood and the commitment for understanding between cultures ... and for reconciliation," he told reporters on his plane.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the pope at the foot of the plane.

"I want to express happiness to see you and your delegation in our country," Erdogan told the pope before meeting with him privately. He described the pope's visit as "very meaningful."

Erdogan, who was bound for a NATO summit in Latvia, had only announced the day before that he would make time to meet Benedict in a nation where many people view the pope with suspicion. Erdogan's political party has Islamic roots, though the government is secular.

In his first official act, Benedict visited the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, and wrote a message in a guest book calling Turkey "a meeting point of different religions and cultures and a bridge between Asia and Europe."

Police monitored the highway leading to Ankara from the airport, where Turkish and Vatican flags waved in a light breeze. Snipers climbed atop buildings and hilltops. In wooded areas along the route, soldiers in camouflage fatigues set up observation points and sniffer dogs passed along bridges.

Spencer: Pope Rage in Istanbul

In this morning's feature article at FrontPage I discuss the Pope's trip to Turkey (news links in the original):

Pope Benedict XVI is set to arrive in Turkey on Tuesday, and tensions are running high. Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turk who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981, wrote to Benedict: “Your life is in danger. You absolutely must not come to Turkey.” And several weeks ago, a Turk named Ibrahim Ak stood outside Italy’s consulate in Istanbul and fired a gun while proclaiming his desire to strangle the pope. As he was arrested, Ak shouted: “I am happy to be a Muslim!” He said that he hoped the Pope would decide not to come to Turkey, and that his actions would inspire other Turks to violence: “God willing, this will be a spark, a starter for Muslims ... God willing, he will not come. If he comes, he will see what will happen to him.”

Turkish officials are trying to make sure nothing does. According to the Associated Press, they have “mobilized an army of snipers, bomb disposal experts and riot police, as well as navy commandos to patrol the Bosporus Straits flowing through Istanbul.” However, Meliha Benli Altunisik, a professor at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, questioned whether such precautions were necessary at all: "Will there be protests? Yes, of course. But I cannot take seriously the notion that he is in physical danger. He will rather be ignored."

Certainly Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan originally planned to ignore him. Erdogan will be attending a NATO summit in Latvia on the first two days of the Pope’s visit and at first announced that he would not meet with him during the last two days, either. “You can't expect me to arrange my timetable according to the pope,” Erdogan huffed, and of course he’s right: how could anyone ex