Opposition group: Iran leaders planned capture of Britons

Big surprise here. From Iran Focus, with thanks to Mackie:

London, Mar. 31 – Iran’s main opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said on Saturday that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) had planned the recent capture of 15 British marines and naval personnel and are holding the group in an effort to gain concessions from the West.

A unit of the IRGC Navy’s 3rd regional command based in Khorramshahr Garrison executed the premeditated operation to capture the Britons on March 23, said Hossein Abedini, a member of the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee, at a press conference in London. He said that the garrison was on a full state of alert.

“Rear Admiral Rashid Hosseini, the commander of the IRGC Navy’s third regional command, personally had command of the operation to arrest the British sailors”, he told reporters.

“A number of IRGC Navy commanders had previously been stationed in Khorramshahr. Colonel Badin was the operational commander based in Khorramshahr at the time of the arrests”.

He gave the names of three IRGC officers - Colonel Majidi, Colonel Abbas-Zadeh, and Colonel Isavi – who were involved in the seizure.

Iranian Official: Sailors May Be Tried

The provocations just keep coming. By Naser Karimi for AP, with thanks to Mackie:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's ambassador to Russia renewed a threat Iranian officials made earlier this week, saying 15 British sailors held by Iran could be tried for violating international law, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported Saturday.

Gholam-Reza Ansari told Russian television Vesti-24 on Friday that Iran had launched a legal investigation of the British sailors. "They will be tried if there is enough evidence of guilt," Ansari was quoted by IRNA as saying.

Britain's Foreign Office said it was checking the claim that the sailors were facing trial, but noted that the ambassador's comments didn't alter their view of what was needed to resolve the standoff.

"This doesn't change our position, we have made it perfectly clear that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and we continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release," said a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office, speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with government rules.

"We continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release." Ahmadinejad must be shaking.

Muhammad Dawood gets 9-month sentence for supporting terrorism

Muhammad Dawood (aka David Hicks) Update: a slap on the wrist. "Hicks gets nine-month sentence," from Australia's ABC News Online (thanks to JE):

A US military tribunal has sentenced confessed terrorism supporter David Hicks to seven years in jail but he will only have to serve nine months.

The tribunal judge accepted Hicks's guilty plea as part of an agreement that limited his sentence to seven years in prison, in addition to the five years he has been held at the US base at Guantanamo Bay.

The deal allowed all but nine months of the sentence to be be suspended.

Hicks will serve the sentence in Australia and the United States must send him home by May 29....

Lead prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Chenail had told the tribunal Hicks had knowingly sought out an organisation bent on attacking the United States and acquired dangerous skills.

The prosecutor, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Chenail, says Hicks freely joined a band of killers who slaughtered innocents.

"We are face to face with the enemy," he said.

First conviction

Hicks, who has become the first war crimes convict among the hundreds of foreign captives held for years at the Guantanamo prison camp, had pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism in an agreement with US military prosecutors.

Hicks, originally from Adelaide in South Australia, acknowledged he trained with Al Qaeda, fought against US allies in Afghanistan in late 2001 for two hours and then sold his gun to raise cab fare and tried to flee by taxi to Pakistan.

1 teacher, elderly couple shot dead in Thailand's restive south

Jihad against retired teachers and elderly couples. This Associated Press (thanks to Jeffrey Imm), however, stays in passive voice as long as it can, before gingerly identifying the culprits as "suspected insurgents," who of course just happen to target Buddhists.

BANGKOK, Thailand: A retired teacher and an elderly couple were shot dead Saturday while four other civilians were wounded in a bomb explosion in Thailand's violent-ravaged south, police said.

Sawai Phrommani, a 62-year-old retired teacher, was killed in a drive-by shooting as he rode a motorcycle home in Pattani's Mayo district, said police Lt. Col. Narat Thepchalerm.

In Narathiwat, suspected insurgents posing as customers shot dead a Buddhist couple _Charin Ngaono, 70 and his 68-year-old wife Rabiep _in their grocery store in Rangae district, police said.

Four Buddhist civilians also were wounded in Yala province, when a roadside bomb exploded as their car passed over it, police said.

Pakistan: "Creeping Talibanisation is now a reality across the country"

And the creeps are creeping fast. "The creeping coup," by Zaffar Abbas in Dawn, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

ISLAMABAD, March 30: The primary theatre of battle may still be North and South Waziristan, as evidenced by the Pakistani Taliban’s recent bloody assault on the settled town of Tank that borders the tribal areas. But the events of the last few days in Islamabad are more disturbing in some ways, suggesting as they do that creeping Talibanisation is now a reality across the country. Indeed the Lal Masjid brigade, as it has come to be known, has every right to celebrate. Tuesday’s showdown with the police was its second major success of the year. First its women’s wing, comprising hundreds of burqa-clad and baton-wielding students, occupied a children’s library in the federal capital in January.

Now both the men’s and women’s wings of this emerging brand of the Pakistani Taliban have started to impose new rules of morality by forcibly shutting down video and music shops in Islamabad, and by abducting women whom they believe are engaged in ‘immoral’ activities.

Situated in an area where the prime minister’s secretariat and seat of power is on one side, and the headquarters of the country’s premier intelligence agency, the ISI, on the other, Lal Masjid and its adjacent Hafsa madressah have not only managed to enforce the Taliban-style system of ‘moral policing’ in matters of ‘vice and virtue’, to date they remain in control of the situation.

But who are these people, and why are the government and the security services finding it so hard to enforce the rule of law? Is it that the government really wants to avoid bloodshed because hundreds, if not thousands, of women are part of this violent brigade? Or is it a reflection of some kind of infighting in the establishment where one faction still has a soft corner for their former Islamist allies?

Probably both.

Imams narrow target of 'Does'

Now we learn that they're only going after the "racist" passengers. And "there is no way Mr. Mohammedi can possibly determine whether the John Does 'knowingly made false reports' against his clients 'with the intent to discriminate against them' without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery." That in itself will discourage passengers from reporting suspicious activity in the future. And then it's open season for jihadist hijackers in airports.

By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times (thanks to Sr. Soph):

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the "John Doe" passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.

The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted "passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who "may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin."

"The only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a letter this week to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm. The Becket Fund had publicly condemned CAIR for supporting the case.

"The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the 'suspicious' behavior included the imams' constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation," Mr. Nihad said. "When a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith."

The imams are being represented by New York lawyer Omar Mohammedi in the lawsuit, which has triggered an outcry among lawyers who say they will defend the "John Does" for free.

Becket Fund Chairman Kevin Hasson criticized the amended changes in a letter to CAIR on Thursday.

"There is no way Mr. Mohammedi can possibly determine whether the John Does 'knowingly made false reports' against his clients 'with the intent to discriminate against them' without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery," Mr. Hasson said.

"That prospect alone, of being dragged into court proceedings, will certainly provide a great disincentive for other citizens to come forward with their own suspicions," he said.

Spencer on CSpan this morning

I just found out that CSpan Book TV will be repeating my Heritage Foundation talk about my book The Truth About Muhammad this morning at 7:30AM PST, 10:30AM EST. You can watch online here.

Seven rallies today against the global jihad

Rally Against Islamofascism Day. All rallies will be held TODAY, Saturday, March 31st. For details, see the UAC site.

West Coast:

Southern California:
In front of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s Southern California Office
We will be hanging an effigy of bin Laden
Location: 2180 W. Crescent Ave. Anaheim, CA 92801
Time: 1:00 PM
Contact: losangeles@unitedamericancommittee.org

Hawaii - Kona
Location: Along the Queen K Hwy, near the Mormon Temple, just south of Henry St., in Kona, Hawaii
Time: Starting at 2:00pm and until 5:00pm
Contact: for more info or to confirm attendance email americandefender@yahoo.com

Washington State:
In front of CAIR's Seattle Office
Location: 9594 1st Avenue NE, Seattle WA
Time: 1:00 PM
Contact: washington@unitedamericancommittee.org

East Coast:

New York - NYC: GROUND ZERO
MAIN RALLY AGAINST ISLAMOFASCISM DAY RALLY
Location: Ground Zero - World Trade Center
S/E corner Liberty St and Trinity Pl (Church St).
Time: 12 Noon - 2 PM
Contact: newyork@unitedamericancommittee.org

Florida - Orlando:
Location: The corner of Hwy 50(Colonial Drive) and Bumby.
Time: 1:00 PM
Contact: florida@unitedamericancommittee.org

Massachusetts - Boston:
Location: Boston Common
Tremont St. in front of the Constitution memorial and across from Lowes movie theater.
Time: 1:00 - 3:00 PM
Contact: boston@unitedamericancommittee.org

Midwest:

Missouri - Columbia:
Location: Post Office on E 500 block of Walnut Street, across the street on the sidewalk.
Time: 9:45am to 11am.
Contact: ltw03y@hotmail.com

Qaddafi: "All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers"

No word on whether he extended his right thumb and forefinger in the shape of an "L" and held it up to his forehead to drive the point home. "Gaddafi says only Islam a universal religion," by Salah Sarrar for Reuters:

AGADEZ, Niger (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Friday that it was a mistake to believe that Christianity was a universal faith alongside Islam.

"There are serious mistakes -- among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for other people other than the sons of Israel," he told a mass prayer meeting in Niger.

"Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Other people who are not sons of Israel have nothing to do with that religion," he said at the prayer meeting, held to mark the birth of the prophet Mohammed.

Gaddafi, who is seeking to expand his influence in Africa, said his arguments came from the Koran. He led similar prayers last year in Mali.

"It is a mistake that another religion exists alongside Islam. There is only one religion which is Islam after Mohammed," he said in the sermon, which was broadcast live on Libyan state television.

"All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers," he added. "We are here to correct the mistakes in the light of the teachings of the Koran."

Gaddafi also said it was a mistake to believe that Jesus had been crucified and killed. "It is not correct to say that. Another man resembling Jesus was crucified in his place."

Libya grants financial aid to Islamic communities in Africa and elsewhere to build mosques, Islamic schools and facilities.

Libyan state television often shows Gaddafi meeting groups of African men or women telling him they converted to Islam.

The mass prayers, chaired by Gaddafi, came a day after Arab leaders wrapped up a summit in Saudi Arabia. Libya was the only Arab state to shun the gathering.

Shunning Arab influence in North Africa is a good start, but one can't help but suspect Qaddafi is mainly concerned with their stealing his thunder as an influence in the region.

"Libya has turned its back on the Arabs ... Libya is an African nation. As for Arabs, may God keep them happy and far away," Gaddafi has said to explain his boycott of the summit.

Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran

What else would you expect, given the state of news reporting in Eurabia?

"Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs," by Claus Christian Malzahn in Spiegel Online, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education.

The Germans have believed in many things in the course of their recent history. They've believed in colonies in Africa and in the Kaiser. They even believed in the Kaiser when he told them that there would be no more political parties, only soldiers on the front.

Not too long afterwards, they believed that Jews should be placed into ghettos and concentration camps because they were the enemies of the people. Then they believed in the autobahn and that the Third Reich would ultimately be victorious. A few years later, they believed in the Deutsche mark. They believed that the Berlin Wall would be there forever and that their pensions were safe. They believed in recycling as well as in cheap jet travel. They even believed in a German victory at the soccer World Cup.

Now they believe that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. This was the by-no-means-surprising result of a Forsa opinion poll commissioned by Stern magazine. Young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- said they considered the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

Read it all.

Libertarian Live!

Andre Traversa had me on his talk show yesterday to talk about my book, "Religion of Peace," and asked me to post the link for all Jihad Watchers. I understand the first ten minutes concern Rudy Giuliani, then Phyllis Chesler comes on, then me.

Iran issues another letter purportedly from female sailor

Grammatical errors and non-standard spelling join the the odd, stilted language of the previous letters that Iran claims were composed by Faye Turney. Iran can only hope that some of its own people buy into the propaganda, as their tactics are utterly transparent to the rest of the world.

"Text of 3rd letter allegedly written by Faye Turney in Iran," from Iran Focus:

To British People

I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.

We were arrested after entering Iranian waters by the Iranian forces. For this, I am deeply sorry. I understand that this has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran and the whole area in the British (sic).

The Iranian people have treated me well and have proved themselves to be caring, compassionate, hospitable and friendly. For this I am thankful.

I believe that for our countries to move forward we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and leave the people of Iraq to start re-building their lives. I have written a letter to the people of Iran apologising for our actions.

Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abo-Ghrayb (sic) and other Iraqi jails by British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm.

It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people.

Faye Turney, 27/03/07

New video shows British detainee 'confession'

Imagine the international upheaval if a Western country showed a detainee's face for a moment. It's simply not done. Meanwhile, in Iran...

From CNN:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian Arabic language network Al Alam on Friday aired new video showing one of 15 British detainees apologizing to Iranians for "entering your waters without permission."

The British government responded by criticizing the treatment of the sailors and marines, with Prime Minister Tony Blair saying Iran faces "increasing isolation" for refusing to release the service personnel.

The video showed three UK personnel seated in front of a floral backdrop, with one of them later appearing on camera to read a confession to what Tehran claims was their illegal entry into Iranian territory a week ago.

"I deeply apologize for entering your waters," said the serviceman, identified as Nathan Thomas Summers of Hayle in Cornwall, southwest England.

"On the 23rd of March 2007 in Iranian waters we trespassed without permission," he said looking at someone or something off camera.

"I'd like to apologize for entering your waters without any permission. I know it happened back in 2004 and I know our government promised that it wouldn't happen again. Again I do apologize for entering your waters."

Summers added: "Since we've been arrested in Iran our treatment has been very friendly, we have not been harmed at all.

"They've looked after us really well. Basically the food they've been serving us has been good and I'm grateful no harm has come to us."

Blair, speaking to reporters a couple of hours after the video was aired, said: "All this does is enhance people's sense of disgust. Captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way doesn't fool anyone.

"What the Iranians have to realize is that if they continue in this way they will face continuing isolation."

Blair called for "patience" in dealing with the crisis, adding: "They most important thing is to ensure people are returned safe."

Earlier Friday, Britain's Foreign Office responded to the video, telling CNN that "using our servicemen in this way for propaganda reasons is outrageous."

Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers on Friday demanded Iran release 15 Britons, though some warned against escalating the dispute and said their diplomatic ties with Tehran would not be immediately affected, The Associated Press reported.

Friday's video was the second so-called confession by a British detainee to be aired by Al Alam this week.

U.S. says most Iraq bombers via Syria: 'It has to stop'

Absolutely, but where is the political will to hold Syria to account? The deterrent posed by having the world's strongest and most advanced military is attenuated by the fact that U.S. military assets are stretched thin under the burden of holding together Iraq, a country with no inherent unity. Absent that, the U.S. would not only regain the deterrent power of being more ready, willing, and able, to address global threats, but Syria's Alawite regime (categorized as a Shi'ite group, but well removed from the mainstream) would find itself occupied with a Sunni-Shi'ite jihad next door that would embolden its own Sunni majority population against its enemies both across and within the border, leaving Damascus much less able to threaten Israel and do the bidding of Iran.

From the World Tribune:

WASHINGTON — A U.S. State Dept. official said about 90 percent of the suicide attackers in Iraq came from Syria.

"It has to stop," said David Satterfield, the chief State Department adviser on Iraq. Officials said that despite numerous appeals, Syria has failed to stop the flow of Sunni suicide bombers to Iraq. They said the lion's share of suicide bombers were foreign Arab nationals who entered Syria and made their way to Iraq.

"They [suicide bombers] see Syria as a more accommodating country through which to transit across the border to come into Iraq to perpetrate their terror," Satterfield.

Satterfield said the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that between 85 and 90 percent of suicide bombers in Iraq entered from Syria. In an address to the Washington Institute on March 27, Satterfield said 90 percent of suicide bombers in Iraq were foreigners.

Tiny Minority of Extremists Alert:

Officials said North Africans and Yemenis comprised the largest element among the foreign suicide bombers. But they said Saudi nationals have become an increasing factor in the Sunni insurgency war in Iraq.

In his address, Satterfield again warned Syria to stop the flow of would-be suicide bombers and other insurgents to Iraq. He said Iraq and the United States have sought to stem the flow of insurgents from Syria to Iraq's Al Anbar province.

"It has to stop," Satterfield said. "It is not in Syria's long term interests to let this violence continue. We and the Iraqi security forces have done our best. It is a long, long border."

Over the last month, the Bush administration has resumed high-level contacts with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad. Officials said that during the March 10 meeting in Baghdad, the U.S. delegation accused Iran and Syria of interfering in Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected to attend the next meeting that included Syria in April.

"We would hope that the Syrian government understands as well that its rhetoric for a peaceful and stable Iraq has to be matched by actions," Satterfield said.

Pakistani Islamic Schools Are Rife With Extremism, Group Says

Stop the presses. By Ed Johnson for Bloomberg:

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- President Pervez Musharraf has failed to tackle Islamic extremism in Pakistan's religious schools, which continue to promote a holy war against the West and foment terrorism, the International Crisis Group said.

Five years after the government pledged a crackdown on the schools, known as madrassas, many still preach a violent ideology and train and dispatch fighters to Afghanistan and Indian-administered Kashmir, the Brussels-based advocacy group, which aims to resolve conflicts, said in a report yesterday.

``The Pakistani government has yet to take any of the overdue and necessary steps to control religious extremism,'' the group said. ``Musharraf's periodic declarations of tough action, given in response to international events and pressure, are invariably followed by retreat.''

[...]

The ICG said the government's ``reform program is in shambles'' and that banned extremist groups continue to operate openly in Pakistan, particularly in the port city of Karachi.

The group called on the government to introduce a law that ``bars jihadi and violent sectarian teachings'' in madrassas and close schools that fail to comply. Many madrassas remain unregistered and government attempts to introduce non-religious classes have been futile, according to the report.

A law that "bars jihadi and violent sectarian teachings" is highly unlikely, as Islamic teachings on jihad are part of the standard Pakistani curriculum, and are not at all limited to the notion of an "inner spiritual struggle."

The group recommended the government establish financial controls on the schools, to establish where they receive funding. Students should also be registered, the group said. Certificates issued by the schools shouldn't be treated as the equivalent of university degrees to encourage participation in mainstream education, it added.

Indeed.

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi: "Civil Jihad" Won't Abrogate Military Jihad

Esposito says he's a "reformist"

"Appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting." Arafat was a master of that. From the MEMRI Blog (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

At the fifth conference of the International Al-Quds Institute, held in Algeria, institute head Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi was asked whether his recent call for "civil jihad" in Palestine would influence people to give up the original jihad.

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi answered, "We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad."

Ethiopia: Muslims beat Christian evangelist to death

Christian proselytizing is a capital offense under Islamic law. "Ethiopian Evangelist Beaten to Death by Militant Muslims: Militant Wahabbi Islamists Drag Christian Evangelist into Mosque and Beat Him to Death," from Christian Newswire, with thanks to Tom:

WASHINGTON, Mar. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) has just learned that an Ethiopian evangelist named Tedase was beaten to death by militant Muslims on Monday, March 26th, as he and two young women were on a street evangelism assignment in Jimma, Ethiopia. This marks the second time in six months that Christians residing in Southeast Ethiopia have been attacked and killed by extremist (Wahabbi) Muslims.

On Monday afternoon Tedase and two female coworkers were conducting street evangelism on Merkato Street in Jimma, Southern Ethiopia. Merkato Street runs by a Wahabbi Mosque. As the team was walking by the Mosque, a group of Muslims exited the Mosque and began to run after them to confront them. Tedase's female coworkers ran away from the mob but Tedase continued on. The Muslims caught up with Tedase, pulled him into the mosque, and savagely beat him to death. Sources from Jimma reported that Tedase was beaten with a calculated intention to kill him. This was no accident or case of mob frenzy getting out of control. His body was later taken to the hospital for an autopsy and he was buried Tuesday, March 27.

Our sources also reveal that Jimma Christians were conducting an evangelism campaign, and news of the outreach was spreading among Jimma residents as well as militant Muslim groups in the area. The Muslims that belonged to the Wahabbi sect purposefully beat Tedase to death as a message to Christians that they are ready to combat evangelism.

Fitzgerald: Blaming England

In the Iranian mythology, Great Britain -- "England" -- has a more prominent and more venerable role than those newcomers to Satanhood, the United States and Israel. The no-longer existent England of Palmerston and the Great Game, and manipulations by assorted Curzons, live on in the vivid oriental imaginations to be found both in fictional bulbuls-and-roses Gulistan, as well as in the all-too-real tanks-and-missiles Teheran of Khatami and Ahmadinejad.

That is why the Iranian mobs are so easily brought out to denounce England. Because for them, it was "England" that ruined Persia in the nineteenth century. It was England that severed the Shi'a of Persia from Karbala and Najaf. Of course, in reality it wasn't England at all. The 1847 Treaty of Erzerum was brokered by the Czar of Russia, and was made between the Ottoman Empire (that is, the Turks) and the Persian Empire. And even though it was the Soviet Union that seized a swath of northern Iran after World War II (an idea whose time may have come again), and "England" that was the ally of the Americans, and it was the Americans and the other Western powers that forced a Soviet retreat, still in the popular mind in Persia "England" was to blame. It is true that the English were partly responsible for the coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, for he had threatened the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's concessions – they responded by persuading the Americans to stage that coup.

There is a certain kind of left-wing Iranian, the kind who at first supported the overthrow of the Shah and then found that the real and only winners were the Ayatollah Khomeini and the primitives who make up the Iranian masses. (These masses are not our sort -- not the Nafisi or Bina or Tabatabai sort, the sort who have names like Cyrus and Darius rather than Mohammad, but the sort who actually make up the masses of Iranians that those upper-class secularized Iranians in exile still can't quite recognize or allow themselves to understand, because it would be too painful.) For these left-wing Iranian the entire Khomeini phenomenon can be explained by two words or, possibly, three: "Mossadegh." "Coup." "England." In other words they want to believe, and want us to believe, that Shi'a Islam is just fine, and that if only Mossadegh had survived, and thrived, and the Shah had the feathers of the Peacock Throne clipped, everything would have been all right -- because such people still can't see how the very forces of modernization brought about by oil wealth would naturally unhinge the country.

And its unhingement would in turn naturally cause Islam, the Islam of Khomeini and his ilk, to make a comeback. In this these Iranian leftists resemble the secular Shi'a in exile, who couldn't imagine what Iraq would turn out to be like, and how it would not conceivably rise to the fantastic occasion offered in by the American removal of Saddam Hussein. These "unrepresentative" Best People, in Iraq and in Iran, simply can't face up to what most of their countrymen are deeply like, and deeply like because of Islam. They are embarrassed. They are personally and civilizationally embarrassed and don't know how to face it, deal with it, talk about it.

It is, for them, much easier to mutter about the coup against Mossadegh, which supposedly made ineluctable, a quarter-century later, the takeover by the Khomeinist forces of black reaction. And behind that coup, the Eternal Enemy in the manichaenism that comes naturally to Islam with that Zoroastrian substratum: "England."

That's the kind of analysis too many otherwise seemingly sane and westernized Iranians allow themselves to indulge in. And it's the kind of thing they inveigle the shallowest reporter/writers on Islam -- such as Stephen Kinzer with his "All the Shah's Men" -- into believing, uncritically, and then repeating, as if hearing that the Mossadegh Coup in 1953 is the necessary and sufficient explanation for the rise of Khomeini, and the re-emergence of Islam that, whenever and werever possible, will rise to the surface, whether it is in Kemalist Turkey or Pahlevi Iran, or in any Muslim country that might have allowed itself to believe this particular rasputin was safely under the ice. To blame "England" through its role in getting the Americans to remove Mossadegh just will not do as an explanation, and those credulous foreigners who accept and pass on such stuff are merely holding up their side of a comical folie a deux.

What is of note is that in Iran, the generally observable Muslim penchant for conspiracy theories, and for blaming some Infidel country or people, takes the particular form of blaming "England."

That is something to think about during these days, day 2, or is it 3, or even 4, of this, the New Hostage Crisis, created under the baleful eye of a direct participant in the previous example of Persian androlepsy -- the smiling, utterly fanatical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran: Britain has "incorrect attitude"

This attitude is apparently fine

Iran scolds Britain for not adopting a posture of sufficiently abject dhimmitude. "Say sorry or we won't free mum, says Iran," from the Daily Mail, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

The release of kidnapped British sailor Faye Turney is on hold after Iran accused Britain of having an "incorrect attitude".

The hostage crisis also took a sinister new turn as a hate mob in Tehran demanded that the 15 captured British Navy personnel be hanged.

Protesters waved placards demanding "15 British aggressors must be executed" outside the foreign ministry.

The announcement Turney's release is on hold by the head of Iran's supreme national security council Ali Larijani dashed hopes that the 26-year-old mother would be released "very soon".

The u-turn came a day after Iran pledged to release Mrs Turney, who was detained along with 14 male colleagues, following their capture in Iraqi waters.

But Mr Larijani said on state television today: "It was announced that a woman in the group would be freed, but (this development) was met with an incorrect attitude. Naturally, (the release) will be suspended and it will not take place."

Iran will not release female sailor if UK freezes relations or takes issue to UN Security Council

Britain has already frozen relations with Iran, and is seeking condemnation of the sailors' and marines' abduction at the United Nations.

Iran's initial "humanitarian" gesture of offering the early release of Faye Turney served to raise international hopes, which Iran can now exploit in using Turney as its main bargaining chip, as well as a propaganda trophy in defiance of the Geneva Convention. "Britain seeks U.N. condemnation of Iran," from Associated Press:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran may delay the release of the female British sailor if Britain takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council or freezes relations, the country's top negotiator Ali Larijani said Thursday. The Foreign Office in London, meanwhile, said Britain is seeking condemnation of Iran at the United Nations.

The seizure of 15 British sailors and marines, including Faye Turney, the only woman among them, took place during operations in Iraqi waters under a U.N. Security Council mandate, said the Foreign Office official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject.

"There are some plans to say something on behalf of the United Nations (about the seized troops) but they have not been finalized," said the official.

Speaking on Iranian state radio, Larijani said: "British leaders have miscalculated this issue." If Britain follows through with its policies on the British sailors and marines detained by Iran last week, Larijani said "this case may face a legal path" — a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Britain asked the Security Council to support a call for the immediate release of the detainees, saying in a statement Wednesday they were operating in Iraqi waters under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of Iraq, according to council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the text was not released.

Earlier Thursday, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a "confrontation over this."

In a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show captured the British sailors and marines on Iranian television.

"Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in," he said. "It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity."

"We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner," said the spokesman. "We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place.'"

On Wednesday, Britain announced it was freezing relations with Iran.

Western definition of "jihad" must be corrected -- Italian "expert"

Oh, Oriana, how Italy misses you.

"Western definition of "jihad" must be corrected -- Italian expert," from the Kuwait National News Agency:

KUWAIT, March 29 (KUNA) -- The definitions of "jihad" and "holy war" as presented by Western media need to be corrected if a true and undistorted image of Islam is be presented to the world, said Italian professor of Islamic culture Valeria Paicentini on Thursday. Speaking to Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), the visiting professor said, "Our media is distorting a lot Islam's aspects and features ... and this misunderstanding media has created can only be countered by looking closely at the true meanings of such terms as 'jihad' and 'holy war' in Islam." It is a common misconception that "jihad" means "military action", when in fact it translates to "effort" of which just one aspect is to do with taking action to defend oneself, she said.

The best way for Muslims to clear up this "misconception" would be for them to act upon the definition of jihad as spiritual struggle, and to take steps to counter actively the Muslims all over the world who are acting upon the "misconception" that jihad involves warfare against unbelievers.

Ironically, she said, "holy war" was a term introduced by the Vatican to "counter the Islamic wave" it feared would spread throughout Europe.

Sure. The Vatican invented those statements of Muhammad about fighting unbelievers until they convert or submit, and until Islam is dominant in the world.

Fitzgerald: What worries them

As Robert Spencer says, there is no "effective theological response to Muslims" who take their Islam seriously. That is, there is no effective Islamic theological response to Muslims who take their Islam seriously enough to want to individually participate in the Jihad. But what is most troubling to the Pakistani authorities is not the fact of Jihad.

After all, Parvez Musharraf, the other generals, and the I.S.I. have all been waging Jihad in any way that they could. These many and various ways have included surreptitious support for terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir and India for many decades. They have also helped bring up the baby of the Taliban and then, when it was ready, sent it back to Afghanistan -- not on spring break but to stay and to bring "stability" through murder and mayhem, just the way that Hitler did, or to a lesser degree, Mussolini. Stability, stability.

No, what worries the Pakistani authorities about the jihad-preaching madrasa in Islamabad are two things:

1) The open declaration of Jihad demonstrates to Infidels by the silence of the other Pakistanis that indeed, there is NO effective theological response to the jihadist version of Islam, none whatsoever. For those who are learning about jihad in this mosque are good Muslims, believing and perhaps acting on orthodox teachings of mainstream Islam. And this is embarrassing, for eventually even the stupidest or most blind of Infidel governments and reporters might begin to figure out the realities of this situation. Why, even some people in the 1930s figured Mr. Hitler out -- and told the world exactly what he was about. But few listened, until events made it impossible any longer for them to stop up their ears and minds.

Unfortunately, the progress of Islam, and of the worldwide Jihad, has at this point a great many agents in place. Those agents have the ability to confuse and bring lawsuits and distract and act aggrieved. And so many local Infidels seem to be altogether willing to act as helpmeets in this effort, out of stupidity, or cupidity (there is a whole lot of Arab money being spread around), or timidity (can you imagine rulers in the E.U., or in North America, openly identifying the menace of Islam and listing the various instruments of Jihad, or the goals of Jihad, which is a central duty imposed on all Muslims?). Some Infidels, of course, suffer on the other hand from rigidity (we can't change our policies, we can't see things afresh, we can't analyze things anew. It would take too much effort, and we're just too busy).

2) Authorities in Pakistan, as in other Muslim countries, are also worried that open jihad preaching such as what goes on in this madrasa will ultimately manifest itself as opposition to the government, whether to the illegal arrogation of power by Parvez Musharraf (who remains both President and head of the army, which violates the Pakistani Constitution), or the corruption that is such a noticeable feature of almost every Muslim country, where inshallah-fatalism prevents real economic development -- so the road to riches is to seize and retain control over the state, and then to help themselves to whatever wealth may be available.

Such wealth comes from two sources, oil and Infidel aid:

1) The oil money. Think of the Al-Saud grabbing large amounts of the oil revenues for the princes, princelings, and princelettes of one particular family, a family that even named the whole country after itself. Or on a lesser scale, think of those grandiose sheiklets of the Gulf sheikdoms.

2) The disguised Jizyah of aid given by Infidel donors. How do you think Arafat, or his henchmen including Abbas, have the apartments and villas and bank accounts they all do? Or how do you think Mubarak pays for his Family-and-Friends Plan? Who pays for Queen Noor, or Abdullah's mediagenic wife's dresses, or their stays in hotels around the globe? (Abdullah, to be fair, does not have his father's tastes, and doesn't quite run up the "hotel-or-residence" call-girl tab that, through the C.I.A., American taxpayers were paying for for decades, as they also did for Sukarno and others, all in order to please the "plucky little king" Hussein of Jordan.)

Hussein’s proclivities may have been embarrassing, but they never embarrassed Jordanian officials the way this madrasa embarrasses those in Pakistan. For Hussein’s call-girls never threatened the whole deceptive edifice. This madrasa does.

Louay Safi, "Islamophobia" and unintentional irony

Jihad Watch reader Mike has sent me a new article by Louay Safi, the Indianapolis ISNA op who is unhappy that plans are afoot for me to lead a seminar for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in that city. I have replied to his attacks before, albeit belatedly. Since he mostly rehashes what he said in his earlier piece here, and I'm tired of cherry-picking the Qur'an, I think I'll cherry-pick his article instead, and just point out a couple of things.

First, he repeats a 1997 definition of the trumped-up term "Islamophobia" that I think bears scrutiny.

In Britain, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when the race relations think tank Runnymede Trust published the report “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All." [1] In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:

* Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

The fact is that Islam is not a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. There are innumerable variations in Muslim observance all around the world. There are innumerable variations in cultural traditions of Islamic observance. It is also true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers, and that this view is sealed by scholarly consensus (ijma) and the closing-off of new rulings on settled issues (see here about the gates of ijtihad). Jihadists are capitalizing upon these facts to make recruits among peaceful Muslims by calling them back to what they are able to represent on the basis of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic jurisprudence as "pure Islam."

So in other words, it is the jihadists who are portraying the traditional teachings on jihad warfare as incumbent upon all Muslims, and unable to be changed. But when Western non-Muslims take note of this, it's called "Islamophobia."

* Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

This one is silly. No one is claiming that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, or exists in a vacuum. However, it is not the values in common that are a cause for Infidel concern, it is the values that are held by non-Muslims that Islam does not teach in any of its orthodox manifestations: freedom of conscience, equality of rights of all people before the law, including women and religious minorities, and so on.

* Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.

I am not going to apologize for saying that elements of traditional Islam are barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist. When Muslim clerics protest against a rape law that calls for forensic evidence to establish guilt, rather than disqualifying the victim's testimony and establishing guilt only on the testimony of four male witnesses (cf. Qur'an 24:13), yes, that is barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist. If Louay Safi and other Muslims want non-Muslims not to have this perception, let them go to Pakistan and Iran and elsewhere and take up their conflict with these clerics. But they don't. And they won't.

* Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations [an idea enunciated by Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, with the publication of his book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” Simon & Schuster; 1998].

Here again: when 49.9% of Muslims affirm that they support Osama, and when jihadists worldwide explain and justify their actions by reference to the Qur'an and Sunnah, the problem of seeing Islam as aggressive does not lie with "Islamophobes," but with Muslims.

* Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.

Yet again: "Islamophobes" did not invent the idea of Islam as a political ideology. The man who recently said that "Muslims will take over the world" was not an "Islamophobe." The Muslims who decided that the Year One of the Islamic calendar would not be the year of Muhammad's birth or death, or the beginning of his prophethood, but rather the year of his becoming a political and military leader, was not an "Islamophobe."

* Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.

What is this monolithic "Islam" that Safi envisions criticizing the West? But anyway, yes, they are dismissed, and should be, because while the West has many problems, Westerners would be deceiving themselves with D'Souza-like abandon if they imagined that addressing any of the Muslim grievances against the West would end the jihad. The jihad proceeds from Islam's supremacist imperative, which does not depend on anything non-Muslims do, but simply on the fact that they are non-Muslims. Qur'an 9:29 tells Muslims to fight the People of the Book, not just the evil or immoral People of the Book.

* Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. * Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

Hogwash. Jihad actions and other Islamic supremacist activity calls for defensive action by non-Muslims. That's all.

Anyway, here's the unintended irony. Safi says about me:

Out of the hundreds of the Qur’anic verses left out of Spencer’s discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Did you catch that? I supposedly ignore Qur'anic verses "that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace." In support of this Safi quotes 2:190-193, which I've actually discussed at some length in both The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. But here's the irony. That verse contains this: "fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God."

So Muslims are to fight until "the religion is only for God." They are to fight, in other words, until Islam reigns supreme, for Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah (Qur'an 3:85). If Muslims must fight until "the religion is only for God," they must fight until Islam is the dominant religion all over the world. So in accusing me of cherry-picking the Qur'an to portray Islam as violent, Safi has inadvertently highlighted a verse that is one of the principal foundations of the Islamic supremacist imperative.

Trouble Brews At Islamabad's Jihad-preaching Mosque

"We teach the students complete Islam...Jihad is a big pillar of Islam." And while putative Muslim reformers in the West self-righteously remind us that Islam is not a monolith and jihad is a spiritual struggle, these clerics and students in Islamabad teach jihad is warfare and peaceful Muslims have mounted no effective theological response to them.

From DPA, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

The hostage-taking of three police officers by students attached to Islamabad's notorious Red Mosque Wednesday again highlighted the rising strain of religious militancy in the very heart of the Pakistani capital.

If the police did not to release several of his students and teachers they would face a jihad, or holy war, warned cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi, deputy head of the Lal Masjid, or red mosque, and adjacent madrassa religious school where Osama bin Laden is regarded as "our hero".

But their arrest and the seizure of the officers and an alleged manager of a local brothel during a morality dispute is a sideshow to more sinister activity inside the giant complex with 11,000 students.

"We encourage our people to go and fight (foreign troops in Afghanistan)," Ghazi told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa during a recent visit.

Any means of stopping the "aggressors" was justified, including suicide bombings, and it was just a matter of time before the international contingents are forced to leave, he said.

Pakistan is a key ally of the United States in the war against terrorism, yet hatred towards the western "occupiers" in Afghanistan is openly preached a short distance from the offices of the prime minister, parliament and the Supreme Court.

Earlier attempts to take action against the complex were dropped amid fears of a broad backlash, leaving Ghazi free to impress the call to arms upon the 6,500 females and 4,500 males who take classes and worship on premises he jointly administers with his brother.

While a generation of young fighters appears to be taking shape under their tutelage, the state's authority now seems to end at the heavily guarded gates....

Foreign armies had no right to invade Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, says Ghazi, who in 1998 met al-Qaeda leader bin Laden in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

"They will never succeed, they will go, defeated like the Russians," he pronounces, before rhetorically asking how many of the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan would be willing to carry out a suicide attack on the Taliban.

Hearing the answer "none", Ghazi says opposition among the masses to western intervention can produce "hundreds of thousands of suicide bombers" eager to sacrifice themselves....

"We teach the students complete Islam," Ghazi explains, but noting that, "Jihad is a big pillar of Islam."

"We teach them the concept of jihad, not how to fight," he clarifies, confident of the superior determination of those waging the armed struggle.

"For us this life does not matter," says Ghazi. "(The fighting) will continue for some time, there will be a lot of casualties on our side, no doubt, but finally (the foreign troops) will retreat."

A return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan is the only solution for the country, he believes, while claiming that his men have contacts with the militant resistance and al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are alive and actively continuing the fight and neither their death or capture would not significantly weaken the effort, according to Ghazi.

"In our jihad a person is not important - another would just take over," he says.

As we have often noted here.

Four Muslims charged with terrorism in Denmark

An update on this story, from AFP:

COPENHAGEN (AFP) - Four young Muslims have been charged in Denmark with planning terrorist bombings in Denmark or abroad, the justice ministry said Wednesday.

The four men were accused of acquiring chemicals and laboratory instruments to make triacetone triperoxide (TATP) explosives, often used by suicide bombers.

TATP bombs were used in the July 2005 London bombings.

The identities of the four were not disclosed. They are residents of Denmark but do not hold Danish citizenship.

The men were part of a group of nine people arrested in a September 2006 swoop in Odense in central Denmark.

Three of the nine had been remanded in custody, while the six others, including the fourth person indicted on Wednesday, were released.

At the time of the raid, Danish Justice Minister Lene Espersen said that the discovery of the alleged terrorist cell was "the most serious" such case Denmark has known.

If convicted, the four face life sentences.

How two teens were recruited for jihad

An illuminating piece by Mushtaq Yusufzai and Carol Grisanti for NBC News (thanks to all who sent this in):

"We were told to fight against Israel, America and non-Muslims," said Muhammed Bakhtiar, 17, explaining why he wanted to become a suicide bomber. "We are so unhappy with our lives here. We have nothing," he said.

Last month, Bakhtiar and his school friend, Miraj Ahmad, also 17, left their home, families, and boarding school in Buner, a district of the Malakand Division of the Northwest Frontier Province. Their destination was the Muridke madrassa right outside of Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city. The madrassa or religious school is run by the Jama’at-ud-Da’awah, the charity linked to the outlawed terrorist organization, Lashkar e Taiba. And Lashkar e Taiba has links to al-Qaida.

The grounds of this madrassa looks much like the campus of any exclusive boys boarding school – except for the bearded armed guards sporting Kalashnikovs checking all those who come and go. There is a cricket field, swimming pool, all sorts of sport activities, and horses too. In addition to religious instruction, the school offers computer sciences, engineering and pre-med classes for students ranging in age from six to 17.

It also offers jihad.

"We read about jihad in books and wanted to join," said Ahmad. "We wanted to go to the Muridke madrassa so we would have a better life in the hereafter."

Recruited at local high school

Ahmad said that he and his friend Bakhtiar were recruited at their high school in Buner. The recruiter offered to take the boys to Muridke for two weeks of training and then to Peshawar where they would be introduced to people and make contacts.

"We were told it is our choice to become a freedom fighter or a suicide bomber," explained Ahmad, who had a neat beard and wore a white Muslim prayer cap. "But we should never fight against Pakistan."

Every morning the students were taught Islamic studies; afternoons were reserved for sports. Jihadi training was given in the evenings; two classes a night.

General McCaffrey: "No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection"

And why is that?

From the Washington Post:

The retired general, who on his latest visit also interviewed a U.S. intelligence official and some Iraqi officers, is especially critical of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is "despised" by the Sunnis, he writes, is seen as "untrustworthy and incompetent" by the Kurds, and now enjoys "little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged."

The government lacks dominance in every province, he added. One result is that "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

Militias and armed bands are "in some ways more capable of independent operations" than the Iraqi army, he added.

McCaffrey is gloomy about the continuing strength of the insurgency. At this point, he said, about 27,000 fighters are being held, and at least 20,000 others have been killed, yet enemy combatants continue to produce new leaders and foot soldiers. The result, five years into the war, he said, is that "their sophistication, numbers and lethality go up -- not down -- as they incur these staggering battle losses."

And why is that?

British hostages "confess" on Iranian TV

"Hopefully it won't be long till I'm home to get ready for Molly's birthday party and with a present from the Iranian people."

Oh, I am sure it will be a most memorable present.

"Paraded On Iranian TV," from SkyNews, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Footage of the 15 British sailors and marines being held in Iran has been aired by Iranian TV.

The pictures show the group being arrested, eating food in captivity and carries an interview with Leading Seaman Faye Turney.

Turney is seen looking worried, wearing Iranian clothes and smoking.

She says the group "trespassed" into Iranian waters.

"I was arrested on March 23 and obviously we tresspassed into their waters," she says.

"They were very friendly and very hospitable and nice people and explained to us why we were being arrested," she said.

"There was no hurt or no harm."

Turney is due to be released shortly, the Iranian government said, and will carry a letter to her parents "confessing" to what happened.

Turney said: "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering their waters.

"Please don't worry about me. I'm staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long till I'm home to get ready for Molly's birthday party and with a present from the Iranian people."

Shi'ite police reportedly rampage against Sunnis in Tal Afar

Tal Afar Update. "Shiite cops reportedly rampage vs. Sunnis," by Sinan Salaheddin for Associated Press:

BAGHDAD - Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in the northwestern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

The gunmen began roaming Sunni neighborhoods in the city, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician.

Ali al-Talafari, a Sunni member of the local Turkomen Front Party, said the Iraqi army had arrested 18 policemen accused of being involved after they were identified by the Sunni families targeted. But he said the attackers included Shiite militiamen.

He said more than 60 Sunnis had been killed, but a senior hospital official in Tal Afar put the death toll at 45, with four wounded.

The hospital official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, said the victims were men between the ages of 15 and 60, and they were killed with a shot to the back of the head.

Police said earlier dozens of Sunnis were killed or wounded, but they had no precise figures, and communications problems made it difficult to reach them for an update. The shooting continued for more than two hours, the officials said.

Army troops later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew was slapped on the entire town, according to Wathiq al-Hamdani, the provincial police chief and his head of operations, Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri.

"The situation is under control now," said al-Hamdani. "The local Tal Afar police have been confined to their bases and policemen from Mosul are moving there to replace them."

House votes to protect 'John Does' on flights

A major victory for common sense. By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times (thanks to Davida):

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans -- airline passengers included -- must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.

"All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something," said Mr. King.

"We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity," he said. "I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this."

Mr. King called it a "disgrace" that the suit seeks to identify "people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity."

Indeed.

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

So says the Russian News & Information Agency Novosti (thanks to Davida):

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

Brits To Be Paraded On TV

Iran follows its Hostage Crisis playbook, as the West reads out of the Jimmy Carter Hostage Crisis Response Handbook, at least so far. From SkyNews, with thanks to Mackie:

The British sailors and marines being held in Iran are to be paraded on television - but the female sailor who was captured could be released "today or tomorrow."

Turkish TV has quoted the Iranian foreign minister as saying Faye Turney could be freed within hours.

And an Arabic Iranian broadcaster says it will show footage of the captives on television.

The news comes after Tony Blair said the time had come to "ratchet up the pressure" on Iran.

Al-Qaeda says it struck at Tal Afar

Tal Afar Jihad Strike Update: "Iraq: Al-Qaeda Says It Struck In Talafar," from AKI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Baghdad, 28 March (AKI) - The 'Islamic State of Iraq' a name used by a group affiliated to al-Qaeda in Iraq has said it blew up two trucks - one in a crowded market - in the town of Talafar which killed some 60 people and injured scores more. In a statement posted on the Internet the group said it has carried out Tuesday's attack as part "of a noble plan called 'expeditions to avenge the honour' proclaimed by our emir Abu Omar al-Baghdadi."

The blasts marked one of the largest attacks in Talafar since US President Geroge W Bush used the town, which lies north of Baghdad near the Syrian border, to illustrate progress in Iraq.

According to witnesses one of the trucks stopped at the town's food market and the driver waited for hungry people - the town has experienced food shortages - to gather round the vehicle before detonating an explosive device.

Fitzgerald: Success in Tal Afar

Little more than a year ago, in Cleveland, President Bush delivered a speech, and at great length told the audience all about the "success" of his "strategy" in Tal Afar, a model city in what will be Iraq the Model (that's right -- Sunni Arab regimes everywhere will look on Shi'a dominated Iraq as a splendid model of what they can be, if only they get with the program).

Here is that speech. Read it, and weep, as a celebrated writer offhandedly wrote, "like a Babylonian willow":

President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom Renaissance Cleveland Hotel Cleveland, Ohio

12:25 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. Sanjiv, thanks for the introduction. He called me on the phone and said, listen, we believe in free speech, so you're going to come and give us a speech for free. (Laughter.) Thanks for the invitation, thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be here at the City Club of Cleveland.

For almost a century, you have provided an important forum for debate and discussion on the issues of the day. And I have come to discuss a vital issue of the day, which is the safety and security of every American -- and our need to achieve victory in the war on terror.

I want to thank the Mayor for joining us. Mr. Mayor, appreciate you being here. (Applause.) It must make you feel pretty good to get the "Most Liveable City" award. (Laughter.) I want to thank all the members of the City Club for graciously inviting me to come. I want to thank the students who are here. Thanks for your interest in your government. I look forward to giving you a speech and then answering questions, if you have any.

The central front on the war on terror is Iraq. And in the past few weeks, we've seen horrific images coming out of that country. We've seen a great house of worship -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in ruins after a brutal terrorist attack. We have seen reprisal attacks by armed militia on Sunni mosques. We have seen car bombs take the lives of shoppers in a crowded market in Sadr City. We've seen the bodies of scores of Iraqi men brutally executed or beaten to death.

The enemies of a free Iraq attacked the Golden Mosque for a reason: They know they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and coalition forces in a direct battle, so they're trying to provoke a civil war. By attacking one of Shia Islam's holiest sites, they hoped to incite violence that would drive Iraqis apart and stop their progress on the path to a free society.

The timing of the attack in Samarra is no accident. It comes at a moment when Iraq's elected leaders are working to form a unity government. Last December, four short months ago, more than 11 million people expressed their opinion. They said loud and clear at the ballot box that they desire a future of freedom and unity. And now it is time for the leaders to put aside their differences, reach out across political, religious, and sectarian lines, and form a unity government that will earn the trust and the confidence of all Iraqis. My administration, led by Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, is helping, and will continue to help the Iraqis achieve this goal.

The situation on the ground remains tense. And in the face of continued reports about killings and reprisals, I understand how some Americans have had their confidence shaken. Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they don't. So today I'd like to share a concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens. I'm going to tell you the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar, which was once a key base of operations for al Qaeda and is today a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq.

Tal Afar is a city of more than 200,000 residents, roughly the population of Akron, Ohio. In many ways, Tal Afar is a microcosm of Iraq: It has dozens of tribes of different ethnicity and religion. Most of the city residents are Sunnis of Turkmen origin. Tal Afar sits just 35 miles from the Syrian border. It was a strategic location for al Qaeda and their leader, Zarqawi. Now, it's important to remember what Al Qaeda has told us, their stated objectives. Their goal is to drive us out of Iraq so they can take the country over. Their goal is to overthrow moderate Muslim governments throughout the region. Their goal is to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America. To achieve this goal, they're recruiting terrorists from the Middle East to come into Iraq to infiltrate its cities, and to sow violence and destruction so that no legitimate government can exercise control. And Tal Afar was a key way station for their operations in Iraq.

After we removed Saddam Hussein in April 2003, the terrorists began moving into the city. They sought to divide Tal Afar's many ethnic and religious groups, and forged an alliance of convenience with those who benefitted from Saddam's regime and others with their own grievances. They skillfully used propaganda to foment hostility toward the coalition and the new Iraqi government. They exploited a weak economy to recruit young men to their cause. And by September 2004, the terrorists and insurgents had basically seized control of Tal Afar.

We recognized the situation was unacceptable. So we launched a military operation against them. After three days of heavy fighting, the terrorists and the insurgents fled the city. Our strategy at the time was to stay after the terrorists and keep them on the run. So coalition forces kept moving, kept pursuing the enemy and routing out the terrorists in other parts of Iraq

Unfortunately, in 2004 the local security forces there in Tal Afar weren't able to maintain order, and so the terrorists and the insurgents eventually moved back into the town. Because the terrorists threatened to murder the families of Tal Afar's police, its members rarely ventured out from the headquarters in an old Ottoman fortress. The terrorists also took over local mosques, forcing local imams out and insisting that the terrorist message of hatred and intolerance and violence be spread from the mosques. The same happened in Tal Afar's schools, where the terrorists eliminated real education and instead indoctrinated young men in their hateful ideology. By November 2004, two months after our operation to clear the city, the terrorists had returned to continue their brutal campaign of intimidation.

The return of al Qaeda meant the innocent civilians in Tal Afar were in a difficult position. Just put yourself in the shoes of the citizens of Tal Afar as all this was happening. On the one side, you hear coalition and Iraqi forces saying they're coming to protect you -- but they'd already come in once, and they had not stopped the terrorists from coming back. You worry that when the coalition goes after the terrorists, you or your family may be caught in the crossfire, and your city might be destroyed. You don't trust the police. You badly want to believe the coalition forces really can help you out, but three decades of Saddam's brutal rule have taught you a lesson: Don't stick your neck out for anybody.

On the other side, you see the terrorists and the insurgents. You know they mean business. They control the only hospital in town. You see that the mayor and other political figures are collaborating with the terrorists. You see how the people who worked as interpreters for the coalition forces are beheaded. You see a popular city councilman gunned down in front of his horrified wife and children. You see a respected Sheik and an Imam kidnapped and murdered. You see the terrorists deliberately firing mortars into playgrounds and soccer fields filled with children. You see communities becoming armed enclaves. If you are in a part of Tal Afar that was not considered friendly, you see that the terrorists cut off your basic services like electricity and water. You and your family feel besieged and you see no way out.

The savagery of the terrorists and insurgents who controlled Tal Afar is really hard for Americans to imagine. They enforced their rule through fear and intimidation -- and women and children were not spared. In one grim incident, the terrorists kidnapped a young boy from the hospital and killed him And then they booby-trapped his body and placed him along a road where his family would see him. And when the boy's father came to retrieve his son's body, he was blown up. These weren't random acts of violence; these were deliberate and highly organized attempts to maintain control through intimidation. In Tal Afar, the terrorists had schools for kidnapping and beheading and laying IEDs. And they sent a clear message to the citizens of the city: Anyone who dares oppose their reign of terror will be murdered.

As they enforced their rule by targeting civilians, they also preyed upon adolescents craving affirmation. Our troops found one Iraqi teenager who was taken from his family by the terrorists. The terrorists routinely abused him and violated his dignity. The terrorists offered him a chance to prove his manhood -- by holding the legs of captives as they were beheaded. When our forces interviewed this boy, he told them that his greatest aspiration was to be promoted to the killer who would behead the bound captives. Al Qaeda's idea of manhood may be fanatical and perverse, but it served two clear purposes: It helped provide recruits willing to commit any atrocity, and it enforced the rule of fear.

The result of this barbarity was a city where normal life had virtually ceased. Colonel H.R. McMaster of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment described it this way: "When you come into a place in the grip of al Qaeda, you see a ghost town. There are no children playing in the streets. Shops are closed and boarded. All construction is stopped. People stay inside, prisoners in their own homes." This is the brutal reality that al Qaeda wishes to impose on all the people of Iraq.

The ability of al Qaeda and its associates to retake Tal Afar was an example of something we saw elsewhere in Iraq. We recognized the problem, and we changed our strategy. Instead of coming in and removing the terrorists, and then moving on, the Iraqi government and the coalition adopted a new approach called clear, hold, and build. This new approach was made possible because of the significant gains made in training large numbers of highly capable Iraqi security forces. Under this new approach, Iraq and coalition -- Iraqi and coalition forces would clear a city of the terrorists, leave well-trained Iraqi units behind to hold the city, and work with local leaders to build the economic and political infrastructure Iraqis need to live in freedom.

One of the first tests of this new approach was Tal Afar. In May 2005, Colonel McMaster's unit was given responsibility for the western part of Nineva Province where Tal Afar is located, and two months later Iraq's national government announced that a major offensive to clear the city of the terrorists and insurgents would soon be launched. Iraqi and coalition forces first met with tribal leaders and local residents to listen to their grievances. One of the biggest complaints was the police force, which rarely ventured out of its headquarters. When it did venture, it was mostly to carry out sectarian reprisals. And so the national government sent out new leaders to head the force. The new leaders set about getting rid of the bad elements, and building a professional police force that all sides could have confidence in. We recognized it was important to listen to the representatives of Tal Afar's many ethnic and religious groups. It's an important part of helping to remove one of the leading sources of mistrust.

Next, Iraqi and army coalition forces spent weeks preparing for what they knew would be a tough military offensive. They built an 8-foot high, 12-mile long dirt wall that ringed the city. This wall was designed to cut off any escape for terrorists trying to evade security checkpoints. Iraqi and coalition forces also built temporary housing outside the city, so that Tal Afar's people would have places to go when the fighting started. Before the assault on the city, Iraqi and coalition forces initiated a series of operations in surrounding towns to eliminate safe havens and make it harder for fleeing terrorists to hide. These steps took time, but as life returned to these outlying towns, these operations helped persuade the population of Tal Afar that Iraqi and coalition forces were on their side against a common enemy: the extremists who had taken control of their city and their lives.

Only after all these steps did Iraqi and coalition authorities launch Operation Restoring Rights to clear the city of the terrorists. Iraqi forces took the lead. The primary force was 10 Iraqi battalions, backed by three coalition battalions. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space, hunting for the enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block by block. Throughout the operation, Iraqi and coalition forces were careful to hold their fire to let civilians pass safely out of the city. By focusing on securing the safety of Tal Afar's population, the Iraqi and coalition forces begin to win the trust of the city's residents -- which is critical to defeating the terrorists who were hiding among them.

After about two weeks of intense activity, coalition and Iraqi forces had killed about 150 terrorists and captured 850 more. The operation uncovered weapons caches loaded with small arms ammunition and ski masks, RPG rockets, grenade and machine gun ammunition, and fuses and batteries for making IEDs. In one cache we found an axe inscribed with the names of the victims the terrorists had beheaded. And the operation accomplished all this while protecting innocent civilians and inflicting minimal damage on the city.

After the main combat operations were over, Iraqi forces moved in to hold the city. Iraqis' government deployed more than a thousand Iraqi army soldiers and emergency police to keep order, and they were supported by a newly restored police force that would eventually grow to about 1,700 officers. As part of the new strategy we embedded coalition forces with the Iraqi police and with the army units patrolling Tal Afar to work with their Iraqi counterparts and to help them become more capable and more professional. In the weeks and months that followed, the Iraqi police built stations throughout Tal Afar -- and city residents began stepping forward to offer testimony against captured terrorists, and inform soldiers about where the remaining terrorists were hiding.

Inside the old Ottoman fortress, a Joint Coordination Center manned by Iraqi army and Iraqi police and coalition forces answers the many phone calls that now come into a new tip line. As a result of the tips, when someone tries to plant an IED in Tal Afar, it's often reported and disabled before it can do any harm. The Iraqi forces patrolling the cities are effective because they know the people, they know the language and they know the culture. And by turning control of these cities over to capable Iraqi troops and police, we give Iraqis confidence that they can determine their own destiny -- and that frees up coalition forces to hunt the high-value targets like Zarqawi.

The recent elections show us how Iraqis respond when they know they're safe Tal Afar is the largest city in Western Nineveh Province. In the elections held in January 2005, of about 190,000 registered voters, only 32,000 people went to the polls. Only Fallujah had a lower participation rate. By the time of the October referendum on the constitution and the December elections, Iraqi and coalition forces had secured Tal Afar and surrounding areas. The number of registered voters rose to about 204,000 -- and more than 175,000 turned out to vote in each election, more than 85 percent of the eligible voters in Western Nineva Province. These citizens turned out because they were determined to have a say in their nation's future, and they cast their ballots at polling stations that were guarded and secured by fellow Iraqis.

One young teacher described the change this way: "What you see here is hope -- the hope that Iraq will become safer and fairer. I feel very confident when I see so many people voting."

The confidence that has been restored to the people of Tal Afar is crucial to their efforts to rebuild their city. Immediately following the military operations, we helped the Iraqis set up humanitarian relief for the civilian population. We also set up a fund to reimburse innocent Iraqi families for damage done to their homes and businesses in the fight against the terrorists. The Iraqi government pledged $50 million to help reconstruct Tal Afar by paving roads, and rebuilding hospitals and schools, and by improving infrastructure from the electric grid to sewer and water systems. With their city now more secure, the people of Tal Afar are beginning to rebuild a better future for themselves and their children.

See, if you're a resident of Tal Afar today, this is what you're going to see: You see that the terrorist who once exercised brutal control over every aspect of your city has been killed or captured, or driven out, or put on the run. You see your children going to school and playing safely in the streets. You see the electricity and water service restored throughout the city. You see a police force that better reflects the ethnic and religious diversity of the communities they patrol. You see markets opening, and you hear the sound of construction equipment as buildings go up and homes are remade. In short, you see a city that is coming back to life.

The success of Tal Afar also shows how the three elements of our strategy in Iraq -- political, security, and economic -- depend on and reinforce one another. By working with local leaders to address community grievances, Iraqi and coalition forces helped build the political support needed to make the military operation a success. The military success against the terrorists helped give the citizens of Tal Afar security, and this allowed them to vote in the elections and begin to rebuild their city. And the economic rebuilding that is beginning to take place is giving Tal Afar residents a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but destruction and death, are becoming marginalized.

The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight -- it came only after much trial and error. It took time to understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq. Yet the strategy is working. And we know it's working because the people of Tal Afar are showing their gratitude for the good work that Americans have given on their behalf. A recent television report followed a guy named Captain Jesse Sellars on patrol, and described him as a "pied piper" with crowds of Iraqi children happily chanting his name as he greets locals with the words "Salaam alaikum," which mean "peace be with you."

When the newswoman asks the local merchant what would have happened a few months earlier if he'd been seen talking with an American, his answer was clear: "They'd have cut off my head, they would have beheaded me." Like thousands of others in Tal Afar, this man knows the true meaning of liberation.

Recently, Senator Joe Biden said that America cannot want peace for Iraqis more than they want it for themselves. I agree with that. And the story of Tal Afar shows that when Iraqis can count on a basic level of safety and security, they can live together peacefully. We saw this in Tal Afar after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Unlike other parts of Iraq, in Tal Afar the reaction was subdued, with few reports of sectarian violence. Actually, on the Friday after the attack, more than a thousand demonstrators gathered in Tal Afar to protest the attack peacefully.

The terrorists have not given up in Tal Afar, and they may yet succeed in exploding bomb or provoking acts of sectarian violence. The people of the city still have many challenges to overcome, including old-age [sic] resentments that still create suspicion, an economy that needs to create jobs and opportunity for its young, and determined enemies who will continue trying to foment a civil war to move back in. But the people of Tal Afar have shown why spreading liberty and democracy is at the heart of our strategy to defeat the terrorists. The people of Tal Afar have shown that Iraqis do want peace and freedom, and no one should underestimate them.

I wish I could tell you that the progress made in Tal Afar is the same in every single part of Iraq. It's not. Though most of the country has remained relatively peaceful, in some parts of Iraq the enemy is carrying out savage acts of violence, particularly in Baghdad and the surrounding areas of Baghdad. But the progress made in bringing more Iraqi security forces online is helping to bring peace and stability to Iraqi cities. The example of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy, because in this city we see the outlines of the Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting for: a free and secure people who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government and civic life, and who have become allies in the fight against the terrorists.

I believe that as Iraqis continue to see the benefits of liberty they will gain confidence in their future -- and they will work to ensure that common purpose trumps narrow sectarianism. And by standing with them in their hour of need, we're going to help the Iraqis build a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East; a democracy that will be a partner in the global war against the terrorists.

The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured. The enemy understands this, and it explains their continued acts of violence in Iraq. Yet the progress we and the Iraqi people are making is also real. And those in a position to know best are the Iraqis, themselves.

One of the most eloquent is the Mayor of Tal Afar, a courageous Iraqi man named Najim. Mayor Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the al Qaeda occupation, and he knows exactly what our troops have helped accomplish. He calls our men and women in uniform "lion-hearts," and in a letter to the troopers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke of a friendship sealed in blood and sacrifice. As Mayor Najim had this to say to the families of our fallen: "To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls [are] hovering around us every second of every minute. They will not be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life." America is proud of that sacrifice, and we're proud to have allies like Mayor Najim on our side in the fight for freedom.

Yesterday we marked the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time there is much to -- this time, there's much discussion in our country about the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision; the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. (Applause.)

Before we acted, his regime was defying U.N. resolutions calling for it to disarm; it was violating cease-fire agreements, was firing on British and American pilots which were enforcing no-fly zones. Saddam Hussein was a leader who brutalized his people, had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, and sponsored terrorism. Today Saddam Hussein is no longer oppressing his people or threatening the world. He's being tried for his crimes by the free citizens of a free Iraq -- and America and our allies are safer for it. (Applause.)

The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform has been heartening and inspiring.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh, or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror we face a global enemy -- and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan are democracies -- and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in the war on terror.

In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people -- and we will settle for nothing less than victory. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now. (Applause.)

Thanks for listening. (Applause.) And I'll be glad to answer some questions, if you have any.

Yes, I have one.

Could you tell us how it is, four years into a war, after 3,250 dead and 25,000 wounded, and nearly one trillion dollars either spent or committed, that you cannot figure out how the only outcome in Iraq that will actually weaken the Camp of Islam is offered not by your stated, naive, ill-informed goal, but by the opposite -- by the American troops leaving, and letting those sectarian and ethnic fissures work to divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam, and to use up Muslim energies, Muslim men, money, materiel (not only in Iraq, but from co-religioinists outside Iraq)?

How is it that you remain so completely oblivious to this, and so, apparently, do so many of those merely military men who advise you? They are "merely" military men in the sense that they have not understood the need to understand and to thoroughly assimilate the tenets of Islam, the attitudes of Islam, the atmospherics of Islam. Nor have they understood the necessity not to accept but to reject the "mission" as defined, however vaguely and incompletely and even at times incoherently, by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their stout loyalists among the "counter-insurgency" experts who fail to realize there is not one but a dozen "insurgencies," and that every single one of them, whatever the hatreds within Islam, is also directed, in the end, against Americans as Infidels. They do not understand that any "general laws of counter-insurgency" as to techniques, or as to duration, are simply silly unless Islam itself is understood, and the goals of the Iraq operation redefined to be what they should always have been, whether publicly stated or not: not to bring "freedom" ("democracy," "prosperity," whatever the hell else you want to stick in here that sounds good) to the "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, but only to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad.

And that can only be achieved, in Tel Afar as in Baghdad or Basra or Kirkuk, by getting out, and stopping the squandering of American resources, and doing such damage, incredible damage, to the military. That damages begins but does not end with the morale of the civilian army, that is plummteing because those who have served in Iraq once, however inarticulate some may be in expressing their views, know that the "mission" makes no sense and that the "Iraqi people" are not wonderful, are not grateful, are in fact on the whole deeply hostile. It is madness to sacrifice American soldiers, such as the boy from Maine blown up the other day while he was -- in what is a grim metaphor for the American winning of unwinnable hearts and minds -- handing out candy to Iraqi children, the ones still young enough (below the age of 10) not to be taught, quite enough, to hate the Americans.

Basta with Bush and the dream-palace, in Ajami's phrase, of his imaginary Arabs, and his imaginary Islam, and his imaginary Iraq.

I am John Doe

A magisterial column by Michelle Malkin (with video here):

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."

I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing "scholars."

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderates' clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about "profiling" or "Islamophobia."

I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq

Friend and Ally Alert. By Lydia Georgi for AFP, with thanks to Mackie:

RIYADH (AFP) - Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said.

He also said that Arab nations, which are planning to revive a five-year-old Middle East peace plan at the summit, would not allow any foreign force to decide the future of the region.

Really? What will they do to prevent this? Does this go for any attempt to stop Iran's genocidal nuclear ambitions also?

45 Iraqi Shi'ites massacred in reprisal attacks

Another indication of the fact that the Iraqi adventure was undertaken without sufficient understanding of the realities of Islam, much less of the Sunni/Shi'ite divide, which Condoleeza Rice recently asserted breezily that Middle Easterners would just have to "overcome." Yes, I'm sure they'll get right on that.

"45 Iraqis massacred in reprisal attacks," by Mujahid Mohammed for AFP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

MOSUL, Iraq (AFP) - Gunmen massacred 45 men in an overnight rampage in apparent revenge for bombings that killed 75 people in a mixed Iraqi town once hailed by US President George W. Bush as a beacon hope.

"We received 45 bodies of handcuffed and blindfolded men from al-Wahada neighbourhood overnight. They were killed yesterday just after the bomb," said a doctor at Tal Afar hospital in northern Iraq on Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The wanton shootings and lethal bombings underscore the raging Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that continues to grip the country, as well as a Sunni-led insurgency fighting against the Shiite-led government and its US backers.

Two bomb attacks in Tal Afar on Tuesday killed 75 people and wounded 190 in Shiite districts of the mixed town, which is witnessing its worst violence since Bush in March 2006 held up the onetime militant stronghold as a model for efforts to create a stable Iraq.

In the worst attack, a suicide bomber tricked soldiers into believing he was delivering food supplies to a Shiite area where he detonated his cargo of explosives within a crowd of waiting men and women.

"Everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace"

And so the learned terrorism expert just can't quite figure out what might have been the common denominator among the London would-be suicide bombers. This is a funny clip, but it isn't quite so funny when you realize that it could just as easily be not a segment from a parody news show, but a verbatim transcript of real-life analyses by all too many real-life terrorism "experts." Remember when 17 jihadists were arrested in Toronto last summer: the Toronto Star in all seriousness said that authorities were searching for a common denominator. Investigate the jihad ideology and call the local mosques to account? Pah! Everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace!

From Fox's Half Hour News Hour via YouTube, with thanks to Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett.

Saudi Foreign Minister to Israel: Accept peace plan or face war

Our Friend And Ally threatens our real friend and ally. "Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told," by David Blair in the Telegraph, with thanks to Jay:

The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.

As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails.

Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.

This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."

'Islam needs to reform'

In this Radio Netherlands interview (thanks to all who sent this in) by Michel Hoebink, the celebrated "apostate of Damascus," Sadiq al-Azm, says what I have been saying for years now: that genuine Islamic reform "requires a departure from the literal text of the Koran."

What is the difference between you and modernist reformers such as Fatima Mernissi and Abdolkarim Soroush?

People like Mernissi and Soroush pretend to reform Islam from the inside. They reform Islam as good Muslims. The group to which I belong does not do this. I want to reform the thinking of Muslims too, but I never pretended to do this from inside Islam or as a Muslim. I never made a concession on this matter.

So they are pretending?

Since the 19th Century, modernist thinkers have been haunted by rumours that they are not real believers, that they merely use religion as a means to mobilise people for reforms. And they even say so themselves: Until today, many of these reformers argue that, if you want to convince the people, you have to speak to them in their 'own language', that is to say: in religious terms.

This may be a valid argument, but it also reveals the instrumental way in which they think about religion.

I admit that it is easy for me to criticise them: I am a man of ideas, a public intellectual who is sometimes called upon to give his supposedly studied judgement on matters of public interest. I'm not involved in organising people and directing movements and so on.
Let me put it this way: In my view there is a division of labour in this effort of modernising Muslim societies.

Both approaches are valid. We need people who work on the inside and we also need people who work from the outside. But personally I think there is a certain intellectual dishonesty in this claim to reform Islam from the inside.

Can Islam be reformed at all?

I think so, but it requires a departure from the literal text of the Koran. That's a radical step, because the Muslim masses cling to the idea that the Koran is literally true. But it is obvious that the literal text of the Koran simply cannot be applied in modern society.
Take for instance the corporal punishments prescribed in the Koran. Radical Islamists want to impose them, but they are a minority.

The majority of Muslims have split personalities on this matter: They insist that this is the penal law of Islam and at the same time they admit that it is inapplicable. What I propose is to resolve this contradiction and officially state that the shari'a corporal punishments are obsolete.

The problem is that most of my colleagues who claim to reform Islam from the inside do not address this problem, probably because they fear it will alienate them from their audiences. Modernists such as Fatima Mernissi keep playing this game of quoting texts of Koran and Prophetic Traditions in support of their case, implicitly assuming the literal truth of these texts. And if they do not find anything that supports them, they twist and torture the meaning of the text until it suits their demands.

Read it all.

The Word Games That Hamas Plays

"Muslims will take over the world." An analysis by Steven Stalinsky in the New York Sun:

"I am confident that the siege will be partially broken, which will give our people an opportunity to be prepared for the forthcoming stage." — Khaled Meshaal, Asharq Al-Awsat, February 2

Has Hamas moderated? Or are the Palestinian Arab organization's leaders following in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat, discussing peaceful intentions in talks with the West while declaring jihad in Arabic?

During a press conference in Tehran with President Ahmadinejad on March 4, the political leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, said he supported the recently signed Mecca Accords for power sharing between Hamas and the Fatah Party of Arafat and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr. Meshaal also spoke in favor of other Palestinian Arab objectives, such as the establishment of a state with the 1967 borders and Jerusalem as its capital, and the so-called right of return.

Mr. Meshaal reiterated Hamas's position against official recognition of Israel, and he promised to continue the group's resistance. With a smile on his face, Mr. Ahmadinejad told the Hamas leader: "The Zionist entity is in the worst period in its history, and is headed toward crumbling. … The divine victory … will soon be revealed."

At an address at Al-Murabit Mosque in Damascus on February 3, 2006, Mr. Meshaal said publicly what some Palestinian Arabs have been talking about for some time with their press outlets: They will be patient in their battle against Israel. He promised, "Muslims will take over the world," and he explicitly said his organization's plan is to deceive Israel with semantics.

In his speech, the Hamas leader explained that his people are willing to continue fighting Israel even if it takes 1000 years for victory. Mr. Meshaal also said one aspect of Hamas's current strategy is to rely on such tools as using statements like "we love peace" or "we have given up the option of war," while still planning Israel's destruction.

And the West -- media and government elites -- fall for it every time.

"Youths" clash with police at Paris train station

Paris "youths" are at it again. "Clashes Erupt at Paris Train Station," by Jamey Keaten for Associated Press, with thanks to Mackie:

PARIS (AP) - Riot police firing tear gas and brandishing batons clashed Tuesday with bands of youths who shattered windows and looted shops at a major Paris train station, officials said. Nine people were arrested.

Officials said about 100 people were involved in the melee at Gare du Nord, one of Paris' most important transport hubs. Officers and police dogs fired tear gas and charged at groups of marauding youths, some of them wearing hoods and swinging metal bars.

The youths responded by throwing trash cans and other objects at the officers. A group of youths smashed the windows of a sporting goods store and looted boxes of shoes. Others attacked automatic drink dispensers and set fire to an information booth.

Commuter Cyril Zidou, a 24-year-old electrician, said he was coming home from the gym "when I just got gassed." One woman was evacuated by paramedics for inhalation of tear gas....

The train lines from Gare du Nord radiate out to the same suburbs north of Paris where three weeks of rioting erupted in 2005. That violence was born of pent-up anger - especially among youths of Arab and African origin - over years of high unemployment and racial inequalities.

No doubt they are Arab and African Methodists. In any case, one wonders how long the media will continue to tell people that this is all about unemployment and inequality when the rioters are the recipients of some of the most lavish welfare benefits available anywhere.

Muhammad Dawood (David Hicks) pleads guilty

Muhammad Dawood, aka David Hicks, whose case we have followed here for several years, has pled guilty to supporting terrorism. Hicks is one Muslim convert whose Muslim name has never been used in news reports about his case. Why is that? The media would never have stood for such treatment had its object been Cassius Clay or Lew Alcindor. Why is Muhammad Dawood different? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are cultural icons, while Muhammad Dawood is a would-be mass murderer?

In "Gun-toting jihadi was not an angel" in The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen sums up the Muhammad Dawood case, noting that the spin still goes on:

FINALLY David Hicks, also known as Abu Muslim al Australia, aka Abu Muslim Philippine, aka Muhammad Dawood, has pleaded guilty to the charge of providing material support for terrorism. And now watch as the real PR campaign goes into angelic overdrive. His vociferous cheer squad will proclaim his innocence, declaring the plea was the only way for Hicks to get out of Guantanamo Bay.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown was out in front. “His guilty plea is simply a plea for release, for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo Bay gulag,” he said. “And that’s a human response.” Spin doctors will bring up the rear, completing the sanitisation of a gun-toting Islamist revolutionary into an accidental, adventurous Australian tourist.

Before the book deals, chat shows, newspaper and television profiles get under way, it’s worth putting emotion to one side. Forget about the photos of an angelic nine-year-old with freckles and a crooked fringe. Forget about the ads where his father, Terry Hicks, declared his love for his son. Let’s come back to the inconvenient aspects of the Hicks saga, those that never make it on to a “Free Hicks” billboard: the law and the facts.

[...]

Now to the facts. Hicks has pleaded guilty to his extensive links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan, where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qa’ida training courses. The specification Hicks admits to sets out the extraordinary detail: he travelled to Afghanistan with the help of Lashkar-e-Toiba to attend al-Qa’ida terrorist training camps. He was schooled by al-Qa’ida in weapons familiarisation, landmines, tactics, basic explosives, guerilla warfare, ambush, camouflage and surveillance.

He then moved up the ladder to urban tactics training and surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul. The specification Hicks admits to traces how he went to Pakistan, only to return to Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks, joining al-Qa’ida forces at Kandahar airport, later travelling to the front lines in Kunduz to fight coalition forces. He was captured by the Northern Alliance in December 2001 while trying to flee to Pakistan.

Long before his admission yesterday, Hicks has made plenty of other, earlier admissions: training with the Kosovo Liberation Army in Albania and fighting with Lashkar-e-Toiba, where he “got to fire hundreds of rounds” into Indian-controlled Kashmir. In letters home to dad, he called himself a “well-trained and practical soldier”. He admitted to preparing for martyrdom because “the highest position in heaven” goes to those who “go fighting in the way of God against the friends of Satan”.

Hicks has called the Taliban regime “the best in the world” and congratulated the regime for running “the country by strict Islamic law”, making particular mention of the death sentence and “all Islamic punishments”. He urged “an Islamic revolution”, hoping that the Afghanistan model would “spread throughout the Muslim world” so that “Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim rule again”.

Read it all.

An Arabic holy book in a German court

In today's Jihad Watch video at Hot Air, I discuss the citing of the Qur'an as an authority in a German court -- a harbinger of things to come.

"Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to America. Oh noble leader, we are prepared."

Defiant in the face of a possible attack. They shout "Death to America," and we respond with renewed calls for negotiations. "Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Threatens to 'Strike at Them with All Our Capabilities' If Iran Is Attacked," from MEMRITV:

The following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Iranian Leader, Ali Khamenei, which aired on Khorasan TV on March 21, 2007.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1409

Ali Khamenei: "When the president of the Iranian people travels to countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, the peoples cry out slogans in his praise. They demonstrate in support of him. When the American president visits countries in South America, which is the backyard of the U.S.A, the peoples there welcome him by burning the American flag..."

Crowd chanting: "Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America"

[...]

"They threaten to impose sanctions on us. Sanctions cannot harm us. Haven't they imposed sanctions on us before? We achieved nuclear energy despite sanctions. We achieved scientific progress despite sanctions. We achieved the building of our country despite the sanctions. Under certain circumstances, sanctions can benefit us, because they intensify our will for effort and activity."

[...]

Crowd chanting: "Allah Akbar Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to America. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared."

Ali Khamenei: "Pay attention. If they want to use threats, impose [their will], and act aggressively, they should have no doubt that the Iranian people and officials will confront the enemies that want to attack us, and will strike at them with all our capabilities."

Russia warns U.S. against military action against Iran

Russia lines up with the global jihad. But it doesn't look as if they are absolutely impervious to reason about this. "Russia slams U.S. global policy," by Vladimir Isachenkov for Associated Press:

MOSCOW - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran.

But in a major review of foreign policy priorities, the ministry said Russia was ready to cooperate to end global crises if Washington treats it as an equal partner.

The statement reflects Russia's growing confidence and economic clout, and appears to be a signal to Washington that, while the two nations can work together, Russia will not always follow the U.S. lead. It also plays to national pride in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections.

Russia criticized what it called "the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran," saying that Iran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

At the same time, the ministry's paper assailed Iran for its "unconstructive" stance, reflecting growing Kremlin irritation with its ally's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, as the U.N. demands.

Glick: Rice "not working to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity"

In "Condi's embrace of jihadist 'peace,'" Caroline Glick discusses the activity of our appeasement-minded Secretary of State in light of Iran's kidnapping of British sailors:

...AGAINST THIS backdrop, and given the stakes involved, it could have been expected that the US and its allies would be concentrating their attention on how to weaken Iran and its terror proxies and curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But, alas, the US is doing just the opposite.

The Iranians acted as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was en route to the region. Since Friday, Rice has shuttled between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, and is on her way to Saudi Arabia. She is not working to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity. Rather, Rice is laboring to empower Teheran's terrorist allies in Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Fatah. This she does by promoting the so-called Arab peace plan, which demands that Israel agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.

In behaving thus, Rice is walking in the well-worn footsteps of her predecessors. Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.

Read it all.

Top Lebanese Sunni Cleric Fathi Yakan: Bin Laden a Man After My Own Heart; I Am Not Sad Because of 9/11 and I Have Never Condemned this Attack

Memo to Ibrahim Hooper and other "moderate" Muslim leaders: Fathi Yakan, despite his clerical training, is clearly yet another misunderstander of Islam. Please dispatch a team of your best men to Lebanon immediately, to inform him of the true, peaceful teachings of the religion.

From MEMRITV, with thanks to Nicolei:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese Sunni Cleric Fathi Yakan, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 16, 2007:

Fathi Yakan: There is no doubt that Sheik Osama bin Laden has a high level of faithfulness, trustworthiness, and transparency. He is faithful to his religion and to Jihad for the elevation of the word of Allah. Unfortunately, there have been many rumors that he is an American creation, and that all that is happening is the result of scenarios concocted by him and America, especially following the Russians withdrawal from Afghanistan. There were claims that these people were biased towards the Americans, and that America toyed with them, and so on. I believe this is all nonsense, and that this is totally untrue. This man has a pure, honest and believing personality. He defends all that belongs to Islam and who renounces anything that is not Islamic, and therefore, he is a man after my own heart....

[...]

Interviewer: But there was an operation, for which Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility - the bombing of the Twin Towers in America, and what was described as terrorist attacks against the Americans. In this case, for example, are you with him or against him? Were you happy when you saw the towers collapse?

Fathi Yakan: If we examine the ideology of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden in depth, we see that he has become completely convinced that the only way to curb the disease that is afflicting the Islamic world... The only way to stop this octopus is to crush the serpent's head.

Interviewer: Do you share this opinion?

Fathi Yakan: It's fine with me. I might have crushed the serpent's head in a different way. I might have crushed it by means of the Islamic resistance in South Lebanon, by attacking Israel. But Bin Laden said: "No, I will strike it in its own home. I will strike it in the World Trade Center, and shake its economic status." This is his methodology, and he should bear responsibility for it, but I am not sad or depressed that this happened, and I do not condemn it. In all honestly, I have never condemned this. Just like it had negative ramifications, it had positive ones as well.

Hirsi Ali under threat in US

This brings to mind the point Hugh Fitzgerald has often made -- about how much more dangerous, difficult, expensive, and uncomfortable massive Muslim immigration has made life in the West. Yet no one dares to examine immigration policies in that light -- as a national security issue.

From Expatica, with thanks to Anna:

AMSTERDAM – Former MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now in danger in the US as well. Her security has been stepped up for the past three weeks. Because of concrete threats, she is now receiving the same level of protection as she previously needed in the Netherlands, the Volkskrant reports.

Hirsi Ali had more freedom of movement when she first arrived in the US last September. Her lack of freedom in the Netherlands was one of the reasons for her move.

The forced isolation made it impossible for her to continue in her position as MP at the time, she said. The Liberal VVD politician had to travel by armoured car in the Netherlands, accompanied by six bodyguards. In the US just two security workers, who kept an eye on her from a distance, sufficed.

Fitzgerald: Not just a Shi'a doctrine

1) Taqiyya as a doctrine of religiously-sanctioned dissimulation originates in Shi'a Islam. And that is something that Sunnis like tell Infidels: "It's a Shi'a doctrine." In fact, a good example of this can be found in one of Tariq Ramadan's soft-spoken (so soft one could barely detect the serpentine hiss underneath his words, unless one already understood, in the well-prepared manner of Magdi Allam or Caroline Fourest, just what Frere Tariq was all about) essentially sinister appearances on "On Point," with the terminally ignorant (yet briskly self-confident withal) Tom Ashbrook. When a skeptical caller mentioned "taqiyya" Ramadan said quickly, "it is a Shi'a doctrine."

But if "taqiyya" is a Shi'a doctrine, the same kind of religious dissimulation can and has been derived independently from the texts -- Qur'an and Hadith -- of Islam. Robert Spencer shows that here.

Indeed, if one googles both "taqiyya" and "kitman" (the practice of "mental reservation" -- that is, of deliberately holding back, of not telling the whole story, the full truth, in order to protect the Faith from inquiring Infidels), one realizes that in history "taqiyya" deception has been practiced by Sunni Muslims, with Infidels, whenever they have felt it necessary. And that deception has, nota bene, the repeated sanction of Muhammad's own words, and his exemplary example.

2) The second thing to note about "taqiyya" being a doctrine that originates in Shi'a Islam is that this demonstrates something important.

What is that something? Well, we are hearing, and shall hear even more when the Americans (thank god) leave Tarbaby Iraq, that "those Americans caused the hostility in Iraq between formerly peaceful Sunnis and Shi'a who had always lived in harmony." A variant on this is equally false: the statement that "the Sunnis and Shi'a had always lived in harmony until Saddam Hussein came long." This is a phrase that is actually believed by some Iraqis -- even the "moderates," who also believe, just as dreamily, that "the Jews in Iraq had no problems until the creation of the state of Israel."

"Taqiyya" is a doctrine that goes back to early Islam and the persecution of Shi'a by Sunnis. The split between Shi'a and Sunni is not something that happened yesterday. It did not happen, like the Reformation in Christianity, after 1500 years of unity in the Western Church. It dates back to the first century of Islam. While some (such as the egregious Dinesh D'Souza) may wish to minimize those differences, or declare them, bizarrely, to be "political" rather than "religious" (apparently D'Souza missed his Master Lewis' discussion of how there is no split in the belief-system of Islam between the "religious" and the "political"), the depth and duration and above all, murderousness, of those divisions, could be seen a thousand years before the founding of the American Republic.

And the doctrine of "taqiyya" originates among the Shi'a who were told to dissimulate, not because the Americans or Israelis or British were coming, but because the Sunnis were coming, and how.

Taqiyya nonsense about the "real meaning of Jihad" is frequently on view at our nation’s universities. A little less than a year ago I was notified of one such display at the Harvard Divinity School. The public face of that particular public-relations effort was an Ahmadiyya Muslim, who perhaps had decided that his own very marginal and persecuted (as not being true Islam) sect was just the ticket for misleading both Infidels and possibly even a few thoroughly Westernized Muslims who are living in this country -- the ones who out of filial piety are eager to believe that the real Islam (that of the billion or so people living in Islamic societies) simply reflects a Big Misunderstanding. If we all pretend that "Jihad" doesn't mean what it means, will it go away?

No. It will not.

The site www.faithfreedom.org is one to be recommended as an antidote to taqiyya, to those who would like a view of Islam from its defectors. This is just as one would have learned most about Communism and the KGB (or the NKVD, or the Cheka) and the Comintern from defectors. Why are ex-Muslims not consulted? Why don’t the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have them on the payroll? Why are they not brought in to lecture on how Muslims view the world, or the practice of taqiyya and kitman, and the really very repetitive means by which the nature of Islam is hidden from inspection -- through taqiyya and tu quoque, selective quotation, misinterpretation, ignoring of abrogation, and even a little overlooking of the Hadith and the Sira, so that only the Qur'an is discussed? Who can explain all of this better to that Innocent Creature, an FBI or CIA employee, than an ex-Muslim?

Fitzgerald: Hassan, Makiya, and the "Sunni Kurds"

Smooth-talking Prince Hassan, patron and host of Bernard Lewis (a picture of Lewis in Hassan's tent can be found, placed with deliberate pride, on one of Lewis' recent books), likes to talk about the "Arabs" and "the Arab," in nicely-inflected British English. And he, rather than his thick-necked nephew, has become the true inheritor of the "moderate" mantle -- not to be confused with any immoderate keffiyeh -- of his brother, "plucky little king" Hussein. But from time to time the mantle, used as a mask (wrapped around the face, covering everything below those liquid brown eyes), drops, and Hassan appears, the real Hassan, defender of the Faith, and of the Sunni Faith.

Well, here he is. He wants, as do the rulers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Americans to stay and protect the Sunnis and prevent what the Americans, if they have any sense left, will not try to prevent. One piquant detail: Hassan tells us that the Kurds are Sunnis. Yes, they for the most part are. But so what? Their resentment and even hatred of the Arabs, and especially of the Sunni Arabs who have ruled over them, more than makes up for the fact that they share "Sunni" Islam with the Sunni Arabs.

What Hassan simply cannot recognize, any more than the Sunni Arabs in Iraq can recognize, is that the Kurds want out. They've had it with the Arabs. Au ras-le-bol. And if they've had it, so have many non-Arab Muslims, such as the most advanced Berbers, in Algeria, in other parts of the Maghreb, and in France itself. The small organization of maghrebins laiques (secular Maghrebins) in France appeals mostly to Berbers, not Arabs. And that makes sense. For the Berbers, like the Kurds, have another identity, an ethnic one, that plays against, rather than as "Uruba" or Arabness, merely reinforces, one's sense of oneself as a Muslim and nothing but a Muslim. And the creation of an independent Kurdistan will inspire those other non-Muslim Arabs. For Infidels, and for those non-Muslim Arabs, that is a Good Thing.

We want to press the matter home. We want to show how indifferent the Arabs are to the wellbeing of non-Arab Muslims. And Prince Hassan has done just that in his bland remark about the Kurds being "Sunnis" -- and therefore he wishes that their numbers should be toted up, by the world that counts, in the column of Sunnis. But he ignores Al-Anfal, the Sunni-led massacre of 182,000 Kurds, and all the other mistreatment of the Kurds by the Arabs.

In the same way, the westernized secularized Kanan Makiya, who now teaches at Brandeis, ignores what needs the most attention. In a recent article he is described as trying to figure out "what went wrong" in Iraq. He has apparently made the mistake of other advanced, westernized, secularized, long-in-exile Iraqis, who simply did not know, or refused to recognize, the violence, the aggression, the habit of mental submission, the ingrained inshallah-fatalism, that characterize the Iraqi masses, because those masses are Muslims, raised in a society suffused with Islam. That is something that the most unrepresentative "representative" men coming out of those societies, such as Chalabi and Makiya, do not themselves recognize. And what's worse, they mislead the largely ignorant policymakers in the West, including those who believed, with Bernard Lewis, that Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations could in fact be created, and who foresaw that the "liberation of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession," and who even today refuse to confront their own part in misreading Iraq, and misleading the American ignoramuses and naifs, on their messy messianic mission. All that Iraq should mean for Americans and other Infidels is a place to exploit the natural fissues, sectarian and ethnic, in the Islamic world, so as to weaken the advance of the worldwide Jihad. Yet these are the fissures which Prince Hassan so tellingly cannot quite comprehend, as he ignores the ethnic fissure: the Kurds who correctly want to be free of the Arabs after all that the Arabs during the entire history of modern Iraq have done to them -- stealing their oil, stealing their land, and massacring them by the hundreds of thousands.

Makiya wrote a book about the Kurdish massacres. He couldn't understand, in that book, the silence of so many. Why didn't other Arabs in Iraq protest? Why was he, Kanan Makiya, virtually the only one? Why, he might have further asked, didn't the Arab League protest? Why didn't any Arab head of state protest? Why was there silence about the massacring of the Kurds?

But the greatest failure of Makiya in that book is his apparent inability to recognize that the indifference or even approval of other Arabs is no mystery. It is as one with the Arab indifference to the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs in Algeria, who would deny the Berbers their rights to preserve and use their own language and their own folkways. It is as one with the support given, and interference at the U.N. and other forums run by, the Arabs -- all the Arabs in the Arab League, without exception -- for the massacre by Arabs in the Sudan of those perceived to be non-Arab Muslims in Darfur.

In a sense, both Prince Hassan (who fails to see why the Kurds should not be included in the column of "Sunni Arabs") and Kanan Makiya (who has failed to see why the Arabs outside Iraq never protested the massacre of the Arabs) show the limits of those "moderates," who, no matter how outwardly well-spoken or seemingly Western in their ways, in the end cannot dare to examine Islam. This is what it does to the people who, through no fault of their own, are born into it and swim in societies suffused with it: even a Makiya or a Prince Hassan cannot begin to see that Islam is, and always will be, a vehicle for Arab imperialism -- as the Kurds of Iraq, even the "Sunni" Kurds of Iraq, and so many other non-Arab Muslim victims of Arab Muslim oppressors, can testify.

Four suspected jihadists arrested in France

Eurabia Alert. "Four suspected Islamists held in France," from AFP:

PARIS, March 26, 2007 (AFP) - Four men of north African origin were arrested Monday in an investigation into a suspected Islamist underground network, police said.

The men, aged between 30 and 40, were detained in dawn raids at Trappes, in the southwestern Paris outskirts.

Police said they had links with an Islamist group that was dismantled in September 2005. Four of that group's members -- including suspected leader Safe Bourrada -- are under investigation on terrorist charges.

Al-Qaeda urges jihadists to go to Somalia

A call for reinforcements in the jihad against "the Abyssinian occupiers and their apostate lackeys." Somalia Jihad Update. "Al-Qaida urges jihadis to go to Somalia," by Shaun Waterman for UPI:

WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- Al-Qaida has urged Islamic extremists around the world, especially in the information sphere to aid Islamic militias in Somalia.

In a new video released at the weekend by the group's official media arm, the as-Sahab Institute, Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent al-Qaida leader called on "my Muslim brothers to stand with their brothers (in Somalia) and go forth to fight at their side."

"All the things which make jihad an individual duty are present in their battle against the Abyssinian occupiers and their apostate lackeys," he said about the situation in Somalia, a reference to the Ethiopian military that in December ousted the Islamic Courts Union, the Islamic militia coalition that had controlled most of the country.

Al-Libi's comments in Arabic were translated in English subtitles by as-Sahab. The material quoted came from a transcript provided by IntelCenter, a private sector consultancy that tracks Islamic web sites for U.S. government agencies.

Al-Libi said the mujahedin, or Muslim holy warriors, should not make distinctions based on the legal or strategic claims of the occupying forces.

"Light a fire and make a volcano erupt under the feet of the invading occupiers regardless of their creed and their cover, and whether they invaded your country on the back of tanks and with the power of iron and fire, as Nazarene Ethiopia did, or came to you under the cloak of international legitimacy, Security Council resolutions, peacekeeping forces, or the African Union," he said.

Al-Libi made what he called "a special request" of the mujahedin "on the information front-line," whose contribution, "incitement to fighting," was, he said, "among the most honorable of devotions and loftiest of acts of obedience."

Hamas leader: "Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world"

Senior Hamas leader and former PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar makes an open declaration of Islamic supremacism. Expect CAIR's Hooper and a host of others to condemn him forthwith for "Islamophobia."

"'Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world,' says Hamas leader Al-Zahar," by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook for PMW, with thanks to Atlas Shrugs:

While the Hamas goal of destroying Israel is well known, its aspiration for Islamic subjugation of the entire world is just as basic to Hamas dogma. Both aims appear in the Hamas Charter as God's irrepressible will, and both aims were reiterated this week by senior Hamas leader and former PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar.

At a mass rally in memory of Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, Al-Zahar said that the Quran promises the "liberation of all of Palestine," meaning the destruction of Israel. He went so far as to challenge the Islamic faith of those who deny this goal: "No one can deny it. One who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.”

Regarding the Hamas religious goal of Islamic world domination, he said: “Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world.”

Below is the translation of Al-Zahar’s speech:

[Mahmoud] Al-Zahhar spoke at the mass rally held on the memorial day for Sheikh Ahmad Yassin…

Al-Zahhar emphasized that the Islamic Movement’s [Hamas'] position concerning the problem of the liberation of Palestine is clear and known, and said: "We have two important foundations: One is Quranic and the other is prophetic. The Quranic: The divine promise made in the ‘Al-Israa Sura’ [Chapter 17] is that we will liberate the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, 'and we will enter it as we have entered it the first time.' [paraphrasing Sura 17 (The Night Journey), verse 7]. And the prophetic foundation is the message of the prophet Muhammad, that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."

And added: "Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Quranic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.” [Al-Ayyam, March 25, 2007]

Gunbattle at 'Jihad' Rally Kills 6 at Pakistani High School

"They wanted to speak with the boys and motivate them for jihad." Gimme a J!

From AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Police challenged a group of suspected militants Monday at a high school in northwestern Pakistan after hearing that they wanted to "motivate" students for holy war, sparking a gunbattle that left six people dead, police said.

Five militants and one police officer were killed in the shooting at the privately run Oxford Public School in Tank, a town about 60 miles from the Afghan border, said Javed Khan, a local police officer. It was unclear whether any students were hurt.

Khan said the militants told the administrators of the boys' school to assemble the students so the militants could address them.

"They wanted to speak with the boys and motivate them for jihad," Khan said by telephone from Tank.

He described the militants as "local Taliban," a term commonly used to describe militants in the tribal belt along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

Fitzgerald: History, history

Robert Spencer has mentioned that someone with a reasonable knowledge of the worldview of Islam, of what Islam inculcates, would not have been a booster of the Iraq the Model (or Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations) Project. For one would have known that "democracy" in the Western sense is not possible -- that is, a democracy that would enshrine the rights of the individual (as expressed in the American Bill of Rights, or in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), insist upon legal equality for non-Muslims and for women, and, above all, be based on a system that would require the people in Iraq (not the "Iraqi people" in whom Bush so devoutly appears to believe) to locate political legitimacy in the expressed will of the people. (See the social-contract theories, see Hobbes, see Locke, see Rousseau, and go right up to Rawls, by which governments are legitimated by appeal to that will.)

The people in Iraq do not believe that it is the expressed will of the people that matters, but rather the will expressed by Allah in Qur'an (and glossed by the Sunnah). But Bush scarcely knew or knows a thing about Islam. His chief advisors on the subject have been, inter alios, a professor of law in Ohio. And how did Karen Hughes, our great expert in "reaching out" (something that in any case is completely contrary to what should be done) to the world of Islam, decide that this was just one more little topic, easily mastered, and that in no time at all, by meeting with Saudi ambassadors and suchlike, they'd get the hang of it?

But, you will say, didn't Kanan Makiya and Ahmed Chalabi explain that everything would be all right? Didn't Bernard Lewis think it would all work out fine? And what about all those predictions -- Paul Wolfowitz claiming the entire war and brief occupation, so very brief, would cost some tens of billions of dollars, or that other fellow, the one who said it would be "walk in the park"? What about Richard Perle, who was so sound when he was Henry Jackson's deputy but apparently not eager to study Islam himself? Instead he and the rest were willing to rely on those nice unrepresentative Shi'a-in-exile who were all over Washington. It is they who deserve the most credit for the war in Iraq. It is they who held out the promise of so much, in their desire to convince or inveigle the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein.

And Lewis himself, who has Arab visitors to his house to see his rarities in Princeton, always seems so impressed with those Arabs and Muslims who share one important characteristic: they all appear to be so impressed with Bernard Lewis. And so Ahmed Chalabi was seen as an Iraqi attuned to Iraqi reality, when Ahmed Chalabi in fact had been out of Iraq for 45 years. After all, he was a serious mathematician, with a doctorate from the University of Chicago to prove it. (And what has become of Waring's Problem, since it gave Chalabi, or he gave it, the slip?) And then there was Kanan Makiya, author of "The Republic of Fear" and stout oppononent of both Saddam Hussein and that other bully, this one in so-called intellectual matters, Edward Said. And there was also that charming Arab lady interested in rescuing the Arab world, who was, and perhaps still is, a great and good friend of Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz may have learned from her, rather than from quiet days and nights among the books, nights spent not only studying but taking in, assimilating, the material -- which requires the quiet that the hectic vacancy of Washington so seldom permits.

And then there was not only Islam, but history itself. Where was the study of the divide between Sunni and Shi'a? It was seen as something temporary, something that could and would be bridged. After all, were there not Sunni-Shi'a marriages? Were there not good Sunnis and good Shi'a -- precisely the kind one would find among the secularized and outwardly westernized elites in exile, the very people who knew each other and who presented themselves as "representative" Iraqis?

Lewis might have been dreaming, for all we know, of an Iraq that would be run by his friends and acquaintances, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya and Mithal al-Alusi and all the other unrepresentative representative men. How many votes did the slate of Ahmed Chalabi receive? Compare that result with the slate of Moqtada al-Sadr, or the parties controlled by people only a tad less unpleasant than Moqtada al-Sadr. And if the Sunnis were really to participate wholeheartedly in one of those purple-thumbed supposedly majestic exercises in voting, for whom would they vote? Mithal al-Alusi? Well, no, because when he ran, on his own, he received 4,500 votes in a country of 27 million.

The clash between Sunnis and Shi'a goes back to earliest Islam. The depth and duration of that hostility, which in history-haunted Islam can be so easily evoked, so easily brought up and made more real for those living in the present than the present itself, was simply ignored by these Iraqis-in-exile. Party, it was a function of their own ignorance. They really thought that the "problem" of Iraq was Saddam Hussein and the last thirty years. They didn't know Iraq's history. Had they spent time reading, say, Elie Kedourie (oh, but he doesn't count because he was Jewish and as an adult lived in England? So his meticulous and dry studies count for nothing? Is that it?), they would have seen the history of suppression of enemies, of endemic violence, of palace coups. Remember "strongman" Nuri es-Said? They would have read about that early revolt of the Shi'a tribes, who were unwilling to be ruled, as the British wanted them to be ruled, by a Sunni king and a Sunni elite (see "The Letters of Gertrude Bell").

Islam was not understood. Iraq was wilfully misunderstood.

Otherwise, the American government, the Bush Administration, knew -- and knows -- exactly what it is doing.

History, history.

Fitzgerald: A florilegium of quotes

A Florilegium of Quotes. Email them to friends, print them out and magnetically affix them to your refrigerator door, so that the contents become imprinted in your brain:

#1. The Commander of the British Forces that wrested Mesopotamia [Iraq] from the Turks, 1917:

"To the People of the Baghdad Vilayet... our armies have not come into your Cities and Lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators. Since the days of Hulaku your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of Strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken into desolation and you yourselves have groaned in bondage. ...It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance that you should prosper ...But you, the people of Baghdad, ... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised again. O! People of Baghdad. ... I am commanded to invite you, through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West in realising the aspirations of your race."

[Source: Atiyyah, Ghassan: Iraq : 1908 - 1921 : A Socio - Political Study. - Beirut : The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1973 p. 151.]
___________________________________________

#2. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“In the light of the events of the last two months there's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know. I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern - and failed. I personally thought we tried to govern too much, but I hoped that things would hold out till Sir Percy came back and that the transition from British to native rule might be made peacefully, in which case much of what we have done might have been made use of. Now I fear that that will be impossible.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]

__________________________________________

#3. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“We as outsiders can't differentiate between Sunni and Shi'ah, but leave it to them and they'll get over the difficulty by some kind of hanky panky, just as the Turks did, and for the present it's the only way of getting over it. I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]
__________________________________________

#4. King Faisal of Iraq, 1933:

"Regrettably, I can say there is no Iraqi people yet, but only deluded human groups void of any national idea. Iraqis are not only disunited but evil-motivated, anarchy prone and always ready to prey on their government." – King Faisal I, writing in his memoirs shortly before he died in 1933.
________________________________________

#5. “There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” – Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
________________________________________

#6. In "The Chatham House Version" the scholar Elie Kedourie comments dryly on the description by the far-less-great scholar Majid Kadduri (in his own book, "Independent Iraq") of “the wise leadership of Faisal, who inspired public spirit in every department of government”:

“If this [Khadduri's description of Faisal] were in any way true, there would be no accounting for the degraded and murderous politics of Iraq from the end of the mandate to the end of the monarchy.” [i.e., from 1932 to 1958, when first Qassem, and then the Ba'athists, took over, and things became even more degraded and much, much more murderous].

“The fact is, of course, that this kind of language is most inappropriate to Iraq under the monarchy or afterwards.”
.........
“Lack of scruple greater or lesser, cupidity more or less unrestrained, ability to plot more or less consummate, bloodlust more or less obsessive: these rather are the terms which the historian must use who surveys this unfortunate polity [modern Iraq] and those into whose power it was delivered.”
______________________________________________

Do you think such material, had it been thoroughly read in its full context and digested, might have helped make American policymakers a bit more realistic and less messianic about Iraq? Do you think Richard Perle would not have so excitedly declared in 2003 that he wouldn't be surprised if a boulevard were named after George Bush in Baghdad? Or that Wolfowitz would estimate that the "cost" of the Iraq War might be "$20 billion," and therefore so much more of a bargain than the cost of the sanctions program -- when the cost now, at a minimum, has been estimated at between $1 and $2 trillion dollars, if the costs incurred for the treatment of the wounded, and the macroeconomic costs are factored in? (See the paper of Stiglitz and Bilmes, and if you wish, forget the macroeconomic costs and take the lower figure, and if you like, reduce even that to something we can all agree on as an absolute base -- say, $750 billion.) Or that Bernard Lewis would confidently predict that when the Americans overturned the regime the spectacle of rapture and gratitude in Baghdad "would make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession"?

They forgot all this, or didn't know it, with their narrow certainties and dependence on Bernard Lewis. A false choice was offered: on the one hand there was the usual crew of appeasers and hirelings and simply ignoramuses (and they were and are appeasers and hirelings and ignoramuses), people who cannot conceive of Islam being the problem. These were the espositos and william-polks and scowcrofts and the djerijians, who wanted nothing done to upset anyone. They are appeasers and idiots. On the other hand there was the belief of Harold Rhode, so uncritically worshipful of Bernard Lewis, and Douglas Feith -- so dependent on Harold Rhode. There was Cheney, who was so certain about so many things, and similarly thought Lewis the last word on everything to do with Islam and Iraq. There was not a hint of any consulting with the live J. B. Kelly, or the writings of the dead Kedourie, or for that matter with others, including Bat Ye'or. It was apparently a false polarity: either Lewis, or the likes of such apologists as Esposito, or just as bad, that fake "old Iraq" hand William Polk, with his predictable appeasements. No other conceivable alternatives.

There is a good deal that Bernard Lewis is able to forget, or didn't know. Look at his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords, and his grotesque minimizing of the menace of Islam and the mistreatment of the dhimmis, quite unlike his two coevals S. D. Goitein and Gustave von Grunebaum on the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islam. What did he think would almost certainly happen once the despotism of the Sunni Saddam Hussein was removed?

And wouldn't a knowledge of Islam have told these analysts something about the prospects for real "democracy" as opposed to the vote-counting that the Shi'a were happy to participate in, in which they voted for whomever their leaders told them to vote lemming-like for? In other words, isn't a knowledge both of Islam and of the history of Iraq essential, so as not to engage in the kind of folly that is being engaged in?

The Americans, had they informed themselves, would then most likely either have

1) left Saddam Hussein in place, if indeed there was no real reason to suspect his possession, or his being able to acquire, weapons of mass destruction; or,

2) removed him, if there was indeed sufficient reason to believe that he either had or was attempting to acquire, or could soon start acquiring or making, such weapons, and then left Iraq. We still do not know whether or not Saddam was doing that, but those of us who were long willing to believe that the government was reasonable in fearing the existence of WMDs or of the ability of the regime to acquire them -- I was one of them -- are looking more abashed every day.

What are the most important things to study to figure out what makes sense for the wellbeing of Infidels at this moment in Iraq, given the instruments of Jihad as we can now identify them, and the behavior, ignorant and often pusillanimous, of much of the Western world?

It is history. The history of Islam, both doctrine and practice. The history of Iraq, especially of Iraq since 1920.

Not "psychoanalysis." Not the "generally applicable rules of counter-insurgency" such as "insurgencies tend, on average, to last 10 years." Islam. Iraq. History.

Yemen: Frenchman throws Qur'an on ground; five injured, vehicles set aflame, troops called in

Beyond parody. "At least 4 Yemenis, French man injured in clashes at gas plant," from The Associated Press, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

SANAA, Yemen: At least four Yemenis and a French man were injured in clashes Sunday between local and foreign workers at a gas plant in Yemen, prompting government troops to intervene to restore calm, security officials said.

The violence began when a French employee at a natural gas liquefaction plant being constructed by Yemen LNG in the coastal city of Balhaf threw a copy of the Koran, Islam's holy book, on the ground, a move that angered Yemeni workers at the plant site, the Yemeni officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The enraged Yemenis reacted by attacking the French employee and setting fire to a helicopter and a large number of vehicles inside the plant site, the officials said.

Four Yemeni workers and the French man were injured in the melee, the officials added.

The Yemenis also tried to attack expatriate workers in their camp inside the plant site but were pushed back by Yemeni troops who intervened with tanks and armored vehicles to contain the violence and restore calm.

Australian imams stand by outspoken Muslim leader

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: why isn't the vast majority of peaceful, moderate Muslims rising up and demanding the removal of the "uncovered meat" Sheikh?

From the NZPA, with thanks to all who sent this in:

CANBERRA: A meeting of Australia's imams has given the outspoken spiritual leader of the country's Muslims an extra three months in his job, angering the government.

A meeting of about 60 imams late decided against sacking the mufti of the nation's biggest mosque, Sheikh Taj El-Din Hilaly, who was accused of justifying rape last year when he compared immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat.

Imams council spokesman Mohamad Abdalla said the meeting voted to consult the country's 280,000 Muslims about Hilaly's future, angering Prime Minister John Howard who said the decision was out of touch with the views of the community.

"They're exercising their right. But I think they're doing their community damage," Howard told Sky television.

"The failure of the community to do something more decisive about this is damaging the image of Islamic Australians as part of our community. I think the impact of this decision will be extremely negative."

Jordan's Crown Prince: Iraq’s break-up will lead to ‘100 Years War’

As Hugh Fitzgerald has discussed here many times, Western governments should evaluate this possibility solely from the standpoint of whether or not it would help them defend their countries against the advance of the global jihad.

"Iraq’s break-up will lead to ‘100 Years War,’" from Today's Zaman:

The idea of splitting Iraq into three -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shia -- has been circulating for a while in the US and Israel. Do you think it could be a remedy?

The definition of Sunni and Shia is an erroneous one, because after all many of the Kurds are Sunni and if we add Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds, then we are talking a majority in numerical terms.

Secondly, the sectarian realties of Iraq were contained between 1925 and 1958 by the constitution of the monarchy that was established by my late great uncle King Faisal I on the basis of power-sharing arrangements whereby the central budget was shared in terms of returns equitably by all Iraqis. I want to remind you that since the invasion of Iraq … returns in oil have not been financed in an equitable manner as to be shared by all Iraqis.

Much of the fight continues on the basis of serious mistakes recognized today, but too late, by the Americans, i.e., dissolving the armed forces providing the resistance with such a large number of well-trained fighters, and indeed not securing the weapons stocks, arms arsenals or the opening the Iranian border and then closing it after Iranians had clearly taken advantage of this open border policy. I think as far as the destruction of Iraq, the breakup of the country is not preordained and I don't think it should be self-realizing.

At this point I want to cite the Clean Break paper of 1996 attributed to the conservatives in the US. It seems to me that the concept of pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, supra-national identity was actually taken to pieces by this paper, arguing somehow that fragmentation was taking place in that part of the world, so let us take full advantage of this. Muslims and Arabs do not need enemies as they are doing an excellent job of destroying each other. Of course this plays into the hands of Israeli extremists that believe Israel should emerge as the dominating minority in a region of minorities or a mosaic of minorities.

I understand you are vehemently against the idea?

I think it would be a disaster; fragmentation of Iraq, fragmentation of Sudan, fragmentation of Lebanon would be the beginning of the end and we are already on a runaway train.

What you mean by the 'end'?

End of the Westphalian system, the end of the Middle Eastern community of states, the beginning of a Balkanization that could lead, in the words of the former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi, to a new 100 years of war.

Spencer on Bennett Show

Here is the promised mp3 of my segment on Bill Bennett's show last Friday morning. You can also find it here.

You will see that, contrary to the claims of a blogger who has claimed to know what I believe better than I do, I never say that I am "optimistic" about the prospects for Islamic reform. Of course, those who have adopted an adversarial stance, such that even my simple affirmations of what I believe are regarded with suspicion and subjected to convoluted explanations of why I really don't mean what I say, will find in this, as in everything I say and write, whatever they want to find. But in fact, while I applaud the efforts of Zuhdi Jasser and others like him, I note in this interview that the doctrines enjoining violence against unbelievers are taught by mainstream Islam, and thus Jasser's legitimacy as a Muslim will certainly be challenged.

Do I think large-scale reform of Islam is likely? Certainly not: the fact that the ideology of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism is taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as I have pointed out ad infinitum, as well as the common view that the gates of ijtihad are closed and thus new interpretations of such core doctrines are not permissible, makes the odds against significant Islamic reform prohibitive.

There are a few courageous individuals who acknowledge that the Qur'an and Sunnah teach violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers (as opposed to the many putative moderates who deny this elementary fact) and are working to formulate new interpretations. The fact that they are unlikely ever to command large followings within the Islamic world does not mean that they don't deserve support.

Taqiyya about taqiyya

An Islamic apologist, A.M., frequently sends me articles that he claims demonstrate the inaccuracy of what I say about Islam. However, usually the articles he sends don't refute anything I say, but rather demonstrate the rather breathtaking talent that some people have for deception and misdirection.

So it is with this piece about the Islamic doctrine of deception, taqiyya. The author, who identifies himself only as Ibn al-Hashimi, quotes a number of Shi'ite authorities approving of deceptive practices, and concludes:

Lying is a big sin in Islam, and the best believer is the one who always tells the truth. The Shia faith is a deranged ideology, one which advocates cussing (Tabarra), prostitution (Mutah), self-flagellation (Matam), and deceit (Taqiyyah). It is not possible that the Deen of Haqq (the Religion of Truth) would advocate deceit, lying, and hiding. Taqiyyah is a practise of a cult or a secret society, and it is not used by those who follow the Religion of God. Declared one Imam of the Shia: “…Taqiyyah is the distinctive feature of the Shia.” We would have to agree with him on this point.

So taqiyya is just another invention of the dirty Shi'ites, and the true Muslims, i.e. the Sunnis, don't practice it. This anti-Shi'ite polemic, however, fails to mention a few inconvenient facts. Chief among these is that Sunni authorities have found sanction for this practice in the Qur'an itself: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28).

The Sunni Qur’an commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.” However, exempted from this rule were “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyyah] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"

This practice is also sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief — except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith — but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty” (Qur’an 16:106). Ibn Kathir explains that “the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse.”

Moreover, Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Sunnis consider the most reliable, records three times Muhammad's statement that "war is deceit." Are we to suppose that no Sunni who reads that thinks it is a principle worth implementing?

Another hadith in a collection considered reliable by Sunnis has Muhammad saying that lying is permissible "in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)" (Sahih Muslim 6303). Muhammad also gave the killer of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf permission to lie in order to deceive Ka'b and lure him to his death.

Another venerable Sunni commentator on the Qur'an, as-Suyuti, says that "it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at a time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is devoid of all food); and to loosen a bite of food (for fear of choking to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief..."

So why didn't "Ibn al-Hashimi" mention any of this? After all, if he had taken up this and other material from Sunnis and explained why he didn't think it was valid today, that would be one thing. But when he just ignores it and acts as if all the justification for religiously-sanctioned deception is on the Shi'ite side, it makes me wonder if he is just practicing...religiously sanctioned deception.

Taliban "invite" 10,000 Uzbek jihadis to Afghanistan

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: the Taliban has asked 10,000 jihadists from moderate, peaceful Uzbekistan to come help them out in Helmand. "Taliban 'invite' 10,000 Uzbeks to Helmand," by Massoud Ansari in the Sunday Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Islamic militants linked to Osama bin Laden have been offered a safe haven by the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing them into conflict with British troops patrolling the lawless province of Helmand. Uzbek gunmen, who fought a series of bloody battles last week with Pakistani tribesmen in the border region of Waziristan, where they had been living, have been told they should join the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan instead.

The move raises the prospect of a major upsurge in violence in Helmand, where 43 British soldiers have been killed in clashes with militants over the last five years.

The group of around 10,000 Uzbeks are led by Tahir Yuldashev, a close associate of the al-Qaeda terrorist chief, who is believed to be hiding out in the mountainous border area with his chief henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The members of the Islamic Movement Union of Uzbekistan fell out with their Pakistani hosts after accusing some tribal leaders of acting as agents of the Pakistani government, which is under huge pressure from the US to crack down on Islamic militants. Pakistan government officials said that nearly 160 people, including 130 Uzbeks, were killed in the battle.

Gunmen Burn Sunni Mosque in Iraq in Revenge Attack

Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad Update from Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) -Gunmen attacked a Sunni mosque south of Baghdad on Sunday, setting it ablaze a day after a suicide truck bomber struck near a Shi'ite mosque in the same area, police said....

Gunmen stormed the mosque in Haswa, a religiously mixed town about 50 km (35 miles) south of the Iraqi capital, and destroyed its minaret in a blast. The building was set on fire, a police official said, describing it as an apparent revenge attack.

A suicide truck bomber exploded near a Shi'ite mosque in Haswa on Saturday, killing 14 and wounding 21, Hilla police said. The provincial health directorate and the Interior Ministry official put the toll at 16.

Spencer: Qur'an Uber Alles

In FrontPage today I discuss the strange ruling of the German judge who quoted the Qur'an in her decision on a divorce case involving Muslims (news links in the original):

Beaten and threatened with death by her husband, a young Muslim mother of two in Germany petitioned a Frankfurt court for a speedy divorce. German law mandates a year-long waiting period between separation and divorce, but also contains “hardship” criteria that allow for that period to be shortened. However, Judge Christa Datz-Winter decided that this was not a “hardship” case. According to Spiegel Online, Datz-Winter quoted Qur’an 4:34, which says that “men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,” and that men should punish disobedient women: “admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” After all, Datz-Winter pointed out, both husband and wife were Moroccan.

Evidently, multiculturalism trumps even gender solidarity. Judge Christa Datz-Winter’s startling assumption that the Qur’an could be a legitimate basis for decisions in a German court is simply the logical endpoint of the disastrously self-destructive relativist multiculturalism that has governed European policy for decades now. As the historian Bat Ye’or recounts in Eurabia, beginning in the early 1970s the European Community, and then the European Union, entered into a series of agreements with the Arab League that provided for massive Muslim immigration into Europe without assimilation. It is ironic that European governments are now frequently criticized for not assimilating their Muslim populations, when the Arab League for years insisted that they must not move to assimilate their new Muslim immigrants – as have Muslim leaders in Europe. So if Muslims can legitimately form cultural enclaves in European cities, which in some cases have become virtually autonomous, such that even police, fire, and emergency personnel don’t dare enter them, why shouldn’t they be governed also by their own laws?

Nor is this the first time something like this has happened. A “religious diversity handbook” given to police officers in Australia’s Victoria state in 2005 stated that “in incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.” They were directed to consult with the local imam, who would make sure there was no “fragmenting” of the “family unit.”

In both of these incidents, Muslim leaders protested. In Australia, Joumanah El Matrah of the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council said of the “religious diversity handbook”: “The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women, but they should be entitled to the same protection. Police should not be advising other officers to follow those sorts of protocols. It can only lead to harm.” And in Germany, Ayyub Axel Köhler of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany articulated a view often stated by Muslims in Western countries: “Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example.” Unfortunately, however, the idea that a husband is sometimes justified in beating his wife – even if in a “light” or “symbolic” way – is held by influential Muslim authorities such as Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj of the University of Jordan, Islamic apologist Jamal Badawi, and others -- so it cannot be said that Judge Datz-Winter was wide of the mark in Islamic terms when she invoked Qur’an 4:34 to justify the abusive Moroccan husband’s behavior.

Judge Datz-Winter’s decision caused a furor in Germany, and she was quickly removed from the case. That may be one small sign that Europe is inching toward throwing off its multiculturalist blinders and recovering the spirit of General Sir Charles James Napier, the British Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851. It is said that a Hindu delegation protested against the British prohibition of sati, the practice of burning a widow to death on her husband’s funeral pyre, by telling Napier that it was part of their cultural custom. Napier famously responded:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

It is long past time for authorities in Europe and the United States to begin to emulate Napier in their dealings with increasingly restive and demanding Islamic communities. Instead of issuing “religious diversity handbooks” and making special accommodations for Islamic practices, Western officials need to reassert the validity of our own laws and mores, and – at least as long as Europe’s suicidal immigration policies remain in place and neither Europe nor America treats immigration as a national security issue – remind newcomers that they are not welcome to bring with them customs and practices that are at variance with our own. This is the standard to which visitors and immigrants to Islamic countries are expected to adhere. The West should demand no less.

Uncovered Document Shows: Islamic Society of Boston Lawsuit a Sham

The estimable Solomon has the whole story.

In October of 2005, the Islamic Society of Boston filed a major lawsuit alleging, in significant part, that they had suffered monitary damages due to a supposed conspiracy among individuals, activists and news outlets. Separating out the wheat from the chaff of the complaint (link to PDF of lawsuit), the money is the most significant thing in the 77 page document -- no money, no damages, no lawsuit. No damages, and all this thing becomes is a massive attempt to abuse the courts to squelch free speech.

From page 53, paragraph 98 of the original complaint:

As a direct proximate result of the Defendants' civil conspiracy, the ISB was intimidated both in the free exercise of its religious and charitable purpose, and the ISB was intimidated in its efforts to build the Mosque and Cultural Center. As a result of the Defendants' conspiracy, the ISB has suffered monetary losses.

Timing is important here. Remember that this suit was filed in October 2005. It alleges damages from events that were occurring back in 2003 and 2004.

Yet I am in possession of an email dated July 18, 2005, that's just three months before the ISB filed its lawsuit alleging damages, that says, and I quote, "Fundraising has been robust, and the ISB has $2 million in cash toward that amount [of $3 million]...."

There is much more at Solomonia. Read it all.

Frames of reference

Last Monday I led a day-long seminar and stayed over for part of the next day to hear the next speaker, an expert on Islamic law. I can't give you more details about that, but the speaker on Islamic law was extremely well-informed and insightful, and I got this from him, so I wanted to give credit where credit is due: those who are there, and the speaker himself, will know to whom I am referring.

Frames of reference. What is said is not always heard the way it is meant. Consider these remarks by President Bush and Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, on the Muslim Feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the Hajj and Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

Last December, Bush issued a statement that read in part:

For Muslims in America and around the world, Eid al-Adha is an important occasion to give thanks for their blessings and to remember Abraham's trust in a loving God. During the four days of this special observance, Muslims honor Abraham's example of sacrifice and devotion to God by celebrating with friends and family, exchanging gifts and greetings, and engaging in worship through sacrifice and charity.

And the previous January, Hughes said:

Eid is a celebration of commitment and obedience to God and also of God’s mercy and provision for all of us. It is a time of family and community, a time of charity....I want to read to you a message from President Bush: "I send greetings to Muslims around the world as you celebrate Eid al-Adha. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham placed his faith in God above all else. During Eid al-Adha, Muslims celebrate Abraham's devotion and give thanks for God's mercy and many blessings."

In speaking of Abraham, even when doing so in the context of Eid al-Adha, Bush and Hughes are probably thinking of Genesis 22:15-18, in which Abraham is rewarded for his faith and told he will become a blessing to the nations:

And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

But what do the Muslim audiences that Bush and Hughes are addressing hear? Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son (who is not named) is recounted in Qur'an 37:102-109. However, they understand this passage in light of the rest of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, and so when Bush says that "Abraham placed his faith in God above all else," perhaps this passage comes to mind (60:4):

There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone." But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

Did you catch that? This verse is saying that Abraham is an "excellent example" (uswa hasana, أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ, a term applied also to Muhammad in 33:21) to follow when he says to the polytheists that there is "enmity and hatred forever" between him and them, unless they "believe in Allah and Him alone." However, the passage also tells us that he is not an excellent example to follow when he says to his pagan father, "I will pray for forgiveness for thee." Hatred is held up as exemplary; forgiveness is explicitly ruled out as exemplary.

Bush and Hughes are thus reinforcing a worldview that takes for granted the legitimacy of everlasting enmity and hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims -- and doing so precisely in the context of trying to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. This demonstrates once again how vitally important it is for them, and for the rest of us, to have a detailed understanding of the theological and cultural frame of reference of jihadists and Muslims in general. But for lack of this, not only are statements issued that could have and should have been much more carefully worded, but policy errors keep multiplying -- not least of which is the democracy project in Iraq, which I said would never work in early 2003, before it even started (at the link are two articles headed "Does President Bush Have a Realistic Plan for Bringing Democracy to the Middle East?" I wrote the "No" section). Was it a lucky guess? Was I endowed with prophetic powers? Neither. I just knew a bit about Islam and Sharia. It is unfortunate that there is so little evidence that anyone in the White House or the State Department is similarly informed.

Thanks again to the extraordinary speaker who set out this point last Tuesday.

It's springtime for the Mahdi in Tehran

Autumn for Britain and the U.S.

"Iran website heralding 'Mahdi' by springtime: State media: Shiite messiah to kill archenemy in Jerusalem, may arrive during next equinox," from WorldNetDaily.com, with thanks to Olivia:

An official state media website in Iran has posted a message heralding the coming of the Shiite messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, noting he could arrive with Jesus by the spring equinox.

"Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance) will appear all of a sudden on the world scene with a voice from the skies announcing his reappearance at the holy Ka'ba in Mecca," the message says.

The Islamic Republic of Iran broadcasting website said in a program called "The World toward Illumination," that the Mahdi will form an army to defeat the enemies of Islam in a series of apocalyptic battles, in which the Mahdi will overcome his archvillain in Jerusalem.

The Mahdi's far sightedness and firmness in the face of mischievous elements will strike awe. After his uprising from Mecca all of Arabia will be submit to him and then other parts of the world as he marches upon Iraq and established his seat of global government in the city of Kufa.

Then the Imam will send 10 thousand of his forces to the east and west to uproot the oppressors. At this time God will facilitate things for him and lands will come under his control one after the other. ...

After his appearance the Imam would remain in Mecca for some time, and then go to Medina. ... a descendant of the Prophet's archenemy Abu Sofyan will seize Syria and attack Iraq and the Hejaz with the ferocity of a beast ... finally Imam Mahdi sends troops who kill the Sofyani in Beit ol-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Islamic holy city in Palestine that is currently under occupation of the Zionists.

The Iranian series also claims the Mahdi will reappear on Earth with Jesus: "We read in the book Tazkarat ol-Olia, 'the Mahdi will come with Jesus son of Mary accompanying him.' ... Imam Mahdi will be the leader while Prophet Jesus will act as his lieutenant in the struggle against oppression and establishment of justice in the world. Jesus had himself given the tidings of the coming of God's last messenger and will see Mohammad's ideals materialize in the time of the Mahdi."

Fifth Muslim arrested in Serbia for alleged terrorist activity

From AP:

BELGRADE, Serbia: A Muslim man was arrested in Serbia on Saturday for allegedly planning terror attacks, police said Saturday

Jasmin Smailovic, a Serbian citizen from the tense southern Sandzak region, joins four other Muslims who were arrested last week for allegedly preparing attacks "against the state" in a secret training camp.

Police said they had found large quantities of plastic explosives, ammunition, face masks, military uniforms and other equipment in a mountain cave that they believe served as a training ground for Wahhabis — Muslims who practice an austere brand of Sunni Islam promoted by extremists, including al-Qaida.

Western intelligence reports leaked recently have suggested that Sandzak, as well as Muslim-dominated regions in neighboring Bosnia, could serve as a recruitment spot for the so-called "white al-Qaida" — Muslims with Western features who could easily blend into European or U.S. cities and carry out attacks.

One hopes that this is not just now occurring to Western intelligence. It would have been nice had it occurred to somebody back in the 90s before we bombed Christian Serbs in support of Muslim terrorists.

Several incidents have been reported recently in Sandzak, with the Wahhabis accusing local Muslim clerics of failing to practice "true" Islam and disrupting prayers at local mosques.

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

I don't know, Mahdi, what do you want to do?

Provocations from Iran increasing. Looks as if the Thug-In-Chief is either eager to go to war, or confident that the British will back down. By Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell in the TimesOnline, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

Former jihadist: "There is a violent streak within Islam. We need to be able to discuss and … counter these arguments"

Hassan Butt appears to have had a change of heart. "Former Jihadist Shares Inside Secrets," from CBS News:

(CBS) A British-born Muslim extremist who admits to recruiting for organizations with links to al Qaeda and who once called the 9/11 attack "the pleasure of Allah" is now renouncing Muslim violence. In an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon in which he calls killing in the name of Islam a "cancer," Hassan Butt will also reveal recruiting and fundraising techniques and accuses British authorities of having a laissez-fare attitude toward radical Muslims in their country before the London subway bombing.

Simon’s report will be broadcast this Sunday, March 25, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"What I’ve come to realize is that killing … in the name of Islam is completely and utterly prohibited," says Butt. "And there's a big disease and a cancer in the Muslim world … and it needs to be dealt with."

The former jihadist faces an obvious uphill climb against mainstream Islamic teaching, the prevalence of jihad in the Qur'an and ahadith, and the doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, by which often-quoted "peaceful" verses of the Qur'an are superseded by later, more aggressive teachings.

Butt believes alternative voices can counter the violent rhetoric that influences Islamic extremists like Mohammad Sadique Khan, the mastermind of the London subway suicide bombings of 2005. "There is a violent streak within Islam. We need to be able to discuss and … counter these arguments so that we don't have any more Mohammad Sadique Khans," he tells Simon.

Those bombings, which killed more than 50 people so close to home, led Butt to question the murderous practices for which he recruited between 50 and 70 young Muslim Britons for training in Pakistan. He says he turned away from violence when no religious leader could give him positive proof that Allah sanctioned it.

Butt says one recruiting tool he made wide use of — the one he says started Khan on the path to his suicide mission — was arranged marriages in which parents forced their sons into wedlock. "A lot of the guys I know actually have become radicalized or initially took the first steps … as a result of them being … forced to marry someone they don't want to marry," says Butt. Their refusal to submit to their parents' traditions then drove them toward radical Islamic preachers, who did not care who they married as long as they were Muslims, he adds.

Once recruits showed interest in learning more about Islam, says Butt, the next step was to enrage them by talking about the suffering of Muslims around the world. Then a Koranic rationale for killing innocents would be argued. Taking away the innocence of the potential victims was the next step, says Butt. "[Innocents] become non-innocent and hence combatants and allowed to be targeted."

Butt says he would never ask or suggest a recruit go for training to Pakistan. "The network never pushes people in that way. We believe that if the person … has the conviction himself to come to you and say they want to go to training, then they are the type of person who will most likely take that one step further and will be the reliable foot soldier for you," he tells Simon.

Fundraising was also part of his job, and he says he relied on Muslim professionals in Britain to whom he revealed the money was for jihad. "Doctors. People who were businessmen, professional people, basically, who wanted to donate substantial amounts of money," says Butt. Another source of funds was drug dealing. Butt says he would offer Muslim drug dealers "cleansing" in the eyes of Islam for 20 percent of their take. "As long as the drugs weren't being sold to other Muslims. In fact we saw it as a tactic of war. … Let's poison them and kill them slowly with this as well," says Butt.

Butt also says that before the subway bombing in London, British authorities had a lax attitude toward radical Muslim leaders, allowing them to proselytize, raise funds, and travel back and forth between Pakistan and London. He contends that both sides were aware of this as some kind of tacit deal. "That was an unspoken deal, and as a result, what tended to happen is the British government lost count of how many people were going abroad and getting trained and coming back and going into operational mode as sleeper cells," Butt tells Simon.

Meet John Doe

I think this is a great idea. So sue me.

Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces

So says Anna Mulrine in "Exclusive: Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces" in U.S. News (thanks to Doc Washburn):

As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.

During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.

While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.

Iraqi and American forces returned fire "to break contact and left the area to report the incident," the report noted. "The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as Coalition Force soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind."

No American soldiers were wounded in the incident.

It is possible that Iranians thought they were in Iranian territory, according to U.S. military officials. Such border confusions and disputes happen routinely.

Iran: British sailors to be used as bargaining chips

They're counting on the British to behave as Western governments almost always behave these days: responding to provocations with concessions.

From the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Fifteen British sailors taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards' operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

According to the official, Iran was worried that its detained people would leak sensitive intelligence information.

Iran's semi-official news agency, Fars, reported that the 15 Britons have been transferred to the capital Teheran "to explain their aggressive action." There was no immediate official confirmation of the move.

House Republicans pushing legislation to protect air passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior

It is good to see this. It should pass unanimously, and be given vocal public support by everyone. After all, airports endlessly play recorded messages exhorting passengers not to accept parcels from any stranger, not to leave their bags unattended, and to report suspicious behavior. If CAIR and the Flying Imams get away with penalizing people who do so, no one will dare report suspicious activity -- and it will be open season on American aircraft for jihad terrorists.

"Hill bill protects flying public," by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to Doc Washburn:

House Republicans are pushing legislation to protect airline passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that might be linked to a terrorist attack.

Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007 on Thursday, a week after a lawsuit was filed by a group of Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight in November.

It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," Mr. Pearce said on the House floor yesterday afternoon.

The lawsuit asserts that the imams were discriminated against by US Airways, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission and "John Doe" passengers to be named later.

Iran condemns illegal entry of British sailors into its waters

Of course, Iran bears no responsibility for this incident at all. From IRNA, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini Saturday categorically condemned the "illegal entry" into Iranian territorial waters of British forces.

Hosseini considered the "illegal and interventionist" entry into Iranian territorial waters of British forces as a "suspicious move and contrary to international rules and regulations." Referring to the "biased nature of such movements", he said, "Violating the sovereign boundaries of other states and illegal entry denote unusual goals in violation of international commitments, the responsibility for which cannot be evaded under any justification."

Hostage fears over troops seized by Iran

Hostage crisis revisited: Jimmy Carter, call your office. If only we had a Winston Churchill.

By Richard Beeston and James Bone in the Times Online, with thanks to James:

Britain’s crisis with Iran deepened last night after Tehran justified seizing 15 British servicemen by claiming that they had strayed into Iranian territorial waters “illegally”.

The announcement appeared to rule out any hope that the incident was a simple mistake that could be quickly rectified.

Instead, there were growing fears that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines were victims of a deliberate ambush on the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, perhaps seeking to use the captives as hostages in the increasingly tense stand-off between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme.

Top Muslim avoids meeting with pope

Sheikh Tantawi, who approves of suicide bombing, won't meet with the Pope because he quoted someone who said Muhammad brought nothing that wasn't "evil and inhuman." Since jihadists routinely justify suicide bombing by referring to Qur'an 9:111, which guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah, apparently Tantawi's idea of what is "evil and inhuman" is more nuanced than that of most people.

From ANSA, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

VATICAN CITY (ANSA) - The Islamic cleric and teacher who is the highest authority on Sunni Muslim theology pulled out of a scheduled meeting with Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday, reportedly because of pressure from fellow Muslims.

The incident appeared to be further evidence that many Muslims around the world still feel deep anger over Benedict's controversial remarks on Islam in September last year.

In a lecture at Regensburg university in Germany, the pontiff cited a medieval emperor who said Islam was "evil and inhuman", sparking protests all over the Muslim world. He subsequently apologised several times and said he had meant no offence.

During a trip to Muslim Turkey last November, the pope made further efforts to smooth relations with Islam, making a historic visit to Istanbul's Blue Mosque. As part of moves to continue developing dialogue, Sheik Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, head of the Al Azhar university in Cairo, was supposed to meet the pope in the Vatican on Thursday morning....

Vatican sources confirmed later that the meeting had not taken place, saying that this was because of "the imam's commitments in Cairo". The sources were pessimistic about the chances of a new date being set soon for the meeting.

Meanwhile, in Cairo, sources at the Al Azhar university said the change of plan was due to pressure from Muslim 'Ulema' scholars in Egypt and also from the Muslim Brothers, the Arab world's largest group of political Islamists.

'OFFENSIVE OBSERVATIONS'.

This explanation appeared to be confirmed by the statements of Ahmad Mahmoud, professor of Sharia law at the Al-Azhar university.

"The offensive observations by Pope Benedict XVI against Islam make this visit not positive," he told the Gulf News agency, going on to rebuke Benedict for having "abolished" the Vatican department for inter-religious dialogue. In fact, Benedict merged it with the Pontifical Council for Culture in a bid to put a more cultural slant on dialogue.

According to Egyptian daily Al Akhbar, the invitation issued by the Vatican to Tantawi earlier this year aroused fresh anger in Islamic world still reeling from the Regensburg incident.

Another Egyptian daily, Al Osboe el Yom, said on Thursday that by accepting the invitation Tantawi seemed to have "forgotten the pope's insults" and was therefore "offending all Muslims".

Tantawi should be offended about the suicide bombings, not about the Pope.

Islamic reform

I was on the William Bennett show this morning following Zuhdi Jasser, the Muslim leader who has offered to help the passengers who are being sued by the Flying Imams.

Now several people have written to me about an allegation by a blogger that on the show I said I was "optimistic" about the prospects for Islamic reform. This is false. I am not optimistic about the prospects for Islamic reform, although I support the efforts of individual reformers who are sincere. I did not say on the Bennett Show or anywhere else that I was "optimistic" about the prospects for Islamic reform. I have written about Islamic reform quite extensively here at Jihad Watch and in my books, explaining why it will be prohibitively difficult because of the nature and entrenched character of Qur'anic literalism, the violent response reformers receive, and more. As I have said many times, there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. That fact must be faced by both reformers and those who place high hopes upon them. And in fact, on the Bennett show this morning I explained why Islamic reform faced monumental obstacles, and said that we should not kid ourselves about its prospects for large-scale success.

Anyone listening with any attention would have realized that on this question I was just the opposite of optimistic.

If a transcript or mp3 of the Bennett show becomes available, I will post it.

Woman re-interprets Qur'an with feminist view

About three-quarters of a million people (okay, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little) today have sent me a Reuters story, "Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view" by Manuela Badawy.

In it, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, formerly of the University of Chicago, offers an alternative translation of Qur'an 4:34, the notorious "wife-beating verse." The article says:

In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word "idrib," traditionally translated as "beat," which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women.

"Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away'," she writes in the introduction to the new book.

I was just contacted by Dziennik, the largest daily newspaper in Poland (where apparently political correctness doesn't have the stranglehold it has over the American media) for comment. Here is my reply:

Any new interpretation that mitigates the elements of the Qur'an that are used by jihadists today to foster violence and fanaticism is welcome. Accordingly I wish Laleh Bakhtiar well with her new translation. Unfortunately, she faces formidable obstacles: in 1400 years of Qur'anic exegesis by Muslims, no one of any significance has ever disputed that Qur'an 4:34 sanctioned wife-beating.

Those who were uncomfortable with this in the past focused their efforts not on alternative understandings of Qur'anic Arabic, but on ahadith that purported to depict Muhammad discouraging wife-beating in various ways. Unfortunately also, such ahadith have not prevented all too many Muslim men worldwide from understanding Qur'an 4:34 in a way that sanctions wife-beating. A Saudi television program has even featured a discussion of acceptable instruments for this beating, and books have appeared in Turkey and Spain in the last few years in which Islamic imams explain the circumstances in which wife-beating is acceptable.

All this illustrates that Laleh Bakhtiar faces an uphill battle and will encounter fierce and possibly violent opposition. In that I wish her all success.

Iraq: Al-Qaeda claims attack on Vice-Premier

He was a Sunni who was working within the Shi'ite government. "We announce to the Islamic nation, to our people and expecially al-Zubayi's tribe, that the soldiers of Iraqi Islam have with Allah's permission struck the so-called vice premier close to his home." From AKI, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Baghdad, 23 March (AKI) - Al-Qaeda in Iraq has claimed reponsibility for Friday's suicide attack that injured Iraqi deputy premier Salam al-Zubayi. "We announce to the Islamic nation, to our people and expecially al-Zubayi's tribe, that the soldiers of Iraqi Islam have with Allah's permission struck the so-called vice premier close to his home," said a message posted to the Internet, signed by by the 'Iraqi Islamic state', the jihadi formation with which al-Qaeda in Iraq has now merged.

Al-Qaeda received information from its followers that al-Zubayi was seriously injured in the attack - the message said. It concludes with fresh threats directed at all the members Nouri al-Maliki's government, and with a prayer by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Abu Hamza al-Muhajiri, invoking al-Zubayi's death.

A subsequent message will disclose the details of the suicide attack on al-Zubayi's compound, the 'Iraqi Islamic state' said.

Tactics in Case of the Flying Imams Akin to "Legal Terrorism"

A press release from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm renowned for defending all faiths, today offered to defend for free any individual citizens sued by the Muslim plaintiffs in what has become known as “the case of the flying imams.” “The Flying Imams” lawsuit was announced on March 13 by Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The suit was filed by a New York attorney, Mr. Omar T. Mohammedi, on behalf of six Muslim leaders who were taken off a US Airways flight under disputed circumstances in November, 2006.

The lawsuit targets the airline, Minnesota’s Metropolitan Airports Commission, (a government agency) and – significantly – several “John Does.” The complaint makes clear that at least some of these John Does are placeholders for ordinary citizens who are alleged to have reported their concerns about the conduct of the imams to the airlines.

In a stinging open letter to Mr. Awad, Becket Fund president Kevin J. Hasson denounced the targeting of private citizens as far outside the scope of legitimate civil rights test cases.

In its 12 year history the Becket Fund has represented clients from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and other traditions. This is, however, the first time they’ve ever opposed someone’s claim of religious discrimination. The Becket Fund will also promptly seek leave to file a brief in the case urging the trial court to keep secret the identity of the John Does. Hasson said they were driven to such action by the outrageousness of the Flying Imams’ tactics. “We know religious liberty. Religious liberty is a client of ours,” Hasson says in the letter. “And this claim is not about religious liberty.”

Iran seizes British sailors in Iraq waters

More information on this story. One of those who sent this in said, "I guess this is will be a September 1, 1939 Alert." Maybe. But I suspect more varieties of appeasement will be in the offing first.

"Iran nabs British sailors in Iraq waters," by Robert Barr for Associated Press (thanks to all those who sent this in):

LONDON -- Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a ship suspected of smuggling cars in the Persian Gulf off the Iraqi coast on Friday, officials said.

The British government demanded "the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

The British Navy personnel were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, Britain's Defense Ministry said.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the ministry said.

Fitzgerald: Messy and messianic diversions

Afghanistan is often held out as the "success" (as opposed to what even Bush loyalists cannot deny is the mess in Tarbaby Iraq) story. It is true that al Qaeda was attacked and the Taliban driven out. But Islam wasn't driven out – Sharia was enshrined in the new Afghan Constitution. Islam wasn't driven out of Afghanistan or Pakistan. And the Taliban, who are simply the Truest Believers in Islam as the Answer to Everything, found refuge and support and were re-supplied in Pakistan. Pakistan is not the same thing, though the Americans keep confusing the two, as General Pervez Musharraf, and he is meretricious in his dealings with the Americans, whose money and military equipment he wants to keep on receiving in such fantastic quantities.

Meanwhile, Karzai is amiable and weak. His government, and all the local governments, are as corrupt as they can be -- and will remain corrupt. If you are an American taxpayer, you might not exactly wish to have your money flowing into the abyss of Afghanistan, enriching this or that local Muslim crook, just as so many Iraqis made off with a grand total of billions in American taxpayers' money and are now living the high life in Beirut, or more likely, Paris and London.

Pakistan, our "staunch ally," has in effect invaded, through the Taliban, its neighbor Afghanistan. The spectacle of the warlords flaunting the money they have taken or been given, has not been edifying. The corruption that naturally accompanies the public-works projects and dispensing of dough by the Americans merely increases popular resentment, and makes people who have short memories long again for the incorruptible (incorruptible, yes, but also intolerable, as we see it, but as not all pious Afghani Muslims see it) Taliban. This is not a problem to be "solved" but a permanent state: a Muslim country will always find itself tending toward Islam, and only the strongest and most ruthless of leaders -- Ataturk in Turkey, or Bourguiba in Tunisia, will be able to constrain Islam long enough for enough secular forces to be developed who can then, holding onto power, continue to constrain Islam -- and even then, only by employing methods that Westerners would never permit themselves to employ.

There are several Pakistans. There is the one-man Pakistan of General Musharraf, with whom the Americans have idiotically thrown in their lot. There is the Pakistan on parade, of the well-off anglophone upper-class (in strictly Pakistani terms) well-spoken smoothies, such as Haqqani. They have a network, and more than a few have managed to land jobs all over academic America, and to present their Islamic apologetics to unwary American students as the Good and Moderate Islam, the True Face of Islam. And to further disarm the unwary, they denounce "terrorism." My, that's an easy thing to do, why it takes nothing at all, especially if you never quite define "terrorism" or such phrases as "innocent civilians."

And then there is the Permanently Primitive Pakistan, the Pakistan of the masses. The masses make up 95% of the population, and it is those masses that will decide the fate of Pakistan. The masses make up the rank-and-file (and even many of the generals) in the Pakistani Army. The masses are those who will decide to vote, or not, for Radcliffe-educated Pinky Bhutto, or vote, or not, for this or that smooth-talking outwardly westernized cricketer Imran Khan (deeply re-islamized). Yet, in the West, policies are made based on the outwardly westernized, anglophone elite, because "they speak our language." Actually, that's it -- they only "speak our language" in the literal sense, but underneath is a completely different understanding of Pakistan, and of its interests, and of what people in Pakistan will want.

Even if Musharraf were not so meretricious, the real Pakistan, the Permanently Primitive Pakistan, will go on hiding Al Qaeda members and invading Afghanistan by means of its obvious proxy, the Taliban. Afghanistan is seen in Pakistan as a possible ally of Hindu India, believe it or not, unless it is kept firmly under true Islamic rule, and not allowed to stray or sway, and that is where the Taliban comes in.

What is to be done? Stop supporting Pakistan. Stop giving it planes. Stop relieving its debt. Stop giving it economic aid or allowing it to export its textiles. Bring Pakistan, or threaten to, to its knees unless there is a change in its policy toward exporting the Jihad to Afghanistan and to India (and not only Kashmir) and for that matter to Great Britain. For in Britain, Pakistanis (British citizens they may be, but Pakistanis they remain in all important senses) live and then go back and forth to Pakistan for Muslim inspiration, and training in all kinds of Jihad-related activities. Stop thinking that in order to prevent Afghanistan from turning into that fearsome thing, a "haven for Al Qaeda," again, it is necessary to keep tens of thousands of troops on the ground, or pour in billions of dollars in aid. That aid, all that Western money, simply is a source of corruption, and that corruption, in turn, feeds the resentment that causes the Taliban to find new support. Do nothing or very little. Don't build new roads which will only make it possible for the Taliban, or for others, to move about the country. Keep it as primitive as it is, and if the locals wish to do something about it, let them do it on their own, with Muslim funds and Muslim exertion. Anything else is rolling that Sisysphean rock right up the mountains of Tora Bora. It is too expensive, too distracting, one more example of not realizing that Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan to "regroup" or in order to train.

Why not?

Because al Qaeda, and a thousand other groups and groupuscules, have all of Pakistan. No, they have all the world.

To focus on a particular Muslim country, to send in Western troops and spend vast sums of money in order to build up the country (as the locals keep grinning and saying yes, yes, more aid, more aid, more aid, that will do it, more aid) in the hope that this will do anything of use to the Western world, is foolish. It will only weaken the West, divert its attention from such matters as the islamization of Western Europe, and certainly prevent or get in the way of the idea that the best way to deal with the Jihad is, on all fronts, using all the instruments available, to weaken the Camp of Islam: to divide and demoralize that camp, where there are ethnic and sectarian and economic fissures, and to force Muslims to realize -- if Infidels themselves first show that they realize -- that the political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures of Islamic states and peoples is a direct result of Islam itself.

This can and should and must be done. The Big Mess in Tarbaby Iraq, the Little Mess in Afghanistan, are both messy and messianic diversions.

"Hurry up and respond to the call of the Qur'an to become one and ... join the Islamic State in Iraq"

Al-Libi knows what a compelling argument he has for fellow Muslims in appealing to the Qur'an's teachings on jihad, an appeal to which most putatively "moderate" Muslims have offered no substantive answer, or which they have simply tried to ignore.

"In video, al-Qaida urges unification," by Maamoun Youssef for Associated Press:

CAIRO, EGYPT - In a new video posted Thursday on the Internet, an al-Qaida militant who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan urged Sunni militants in Iraq to join the terror group and claimed the U.S. military's security plan for Baghdad has failed.

Abu Yahia al-Libi, who broke out of the U.S. prison at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul in 2005, said it was the sacred duty of all mujahedeen, or holy warriors, to "stand steadfast together."

He called on militant groups known as Ansar al-Sunnah, the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of the Mujahedeen to "hurry up and respond to the call of the Quran to become one and ... join the Islamic State in Iraq," an al-Qaida affiliate in the country.

"This is the legitimate duty and urgent need imposed by the circumstances of this stage of the jihad in Iraq," the black-turbaned al-Libi said, referring to militants' holy war.

The 28-minute video, posted on a Web site commonly used by Islamist militants, shows al-Libi, whose nom de guerre means 'the Libyan' in Arabic, with a beard and wearing a camouflage uniform seated next to a Kalashnikov rifle.

The videotape's authenticity could not be independently verified. It carried the logo of al-Qaida's media production wing, al-Sahab. The video was also released by IntelCenter, a U.S. government contractor that monitors al-Qaida messaging.

IntelCenter said the earliest the video could have been made is Feb. 20, based on comments al-Libi makes on the decision by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to withdraw a portion of Britain's troops from Iraq. Blair's decision was first reported on Feb. 20.

In the video, al-Libi claims the monthlong Baghdad security crackdown by U.S. military and Iraqi troops, meant to curb sectarian violence that has shaken the Iraqi capital and its residents, has failed. "The break and defeat of your enemy is seen in the military arena, especially after the Security Plan failed and its defeat, with God's will, is very near," he says.

"The enemy knows he is losing in this battle," al-Libi said, adding the proof of this was in the planned withdrawal of the British troops from Iraq.

In addressing the militants, al-Libi said they were the "tip of the spear" in the holy war against the West and that they "must be more strong and more serious, and leave all trivia behind, resist any temptation."

Al-Libi also urged them not to "fall into the trap of enemies reaching out to Sunnis in Iraq" and claimed Saudi Arabia's calls for the support of Iraq's beleaguered Sunni minority were a sham.

"Your enemies are adding poison to exterminate you and sabotage your jihad. So don't be drawn in by flashy advertisements of Satan and his followers," he said.

Al-Libi has recorded several tapes since he escaped from Bagram. Afghan police said at the time that his real name is Abulbakar Mohammed Hassan and that he is a Libyan.

British or American military personnel seized by an Iranian ship?

1938 Alert? "UK forces say 'incident' in Gulf waterway near Iran," from Reuters, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - British forces said on Friday there had been "an incident" in the northern Gulf after an Iraqi fisherman reported seeing up to seven British or American military personnel being seized by an Iranian ship.

"There has been an incident somewhere in the north of the Persian Gulf," British military spokesman Major David Gell said in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, without elaborating.

He said he did not know whether any British or American servicemen were involved.

The fisherman said the incident took place early on Friday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

Afghanistan-trained jihadist identified as al Qaeda leader in Somalia

Somalia Jihad Update. "Somali gov't names Qaeda leader as fighting rages," by Sahal Abdulle for Reuters:

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - The Somali government said on Thursday that al Qaeda had made a young militant Islamist commander its leader in Mogadishu as fighting raged for a second day in the coastal capital.

Deputy Defense Minister Salad Ali Jelle told a news conference Aden Hashi Ayro -- an Afghanistan-trained commander in his 30s who runs the Islamists' feared Shabab, or military wing -- was personally directing the growing insurgency.

"The government is being targeted by those who used to work with terrorists, the so-called Islamic Courts," Jelle said. "And after they had a long consultation with al Qaeda, they named Aden Hashi Ayro as head of (al Qaeda) operations in Mogadishu."

The United States and the Somali government have long accused Ayro, and other Islamist leaders, of links to al Qaeda. But some critics say the government paints its political rivals as terrorists to secure more backing from Washington.

Thursday's accusation came as insurgents again battled Somali government forces and their Ethiopian military allies, forcing hundreds of families to flee in the worst fighting in the Horn of Africa nation since a war at the end of 2006.

[...]

The former leader of the Islamists, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, surfaced in public for the first time since the war calling on Somalis to remove their foreign "occupiers."

In a telephone interview, Aweys told the BBC's Somali language radio section that he was still inside the country.

"Somalia is under occupation and people have the right to remove occupiers," he said. "The Islamic Courts should have been commended for returning law and order, but the international community failed to do so."

UK police arrest three male human beings over July 2005 bombing

Three male carbon-based life forms were arrested in the UK today on suspicion that they played a role in the July 2005 bombings. Two of them had been just about to board a plane to, of all places, Pakistan. Now why on earth would they have wanted to go there?

"UK police arrest three over July 2005 bombing," from Reuters, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

LONDON (Reuters) - British police arrested three men on Thursday in connection with the July 7, 2005, suicide bomb attacks that killed 52 commuters on London's transport system.

The men were arrested by counter-terrorism police "on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism" in the north of England, a police statement said.

Two were arrested at Manchester airport where they were due to fly to Pakistan. The third was arrested in a house in Leeds, the northern city which was home to three of the suicide bombers.

The suspects were taken to a central London police station to be questioned. Searches were underway at five houses in the Leeds area and two premises in east London, the police said.

No one has yet been charged in connection with the attacks, in which all four bombers died.

The head of London's anti-terrorist branch said last year police were chasing several leads in Britain and abroad in an attempt to find anyone involved in the planning of the attacks.

Pakistan and Iran to strengthen ties

Is Pakistan backing what it sees as the strong horse? Friend and Ally Update: "Pak-Iran cooperation to continue in future, says Sherpao," from Pakistan News Service, with thanks to DFS:

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minster Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao has said that ongoing cooperation between Pakistan and Iran in various fields would be furtherer strengthened in future, as Pakistan greatly values its relations with Iran.

The Minister stated this while talking to Iranian Ambassador in Pakistan Mashallah Shokri here in his residence on Tuesday.

Federal Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah, Joint Interior Secretary Muhammad Anwar Khan, Director National Crises Management Cell Col. Imran Yaqoob and representative of Iranian Consulate were present during the talks.

Federal Interior Minister said Pakistan and Iran would jointly work to control the illegal movement at Pak-Iran borders and flag meeting of border security forces would be held.

Fitzgerald: Immorality and cruelty

Would it be immoral for Americans to leave Iraq, or to allow it to dissolve? Some have said so. But as to the question of morality, I don't even understand the question. The Kurds resent the Arabs for good reason. Why should they not try to make a move for independence, and if by helping them the American govenment can weaken Syria and Iran, and have a semi-reliable ally in what was northern Iraq, why not? What is immoral about that?

And as to the sectarian divisions, they date back a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The depth and duration of that division, in other words, owes nothing to us. It is the Americans who have tried, at great human and economic cost, to make the Iraqis less tribal, less selfish, more imbued with a sense of a nation -- and a nation that is not merely a place to be controlled by their sect or tribe or family. The Americans have tried to encourage entrepreneurial activity instead of reliance, as in so many other Muslim states, on either oil money or foreign aid from Infidels, and to encourage the adoption of a Constitution that would actually move away from the Shari'a.

It has all failed. And that is despite the enormous efforts of American soldiers, who were never taught about Islam, and yet persevered, and were puzzled when the Muslims of Iraq did not behave, as those soldiers expected them to, as a grateful "Iraqi people," but rather as a collection -- with a handful of exceptions -- of grasping, whining, greedy, meretricious people, eager to have the Americans do everything for them, eager to have them lavish them with aid money (thrown around, by the billions, like confetti), and distinctly indifferent to American losses when not taking outright pleasure in such losses, yet always willing to blame the Americans for everything.

Does a Sunni bomb go off killing Shi'a? The Shi'a crowds gather, and tell reporters that they blame the Americans. The Sunnis are kidnapped by Shi'a militia, and the Sunnis rant against the Americans. And now 98% of the Sunni Arabs say that all attacks on Americans are justified and that they personally approve of them, and 75% of the Shi'a say the same thing. Only the Kurds express, by a large majority, lack of approval for such attacks.

What is the conceivable offense to morality in no longer sending Americans to fight and die for people who cannot overcome Islam, who will in large -- and ever-increasing -- numbers, take delight in the deaths of Americans? And does anyone, does even Bush, still think that Iraq could somehow become a Light Unto the Muslim Nations? Karen Hughes, Bush’s loyal and equally unintelligent aide, is the one who is most directly involved with "reaching out to Muslims." That is the extent of our propaganda effort, an effort that should be made not to win jihadists over, but to fill them with confusion and to demoralize them, and make at least some of them begin to see that their political, economic, and social failures are a direct result of what Islam inculcates -- not only the specific doctrines, but the habit of mental submission that it demands.

It is immoral for Bush and others to persist obstinately in a course that makes no sense. Like the general in "The Charge of the Light Brigade," or like the madly complacent generals who sent people to their death in the trenches in World War I, these people are not thinking straight. Others -- the soldiers and Marines of the regular army, and of the Reserves and National Guard -- at least had every right to expect that they would not be sent to Iraq except in case of absolute national emergency. Yet the war in Iraq is most definitely not a case of "national emergency" but of willful ignorance of Islam, lack of imagination, lack of wit, lack of knowledge about Iraq, at the very top. And then there is always that claque of loyalists, the assorted kagans and kristols or, for that matter, that speaking-truth-to-power admirer of Edward Said, the minor polemicist Christopher Hitchens, who only yesterday began to find out a little about Islam. He's a dab hand at running with whatever little knowledge he acquires, tout en faisant son petit Orwell.

There is nothing "machiavellian" or "immoral" about refusing to continue to keep various groups of Muslims from one another's throats. Who knows? Maybe they'll all make peace. Let's say that is the outcome. I could live with that. I could also live with the other. It is theirs to make or mar. We got rid of a murderous monster. That murderous monster, it turns out, was about what Iraq appeared to need, if the only conceivable good is an absence of the kind of strife that became inevitable, sooner or later, once the regime of Saddam Hussein was removed.

Perhaps some think the regime of Saddam Hussein was moral, and that therefore it was immoral to end it, but Christopher Hitchens is not among them. He thinks the removal of Saddam Husseini was justified and desirable. Unfortunately, he also seems to think it is Americans who should pay, and keep paying, the price for that removal -- instead of those whose belief-system makes them naturally unwilling to compromise, that makes them susceptible to crazed beliefs and conspiracy theories (the Sunni Arabs, for example, really allow themselves to believe that they constitute 42% of the Iraqi population, and they really believe that they have a right to that amount of power, or even more, and certainly they will never acquiesce in the Shi'a rule over Iraq).

No, it would be immoral and cruel to American soldiers to make them stay. All sorts of braggart warriors and chocolate soldiers, however -- Hitchens comes to mind, and so does Frederick Kagan -- are perfectly happy with this.

I find them immoral.

Fitzgerald: You had better believe your lying eyes

About a seminar at the University of Virginia purporting to clear up the meaning of jihad, Robert Spencer recently wrote: "Note that in all this, at least as reported here, no one actually says that the jihadists' use of the term is incorrect -- just 'incorrect in the sense that it is not the primary meaning of jihad.' They just say the word has other meanings as well."

Robert, you are being too kind. They are not only saying that the word "jihad" has "other meanings" -- that can be granted -- but would have us, unwary Infidels, believe that the primary meaning of Jihad is something other than that "struggle" or "Jihad" to spread Islam, to make sure that in the end all obstacles to the spread of Islam maintained by Infidels are torn down, so that everywhere "Islam dominates and is not to be dominated."

Possibly the inimitable Karen Armstrong is not so inimitable after all. For it is she who quotes that hadith, the one about Muhammad returning home from war, and saying that he is returning from the "Lesser Jihad" of war to the "Greater Jihad” of domestic life and, presumably, working to stay on the path of Allah. But what Armstrong fails to tell readers is that this Hadith is not in either of the most respected and authoritative collections of Hadith, and even in the lesser ones in which it appears, it is not assigned the highest rank of authenticity. So it has little value. I assume that Karen Armstrong, who knows so little, simply has no idea how the Hadith have been gathered, collated, their isnad-chains studied, they themselves assigned different levels of plausibility and then gathered into certain collections and not into others. And in Onward Muslim Soldiers, you, Robert, observed that Hassan Al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam and others know well that this is a weak hadith, and used that fact as a point of recruitment, to win Muslims over to their uncompromising vision of jihad as warfare.

But what about the University of Virginia professor behind this -- Gianotti? Does he know this? Is he simply trying to placate his Muslim colleagues and go along with the farce -- for every Muslim knows perfectly well what the word "Jihad" is taken to mean by Muslims, in time and in space, from Spain to the East Indies, and over 1350 years? That a handful of people in the last two centuries tried, somehow, to endow it with another meaning is a detail or a footnote. Some of them did this because, during the years of perceived Muslim weakness and Western strength, they saw no other way out to attain the kind of accommodation that they realized would be necessary, in such circumstances, for Muslims to make.

The primary, the commonly-accepted and for almost all of the history of Islam virtually its only meaning of jihad was that which all of the Qur'anic scholars, the leaders of the various legal schools, the theologian Ghazali, the historian Ibn Khaldun, the caliphs and military men, gave it. And that is the same as the meaning given to it today not only by Osama bin Laden, but by Al-Qaradawi, and the Sheikh al-Azhar, and all of the Saudi imams, and of course the most learned Shi'a theologians as well -- including that well-trained man, Ayatollah Khomeini, and his many admirers.

One has only to spend even a half-hour looking through Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad to find many dozens of excerpts from virtually every major figure in the history of Qur'anic scholarship by Muslims, and another half-hour to discover the works by the learned Western scholars of Islam, with the fruits of their immense learning, based on many decades of study -- and there was not even room for all of them. But such names as Joseph Schacht and Arthur Jeffery and Samuel Zwemer and St. Clair Tisdall and Emile Fagnan and K. S. Lal and David Margoliouth and Henri Lammens and Sir William Muir and so many others -- well, are you going to believe me, says the likes of Timothy Gianotti, or what your lying eyes tell you when you read C. Snouck Hurgronje, or Joseph Schacht?

I think, in this as in so many other cases, you had better believe your "lying eyes."

Outspoken Muslim seeks police protection

Yet another indication -- the second one today -- of why Islamic reform is so exceedingly difficult.

By Barney Zwartz in The Age, with thanks to Davida:

One of Australia's most important Muslim leaders has sought police protection after criticising controversial cleric Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali.

Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association - and Sheikh Hilali's employer - said he received non-stop phone threats yesterday after he released a document urging greater integration and for Muslims to "mend their ways".

The report, prepared for a national meeting of imams in Sydney this weekend, says some Muslims are "ruining it" for all and that Australians have "had enough" of Muslims. His report also recommends that imams become involved in community activities such as voluntary firefighting and surf lifesaving.

Mr Zreika said he was threatened recently after saying, "I can't tolerate this freak show", following recent remarks by Sheikh Hilali.

But yesterday, after the contents of his paper were publicised, the threats, from Muslims, came non-stop.

"They just say, 'Mate if you don't shut your mouth we are going to come and fix you up'," Mr Zreika said. "I know they are Muslims because they quote Muslim prayers."

Death threat lobbed at Muslim group promoting moderate beliefs

Yet another indication of why Islamic reform is so exceedingly difficult. The Muslim Canadian Congress has had this kind of problem before. From CBC News, with thanks to WriterMom:

A moderate Muslim group that called for a separation of religion and state in a recent documentary has received a pointed death threat.

The Muslim Canadian Congress received the message Tuesday morning. It was left on the Toronto telephone of secretary general Munir Pervaiz.

"I swear on 99 names of Allah, if you don't cease from your campaign of smearing Islam … I will slaughter you," the unidentified caller said.

Toronto police and its hate-crime unit are investigating.

The message was addressed to congress president Farzana Hassan and founder Tarek Fatah, and mentioned Allah's name three times in a row.

"It is scary," Pervaiz told CBC News on Wednesday.

"This is the first time that someone is really swearing in the name of God and it appears that person is taking an oath by announcing the name of God three times."

'Proves problem exists'

Pervaiz said the accusation of smearing Islam is a serious one, an offence that some Muslims believe is worthy of punishment.

The death threat comes after the Muslim Canadian Congress took part in a documentary that aired on CBC News on March 6. The piece examined the divides between secular and fundamental beliefs within the Canadian Muslim community.

The congress has been targeted for its moderate beliefs before, but never in such a direct fashion, Pervaiz said. Members have had their homes and cars damaged after sharing their opinions publicly.

"We want as many people to know that such a problem exists in Canada," Pervaiz said. "People thought we were exaggerating, but this now kind of confirms and proves the problem exists."

Chicago Muslim pleads not guilty in terror case

Chicago Jihad Update.

"Man pleads not guilty in terror case," by John Seewer for Associated Press, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

TOLEDO, Ohio - A Chicago man pleaded not guilty Wednesday to federal charges that he plotted to recruit and train terrorists to attack U.S. and allied troops.

Khaleel Ahmed is charged with conspiring with his cousin and three Ohio men between June 2004 and February 2006 to kill or maim Americans overseas, including those in Iraq.

Ahmed, 26, and his cousin Zubair A. Ahmed, 27, were arrested last month; Zubair Ahmed has yet to enter a plea. Three Toledo-area men — Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim I. Mazloum — were charged in the same case early last year and have pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors allege the conspiracy included finding recruits to commit terrorist acts and seeking out sites for training in firearms, hand-to-hand combat and the use of explosives. The men also allegedly agreed to raise funds for training and download Internet information on improvised explosive devices, according to the indictment.

The five face a maximum penalty of life in prison if convicted. All are U.S. citizens except Mazloum, who came to the U.S. legally from Lebanon.

Prosecutors said that in 2004 the Ahmed cousins met with El-Hindi and a former U.S. military man who federal prosecutors say helped foil the plot.

"It's because the Iraqi army is so scared that we have to come here to die"

The soldiers quoted in this article are coming up against harsh realities for which their commanders have not prepared them and which the U.S. government seems unwilling to acknowledge. "Ninety-five percent of Iraqis are good but five percent are bad. But the 95 percent are too weak to stand up to the five percent." Now, why is that? The 95 percent fear for their lives, of course, and they also can mount no effective response to the jihadist claim to represent pure Islam. That's why every day is like Groundhog Day: the 95 percent will never step up as long as the Americans are there to do it for them, because these things are not going to change.

"US troops in Iraq want out," from AFP:

For US troops from 9th Cavalry Regiment bumping around the dangerous streets of Baghdad in Humvees after dark on Monday, news that their deployment in Iraq could be extended fell like a hammer blow.

Their commanders had cautioned that their second one-year tour due to end in October could be prolonged while US President George W. Bush later warned troops it was too soon to "pack up and go home."

The expletives during the four-hour night patrol turned the air in the Humvee, already thick with cigarette smoke, a dark shade of blue.

"We just want to get out of here as soon as possible," said one vehicle commander in one of his few printable comments.

"It's because the Iraqi army is so scared that we have to come here to die," he added, asking not to be named.

"Ninety-five percent of Iraqis are good but five percent are bad. But the 95 percent are too weak to stand up to the five percent."

"Bush should send all the Death Row prisoners here and they can be killed fighting the terrorists. We've had enough," said another soldier, as the Humvee accelerated past a roadside car in case it exploded.

Added yet another, "Bush can come fight here. He can take my 1,000 dollars a month and I'll go home."...

"It is like the movie 'Groundhog Day'. Each day is the same and nothing ever changes," he added, referring to the 1993 movie in which the principal character is doomed to repeat the same day endlessly....

Platoon commander of the 9th Cavalry Regiment, Captain Christopher Dawson, said he understood the need for troops to stay in Iraq.

"We are starting to make a difference," he said. "The violence is dropping. We are training Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own security. We are helping them see their future ahead of them. It is in their hands."

But the lower ranks were in rebellious mood, especially after publication of a poll on Monday, commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today, which showed only 18 percent of those questioned had confidence in US and coalition troops, while 78 percent opposed their presence.

"If no one wants us here we are quite ready to get out tomorrow," said the outspoken vehicle commander.

One of the few Iraqis the troops met during their night patrol -- most stay indoors once the 8pm curfew kicks in -- said he feared the day the US forces pulled out.

"They can stay for 100 years if they want," said Salam Ahmed, a security guard at a shoe warehouse on the outskirts of the city. "If they go, the bad guys will certainly come for me."

Indeed.

U.S., Britain slam Italy hostage deal with Taliban

Aethelred the Unready lives, but the United States and Britain aren't happy about it. By Phil Stewart for Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

ROME (Reuters) - The United States and Britain criticized Italy's hostage deal with the Taliban on Wednesday, saying the release of five guerrillas in exchange for an Italian reporter put NATO troops in danger and encouraged kidnappings.

A senior U.S. administration official said Washington had formally complained to Rome through diplomatic channels for putting pressure on Kabul to release the Taliban, adding the deal "caught the U.S. by surprise."

A spokeswoman at the British Foreign Office said the deal sent "the wrong signal to prospective hostage-takers."

of course.

Sunni Jihad Groups Rise Up Against Al-Qaeda in Iraq

"Selling out the faith and halting the jihad for the sake of parliamentary seats..."

An intruguing analysis by D. Hazan for MEMRI (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Introduction

In late February and early March 2007, the London dailies Al-Hayat and Al-QudsAl-'Arabi reported on an escalation of the conflict in western Iraq between the local population and the Al-Qaeda in Iraq organization. Fierce battles were reported in Al-Amariyah and Al-Falluja between Al-Qaeda and the local Al-Anbar tribes, resulting in the death of dozens of Al-Qaeda fighters and in the weakening of Al-Qaeda in these areas.

Thus, for example, Al-Quds Al-'Arabi reported: "For the past five months or so, fierce battles have been raging in the cities of Al-Anbar province between tribal [forces] and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with dozens of fatalities on both sides... [According to the tribes,] Al-Qaeda accuses anyone who tries to help the police force to maintain security and stability of being an agent of the occupation…"

"On February 25, 2007, a truck-bomb exploded near a mosque in Al-Habbaniyah... killing over 50 people - most of them civilians - and wounding over 100... The local inhabitants said that the imam of the mosque... had criticized Al-Qaeda in his Friday sermon the day before the bombing... About two weeks earlier, a car bomb exploded in a market in the village of Al-Bu Alwan, killing 10 people and injuring 12... A leader of the Al-Bu 'Isa tribe said that his tribe has formed armed militias [in the region] between Al-Ramadi and Al-Falluja that keep strangers from entering the area out of fear that they may be suicide bombers." [1]

Al-Hayat reported: "A leader of the Zuba' tribe, a lecturer at Al-Anbar University, said: 'Al-Qaeda's popularity began to wane as it increased its attacks on civilians, soldiers, and policemen, on Shi'ites and also on Sunnis who oppose Al-Qaeda's methods. In the second half of 2006, [people] began to take action against Al-Qaeda... The nationalist factions, like... Kata'ib Thawrat Al-'Ishrin and Al-Jaysh Al-Islami in Iraq, refused to join the so-called [Al-Qaeda-based] 'Islamic State in Iraq'... As a consequence, their men and commanders became targets for abduction and killing [by Al-Qaeda], which led to a wide-scale conflict in the region."

The papers also reported that a body called the Al-Anbar Rescue Council, headed by Sheikh Rishawi, has been established to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. According to Rishawi, the council was formed by "25 tribes which have helped to recruit 6,000 men for the Al-Anbar police force, and have [also] formed an emergency force of 2,500 men under Rishawi's command... Rishawi added that, in the course of their activities, his men apprehended 80 armed fighters, some of them from Saudi Arabia and Syria, and placed them under arrest in Al-Ramadi prison." [2]

The current situation is the culmination of divisions that first appeared last year. Under the command of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda in Iraq became the dominant jihad group in the country - a fact which generated resentment in the local Sunni jihad groups. The tension between the sides mounted prior to the Iraqi elections on December 15, 2005, as Al-Qaeda used violence and threats in attempt to prevent the Sunnis from voting. Tensions rose even further in the aftermath of the elections, in light of the Sunnis' insistence on taking part in the democratic process, and following reports about talks held by local Sunnis with the elected Iraqi government and U.S. forces with an eye to collaborating with them against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The conflict escalated to the point of violent clashes and mutual killings, which led to the expulsion of Al-Zarqawi's men from several Sunni-controlled areas.

Following these events, Al-Zarqawi attacked the Sunni Islamic Party in Iraq, accusing it of "selling out the faith and halting the jihad for the sake of parliamentary seats." He called on the Sunnis in Iraq to join the jihad and to stop their collaboration with the U.S., threatening that harm would come to them if they did not: "We call on the Islamic Party to abandon this crooked path and the deadly slope that it has taken... It would have been better for them to call people to jihad for the sake of Allah... This is the last call to the Sunnis in general and to the supporters of the Islamic Party in particular: Whither are they leading you, and on what path are you walking?... Oh people of the Sunna, you have sacrificed and invested much; those among us who were killed were killed for the sake of Islam and for the sake of preserving the Islamic nation. Accordingly, do not be the harbingers of evil for the nation of the Prophet [Muhammad], and do not choose for yourselves a destiny of failure - because its end is evil and lamentation." [3]

Read it all.

Israeli Nuclear Arms May Face U.N. Focus

"A veiled reference to Israel, the proposal came from Indonesia and was supported by Qatar and other members of the council." Big surprise there. By Benny Avni in the New York Sun, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

UNITED NATIONS — As the Security Council struggled to maintain unity on dealing with Iran yesterday, some of the 15 members tried to change the subject by proposing to inject Israel into the Iran issue.

Iran, meanwhile, ratcheted up its rhetoric yesterday, indicating that it may withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which obligates it to remain free of nuclear weapons.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," said Tehran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

While Iran considers the council's demand that it suspend all its uranium enrichment activities "illegal," and while its top mullahs scoff at council resolutions, President Ahmadinejad has asked to address the council once it is ready for a vote on a new resolution. In his council address, Mr. Ahmadinejad is expected to raise Israel's reported nuclear arsenal.

[...]

One stumbling block was a newly proposed reference to a Middle East free of weapons of mass destructions.

A veiled reference to Israel, the proposal came from Indonesia and was supported by Qatar and other members of the council. The only public opposition came from America.

European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity told The New York Sun that they could accept such an amendment.

Big surprise there too.

Four-year-old girl vows to be suicide terrorist in Hamas TV dramatization

More signs of the deep desire for peace among the "Palestinians."

By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook at PMW:

Hamas TV broadcast today a video dramatization of the four-year-old daughter of female suicide bomber Reem Riyashi singing to her dead mother and vowing to follow in her footsteps. The video clip ends as the little girl picks up sticks of explosives from her mother's drawer.

The Al Aqsa TV children's program shows a child actress playing the daughter, watching Riyashi preparing the bomb and asking her mother, "Mommy, what are you carrying in your arms instead of me? A toy or a present for me?" She later sees a TV news story about her mother's suicide mission and death, and realizes her mother had been carrying a bomb.

"Only now, I know what was more precious than us . . . " she sings of the bomb.

Although she misses her mother, she vows to follow in her footsteps. The video ends as she opens her mother's drawer and picks up the sticks of explosives her mother had left there.

Read it all, and watch the video, at PMW.

An American Beslan?

Investor's Business Daily (thanks to Doc Washburn) comments on this story:

Homeland Security: As Democrats hold more silly hearings to embarrass Republicans, the FBI is warning local police to be alert for Muslim extremists hijacking school buses. Reality check, please.

We wonder if any of the grandstanding politicians on Capitol Hill are thinking in terms of one of these nuts driving a fertilizer-filled yellow bus up to a government building — or, easier yet, a school. Of course not. They're too busy swooning over Valerie Plame to even notice we're still under threat from the Islamic terrorists they say we shouldn't be spying on.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department last week sent out a bulletin to law enforcement across the country warning that Muslims with "ties to extremist groups" are signing up to be school bus drivers. They also noted "recent suspicious activity" by foreigners who drive school buses or are licensed to drive them.

Recent events come on top of several other school bus-related incidents involving Mideast men that raise suspicion of terror activity.

They include last year's surprise boarding of a school bus in Florida by two Saudi men dressed in trench coats. Authorities suspect they were making a dry run to see how easy it would be to hijack or blow up a school bus filled with American children.

Previously, an Arab man from Detroit was caught trying to obtain a job as a school bus driver in New York using fake Social Security documents.

Authorities fear the school massacre that took place in Beslan, Russia, in 2004 may be a dress rehearsal for what al-Qaida plans to do here. Chechen terrorists tied to al-Qaida seized a building in Beslan on the first day of school and slaughtered 338, including 172 kids.

Three years later, schools and local police in this country are still unprepared to deal with such an assault. Most don't have response plans for handling a single active shooter, let alone a cell of trained terrorists.

Read it all.

U.S. Islamic group offers to defend passengers being sued by Flying Imams

Meeting intimidation with a demonstration of nobility and generosity. Bravo, Zuhdi Jasser. "Bizarre twist in imams' airline lawsuit," from the Washington Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A U.S. Islamic group is offering to pay to defend "John Does" being sued by six imams who were removed from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior.

The suit arose from an incident last November in which passengers and crew reported the men aboard a US Airways plane were disruptive, did not take assigned seats, loudly criticized the war in Iraq and shouted about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

They were removed from the flight, interrogated and later released.

They have since filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination by the airline, the airport authority and the "John Does" who reported them, The Washington Times reported Wednesday.

However, M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told the Times his group will raise money for the unnamed peoples' defense.

He said anti-Muslim "backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."

Somalia: crowd chants "Allahu akbar," pelts corpses with stones

Mutilation of corpses is forbidden in Islam, except when it isn't. At the time of the Fallujah incidents some Islamic authorities justified the practice on Islamic grounds.

"Bodies dragged, burned as Mogadishu battles rage," from Reuters, with thanks to Greg:

MOGADISHU, Somalia (Reuters) -- Somali insurgents dragged soldiers' bodies through the streets of Mogadishu before burning them on Wednesday in heavy fighting that killed at least 13 people and injured scores more, witnesses said.

The corpses of five soldiers -- either from the Somali government army or their Ethiopian allies -- were desecrated during some of the worst clashes in the lawless capital since the interim government took over in December, witnesses said.

In one place, men dragged two semi-naked corpses by the feet while members of a crowd chanting "God is Great" kicked and pelted them with stones, a Reuters reporter said.

"The word jihad in Arabic didn't begin as a term that made people cringe"

Misunderstanders of Islam Alert: in "Professor addresses perceptions of term 'jihad'" by Katt Henry in the University of Virginia's Cavalier Daily, we see repeated yet again the now quite familiar distractions and diversions from the main question which is: even if the jihadists are somehow misusing the term jihad, they are doing so all over the world, and winning recruits among peaceful Muslims as they do so. What are peaceful Muslims doing to convince them that they are misusing the word?

Examining the relationship between Islamic culture and current events, including concerns about the use of violence, was the focus of a lecture yesterday given as part of Islamic Awareness Week.

Islamic Studies Prof. Timothy Gianotti noted in the lecture, which was sponsored by the Muslim Student Association, the difference between the use of the term jihad in Islamic tradition versus its use in popular culture.

"The word jihad in Arabic didn't begin as a term that made people cringe," he said.

According to Gianotti, the word literally refers to a struggle.

"Feeding the poor is jihad," he said. "Writing your Congressperson is jihad."

Prior to the lecture, Arabic Prof. Mohammed Sawaie said there is "the bigger jihad and the smaller jihad." The bigger sense of the word, he said, refers to a struggle for self-improvement while the smaller sense is a struggle to show support for Islam.

The use of the term to describe wars waged in support of Islam "is incorrect in the sense that it is not the primary meaning of jihad," he said. "It is a slogan to create a gap between East and West."

All right. But who is creating that gap? The Islamic jihadists who use the term, or people like me who quote them? I think I know the answer the professor would give, and I think you do too. "Feeding the poor is jihad...Writing your Congressperson is jihad." Fair enough. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, and that department has nothing to do with anything more incendiary than trying to increase crop yields. But does the fact that a word has multiple meanings mean in itself that one of those meanings -- indeed, its primary meaning in contemporary geopolitics -- is wrong? Of course it doesn't. The Shafi'i Sharia manual Umdat al-Salik, which was endorsed in 1991 by the most respected Sunni authority, Al-Azhar University, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, spends one paragraph talking about the greater jihad (that is, the spiritual struggle), and eleven pages discussing the lesser jihad (that is, warfare). Which is more important?

Note that in all this, at least as reported here, no one actually says that the jihadists' use of the term is incorrect -- just "incorrect in the sense that it is not the primary meaning of jihad." They just say the word has other meanings as well. Great. Logged and noted. But how does my noting that help stop the jihadists, and what are the speakers at this event actually doing to stop the spread of the jihadist ideology among Muslims?

On some comments disappearing, and more

On the Dhimmi Watch side of this site, comments have disappeared on several recent posts. I did not remove them. I don't know why this happened, but I have inquired with Hosting Matters, and it seems to have been just a onetime database glitch of some kind.

Also, several people -- people who are not banned from commenting -- have written in to tell me that they can't comment or sometimes have difficulty doing so. I don't know why that is happening, but I'm trying to find out.

Meawnhile, a word about this site and comments in general. It is tempting, I suppose, for people who comment here and everywhere on the Internet to speak as if they were sitting in their living room with a group of close friends. It is easy to forget that this is a public place and that people from all over the world are monitoring it closely, for a wide variety of reasons. When CAIR piled on to ISNA's recent libel fest about my upcoming seminar for the Indianapolis JTTF, they trotted out their greatest hits package: all their own distortions, half-truths, and libels they have circulated about me over the past few years. Some of those, of course, quoted not me but comments from this site -- which is an indication of why CAIR is the only party that is happy, besides the commenter, when someone writes something here that is genocidal, abusive, or genuinely racist (terms like "Muzzies" and worse are not welcome). Of course, they didn't hesitate to quote comments that have actually been removed from this site, and for that matter may have been posted by provocateurs in the first place (I've caught quite a few here), but what does CAIR care for accuracy?

It is absurd to claim that such comments reflect on my own positions, since people of all perspectives have commented here. If they think I agree with a particular comment, let CAIR prove it from my own writings. In reality, comments are unmoderated, and I mostly do not read them. I don't have time to read them. If you put something in a comment expecting I would see it, I probably didn't, unless someone emailed me and told me about it. When people do email and tell me about such comments or pertinent material, I generally respond if there is anything to say. But the fact that comments are unmoderated means that if I don't see an abusive comment, and Hugh and Marisol don't see it, it will likely remain onsite. That does not mean that we endorse it. But when they are called to my attention, I remove them. Thus if you can email me and call my attention to such comments so that I can remove them, I'd be grateful.

Some -- particularly those whose comments have been removed -- have said that to erase such comments amounts to the very dhimmitude I am trying to keep America from adopting. I disagree. For one thing, I believe that curses, epithets, racial or other kinds of insults, and the like have no place in any public discourse. I also believe that their presence lowers the level of that discourse and leads many to believe, rightly or wrongly, that a site where such things are said by commenters must have nothing worthwhile to say in its articles. And also I think it's simply stupid to hand ammunition to those who are doing all they can to discredit people who are trying to raise awareness about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. In a war, fight strategically so as to win; a warrior whose efforts help the other side more than his own can hardly be said to be doing that.

I am trying to keep the focus on what we are doing here. This site is not a place for anyone to vent about how much he or she may dislike any particular culture in its benign manifestations: its music, its art, what have you. It is a site about some particular evils: denial of the freedom of conscience, denial of equality of rights before the law, violent and/or subversive activities in the service of Islamic supremacism, the sources of the evils, and what can and must be done about them. It is an effort working in a very small way for the defense of Western Judeo-Christian civilization and of everyone in the world who is actually or potentially victimized by jihad, Sharia and Islamic supremacism.

Please keep your focus on these things. One formerly frequent commenter here persistently insisted that Hugh and I should turn our focus to a different problem -- rather like someone insisting that a baker become an auto mechanic, or otherwise his work would be worthless. People who think our focus is wrong are welcome to find other sites with a focus more to their liking, but this will remain Jihad Watch, not PC Watch or Annoying Music Watch or Immigration Watch or Crimes Against Muslims Watch or anything else people might want to make it into. I have kept comments all this time because I believe the solution to bad speech is more speech, and because many things of value have been posted over the years. Also, I will not be cowed by CAIR's bullyboys. Nor, however, do I wish to supply them with the rope they so earnestly wish to have in order to hang me.

Islamabad's Red Mosque: 'Their business is jihad'

And business is all too good. "'Their business is jihad'," by Declan Walsh for the Guardian:

"Have you seen Best of Baghdad?" enquires Abdul Rashid Ghazi, proffering a fresh cup of tea. It is Friday morning, just before prayers, and we are sitting in a cramped room at Lal Masjid, a radical mosque in central Islamabad. Beside us a wispy-bearded young man is hunched over a computer, copying movies. Best of Baghdad, it turns out, is one of them.

A slick piece of jihadist propaganda, the 15-minute video shows numerous US soldiers in Iraq being shot by a sniper called Juba. Every sequence is similar. The camera follows the GI from a distance, watching him stand near a vehicle or chat to a friend. There is a bang. The picture jolts and the wounded soldier crumbles to the ground. His panicked comrades swarm around. Iraqi civilians sprint for cover. "It's wonderful," says Ghazi.

Lal Masjid, or the Red Mosque, has become a potent symbol of the power of Pakistan's radical Islamists. It sits incongruously but defiantly among the tree-lined streets and neatly pressed bureaucrats of the capital. The supreme court, parliament and prime minister's office are maybe a mile away. Lal Masjid is run by the university educated Ghazi and his brother Abdul Aziz, the firebrand preacher - and their business is jihad.

"I met Osama bin Laden once, in Afghanistan," muses Ghazi, recounting a trip to the al-Qaida leader's headquarters on a farm near Kandahar in 1998. "Then he was very much against the American presence in Saudi Arabia. He is still a hero to us all."

Ghazi is quick to add that he does not agree with the slaughter of innocent civilians, such as at the World Trade Centre in New York, which is against Islam. But, September 11 is just an "allegation" against bin Laden, he says, and his admiration for the militant leader remains strong. When their father was killed some years ago - shot as he crossed the mosque courtyard - Bin Laden sent a letter of condolence. Still today, Abdul Aziz compares the al-Qaida leader to the biblical figure of Abraham in his Friday sermons.

In some Muslim countries, such as Egypt or Jordan, such unabashed support for Bin Laden might land a cleric in jail. Not in Pakistan. Instead Lal Masjid enjoys a large following. There are the faithful who crowd into the mosque for five-times daily prayers, but also the thousands of young men and women who fill the two madrasas the two brothers have built next door.

Ghazi is the public face of Lal Masjid. Speaking in soft tones and fluent English, he outlines his unbending view of the world. He supports the killing of US soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else and he calls for the imposition of strict Sharia law, a sort of Taliban-like state, in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, the country that currently comes closest to this vision, "is not complete" he says. "Only Islam can bring peace and harmony. Only Islam can give you justice. Pakistan was established on the basis of an Islamic system, and we should have one."

I point out that most Pakistanis may not agree - the religious parties have never scored over 13% in general elections. But Ghazi does not believe in democracy. "Democracy is about elections. Islam is about selection," he says. "For example a drug addict doesn't know what is good for himself or his family. But he has the same vote as a person who is intellectually strong, who understands what is good. That is where the problem is."

Western diplomats working in the high-security embassy quarter less than a mile away are worried about Lal Masjid. It's partly to do with the reports of AK-47s and other weapons stashed inside - Ghazi insists they are licenced - but mostly the diplomats wonder why President Pervez Musharraf cannot shut down this obvious incubator of radicalism at the heart of his capital.

In truth, the Pakistani government has tried. But so far its best efforts have conspicuously failed. In January the city authorities tried to close Lal Masjid, pointing out that, like many mosques in Islamabad, it had been illegally constructed on public land. Ghazi responded with an iron fist. Hundreds of young women from Jamia Hafsa, his female madrasa, rushed to occupy a public children's library next door. Newspaper readers were alarmed to see a picture of several hundred burka-clad figures sitting in the library. One image showed a small boy amongst them, dressed in military fatigues and brandishing a toy rifle.

Human shields.

The government then tried to end the occupation by surrounding the library with hundreds of police and threatening to storm the building. In response Ghazi dispatched young men armed with sticks onto the street. A few tense weeks later the police backed down.

Today an uneasy truce has been negotiated. The library is controlled by a "students sction committee" while Ghazi negotiates with the government. In the meantime, the library is open. "Other children are free to come. All are welcome," he says. To end the humiliating siege, Ghazi and his brother are demanding the immediate reconstruction of seven previously-destroyed mosques, and the imposition of an Islamic state. "The library is not important. But a mosque is a most sacred place," he says.

I ask to speak to some of the protesting students. Sadly, he says, that would not be possible. Once an over-zealous student told a visiting journalist that he wanted to kill George Bush, which was a little embarrassing, he explained: "They are just young people. They don't mean it."

Sure.

Indonesian jihadists get slap-on-the-wrist jail terms for schoolgirl beheadings

Islamic law mandates a lesser penalty for the killing of a non-Muslim than for the killing of a Muslim. It looks as if this notion has a lingering influence in modern, moderate Indonesia, where a court just handed out strongly for penalty and repentance, giving the Islamic jihadists who beheaded three Christian schoolgirls appallingly light sentences.

"Indonesian militants get jail terms for beheadings," from Reuters, with thanks to all who sent this in:

JAKARTA, March 21 (Reuters) - An Indonesian court jailed three Muslim militants on Wednesday for the beheadings of three Christian schoolgirls from religiously divided Central Sulawesi province.

Judges found the main defendant, Hasanuddin, guilty of masterminding the beheadings of the Christian girls in 2005 in Central Sulawesi's Poso region and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

A separate bench sentenced Hasanuddin's accomplices, Lilik Purnomo and Irwanto Irano, to 14 years in prison.

Chief judge Binsar Siregar said Hasanuddin asked his accomplices to put the severed heads in plastic bags and place them outside Christian houses.

Hasanuddin scrawled a warning on a piece of paper saying: "A life for a life. A head for a head", and put it in one of the bags, the judge said.

The attacks were aimed at avenging the killings of Muslims during the 1998-2001 inter-religious violence in Poso.

UK: Fraudulent passports issued to jihadists

War Is Deceit Update: at least two, and possibly more, out of these 10,000 went to jihadists. "10,000 passports issued to fraudsters," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

LONDON (Reuters) - An estimated 10,000 passports were issued to fraudulent applicants in the year to last September, the Home Office said on Wednesday as it launched a new initiative to reduce identity fraud.

Face-to-face interviews for new applicants, to be introduced in May, could have helped uncover two men convicted of terrorism-related offences who had managed to secure two false passports each, officials said.

One, a Moroccan, is serving an 18-year sentence for a bombing in Casablanca. The other man, Dhiren Barot, who also had seven British passports issued in his own identity, was jailed for at least 40 years last November for plotting to kill thousands with attacks in Britain and the United States.

New Palestinian Authority textbooks call destruction of Israel a religious duty

And the Knesset report finds that some of these textbooks are in use in East Jerusalem schools that are administered and funded by Israel. "Melchior: Raise PA textbooks with Abbas," by Haviv Rettig for the Jerusalem Post:

"You can't have agreements while this kind of hatred is inculcated in the children," Knesset Education Committee Chairman Michael Melchior (Labor-Meimad) said on Tuesday after seeing new 12th-grade textbooks published by the Palestinian Authority late last year.

"I intend to demand from Prime Minister [Ehud Olmert] that he present the findings [of a new report on the textbooks] to Abu Mazen [PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas] at their next meeting," Melchior said.

Melchior's statements at the Knesset followed the presentation of Palestinian Media Watch saying that Palestinian 12th grade textbooks teach that hating Israel and pursuing its destruction are religious duties.

PMW director Itamar Marcus told the Education Committee it was the first time the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been depicted in Palestinian schoolbooks as a religious, rather than a territorial, conflict.

"According to these books," Marcus told the MKs, "the war over this land is a war for Muslim land, and will end only with the resurrection of the dead." The books teach that "recognition of Israel is forbidden by religion," he said.

Committee members promised to pressure international donors, particularly Belgium, whose contributions receive specific mention in the textbooks, to suspend their aid as long as such incitement continues in PA textbooks.

According to the report, the schoolbooks, the products of the official education arm of the PA, written by Fatah-appointed officials at the Center for Developing the Palestinian Curricula and published by the PA Ministry of Higher Education, are also used by schools in east Jerusalem that are under the jurisdiction of - and receive funding from - Israel's Education Ministry.

Shlomo Alon, deputy head of the Pedagogic Secretariat in the Education Ministry, told the lawmakers the ministry would investigate whether the books were distributed in east Jerusalem schools and would cut funding for schools found using them.

According to Melchior, the report's findings indicate a trend from "a conflict over land, which can be resolved by partition, to an existential religious conflict that cannot be resolved."

MK Zeev Elkin (Kadima) called on the government to put in place "sanctions against the PA for such violations [of the Oslo Accords]," which he called "more dangerous than security violations in the long run."

“The [Taleban] commander issued his death sentence in the name of Islam"

Will the Islamophobia never end?

"Reporter forced to watch Taleban behead his driver," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

An Italian journalist who was held hostage by the Taleban for two weeks described how he was forced to watch as his captors beheaded his Afghan driver.

Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who was released yesterday, told how he feared that he would also be killed after seeing the brutal execution.

“I can still see it now," he wrote in La Repubblica. “The [Taleban] commander issued his death sentence in the name of Islam. He said we were all spies and we had to die. [The translator] is crying. I don’t understand. I ask him what they said and he, in tears, says ’they are going to kill us’.

“I get off my knees. Four young men grab the driver and shove his face into the sand. They cut his throat and continue until they have cut his whole head.

“He is not able to make a gasp. They clean the knife on his tunic. They tie his severed head to his body. They bring it [the body and head] to the river and let it go,” he wrote.

Iraqi jihadists used kids as cover, then killed them

Iraqi "insurgents" commit another act of Islamophobia. "General: Insurgents used kids as cover, then killed them," from CNN, with thanks to CGiddensJr:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents used two children as a cover to get through a checkpoint in Baghdad and then blew up the car while the kids were still inside, a U.S. general said Tuesday.

Two adults jumped from the car, leaving the children in the back. Moments later, the car exploded, witnesses said.

The car went through a checkpoint Sunday and parked by a market across the street from a school, said Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The two children and three bystanders died in the blast, and seven others were hurt, Pentagon officials said.

The attack raises concerns that insurgents are trying a new tactic: using children to throw off troops, Barbero said.

"Children in the back seat lower suspicion. We let it move through," he said.

What do those moms and moms and moms and moms and dads that the President said we're fighting for think of this new tactic?

Iran threatens to kidnap American soldiers and feed them to roosters

Roosters eat Cheeky Humans?

"Iran Threatens to Kidnap U.S. Soldiers," from NewsMax, with thanks to Lame Cherry:

Iran is threatening to retaliate for what it calls the "kidnapping” of Revolutionary Guard officers by abducting Americans and feeding them to roosters.

In an article in the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker – believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – warned:

"We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

The warning comes after the recent disappearance of three high-profile Iranian officers.

Spencer on Obama at Hot Air

I'd issue a strong language alert but you can see that Hot Air's management has already warned you.

Russia to Iran: suspend enrichment, or no fuel for Bushehr power plant

One unnamed U.S. official observes: "We’re not sure what mix of commercial and political motives are at play here, but clearly the Russians and the Iranians are getting on each other’s nerves — and that’s not all bad." Indeed. "Russia Gives Iran Ultimatum on Enrichment," by Elaine Sciolino for the New York Times:

PARIS, March 19 — Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials say.

The ultimatum was delivered in Moscow last week by Igor S. Ivanov, the secretary of the Russian National Security Council, to Ali Hosseini Tash, Iran’s deputy chief nuclear negotiator, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a confidential diplomatic exchange between two governments was involved.

For years, President Bush has been pressing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to cut off help to Iran on the nuclear power plant that Russia is building at Bushehr, in southern Iran. But Mr. Putin has resisted. The project is Tehran’s first serious effort to produce nuclear energy and has been very profitable for Russia.

Recently, however, Moscow and Tehran have been engaged in a public argument about whether Iran has paid its bills, which may explain Russia’s apparent shift. But the ultimatum may also reflect an increasing displeasure and frustration on Moscow’s part with Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium at its vast facility at Natanz.

“We’re not sure what mix of commercial and political motives are at play here,” one senior Bush administration official said in Washington. “But clearly the Russians and the Iranians are getting on each other’s nerves — and that’s not all bad.”

A senior European official said: “We consider this a very important decision by the Russians. It shows that our disagreements with the Russians about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program are tactical. Fundamentally, the Russians don’t want a nuclear Iran.”

At a time of growing tensions between Washington and Moscow, American officials are welcoming Russian support on the situation with Iran as a sign that there are still areas in which the two powers can cooperate.

Russia has been deeply reluctant to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the Security Council, which is expected to vote on a new set of penalties against the country within the next week.

But American officials have been trying to create a commercial incentive for Russia to put pressure on Iran. One proposal the Bush administration has endorsed since late 2005 envisions having the Russians enrich Iran’s uranium in Russia. That creates the prospect of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in business for Russia, and a way to ensure that Iran receives only uranium enriched for use in power reactors, instead of for use in weapons.

Iran has rejected those proposals, saying it has the right to enrich uranium on its own territory.

The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, or Rosatom, is eager to become a major player in the global nuclear energy market. As Security Council action against Iran has gained momentum and Iran’s isolation increases, involvement with the Bushehr project may detract from Rosatom’s reputation.

In a flurry of public comments in the past month, Russian officials acknowledged that Russia was delaying the delivery of fuel to the reactor in the Iranian port city of Bushehr. It blamed the decision on the failure of Iran to pay what it owes on the project, not on concerns about nuclear proliferation.

But last month, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov informed some European officials that Russia had made a political decision not to deliver the fuel, adding that Russia would state publicly that the sole reason was financial, European officials said.

And then last week, a senior Iranian official confirmed in an interview that Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen.

Members of the Security Council are moving toward a vote this week on a draft resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for its defiance of demands that it suspend enrichment activities and return to negotiations over its nuclear program.

Three Buddhist women killed in Thai south, locals continue to blame military for earler jihadist attack

Jihad against female, Buddhist farm workers. "Three killed as Thai junta chief visits Muslim south" from AFP:

PATTANI, Thailand (AFP) - Suspected Islamic separatists shot dead three Buddhists Monday in Thailand's Muslim-majority south, police said, as the nation's junta chief visited the region amid soaring sectarian tensions.

The three women, who all worked for a royally-sponsored farm project, were killed in an early morning drive-by shooting in Pattani, one of three insurgency-plagued provinces bordering Malaysia.

"Six suspected insurgents came on three motorcycles before opening fire on a pick-up carrying more than 10 people, including children, to work at the farm project," police said.

Three other women were injured in the attack, police said.

The killings came as junta leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin began a one-day visit to the region to meet with security officials following a series of bloody attacks that have shocked the nation.

Sonthi, the first Muslim to head the army in this mainly Buddhist nation, arrived early Monday in Yala, the scene of the most gruesome of the recent violence, including a massacre of eight Buddhist civilians and a bombing at a mosque on Wednesday.

Military officers have arrested 28 people in connection with the massacre.

Tensions were raised even further over the weekend, when two Muslim boys were killed in an attack on an Islamic boarding school in neighbouring Songkhla province.

The killings sparked a protest by 400 people living near the school, who blamed the military for the attack and blocked a road to prevent police from investigating the scene.

One can't let evidence get in the way of a politically useful conspiracy theory.

At least 2,000 people have been killed in separatist violence that has gripped the provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani since January 2004, with the bloodshed occasionally seeping into neighbouring Songkhla.

The military has imposed a curfew on parts of the region, where violence has surged despite a raft of peace-building measures proposed by Thailand's military-backed government.

Serbia arrests jihadists, investigates alleged training camp

More of the Tiny Minority of Extremists discovered in western Serbia. "Serbia police arrest Muslim extremists," from UPI:

NOVI PAZAR, Serbia, March 19 (UPI) -- A judge in western Serbia's mainly Muslim region is looking into alleged terrorist activity by four Islamic extremists, reports said Monday.

Serbian police in the Sandzak region, on the border with Bosnia and Montenegro, said they had uncovered a group of Islamic religious fanatics at an alleged training camp for terrorist activities, Belgrade's B92 radio reported.

The judge ordered a 30-day detention for the group to investigate police allegations the four, holed up in a cave some 20 miles outside the town of Novi Pazar, were preparing unspecified terrorist activities.

The four denied the accusations.

Police said they found explosives, ammunition and grenades at the camp site.

If convicted, the four face up to five years in prison, B92 said.

Extremist students take over mosque

"During my presence here it was very, very quick. Because they went really, really hard with (preaching) their beliefs."

By Richard Kerbaj in The Australian, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

HARDLINE international students have wrested control of a major NSW mosque, ousting the local cleric amid accusations the group is rapidly converting followers to extremist Islam.

Up to 150 university students from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt who follow the fundamentalist Wahabbism ideology were central to the overthrow at the weekend of the executive board of the Newcastle Muslim Association.

Deposed association president Yunus Kara yesterday accused the students of pushing for new leadership of the port city's mosque in order to advance their own extremist agenda and continue "brainwashing" local Muslims.

"The international students have used their puppets to come forward and dictate," Mr Kara told The Australian.

"They're driving them to whatever ideology that (suits them). Their ideology is extremism ... but they teach under the banner of Islam."

But the association's newly elected treasurer, Michael Cawley, denied the claims of the ousted leadership, accusing them of labelling opponents Wahabbis.

Mr Cawley, a convert, said the international students were merely visitors to the mosque and had no control over the new leadership.

"Basically, what happened is anyone who didn't agree with the (former) president's point of view were labelled Wahabbi," said Mr Cawley. "It's unfair."

Newcastle Mosque's deposed imam, Bilal Kanj, who was also voted out on the weekend, said while the students openly denied their Wahabbi beliefs and radical Koranic interpretations, they were converting people during prayer group meetings and other religious gatherings.

"If you were to ask them, they will deny they're Wahabbi," said the Australian-born cleric, who moved to Newcastle three months ago to work as a full-time spiritual leader.

"They play it very discreetly. We've been studying them all of our life and we know how to spot them very easily."

Mr Kara said the international students were aged between 20 and 30, and were known to make home visits to members of the port city's 600-strong Muslim population to preach their beliefs.

This home preaching may suggest that the appointment of a new imam is not an immediate priority of the new leadership.

Mr Kara said radical students had gathered more support over the past two years after they had begun to flock the mosque in larger numbers.

He said an absence of proper religious leadership at Newcastle Mosque over the past 30 years - prior to Sheik Bilal's appointment - also meant the students could exploit the void to spread their own ideologies.

Sheik Bilal said the students were becoming more proficient at spreading their isolationist messages.

"During my presence here it was very, very quick," he said.

"Because they went really, really hard with (preaching) their beliefs."

Saudi embassy in Australia accused of paying imams' salaries

Unacceptable, for so many reasons. "Taxation office to probe Muslim cleric on Saudi cash," by Richard Kerbaj for The Australian:

A SENIOR Muslim cleric working for the tax office in Canberra is being investigated over accusations he failed to pay income tax on thousands of dollars he allegedly received from the Saudi embassy.

An ACT Islamic organisation has also accused the Palestinian-born imam Mohammad Swaiti of being "radical", anti-Western in his religious teachings, and failing to declare payments he received from officiating at wedding ceremonies.

Documents obtained by The Australian reveal an Australian Tax Office investigation into Sheik Swaiti over allegations by senior Muslim community leaders that he failed to declare his clerical allowances of up to $US30,000 ($37,700) a year, which were paid to him by the Saudi Government.

The tax office sent Islamic Society of ACT president Sabrija Poskovic a letter in reply to written allegations made by him and his community regarding Sheik Swaiti.

"I refer to your letter relating to the imam of your mosque, Mohammad Swaiti, who also happens to be a tax office employee," the ATO's letter to Mr Poskovic says.

"I have passed your concerns to the relevant area of the tax office and I expect to be able to respond to you by 6 February 2007."

Documents provided to the tax office, which accuse Sheik Swaiti of being "very fanatic and radical person in his Islamic views", follow factional divisions within Canberra's Muslim community over issues including Canberra's only mosque.

The claims come after The Australian last week revealed that hardline Islamic clerics were encouraging their followers not to pay income tax because they considered it contrary to sharia law.

Sheik Swaiti refused to answer The Australian's questions regarding the ATO investigation and accusations levelled at him by sections of his community, saying God would deal with them.

"God is watching but let them do what they want," he said in Arabic. "Even if they accuse me of murder, I will not comment. You should not take any rubbish from anyone."

Mr Poskovic - whose organisation runs Canberra's Abu Bakr Mosque at which Sheik Swaiti is employed part-time - said the tax office refused to give him any details of the investigation, saying it was restricted by privacy issues.

"I ring them and they said to me we put (the investigation) in a proper hand and channel but we can't give any information on what we're doing," he said.

A tax office spokeswoman would not comment on the matter.

Mr Poskovic accused the Saudi Embassy of bankrolling the annual salaries of up to 20 imams around Australia, including Sheik Swaiti, through its Islamic donations (Daawa) office.

A letter understood to be sent on behalf of Mr Poskovic claims the Saudis pay the imams "mukafa", which is regarded a "reward compensation payment". It also alleges that Sheik Swaiti had been on the Saudi payroll for 12 years.

The Australian could not contact the Saudi embassy, which has previously declined to provide details on whether Islamic religious organisations receive funding from the Saudi Government. On January 9, the embassy expressed shock over Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's concerns about the funding of Adelaide's mosque.

Mr Poskovic said the Saudi Embassy was dividing the community by paying some imams to propagate the hardline Wahabbi ideology, a claim he has put to the Department of Foreign Affairs. In a letter to DFAT dated March 6, Mr Poskovic warns that community tensions "will escalate to physical violence in the near future" if the Saudi embassy does not stop its "interference" in community affairs.

Mr Poskovic said while his organisation ran Canberra's only mosque, it was powerless to have Sheik Swaiti thrown out because of his strong community support.

Member of Israel's Knesset calls on "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate" Jerusalem

Treason. "MK Sarsour calls Muslims to free J'lem," by Sheera Claire Frenkel for the Jerusalem Post:

MK Ibrahim Sarsour (UAL-TA'AL) drew the ire of right-wing Knesset members on Sunday when he called for "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate Jerusalem.

Speaking at the "Jerusalem First" conference in Ramallah, the lawmaker emphasized the importance of Jerusalem to Islam, and called on participants to "act together to become a torrent on the road to liberation."

"Just as the Muslims once liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders, so must we today believe that we can liberate Jerusalem. It is not an impossible dream," he said.

MK Muhammad Barakei (Hadash) accused Israel of trying to "empty Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants." Calling Jerusalem a "national issue, not just a religious issue," he called on Palestinians to take cohesive, immediate action to "reclaim the city."

Al-Jazeera reporter: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "not a man of Allah but a man of action"

In "Unravelling the confessions of the 9/11 chief" in The Sunday Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist), Al-Jazeera's Yosri Fouda suggests that Khalid Sheikh "I Did It All" Mohammed is as much a pragmatist as a religious zealot. It is hard to escape the impression in this piece that Fouda admires Ramzi Binalshibh, if not KSM, and considers the former to be a true mujahid, a true man of Allah.

In April 2002, as chief investigative reporter on Al-Jazeera, I was taken blindfolded to meet Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at a safe house in Karachi.

He introduced himself as the head of Al-Qaeda’s military committee and admitted responsibility for 9/11. Altogether I spent 48 hours with KSM — as he is known to the intelligence community — and another key figure, Ramzi Binalshibh, whom he described as the 9/11 co-ordinator. Ramzi was captured in September 2002; KSM in March 2003....

He wants to take the credit for high-profile attacks because he is a pragmatist, a power-hungry mastermind, and realises his time is up; he might as well gain sympathy as an ideological hero.

He lived for this spotlight, the chance to say: “Look at this spectacular operation I pulled off against the most powerful nation on earth.” But he is not a fantasist. KSM is a guy who enjoys plotting and being in the field. He could be the head of the mafia and also the imam of a group of people praying in Afghanistan. He would enjoy both roles.

Another possibility is that he might be taking credit so other people, still at large, can avoid the blame. We can never know for sure. One thing that is clear is his wish to be dignified as a prisoner of war. When he mentions George Washington, he is addressing America. He is saying: “This is your own hero, you used to be oppressed by the Brits and the Brits considered George Washington to be a terrorist.”...

He is not a man of Allah but a man of action. I knew that when they were captured it would be KSM who talked first. Ramzi would be much tougher to interrogate: a true believer in Allah, in his own way. I would bet when he was captured Ramzi thought: “My true jihad has just started.” KSM would have thought: “This is it, game over.”

Pakistan: Jihadists bomb music and video shops

The fact that Islamic law forbids music is often ignored by Muslims, and bringing it up will get you a quick charge of "Islamophobia" in the U.S. today. But in Pakistan, Islamic jihadists know full well that Islam forbids music, and are acting upon it.

The moral of this story is: Never accept a random offer of cooking oil from an unidentified person.

There Is No Joy In Islam* Alert: "Pakistan blast targets music, videos," from AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

PESHAWAR - A homemade bomb in a Pakistan market damaged four music and video shops on Sunday just weeks after their owners refused an order to close down from Islamic hardliners.

Police said two people were injured in the blast at a market in Peshawar, the largest city in the deeply conservative North West Frontier Province along the border with Afghanistan.

One of the shopowners, Bashir Khan, said that hardliners calling themselves the “Soldiers of Islam” had left him a note several weeks ago, saying that music shops in the Gulshan market should close their doors.

“We had informed the police about the note and requested them to provide security,” Khan said....

The guard said that an unidentified man had handed him a tin of cooking oil, which exploded minutes after the man left.

The province has seen previous attacks on video and music shops blamed on extremists emulating the ultra-orthodox Taleban, who ruled neighbouring Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

There has been growing concern about the “Talebanisation” of Pakistan and the introduction of Islamic sharia law in tribal areas.

Last week two men and a woman were stoned and shot to death for adultery in a tribal area.

*The Ayatollah Khomeini said that.

Jihadists cut off Afghans' noses, ears

For collaborating with the U.S. This is another indication that the jihadists don't believe that mutilation is against Islam.

"Militants cut off Afghans' noses, ears," from AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Militants have cut off the noses and ears of three Afghan drivers supplying United States military bases in Afghanistan.

Officials also say a United Nations mine-clearer was shot in an ambush near Kabul.

In other insurgency-linked unrest on Saturday, three Australian soldiers were slightly hurt when a rocket struck Kandahar Air Field, the NATO force headquarters in southern Afghanistan.

The Afghan drivers were attacked in the eastern province of Nuristan, where Taliban insurgents and other Islamic militants are active.

"After downloading their supplies into a coalition base in Nuristan, they were heading to [neighbouring] Kunar," Nuristan deputy police chief Ghulamullah told AFP.

"On their way, the Taliban stopped them and cut off their noses and ears."

The police chief, who uses only one name, said it was apparent punishment for working with Western militaries.

The men's trucks were torched.

Three Muslim children in Thai school attack

Thai authorities say the jihadists killed them and tried to blame it on those Thai authorities. Muslim villagers in the area of the attack do not believe this. But given that the jihadists believe that "war is deceit," as Muhammad said, the possibility that they committed these murders in order to stir up the people against the Thai authorities cannot be dismissed out of hand.

"3 children killed in Thai school attack," from AP, with thanks to Cindy:

BANGKOK, Thailand - A deadly attack on an Islamic school in Thailand's restive south that left three students dead and seven injured sparked hundreds of Muslim villagers to rioted Sunday in protest.

Police blamed the attack in the southern province of Songkhla on Muslim insurgents, but villagers said they didn't believe Muslims were behind the violence.

More than 500 protesters gathered outside the school, parading the dead children's bodies through the crowd and setting fire to two buildings at a nearby government-owned school. Some hurled stones at police.

The attack occurred late Saturday evening at the Bamrungsart Pondok school, a Muslim boarding school in Songkhla province, said police Col. Thammasak Wasaksiri.

Attackers hurled explosives onto the school grounds and opened fire with assault rifles into the sleeping quarters of the school, Thammasak said.

He said police believe Muslim insurgents staged the attack and hoped to convince local residents that authorities were behind it — a ploy to win villagers over to the insurgents' cause.

But the protesting villagers said Sunday morning they didn't believe that Muslims had staged the attack.

"The villagers are accusing paratroopers of attacking the school," Thammasak said.

Thailand's three Muslim provinces have hundreds of religious Islamic schools, some of which authorities have accused of harboring insurgents and serving as a training ground for violence.

Indianapolis Muslims offended because...Spencer is on the way

Generally I hate talking with reporters. Too many times I have wasted an hour of my life with them, only to get one misleading half-line in a story full of ad hominem attacks from jihad apologists. Here is one memorable example. And once in Toronto...well, I digress. This story in the Indianapolis Star is not bad, and even includes a sidebar containing quotes from me that, while they are not the ones I would have picked, are not ill-chosen.

Anyway, Louay Safi is allowed to defame me by likening me to an antisemite and a Klansman and falsely claiming that this effort is all about hating Muslims, but at least some of what I tried to explain to Robert King makes it into the story. Of course what I said to him was the sort of thing I point out all the time: that bin Laden and Zawahri and the late Zarqawi and Mukhlas Imron and so many other jihadists are justifying their violence by reference to passages of the Qur'an and the words and deeds of Muhammad. If peaceful Muslims don't confront this and formulate new and non-literalist ways of understanding this material, it will continue to be used to incite violence. In other words, the use that jihadists make of elements of the Qur'an and Muhammad's teaching makes it incumbent upon peaceful Muslims to perform a searching reevaluation of how they understand those elements, so as to neutralize their capacity to set Muslims against non-Muslims. As well as against other Muslims.

Anyway, Safi's libels here remind me of a comment I got from another reporter some time ago: "One reason I starting reading your site was because people were insulting you. That meant you were getting under their skin. After a short read, it became clear the insults were unjustified, which implied your message angered them, but they were unable to counter it without insults."

"Invitation to author upsets Muslims: Islamic group says writer's planned talk to an FBI task force would add to distrust," by Robert King in the Indianapolis Star, with thanks to Web:

The decision by the FBI's Indianapolis office to bring in author Robert Spencer to talk to its anti-terrorism task force has a Plainfield-based Muslim organization concerned that the bureau is listening to an "Islamophobe" who distorts its faith.

The FBI had planned to bring in Spencer this week to speak to Indiana's Joint Terrorism Task Force. His appearance was postponed because he had a scheduling conflict. Both Spencer and the FBI hope to reschedule.

Louay Safi, director of leadership development with the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North America, said bringing Spencer in to talk of Islam is akin to bringing an anti-Semite to talk about Jews or a Ku Klux Klan member to talk about race.

"Many people in our community will not be happy with it," Safi said.

Spencer is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion." He is also a director of Jihad Watch, a Web site that calls attention to the activity of Islamic jihadists.

The site includes his take on various writings by Islamic scholars and groups as well as the news of the day in the Middle East. In fact, he announced he was coming to Indianapolis to meet with FBI officials.

Safi said Spencer's writings take selected passages from Islamic writings out of context in an effort to prove the religion condones terrorism. He said the FBI's use of Spencer could reinforce views some Muslims hold that the bureau treats them unfairly.

"When they bring in someone like that, it makes it difficult even for us to explain to the Muslim community that (the FBI) is neutral and is not listening to extremists who really hate Muslims," Safi said.

Spencer said he is not an "Islamophobe," and that he understands a majority of Muslims are peaceful. But he said there is no mistaking that modern-day jihadists from Osama bin Laden to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi cite the teachings of Islam in rationalizing their attacks.

"Maybe Osama bin Laden is misusing the Quran, but the Islamic Society of North America has never formed a response to the way he misuses it," Spencer said.

Instead of facing up to the crisis within Islam, Muslim leaders too often aim criticism at those who point out these problems, Spencer said.

Fitzgerald: Getting out so as to concentrate on more important things

A poster at Jihad Watch recently took issue with some comments I made by saying, "No politician can stand before the people and say they want to pull out of Iraq so that the Muslims will slaughter each other. "

I don't expect any politician to say that, so baldly. I never did. I expect them to say something like "We have done quite enough for the Iraqis. We freed them from a monstrous regime. That regime was in power for 35 years, and that regime attacked two of its neighbors -- one Shi'a, Iran, and one Sunni, Kuwait. That regime ordered the mass slaughter of both Kurds and Shi'a Muslims. That regime was prepared to continue for another 35 years. Saddam Hussein and his sons and his collaborators were moral monsters, and they are now permanently removed from the scene. We brought an experiment in democratic elections, and should the people in Iraq wish to repeat the experiment, if they wish to entrust their destiny to the expressed will of the people -- that is, themselves -- we will be satisfied, but of course it is their decision.

“So far we have lost more than 3,200 men. We have had nearly 25,000 men wounded, many with wounds that will require us to take care of them for their lives. We have spent billions of dollars, and will spend billions more once the committed costs of taking care of those wounded for their lives, and of replacing the equipment that, from the stores of both the regular army and the National Guard, have been used up at such a terrific rate, are calculated. Those costs include trucks and Humvees and helicopters and planes that have been damaged in war and have also suffered because the desert conditions degrade such equipment at a terrifically accelerated rate. We have gone around the world and obtained nearly $100 billion in debt cancellation from the countries of the West, and we still await a promise by the Arab creditors that they, too, will cancel the debts incurred by Iraq under that monstrous regime of Saddam Hussein.

“We have done all we could, and much more. We have remained in Iraq now, for more than four years. We have, that is, been at war on behalf of the people of Iraq, in order to liberate them from a despot and so that they could get unused to the habit of submitting to despotism, and begin to experience some notion of democracy. This is longer than we were at war during the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, or World War I, or World War II, or the war in Korea. It is now time -- some would say it is long past time -- for the people in Iraq to decide if they are indeed the people in Iraq, or if they are the "Iraqi people."

“We cannot stay to make that decision for them. We cannot stay to fight the battles of this side against that side, or that side against this side. That would be a terrible thing to expect us to do. We will not do it.

“I now declare that American forces will be withdrawing from Iraq, starting May 1, 2007. That withdrawal does not depend on what the Iraqi government tells us it wants. We will do what the American people tell us they want, rather, and it has told us, in any number of ways, that it wants us out of Iraq.

“Our country is a democracy. Democracy is not defined only by the election results. Between elections, those who have been elected have a duty to take the pulse of the nation. Only a madman could ignore the fact that 3/4 of this nation wants our troops out of Iraq and many of those people want those troops out today, or yesterday. The opinion polls show that this is not close, not nearly. Those against remaining in Iraq outnumber those who have not declared themselves against by a margin of nearly 3 to 1. That is simply too great to ignore. If it were to be ignored, this country would no longer seem to be a democracy, but would rather be akin to a runaway train, with a mad engineer who refuses to stop even as the passengers pull the cords and scream at the top of their lungs.”

Something like that will do nicely, thank you.

It has a virtue, the little speech I just composed above. It is unlike the utter nonsense we have heard about "bringing freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, unlike the misguided phrase "war on terror," unlike the cheapness of those warnings about those who, opposed to the war, have been stupidly described as merely wanting to "cut and run." It is unlike those who now use this idiotic phrase, "if we don't fight them over there, they will follow us home." (Can anyone say that phrase and not be an idiot?) There are many people in this country who are fully aware of the menace of Islam, of the Jihad. They are fully aware of the weapons of Jihad that might be fought better, in a more sensible and effective way, if we were out of Iraq and allowed the fissures, sectarian and ethnic, to take their natural course within Iraq and among Iraq's Muslim neighbors, so as to allow us to concentrate on many other things: ending the Jizyah of foreign aid to all Muslim states, meeting with NATO allies to discuss the security threats that arise from a growing Muslim population in Western Europe, encouraging widespread publicity given to the St. Petersburg Declaration and beaming into Muslim lands the words and ideas of Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the others who so terrify the fake "moderate" Muslims -- because unlike them, the people who took part in the St. Petersburg deliberations are the real, and not the phony, thing.

And then there is the possibility of seizing southern Sudan and Darfur, until such time as a referendum on independence can he held. How hard would it be to destroy the Sudanese air force, and all of those helicopters that support the Janjaweed? How many American soldiers would it take to seize and hold that area, and thereby to send a signal to black African Christians that they will not be abandoned, and that the slow march of Islam down from Egypt through Sudan with Ethiopia as the big prize ("Christian" Ethiopia), a country that Egypt wishes to islamize and insure that it never gets to divert the headwaters of the Nile, will not be allowed to continue? How many men? A few thousand, greeted by grateful black Africans? And what would the government of Egypt, what would the Arab League, do then? Declare it has a divine right to kill black Africans, either because they are non-Muslim as in the southern Sudan, or because they are non-Arabs, as in Darfur?

And finally there is Iran. And Iran must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with, with the American troops out of Iraq, and with Iraq itself in a state of confusion. The Iranian government wants the Americans to stay. It wants them there, and it wants to be able to keep them tied down there and subject to low-level but constant assault. This fits Iranian policy. Some argue otherwise, and think the American presence somehow scares Iran. But this just shows how silly they are about the usefulness of those forces, their mobility, their relative freedom from attack.

Iran must be dealt with from afar. Offshore, way offshore, and from the sky. It can be done, and must.

Fitzgerald: Folly to withdraw from Iraq?

A poster at Jihad Watch recently summed up the conventional wisdom: "The truth is until the Iranians are dealt with it would be folly to move out of Iraq."

That is exactly backwards. Tarbaby Iraq makes it far less likely the United States will intelligently deal with Iran. At this point, with the various Iranian agents going back and forth, it is clear that the American troops are hostages. Or rather, it is clear that American policy is being held hostage to Iran, which could retaliate against those troops that are in the midst of 27 million Muslims, and are in no condition to conduct a war against Iran from Iraqi soil. And this is something Iran knows very well.

Furthermore, even if the American government tries to use economic sanctions to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to finally stop its nuclear project, those sanctions will not work because Iran has greatly increased its trade -- by 30% in the last year -- with Iraq. It is all that American money that has been poured into Iraq that is used, in turn, to buy Iranian goods and is helping to keep Iran sufficiently prosperous so that it can afford to ride out -- or thinks it can afford to ride out -- sanctions.

In other words, the American presence in Iraq makes it far less likely that the Americans will be able to stop Iran's rush to manufacture nuclear weapons for two reasons:

1) A policy that must necessarily end in attacks -- not an "invasion" of Iran -- on Iran's nuclear facilities is now inhibited, and even held hostage, by the fact of about 150,000 American soldiers. Muslims who do not wish them well surround those soldiers. Many of those Muslims are either indifferent, or positively delighted, when those Americans are attacked and wounded or killed. If the Sunni Arabs have to date been the most dangerous, the Shi'a Arabs would, if Shi'a Iran is attacked, not think twice about attacking the Americans in their midst. And the American officers and men know this, and so does the Pentagon, and so must even that remarkably ignorant man, George Bush.

2) If plans for attacking Iran are inhibited by the American presence, as it is currently configured (if all those soldiers were in the desert, or in Kurdistan, and not spread out through the streets of Baghdad, that would be better, though still not nearly as good as removing them altogether), then that leaves economic sanctions. And as noted above, economic sanctions will not work if the Bush Administration keeps up this cockamamie idea of pouring still more American money into Iraq for what is politely called "reconstruction." It should be called "construction," for there wasn't much to begin with.

In other words, while the Iraq policy makes at this point no sense, and hasn't made any sense since the beginning of 2004, when the country had been scoured for weapons, and represents a squandering of men, money, and materiel on exactly the wrong goal, it is even worse than that.

Why? Because remaining in Iraq is not helping deal with Iran, but positively getting directly in the way.

This colossal error, this stupidity, cannot ever be forgiven. And those who refuse to attack it for the right reasons will not be forgiven either.

Meanwhile, I just ran across this from one of those "cut-and-run liberals" that loyalists of the crazed Iraq policy like to denounce because, as they repeat in their zombie-like way, "if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them over here." Why? Because, you see, "they'll follow us home." Exactly how, on which particular airline and flight, or on what tramp steamer, they will "follow us home" is unclear, and also unclear is why those who talk about the need to keep "them" from "following us home" never discuss "those" (of "them") who are already well-ensconced both in North America and in the countries of Western Europe. Nor do they discuss the conceivable connection between the deteriorating situation in Western Europe and the project of bringing peace, stability, prosperity, unity, and toys and good things to eat to the boys and girls on the other side of the Muslim mountain (the one that wouldn't come to Muhammad, so he went to it), in the place called the Land of the Two Rivers, or Iraq.

Here is what that cut-and-runner wrote:

"...the number [of voters] displaying acquiescence, let alone enthusiasm, for more of the same[in Iraq]is approaching zero. Giuliani, while ferocious in his determination to defeat terrorists, distances himself from the Bush administration's optimistic predictions.

I think there is a sense in the land that the Iraqi people are not doing their part. It's true that Mr. al-Maliki has several times insisted on sharing the security burden more rigorously. And it is true that the Iraqi people are suffering mortally. The people who get killed every day by those insurgents are here and there an American soldier, an average of three per day. Mostly, though, the people who are getting killed are Iraqis. An estimated 1.8 million Iraqis have left their homes and fled the country, exiled by the war. One cannot count that less than a major sacrifice.

Yet Americans feel that the Iraqis' sacrifice is disproportionately low, and the single reason for this is that it is also Iraqis who are causing the tribulation in which American soldiers are being wounded and killed. And there is no strategic plan, issuing from the White House, that apportions the sacrifice being made to goals being accomplished. There is no sense of the sun rising every day on freshly liberated soil."

He doesn't get to my point, the point about how sectarian and ethnic fissures are not to be worried about but welcomed, and the details of how, and why, and where that would help us that have been posted here, several hundred times, over the past three years.

But he does reveal, this crazed far left-wing cut-and-runner, who apparently is willing to let them "win" over there, and then "follow us home over here," that he thinks the Iraq War is now folly.

The name of this far-left commentator?

William F. Buckley, Jr. of the Upper East Side, and Gstaad.

Fitzgerald: Just two things wrong with Bush's Iraq policy

Gamal Abdel Nasser used poison gas in Yemen, and would have used it in the Six-Day War had the Arabs not had to scream for a ceasefire so quickly. Of course, if they do use poison gas against Israel, they know what will happen to them. Wherever they can get away with it, as in Iraq, they use it.

In Iraq, American soldiers are inhibited from giving the response they could give, even as they risk their lives for a foolish goal, set by foolish men ignorant of Islam. Those men are ignorant apparently of anything outside of the theatrum belli of Iraq, and even there so misunderstand things as to squander the lives of better people than they are, because they cannot even conceive of how removing American troops will accomplish exactly what needs to be accomplished -- to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam. They're just too stubborn, too dumb, and too unimaginative. Bush, and those who remain loyal to Bush out of -- loyalty.

It disgusts. It is madness. Una follia. American policy is now a runaway train, with a madman in the engine car, who will not stop, will not listen to anyone except himself. It is the most incredible situation in American history.

And that others do not see it as such, or do not attack the policy for the right reasons, is likewise madness. For god's sake, isn't there a single person in Congress who can stand up and say, “I want to defeat or weaken the forces of Jihad, and the way to do that is clearly to remove the troops”? Is that so hard to do? And then to read out a list of all the things that should and could be done, to make sure that this is perceived, in a month or two, not as a retreat, but as part of a much more determined and ruthless campaign against all the instruments of Jihad.

Within a year of the invasion, that is, after Saddam Hussein, his sons, and almost all of the people in that game of fifty-two pick-up had been killed or seized. After the country had been scoured for weaponry, the continued presence of American troops made no sense. It made no sense to ignore the fact that the Sunnis were now exposed as constituting a mere 19% of the population, and without Saddam Hussein or some other Sunni despot equally ruthless, they would not be able to hold onto the power they had possessed during the entire history of modern Iraq. That modern history began with a revolt by the Shi'a tribes, and is now ending with a revolt by the Shi'a, though now many of them are now urban dwellers and their tribal loyalties may have lessened. This is the main point: the inevitability of Sunni-Shi'a conflict. It did not depend on any act by the Americans after the regime fell: the collapse of the regime itself guaranteed that power would pass to the Shi'a from the Sunnis. It might pass as a result of armed conflict; it might pass, as it apparently has, through the purple-thumbed voting -- with the Shi'a enthusiastically participating because they knew that they outnumbered the Sunni Arabs by more than 3-1, and the Sunnis hardly participating at all, because they knew they would lose, and the Kurds of course voting, to protect their interests in a national government of whose existence they are not particularly fond: the very same day a referendum was held in the Kurdish north and 98% of those voting voted for an independent Kurdistan.

The government that resulted is, to the extent it can be, of, by, and for the Shi'a Arabs. No matter what cosmetic changes are made, what phony "oil bill" is passed that may outwardly satisfy the Americans, just as soon as those Americans leave the Shi'a militia will go at it and get their revenge, and they will be even more likely, having been held back by the Americans, to engage in the kind of warfare that is the only kind that gets the attention, and possibly some cooperation, from the Sunni Arabs. It won't be the kid-gloves treatment of the Americans in Iraq, nor the scrupulous Israelis. It will be Muslim on Muslim. From outside Iraq, others will supply money, men, weaponry, to their coreligionists, and within Muslim lands -- Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Pakistan being the main ones where there are significant Shi'a communities -- all kinds of spillover effects will only increase the domestic unrest and headaches for regimes that, until now, have managed to export to the Infidel world, the Western world, all of the refusal to compromise, the aggression and the hostility to which Islam naturally gives rise, and which those growing up in societies suffused with Islam exhibit. It will be a very nice Demonstration Project for the Infidels of the world.

Iraq, Iraq? Suppose the crazy goals of Bush could be obtained, with another $750 billion being spent -- or even another $250 billion. (What if, by the way, that money had been spent, or were now spent, on energy projects, so as to deprive the Muslims of the "money weapon"?) So what? Why would a functioning Iraq be a Good Thing for us? How would a Shi'a-run state linked economically and politically and religiously to Iran conceivably serve as a "model" (that Light Unto the Muslim Nations -- that "light" I have made light of here many times before) for Sunni Arab states? They will be permanently enraged that the most important place in Islamic history, the Land of the Two Rivers, for five hundred years (roughly 750-1250) the site of the Abbasid Caliphate and the center of what they see as High Islamic Civilization, will now be in the hands of those "Rafidite dogs" the Shi'a.

Nothing that happens in Iraq will keep the Arab and Muslim states from acquiring another ten trillion dollars in the next 30 years. It was not senseless, if indeed there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Saddam Hussein had or was soon to acquire weapons of mass destruction, to invade so as to destroy or seize that weaponry, or disrupt his putative projects. Let some Arabs scream with delight as we now leave. They'll soon enough come to realize that extricating American forces from Tarbaby Iraq does not represent an American defeat, but rather, at long last, intelligent recognition that this is not a "war on terrorism" but a war of self-defense against the worldwide Jihad and its many instruments -- and that the theatre of Iraq, or even the larger Middle East, is not the main theatre. There is no one particular place where "terrorists" will gather (as in an Iraq after the Americans pull out), because they can gather in Pakistan, or in Saudi Arabia, or for that matter in Madrid or London or Falls Church, Virginia, if they feel like it. The very idea of taking over, and holding, at incredible cost -- $750 billion in past, present, and committed future expenses -- an entire country, is worse than senseless.

It is and will be a country riven by civil conflict. The Sunni Arabs -- the ones likely to be more favorable to Al Qaeda, for example -- will be devoting all of their energies to attacking, or repulsing the attacks of, Shi'a Arabs. Both kinds of Arabs in the north will be attacking, or repulsing the attacks of, the Kurds. The Kurds will see the Sunni-Shi'a conflict as the perfect opportunity to make the most of these conditions to make their move for independence, a move that should be supported by the Americans. The Americans should realize that an independent Kurdistan would cause great problems to both Iran and Syria, and even to Islam more generally. The spectacle of a non-Arab Muslim people throwing off the Arab yoke would or could inspire other non-Arab Muslims, such as Berbers in North Africa, and even Berbers in France, to recognize Islam for what it is: a vehicle for Arab imperialism, linguist, cultural, economic, and political.

Will this be recognized? Is there anyone in Congress who will state this kind of opposition to the war? Who will show up the Bush Administration not for its being too ruthless, or too tough, but for being too ignorant, too inhibited, too un-ruthless, too uncomprehending of all the things that it should be trying to accomplish instead of the things that it is trying to accomplish in Iraq, which is to say a stable, unified country.

There are two things wrong with the Administration's goal of a stable, unified country:

1. It is impossible of achievement.
2. It is exactly the wrong goal.

Other than those two reasons -- it's just fine.

Washington Post: CAIR shill slams Secular Islam Summit, backs caliphate supporter

In "A More Islamic Islam" in the Washington Post (thanks to all who sent this in), Geneive Abdo (who wrote a fairly good book a few years back, No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam) carries CAIR's water and touts "charismatic intellectual" Siraj Wahaj, who has said, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- A small group of self-proclaimed secular Muslims from North America and elsewhere gathered in St. Petersburg recently for what they billed as a new global movement to correct the assumed wrongs of Islam and call for an Islamic Reformation.

The "assumed wrongs of Islam"? As if there is no global jihad, justified by the texts and tenets of Islam. No schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia. No Dutch filmmakers shot and stabbed to death. No beheadings in Iraq. No churches torched in Nigeria. No Buddhist schoolteachers shot dead in Thailand. All of it done in the name of Islam. And much more besides. Just assumed wrongs, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Across the state in Fort Lauderdale, Muslim leaders from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Washington-based advocacy group whose members the "secular" Muslims claim are radicals, denounced any notion of a Reformation as another attempt by the West to impose its history and philosophy on the Islamic world.

See, it's all just a "claim" by those dastardly "secular" Muslims. No CAIR officials arrested and convicted on terror-related charges. No statements of Islamic supremacism by CAIR operatives. No derivation from Hamas. It's all just a "claim" by "secular" Muslims.

The self-proclaimed secularists represent only a small minority of Muslims. The views among religious Muslims from CAIR more closely reflect the views of the majority, not only in the United States but worldwide. Yet Western media, governments and neoconservative pundits pay more attention to the secular minority....

What outrageous hogwash. Ibrahim Hooper is on television regularly. When was the last time you tuned in to CNN or Fox and saw Ibn Warraq?

The secular Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to the author Salman Rushdie has prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith so it is imbued with Western values -- the privatization of religion, the flourishing of Western-style democracy -- and rulers who are secular, not religious, Muslims. The problem with this prescription is that it is divorced from reality. It is built upon the principle that if Muslims are fed a steady diet of Western influence, they, too, will embrace modernity, secularism and everything else the West has to offer.

Consider the facts: Islamic revivalism has spread across the globe in the past 30 years from the Middle East to parts of Africa. In Egypt, it is hard to find a woman on the street who does not wear a headscarf. Islamic political groups and movements are on the rise -- from Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Even in the United States, more and more American Muslims, particularly the young, are embracing Islam and religious symbolism in ways their more secular, immigrant parents did not.

I traveled to Florida to serve as the keynote speaker at an annual convention hosted by CAIR. On my way to the event, I spoke with Imam Siraj Wahaj, a charismatic intellectual from the Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brooklyn who has thousands of followers here and abroad. His words summarized the aspirations of mainstream Muslims in the United States and around the globe: "What we need to do is borrow those attributes from the West that we admire and reject those that we don't. That is the wave of the future."

What Genieve Abdo doesn't tell us about Siraj Wahaj

Gas sickens more than 350 in Iraq blast

More chlorine gas attacks, though larger than before. By Sameer N. Yacoub for Associated Press:

BAGHDAD - Three suicide bombers driving chlorine-laden trucks struck in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, killing two policemen and forcing about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops exposed to the gas to seek treatment, the military said Saturday.

The attacks came after back-to-back bombings last month released chlorine gas, prompting the U.S. military to warn that insurgents are adopting new tactics in a campaign to spread panic.

Just after 4 p.m. Friday, a driver detonated explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.

That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 local citizens showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.

Less than 10 miles away, another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives at 7:13 p.m., also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.

Sadr Urges Followers to Resist U.S. Forces; Thousands Rally

Sadr lashes out at the U.S., and while he's at it, Israel. Oh, and Satan. By Karin Bruillard and Sudarsan Raghavan for the Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, March 16 -- Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday called upon followers inside his stronghold of Sadr City to resist U.S. forces who are trying to stabilize the capital. Officials in his organization said the cleric was advocating a peaceful uprising.

"Raise your voices, all of you loving your brothers and united against your enemy saying as your leader taught you, 'No America, no Israel, no, no Satan,' by standing and demonstrating that way," Sadr said in a message distributed at the Kufa mosque in southern Iraq, according to a translation by the Washington-based SITE Institute, which tracks militant groups. In recent weeks, Sadr has appeared to cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi troops as they implement a month-old security plan in Baghdad and other parts of the country, even as he has continued to criticize the American presence in Iraq.

On Friday, thousands of Sadr's followers demonstrated in several parts of Iraq, including Sadr City, to protest the U.S. role. They denounced the neighborhood security outposts and garrisons being set up under the plan and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Sadr's statement came one day after gunmen attacked a convoy carrying the mayor of Sadr City, Rahim al-Darraji, leaving him seriously wounded and killing at least two of his bodyguards. Darraji, a Sadr appointee, took part in negotiations with U.S. officials to allow American troops to conduct security sweeps and build a garrison in Sadr City.

It was unclear whether Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia has often attacked U.S. and Iraqi forces, was issuing a call to arms. "The statement calls for calming down and self-control and to be careful and cautious of the occupation forces and their agents, because we have become surrounded by them from all sides," said Haider al-Tarfy, a senior Sadr representative. Friday's communique was not Sadr's first condemnation of the American presence.

Last week, Sadr asked his supporters to "demand the occupier leaves our dear Iraq so that we could live in independence and stability." In late February, he said, "The security plan will not be good if it is controlled and ruled by our enemies, the occupiers." Those statements did not incite violence.

As U.S. troops have carried out raids in Sadr City as part of the security plan, the Mahdi Army has lain low. Friday's statement appeared to address recent public comments by U.S. military officials suggesting that the militia's low profile represented tacit cooperation with the security plan.

Iran's army warns U.S. against any "stupid move"

1938 Alert from Reuters, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

TEHRAN, (Reuters) - A senior Iranian army commander warned the United States and other Western powers not to make any "stupid move" over Tehran's nuclear programme and said they would be surprised by the military response to any such action.

The comments by the commander-in-chief of the regular army, reported by newspapers on Saturday, were the latest in a series of defiant statements by Iran's leadership as the United Nations prepares to vote on new sanctions against the country.

Iran is embroiled in an escalating international dispute over its uranium enrichment, which Iran says is solely for fuel for power generation but the West suspects is a cover for making nuclear weapons.

The United States says it would prefer a negotiated solution to the crisis, but has not ruled out military options if diplomacy fails.

Indian Muslim group calls for beheading of writer

Here is a pefect opportunity for self-proclaimed Muslim moderates to demonstrate the authenticity of their commitment to the idea that human beings ought not to be subjected to violent intimidation and threats for expressing their opinions. They can roundly condemn the "All India Ibtehad Council" and begin efforts within Muslim communities worldwide to express their support for Taslima Nasrin, defending her right to speak even if they disagree with what they says. When we see in the Islamic world as many pro-Taslima demonstrations as we say Cartoon Rage and Pope Rage demonstrations, we may be getting somewhere.

From AFP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

LUCKNOW, India - An Indian Muslim group has offered a 500,000 rupee (11,319 dollar) bounty for the beheading of controversial Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen.

The president of the All India Ibtehad Council said on Friday he had declared the reward for anyone who carried out the “quatal” or ”extermination” of the “notorious woman.”

“Taslima has put Muslims to shame in her writing. She should be killed and beheaded and anyone who does this will get a reward from the council,” Taqi Raza Khan said in a statement received in the northern city of Lucknow.

The council, based in Bareilly town also in Uttar Pradesh state, is a splinter group of the influential All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

Khan said the only way the bounty would be lifted was if Nasreen ”apologises, burns her books and leaves.”

Nasreen has incensed conservative Muslims for writing a novel ”Lajja” or “Shame” depicting the life of a Hindu family facing the ire of Muslims in Bangladesh. The book is banned in Muslim-majority Bangladesh along with her autobiographical works on grounds of being anti-Islamic.

The author was forced to flee her homeland in 1994 after radical Muslims decried her writings as blasphemous and demanded her execution.

A moderate Muslim responds to the St. Petersburg Declaration

On Thursday I posted, with comments, an article by a moderate Muslim named Mike Ghouse (of the Foundation for Pluralism and World Muslim Congress) discussing the Secular Islam Summit. He has written a lengthy reply, which I linked to my original post in an Update but had not intended to comment upon further; however, because of a comment Mr. Ghouse has written here, I have changed my mind. Mr. Ghouse's new article and comment point up many of the difficulties of dialogue with Muslim moderates today, and I think it may be instructive to show just why and how that is so.

First, the article, "Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy - II," which appears here. Longtime Jihad Watch readers will recognize many common tactics. The first is a tone of condescension and an attempt to claim the moral high ground and victim status, pleading to put insults and name-calling aside and have an honest dialogue -- followed by insults and name-calling. Ghouse does this with particular aplomb:

We need an honest dialogue with the intent of working together. I hope they understand Islam-bashing is not the way. We are all one family and we have to work together....

He follows this a few lines down with:

One of the remarkable things about neo-cons is their temerity to claim a lock on the truth. I wrote a column called, “A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy” published at www.ReligionandSpirituality.com. True to its heading, the feeding frenzy has begun.

Robert Spencer made several interesting comments in his response, most of them based on the premise that the St. Petersburg declaration was ignored. A lot of questions emanated from that posit, I was not even asked if I had seen the declaration, and the whole commentary was built on the reckless assumption that I ignored the declaration, which was followed by the feeding frenzy of comments. I read the declaration after I had submitted the column for publication.

So he says let's have an honest dialogue without Muslim-bashing. Then he starts talking about "neo-cons" who have the "temerity" to "claim a lock on the truth," claims to have been the victim of a "Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy," and accuses me of making a "reckless assumption." We're all one family and all that, but apparently the prohibition on insults goes only one way. And now he tells us that he hadn't seen the St. Petersburg Declaration before he wrote his article attacking the Summit, although the Declaration was issued on March 5 and Mr. Ghouse's column appeared on March 14. Even if he wrote his piece before the Declaration was issued, he had nine days to revise it in light of what was the central product of the Summit. But instead he scolds me for assuming he saw the Declaration. I apologize for thinking he might have looked into something before attacking it.

Mr. Spencer suggests “So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"? No Sir, it is not. Absolutely not. Islam bashing is loudly telling the American public "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time,” The intent is evil, and is to turn the average American against fellow Americans, terrorizing average Ali’s around the nation. That is not acceptable from a forum that calls its “Secular Islam Summit.”

Of course, "average Ali's around the nation" are not being terrorized, and the Secular Islam Summit did not call for them to be terrorized by any remote stretch of the imagination. This is yet another example of the familiar tactic of trying to claim victim status for Muslims, which has the effect of deflecting attention from violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. CAIR and other unsavory groups have mastered this, and don't hesitate to trump-up anti-Muslim hate crimes.

Mr. Spencer, “Then lead it yourself… along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.” We appreciate that, we are all in it together and we need to work together. We have to adopt an approach that works. The bashing-approach of the Secular Islam Summit, the one you are defending, is counter-productive at best...

As I showed in my post about Mr. Ghouse's earlier article, the Summit had no "bashing-approach." The St. Petersburg Declaration "bashes" no one. And he cannot claim not to have read it now.

...which can be easily verified by the impression and reaction of the broader Muslim community in USA that is tolerant, peaceful and moderate....

This assertion is comforting. I invite Mr. Ghouse and anyone else who is interested to download the pdf of the Center for Religious Freedom's report, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques," and explain what efforts he has undertaken to combat that hate ideology within American mosques.

Muslim community in North America has been publicly and categorically condemning extremism, violence and tyranny.

Really? I have seen CAIR and a Shi'ite leader refuse to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. I have seen the Fiqh Council of North America condemn attacks on "innocent lives" and "civilians," without ever explaining who they consider innocent civilians.

Why does this matter? Because while non-Muslim Westerners may assume that they know what is meant by “terrorism,” “innocent lives,” and “civilians,” these are in fact hotly-debated terms in the Islamic world. Anjem Choudhury of Omar Bakri’s jihadist group in Britain told an interviewer that the victims of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London were not innocent, because they were not Muslims: “When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far we are concerned, that is a crime against God…As far as Muslims are concerned, you’re innocent if you are a Muslim. Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.”

Civilians? One Palestinian Arab jihadist ruled out that category also, for at least some of the victims of Islamic jihad terrorism: “There are no civilians in Israel. All the Israelis are military, all of them,” he insisted. “They are all military and they all have weapons and guns, and the moment they are called up they are going to be using their weapons against me.” The Tunisian jihadist Rashid al-Ghannushi has issued a fatwa to the same effect, declaring: “There are no civilians in Israel. The population — males, females, and children — are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”

The internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who was won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights,” agrees, saying of jihadist suicide bombings in Israel: “It’s not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God, Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue. Referring to it as a form of jihad, under the title of jeopardising the life of the mujahideen. It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed.” And what if the “enemy” is comprised of noncombatants? “Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I consider this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do.”

In light of all this, it is completely inadequate for the Fiqh Council of North America to condemn attacks on innocent civilians without saying who those innocent civilians are. Jihad terrorists can respond to the Fiqh Council's fatwa that they aren't killing innocents, they're just killing Americans and Israelis. I invite Mr. Ghouse to produce a more effective condemnation of jihad terrorism from any Muslim group in America.

What you do not understand about the psychology of reform is “telling the Christians the day after the documentary Lost Tomb is shown, to accept that Jesus was married”. That is not how reform works.

Absurd. If he is referring to what I think he is referring to, The Lost Tomb documentary has been criticized as forced in its conclusions and riddled with inaccuracies by numerous historians. For anyone to demand that Christians accept its conclusions would be tantamount to asking them to accept that Jesus was actually a space alien who flew in from Mars. But note the context in which Mr. Ghouse makes this comparison: he is equating the Secular Islam Summit and the St. Petersburg Declaration with the idea that Jesus was married. So asking Muslims to accept the equality of dignity of all people and condemnations of things like female circumcision is apparently to Mr. Ghouse like asking them to accept half-baked conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Condemnatory criticism does not work with you, me or any soul on this earth, no matter how rational you are. I am sure you found my direct response unpalatable, and you should expect that from every human being.

I find your response disingenuous, that much is certain.

The way reform works is to be with the group, to have the willingness to start from step 1, then two and three. You have to learn to climb the stairs one step at a time. If you want results NOW, then please don’t waste your time on it and blame every one for not willing. If you and I have the attitude to accept the change with grace, then we should preach every one to change at once. Many of us moderates are working on it; to be effective, one must practice patience and give room to the masses to accept and eventually own the reform.

Oh, pardon me for being impatient. Five and half years after 9/11, and we're still waiting for a Muslim group to pronounce takfir on Osama bin Laden -- that is, declare that he is not a true Muslim. Five and a half years after 9/11, and we're still waiting for a Muslim group to renounce the ideology of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism that fuels terrorism worldwide today. We're still waiting for a Muslim group even to admit what is plain to anyone who looks into the matter: that bin Laden and Zawahri and the late Zarqawi and Mukhlas Imron and so many other jihadists routinely justify their violence by reference to passages of the Qur'an and the words and deeds of Muhammad. Five and a half years after 9/11 we're still waiting for Muslim groups to acknowledge this and formulate new and non-literalist ways of understanding this material, so that it will not continue to be used to incite violence. And Mr. Ghouse tells us to be patient. Great. I'll be patient. I just hope there will be anything left by the time Mr. Ghouse and his Muslim moderate friends get around to confronting the jihadists in any meaningful way.

The summit was blow and go. Most of the Americans heard it a few weeks in advance. Had you given the time and sincerely made the effort to really make the summit effective, you would have included many, and the reason I chose not to go was the parade of Islam-bashers coming to reform Islam from the first announcement. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen.

I have responded to this in my earlier post. If Mr. Ghouse dislikes the people who were there, let him issue his own statement calling for Islamic reform. Instead, he is just shying bricks at the people who actually did what he and his friends should have done years ago.

All those who care about such reforms should join hands in fostering and facilitating it. Attacking or vilifying Islam and/or stereotyping Muslims with a broad-brush by primarily Islam bashers can’t accomplish this.

As I have noted before, the Summit didn't do this. But evidently Mr. Ghouse would really, really like us to believe it did. And why is that?

If by “moderate”, it is meant uncritical obeisance to our short-sighted policies and interests, then there might not be many moderates. However, if it means decent people who care about themselves, their families and communities and at the same time respect the life, honor and property of other human beings, irrespective of their background, the vast majority of Muslims in America and everywhere else are moderate. They are so because of the principled positions and values of Islam. Engaging that vast majority of Muslims is not possible through such Islam-bashing summit, but through mutually respectful dialog.

The "neocon" label above, along with this, indicate that Mr. Ghouse is unaware that I don't support the Iraqi democracy project, but in any case, this statement of what it means to be a "moderate" is not enough. Muslim overlords in the past respected the lives, honor, and property of the dhimmis, as long as the dhimmis knew their place and stayed in line.

And "mutually respectful," as I noted above, apparently means that Mr. Ghouse is free to insult me as he wishes, but I am not free to examine in detail the meaning of his statements.

Anyway, Ghouse then comments on the St. Petersburg Declaration itself. I don't have anything to say about his quibbles over wording and the like, but here are some comments on some points he makes. In this, the words of the Declaration are followed by Mr. Ghouse's comments in parentheses:

5. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamophobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights. (The phrase ‘Muslim practices’ would be appropriate as opposed to Islamic practices – please remember, people make mistakes, not the religion)

Does that mean that Mr. Ghouse has no problem with wife-beating (Qur'an 4:34)? Warfare against and subjugation of Jews and Christians (Qur'an 9:29)? The mutilation of those who are perceived as waging war against Allah and Muhammad (Qur'an 5:33)? The devaluation of a woman's testimony in court (Qur'an 2:282)? Since these verses and others are used today to justify actions that are at variance with human rights norms, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss them, and to ask Muslim moderates to formulate some way to blunt their negative impact. But these are not twistings or hijackings of Islam. These and other problems are rooted within Islam.

a. reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; (I would substitute the phrase review Sharia instead of reject Sharia – it amounts to telling Mr. Spencer “I hate the way you smile, reject your style.” There has to be a process for the change to sustain, we cannot play with the lives of people stripping what has become the part of their lives, as the example of the Lost Tomb above. The word reject make you hold on to it very dearly, that is the case with the followers of every faith, not just Muslims. We have to understand the process of reform, if we want to embark on it, so that we don’t ruin it).

"Review"? Not even reform? Even in light of the Sharia's rejection of the freedom of conscience and institutionalization of discrimination against women and religious minorities? Is "review" really enough? Of course we have to "understand the process of reform," but that is not the same thing as sitting back and having no reform at all.

b) eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; [note: incidentally, not only none of these are Islamic practices, especially in a forced context, but also these are against Islam.]

This flat assertion unfortunately ignores that all those practices are justified by Islamic clerics. Why, just recently a scholar at Al-Azhar, Muhammad Al-Mussayar, said on Al-Arabiya TV: "All the jurisprudents, since the advent of Islam and for 14 centuries or more, are in consensus that female circumcision is permitted by Islam....there are reliable hadiths in Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim which support female circumcision..." Wouldn't a genuine Muslim reformer say, "Some Islamic scholars justify such practices, but Muslims must reject them because..." instead of just claiming that "these are against Islam"? Or is Mr. Ghouse just trying to convince gullible non-Muslim Westerners that the situation is not as bad as it is, instead of trying to convince his fellow Muslims to give up such practices?

Mr. Ghouse's disingenuousness is underscored by his comment here. The National Journal item to which he is responding says, "Islamic writings say that Muslims follow the straight path, Jews have earned Allah's anger, and Christians have been led astray, says Robert Spencer." Mr. Ghouse responds that the words "Jew" and "Christian" do not appear in the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur'an.

But of course, I didn't say they did. I said, "Islamic writings," not the Qur'an. The traditional Islamic understanding of the Fatiha is that when it speaks of the “straight path,” that path is Islam -- cf. Saudi-funded John Esposito’s book "Islam: The Straight Path." The prayer also speaks about those who have earned Allah’s anger and those who have gone astray. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”

Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation.”

Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians” into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur’ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, when in fact it is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology.

A sincere Muslim reformer would have acknowledged all that, and explained why he favored the view of Nisaburi or some other, and showed how he was working against the mainstream interpretation in the Muslim community. Instead, Mike Ghouse just tells us it's not in the Qur'an and relies on the probability that no one reading will have any familiarity with the Qur'anic commentators.

And that brings me back to the purpose of this post: many times I have been accused of not supporting moderate Muslims. I am all for genuine Muslim reformers, but I am not for condescension and disingenuousness about the very need for that reform and the content of the Islamic texts. A real reformer will not deny the very existence of the material that needs reforming. And in this, like so many others, Mike Ghouse has been found wanting.

FBI: "Extremists" Signing Up to Be School Bus Drivers

Extreme what? Extreme skateboarders? Extreme Thomists? Anyway, nothing to be concerned about here at all, says the FBI. They just want us to be on the lookout for those extremist whatevers about whom we need not be concerned.

"FBI: Extremists Signing Up to Be School Bus Drivers," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

WASHINGTON — Members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States, counterterror officials said Friday, in a cautionary bulletin to police. An FBI spokesman said "parents and children have nothing to fear."

Asked about the alert notice, the FBI's Rich Kolko said "there are no threats, no plots and no history leading us to believe there is any reason for concern," although law enforcement agencies around the country were asked to watch out for kids' safety.

The bulletin, parts of which were read to The Associated Press, did not say how often foreign extremists have sought to acquire licenses to drive school buses, or where. It was sent Friday as part of what officials said was a routine FBI and Homeland Security Department advisory to local law enforcement.

It noted "recent suspicious activity" by foreigners who either drive school buses or are licensed to drive them, according to a counterterror official who read parts of the document to The Associated Press.

Foreigners under recent investigation include "some with ties to extremist groups" who have been able to "purchase buses and acquire licenses," the bulletin says.

But Homeland Security and the FBI "have no information indicating these individuals are involved in a terrorist plot against the homeland," it says. The memo also notes: "Most attempts by foreign nationals in the United States to acquire school bus licenses to drive them are legitimate."

U.S. will give visa to Ahmadinejad for return trip to UN

In a sane world, the UN would be expelling Iran from the UN for the Thug-In-Chief's genocidal statements. "U.S. will give visa to Iranian president," from AP:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. will approve Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request for a visa so he can visit the U.N. as the Security Council moves to impose additional sanctions against his country for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday that the United States has approved a U.S. visa for Ahmadinejad previously and will do so again, consistent with its obligations as host country for the United Nations.

Padilla recruited for al Qaeda jihad

At the Hajj. By Jay Weaver in the Miami Herald, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A reputed al Qaeda member told U.S. authorities that the terror network scrutinized Jose Padilla as a recruit for Islamic extremism in 2000-01, according to a new document filed in federal court in Miami.

The information sheds more light on how Padilla, a U.S. citizen once held by federal authorities as an ''enemy combatant,'' was allegedly recruited by al Qaeda for jihad in the Middle East.

Padilla, who left the Fort Lauderdale area for Egypt in 1998, is charged with conspiring with two other Muslim men as part of a North American terror cell that provided money, recruits and other support for terrorist activities abroad.

The three defendants -- Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi -- have a key hearing today and face trial on April 16.

In the court document, a man identified as Abdallah Ahmad Salih al-Rimi -- aka Uways -- told U.S. authorities that a ''fellow facilitator'' had met Padilla during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

The facilitator, named Abu Malki al-Sharabi, ''had convinced [Padilla] to come with him to Yemen in 2000, so that he could then travel to join the second jihad in Afghanistan,'' according to the document filed Wednesday by prosecutors.

The Arabic name Padilla used at the time was Abu Abdallah al-Amriki.

Uways told authorities that he also met with Padilla on ''numerous occasions'' to size him up -- ''whether he would be a satisfactory candidate to send to jihad,'' the document says.

Uways said he decided not to send Padilla to jihad.

Esposito: Spencer an "Islamophobe," but right

Jihad Watch reader X has just sent me this item from the February 10 issue of the National Journal about the DNC Imam controversy:

Reality Check

"Through you, God, we unite. Guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom."

-- Imam Husham al-Hussainy, in an invocation to the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting, February 2.

The Imam's invocation echoes the Muslim daily prayer, which asks Allah to "show us the straight path ... not the [path] of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray." Islamic writings say that Muslims follow the straight path, Jews have earned Allah's anger, and Christians have been led astray, says Robert Spencer, author of The Truth About Muhammad. Spencer is an "Islamophobe," says John Esposito director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. But "it is self-evident," he says, "that the text juxtaposes 'bless' and 'doom' regarding reward for those who follow God versus enemies of God" in the Muslim Koran. In a DNC-issued statement, Hussainy said, "I am extremely surprised that anybody could interpret my prayer as belittling, insulting, or otherwise disrespecting ... Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters."

It is noteworthy that even as the Saudi-funded Esposito goes out of his way to insult me with the politically manipulated, trumped-up, and ultimately empty term "Islamophobe," he has to admit that I'm right.

And what is "Islamophobia," anyway? I discussed one attempt to define it here. But I think for most people it just boils down to an irrational hatred of Muslims. This is, of course, absurd. There is neither irrationality nor hatred in anything I write. I am doing this in defense of universally accepted human rights. I am against the institutionalized mistreatment of women and religious minorities and the denial of freedom of conscience that are all mandated by Sharia law. I am against violent and nonviolent subjugation of peoples, and against intimidation and attempts to foreclose on free discourse. I am against the fictions that guide public policy and dominate the public discourse among both liberals and conservatives, no matter how convenient or even essential such fictions may be -- I don't think the fact that a fact makes people uncomfortable makes it any less a fact.

And I recognize that people like John Esposito throw around propaganda words like "Islamophobe" in order to turn people of good will away from my work, but they have not shown, and cannot show, that what I have written is inaccurate in any way.

Most Saudi terror suspects disown deviant thoughts

The Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia say these jihadists have renounced their "deviant thoughts" and will be released. Feel reassured?

By Mariam Al Hakeem for GulfNews, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Riyadh: Saudi Arabia said that 90 per cent of those who have been detained for holding "deviant thoughts" have reformed and announced their repentance.

Shaikh Saleh Bin Ganim Al Sadlan, member of the interior ministry ad hoc committee assigned to give counselling to extremist detainees, said that Saudi Arabia is planning to allow the detainees to return back to their studies or work after being set free.

At the end of 2005, Saudi Arabia announced it had released nearly 400 detainees held for security reasons after providing them with intense counselling and making sure they were free of deviant thoughts.

But authorities emphasised that they would not set free those militants arrested for taking part in terrorist attacks across the country.

Just those who had waged jihad outside the Kingdom. Feel reassured yet?

D'Souza's targets respond in NR

Here are responses from Dean Barnett, Peter Berkowitz, Scott Johnson, Roger Kimball, Stanley Kurtz and me. Victor Davis Hanson's reply is here. I noticed a number of phrases in these replies that point out tactics by D'Souza that Jihad Watch readers will by this time find familiar:

"...it’s hard to see how he can remedy the situation with a week-long series of ad hominem insults....D’Souza labeled my criticism 'ignorant prejudice masquerading as scholarship.' Typical of his rhetoric, D’Souza tossed out this charge without defending or supporting it." -- Dean Barnett (emphasis added)

"Yet like Wolfe, D’Souza is for the most part unable to treat his interlocutors with respect, and generally unable to draw insight or instruction from the objections that his arguments have provoked. I will not trouble NRO readers with a response to D’Souza’s sneering asides, ad hominem attacks, and caricature of the criticism to which his book has been subject, except to note that his recurring rhetorical excesses belie his boast that he adheres to standards of scholarly excellence." -- Peter Berkowitz (emphasis added)

"My earlier critique of D’Souza stressed that Muslim objections to Western pop culture serve as proxies for distress over these deeper social changes. D’Souza has not truly responded to this point....Contrary to D’Souza’s claim, I do not assert that Islam and democracy are inevitably incompatible....Contrary to D’Souza’s claim, Samuel Huntington never called for a warlike “clash of civilizations.” " -- Stanley Kurtz (emphasis added)

"D’Souza writes: 'Hanson offers no explanation, merely proclaiming al Qaeda’s ideology "rambling" and "incoherent."' Again, this claim is false. This is what I actually wrote..." -- Victor Davis Hanson (emphasis added)

So it not just me whose arguments he has ignored and misrepresented, and responded to with ad hominem attacks. This seems to be D'Souza's ordinary modus operandi. What a disappointment.

Of course, when I wrote this, I didn't know that D'Souza thinks I want Muslims to replace the Qur'an with the Torah. But as my friend Jeff points out, "But at least he LIKES Torah-wielding, hate-mongering, fit-throwing Jooz. Don't we ALL?"

Here, in any case, is my reply from NR:

The essential conflict between Dinesh D’Souza and me is that he believes that we in the West are alienating traditional Muslims by subjecting Islam to the kind of scrutiny that other religions have routinely received in the West, and that we should stop doing so, since we need these traditional Muslims as allies. In this, I believe he is closing off the best hope we have for genuine Islamic reform. And in any case, if this is a group of people whose beliefs cannot be discussed, even as terrorists use those beliefs to justify their actions, what sort of allies would they be?

In discussing my work, D’Souza has preferred to set up straw men rather than discuss what I actually say. Although I have told him otherwise in debates on radio and in person, as well as in e-mails and in postings at Jihad Watch, he repeats the false claim that “Robert Spencer cannot bear the idea of an alliance with traditional Muslims to defeat radical Muslims because he refuses to believe that there are such people as traditional Muslims.” Who are these traditional Muslims? In his book, D’Souza offers not a single name, but he does explain that they are “not ‘moderates’,” and adds: “What are the theological differences between traditional Islam and radical Islam? On the fundamental religious questions, there are none.” So who are these people? They are, he tells us, “best understood as those who practice Islam in the way that it has evolved in the centuries since Muhammad,” as opposed to the radicals who “believe that Islam has reached a point of crisis and that violent conflict is both the inevitable and desirable outcome of this crisis.”

In other words, then, these are peaceful Muslims, who have no interest in waging jihad warfare. D’Souza claims I do not believe such people exist. In Islam Unveiled (2002), however, I wrote: “I do not mean…to indict Muslims in general or Islam as a whole….If the seeds of terrorism are found to lie at the heart of Islam, that does not make every Muslim a terrorist.” He need not have read far to find that; it’s on page five. In Onward Muslim Soldiers (2003), I wrote: “Obviously not all Muslims in the United States or around the world—indeed, not even a majority—subscribe to the Islam of modern-day terrorists. Most Muslims, like everyone else, want to live their lives in peace.” D’Souza would have found that in the Introduction, on page xiii. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (2005), I noted that “there are enormous numbers of Muslims in the United States and around the world who want nothing to do with today’s global jihad. While their theological foundation is weak, many are laboring heroically to create a viable moderate Islam that will allow Muslims to coexist peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors” (p. 45). Would D’Souza take issue with my assertion that their theological foundation is weak? But he himself observes that his “traditional Muslims” have no theological differences with the jihadists—and that makes them a fertile recruiting ground for jihad groups.

Were the statements I have just quoted pro forma acknowledgements of something I effectually deny? No. In chapter eight of Onward Muslim Soldiers I discuss at length some historical reasons why the teachings about jihad of the Koran and Sunnah, as well as of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib), fell into abeyance in the Islamic world, and in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), in a section entitled “But what about moderate Muslims?,” I explore some cultural reasons why the jihad ideology is in many areas of the Islamic world deemphasized today, and has been for quite some time.

D’Souza remarks parenthetically: “At one point on a radio show Spencer challenged me to name a single traditional Muslim.” What I in fact asked him was to name a single traditional Muslim with whom he thought conservatives should ally. He named the Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, who is, according to the New York Times, a supporter of Hezbollah. Hardly, I believe, a reliable ally.

As for his claim that “Spencer seems to agree with Khomeini and bin Laden that the radical Muslims are the real Muslims—the ones who are actually following what the Koran and the Islamic tradition say,” it isn’t true either. In my books, I don’t just discuss the Islam of Khomeini and bin Laden, but the stages of Koranic development of the doctrine of jihad as delineated by Islamic theologians throughout history. In his eighth-century biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Koran by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay a poll tax, the jizya (see Koran 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, etc.). Tafasir (Koranic commentaries) by mainstream Muslim thinkers including Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti, and others also emphasize that the ninth chapter of the Koran, which mandates warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers, abrogates every peace treaty in the Koran.

In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Koran’s teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed not only by the jihad theorists Qutb and Maududi, but by the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of The Qur'anic Concept of War), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah), and others.

While never mentioning any of this, D’Souza claims that I “focus on one set of quotations from the Koran advocating violence, while ignoring or dismissing another set of quotations advocating peace.” In fact, unfortunately, it is not I who do this, but the authorities I mentioned above, and others.

“Spencer’s animus against Islam is so deep,” says D’Souza, “that he seems blind to the fact that traditional Muslims embrace both the idea and the practice of democracy. It confounds his whole worldview, so he has to reject the idea and invent a totalitarian scenario in order to avoid having to change his mind in response to evidence.” In reality, I devote chapter five of Islam Unveiled to a discussion of Islam and democracy, with particular attention to Turkey. In any case, D’Souza is apparently unaware of the ongoing persecution and harassment of Christians in Indonesia and Turkey, two of his showcase democracies, and the similar treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh. Democracy is more than just head-counting; it is also equality of rights. I ask D’Souza to name one Muslim-majority nation in which non-Muslims enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims, up to and including the right to proselytize enjoyed by Muslims.

D’Souza likewise ignores mountains of evidence when he says that “the claim that the world’s Muslims endorse violence against those who are not Muslims” is “a purely made-up accusation that cannot be supported by any convincing evidence.” Perhaps he can explain the evidence recently marshaled by Michael Freund in the Jerusalem Post:

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes. And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida. In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.

D’Souza asks: “If you were a traditional Muslim, would you want to associate yourself with people who were constantly attacking your prophet, your holy book, your values, and your religion?” I ask him in response: If you were a genuinely reformist Muslim who abhorred violent jihad, wouldn’t you welcome an honest discussion of the elements of Islam that the jihadists are using to justify their actions and to recruit? How can reform come without an admission that reform is needed?

Finally, when D’Souza notes that Bernard Lewis “even contends that, historically speaking, Islamic societies were more tolerant than Christian ones, putting up with Jews and other religious minorities to a degree that no Christian kingdom of the time did, and permitting divergent forms of Islam while European countries were going to war over fine points of theological doctrine,” I wonder what point he is trying to make. Even if Lewis is correct that the Ottomans were better to minorities than Catholic Europe, what does that prove? No one is trying to bring back the society of Catholic Europe, but jihadists are trying to re-impose sharia, including dhimmitude for non-Muslims, on the rest of the world. Is D’Souza suggesting that, well, it wasn’t so bad after all, and so we shouldn’t be resisting it now?

No, thanks.

Anyway, with this I draw this episode to a close. If D'Souza actually says something intelligent, or discusses what I actually say instead of what he claims I say, it might be worth responding. But I have no hope of that at this point. As I've explained before, I have answered his base attacks because it was an opportunity to clarify matters for people of good will. And so now on to other matters.

New jihad group in Lebanon threatens attacks on U.S.

"A New Face of Jihad Vows Attacks on U.S," by Souad Mekhennet and Michael Moss for the New York Times:

TRIPOLI, Lebanon — Deep in a violent and lawless slum just north of this coastal city, 12 men whose faces were shrouded by scarves drilled with Kalashnikovs.

In unison, they lunged in one direction, turned and lunged in another. “Allah-u akbar,” the men shouted in praise to God as they fired their machine guns into a wall.

The men belong to a new militant Islamic organization called Fatah al Islam, whose leader, a fugitive Palestinian named Shakir al-Abssi, has set up operations in a refugee camp here where he trains fighters and spreads the ideology of Al Qaeda.

He has solid terrorist credentials. A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Mr. Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Mr. Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, Laurence Foley. Just four months after arriving here from Syria, Mr. Abssi has a militia that intelligence officials estimate at 150 men and an arsenal of explosives, rockets and even an antiaircraft gun.

During a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr. Abssi displayed his makeshift training facility and his strident message that America needed to be punished for its presence in the Islamic world. “The only way to achieve our rights is by force,” he said. “This is the way America deals with us. So when the Americans feel that their lives and their economy are threatened, they will know that they should leave.”

Mr. Abssi’s organization is the image of what intelligence officials have warned is the re-emergence of Al Qaeda. Shattered after 2001, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden is now reforming as an alliance of small groups around the world that share a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam but have developed their own independent terror capabilities, these officials have said. If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has acknowledged directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a string of other terror plots, represents the previous generation of Qaeda leaders, Mr. Abssi and others like him represent the new.

American and Middle Eastern intelligence officials say he is viewed as a dangerous militant who can assemble small teams of operatives with acute military skill.

“Guys like Abssi have the capability on the ground that Al Qaeda has lost and is looking to tap into,” said an American intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Mr. Abssi has shown himself to be a canny operator. Despite being on terrorism watch lists around the world, he has set himself up in a Palestinian refugee camp where, because of Lebanese politics, he is largely shielded from the government. The camp also gives him ready access to a pool of recruits, young Palestinians whose militant vision has evolved from the struggle against Israel to a larger Islamic cause.

Intelligence officials here say that he has also exploited another source of manpower: they estimate he has 50 militants from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries fresh from fighting with the insurgency in Iraq.

The officials say they fear that he is seeking to establish himself as a terror leader on the order of Mr. Zarqawi. “He is trying to fill a void and do so in a high-profile manner that will attract the attention of supporters,” the American intelligence official said.

Mr. Abssi has recently taken on a communications adviser, Abu al-Hassan, 24, a journalism student who dropped out of college to join Fatah al Islam. His current project: a newsmagazine aimed at attracting recruits.

A strikingly biased statement occurs below, though additional oddities leave open the possibility of sloppiness in addition to a lack of objectivity:

The arc of Mr. Abssi’s life shows the allure of Al Qaeda for Arab militants. Born in Palestine, from which he and family were evicted by the Israelis, Mr. Abssi, 51, said he stopped studying medicine to fly planes for Yasir Arafat. He then staged attacks on Israel from his own base in Syria. After he was imprisoned in Syria for three years on terrorism charges, he said he broadened his targets to include Americans in Jordan.

[...]

In a 90-minute interview, his first with Western reporters, Mr. Abssi said he shared Al Qaeda’s fundamentalist interpretation and endorsed the creation of a global Islamic nation. He said killing American soldiers in Iraq was no longer enough to convince the American public that its government should abandon what many Muslims view as a war against Islam.

“We have every legitimate right to do such acts, for isn’t it America that comes to our region and kills innocents and children?” Mr. Abssi said. “It is our right to hit them in their homes the same as they hit us in our homes.

“We are not afraid of being named terrorists,” he added. “But I want to ask, is someone who detonates one kilogram a terrorist while someone who detonates tons in Arab and Islamic cities not a terrorist?”

Never mind that U.S. action in the region is in response to prior violent acts of jihad, and the U.S. military does not target civilians. But wait, jihadists didn't commit acts like 9/11, Jews did, we're told.

When asked, Mr. Abssi refused to say what his targets might be.

[...]

Inside the Palestinian camp, Mr. Abssi seems to be building his operation with little interference.

Maj. Gen. Achraf Rifi, general director of Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces, says the government does not have authority to enter a Palestinian camp — even though Mr. Abssi is now wanted in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria on terrorism charges.

To enter the camps, he said, “We would need an agreement from other Arab countries.” He said that instead the government was tightening its cordon around the camp to make it harder for Mr. Abssi or his men to slip in and out.

Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon have long been fertile ground for militancy, particularly focused on the fight against Israel. But militants in those camps now have a broader vision. In Ain el Hilwe camp, an hour’s drive south of Beirut, another radical Sunni group, Asbat al Ansar, has been sending fighters to Iraq since the start of the war, its leaders acknowledged in interviews.

[...]

Mr. Abssi said he derived much of his spiritual guidance from Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Bukhari, a ninth-century Islamic scholar. A recent study by the Defense Department’s Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, N.Y., listed Mr. Bukhari among the 20 Islamic scholars who had greater influence today among militant Arabs than Mr. bin Laden.

Well, at least they didn't list him as Mr. Sahih Bukhari, "sahih" being the adjective that describes Bukhari's hadith as sound, or reliable.

“Osama bin Laden does make the fatwas,” Mr. Abssi said, using the Arabic word for Islamic legal pronouncements. “Should his fatwas follow the Sunnah,” or Islamic law, he said, “we will carry them out.”

Sharia = Islamic law. Sunnah = the example of Muhammad in the ahadith and Sira.

[...]

In the interview with The Times, Mr. Abssi said he had been largely warmly received in the Palestinian camp, and that he was optimistic about his cause. “One of the reasons for choosing this camp is our belief that the people here are close to God as they feel the same suffering as our brothers in Palestine,” he said.

“Today’s youth, when they see what is happening in Palestine and Iraq, it enthuses them to join the way of the right and jihad,” he said. “These people have now started to adopt the right path.”

Imams' suit risks 'chill' on security

As we have noted here many times. And here we learn that this could affect other cases as well, not just ones involving suspicious activity on airplanes. By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Six imams who are suing an airline and an airport for removing them from a flight also have aimed the lawsuit at passengers who the imams believe reported some of their activities.

The suit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis names as defendants "John Does" who "contacted US Airways to report the alleged suspicious behavior" of the imams before the Nov. 20 flight -- an inclusion some lawyers, who are not connected to the litigation, say will have a "chilling effect" on airline security.

"If such a suit could proceed, it would have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to provide information that authorities need to act when people are engaged in wrongdoing," said Mark Behrens, a liability defense lawyer with the Washington firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon.

"If reporting suspicious behavior becomes actionable, that could have a dangerous precedent for reporting other crimes, like child abuse and abductions," Mr. Behrens said. "It's certainly a form of intimidation to go after passengers."

Ah, but intimidation is their strong suit.

Emerson: "The history of CAIR is one of the biggest scams in United States history"

In this brief segment on Hannity and Colmes (via Hot Air), Steve Emerson manages to reveal more about CAIR than has probably ever been aired by the mainstream media before, despite the dense and dogged resistance of Alan Colmes.

Palestinian jihadists: Bush made Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lie!

Speaking of It's All The Fault of The Jews, they're blamed here for 9/11 too.

"Bush 'forced false confession' from al-Qaida chief," by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily.com (thanks to Davida):

TEL AVIV – While the confession of the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was widely received in the United States as a monumental development in the war against terror, it wasn't taken as well by Palestinian militant leaders here who told WND they believe the real culprits of the attacks – Jews and Zionist agents – are still at large.

"The Americans are facing a dangerous security situation in Iraq," said Abu Jihad, a West Bank leader of the Islamic Jihad terror organization. "Bush is under a lot of pressure for victories, so I am sure as part of changing the American public opinion [Bush] needed to orchestrate this confession so he can say he is succeeding even though he is a failure."

Abu Jihad was responding to al-Qaida suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's admission in a hearing this past Saturday of plotting the 9/11 attacks and involvement in more than 30 attacks and plots. Mohammad also said he personally beheaded U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.

"I am sure the Americans tortured Mohammad and forced him to say these untrue things. Isn't it strange it took three years since his arrest for the supposed confession? Intelligence agencies are known to make people say they are guilty even though they know it's not the case," Abu Jihad said.

Continued the Islamic Jihad terror leader: "With all the respect we have for al-Qaida, the story of 9-11 remains open. There are many questions about the role of Israel and the Zionists in the affair. America just wants to lie to everybody so they can put people at ease by claiming they caught the culprit."

Together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the declared military wing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization, Abu Jihad's Islamic Jihad terror group has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the last two years, including an attack two weeks ago in Eilat and one in Tel Aviv last April that killed eight Israelis and American teenager Daniel Wultz.

Ala Senakreh, the chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, told WND he is certain "the Jews" were behind 9/11.

"Five-thousand Israelis that were in the World Trade Center were evacuated, why?" asked Senakreh. "We heard that the Israelis told the U.S. that something will take place in a few hours on the day of the attacks. How could they know unless they were behind it?"

Five thousand Israelis were not evacuated from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Yes, but why let reality intrude on a good juicy paranoid conspiracy theory?

D'Souza dives off the deep end!

Everybody into the pool! This is getting to be more and more fun! Dinesh's latest, "The Silence of the Traditional Muslims," says this:

There is also a second reason. Prominent Americans--many of them on the right--have devoted acres of commentary to attacking the Muslim religion, complete with exposes of the Prophet Muhammad and attacks on the Koran as a gospel of terrorism. Then these same characters plaintively wonder why Muslims are reluctant to join their anti-Muslim crusade. All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?

Robert Spencer can: It's called the Torah.

Now this one really stopped me short! And not only because I had to blink twice or three times at D'Souza's scolding Hanson for opposing polygamy, ending tribalism, and emancipating women. I guess the last sentence means that D'Souza assumes that I am Jewish. This, of course, shows that he doesn't have the first foggiest idea of who I am and what I am really saying, as I have noted before. It may also mean that he believes that I want to convert Muslims to Judaism. Perhaps I would do this in imitation of Moses -- for D'Souza informs us elsewhere that "if Moses could he would have imposed the laws of Yahweh on the whole world..."

This bizarre claim shows that he knows at least as little about Moses as he does about me, but never mind. This thing about my positing the Torah as an alternative holy book for Muslims also suggests that he, like many jihadists and Islamic apologists, cannot fathom the idea that anyone but a Jew would have any grievance against Muslims -- a peculiar pathology I have written about before. And others, for darker reasons, can't fathom the possibility that anyone but a Jew would support Israel.

Anyway, although I am not Jewish, I am proud to stand with Jews and call for the defense of Israel as the front line of the global jihad -- a jihad which threatens us all, as the EU and UN will soon enough discover if they succeed in trying to appease the jihadist wolves by throwing Israel to them.

But I digress. Back to Dinesh, way down in the deep end of the pool:

Spencer wants the Muslims to just stop following the Koran and repudiate the teachings of Muhammad and the main schools of Islamic thought. In short, here are a bunch of Americans advising Muslims to stop being Muslims. (Spencer's euphemistic term for this is "cultural Muslims.") Great advice, right? Should anyone be surprised that the traditional Muslims are not signing up in droves? If you were a traditional Muslim, would you join a bunch of Islamophobes who are always denouncing your religion, its founder, its sacred text and its basic values?

Of course, I have never, ever said, anywhere in any way, that Muslims need to "just stop following the Koran and repudiate the teachings of Muhammad and the main schools of Islamic thought." If D'Souza ever bothered to read anything I have written, including the reams of material I have now written about him and to him, he would know why this is a false statement. Flatly false.

What I have actually called for, and will keep calling for, is for Muslims to confront the fact that bin Laden and Zawahri and the late Zarqawi and Mukhlas Imron and so many other jihadists are justifying their violence by reference to passages of the Qur'an and the words and deeds of Muhammad. If they don't confront this and formulate new and non-literalist ways of understanding this material, it will continue to be used to incite violence. In other words, the use that jihadists make of elements of the Qur'an and Muhammad's teaching makes it incumbent upon peaceful Muslims to perform a searching reevaluation of how they understand those elements, so as to neutralize their capacity to set Muslims against non-Muslims.

And I will not, now or ever, apologize for calling for that.

Officials: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed exaggerated claims

Gee, you really think so? I did rather suspect that that bit about shooting Abraham Lincoln was just a trifle over the top. "Officials: Mohammed exaggerated claims," by Katherine Shrader for Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims that he was responsible for dozens of successful, foiled and imagined attacks in the past 15 years relies on a loose definition of the word "responsible." Officials say the 9/11 mastermind was key to some plots but a bit player in others.

The 31 on his list range from the stunningly vicious suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001, to others that current and former government officials say were more talk than concrete plans, such as a plot to kill Jimmy Carter and other former U.S. presidents.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting Mohammed's activities are likely to be the subject of an upcoming military tribunal.

His confession, his first public statement since his March 2003 capture in Pakistan, came in a closed-door hearing in the newly established U.S. tribunal process. A 26-page transcript of the Saturday session at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was made public Wednesday night.

While there apparently is truth in much of the statement, several officials said, there's also an element of self-promotion. They view the claims as at least in part a rallying cry to bolster his image and that of al-Qaida in the only venue Mohammed has left: a military courtroom from which the public is barred.

"I have never known a criminal — either terrorist or otherwise — that didn't exaggerate," said Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, a former
FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee.

Palestinian Arab group: "We pledge loyalty to Sheikh Osama Bin Laden and we will carry out jihad"

"We believe that God will walk on the path of Sheikh Osama, may God preserve him, and the path of the martyr Abu Musab al-Zarqawi..."

"Palestinians swear allegiance to Bin Laden," by Yaakov Lappin in YnetNews:

A group of Palestinians have sworn allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, according to statement posted on a major internet jihad forum last month.

The message appeared on the al-Firdaws forum – a meeting point of jihadis from around the world – and declared: "We believe that God
will walk on the path of Sheikh Osama, may God preserve him, and the path of the martyr Abu Musab al-Zarqawi…. We in the jihad in the land of Rabat (Islamic term for Israel – Y.L.) do not belong to any faction, and we declare loyalty to Sheikh Osama, may God preserve him. We pledge to go down the path of the martyrs and fighters in Mesopotamia (Iraq), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all parts of the world."

Earlier this week, al-Qaeda number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, accused Hamas of falling into "the swamp of surrender," following the formation of the Hamas- Fatah unity government....

Zawahiri's message was echoed in the internet statement. "We, a group of Muslim youth, created this group, praise God… we do not see any of the organizations that exist in Palestine as being affiliated to Islam. They are only affiliated to special interests," the message added.

Dutch government spending €10 million to fight "radicalization"

"She is not specifying yet what the plans entail." Hmmm; maybe jizya payments to jihadists to get them to postpone acting upon their supremacist agenda? All we learn here is that they're going to monitor the internet. That costs €10 million?

"Ten million to fight radicalisation," from Expatica, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

AMSTERDAM – The government is setting aside EUR 10 million to combat radicalisation. Seven ministries will be sending a joint action plan to Parliament in April or May. Minister Guusje ter Horst of Home Affairs announced this in a meeting with Parliament on anti-terrorism measures on Wednesday.

She is not specifying yet what the plans entail. She did say that the participation of the local governments will determine the success of the plans. The government has been concerned about increasing radicalisation among Muslim youth for some time now.

Ter Horst also said women are playing a growing role in possible terrorist activities. They have "an extremely active role" especially on the internet, where they are primarily involved in translating and disseminating texts. They also play "a more active role when it comes to a specific threat," Ter Horst said, without giving further explanation.

Most MPs want to know what measures the government is taking to fight radicalisation on the internet. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin mentioned that a method has been developed to monitor the internet and trace radical statements. He did say that he realised the internet is "infinitely large" and that some things are bound to escape the government's attention.

Not going to Indy

Because of death threats, I don't usually announce where I am going to be beforehand, but since I did announce that I'd be leading a seminar for the JTTF in Indianapolis, I thought I'd let you know that due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to meet with the members of the Indianapolis Joint Terrorism Task Force. However, I'll be rescheduling a meeting with them in the near future.

LA Times: young Obama "bowed to Allah"

Obama's website says, "Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father – an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died."

But now they're saying he was never a practicing Muslim.

"As a child, Obama crossed a cultural divide in Indonesia," by Paul Watson in the Los Angeles Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

JAKARTA, INDONESIA — As a boy in Indonesia, Barack Obama crisscrossed the religious divide. At the local primary school, he prayed in thanks to a Catholic saint. In the neighborhood mosque, he bowed to Allah.

Having a personal background in both Christianity and Islam might seem useful for an aspiring U.S. president in an age when Islamic nations and radical groups are key national security and foreign policy issues. But a connection with Islam is untrod territory for presidential politics.

Obama's four years as a child in Indonesia underscore how dramatically his background differs from that of past presidential hopefuls, most of whom spent little, if any, time in other countries. No one knows how voters will react to a candidate with an early exposure to Islam, a religion that remains foreign to many Americans.

Obama's campaign aides have emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and downplayed any Islamic connection. The candidate was raised "in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother," his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement in January after false reports began circulating that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Koranic school, as a child.

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago," Gibbs' Jan. 24 statement said. In a statement to The Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim." The statement added that as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood's Islamic center.

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.

That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.

In this post I gave some considerations about this. Briefly, I think that most likely the media and Obama's campaign will ignore the question of whether, as an apostate from Islam, Obama is under a death sentence, and tar anyone who brings it up as a "bigot." They (as well as Obama's campaign) have a chance here to portray Obama as someone who was raised as a Muslim and thus has a keen understanding of the Islamic world and the Islamic mind -- rather like the positioning of Bill Clinton as our "first black President." Given Obama's politics, it will not be hard to present him internationally as someone who understands Islam and Muslims, and thus will be able to smooth over the hostility between the Islamic world and the West. Muslim leaders worldwide will not be saying, "He was raised a Muslim. Isn't that terrible?" Rather, I suspect that both Obama's campaign and Muslim leaders worldwide will say, "He was raised a Muslim. Isn't that wonderful? At last, someone who can see our point of view."

In short, I will not be surprised if Obama's Muslim upbringing becomes the linchpin of an attempt to present him as the only candidate who can end the war on terror -- which, of course, he will propose to do by means of various varieties of appeasement.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: I killed Daniel Pearl

For his part in the Pearl killing he says there is photographic evidence. And there may be. But he is still straining credulity here. After all, he also brought down the Towers. And masterminded the Bali bombing. And on and on. If they don't rein him in soon, he will be claiming responsibility for the Mahdi uprising in Sudan in the late 19th century, and Saladin's defeat of Richard Coeur de Leon. And I'm pretty sure that he single-handedly defeated the Quraysh at the Battle of Badr.

"9/11 mastermind admits killing reporter," by Katherine Shrader for Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl and a central role in 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide that killed thousands of victims, said a revised transcript released Thursday by the U.S. military.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, released by the Pentagon.

"For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," he added.

Mohammed's claimed involvement in the 2002 slaying of the Wall Street Journal reporter was among 31 attacks and plots — some of which never occurred — he took responsibility for in a hearing Saturday at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said.

It released the bulk of the transcript late Wednesday, but held back the section about Pearl's killing to allow time for his family to be notified, said Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that it had learned that the transcripts released Wednesday evening had blacked out the reference to Mohammed's confession about the Pearl slaying. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the slaying, which was captured on video.

Sealing a legacy of historical notoriety, Mohammed portrayed himself as al-Qaida's most ambitious operational planner in a confession to a U.S. military tribunal that said he planned and supported a series of terrorist attacks, topped by 9/11. The gruesome attacks range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 — which killed nearly 3,000 — to a 2002 shooting on an island off Kuwait that killed a U.S. Marine, according to an account released by the Pentagon.

Where does CAIR stand on Islamic reform?

In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I discuss the strange stance CAIR has taken regarding the Secular Islam Summit and its St. Petersburg Declaration.

What's not so great about Dinesh D'Souza

A Bamiyan Buddha, destroyed by the Taliban

The title of this post is just a facetious take on the title of one of Mr. D'Souza's earlier books, as well as of his next one. It is just a little bit of fun. For Dinesh D'Souza says at his blog, "my disagreements with Spencer remain, even though I hope we can have them in civil and respectful manner." Of course, he entitles this piece "Robert Spencer Has a Fit (His Fourth This Week)," so I guess civility and respect only go so far, but I did think it worthwhile to respond to the substantive points he makes. Now, several people have asked me why I spend so much time replying to D'Souza, since he has demonstrated an ignorance of and apparent indifference to the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah and the history of Islam, as well as, as I showed here, an evident lack of concern for the facts.

There are several reasons why. One is that since he is actually saying that I hold positions that I do not hold, I believe I must respond as a matter of record. Second, he has been a respected figure for many years, and people listen to him. So I think it is important to set out certain facts that he is overlooking and downplaying, so that people of good will can perhaps come to a fuller understanding of contemporary realities.

I didn't know Robert Spencer until recently, but I confess I like him. He's an intelligent, passionate guy. He's also very angry with me, because in my latest book I urged conservatives to stop attacking Islam.

Actually, I'm not angry at all. But if I were, I wouldn't be angry about that. It's a foolish position, as I show below, but it isn't as if the world isn't already full of people who hold foolish positions. Getting angry about them all would lead one to burst a vein fairly quickly. Anyway, in fact the only thing I could possibly be angry with Dinesh D'Souza about is that he has been spreading falsehoods about my positions. But I have corrected them. That's all.

My point was that if you go around denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion, you will alienate traditional Muslims and push them toward the radical camp.

It's interesting that like CAIR, the Pakistani government, and other luminaries, apparently Mr. D'Souza thinks that demonstrating what the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Islamic law actually say amounts to "denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion."

D'Souza here is taking a peculiar position. In the first place, here again he sets up a straw man rather than deal with what I really say. For actually I have never denounced the Qur'an, Muhammad, or the Muslim religion. I have denounced, and will continue to denounce, things that Dinesh D'Souza should also denounce, and that every genuine Muslim reformer should denounce: the denial of freedom of conscience, the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities, the commodification of women, polygamy, honor killing, female genital mutilation, and other practices that are routinely justified by Muslim authorities by reference to Islamic texts.

By characterizing my speaking about that as "denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion," Mr. D'Souza puts himself in the position of saying that we should not criticize such things -- indeed, we dare not, for in doing so, he says, we will create more jihadists. As I have said before, D'Souza's position here is simply absurd. He is trying to convince us that Muslims who think that jihad violence is a twisting of Islam will decide to twist Islam themselves in reaction to non-Muslims' negative characterizations of Islam.

In reality, no Muslim who genuinely abhors jihad violence will object to an exploration of the Islamic texts that the jihadists use to justify that violence. After all, you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming.

Since I mentioned book titles like Islam Unveiled, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance and Sword of the Prophet as examples of Islam-bashing, Spencer (who happens to be the author of a couple of these books) took it as a personal attack. He sent me a public invitation to debate him, and began to inform his readers that I was trying to "silence" him. I emailed him to say I wasn't trying to silence him but merely disagreed with him. It's not a difference that Spencer can easily appreciate.

Mr. D'Souza is fond of this point, as he repeats it often. In reality, I am not too concerned about whether or not he called for me (and Serge Trifkovic, author of the other book he mentioned, the excellent Sword of the Prophet) to be silenced or not, since I am not going to be silent anyway. But let's look at the facts. In his book, this is exactly what D'Souza says: "In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."

You can see that he says, "Stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims." And who, in his view, is attacking Islam and blaming Islam? Serge and I. So we should stop. That is not just a disagreement; it is a call for us to be silenced, or to be silent. D'Souza seems to want to have it both ways: he wants to make the point, and then deny making it when it is uncomfortable for him to have done so.

I've debated Spencer on a couple of radio shows now, and the first one was quite acrimonious, while the second--just a couple of days ago--was more civil. But now Spencer is on the warpath again. He accuses me of spreading falsehoods about him in my National Review Online answer to critics. You can read that here.

It's interesting that Mr. D'Souza is attempting to claim the moral high ground in our exchanges, since after all I have disagreed with him, but I haven't actually claimed that he holds positions that he doesn't hold. Nor have I ever descended to the level of, for example, his saying at CPAC that he was about to "smack Spencer down," or his contention that my work gave him "a full and repulsive dose of the anti-Muslim hatred masquerading as scholarship." If the Lores Rizkalla Show mp3 is still available [UPDATE: Here it is, thanks to Bobby], I invite anyone to listen to our first debate, the one he characterizes as acrimonious, and tell me what they think. I have in all cases endeavored to stick to the facts. In fact, I would appreciate his dealing honestly with some of the facts that I have raised, rather than ignoring them and mischaracterizing my positions.

What falsehoods? Well, on the first radio show, as well as in our only face-to-face debate on March 1 at CPAC, Spencer disputed my distinction between radical Muslims and traditional Muslims. He scornfully challenged me to name a single traditional Muslim.

When I named Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, Spencer retorted that the man is actually opposed to sculpture. Gomaa apparently thinks sculpture is un-Islamic! A strange view, but it doesn't bother me terribly, because I wasn't thinking of hiring Gomaa to give my daughter art lessons. My suggestion was to recruit the help of traditional Muslims like Gomaa to fight the influence of Al Qaeda. Here Gomaa has been very good, and you can read a profile of him here. Spencer contends that Gomaa is a supporter of Hezbollah and should be shunned on that account.

"Spencer contends that Gomaa is a supporter of Hezbollah." Spencer contends that, eh? As if I just made it up. In fact, the New York Times reported in August 2006 that during the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, "Egypt's grand mufti, Sheik Ali Gomaa, the country's highest religious authority, issued a statement supporting Hezbollah." Do I contend on that account that Ali Gomaa should be "shunned"? Well, I'd shake his hand at a party, but I don't think that a man who supports an organization whose head chants "Death to America" and that is sworn to destroy an American ally would make a reliable ally himself.

And that was the point of my question to Mr. D'Souza. When I, in D'Souza's words, "scornfully challenged [him] to name a single traditional Muslim," I was actually asking him -- as anyone who heard the debate can attest -- to name a traditional Muslim with whom he recommended we ally. He still hasn't come up with anyone besides a Hizballah supporter, and has repeatedly claimed that my question revealed that I didn't believe there were any peaceful Muslims. As I explained here, that isn't true.

Anyway, D'Souza also says, "Gomaa apparently thinks sculpture is un-Islamic! A strange view, but it doesn't bother me terribly, because I wasn't thinking of hiring Gomaa to give my daughter art lessons." That's cute, but I put the Bamiyan Buddhas at the top of this post to show how dangerously naive it is. He is recommending that we ally with a man who believes that representational art is un-Islamic. Meanwhile, millions of this man's coreligionists have settled in Europe, unhindered by any sane immigration policies, and no doubt many of them believe the same way Ali Gomaa does about this, since it is, after all, the traditional Islamic view. And now D'Souza is calling for a foreclosure on criticism of Islamic practices and beliefs, such that he would apparently not want us to challenge our new friend the Egyptian Mufti when he says this about sculpture. So what will become of Europe's artistic patrimony? What if one of our new allies, one of Dinesh D'Souza's new allies that is, decides that the Mufti is absolutely right, and that the Pieta, or the David, or the Last Supper, or the Mona Lisa, or the Girl with the Pearl Earring, or any number of other masterpieces of the human spirit, must go?

Should we not be concerned about this? Should we toss off concern about it with a quip about a little girl's art lessons? Or should we take Ali Gomaa seriously enough to consider it as a possibility, and discuss what must be done about it? That the Bamiyan Buddhas remained in Muslim Afghanistan for centuries was only a matter of technology. When the Muslims who agreed with Ali Gomaa on this point were in power and able to amass sufficient explosives, that was the end of the Buddhas. Countless other Christian and Hindu artworks, in churches throughout the areas conquered by Islam in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and in Hindu temples in India, have been destroyed throughout Islamic history by Muslims who agreed with Ali Gomaa. And now Dinesh D'Souza says we should have no qualms about allying with him? No thanks.

Spencer has assured me that he does not think all Muslims are radical, and I believe him.

This is generous of him, but I have done more than assure him of this. I have given evidence from my books going back five years.

He contrasts radical Muslims with what he calls "cultural Muslims." (I noted this in my National Review Online piece but it seems to have been cut out by the editor for reasons of space.)

Reasons of space? Really? In a sprawling, multi-thousand word multipart series?

By the term Spencer seems to mean Muslims who have come to recognize the problems inherent in the Muslim religion. Muslims who reject the traditional tenets of the Koran, Muslims who repudiate what Muhammad taught, Muslims who don't practice Islam the way it has been practiced for centuries--these seem to be Spencer's preferred "cultural Muslims."

Here again Mr. D'Souza says that I mean something that I don't mean. I explained it to him in an email I sent him on March 6, which I reproduced here, and which, as you can see, says nothing about Muslims coming to "recognize the problems inherent in the Muslim religion": "...for a variety of reasons the jihad ideology was deemphasized, particularly in Central & Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Eastern Europe for several centuries. Muslims lived devout lives with no emphasis on it. Were they not practicing Islam? Of course they were practicing Islam. But these teachings were not part of that practice at that time."

But this comes perilously close to saying that the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.

When he says things like this, I really start to wonder if, as far as he is concerned, it is worth bothering to explain all this -- since my explanations are routinely ignored. In fact, I was responding to his claim that I thought the only good Muslim was a non-Muslim when I wrote to him the explanation immediately above.

Is this a winning strategy for America to pursue with the Muslim world? Is it even a sensible strategy for conservatives to adopt? Is there any realistic hope of non-Muslims like Spencer and Serge Trifkovic getting Muslims to abandon their religion? We keep hearing of the need for an Islamic Reformation, but even the Reformation was carried out by devout Christian believers, not reformers from other religions or no religion who urged Christians to abandon the central doctrines of their faith. I regard Spencer's attempt to become the Martin Luther of Islam a quixotic escapade, and conservatives who follow along in this path as naive.

What silliness. I have repeatedly called for exactly that: for Muslims to work for Islamic reform. In fact, in that same March 6 email I quoted above, I said, "I call on peaceful Muslims to confront these aspects of Islam, and formulate new ways to understand these texts, so as to blunt the force of the jihadist recruitment." I didn't say, you see, that I had formulated ways to do that. I said that they should. Mr. D'Souza, do you even read these things?

So my disagreements with Spencer remain, even though I hope we can have them in civil and respectful manner.

I'm all for that. And I'm even more for telling the truth about what I have actually said. I hope Mr. D'Souza will someday try that.

Flying Imams' lawsuit "appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety"

In "The Real Target of the 6 Imams’ Discrimination Suit" in the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten repeats what I have maintained from the beginning: that the entire Flying Imams incident is an attempt to get religious profiling outlawed, thus giving jihadists a free hand in airports -- no matter how suspiciously they are acting, officials will be afraid to question them.

Note also that the Flying Imams' lawsuit wants to sue the passengers who complained about their activity also.

Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to “end racial profiling” in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions.

But the most alarming aspect of the imams’ suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams’ attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants ‘John Does’ were passengers … who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged ’suspicious’ behavior of Plaintiffs’ performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”

Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants’] liability … at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”

In plain English, the imams plan to sue the “John Does,” too.

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (’John Doe’) in the couple … picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, “John Does” like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams’ suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our “first responders” against terrorism. But the imams’ suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

Ironically, on the day the imams filed their suit, a troubling internal memo came to light at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The memo revealed that our airport is at particular risk of terrorist attack because of its proximity to the Mall of America, its employment of relatively few security officers and other factors. The memo advised heightened vigilance to counter “this very real and deliberate threat.”

The poverty/terror myth

Over the years we have posted many studies that show that jihadists are generally better educated and wealthier than their peers. I expect that at least some of them have come to the attention of officials in Washington, but the assumption among law enforcement and government officials that money will solve the problem of terrorism remains deeply entrenched. Anyway, here is more evidence.

"The poverty/terror myth: There may be an economic dimension to terrorism -- but it's not what you think, says Fortune's Cait Murphy," by Cait Murphy in Fortune:

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The idea that poverty breeds terror appears obvious; how could it be otherwise? And people as different as the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Pakistan's leader, Pervez Musharraf, have also noted a link between poverty and terrorism.

In fact, there is now robust evidence that there is no such link. That does not mean, however, that economics is irrelevant.

First, to the question of poverty. Of the 50 poorest countries in the world (see list at right) only Afghanistan (and perhaps Bangladesh and Yemen) has much experience in terrorism, global or domestic.

But surely that is the wrong way to look at things. Aren't the people who commit terrorist acts poor, even if they are from countries that are not? No. Remember, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were middle-class sons of Saudi Arabia and many were well-educated. And Osama bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in the Middle East.

But it goes deeper than that. In a 2003 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reported the results of a post-9/11 survey of Palestinians. Asked whether there were "any circumstances under which you would justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals," the higher-status respondents (merchant, farmer or professional) were more likely to agree (43.3 percent) than those lower down the ladder (laborer, craftsman or employee) (34.6 percent). The higher-status respondents were also more likely to support armed attacks against Israeli targets (86.7 percent to 80.8 percent). The same dynamic existed when education was taken into account.

In another study, 129 Hezbollah militants who died in action (not all of them in activities that could be considered terrorism) were compared to the general Lebanese population. The Hezbollah members were slightly less likely to be poor, and significantly more likely to have finished high school.

Outside Palestine, there is general agreement that suicide attacks on civilians is a form of terrorism. So where do suicide bombers fit in? A study looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers as published in local journals, from 1987-2002. And this found that those who carried out suicide attacks were, on the whole, richer (fewer than 15 percent under the poverty line, compared to almost 35 percent for the population as a whole) and more educated (95 percent with high school or higher) than the rest of the population (almost half of whom went no further than middle school). A similar survey of terrorists in the Jewish Underground, which killed 29 Palestinians in the early 1970s, found the same pattern.

A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."

Moderate Muslim spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit

In "A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy" at Religion and Spirituality.com, Mike Ghouse of the Foundation for Pluralism retails several obvious falsehoods about the Secular Islam Summit. And like CAIR, he completely ignores the question of whether or not he agrees with the St. Petersburg Declaration, which enunciates principles that any moderate Muslim ought to be able to endorse.

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.

Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.

The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

Ghouse here seems to have lost track of what he just wrote. There were no moderate Muslims? What about Hasan Mahmud and Manji, whom he just mentioned?

And as for "They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear," this is just a smear. In fact, the St. Petersburg Declaration says, "We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine..." To hear Ghouse tell it, it says, "We say to Muslim believers: disappear." Hogwash.

The intent of the conference was bad from the start.

What was bad about it, Mr. Ghouse? The affirmation of "the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience" and "the equality of all human persons"? Or was it the insistence on "the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights"? Or could it have been the call to "eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women"? What exactly do you find objectionable, Mr. Ghouse? Be specific, please.

Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"?

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

Fine. Then lead it yourself, Mr. Masmoudi. Issue an endorsement of the Declaration. Surely there is nothing in it to which you object, is there? You are allowing your distaste for the panelists to overshadow the real subject here, which is the reform of Islam. Ex-Muslims did the job, along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nati