Iranian arms to Taliban bother NATO

So much for the conventional wisdom.

From the Daily Times, with thanks to PR:

LAHORE: As NATO troops in Afghanistan have begun intercepting sophisticated Iranian arms bound for the Taliban, US, NATO and Afghan officials are growing more concerned about Iranian policy in Afghanistan, says a Knight Ridder report.

It’s long been conventional wisdom that Iran would do nothing to destabilise Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s shaky government or aid the Taliban, against whom Iran nearly went to war with in 1998. The Taliban obtains the lion’s share of its weapons and other aid from the proceeds of opium trafficking and from supporters in Pakistan and Arab nations, the report says.

The recent seizures of Iranian arms by British troops in Afghanistan’s war-torn southern Helmand province are challenging that assumption, however.

“Iran appears to be playing a very small role, but it appears to be increasing,” said Seth Jones, an expert at the RAND Corp, a research centre that’s close to the Pentagon.

The intercepted weapons include the first so-called explosively formed penetrator bombs, devices that spit molten copper plugs that can penetrate the armour of American tanks, troop carriers and Humvees, said US officials who requested anonymity because the matter is classified.

The Bush administration accuses Iran of supplying the same weapons to Shia militias in Iraq. Iran denies the charge. Still, US officials and independent experts don’t think that Tehran wants the Taliban returned to power. “The Iranians don’t want the Taliban back,” said Barnett Rubin, a leading scholar on Afghanistan who met with Iranian officials during a recent visit to Kabul. “That is a red line for them.”

"If what you say is true about Muslims and they way they hate, then what about you? Your just as bad!!!"

Well, the guy who sent this in to the Hate Mail Bag is on to me, Darth Spencer, Freakin' Batman, the Notorious Robert Spencer, the Alan Wolfe of the Right:

I have read some of your articles and am astounded by your ignorance with humanity. May God, you people hate to easy. If what you say is true about Muslims and they way they hate, then what about you? Your just as bad!!!

I wrote back to him:

Yeah, I guess so. I was chopping off some people's heads this morning and I had a twinge of conscience: I thought to myself, "Self, you're just as bad!"

'High tempo' of terrorist chatter: FBI

Al-Qaeda, says John Miller, is getting more skillful. By James Gordon Meek for the New York Daily News, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON - The FBI has increased its use of secret search warrants over the past two years because of a "high tempo of terrorist activity," a top official said yesterday.

FBI Assistant Director John Miller said the 2,176 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search warrants approved last year, compared with only 1,754 granted in 2005, mostly targeted plotters inside America.

"We're seeing a very high tempo of terrorist activity, not just based on the cases you're seeing being brought in the United States," Miller said in an interview yesterday for C-SPAN's "Newsmaker" program.

Miller said the warrants, issued by a secret federal court in Washington, are usually not a "way to a prosecution," but are "an intelligence tool."...

Al Qaeda is "on a bell curve and they're getting more effective" at planning new strikes while pushing propaganda to inspire others to "take that ball and run with it."

"They're counting on both happening at once," Miller said. "They're better at this than they were before and they're thinking about it differently."

Iraq Residents Rise Up Against al-Qaida

Iraqi Jihad Update: resistance to Al-Qaeda in Baghdad and a suicide/martyrdom attack in Fallujah. By Sinan Salaheddin for Associated Press (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

BAGHDAD (AP) - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber hit a police recruiting center in Fallujah, killing as many as 25 people, police said - though the U.S. military said only one policeman was killed and eight were wounded. Elsewhere, three policemen and three civilians were killed and 15 civilians were wounded when a suicide truck bomber struck a communications center on the western outskirts of Ramadi, according to Anbar provincial security adviser Col. Tariq Youssef Mohammed....

U.S. forces backed by helicopter gunships clashed with suspected al-Qaida gunmen in western Baghdad's primarily Sunni Muslim Amariyah neighborhood in an engagement that lasted several hours, said the district councilman, who would not allow use of his name for fear of al-Qaida retribution....

But the councilman said the al-Qaida leader in the Amariyah district, known as Haji Hameed, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained.

Members of al-Qaida, who consider the district part of their so-called Islamic State of Iraq, were preventing students from attending final exams, shooting randomly and forcing residents to stay in their homes, the councilman said....

The Fallujah suicide bomber killed at least 10 policemen in the attack, which occurred about 11 a.m., according to a police official in the city who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The rest of the dead were civilians, many of them in line seeking jobs as policemen. He said as many as 50 were wounded.

Fallujah General Hospital had received 15 bodies and 10 wounded, according to a doctor there, who would not allow the use of his name because he feared retribution. The physician said he believed other casualties were taken to the nearby Jordanian Hospital and private clinics.

A member of the Fallujah city council, who also asked for anonymity for fear of attack by insurgents, said there were at least 20 killed and 25 injured.

Ticket to an American University or Ticket to Paradise?

Where is this Saudi student, and what is he doing?

Another disquieting revelation from the recently vindicated Annie Jacobsen in Womens Wall Street, with thanks to LGF:

On October 15, 2006, a young Saudi Arabian male named Anwar Al——,* (His full name will not be used for legal reasons) claiming to be an engineering student at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, presented what must have been false documents to United States Customs and Immigration (CIS) at an east coast airport and managed to slip into the country illegally. This is something that is not easily done: for a citizen of Saudi Arabia to get into the United States to attend an institution of higher learning requires the scrutiny of multiple, Cabinet level federal agencies. Customs was the last line in a series of Homeland Security controls that began halfway around the world at the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Anyone who has picked up a newspaper since September 11, 2001 understands why this is the procedure: fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Those 15 Saudis were issued visas and allowed entrance by United States officials. In other words, technically, those 15 hijackers came here with US consent. For reasons that are tragically obvious, after those 15 Saudis and their four colleagues killed 3000 people, the question of how they got permission to come here so easily caused great alarm. US citizens demanded reform and they got it—sort of. A 100-year old agency was disbanded (INS), the visa-issuing facility in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (where most of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers received their visas) was shuttered and hundreds of millions of dollars flooded into the system to make sure no more murderous terrorists from Saudi Arabia would be coming our way.

So how did this Saudi kid presenting himself as a student slip into the United States without being stopped? And what was his reason for doing so? And illegal entry is only one of the federal offenses Anwar Al—— appears to have committed. Others raise even more serious alarms; events just three days after being admitted to the US involving this young, Saudi male raise the national security stakes exponentially. What happened next is enough to make you ask, just who is Saudi Arabia sending our way anyway – and what exactly are we doing about it?

Read it all.

MPAC's Lekovic caught out yet again

When MPAC's Edina Lekovic and I were on the O'Reilly Factor last fall, the segment ended with her making several false and outrageous claims about me, but perhaps because I didn't get a chance to respond to them on the air and the falsehoods stood for the viewing audience, she didn't feel any need to respond to my repeated requests for a retraction. But when Steve Emerson caught her out a few days ago on CNBC's Kudlow, exposing her as the editor of a Muslim student paper in the 1990s that praised Osama bin Laden as a great mujahid, she responded swiftly in a letter to Emerson filled with the insults, slurs, distortions, and victim-playing that will be familiar to longtime readers of this site as often coming from Islamic spokesmen. From the Counterterrorism Blog, with thanks to LGF:

Mr. Emerson's witch hunt this time centered around a July 1999 issue of Al-Talib magazine, to which he referred in the interview and later on his website. And this time, his witch hunting stumbled on a printing mistake which I had no part in, but which he has exploited to serve his agenda. For reasons unknown to me, given that I had already graduated at that time, my name is listed in the staff box as a managing editor of that issue. I had graduated and had no participation in campus life by that time. I had no role in the publication of that issue of the magazine and I had no part in the writing of the article to which he refers.

I am shocked and saddened that my name has been falsely attached by Mr. Emerson to sentiments that I in no way support, and that are antithetical to the work I do day in and day out in the service of my community and my country.

My time as a student journalist at UCLA was indeed memorable to me, but has been misrepresented and distorted by Mr. Emerson. I was the editor in chief of the Daily Bruin, which won several prominent journalism awards for news reporting and overall excellence under my leadership. I wonder how in his relentless digging expedition Mr. Emerson neglected to note my award-winning work.

Check the facts -- I wasn't a student when this issue was published. I had no role in its publication, and I abhor the sentiments expressed in the article to which Mr. Emerson refers. Mr. Emerson's style of shock, smear and distortion have proven once again that the value and validity of the information he claims to offer to the American public is little more National Enquirer-style reporting.

But, as is the case so often with superficially fact-based presentations made by Islamic apologists, this one turned out to be completely inaccurate. Emerson blows her away with the facts:

So let’s examine Ms. Lekovic’s role with al-Talib. From October 1997 to May 2002, in addition to the July 1999 “The Spirit of Jihad” issue, there are at least 11 other issues of the newspaper which list Ms. Lekovic as either “managing editor,” “copy editor,” “assistant editor” “writer,” or give her “special thanks.” A curiously high amount for someone who initially claimed she never worked for the newspaper or now says she only “briefly worked” for it.

[...]

As you can see, well after Ms. Lekovic graduated in 1999, and well after the article she claims to “abhor” was published in July of that same year, Lekovic was still contributing to al-Talib.

And while Ms. Lekovic is suddenly and curiously coy about her stint at al-Talib, such was not always the case. Just a few short months after 9/11, a December 2001 MPAC event program (See Page 6), titled, "The Rising Voice of Moderate Muslims,” included a bio for Ms. Lekovic, which proudly stated, “While at UCLA, Ms. Lekovic also was the managing editor of Al-Talib (The Student), a nationwide Muslim student publication.”

If Ms. Lekovic was embarrassed by her association with al-Talib – which had referred to Osama bin Laden as a “great Mujahid” and “freedom fighter” almost a year after he ordered the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa resulting in more than 200 deaths and over 5,000 injuries while her name was on the masthead as a “managing editor” - it certainly was not evidenced in MPAC’s December 2001 event program, ironically for an event supposedly dealing with “Moderate Muslims.” Clearly, in certain venues, including MPAC-sponsored conferences, being the “managing editor” of al-Talib is considered a source of pride. Why else include it in her bio?

Read it all.

EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites

This sounds great, but note carefully this message from Fjordman: "I've seen signals from the European Union that they will step up control with 'illegal websites.' But since they recently passed pan-European anti-racism laws that ban incitement of hatred against 'religious groups,' this could potentially make Islam-critical websites illegal, too. Keep that in mind while reading this."

"EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites," by Helena Spongenberg for the EU Observer, with thanks to Fjordman:

The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations. EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal "needs to be further strengthened" to combat terrorism, according to press reports. The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations.

EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal "needs to be further strengthened" to combat terrorism, according to press reports.

The high-security portal - named "Check the Web" - was launched earlier this month and allows the 27 EU states to pool data on Islamist propaganda and internet chatter at the European Police Office (Europol) in The Hague.

13 people killed in jihad attack on government official’s home in northwest Pakistan

Taliban growing bolder in northwest Pakistan. "13 people killed in attack on government official’s home in northwest Pakistan," from Associated Press (thanks to Davida):

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - About 100 suspected pro-Taliban militants attacked the house of a government official in northwestern Pakistan before dawn Thursday, killing 13 people, police said.

The house belonged to Ameerud Din, the top administrator of the Khyber Tribal region in North West Frontier Province, bordering Afghanistan.

Din was not home at the time, but his brother, who also is a government servant, was among those killed. Authorities said the dead included six members of the same family and seven guests.

"The attackers fired rockets, threw hand grenades and used guns" for about 30 minutes before fleeing, said Sanaullah Khan, an area police chief.

Two others were injured in the attack near the village of Guman, 12 miles from the troubled town of Tank.

Wife 'urged man to die a martyr'

Many husbands might have regarded such advice with some suspicion.

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

A young mother urged her husband to die as a terrorist martyr and said their baby son could follow in his footsteps, the Old Bailey has heard.

It is alleged Bouchra El Hor, 24, of Ealing, west London, encouraged Yassin Nassari, 28, in a letter found in their luggage at Luton airport.

Prosecutors said its significance was noted after missile-making instructions were found on Mr Nassari's computer.

The couple deny a total of three terrorism charges.

'Combat death'

Aftab Jafferjee, prosecuting, said they were not merely radicalised Muslims but Mr Nassari was going to engage in "what he and others like him would call a jihad, but what the law describes as terrorism".

"He held both the ideology and the technology with which that could be achieved," he said.

"His wife was not only aware of his intention but positively encouraged it, despite the fact that his actions would almost certainly result in his death in some form of combat and would also result in their son being without a father."

The letter, which was read to the jury, said:

"The moment has come that you and I have to separate for the sake of Allah.

"I am so proud of my husband. I am happy that Allah has granted you the chance to be a martyr.

"I am writing to let you know that you have my support and to remind you to be strong and do not let Satan influence you... to remind you that jihad is now compulsory and we are now obligated to protect Islam, to help our brothers and sisters to fight the kuffar [non-believer].

"I really wish I could go with you because I too feel obligated. I'd like to participate in any way I can.

"Everything happens with the will of Allah. Maybe one day I can follow you. If I can't, I will send our son to you so he can follow his father's footsteps."

"Jihad is now compulsory" because in this view a Muslim land has been attacked, and so according to traditional Islamic law, jihad becomes fard ayn, or compulsory on every believer to aid in some way.

"The reason we are losing the battle of information and ideas is because the coherent religious and ideological position that al-Qa’ida represents has an extraordinary degree of support within the Muslim world"

The truth will out, eventually. "Extremists winning war of words, too," by Greg Sheridan in The Australian, with thanks to JE:

SIX years after the 9/11 terror attacks that destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York and killed almost 3000 people, a majority of American Muslims do not believe the attacks were carried out by Arabs. And more than one-quarter of young US Muslims believe suicide bombings can be justified in some circumstances.

These shocking and tragic findings, which come from the Pew Research Centre, tell us much about why the war against Islamist terror is going to last for generations.

The West is losing the information and propaganda war against Islamist extremism. It is not losing because it is being insufficiently kind to Muslims at home or in the Middle East.

As Britain’s Tony Blair wrote in The Sunday Times: “Extremism will be defeated only by recognising that we have not created it ... pandering to its sense of grievance will only encourage it.”

Blair confronted the argument that Muslims hate the West because it has taken military action in Afghanistan and Iraq: “Tell me what exactly they feel angry about? We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a UN-supervised democratic process. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims. Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing?”

The reason we are losing the battle of information and ideas is because the coherent religious and ideological position that al-Qa’ida represents has an extraordinary degree of support within the Muslim world. Even sentiments that don’t finally endorse al-Qa’ida often adopt a similar world outlook that embraces much of al-Qa’ida’s historical narrative and paranoid world view.

Most Muslims are moderates and abhor terrorism. But the minority that is extremist is a big one.

The flipside of al-Qa’ida’s success in the information war is our own dismal effort in this field. This does not mean endlessly telling Muslims how much we love them. Although in principle a bit of that is OK, as Blair implies it can be counterproductive by feeding an unjustified sense of grievance....

In many nations, moderate Muslims have been intimidated or even killed....

The Danish imams who campaigned successfully to turn a few cartoons into a worldwide jihad had previously been wrongly identified as moderates and benefited from state travel grants and the like....

One of the many disturbing features of the US Pew survey on the attitudes of American Muslims is that younger Muslims are substantially more extreme than their parents or grandparents. This reflects the experience in Europe, and probably Australia, that far from the second generation being more integrated, as has happened with every other migrant group, it is becoming more prey to the appeal of extremist ideologies and more alienated from its host society.

It is important to emphasise that the US survey does show that most American Muslims are moderate and reject extremism, and that American Muslims tend to be more moderate than European Muslims or Muslim populations in most majority Muslim nations.

But the US poll is merely the latest from across the world to show that the extremist minority is a very big, and therefore dangerous, one. A poll by the British think tank Policy Exchange showed similar results. Although most British Muslims are moderate, among 16 to 24-year-olds, 37 per cent would prefer to live under sharia law than British law, while 36per cent believe a Muslim changing their religion to something else should be punishable by death and 13per cent support al-Qa’ida.

Similarly, a joint Asia-Europe Foundation and University of Malaya poll found that 98 per cent of Malay Muslims believe Muslims should not be allowed by law to change their religion, 31 per cent want sharia law to replace the Malaysian constitution, 12 per cent support suicide bombings and a clear majority dislike or hate Europe, the US and Australia.

And in Australia, Taj Din al-Hilali, after all his extremist statements, remains the mufti. After everything, the national imams council still has not dismissed him. To equate this with Christian fundamentalism is utterly absurd. The widespread presence of extremist views in large minorities among Muslim communities poses acute dilemmas for a liberal society that no one has yet begun to face up to.

Indeed not.

D'Souza, unable to refute what I actually say, makes up some things I don't say and refutes them

Brett_McS is our contest winner, and Dinesh D'Souza is hereby crowned the Dilettante of Dhimmitude. Congratulations to Brett and Dinesh also -- send your address, Brett, to me at director[at]jihadwatch.org, and I will send you an autographed copy of The Truth About Muhammad. And thanks to all those who entered the contest. The entries were all terrific, and I think Dinesh richly merits the titles "Hooper of Hoover" and "Lawrence of Taqiyya" as well as the winning entry.

Meanwhile, Mr. D'Souza himself, unable to deal with the facts Hugh and I gave him in response to his challenge to name two Sunni/Shia conflicts, has resorted to making things up, attributing them to me, and then refuting those. And I can see how that is a much easier task.

In "More Religious Wars, Mr. Spencer?," he says this:

Today's New York Times reports on escalating sectarian conflict in northern Iraq between Sunnis and Kurds. I'm sure Robert Spencer would be on the case, spouting his nonsense about religious wars, except that the Kurds happen to be Sunni as well!

Ah, yes, but Robert the history major can find examples in history of clashes between the Kurds and other Sunnis. Indeed there have been clashes, but that's because most of the Sunnis in the Middle East are Arab, while the Kurds are not. Ethnic and tribal identity--not religion--is the source of the conflict.

Saladin was a Sunni Muslim of Kurdish descent, and I'm sure Spencer can find some ancient conflict over territory to convince his gullible followers that the Sunni-Kurd clash has been going on for centuries. Actually this is nonsense, but fortunately for Spencer none of his readers actually knows what any of the internecine Islamic conflicts were about. So Spencer relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium: the argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader.

Now have I actually said that the Sunni/Kurd conflict was religious? Of course not. Meanwhile, however, the other straw men D'Souza sets up turns out to have teeth: if Mr. D'Souza cared to do any research, he would have discovered that the Kurds have been in conflict with the Arabs, Turks, and Persians for centuries. When the epic poet Ahmad Khani called for the creation of an independent Kurdish state, free of Arab and Turkish domination, in the Kurdish national epic Mem-o-Zin in 1695, modern Kurdish nationalism was given its first great boost. The Kurdish Zand kingdom flourished in the latter half of the 18th century, but by the mid-19th century it and other Kurdish principalities had been destroyed by the Ottoman Turks and the Persians.

But in fact, I have never written about this before. That's because it has little to do with jihad, which, as you may have noticed, is what I do write about. D'Souza's whole column is just made up. But all is not lost: as his career as a pundit continues to implode, I see a bright future for him...as a novelist.

US Airways seeks imam-suit dismissal

It's good to see US Airways not caving in to this naked attempt at intimidation and outlawing of lawful and necessary security procedures.

By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

US Airways is asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams, saying the airline followed government guidelines when it removed the men from a flight because of suspicious behavior.

The response to the lawsuit, filed March 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, says the airline "is required to adhere to the main points of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Common Strategy regarding security threats in the aviation context."

The strategy advises flight crew members to be "alert for odd or suspicious behavior during all interactions with passengers in the gate area, during the boarding process and during routine flight duties and passenger interactions," the response to the lawsuit states.

"Flight crewmembers are required to mentally assess each passenger's behavior and the potential for threat. Moreover, the common strategy notes that this is a subjective analysis, and recognizes that there is no key factor that applies in every situation," it states.

"Notably, the common strategy advises flight crews to "Presume the worst," and "Be suspicious about any passenger disturbance," the response states....

11 new charges filed in Jewish Federation shootings; defendant pleads insanity

"While Haq identified himself as an 'American Muslim,' he was acting alone and had no ties to terrorist organizations." Feel better?

Naveed Haq Update. By Christine Clarridge for the Seattle Times, with thanks to Timothy:

Flanked by King County Deputies and Jail guards, alleged Jewish Federation shooter Naveed Haq arrives for his hearing Wednesday morning.

King County prosecutors this morning filed 11 additional criminal charges against Naveed Haq, who is accused of killing one woman and wounding five others last summer during a shooting rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

In response, Haq's attorneys filed pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity to the new charges and the nine others he already faced, effectively announcing the defense strategy.

In a hearing before Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas this morning, prosecutors received permission to charge Haq with five additional burglary counts, five malicious harassment charges and one charge of unlawful imprisonment.

Haq, 31, a Tri-Cities man with a history of mental illness, was already facing one count of aggravated first-degree murder for the slaying of the charity's fundraising director, 58-year-old Pamela Waechter. He also had been previously charged with five counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count each of kidnapping, burglary and malicious harassment, the state's version of hate crime....

He carried two guns, court documents allege, and spewed anti-Semitic statements as he made his way through the office, randomly shooting people he encountered as some screamed and tried to escape or hide.

The shooting came a day after the FBI had warned Jewish organizations nationwide to be on alert after Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and al-Qaida's second in command urged that the war raging in the Middle East be carried to the U.S.

Haq reportedly told operators in a 911 call during the shooting, "These are Jews. I want these Jews to get out."

But law enforcement officials said that while Haq identified himself as an "American Muslim," he was acting alone and had no ties to terrorist organizations.

Rice, Israel, Syria, fantasy and reality

"Israeli officials are unsure" whether Assad could actually "deliver a deal." And Rice says that a Palestinian state must come first.

Both the Israelis and the Secretary of State are, quite simply, not dealing with reality. The public discourse about Islamic jihad and the challenge we're facing has been dominated by fantasy since 9/11 and before that, and if anything, the fog is thicker now than ever. In reality, a Palestinian state won't bring peace, because it will not only not herald an end to Palestinian demands, but will only embolden the jihadists to continue to press for the destruction of Israel altogether -- and provide them a platform for doing so. Evidently no one takes the Hamas Charter seriously except Hamas.

But does Syria present a viable alternative for peace? As we have noted here many times, although Syria is a relatively secular state, and Assad is not an orthodox Muslim, it is a foremost base for jihad activities and the advancement of Islamic supremacism. And now The Truth About Syria, an excellent new book by Barry Rubin of MERIA and the GLORIA Center, exposes the full scope of Syria's activities on behalf of the jihad. Rubin explains how Assad and his father have kept themselves in power by bringing together jihadism and Arab nationalism in Damascus -- and the hollowness of the arguments that contend that those two forces are and ever shall be irreconcilably opposed. Taking a long historical view, Rubin notes that the "window of opportunity" many have seen over the years for an accord between Israel and Syria -- and which Israeli officials seem to be seeing again today -- is actually for Damascus nothing more than a "window of weakness," Israeli weakness, which the Syrians will exploit for everything they can get. He lists fifteen cogent reasons why Syria will never make peace with Israel, and enters into peace talks never intending to compete them.

And of course there is much more involved than just Israel when it comes to Syria. The Assad regime is also deeply involved in jihad activities in Iraq, and is working closely with Iran and jihad terror groups such as Hizballah. As such, with or without Nancy Pelosi and her naive and counterproductive overtures, Syria cannot be ignored. Rubin explores all of this and more, not from the standpoint of fashionable politically correct fantasies, but from a realistic evaluation of Syria and the Assad regime on its own terms.

If Rice and the Israelis read this book -- and the Hamas Charter -- they might be able to embark on the road to policies that were actually viable to protect both Israel and the U.S. from the global jihadists, rather than embroiling us yet again in a round of futile and deceptive peace talks that will, ultimately, only advance the jihadist cause.

"Rice Cautions Israel on Syria: 'No Substitute' for Peace With Palestinians, Secretary Says" by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post (thanks to Sr. Soph):

BERLIN, May 29 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday cautioned against a growing sentiment in Israel to pursue peace with Syria instead of with warring Palestinian factions, saying there is "no substitute" for creating a Palestinian state.

Rice, who will discuss the stalled peace process with diplomats here Wednesday, has worked for months to lay the groundwork for Palestinians and Israelis to begin discussing what she calls a "political horizon" -- the parameters of a possible Palestinian state.

But with violence erupting between Palestinian factions -- and with Israel under constant attack from rockets launched from the Gaza Strip -- Rice has faced criticism from some outside experts for spending so much time on a diplomatic long shot, rather than seeking to quickly end the violence.

Israeli officials have confirmed Israeli news media reports that there is intense discussion about whether to pursue a peace agreement with Syria, which would in effect abandon the Palestinian track for now. Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has strongly suggested he is interested in reaching an agreement similar to one nearly concluded by his late father a decade ago, but Israeli officials are unsure whether he could actually deliver a deal.

Shi'ite militia may have kidnapped Britons in Iraq

"The gunmen were accompanied by civilians with identification cards from Iraq's Public Integrity Commission, an anti-corruption watchdog." An update on this story. "U.S., Iraqi troops hunt for Britons; militia blamed," by Mariam Karouny and Ahmed Rasheed for Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi soldiers searched Baghdad on Wednesday for five kidnapped Britons who Iraq's foreign minister said had probably been taken by a Shi'ite militia.

Troops raided Baghdad neighborhoods, including the Sadr City stronghold of the Shi'ite Mehdi Army militia, after dozens of gunmen kidnapped a British computer expert Peter Moore and his four bodyguards from a Finance Ministry building on Tuesday.

An Iraqi government official said the kidnappings could be in retaliation for the killing of the top commander of fiery Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia by British-backed Iraqi soldiers in Basra in the south last week.

"It may be the Mehdi Army because the location of the (kidnapping) is in their theatre of operations," Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told Reuters.

"Their safety is our top priority ... I don't think they will finish them. They are using them for bargaining, but they have not contacted anybody yet."

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said British officials were working with Iraqi authorities to find out how the Britons were abducted and to secure their swift release.

An Interior Ministry spokesman dismissed suggestions the kidnappers, dressed in police commando camouflage uniforms and driving official vehicles, were a renegade unit from his ministry.

Interior Ministry forces are known to be heavily infiltrated by Shi'ite militias, including the Mehdi Army, and have often been accused of kidnappings and sectarian killings.

But a top official in Sadr's political movement, Abdul Mahdi al-Mutiri, said the scale and organization of Tuesday's operation was beyond the Mehdi Army's capabilities.

A government employee who witnessed the kidnappings also gave new details of the well-planned operation and told how two other Westerners had narrowly escaped being taken by the gunmen at the Finance Ministry building in Palestine Street.

The ministry identified the kidnapped Briton as Peter Moore and said he worked for BearingPoint, a U.S.-based consulting firm. It appealed for his release, saying he had been working in Iraq's national interest.

It said the gunmen were accompanied by civilians with identification cards from Iraq's Public Integrity Commission, an anti-corruption watchdog. The commission denied any involvement.

Iraqi government in talks with the King of Clubs

"For reconciliation between the government and this political wing." Hmm. Evidently they have forgotten, or no longer care, how it was that the government and this political wing became estranged in the first place.

"Iraq: Government in talks with former Saddam deputy," from AKI, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Erbil, 30 May (AKI) - Contacts are underway between Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Baathist faction of Izzat al-Douri, former vice president during the Saddam era, according to a report on Kurdish language daily Aso. The scope of the contacts is "for reconciliation between the government and this political wing" the paper said. It quoted sources close to the government saying "the prime minister has created a high commission for directing the talks with the Douri faction, to be headed by an ex-aviation official."...

Al-Douri, the "King of Clubs" in the US deck of cards naming the Saddam regime's most wanted figures, gave an interview to Time magazine in July 2006, through written questions and answers passed on by Iraqi intermediaries. There have been reports that he has been living in Syria or Yemen or that he is dead.

The Iraqi leadership has in the past fiercely opposed any negotiations with Baathists involved in crimes against the Iraqi people. But among the recommendations that emerged from the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh earlier this month, on the situation in Iraq, was initiatives to support and boost national reconciliation.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is one of three surviving plotters who carried out the coup that brought the Baath Party to power in 1968 and managed to survive Saddam's frequent purges.

He was responsible for northern Iraq when chemical weapons were used there in 1988, and is accused of mass torture and murder.

Sure, but why let that get in the way of "national reconciliation"?

The jihad threat arrives in Switzerland

The Swiss won't be able to be neutral for much longer.

"The Islamist Threat Arrives in Switzerland: The MEMRI Report," by Steven Stalinsky in the New York Sun (thanks to all who sent this in):

" Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah is a preacher of global influence and is one of the senior figures of the fundamentalist Islamic Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia as well as a close associate of Osama bin Laden. He was imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for his extremist ideologies from 1994 until 1999. Even after his imprisonment, he adopts the call to armed struggle against the infidel Western countries in his writings."

- A report filed by the Ministry of Justice in Switzerland, May 2007

In another sign of the spread of Islam within Europe, last month, Swiss Muslims announced their plan to open " Europe's biggest Islamic center" in the capital city of Bern. The center is estimated to cover 84 acres and to cost as much as $66 million to build.

Switzerland seems to be an unlikely locus for a battle over jihadist Islamism, but according to reports, its Muslim citizens, who make up about 5% of the total population, increasingly look to radical Middle East clerics for spiritual guidance. The country is also home to a controversial professor, Tariq Ramadan, whose visa to come to America was revoked by the State Department, and reports indicate there has been a rising tension between Muslims and non-Muslims there. In what could be considered pouring fuel on a fire, two weeks ago, the League of Swiss Muslims invited Sheik Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah of Saudi Arabia to participate in their annual conference.

Hailing from a wealthy Saudi family, Mr. Odah is a noted Islamic scholar who has a wide following among Islamists throughout the world. He was enraged when American troops were based in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and has gone on record supporting jihad against American troops in Iraq.

His stance on the American presence in Saudi Arabia earned him five years in jail there for speaking out against the government — a sentence condemned in Osama bin Laden's infamous 1996 fatwa against the West. According to reports, copies of Mr. Odah's sermons have been found in an abandoned Afghanistan home belonging to Mr. bin Laden.

Read it all.

Spencer: 300,000 Supporters of Suicide Attacks in America

Thoughts on the Pew poll from FrontPage (news links in the original). Video here.

Some of the results of the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America were startling: twenty-six percent of Muslims between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine affirmed that there could be justification in some (unspecified) circumstances for suicide bombing, and five percent of all the Muslims surveyed said that they had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. Given the Pew Center’s estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in America, and the total of thirteen percent that avowed a belief that suicide bombings could ever be justified, that’s over 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks. And 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda.

It is unfortunate that the Pew Center pollsters were not equipped with a follow-up question for those who expressed support for suicide bombing, asking them about the circumstances in which they would consider it justified, and whether they would ever consider it justified in the United States. As columnist Diana West has noted: “the fact that a significant young chunk of American Islam believes such violence has a place in society indicates something closer to the end of unfettered political opinion. It may signal the beginning of physical coercion as a factor in the American political process.” The pollsters might also have asked those who professed support for Al-Qaeda whether they were working or would be willing to work to further that organization’s goals in the United States – but perhaps that kind of question shades too far over into what law enforcement officials should be doing.

In any case, the implications of this poll are far-reaching. Yet virtually no one is dealing with those implications. The mainstream media generally reported the poll results as indicating that the overwhelming majority of Muslims rejected extremism and were comfortably assimilated into American society, without dealing in detail with those troubling minorities. Headlines in major newspapers included “Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle”; “Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook”; “Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds”; “U.S. Muslims more content, assimilated than those abroad”; and “Pew Study Sees Muslim Americans Assimilating.”

Meanwhile, two of the leading Islamic advocacy groups in the United States, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), shrugged off the unpleasant aspects of the poll and stressed its findings about how well assimilated Muslims were. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR told MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, “I don’t see a rise of religious extremism in the Muslim community….If you look at the totality of the survey results, the views of American Muslims more or less mirror the views of people of all faiths of America.” He did not cite, however, any evidence for this mirroring – any survey, for example, of Christians or Jews indicating any significant percentages of support for, say, the Ku Klux Klan, or abortion clinic bombers. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson, meanwhile, confronted Edina Lekovic of MPAC on CNBC’s Lawrence Kudlow show, reading an editorial in praise of Osama bin Laden published in the UCLA Muslim Students Association’s newspaper in 1999, while she was editor of the paper. Lekovic denied having been the editor of the paper at that time, but Emerson has made available a pdf of the paper’s masthead that lists her as editor. Kudlow had asked Lekovic what Muslims in America were doing to combat the jihadist views expressed by some in the poll, and she stated that they were doing a great deal, but offered no specifics – and the incident with Emerson damaged her credibility. In fact, neither the CAIR nor the MPAC website contains any announcement about any program or initiative of any kind designed to lessen support for suicide bombing and Al-Qaeda within the Muslim community in America.

And therein lies the problem. The mainstream media’s soothing reports about the poll not only misled the American public about the poll results; they also failed to call American Muslim advocacy groups to account for those results. The first question in every media analyst’s mind should have been, What do Muslim groups plan to do to combat the spread of the jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism among Muslims in America? Pointing out that most Muslims in America eschew that ideology is not enough; what about the others? Almost six years after 9/11, no pressure is coming either from the mainstream media or law enforcement for Muslim groups in the United States to institute comprehensive educational programs against jihadism in their mosques and schools. This poll, however, shows how much such programs are needed – as well as a national debate about how these groups should be regarded if they refuse or fail to implement such programs.

But instead, we are supposed to be reassured that those holding jihadist sentiments number only a few hundred thousand. The public discourse about Islamic jihad has been dominated by fantasy since 9/11 and before that, and if anything, the fog is thicker now than ever.

Report confirms terror dry run

Flight 327 Update. Will all those who ridiculed Annie Jacobsen for "hysteria" over "musicians," and derided her for "racism," now apologize? What do you think?

And what about those who think the Flying Imams case is a legitimate one of racist profiling? Will they now acknowledge that there is a genuine threat to American air travel? Again, what do you think?

And why has DHS covered up all these probes and dry runs? Are they more concerned about a fictional "backlash" against Muslims than about preventing another jihad terror attack? Do they think that keeping the public ignorant, fat, and happy will help prevent another jihad terror attack? This goes hand-in-hand with the polite fictions about Islam and jihad that dominate the public discourse -- it's as if in both cases that the truth is just too terrifying to contemplate, and so we'd rather play pretend.

Well, if we wish to survive, maybe it's time to grow up.

By Audrey Hudson for the Washington Times, with thanks to Gnosis:

Download the inspector general report (PDF)

A newly released inspector general report backs eyewitness accounts of suspicious behavior by 13 Middle Eastern men on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2004 and reveals several missteps by government officials, including failure to file an incident report until a month after the matter became public.

According to the Homeland Security report, the "suspicious passengers," 12 Syrians and their Lebanese-born promoter, were traveling on Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on expired visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services extended the visas one week after the June 29, 2004, incident.

The report also says that a background check in the FBI's National Crime Information Center database, which was performed June 18 as part of a visa-extension application, produced "positive hits" for past criminal records or suspicious behavior for eight of the 12 Syrians, who were traveling in the U.S. as a musical group.

In addition, the band's promoter was listed in a separate FBI database on case investigations for acting suspiciously aboard a flight months earlier. He was detained a third time in September on a return trip to the U.S. from Istanbul, the details of which were redacted.

The inspector general criticized the Homeland Security officials for not reporting the incident to the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC), which serves as the nation's nerve center for information sharing and domestic incident management.

The report comes three years after the incident, which was not officially acknowledged until a month later, after The Washington Times reported passenger and marshal complaints that the incident resembled a dry run for a terrorist attack. After reviewing the report, air marshals say it confirms their earlier suspicions.

Official denial

An air marshal who told The Times that he has been involved personally in terror probes that were ignored by federal security managers, called such behavior typical.

"Agency management was not only covering up numerous probes and dry-run encounters from Congress and other federal law-enforcement agencies, it was also hiding these incidents from their own flying air marshals," said P. Jeffrey Black, an air marshal stationed in Las Vegas.

Homeland Security officials initially denied the complaints and blamed passengers who reported the incident to the press as behaving hysterically. However, the inspector general report shows that air marshals had the group of men under surveillance before they boarded the plane.

"Prior to boarding, one of the air marshals noticed what he later characterized as 'unusual behavior' by about six Middle Eastern males, who arrived at the gate together, then separated, and acted as if they did not know each other," the report said.

"According to the air marshals, these men were sweaty, appeared nervous and arrived after the boarding announcement. The air marshals made eye contact with one another to ensure they were aware of this behavior," the report said.

The inspector general's two-year investigation was originally released in April 2006 but was then wholly redacted except for two sentences. The re-release stems from a Freedom of Information request by The Times on April 25, 2006, which was answered Friday.

Portions of the report remain redacted. However, current and former air marshals who reviewed a copy provided by The Times say the activities of the men details a dry run for a terrorist attack.

Read it all.

“Legitimate Demands” A Video Speech by Adam Yahiye Gadahn Produced by as-Sahab Media

The beard is really coming along

A new message from the traitor Gadahn. "...You and your people will- Allah willing- experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Virginia Tech." From the SITE Institute (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Adam Yahiye Gadahn AKA Azzam the American, is featured in a 7:57 minute video produced by as-Sahab, the multimedia wing of al-Qaeda, and titled: “Legitimate Demands”. The video was issued to jihadist forums today, Tuesday, May 29, 2007. The speech, spoken in English and subtitled in Arabic, is presented as an address to U.S. President George W. Bush, Gadahn speaking in a condescending tone and accusing him of spearheading a Crusade led by his “empire of evil” against Muslims and embroiling American forces in wars without end. Reinvigoration of old fronts in Somalia, continuation of fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, and the region of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan), in addition to an alleged failure in the media to tarnish the image of the Mujahideen to Muslims, are cited by Gadahn as reasons for Bush to seek escape and “prevent the number of American casualties at home and abroad from rising even higher.”

The demands are emphatically stated by Gadahn to not be construed as negotiations, for Muslims do not negotiate with “baby killers and war criminals”. These entail the removal of American military forces from Muslim lands, cease of encroachment into the political, social, and economic affairs in these countries, and to free Muslim captives from prisons. Should these demands not be met, Gadahn states, “means that you and your people will- Allah willing- experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Virginia Tech.” Withdrawing from Iraq alone, Gadahn states, does not qualify as acceptance of terms, and he mockingly advices for Bush to stop his “futile farcical maneuvers on Capital Hill.”

Islamic Society of Boston Drops Lawsuits

Here's a happy announcement from the David Project. It looks from the information below as if, as in the case of CAIR's suit against Anti-CAIR, the discovery process came too close to compelling the ISB to disclose things it doesn't want the public to know.

Islamic Society of Boston Drops Lawsuits Against David Project, Concerned Citizens, Boston Herald and Fox, Abandoning All Of Its Claims Without Receiving Any Payment

David Project to Continue Public Records Lawsuit To Force Disclosure of Evidence on Boston Redevelopment Authority-Islamic Society Land Deal

The David Project has announced that the Islamic Society of Boston ("ISB") and its officers have withdrawn all of their claims against all of the citizens who raised concerns about the ISB, its funding and its leadership, as well as all of their claims against the Boston Herald, Fox-TV and the various journalists whose investigative pieces about the ISB in 2003 and 2004 disclosed damaging information about the ISB and its controversial land deal with the Boston Redevelopment Authority ("BRA"). The ISB and its officers have abandoned all of their claims against all of the defendants they sued 2 years ago, without payment to the ISB or to any of its officers of any money whatsoever.

The ISB's decision to drop all of its claims against all of the 17 defendants it sued back in 2005 alleging "defamation" and accusing them of conspiring to violate its civil rights comes just months after the defendants--who included a Muslim cleric, a Christian political science professor and the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors, as well as Boston civic leader William Sapers and national terrorism expert Steven Emerson--had begun through their lawyers to conduct discovery into the ISB's financial records, its receipt of millions of dollars in funding from Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern sources, its contributions to certain organizations and the records of certain of its officers and directors. The ISB's abandonment of its lawsuits comes only weeks after two of its original Middle Eastern Trustees, Walid Fitaihi of Saudi Arabia and Ali Tobah of Egypt, suddenly resigned as Trustees just before they were required to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court hearing the case.

The David Project, whose public records litigation against the BRA forced the public disclosure of evidence regarding the below-fair-market land deal between the BRA and the ISB and the role played in that deal of BRA Deputy Director Muhammed Ali Salaam, will proceed exactly as before with its litigation, seeking the remainder of the documents presently withheld by the BRA. That litigation, The David Project v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, is on file in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston.

"We were determined from the beginning to act the way citizens should, by asking questions about this matter and by refusing to be intimidated into staying silent," said David Project founder and President Charles Jacobs, "and we intend to continue as we have before. Indeed, the evidence that has emerged about the transaction, about the BRA's failure to do due diligence into those whom it chose to subsidize and about the funding and the leadership of the organization that received this public subsidy is of extremely deep concern. That evidence not only vindicates the reporting of the courageous journalists whose investigative work broke the story back in 2003 and 2004, but validates many times over the concerns expressed by the good and decent citizens--Muslims, Christians and Jews--who refused to stay silent."

"Those citizens were vilified by the ISB for having had the courage to speak out", said Jacobs. "The ISB's abandonment of its claims without payment of one dollar to them, coming as it does as the ISB was ordered to turn over evidence, speaks more eloquently than anything else could about the truth of what these citizens said, about the validity of their concerns, and about the lack of merit to the ISB's allegations that they had been 'defamed' and had been financially 'damaged'. Above all, the ISB's ultimate abandonment of its lawsuits speaks eloquently about the importance of refusing to be bullied and intimidated into silence."

"This has never been about the right of all people to worship, and to construct houses of worship, which is an important right possessed equally by all people, warranting great respect," said Jacobs. "What it has been about is specific evidence about specific leaders of a specific organization, and about evidence regarding the funding of that organization and those whom it, in turn, was funding. The threat of Islamic extremism in the United States and elsewhere is a real one. Many of the most courageous and forceful individuals speaking out about this threat are themselves Muslims, and they deserve the support of all of us. The victory we have achieved in this case is a victory for many, but perhaps especially for them, as it bolsters and encourages them, and sends a message on their behalf that intimidation will not work."

UK: Academics oppose drive to root out jihadists on university campuses

There is no jihad. There is only "Islamophobia" and racism.

"Lecturers oppose Muslim 'witch hunt,'" by Graeme Paton in the Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Academics are threatening to derail a Government drive to root out Islamic extremists on university campuses.

The University and College Union, will ask its 120,000 members to refuse to take part in the Government-led "witch hunt".

It insists that Muslims are being "demonised" because of new guidance that asks staff to look out for students falling under the influence of radical preachers.

The Department for Education and Skills has warned university staff to log suspicious behaviour amid fears that campuses are being infiltrated by fanatics recruiting for so-called jihad. In a 20-page report published in December, ministers warned of "serious, but not widespread, Islamic extremist activity in higher education institutions".

It asks lecturers to vet Islamic preachers who have been invited to campuses, ensure that "hate literature" is not distributed among students and report suspicious behaviour to police.

But at the UCU annual conference in Bournemouth, lecturers will warn of a "recent rise" in racism and its "apparent promotion by Government policies".

Academics at the union's London Metropolitan University branch will say that "increasingly restrictive measures and the xenophobic language surrounding them" has led to an increase in racist attacks on Muslims.

"Islamophobia and the attempts at increased surveillance on Muslim communities are not only encouraging racist and xenophobic tendencies in Britain but are also leading to measures that threaten civil liberties," they will warn.

A motion to the conference will condemn Government attempts to use "members of staff for such witch hunts"....

What Muhammad said?

A few years ago I was speaking at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and in the course of the talk explained that Hasan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, cofounder of Al-Qaeda, among others, attacked the famous hadith in which Muhammad speaks of the "greater jihad" as a spiritual struggle. Al-Banna and Azzam pointed out that it was a weak hadith, and did not appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims accept as reliable. I was talking about this in order to explain why it wasn't enough for peaceful Muslims simply to quote this hadith, as they often do, as if simply quoting it were sufficient to establish that genuine Islam is peaceful and the terrorists have hijacked the religion. They would have to go farther, and answer the argument that Al-Banna and Azzam advanced.

A student spoke up to say, "It's in Bukhari." I responded by saying that no, it wasn't in Bukhari, that I had searched and searched Bukhari for it, and that it wasn't in there. I told the group that if he could find it in Bukhari and email the citation, I would publicly retract. But of course he never did.

Anyway, here it is again, again attributed to Bukhari, the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable -- but tellingly, no citation is given.

Open invitation: can anyone substantiate that this statement is actually in Bukhari? I do not believe it is, and am inclined to think this just more deception, but Bukhari's hadith comprises many, many volumes. So if you think it's in there, give me a citation. Everyone up to and including Karen Armstrong cites this hadith, but never gives a citation. Let's see one, please.

From askMuslims:

Did you know Jihad does NOT mean 'Holy War'?

Almost everyone in the world today has heard the word Jihad, thanks to the media.This word has a very broad meaning and does not mean 'Holy War' as many people believe.

The meaning of the word Jihad is 'Striving'.It applies to any sort of activity made by any person because of love of God.It covers every aspect of a muslim's life. It is Jihad when a muslim is called upon to make an extra effort - for example, to get up before dawn in order to pray, to fast during Ramadan abstaining from all the things which would invalidate the fast.It is jihad when a person helps another, and goes out of their way to be a friend etc (the intention being to please God alone and not for anything else, if it is done with any other motive, it is NOT Jihad).For example, a person can lay down his life for his country without being religious at all - this is NOT Jihad.

It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) said: *"The most excellent jihad is that for the conquest of oneself." The soul is tempted to do certain things which are prohibited(haraam) at times and a person who strives to eradicate such thoughts and seeks refuge with God is doing Jihad by controlling his/her desires.

*Hadith from Bukhari

Fitzgerald: The Iran/Iraq War, Sunni/Shi'a hostility, and D'Souza

The war between Iran and Iraq, of course, could not have been openly presented by Saddam Hussein as a Sunni-Shi'a war, for obvious reasons. But that is not the same thing as saying that it had nothing to do with the initial fear and hatred, felt by those who ran the Sunni Arab despotism (disguised behind "Ba'athism") of Saddam Hussein for the mad-dog Shi'a, as they saw it, of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that war, Saddam Hussein referred to battles from early Islam between Arabs and Persians, and played up -- as other Sunnis have more recently done -- the "Persian" business. Some, such as Al-Zarqawi, and his successors, have reinforced the resentment of Sunnis at losing control of Iraq to the Shi'a by describing those Shi'a, inaccurately, as "Persians," or mere collaborators of the "Persians."

One of Bernard Lewis's most useful books is The Multiple Identities of the Middle East. One is not only a Shi'a Muslim or a Sunni Muslim. One can be more than one thing. One can be an Arab and a Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Sunni Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Shi'a Muslim. One can be a Berber, and a Muslim. One can be a Kurd, and a Muslim. In the case of Arabs, so strong is the identification of Islam and "Uruba" or Arabness, that even among some of the Christian Arabs (above all among those we have been carefully taught to call "Palestinians") the identification with Islam is intertwined with "Arabness," and a need to be able to identify with permanently threatening Muslim Arabs (as a way to fit in, as a way to win them over). One thus finds the phenomenon of the "islamochristian," which is much less common among more numerous, self-conscious, and historically less cowed communities, such as the Maronites of Lebanon, or even the Copts, especially the Copts once they leave Egypt and can think, feel, speak freely about Islam.

All this escapes Dinesh D'Souza. He's too busy. So many books to sell, so many CDs to flog. To flog, flog, flog. Step right up. Get your latest Dinesh D'Souza here. Just for today, at No Extra Cost, a Guide to Absolutely Everything.

Who is most likely to shout that there never has been a Sunni-Shi'a divide, and that therefore whatever trouble there is in Iraq of what is demurely described as "of a sectarian nature" (you know: those bombs that blow the gold-tumanned roof off of venerable Shi'a mosques, those revenge drillings into live flesh by the Shi'a militias in return) is the responsibility of the Bad Old Infidels, the Bad Americans?

One group consists of those who will find a way to blame America for the inability of the people in Iraq to engage in sensible political compromise, or to refrain from violence as their main means for obtaining their goals. This group cannot see the world through other than Muslim lenses, with the inculcated violence and aggression that comes with those lenses. They understand that there are only two categories -- the Victors and the Vanquished -- which is exactly what Islam teaches them as the right way to think of Believers and Infidels. This lesson is not lost on them when they begin to think about other kinds of enemies.

The second group, of course, consists of the Bush loyalists, the people who thought that it made sense to remain in Iraq for Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations purposes. But no one, even those of us who believed the Administration's information about WMDs, should have thought it wise for the Americans to remain in Iraq beyond early 2004. Why then? Why not, say, November 2003? Well, because it was important to be assured both that the country had been scoured for WMDs, and that Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and the face cards in that famous pack used by the Americans in their imaginative game of Fifty-Two Pickup, were either killed or captured. But that was it.

The removal of the regime set in motion what was inevitable: the transfer of power to the Shi'a and the loss of power by the Sunnis. The Sunnis do not and cannot, inside or outside Iraq, accept this loss. They are unwilling to acquiesce in the obvious fact that the Shi'a of Iraq have won and have no intention of giving up power. What can the Sunnis do? The Shi'a don't need Anbar Province, and they have been quite able to empty Baghdad of many of its Sunnis. They are quite prepared, if need be, to continue that particular operation until the madinat al-salaam, the fabled first city of Islam, is almost entirely in Shi'a hands.

But Bush loyalists cannot admit that. They cannot admit that history demonstrates the depth and duration of Sunni-Shi'a hostilities goes far beyond Saddam Hussein's mistreatment of the Shi'a. They cannot accept that these hostilities go far beyond the history of modern Iraq, or even the history only of Iraq, but can be found wherever Sunnis and Shi'a are mixed together in sufficient numbers for the latter to be noticed and discriminated against, or attacked, or persecuted.

They ignored history, and now they have a stake in rewriting history, because of what they should have known, but did not bother to find out. And were any of the smiling westernized secularized Shi'a in exile going to inform them about the likelihood of a Shi'a takeover, and a Sunni refusal to acquiesce? This history continues to be ignored in presentations by Bush, by Cheney, by Rice, and by all those so-called "conservative" commentators whose reputations should suffer for their blind and late-in-the-day seeing of the light, where they do, or must pretend to, about Iraq.

Dinesh D'Souza apparently thinks that because many of the conscripts in Iraq's army were Shi'a, then Saddam Hussein could not have been prompted to declare war against Iran as a Shi'a state. But that is exactly why he declared war (see the "Encyclopedia Britannica" entry posted by Robert Spencer here). He understood that the secular Shah did not appeal to the devout Shi'a of Iraq, and that whatever his differences with Iran under Shah Reza Pahlevi, the Shah's regime was not for Saddam Hussein life-threatening.

But Khomeini, the militant Shi'a cleric, was a different matter. He had been kicked out of his exile in Iraq, was stupidly offered asylum by the French, and from his perch at Neauphle-le-chateau launched the revolution against the Shah. Had the French government been better informed, it would have cooperated with agents of Savak and had Khomeini done away with while he was in France.

It was because of Khomeini and his revolution that Saddam Hussein attacked Iran -- or rather, attacked the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran which, he understood, was a mortal threat to him because of its dangerous appeal to the formerly cowed ("quiescent") Shi'a of Iraq.

Dinesh D'Souza appears to believe that the army of Iraq was "60% Shi'a." That is, he thinks the army of Iraq reflected exactly the percentages in the general population. But of course the army was Sunni-officered, strictly Sunni-controlled. He, Dinesh D'Souza, appears not to realize how police states can stay afloat, when they set their diabolical minds to it. What percentage of the officer corps in the Syrian army, for example, in a country where only 12% of the population is Alawite but the country is run of, by, and for Alawites, does he think is Alawite? 12% exactly? Or 50%? Or 80%?

What naivete. Does he really think that the Sunni despots who have run Iraq ever since the British left, even though they were always a distinct minority (and have become more so over time), would do so without total control of the army? Can he not imagine how those Shi'a conscripts would have been pushed forward, fed whatever anti-"Persian" propaganda could be fed them, and then at the first sign of any recalcitrance, executed on the spot? He is lacking in the imaginative faculty.

In the imaginative faculty. In general knowledge. In specific knowledge about Islam, a subject he presumes to know enough to write a book about. The Hoover Institution should not be mocked. It no doubt is mortified that he is still there, and no doubt looking forward to getting rid of him at the earliest opportunity. He will find some other place to exploit for his own self-promotion, though no doubt he will be sorry not to be able to wave around the phrase "Hoover Institution" and bask in its reflected prestige. He'll do fine, somewhere. People like that always do.

Fort Dix tipster shrugs off 'hero' title

This is the young man who was afraid it might be "racist" to say something to authorities about this. That is, apparently, the substance of the "moral dilemma" noted below. God help us.

From CNN, with thanks to Scott:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The tipster responsible for helping authorities thwart a possible terrorist attack on a U.S. military base said Tuesday he experienced a "moral dilemma" over whether to report what he had seen.

Brian Morgenstern, a 26-year-old clerk at a Circuit City in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, was given the 8 mm tape January 31, 2006, by two men, whom he described as "normal people." They asked him to convert it to DVD format.

Authorities said the tape showed 10 young men shooting at a practice range and shouting in Arabic, "Allahu Akbar" -- "God is great."

Morgenstern said the video showed the men with hand guns and rifles that appeared to be "fully automatic weapons."

"I saw some stuff on the film that was disturbing and it kind of gained my attention that way," he told CNN's "American Morning."

"I started paying more attention to it," he said.

The tape's contents worried him. "I thought about whether or not it should be reported. I actually waited that night and weighed out my decisions, and I went home and talked to my family about it."

The next day, Morgenstern returned to work and told his manager about the tape and his decision to alert the police. He described Circuit City as being "very supportive" regarding the situation.

Britons kidnapped in Baghdad

By gunmen wearing police uniforms. The fact that it is apparently so easy to get these uniforms could be connected to the fact that there is no attempt made to ensure that those the government employs do not also support the jihad in some way. "Britons kidnapped by gunmen in Baghdad," by Nico Hines, Sam Knight, and Deborah Haynes in the TimesOnline:

Up to five Britons were abducted from a government building in Baghdad today in a brazen kidnapping by gunman dressed in police uniforms.

The victims were four bodyguards and a British economic adviser working at the Finance Ministry for BearingPoint, a US consultancy firm.

The guards are employed by GardaWorld, a Canadian firm that also protects Canon Andrew White, the vicar of St George's Church in Baghdad, and his Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East (FRRME).

D'Souzathon runoff

Yesterday, when Dinesh D'Souza called me the "Alan Wolfe of the right," I offered an autographed copy of my book The Truth About Muhammad to the person who came up with the best "Dinesh D'Souza is the _____ of _____."

There were so many good entries, however, that we're going to have to have a runoff. Please vote for one of these in the comments field below:

1. The Karen Armstrong of the Hoover Institution (Contributed by Still Breathing)
2. Dinesh D'Souza - "Putting the 'me' in Dhimmi since 2007" (Contributed by Bunratty Bill)
3. The Hooper of Hoover (Contributed by justask)
4. The huckster of the highbrows (Contributed by RecoveringHog)
5. Dinesh D'Souza: "Lawrence of Taqiyya" (Contributed by joeblough)
6. The Dilettante of Dhimmitude (Contributed by Brett_McS)
7. The Saladin of wishful thinking (Contributed by I<3Crusades)
8. A voice of reason among the Islamophobes (Contributed by Dinesh D'Souza)

What are they going to do about it?

In this week's Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I survey some of what the Pew Research Center poll results tell us about Muslims in America, and ask, What is the Muslim community in America going to do about it -- if anything?

Motorcycle bomb kills 4 in southern Thailand

Thai Jihad Update. "Bomb kills four in Muslim southern Thailand," from Reuters:

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A bomb planted on a motorcycle in a busy market in southern Thailand killed four people on Monday, the army said, the latest victims of a Muslim separatist insurgency in which more than 2,100 people have now died. "There are four dead and 23 injured, five of them seriously," army spokesman Acra Tiproch said. Two of the dead were children.

It is not known whether the victims were Buddhist or Muslim.

The blast, in the southern province of Songkhla which has avoided much of the daily violence, came less than a day after a string of seven small bombs in the provincial capital, Hat Yai, wounded 13 people.

Jihadists on trial in Mauritania

"The eight are suspected of receiving funding from part of the Saudi branch of Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks aimed at destabilising Mauritania."

"Up to 10 years jail requested for Islamists on trial in Mauritania," from Agence France-Presse:

NOUAKCHOTT (AFP) - A Mauritanian prosecutor on Monday requested up to 10 years behind bars for 25 Islamists on trial accused of links to a terrorist organisation.

A week after the trial began in Nouakchott, prosecutor Ahmed Ould Abdellahi requested prison sentences of between five and 10 years along with forced labour for eight of the defendants in order to "ensure State security".

The eight are suspected of receiving funding from part of the Saudi branch of Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks aimed at destabilising Mauritania.

Abdellahi also requested prison terms of up to 10 years with the possibility of forced labour for 11 other defendants who, he claimed, were associated with "the criminals".

This group stands accused of participating in training in 2004 by the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), now known as Al-Qaeda's branch in northern Africa, with the aim of going to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The prosecutor thus changed the initial indictment against the men, who were brought to trial accused of "belonging to a non-authorised organisation" and committing "acts not authorised by the government."

All the charges against the defendants, most of whom were arrested in 2005, fall under Mauritania's anti-terror law.

Four out of the 11 accused of participating in GSPC training have been present at the trial, three are being tried in absentia for escaping from prison in 2006 and four others, who were never arrested, are also being tried in their absence.

The court's announcement Monday that the four latter were also on trial pushed the number of defendants from 21 to 25.

The prosecutor on Monday also called for five defendants, all of them clerics, to be acquitted "due to lacking evidence."

[...]

The verdict is expected at the end of the week, according to the defence.

Grenade attack on Ethiopian crowd kills at least six

From Agence France-Presse:

ADDIS ABABA (AFP) - At least six people died and 40 were injured Monday in a hand grenade attack on a crowd in eastern Ethiopia marking the anniversary of the 1991 ouster of a dictator, officials said Monday.

The attack occurred in the main stadium in Jijiga, the capital of the Somali region, during celebrations to mark the end of the regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam.

"Four hand grenades were thrown, three of which were stopped by our security officials," Jema Ahmed Jema, vice president of the Somali region, told AFP.

"Three people died initially from the blast and another three died from the stampede," he said, adding that the regional president, Mohammed Ali Sero, had suffered a minor leg injury.

Jema blamed two local rebel groups, the Oromo Liberation Front and the Al- Ittihad Al-Islami, for the attack and said they were supported by Ethiopia's neighbouring enemy Eritrea.

Background on Al-Ittihad Al-Islami can be found here.

A local aid worker, who asked not to be named, said up to 11 people may have died.

Official news agency ENA put the number of dead at five, with 52 wounded, 10 of them seriously.

"Anti-peace forces and terrorists operating in the region with the assistance of the Eritrean regime threw hand grenades on Monday on 100,000 people who were celebrating the day at Jijiga stadium," the agency said quoting police.

Two police officers are among the dead, the agency said.

Another grenade attack was staged in Degha Bur, a town in the same province, killing seven people and wounding an unspecified number of others, he added.

Federal police spokesman Commander Demsash Hailu told AFP that the same kind of attack that happened in Jijiga also took place at Degha Bur where he said "some people threw the bombs over the crowd into the stadium".

"Five suspects are under control, police has started an investigation," he said, adding: "Police tried to arrest all the suspects and identified who is responsible for these attacks."

Pakistani authorities powerless to apprehend jihad terrorist

The government loses ground to the jihadists in Pakistan. This is, of course, a phenomenon about which we have posted many articles, and which once again demonstrates the power of the jihadists' appeal to represent "pure Islam" -- an appeal to which peaceful Muslims have never mounted an adequate response. "Pakistan losing territory to radicals: The rise of a powerful cleric exposes economic and political failures in a government-administered area," by David Montero for The Christian Science Monitor (thanks to DFS):

SWAT, Pakistan - In this valley of orchards near Afghanistan, 90 police hid along the banks of a riverbed in March, preparing to arrest the powerful Pakistani cleric Maualana Fazlullah. Informants said the target, charged with terrorism, would soon appear with a modest contingent of followers. Instead, Mr. Fazlullah rode into sight on a white horse, surrounded by hundreds of people.

When the officers advanced, brandishing tear gas and batons, word flew through the town. Thousands more supporters turned out to further protect Fazlullah. The officers backed off in an incident that shocked the country, exposing as it did the state's powerlessness to apprehend a wanted terrorist.

Such scenes are common in the tribal agencies of Waziristan, where the Taliban hold sway under a controversial truce signed with the government in September. But Swat is not Waziristan: It rests squarely in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), a government-administered area long considered beyond such lawlessness.

The rise of Fazlullah exposes the economic and political failures fanning extremism even in these areas, and hints at the consequences, both for Pakistan and the international community, if the province continues down a path of deprivation. Allow him to persist, many observers say, and others will be emboldened to roll back the state's policies of moderation – small but symbolically important gains in women's empowerment, girls' education, and religious tolerance.

"My opinion is, if you take him out today, there will be a reaction," says Asfandiar Amir Zeb, a former mayor of the district of Swat. "Leave it for a month, there will be a bigger reaction. If you leave it for six months, you won't be able to catch him."

Read it all.

In memoriam

Today is Memorial Day, and while Hugh grills the Jihad Watch burgers I thought I'd note that one of the reasons why the popular culture does not honor our fighting forces today or in general is that the politically correct mindset assumes that we have moved beyond all that. Conflicts don't ever need to be solved with wars, you see. All we need to do is understand each other a little better, show the opposition that we are really good fellows after all, win over a few hearts and minds, teach the children not to hate, and voila, all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well.

Unfortunately, in the real world, sometimes one may know someone else quite well, and see that he is a good fellow, and despite all the hand-holding and Kumbaya singing, still want to kill or subjugate for reasons of one's own, that don't proceed from the Kumbaya-singer's actions at all.

This is a point that all too many in Washington, at the highest levels, stubbornly refuse to grasp. It is axiomatic in the State Department, and in Europe, and at the UN, that all conflicts can be solved through negotiated concessions. This is so much a part of the air they all breathe that it would be unthinkable even to question it. No one would even think to ask, "What if we implement state-of-the-art hearts-and-minds initiatives, and conform to all their foreign policy and cultural demands, and they still hate us?" This cannot be. The non-Western man is just a reactor, not an actor. He has no imperatives of his own that might set him against us. He is, ultimately, at our mercy, and it is up to us and us alone to pacify him.

The unconscious paternalism of this is ironic, coming as it does from the most besotted of relativist multiculturalists, but in any case, the fact of Memorial Day, and the reality of those who died in this nation's conflicts, shows it all to be false. Sometimes there are disputes between peoples that can't be smoothed over by any amount of making nice. And then, if a nation does not have within it those who will fight and will die to defend it, it will perish.

Today those who believe we have moved beyond wars, beyond fighting, rule the day. Unfortunately, we face a foe who believes war and fighting is his religious duty. He will not be pacified. Our fight is not just military, although it has a military dimension, and a huge adjustment in our current foreign entanglements is needed to defend ourselves most effectively from this scourge. It is a matter of will. Of remembering that there is in Judeo-Christian civilization, and in all civilizations that are threatened by the jihadist imperative of Islamic supremacism, something worth fighting and dying for. Remembering that we are only here to fight this battle today because others fought and died throughout history for our nations, our people, and the principles for which we stand. Let us not just honor them today, but, each in our way, seek to emulate them.

Remembering Tashbih Sayyed

My friend Tashbih Sayyed, a Jihad Watch Board member, died last week. When I got the news, I did not have words, and posted only this. Now, on Memorial Day, I wanted to try to make up for that.

Tashbih Sayyed was that most rare of human beings: a man absolutely fearless in his commitment to the truth. After 9/11, American Muslim advocacy groups began, with the willing complicity of the mainstream media, to flood the airwaves with a huge mass of disinformation and misinformation about jihad activity in the United States and around the world, and above all about its provenance within Islamic theology and tradition. Instead of acknowledging that there was a mandate to wage war against unbelievers that was rooted in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, Islamic spokesmen routinely denied this, and castigated those who contended otherwise as "bigots" and "Islamophobes."

Amid all this Tashbih stood virtually alone as an honest man. He stood out sharply among contemporary Muslim spokesmen and activists by admitting that there was a problem within Islam that needed to be solved. As he once told me: "My whole life is devoted to one end: to make the Muslims understand that their theology needs to be reformed and reinterpreted. Anybody who thinks that there's nothing wrong with their theology is either a blind person or an apologist. There are many things in Muslim Scripture that need to be reshaped and reframed and reinterpreted, so that they cannot be used by terrorists to justify homicide bombings and honor killings."

This stance, of course, earned him ostracism and threats, but Tashbih was undaunted. I will never forget his reaction when I asked him whether he thought I should go ahead and write a sira -- a biography of Muhammad -- as I had been considering doing. He said "Of course you should" so quickly that it took me aback: usually when I broached the idea with people their reaction had been to tell me that if I did write such a book I would be threatened and possibly even killed. But Tashbih never flinched. He went on to explain to me that it needed to be done, that the truth needed to come out about these issues -- and clearly that was all that mattered, as far as he was concerned. He knew that if the world was going to prevail against the global jihadist threat, we would all have to take certain risks. And he himself never hesitated to put his life on the line for the truth.

Would that now we had hundreds, and hundreds of thousands, and millions like him, with his quiet strength, his good humor, and his indomitable and unshakeable love for the truth. If we did, the outcome of this present conflict would not be in the slightest doubt.

Tashbih, I am honored that you called me your friend, and I will miss you tremendously. And the forces of civilization have lost a warrior who cannot be replaced.

'Jihad recruiters' held in Spain

Jihad recruitment in al-Andalus. Can anyone explain why Spain should admit anyone from Morocco into the country, given that this sort of thing goes on with apparently no opposition from other Muslim Moroccans in Spain? From the BBC, with thanks to WriterMom:

Spanish police have arrested 14 suspected Islamist militants, mostly in the north-eastern region of Catalonia.

The suspects were allegedly involved in recruiting jihadi volunteers for training in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Police in Catalonia detained 11 in Barcelona and other towns. The others were arrested in Madrid and Malaga.

The interior ministry believes the majority of those arrested are Moroccan nationals. Police have confiscated a considerable amount of computer data.

Dinesh D'Souza's History for Dhimmis

A few days ago Hugh and I answered Dinesh D'Souza's question: "Can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni?" D'Souza asked this question in the course of writing a paragraph that demonstrated yet again, as if fresh demonstration were needed, his abysmal ignorance of all things Islamic, and in this case, Islamic history:

Ask youself this question: can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni? I didn't think so. Neither can I. Because there aren't any. The Shia and the Sunni have not been fighting for centuries. Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all.

But instead of noting the information we gave him and admitting he was wrong, D'Souza digs himself in even deeper in a new piece, "Robert Spencer's History for Dummies":

Taking up the gauntlet, Robert Spencer purports to answer my challenge to name two wars fought between the Shia and the Sunni. The context for my question was this. I argue that the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq is not a religious war. Nor have the Shia and the Sunni fought religious wars in the manner of the Catholic Protestant conflicts in Europe. Rather, I contended that this is a gang fight between two groups over who gets to rule the country.

D'Souza says it's not a "religious war," it's a "gang fight between two groups over who gets to rule the country." By making this distinction he betrays his lack of awareness that there is no traditional delineation between the sacred and the secular in Islam (although reading farther into the one authority he claims to have read on Islam, Bernard Lewis, would have apprised him of this). It's not a "religious war" OR a "gang fight." It's a "religious war" AND a "gang fight." Like so many Western analysts, D'Souza is transposing Western assumptions about what a religion is and how religious people act into an Islamic context, where those assumptions don't hold: he assumes that if wars have a political dimension as well as a religious one, the very presence of political considerations means that the conflicts' religious character must be secondary -- as in the cultural identity politics of the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland. But in a cultural and religious setting that considers the religious to be political and the political to be religious, and earthly dominion to be a sign of Allah's favor, this is a false assumption.

Spencer proceeds to give a list of Shia Sunni conflicts of the past. Interestingly, all but one occurs before the middle of the seventeenth century. That's right! Spencer can name only a single Shia-Sunni clash in the past three hundred and fifty years. So my argument isn't holding up badly at all so far.

One sign of desperation in a debater is when he tries to change the terms of the debate in mid-conflict: he realizes he has lost on the original grounds, so he tries to shift the focus to a fight he thinks he can win. Note here that D'Souza is crowing because I can allegedly "name only a single Shia-Sunni clash in the past three hundred and fifty years." But in his original post did he say a word about limiting the question to the past 350 years? Nope. He asked: "can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni?" No time limit. But when you're losing on the original point, shift your point.

Anyway, I noted that my previous list was not exhaustive. Here are some more Sunni/Shi'a conflicts, from the last 350 years. Andrew Bostom emailed to remind me of the Sunni Afghan invasion and domination of Iran that resulted in intermittent strife for around 70 years, from 1722 until the Shi'ite Qajars regained control in 1795 and reestablished a Shi'ite theocracy. Then there are the frequent Persian/Ottoman conflicts between 1499 and 1822, although since D'Souza imagines that the political and religious are distinct in Islam, he will say those are all political conflicts only. And Hugh reminds us here of the ongoing conflicts, going up to today, between the Sunnis and the Shi'ite Hazaras in Afghanistan. (I wrote about that conflict in Islam Unveiled, a book D'Souza has named in his writings and claims to have read.) There are plenty more still, which I will list if he responds again.

Spencer gets no points for mentioning the battle of Karbala, since I mentioned that in my original post. That was one of the earliest battles in Islam, and it defined the dividing line between Shia and Sunni. Every other conflict that Spencer lists is not a religious conflict. Spencer is simply listing dynastic and political wars that happened to have Shia and Sunni on opposite sides. For example, Iran used to be a Sunni country. When the Safavid rulers came they imposed Shia rule on Iran. That's how Iran became Shia. For the Safavids this was a way to consolidate power and to build alliances. Spencer lists their arrival as a Shia-Sunni war, as if the two sides were fighting over theological issues.

They were, of course, or the conquerors would not have imposed Shi'ism on Persia.

Similarly Spencer lists the ongoing power struggles between the Ottomans and the Safavids as a Shia-Sunni clash. But when there are five Islamic empires all trying to expand, we can expect these dynastic clashes. They occured just as often between Sunni and Sunni as between Sunni and Shia. That's because religion had very little to do with it.

Sure. That's why, again, the Safavids imposed Shi'ism on Persia. Here D'Souza is again reasoning in a deeply flawed manner, assuming that because people sometimes fight about things other than religion, they must never fight about religion.

To test Spencer's logic here, ask yourself this question. Was the 30 year war between England and France a religious war because there were Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other? Of course not, because the parties were not fighting about religion. Transubstantiation was not the issue. This was a war over territorial control and power. Another example: in the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the British and the French fought several battles in India. Were these Anglican-Catholic wars? No, both countries wanted India as their colonial prize.

Using Christian examples to prove something about Islam is based once again on the assumption that the distinction between the religious and the political is identical in both religions. If D'Souza would actually read his Lewis books instead of admiring them on his shelf, he would know this is not the case.

Now I come to Spencer's recent example, and please don't laugh. It is the Iran-Iraq war. Here we see Spencer's power of discernment in full gear. Saddam was a secular dictator whose Baathist party drew its inspiration more from European fascism than from Islam. How can his eight-year fight with Khomeini be counted as a Shia-Sunni struggle? Spencer is unfazed. After all, Saddam was himself a Sunni and many of his henchmen were Sunni. Yes, Spencer, but the majority of Iraqis are Shia. If this truly was a Shia-Sunni conflict, why didn't the majority of Iraqi Shia fight on Khomeini's side? Khomeini was the leader of the Shia armies of Iran. The very fact that the Iraqi Shia fought on Saddam's side and were willing to kill their fellow Shia in Iran shows that they did not view this war as a Shia-Sunni conflict. Khomeini tried to make it one, in order to win Shia defectors from Iraq, but in this he was completely unsuccessful.

D'Souza demonstrates here that he knows as little about Saddam Hussein and the Iran/Iraq war as he does about Islam in general. Yes, most Iraqis are Shia. Does D'Souza think it would have been an easy thing for them to leave Iraq and cross the lines to fight on Khomeini's side? Does D'Souza think it would have been an easy thing to decline an invitation to join Saddam Hussein's military? He actually says, "The very fact that the Iraqi Shia fought on Saddam's side and were willing to kill their fellow Shia in Iran shows that they did not view this war as a Shia-Sunni conflict" -- as if they had a free choice in the matter, and Saddam's regime was gentle toward conscientious objectors.

How hospitable was Saddam Hussein toward the Shi'ites? Let me count the ways. Before 1963, there was considerable Shi'ite involvement in the Ba'ath Party. When al-Bakr (and his deputy Saddam) took power in Iraq in 1968, Shi'ite membership in the Ba'ath Party fell to six percent. Of the 15 members of the Revolutionary Command Council, none were Shi'ite. Saddam's persecution of the Shi'ites is well documented: in the 1970s and 1980s, he had numerous Shi'ite clerics tortured and killed, and during the war, he appealed to Iranian Sunnis to turn against the mullahocracy.

Anyway, in the "argument weak here, yell like hell" tradition, D'Souza concludes his latest farrago with a bit of chest-thumping:

With intellectual adversaries like Spencer, I never have to worry. He specializes in launching boomerang strikes that leave him gasping in a heap. I wish him well, but the poor fellow is quickly establishing himself as the Alan Wolfe of the right.

Gasping, yes. In a heap of laughter and chagrin at how this man continually backs himself into a corner and refuses to admit it, and continues to expose his own ignorance and carelessness with the facts. Rishwain scholar of the Hoover Institution, eh? I should think they would be backing away from Dinesh D'Souza as quickly as they can at this point. Anyway, I was trying to think of a good rejoinder to "the Alan Wolfe of the right." Hugh and I tossed around some ideas -- maybe D'Souza is the "Walter Duranty of the global jihad," or the "Clifford Irving of the right," but let's have some fun with this. It's a Jihad Watch Contest: come up with the best "D'Souza is the ____ of the ____," and you'll win an autographed Truth About Muhammad. Post your entries in the comments field here.

Blogging the Qur’an: Introduction

To understand the motives and goals of Islamic jihad terrorists, one good place to start might be to explore what they themselves say about why they’re doing what they’re doing, and what they want. That in turn will lead you to the Qur’an (or Koran), the Islamic holy book. The jihadists quote it frequently and portray themselves as those who are following “pure Islam,” the genuine article as it is taught in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. So in the course of my work explaining the jihadists’ objectives, I’ve quoted the Qur’an a great deal – and hardly a day goes by without my being accused of “cherry-picking” violent passages, and quoting them “out of context.” Meanwhile, the Council on American Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups say that in order to understand the true, peaceful Islam, we should read the Qur’an.

So over the course of the next few months, I’m going to read it, and discuss it in a series of columns. All of it. Not “cherry-picked” or “out of context.” The whole thing, beginning to end. Some of you may be familiar with David Plotz’s series on Slate, “Blogging the Bible.” This series will be similar to that one, but rather than just write about what I think or feel about a certain passage, I will, unlike Plotz, refer to commentaries – all Muslim ones – on the Qur’an. I’ll try to explain how mainstream Muslims who study the Qur’an will understand any given passage, and what its import might be for non-Muslims.

You’ll need a Qur’an. Here is a good Arabic/English text. In traditional Islamic theology, the Qur’an is essentially and inherently an “Arabic Qur’an” (as the Qur’an describes itself repeatedly: see 12:2; 20:113; 39:28; 41:3; 41:44; 42:7; and 43:3). Its meaning can be rendered in other languages, but those translations are not the Qur’an, which when no longer in Arabic is no longer itself. Some Muslim scholars even claim that the Qur’an cannot be fully understood except in Arabic, but the blizzard of translations made by Muslims for Muslims who don’t speak Arabic (who are the great majority around the world today) as well as to proselytize among non-Muslims belies that claim. Here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.

The Qur’an is, according to classic Islamic thought, a perfect copy of a book that has existed eternally with Allah, the one true God, in Heaven: “it is a transcript of the eternal book [in Arabic, “mother of the book”] in Our keeping, sublime, and full of wisdom” (43:4). The angel Gabriel revealed it in sections to Muhammad (570-632), an Arabian merchant. Like Jesus, Muhammad left the written recording of his messages to others. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad did not originate his message, but only served as its conduit. The Qur’an is for Muslims the pure Word of Allah. They point to its poetic character as proof that it did not originate with Muhammad, whom they say was illiterate, but with the Almighty, who dictated every word. The average Muslim believes that everything in the book is absolutely true and that its message is applicable in all times and places.

This is a stronger claim than Christians make for the Bible. When Christians of whatever tradition say that the Bible is God’s Word, they don’t mean that God spoke it word-for-word and that it’s free of all human agency — instead, there is the idea of “inspiration,” that God breathed through human authors, working through their human knowledge to communicate what he wished to. But for Muslims, the Qur’an is more than inspired. There is not and could not be a passage in the Qur’an like I Corinthians 1:14-17 in the New Testament, where Paul says: “I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)” Paul’s faulty memory demonstrates the human element of the New Testament, which for Christians does not negate, but exists alongside the texts’ inspired character. But in the Qur’an, Allah is the only speaker throughout (with a few notable exceptions). There is no human element. The book is the pure and unadulterated divine word.

Allah himself tells him this, in the Qur’an itself: “This is a mighty scripture. Falsehood cannot reach it from before or from behind” (41:41-2). It is “free from any flaw” (39:28). In short, “it is the indubitable truth” (69:51). Allah, speaking in a royal plural that does not, according to Muslim theologians, compromise his absolute unity, proclaims that “it was We that revealed the Koran, and shall Ourself preserve it” (15:9). But reading the Qur’an is not always easy. Since so much of it consists of Allah speaking with Muhammad, it is often rather like listening in on a conversation between two people you don’t know, talking about events with which you were uninvolved. Even though a surprisingly large amount of what the Qur’an says is said more than once, still often the reader can’t figure out what’s being said, or why, without reference to Muslim tradition.

Also, it has no overarching narrative unity, although there are smaller narrative units within many chapters. With the exception of the brief first chapter (sura), its 114 chapters are arranged from the longest to the shortest. In the longer chapters, stories are told, laws are given, and warnings to unbelievers are issued, but in them and throughout the book, there is no chronological or narrative continuity. The shorter suras, meanwhile, particularly those near the end of the book that run only a few lines, are poetic and arresting warnings of the impending divine judgment. When I first read the Qur’an and began studying Islam in late 1980 and early 1981, those poetic suras captured my imagination to the extent that I continued reading deeply into other Islamic texts.

I’ll refer to Islamic traditions when necessary, as well as to traditional commentaries, to shed light on various passages. And by the end of this journey, I believe we will see more clearly what makes the jihadists tick – and also perhaps understand what we can and must do to resist them.

This will be a weekly feature — to be posted every Sunday at Jihad Watch — with within-post updates as warranted. I intend this to be a participatory exploration of the Qur’an — a two-way conversation. Thus I welcome feedback and criticism in the comments section, in e-mail correspondence, and on other blogs, and will answer questions and respond to the most thoughtful comments, criticism, and challenges.

Next week: chapter one, the Fatiha, the most important prayer in Islam.

Musician on controversial Flight 327 involved in similar incident on earlier flight

When Annie Jacobsen first wrote about Flight 327 in 2004, she was ridiculed as hysterical and smeared as racist. But now a new DHS report, released through a Washington Times FOIA request, appears to have vindicated her view that the flight was a probe or dry run by jihadists.

"More details on Flight 327 released," by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The inspector general for Homeland Security late Friday released new details of what federal air marshals say was a terrorist dry run aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on June 29, 2004.

Several portions of the report remain redacted. The release stems from a Freedom of Information request by The Washington Times in April 2006. The Times first reported on July 22 that this and other probes and dry runs were occurring on commercial flights since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Look for the full report in Wednesday's edition of The Times.

Excerpts fom 51-page inspector general report:

On the flight, 13 Middle Eastern men behaved in a suspicious manner that aroused the attention and concern of the flight attendants, passengers, air marshals and pilots.

Briefly, the following events occurred. Thirteen Middle Eastern men were traveling together as a musical group, 12 carrying Syrian passports and one, a lawful permanent resident of the United States of Lebanese descent, purchased one-way tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles. Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted. According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous. An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as "unusual," but made no further reports at the time.

During the flight, the men again acted suspiciously. Several of the men changed seats, congregated in the aisles, and arose when the fasten seat belt sign was turned on; one passenger moved quickly up the aisle toward the cockpit and, at the last moment, entered the first class lavatory. The passenger remained in the lavatory for about 20 minutes. Several of the men spent excessive time in the lavatories. Another man carried a large McDonald's restaurant bag into a lavatory and made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning to his seat.

Flight attendants notified the air marshals on board of the suspicious activities.

In response, an air marshal directed a flight attendant to instruct the cockpit to radio ahead for law-enforcement officials to meet the flight upon arrival. After arriving, Flight 327 was met by federal and local law enforcement officials, who gathered all 13 suspicious passengers, interviewing two of them. An air marshal photocopied the passengers' passports and visas. The names of the suspicious passengers were run through FBI databases, indicating the musical group's promoter had been involved in a similar incident in January 2004. No other derogatory information was received, and all 13 of the men were released.

Upgrading and downgrading

Sure is quiet around here. This evening we upgraded to the latest edition of Movable Type, complete with all the latest features, most of which I know little or nothing about at this point, and although the upgrade appears to have gone swimmingly, comments don't seem to be back yet. The best minds of this generation (i.e., not mine) are working on this problem, so it shouldn't be long.

In the meantime, kick back, pop open a Carlsberg, enjoy the introductory post of my new Hot Air "Blogging the Qur'an" series, and be assured that as soon as possible, everything will be running smoothly, except of course for the global response to jihad and Islamic supremacism -- but, well, you can't have everything.

American jihad suspect extradited from U.K.

Syed Hashmi Update. "American extradited on terror charges," from CNN:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American citizen has been extradited to the United States from Great Britain, charged with providing material support to al Qaeda, a federal prosecutor said.

"This is the first extradition on terrorism charges from the United Kingdom, and it has yielded a defendant who provided material support to al Qaeda," Michael Garcia, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said Saturday.

The suspect, 27-year-old Syed Hashmi, arrived in the U.S. on Friday. He was arrested in June 2006 at London's Heathrow Airport.

Federal prosecutors say Hashmi is the first American citizen to be extradited from the United Kingdom on terrorism charges. Hashmi is originally from Pakistan.

According to a federal indictment issued in 2006, Hashmi, who was known to his associates as "Fahad," conspired to transport "military gear" to al Qaeda forces fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Hashmi, who was arrested as he prepared to board a flight to Pakistan carrying a large amount of cash, also stands accused of conspiring to supply other members of the terrorist organization in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan. Federal prosecutors did not specify what materials or services Hashmi allegedly provided to al Qaeda.

If convicted, the former Queens, New York, resident faces a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.

"If we are engaged in a war against terror -- and we most certainly are -- then Syed Hashmi aided the enemy by supplying military gear to al Qaeda," FBI Assistant Director Mark J. Mershon said. Mershon's office worked with New York City police in investigating Hashmi.

Mershon added, "In a global community, terrorism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere."

For a more accurate statement, replace "terrorism" with "jihad."

Hashmi is scheduled for arraignment before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska on Wednesday.

"America is the Great Satan as the late Imam Khomeini had said. However one can also talk with the devil if it is beneficial and if the circumstances arise"

It is doubtful that these talks will in any way benefit the Great Satan. They are much more likely to result in various Satanic concessions that will only strengthen the Islamic Republic, and postpone the problem of dealing with it. "Washington and Tehran to hold first substantial talks in 27 years," by Sylvie Lanteaume for AFP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Washington and Tehran open their first substantial talks in 27 years in Baghdad on Monday, with both countries setting modest goals and limiting discussions to ways to quell the chaos in Iraq.

US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker is set to meet Iranian ambassador Hassan Kazemi in the highest-level official bilateral talks between the two sides since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The United States and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1980 after radical students stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the talks would be held "in Baghdad, at an Iraqi government facility," giving no further details for security reasons.

An Iraqi representative will join them at the start of the talks, which will then continue behind closed doors. There will be no official statement, but Crocker said there could be a press conference at the US embassy after the event.

The meeting follows a brief encounter between US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, on May 4 at a conference on Iraq held at the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt....

Ahmad Tavakoli, an influential Iranian MP, told the Etemad Melli newspaper that Iranians can overcome their traditional hatred of the United States if it is in their interest.

"America is the Great Satan as the late Imam Khomeini had said," Tavakoli told the Etemad Melli newspaper. "However one can also talk with the devil if it is beneficial and if the circumstances arise."

Fitzgerald: What do they know, compared to Dinesh D'Souza?

"Ask youself this question: can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni? I didn't think so. Neither can I. Because there aren't any. The Shia and the Sunni have not been fighting for centuries. Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all." -- Dinesh D'Souza

"Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all."

"Servants of Allaah! The animosity of the Shee'ah towards the people of the Sunnah is severe. This animosity has ever been ingrained in their souls since the time they took the belief of corrupt partisanship as a rule and path for their religion. It is no wonder because a snake gives birth to none other than a snake, and whoever reads the annals of history will find the murder and pillage that they committed on the people of the Sunnah, and will find their treaties with the enemies of Islaam far too notorious to be mentioned here." -- from a sermon by Sheikh Saalih al-Wanyyaan delivered in the Saudi province of Qasim, circa 1987.

But what does Sheikh Saalih al-Wanyyaan know, or his listeners in Qasim, Saudi Arabia, about Sunni views of Shi'a "animosity....towards the people of the Sunnah....ever ingrained in their souls since the time they took the belief of corrupt partisanship as a rule and path for their religion"? What do they know, that is, compared to what Dinesh D'Souza, who has been "studying" Islam for the past several years, knows all about it?

From "Fitzgerald: A Florilegium of Quotes":

#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.

[Posted by Hugh at March 26, 2007 11:22 AM]

But what does Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister in 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950 know about Sunni-Shi'a rivalries in modern Iraq, compared to what Dinesh D'Souza knows, studying the matter over the past few years in his Palo Alto office, in his San Diego mansion?

From a news report about the killing of an important Shia leader in Kashmir in 2005:

Many suspected of killing Shia leader Tribune News Service

SRINAGAR, Nov 6 - Who killed senior Shia leader Aga Syed Mehdi, near here, on Friday?

A Defence Ministry spokesman claimed here on Saturday that foreign militants belonging to Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad had blasted the IED at Magam, killing Aga Syed Mehdi and five others.

"As per reports, this was the work Sipaha-e-Sahaba, a radical anti-Shia faction in Pakistan, actively supported by the Pakistani regime. The Sipaha-e-Sahaba believes in the elimination of Shias. Detailed planning for this operation was done across the Line of Control, involving activists of Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Pakistani officials," he said. [...]

Two attempts were made on the life of another senior Shia and Congress leader, Maulvi Abbas Ansari, who was a minister till last year in the Farooq Abdullah's National Conference Government. The police here believe that such attacks were only targeted at the mainstream political leaders and not on the leaders of a particular sect.

But what do the members of Sipaha-e-Sahaba, the Sunni terrorist group that targets Shi'a in Kashmir and in Pakistan, know about Sunni-Shi'a relations, compared to what Dinesh D'Souza knows back in sunny California?

From a Jan. 10, 2000 posting at a Sunni website devoted to "Shi'a treachery toward Islamic governments":

"The stance of most Shi'ites, scholars and laymen alike, towards the Islamic governments throughout history has been, if the government was powerful and well-established, to honour its leaders in consonance with their tenet of taqiyah, for the purpose of material gain. If, however, the government is weak, or is under attack by enemies, they side with its enemies against it. This is precisely what they did during the last days of the Umayyad dynasty when the Abbasids revolted, under the instigation of the Shi'ites of that era. ln a later time, they took the same criminal stand against the Abbasids who were threatened by the raids of Hulago and his pagan Mongol followers against the Caliphate of Islam and its glorious capital of science and civilization. An example of this is seen in the behavior of the Shi'ite philosopher and scholar An-Naseer At-Toosi. He composed poetry in praise of Al-Musta'sim, the Abbasid Caliph, then in 65 A.H. executed a complete turn about, instigating revolution against his patron, thereby hastening the catastrophe which befell Islam in Baghdad, where he headed the butcher Hulago's blood-letting procession. In fact he personally supervised the slaughter of Muslims, sparing none, not even women, children, or the aged. This same At-Toosi also approved of wholesale dumping of valuable texts of Islamic literature in the Tigris River; its waters ran black for days from the ink of the innumerable manuscripts. Thus vanished a great treasure of the Islamic heritage consisting of works in history, literature, language and poetry, not to mention those in the Islamic religious sciences, which had been passed down from the pious of the first generation of Muslims, and which could be found in abundance until that time when they were destroyed in a cultural holocaust the like of which had never been seen before."

But who knows better what many Sunnis think of the "treacherous" Shia -- this anonymous Sunni, or Dinesh D'Souza, who has been intimately familiar with internal Islamic disputes since his childhood and youth in India, which gave him a peculiar insight into the world of Islam that almost no one else in the West possesses?

From a recent speech by Mubarak of Egypt about Shia disloyalty to Sunni Arab states:

"There are Shias in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live," Mubarak said in an interview aired on...the Dubai-based Al Arabiya news channel."

But what does Mubarak know about Sunni attitudes toward Shi'a, compared to what Dinesh D'Souza, "with four bestsellers on the New York Times Best Seller List," knows about Sunni attitudes toward Shi'a?

From a recent article by an Iraqi on the Gulf War of 1991:

"Conspiratorial and metaphysical reasoning is all that is proffered in the lone document of official explanation [by Saddam Hussein's regime] of the events of 1991: The root of the "conspiracy of March, 1991," according to the editorialist was laid at the hands of "a certain sect [i.e. the Shi'a] who has historically been under the influence of the Persians. . . They have been taught to hate the Arab nation." As for the Iraqis in Nasiriya, Semmawa, and Ammara, known for their secularism, they are merely dismissed as "the marsh Arabs so accustomed to breeding water buffaloes to the extent that they have become indistinguishable from them." The 'erudite editorialist' went on to state that: When they migrated to big cities like Baghdad, they made their living through begging, prostitution, and robbery, not out of need but owing to their intrinsic degraded nature. Moreover, "these are not Arabs; they were brought with their water buffaloes from India by Mohammad al-Qassem [the Abbassid leader who conquered India in the ninth century]."

But what does the Sunni writer of that official Iraqi government document, who describes the Shi'a of Iraq as having "historically been under the influence of the Persians....They have been taught to hate the Arab nation" know about Sunni views of the Shia, compared to what Dinesh D'Souza knows with such scholarly certainty, because for at least a year or two or three he has been "studying Islam" and knows all that one need know?

One more example of Sunni-Shi'a violence: the attempt by the hyper-Sunni Taliban to wipe out the Hazaras, the Shi'a tribe of Mongol descent. That Sunni on Shi'a violence is hardly a matter of hermetic texts; it is discussed at length in that best-seller, Rory Stewart's account of his walk from Herat to Kabul in 2002, The Places In Between.

And one more still: according to the histories of Iran, in 1722 the Sunni Aghans invaded Shi'a Iran; more than 70 years of unsettlement and strife between the Sunni Afghan overlords and their Shi'a Iranian subjects continued, until the Shi'ite Qajars regained control in 1795 and re-established a Shi'ite theocracy. Or would Dinesh D'Souza argue, as he does in the case of Iraq, that Sunni-Shi'a battles are only "political" and not "religious" in nature -- a distinction that makes no sense in Islam, where there is no division between "religion" and "politics"?

"I use the audio format mainly to listen to classics, such as Milton's Paradise Lost." -- Dinesh D'Souza, tirelessly flogging his own wares, this time CDs, on his website

"Milton's Paradise Lost."

Jimmy Carter, when running for office, talking of visiting such places as "Paris, France."

Go to the DD'S website. Read the coney-barker's pitch, the mountebank selling his snake-oil:

"Buy my book....Buy my book...Buy my book"? No. Also buy my CDs. And if you'd like me to lecture at your business or university, there are more details on my website which you can link to here."

He's not the only one. There are many others, raking it in on the lecture circuit, flogging their wares, even getting armies of the hopeful young people to organize for what those youth think is a greater cause, but somehow always comes down to promoting a particular "expert" on Islam.

Whole lot of self-promoting going on. But nothing quite so blatant as that by Dinesh D'Souza.

Good taste might once have kept such people down, or at least properly mocked. But now....?

The racket itself, and the need to please with ready soundbites, instant "expert" analysis, and the steady churning out of commentary that often does not accompany, but rather prevents, periods of uninterrupted far-from-the-madding-crowd study, is a problem.

What are the requirements, what tests are given, for journalists of the pundit-pontificating variety? What minimum standards of general or specific knowledge must be met? Who gave a test to Tom Friedman? To Nicholas Kristof? To so many others, including those whom one may more or less agree with on the matter of Islam, but at the same time one can find unseemly the extent of their hectic entrepreneurial activity, and the organizing of a production-line where others, "mere" researchers or "mere" writers, do most of the real work (but have that "mere" to contend with), while public and final credit is so often taken by the head. This head, this organizer, is no different from many other such organizers in industry, and he can call the shots not because of his greater intellectual abilities, but rather, because of his greater flair for self-promotion and fundraising. Such practices offend. Their practitioners don't get cold eyes cast on them nearly enough.

Where he went to school hardly matters. It is what he made, or didn't, make of it. He's listening, he tells us with great earnestness, to some tapes right now. The Teaching Company, I presume. Lifetime Learning. Or something. Nothing wrong with that. But if he then assumes that having listened to 20 hours of "Master Teachers" on some subject that that about wraps it up, surely he has another think coming.

Al-Qaeda chief urges Iraqis to export jihad

"He conjures a vision of an Islamic state comprising Lebanon, Palestine and Syria." By Uzi Mahnaimi for the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

THE deputy leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has urged supporters in Iraq to extend their “holy war” to other Middle Eastern countries.

In a letter sent to the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the past few weeks, Zawahiri claims that it is defeating US forces and urges followers to expand their campaign of terror.

He conjures a vision of an Islamic state comprising Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, where Al-Qaeda has already gained its first footholds.

The goal of an Islamic “greater Syria”, first outlined by Zawahiri two years ago, is detailed in the letter amid growing concern about the activities of new groups under Al-Qaeda’s influence in the countries concerned.

Fatah al-Islam leader: "I advise the British people to cease their destructive policies in the Islamic world and to take an example of the fate of the United States, which is on its way to destruction."

"You must return the rights of the people you have erred against . . . or pay the price," by Hala Jaber for The Sunday Times:

The leader of Fatah al-Islam has threatened Britons with “destruction through resistance and attacks” for their government’s policies in the Middle East.

In a recent interview with The Sunday Times, Shakir al-Abssi, whose militant group is locked in a battle with the Lebanese army, said: “I advise the British people to cease their destructive policies in the Islamic world and to take an example of the fate of the United States, which is on its way to destruction.

“We tell the British people to exercise pressure on their government not to continue to be the arm and tail of the United States. They must understand that it is in their interest to ensure that unless we as a people are safe, they cannot be safe as a people themselves.”

[...]

Abssi was refusing to meet us in person, apparently because we were women and it would contradict his Islamic teachings.

[...]

During the interview Abssi blamed Britain for most of the ills of the Middle East.

“The British are the primary cause of the Middle East problems and they should be correcting their errors in the region and returning the rights of the people they erred against instead of blindly following the policies of the Americans,” he said.

“Is it just that we should accept their slaughtering of us and our people, and do nothing for fear of being labelled terrorists?” He spoke calmly, with none of the ranting of some jihadists, but it was clear he believed attacks against the United States and Britain would be justified.

“The crime is for them [Britons] to follow the Americans in their policies. If they want to be safe, especially since they are the principal culprits in the region, then they should now start supporting and backing the oppressed people,” he said.

He argued that both the US and Britain had preached democracy in the Middle East, but failed to recognise the democratically elected Palestinian government on the grounds that it was Islamist.

“How can we swallow this or even accept it? So yes, we do not denounce attacks against the United States. Under what logic should we, given what it is doing in Palestine and the region?” he said.

Demonstrating the fallacy of the Bush administration's Wilsonian designs on Iraq, Abssi admits the democratic process can and will be used to undermine the West-- if it continues under the illusion that introducing democracy alone can instill a nation with the values that have enabled it to be a force for good in the West.

But Abssi is not lashing out only at Britain: "Islamist militant in Lebanon vows to fight U.S.: report," from Reuters:

"We say to you, the guardians of the American project, the Sunni people will be leaders in fighting the Jews, the Americans and their loyalists," Abssi said, referring to Lebanese leaders.

Lal Masjid cleric warns video, CD shops, "brothels" to close or face attack, endorses Taliban's Sharia campaign in NW Pakistan

"Lal Masjid gears up for attack on CD, video shops: Taliban jihad in NWFP backed," from Dawn:

ISLAMABAD, May 25: The Lal Masjid administration on Friday announced that its students would attack audio and video shops, massage centres and brothels in Islamabad if their owners did not wind up their businesses immediately.

“Our students can attack these outlets anytime because the deadline given to their owners had already passed,” Lal Masjid khatib Maulana Abdul Aziz said in his Friday sermon.

The deadline ended last month and the owners fear attacks from the mosque brigade anytime. “We are insecure and need government protection,” the owner of a CD shop in Abpara market told Dawn.

He said that a group of 40 to 50 baton-wielding people, some of them covering their faces, had visited different markets two months ago and asked owners of CD, audio and video shops to switch over to other business.

The CD shop-owner said he had been in the business for 30 years and had no expertise to start another business.

When contacted, Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, deputy in-charge of Lal Masjid, said the one-month ultimatum had ended last month, adding that owners of some of the shops had assured that they would wind up their business.

Two months ago some people went to various markets in the capital and issued notices, signed by slain Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah, to owners of CD and audio/video shops, asking them to wind up their businesses.

However, Maulana Ghazi denied that those who had distributed the notices were students or supporters of Lal Masjid.

Our Correspondent in Kohat adds: In a telephonic address on the occasion of the inauguration of the basement of a mosque in Kohat, Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid asked the Taliban to continue their jihad against obscenity, prostitution, video shops and other social vices and expand it to every nook and corner of the NWFP.

He said the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal secured votes in the name of Islam and Quran but failed to enforce Sharia and curb un-Islamic practices.

“Therefore, it is now the responsibility of all believers to support the activities of the Taliban in the province against CD shops and obscenity.”

He advised the Taliban to also help the weak and helpless segments of society in getting justice. He said the government would have to enforce Islam soon because they could not stop the movement of the Taliban which had got the support of millions of people. “People are fed up with the rulers and want immediate change for which time is ripe.”

He regretted that the MMA government had got involved in purely political matters which resulted in social degradation. “The sale of drugs and liquor has increased and dancing, prostitution and music are on the rise in the NWFP which is being ruled by graduates of seminaries,” he added.

This hadith helps explain why all of the above are targeted together, including any and all music, in Islamic campaigns against "vice":

that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. ... Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." - Bukhari 7.69.494v

The article continues:

He said: “We have set the example of enforcing Sharia in Islamabad and, therefore, the MMA government cannot justify its inaction this regard.”

Fatah al-Islam Preparing for Final Showdown With Lebanese Army

Pity the nation. The latest installment in the ongoing saga, the Slow Death of Lebanon. From Naharnet:

Hooded Fatah al-Islam fighters have fanned through the residential districts of north Lebanon's Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in preparation for what appears to be a final showdown with the Lebanese army, residents told Naharnet Friday.

Fatima Madhy, who deserted her apartment early in the day and re-settled with relatives south of Beirut, said the militants are "everywhere in the camp. They are occupying residential apartments and setting up sniping nests on rooftops."

Madhy, 42, said that after taking refuge in the basement with her husband, four children and neighbors, "we went up to our second floor apartment and found three hooded Fatah al-Islam gunmen entrenched in it."

"We begged them to leave. We told them that if they open fire from our apartment the Lebanese Army would shell it," Added Madhy, her eyes brimming with tears.

"They wouldn't listen. One of them who spoke Arabic with a North African accent told us that we better help them in the fight against the American (U.S) Army."

"We argued that it is the Lebanese army that they are fighting, not the U.S. Army, but they didn't want to understand. One of them said the Lebanese Government is controlled by the Americans which makes it an enemy government," she said.

Hizbullah Leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has accused the majority government of Premier Fouad Saniora of being a U.S.-controlled dummy.

Madhy's husband, Abdul Karim, a retired Palestinian guerrilla who fought with the mainstream Fatah faction in the 1980s, said Fatah al-Islam fighters are "not Palestinians."

"They speak a variety of accents: Syrian, Yemeni, Egyptian, Saudi, Moroccan and Algerian. Some of them do not speak Arabic at all."

"They say they came here to fight the crusaders," Abdul Karim explained.

A significant, though hardly atypical, observation. Wherever there is jihad, faithful mujihadeen from around the world flock to the cause. Exactly what happened in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Lebanon. Europe, please take note.

Abi Hureira, said in a telephone interview with the pan-Arab Al Hayat newspaper that "sleeper cells" in all 12 Palestinian refugee camps and elsewhere in Lebanon were awaiting word for a "violent response."

He claimed that Fatah al-Islam is "capable of transferring the battle to any spot in Lebanon."

"We can easily do that," he told Al Hayat by telephone from Nahr al-Bared.

He said Fatah al-Islam can launch a guerrilla war "which no army can defeat."

Abi Hureira said Fatah al-Islam members were "highly qualified" warriors with fighting experience outside Lebanon," adding that he himself enjoys a 21-year combating experience in various countries.

He emphasized that his group has no intentions to attack peacekeepers of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon "as long as they do not hit us."

Abi Hureira said between 600 to 700 Fatah al-Islam militants were spread across Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps, not just in Nahr al-Bared as believed by the Lebanese authorities.

"They are (in a state) of maximum alert," he said.

Iran claims discovery of "several spy networks" run by "the occupying powers in Iraq"

Could this have something to do with Bush's alleged and no-longer-secret plan for Iran?

Or maybe this isn't true either, and both sides are trading disinformation.

"Intelligence Ministry discovers several spy networks," from IRNA, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Iranian Intelligence Ministry said on Saturday that it discovered several spy networks at the Western, Southwestern and central Iran.

It said in a statement that the networks enjoyed guidance from intelligence services of the occupying powers in Iraq and Iraqi groups also were involved in the case.

Jihadists from Abbas group open fire on Israeli security patrol

Yet Abbas the "moderate" will no doubt continue to be the recipient of American and even Israeli largesse.

"Border policeman, security guard hurt in e. J'lem shooting," by Etgar Lefkovits in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Two Palestinian gunmen opened fired at an Israeli security patrol near a section of the separation barrier on the edge of Jerusalem on Saturday night, wounding two security guards - one seriously - police and rescue officials said.

The attackers were shot and killed by the wounded security personnel.

A Palestinian bystander was also killed in the shootout. Police said he was apparently killed by the gunmen.

The shooting attack took place during a routine patrol in the Arab village of Sheikh Said, adjacent to the Jewish neighborhood of Armon Hanatziv on the southeastern rim of the city.

The two assailants made their way on foot to the area and ambushed the patrol, then tried to flee, Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said.

An offshoot of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, affiliated with the Fatah Party of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, claimed responsibility for the shooting, according to the Palestinian news Web site Maan, the Associated Press reported.

"Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror"

This is all high-sounding and noble, until you remember that Sharia is enshrined in both the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions.

And the reality on the ground is that these states "respect the rights of their people" except non-Muslims.

"Bush Says Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan Are Promoting Freedom," by Holly Rosenkrantz for Bloomberg:

May 26 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, in a Memorial Day weekend radio address, said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are aimed at promoting in those countries the freedom people enjoy in the U.S.

``Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror,'' Bush said....

Congress this week approved almost $100 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. The package, stripped of a troop-withdrawal timeline Democrats sought and Bush opposed, handed the president a victory in the continuing debate over war policy.

"This ring is Allah. If you don't let me cut your hair, I will punch you with this ring"

Hate crime in Queens. "Hate-crime charges in haircut attack," by Mitchell Freedman for Newsday, with thanks to all who sent this in:

A Queens high school student was charged with hate crimes Friday for violating a Sikh student's religious beliefs by forcing him to remove his turban and cutting his hair, the Queens district attorney said.

"The defendant is not accused of some schoolhouse prank, but an attack on the fundamental beliefs of his victim's religion and his freedom to worship freely," Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said in a prepared statement.

Umair Ahmed, 17, of 42-49 77th St., was arrested in the Thursday attack in a bathroom at Newtown High School in Elmhurst.

Ahmed and another student allegedly forced the 15-year-old victim into the bathroom, and after threatening him forced the boy to remove his dastar, a traditional Sikh turban....

Ahmed used scissors to cut off his victim's waist-long hair, then threw it in a toilet and on the floor, according to a spokesman for the district attorney. Cutting a Sikh's hair is contrary to the Sikh faith, which considers hair a gift from God that should never be cut.

Ahmed was charged with second-degree unlawful imprisonment as a hate crime, second-degree menacing as a hate crime, second-degree aggravated harassment, second-degree harassment and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He faces up to seven years in prison.

The victim told officials that he only went into the bathroom and took off his dastar because he feared that Ahmed would stab him....

The boy said it was against his religion, but Ahmed showed him a ring and said, "This ring is Allah. If you don't let me cut your hair, I will punch you with this ring."

Iran interest rate cut sparks panic selling

Will the Iranian economy collapse, and the Thug-In-Chief be toppled, before the Mahdi returns? By Robert Tait in The Guardian (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

Iran's financial system suffered a fresh jolt yesterday with panic selling on the stock market after the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, abruptly ordered banks to cut interest rates sharply, despite surging inflation.

The order, which Mr Ahmadinejad issued by telephone during a visit to Belarus and which flew in the face of expert advice - has triggered warnings of a financial crisis and spiralling corruption amid fears of a capital flight from the country's lending institutions.

Mr Ahmadinejad's decree forced all state-owned and private banks to slash borrowing rates to 12%. Inflation is officially 15% but is generally believed to be much higher. State banks had been offering rates of 14%, while those in the private sector ranged from 17% to 28%.

The decision caused panic in the Tehran stock exchange, with private banks losing much of their share value overnight. Shareholders in one bank, Karafarin, queued on Wednesday to sell their stock when previously there had been 1.2 million applicants to buy its shares.

There was speculation yesterday that the move could force the resignation of the economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Ja'afari, who was not consulted.

And maybe of Ahmadinejad himself: "Tehran rate cut 'is economic suicide,'" from the Gulf Daily News (thanks again to Morgaan):

TEHRAN: Iran's Press and economists yesterday slammed a decision by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to slash interest rates, describing the move as "incomprehensible" and risking "economic suicide".

The rate cut decision, which economists said could overheat an already inflationary economy, appeared to have been taken without the knowledge of economy minister who had said exactly the opposite just hours earlier.

"Economic suicide for banks," the Mardomsalari newspaper said of move.

"The economy minister and the head of the central bank have to explain this decision since this decree is incomprehensible for economists," the economy minister in the previous reformist government, Saeed Shirkavand, said.

Just the economy minister and the head of the central bank? Not the head Thug?

Jihad terror suspect was 'nice guy'

Of course. They're all decent fellows.

Control Orders Update. "Terror suspect was 'nice guy,'" by Gary O'Shea in the Sun, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

TERROR suspect Ibrahim Adam poses with his arm around a stunning girl — before he was brainwashed by Islamic extremists.

Clean-shaven Adam, pictured aged 17, dressed in a sharp suit for his prom night with school pals.

But a short time later Adam, now 20, grew a beard and ditched his suave clothes.

Now he is one of three terror suspects feared to be headed to Iraq to fight "Our Boys" after breaking a Home Office curfew.

He and brother Lamine, 26, were put under control orders after being investigated for alleged plots to blow up troops abroad.

A third brother, Anthony Garcia, 25, got life for a plot to blow up a shopping centre and a nightclub....

Algerian-born Ibrahim Adam’s classmates from Beal High School in Ilford, Essex, are in shock. One said: “He seemed like a really pleasant guy.

“He was particularly popular among the teachers. No one can believe what’s happened.”

Pipeline to carry Iraqi crude to Iran

"And now this righteous Shi'ite brother is going to let us build a pipeline to get Iraqi oil -- but don't worry, we'll still harangue the Infidels for waging a 'war for oil'!"

Brave new democratic Iraqi government extends preferential treatment to Iranian firms. A "We won!" Update. By Mohamed Hameed for Azzaman:

Iraq has accepted an Iranian offer to build a pipeline connecting its terminals and refineries to the prolific Iraqi oil fields in Basra.

Assem Jihad, Oil Ministry’s Information Officer said, the agreement was reached during a meeting between Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani and the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad.

Initially, the pipeline will carry 200,000 barrels of Iraqi crude to Iran.

The countries will soon form a joint committee on how to implement the project, Jihad said.

However, Jihad declined comment on financing and duration of execution.

But said Shahristani has invited Iranian firms to invest in Iraq and present their offers to build new refineries in the country.

The government has said it would extend Iranian firms preferential treatment because many of them are still operating in southern Iraq despite the flight of other foreign companies.

Hizballah to Lebanese army: Stay out of refugee camp

"Hezbollah to Lebanese army: Stay out of refugee camp," from CNN:

(CNN) -- The leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has warned the Lebanese army not to enter the Palestinian refugee camp north of Tripoli where it has been confronting Islamic militants.

Nasrallah -- in a televised address to mark the seventh anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon -- said that to enter the camp would be crossing a red line, and the Palestinians should not be touched.

"Suppose that the government is having a war on terror, that doesn't mean they should kill half of the people on the street," he said in a reference to Palestinian civilians crammed into the Nahr el-Bared camp.

He also criticized the militants of Fatah al-Islam, who are holed up inside the camp, accusing them of an aggression against the army that was an aggression against all of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, a Shiite organization, views extremist Sunni groups such as al Qaeda and Fatah al-Islam as enemies.

While tension between Hizballah and al-Qaeda is nothing new, it's possible that there's even more to this, in light of reports from last fall that Hizballah was moving rockets into Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon: assets to protect, and secrets to hide.

Nasrallah said that a negotiated political settlement according to the rule of law should be reached to preserve the integrity of the Lebanese army. The Lebanese military stays out of the Palestinian camps under a 1969 agreement that allows the Palestinians to run them.

[...]

Nasrallah was also critical of the Lebanese government's request to the United States for military aid during the crisis.

"We should be aware of the American interference," he said. "[As for] the American intervention in this incident there should be an investigation into who took the decision."

The Hezbollah leader also said that Lebanon must not be allowed to become a battleground between the army and groups affiliated with al Qaeda. He said this would tempt the United States to bring the war on terror to Lebanese soil, as it had in Iraq.

"Are you willing to fight the wars of others inside Lebanon?" he asked his audience. "I want to warn that we should not be dragged by the Americans to fight their battle in Lebanon."

Fighting the wars of others... like Iran?

Texas jihad suspect convicted on weapons charge

An update on this story. "UTD student convicted of having weapon," by Jason Trahan for the Dallas Morning News:

A University of Texas at Dallas sophomore who prosecutors said longed to join the fight against U.S. forces in the Middle East was convicted by a Houston jury on federal weapons charges Thursday.

Syed Maaz Shah, 20, a Pakistan native majoring in electrical engineering, was convicted of firing an Armalite M-15 assault weapon on two camping trips in January and March in a rural area near Willis, north of Houston.

The FBI says Mr. Shah and other men on the trips were engaged in military training with the ultimate goal to join the jihad, or holy war, against the U.S. overseas.

During his trial this week, Mr. Shah said he was going on fishing trips and didn't know guns would be involved.

"I was invited by my friends to go camping and have a good time, and that's what we had," said Mr. Shah in a letter to the UTD Mercury student newspaper that was published in February. "Isn't it mind-boggling that someone can be placed in prison for merely going to a shooting range? ... I mean, for God's sake, we live in Texas ..."

After a three-day trial in front of U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston, Mr. Shah was convicted on two counts of alien in possession of a firearm affecting interstate commerce.

Mr. Shah entered the U.S. in 2005 on a student visa and as such was prohibited from possessing a firearm, authorities said. He faces up to 20 years in prison. He will be sentenced Sept. 14.

In late November, he was arrested outside his UTD campus apartment and was transferred to Houston to join three co-defendants who authorities say joined him on the training campouts.

Prosecutors said that when Mr. Shaw was arrested, he told agents he went on the campouts to prepare for "what may come" and described American forces in Iraq as "invaders." During his trial, Mr. Shah denied making those statements.

Extremist materials were found on Mr. Shah's computer, seized by agents in Dallas, prosecutors said. "Statue of Liberty in Burka" reads the name of one file from his computer, according to a government trial exhibit list.

Shiraz Syed Qazi, 26, also in the U.S. on a student visa, was sentenced last week to 10 months in prison for unlawful possession of a firearm during the campouts.

Adnan Babar Mirza, a 29-year-old Pakistani native, is scheduled for trial in October on federal conspiracy and firearms charges.

A third co-defendant, Kobie Diallo Williams, a 33-year-old U.S. citizen, will be sentenced in October after his November 2006 guilty plea to conspiracy charges related to raising money for the Taliban and gun charges.

"He argued his talks came from the Koran and if he was on trial so was the holy text"

He said it.

That is, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, just deported from the UK, said it. But no one will dare to examine the implications of his statement.

"Profile: Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal," from the BBC, with thanks to Kate:

Muslim cleric Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, who has been deported from the UK to Jamaica, was jailed in 2003 for soliciting the murder of Jews and Hindus.

Al-Faisal spent years travelling the UK preaching racial hatred urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners.

The imam called on impressionable teenage boys to learn how to use rifles, fly planes and use missiles to kill "all unbelievers".

In return for becoming martyrs, he promised them the reward of a place in paradise.

He did this in accord with Qur'an 9:111, which promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah.

One of the 7 July London suicide bombers, Germaine Lindsay, was heavily influenced by him, according to the Home Secretary John Reid....

In his tape Jihad, the father-of-four told Muslim women to raise their children "with the jihad mentality" by giving them toy guns.

In the tape recorded after 11 September, he said: "The way forward is the bullet. Our motto is 'might is right'".

In another tape - Rules of Jihad - thought to have been recorded before 11 September, he said Jihad had been declared against India.

"You are only allowed to use nuclear weapons in that country which is 100% unbelievers," he said.

But throughout the trial he denied he had intended to incite people to violence.

Instead he argued his talks came from the Koran and if he was on trial so was the holy text.

Al-Qaeda vows "seas of blood" over Lebanon "Palestinians"

An explicitly religious appeal. "Qaeda vows 'seas of blood' over Lebanon Palestinians," from Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

DUBAI, May 25 (Reuters) - A group calling itself al Qaeda's wing in the Levant vowed to carry out bombings in Lebanon and attacks on Christians unless Beirut pulled its army away from Palestinian refugee camps.

"We warn you for the last time, after which there will be nothing apart from seas of blood," said a speaker identified as the military leader of the group in a video posted on Friday by a media arm used by Islamist groups including Qaeda in Iraq.

"What we want is that you order the Christian Lebanese army to pull its men from around all Palestinian camps and the Nahr al-Bared Camp in particular," he said addressing Maronite Christian Partiarch Cadrinal Nasrallah Sfeir.

"If you do not stop we will wrench out your hearts with ... bombs," said the speaker whose face was covered with a chequered head dress and who had rifle magazines around his torso....

The speaker described the army's campaign as a "brutal ... crusade under the pretext of fighting terrorism" and argued that Palestinians in Lebanon have always suffered discrimination....

Addressing Sfeir, the militant said: "Leash your dogs away from our kin and stop the fire of your canons, or else... No crusader will be safe in Lebanon after today. As you hit you will be hit."...

"We welcome a battle, and do not be fooled by the support of apostate Arabs to you," the militant said.

"Can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni?"

Hugh Fitzgerald has written a great deal here about the fact that the Sunni/Shi'ite conflict is 1,400 years old, and as it was not created (contrary to fashionable claims) by the American presence in Iraq, it cannot be ended by continuing that presence.

Now Dinesh D'Souza begs to differ:

Ask youself this question: can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni? I didn't think so. Neither can I. Because there aren't any. The Shia and the Sunni have not been fighting for centuries. Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all.

Oh, pick me, Mr. D'Souza! Over here! My hand is up. Let's see. Two previous wars between Sunnis and Shia? How about these, sir? Leaving aside the massacres at Karbala that mark the definitive split between Sunnis and Shia in 680, here are a few highlights:

754: Plans to enthrone the Shi'ite Jafar As-Siddiq as caliph, thus ending the schism, were disrupted when Jafar was murdered by the Sunni Al-Mansur, who himself became caliph.

972: Shi'ite Fatimids conquer Sunni Egypt, and continue fighting Sunnis until they rule much of North Africa and the Middle East.

1040s: Sunni Zirid revolt in North Africa against Shi'ite rule.

1169: The Sunnis Nuraddin and Saladin seize Egypt, ending Shi'ite Fatimid rule.

Early 1500's: Shi'ites take control of Persia, violently suppressing Sunni ulama.

1514: War between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi'ite Persian Safavids.

1623: More war between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi'ite Persian Safavids. This conflict was centered in Iraq. The Safavids captured Baghdad in 1624; the Ottomans recaptured it in 1638.

And here's one you're old enough to remember, Mr. D'Souza:

1980-1988: Saddam Hussein's Sunni-controlled Iraq fights a protracted war against the Iranian Shi'ite mullahocracy.

And right now, today, far from Iraq:

Yemen Declares Jihad on Yemeni Shiites

There are plenty more where those came from, Dinesh. No, don't thank me. I'm happy to help.

Al-Sadr: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel." NSC spokesman: Al-Sadr wants "to play a positive role inside Iraq"

What planet does Gordon Johndroe live on?

"Fiery anti-U.S. cleric reappears in Iraq," by Ravi Nessman for Associated Press, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:

BAGHDAD - Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr appeared in public for the first time in months on Friday, delivering a fiery anti-American sermon to thousands of followers and demanding U.S. troops leave Iraq....

Al-Sadr traveled in a long motorcade from Najaf to the adjacent holy city of Kufa on Friday morning to deliver his sermon before 6,000 worshippers.

"No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel," he chanted in a call and response with the audience at the start of his speech.

He repeated his long-standing call for U.S. forces to leave Iraq.

"We demand the withdrawal of the occupation forces, or the creation of a timetable for such a withdrawal," he said. "I call upon the Iraqi government not to extend the occupation even for a single day."

He also condemned fighting between his Mahdi Army militia and Iraqi security forces, saying it "served the interests of the occupiers." Instead, he said the militia should turn to peaceful protests, such as demonstrations and sit-ins, he said.

In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe expressed hope that al-Sadr's reappearance signaled that he wanted "to play a positive role inside Iraq."

"He has an opportunity to be a part of the political reconciliation process. We'll see if he and his followers participate," he said.

Indeed we will.

How to end "Islamophobia"

Tawfik Hamid speaks truth to power in the usually reliably dhimmi Wall Street Journal, echoing points we have often made here:

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.

We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.

Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in Thailand by Islamic groups? Why was there silence over the Mumbai train bombings which took the lives of over 200 Hindus in 2006? We must not forget that innocent Muslims, too, are suffering. Indeed, the most common murderers of Muslims are, and have always been, other Muslims. Where is the Muslim outcry over the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq?

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.

It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection. Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences. Among more important outcomes, this will also put an end to so-called Islamophobia.

Hamas promotes Islamic supremacy over the world, destruction of Israel and Jews

Often broadcast on official PA television. "The Hamas Ideology of Hatred and Genocide: Islamic supremacy over the world, destroying Israel and Jews, promoting terror and violence," by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook for PMW, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Part 1: Islamic supremacy over the world

Former Foreign Minister and Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar:
"The prophetic foundation is the message of the prophet Muhammad, that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."
[Al-Ayyam, March 25, 2007]

Dr. Ahmad Bahar, Hamas (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council):
"This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation. Make us victorious over the infidels. Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don't leave even one." [PA TV, April 20, 2007]

Deputy Director of Al-Aqsa [Hamas] TV, Hazem Al-Sha’arawi, discussing the children's program Tomorrow Pioneers:
"Let’s ask history: …which time period was good to all communities? The Jews lived in the time of Islam [under Islamic rule] and were happy. The Christians lived in the time of Islam [under Islamic rule] and were happy. Look at the history, the prophet [Muhammad]… ordered the army: ‘Do not kill a monk in his prayer room.’ Even the Caliph Umar Bin Al-Khattab, [Islamic conqueror of Jerusalem in 638] when he came into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he secured the churches and the prayer rooms. Therefore, when we talk about the mission of the restoration of Islam to its natural place [of world rule], we [are] calling for justice, and for goodness, and for world love… so that the Christians will live in peace, and that even the Jews will live in peace and security.”
[Al-Aqsa TV, May 13, 2007]

Text from children's program on Hamas TV, Tomorrow Pioneers:
Hazim (Adult): "Islam will spread to all parts of the earth from one end to the other and justice and good and kindness will spread. Did history witness a time period better than that when Islam ruled?... Every day do you remember Andalus (Spain)? This dear Andalus will return [to Islam] one day." [Al-Aqsa TV, May 11, 2007]

Part 2: Destruction of Israel

Dr. Khalil Al-Hayyah, member of the Hamas political leadership and the Palestinian Legislative Council:
“The Hamas movement bases its strategy and its policy on that the option of resistance is the only option that can liberate Palestine from its [Mediterranean] sea to its [Jordan] river [ie destroy Israel].”
[Al-Risalah, Hamas newspaper, April 19, 2007]

Hamas spokesman, Dr. Ismail Radwan, confirmed …that his movement will not recognize any existence of the Israeli enemy on an inch of Palestinian land and said, “We will liberate Palestine, all of Palestine...Palestine will not be liberated by negotiations, committees and decisions, it will only be liberated by the rifle and the “Al-Qassam” [rocket]. Therefore, prepare yourselves.”
[Al-Risalah, Hamas newspaper, April 9, 2007]

Video of Ahmad Yassin, founder and former head of Hamas, about future destruction of Israel, broadcast regularly March – May 2007:
“Tel Aviv is gone. They are defeated, they have no words left. ... When this process will end, they will become a state with no ability, helpless. They established a state to protect the Jews from death and murder. If death and murder chase them in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya and everywhere among them, then they will say: 'What am I doing here? I founded a state to protect me from death, and if death chases me, I want to flee and go back to Europe and America.'” [Al Aqsa TV, regularly, March – May 2007]

Former Foreign Minister and Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar:
"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]

"The representative of the Legislative Council, Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, of the ‘Change and Reform’ faction [Hamas], emphasized the option of Jihad and resistance to banish the thieves of the occupation, who longed to drink the blood of our massacred people... because the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: ‘I kill, therefore I am’ … Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah’s will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."
[Al-Risalah, Hamas newspaper, April 12, 2007]

Part 3: Demonization and extermination of Jews

The Hamas spokesman, Dr. Ismail Radwan:
“The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: ‘Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!’… We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al-Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle. It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle, since this occupation knows no language but the language of force… O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere… Allah take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!” [PA TV, March 30, 2007]

Read it all.

"They are like beastly persons; they have no faith in God"

"Beastly persons." They don't even rise to the level of "cheeky humans." So says the Thug-In-Chief, perhaps recalling the Qur'anic passages that tell of Jews being transformed into beasts, specifically apes and pigs (2:63-5; 5:59-60; 7:166).

"Jews acting like beastly persons, Ahmadinejad says," by Dudi Cohen for Ynet News, with thanks to Mackie:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that "there is a group occupying the young Palestinians while the latter are defending their mothers and fathers, and presenting them as terrorists. "Do these criminals believe in God and in the Bible? They are like beastly persons; they have no faith in God. We object to the crimes making bad use in the name of Judaism," he added in a speech to the Iranian people.

CAIR's Fuzzy Math

Not as many Muslims, or as powerful a voting lobby, as Hooper and Co. would like us to think. From IBD, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Politics And Demographics: We've been told for years that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, and that the size of the Muslim population here has swelled to 6 million to 7 million. A new study pops that myth.

The Pew Research Center just concluded an exhaustive scientific study of the size of the U.S. Muslim population. It was able to identify only 2.35 million Muslims — less than half the figure commonly cited by Muslim activists.

Pew, a liberal group with certainly no interest in marginalizing Islam, described its study as "perhaps the most rigorous effort to date to scientifically estimate the size of the Muslim American population."

Yet it practically apologized for its more accurate reading, being that it came in "significantly below some commonly reported estimates frequently cited by Muslim groups."

Foremost among such groups is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which claims to represent Muslims in Washington. CAIR commissioned its own survey in 2001 and came up with 6 million to 7 million, an estimate it always touts in its press releases and on its Web site.

As a result, most media outlets — as well as Congress, the White House and the State Department — have parroted the figure to describe the size of the nation's Muslim population.

Politicians in Washington are intimidated by the figure, which CAIR uses as a cudgel to help advance its Islamist agenda. They believe it.

But it's a wildly inflated guess manufactured by CAIR, something the media could have easily refuted all these years if they dared — simply by deconstructing CAIR's unscientific methodology.

"People in the academy wouldn't do it. They'd be embarrassing the establishment."

I was reading along in Salon's expose of Carlos Castaneda, the author in the 1970s of a series of wildly popular pseudo-anthropological books on American Indian sorcery and spirituality and, apparently, later the leader of a small cult, when I came to this paragraph:

No one contributed more to Castaneda's debunking than Richard de Mille. De Mille, who held a Ph.D. in psychology from USC, was something of a freelance intellectual. In a recent interview, he remarked that because he wasn't associated with a university, he could tell the story straight. "People in the academy wouldn't do it," he remarked. "They'd be embarrassing the establishment." Specifically the UCLA professors who, according to de Mille, knew it was a hoax from the start. But a hoax that, he said, supported their theories, which de Mille summed up succinctly: "Reality doesn't exist. It's all what people say to each other."

Hmmm. A hoax that supported theories held by academics, such that it fell to people outside the academic establishment to debunk the hoax. Sounds to me a lot like the whole "Islam is a religion of peace" enterprise.

Diana West: suicide-bombing supporters in U.S. "may signal the beginning of physical coercion as a factor in the American political process"

In "Media bombs," Diana West notes how the 183,000 Muslims in America who declared their support for suicide attacks in the recent Pew poll could transform America in the future.

...According to Pew's data, one-quarter of younger American Muslims approve of the presence of skin-ripping, skull-crushing, organ-piercing violence in civilian life as a religious imperative -- "in defense of Islam." (The Pew pollsters declined to define "defense of Islam," but having lived through Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Koran Rage, Satanic Verses Rage, etc., I think it's safe to say this is a rather broad category.) Such approval for religious violence is not just another unfettered political opinion finding expression in a poll-taker's tally. On the contrary, the fact that a significant young chunk of American Islam believes such violence has a place in society indicates something closer to the end of unfettered political opinion. It may signal the beginning of physical coercion as a factor in the American political process. This helps explain why the 69 percent figure is no consolation prize; only unanimity is acceptable here.

It's not that a physical fear factor pertaining to mainly Islamic terrorism hasn't long existed -- just take a look at the dispiriting security perimeter erected around the Capitol, for instance. But this Pew poll may mark the first official acknowledgement that such violence, and, equally important, the threat of such violence, actually find approval within the American polity.

Something new and barbarous under the sun, right? This is why it's all the more disturbing to review the happy headline-spin the story received. The blogger Ace of Spades provided an early roundup of the Orwellian tags, which included: "Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America). My personal fave: "Upbeat portrait of US Muslims" (Sacramento Bee). The accompanying stories were no less giddy.

But why the journalistic rush to depict the shocking story as so much happy talk? Therein lies a tale, one of fanatical religious fervor-on the part of the mainstream media (MSM). Like other politically correct elites, the MSM follow their own version of the "true faith": multiculturalism. Multiculturalism preaches that all civilizations are the same, all religions are the same, all peoples are the same. The Pew results, meanwhile, tell them something else again: Some people -- some young American Muslim people -- approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam. Does this finding perhaps introduce a qualitative difference among civilizations, religions, and peoples? That is, is there something more desirable about societies that don't inspire and glorify suicide bombings -- something worth preserving? Conversely, is there something about Islam our own society requires protection against? This is very tricky territory for the MSM. The logical answers are multiculturally blasphemous.

The MSM response: it's better to say nothing at all. Or better yet, just smile. Big grin. Happy story. It's one measly quarter, after all. Just one in four. And isn't that something to be upbeat about?

PM Haniyeh's advisor tells Israeli TV: "projectiles are like fireworks"

Hamas doesn’t seem to understand Israeli airstrikes as a response to the recent wave of Qassams. After all, the Qassams are harmless. This from Maan News:

Bethlehem - Ma'an - Israeli TV Channel Two broadcast an interview on Thursday with the Palestinian Prime Minister's advisor, Dr Ahmad Yousef, in which Yousef described the homemade projectiles launched from the Gaza Strip at Israel as "fireworks".

The advisor said that these projectiles are not causing any damage or harm to Israel. Only one Israeli has been killed, he said, while 63 Palestinians were killed in the last week alone.

Yousef added that "Israel is using these projectiles in order to kill Palestinians. "Can the stick be compared with the sword?" he asked. "These projectiles are almost like fireworks; they are not killing. Only one Israeli woman has been killed, but the Israeli military machine killed 63 [Palestinians] last week." He added, "The president described them as useless."

One killed recently, yes. Thousands of Sderot citizens have been evacuated and millions of dollars in damage has been incurred. To Hamas, however, it’s just another day.

Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot.

UK: Absconded jihadists want to kill British and American troops

More on this story. "Terror Suspects Want to 'Wage Jihad,'" by Julia White for the Daily Express, with thanks to all who sent this in:

THREE men on the run after breaching anti-terrorism control orders wanted to wage jihad against the West.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, said there is "solid intelligence" that the trio were a danger to British troops stationed abroad.

He said: "These three men were the subject of solid intelligence that they intended to damage our national security by going as insurgents to kill British and other allied troops abroad."

It emerged earlier today that the suspects, who were held under "control orders", had absconded this week.

Scotland Yard named Lamine Adam, 26, his brother Ibrahim, 20, and Cerie Bullivant, 24, last night after they failed to report to police.

Police said the men, two of whom are brothers of a man jailed last month for plotting al Qaeda-inspired bomb attacks across Britain, had violated anti-terrorism "control orders" and failed to check in with authorities last week.

The announcement, following the disappearances of at least two other suspects last year, means that more than a quarter of those subject to the controversial orders -- imposed on suspects who are not charged with a crime -- are now missing.

Under control orders suspects are frequently confined to their homes for much of the day, required to wear electronic tags, obliged to check in with police, forbidden to use computers or telephones and banned from meeting people without permission....

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the news was “shocking” and said that Home Secretary John Reid had failed in his duty to protect the public.

He said: “People are placed on control orders on the basis they are terror suspects who pose a serious risk to the public.”

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg called for a “wholesale review” of the Government’s strategy.

“This is yet another hammer blow for the increasingly discredited system of control orders,” he said.

Yes.

Bush on Edwards: "This notion that this isn't a war on terror is, in my view, naïve"

Bush responds to this. Of course, this notion that this is a war on terror is, in my view, naïve.

"Bush: It's Naïve to Believe There is No War on Terror," by Randy Hall for CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) - Responding to criticism that the conflict in Iraq is merely a civil war in a foreign country, President Bush said during a news conference at the White House on Thursday that "this notion that this isn't a war on terror is, in my view, naïve."

Bush made the comment one day after 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards dismissed the U.S.-led war on terrorism as "a bumper sticker, not a plan."

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, the president also stated that the upcoming summer months will be a critical time for his troop "surge" in Iraq. He indicated that the last five brigades making up the 30,000-troop buildup should arrive in Baghdad by mid-June.

"We are going to expect heavy fighting in the next weeks and months, and we can expect American and Iraqi casualties," Bush said. "We will stay on the offense," he added, repeating what has become for him a consistent refrain: "It's better to fight them there than to fight them here."

Asked how long he could sustain the policy without achieving significant progress on the ground, Bush noted that the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is due to report back on the effects of the new strategy by September.

In response to a reporter's question regarding making a choice between fighting al Qaeda and the war in Iraq, the president replied that "we are fighting al Qaeda ... in Iraq."

Bush also said that "the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice. It's going to be hard work for this young government," he added.

Indeed it is.

Torture, Al-Qaeda Style

This makes the allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo look like the politically motivated propaganda that they are.

"Torture, Al-Qaeda Style: Drawings, tools seized from Iraq safe house in U.S. military raid," from The Smoking Gun (warning: graphic images), with thanks to all who sent this in:

MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors....

Thug-In-Chief: If Israel attacks Lebanon, "the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime"

In other words, sit idle and let the jihadists work to destroy you. If you resist, the jihadists will work to destroy you. "Iran to Israel: Don't Attack Lebanon," from AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:

..."If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in the city of Isfahan.

"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime."

Former Iranian Diplomat: Iran Willing To Share Nuke Technology with Saudis and Gulf Countries

Islamic solidarity -- and another move by Iran to position itself as the leader of the entire Islamic world, not just of the Shi'ites. "Former Iranian Diplomat and Brother of Top Iranian Nuclear Negotiator Mohammad Javad Larijani: Iran Is Willing To Share Nuclear Technology with Saudi Arabia and Gulf Countries," from MEMRITV, with thanks to RW:

Following are excerpts from an interview with former diplomat Mohammad Javad Larijani, from the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, which was aired on Channel 2, Iranian TV on April 14, 2007:

Mohammad Javad Larijani: Iran's policy is a good one. We said to [the Gulf countries]: "If you want nuclear energy, come and we will teach you." I'm sure that the Westerners won't share even a tiny piece of knowledge with any of the Gulf countries. They won't share it even with Turkey.

Then followed a nice slap at Turkish secularism:

Turkey has danced so many Western-styled dances in the past 50-60 years, in an attempt to win over Europe's heart, but apparently, this heart is made of stone....

But the Russians will come through:

Under the present circumstances, no Western country will be willing to share technology of uranium enrichment with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others. Meanwhile, they have a big brother to the north, which, praise God, has technology at its disposal. In my opinion, this happens to be a strong point. We can establish an excellent consortium with the Gulf countries, and produce nuclear energy. We will share this technology with them.

Bolton says Bush made mistakes about Iraq

Some of this may sound familiar. By Bob Bernick Jr. for the Deseret Morning News, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:

The Bush administration has made a number of fine decisions in international politics — including overthrowing Saddam Hussein — but the president's Iraq foreign policy and war tactics have also suffered from many mistakes, according to Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton....

"It is what has happened in the last four years that's made our involvement in Iraq unpopular" throughout the world, said Bolton, "not the original overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

"If we had said shortly after that statue (of Saddam) came down in Baghdad, 'Here are the keys to the Green Zone, Iraqis — you have our best wishes and whatever support we can give as we are packing up and leaving, or at least moving out of Baghdad,' then I think public opinion in our country might be different.

"Having overthrown Saddam, we had an obligation — it was a short-term obligation — to provide security until some kind of government of Iraqis could have gotten back up, for us to hold the reins for a short time for them to start forming a government," he said.

But the notion that America had to occupy Iraq or guarantee the country's security for a protracted time, or indeed indefinitely: "I just think that's a mistake."

The U.S. properly acted to protect itself from the external threat of Hussein, Saddam, Bolton said.

However, it is the Iraqis' responsibility to decide for themselves what kind of government they will have, even to the extent of whether Iraq should be broken up into two or more countries, he said.

"We didn't have any responsibility to provide tutorage for them," said Bolton, adding that he didn't have a lot to do with Iraq policy because former Secretary of State Colin Powell "excluded me from it, probably the best favor he ever did for me."

Lal Masjid leader: "If the government tries to suppress the change that our movement is demanding, then there is a likelihood of Talebanisation"

Don't resist Talibanization, or face Talibanization. Lal Masjid Update. "Pakistani mullah warns Musharraf of Taleban challenge," from Agence France-Presse:

ISLAMABAD - A Pakistani mullah whose mosque is holding two policemen hostage has warned President Pervez Musharraf that a Taleban-style opposition movement is emerging to challenge his already crisis-hit regime.

Baton-waving students from Islamabad’s pro-Taleban Red Mosque seized the police six days ago, adding to the pressure on Musharraf amid a groundswell of violent anger at his suspension of the country’s top judge.

Abdul Rashid Ghazi, one of two brothers heading the mosque, said his followers backed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and predicted the political upheaval would further the students’ goal of a pure Islamic state.

‘If the government tries to suppress the change that our movement is demanding, then there is a likelihood of Talebanisation,’ the 43-year-old Ghazi said. ‘I can see it happening.’

The Red Mosque’s hardline male and female students have resisted efforts to negotiate the policemen’s freedom and have vowed to fight to the death if the government launches an assault on the mosque.

‘We are not only challenging Musharraf, we are challenging the system,’ Ghazi told AFP on Wednesday, speaking inside the Jamia Hafsa seminary next to the mosque.

Bearded men with Kalashnikov rifles stood guard during the interview.

‘The country’s system has totally failed and needs to be changed because it is not giving any relief to 99 percent of the people,’ he added.

‘We know that if Musharraf goes away, another Musharraf would come instead. The system we want is an Islamic system.’

[...]

Ghazi said the Red Mosque students mostly come from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the lawless regions bordering with Afghanistan where the Taleban and Al Qaeda have taken refuge since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He said that the 6,000 male students and 4,000 females belonging to the radical mosque’s two seminaries in Islamabad have received messages of support from Muslims around the world.

[...]

‘Suicide bombers are being prepared with the help of CDs and instruction manuals as well as inspirational films showing Iraqi insurgents fighting against UN forces,’ he told AFP.

One policeman who was earlier freed from the mosque was shown videos of suicide bombers operating in Iraq, he said.

Ghazi, who worked for a short time for the UN in Islamabad and says he is widely travelled, said he saw no easy resolution to the hostage drama, which has undermined the government’s claims to control the leafy capital.

[...]

‘Pakistan has become more secular since when my father was a cleric at the Red Mosque,’ he said. ‘This is our reaction. We want to go back.’

Three U.K. jihad suspects flee "control orders"

"More than a quarter of those subject to the controversial orders ... are now missing."

"Three UK terrorism suspects flee 'control orders'," by Peter Graff for Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - Three suspects held under controversial British anti-terrorism "control orders" have absconded this week, police said on Wednesday, an embarrassing blow for a key plank of Tony Blair's security strategy.

The announcement, following the disappearances of at least two other suspects last year, means that more than a quarter of those subject to the controversial orders -- imposed on suspects who are not charged with a crime -- are now missing.

The British prime minister introduced the orders, under which suspects are electronically tagged and subjected to a range of restrictions, after courts threw out Blair's measures to jail suspects indefinitely without charge.

"This is yet another hammer blow for the increasingly discredited system of control orders," said Nick Clegg, home affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats.

The center-right Conservatives, who support the orders, said the government was nonetheless failing to keep the public safe.

London's Metropolitan Police took the extraordinary step of naming the three abscondees and releasing pictures of them. Suspects under control orders are usually entitled to anonymity because they have not been convicted of a crime.

The three were named as Lamine Adam, 26, Ibrahim Adam, 20, and Cerie Bullivant, 24. The Adams were both born in Algeria and were described as of North African origin. Bullivant was born in Britain and listed as white.

Police said the three may be travelling together. Members of the public were told not to approach them.

Under the orders terrorism suspects can no longer be jailed without charge but can be subjected to a range of measures up to virtual house arrest.

Suspects are frequently confined to their homes for much of the day, required to wear electronic tags, obliged to check in with police, forbidden to use computers or telephones and banned from meeting people without permission.

The orders must be imposed by a special court, but the suspects are not permitted to see evidence against them and the authorities do not have to prove they are guilty of a crime.

Two other suspects on control orders who disappeared last year have not been found. According to the Home Office, 17 people are being monitored under the program, including the three who absconded this week but not two who fled last year.

Israeli troops round up Hamas "lawmakers"

Long overdue. But AP tut-tuts that they arrested a "pragmatist." "Israeli troops round up Hamas lawmakers," by Ali Daragmeh for Associated Press:

NABLUS, West Bank - Israeli troops in the West Bank arrested more than 30 senior Hamas members Thursday, the army said, including a Cabinet minister, legislators and mayors.

The roundup came hours after Israeli planes struck what the military said were money changing offices and other businesses in Gaza which were channeling funds to Hamas.

The raids were part of a concerted offensive against the Islamic militant group, in retaliation for its rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli border towns.

The most prominent Hamas politician to be arrested was Education Minister Nasser Shaer, considered a pragmatist in the movement. His wife, Huda, said soldiers knocked on the door of their home in the West Bank city of Nablus and took him away. Troops also seized Shaer's computer, she said.

It was the second time Shaer was arrested in a roundup of Hamas members in the past year.

Soldiers also arrested former Cabinet minister Abdel Rahman Zeidan, legislators Hamed Bitawi and Daoud Abu Ser, the mayors of the towns of Nablus, Qalqiliya and Beita — Adli Yaish, Wajih Qawas and Arab Shurafa — as well as the head of the main Islamic charity in Nablus, Fayad al-Arba.

Troops also searched for Ahmed Haj Ali, a Hamas legislator in Nablus, but didn't find him at home, neighbors said.

The Israeli military said more than 30 senior Hamas members were arrested.

Iran Drawing Up Plans to Strike European Nuclear Sites, Analyst Says

More signs of Iran's intentions, while the West continues to temporize and remonstrate, but not to act. From AP, with thanks to Catherine:

LONDON — Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has conducted reconnaissance of European nuclear power stations, a security analyst told a meeting at Britain's parliament Tuesday.

Claude Moniquet, president of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, a private think-tank in Brussels, said his organization also had evidence Tehran has increased numbers of intelligence agents across Europe.

"We have serious signals that something is under preparation in Europe," Moniquet said. "Iranian intelligence is working extremely hard to prepare its people and to prepare actions."

The center, which he said deals directly with European intelligence agencies, believes Iranian operatives have carried out "reconnaissance of targets in European cities, including nuclear power stations," Moniquet said. He mentioned no other specific targets.

MPAC's Lekovic in denial

What a surprise.

This is not the first time Edina Lekovic of MPAC has made extremely questionable statements on national television.

"MPAC in Denial About Radicalization of Muslim Youth?," by Steven Emerson at the Counterterrorism Blog, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Earlier today, on CNBC’s Kudlow & Co., I debated the spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Edina Lekovic, on the findings of the recent Pew Poll on the levels of radicalism within the American Muslim community.

Lekovic, while a student at UCLA, was Managing Editor of the Muslim Student Association’s newspaper, al-Talib. In July 1999, under Lekovic’s editorship, the paper published an article entitled, “Jihad in America,” which included the passage:

“When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid (someone who struggles in Allah’s cause) Osama bin Laden as a ‘terrorist,’ we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah.”

When confronted with this fact, interestingly, Lekovic denied it, claiming that she was merely the editor of UCLA’s mainstream student newspaper, the Daily Bruin – it is true that Lekovic was editor of the Daily Bruin during the 1997-1998 academic year. But as you can see, in July 1999, she is clearly listed as the Managing Editor of al-Talib, in the upper right hand corner. This column as published almost a full year after the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. At this point, the role of Bin-Laden in these bombings was widely and publicly known.

Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence

A marvelously dead-on mirror of the mainstream media coverage of the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America, from Iowahawk (thanks to PRCS):

Chicago - By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing, and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.

The Pew Research survey, conducted May 13-19, queried nearly 2,500 randomly selected Lutherans at flea markets and convenience stores across the Midwest. Interviews were conducted in High Plains Twang, Great Lakes Nasal and Flat Ohio Valley Bland.

"If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is," said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey, which was co-sponsored by the Council on American-Yooper Relations. "It really paints a picture of a dynamic culture in or somewhere near the American mainstream."

Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels" was "always" or "frequently" justified, versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified. The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians, but still fell well short of a majority.

"The only demographic cohort we saw where murderous random violence had a majority support was among 18-35 year old male followers of the Wisconsin Synod," said Kohut. "And that was barely above the margin of error. Even then, fewer than half (41% to 46%) said they would personally volunteer to carry out the violence themselves."

Further bolstering the findings, Kohut noted that fewer than 6% of respondents physically attacked field interviewers during the survey.

Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it. More than 95% supported "pancake breakfasts" and "popcorn fundraisers," but support dropped to less than 80% for "cow tipping" and "T-P'ing infidel houses." Support dropped even more dramatically for more violent means of conquest, such as "suicide bombing" (28%), "decapitation" (24%), and "running over Presbyterians with my Ski-Doo" (23%).

"Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut. "These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society, and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern."

Read it all.

Alleged Taliban leader promises jihad on West

New Taliban leader promises suicide attacks and jihad -- meet the new boss, same as the old boss. By Noor Khan for The Associated Press:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A man identified on tape as the Taliban's new top field commander warned Wednesday that new recruits were volunteering as suicide bombers and that fighters would continue their holy war until Western powers leave Afghanistan.

Violence struck throughout the country with two bomb blasts that killed four people, including a Finnish soldier in the usually quiet north. NATO said it attacked a meeting of Taliban leaders in the south, killing an unspecified number of militants.

Shuhabuddin Athul, a Taliban spokesman, played an audio tape over the telephone to an Associated Press reporter that Athul said was a recording of Dadullah Mansoor, brother and replacement of Mullah Dadullah, the top Taliban commander shot to death in a U.S. operation this month in southern Afghanistan.

The man on the tape said Taliban fighters were ready to avenge his brother's death and would "pursue holy war until the occupying countries leave."

"They will pursue their attacks against occupying countries and the (Afghan) government," he said in a first public statement. "The number of suicide attackers is increasing. ... All of the Taliban, we are ready to carry out suicide attacks, roadside bombs and ambushes against the Americans and the government."

Tashbih Sayyed, 1941-2007

With great sorrow I must inform you that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.

After a long career at Pakistan Television, Tashbih's differences with the Zia ul-Haq regime in Pakistan (which gave the Islamization of Pakistan its first great boost) led him to come to the United States, where he founded two newspapers, Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, and wrote eight books, including Mohammad – A Secularist's View. He appeared in documentaries including Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. He was the President and founder of The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute, and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.

Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.

He was a dear friend, and he will be greatly missed.

May his memory be eternal.

Fort Dix suspect applied for police jobs

"Tatar may have also wanted to join the Army ... A second suspect in the case told the informant that Tatar wanted to join the Army so he could kill soldiers from the 'inside'." Fort Dix Jihad Update. By Geoff Mulvihill for the Associated Press:

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - One of the men accused of plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix had recently applied to be a police officer in two big cities — a move some authorities believe may have been an effort to infiltrate law enforcement agencies.

How many more Serdar Tatars might there be across America? Infiltrators among first responders to an attack would increase casualties, delay the work of other responders, and would significantly augment the psychological impact of the attack.

Serdar Tatar, 23, applied for a job in Philadelphia last month, police spokesman Sgt. D.F. Pace said Wednesday.

"Based on what we know now, I don't think his intentions were good," Pace said.

Tatar also applied for a job in the Oakland, Calif., Police Department, according to a law enforcement official speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

[...]

Philadelphia police rejected Tatar, a Turkish citizen and legal U.S. resident, because he was not a U.S. citizen and had not lived in the city long enough to be eligible, Pace said. Tatar had lived there for about eight months when he applied, less than the city's one-year requirement.

He applied at a police job fair on April 10.

It isn't known when or where Tatar applied to join the Oakland police force or why he would try to join an organization thousands of miles away.

Tatar may have also wanted to join the Army, according to conversations recorded in March by an FBI informant during the investigation. A second suspect in the case told the informant that Tatar wanted to join the Army so he could kill soldiers from the "inside," according to a court filing.

"He had only one mind," a third suspect, Dritan Duka, told the informant, according to the court documents. "How to kill American soldiers."

Army spokesman Lenny Gatto said Wednesday that he did not know whether Tatar had applied to join the Army, which does not require U.S. citizenship.

Tatar, an out-of-work clerk whose last job was at a Philadelphia convenience store, and five others were arrested May 7 and charged with planning an attack on Fort Dix, which is 25 miles east of Philadelphia and is primarily used to train reservists.

Europeans back plan to profile mosques

It's not enough, but it's a start. Monitoring mosques is something I have long advocated. Why can't we at least begin by imitating the Europeans in this?

From AP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

VENICE, Italy (AP) _ Security officials from Europe's largest countries have thrown their weight behind the EU Commission's plans to map out mosques on the continent to identify imams who preach radical Islam that raises the threat of homegrown terrorism.

The project, to be finished by the fall, will focus on the roles of imams, their training, their ability to speak in the local language and their source of funding, EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini told a news conference.

Europe had ample experience with the ''misuse of mosques, which instead of being places of worship are used for other ends, Italian Interior Minister Guiliano Amato said Saturday.

''This is bringing about a situation that involves all of our countries and involves the possibility of attacks and developing of networks that use one country to prepare an attack in another,'' Amato said, after a meeting in Venice of interior ministers and security officials from six European countries and the United States.

Frattini also emphasized the need of strengthened dialogue with the Islamic communities ''to avoid sending messages that incite hate and violence.''

Good luck with that.

Edwards: Move Past 'War on Terror'

Bush made it all up, you see. The whole thing. And just as I, through my mad Zionist skillz, am apparently able (in the eyes of some rabid critics) to cast embarrassing teachings into the Qur'an and Hadith, so the President has been able to create centuries of jihad warfare against unbelievers.

By Beth Fouhy for Associated Press, with thanks to James:

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

Of course, the terrorists themselves have nothing to do with creating that impression. They are not actors of themselves. They can only react to our provocations. Edwards, like so many on the Left, does not recognize that he himself, in assuming this, is manifesting the same ethnocentrism and paternalism that he explicitly abhors.

My notorious Power Point presentation for the Boston mosque lawsuit

Miss Kelly has sent me an email that she tells me was written by Karin Friedmann, aka Maria Hussain, and was sent out via the moderated Boston Muslim American Society/Islamic Society of Boston e-mail list, regarding the Boston mosque lawsuit:

Evidence: Frivolous Lawsuit was Aimed at Ethnic Intimidation

Boston--May 22, 2007--New court evidence reveals that David Project directors and several attorneys were planning to stop construction of the Roxbury Mosque.

One attorney suggested, "How about simply appealing the building permit and tying things up?"

“Ultimately our interest is based on the premise that…people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews,” said real estate developer Steve Cohen.

The group decided to investigate potential parking violations and other legal technicalities.

On July 22, 2004 David Project director Anna Kolodner started panicking.

"The steel is going up on the Mosque," she wrote to the group. “We need to have a plaintiff. This is a priority. Please contact any individuals that would consider this role and let us know.”

Using the lawsuit, Kolodner demanded records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to use for negative publicity.

Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”

"However, the First Amendment will bar any governmental action against the mosque based on these connections - not in the absence of incitement that might lead to ‘imminent action.’ So all we are left with is a public relations campaign.”

This admission betrays a premeditated decision to incite hate by using “terrorist” as an ethnic slur to manipulate public sentiment, while their plaintiff sued the city for selling to Muslims.

“The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections,” Cohen continued. “However, the pr campaign surrounding the suit can strike a different chord: i.e. that the city of Boston should not be subsidizing a mosque or any organization with terrorist connections.”
“We will be much more effective if we let others ask this question than if we do so ourselves," Cohen strategized.

On September 2, 2004, Anna Kolodner wrote, "Filing the lawsuit will serve to trip the switch on the larger agenda of exposing the radical fundamentalist underpinnings of the Mosque and its leaders…We need to develop a media campaign and identify who will be the public spokesperson for the group…We need an expert in power point to develop a presentation that can be used with the media, politicians, and community groups."

That power point expert would turn out to be the notorious Robert Spencer.

Wooo, scary. The notorious Spencer, no less. Wow. It looks pretty damaging, except it's completely false. I am not a Power Point expert. I don't use Power Point, and don't know how to construct a Power Point presentation. I have never supplied the David Project or anyone else involved with the lawsuits connected with the Boston mosque project with a Power Point presentation or anything else.

Jihadists blow up music shop in village of Pakistani interior minister

The jihad proceeds apace in Pakistan, here targeting again the sale of sinful music. "Music shop blown up in Pak minister's village," from AFP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

PESHAWAR: Suspected Islamic militants blew up a music shop in a grenade attack on the interior minister's village in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday.

The shop, which sold local and foreign music, was destroyed in the attack on Monday night in Sherpao village, senior police officer Feroz Shah said.

The village is named after the clan of Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao, who frequently returns to his ancestral home.

Shah said two militants on a bicycle lobbed a hand grenade into the Wahab Music Centre and fled. A police squad on motorcycles chased and arrested one man, while the other escaped.

Media Spins or Ignores Disturbing Finding That Quarter of American Muslim Young Men Support Terrorism

Terrific post on the mainstream media spin of the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America, by Ace of Spades (thanks to LGF).

New al Qaeda Tapes Feature U.S. Capitol Under 'Attack'

"The Islamic State of Iraq...March Toward Washington."

By Rhonda Schwartz at ABC's The Blotter (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Al Qaeda has a new opening graphic for its propaganda tapes: the U.S. Capitol under "attack."

"The Islamic State of Iraq...March Toward Washington" reads the headline in English superimposed over a digitally created scene of the U.S. Capitol under attack in the introductory sequence of one tape released on the Internet this week.

Another from al Qaeda's "as Sahab" production arm announces "Holocaust of the Americans in the Land of Khorasan" and shows an image of the U.S. Capitol to introduce a short clip of al Qaeda fighters.

Fitzgerald: The sea air has not done Derbyshire good

The link given to Jihad Watch by Mr. Derbyshire at The Corner, at the word "separationists," is peculiar. There has never been any advocacy by this website for "bribing" Muslims to leave the United States. He must be thinking of someone or someplace else.

Furthermore, he appears to believe that Jihad Watch offers what it does offer as a "solution" to a "problem." I have never seen an example of Robert Spencer, or I, offering at Jihad Watch a "solution" to the "problem" of Muslims living within the West, receiving money from rich Arabs in order to build mosques and madrasas, conduct public-relations efforts, employ armies of Western hirelings (including lawyers to intimidate), mount carefully-targeted and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa, and in general, to make sure that Muslims may settle untroubledly deep behind what they are taught to regard as the enemy lines, the lines which demarcate Dar al-Harb. Not all Muslims may accept the full teachings of Islam, but even those who do not attend mosques or madrasas and may not accept all of the teachings for whatever reason, have shown a remarkable loyalty to, and defensiveness about, the faith that should be worrisome to Infidels.

No "solution" for Islamic Jihad will be possible as long as these conditions continue to exist, and as long as Muslims around the world continue to teach that a central duty of all Muslims is to participate, whether individually (in some circumstances) or collectively, in the Jihad to spread Islam, and to remove all obstacles to the supremacism and dominance of Islam -- including those of Infidel political and legal and social institutions, so that, as is only proper, as must assuredly be, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

It sounds fantastic to us, but our imaginations have become, these latter unsaintly days, much too limited.

No "solution" is possible, but there are ways to render the permanent problem more manageable, in the first place through education of Infidels about Islam. This will allow them to arrive at a conclusion that they may then pass on to Muslims, that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failings of Islamic states and societies are directly attributable to the teachings, attitudes and atmospherics of Islam itself. And that is the best way to constrain Islam and Jihad, along with what should be the more obvious measures of exploiting whatever pre-existing fissures (sectarian, ethnic, economic) are to be found within the Camp of Islam.

Finally, Mr. Derbyshire, who just yesterday attacked "the Bill" (about immigration) for the defeatism it embodies, is a proud, even courageous defeatist when it comes to Islam. Because there are native-born Muslims, especially in the "Nation of Islam," which is hardly orthodox, therefore, he tells us, it is futile to keep out other Muslims -- "Palestinians," Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, and so on. Why? Why are we not free to limit the number of Muslims who enter the country, who can possibly better conduct Da'wa among white and Hispanic Americans? Why can we not keep out those who have undeclared in their mental baggage a Total Belief-System that is based on a division of the universe between Believer and Infidel? Why can we not reduce the money available to campaigns of Da'wa, to reduce the potential economic and political power of Muslims in America?

Why, furthermore, does he think that because the Nation of Islam exists, that it too cannot be reduced in size and influence, if more information is disseminated about the long history of the Arab slave trade in Africa -- which continues to this day? (Why, just today, in Dagobert Runes' "Despotism," I ran across a picture of chained black Africans being shipped to Saudi Arabia -- a picture from the 1920s or 1930s.) Information should be spread far and wide about the permanent legitimacy, reaffirmed by Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia within the past few years, of slavery in Islam, and about the unhidden racism to be met with everywhere in the Arab lands. All of that should become better known. And why cannot black ministers be supplied with materials to make that all better known, and be given support of other kinds so that they can conduct their own campaigns of counter-Da'wa?

The Derbyshire passage with its misattribution, followed by its curious defeatism, makes one wonder. Perhaps the sea air on those National Review cruises is not all it is cracked up to be, after all.

Jihad Watch, everyone's favorite straw man

Lately it seems to have become fashionable to attribute to me or to Jihad Watch positions that I don't hold. In a way this is a tribute to the success of our work, as we have become a symbol of something, although no one seems exactly sure of what. Recently, Dinesh D'Souza, Karen Armstrong, the Asia Times columnist who calls himself "Spengler," and Cathy Young, a columnist for the misnamed "Reason" magazine, have indulged in this sport. And now National Review's born-again atheist, John Derbyshire, has joined the fun. At "The Corner" this morning, Derbyshire adds this aside in the course of an otherwise worthwhile observation about Nation of Islam members being included in the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America:

Solution-wise, none of the policies proposed by "separationists"—for example, bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A., preventing further Muslim immigration—is relevant. Nation of Islam is here, and has no place to go.

The word "separationists" links to Jihad Watch. Now search for the word "separationists" at Jihad Watch. Nothing. "Separationism"? Nope, nada. All you'll turn up is this post itself. Apart from the merits or lack thereof of "separationism," which I believe is a proposal advocated at some other sites, it is strange, is it not, that the site Derb chose as his sole link for it has never mentioned it at all, until now?

Derb then explains "separationism" as involving "bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A." and "preventing further Muslim immigration." The first of these is absurd, and I have never heard of anyone advocating it, though someone may. I certainly don't. As for the second, it is eminently sensible, since no Muslim group anywhere in the world has pronounced takfir on Osama bin Laden and his ilk -- that is, ruled them out of Islam -- and so there is no reliable way to distinguish peaceful Muslims from actual and potential jihadists. But at the same time it is fraught with difficulties, some of which I discuss here. In any case, before it can even be discussed intelligently in the public sphere, there has to be a significant increase in public awareness about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and if anything, at this point we're generally going in the opposite direction on that.

So Derb, in sum, attributes to us a label we do not use and a position that we do not hold. Of course, this is the guy who invoked Muhammad Atta as an example of how religion did not ennoble one in the middle of a discussion that was otherwise completely about Christianity, and who thinks Karen Armstrong's fantasy-ridden and hagiographical biography of Muhammad is worth reading, so perhaps I shouldn't expect better.

UPDATE: In a new Corner entry, Derb quotes a secondary source to establish positions held by Hugh Fitzgerald about Muslim immigration, although that is not remotely the point of controversy here, since I call immigration restrictions "eminently sensible" above. Since he has had his own conflicts with that source, it is peculiar that he here relies on his summary as accurate. He also goes on to suggest that Hugh, and I also, I guess, ought to believe in bribing Muslims to leave the West even if we don't, because he, Derb, thinks it follows from what we do believe. That's what passes for high-level analysis these days, I suppose.

WaPo: "Survey: U.S. Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism"

Alan Cooperman's Washington Post report on the the Pew Research Center poll of American Muslims is typical of mainstream media coverage of the poll: disturbing findings are ignored or downplayed, and the whole thing is given a bland, reassuring, and ultimately misleading headline.

The Post's story seems to be based on the proposition that all is well here because things are worse in Europe, which is like saying that your cold is cured because the guy across the street has pneumonia.

Unlike Muslim minorities in many European countries, U.S. Muslims are highly assimilated, close to parity with other Americans in income and overwhelmingly opposed to Islamic extremism, according to the first major, nationwide random survey of Muslims.

The survey by the Pew Research Center found that 78 percent of U.S. Muslims said the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets to defend Islam is never justified. But 5 percent said it is justified "rarely," 7 percent said "sometimes," and 1 percent said "often"; the remaining 9 percent said they did not know or declined to answer.

I don't see how this can possibly be spun as good news. Imagine if 13% of Christians had been polled as supporting suicide bombing. Do you think the WaPo headline would have been that Christians are "opposed to extremism"? It seems as if once again we are witnessing the soft bigotry of low expectations. No Muslims, or anyone else, in the U.S. or anywhere else should be supporting suicide bombing. If a significant number in the U.S. does support them, as seems to be the case, that is a matter of grave concern for government and law enforcement officials, and raises numerous important questions about immigration, the monitoring of American mosques, and more. But if anyone is concerned about it, they aren't getting a hearing in the Washington Post.

By comparison, Muslims in France, Spain and Britain were almost twice as likely to say suicide bombing is sometimes or often justified, and public acceptance of the tactic is even higher in some countries with large Muslim populations, such as Nigeria, Jordan and Egypt.

Oh, well then, everything is OK here. U.S. Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism. Got it.

Fitzgerald: A peculiar poll

Both the figures of the new Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America, and the poll itself, far understate the problem.

As to the figures. It should be obvious, both by study of Islamic doctrines and by observation that Islam is a belief-system in which deception has always played a major role. There is, for example, "taqiyya," a doctrine that originates in Shi'a Islam. It is religiously-sanctioned dissimulation, originally made necessary because of Sunni persecution and murder of Shi'a, who felt they needed justification for lying about both the nature of their faith, and their belief in it. Like the related "Kitman" (mental reservation), it is also widely practiced by Sunnis.

Indeed, Muhammad, the central figure in Islam, famously said that "war is deception." This matters, for Muhammad is the Model of Perfect Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man To Be Emulated and Followed in All Things, al-insan al-kamil. His every word, his every deed, is pored over, as conveyed in the stories known as the Hadith, or traditions. Every detail of his life as preserved in the canonical biography, the Sira, is pored over as a guide -- a guide both to the full meaning of the Qur'an (both Hadith and Sira offering a kind of gloss), and for the submissive Believer's own conduct.

Now if one lives in an Infidel land, and if one is keenly aware of the growing knowledge about and consequent alarm about Islam, then one is very likely, for obvious purposes, to simply not respond with the truth. The most obvious purpose will be to shore up the position of Muslims in this country. This is necessary because that alarm about Islam is growing, despite the practiced efforts of the government and of so much of the media, to downplay it and divert attention from it. Just look at how, online, the media presents the results of this disturbing study. Just look at the misleading headlines it offers all those who just read and run.

So some respondents will lie, while others are so contemptuous of the Infidels that they see no need to lie. That is the difference between the most forthright Muslims, indifferent to the Infidels, and the vast army of apologists who try to divert or distract attention, or play at Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque. And even straighter-talking than these forthright Muslims are the apostates from Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan, who know perfectly well what Islam inculcates, and what, outside of the mosque and the madrasa, suffuses Islamic societies as part of the atmospherics of Islam.

Those who answered "Don't Know" or refused to answer should be taken not at face value, but as knowing perfectly well and not answering the question because they did not wish to be toted up in this exercise in a way that would harm the "image of Islam." And one would be a fool not to think that some, and perhaps a great many (I think very many) of those who claimed they did not support terrorism, were being completely forthright. Many no doubt used some weaselly bit of "mental reservation" to be able to claim they were against it if it was directed at "innocents" -- remember, the Muslim definition of "innocents" does not coincide with the definition that Infidels subscribe to -- non-combatants, especially women and children and the aged -- as the views, on record, of Al-Qaradawa and the Sheik Al-Azhar, among others, make clear.

Furthermore, the opinion poll was constructed so as to leave out certain key questions. Why was there no question on the desirability of working to impose the Shari'a? That would demonstrate the contradiction between Muslim desires and the continued existence of the legal and political institutions of this country, institutions built entirely by non-Muslims and reflecting entirely a view of the individual, and indeed of the world, that is flatly contradicted by the letter, and spirit, of Islam. Think of the Muslim view of freedom of conscience, of freedom of speech, of the very idea of respecting and upholding the rights of individuals. These are seen as opposed, in Islam, to the collective or umma, which is the only thing that matters. And it matters only so that it might support the spread of Islam and Islam's necessary dominance, everywhere.

Why was there no question about the desirability of resurrecting a worldwide caliphate to which all Muslims could adhere, whether or not they lived in the domains controlled, for now, by that caliphate?

It is obvious that the poll was unsatisfactory in one sense. It greatly understates the problem. Its methodology is naive.

But in another sense, it is satisfactory. It shows the existence of a serious problem, despite the ways in which the questions were posed. (Also, Muslims themselves in many cases were responsible for compiling the questions and then collecting answers.) It is a peculiar poll, asking questions of people who are keenly aware of the prescription, by the greatest faith-figure in their life, that "war is deception," and keenly aware that, again according to the tenets of Islam, there exists a permanent state of war, though not necessarily of active warfare, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the Lands Controlled by Muslims and the Lands (for now) Controlled by the Infidels. It is peculiar to expect fully honest answers from those who consider that, for now, they have been allowed to settle deep within the Lands of the Infidels, and should do everything possible to assure the circumambient Infidels that everything is fine, that they have nothing to worry about, and that their Muslim neighbors and colleagues are absolutely true-blue believers in American institutions -- when, in fact, if they are Believers in Islam, they cannot conceivably offer loyalty either to Infidel nation-states, or to Infidels, no matter how charmingly and plausibly they behave, as necessity, "darura," dictates. For now.

Younger Muslims support suicide bombing in greater numbers

From the Pew Research Center poll of American Muslims.

It's true in America, Britain, France, Germany, and Spain: younger Muslims support suicide bombing in greater numbers than do their elders. One reason for this is the suicidal multiculturalist policies that each of these states has pursued relentlessly. While earlier immigrants may have been encouraged by the societies to which they had come to become members of those societies -- that is, to assimilate -- now their children are being told exactly the opposite. When Muslims are encouraged to hold fast to their cultural traditions rather than assimilate, all too often they end up embracing the ideology of Islamic supremacism as it is taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This just illustrates the suicidal nature of the whole multiculturalist enterprise.

Muslims in America less concerned than non-Muslims about rise of Islamic extremism

From the Pew Research Center poll of American Muslims.

Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't Muslims be more concerned than non-Muslims about the rise of attachment to jihadism and Islamic supremacism? After all, given that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America abhor terrorism, as we hear again and again, shouldn't they be directing their efforts to eradicating sympathy for the jihad terrorists from their community?

But instead, it seems that many are more concerned about perceived discrimination than about jihadists in their ranks:

19% list discrimination, and only 3% cite "Radical Islam/extremists."

In the U.S.: Nearly 200,000 avow support for suicide attacks

The Pew Research Center poll of American Muslims also shows significant support among Muslims in America for suicide bombing and loony conspiracy theories about 9/11. 40% of those who consider themselves Muslims first, which as we have seen is about one million people, don't believe that groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. So that's about 400,000 conspiracy theorists, plus another 250,000 from among those who consider themselves Americans first. And 130,000 avow support for suicide attacks in some circumstances, while about 50,000 of those who consider themselves Americans first agree, and others refuse to answer.

One million American Muslims are Muslims first, Americans second

Today I intend, as much as time permits, to highlight a few of the findings from the Pew Research Center poll of American Muslims. Here is the first: 47% of what Pew says are 2.35 million Muslims in America, or a little more than one million Muslims, consider themselves to be Muslims first, Americans second. The other bars in the graph above show that to be a much lower percentage than in Britain, Germany, and Spain: 81% of Muslims in Britain consider themselves to be Muslims first; 66% in Germany, and 69% in Spain. In France, as under fire as it is for not assimilating its Muslim immigrants (although they have resisted assimilation at every step), it's 46%.

Anyway, all religions make absolute claims, so this is not really unusual or unexpected. Most serious Christians in America probably consider themselves Christians first and Americans second. But given the nature of Islam as a political and social system as well as a religious faith, this finding has important implications for whether these one million Muslims would like to see Islamic law, Sharia, in the United States, and will be working to that end. I haven't read it all yet, but I doubt that the Pew poll asks pointed questions like that.

Jihadists kill 24 Baghdad shoppers

Jihad against shopping. "Blast kills 24 in Baghdad market," from AFP, with thanks to DFS:

BAGHDAD : An explosion tore through a market in a flashpoint Baghdad district on Tuesday, killing at least 24 people and wounding dozens in the first massive car bomb to hit the capital in over two weeks.

Yarmuk hospital received 24 dead - including four women, three children and six corpses burned beyond recognition - and 39 wounded from the bombing in Amil, in southwest Baghdad, a medic said.

The vast majority of the wounded were women and children, said the hospital official, who asked not to be named.

Defence and security officials put the toll at 25 dead and 60 wounded.

A violent mixed neighbourhood flanking the main road to airport, Amil has been infiltrated by Shiite militia fighters and also comes under attack from Sunni insurgents.

In the capital's violent mixed neighbourhood, large bomb attacks, the hallmark of the Sunni insurgency, often ignite a cycle of revenge, with Shiite death squads exacting collective punishment against local Sunnis.

Fitzgerald: Your work is being graded, but not by us

WASHINGTON - One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely. -- from this article

Aside from those many Muslims who refused to take part, one must assume that the "error" beyond merely the standard "margin of error" that is present in any pollster’s sampling is that which is created by those Muslims who live in lands of the Infidels, and still controlled by Infidels, who will naturally lie to any poll-taker about their opinions in only one way.

No Muslim would claim to support, say, the imposition of the Shari'a, or terrorist acts against Infidels, if he did not do so. (Infidels who are thus attacked, by the way, are routinely described as "not innocents" according to broad definitions of what constitutes a combatant against Islam -- every Israeli man, woman, and child is so regarded by both the Sheik Al-Azhar and Al-Qaradawi, for example.) But many Muslims could deny supporting terrorism (as we Infidels understand the term), and a worldwide Caliphate, and the imposition of Shari'a, even if they most certainly did support all three. This too must be taken into account.

Finally, the article above should be supplemented by a click on the link given to the actual report, and then visitors to Jihad Watch should look at roughly the last 25 pages of the report, and particularly all of the answers having to do with "religion." See if a chill does not go down your spine. And ask yourself if you think it likely that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Stephen Hadley, General Petraeus, General Odierno, General Kimmett, and the heads of the CIA and the FBI, along with their aides, have read -- or have any intention or desire to read and thoroughly comprehend and assimilate -- this telling document, or even just the last 25 pages.

You know the answer to that. And since we don't have to ask, we can't afford them -- any of them, if they presume to fill posts where they have a solemn duty to both instruct and protect us, and yet continue to appear unwilling to do the minimal work necessary for both.

For they are being tested, and they are being found wanting. Their Final Exam is coming up. In fact, here it is:

"Either we bring them freedom or they will destroy us." -- comment of Bernard Lewis in defense of the war in Iraq

"We are fighting them over there [in Iraq], so we won't have to fight them over here." -- statement of Bush, Cheney, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and of every Bush loyalist who is standing by the policy of keeping us stuck to Tarbaby Iraq

Final Examination:

Discuss both statements above in the light of the poll of Muslims now living in the United States, to which a link is given above.

This is an Open Book Exam. You may consult any books or articles you wish, as well as any websites you find useful. Feel free to quote from the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, as well as from the work of Western scholars of Islam, especially those in the uncensored period from roughly 1860 to 1960.

If you are using blue books, please write on one side only. If you are typing your examination on a computer, please be aware that spelling, punctuation, and grammar matter just as much as they do for handwritten examinations.

Your work is being graded, but not by us.

Turkish PM Erdogan in 1990s: Turkey's Constitution "a huge lie"; "One cannot be a Muslim and secular"

No wonder the supporters of Turkish secularism are worried.

"Turkish PM Erdogan in Speech During Term As Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey’s Constitution, Describing it As ‘A Huge Lie’: 'Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah'; 'One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular,'" from MEMRI, with thanks to all who sent this in:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan whose political origins are with the Milli Gorus -the radical and political Islamist movement founded by the former Islamist PM Erbakan - often attacked Turkey’s secular regime and its Constitution.

A video clip of one of PM Erdogan’s speeches delivered during his term as Istanbul’s Mayor, (1994-1998) can be watched at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3hkWCnA8c

The following is the translated transcript of the speech:

PM Erdogan on Secularism:

"If the people want it, of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don't have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.

"And anyway, for the love of Allah, what is this secularism? You ask them to define it. They can't. They say that it varies from place to place. So what sort of a strange thing is this [secularism]?

"Today, for every concept there is a definition in the dictionary. Every concept must have a definition […] The interior minister comes and says that the state can interfere with religion. What about the rest? Why don't you say the rest? No! He does not say that the religion can interfere with the state.

"Yesterday I was at the Bosphorus University; and some of the - probably impressionable - young people there asked me, 'Mr. Mayor, what do you think about secularism? There are concerns that secularism is disappearing. What will happen?'

"This is what I said to those young friends: 'In the West they say, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's. But this country's interior minister says that Caesar has rights but God does not!'

"But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"

Read it all.

Related to this is the Jihad Watch videoblog discussion of Turkish secularism and Islamic moderation at Hot Air, with a fuller essay here.

White House says bin Laden ordered Zarqawi to target U.S. outside Iraq

So apparently jihad terror plots can only be hatched in Iraq. "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots," by Matt Spetalnick for Reuters, with thanks to Arjun:

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a "terrorist sanctuary."

The "Pro-American" Terrorists

Julia Gorin explains in FrontPage explains how "Albanian love" for America "is conditional. And it’s waning fast."

Albanians are the most pro-American people in the world! everyone proclaims as Albanians burn churches, kill nuns and behead monks in Kosovo, the “most pro-American state-in-progress.” Ah yes, this is who loves America. A dubious endorsement indeed. Everywhere else, we are hated for trying to beat back jihad. In Kosovo, Albania and the Albanian Diaspora, they love us for enabling it. Any time you help Muslims kill Christians, just like any time you help one nationality clean out its ethnic rival, it’ll thank you. For a little while.

Don’t be fooled. Albanian love is conditional. And it’s waning fast.

[...]

During a February mission to Brussels, after getting the usual empty assurances of protections for Kosovo’s non-Albanian minority, American Council for Kosovo Director Jim Jatras asked a Hungarian member of the European Parliament, “Isn’t all this talk of protections for Serbs a tacit admission that among the Kosovo Albanians are a lot of violent and intolerant people? Why would you reward their violence with state power?”

Looking Jatras in the eye, the parliamentarian replied, “Because we’re afraid of them.”

Afraid…of pro-American people?

[...]

Among Albanians, Bosnians, Croats and Serbs — even with all the documented and imagined crimes attributed to the Serbs — the Serbs were the Balkans’ most civilized element. Add up Serb crimes, multiply them by 10, and they’re still not as scary as the people they were fighting. (Or do we need to get into the skull-crushing, eye-gouging, bloody-knife-licking, using the “Serb-cutter”, raping-and-burning, neck-sawing, beheading and disemboweling that Bosnians, Croats and Albanians engaged in?) So now ask why Serbs were so hated by those they were fighting. And ask why KLA targeted Americans and Serbs together.

Before you accept Albanian pro-Americanism, you must first ask what made Albanians anti-Serb. Then you must look at photos of what the KLA did to its enemies, so that when you’re exchanging niceties and recipes with your Albanian neighbors, keep in mind that, by and large, the KLA terrorists remain their national heroes.

Read it all.

"One in four" of U.S. Muslims under 30 "say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances"

Tiny Minority of Extremists Alert. "Some US Muslims justify suicide attacks," by Alan Fram for the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.

But what was their definition of "extremism?" The vagueness surrounding that question may explain much of the apparent contradiction between the numbers who support suicide bombings in some or many cases, the roughly 25 percent described below who "did not express an opinion" about al-Qaeda, and those who are "critical of Islamic extremism."

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."

Federal officials have warned that the U.S. must be on guard against homegrown terrorism, as the British suffered with the London transit bombings of 2005.

Even so, U.S. Muslims are far less accepting of suicide attacks than Muslims in many other nations. In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France.

Tiny Minority of "Crazies" Alert:

"We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., one of the nation's largest mosques. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam.

Andrew Kohut, Pew director, said in an interview that support for the attacks represented "one of the few trouble spots" in the survey.

At a later news conference, he said much of that support could be attributed to age because the findings were consistent with numerous other surveys showing young people more inclined to violence and to support wars.

The poll briefly describes the rationales for and against "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets" and then asks, "Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

The question did not specify where a suicide attack might occur, who might carry it out or what was meant by using a bombing to "defend Islam."

In other findings:

- Only 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion.

- Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world.

- Yet only one in four consider the U.S. war on terrorism a sincere attempt to curtail international terror. Only 40 percent said they believe Arab men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

- By six to one, they say the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq, while a third say the same about Afghanistan — far deeper than the opposition expressed by the general U.S. public.

- Just over half said it has been harder being a U.S. Muslim since the 9/11 attacks, especially the better educated, higher income, more religious and young. Nearly a third of those who flew in the past year say they underwent extra screening because they are Muslim.

That statistic isn't very useful without a comparison to one gathered from a general sampling of the flying public. However, contradicting claims of 6 million or 8 million Muslims in America:

The survey estimates there are roughly 2.35 million Muslim Americans. It found that among adults, two-thirds are from abroad while a fifth are U.S.-born blacks.

Update: The full survey report can be found here (thanks to Cumulusnine).

Pakistani govt calls off operation against jihadist mosque

Lal Masjid Update. "Lal Masjid operation called off," from NDTV, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 (Islamabad) In Pakistan, Islamabad's streets continue to remain tense even though an armed operation by security forces against radical clerics at the city's Lal Masjid has been called off for now.

On Monday, three more policemen were abducted and held hostage briefly at the Jamia Faridia, another madrassa for boys, about 8 km away from the Lal Masjid.

But they were released three hours later according to the authorities....

An angry President Musharraf reacted to the mosque's threats on Monday, challenging the mosque's calls for a jihad against the government, by saying only the government can call for a jihad.

Fitzgerald: What is to be done

The Administration, and the generals who remain true believers in its policy appear to be suggesting to us two entirely opposite things. (There are generals, and many many officers below that level, who have slowly or quickly come to dislike the Iraq venture and to see, in varying degrees, that the "mission" itself is unattainable, and furthermore, makes no sense.) They tell us that if "we leave" (formerly this was phrased as "if we cut and run," but that phrase is becoming a bit embarrassing) then it doth follow as the night the day that "chaos" and "catastrophe" will come upon Iraq, the entire Middle East, nay the entire world. For we will have what one sudden expert on Islam (Gunaratna) obediently calls a "terrorism Disneyland," and other American-government-contracting "experts" chime in with similar views.

And the Administration goes further. It tells us two things. First it tells us all about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, you see, is the only problem, or the main problem. An Administration that understood things aright would realize that is silly, that Al Qaeda is only the best known and so far most successful group in conducting sensational acts of terrorism, but there are a hundred or a thousand groups, with more formed every day. (Did you hear, before last week, of "Fatah al-Islam" in Lebanon? Of course you didn't).

The Administration offers up every conceivable argument, plausible or implausible, to explain why we cannot, just cannot, leave Iraq to its own sectarian and ethnic fissures. (Those fissures will use up, it has long been maintained in a series of posts here, the men, money, materiel, morale, and attention of co-religionists on both sides of the sectarian divide. And in the ethnic struggle of Kurds to become independent, those fissures will encourage other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers, to demand autonomy or more).

The latest version is the "test of wills" business that Bernard Lewis offered the Wall Street Journal the other day. He offered up a highly tendentious account of why America has been treated so badly, and Russia so well, by Muslims. Ephraim Karsh publicly dissected his account, as a matter of history, subsequently in this article in "The New York Sun." Lewis then went on to repeat the party-line about Iraq as a "test of wills." That is, if the Americans leave, Al Qaeda and not merely Al Qaeda, but the whole Muslim world, and not merely the whole Muslim world, but the whole wide world, will see it as an American "defeat." But will it? Will it if, at the same time, or shortly thereafter, the American administration announces a series of measures that show a better understanding of the Jihad?

What if, for example, the Administration announces a huge new tax on gasoline, and then on other uses of oil, and deliberately lets it be known that such measures should have been undertaken long ago, but that in the past we had been "not sufficiently understood either the threat of anthropogenic climate change, nor the threat of the worldwide Jihad, the chief weapon of which is the Money Weapon -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973." What a shiver down Saudi spines then. What a salutary bit of marching-order rhetoric.

And what if, at the same time, the Administration were to announce that a few thousand troops, backed by air power from the sea, or from bases, perhaps, in Ethiopia (the place of the Christian kingdom of the mythical Prester John), would now protect the black Africans of Darfur, and the black African Christians and animists of the southern Sudan? It would announce that they would hold this area "until such time as a referendum, under safe conditions, free from the intimidation and murder from the Sudanese government itself, can be held to determine the wishes of the black Africans who are clearly being robbed of their wealth and mass-murdered.” That robbery continues, whether the wealth be that of the oil that lies under the land of the black Africans in the south, or the potential wealth of the land itself if seized from its black African inhabitants so that the Muslim Arabs can push their own steady, ruthless, inexorable attempts to destroy the livelihoods of the non-Muslim, and non-Arab Muslim, populations so wrongly left under their control, long ago, by the British.

And since that "referendum" would necessarily lead to a separation of both parts of the country, Darfur and the south, from Arab Muslim control, and the Arabs will recognize this at once, the shrill cries that go up will show them that the American government will at long last cease its futile and absurd efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere, and is from here on out going to do what it can to divide, demoralize, weaken, push back the Camp of Islam and Jihad.

And there are so many other things -- suggested right here, over the past 3 1/2 years, that could and should be done, including calling a meeting of NATO to discuss the "internal security threat" posed by "the Jihadists, present and potential, in our midst." And then there should be changes in both the immigration and naturalization laws of the entire Western world, to keep out, or to push out, those in whose mental baggage remains undeclared a permanent hostility to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, of Infidel nation-states, and of Infidels themselves.

If this is done, if this is seen to be done, how can one believe that the ululations of triumph by Al Qaeda will last more than a month or two? Is it beyond the wit of the American government to regard the withdrawal from Iraq as anything more than a defeat? (Google, for more, the various discussions here about what constitutes "victory," rightly defined as an outcome that will divide and demoralize, and thereby weaken the Camp of Islam, starting with "Victory Lies Shining Before Us".)

But if the Administration keeps telling us that Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda will "win" if we leave. It calls in everyone it can (Gunaratna, Lewis et al.) to do their stuff, to warn as direly as they can, each in his own way, so as to promote the policy that has failed, is failing, will fail. Yet they at the very same time tell us that if we withdraw (and in this the Sunni Arab rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia help to support, even to pay for, the chorus) then the "Shi'a crescent" that threatens "the entire Middle East" (i.e., threatens the Sunni Arabs), will solidify, will enlarge from a crescent to a full and threatening moon consisting of wicked Shi'a taking over from those Infidel-friendly Sunnis who have done so much for us.

But how can this be? How can an American withdrawal be both an absolute triumph for Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda in Iraq that has preached fervent hatred of Shi'a Islam, that considers the Shi'a to be "Rafidite dogs" and the worst sort of Infidels, and at the same time have the same Administration warn direly that if we withdraw, why then it will be a triumph for the Shi'a of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

It is true, of course, that both sides wish us out. Why is that? Why do you think that both the hyper-Shi'a of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the hyper-Sunnis of Al Qaeda, mortal enemies each to each, wish us at this point out? Why would that be?

Well, here's why it could be. Each side is utterly convinced that it can inherit what it wants in Iraq. They can't both be right. They may, in fact, both be wrong. But the very idea that the American government should keep 150,000 troops tied down (with morale plummeting, and young officers leaving whenever they can, day by day) in Iraq, and keep the American public misinformed about Islam, is madness. The Administration is ignoring the many ways in which the jihadists are fighting this war: through economic warfare (and here Bin Laden has had a smashing success -- the $880 billion spent so wrongly in Iraq is more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States) and education/propaganda, education of Infidels (including potential converts) about Islam. By ignoring all this, they are losing an opportunity to fight and win this war the way the Cold War was fought: with propaganda directed at Muslims intended to split or weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad. In that regard, several lines of attack should be stressed:

1) For non-Muslim Arabs, Islam should be seen, correctly, as a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Berbers, Kurds, black Africans in Darfur should be made to recognize the arrogance of the Arabs who treated with such contumely local non-Arab Muslims in both the Balkans and Afghanistan. All this provides the evidence that Islam is an Arab vehicle, as do the texts and tenets of Islam, and the clear attitudes of Arab Muslims -- which can be seen even during the hajj.

2) For Infidels, Islam should be seen, correctly, as far more than is described in the word "religion." Rather, it should be seen as a Belief-System that includes a politics and a geopolitics, and that is based on a severe and uncompromising division of the world between Believers (to whom all loyalty is owed as fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya) and Infidels (to whom nothing is owed, no matter what kindnesses or help is extended by those Infidels).

3) For Infidels and Muslims alike, the connection must be intelligently made between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies and peoples, and Islam itself. Islam is a collectivist belief-system in which the Individual has no rights if those rights (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech) are held to harm Islam. Islam is a system which promotes submission to despotic rule and flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, the moral basis of advanced Western democracies. Islam is a brake on economic development (inshallah-fatalism), Islam is a moral failure (the unequal treatment of non-Muslims and women), Islam is an intellectual failure (the habit of mental submission, necessary for Islam's wellbeing, that also prevents free and skeptical inquiry without which the enterprise of science is lost). All that should be stressed, along with those narrow limits on artistic expression: sculpture, representations of living creatures, and even music is banned under those strictly following, in the Taliban manner, the rules of Haram and Halal.

4) It should be pointed out to the oil-poor Arabs that despite the supposed loyalty of the members of the umma each to each, the rich Arabs, although they are happy to pay for mosques and madrasas and boughten academics and armies of Western hirelings to promote their interests, are remarkably selfish when it comes to actually aiding their fellow Muslims. They prefer to insist that the Infidels do it. And the Infidels have been doing it. While Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Qatar and the U.A.E., with tiny populations, take in billions every day, it is left to the long-suffering Western Infidel taxpayers, pushed around by their own ignorant and clumsy governments (wishing to buy temporary or feigned, or temporary and feigned, "goodwill" from Arabs and Muslims), to keep shelling out money to those petty despots and regimes -- $60 billion in American aid alone to Egypt, $10 billion to Jordan, $28 billion since 2001 alone to Pakistan, and so on. That aid should come, if it comes at all, from Saudi Arabia, from the U.A.E., from Kuwait.

The third great fissure, along with the sectarian and the ethnic ones by now so evident to all but some in the Bush Administration, is economic. And here there may be a certain nervousness about any hint of discussions, even for the purpose of encouraging disarray and resentment in the Camp of Islam, of the maldistribution in order to encourage resentment, by the poor Muslims, of the rich Muslims. One can imagine why children of inherited privilege (Bush), or those who managed to go from their "public service" to corporate careers that gave them gigantic fortunes within a few years (Cheney), in both parties, might shy away from exploitation of such a weapon. But in this war, all weapons need to be employed, and the least of them, right now, the one that does nothing for us, are those boots-on-the-ground in Tarbaby Iraq -- turning quickly into the La Brea Tar Pits, with the ignorant-of-Islam-and-of-Iraq in both the civilian and military leadership becoming permanently stuck, and fossilized, before our very eyes.

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq

Here is another manifestation of the unfortunate fact that the public debate revolves around only the Manichaean choices of quixotic and futile Wilsonianism or surrender and appeasement. The third alternative would be a realistic and carefully planned program to resist the jihad itself, working to hinder Iran's empire building and any other initiative that strengthened jihadist activity vis-a-vis infidels. But that is on no one's radar screen.

By Simon Tisdall in The Guardian (thanks to Lame Cherry):

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said....

Re General Petraeus: "Petraeus and PC-policy-making," by Diana West:

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we — not our enemies — occupy the moral high ground." -- Gen. David Petraeus, May 10

Oh, they must, must they?

With his single sentence, Gen. David Petraeus reveals what's wrong with our Iraq policy. Success depends not on our own actions, but on a politically correct expectation of how Iraqis will react to those actions. It seems that victory depends on something over which we have no control — the point of view and behavior of people in Iraq.

Consider the "surge." Even if our troops achieve the goal of "securing the population" by securing Baghdad, success still rides on subsequent Iraqi behavior: whether murderously competing Iraqi sects decide to come together and sing "Kumbayah" — what you might call a big "whether."

Somehow, I'm practically alone among conservatives in believing this to be a dangerously ill-conceived policy (Surrender-crats aren't worth discussing here), and I think I know why. The Iraq policy itself is an outgrowth of another dangerously ill-conceived policy of our leaders to avoid any rational assessment of the Islamic culture that informs the point of view and behavior of people across the Fertile Crescent in the first place.

In other words, most people with even an elemental understanding of institutional Islamic antipathies toward non-Muslims and non-Muslim culture would balk at spending blood and treasure for Gen. Petraeus' "hearts and minds" strategy. Such a criterion, sadly, disqualifies our deeply Islam-challenged elites, all of whom seem to have missed the fact that "moral high ground" in Islam makes room for suicide-bombing terrorists. No wonder our guys are having trouble.

Read it all.

More on hearts and minds futility here.

Why might Syria wish to sow chaos in Lebanon now?

In the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Speyer of the GLORIA Center explains that the identification of the Fatah Islam group, which the Lebanese Army is fighting now in Tripoli, with Al-Qaeda may not tell the whole story.

While Syrian officials have been keen from the outset to describe al-Abssi and his group as operating "in favor of al-Qaida," Lebanese authorities suspect that the group may in fact be a client of the Syrian authorities themselves, established to act as an instrument of policy in Lebanon, fomenting disorder. The Assad regime has a long history of utilizing terrorist and paramilitary groups for such a purpose. Fatah-intifada itself was used by Hafez Assad in a power struggle with Yassir Arafat in the Lebanon refugee camps between 1985-88. The regime is known also to have engaged operatives of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party to carry out assassinations in Lebanon during the civil war period.

Suspicions regarding Fatah al-Islam center on the fact that Shakir al-Abssi was sentenced in 2003 to three years in prison in Syria after being convicted of plotting attacks inside the country. This was an unusually lenient sentence. By comparison, for example, Syrians suspected of involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood are routinely given 12-year terms. Al-Abssi, after his release, turned up among pro-Syrian Fatah-intifada circles in Nahr al-Bared and shortly afterward emerged as the leader of the new group, Fatah al-Islam. These facts have led General Ashraf Rifi, head of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces (FSI), to conclude that "this is a Syrian creation to sow chaos." Which raises the question, why might the Syrians wish to sow chaos in Lebanon, and why now?

A draft resolution for the unilateral establishment of an international tribunal on the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was circulated in the UN Security Council by the US, France and Britain last week. It is known that the Syrian regime is determined to prevent this tribunal at all costs, since it is believed that senior Syrian officials may be found to have been involved in the Hariri killing. Could it be that the regime in Damascus might see an escalation of tension in Lebanon as currently helpful - as a tacit reminder to the international community of what Damascus is capable of when put in a corner? This is the view of senior officials in Lebanese government, and is in keeping with earlier practices of the Damascus regime.

Lebanese army pounds Palestinian camp

The Lebanese army continues to target jihadists in the Nahr el-Bared camp in Tripoli. An update on this story. By Bassem Mroue for Associated Press (thanks to Arjun):

TRIPOLI, Lebanon - Artillery and machine gun fire echoed around a crowded Palestinian refugee camp Tuesday as fighting resumed between besieging Lebanese troops and Islamic militants holed up inside, ending a nighttime lull.

Lebanese troops pounded with artillery at daybreak the suspected positions of the Fatah Islam militants, seeking to destroy the group with al-Qaida ties or force them out of the Nahr el-Bared camp on the outskirts of this northern port city, Lebanon's second largest. A plume of black smoke billowed from an unknown target in the camp.

The army brought in reinforcements from other regions. Two trucks towing field artillery were seen heading toward Tripoli on the coastal highway late Monday.

The renewed fighting ended an overnight lull amid efforts for an informal cease-fire between the two sides. It was not known what sparked the exchanges.

Palestinian factions attempted to broker a cease-fire. The representative of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, Abu Ahmed Rifai, said Fatah Islam militants pledged to cease firing and withdraw from positions facing Lebanese troops. A senior officer at Lebanese army command would not say a cease-fire was reached but repeated the military's stance that it will not shoot if it does not come under fire.

Troops mass in Lal Masjid faceoff

An update on this story. "Troops mass in Pakistan mosque faceoff ," by Sadaqat Jan for the Associated Press:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Islamic students seeking to impose tough religious social rules briefly kidnapped three more policemen Monday, officials said, intensifying a standoff that has troops out in force on the streets of Pakistan's capital.

Students seized the policemen during a scuffle in northern Islamabad early Monday evening and took them to a nearby seminary affiliated with the city's fundamentalist Red Mosque, said Zafar Iqbal, a senior police official.

He said the trio was released from the Jamia Faridia seminary about three hours later after authorities issued an ultimatum and began deploying 5,000 police and paramilitary officers for a possible raid on the seminary.

"They have freed our people, so there is no need for an operation now," Iqbal said.

[...]

The students raised the stakes Friday by seizing two police officers, and the mosque's firebrand prayer leader threatened to declare holy war against the government if security forces intervened.

Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao told Geo television that authorities were "in contact" with the mosque's administrators about the two still missing officers.

He denied the three policemen seized Monday were freed in exchange for any of the 45 students that he said had been detained over the standoff since Sunday.

Hundreds of male and female students from the mosque's seminary in downtown Islamabad have recently carried out anti-vice campaigns in the relatively liberal capital, warning music shops and brothels to close.

Hugging could also pose a problem.

Wary of the potential for casualties in a pitched battle with hundreds of students, officials have said the use of force against the Red Mosque remained a last resort. Large numbers of security personnel, including trucks filled with helmeted paramilitary rangers, have been visible around the city.

Several dozen masked students armed with sticks used tree branches to briefly block a road near the seminary in an upscale neighborhood Monday evening. They refused to speak with reporters.

Florida doctor convicted of supporting terrorists

Rafiq Abdus Sabir Update. "Florida Doctor Convicted of Supporting Terrorists By Agreeing to Treat Wounded Al Qaeda Fighters," from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

NEW YORK — A Florida doctor was convicted Monday of providing material support to terrorists by agreeing to treat injured Al Qaeda fighters so they could return to Iraq to battle Americans.

Dr. Rafiq Abdus Sabir, 52, was convicted in Manhattan federal court after a three-week trial that featured testimony by him and Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who posed as an Al Qaeda recruiter in a sting operation that led to four arrests....

The charges against the Harlem-born Sabir, including conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, carry a potential maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

The verdict came after jurors heard audio tapes of a May 2005 ceremony in a Bronx apartment in which Sabir and his best friend, Tariq Shah, a martial arts expert and jazz musician, pledged loyalty to Al Qaeda and, the government alleged, Usama bin Laden....

Sabir, of Boca Raton, Fla., testified at trial that Shah never told him he was talking with an Al Qaeda recruiter. At the pledge ceremony, Soufan mispronounced Al Qaeda more than a dozen times, Sabir said. He also said he did not know "sheik Usama" meant bin Laden.

Sure. Sabir meant, uh, Al Kida, a fellow from the old neighborhood -- remember Al? And Sheikh Usama...Usama Smith! That's it! Yeah! Sheikh Usama Smith from Brooklyn, I mean, Biloxi!

(I really do know someone who hopes the government catches that "Al Quayda" guy, because Mr. Quayda is a very bad man -- but I'm glad the jury didn't buy this sort of thing from Sabir.)

Egypt releases 135 jihadists from prison

It's all right. Some of them renounced violence, although only against the Egyptian state. Jihad activities against anything else are apparently A-OK.

Note the highly misleading lead paragraph to this AP story. From it one might reasonably gather that all 135, or however many there really are, signed statements renouncing violence in general. But then in the next paragraph we learn that only some of their leaders signed such statements, and only renounced violence against the Egyptian state.

"Egypt releases more than 100 Islamic extremists," from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

About 135 Muslim extremists who spent more than a decade in Egyptian prisons have been released after signing statements renouncing violence, police officials said Monday.

Egypt began releasing members of al-Jihad, which was formerly headed by al-Qaida's No. 2 Ayman Al-Zawahri, two weeks ago after some of their leaders agreed to renounce violence against the Egyptian state, officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya, which in Arabic means Islamic Group, and to a lesser extent al-Jihad, which means holy war, were responsible for a violent campaign against the Egyptian regime in the 1990s. Neither has been involved in attacks in Egypt since.

Both groups were accused of participating in the 1981 assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat.

Iran says anti-U.S. policy "bigger than Hiroshima"

Nice choice of words, there, Khamenei. Got nuclear bombs on your mind?

From Reuters, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's policies of standing up to the United States have set off a "powerful bomb in the world of politics" bigger than the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday.

The comments, carried by state television and radio, come amid prolonged tension between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program. U.S. officials say Iran is trying to build an atom bomb but Tehran insists its plans are peaceful.

Iran has refused to halt sensitive nuclear work, despite U.S. threats to ratchet up pressure with new U.N. sanctions. Two rounds of sanctions have already been imposed since December.

"The political field of today's world is a complicated field with a great war of wills and policies ... It can be said that Iran has exploded a powerful bomb in the world of politics that is hundred times more powerful than the bomb the Americans exploded in Hiroshima," Khamenei was quoted as saying.

"Even Europeans are speechless before this oppressive America, but the Iranian nation by its actions and stances has placed a question mark over all the rules and principles of this oppressive power."

Al-Qaida recruiting black American bombers

"I want blacks in America to know that we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind," said al-Zawahri. This presents another occasion to combat the case that the jihadists are against any kind of oppression, but this is an occasion that will, like all the others, be missed.

"Al-Qaida recruiting black bombers: Pitch to African-Americans invokes 'martyr' Malcolm X," from WorldNetDaily.com, with thanks to WriterMom:

Al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting black Americans for suicide operations against the homeland, say FBI analysts who have reviewed recent videotaped messages from the terror group's leaders.

A speech released May 5 by Osama bin Laden's deputy confirms earlier fears that African-Americans are the No. 1 recruiting target for the next generation of attacks. Al-Qaida has been trying to lower its Arab profile to reduce the odds that its terror cells will be subjected to security scrutiny.

"Federal and local law enforcement authorities should be aware that al-Qaida terrorists may not appear Arab," warns a recent Homeland Security intelligence report obtained by WND. "Non-Arab al-Qaida operatives could find it easier to avoid unwanted scrutiny since they may not fit typical profiles."

In the latest message, al-Qaida No. 2 Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri clearly seeks to sow political and racial discontent among African-Americans. He makes frequent references to what he calls the "martyr" Malcolm X, and says "I want blacks in America to know that we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind."

Islamberg not the only jihadist compound in the U.S.

A follow-up to this story. "Radical Muslim paramilitary compounds flourishing across the United States: Islamberg not the only radical Muslim compound flourishing in North America," by Judi McLeod for Canada Free Press, with thanks to WriterMom:

...Islamberg is just one of what is thought to be a half dozen radical Muslim paramilitary compounds flourishing across the United States, this one nestled in dense forest at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York.

Canada, home to at least one such compound, is no safe ground....

Hundreds of letters have deluged (CFP) since it published a story with pictures of Springtime in Islamberg, written by The Day of Islam author Dr. Paul Williams with the able assistance of Doug Hagmann, Bill Krayer and Michael Travis.

Many letter writers complain that local authorities are telling them they have never heard of the compound.

Islamberg is an al Fuqra house. "Fuqra has had a disturbing U.S. presence for more than 20 years." (The weekly Standard, March 18, 2002). "Today, half a dozen Fuqra residential compounds in rural hamlets across the country shelter hundreds of members, some of whom, according to intelligence sources, have been trained in the use of weapons and explosives in Pakistan."

In a world where authorities make like terrorism doesn't exist, Fuqra's founder and bossman, Sheikh Mubarik Ali Hasmi Shah Gilani, is not only alive and well -- he has a road "Sheikh Gilani Lane" named after him. This road is not in faraway Pakistan, but right in Charlotte County, Virginia.

Charlotte County is a rural farming community in Central Virginia near the North Carolina border.

Read it all.

Mosque threatens Jihad against Pakistan gov't

Again.

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

A defiant cleric warned Pakistan authorities that a raid on his mosque where two policemen are being held captive by radical Islamic students would lead to a holy war against the government, as police detained dozens of students.

The abduction tops months of bold challenges by the Red Mosque to the authority of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's secular, military government.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said there were no plans to move against the mosque or a radical Islamic seminary attached to it in downtown Islamabad, adding Sunday that use of force to free the captured officers was a "last option."

But chief cleric at the mosque, Maulana Abdul Aziz, said police detained about 200 students and warned that a show of force by authorities would result in "jihad," or holy war.

Surely he means they will conduct an interior spiritual struggle against the authorities. Doesn't he?

Turkish anti-Sharia protests continue

"No to Sharia (Islamic law)", "Turkey is secular and will remain secular." It's ironic that the Turks protest in large numbers against Sharia, while in the West any criticism of Sharia is labeled "Islamophobia."

"Turkish protests continue," from Reuters, with thanks to JE:

Tens of thousands of Turks waving red national flags have gathered in the city of Samsun in the latest protest against the Islamist-rooted government ahead of a July election.

"No to Sharia (Islamic law)", "Turkey is secular and will remain secular", the crowd chanted in the main square.

The rally, the latest in a series of protests, was billed by organisers as a way of uniting the divided opposition against the government which they accuse of trying to undermine the secular state in overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party, which denies any Islamist agenda, has called a national election ahead of schedule to resolve a conflict with the secularist elite over a presidential election.

The secular establishment, including the military, judges and opposition parties, derailed the government's plan to elect Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as president, fearing he might weaken the official separation of religion and state.

FBI: agent was investigating vehicle when confronted by Muslim student

The agent blew his siren, making it clear that this was a law-enforcement vehicle, but it seems to have done little good. An update on this story.

"FBI: agent was investigating vehicle when confronted by student," from the Bakersfield Californian, with thanks to Cindy:

An FBI agent confronted by a Muslim student at the University of California, Irvine, earlier this month was trying to get a closer look at a "suspicious" truck at the time, federal authorities said Sunday.

The agent had followed the truck to the campus from a separate location as part of an investigation that was unrelated to the school or student activities, bureau spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.

[...]

The FBI's response comes after a Muslim student said an agent bumped him with his car near the site of an anti-Israel protest on May 14.

Yasser Ahmed, 21, said he noticed he was being followed by a car with blackened windows as he drove a 24-foot moving van on campus to pick up an exhibit, sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, that protested Israel policies in Palestine.

After he got out of the truck and asked the driver to identify himself, he claimed the driver then revved the engine and began pushing Ahmed back with the front bumper before driving off.

[...]

The FBI said the incident occurrent on a dead-end street after a group of people surrounded the car of one agent.

"The agent blew his siren and used the cars PA system to warn" the group, the bureau said in a statement. "At that point, it was clear that this was a law enforcement vehicle. At least one person threw or placed a cinder block under the law enforcement vehicle."

New Saudi currency features Al-Aqsa Mosque

Friend and Ally Update: "In Allah They Trust: Currency Features Al Aqsa Mosque," from Israel National News, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

(IsraelNN.com) Saudi Arabia has found a new way to express sympathy for the Palestinian Authority (PA) by issuing new currency with images of the Al Aksa Mosque, located on the Temple Mount. The other side of the note shows the image of the Dome of the Rock.

The Arab world has been conducting a campaign for several years to deny that the holy site has any connection with Judaism and that the First and Second Temples never existed in Jerusalem.

Will the State Department call the Saudis to account? What do you think?

New Jersey: Muslim Brotherhood mosque sues to oust Wahhabi imam

A Muslim Brotherhood mosque suing to have a Wahhabi imam removed is rather like the Tattaglias killing Sonny Corleone: that killing didn't make the Tattaglias anti-Mafia, and this action doesn't make the Brotherhood anti-"fundamentalist." The Brotherhood, after all, is the direct forefather of both Al-Qaeda and Hamas. This 2004 Chicago Tribune expose about the Brotherhood operating in the U.S. paints a very different picture of the Brotherhood from that in the AP story below. From the Trib:

Indeed, because of its hard-line beliefs, the U.S. Brotherhood has been an increasingly divisive force within Islam in America, fueling the often bitter struggle between moderate and conservative Muslims.

Many Muslims believe that the Brotherhood is a noble international movement that supports the true teachings of Islam and unwaveringly defends Muslims who have come under attack around the world, from Chechens to Palestinians to Iraqis. But others view it as an extreme organization that breeds intolerance and militancy.

"They have this idea that Muslims come first, not that humans come first," says Mustafa Saied, 32, a Floridian who left the U.S. Brotherhood in 1998.

While separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of American democracy, the international Brotherhood preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic. The group also champions martyrdom and jihad, or holy war, as a means of self-defense and has provided the philosophical underpinnings for Muslim militants worldwide.

That's the group suing to have this imam removed.

And by the way: why does the Brotherhood own a mosque in New Jersey in the first place? Why isn't the Brotherhood banned from the U.S. altogether?

"Trenton mosque sues to have leader ousted," from AP, with thanks to Marked Manner:

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ The founders of a Trenton mosque have sued in Superior Court in Mercer County to have their religious leader removed, claiming he is trying to make the congregation more fundamentalist.

The suit, filed by the International Muslim Brotherhood Inc., the mosque's owner, as well as three founding members, claims that Imam Sabur Abdul Hakim has recently adopted stricter views of Islam and is planning to beam in lectures by satellite from a conservative sect in Saudi Arabia.

The suit also alleges that Hakim began changing religious practices at the Masjid As-Saffat mosque three years ago and appointed his son-in-law, Shalby Akbar Shalby, as "ameer" last August without an election by the congregants....

"Pakistan using U.S. aid against India"

Being taken for a ride by an "ally," and financing yet another jihad. "'Pak using US aid against India,'" from the Times of India, with thanks to Ranajit:

NEW YORK: Pakistan has received $1.8 billion as security assistance from the US for the war against terrorism, but the weapons financed under it are "more useful in countering India" than fighting Al Qaida and Taliban, according to a study.

In addition, Pakistan has got $5.6 billion from Washington over the last five years as reimbursements for fighting Taliban and Al Qaida, the New York Times reported on Sunday quoting a research by the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Here is the New York Times story in question: "U.S. Pays Pakistan to Fight Terror, but Patrols Ebb," by David E. Sanger and David Rohde:

WASHINGTON, May 19 — The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.

The monthly payments, called coalition support funds, are not widely advertised. Buried in public budget numbers, the payments are intended to reimburse Pakistan’s military for the cost of the operations. So far, Pakistan has received more than $5.6 billion under the program over five years, more than half of the total aid the United States has sent to the country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, not counting covert funds.

Some American military officials in the region have recommended that the money be tied to Pakistan’s performance in pursuing Al Qaeda and keeping the Taliban from gaining a haven from which to attack the government of Afghanistan. American officials have been surprised by the speed at which both organizations have gained strength in the past year.

Good idea. Or cut it off altogether. But Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the national security adviser, says that's not going to happen:

“I’m not aware of any serious discussion to cut off the funding,” Mr. Johndroe said. The payments are critical to bolstering the military, General Musharraf’s greatest source of support, particularly as he faces growing street protests over his removal of an independent-minded Supreme Court chief justice as the court was about to consider the legality of the president’s decision to hold the nation’s top military and political posts at the same time....

A study of the roughly $10 billion sent to Pakistan by the United States since 2002, conducted by Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, found that $5.6 billion in reimbursements was in addition to $1.8 billion for security assistance, which mostly finances large weapons systems.

But those weapons are more useful, the authors concluded, in countering India than in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States has also provided about $1.6 billion for “budget support,” which Pakistan can use broadly, including for reducing debt....

Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO supreme commander, said that when American or NATO forces saw Taliban fighters crossing the border and radioed nearby Pakistani posts, there sometimes was no answer. “Calls to apprehend or detain or restrict these ongoing movements, as agreed, were sometimes not answered,” General Jones said. “Sometimes radios were turned off.”...

Mr. Durrani, the ambassador, denied that Pakistani troops were failing to stop Taliban fighters at the border. He said the troops were carrying out joint operations with American forces based inside Afghanistan.

Two American analysts and one American soldier said Pakistani security forces had fired mortars shells and rocket-propelled grenades in direct support of Taliban ground attacks on Afghan Army posts. A copy of an American military report obtained by The New York Times described one of the attacks.

Durrani denies this also, of course.

One woman killed, 12 injured in an explosion in Christian Beirut neighborhood

Jihad activity against Christians in Lebanon. From The Associated Press, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

BEIRUT, Lebanon: An explosion late Sunday across the street from a busy shopping mall killed a 63-year-old woman and injured 12 other people, sending black smoke billowing in the Christian sector of the Lebanese capital, police and witnesses said....

Beirut and surrounding suburbs has been a series of explosions in the last two years, particularly targeting Christian areas in which the U.S.-backed majority coalition has blamed on Syria. The blast came after daylong battles between the Lebanese army and a suspected al-Qaeda-linked militant group in the northern port town of Tripoli that killed 22 soldiers and 17 militants.

The Lebanese Broadcasting Corp., a major Christian TV station, said the woman was killed in the Beirut blast when the wall in her apartment collapsed on her from the impact of the explosion. Most of the casualties were in nearby buildings.

The explosion occurred across the street from the major ABC shopping center shortly before midnight (2100GMT) in Ashrafieh, an upscale neighborhood of the Christian sector of the Lebanese capital. The mall also has restaurants and movie theaters that operated late, particularly on Sunday, a weekend here....

The mall's owner, Robert Abu Fadil, said on television early Monday that crews will work all night to clean up the damage, the broken glass and gutted vehicles to open for business in the morning.

"We were expecting this kind of thing," he said on LBC TV from the scene, pointing to extra security measures the mall and other businesses have taken in recent months.

"For sure this will affect us in part, but we've been through more difficult times," he said. "But God is the Almighty. We will rebuild."

The most prominent recent deadly attack in Beirut was the near simultaneously bombings of commuter buses in the Christian heartland that killed three people on Feb. 13.

The same militant group in Sunday's Tripoli clashes, Fatah Islam, was blamed by authorities for the bus bombings, an accusation they have denied.

'Welcome to Tehran' - how Iran took control of Basra

By Ghaith Abdul-Ahad for The Guardian:

On a recent overcast afternoon in Basra, two new police SUVs drove onto a dusty, rubbish-strewn football pitch where a group of children were playing. The game stopped and the kids looked on.

Three men in white dishdashas got out of one of the cars. One, holding a Kalashnikov, stood guard as the other two removed some metal tubes and cables from the back of a vehicle. As the two men fiddled with the wires, the man with the gun waved it at a teenager who wanted to film with his mobile phone.

Then, amid cries of "Moqtada, Moqtada" and "Allahu Akbar", there were two thunderous explosions and a pair of Katyusha rockets streaked up into the sky. Their target would be the British base in Saddam Hussein's former palace compound. Their landing place could be anywhere in Basra, and was most likely to be a civilian home.

The men got back in their cars and drove away, and the children resumed their match.

"Since the British started deploying the anti-rocket magnetic fields our rockets are falling on civilians," Abu Mujtaba, the commander of the group of Mahdi army men told me later. The "magnetic fields" are the latest rumour doing the rounds of Basra's militias; another is that the British are shelling civilians to damage the reputation of the Mahdi army.

[...]

"If the Prophet Muhammad would come to Basra today he would be killed because he doesn't have a militia," a law professor told me. "There is no state of law, the only law is the militia law."

An attempt at hyperbole, but the comparison just doesn't seem to work.

[...]

Like many I spoke to, he said the appearance of a functioning state was largely an illusion: "The security forces are made of militiamen. In any confrontation between political parties, the police force will splinter according to party line and fight each other."

[...]

The general

One afternoon I went to meet a senior Iraqi general in the interior ministry. A dozen gunmen in military uniforms lay dozing as a junior officer led me through a maze of corridors padded with sandbags.

The general was on the phone to another officer when I entered. He was jokingly threatening the caller: "Shut up or I will send democracy to your town."

When he finished his conversation, the general - who didn't want his name published because he feared retribution from militias -stretched out his hand to me and said: "Welcome to Tehran."

I asked him about British claims that the security situation was improving. His reply was withering: "The British came here as military tourists. They committed huge mistakes when they formed the security forces. They appointed militiamen as police officers and chose not confront the militias. We have reached this point where the militias are a legitimate force in the street."

He and other security officials in Basra, including a British adviser to the local police force, described a web of different security forces with allegiances to different factions or militias.

"Most of the police force is divided between Fadhila which controls the TSU [the tactical support unit, its best-trained unit] and Moqtada which controls the regular police," the general said.

"Fadhila also control the oil terminals, so they control the oil protection force and part of the navy. Moqtada controls the ports and customs, so they control the customs, police and its intelligence. Commandos are under the control of Badr Brigade."

The relationship between militias and the security units they had infiltrated was fluid and difficult to pin down, he said. "Even the police officer who is not part of a militia will join a militia to protect himself, and once he is affiliated with a militia then as a commander you can't change him ... because then you are confronting a political party," he added.

More than 60% of his own officers, and "almost all" policemen, were militiamen. "We need a major surgical operation, to clean the city," he said.

The British army's Operation Sinbad was designed to do just that. The army has claimed it was a success but the general saw it somewhat differently. "The Sinbad operation failed miserably, because it didn't cleanse the police force," he said. "Ahead of us we have years of fighting and murder, a militia will be toppled by another militia and those will split so day after day we are witnessing the formations of new groups. And the British withdrawal is leading to a power struggle between the different factions."

[...]

When there was a clash between two militias, the police force split and one police unit began fighting other units. Police cars became militia cars. (One Mahdi army commander was aghast that I found this strange: "Of course I should travel in a police car, do you want the commander to travel by taxi?")

Complicating matters further, Samer said most militiamen had multiple IDs associated with different groups. "They switch depending on who pays more."

Like the general, he said much of the blame for the current situation lay with the British: "The British officers are very careful about their image, they are too scared to go into confrontation. They allowed the cancer to [take over the body]. Even if the militias burn the city tomorrow, [the British] won't go into confrontation. They know they are outnumbered and they have huge losses if they do so."

Why stay?

The next day I went back to see the general. He was sitting with two other officers discussing his day."Our uncles, the British, flew me today to Ammara to attend the security handover ceremony," he said. "Give it one month and it will collapse," one of the officers replied.

"One month?" the general laughed . "Give it a few days."

The Iranians

You can't move far in Basra without bumping into some evidence of the Iranian influence on the city. Even inside the British consulate compound visitors are advised not to use mobile phones because, as the security official put it ,"the Iranians next door are listening to everything".

In the Basra market Iranian produce is everywhere, from dairy products to motorcycles and electronic goods. Farsi phrase books are sold in bookshops and posters of Ayatollah Khomeini are on the walls.

But Iranian influence is also found in more sinister places. Abu Mujtaba described the level of cooperation between Iran and his units. His account echoed what several militia men in other parts of Iraq have told me.

Sitting in his house in one of Basra's poorest neighbourhoods, he told me: "We need weapons and Iran is our only outlet. If the Saudis would give us weapons we would stop bringing weapons from Iran."

He went on: "They [the Iranians] don't give us weapons, they sell us weapons: an Iranian bomb costs us $100, nothing comes for free. We know Iran is not interested in the good of Iraq, and we know they are here to fight the Americans and the British on our land, but we need them and they are using us."

Despite this scepticism about Tehran's motives, he said some Mahdi army units were now effectively under Iranian control. "Some of the units are following different commanders, and Iran managed to infiltrate [them], and these units work directly for Iran."

Most of the Shia militias and parties that control politics in Basra today were formed and funded by Tehran, he said.

His assessment was shared by both the general and the intelligence official. "Iran has not only infiltrated the government and security forces through the militias and parties they nurtured in Iran, they managed to infiltrate Moqtada's lot, by providing them with weapons," the general told me. "And some disgruntled and militias were over taken by Iran and provided with money and weapons."

In his office, littered with weapons bearing Iranian markings, Samer showed me footage his men had shot of a weapons smuggling operation after they captured six brand new Katyushas.

"In Basra, Iran has more influence than the government in Baghdad," he said. "It is providing the militias with everything from socks to rockets."

Read it all.

Jihadists, security forces battle in Lebanon

"The dozen Palestinian refugee camps scattered in Lebanon are off limits to authorities." Well, there's your problem. "Islamic militants, security forces battle in Lebanon," from the Associated Press:

TRIPOLI, Lebanon (AP) -- Lebanese tanks pounded the headquarters of a group with suspected links to al Qaeda in a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli Sunday after the northern city's worst clashes in two decades killed 22 soldiers and 17 militants.

The clashes between troops surrounding the Nahr el-Bared camp and Fatah Islam fighters began early in the morning shortly after police raided a militant-occupied apartment on a major thoroughfare in Tripoli and a gunbattle erupted, witnesses said.

Hundreds of Lebanese applauded as army tanks shelled the camp -- a sign of the long-standing tensions between some Lebanese and the tens of thousands of Palestinians who took refuge from fighting in Israel over the past decades.

[...]

The tiny Fatah Islam is an offshoot of the pro-Syrian Fatah Uprising, which broke from the mainstream Palestinian Fatah movement in the early 1980s and has headquarters in Syria.

The group is allegedly led by Shaker Youssef al-Absi, a Palestinian living in Syria who was sentenced to death in absentia in July 2004 by a Jordanian military court. Al-Absi was found guilty of conspiring to terrorism in a plot that led to the assassination in Jordan of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley. Former al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was accused of masterminding the killing.

Some Lebanese security officials now consider Fatah Islam a radical Sunni Muslim group with ties to al Qaeda, or at least al Qaeda-style militancy and doctrine. But some anti-Syrian government officials say they are a front for Syrian military intelligence aimed at destabilizing Lebanon.

[...]

As many other small factions in Lebanon, Fatah Islam's allegiance is sometimes questionable in this deeply polarized country.

Major Palestinian factions have dissociated themselves from Fatah Islam.

The dozen Palestinian refugee camps scattered in Lebanon are off limits to authorities, and some are controlled by armed guerrillas. Lebanese troops usually cordon off the camps with checkpoints. Their presence around Nahr el-Bared increased in recent months after Fatah Islam stepped up its actions.

Kuwaiti Sheikh to Palestinians: jihad is "the only way out of your crisis, you have no other"

Hamid Al-Ali is affiliated with Al-Qaeda. He also notes, in accord with the Qur'an, that "there is no nation on earth, and in the history of humanity, that is more deceitful, and false and fraudulent... than the Jewish nation."

"Qaeda Sheikh: Jews most deceitful nation," by Yaakov Lappin for Ynet News, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

An al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic sheikh, based in Kuwait, has released a statement addressed to the Palestinian people in which he declared that jihad is "the only way out of your crisis, you have no other." Hamid al-Ali has been linked with forming al-Qaeda cells in Kuwait and supplying financial and ideological support for al-Qaeda across the Middle East. His communiqué forms one of a growing number of collective attempts by the global jihad movement to undermine Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as al-Qaeda attempts to gain a foothold in Gaza. In a statement posted on an al-Qaeda internet forum, al-Ali unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitic statements, saying, "There is no nation on earth, and in the history of humanity, that is more deceitful, and false and fraudulent... than the Jewish nation."

"They have lied about God... and the messengers, and his angels, and have committed only sins," he added.

Reiterating Hamas rhetoric, al-Ali declared, "The Jews do everything to head towards one goal, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the obliterate of its Islamic features, especially the al-Aqsa Mosque, to build their temple."

"It is known that the Zionist entity has today reached its weakest form," al-Ali said, adding: "They are tired, divided, and dispersed, and they are weak and torn... they will never be able to stop the Islamic tide exploding on them, (and that) they incurred the wrath of Allah Almighty."

"For this we say to our people in Palestine, the Islamic Jihad is the only way out of the crisis, you have no other," al-Ali concluded.

U.S. embassy in Iraq to be world's biggest, priciest

The Vatican of foreign missions. The Taj Mahal of embassies. The Palace of Versailles of diplomatic playgrounds. Yea, foreign service officers will vie, will compete, will jockey to be stationed there. Or will they prefer to stay farther back from the front lines of the jihad?

From AP:

WASHINGTON — The new U.S. embassy in Baghdad will be the world’s largest and most expensive foreign mission, though it may not be large enough or secure enough to cope with the chaos in Iraq.

The U.S. administration designed the 42-hectare compound, set to open in September in what today is a war zone, to be an ultra-secure enclave. Yet it also hoped that downtown Baghdad would cease being a battleground when diplomats moved in.

Over the long term, depending on which way the seesaw of sectarian division and grinding warfare teeters, the massive city-within-a-city could prove too enormous for the job of managing diminished U.S. interests in Iraq.

The US$592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington’s National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.

A white elephant?

The embassy is one of the few major projects the administration has undertaken in Iraq that is on schedule and within budget. Still, not all has gone according to plan.

The 21-building complex on the Tigris River was envisioned three years ago partly as a headquarters for the democratic expansion in the Middle East that President George W. Bush identified as the organizing principle for foreign policy in his second term.

The complex quickly could become a white elephant if the U.S. scales back its presence and ambitions in Iraq. Although the U.S. probably will have forces in Iraq for years to come, it is not clear how much of the traditional work of diplomacy can proceed amid the violence and what the future holds for Iraq’s government.

“What you have is a situation in which they are building an embassy without really thinking about what its functions are,” said Edward Peck, a former top U.S. diplomat in Iraq.

“What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it’s blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?”

[...]

“We assume there will be a significant, enduring U.S. presence in Iraq,” Satterfield said.

[...]

The embassy also is a prime target.

The area around the construction site was hit with mortar fire this month. Other areas of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone were hit on consecutive days last week.

The increase in mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone has raised concern, especially because they are occurring during a U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad.

The embassy has ordered its staff to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings. The order was issued one day after a rocket attack killed four Asian contractors in the Green Zone this month.

[...]

The U.S. State Department and Congress have tussled this year over a $50 million request for additional blast-resistant housing. The department says it did not anticipate needing so many fortified apartments when the embassy was in the planning stages three years ago and Iraq was a less violent place.

The new Democratic-controlled Congress has grumbled about the approximately $1 billion annual cost of embassy operations in Iraq and told the administration the embassy is overstaffed at roughly 1,000 regular employees. Add security contractors, locally hired staff and others and the number climbs to more than 4,000.

Who will screen the locally hired staff? How will the screening be carried out?

Iran starts work on first domestically constructed nuclear plant

"Iran announces atom progress," by Fredrik Dahl for Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has started building its first domestically-made atomic power plant, a senior official announced on Saturday, and Tehran's foreign minister said nuclear talks with the EU were likely in Spain this month.

The deputy head of the atomic energy agency said the planned facility would have a capacity of 360 megawatt (MW), in a statement underlining Iran's determination to press ahead with its nuclear program despite Western suspicions.

"In the next decade Iran will be one of the most talked-about countries in the world regarding domestic nuclear energy," Mohammad Saeedi of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

Iran is in a deepening standoff with major powers over its nuclear program which the West fears is aimed at making warheads. Tehran says it wants only to produce electricity.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who has taken a lead role in Western contacts with Iran, has said it would "probably take years" to resolve the nuclear dispute.

And by that time, Iran could have developed nuclear weapons and a delivery system capable of reaching even more potential targets.

Solana, a Spaniard, last met Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Turkey on April 25-26 and agreed to hold more talks in the next few weeks.

"There is a high possibility that it (a meeting) will take place in Spain," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the ILNA news agency.

He suggested it would be held sometime between May 22 and May 31. The official IRNA news agency had earlier said May 31 was the agreed date.

SECOND SANCTIONS

Iran, the world's fourth largest crude oil exporter, has said it wants to construct a network of nuclear power facilities with a capacity of 20,000 MW by 2020 to enable it to export more of its valuable oil and gas.

Saeedi said that in five years' time, the country would produce both nuclear fuel and electricity, without giving details of where the new plant was being built or when it would be completed.

Tehran has said it would inaugurate a plant being built by Russians in the Gulf coast city of Bushehr in the coming year and would also start building two others. The Bushehr plant has been delayed because of a row over payments.

Saeedi said Iran was producing 290 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas per year. Such gas is fed into centrifuges to make enriched uranium for nuclear fuel or, if refined to a much higher degree, for nuclear weapons.

The United Nations has imposed two sets of sanctions on Iran since December over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

U.S. officials have warned of a third, tougher resolution if Tehran does not halt such work, but Iranian leaders have repeatedly said they will not bow to international pressure.

Iranian officials have in recent weeks made frequent announcements about progress in its nuclear program, this week saying it has installed 1,600 centrifuges used for enriching uranium and is pressing ahead with more.

With 3,000 centrifuges, all running smoothly, Iran could make enough material for at least one warhead in a year, Western diplomats say. But they have said the country has faced technical glitches.

Musharraf acknowledges Islamic militancy rising as Lal Masjid jihadists abduct 4 police officers

This also comes after Lal Masjid's chief cleric recently said jihad against the Musharraf regime should be seen as obligatory for all Muslims.

Lal Masjid Update. "Musharraf: Islamic militancy rising," by Munir Ahmad for the Associated Press:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf acknowledged that Islamic militancy was increasing across Pakistan and said tough measures were needed to counter it, as religious students from a pro-Taliban mosque abducted four police officers.

Musharraf made his remarks in an interview aired late Friday by the private Aaj television channel after four plainclothes officers were captured while patrolling in the capital, Islamabad, near the Lal Masjid mosque — notorious for launching its own anti-vice campaign. Two officers were later released.

The president said that militancy in Pakistan was increasing, and "we need to strongly counter it." Musharraf did not elaborate.

Abdul Rashid Ghazi, a cleric at Lal Masjid, said his students detained the officers because they were standing outside a seminary linked to the mosque despite an agreement with authorities that police would not be deployed there.

He said the abductions were in retaliation for intelligence agents detaining eight or nine of its students in the past two weeks.

Mohammed Anar, an area police official, said that Ghazi had freed two of the policemen after talks with officials.

"The remaining two policemen will also be freed soon," Ghazi told reporters.

Critics have accused Musharraf's government of appeasing the religious vigilantes — despite concerns that pro-Taliban hard-liners, intent on enforcing a stringent version of Islamic law or Shariah, are gaining sway in Pakistan.

Palestinian diplomat raps attempt to link terrorism to Islam

From the Muslim World News:

VIENNA, AUSTRIA -- Palestine's permanent envoy to the United Nations (UN) and Ambassador to Austria Zohair Al-Wazir condemned any attempts to link terrorism and Islam on Friday.

"The Palestinian people are a stark reminder of life under occupation and state terrorism as practiced by the Israeli against them, their sanctities and lands over long decades," Al-Wazir told KUNA on the sidelines of the first anti-terrorism forum here.

"The Palestinian people are against all forms of terrorism,” he said, asserting the need to uproot all causes of terrorism including oppression and state terrorism.

"Among the roots of terrorism are the adoption of double standards in dealing with political issues, occupation, and infringement on human rights.

And the glorious example of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who slew the Jews wherever he found them.

"The Palestinian delegation to the forum renewed commitment to the resolution of the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting of March on opposition to all forms of terrorism and all attempts to link this global phenomenon to Islam.

"Islam advocates tolerance, moderation and coexistence," he pointed out.

For orthodox Muslims, that is. Heretics and infidels will all perish in a sea of holy fire.

Palestine is for launching a global anti-terrorism centre to coordinate the efforts of world countries and regional organizations in this field, Al-Wazir said.

You can't make this stuff up. "Palestine" is going to launch an "anti-terrorism" centre. Finally, we'll all be able to sleep soundly!

Prison converts to Islam planned terror attacks in Australia

Prison converts to Islam drawn to, of all things, terrorism. Now how could that happen? Has anyone thought to investigate how the recruitment was carried out, and pondered what could be done about it?

Super Max Jihadists Update. "Drawings link prison converts to terrorism," by Frank Walker for the Sun-Herald:

CHILLING evidence has emerged that some of the state's most dangerous prisoners have become devotees of terrorism after converting to Islam.

Drawings found in the Super Max cell of Bassam Hamzy, ringleader of 12 Islamic converts within the high-security Goulburn jail, suggest some in the gang see themselves as assassins bent on causing terror in Australia.

The Sun-Herald can reveal a hand-drawn gang logo was found in Hamzy's cell bearing the words "assassins australia FFL" with depictions of AK-47 assault rifles. Checks by Department of Corrective Services security officers found FFL stood for "Freedom Fighters Lebanon".

A handwritten note was found saying: "Solja Warrior We don fear death and sometimes we wish for it [sic]."

Guards also confiscated a photo of Osama bin Laden found in Hamzy's cell.

Critics attacked prison authorities, claiming they targeted Hamzy because he was Muslim when they revealed he had converted 11 inmates to Islam, using promises of help outside the jail. They were known as the "Super Max Jihadists".

Hamzy, 28, who is serving 21 years for the 1998 murder of an 18-year-old man, was transferred out of the Super Max jail last month.

"This is evidence that prison authorities were not targeting Hamzy because of his religion," said NSW Commissioner of Corrective Services Ron Woodham yesterday.

"Hamzy's defenders should look at this evidence closely, as he is clearly talking the rhetoric of a terrorist."

Bangladesh jihad group suspect in India mosque blast

It was a planned terror attack on Friday. "HuJI a suspect in mosque blast," from the Business Standard:

Bangladesh-based terror group Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI) on Saturday emerged as the prime suspect in the blast at the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad as investigators claimed to have made a breakthrough with the recovery of a SIM card from a phone attached to an unexploded bomb.

Eleven people were killed in the explosion that occurred during Friday prayers while five more died when police fired on protesters who attacked shops and petrol pumps in the communally sensitive Charminar area.

"There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights"

Tackling "stereotypes" and "misconceptions" at a Philosophy Tea at Buena Vista University in Iowa. "Jihad and human rights," by Jennifer Yeske for The Tack Online of BVU:

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, Americans have strived to put together some understanding of why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

While doing this some Americans have developed stereotypes and wrong ways of thinking about Islam.

On Tuesday, Wood's House hosted a Philosophy Tea entitled, "Jihad and Human Rights" held by senior Amy Servantez and junior Courtney McGarry. Their goal was to clarify any misconceptions that people had about the Islam religion.

"What we really wanted people to get out of our Philosophy Tea was that Islam is not a violent religion. There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights. It is the interpretation and the governments that use Islam as a blanket to cover their crimes and violations," Servantez said....

"There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights."

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

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

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

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

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

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

And of course it counsels Muslims to make war against Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic authority and pay a special tax: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).

And it says that those who "make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land" -- an elastic term that could mean almost anything -- should be punished by crucifixion, double amputation, or exile: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land" (5:33).

Now, in light of all that and more, please don't tell us that "there is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights." We can read, and at face value passages like these are clearly in violation of numerous human rights norms. Now, it may be that these passages and others like them are interpreted in some benign way in mainstream Islam, although that is often asserted and seldom buttressed with any evidence. In that case, it would be more honest to acknowledge that there are many problematic passages in the Qur'an, but that mainstream Islam has spiritualized them, or rejected their universal validity, or some such.

But if you just deny they're there at all, Ms. Servantez, you give the impression that you are either uninformed or dishonest. And I'm sure you don't want that.

"I chose to add Jihad to the philosophy tea because it is such a controversial topic after 9/11. It's misconceptions that give Muslims around the world bad stereotypes and I wanted to try and fight those stereotypes," McGarry said.

[...]

"I thought it was a good chance for people to hear a different perspective about Jihad and human rights. Until I took the Islam class, I thought Jihad meant war; but as outlined so eloquently by Courtney and Amy; it was shown to mean personal struggle. I was happy by the turn out and hope more people take the opportunity to educate themselves about Islamic traditions and rituals," Golonka said.

Unfortunately, the hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings.

Instead of ignoring or denying this, the BVU students would do better to acknowledge it, and then to try to formulate positive ways to deal with it -- including asking their Muslim friends to try to develop some way to respond to and blunt the force of the challenge from Al-Banna, Azzam, and their ilk.

Iran not seeking Israel destruction: Larijani

Unabashed taqiyya. From Agence France-Presse:

SHUNEH, Jordan - Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani on Friday denied Teheran was promoting the policy of wiping Israel “off the map,” blaming a deliberate distortion by the Western media.

Oh, but they are.

“Let me tell you one thing about taking Israel off the map. It was a by-product of the Western media,” Larijani told participants at the World Economic Forum on the shores of the Dead Sea in Jordan.

“Our president never talked about this issue,” he said of comments attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during a WEF session on steps to avoid fresh conflict in the Middle East.

Yes, he has.

Larijani’s remarks were in response to an appeal from Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat for the Islamic republic to abandon calls for Israel to be erased from the map.

“Talk about adding Palestine to the map and not cancelling Israel,” Erakat proposed as he addressed Larijani, prompting applause from the other participants.

Promoting "slow jihad": First get a secure base of operation in an initial Palestinian state. Then chip away at the rest.

“All the nations on earth today talk about a two-state solution. Be involved,” Erakat said.

[...]

Larijani said the position of Iran’s firebrand leader was that “we cannot tolerate a state in which racism is practised daily,” in reference to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its Arab citizens.

By golly, we're not going to stand by and let those apes and pigs act up!

Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day

Today is Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day.

May their memory be eternal.

UC-Irvine Muslim student throws cinderblock at FBI agent; FBI being questioned

LGF has several stories about the vile antisemitic hatefest that the Muslim Students Union of UC-Irvine is conducting this week, including this one about a very strange incident:

"FBI actions at UCI questioned: Muslim student says he feared agent was going to run him over; bureau says cinderblock was thrown at car," by Marla Jo Fisher for The Orange County Register:

..."There was a confrontation, if you will," said UCI Police Chief Paul Henisey, who is investigating the incident to determine if any crime was committed. The students "demanded to know why this person was following them, then the person left," he said.

In 2006, an FBI agent created an uproar in the Southern California Islamic community, when she told a group of influential businessmen and women at the Pacific Club that the FBI was fully aware of the high level of activism among Muslim students at USC and UCI.

Later, a spokeswoman for FBI Assistant Director J. Stephen Tidwell e-mailed the Register, saying, "The FBI does not monitor Muslim student groups at UC Irvine, USC or other educational institutions."...

Why not?

UCI economics student Yasser Ahmed said he was driving a borrowed truck up onto the Ring Road near the library loading dock Monday night, on intending to haul away the wall, when he noticed a silver Ford Taurus with blackened windows following him.

Ahmed said he stopped the truck in view of other campus observers and stood in front of the Taurus, trying to look through the blackened windshield and asking the driver to identify himself. When he would not speak, Ahmed said he tried to take a photo of the car's license plate with his camera phone.

"He could have just rolled down his window and said, 'I'm an FBI agent,' and that would have been the end of it," Ahmed said. "There was nothing improper going on."

Instead, according to Ahmed, the driver revved his engine threateningly and began pushing him backward with the car's front bumper. Ahmed said he then began calling for help, and dozens of other students ran over to assist.

"I was frightened," Ahmed said. "I felt I could have been killed or seriously injured if I hadn't jumped out of the way."

Sociology student Marya Bangee, a member of the Muslim Student Union, said the incident was frightening.

"The car was revving its engine to look as intimidating as possible," Bangee said. "I thought it was going to come and hit the (mock Palestine) wall."

Eventually, the car roared off, according to witnesses, chased by students on bicycles and a campus police car. Later, Ahmed said a police officer told him that the car had "cold" license plates, meaning they could not be checked through normal computers.

The next morning, Ahmed said, he went to the campus police station and was told by the police chief that the man in the car was an FBI agent.

Ahmed, who lives with his family in Orange County, laughed at the idea the FBI could be investigating him.

Sociology student Bangee said UCI's Muslim Student Union opposes violence and its members are not terrorists.

"All we do is speak out against injustice," Bangee said, though she said she believes the FBI has been spying on students.

"We have nothing to hide," Bangee said. "If something illegal ever happened, it might make sense. But nothing ever has. It's complete xenophobia."

Regarding the allegations that an FBI agent endangered a student, Eimiller said, "The fair thing to do is to let the cops investigate it." She added that a student threw a cinderblock at the agent....

"Nothing improper going on," eh? Could this be yet another attempt by a Muslim group to traffic in intimidation and threats and then try to claim victim status? One clue: CAIR is on the case:

The agent did not violate any policy by refusing to identify himself, Eimiller said, because he was not conducting an arrest.

UCI Police Chief Henisey said the FBI has been cooperating with his investigation.

On Thursday, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations in Anaheim, said his office "has received many calls from students and parents at UCI expressing extreme concern about the safety and privacy of their students on campus" since Monday.

"The calls came all day yesterday and today," Ayloush said Thursday. "It's understandable that law enforcement might sometimes need to verify certain tips, but the problem in this situation was the manner in which it was conducted."

Hussam Ayloush, in a radio "debate" with me not too long ago, danced around, changed the subject, and did all he could to avoid condemning Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations.

Refutin' on a Friday afternoon

At Jihad Watch and in my books I explore the motives and goals of the jihad terrorists as they themselves explain them -- and this necessarily involves exploring the Qur'an and Sunnah, and how Muslims have understood them historically and understand them now. This is obviously a controversial area, but as Ali Sina says he'll remove his site if proven wrong, so will I. But no one has. Anyway, this comes up again because Joe Kaufman has kindly alerted me to this thread on the Young Muslims site, where this comment is made:

Spencer, Sina, and the Rest

I've been looking around the web, and I like to go around and look at books dealing with Islam and various sites with different viewpoints. But, recently (although I'm sure this is nothign new) I'm noticing a stronger and more organized effort at Islam bashing. There are sites like FaithFreedom.org and books by people like Robert Spencer, which simply wrap hundreds of lies together and claim it as the "truth", and their popularity is surging. Anyone who tries to proves them wrong using the Koran or Hadith is simply ridiculed, and told that they are wrong.

I don't think we should stress over what others think or say, but it does get to a point where you just want to fire back, or explain how things really are. My best bet is to lead by example and leave it in the hands of Allah, but still.

Any thoughts?

"Hundreds of lies," but nary a one specified. This reminded me of an email I got the other day from Jihad Watch reader Jon:

If you go to Amazon.com and read the reviews for Robert Spencer's books, or watch any interview with a Muslim “moderate,” you'll see and hear the following arguments from the Muslim side repeated over and over again:

1. He's taking verses out of context
2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic
4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

Good summation. I can add from the Young Muslims site:

10. He's lying

11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed

And another I've seen now and again:

12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

Refuted and discredited, sure, although no one ever says who did the refuting, or when, or how. Anyway, Jon asked me to answer these, and I was in the midst of an extremely lengthy answer when I noticed that the link on the interview thread was broken, and went to fix it, crashing my machine in the process and losing my lengthy answer.

Rather than lose the will to live, and yet lacking the necessities, as Al Campanis might say, to reconstruct my lengthy post entirely, I've decided to throw open the floor. Above are 12 common replies to people who attempt to expose the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and gain recruits from among peaceful Muslims. Note that none of them say simply "He is factually incorrect, because of this evidence." They don't say that, because they can't. So instead they obfuscate and mystify, pretending that Arabic cannot be translated (even though most Muslims don't speak Arabic and translating the Qur'an is a big industry among Muslims themselves), and attack the messenger (I asked CAIR's Hussam Ayloush on a radio show awhile back, when he started attacking my "credentials" to divert attention from my request that he condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups, "If I had a PhD. would you condemn Hamas and Hizballah?"), and engage in similar dodges. Most of them are quite flimsy dodges, too.

Post your own answers. There are plenty of good ways all of these can be approached. And the more we have published, the better equipped we will all be to refute the next jihadist apologist who drags out these tired arguments. Also, add your own jihadist obfuscations. This list, currently a 12-pointer, can certainly be expanded.

It can also come in handy in debate. Next time you see a Muslim spokesman on TV, if he is challenged about the jihadist use of the Qur'an and Sunnah, check off the ones he trots out in response. I can imagine a conversation like this: "Ibrahim Hooper hit #'s 1, 4, 7, and 11 last night on CNN." "Oh yeah? That's nothing. Hussein Ibish hit every one except #10 on Beck." "Really? Wow. Once I saw Ahmed Bedier score a perfect 12 on Paula Zahn's show." "Ah, yes, that was a classic performance, one for the ages."

In fact, next time I speak before an audience containing jihad apologists, I plan to make things easy for them: to speed up the process during the question-and-answer period, I'll give them a card containing these twelve points. They can just check off the ones they want to hit that evening. Everyone will save a bit of time and trouble. And I'm sure they'll be grateful also, for this handy time-saving device.

Bangladesh jihadist: group readying car bomb attacks "to establish Allah's rule in the soil of Allah"

Back in business with funding from Saudis. "B'desh Islamists readying for car bomb attacks-TV," by Anis Ahmed for Reuters:

DHAKA, May 17 (Reuters) - Islamist militants in Bangladesh are preparing to launch car bomb attacks and carry out other deadly missions, one self-described militant commander said in a rare interview with a private television channel.

"After going somewhat slow following the execution of our top six leaders, we have regrouped, received funding from Saudi Arabia, acquired training and (are) now recruiting drivers to operate suicide vehicles," he told Ekushey television (ETV).

ETV aired the interview late on Wednesday night, showing the militant hooded in a black robe from head to toe, and only revealing one eye.

"I cannot give my name for security reasons," he said, describing himself as the commander of the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, an outlawed group seeking to introduce tough Islamic sharia law in mainly Muslim Bangladesh.

The Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and another outlawed organisation, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, are blamed for exploding some 500 small bombs in simultaneous attacks across Bangladesh on August 17, 2005, killing three people.

They are also alleged to have killed at least 30 more people and wounded 150 in attacks through the rest of that year. The victims included judges, lawyers, policemen and others.

Six Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen leaders were hanged in March and many of its followers are on the run.

"The executions did not break our morale, rather inspired us to carry forward their mission," the militant said in the interview, conducted in an undisclosed jungle location. "We have several thousand cadres ready, including many to operate suicide missions."

The militant said one funding means was "our people who work in Saudi Arabia", who send some of their own savings and collect from other sources.

"We are ready to strike again, soon," he added.

The Islamists faced some operational difficulties because of a state of emergency in Bangladesh now, but hoped to overcome those soon, the militant said.

"Now we have drafted young and old, and even women. They are all trained and equipped."

Asked what mission he wanted to achieve, the militant said "to establish Allah's rule in the soil of Allah."

"Anyone who accepts our demand is a friend, anyone who don't is an enemy. And we will finish them."

He denied any links with the Taliban or other violent groups outside Bangladesh.

Defence analyst retired major-general Shahedul Anam Khan told ETV the threat of car bombings could be real but it might take some time before there was an attack.

Spencer interview: "What Would Muhammad Do?"

Listen here to Robert Spencer on the Mimi Geerges Show along with Daniel C. Peterson, author of Muhammad: Prophet of God.

FBI's Mueller: Bin Laden Wants to Strike U.S. Cities With Nuclear Weapons

Not that this is news.

By Ronald Kessler for Newsmax, with thanks to GS:

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C., FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III tells NewsMax.

In an exclusive interview, Mueller also acknowledged that bin Laden is still active, though isolated. The director revealed that the Bureau believes the terrorist leader continues to communicate with al-Qaida cells, some of which remain in the U.S.

Mueller declined to say how often bin Laden communicates or to elaborate on the substance of his communications.

Other intelligence sources tell NewsMax that U.S. security efforts have forced bin Laden to return to "horse-and-buggy days" — avoiding electronic communications in favor of using trusted couriers.

But Mueller says though hemmed in, al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

In contrast to homegrown terrorists, al-Qaida is far more likely to be able to pull off such an attack.

Mueller admits the nuclear threat is so real he sometimes wakes up in the middle of the night worrying about that possibility.

"I think it would be very difficult to wipe out the United States, but you'd have hundreds of thousands of casualties from a nuclear device, depending on the size of that nuclear device," Mueller tells NewsMax.

Read it all.

Friday Sermon in Iran: If Iran Is Attacked, Tens of Thousands of Missiles Will Be Fired at Israel

1938 Alert: "Friday Sermon in Kerman, Iran: If Iran Is Attacked, Tens of Thousands of Missiles Will Be Fired at Israel; President Bush Should Be Sentenced to 100 Deaths," from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from a Friday sermon in Kerman, Iran, delivered by Sayyid Yahyah Ja'fari. The sermon was aired on Kerman TV on May 6, 2007.

To view this clip: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1444.

Sayyid Yahyah Ja'fari: "As you can see, the killing in Iraq is outrageous. That international criminal, George Bush... If there is any justice in the world, undoubtedly, this man and his ilk, without a doubt, should be sentenced to 100 deaths. There is no doubt about it. Meanwhile, they hold all the power in their hands, and the world has not yet begun to confront them the way it should, even though these peoples have great power.

"The power of the world of Islam is great. The governments are dependent [upon America], and so they prevent the Muslim peoples from doing anything, and even if they were to do anything, it would be ineffective.

[...]

"The American threats are psychological warfare. You must know this. The Supreme Leader [Khamenei] recently said so. But let's assume that it isn't psychological warfare; with God's grace, our people, our strong army, our powerful Revolutionary Guards, our brave Basij volunteers - in sum, all our armed forces, of which we are proud - are in full readiness, and they will rub the invaders' noses in the mud."

Crowd: "Allah Akbar

"Allah Akbar"

[...]

Sayyid Yahyah Ja'fari: "According to our officials and political analysts, this will not happen - I only said it for the sake of argument - because some of the American officials have a little sense, and they realize that their interests throughout the world would be in danger, and that the plundering Israel would also be attacked severely by us. America is doing all these things in order to ensure Israel's security. If it acts stupidly and invades an Islamic country - especially a country like Iran - it should bear in mind that Israel will come under a very severe attack. Several days ago, the stupid Israeli prime minister said: 'We can attack the Iranian nuclear industry with 10,000 cruise missiles, and delay it for another 10 years.' Our response is that if he is planning to fire 10,000 missiles, we will fire tens of thousands of missiles on Tel Aviv and Israel."

Crowd: "Allah Akbar

"Allah Akbar."

"President Abbas is committed to ending violence. He has...always been somebody that has shunned the use of terror"

So said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in a State Department press briefing yesterday (thanks to Teri).

QUESTION: How concerned are you that the recent violence in Gaza is going to -- both among Palestinians themselves and between the Israelis and Palestinians, going to set you back in terms of your efforts to move this forward?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the -- certainly, violence perpetrated by Hamas, as we have seen recently, doesn't further the cause of peace. What is does is -- resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and it also underscores the importance of reaching those political accommodations on the Israeli-Palestinian track among those individuals who are committed to peace like Prime Minister Olmert, like President Abbas, and the people around him and that work directly for him.

We would hope that Hamas would make another choice; in making a choice for peace, in making a choice for a Palestinian state, because the only way that they're going to see that is via the negotiating table. They're not going to see it by launching Qassam rockets into Israel. They're not going to see it by attacking the legitimate security forces of the Palestinian Authority. They're not going to see it by sending young people armed with suicide vests to blow up other Israeli youngsters. So --

QUESTION: But you --

MR. MCCORMACK: The Palestinians themselves are going to have to resolve that central contradiction where you have a group like Hamas that is committed to the use of terror, but also says it wants to be involved in a democratic process. The Palestinians are going to have to resolve that, but to bring it back, what all the -- what the violence underscores is the fact that it is all the more important that all those committed to peace in the region work actively and do everything that they can to move forward the process of peace.

QUESTION: Would you say that President Abbas is doing all that he can to stop this violence in terms of Hamas attacks from Gaza into Israel? Because it seems as if, anyway, that this is leading to another escalation of violence between Israelis and Palestinians that will set you even -- back even further.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, President Abbas is committed to ending violence. He has never -- he has always been somebody that has shunned the use of terror. He has counseled against it. He is somebody who has actively worked for peace. He is somebody who has actively advocated for negotiations as opposed to the use of violence to realize a Palestinian state. We are urging all parties to exercise restraint. We understand the Israeli Government has a right to defend itself and they have explained that their actions, just over the past day or so, have been in reaction to stopping -- trying to stop further rocket launches into Israeli territory, rocket launches that have injured Israeli citizens.

But we've also urged them to consider the consequences of their actions in defending themselves on Palestinian infrastructure as well as on what effect it might have on the prospects for moving forward the political process. But we know that Prime Minister Olmert is somebody who is committed to working actively on that political track.

QUESTION: But I mean, we all know about President Abbas' commitment --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- to peace and his stated preference for negotiations, things like that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But in terms of this recent bout of violence, in terms of cracking down on Hamas militants --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- putting pressure on the Hamas part of the unity government to put their own -- use their own leverage against the Hamas militants, utilizing the security services -- I mean, is he doing all he can to stop this from spiraling out of --

MR. MCCORMACK: We believe that President Abbas is somebody who is committed to (a) the political negotiating track, (b) doing everything that he can to break up terror networks, to stop those attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip against Israel, and somebody who is committed also to building up a professional security force in not only the West Bank, but in the Gaza Strip. Now that's a work in progress and it's also a security force that was attacked by these Hamas-affiliated and Hamas forces.

So we believe that he is somebody who is doing the right things. Now we always encourage him to do everything he possibly can to do more, but we believe he is somebody who is committed to doing all those right things.

New Palestinian Authority textbooks call destruction of Israel a religious duty

Abbas sends warmest greetings to Iran's Ahmadinejad, wishes Iran "further progress and prosperity"

Abbas urges: 'Raise rifles against Israel'

US to give $86 million to Fatah; former Fatah official to Al-Qaeda: "We hate the Americans more than you!"

Abbas Tells US PA Will Recognize Israel, Says Opposite on PA TV

Abbas: "Refrain from establishing relations with Israel"

Abbas: Great Palestinian Jihad for the "homeland" has begun

"Mr. bin Laden and other Islamists' war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire, the umma"

In "Islam's War for World Mastery" in the New York Sun (thanks to Andrew Bostom), Ephraim Karsh, author of Islamic Imperialism, concludes a discussion of a recent piece by Bernard Lewis with this dead-on observation:

This is not to deny that American failures to respond to rogue actions and terrorist attacks have been harmful to its deterrent image, or that Osama bin Laden has misconstrued certain American setbacks for an indication of its diminishing resolve.

Yet it was not America's perceived weakness that brought about the September 11 attacks, as Mr. Lewis argues, but rather its undeniable prowess. This is because Mr. bin Laden and other Islamists' war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire, the umma.

As the preeminent world power for quite some time, and the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet empire, America blocks the final realization of this goal and hence is a natural target for aggression. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

US argues for extradition of jihadist cleric from UK

American officials argue that Abu Hamza, the one-eyed, hook-handed jihadist cleric from Britain, was involved "in a global conspiracy to wage terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other Western countries." Hugo Keith's remark is noteworthy: "He advocated the defense of Islam through unlawful, violent and armed aggression." Quite apt.

"U.S. argues for extradition of radical Islamic cleric," by Tariq Panja for The Associated Press:

LONDON (AP) — The United States argued Thursday for the extradition of a radical Islamic cleric imprisoned in Britain, accusing him of involvement in a global conspiracy to wage terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other Western countries.

Abu Hamza al-Masri has been charged in the United States with trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, conspiring to take hostages in Yemen and facilitating terrorist training in Afghanistan.

He is serving a seven-year sentence in Britain for fomenting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims.

"He advocated the defense of Islam through unlawful, violent and armed aggression," Hugo Keith, a lawyer representing the U.S. government, said during a hearing in a London court....

Al-Masri's lawyer, Alun Jones, said the extradition application should be rejected because he believed some of the evidence against the cleric was extracted by torturing a defense witness....

But of course, claiming torture is straight out of the Al-Qaeda playbook.

Keith said the planned training camp in Oregon would have been used to prepare recruits to "kill enemies of Islam" in Afghanistan, training them in weapons use, hand-to-hand combat and martial arts.

"The general allegation is that Mr. Hamza is a member of a global conspiracy to wage jihad against the U.S. and other Western countries," Keith said. "Jihad carried out in numerous parts of the world — the U.K., Afghanistan, Yemen and U.S."

Hamas plotted to kill Abbas - claim

More news from the people who, according to Condoleeza Rice, earnestly desire peace. From Agence France-Presse, with thanks to JE:

PALESTINIAN security officials are claiming that Hamas militants planned to assassinate Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas with explosives, as deadly factional fighting resumed in Gaza.

The claims were made hours after Mr Abbas called off a trip to Gaza for talks aimed at reaching a definitive ceasefire between fighters from his Fatah party and Hamas that has left nearly 50 people dead and 100 wounded since Sunday.

"Abu Mazen's (Abbas's) visit to Gaza was cancelled after the discovery of a tunnel under Salaheddine Road full of explosives placed by the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades to blow up (his) convoy,'' said a senior security official, referring to Hamas's military wing.

"The explosives were found on the route that Abu Mazen takes to travel to Gaza,'' the source added, speaking from the Palestinian political capital of Ramallah in the West Bank.

An official in Abbas's office confirmed the report but Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Hamas armed wing, said, "these reports are aimed at poisoning the atmosphere in Gaza. We deny them completely.''

Not that the atmosphere in Gaza was poisoned before this. Oh, no. It was all peace and tolerance.

Johns Hopkins prof: Jihadists' "definition of jihad is quite different from that generally accepted by Muslims today"

In an interview at FrontPage today, Mary Habeck, a professor at Johns Hopkins and author of a book about the jihadists entitled Knowing the Enemy, makes a number of observations about the jihad ideology, and why more Muslims don't stand up to the jihadists, that are worth looking at more closely.

...Thus, Muslims are allowed to fight these unbelievers in a just jihad. Their definition of jihad is quite different from that generally accepted by Muslims today. Most Muslims say that jihad is first and foremost an internal struggle to control one's desires or, if it is about fighting, jihad is a defensive just war.

Most Muslims may indeed believe that. Yet while this likelihood provides comfort for non-Muslims with its suggestion that most Muslims would prefer to tend to their own souls rather than to wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors, it actually doesn’t establish what both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to wish it did. This is because the traditional pedigree of the spiritual jihad is not as firm as it is often advertised to be. The hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings. This only buttresses their claim, which Habeck notes below, to represent the "true believers."

These extremists make jihad into the central tenet of their religion, arguing that it is primarily about fighting both defensively and offensively (to spread the just laws of Islam). They also say that any Muslim who does not participate in their jihad is not a "true believer," and is at most a sinner and at worst an unbeliever and can therefore be killed with impunity.

Habeck gives no hint here of the fact that the theology of offensive and defensive jihad is far older than the "extremists," and is in fact rooted in the Qur'an (2:193 and 9:29 for offensive jihad) and Muhammad's statements, notably the one in which he directs his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or war. Then there are the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which all teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Sharia.

All this answers the follow-up question below far more convincingly than Habeck answers it: the moderate Muslims don't speak out more forcefully against the jihadists because if they do, the jihadists can easily portray them as unfaithful Muslims, and quote Qur'an and Sunnah to establish their position. And that can make the lives of the moderates difficult in many ways.

Habeck is aware of this. Last year, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reviewed her book and noted that in it she drew a sharp distinction between jihadist theology and "traditional Islam." I wrote to him, asking him a number of questions about the content of this distinction and related matters, and he discussed them with Dr. Habeck over lunch. At the time, he got permission from her for me to publish her answers from his emails -- and he gave me his permission also to publish what he wrote to me.

Here's what Gartenstein-Ross wrote to me in response: "I had lunch with Prof. Habeck on 8/8, a couple of days after receiving your e-mail, and was able to put the question to her myself. Prof. Habeck's answer was that she used the term 'traditional Islam' sloppily in her book. She says that she generally has used the term two ways: referring to Islam as practiced before Napoleon's 1798 invasion of Egypt and referring to Islam as practiced in individual societies such as Indonesia or Pakistan before exposure to Wahhabism/Salafism or other foreign strains that alter the indigenous practice." So in other words, she is referring to what I refer to as "cultural Islam."

I had also asked if Dr. Habeck could name any orthodox sects or schools of Islamic jurisprudence that rejected the necessity of jihad warfare in order to institute Sharia. Gartenstein-Ross answered: "I also put to her your question about traditional Islamic sects that 'reject the proposition that the umma must wage war in order to establish Sharia.' She agreed without hesitation that such sects have not existed within mainstream Islam historically."

Yet despite knowing this, Habeck goes on in the FP interview to assert that the jihadists have hijacked Islam, and to make several other dubious assertions:

FP: Why are “moderate” Muslims so silent, in general, in the face of jihadism?

Habeck: There are probably many reasons for this, but I can give at least three. First, many Muslims have spoken out against jihadism, but they have been ignored by Western media. There was, for instance, a huge demonstration against violence carried out in the name of Islam is Morocco not too long ago (late 2005), but I don't remember reading anything about this is in the mainstream media.

Maybe the mainstream media didn't cover it, but here is a story about it from Lebanon's Daily Star. The story says that the demonstrators were protesting "Al-Qaeda's decision to kill two Moroccan hostages in Iraq," and were "holding banners and chanting 'Muslims are brothers. A Muslim does not kill his brother.'" So they were upset about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. That is a phenomenon we have noted here many times: Muslims taking umbrage at Al-Qaeda killing fellow Muslims. But where are the protests against Al-Qaeda killing unbelievers? It is not enough for Muslims to "speak out against jihadism" only when its victims are Muslims, but to remain silent when they're non-Muslims -- not enough at least for non-Muslims.

I read memri.org and see many, many moderate Muslims speaking out against these guys every day. Second, in many countries these guys control the public arena and intimidate or even murder anyone who speaks out against them. The intimidation carried out in Western countries recently shows the power that just a few fanatics can have. Finally, there is a peculiar dynamic going on in the Islamic world: most people do not trust their governments or media to be reporting the truth, so they refuse to believe that the jihadis are carrying out these terrible atrocities. It's far more satisfying to believe that the government/US/Zionists are lying about all this rather than to confront the fact that someone has hijacked your religion for their own purposes.

Indeed. And it's also far more satisfying to pretend that the jihadists have "hijacked" an essentially peaceful Islam rather than confront the ugly reality of the deep roots that the jihad ideology has within Islam, even when one has acknowledged that the facts are otherwise.

Now certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle. But to pretend that the jihadists don't have the intellectual upper hand in the Islamic world today is to undercut any chances for genuine Islamic reform, which can only proceed from an honest acknowledgment of the realities of Islamic doctrine, not from ignoring those elements and implying they don't exist.

Iran's former President Khatami blames West for nuclear standoff

But of course. How could it be the fault of anyone else? From The Associated Press, with thanks to Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi:

OSLO, Norway: Iran's reform-minded former president on Tuesday blamed the West for failing to resolve a standoff over the Islamic republic's nuclear program and said mounting pressure on Tehran would only make things worse.

Mohammad Khatami said that during his time as president, between 1997 and 2005, he came close to reaching an agreement with European nations that would have allowed Iran to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. But U.S. pressure forced the Europeans to back off, he said.

"I think our European friends made a mistake and the problem has become more complicated," Khatami told reporters at a conference in Oslo....

"If more pressure is brought on Iran it will be more difficult for both sides," Khatami said.

Khatami blamed the United States for fueling the spread of terrorism in the Muslim world and compared U.S. neo-conservative leaders to Islamic fundamentalists.

"Extremism has been strengthened in the Muslim world. If terrorism only existed in Afghanistan, it has been spread to Iraq because of the actions of the United States," Khatami said. "Violence and extremism are dangerous whether followed by al-Qaida or hardline politicians like the neo-conservatives in the United States."...

When asked whether he agreed with Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, he said: "Personally I don't think any people or nation should be wiped out. But I do believe sometimes facts, what has happened in history, has to be taken into account."

Dinesh D'Souza and the truth

They're getting farther and farther apart.

In "Memo to Christians: Convert or Die," a piece he posted today about this story from Pakistan, D'Souza says this:

Typically Muslim empires have distinguished between conquering a country and bringing it under Islamic rule and law--this is allowed--and forcing people to become Muslims--this is not allowed. The Islamic radicals, in trying to compel conversions on pain of death, are breaking with the Koran and the Islamic tradition. Only two schools of Koranic interpretation--the Bin Laden school and the Robert Spencer school--consider Taliban-style "convert or die" jurisprudence to be consistent with what the Prophet Muhammad taught and what the Koran says.

Here yet again, D'Souza is setting up a fantasy Robert Spencer to knock down. And this time his straw man game is particularly egregious, because this question has come up in our exchanges before, so there is no reason for him not to know where I stand on this. On January 17, I wrote in a post here about D'Souza's book that "Muslims don't want to 'convert or kill everybody.' That is a false oversimplification. Muhammad commanded Muslims to convert or subjugate or kill everybody." I included a link there to Sahih Muslim 4294, in which Muhammad explains those three choices. The next day, in another post about his book, I wrote that "forced conversion is forbidden in Islam, although this law was often honored in the breach. And the choice, as I explained above, was not 'convert or kill non-Muslims,' it was to convert or subjugate non-Muslims, or go to war with them."

Of course, D'Souza doesn't read Jihad Watch, so maybe he never saw those. But I know he saw my FrontPage review of his book, because he responded to it later. And in it is this:

D’Souza takes no notice of the fact that these conquests were inspired by the same theological ideology that fuels today’s global jihad. Yet even Islamic apologist John Esposito acknowledges the reality of this theological ideology: “As Islam penetrated new areas,” Esposito writes, “people were offered three options: (1) conversion, that is, full membership in the Muslim community, with its rights and duties; (2) acceptance of Muslim rule as ‘protected’ people and payment of a poll tax; (3) battle or the sword if neither the first nor the second option was accepted.”[5] This triple choice was based on Muhammad’s words: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 4294).

This is an important distinction, although I am not sure that D'Souza grasps its importance. The existence of the third alternative -- subjugation -- along with "convert or die" allowed for the existence of Jewish and Christian communities in the Islamic world for centuries, although they were indeed subjugated and never enjoyed equality of rights with Muslims. The fact that this triple choice is rooted in the words of Muhammad and the teachings of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence allows jihadists today to reassert it -- as we have seen gangs doing recently in Baghdad.

Anyway, I suppose if D'Souza numbers me among the "Islamophobes," he has to count Esposito among that company as well, since he too writes about the triple choice. Watch for next week's column, when D'Souza will say that only Osama, Esposito and I think that Islam contains any mandate to convert or subjugate unbelievers.

The fact is that the jihadists in Pakistan who have told the Christians "convert or die" are transgressing against the letter of Islamic law. Yet D'Souza asserts that I endorse their view, in plain defiance of what I have written numerous times -- in my books which he claims to have read as well as in the citations above. It makes me wonder, since he has done this to me and to others before: Why does anyone still take this man seriously? Isn't the Hoover Institution embarrassed to be associated with him? If it isn't, it should be. Is any other high-profile writer so careless of the facts and happy to retail falsehoods about his opponents? I don't know of one.

Man in Houston Taliban case gets 10 months

It was just a weekend shooting trip. Yeah, sure, that's it. A weekend shooting trip. By Cindy George in the Houston Chronicle, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Shiraz Syed Qazi, 26, one of four Muslim men charged in the so-called Houston Taliban case, was sentenced today to 10 months in prison.

The men were arrested in November and accused of training to join the Taliban's fight against U.S.-led forces overseas.

Qazi was convicted in January of unlawful possession of a firearm. He waived his right to a jury trial, opting for a decision from U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal. She found him guilty in 15 minutes.

A July 2005 camping trip in Willis, north of Conroe, was part of a government set-up using two informants to nab men who talked of fighting with the terrorist group. FBI agents used Qazi's acknowledgment that "he overheard statements over that weekend" to connect him to the plot.

Qazi, a Pakistani, appears in photographs with a semi-automatic weapon. At the time, he was attending Houston Community College on a student visa.

While prosecutors contend that federal law prohibits someone who is not a U.S. citizen from possessing a firearm, federal public defender Brent Newton argued that his client was not criminally liable because he didn't know he could not hold or shoot a gun.

Qazi's supporters say he simply went on a weekend shooting trip, which is common recreation in Texas.

Cathy Young: D'Souza and Spencer both wrong

In "Theocons of the World, Unite" in Reason magazine, Cathy Young takes issue with Dinesh D'Souza's ridiculous book The Enemy At Home, and with me also.

Cathy Young has previously attacked Jihad Watch -- you can read about it here and here and here, in exchanges that demonstrated that she had little awareness of the realities of the global jihad, and little interest in actually engaging in discussion of the issues, rather than just setting up straw men and knocking them down, like D'Souza himself, Karen Armstrong, and "Spengler."

Why does this keep happening -- why do writers keep insisting that I say things that I don't say, and then criticize me for these positions that I don't hold? Well, it may indeed be because I am a very poor writer and have failed to communicate what I really mean. But I still rather suspect that it is, as I have noted before, because I have become a symbol for a certain perspective, and if the facts of what I actually say don't fit the symbol, then so much worse for the facts. Supporting this suspicion today is the fact that what Cathy Young says I say is rather easily shown to be inaccurate.

Young says:

The Enemy at Home targets not just the cultural left but the anti-Muslim right—conservatives such as Robert Spencer, author of Islam Unveiled, who argue that Islam itself is inherently violent, oppressive, and prone to breeding terrorists. “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,” writes D’Souza, and on this point he is on to something—not just with regard to “traditionalist Muslims” but to moderate Muslims as well.

In the first place, I have never said that "Islam itself is inherently violent, oppressive, and prone to breeding terrorists." I have pointed out again and again that jihadists use elements of Islam to justify violence: the mainstream Islamic interpretation of the Qur'an, which exalts the violent verses over the peaceful ones, and the rulings of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which justify violent jihad against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Is this a distinction with a difference? I believe it is, as it allows for the development of a non-literalist Islam, which explicitly rejects these elements of Islamic tradition. Is that development likely on a large scale? It isn't, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage individual reformers like Tashbih Sayyed and others. And since Cathy Young says below that she would like to see the Islamic world "embrace modernization and individual liberty," she should know that it will never do that unless the elements of Islamic tradition and law that militate against that embrace are confronted -- not ignored, or denied, or downplayed, but confronted. You can't fix what you won't admit is broken.

I have replied before, in the exchanges with D'Souza, to the nonsense that to speak about the elements of Islam will drive peaceful Muslims to join the jihadists. It's absurd to think that a group that abhors and rejects violent jihad will suddenly take it up if they think some non-Muslim is insulting their religion -- if they'd do that, they must not have rejected it in the first place.

But to drive the point home, since it obviously hasn't taken, let's try a thought experiment. Are there any Christians reading this? In Christopher Hitchens' new book God Is Not Great, he argues -- quite engagingly and entertainingly -- that Christianity is absurd, destructive, and responsible for a great deal more human misery than it has alleviated. Now: does that make any of you Christians want to go out and kill Hitchens, or anyone else? Now, be honest.

No? Then why should we expect that Muslims will react this way to critical examination of their religion, and instead of responding by asking them to grow up, voluntarily prescind from such examination? Why don't we hold them to the same standard that we ourselves adhere to?

Back to Young:

Spencer’s critique of D’Souza in the neoconservative webzine FrontPage illustrates the problem with anti-Islamic polemics: Spencer cites the atrocities perpetuated by medieval Muslim armies in Jerusalem, Constantinople, and other conquered cities as evidence that barbaric “jihadism” is endemic to Islam, without acknowledging that the Christian crusaders’ actions were at least as bad.

On page 137 of my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), I call the Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099 an "atrocity," an "outrage," and a "heinous crime." I compare it to the Muslim sack of Aleppo in 1148, of Antioch in 1268, and of Constantinople in 1453, and never say that the actions by Muslims were worse.

But of course Young isn't referring to my book, but to my article about D'Souza, in which it's true: I don't refer to the actions of the Crusaders. So I am being inconsistent, as she says? No, because I didn't cite the actions of Muslim armies in the D'Souza piece, as she claims, as "evidence that barbaric 'jihadism' is endemic to Islam." In fact, I brought up the actions of Muslim armies because D'Souza said that "It is only contemporary Islam that provides an inspiration for suicide missions and attacks on civilians." So I brought forward some evidence that Islamic armies had transgressed this law not infrequently in Islamic history. Cathy Young would apparently have me interrupt a discussion of the treatment of civilians in Islamic law and practice to start talking about Crusader atrocities -- is her thirst for politically correct moral equivalence so strong?

Yet D’Souza’s critique of Spencer falls flat because he shares some of the same basic assumptions—for instance, that Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and is inherently “fundamentalist” in the sense of relying on a literal reading of the Koran. It’s just that, for D’Souza, these are not vices but virtues. The anti-Muslims regard secularized but Islamic Turkey as an anomaly; so does D’Souza, who writes mostly with approval of the push to reverse Turkey’s secularization: “Muslims have the right to live in Islamic states under Muslim law if they wish.”

Sure. But Western states should have the courage to say that when they oppress non-Muslims under that law, this will not be tolerated -- particularly in states that are nominally Western allies.

It is quite true that, in the age of militant Islamic terrorism, it is not very helpful to tell millions of peaceful Muslims that their religion is inherently violent, evil, and oppressive. It is equally unhelpful of D’Souza to deny the obvious: The best hope for peaceful coexistence is for the Islamic world to embrace modernization and individual liberty, not for the West to turn its back on those values.

Great. The best hope for peaceful coexistence is for the Islamic world to embrace modernization and individual liberty, but don't talk about the aspects of Islam that are keeping that from happening! That will only cause even more Muslims to reject modernization and individual liberty!

That this piece of incoherence was printed in a magazine that calls itself Reason is incongruous, but there is indeed no reason to be had there. The editors declined to print a letter I sent them responding to Young's earlier attack, and Young herself has refused to debate and now won't even answer my emails. Reason? Prejudice is more like it.

Before CAIR and the Flying Imams, the Islamic Society of Boston pioneered the use of lawsuits to silence critics and the media

Don't miss "The Silencing," an extraordinary expose by Martin Solomon at Pajamas Media of the legal intimidation tactics of the Islamic Society of Boston.

Turkish secularist parties unite

Setting aside their differences to combat the threat of Turkey becoming an Islamic state.

From the BBC, with thanks to Davida:

Two secularist opposition parties in Turkey are joining forces to challenge the Islamist-rooted ruling AK Party in the July general election.

The alliance was announced at a news conference on Thursday by the Republican People's Party (CHP) and Democratic Left Party (DSP).

The 22 July election was brought forward from November to try to resolve a dispute over the Turkish presidency.

Secularists accuse the AKP of trying to pursue an Islamist agenda.

Mubarak: Hamas Will Never Make Peace

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has admitted what we have known for a long time, but which still seems to elude policymakers in Europe and Washington: Hamas will never make peace with Israel.

"Mubarak: Hamas will never sign a peace agreement with Israel," by Barak Ravid for Haaretz:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak expressed great concern over the increasing strength of Hamas in talks with senior diplomatic officials on Wednesday, declaring that the organization will never sign a peace agreement with Israel, Haaretz has learned.

He said that the Egyptian government is at a loss regarding the future of the Gaza Strip. However, he also proclaimed that Egypt is making great efforts to end the Hamas government and support Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

"With Hamas no way," he reportedly said.

Mubarak painted a dark picture of the situation with Hamas and said there was no chance for peace with the organization. "Hamas will never sign a peace agreement with Israel if it stays in power," the Egyptian president said.

Mubarak also said that Egypt did not accept Hamas in power, especially in light of its growing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, which leads the opposition in Egypt. Mubarak sees the Brotherhood, which gained considerable power in Egypt's last parliamentary elections, as a threat to secular power.

It appears that Mubarak is giving Israel the green light to take action against Hamas. Apparently Mubarak sees Hamas as a threat no less than Israel does. What better than to have someone else do your dirty work for you?

Woman, convert to Islam, 'plotted Sydney bombing out of love'

You're in love. You've converted to Islam to please your boyfriend. Now how can you show him the truth, the sincerity, the depth of your love? I've got it: set off a bomb in Sydney!

Actually, it was Lover Boy's idea for how she could prove her love.

Jill Courtney Update: Woman 'plotted Sydney bombing out of love,'" by Margaret Scheikowski for AAP, with thanks to JE:

A WOMAN accused of planning to set off a car bomb in Sydney's Kings Cross to prove her love for her jailed boyfriend is to stand trial.

A police statement of facts tendered today in Central Local Court said Jill Alison Courtney was "obsessed" with marrying Hussan Kalache.

"To date, the accused has Kalache's name and corrective services inmate number tattooed over various parts of her body," the statement said.

"During this relationship, Kalache wanted the accused to prove her love to him by undertaking a 'mission' before he would commit to marriage with the accused."

OIC: ‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’

The worst form of terrorism. Worse than flying commericial airliners into high-rise office buildings. Worse than beheading preteen Christian girls on their way to school. Worse than launching attacks from civilian areas in order to use retaliatory actions to score propaganda points. The worst form of terrorism.

And with Ban Ki-Moon vowing to do the OIC's bidding more zealously than ever, watch for the UN to call for muzzling of all "criticism of Islam," i.e., exploration of the elements of Islam that the jihadists are using to encourage violence. And that will allow the jihadists to operate unhindered.

"‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism,’" by Siraj Wahab for Arab News, with thanks to LGF:

ISLAMABAD, 17 May 2007 — Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) yesterday expressed grave concern at the rising tide of discrimination and intolerance against Muslims, especially in Europe and North America. “It is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions,” they said in unison.

Speaking at a special brainstorming session on the sidelines of the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia the worst form of terrorism and called for practical steps to counter it.

The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. “This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,” they said. During a speech in Germany last year, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things. The Pope’s remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world.

“The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult,” the foreign ministers said. “Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.

The OIC foreign ministers deplored the misrepresentation in the Western media of Islam and Muslims in the context of terrorism. “The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable,” they said. “This is further inciting negative sentiments and hatred in the West against Muslims,” they said. The ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.

Of course, it is the "terrorists" and "extremists" who keep linking their actions with Islam, not the Westerners who dare to speak openly of the link they make. But the OIC, like so many, would not have you noticing that.

NYT: "Turkish City Counters Fear of Islam’s Reach"

It's stories like this for which we call them the New Duranty Times. But in trying to convince us that Konya is a model for the rest of an Islamic state in Turkey, the Times forgets that Konya's "moderation" is because secular elements of the society resisted the Islamists, and, as noted at the end of the article, the Islamists are wary of moving too quickly toward full Sharia law and provoking a secular backlash.

By Sabrina Tavernise:

KONYA, Turkey, May 12 — In the not too distant past here in Turkey’s religious heartland, women would not appear in public unless they were modestly dressed, a single woman was not able to rent an apartment on her own, and the mayor proposed segregating city buses by sex.

Fears of such restrictions, inflamed by secularist politicians, have led thousands of Turks to march in major cities in the past month. A political party with a past in Islamic politics led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried to capture the country’s highest secular post.

Once it succeeds, the secularists’ argument goes, Turkey will be dragged back to an earlier era when Islam ran the state. [Another march drew a million people in Izmir on Sunday.]

But here in Konya, a leafy city on the plains of central Turkey, Mr. Erdogan’s party has done no such thing. In the paradox of modern Turkey, the party here has had a moderating influence, helping to open a guarded society and make it more flexible.

Konya is still deeply attached to its faith. Mosques are spread thickly throughout the city; there are as many as in Istanbul, which has five times the population. But in a part of the world where religion and politics have been a poisonous mix and cultural norms are conservative regardless of religion, it is an oasis: women here wear relatively revealing clothing, couples hold hands and bus segregation is a distant memory.

“We’ve been wearing the same dress for 80 years, and it doesn’t fit anymore,” said Yoruk Kurtaran, who travels extensively in Turkey. “Things used to be black and white.”

Now, he said, “there are a lot of grays.”

The shift shows the evolution of Turkey’s Islamic movement, which has matured under Mr. Erdogan, abandoning the restrictive practices of its predecessors and demonstrating to its observant constituents the benefits of belonging to the European Union.

It also follows a pattern occurring throughout Turkey, where the secularists who founded the state out of the Ottoman Empire’s remains are now lagging behind religious Turks in efforts to modernize it. But secular Turks, like those who took part in the recent protests, do not believe that Mr. Erdogan and his allies have changed.

The mayor who proposed segregation, for example, is now part of Mr. Erdogan’s party. The protesters argue that the party may say it wants more religious freedom for its constituents, for example allowing observant women to wear their head scarves in universities, but it has never laid out its vision for how to protect secular lifestyles.

Mr. Erdogan’s party has been the most flexible and open of all parties that consider Islam an important part of Turkish society. Its politics have so far been respectful of secular freedom in most cases. But there are harder-line members who would like to see a more religious society, and secular Turks fear that highly personal questions like their children’s education and rights for unmarried women could be threatened.

In the country as a whole, religious Turks have felt like second-class citizens for generations, in part a legacy of Ataturk’s radical, secular revolution in the early 20th century. Now, elevated by a decade of economic growth, they are pressing for a bigger share of power.

In Konya some of the change started from the top. In 2003, around the time Mr. Erdogan’s party came to power, an irreverent ophthalmologist and a veterinarian with long hair were appointed to run Selcuk University in Konya. They immediately began challenging the sensibilities of this conservative city, organizing concerts and encouraging student clubs.

Kursat Turgut, the veterinarian, who became vice rector, said he had been confronted by a group of students who went to his office and demanded that he cancel a concert because they did not like the singer. He refused.

“Change is the most difficult thing,” Mr. Turgut said, sitting in the rector’s office, where paintings lined the walls. “It takes time to change a mentality.”

The students were from a nationalist group with an Islamic tinge that for years had used scare tactics to enforce a strict moral code on campus. When Umit, who did not want to give his last name, started at the university’s veterinary school five years ago he was chastised by students from the group for cuddling with his girlfriend and, on another occasion, for wearing shorts.

“They thought they were protecting honor and morals,” said Aliye Cetinkaya, a journalist who moved here 12 years ago for college. “If we crossed the line there was a fight.”

Mr. Turgut and the rector, Suleyman Okudan, shut down the group’s activities. Now, four years later, there are more than 80 student clubs, students like Umit behave and dress any way they choose, and Mr. Turgut’s concerts, open to the public, draw large crowds.

“It is like a different century,” Ms. Cetinkaya said.

She still faces limitations. When she covered a demonstration in Konya early last year against the Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark, stones and shoes were thrown at her because she was not wearing a scarf. But such incidents are rare, and far outweighed by improvements. For example, there were only about 50 women in the two-year degree program she attended a decade ago. Now the number is above 1,000, she said.

The deep-rooted religiosity in Konya found public expression in politics in the late 1980s, when the city became one of the first in the country to elect a pro-Islamic party — the Welfare Party of Necmettin Erbakan, the grandfather of the Turkish Islamic movement — to run the city. Mr. Erbakan himself was elected to Parliament from Konya.

The administration was restrictive: it was a Welfare Party mayor, Halil Urun, who proposed, unsuccessfully, segregating the buses in 1989. But the city kept electing the party until the late 1990s, when it was shut down by the state establishment for straying from secularism.

Then, in 2000, a young member of the banned party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, began the Justice and Development Party. Mr. Erdogan had made a concerted effort to take Islam out of politics altogether — aware that continuing to push religion would lead to the same end — and it was unclear whether Konya voters would accept it.

They did. Of the 32 members of the City Council, all but two are now members of Mr. Erdogan’s party.

[...]

Akif Emre, a columnist at Yeni Safak, a conservative newspaper in Istanbul, argues that Mr. Erdogan has helped to bridge the gap between Turkey’s religious heartland and urban, secular Turks.

“They really accept secularism,” he said of Mr. Erdogan and his allies. “They are changing the mentality. Conservative people changed their lifestyle toward a more secular way.”

Religious Turks, for their part, still harbor an unspoken wariness of the state. New civil organizations are more focused on building mosques than engaging in public debate, and people scrupulously avoid talking about politics.

Religious extremists have been found on the fringes. In January the authorities arrested a man they said was the leader of Al Qaeda in Turkey, and in 2000 a pile of bodies that showed signs of torture was found buried under a villa rented by a homegrown Islamist group called Hezbollah.

“Konya is one of the main hubs of traditional and conservative, anti-Ankara countryside,” said Ersin Kalaycioglu, a professor of political science at Isik University in Istanbul. “It has a structure that takes religion very seriously and formulates social life around it.”

Rahmi Bastoklu, the leader in Konya of the secularist Republican People’s Party and the only one of the Konya district’s 16 members of Parliament who is not from Mr. Erdogan’s party, put it bluntly: “People have to leave Konya to enjoy themselves.”

But an unspoken understanding between Konya’s religious Turks and the secular state is in place, in which the mosques are left alone, but religious Turks do not press too many demands on the state. The balance is often held steady by Mr. Erdogan’s party.

Still, pushing too hard against the secular establishment might mean the loss of recent gains. “It’s not a useful thing to talk about,” said Ilhan Cumrali, 36, sitting in his clothing store among racks of floor-length skirts. “We are trying to find the right path. If we do it too aggressively there will be a negative reaction.”

Hamas jihadists kill 5 of own fighters in ambush, declare truce with selves

Not really, but if they did, they'd probably break that one, too. "Hamas Militants Kill 6 Fatah Bodyguards," from the Associated Press:

Hamas gunmen killed five of their own combatants in an ambush Wednesday on a Fatah vehicle that had been carrying Hamas detainees, Fatah officials said.

Also killed were two members of the Fatah-affiliated Preventive Security force that had been guarding the detained Hamas members, the officials said.

The exact circumstances of the incident were not immediately clear. Hamas radio reported that a Hamas man was killed in another clash.

Four days of intense Palestinian infighting in the Gaza Strip has killed 41 people.

And, of course, Israel made them do it.

Hamas: Palestinian infighting is the Jews' fault

Shocker! "The Israelis are behind all these events."

"Hamas blames world, Israel and Arabs," from AP, with thanks to BDT:

The international community, Israel and Arab countries are to blame for the current inter-Palestinian fighting in the Gaza Strip for failing to life an economic siege on the Palestinians, a senior Hamas official said Wednesday.

The remarks by Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, came as fighting renewed between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza early Wednesday when Hamas gunmen stormed the home of a top Fatah official in Gaza City, killing five bodyguards inside, Palestinian security officials said....

"The international community and Arab countries shoulder part of the responsibility for the current events due to their attitudes toward the national unity government," Abu Marzouk told The Associated Press by telephone in Damascus. "The continued financial and political siege has pushed matters to this simmering tension."

He also blamed Israel and Arab apathy toward the economic sanctions for the fighting.

"The Israelis are behind all these events," Abu Marzouk said. "It's illogical that the Arabs stand idle watching the Palestinian arena while it's on the verge of explosion under the siege. ... This is a constant pressure that has led to a real explosion."

Author of the Qur'an and Hadith?

Hugh’s comparison of me to Pierre Menard got me thinking. The joke for Borges was on literary critics, who would take the same words in completely different ways depending on whether they written by a seventeenth-century Spaniard or a twentieth-century Frenchman. But Hugh has a point: the same thing goes for today’s jihad apologists. What matters is not what is said. What matters is who says it.

Some time ago, some Muslim leaders in America were exchanging emails about CAIR cofounder Omar Ahmad’s notorious statement that “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” with the Qur’an “the highest authority in America.” Noting CAIR’s denials of the statement’s authenticity, one wrote: “I would tend to believe CAIR here....the statements in their attributed form sound like something Spencer would create.”

This email exchange was forwarded to me. Since I do not “create” statements by anyone but myself, I wrote to this individual and asked him to retract the suggestion that I invented this quote, or other quotes. The one making this claim is a prominent “moderate” Muslim who travels around the country telling Jewish groups that the Qur’an guarantees Jews the land of Israel (17:104) without getting around to telling them also that the Qur’an also says Jews are accursed for rejecting Muhammad (2:89) and that the Muslims are the true Jews (3:67-68).

I also asked him to retract an earlier statement he had made in an article: that “Spencer…misquotes verses of the Qur’an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies.” I asked him to provide examples of my doing these things, or issue a public retraction. He responded: “As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc.”

Now this was extraordinary. I “claim Muhammad married his daughter in law”? In reality, the Qur’an alludes to this incident (33:37), and the details are filled in by the historian Tabari and others. When I reminded this Muslim professor of these facts, he dismissed Tabari’s trustworthiness as a source. He did not explain, however, how it is that apologists for Islam including Muhammad Husayn Haykal and Karen Armstrong also write about Muhammad’s marrying his daughter-in-law.

If I originated this claim, my black Zionist arts must be especially powerful to cast it into the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira, and contemporary writings on Islam. Haykal never challenges the authenticity of the story, but asserts that this was the sort of thing to which Muhammad was entitled: “The rules which are law to the people at large do not apply to the great.” Nor does Armstrong say the story is inauthentic. She even records Aisha’s sharp comment after Muhammad received his divine scolding for hesitating to marry Zaynab: “Truly thy Lord makes haste to do thy bidding.” But then she explains that “today Muslims deny that Muhammad married Zaynab out of lust.” All right. But he did marry her, and previously she had been married to his adopted son.

Yet the professor who wrote to me with such venom, telling me that “the vileness the defines you could not be suppressed for long,” is unlikely to have written to Armstrong or to Haykal, if he were still alive, in the same vein, although they refer to the same incident that I am supposed to have invented.

So this is where Pierre Menard makes his grand reappearance. In the Qur’an, Allah says this to Muhammad about Zaynab, his former daughter-in-law, and Zaid, his adopted son (“the one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour”):

Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled. (33:37)

Those are for Muslims the words of the glorious book, the eternal book that has existed with him forever, the book that is perfect and contains all that human beings need to know in order to live properly and fashion a perfect society.

But when I quote that verse, and tell the story surrounding it, it is suddenly not so noble anymore. It is bigotry, it is racism, it is -- “Islamophobia”! It is the “vileness that defines” me!

Indeed, all those who dare to quote the jihadists when they explain their motives and goals -- for those explanations inevitably involve copious quotes from Qur’an and Hadith -- find the quotes magically transformed in their hands. No longer are they the authoritative religious texts of Islam. Now they have been transmogrified into vile bigotry and hatred. And if anyone dares note that the noble book and the vile bigotry consist of the same words, he will be tarred with the same charge of bigotry. We will be told that he is quoting it all Out Of Context! These “Islamophobes” will stop at nothing.

But try as they might, it isn’t so easy anymore to pull the wool over Infidel eyes. The cat is out of the bag. The Qur’an and the principal Hadith collections are readily available in English, translated by Muslims for Muslims. Anyone can check on the material I quote in my books and see if the quotations are inaccurate. The field, for the dishonest jihad apologists, is contracting. Which may be why they are growing so shrill and desperate, and playing games that hark back to the unforgettable Pierre Menard.

Making no secret of their intentions part II

Marisol has sent me this companion photo to this one. The one above is from Pakistan.

Judge in Internet Jihad trial: "I don't really understand what a Web site is"

And don't even think about trying to talk to him about "jihad."

Keystone Kops Alert: "'Web site' baffles Internet terrorism trial judge," by Mark Trevelyan for Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph):

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like "Web site" in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.

Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals.

"The trouble is I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is," he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.

Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms "Web site" and "forum." An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: "I haven't quite grasped the concepts."

Violent Islamist material posted on the Internet, including beheadings of Western hostages, is central to the case....

Younes Tsouli, 23, Waseem Mughal, 24, and Tariq al-Daour, 21, deny a range of charges under Britain's Terrorism Act, including inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism "wholly or partly" outside Britain.

Over 30 Qassam rockets hit Sderot in past 24 hours, Olmert vows 'harsh response'

One hopes lessons learned from the war with Hizballah will make this response more substantive, and that Olmert and others will think twice about yielding to domestic and international pressure to make suicidal concessions to the jihadists for temporary peace. "Olmert vows 'harsh response'" by Ronny Sofer for YNet News:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised a harsh response Wednesday to the barrage of Qassam rockets that has hit the Negev city of Sderot over the past day. At a security consultation held in his office, he instructed the IDF to target the Hamas terror network in the Gaza Strip and to go after the cells launching Qassam rockets.

He said Israel could not continue its policy of restraint after over 30 Qassam rockets hit Sderot, injuirng three residents, including a 70-year-old woman.

At the security consultation, Olmert said that he objected to a mass evacuation of Sderot, criticizing billionaire Arcady Gaydamak's funding of buses to transport residents out of the city.

"Those are the images Hamas is waiting for and I am not prepared to award terror with victory," he explained.

Tancredo: "Whether...Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion"

Last night in the Republican candidates' debate Tom Tancredo said:

"My dear friend Ron here, I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you: I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether ... Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it. And we have to defend ourselves."

It is a sign of the times that Jason Easley of 411mania.com (thanks to Kaosktrl), who reported these words, thinks they're loony. Why? Well, just because. Easley classes Tancredo as among last night's losers, and comments: "Tancredo got to say a lot more in this debate, and unfortunately for him, this wasn't a good thing. His idea that the Muslim faith is crazy and blood thirsty was the topper of a really poor night for him."

Yeah, where did he get a crazy idea like that? Maybe from Qur'an 9:5 and 9:29? Maybe from teachings from all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence counseling warfare against unbelievers?

Naah. For Easley and multitudes like him, Osama bin Laden and other jihadists can quote the Qur'an and invoke Muhammad to justify violent acts until doomsday, or until the Mahdi returns, and they will never be willing to acknowledge that there may be something in those texts that deserves attention if we are ever going to see a cessation of that violence. The facts of the case are just too disturbing, too hard to believe. It's easier to assume that when people like Tancredo intrude a bit of reality into the polite fictions that dominate the public discourse about Islamic jihad, that they're just going off half-cocked, committing a "gaffe."

Unfortunately, the evidence that Easley would prefer to ignore just keeps piling up no matter what.

Fitzgerald: Robert Spencer and Pierre Menard

Given half a chance, life is likely to imitate art. Often have you heard that told. And you don’t always believe it. But it’s true.

A few months ago, I was sitting quietly, re-reading a story last read thirty years ago: “Pierre Menard, author of the Quijote,” by Jorge Luis Borges.

In the second paragraph, I came across the following:

The Countess de Bagnoregi, one of the most delicate spirits of the Principality of Monaco (and now of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, following her recent marriage to the international philanthropist Simon Kautzsch….)

My goodness, I said to myself. Here is a story in which a noblewoman leaves Monaco to marry an American and move to Pennsylvania. That’s art. And then, a few decades after the story was written, along came life, and a real, palpable miss who grew up in Pennsylvania, instead moves to Monaco to marry a prince and live quasi-happily in the pages of French and Italian magazines ever after.

Then I went back and read the rest of the story, beyond that little detail. And in it, a novelist and poet à ses heures, a European littérateur, with hints of Valéry, and more than a hint of Rilke’s rich and neurasthenic and generous female admirers (they don’t make them like that anymore), a habitué of salons, a dabbler in amateur philosophical speculation, proceeds to produce his supreme achievement. His name is Pierre Menard.

This is how what was to be his crowning achievement came to him, to Pierre Menard, in a dream:

He did not want to compose another Quixote -- which is easy -- but the Quixote itself. Needless to say, he never contemplated a mechanical transcription of the original; he did not propose to copy it. His admirable intention was to produce a few pages which would coincide -- word for word and line for line -- with those of Miguel de Cervantes.

”My intent is no more than astonishing,” he wrote me the 30th of September, 1934, from Bayonne. “The final term in a theological or metaphysical demonstration -- the objective world, God, causality, the forms of the universe -- is no less previous and common than my famed novel. The only difference is that the philosophers publish the intermediary stages of their labor in pleasant volumes and I have resolved to do away with those stages.” In truth, not one worksheet remains to bear witness to his years of effort.

He doesn’t copy it out. He hadn’t memorized it. He does not even attempt to become Cervantes: “To be, in some way, Cervantes and reach the Quixote seemed less arduous to him -- and, consequently, less interesting -- than to go on being Pierre Menard and reach the experiences of Quixote through the experiences of Pierre Menard.”

And that is what he does.

The author continues:

It is a revelation to compare Menard’s Don Quixote with Cervantes’. The latter, for example, wrote (part one, chapter nine):

….truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

Written in the seventeenth century, written by the ‘lay genius’ Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical praise of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes:

…truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

History, the mother of truth: the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an inquiry into reality but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what has happened; it is what we judge to have happened. The final phrases -- exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’ s counselor -- are brazenly pragmatic.

The contrast in style is also vivid. The archaic style of Menard -- quite foreign, after all -- suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his forerunner, who handles with ease the current Spanish of his time.

Now this is where I was startled, yet again, and this time in a way that far outdid that earlier, Pennsylvania-Monaco-marriage-princess detail. For I realized that this is exactly what Robert Spencer had done. He had, unwittingly, imitated Borgesian art. He had written, not quite the Quijote, but a book that contained as most of its text the words, the very words, to be found elsewhere: in the Qur’an, and the Hadith, and the sira. He had written a book about Muhammad that, word for word, tracked the language of the most revered early biographers of Muhammad, such as Ibn Ishaq, and the most revered muhaddithin, Bukhari and Muslim. And in doing this, he had produced a text which, like the “Quijote” (or the “Quixote” – it’s a quixotic quibble) was subject to a completely different understanding from the original, or originals, which Spencer had managed to reproduce.

Here, for example, is how one of the Hadith tells the story of Muhammad’s marriage to nine-year-old Aisha, taken from Bukhari:

"Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old." Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236.

And here is what Spencer wrote, on page 170 of his The Truth About Muhammad:

"According to ahadith reported by Bukhari, the Prophet of Islam 'married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [i.e., consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old.'"

Note the difference in tone. It begins with a sly “According to the ahadith reported by Bukhari” and that phrase “according to” already reveals a sneer of doubt. “According to Bukhari” -- as if Bukhari could be wrong, as if anything should be said about Bukhari other than indicating the volume, the book, the number of the particular hadith. “According to” is obviously meant to plant a seed of doubt, and the ideal Muslim mind must in all things having to do with Islam be stonily barren, kept free of all such seeds. There is no “according to” Bukhari. There is simply -- Bukhari.

Another example of Spencer’s insidious technique. Here is how the earliest biographer of Muhammad describes what he said:

"The apostle said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.'" Ibn Ishaq, p. 369.

And here is how Spencer puts it:

After the murder of K’ab, Muhammad issued a blanket command: “Kill any Jew that falls into your power."

By now the difference in tone should be obvious. In the one case, it is “the apostle” who simply, authoritatively, says (“the apostle said”). In Spencer, he is disrespectfully referred to as “Muhammad.” And there is an unpleasant association, one which Infidels should not be encouraged to make, between what Spencer calls, in such loaded fashion, the “murder of K’ab” (why not simply “the killing of K’ab”?) and the deliberate post hoc ergo propter hoc connection (that sly “after”) of that killing to Muhammad’s saying “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” This is simply not acceptable.

And here is yet another example of Spencer’s insidious technique: Not content to having called into question Bukhari, he now appears to set the two most authoritative muhaddithin against each other. Muslim reports:

“I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Sahih Muslim bk 10, no. 31

Compare that to this:

“I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Spencer, p. 158

Now when he quoted Bukhari above, he carefully wrote “according to” (“according to Bukhari”). Yet now, when quoting Muslim, the other of the two greatest and most authoritative muhaddithin, he leaves out that phrase. He simply gives the citation as “Sahih Muslim bk 10, no. 31.” Why do you suppose that is? This is clearly a transparent attempt to compare Bukhari with Muslim, setting them off in the minds of readers one against the other, and thus attempting to sow dissension in the land, beginning with those who revere Bukhari above all others, and who will not take kindly to those who appear to favor Spencer’s rhetorical favoring of Muslim.

And if any further proof were needed of Spencer’s insidious attempt to split Muslims or call their faith into question, there is this:

"Allah's Apostle in his fatal illness said, ‘Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians, for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.’" Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 472

Now that is a perfectly good remark. Aisha, the favorite wife of the Prophet, simply quoted him during his last illness.

And here is how Spencer distorts beyond recognition Bukhari:

"He [the Prophet] added: 'Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their Prophets as places for worship.'" Spencer, p. 165.

Spencer is no mild-mannered innocent bellelettristic Pierre Menard.
Rather, he is an agent of Shaytan, who takes Islamic texts and distorts them beyond all recognition, and yet does it so subtly that many Infidels will be fooled into thinking that there is no, or scarcely any, difference between them.

Muslims have been too trusting. They have been too naïve. They have been too innocent. They simply have no idea of the kind of thing that can be done to them when Infidels take their very texts, the texts that by right belong only to Muslims, and that only they, or people whom they have thoroughly investigated, should be allowed to examine, to study, to write about. No Infidel who has not received official Muslim approval should be allowed to publish any of the texts of Islam.

An Infidel who reads Ibn Ishaq, the biographer of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, and does not at once revert to Islam, is a strange person indeed. He posses a mind that he has rendered inaccessible to the Truth. Should someone who remains inaccessible to the Truth be believed about anything? Should he even have the right to publish his own distortions and to fool the public?

Of course not. And that is why Muslims must ban The Truth About Muhammad, not only in Pakistan (where it was banned several months ago), but also in Sudan, and Egypt, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and everywhere that Islam dominates, and everywhere that Muslims rule. And if they can, they must force others to do so as well, in the temporary Lands of the Infidels. Everything belongs to Allah, and the Believers must not be shy, must treat what belongs to Allah as, naturally, belonging to them, as the People of Allah, the Sons of Allah, as well. Are they not, in the truest sense, the owners of everything, or rather, are not Believers, in a sense, merely possessors of successive life estates, while the fee simple to the universe is held by Allah? As for Unbelievers, Infidels, they possess, legally, nothing -- and temporary possession gives them no permanent rights under the Shari’a.

Pierre Menard was free to write his own Quijote, that corresponded word for word to the Quijote of Cervantes. Or rather, Borges was free to create Pierre Menard, and to endow him with that ability. But when a real man, Robert Spencer, a fabulous creature but not a creature of fiction, does something of the same with the holy books of Islam, that is not allowed. No one can give him the poetic license for that. Not the Sheik al-Azhar. Not Al-Qaradawi. Not the Ayatollahs, grand and otherwise, of Qom. Not Tariq Ramadan or the Ikhwan. No one can.

Muslims don’t even have to read The Truth About Muhammad to know what a terrible book it must be. For no Infidel, no one who reads and rereads the words of the canonical texts, and yet remains un-reverted, can conceivably have understood those words properly.

A series of Muslim reviews can be found here.

“Just from reading the inside flap details I know this is slander on our Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and not based on whole truths. As a new revert to Islam this is a book to avoid by anyone who is a Muslim. Get a book recommended by your Sheikh, Imam or Scholar in your Masjid. Doln’t get caught up with this book of partial truths and Allah knows best.”

And another:

“This book is factually incorrect and biased. Not worth the paper it is printed on. Don’t waste your time”

And a third:

“As for the book, the book has no valid refrences, and uses vague verses from the Quran and from sayings of Muhammed and intepets them in his own sick way, just like the bible many portions of the Quran leave much room for us to make or own interpetaions. There are assumnptions in the book that challenge historice facts and events that are documented, and have been previously proven. Robert Spencer is a criminal; he is exploiting America’s fears and touching sensistive areas like 9/11 and then blaimg Islam!”

Here is a fourth:

No, I won’t give you the fourth, nor the forty-fourth, nor the one-hundred-and-forty-fourth. They are all the same.

The very same words, from the mouth or pen or computer of an Infidel, are completely different when from the mouth of pen or computer from a Believer. It is all in the identity of the writer, and through that identity, of gauging his intent. If a Believer quotes from Qur’an and Hadith and sira, he is doing it in a spirit of more than respect, but of mental submission. Every word he quotes, every word he uses to comment on the quote, is instinct with that submission.

Not Spencer. His quotes are not offered up in that spirit. He quotes from the texts i