Florida Muslim student indicted on explosives charges has terror past in Egypt

An, er, explosive revelation about Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed: "Indicted USF Student has Terror Past in Egypt," from the Investigative Project on Terrorism (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Two Egyptian students enrolled at the University of South Florida have been indicted for carrying explosive materials across states lines. One of the defendants also is charged with teaching the other how to use them for violent reasons.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, faces terrorism charges for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.

According to officials familiar with the case, Mohamed has been arrested previously in Egypt on terrorism-related charges. He is said to have produced an Internet video showing how to build a remote-controlled car bomb.

Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, also an engineering student, were stopped for speeding Aug. 4 in Goose Creek, S.C., where they have been held on state charges. Police found pipe bombs in their car near a Navy base in South Carolina where enemy combatants have been held. They have been held in a South Carolina jail while the FBI continued to investigate whether there was a terrorism link.

Read it all.

Muslims in Thailand tell tall tales about Thai army atrocities

It's a time-honored technique, hallowed by successful use by Hizballah and others. Honest Ibe Hooper should give these folks a stern talking-to.

"Muslims Battle Buddhists in Thailand's Troubled South," by Jürgen Kremb in SpiegelOnline (thanks to all who sent this in):

Tuwnedaniya Tuwaemaengae, 24, insists that he has nothing to do with the rebels. Although he is a chemistry student in Bangkok, he says that the Islamic revolution is currently more important to him than his studies. He organized a demonstration a few weeks ago which brought the provincial capital Pattani to a standstill. Now he is taking journalists on a tour of a village where soldiers allegedly committed atrocities against Muslims.

The villagers line up along the road to greet their visitors. The region in Narathiwat province is part of the "red zone" where the rebels collect taxes from the villagers to fund their insurgency. In the house of the local imam, villagers tell the story of an army raid and the murder of two young Muslim men. They point to two fresh grave mounds as evidence. But there is not a single bullet hole in the mosque, which villagers claim came under Thai army fire for several minutes.

Muslim students in Florida indicted on explosives charges

CAIR will have a statement as soon as Ahmed Bedier finds out what he's allowed to say. Goose Creek Jihad Update: "Fla. students face explosives indictment," by Lara Jakes Jordan for Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON - Two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida were indicted Friday for carrying explosive materials across states lines and one of them was charged with teaching the other how to use them for violent reasons.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, faces terrorism charges for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.

He and Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, an engineering student, were stopped for speeding in Goose Creek, S.C., on Aug. 4, where they have been held on state charges.

India: Hyderabad Muslims irked by police visits to madrassas in wake of jihad bombings

In the wake of the jihad attacks that killed 30 people in Hyderabad, Muslims are irked once again -- but not by Muslims perpetrating such attacks. No, what has really upset them are police visits to madrassas. "Hyderabad cops visit madrassas, kick off a row," from IBNLive (thanks to all who sent this in):

New Delhi/ Hyderabad: The Hyderabad police have ruffled feathers by visiting madrassas while investigating the August 25 twin bomb blasts in the city.

Sources tell CNN-IBN the police are searching for a man called named Mujibur Rahman but authorities refused to comment if he is a suspect in their investigation.

The police have asked madrassas to supply information on their students and teachers and their source of funding. Police teams, since August 25, have visited at least 10 madrassas including the Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom in Shivrampalli and Jami Anwar Ul Huda in Kishanbagh.

The police investigation has upset the Deeni Madrasa Board, the top organ of all madrassas in Andhra Pradesh. The board has objected to the police visits, and is meeting Chief Minister Y S Rajashekhar Reddy in the evening to register its protest.

“Madrassas is an educational institution; it is open to all. Raiding a madrassas in the dead of night will send wrong signals and create communal frenzy,” Moulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, general secretary of the Deeni Madarsa Board, told the Deccan Chronicle newspaper.

Wrong signal? Where should they look for clues to the bombing, then? In Hindu temples? And what about this "communal frenzy"? Is that a threat?

California Muslim pleads guilty to plot to sell Uzis to Iran

Yes, but relax. "This had nothing to do with terrorism," said Deputy Federal Public Defender Guy Iversen. Maghloubi's attorney said that in his own nutty, marvelous, winsome way, his client was trying "to actually try and help a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran" by helping a foe of the Thug-In-Chief. But is any opponent of the pint-sized Mad Mahdist a friend of the United States? That, unfortunately, is not so clear.

"Man pleads guilty to plot to sell weapons to Iran," by Greg Krikorian for the Los Angeles Times (thanks to Mackie):

A West Hills man has pleaded guilty to an audacious plan to buy as many as 100,000 Uzis in the United States and sell them to officials in Iran's government.

Under a plea agreement reached this week, Seyed Mostafa Maghloubi, 49, acknowledged that he tried to obtain submachine guns and night vision goggles and ship them to Iran, in violation of U.S. laws prohibiting such transactions.

According to the plea agreement, Maghloubi's plan dated to at least October 2005 when he approached an unidentified individual and said he was interested in buying the weapons and goggles.

The individual, who was identified only as a cooperating witness for the government, brokered a meeting between Maghloubi and an undercover Los Angeles police detective who Maghloubi believed was an arms dealer.

[...]

The discussions eventually led to Maghloubi taking delivery of three fully automatic Uzis and one pair of night vision goggles.

At all times, the plea agreement says, Maghloubi -- who was born in Iran and is a naturalized U.S. citizen -- sought to deliver the military equipment to a faction within Iran's government that is aligned with a former president who is a political foe of the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In that light, Maghloubi's attorney said, his client was trying "to actually try and help a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran."

"This had nothing to do with terrorism," Deputy Federal Public Defender Guy Iversen said.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office had no comment on the plea agreement.

Misunderstanders of Islam say to prospective jihadists: "What will unite you is the love of Islam and the motto 'There is no God but Allah'"

Here is yet another example of the heavily Islamic character of jihadist appeals. Note the emphasis on the ideological aspect of the jihad, and the denial that the movement has any dependence upon charismatic personalities or even upon Al-Qaeda itself: the authors are confident that Muslims can become jihadists simply by studying the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Yet we are told again and again that the people who write things like this actually misunderstand Islam. It would be refreshing if someone who believed that supplied some evidence for this view -- not evidence that would convince gullible Westerners that Islam is peaceful, but evidence which would blunt the force of appeals like this within the Islamic world.

"On Islamist Websites: How to Join Al-Qaeda, Form a Jihad Cell, and Select a Western Target – '[Is] Assassinating the American Ambassador... Difficult For Someone Who Has Already Crushed America in His Home?,'" from MEMRI:

On August 26, Islamist websites posted an item titled "How to Join Al-Qaeda." It is not clear when the item was written; it was produced by the website Al-Thabitoun 'Ala Al-'Ahd, which is affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Egypt and is currently inactive.

[...]

"You feel that you want to carry a weapon, fight, and kill the occupiers, and that it is our duty to call for jihad as much as to call for prayer... All that is required is a firm personal decision to fulfill this obligation, and participation in jihad and the resistance...

"Do you really have to meet Osama bin Laden in person in order to become a jihad fighter? Do you have to be recognized by Al-Qaeda as one of its members to become a jihad fighter? If Al-Qaeda commanders should be killed, would the jihad be eliminated? What would you do if Al-Qaeda did not exist today? How is Osama bin Laden different from you? - [yet] he managed to establish the world jihad organization. Who provided training to Osama bin Laden and Abdallah 'Azzam when they went to Afghanistan to become the first Arab jihad fighters?

"The answers to these questions are the following: I don't have to meet Osama bin Laden to become a jihad fighter. Moreover, there is no need to meet even one jihad fighter to become one. Neither do I need recognition from Al-Qaeda...

"As the first step, imagine that Al-Qaeda does not exist and that you are interested [in waging] jihad - what would you do in this case?... If you know any young people - whether one, two, or more - in your area, mosque, or university who are as dedicated and enthusiastic about jihad as you are, come to an understanding with them, and together form a cell whose objective is to help Islam and only Islam...

"At first, your cell should have no more than five members, all absolutely trustworthy... The cell must have a commander and a shura council... The commander must clearly realize that he is Osama bin Laden to the cell members...

"Each cell should have a source of funding... When you have several members, you will [surely] find the funds for your cell... Then you should buy weapons, make plans, brainstorm, plot your plans, monitor your enemy's important objectives, and study its moves. Set a goal; for example, assassinating the American ambassador - is it so difficult? Is it [indeed] difficult for someone who has already crushed America in her home?

"What is the difference between you and the hero of the New York attack, Muhammad Atta, who planned an action which even today shakes the world every time it is mentioned? Assassinating the ambassador takes no more than a gun and a bullet. One could disguise oneself as a peddler in order to tail [the target], which shouldn't cost a lot of money...

"The cells must maintain contact among themselves, but by no means in a direct or conventional way. The contact must be spiritual: What will unite you is the love of Islam and the motto "There is no God but Allah." Even if the contact between [your] cell and the rest is indirect, it will be close... You must meet once a month... You must not meet in the same place twice... Personal meetings with a small number of people [must take place] once a week...

Greetings, students of Carl Ernst

Question: When is a professor not a teacher but a propagandist?

Answer: When he forces your intellectual hand, constraining you by means subtle or open to accept his point of view on a given issue. A genuine academic does not think for his students, but trains and equips them to do so. He is not afraid of, nor does he discourage, open disagreement with his points of view, for he is not trying to compel his students to reach certain predetermined conclusions, but rather to give them the means to evaluate competing ideas on their own, and to be able to sift truth from falsehood.

Your professor, Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, I am sorry to say, is not a teacher. He is a propagandist. He is not trying to train you to think, but to enlist you as a member of his ideological cadre. Yes, this is a harsh statement, but unlike Dr. Ernst, I support assertions I make with evidence. Here is the evidence.

1. In the syllabus for his course, "Introduction to Islamic Civilization," Religious Studies 180, he recommends that you visit this site, Jihad Watch, as well as the site of the Chick Tract comic books.

The effect for which this is designed should be obvious -- as obvious as if I had, in a course I was teaching, assigned various academic works and then said, "For next week, read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad and/or watch the Bugs Bunny feature 'Hassan Chop.'" Jihad Watch is a news and commentary site about global jihad activity. Every assertion we make here is from news sources (usually from wire services) or verifiable from Islamic texts. Chick Tracts are comic books reflecting a paranoid, conspiracy-minded view of the world and purveying numerous falsehoods, such as the idea that the Vatican cooked up Islam as part of its fiendish scheme to control the world. By equating Jihad Watch and Chick Tracts, Dr. Ernst is manipulating you into thinking they're two species of the same thing.

Now, probably Dr. Ernst does think that: that we are paranoid conspiracy mongers here, or something near to that. But note that he doesn't offer you any evidence for this view at all. He just puts the two sites in proximity, and lets the juxtaposition do the work.

This is manipulation, not education.

2. Dr. Ernst offers, as evidence that I am not to be trusted as a source on Islam, this page, "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer." Note, in the first place, the characterization "Islamophobe." No evidence is offered for it. Nothing from my books, nothing from this website, nothing at all. His use of this word is, again, manipulative and without substance, designed to propagandize rather than convince, much less to equip one to make his own judgment.

In reality, in my books and articles, and at this site, I explore the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify their violent acts and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. This is not "Islamophobia," this is the only reliable path to Islamic reform, since you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming. Terror attacks in the name of Islam, justified by Islamic texts, take place on a virtually daily basis around the globe -- and each one shows anew how desperately needed is this exploration and rethinking of the Islamic texts. But Dr. Ernst is not engaged in that effort, and he is not bothering to explain what he thinks is wrong with the way I'm going about it. He's just throwing smear-words.

Note also that in the document, he doesn't offer a single example of anything I say that is inaccurate. Instead, he expects you to dismiss me because he doesn't like my publishers. This is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: he is suggesting that his own publishers (such as Shambhala) are more prestigious than those of his critics, and that therefore he is to be believed over them. Argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominem attacks are two sides of the same worthless coin.

I have invited Dr. Ernst to debate, pointing out that he could thereby show me up as wrong and end my influence -- which he obviously regards as baneful, and which extends to a great many people, as I have written two bestselling books and several others that did quite well. But he has declined, despite the obvious ease with which he no doubt thinks he could dispatch me in a debate about Muhammad and the influence of early (and Qur'anic) Islam on today's jihad violence. Instead, he persists in using me as a slide, as Exhibit A of "Islamophobia" in his classes, while declining to substantiate a single one of his assertions. Well, this time the Exhibit is talking back from the slide.

This is no professor. This is a propagandist, and a shallow one at that.

UPDATE: I posted this as an example of the dishonest propaganda that passes for education far too often in universities these days. Carl Ernst, however, is no worse and no better than a host of others. I ask that you please not write to him, or to the President of the University of North Carolina. It will do no good, and -- if your letter is intemperate -- only confirm their prejudices. There is no point in writing to either one, as this situation goes far beyond these two men, and will not change without a major transformation within American universities in general.

UPDATE 9/2: Carl Ernst demonstrates anew his commitment to genuine academic inquiry

UPDATE 9/4: Hugh Fitzgerald offers Carl Ernst's students a recommended reading list.

"The meaning of killing a Jew for the liberation of Palestine cannot be compared to any Jihad on earth"

The HLF trial, in which CAIR is heavily implicated, continues with some eye-opening revelations. "Prosecutors say Muslim charity in Texas got appeal to help fund holy war," from The Associated Press (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

DALLAS: An unknown Islamist militant appealed to a Texas-based Muslim charity for money to help fund a jihad, or holy war, against Israel, according to a letter that surfaced in the terrorist-financing trial of the charity's leaders.

Other letters appeared to thank the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development for helping the children of martyrs — suicide bombers, prosecutors implied.

The letters were among thousands of pages of documents that prosecutors claim show financial dealings between Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001, and groups controlled by Hamas, the Palestinian militant group the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization.

Five former leaders of Holy Land are on trial in federal district court on charges of raising more than $12 million for Hamas, conspiracy and money laundering. They could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Defense lawyers, who will begin making their case on Tuesday, have said the men gave humanitarian aid to schools, orphanages and hospitals in Palestinian areas of Israel but denied helping Hamas....

The most inflammatory document introduced by prosecutors was an unsigned, handwritten letter in Arabic from the Islamic Relief Committee, which the U.S. government contends is part of Hamas' network of social organization in Gaza and the West Bank. The unknown author told leaders of Holy Land that Palestinians were happy to see fighters carrying out attacks on Jews.

"Jihad in Palestine is different from any other Jihad; the meaning of killing a Jew for the liberation of Palestine cannot be compared to any Jihad on earth," the author wrote.

The letter implored supporters to "provide us with what helps Weapons, weapons, our brothers."

FBI agent Lara Burns testified that the letter was seized in a 2004 raid at the Virginia home of Ismail Elbarrasse, who served with some of the Holy Land officials on a group of U.S. supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Another letter, from 2000, was a thank-you note from the Islamic Society in Palestine, a group the U.S. government alleges is controlled by Hamas. A group official, Sheikh Ahmad Mohamed Bahr, thanked Holy Land for helping "the children of the martyrs, the wounded, the injured, and the needy."

Other documents appeared to indicate that Holy Land gave money to Hamas officials and fighters whom Israel deported to Lebanon in the early 1990s....

Bush Administration scraps plans to screen U.S. foreign aid contractors for terror ties

Yes, why bother? After all, Islam is a religion of peace!

"Plan for Terror Screening of Aid Groups Cut Drastically," by Walter Pincus for the Washington Post:

The Bush administration has decided to sharply scale back its plan to screen U.S. foreign aid contractors around the globe for potential terrorism connections, deciding instead to begin with a pilot program involving aid recipients in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before expanding it worldwide.

The decision, announced Tuesday at a meeting of U.S. officials and representatives of nonprofit groups, was made after lawmakers and several large aid organizations said that the global screening requirements were onerous and unwarranted. An official of the U.S. Agency for International Development had earlier promised to defer the program, which initially was to have taken effect Monday.

The global screening program, initially described in a July 17 Federal Register notice, would have required that all nongovernmental organizations seeking funds from the agency provide detailed information about key personnel, including phone numbers, birth dates and e-mail addresses.

That information was to have been reviewed by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to ensure that there were no connections with individuals or groups associated with terrorism or threats to national security. It would have affected thousands of individuals in nonprofit groups, charities, religious organizations, colleges, universities and private corporations.

At the presentation Tuesday, USAID officials said they would initially carry out a "pilot vetting program" with recipients of grants and contracts in the West Bank and Gaza, according to materials presented at the meeting and made available to The Post by a contractor organization on the condition that it not be identified.

Fitzgerald: Top Five Famous Muslims

I found this at a website supposedly devoted to sport: www.pakpassion.net. The list is an inspiring blend of mass-murderers and mass-media sports stars. The arithmetic needs work.

top 5 famous muslims of alltime

1) Mohamed Ali- the greatest boxer of all time [float like a butterfly sting like a bee]

2) Osama Bin Laden - not none for the best of reasons but is suposed to be a terrorist mastermind. Fights for Al-Quaida

3) Zinedine Zidane- one of the greatest footballers ever comes from an algerian backgroung great footballer

4) Tupac Shakur- best rapper of all time not sure if he is muslim or not but it did say he is on a website

4) Sadam Hussain- Once again not known for the best of reasons but use to be presindent i think of iraq.

5) Imran khan- great cricketing allrounder great captain lead pakistan to world cup glory

i no there are other famous muslims who invented thing but these are mine
what do you guys think it will be good to see your top 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Fitzgerald: What Islamic "radicalization" means

"We are fortunate that radicalization seems to have less appeal in the U.S. than in other parts of the world," he said, "but we do not believe that America is immune to homegrown terrorism."-- from this article

This statement, variants of which are made so often with such self-assurance, needs to be examined. We are often told that "Muslims in America are different" or "the situation in America is different from that in Western Europe." (At least this concedes that there is a "problem" with Muslims in Western Europe.) Why? Oh, because Muslims in America are so very "different" because they are so well-off: so many engineers, so many computer programmers, that sort of thing. In other words, something about the American Dream, defined entirely in terms of economic wellbeing, but having nothing to do with the legal and political institutions of the United States that help to explain not only that economic wellbeing, but all the other things, far more important than mere bank accounts, that make America America.

Implicit in this view -- "radicalization has less appeal in America " -- is the by-now thoroughly discredited notion, which keeps coming in by the rhetorical back door, that "poverty" causes what is demurely called "radicalization." But that is not so. "Mike" Hawash was an Intel engineer, with an American wife, and Little-League playing children, and a salary of $360,000 a year. Yet he was prepared, having rediscovered and deepened his faith in Islam, to go off -- after 9/11 -- to Afghanistan to kill Americans.

The word "radicalization" does not tell us anything, but attempts rather to hide the truth from us. What is "radicalization"? It is the state in which an individual Muslim, or a group of Muslims, decide to be very good Muslims indeed, and to do all that is demanded of Muslims, including the duty of participating in Jihad to remove all obstacles, everywhere, to the final triumph of Islam. Some Muslims choose not to participate directly. Some choose to avert their minds from that duty, to pretend that it does not exist. Some out of filial piety, and the apparent need to have an "identity," to continue to call themselves "cultural Muslims," meaning that they are no longer believers at all, but don't really want to make that leap into the dangerous unknown -- the leap made by Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and no doubt tens or hundreds of thousands of others around the world, who out of fear do so not quite so openly and noisily follow them.

But those who are "radicalized" -- and these are a great many -- have not embraced a doctrine that has nothing to do with Islam, but rather has everything to do with it. The texts they read are the same. But they read the full texts. They know the duty of Muslims. They choose, however, as their instrument of Jihad not only such things as campaigns of Da'wa, and the careful Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya efforts designed to prevent Infidels from finding out just a little too much about Islam, mainly by keeping those tiny Infidel minds busy with "the three abrahamic faiths" and "we revere Jesus and Moses" and of course the five canonical prayers, and the giving of zakat -- for fellow Muslims -- and the observance of Ramadan and the inspirational delights of the hajj, but also violence. And that is what "radicalization" means -- not some different, weird, unrelated set of beliefs, but merely the set of beliefs that arise naturally out of, indeed are inculcated by, Islamic texts read and understood as Muslims have read and understood those immutable texts for 1300 -- or possibly 1200 -- years (for it is unclear when the Qur'anic text was fixed in amber).

But the texts are the same, the same ones read by Muslims in France as in the United States. The same texts as are read by Muslims in Iran, or the Sudan, or Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. The refusal of American authorities, or writers on the subject of Islam in America, to recognize that there is no great difference between the Islam in America and Islam elsewhere, is inexcusable. The only difference that for now inhibits Muslim demands and behavior is the fact that Muslims constitute 1% of the total population, that that population is far less likely, for a number of reasons, to appease or acquiesce as so many in Western Europe have done, and that they cannot act quite as openly, quite as aggressively (though many Muslim groups are doing, in fact, their blatant damnedest) as they do in Western Europe.

"Radicalization" simply means an intensification of Islamic faith, and a willingness to participate oneself directly in Jihad, rather than simply support the effort as part of a community obligation, and finally, the willingness to use violence ("terrorism") as an instrument of Jihad. And that is all.

Fitzgerald: Defend the West by educating it

"The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood 'must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.'" -- from this article

Cut-and-paste. Print as many copies as you wish. Email others.

Home: Refrigerator (that magnet again). Wallet. Glove compartment.

Outside: Distribute to friends, family, colleagues at work, that person in the check-out line at the supermarket or the dry-cleaners or the Post Office with whom you deliberately strike up a conversation about Islam.

Keep it up. Don't stop.

And there is more to do with this. Much more. Don't merely put that up on your refrigerator door or bulletin-board. Don't merely have it at hand when you are engaging others in conversation, or to give out to acquaintances and colleagues, always as evidentiary accompaniment to, and not in lieu of, coherent argument.

Do something else. Take this remark and a half-dozen or dozen just like it, and put them on big boards. And then the next time you have to counter-picket some anti-American or anti-Israel or anti-Infidel demonstration, make sure you appear with those signboards, with those quotations in very big letters. And make sure the cameras get a view, and the inquiring reporters can't avoid seeing them.

And what's more, perhaps a permanent picketing of the White House and Congress, in which Infidel citizens, will take turns -- a number signing up who will, from the Washington area (or from out of town) to picket for one full day, outside either various Congressional office buildings, or outside the White House itself. Make it a permanent thing, with a dozen or so picketers, of the "from-all-walks-of-life" school. And be sure to include, symbolically, all non-Muslim faiths and also those of no faith at all, and of various ages, races, and so on.

This should be repeated and repeated, endlessly, at every opportunity, in every conceivable place. It should become and remain a permanent reminder of the nature of the menace. And perhaps a few of those picketers can also have relevant passages from the Qur'an inscribed. You can find on-line exactly which ones make the greatest impression, or perhaps just some phrases -- "Banu Qurayza," "Khaybar Oasis," "Asma bint Marwan," "Abu Afak," "Aisha" -- listed, so that those who pass by, and those who report as well, will have to ask what they mean. And then they will have to listen to the reply as each otherwise unfamiliar detail from the Life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, is patiently and concisely explained.

Up to now, demonstrators have been remarkably limited and unimaginative. How many counter-PLO demonstrators have you seen wearing signs or chanting slogans such as "Israel will live" or "down with terrorism" or "Israel wants peace" or similarly utterly pointless, utterly unconvincing, utterly boring slogans that mean nothing? And they likewise do nothing to bring to any would-be audience's attention the nature of the menace that Israel faces. Such demonstrations are a useless exercise.

But "Stop the Jizyah" then requires people to find out about the "Jizyah," what it was and what it is and what it could be again. "No to the Lesser Jihad Against Israel" allows people to reinterpret the endless siege of Israel correctly, and not as this phony "nationalist" revolt of the "Palestinians." A sign saying "Stop the Campaigns of Da'wa" or "Stop Demographic Conquest" or "Isn't Ten Trillion Dollars Quite Enough?" will raise other issues -- the issue of what constitutes Jihad and the instruments of Jihad, so that those who apparently believe that "Jihadists" (a word to be used sparingly) are limited solely to those Muslims who use violence, who engage in qitaal or combat, will be disabused of the limited nature of their understanding, and will see that the global Jihad is advancing in many, many other ways quite aside from armed combat, or qitaal.

That's a start. That's a way of forcing the introduction of needed concepts. Begin with that of the "Dhimmi" and that of "Jihad." And go from there.

Keep it up. Don't stop.

There is a great deal of work to be done, a great many people who need to be educated.

Jury wants a hair off the Megahed

They want DNA and hair samples, which may indicate suspicion that Mohamed and Megahed were involved in other cases beyond this one.

An update on the Goose Creek Jihad story. "Jury Wants DNA, Hair Samples In USF Case," by Elaine Silvestrini for the Tampa Tribune (thanks to Michelle Malkin):

TAMPA - A federal grand jury in Tampa is asking for DNA and hair samples from a University of South Florida student jailed four weeks ago in South Carolina on explosives charges, his attorney said.

Andrew Savage said in a phone interview Wednesday night that he had no indication why the samples were being sought from his client, Youssef Megahed.

The news came as the grand jury heard testimony Wednesday from people who have connections to Megahed and Ahmed Mohamed, another USF student arrested at the same time.

Accompanied by attorneys, at least three people entered the grand jury area of the U.S. District courthouse on North Florida Avenue in downtown Tampa. They were the owner of a home where Mohamed planned to rent a room, the landlord's son and a Muslim community spokesman. All three later declined to comment to a reporter.

Megahed and Mohamed, were pulled over for speeding in South Carolina on Aug. 4 about seven miles from the Goose Creek Naval Weapons Station, which houses a military prison for enemy combatants.

The men were charged with possession of an incendiary or explosive device, based in part on items found in the trunk of their car, authorities said. Mohamed said they were carrying fireworks.

One week later, on Aug. 11, the FBI searched a home at 12402 Pampas Place in Tampa that is owned by Noor and Ana Salhab. Authorities said the search was related to the case involving the students.

[...]

Federal court records show that Salhab leased the house in the early 1990s to World and Islam Studies Enterprise, a think tank run by Sami Al-Arian, the former USF professor accused of funding Palestinian terrorist organizations....

Not just accused. He pled guilty.

Also appearing before the grand jury Wednesday was Ahmed Bedier, who has been a spokesman for the Megahed family. Bedier is executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations and a frequent media spokesman for Muslims and Islamic causes.

He was accompanied by attorney Lyann Goudie and appeared to be in the grand jury area for about an hour.

Bedier declined to answer questions about his testimony, saying he wanted to check with the national headquarters of CAIR about what he was allowed to say.

Yes, Ahmed, check with them to see if you're allowed to tell the truth today, or if that isn't done on Thursdays.

Thai PM: Muslims in South don't want peace

Ibrahim Hooper, call your office: clearly Surayud Chulanont is a racist Islamophobe.

"Thai PM says peace talks fruitless in Muslim south," from AP (thanks to Twostellas):

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Wednesday that separatists fighting in Muslim-majority provinces have refused to take up his offer to launch peace talks.

"As of now, there has been no progress on starting negotiations, because that would require the agreement of both sides. So there are no talks for now," he told reporters.

"My government is still adhering a policy of non-violence, but cooperation from the people is crucial," he said.

Since Surayud took office following a military coup last year, he has made a series of peace gestures to the militants fighting along the southern border with Malaysia.

But the violence has only escalated since the coup, and the government has deployed thousands more troops and paramilitary forces to the region.

Three radio interviews today

The Left won't dare touch this issue; to do so would burn their multiculturalist fingertips. And of course, there are many, many fearless conservative anti-PC types -- and most of the leading ones -- who quail in fear when they see me coming, and don't have the necessities, as Al Campanis might have said, or the intestinal fortitude, to discuss the issues relating to the global jihad and how to defeat it as I set them out, perhaps for fear of appearing to be less than 100% multicultural, or of arousing the ire of some unindicted co-conspirator or other, resulting in their even more fearful and spineless bosses canning their shows.

However, there are also many, many radio talk show hosts who are not so cowardly. I have discussed issues relating to my book Religion of Peace? and above all, why this book is a necessary contribution to the defense against Islamic supremacism, on dozens of shows since the book first came out, and here are three more.

All times PDT:

8:20 AM The Right Balance

8:30 AM Muscle Head Revolution WMCA

11:00 AM Schiffer Report WHK and Righttalk.com

Violence escalates in Caucasus

News of escalating jihad violence in Ingushetia, though sandwiched between anecdotes and political speculation that tend to de-emphasize the jihadist aspect of the story. "Violence escalates in turbulent Russian region," from Reuters:

ALI-YURT, Russia (Reuters) - Petimat Tatriyeva was woken up [sic] one morning late last month by shouts and banging coming from the courtyard of her home.

She said it was a raid by Russian security forces. "About 15 men ... burst into the yard. One of them put a machine gun to my forehead. They said: 'Where are the men? We'll count to ten, then throw a grenade into the house'," she told Reuters.

"When my 15-year-old son woke up, they threw themselves at him and beat him up," she said. "They beat my husband on the kidneys and pressed their fingers into his eyes."

Tatriyeva and her family live in Ingushetia, a mainly Muslim republic where for more than a decade Moscow's forces have been fighting a low-level military campaign against armed Islamist militants linked to separatists in neighboring Chechnya.

But things are getting worse. In response to an escalation in attacks by insurgents, Moscow in late July sent in an additional 2,500 interior ministry troops, almost tripling the number of special forces in Ingushetia.

The escalation in violence shows that seven years after President Vladimir Putin came to power on a pledge to "wipe out" the insurgency in Russia's North Caucasus region that includes Chechnya and Ingushetia, the rebels are not beaten.

In Chechnya, attacks have grown rare, but the problems appear to have shifted next door.

Some people in Ingushetia draw parallels with Chechnya eight years ago. Then, after a lull in the fighting that had already dragged on for six years, troops were sent back in to respond to a wave of rebel attacks. That unleashed a new war.

Now in Ingushetia, reports emerge almost daily of gun battles or ambushes on police vehicles.

This summer the insurgents have killed an aide to Murat Zyazikov, the region's pro-Moscow president, and launched an audacious attack on an army base. Last week a Russian soldier was killed in an attack on a column of troops.

In July, the rebels murdered an ethnic Russia schoolteacher, Lyudmila Terekhina, and two of her children. A bomb went off in the cemetery as she was being buried, wounding several mourners.

In Ingushetia's capital, Nazran, armored personnel carriers drive through the streets. Roadblocks check the documents of everyone entering the city.

[...]

Nazran resident Idris Khamkhoyev said heavy-handed police operations were causing bitterness among the local population.

"They (Russian security forces) are rampant and answer to no one," he said. "They are exacerbating the situation and we now fear a repetition of the Chechen problem."

Sounds like the jihadists aren't helping, either.

In Moscow, some observers see other parallels with Chechnya. The start of the second Chechen war helped the then little-known Putin show off his credentials as a tough politician. It was a factor in his victory in the 2000 presidential election.

[...]

"In theory, the new deterioration of the situation in the Caucasus could be used to raise the profile of the successor, or as a pretext for calling off the election completely," said New Times, a Russian-language news magazine.

Flight delayed overnight because some passengers were speaking Arabic

This is the world we live in today: the jihadists have created a climate of fear and suspicion. They have successfully "struck terror into the hearts of the enemies" (Qur'an 8:60) and don't have to do a thing to perpetuate that feeling of terror all over. If these Arabic-speaking passengers had been ordered off the plane, a lawsuit would no doubt ensue that would make the Flying Imams look like Zionist Crusaders; as it is, if the identity of the "traveler with a child" who "elected to get off the plane" comes to be known, watch for him or her to be excoriated as a racist.

Meanwhile, what can be done about this? For one thing, if Muslim advocacy groups in America became much more energetic in genuine anti-terror efforts, instead of spending their time complaining about anti-terror efforts and supporting initiatives such as the Flying Imams lawsuit, with its chilling effect on passengers reporting suspicious behavior, the fears of many would be assuaged.

"Passenger dispute delays American Airlines flight overnight," by Debbi Farr Baker for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

SAN DIEGO – A conflict between passengers at Lindbergh Field Tuesday night caused the overnight delay of an American Airlines flight headed to Chicago.

Flight 590 was scheduled to depart at 11 p.m. for Chicago O'Hare International Airport but was rescheduled for Wednesday at 10:15 a.m. after some kind of dispute among customers started at the gate and continued onto the plane, said American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner.

While Wagner said it is the airlines policy not to disclose any information about their passengers, televised reports claimed that the incident involved a group of six to seven Iraqi Americans and another passenger who was apparently uncomfortable that the men were speaking in Arabic.

The jet left the gate at 11:14 p.m. but did not take off and instead returned at 11:26 p.m. after a traveler with a child elected to get off the plane, Wagner said.

The airport's 11:30 p.m. curfew then prevented the plane from taking off, Wagner said.

Hizballah to file lawsuits against Israel for war damage

Chutzpah. "Hezbollah to file lawsuits against Israel for damage caused in war," by Yoav Stern for Haaretz (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Hezbollah is planning to file a host of lawsuits against Israel over the damages it caused during the Second Lebanon War. Lebanese individuals with dual citizenship will file the suits in the countries where they hold citizenship.

Attorney Ibrahim Awada, who heads Hezbollah's legal department, revealed the plan last week on a Syrian television program devoted to "Zionist crimes against Lebanon." He said that each plaintiff will hire a lawyer in the country where he files suit, and Hezbollah will pay the lawyers' fees.

The Lebanese government began mulling lawsuits against Israel immediately after the war ended last summer, but was stymied by the fact that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war, blamed Hezbollah, rather than Israel, for its outbreak. The government therefore set up a legal committee to explore more limited options, such as suits specifically over Israel's use of cluster bombs and destruction of infrastructure.

However, Hezbollah was furious that the government has so far done nothing, and therefore decided to launch its own lawsuit blitz, using private individuals.

London-based Muslim newspaper editor would dance in Trafalgar Square if Iran nukes Israel

Feel the love.

"London editor prays for nuclear attack on Israel," by Jonny Paul for the Jerusalem Post (thanks to Jcom):

The editor of an Arabic daily newspaper published in London said in an interview on Lebanese television that he would dance in Trafalgar Square if Iranian missiles hit Israel.

Talking about Iran's nuclear capability on ANB Lebanese television on June 27, Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, said, "If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight."

In the interview, Bari Atwan was asked if he thought there is a process of détente [vis-à-vis Iran] and an American-Iranian inclination to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"If there is a deal, it will be at the expense of the Arabs and if there is a war, it will also be at the expense of the Arabs," he responded. "I'm sad to say that we have no backbone now. If Iran reaches a deal with the Americans, what will be the bottom line? That Iran will have a nuclear program, and even if it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in the next 5-10 years, it will do so later."

Yep.

Your Black Muslim Hotel

Oakland's Marriott employs security personnel from an outfit with ties to Your Black Muslim Bakery. Feel safer?

"Your Black Muslim Hotel: Marriott still employs security firm with Black Muslim Bakery ties," by Robert Gammon in East Bay Express (thanks to WriterMom):

Over the past decade, more than a hundred thousand visitors have strolled into the Oakland Marriott Hotel and convention center, where among the first faces they encountered were those of well-dressed young men sporting bow ties. These men are the hotel's private security officers, who also happen to be members of the Black Muslim clan believed responsible for the assassination of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey.

Even after Bailey's brazen murder just a few blocks from the hotel on August 2, the Black Muslims remained at the Marriott, roaming its giant lobby and each of its 21 floors. Marriott spokesman Chris Daly said that in addition to providing security for hotel guests and the city's main convention center, the men "even perform bellhop duty if need be."

When asked why an international company with $12.2 billion in sales last year would continue to employ kin of the late Yusuf Bey, disgraced patriarch and founder of Your Black Muslim Bakery, Daly argued that the security firm is entirely separate from the bakery. Nineteen-year-old bakery handyman Devaughndre Broussard has been charged with Bailey's murder, and Broussard's attorney has indicated that bakery CEO Yusuf Bey IV was the likely mastermind.

Al-Sadr freezes Mahdi Army for six months to "safeguard its ideological image"

Apparently Al-Sadr is feeling the heat for the mosque attacks in Karbala. "Iraqi Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Suspends Mahdi Army Activities," from AP (thanks to Mackie):

BAGHDAD — Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, an aide said Wednesday.

The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.

"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.

The order was issued after two days of bloody clashes in the Shiite holy city of Karbala that claimed at least 52 lives. Iraqi security officials blamed Mahdi militiamen for attacking mosque guards, some of whom are linked to the rival Badr Brigade militia.

A spokesman for al-Sadr, Ahmed al-Shaibani, denied the Mahdi Army was involved in the Karbala fighting. Al-Sadr called for an independent inquiry into the clashes and urged his supporters to cooperate with the authorities "to calm the situation down," al-Shaibani said.

Indian Muslims riot, Taj Mahal closed to tourists

Are they rioting over the Hyderabad jihad attacks? Outraged at this hijacking of their peaceful religion? No, they are rioting over the apparently accidental deaths of four Muslims. "Taj Mahal closed to tourists after India riots," from Reuters (thanks to Twostellas):

Police closed the Taj Mahal and placed parts of Agra city under curfew after Indian Muslims burned trucks and battled police to protest the deaths of four community members hit by a lorry.

The accident occurred around dawn in Agra when the men were returning after marking "Shab-e-Barat", or the "night of forgiveness or atonement", when Muslims pray for the dead.

Angry crowds set fire to 11 trucks, including the one involved in the accident, said state police officer Brij Lal.

"With curfew imposed in six police circles of Agra, the area in and around Taj Mahal is also completely shut to public as a precautionary measure," Lal said.

Television footage showed smoke billowing over one neighbourhood, young Muslims clashing with police and a line of trucks burning fiercely.

"They are hurling bricks at police sent to stop the violence in one area but the situation is coming under control as our people are on the job," Lal added.

Spencer commenting on your website?

Have I left a comment at your website? Almost certainly not. I barely have time to leave comments at this one. I did comment at a site a few weeks ago, at the invitation of a friend, and can't remember the time before that that I commented on any site besides this one.

However, someone is using my name and linking to this site, leaving comments purporting to be by me at other sites. These comments are, as you may imagine, abusive and absurd, designed to bring me and this site into disrepute.

Note here again: the opponents of Jihad Watch cannot, and do not, bring forth even one single example of anything I have written that is false. Instead, they resort to lies and smears -- just look at the comments fields of the Derbyshire/Spencer exchanges at Pajamas Media, and the recently published CAIR farrago.

Their desperation is showing.

But the bottom line is this: if you see "Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch" commenting at some weblog, it almost certainly isn't I. If you have any doubt, ask me.

Jihad group incites war on West, promises "heads will roll"

"We are working for a Caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia and from Khazakhstan to Saudi Arabia." Hmmm. On my map Denmark doesn't fall between Morocco and Indonesia or between Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. Unless you go the other way, I suppose.

"Islamic group incites war on West," from The Copenhagen Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

Controversial Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir celebrated its annual congress in Copenhagen on Sunday with words of anger against Jews and the West, reported daily free newspaper Nyhedsavisen.

Nearly 600 Muslims attended the meeting at KB Hallen in the city’s enclave of Frederiksberg, where religious leaders spoke of the rise of an new Islamic Caliphate and the fall of Western powers.

‘The Caliphate can arrive in an hour, two months or two years from now,’ said Fadi Abdullatif, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s president, who owns a previous conviction for publicly urging his members to kill Jews. ‘We are working for a Caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia and from Khazakhstan to Saudi Arabia.’

The union of nations under a common Islamic law could be created by force if necessary, according to another of Hizb ut Tahrir’s leaders, Atta bin Khalil. Khalil also told those in attendance to ‘continue their state of war against the Jewish nation’.

A third speaker at the congress, Emir Shamil, said that ‘heads may roll’ in the recreation of the Caliphate.

Defending Our Own Civilization

Jamie Glazov interviews the dreaded Jihad Watch Director at FrontPage:

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

FP: Robert Spencer, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Spencer: Thanks, Jamie. I am a great admirer of your work and it is always good to talk with you.

FP: Likewise sir.

What inspired you to write this book?

Spencer: For six years now, almost invariably when I would talk about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, people would respond by referring to violence in the Bible and the sins of Christianity. Over time I came to see that the all-pervasive sense of guilt and self-hatred that blankets the West in this age of the dominance of multiculturalism is the single greatest obstacle keeping us from meeting the ideological challenge that the jihadists present. Insofar as Westerners are ashamed of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and so many are, they will not defend it.

This is not a matter of faith. Whether or not one is Jewish or Christian, Judeo-Christian civilization has given the world numerous ideas of human rights that the jihadists directly challenge: freedom of conscience, the equality of dignity of men and women, equality of rights before the law for all, and more. Islamic Sharia offers a radically different model of society. We in the West need to recognize this and stand up for our own civilization, culture, and heritage. If we are too paralyzed by guilt and consumed with self-hatred to defend our own civilization, we certainly won't keep it.

FP: Ok, so let's build on these themes. Can you talk a bit about why the lib-Left wages war on Christianity and keeps quiet about Islam? This is a pathology in the context of Islamic jihadists being the real threat to free societies.

Spencer: Well, Jamie, this phenomenon is so all-pervasive that I thought it deserved book-length treatment. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it well to a Leftist interviewer in Canada a few weeks ago: "You grew up with freedom, and so you think you can spit on freedom." They take it for granted, without realizing how severely it is imperilled. Would Leftists prefer to live in an Islamic society rather than in one that is or was Judeo-Christian? If they would, they will be, eventually, quite unpleasantly surprised: they will discover that many of the liberties they enjoyed were made possible by core assumptions of the Judeo-Christian civilization they helped to subvert, and that those liberties are not upheld under Islamic law.

FP: I disagree with you in the sense that I think that the Left realizes very well how severely imperilled our society is in the face of radical Islam. Just like in the days of communism, the Left venerates tyranny and yearns for submission under it. The Left knows exactly what it is doing when abetting and supporting an entity that it knows it itself will be consumed by. There is a logic to why leftist intellectuals support societies that butcher intellectuals, why leftist feminists support societies that mutilate women and why leftist homosexuals and minorities worship societies that barbarize homosexuals and minorities. It's a death wish based on self-loathing. But perhaps this deeper discussion between us belongs in another forum.

Let's continue: in what ways is Christianity a religion of peace and Islam not a religion of peace?

Spencer: In terms of your disagreement with me, I think you have a fascinating thesis, and I think it is well worth exploring. It is noteworthy, as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, that both the Left and the jihadists envision an earthly utopia enforced by terror: the Left has demonstrated this every time it has gained power, and Sharia is a recipe for a totalitarian reign of terror in the name of justice and right, as the Taliban showed. I look forward to discussing this further with you and getting your thoughts on this.

So getting back to Christianity and Islam: Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. This is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as in Islamic jurisprudence. Many like to point to violent passages in the Bible as an alleged equivalent to this, but actually the Bible contains no open-ended, universal command for believers to wage war against unbelievers, as does the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, etc.). The violent passages in the Bible are also spiritualized by most exegetes, while mainstream Muslim commentators going back to Muhammad's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, and including many modern authorities (such as Imran Ahsen Khan Nyazee of the International Islamic University and many others) see the Qur'an's violent passages as taking precedence over other, relatively peaceful passages.

Jesus taught, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). The Qur'an tells Muslims to be "ruthless to unbelievers" (48:29). When one commits violence in the name of Christianity, he is transgressing against Christ's teachings, but the jihadists make and sustain the case among their fellow Muslims that they are the believers who are being truly faithful to Islamic teaching.

FP: Why is there no distinction between Church and State in Islam? What are the consequences of this reality?

Spencer: The ideas of the non-establishment of a state religion, and the equality of rights of all before the law, both of which are essential to any viable republican government, arose in a Christian context. The philosopher and cultural analyst Roger Scruton observes that Christ's "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) "contrasts radically with the vision set before us in the Koran, according to which sovereignty rests with God and His Prophet, and legal order is founded in divine command."

From a Muslim perspective, this is a virtue. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor at George Washington University and author of many books about Islam, suggests that Christianity was incomplete because, unlike Islam, it offered no comprehensive system for governance. Nasr asserts that because Christianity "had no Divine legislation of its own, it had to absorb Roman law in order to become the religion of a civilization." Therefore "in Christian civilization law governing human society did not enjoy the same Divine sanction as the teachings of Christ. In fact this lack of a Divine Law in Christianity had no small role to play in the secularization that took place in the West during the Renaissance." By contrast, "Islam never gave unto Caesar what was Caesar's. Rather, it tried to integrate the domain of Caesar itself, namely, political, social, and economic life, into an encompassing religious worldview."

The jihadist Sayyid Qutb stated this idea more bluntly in 1948. After criticizing both the Communist world and the West for their materialism, he continues: "But Christianity.cannot be reckoned as a real force in opposition to the philosophies of the new materialism; it is an individualist, isolationist, negative faith. It has no power to make life grow under its influence in any permanent or positive way..Christianity is unable, except by intrigue, to compete with the social and economic systems that are ever developing, because it has no essential philosophy of actual, practical life. On the other hand, Islam is a perfectly practicable social system in itself.It offers to mankind a perfectly comprehensive theory of the universe, life, and mankind." In short, it offers a totalitarian, theocratic vision -- which might be quite attractive to true believers like Qutb, but remains less appealing to dissenters.

Scruton notes that in contrast to this theocratic framework within Islam, "the fifth-century Pope Gelasius I made the separation of church and state into doctrinal orthodoxy, arguing that God granted 'two swords' for earthly government: that of the Church for the government of men's souls, and that of the imperial power for the regulation of temporal affairs." While the understanding of the relationship between the two has been the source of a great deal of controversy, "throughout the course of Christian civilization we find a recognition that conflicts must be resolved and social order maintained by political rather than religious jurisdiction." One reason why this is so important is for the protection of minorities and dissenters -- freedom of conscience, Scruton says, "requires secular government."

Scruton, of course, is not referring to the aggressively anti-religious secularism that has dominated the public discourse on religion in the United States for several decades now, but simply to the non-establishment of a state religion. Only a state in which there is no established religion can people of differing religions live together in harmony, enjoying equality of rights before the law. Freedom of conscience can only be guaranteed where one is free to change his religion, or to have no religion at all, without incurring a death sentence or any other legal penalty.

FP: Many Muslim extremists love to paint the West as being rampant with "immorality" and the Islamic world as being somehow "pure." But is the Islamic world really more "moral" than the West?

Spencer: Jihadists routinely deride Western freedom as libertinism: "In essence," one explained, "the kufr [unbelief] of Western society can be summed up in one word which is used over and over to justify its presence, growth, and its glorification... Freedom. Yet what such a society fails to comprehend, is that such 'freedom' simply represents the worship and enslavement to desires, opinions, and whims, a disregard for what is (truly) right, and a disregard for the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth."

However, as much as American conservatives may deplore the depravity of pop culture today, they should not allow themselves to be placed on the defensive by the Islamic moral critique - and not just because of the hypocrisy of the jihadists in making this critique. In reality, the freedom at which the jihadists sneer is an essential component of any genuine morality. "Australian law guarantees freedoms up to a crazy level," remarked the controversial Australian Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali - but without freedom, even "up to a crazy level," morality is hollow. The secular West, with all its irreligion and debauchery, provides the only authentic framework for genuine virtue. Without the freedom to choose evil, the freedom to choose what is good actually amounts to nothing more than coercion. If an individual is forced to be good, he may display an outward conformity, but this conformism bears no other resemblance to the genuine virtue that is manifested in a choice to do good when one could just as easily choose the opposite.

Yet this coercion is a fundamental element of Sharia law, with its stonings and amputations. The Ayatollah Khomeini admitted this without apology: "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!"

The alternatives are not to try to appease the jihadists by deriding permissiveness in accord with their cultural critique or to turn a blind eye to the genuinely revolting aspects of pop culture. In fact, one of the most potent recruiting tools the jihadists have today is their ability to present themselves as those who are loyal to God, as opposed to a Western world full of blasphemers and libertines. Thus a shrewd response to the jihadists' ideological critique of the Western world would be to point out that the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its principle of individual freedom as a prerequisite for virtue, offers a superior (yes, superior) vision of God and the world than that offered by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his sword as the key to Paradise. Certainly there is great moral evil in the West, as there is everywhere else in the world, but that moral evil is an unavoidable byproduct of the freedom without which there can be no genuine adherence to moral norms.

Such a response would give content to the oft-repeated avowal that America is offering "freedom" to the Islamic world. Rather than allowing the jihadist characterization of that freedom as mere libertinism to go unanswered, an explanation of the elements of genuine virtue would take the substance out of the jihadist moral critique altogether.

FP: Who is threatened by militant Islam? Who are the potential victims?

Spencer: Everyone is threatened by the Islamic jihad in various ways, except the Muslim male jihadists themselves. The Islamic law the jihadists want to institute institutionalizes the subjugation of women and non-Muslims, denies freedom of conscience, inhibits freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. So who is not among the potential victims?

FP: Overall, what role is the Left playing in this terror war?

Spencer: One of obfuscation and denial, with a smattering of outright identification with those who would destroy us. There is plenty of denial and wilful ignorance about the jihad threat on the Right also. It is long past time for both sides to stop playing politics with this threat, and to take steps to secure our national survival.

FP: What are Islam's and Christianity's disposition toward reason? What are the effects of these dispositions?

Spencer: Nietzsche once noted that "there is no such thing as science 'without any presuppositions.' A philosophy, a 'faith,' must always be there first, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist." It may be jarring to those who believe that faith and reason are at odds, and that religions are all the same, but it is nevertheless a historical fact that modern science took its presuppositions from Christianity, and that Islam gave modern science no impetus at all.

The Qur'an explicitly refutes the Judeo-Christian view of God as a God of reason when it says: "The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so." (5:64) In other words, it is heresy to say that God operates by certain natural laws that we can understand through reason. This argument was played out throughout Islamic history. Muslim theologians argued during the long controversy with the Mu'tazilite sect, which exalted human reason, that Allah was not bound to govern the universe according to consistent and observable laws. "He cannot be questioned concerning what He does." (Qur'an 21:23).

In contrast to the dogmatic stagnation of the Islamic world, science was able to flourish in Christian Europe during the same period because Christian scientists were working from assumptions derived from the Bible, which were very different from those of the Qur'an. The Bible assumes that God's laws of creation are natural laws, a stable and unchanging reality-a sine qua non of scientific investigation. In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas even went so far as to assert that "since the principles of certain sciences-of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance-are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predictable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles." (Emphasis added)

Such ideas could never have taken root in the Islamic world. They would have been tantamount to saying that Allah's hand was fettered.

FP: What reactions do you expect to your book? What reactions have there been to your book?

Spencer: I expect the usual venom and distortion of my thesis from Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for jihad in the U.S. I'd like to begin a dialogue with those who believe, like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, that religion itself is the problem. John Derbyshire has begun this with an elegantly written review at Pajamas Media, to which I have been invited to reply. I have written a reply, and hope PJM will publish it soon.

FP: What do you hope to achieve with Religion of Peace?

Spencer: I hope that all those people -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims, atheists, etc. -- who enjoy the benefits of Judeo-Christian Western civilization will be moved to mount a more spirited defense of that civilization in its hour of greatest peril.

FP: Robert Spencer you are a true soldier. Thank you for having the nobility and the courage to tell the truth and for your priceless contribution to the West's fight for freedom. We hope to talk to you again soon.

Spencer: Thank you, Jamie. I admire your courage and that of everyone at FP for your willingness to discuss these issues openly and freely, despite the political correctness that blankets us and the smears and intimidation that are at this point virtually the only non-lethal weapons remaining to the politically correct Left and the apologists for jihad.

Spencer on Mike Gallagher Show today

I'll be on Mike Gallagher's nationally syndicated radio show this morning at 7:34 AM PDT to discuss my new book War and Peace -- oh, no wait, scratch that. My new book is Religion of Peace?.

Thug-In-Chief: Gadzooks, we got nukes

Of course, he has said this before. Many learned statesmen in Washington and Western Europe will no doubt strenuously disagree, but I'm just not altogether sure this fellow is trustworthy.

"Ahmadinejad says his country now a 'nuclear Iran,'" from AP (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Tuesday that Teheran has achieved full proficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle and warned the West that dialogue and friendship - not threats - were the right way to deal with Iran.

Right. HE makes the threats. WE respond with calls for dialogue. Didn't you read the script?

"Today, Iran is a nuclear Iran," Ahmadinejad told a press conference in Teheran. "That means, it fully possesses the whole nuclear fuel cycle."

Ahmadinejad, however, said his country was committed to a "peaceful path" in pursuing its controversial nuclear program.

Shiite gunmen clash at Karbala festival

More Shi'ite-Shi'ite Jihad -- and undoubtedly still more to come. By Robert H. Reid for the Associated Press:

BAGHDAD - Fighting erupted Tuesday between rival Shiite militias in Karbala during a religious festival, claiming 51 lives and forcing officials to abort the celebrations and order up to 1 million Shiite pilgrims to leave the southern city.

Security officials said Mahdi Army gunmen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al- Sadr fired on guards around two shrines protected by the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

Residents of Karbala contacted by telephone said snipers were firing on Iraqi security forces from rooftops. Explosions and the rattle of automatic weapons fire could be heard during telephone calls to reporters in the city 50 miles south of Baghdad.

In addition to the deaths, security officials said at least 247 people were wounded, including women and children.

The clashes appeared to be part of a power struggle among Shiite groups in the sect's southern Iraqi heartland, which includes the bulk of the country's vast oil wealth.

It's naturally a little hard to achieve stable self-government -- which requires restraint and compromise -- when everyone professes a divine mandate to take everything by force.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said entrances and exits to Karbala "have been secured and more forces are on the way from other provinces." Officials said buses were sent to evacuate pilgrims from the city, which includes some of the world's most sacred Shiite shrines.

Gunfights also broke out Tuesday between Mahdi militiamen and followers of the Supreme Council in at least two Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad, police said. And extra police took up positions in the center of another Shiite city, Diwaniyah, after gunmen fired on a mosque associated with the Supreme Council, police said.

The trouble started in Karbala late Monday as tens of thousands of Shiites were streaming into the city for the Shabaniyah festival marking the birth of Mohammed al-Mahdi, the 12th and last Shiite imam who disappeared in the 9th century. Devout Shiites believe he will return to Earth to restore peace and harmony.

Scuffles broke out between police and pilgrims as the crowd tried to push through the security checkpoints near the Imam al-Hussein mosque, the focal point of the celebrations. At least five people were killed, police said.

Early Tuesday, crowds of angry pilgrims chanting religious slogans surged through the streets, attacking police and mosque guards, witnesses said. Two ambulances were set ablaze, sending a huge column of black smoke over the city.

"Help me, Doc, I'm suffering from Islamophobia!" "Read these two books by Karen Armstrong, and call me in the morning!"

The coinage of the term "Islamophobia" is an exercise in blaming the victim. If Muslims want to end "Islamophobia" instantaneously, here's how:

1. Focus your indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Do those five things, and voila! "Islamophobia" will vanish. No UN program needed.

"Muslim Nations Want 'Islamophobia' on Anti-Racism Meeting's Agenda," by Patrick Goodenough for the CNSNews.com (thanks to WriterMom):

(CNSNews.com) - "Islamophobia" and the defamation of Islam are the most conspicuous forms of racism and intolerance today, and a global U.N. conference on racism planned for 2009 should come up with practical solutions to deal with them, an Islamic bloc representative told a preparatory meeting in Geneva Monday.

The 2009 meeting is intended to review a U.N. conference on racism, held in Durban, South Africa, just days before 9/11, but the 56-nation Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC) wants Islam to be high on the agenda.

"The world since 2001 has not remained static and witnessed new forms of racism and racial discrimination," Pakistan's representative to the U.N., Masood Khan, said at a meeting of the planning body, or "prepcom bureau," according to prepared remarks.

Speaking on behalf of the OIC, Khan told the meeting that "there has been a stark rise in hate crimes, discrimination, racial profiling and intolerance against Muslims in many countries."

And now, a word from Tokyo Rose

A little while ago I received this email from a jihadist crowing about the impending collapse of secularism in Turkey:

another great day for Islam, once again you lose Spencer how bad must you now feel? you kept dreaming that Islam would no longe exist in turkey but the turks have shown they want Islam and love Islam contrary to what you claimed and thought....

face it robert, your losing this battle and war, unlike christians Muslims love their faith and will never turn on it like you christians turn on christianity and become secular atheists.

oh well another victory for Islam, and another loss for its enemies........ :)

In fact I am shedding no tears, and in reality never "claimed and thought" anything other than that there was widespread support for Sharia in Turkey. The demise of Turkish secularism, which in any case was only marginally less monstrous than Sharia in its treatment of non-Muslims, was inevitable, given the nature of political Islam. Were policymakers and analysts not besotted with D'Souzaite fantasies, they wouldn't be surprised either.

But in any case, I wouldn't give up even if there were no one left at all. No matter what, I am not going to submit.

Derbyshire/Spencer: The Pajamas brawl

Here is Derbyshire's response to my response to his review of my book Religion of Peace?.

And here, also from Pajamas, is my final response. Hearty thanks to John Derbyshire for this exchange, which I have enjoyed immensely. I hope he has also.

John Derbyshire wishes I had read his review of my book Religion of Peace? “more carefully,” since he now contends that he did not say – as I had characterized him as saying — that “Christianity and Islam are ‘equally likely to incite violence.’”

I ask Mr. Derbyshire’s indulgence if I mistook his statement in his review that “God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ” as meaning that God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ. It was on that that I based my own summary of what I took to be his view: that Christianity and Islam are “equally likely to incite violence.” Looking at his words again, I still think it’s reasonable to conclude that that’s what they mean.

But no matter. If he doesn’t mean that, so much the better. He now says, “persons wishing to commit violence will find justification in any text they pick up—the New Testament, the Koran, Science and Health, or the Harry Potter saga. Charles Manson, if memory serves, got his inspiration from a Beatles song about a fairground attraction.” This is obviously true, but Charles Manson is in the bughouse for excellent reasons, and if Derbyshire is now saying that any text – any text at all – is no more or less likely to incite violence than any other, this would manifest a nihilism so corrosive as to strip all words, and everything altogether, of any meaning. It is certainly true that someone who is thoroughly deranged and depraved could understand “Do you don’t you want me to love you/I’m comin’ down fast but I’m miles above you” (from the Beatles song in question) or even “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” as containing some kind of coded command to destroy other human beings, but clearly the words don’t mean that, and that is why we do not see and have never seen large-scale, international movements of terrorists justifying their actions by invoking Beatles songs, or Harry Potter, or Science and Health, or…the Bible.

The Qur’an, however, is quite another matter. It has given rise to a global movement of terrorists who frequently and copiously quote its teachings to justify their actions (in ways the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and all the rest of history’s Christian bogeymen never dreamed of doing with the Bible). Unless words mean absolutely nothing, “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (9:5) and “fight…the People of the Book…until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29) and “fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah” (2:193) and all the rest (and there are many more) do contain more incitement to violence than a pop song about a playground slide, and thus more violence is committed in the name of the Qur’an than in the name of Helter Skelter.

And to be sure, Mr. Derbyshire is cautiously “inclined to think that Islam offers more and better justifications for militancy than does Christianity.” That, of course, is my entire point in the book, since that very point is routinely controverted in the mainstream media. It is controverted to an extent that I thought it necessary to consider it in a book-length treatment, and to try in the process to give people who enjoy the benefits of living in the Judeo-Christian West a sense that they have a culture and a civilization that they should be proud of, and begin to defend more forthrightly and unapologetically.

This is not a matter of religious belief or proselytizing. I don’t proselytize in the book, which is about the value of Judeo-Christian civilization; accordingly, Mr. Derbyshire’s continued insistence that “irreligious people see all religions as equally preposterous” seems to me to be a bit off the point in this discussion. I am not arguing in this book that Christianity is less preposterous than Islam, and there is nothing I wrote in it that could not have been written by an informed atheist, or Jew, or Buddhist. The fact that Mr. Derbyshire considers Christianity preposterous is noted; it may, however, have blinded him to the ways in which he benefits from the civilizational advances it fostered, as well as to the ways in which the propagandistic “equivalence” arguments that are so prevalent nowadays sap the will of Westerners to defend what we are told every day is a rotten, worthless thing.

Thus I appreciate Derbyshire’s quip that “perhaps the book’s subtitle should be: ‘Why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn’t, and how I wish it were the other way round!,’” but I must reject the sentiment. The whole point of my book is that Judeo-Christian civilization stands for values that are more humane and life-affirming than those of Islamic Sharia. In place of supremacism, conformism, fear, and a culture of violence and revenge, there is the possibility of genuine virtue, born in genuine freedom, and an affirmation of the dignity of the human person that does not – pace Derbyshire’s earlier contention – lead with any inevitably to relativism and the loss of the will to defend one’s own. We can only regain that will by recovering a sense of the value of who we are, of what we have done, and of what we have made. That is why I wrote this book, and why I am as glad as he is that Mr. Derbyshire and I share some views of what must be done to extricate us from this present fix. With all his immense talent and insight, I look forward to fighting alongside him for the survival of our embattled common civilization.

An Ode to Judeo-Christian Western Civilization

Rabbi Aryeh Spero reviews my book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't at Human Events:

Robert Spencer has done it again. Religion of Peace? is the fifth in a series of meticulously researched and analyzed books he has written regarding the major issue of our day -- the dangerous challenge of Islam to the West. He is absolutely correct in underscoring the religious impulse behind Islam’s latest push to sublimate the West. But a secularized West seems to its own peril unwilling to acknowledge this religious component as the engine behind the hard and soft jihad coming our way.

This is a swift read written in a fluid manner reflective of a thinker who has long thought about the points he makes. The book is not weighed down by ponderous sentences, though Spencer’s ideas are deeply reasoned.

Ignoring Ancestral Faith

Spencer’s main thesis -- and he is on the mark -- is that too many in the West no longer realize that our life of liberty, rewarding individualism and human rights are a direct consequence of and specific to a unique religious philosophy -- the Judeo-Christian one. Because so many have become distant from the knowledge and a kinship to their ancestral faith and since so many are intoxicated by the feel-good sentimentality of multiculturalism, they cannot and will not appropriate to the Judeo-Christian outlook the overwhelming credit it deserves for providing us the life we here in the West enjoy, the life of liberty and choice.

Living in times where the fashion is to pronounce that “nothing is intrinsically better than anything else,” elitists categorize all religions as basically the same, indistinguishable in their big ideas and aspirations. Imbibing such foolishness and lacking religious seriousness, many in the West wonder why the need to stave off the non-al Qaeda form of Islam since they assume our life and institutions would be equally benevolent, appealing and forward-looking if under the control of another religion, Islam.

Spencer proves the folly of such assertions by citing not only the distinct differences between scriptural and Koranic verses but, even better, also spotlighting those who interpret and give shape to these verses for its followers, thus establishing the on-the-ground philosophic and theological realities separating Islam from the Judeo-Christian worldview. He does so not by being disrespectful or dismissive of Islam, but by quoting countless imams loyal and proud of their ideology -- those in the Islamic driver’s seat -- who deride our freedoms, concept of free-will and especially the allowances we in the Judeo-Christian community grant women in making decisions for themselves and as equal partners in family and public life.

In fact, beyond the religious imperative of Jihad -- which demands either conversion, second-class dhimmi status or death for non-believers -- the unspoken yet most animating force behind jihadism is the fight-to-the-death mentality of Islamists unwilling to relinquish the authoratative power men have over their women and daughters and the near arbitrary way in which men may have their way with women -- be it for honor, lust, power, convenience or sheer hierarchy.

There is an enormous difference, which filters down to every moment and aspect of society, between a religious outlook that labels moral only those activities freely chosen as opposed to an ideology that finds coercion admirable even if it results in the called-for submission to sharia law. There is a difference between a Judeo-Christian theology that ascribes to scientific inquiry a rationality conforming to the rational and predictable principles upon which God created the cosmos and that which looks negatively on any form of inquiry and investigation -- rationality itself -- if it could lead to conclusions different from unyielding sentences in an ancient text.

Enemies of the West

Too many in the West fail to realize this for they are still myopically fighting their age-old enemy here, the one they see on the street. As Spencer so aptly puts it: “The most determined enemies of Western civilization may be those on the left who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists.”

As with communism before, leftists judge Islam not by its actuality around the world today but the utopia its proponents say it will become when all live universally by it alone. In contradistinction, the anti-American left is eager to summarily chuck America and capitalism by deliberately refusing to notice our high ideals, overwhelming accomplishments and reality of goodness, relentlessly highlighting only the exceptions where we have failed (relatively minor) even though, unlike other societies, we earnestly redress our problems.

Typical of many of the multicultural and socially enervating dummkopfs graduating our brain-washing colleges today is a young woman named Rachel, cited in the book. Speaking to a group of American Indians, she tells the chief: “I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race and culture are nothing. On the other hand, you of the American Indian traditions have something great, something to be proud of.” Liberals love to wax rhapsodically about every culture but their own. Other people’s pride in their culture is considered admirable and healthy while expressed pride in the Judeo-Christian American civilization is characterized as racist, ethno-centric and bordering on ”Nazism.” It’s no wonder they are unwilling to fight to preserve our culture.

Unlike the jihadists arrayed against us, the elitists shaping America’s outlook refuse to see this as a clash of civilizations or a war of religions. To do so, they would be forced to take sides. Many no longer like or identify with our side. For most, it would be “unsophisticated” to have to, this late in the game, extol the Judeo-Christian beliefs they have fought their whole lives and too embarrassing to embrace the patriotic Americanism necessary to fight for our culture. To do so would strip them of their identity and their reason for getting up each morning. Thus, they deny the reality of jihad.

Thug-In-Chief licks his chops

"Now say 'How high?,' Nouri, come on, 'How high?' When I tell you to jump, that's what I want to hear, capisce?"

Little did Noah Feldman and his ilk realize that when they so fervently propounded blue-thumbed Iraqi democracy, that the apparent Shi'ite enthusiasm for Jeffersonianism would come to this. "President Ahmadinejad Says Iran Ready to Fill Power Vacuum in Iraq," from AP (thanks to all who sent this in):

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."

Yes, watch for him to get very chummy with the Saudis.

Fitzgerald: Outrageous behavior by Muslims can be a good thing

Muslim- and Arab-American leaders are upset that the FBI didn't consult them — as it has done in other instances — before releasing the photos on the Internet and to news organizations. […] "We need to get some type of apology from them and figure out how to get back to where we were," said Rita Zawaideh, head of the Arab-American Community Coalition. -- from this article

"As it [the FBI] has done in other instances"!

Why has the FBI ever consulted, for one minute, with "Muslim and Arab-American groups" on its standard procedures? Releasing pictures of those who are sought for past or likely future criminal activity is routine, and is a most successful method, proven to work. Just look at how many of those publicized by John Walsh on "America's Most Wanted" have been subsequently seen by viewers and reported to the police. It is idiotic for police methods to change.

And why were they changed ever? Why were "Muslims and Arab-Americans" ever, apparently, allowed to censor this procedure? And what don't we know? And why do we all suspect, or have good reason to know after having talked to certain officials in law enforcement, to think that a great deal is being hidden from us so as not to arouse the public, not to create any "animus" toward those "Muslims and Arab-Americans" who, in organized groups, apparently think they have a perfect right to limit the public's safety in several ways? They do it when they slyly deny the reason for acts of terrorism by Muslims, and slyly deny in every way they can what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and offer only the continued treacly and dangerously misleading propaganda about Islam at those phony Muslim Outreach Nights, those idiotic "Interfaith" sessions ("three abrahamic faiths" etcetera) intended to ensure -- because at this point threats will not do the trick, the Infidels are as yet uncowed, and too numerous for that -- that Muslims will remain safe from the widespread suspicion that they would arouse and do arouse among any Infidels who actually take the time to study the texts, tenets, attitudes of Islam.

Those texts, tenets, and attitudes are observable all over the world, in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and not just now, but for the entire history of Islam. For those texts are immutable, and they mean what they say. And so it becomes all the more suspicious when American Muslims do not denounce, day and night, terrorism as a weapon of Jihad -- and when they complain when the police force of the Infidels dares to use the methods it has used for more than a century (those "Wanted Posters" are part of American lore, especially in the West). No other group dares to presume to interfere with such efforts.

Why should Muslim and Arab-American groups have any say in what the police do or not do in such a matter? It is perfectly appropriate, and especially necessary in cases of suspected preparations for acts of terrorism, to enhance our common safety (that is, the safety of non-Muslims, those who inherited the political and legal institutions, and cultural legacy, created in turn by generations of non-Muslims, of this country), by disseminating pictures of suspects. This is a most useful tool.

This is the kind of behavior from Muslims that is so outrageous that it will prove, in the end, useful to those of us who think the sleepwalking public needs a shake or two. For anyone living in Seattle can take the ferry, and anyone might be able to imagine himself on that ferry, with that bomb going off. And now that the photograph of the two suspects have been widely publicized, if those two are innocent they have only to step forth and demonstrate it. Meanwhile, those who recognize their faces now have a duty to step forth and identify them -- especially if the two men in question do not present themselves. And non-Muslims are going to have a very hard time, indeed, as they imagine themselves or possibly their children on that ferry, being sympathetic to Muslim demands, Muslim outrage. No, that outrage is likely to meet with ever-growing Infidel outrage, and once the denial-interfaith-outreach-it’s-all-been-exaggerated cord has been snapped in Infidel brains, once the connection is gone, it can never be put back the way it was.

And it all the result of Muslim behavior. For if they were not to protest, but to eagerly pledge their cooperation and what’s more, deliver on that cooperation, then the mounting suspicion, that grows higher every day, would not mount, or would not mount at quite the same rate.

So the outrageous behavior of CAIR and other Muslims is in fact a good thing, it is having good effects on Infidels.

Fitzgerald: Needed: A Muslims-only airline

The sole purpose of the Flying Imams’ lawsuit is to intimidate the pilots and crews of planes. And it would have included passengers, but the effect on an angry public, quite capable of identifying with those passengers, was deemed to be too dangerous for the "image" of Islam. That image is sinking fast in any case, with each new outrage, and this lawsuit is one of those outrages.

But here there is a question of money. Who should pay the costs of defending such a lawsuit? Should it be U.S. Airways alone? If what the pilots and crew did was in the interests of all passengers on all flights -- and clearly it was -- and if those Muslims who are attempting to intimidate them are also attempting to intimidate the pilots and the crews (and the passengers, even if the "John Doe" part of the lawsuit was prudently dropped at the last minute), then it is all pilots, and all crews, and all passengers, in the United States who should be paying for the defense of those particular pilots, that particular crew.

Other airlines should offer not merely moral but financial support. There ought, perhaps, to be added on to airline tickets the cost of defending against such malevolent and dangerous litigation. For we will all suffer if the lawsuit succeeds, and we will all gain --- those of us who are not in the business of pushing the Jihad against Infidels, in any way we can -- if the defense against the lawsuit is successful. But it is important that the pain of the suit, the money that pays the lawyers, is shared by the entire population of passengers who take, or even rely on, travel by air.

Share the expense, and the pain -- and that way the full and sinister nature of what is being attempted will be more widely understood and publicized. Do not let US Airways do it alone. It shouldn't have to.

Their noisy and prolonged threat of suit, even if it is now over, no doubt has caused severe emotional stress to those passengers who had been -- rationally -- suspicious of the imams and reported them. In such circumstances, should not there be a lawsuit against the six imams for that very threat, and the way it continued until the very last, when Congressional legislation about those "John Does" was coming to the rescue?

Meanwhile, to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, perhaps a "Muslims-only" airline should be established -- Muslims-only except for the pilots, lest the plane head you-know-where -- and with a locked cabin, and possibly armed guards every few feet. Then Muslims can travel on that airline (oh, it can be a very big airline) and on no other. There would still be a security problem on other airlines for non-Muslims, for there will still be Muslim terrorists acting on the tenets of Islam as they not unreasonably interpret them, to conduct the Jihad by "striking terror" in the hearts of the enemy. But millions if not billions of man-hours in security-checks that are needless, would be saved each year, and in other ways also this would be a good solution. Islam divides the world between Believer and Infidel. As there is nothing that can be done to Islam (the canonical texts are immutable, and the gates of ijtihad slammed shut a thousand years ago, and self-dramatizing Irshad Manji is not about to swing them open), then Infidels, too, should come to regard the world as divided in this way. The world's main division is now that between Believer (Muslim) and Infidel (non-Muslim). That makes a lot of sense. It helps clear the mental air. It makes a policy of self-defense against the Jihad much more possible. No more worries over what constitutes a "moderate" Muslim or how to keep a "moderate" safely and forever "moderate," or how to make sure that the "moderate" Muslim's children do not turn out, for on reason or another, to be "immoderate" (like some of those London bombers). No: Infidel and Muslim.

That's what they believe. That's what they think. That's what many of them have acted upon in dar al-Islam, over a very long period, and given half a chance, that's exactly how they would act in what, for now, is still the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels.

So we should believe, and distinguish, in precisely the same way. It's the only way to protect ourselves.

Fitzgerald: Six questions about victory in Iraq

I have posed the questions so many times before.

But here they are again:

1) Should a "victory" in Iraq be defined as anything other than an outcome which will definitely leave the Camp of Islamic Jihad weakened?

2) If the answer to #1 is, as I hope it will be, "No," then why is it better to prevent the sectarian fissures within Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'a? These fissures are not limited to Iraq. They can be observed in a half-dozen countries, and what's more, they have the ability to set Sunni regimes against the Shi'a who stand to inherit The Land of the Two Rivers, that is, Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, of course, was the center for 500 years of the Abbasid Caliphate. For the first hundred it was centered in Samarra, and for the remaining four hundred in Baghdad, madinat al-salaam, the fabled city of Haroun al-Rashid. It will also set those Sunni regimes against the Shi'a in their midst, or, to put it another way, they will not be willing to allow the "Persian" Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs," to inherit that part of the Arab land that is considered to be the place where its (much exaggerated) "glorious history" was made, and where its capital city, "glorious" Baghdad, was the center of that history.

3) If the answer to #1 is "No," and if it is clear that 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arab, but have in various ways and to various degrees (with the Kurds and black Africans of Darfur, mass murder; with the Berbers, denial of their right to use the Berber language or preserve and disseminate the Berber culture) been the victims of Arab cultural and linguistic and economic and political imperialism, why does it not make sense to encourage the Kurds to obtain independence? For this will raise, in the minds of many non-Arab Muslims, the very thought that it might be possible to throw off the Arab yoke. And this in turn is likely to cause all kinds of dissension within the Camp of Islam, even possibly driving some non-Arab Muslims, whose ethnicity works against rather than reinforces their Islam, to leave Islam altogether.

4) If the answer to #1 is "No" (as I hope it still is), then do we not wish that the co-religionists of Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq will send aid from outside? Such aid is likely to use up their men, their money, their materiel, their attention, and especially to force the two most sinister and powerful Islamic states, Iran and Saudi Arabia, for reasons of prestige, to necessarily ensure that "their side" does not lose. And since in Islam (as the Americans refuse so far to recognize) one does not compromise but ends either as Victor or Vanquished, such a low-level war is liable to go on forever.

5) There is so much more that might be said, including my oft-repeated argument that Turkey can be made to accept an independent Kurdistan, with American guarantees that such a state will not make territorial demands on Turkey, but will direct its efforts to Iran and Syria. And in the case of Iran, such a Kurdish state can have effects not only in the Kurdish areas of Iran, but among its other non-Persian minorities. One wishes, for example, for continued unrest among the Arabs in Khuzistan, and Iranian repression, and then renewed unrest, just as one hopes that the Shi'a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia will become more and more disgruntled, and that the Shi'a in Bahrain, to which an Iranian official has just renewed Iran's longstanding claim (sending shudders down Arab spines), will behave in similar fashion.

6) If you answered "No" to #1, but find fault with my #2-#5, then tell us please how the Bush strategy, the one to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" and to sacrifice Americans, and American money, to prevent those sectarian and ethnic fissures from widening, and doing everything possible to tamp them down, will lead to a good result, to that "victory" I defined in #1 above.

I'll wait right here. Tell me. Tell all of us.

Be detailed. No vagueness, no "we just can't do this" or "it wouldn't be right to do that." Go ahead.

Fitzgerald: The capacity for reason and logic is impaired

ISLAMABAD, Aug 21: Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Sher Afgan Niazi on Tuesday stunned both the treasury and opposition senators when he roundly criticised the foreign policy, describing it as one of appeasement at the cost of national interests, sovereignty and honour….

Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s Prof Khurshid Ahmed immediately stood up to endorse most of the views expressed by the minister, and welcomed the “change of heart,” describing it as part of the change that had taken place in the wake of the July 20 landmark Supreme Court judgment....

Dr Niazi said in his speech that the key role Pakistan played in bringing about the downfall of the former Soviet Union was a blunder. It resulted in the emergence of a unipolar world and gave the US a licence to attack any country it wished, he said.

He said that American presidential candidates’ statements threatening Pakistan’s internal security were a reflection of the jaundiced thinking of US leaders who had forgotten lessons of history and the glorious past of Muslims.

Lashing out at the recent US law attaching strings to financial assistance to Pakistan, Dr Niazi described it as insulting and demanded that “we must return and refuse to accept such assistance”.

He said the country should learn to stand on its own feet by rejecting all foreign assistance as a proud Muslim nation....

The minister said that events which followed the 9/11 incident proved that it was the brainchild of Jews. He said that according to holy Quran, Jews and Christians could never be friends of Muslims.... -– from this article

The Pakistani minister, and many other Muslims, who simultaneously accuse "the Jews" or "the American Crusaders" of staging the 9.11.2001 attacks, and also express great delight at those very attacks, demonstrate how, all over the Dar al-Islam, the capacity for reason and logic is impaired.

The credulous acceptance of a Total System, with its Complete Regulation of Life and Explanation of the Universe (at no extra cost), the belief that one should never question Allah, and that one should never dare to recognize the contradictions in the Qur'an itself (but be satisfied with "naskh" or "abrogation"), and that one should never notice the 20% of the text that makes no real sense (see Christoph Luxenberg on that 20% that makes no sense), the ability to believe one thing and its opposite at the same time, or to find behind every failure of Muslim states and societies not the real reason for that failure, but the machinations of Infidels, the alacrity with which every crazy charge against those Infidels becomes deeply and truly believed, the incapacity for any degree of skepticism or lonely critical thought, the willingness to subject oneself to, or enroll oneself in, some collectivist enterprise, as if fearful of remaining an individual and eager for instruction and direction at every turn so as to be relieved of the need for thought or independent moral judgment -- all this characterizes Islam.

And one example of the sheer craziness that Islam encourages is that of the Pakistani minister above. But it is really no different with any of those who refuse to think for themselves and smilingly, brightly, like the young Muslim woman on the Islam segment of Christiane Amanpour's dreadfully misleading CNN thing, tell us how happy they are to return to the full faith. By the full faith, of course, they mean those Rules To Live By which make it all so very simple, don't they, if we all wish to be simpletons in our existence, and to take a seventh-century Arab-language Guide, fabricated out of many strands -- the pagan Arab lore, the bits and pieces of characters and stories lifted and distorted from Judaism and Christianity -- as the lodestar of our lives. It then becomes, supposedly, applicable for all time, despite the fact that it is merely a Guide to Seventh-Century Arabian Life. Its relevance and application are held to be eternal.

Those who are still capable of thought will be the most offended, to the precise degree that they are capable of that thought. About others, though, I'm not so sure. Some may like the idea of being zombies, directed in what they dress and eat and think and do, every single step of the way. Some may find it positively comforting.

Jihadist cleric: Indonesians living in sin as long as they fail to implement Islamic law

And if they're living in sin, don't even get him started about you.

But note well: this is the appeal jihadists make to their fellow Muslims all over the world, and it has proven to be quite effective. Secular Muslims have never mounted an effective comeback.

"Indonesians live in sin: Bashir," from Agence France-Presse (thanks to Davida):

INDONESIAN Muslims are living in sin as long as they fail to implement Islamic law across the world's fourth largest nation, hardline cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said today.

"As long as we live in a secular state, Indonesian Muslims continue living in sin," the Muslim leader told some 200 participants attending a seminar on Islam and democracy.

Bashir heads the Indonesian Council of Mujahedin, an umbrella organisation advocating the implementation of Islamic or sharia law across Indonesia.

The Government permitted Aceh province to begin implementing Islamic law, and that was to pacify demands for independence. Some districts have also passed strict Islamic bylaws.

Bashir said that sharia was a non-negotiable matter and "we cannot act in a soft way in order to implement Islamic law".

"The Muslim community has an obligation to struggle to make a drastic change in support of Islamic law implementation," he said, without specifying how they should do this.

As long as the country did not adopt sharia, Muslims had to follow it in their personal lives, as well as in their groups, he added....

AFP tells us:

More than 90 per cent of Indonesia's 232 million people are Muslims, but most follow a more moderate version of Islam.

Whew! Glad to hear that. How long will it last?

CNN: Turkey's Gul a "former Islamist"

Still more fantasy-based analysis. (Thanks to Paul.)

Is Gul really a former Islamist?

We shall see, and soon.

"Really really slay the unbelievers wherever you find them..."

It would be interesting to know how exactly this Al-Qaeda Qur'an has been "revised." After all, the original contains enough exhortations to violence as it is.

"Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" is, of course, sura 9:5. What can you possibly add to that to intensify it? Before breaking out that old wheeze that I am "taking it out of context," please consult my Qur'an blog for plenty of evidence that this verse is by no means alone.

Maybe Al-Qaeda is distributing Saudi Qur'ans that have commentary embedded within the translated text, in parentheses. Much was made of these a few years ago, because one of the glosses added in "like the Jews and Christians" into sura 1, the Fatiha, where it asks Allah not to allow the one praying to be among those who have earned his anger or gone astray. But this was comforting only to those who wanted to believe that the book's overall message was peaceful, and that Al-Qaeda and the Saudis were adding in the material that was inciting Islamic jihad violence. Alas, that is not the case. Even without these glosses in the Fatiha, in the Qur'an the Jews have earned Allah’s anger by rejecting Muhammad (2:87-90), and the Christians have gone astray by holding to the divinity of Christ (5:72).

"Al Qaida clerics distributing revised editions of Koran," from the World Tribune (thanks to Jcom):

ABU DHABI — Qatar has banned the import and distribution of unauthorized Korans.

Officials said the Islamic Affairs Ministry has ordered mosques and clerics to use only Korans and other Islamic text approved by the government, Middle East Newsline reported. They said Al Qaida-aligned clerics have employed Korans revised to promote the doctrine of Islamic war against the West.

"This is one of several measures by the ministry to ensure that no copies of the Koran that contains mistakes would be circulated in the country," Mohammed Bin Hamad Ajlan Al Kuwari, director of inspections at the ministry, said.

But the only evidence we get in this piece of how these Qur'ans have been altered is that some parts have been not added, as the Book of Peace crowd might expect, but removed:

Officials acknowledged that Korans revised by Al Qaida-aligned clerics have been distributed in Qatar. They said some of chapters in the Islamic text were removed....

Jihad: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse?

An American Expat in Southeast Asia (thanks to LHM) says that the Indonesian translation of Barak Obama's book changes the title from The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming The American Dream, which has a perfectly straightforward translation, to Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House. American Expat says this has connotations, for Indonesians, of jihad.

I have no way of knowing how accurate this is. If anyone knows Bahasa Indonesia, please weigh in with your thoughts. And of course, if it is true, it reflects not on Barak Obama but on Indonesian attitudes -- indicating that they may be hoping, as I speculated here, that he will become America's first Muslim President (as Clinton was famously America's first black President).

What do you think?

Fitzgerald: For the Saudis, the jihad marches on

The Guirard/Waller school would have us believe that if we pretend Jihad is not Jihad, but rather, as the Saudis keep pushing them to believe and disseminate, "hiraba," that all manner of things shall be well.

For, the Al-Saud whisper to us, we have had remarkable success in re-educating our own local Al-Qaada members. Why, just as soon as we manage to convince them that what Al Qaeda does here is called properly not "Jihad" but "hiraba," why, they are ready to see the error of their past ways.

And this kind of thing becomes the subject of gushing reports on television -- just look at what those Saudis can do. Why, to see some of those commentators, one would think that Saudi Arabia should be put in charge of Guantanamo, and the re-education of those prisoners.

This, like nothing else, shows the level of ignorance of Islam among those who by this time should know better, should have learned something. What the Saudi authorities do, of course, is to attempt, using assorted members of the ulema (clergy), to convince these disaffected Saudis that attacks by Muslims on a nice Muslim state, with such nice Muslim rulers as the beneficent Al-Saud, is just not halal. It is "hiraba." And that bad man Osama bin Laden, and his bad associate Ayman Al-Zawahiri, simply are wrong and deceitful to call it "Jihad."

For "Jihad" is what you conduct, by whatever means available, to spread Islam in the lands of the Infidels. But Saudi Arabia is a part of Dar al-Islam. Are not, those clerics say, the Al-Saud in general wise and benevolent rulers? Are they not, in truth, the Guardians of the Two Noble Sanctuaries, Mecca and Medina? Have they not spent tens of billions on the grand Grand Mosque of Mecca, and on improvements in facilities for pilgrims, and on airports and other means of transportation for those pilgrims? Does Saudi Arabia not spend billions -- up to one hundred billion dollars, in fact, over the past 20 or so years, on mosques and madrasas all over the world? Does it not spread propaganda, pay for missionaries to conduct Da'wa, buy up Western hirelings who are so effective in preventing real understanding, in the capitals of the West, of the true views and deep animus of Saudi Arabia? And of course at the same time those hirelings are working hard to prevent any real understanding of Islam, and to keep the Western governments focused on such things as the "plight of the 'Palestinians'" and how the resolution of that "plight" in a "two-state solution" (we know it is a "solution" because that is what it is called, so it must be) will lead to das ewige Fried, the Sweet Dream of Eternal Peace. They do all this in order both to further the Lesser Jihad against Israel -- which is presented by those Western hirelings and collaborators and willing simpletons as merely a matter of clashing "nationalisms," instead of as a war by Muslim Arabs, implacable and permanent, against an Infidel state. That war will be unaffected by any Israeli surrenders or further shrinkage. Israel must be destroyed, in this view, because it is on land that not only was once part of Dar al-Islam, but sits right in the middle of Dar al-Islam. Therefore it has priority on the very large To-Do List of Muslims conducting Jihad, or supporting Jihad, everywhere.

The Saudis do not re-educate their prisoners to abandon Jihad. That is, they do nothing to get them to drop their desire to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam. Quite the contrary. They explain that they themselves, the Al-Saud and the government of Saudi Arabia, have been mischaracterized, maligned, by Al Qaeda's leaders. Bin Laden, of course, has "issues," as the child by the polyphiloprogentive father with a not-quite-fully-Arab Syrian mother, making him keen to prove that he could be "plus islamiste que les islamistes" -- that is, those who are pure-bred Arabs, the best of people.

They do not attack Jihad. They merely have those clerics show that attacks on Muslims who are loyal and true to Islam are wrong. And the Saudis are, they maintain, true Muslims in their Jihad-supporting-and-promoting ways, which far outweigh their little peccadilloes at the gaming-tables and in the brothels of the West -- which, of course, they no doubt have those imams explain, are merely "stories" concocted by vicious Bin Laden, nasty Al-Zawahiri.

The endless naivete, ignorance, hopefulness, sentimentalism, fleeing from reality, of our political class all over the Western world is surely the most striking feature of this, the initial stage of what will be not a "Long War" as the Administration likes to say, thinking how very tough-minded and realistic it is being, but rather, a war without end, a war that cannot end as long as the texts, and therefore the tenets, and the attitudes, of Islam remain, as remain they will. But it is a war in which the enemy can be reduced to a condition that renders it no longer so menacing, that puts it back, roughly, vis-a-vis the Infidel world, about where it was, say, in 1950, or 1930. The same duty of Jihad existed then as it does now, as it will in twenty years, or fifty, as it has existed for the entire life of Islam. But what was lacking was the wherewithal. It came, with those OPEC trillions, and those migrant Muslim millions.

Diminish those revenues. Force expenditures to go sky-high. Force the sharing of wealth by rich Muslims with poor Muslims, instead of supplying the latter with the disguised Jizyah of constant and very large amounts of Infidel foreign aid. Make the poorer Arabs and Muslims suitably apprised of, and resentful about, the fantastic wealth of, for example, the greedy and selfish Gulf Arabs.

And study the effect of the Muslim presence in the Infidel lands, as a matter of national security. For that large-scale presence clearly has created a situation all over Western Europe that is unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous Infidels, and is a threat to their political and legal institutions as well.

This is not very hard, one would think, to grasp. But apparently a great many people are having a great deal of trouble doing so -- the grasping, I mean. Well, they will just have to keep trying. And one good place to start is to see what is ludicrous about thinking that the Saudi government has managed to "de-program" those prisoners to give up Jihad or their hostility and even murderous hatred for Infidels -- that is, for you and for me. What they have managed to do is to get those prisoners to be "de-programmed" so that they are no longer going to regard the Al-Saud, for their corruption and Western decadence, as non-Muslims, but rather, will have learned anew about just what True-Blue Believers the Al-Saud princes and princelings and princelettes, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, really are. And then they will change their attitude -- but only toward the Saudis, not toward Infidels. And so there is no lesson, no message of hope, that this program, with its art therapy and its sports, holds for Infidels.

For them, the Jihad marches on. La lutte continue.

Turkish secularism poised to leap onto the dustbin of history

But the Army is warning that it will not allow secularism to die quietly. "Gul set for Turkish president," from AFP (thanks to JE):

Abdullah Gul is set to become Turkey's first Islamist head of state as he is expected to become the president of the secular republic today.

Foreign Minister Gul, 56, is all but certain to secure victory in Tuesday's third round of voting in which the winner needs a simple majority of 276 votes in the 550-member parliament.

The ruling Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) is expected to easily overcome that barrier with its 340 seats, after falling short of the two-thirds majority required to elect the president in the first two rounds of voting last week.

Mr Gul's election will be a major victory for the Islamist-rooted AKP and is expected top end months of political tension with secularist forces, which blocked the minister's first bid for the presidency in April on grounds of his Islamist roots.

Opponents charge that the AKP, the moderate off-shoot of a banned Islamist party, has a secret agenda to replace Turkey's secular order with an Iranian-style regime and will have a free hand to implement its plan with Mr Gul at the presidency.

Hardline secularists are also irritated by the fact that Mr Gul's wife wears the Islamic headscarf, which they see as a symbol of defiance of the secular system.

'Threat to secular structure'

The head of the Turkish army, which played a major role in blocking Mr Gul's first run for the presidency, on Monday warned of "centres of evil" seeking to undermine the country's constitutional regime.

"Our nation has been watching the behaviour... centres of evil who are trying to systematically erode the country's secular structure," Yasar Buyukanit said in a written message Monday, which made no mention of Tuesday's parliamentary vote.

The army will not "be deterred by such attacks," he said.

"The Turkish Armed Forces will not make any concessions ... in its duty of guarding the Turkish Republic, a secular and social state based on the rule of law," Mr Buyukanit added.

Another jihad doctor arrested

The pediatrician Dr. Mohammad Rasool didn't get the memo. Doesn't he know that poverty causes terrorism?

"Dr arrested for suspected links with Al-Qaeda movement," from Online News (thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater):

CHAKANDRA: Security agencies in a raid at the residence of the house of prominent doctor here have recovered 6 suicide jackets and explosive materials.

Security agencies early Monday morning raided the house of child specialist Dr Mohammad Rasool and arrested him along with his wife and son and recovered 6 suicide jackets and explosive materials from his house.

The security agencies had received information that Al-Qaeda leader Mohammad Yousaf was residing at the Doctor’s house. However he fled prior to the raid.

Fitzgerald: Why the stated goals for "victory in Iraq" make no sense

The stated goals for "victory in Iraq" make no sense. Should the goal of Americans and other Infidels be to create a functioning state (with cigars passed around for the final birth of a happy, healthy, baby boy, after such a difficult pregnancy)? In any case this is impossible, with Allawi or Jaafari or Maliki or anyone at all, given that Islam itself is what prevents compromises and encourages continued aggression between Sunni and Shi'a. Both have taken from Islam the lesson that there can only be, after any conflict, only two possible conditions: that of Victor and that of Vanquished.

"Victory in Iraq" properly defined means a situation that justifies the expenditure of some $880 billion dollars (including in that figure the lifetime cost of care for the wounded veterans, and other expenses not yet factored in even by those, such as General MacCaffrey, who are critics of the war but inattentive to the real cost). That is more than the cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought, in 2007 dollars. It must also justify the deaths of 3,700 soldiers and the severe wounding of 25,000. Bush's notion that the outcome of a unified Iraq is a better one for the United States than one in which Sunnis and Shi'a, at one level or another, continue to fight, is unfounded. Who knows? Who can predict exactly how they will or will not handle one another once the Americans leave? What's more, who can say what will happen when co-religionists on both sides line up behind their fellows in Iraq? That means primarily Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Sunnis cheerfully waved off by the Alawite rulers of Syria, on the Sunni side, and on the Shi'a side, the grim Islamic Republic of Iran, with its Al Quds Revolutionary Guards, and of course its handmaidens in Hizballah, whom all kinds of sensible people in Lebanon would love to see stream off as volunteers, screaming their devotion to Allah, to Iraq to defend their own faith from those terrible Sunnis.

And in the same way, would not greater Kurdish autonomy, or ideally a Kurdish state, be a threat to Iran? For it would hearten not only Kurds in Iranian-held parts of Kurdistan, but others in the area -- Arabs in Khuzistan, Baluchis to the east, Azeris in the north -- to bethink themselves, to wonder if they too, the non-Persians who make up half the population of present-day Iran, must forever be subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran. And another potential threat is to Syria. As for Turkey, the Americans could make clear that Turkey is no longer regarded as an indispensable ally, or even conceivably a reliable member of NATO, to the extent that it "returns to Islam" (as it is, steadily, day by day, under the guiding hand of Erdogan and many little erdogans), but that, in any case, the Americans will act as guarantors to insure that whatever pressures from this Kurdish state are made on Iran, or Syria, no such pressure will be put on Turkey, for the Americans, as the sole suppliers of military aid to Kurdistan, can guarantee their cooperation. And furthermore, it can hardly have gone unnoticed that economic cooperation between Turkey and Kurdistan is already in the works, and that the Turkish government might take an entirely different view of an independent Kurdistan, as not increasing outside pressure on it, but serving to decrease it -- for if Kurds in Turkey feel that they need an outlet for political expression other than the Turkish state, they are now welcome to move to an independent Kurdistan, and for all we know, some might take up the offer. And I have not even reached here the emulative effect the spectacle of one non-Arab Muslim people, the Kurds, throwing off the Arab yoke, would have on other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers.

Finally, along with the sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) division inside and outside Iraq, there are possible further unsettlements and sectarian strife in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia (the oil-bearing Eastern Province), in Lebanon, in Bahrain, even in Yemen. Instead of being welcomed -- since when does one attempt to prevent division and demoralization in the camp of one's enemies? -- these are actively being deplored, in warnings from the Great and Good, that an American withdrawal will bring, could bring, might bring, that deplorable thing called "chaos" to the Middle East. Nonsense. Not "chaos" -- not with those kinds of despotisms willing to use their kind of force with their kind of secret police. Not chaos, really, but perhaps a using up of men, money, and materiel, and attention -- but this time they would all bear the initial adjective "Muslim" rather than "American," and that is a highly desirable change.

Russian Muslim arrested in Afghanistan on terrorism suspicions

Wearing a burqa, evidently.

This is more evidence of the international character of the jihad, belying claims that various jihads around the world are merely local insurgencies.

"Russian man arrested in Afghanistan over terrorism suspicions," from ITAR-TASS (thanks to Twostellas):

ISLAMABAD, August 28 (Itar-Tass) -- A Russian citizen has been arrested in Afghanistan as a suspected associate of terrorists, the Iranian hews agency IRNA reported on Monday.

It said the man identified as Andrei, who professes Islam, and two citizens of Afghanistan had been arrested in the province of Paktia near the border with Pakistan.

A representatives of the Paktia authorities said they had been arrested after about 500 kilograms of explosives had been found in their automobile.

The Russian man allegedly told police he had entered Afghanistan from Pakistan after trips to Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. He planned to travel to Tajikistan from Afghanistan and then to Russia.

According to police, all three men were wearing women’s clothes.

A few interviews for Tuesday

Discussing the book Religion of Peace? and, you know, whatever. Tomorrow's schedule:

All times PDT:

3:35 AM Michael Graham Show WTKK

6:40 AM KZIM Morning Meeting

7:05 AM The Francene Show WHAS

9:00 AM Dennis Miller Show

1:00 PM George Putnam Show

Iraq: Suicide bomber kills 9 in attack on mosque in Fallujah

Why more Muslims don't speak out forthrightly against the jihadists. From AP:

A suicide bomber detonated an explosives belt among worshippers at evening prayers Monday in Fallujah, killing nine people, including the mosque preacher who had been an outspoken opponent of al-Qaida, police said....

The main target was beliebed to be the preacher Abdul Sattar al-Jumaili, whose two sons were also killed. Al-Jumaili had returned to Fallujah from Syria the day before. Police said he often visited Syria because he was on an al-Qaida death list.

Pakistan’s Islamist press calls for jihad against India

What have they been fighting up to now? "Pakistan’s Islamist press calls for jihad," by Praveen Swami for The Hindu:

NEW DELHI: Pakistan’s Islamist media published a series of explicit calls for violence against India in the six weeks before the Hyderabad bombings — a development that analysts believe reflects the weakening of General Pervez Musharraf’s regime, and raises fears of a renewed wave of terror strikes.

In an editorial published in the Jamaat-e-Islami-affiliated Daily Jasarat’s August 19 Friday supplement, the newspaper demanded that the “slogan of jihad should reverberate in every nook and corner of Pakistan. If Pakistan allows jihadis to infiltrate into India then Kashmir could be liberated in six months.”

“Within a couple of years,” the newspaper asserted, “the rest of the territories of India could be conquered as well, and we can regain our lost glory. We can bring back the era of Mughal rule. We can once again subjugate the Hindus like our forefathers.”

Yet so many, in India and the West, continue to delude themselves that this subjugation is not part of the jihadist agenda.

If history teaches anything

If history teaches anything, it teaches that self delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. -- Ronald Reagan

Turkish military: Secularism under attack

No kidding. "Turkey military: Secularism under attack," by Christopher Torchia for the Associated Press:

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's military issued a stern warning on Monday about the threat to secularism on the eve of an expected triumph of the Islamic-oriented government: the election of a loyal — and devout — president.

There were no signs that the military planned to disrupt Parliament's vote on Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, but the statement describing "the centers of evil" arrayed against secular Turkey was a reminder of its past interventions to enforce the separation of mosque and state. This time, the military is dealing with a government that renewed its mandate in a resounding election victory in July and an emboldened prime minister who has urged the generals to stay out of politics.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the military, said in a note on the military's Web site: "Our nation has been watching the behavior of those separatists who can't embrace Turkey's unitary nature and centers of evil that systematically try to corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic."

The military often condemns separatist rebels who have been fighting for decades in the predominantly Kurdish region of southeast Turkey. But the potent reference to "centers of evil" and the timing of the announcement just before the presidential election suggested the conflict over the role of Islam in politics was its immediate concern.

The military, which has ousted four civilian governments since 1960, said its statement was issued to mark the 85th anniversary on Aug. 30 of a military victory that was crucial for the establishment of modern Turkey.

Gul, whose earlier bid to win election as president was blocked by the secular establishment because of concerns about his background in political Islam, was expected to win the post on Tuesday. He has pledged to uphold secular principles enshrined in the constitution, and to use his contacts in foreign capitals to promote Turkey's role on the international stage.

The military-backed secular establishment, however, fears Gul is so loyal to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he would not use the presidency's veto powers as a traditional check on the government. The secular incumbent, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, vigorously used his authority to block the promotion of officials deemed to have Islamic leanings.

"Nefarious plans to ruin Turkey's secular and democratic nature emerge in different forms everyday," Buyukanit said in his statement. "The military will, just as it has so far, keep its determination to guard social, democratic and secular Turkey."

NATO: Taliban making false accusations

"War is deceit" - Muhammad (Bukhari 4.52.267)

By Chris Brummitt for the Associated Press:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan accused Taliban militants Monday of falsely reporting civilian casualties to discredit Afghan and international forces. Six insurgents and two foreign soldiers, meanwhile, were killed in fresh fighting.

The U.S.-led coalition made the claim Monday after Afghan elders alleged that up to 18 civilians were killed late Sunday by coalition troops in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold.

Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman, said credible intelligence suggested the claims were fabricated as part of a propaganda war. "The insurgents continue to follow their pattern of falsely reporting civilian casualties," she said.

NATO-led forces, whose operations in Helmand are being supported by U.S.-led coalition troops and aircraft, insist that no noncombatants were killed in the fighting. The claims could not be independently verified due to the remoteness of the area where the clash took place.

Reports of civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces are highly sensitive in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly deplored such deaths, saying they undermine efforts to win the trust of the people.

Sunni jihadists target Shi'ite pilgrims in Karbala

Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update. "Extremists target Iraqi Shiite pilgrims," by David Rising for the Associated Press:

BAGHDAD - A sniper killed a Shiite pilgrim on a Baghdad bridge Monday while another was killed and six injured in other attacks as tens of thousands of faithful made their way to the southern city of Karbala for a major religious commemoration.

[...]

Iraqi security forces have mounted a major operation to protect Shiite pilgrims. Sunni religious extremists, including al-Qaida in Iraq, have launched massive and deadly attacks against pilgrims during Shiite celebrations in the past.

Despite the security measures, one pilgrim was shot on Baghdad's Jadiriyah bridge and gunmen hiding in an orchard south of the capital opened fire on another group, killing one and injuring three others.

Three more pilgrims were injured when gunmen blasted them in a drive-by shooting in southwestern Baghdad and police prevented another attack, defusing two roadside bombs planted along the route to Karbala in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, officials said.

More than a million Shiites from throughout the world were expected to converge on the Shiite holy city for the celebrations, which reach their high point late Tuesday and early Wednesday. The Shabaniyah festival marks the birth of Mohammed al-Mahdi, the 12th and last Shiite imam who disappeared in the 9th century.

US military regrets 'blasphemous' balls

"Captain Vanessa Bowman said the military had been unaware of the sensitivity of the issue." Indeed. There is so much about Islam and jihad about which they are unaware. And is that really excusable given today's world climate? An update on this story.

By Hamid Shalizi for Reuters (thanks to JE):

THE US military in Afghanistan has expressed regret over a campaign aimed at winning hearts and minds but which offended scores of Muslims when it dropped dozens of soccer balls bearing the name of Allah and the prophet Mohammed from helicopters.

The idea of kicking something bearing their names is considered deeply offensive to Muslims.

"This ball ... carries a message with it which, like an atom bomb, can cause carnage and insecurity in all parts of Afghanistan,'' a leading Afghan newspaper, Cheragh, said today.

US troops on Friday dropped dozens of free footballs for soccer-mad Afghan children from helicopters in an area of southeastern Afghanistan, all marked with flags of various countries.

But the balls depicted the Saudi Arabian flag, which features the Islamic declaration of faith and includes the names of Allah and the prophet Mohammed.

Fawad Ahmad, a shopkeeper in Kabul, said: "Americans themselves create insecurity by ignoring religious sensitivity, it is against Islam."

A spokeswoman for the US military in Afghanistan said the ball distribution was part of a goodwill humanitarian aid mission ... for the enjoyment of Afghan children''.

Captain Vanessa Bowman said the military had been unaware of the sensitivity of the issue.

"We do regret any disturbances caused,'' she said today.

Holy Land Foundation trial documents: Hamas-linked Palestinian jihadists formed organizations in West -- including CAIR

Holy Land, the IAP, and CAIR: all working for the same goal. "Muslim charity trial may shed new light on terror aid," by David Koenig for Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):

DALLAS — Prosecutors have produced scores of documents, audio and videotapes, and intercepted phone calls in their attempt to prove that a Muslim charity based in a suburban Dallas office park was actually a fundraising arm of Middle Eastern terrorists.

Much of the evidence has surfaced before in books, newspaper articles and previous trials. But those who track terror-financing say the document haul from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development has also produced new information.

They say the documents shed light on a web of related organizations of militant Palestinian supporters in the United States, some of whom saw their goal as destroying Western civilization.

The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on "work for the Palestinian cause on the American front." The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.

The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.

One was Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas.

Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.

And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.

For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.

The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity's leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine....

"It's clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States," Farah said. "It's in their own words, it's a political infiltration that worked for 40 years."

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denied that his group or its current or former leaders had any ties to Hamas.

"That's one of those urban legends about CAIR," he said. "It's fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere."

Gee, thanks, Parvez. But here again, one wonders how the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere was able to forge all these documents and bring them to the attention of the HLF prosecutors. I thought Dan Rather was the go-to guy for forgeries, and I doubt he'd be helpful in this case.

Here again, all the CAIR spokesman does is smear the truth-tellers, rather than deal with the evidence.

Ahmed said the Philadelphia gathering attended by CAIR's founder "was an open meeting of Palestinian activists who came together to discuss the Olso peace accords and their struggle to gain a homeland."...

One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.

The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."

Hmmm. Let's see. What might be one effective way to do that? How about by vilifying and smearing as a "bigot" anyone who tells the truth about Islamic jihad and tries to defend Western civilization? And by going so far as to bring suit against people who dare to try to keep terrorists off airplanes? All the while gaining the ear of government, law enforcement, and media by claiming the mantle of civil rights victimhood?

A workable strategy, to be sure. And one that has been fantastically effective.

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 4, “Women,” verses 17-34

Verses 17-28 of Sura 4, “Women,” continues with various regulations for marriage and the treatment of women. Verses 17-18 continue the call to repentance in v. 16 by warning that Allah will only accept repentance from those who sinned out of ignorance, and will not look kindly upon deathbed changes of heart. Then v. 19 forbids the inheriting of women against their will, and enjoins men not to treat them harshly in order to get them to forfeit part or all of their dowry – “unless they be guilty of flagrant lewdness.” Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, recounts according to Mishkat al-Masabih that Muhammad said: “The best of you is he who is best towards his wife, and I am the best towards my wives.”

Verses 20-21 continue with these exhortations toward just treatment, telling men that if they have decided to “exchange one wife for another,” they must not take back the dowry they have given to the wife who is to be discarded. Verses 22-25 prohibit marriage with various women who are related by blood or marriage.

V. 23 refers to “foster mothers,” or more literally “mothers who suckled you,” as being among those with whom marriage is forbidden. Men and women who are not related are forbidden by Islamic law to be alone together, but a man and a woman who are forbidden to marry each other – i.e., who are related in some way – can be alone together. Once a woman came to Muhammad and told him that her husband, Abu Hadhaifa, was angry because a freed slave of his, a young man who had reached puberty, “enters our house freely.” Muhammad told her: “Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear.” The woman later reported that it worked: “So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.” This directive gained worldwide attention recently when a cleric at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, recommended that this could solve a problem in the workplace: a man could be alone with, and work with, a woman with whom he was not related, if the woman suckled the man and thereby became his foster mother. After the story got out and Al-Azhar was subjected to international ridicule, the lecturer who recommended this was suspended. Left unaddressed, however, was the root of his recommendation in the words of Muhammad himself.

V. 24 forbids Muslims to marry women who are already married, except slave girls: according to Islamic law, once a woman is captured and enslaved, her marriage is immediately annulled (cf. ‘Umdat al-Salik o9.13). At one point, according to a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim, “the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists.” So the Companions “asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah [verse] was revealed…Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” Ibn Kathir says that this verse also prohibits temporary marriage – marriage with a predetermined expiration date, which Shi’ites believe was never prohibited. Meanwhile, men who don’t have the money to marry believing women should marry Muslim slave girls (v. 25).

Verses 29-33 contain general moral exhortations, including a prohibition of suicide (vv. 29-30). Is suicide bombing included in this prohibition? The Muslim leaders who justify it say that it isn’t, as the object of the action is not to kill oneself, but to kill infidels, and thus is the killing and being killed that is rewarded with Paradise according to Qur’an 9:111. More on that when we get to that verse. V. 31 tells Muslims to avoid the “major sins.” Hafidh Dhahabi lists 70 major sins in his Kitab ul-Kaba’ir, beginning with shirk, or associating partners with Allah (i.e., saying Jesus is God’s Son), and including black magic, adultery, desertion on the battlefield, drinking alcohol, lying, stealing, pride, misappropriating the booty, spying on others, harming Muslims and speaking ill of them, disobeying one’s husband, and making pictures. Other lists add more. Another book, Al Ashba wa al-Nadha’ir, lists offenses such as eating pork, dancing, castrating one’s slave, apostasy, playing chess, masturbation and drug use among the major sins.

Verse 34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. This is, of course, an extremely controversial verse, so it is worth noting how several translators render the key word here, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.

Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Asad: “then beat them”

Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates it as “go away from them.” In light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain – all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment. Asad adduces numerous traditions in which Muhammad “forbade the beating of any woman,” concluding that wife-beating is “barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided.”

Unfortunately, however, this is not a unanimous view. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.” Also, Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) – and Aisha reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?”

Wife-beating exists in all cultures, but only in Islam does it enjoy divine sanction. Amnesty International reports that “according to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, over 90% of married women report being kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused when husbands were dissatisfied by their cooking or cleaning, or when the women had ‘failed’ to bear a child or had given birth to a girl instead of a boy.”

Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

Next week: What becomes of those whom Allah has cursed.

(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; 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.)

Iraq: British withdraw from Basra base, Mahdi Army moves in

The BBC didn't see fit to take note of the new occupants until the 9th paragraph of this story. "Troops withdraw from Basra base," from the BBC (thanks to John):

British forces have withdrawn from a base in Basra they shared with Iraqi police - the first step in a plan to move out all troops based in the city.

Another 500 troops will now pull back from Saddam Hussein's former palace, their only remaining base in the city....

Then follow many details, and finally Paragraph Nine:

The British military spokesman in Basra has dismissed reports that Shia militia men from the Mahdi Army took over the base after British forces passed control to Iraqi police last night.

Witnesses told the Associated Press the Mahdi Army emptied the building taking generators, computers, furniture and even cars.

Major Michael Shearer told the BBC News website that officers from the Multi-National Force spoke to the local Iraqi Army commander who "assured us that the PJCC is under his control and being efficiently run by the Iraqi Army. He also stated that all the equipment remains within the PJCC".

An MoD spokesman said there was a green Shia flag flying on the building, but not the black flag associated with the Mahdi Army....

Pakistani soldiers deserting because fighting Al-Qaeda and Taliban may be "un-Islamic"

"I did not desert the force because I feared death, but I was not sure whether the fighting in tribal district Waziristan was Islamic or not." This is yet another indication of the fact that Al-Qaeda and other jihadists are not repudiated by all too many other Muslims. It also shows why the jihadist appeal to peaceful Muslims on the basis of Islamic purity meets with such success.

"Scores of Pak soldiers desert forces," from the Times of India (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISLAMABAD: Scores of Pakistani soldiers have deserted the security forces deployed in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, mainly because they were not sure whether fighting against their 'own people' was morally right, media reports said on Saturday.

"I did not desert the force because I feared death, but I was not sure whether the fighting in tribal district Waziristan was Islamic or not," a soldier from paramilitary Frontier Corps told the Daily Times.

The man, who recently refused to serve in tribal areas, claimed the same question was haunting many other soldiers and the confusion was stopping them from "putting up a tough fight" against the Taliban and Al-Qaida elements in the area. Pro-Taliban militiamen pulled out of peace treaties with the government after troops stormed the Lal Masjid in the capital on July 10, and launched a series of raids on security forces.

He confirmed the desertions but insisted these should be ignored as "insignificant incidents”. "Small-scale desertion takes place in any force and in any country for one reason or another," Arshad told the newspaper.

However, six soldiers from only one suburb of Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province, have deserted the Frontier Corps. The force is the first line of defence of around 90,000 troops deployed along the country’s western border against militants launching attacks at international forces in Afghanistan.

'Blasphemous' balls anger Afghans

The "blasphemous ball," May 2006 version

I predicted that this ball would cause trouble in May 2006, although the one pictured in the May 2006 story differs slightly from the one pictured in this BBC story: the Israeli flag pictured near the Saudi flag on the May 2006 ball seems to have been removed. But that, as this story shows, has not calmed hair-trigger tempers.

By Alastair Leithead for the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):

A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The balls showed the Saudi Arabian flag which features the Koranic declaration of faith.

The US military said the idea had been to give something for Afghan children to enjoy and they did not realise it would cause offence.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province.

Some displayed flags from countries all over the world, including Saudi Arabia, which features the shahada, one of the five pillars of Islam - the declaration of faith.

The words, which include the name of Allah, are revered, and Muslims are very sensitive about where and how they can be used.

As Charles at LGF says: “Sensitive,” in this case, being defined as “prone to murderous rage.”

Radio Spencer Monday

Radio interviews for the book Religion of Peace? are winding down now, but there will still be a few tomorrow and this coming week. Tomorrow's schedule:

All times PDT:

6:00 AM Wake Up Call WFTW

7:10 AM Bill Meyer KMED

7:50 AM The Right Balance

8:00 AM Mornings on the Dove KDOV

9:00 AM Mike Rosen Show KOA

11:00 AM Point of View with Kerby Anderson (USA Radio Network)

12:00 PM The Flip Side Rightalk Radio

5:00 PM Frank Pastore Show KKLA

5:35 PM: Michael Reagan Show

New Hamas cartoon features Lion King lookalike

"Hamas' new cartoon hero," from the Associated Press:

After killing off its Mickey Mouse look-alike, Hamas has turned to another Disney character - televising a cartoon with a "Lion King" wannabe to portray the Islamic group's victory in the Gaza Strip over the Fatah movement.

The cartoon depicts Fatah members as sneaky rats, brandishing guns and being showered with U.S. dollars, while Hamas is portrayed as a confident, calm lion that resembles Simba in the 1994 Walt Disney Co. Movie "The Lion King."

The five-minute video, titled "A message to the criminal gangs in the occupied West Bank," is the second production of the Hamas-run al-Aqsa TV enlisting a famous Disney character.

In May, Hamas TV used a Mickey Mouse knockoff to preach Islamic domination to children. After an uproar among Israelis and Palestinians, that character was killed off and his weekly show replaced.

Hazem Sharawi, an executive with Hamas TV, said the cartoon of the lion vanquishing the rats was broadcast Thursday but quickly pulled off the air for revisions. He said it was "flashed" For one day to counter what he called anti-Hamas propaganda coming from Fatah in the West Bank.

The cartoon also was posted on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington-based group that monitors the Arabic media.

'Viewers loved it'

The piece shows rats trampling over Gaza, burning houses, stepping over homes, uprooting trees, firing at mosques and desecrating the Quran, Islam's holy book.

Their leader is clearly a portrayal of Fatah's former Gaza strongman, Mohammed Dahlan, who has fled Gaza. Wearing a tie and smoking a cigar, the chief rat grabs a microphone and tells the crowd: "Move back and let Hamas shoot me." Dahlan made that comment during the showdown with Hamas, and his voice is dubbed into the scene.

Throughout the video, the lion silently watches the rats, preparing his claws and shaking his mane. When he pounces, the rats flee in terror as he knocks them about with his claws. Injured and limping rats then say: "Off to the West Bank."

Jihad group behind blasts in Hyderabad

"Shahid is reported to be in Karachi..." Now that's interesting. I'm sure our Friend and Ally Pakistan will be very helpful in this matter.

"HuJI behind blasts in Hyderabad: Centre," from PTI (thanks to all who sent this in):

NEW DELHI: Central security agencies on Saturday night said that banned Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islami militant outfit of Bangladesh was possibly behind the twin blast in Hyderabad in which 30 people were killed.

Sources in New Delhi said that there could be similarities between the explosives used in Mecca Masjid blast in Hyderabad in May this year and tonight's explosion.

It was suspected that Shahid and Bilal, who were the masterminds of the Meacca Masjid blast, were also behind tonight's explosion.

Shahid is reported to be in Karachi and is instrumental in bringing people for arms training from Hyderabad.

Thailand blast injures 10, kills 1

From Iranian Press TV:

A bomb hidden under a bench in front of a food shop killed one person and wounded 10 others in Thailand's restive Muslim south.

The remote-controlled device exploded Saturday, while Buddhist Thais were waiting to give food to monks in the town of Pattani in one of three southernmost provinces where more than 2,500 people have been killed in violence since 2004 police said.

Two civilians were seriously wounded while the shop owner was killed.

The other wounded included monks and soldiers escorting them.

Nobody claims responsibility for the daily gun or bomb attacks in the far south, annexed by predominately Buddhist Thailand a century ago.

Eighty percent of the local population are Muslim, ethnic Malay and do not speak Thai as a first language.

Any bets on who did this? Congregationalists? Zarathustrians? Overzealous Jehovah Witnesses?

Explosives found at 16 other locations in and near Hyderabad

An update on this story. " Officials: Deadly blasts in southern India were acts of terror," from CNN:

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- The death toll continued to rise in southern India, where two blasts Saturday night killed at least 41 people in Hyderabad in what authorities are calling terrorists attacks.

More than 60 people were wounded, several critically, police said.

But the carnage could have been worse.

Authorities also found explosives at 16 other locations in and near Hyderabad, said Y.S.R. Reddy, chief minister of Andhra Pradesh state.

Security was beefed up at the airport and railroads after police said the almost simultaneous blasts were coordinated attacks.

"This is definitely terrorist activity," Reddy said, urging everyone to stay calm. He scheduled a Cabinet meeting Sunday morning to discuss the incidents.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a statement expressing deep concern over the violence.

One explosion, suspected to have been a bomb, occurred as a laser music show was to begin at an outdoor auditorium in Lumbini Park after 7:30 p.m. (10 a.m. ET).

About 500 people were in the audience when the blast ripped through the middle row of seats, Reddy said.

India: 30 killed, 60 wounded in major terror attack

"A senior police official said the explosives used in the twin blasts on Saturday were similar to the one used by terrorists in the Mecca Masjid blasts in May this year."

"30 killed, 60 wounded as terror strikes Hyderabad," from PTI (thanks to all who sent this in):

HYDERABAD: In a major terror strike, at least 30 persons were killed and about 60 injured in two powerful near-simultaneous blasts at a crowded park and a popular eating joint in Hyderabad on Saturday evening.

Twenty four people died when an explosion ripped through Gokul Chat Shop at Kothi locality at around 7.50 pm, Andhra Pradesh Home Minister K Jana Reddy told reporters.

In another blast five minutes earlier at a place five kilometres away, six persons perished in a blast in an auditorium in Lumbini Amusement Park near the state secretariat in the heart of the city when a laser show was on, he said.

Reddy said about 500 people were in the auditorium at the time of the incident.

The blast ripped through the middle row of the auditorium when the show had just begun.

So powerful was the blast that some of bodies were flung into the air and scattered over the area....

Reddy said that "according to preliminary reports, it was a terrorist act".

A senior police official said the explosives used in the twin blasts on Saturday were similar to the one used by terrorists in the Mecca Masjid blasts in May this year....

Hillary to jihadists: Please don't attack us, or Dems will lose

As has been amply illustrated over the years here at Jihad Watch, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a particular clue about the nature of the global jihad and what to do about it, and there has been much too much politics as usual, and craven partisanship such as is exhibited here, when there really needs to be a new political alignment and a sober reappraisal of our international and domestic policies. "Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP," by Alexander Mooney for CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.

A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

Muslims resent FBI's release of ferry passenger photos

Seattle Muslims in a Full Court Victimization Press: "We need to get some type of apology from them and figure out how to get back to where we were." The FBI agents shouldn't apologize for doing their jobs and trying to protect people. Gomez is right: "people in those communities have to get over this sensitivity toward feeling victimized." And instead of resenting anti-terror efforts, some cooperation with them would be most welcome.

An update on this story.

"FBI's release of ferry passenger photos resented," by Lornet Turnbull, Janet Tu and Mike Carter for the Seattle Times (thanks to all who sent this in):

For Arabs and Muslims across the Puget Sound area, a rise in the nation's threat level or a bombing halfway around the world often can mark a period of unease.

In the years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leaders in that community say incidents of profiling and harassment have ebbed and flowed — increasing when Muslims are linked to news of the day.

Now the FBI's release of photographs of two men of unknown origin, who the agency says were observed acting suspiciously aboard as many as six different Washington ferry routes in recent weeks, is creating new worries in the community.

Muslim- and Arab-American leaders are upset that the FBI didn't consult them — as it has done in other instances — before releasing the photos on the Internet and to news organizations. They worry that the action may fracture the relationship the agency and the community have carefully built.

The FBI has stressed that the release of the photos is a rare move, taken only after it had exhausted other efforts to identify the men. The agency also has said the men's actions could be innocuous, but it needs to question them.

The photos were snapped by a ferry captain last month after crew members alerted him to suspicious activity. The men seemed inordinately interested in the operation of the vessel, took photographs of the interiors of the boats and went into areas tourists and commuters don't normally go, the FBI has said. The agency has received many tips but has not yet found the men.

Dozens of Muslims and Arabs have complained to community leaders about the photographs. The fallout has led to a meeting planned today between Muslim- and Arab-American community leaders and law-enforcement officials.

"We need to get some type of apology from them and figure out how to get back to where we were," said Rita Zawaideh, head of the Arab-American Community Coalition....

Zawaideh said she met with FBI officials about the August incident three days before the agency released the photos of the two men. But the FBI didn't bring up that subject.

"Why not ask us then and we would have had a way to ask people in the community," she said.

Gomez said the agency needs to address certain sensitive issues, but "people in those communities have to get over this sensitivity toward feeling victimized."

Many passengers have been stopped and questioned recently, as the ferry system has stepped up security once the FBI concluded the men might be watching the system. The stops are based on activities, not skin color, Gomez said.

Two days ago, a Seattle Times photographer, who is white, was stopped and questioned after taking photographs near the Mukilteo ferry terminal.

The FBI didn't take the photos of the two men to the Arab- and Muslim-American community because the agency doesn't know if the men are Middle Eastern, Gomez added.

"That seems potentially prejudicial to me, and in some ways worse than simply putting [the photos] out the way we did," Gomez said. "It is not us saying these guys look Middle Eastern."

Zawaideh countered: "They're not saying these men are Arabs, but insinuating they are."

How on earth are they doing that, Zawaideh? They released pictures and said these men were acting suspiciously as reported by many people on several ferries. If they had instead gone to Muslim leaders and asked them for help, as you yourself suggest above, then they would have been announcing in a public way that these guys were Muslims. And I expect if they had approached Muslim leaders with these photos, the leaders would have been outraged, outraged, that the FBI was assuming that the men were Muslims. It's a no-win situation.

This all comes at a time when some local Muslim and Arab-American leaders say they've seen a new spike in discrimination complaints....

Both Zawaideh and S. Arsalan Bukhari, president of the Seattle chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), say their organizations have been receiving more reports lately involving allegations of discrimination.

Bukhari said he's heard of delays at the border, as well as cases of people being asked questions at the airport and searched so thoroughly they missed their flights.

I'd live with it if it happened to me, Arsalan. Better than getting blown up. At least for some of us.

Iran on U.N. anti-racism committee

"Iran on anti-racism committee," by Yaakov Lappin for YNet News:

Despite its numerous calls for Israel's destruction, and repeated denials of the Holocaust, Iran has been selected by the United Nations for a leading position in a committee that will plan the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism.

The planning committee, which will meet for the first time in Geneva on August 27, will be made up of an inner circle of 20 UN member-states, to be headed by Libya.

The decision to include Iran in the committee has been slammed by UN watchdogs. "As a UN spokesperson against racism, Iran will invert totally the message and mission of the United Nations," Anne Bayefsky, senior editor of the New York-based Eye on the UN, said in a press release.

"Iran is now poised to wrap itself in a UN flag as a lead agent of the next global conference against racism, Durban II," she added, referring to the 2001 UN conference on racism held in Durban, South Africa, which saw unprecedented levels of anti-Zionist rhetoric and calls for Israel's destruction.

Speaking to Ynetnews, Bayefsky said that "the leading exponents of anti-Semitism, whether directed at Jews individually or the Jewish people and its state generally, continue to be provided a global platform at the UN. This is but one example of a broader phenomenon."

"Eye on the UN has found that in 2006 the UN system as a whole directed the most condemnations for human rights abuses against specific states - first towards Israel and fourth towards the United States. Iran was lower down on the list of UN human rights concerns," Bayefsky said, adding: "And yet the US taxpayer continues to pay a quarter of the bill for activities which demonize Americans and Israelis on a global scale."

A spokesperson for the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed to Ynetnews that "Iran is one of 20 States who are members of the bureau of the Preparatory Committee," but added that "Iran does not occupy a leading role.”

When asked how a state which openly denies the Holocaust could find itself in such a role, the spokesperson said: "The Preparatory Committee is an inter-governmental body, meaning States were chosen freely to sit on the Prep-Com. It is the Member-States who decide."

'UN body hijacked again'

Bayefsky explained that the structure of the UN's Human Rights Council has effectively been taken over by the countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), allowing Iran and Libya access to key roles.

"The states were selected by the UN Human Rights Council and the Council is controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The majority of seats on the Council are held by the African and Asian regional groups and the OIC has a majority of seats on each of these groups. Western states do not have the votes to block this outrage and it is another example of the hijacking that has occurred of the UN's lead human rights agency," she said.

Hmm. One assumes Arab supremacist imperialism in places like Darfur probably won't be a high priority.

Reacting to the statements of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of the Geneva-Based UN Watch organization, said that the UN had failed to explain how Iran had ended up on the planning council.

Jihadists "on rampage" in eastern Sri Lanka kill two

A jihadist component to the strife in Sri Lanka. "Jihad armed men on the rampage in the East," from Asian Tribune:

Colombo, 23 (Asiantribune.com): Jihad armed group has suddenly gone berserk killing recently two Tamils in the East.

On the last 20 August, according to reports, Jihad armed men have killed, Jeyaraj (29 years old), a three-wheeler driver, at Jinna Nagar, a suburb located at the Third Mile Post, three km north of Trincomalee Town.

Also on the same day, Jihad gunmen killed Thiyagachandran (54 years old) at Valaichchenai, who is the brother of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Batticaloa parliamentarian S. Jeyananthamoorthy.

In a statement, Eelam Revolutionary Organization (EROS) revealed that they have lost one of its members known within EROS as "Gerald" otherwise known as Jeyaraj, who EROS claims was shot and killed on the evening of 20 August at Jinna Nagar in Trincomalee by a man identified as "Nizam" who is affiliated to a group calling themselves the "Jihad" – a armed group mainly of the Muslims in the Eastern Province.

The Jihad armed group have been in existence since 1985 and known to have targeted political opponents and civilians in the past, however this is the first time the Jihad group who are based in parts of Trincomalee, Amparai and Batticaloa have begun to [target] Tamils from the East.

Sources in the East told the Asian Tribune that since of late, [Jihad members] claiming themselves as holy warriors of Islam, has started functioning in the East and are involved in resettling Muslims in Oddamaavadi and in the adjacent villages.

Sources told Asian Tribune that Jihad armed group works very closely with some Muslim Government Ministers from the East. Also it was revealed that Jihad and some Muslim Ministers have taken steps to bring in Muslim internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and making arrangements to settle them from Welikantha to Oddamaavadi with the view to carve out that region as a separate Muslim district.

Training for jihad in Scotland

“Mohammed said that as Muslims we should commit Jihad.” It ain't the Scotland of Robert Burns anymore.

"Student trained in terror in Capital," from The Scotsman (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A STUDENT facing terrorism charges spoke of attending “training groups” in Edinburgh, a court heard today.

Mohammed Atif Siddique, 21, also told a fellow student how he wanted to be a suicide bomber, blow up Glasgow and that he had met Osama bin Laden.

He is facing five charges including possessing, collecting and distributing terrorist propaganda and providing instructional material for bomb making.
Siddique, from Alva in Clackmannanshire, denies all the charges.

At the High Court in Glasgow, Razia Hussain said the accused made a series of claims while they were studying computing at Glasgow Metropolitan College.

The 22-year-old told the court that Siddique would access non work related websites in class every time he had an opportunity.

Questioned by Crown counsel Brian McConnachie QC about what the websites displayed, she replied: “People getting blown up, people who were dead, armies and explosions.

“Mohammed used to explain to me about these sites, about people getting blown up.

“How this is right and should be done because we are Muslims.
“Mohammed said that as Muslims we should commit Jihad.”

Asked by Mr McConnachie what Jihad meant she answered: “To go and blow yourself up.”

Ms Hussain told the court that one image showed a dead man with a smile on his face.

She added: “Mohammed said this was because he had committed Jihad and God was going to be happy.

“He said he wanted to be one as well – a suicide bomber.”

“How many times did he say that?” Mr McConnachie asked.
“A few times,” she replied.

Siddique also denies causing a breach of the peace by threatening to become a suicide bomber and saying he was a member of the terror network al Qaida, as well as showing images of suicide bombers and beheadings.

Ms Hussain also told the court that the accused claimed to have met Osama bin Laden and was visiting or planning to visit “training groups” in Edinburgh or Stirling.

Mano a mano: Spencer v Derbyshire

Here, from Pajamas Media, is my response to John Derbyshire's brightly written review of my book Religion of Peace?.

John Derbyshire seems to think that since, in his view, Islam and Christianity are equally preposterous, they are equally likely to incite violence: “Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.”

Huh? “And so”? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they’re of equal moral value? Come now. I myself find National Socialism no more preposterous than Shakerism – does that mean that National Socialism is no more or less likely to make us better or worse than Shakerism? Does Derbyshire really want to get behind the idea that if something doesn’t ring true to him, it is therefore benign, or at least no more or less benign than some other farrago? I don’t think he does, even as he calls the whole exercise “infantile,” since he also says that he finds my “brief against Islam” to be “persuasive.”

Derbyshire’s review, while marvelously written and delightful to read, is full of inconsistencies. I don’t see how he could possibly find what I reveal about Islam to be “persuasive” if at the same time he thinks that Islamic and Christian doctrine are equally likely to inspire their adherents to commit acts of brutality, since the contrary assertion, as he himself notes, is a major point of my book. He also wonders whether “an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist…” I would welcome such a rebuttal, by the way, unless it were characterized by the torrents of abuse and sly deceptions and diversions that usually come to me from Islamic spokesmen in America, but the point is that while Derbyshire says he is persuaded, he evidently still suspects that I am just engaging in some kind of rhetorical sleight of hand.

And that is by no means the only inconsistency, alas, that mars his elegantly written and thoroughly entertaining review. Derbyshire asserts that “it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology…as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.” Yet what is the nature of that staggering idiocy? The fact that “there are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter.” Yet why would that be a problem, if Islam were like Christianity – absurd but ultimately harmless at its core? Obviously the problem with allowing tens of millions of Muslims into the West has to do with “the letter of Islamic theology,” which Derbyshire dismissed as irrelevant just before complaining about the admission of so many adherents of what he sees as a wacky but unthreatening creed.

Derbyshire asks if it is “actually that important” to take on the “‘equivalence’ school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism.” A few weeks ago I was on a TV show on France 24, where I explained that jihadists recruited among peaceful Muslims by referring to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and presenting themselves as the exponents of true or pure Islam. One of the other guests on the show then responded by asserting that there were passages of the Bible that were equally violent as anything in the Qur’an, and anyway, what about the Crusades? This kind of howling irrelevancy is extraordinarily common; even conservatives such as Ralph Peters, Arnaud de Borchgrave and Dinesh D’Souza have made similar statements on the way to claiming that it was misguided, futile, and somehow in poor taste to investigate the ways in which Islamic texts are used to incite violence. We are supposed to believe, as Christiane Amanpour’s recent CNN series would also have us believe, that all religious traditions have their nutcases, and all of them are marginal, discredited by the majority, and ultimately insignificant. But this – and I’m sure Mr. Derbyshire can appreciate this distinction – is a dogma, not an established fact. And if it is false (and it is), it may be blinding us in numerous ways to the nature and the magnitude of the problem we face, as well as to the steps we need to take to protect ourselves. This cuts both ways: if Christian theocrats are really the threat Chris Hedges, Barry Lynn, and Kevin Phillips think they are, it only plays into the sinister hands of the Bushitler to focus attention on the adherents of the Religion of Peace. This may seem irredeemably nutso to John Derbyshire, but Hedges’ book was a bestseller: considerable numbers of people out there are taking the Christian theocracy scare very, very seriously. So my book is an examination of both threats and both traditions, an examination that has clear, important, and numerous policy implications.

Derbyshire manifests no greater comprehension when denigrating my assertion that Christianity provided the philosophical framework within which modern science could grow and develop, and adduces a few miracle stories from the Bible as proof-texts to the contrary. He dismisses as “Catholic apologetics” without examination the entire extended discussion in my book of the view of God in Catholic scholastic philosophy as good and consistent, versus the Islamic view of Allah as absolute will, unrestricted by any requirement of consistency. The scholastic philosophers believed in miracles too, while managing to create a foundation for scientific investigation by positing this consistency. While I always admire the verve of his writing, I believe Derbyshire has given this point short shrift. “And even if it were true that the church midwifed science,” he says, “is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?” The quip is nice; the thought, shallow. Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)

But I digress. The ringing peroration of Derbyshire’s review is his declaration that while “Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says ‘Judeo-Christian,’ but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.” (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that “a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.?”

One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn’t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s. Were the Sixties, when immigration controls were effectively ended and globalization gained immense momentum, a time of some great Christian revival? In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.

Then Derbyshire takes me to task for not offering any policy suggestions in this book, although he acknowledges that “possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself.” That is indeed the case, and perhaps I should have repeated myself, since the recommendations I have made in several books are no closer to being implemented now than they were when I wrote them. I am not asking Mr. Derbyshire to invest in my older books, as I do not wish to tax his patience unduly with an issue that he has previously described as “stupefyingly dull” (although of course to me my earlier books are jam-packed with boffo, riveting stuff, but never mind), so I’ll summarize them here: they include restrictions on Muslim immigration; a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources and free the U.S. from foreign policy dependence upon Saudi Arabia; an adjustment of our international alliances so as to make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan contingent upon their actively limiting the teaching of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism within their borders; the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values; and more.

I have said these things and more plainly in Onward Muslim Soldiers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth About Muhammad. I am not afraid, as Derbyshire posits, of being “cast out from the sphere of ‘acceptable’ commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and ‘hate groups’—a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.” For he is indeed correct that the “hate” label is readily affixed today to anyone who states truths that others find inconvenient for the public to know, and for those on both the Left and the Right (and yes, there are many on the Right) who allow themselves to be manipulated in this way I have nothing but contempt.

As for Derbyshire’s own prescriptions (offered if what I say is true, which he really isn’t sure about), some have a good deal to recommend them, and as he says, there is nothing inherently “immoral or improper” about them. (Others are pure foolishness: bribing Muslims to leave will only drain the treasury: once you start paying for something, you’ve established the need for a supply – almost certainly some would take the money, leave, and come back to take the money again.) They are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force. Muslims are here in the West, and the hard political reality is that there will only be more of them, and hence more jihadists and Islamic supremacists, in the coming years. We should continue to strive to bring the implications of our disastrous immigration policies and other manifestations of willful ignorance and foolishness to public notice, but we will not be able to rely on law and force alone to get us out of this fix. Thus one last bastion of hope that the Judeo-Christian West does have is that the heart and mind are not immutable. We will have to wage ideological battle on behalf of our threatened civilizational values – a battle for which we are well equipped, as I argue in Religion of Peace?, but which virtually no one is fighting. The truth will out, even against a relentless totalitarianism that appears inexorable. But only if we have the courage to defend it.

That truth, of course, is not coterminous with the desiccated and vacuous Christianity that prevails in so many places today. Derbyshire gets off some of his most engaging shots by playing up that hollow shell as the real thing: “If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?” – that is, the befuddled Dutch bishop who recommends that Christians in the Netherlands, not hitherto known for speaking Arabic, begin to refer to God as “Allah” to please and pacify their Muslim neighbors. Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question. In my book, as Derbyshire notes, I call for an alliance with atheists, among others, but for his part I am not sure whether Hitchens would identify me as part of the problem or part of the solution. And there’s the problem: we know we’re under attack, but we have to figure out who or what the enemy is in order to be able to fight properly. Is it religious people? Religion itself? Islamic jihad? Christian theocracy? Determining the answer is the purpose of my book.

But John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught: “If—to put faces on the abstractions—Roger Cardinal Mahoney [sic] and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?” On Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?

“Christianity,” Derbyshire concludes, “got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.” Perhaps. But those slaves ultimately captured the empire that enslaved them, and transformed it.

Flying Imams drop suit against passengers, but not against flight attendants and captain

They still show no sign of caring that what they're doing will make air travel much easier for jihadists to terrorize.

"Imams drop lawsuit against 'Doe' passengers," by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times:

A federal court yesterday accepted a request by a group of Muslim imams to drop all claims in a federal lawsuit against unspecified "John Doe" passengers for reporting the men's suspicious behavior, which led to their removal from a US Airways flight last year.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota was amended to "hereby dismiss possible defendants 'John Does' as set forth in ... the first amended complaint as parties from this action," said the notice of dismissal. The lawsuit still targets US Airways and Minneapolis airport workers.

Hold the noisemakers. "Not all 'John Does' out of imams' sights," from GreensPiece:

The news that Omar Mohammedi of New York and Frederick Goetz of Minneapolis, attorneys for the notorious “Flying Imams,” have limited the scope of the latter group’s jihad intimidation lawsuit is a positive development – but let no one suppose that this means they have stopped gunning for all of the “John Does” that reported the imams’ suspicious activity on U.S. Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20, 2006. For their filing only dismisses “possible defendants ‘John Does’ as set forth in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the First Amended Complaint as parties from this action.” Omitted from it is paragraph 20 of said complaint, which reads:

“20. Defendant Flight Attendants and Desk Agents ‘John Does’ were at all times relevant to the events mentioned herein employees and/or agents of Defendant U.S. Airways and were acting within the scope of their employment on U.S. Airways Flight 300 on November 20, 2006 and subsequent U.S. Airways flights on November 20-21, 2006.”

Thus, the imams and their litigious henchmen are still trying to cow into silence individual airline workers who, their humble pay grade notwithstanding, had, if anything, more of a duty to report suspicious activity than did the passengers for whose safety they were responsible.

There's more at GreensPiece, with links. Read it all.

U.S. wants continued detention of Oregon Islamic charity figure

Pirouz Sedaghaty Update. "Feds want Oregon Islamic charity figure held," by William McCall for the Associated Press:

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - A missing passport and questions about whether he supports radical Islamic doctrine will keep the co-founder of a defunct Islamic charity in jail at least another two weeks after he voluntarily returned to face tax fraud and conspiracy charges.

Pirouz Sedaghaty, 49, also known as Pete Seda, left the country in 2003 during an investigation that resulted in a federal grand jury indictment in February 2005, accusing him of helping to smuggle $150,000 out of the country to aid Muslim fighters in Chechnya.

He returned exactly one week ago, on the same day that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing arguments about warrantless wiretapping of the U.S. chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation that Sedaghaty co-founded in the Southern Oregon town of Ashland in 1997.

Sedaghaty pleaded not guilty to the tax and conspiracy charges last week, and asked to be released pending trial.

But the U.S. Attorney's office asked that he be held in custody, arguing he is a flight risk, leading to a lengthy detention hearing on Wednesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin.

The judge said he was being asked to decide whether religious beliefs could be the basis for keeping a person in jail, comparing it to whether a devout Christian opposed to abortion posed a danger to the community if he or she believed abortion should be prevented by any means possible, including violence.

"Under those circumstances it's appropriate to ask if a person believes in using violent means," Coffin said, adding that he did not want "to take on the role of censor."

Coffin said he expected to decide at the next hearing, in two weeks, whether to order Sedaghaty to remain in custody until trial or grant a conditional release.

Chris Cardani, the assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case, argued that Sedaghaty promoted a radical version of Islam based in Saudi Arabia known as Wahabbism, making him a danger because he could incite radical followers to acts of violence - even though he did not believe that Sedaghaty himself posed a danger.

"Are you telling me that you think he is a Trojan horse?" Coffin asked Cardani.

"Perhaps," Cardani replied.

He noted that Sedaghaty, a U.S. citizen who was born in Iran, had returned to the United States on a duplicate U.S. passport, and had not surrendered his Iranian passport until he appeared in court Wednesday.

Cardani said that raised suspicions about where Sedaghaty had traveled the past four years, noting he had lived in Syria, Iran and the United Arab Emirates at different times.

Cardani said Sedaghaty offered no explanation about how he supported himself, noting he had trouble finding work and apparently had to live on less than $80,000 from the sale of a house in Ashland for more than four years.

[...]

Matasar also called an expert witness, As'ad AbuKhalil, a California State University, Stanislaus, professor who disputed the government's claim that Sedaghaty supported radical Islamic doctrine.

AbuKhalil said Saudi wealth is used to promote Wahabbism worldwide by funding mosques and charities, and distributing a Saudi version of the Quran called the "nobel Quran" that has a more militant interpretation of its teachings.

That's "noble," and the Qur'an is often referred to as the "Noble Qur'an" (including at USC's Muslim Student Association Qur'an site) or "Qur'an Sharif." And the text of the scriptures (always accompanied by the Arabic version, of course) is the same in any event, any accompanying commentary notwithstanding.

Muslims seeking to perform charity work - one of the five pillars of Islam - often are forced to accept Saudi money in order to pay for buildings or supplies, and distribute the Saudi version of the Quran because it is typically the only free version available.

Forced? Or just not inclined to look elsewhere?

"The Saudis have been proven to have misused some of these charities for their own nefarious purposes," AbuKhalil said.

But a witness for the government, author Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a former Al- Haramain worker in Ashland, said the charity promoted radical Islamic doctrine by distributing the "noble Quran" to U.S. prison inmates.

He noted that version supports violent jihad, or holy war, although he said that Sedaghaty had been upset by the embassy bombings and the link to militant Muslims.

Al Qaeda in N. Africa apologizes for unauthorized bombing

But the jihad's still on, of course. "Al Qaeda Maghreb says member behind Algeria attack," from Reuters:

ALGIERS, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's north Africa wing said one of its fighters was behind a bomb attack on a former senior Islamist rebel in Algeria but said the assault was carried out without the approval of the group's leadership.

Al Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb said it had not planned to target Mustapha Kertali, a founder of the banned Salvation Islamic Front (FIS) and once a leading member of its armed wing, as he was not involved in attacking its fighters.

Kertali was seriously wounded on Aug. 14 when a bomb exploded under his car as he drove away from a mosque in the town of Larbaa, 30 km (18 miles) south of Algiers.

"One of our soldiers targeted Mustapha Kertali without consulting the leadership and getting its approval," the group said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.

"The bombing ... which we have not ordered and took place without our knowledge, is a mistake and we assume its repercussions before God and our Muslim nation."

Kertali surrendered to authorities in 2000 under an amnesty. He supported another amnesty for rebels that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika issued last year as part of a wider national reconciliation plan to draw a line under the bloodshed.

"We do not see any reason for targeting this type of people who abandon jihad under the pretext of a truce and reconciliation unless there is evidence of his involvement in the war and the killing of mujahideen," the statement added.

[...]

Experts estimate several hundred guerrillas are still fighting in pockets of territory east of Algiers and in parts of the desert south.

Security experts say most belong to Maghreb al Qaeda, previously known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC).

Al Qaeda's north Africa wing said in a statement posted on the Internet last month that it was planning a violent campaign against "infidels" and government forces in the Maghreb region. It urged Muslims to stay away from possible targets.

Pakistani Minister tells Parliament: Jews behind 9/11, Qur'an says Jews and Christians can never be friends of Muslims

Friend and Ally Alert: "Minister blasts pro-US foreign policy," from Dawn (thanks to South Asian):

ISLAMABAD, Aug 21: Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Sher Afgan Niazi on Tuesday stunned both the treasury and opposition senators when he roundly criticised the foreign policy, describing it as one of appeasement at the cost of national interests, sovereignty and honour.

He also condemned recently-passed US legislation and the derogatory statements about Pakistan made by some American presidential candidates.

Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s Prof Khurshid Ahmed immediately stood up to endorse most of the views expressed by the minister, and welcomed the “change of heart,” describing it as part of the change that had taken place in the wake of the July 20 landmark Supreme Court judgment....

Dr Niazi said in his speech that the key role Pakistan played in bringing about the downfall of the former Soviet Union was a blunder. It resulted in the emergence of a unipolar world and gave the US a licence to attack any country it wished, he said.

He said that American presidential candidates’ statements threatening Pakistan’s internal security were a reflection of the jaundiced thinking of US leaders who had forgotten lessons of history and the glorious past of Muslims.

Lashing out at the recent US law attaching strings to financial assistance to Pakistan, Dr Niazi described it as insulting and demanded that “we must return and refuse to accept such assistance”.

Hey, that's a good idea, Dr. Niazi.

He said the country should learn to stand on its own feet by rejecting all foreign assistance as a proud Muslim nation....

The minister said that events which followed the 9/11 incident proved that it was the brainchild of Jews. He said that according to holy Quran, Jews and Christians could never be friends of Muslims....

If Dr. Niazi said that on an American radio show in the presence of someone like Ibrahim Hooper or Salam Al-Marayati, he would be roundly denounced as a racist Islamophobe. Do you even know Arabic, Dr. Niazi? Where did you get your degree in Islamic studies? Well?

But if Dr. Niazi were on his toes, he might be ready with these Qur'an passages:

"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion." (2:120)

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." (5:51)

Taliban tapping British troops' mobiles to taunt soldiers' families

"Keep up the dawah and the psychological warfare," an Islamic jihadist in the U.S. Navy was told by one of his handlers a few years back. The jihadists know well the value of psychological warfare -- they know this is a way they can destroy their enemies, and they don't hesitate.

By Matthew Hickley for the Daily Mail (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

Taliban fanatics have been making "hate calls" to the UK homes and relatives of soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

Senior commanders believe they get the numbers either by monitoring troops' mobile phone calls or from staff at Afghan phone companies.

The wife of one RAF officer was told: "You'll never see your husband alive - we have just killed him."

It was some hours before officials could confirm that her husband was still safe and well. All troops serving in southern Afghanistan have now been banned from carrying mobile phones.

Soldiers in Iraq can keep their phones but have been warned to keep their use to a minimum.

A senior Army source said the use of mobile phones by troops presented "a huge security problem".

It was feared the Taliban had access to both telephone numbers and the content of conversations.

Iran's president calls Israel 'the flag of Satan'

The Thug-In-Chief is still breathing threats and murder. From AFP (thanks to Writer Mom):

TEHRAN (AFP)---Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday described Israel as "the flag of Satan" and said the Jewish state was destined to fall apart, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan," Ahmadinejad told an international religious conference in Tehran.

"It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid," he said.

"Radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances — real or imagined — but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith”

Here is a review of an essential new book that lays bare the jihadists' motivations and goals in their own words: Raymond Ibrahim's The Al-Qaeda Reader. There is no way we can resist and contain the jihadists, and stave off the Islamization of the West, without understanding how they recruit, the power of their appeal in the Islamic world, and the ways they explain what they are doing and why. This books cuts through the PC nonsense that still dominates the public discourse in the West and illuminates all that like no other book ever has.

"In Their Own Words: Newly translated writings of the al Qaeda leadership," by Bruce Thornton at VDH's Private Papers:

Given that war, as both Sun Tzu and Mohammed preached, is deception, it behooves us to understand accurately the enemy’s motivations and not be fooled by his deceiving propaganda. Yet in the current war against Islamic jihad, the West has stubbornly refused to take seriously what the jihadists tell us, believing instead what Thucydides called the “pretexts” with which an enemy rationalizes his aggression. Osama bin Laden and his theorist Aymin al Zawahiri in particular have provided us with numerous texts outlining the Islamic foundations of their war against the West. A few of these pronouncements and manifestoes have long been available, but now thanks to Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader, writings previously unavailable in English can be studied and analyzed. Such study will provide powerful evidence that contrary to the deceptions of apologists and the naïve delusions of some Westerners, the bases of the jihadists’ actions lie squarely within Islamic tradition, not in the alleged Western crimes against Islam.

Fluent in Arabic and trained as a historian in the ancient Middle East, Ibrahim is currently a technician in the Library of Congress’ Near East Section, where he discovered al Qaeda documents that had not been translated into English. He has organized these writings into two sections: theology, writings intended for fellow Muslims that ground al Qaeda’s war against the West in the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad; and propaganda, writings meant for Westerners that cast bin Laden’s war as a just response to the depredations of Western powers.

The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, “Zawahiri’s writings especially are grounded in Islam’s roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema.” This extensive grounding weakens the “highjacking” charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s arguments are unexceptionally traditional — which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them.

In these writings addressed to fellow Muslims, bin Laden and Zawahiri argue against the notion of “moderate” Islam; the compatibility of Sharia (laws governing Islamic society) with democracy; the idea of accommodation with the enemy; and the prohibition against killing women and children. In other words, they meticulously attack as distortions of Islam all the popular assertions about Islam’s nature promulgated by apologists, Westernized Muslims, and even many Christians. As bin Laden himself writes in “Moderate Islam Is a Prostration to the West” — a letter written to the Saudi theologians who in 2002 publicly advocated coexistence with the West — such moderation necessitates the adoption of Western values: “They [the Saudi theologians] first acknowledge their [Westerners’] values and ideologies in their entirety, while shying away from evoking the truth valued by the Religion [Islam] and its foundations.” Even the notion of “co-existence” is a Western idea contrary to Islam: “As if one of the foundations of our religion is how to coexist with infidels!” Quite the contrary: the traditions and foundations of Islam urge believers to “wage war against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be ruthless against them” (Koran 66:9), a verse Zawahiri quotes along with the commentary of al Qurtubi, 13th-century author of a 20-volume exegesis of the Koran: “There is but one theme — and that is zeal for the religion of Allah. He commands the waging of Jihad against the infidel by use of sword, sound sermons, and the summons to Allah.”

So too with other Western notions such as tolerance and “dialogue,” which bin Laden correctly asserts are “built on Western conceptions, which themselves rest upon the most loathsome, secular principles.” Indeed, bin Laden has a strong case, for he appeals for evidence to the life and practices of Mohammed and his companions — along with the Koran the Muslim’s guide to every aspect of life — and asks sarcastically, “What evidence is there for Muslims for this [dialogue and shared understanding]? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover ‘shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread — in such a satanic manner as this?”

History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument, “‘radical’ Islam is Islam — without exception.” In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his “Loyalty and Enmity” that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4: “‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’” On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.

Perhaps the most important document in Ibrahim’s collection is Zawahiri’s “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents.” For years, we have been told that terrorism is un-Islamic because Islam forbids suicide and the killing of non-combatants. Zawahiri, however, teases out from Islamic tradition a perfectly rational and coherent argument in support of terrorism and suicide bombings.

Zawahiri starts by repeating Islam’s acceptance of deception in war as justified, thus legitimizing suicide bombings, which are deceptive by nature. Next, he builds his argument on selected hadiths, which as Ibrahim notes requires some interpretive stretching. Zawahiri gets around this difficulty by resorting to analogy, “a legitimate tool of Islamic jurisprudence,” as Ibrahim reminds us. Zawahiri focuses on intention, why the Muslim kills himself, not who kills him: “Thus the deciding factor in all these situations is one and the same: the intention — is it to service Islam [martyrdom] or is it out of depression and [despair]?” As for killing women and children, Mohammed himself provides a precedent during the siege of Ta’if, where he used catapults. The Prophet’s response to the question of killing women and children, which of course catapult missiles would do perforce, was “They [women and children] are from among them [infidels].” Again, the ultimate intention is the key: referring to al Shafi’ and the Hanbalis, two schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Zawahiri argues that it is permissible “to bombard the idolators even if Muslims and those who are cautioned against killing are intermingled with them as long as there is a need or an obligation for Muslims to do so, or if not striking leads to a delay of the jihad.”

Zawahiri’s reasoning in defense of suicide bombing may be ultimately unconvincing to many Muslims, or unsustainable by more careful exegesis. But the mere fact that such a case can be made — something impossible to do in the Christian, or Hebraic, or Hindu, or Buddhist traditions — and that millions of faithful Muslims accept the case, speaks volumes about the “religion of peace.”

[...]

These leftist bromides appear over and over in subsequent speeches and manifestoes, and testify to bin Laden’s shrewd recognition of the West’s Achilles heel: the appeasing proclivities of its elite intellectuals who, riddled with self-loathing guilt, are incapable of defending their way of life and its highest goods.

[...]

The Al Qaeda Reader, simply by letting our enemies speak in their own voices, explodes the popular delusion that Western crimes and policies are responsible for the “distortion” of Islam that al Qaeda represents. As Ibrahim writes, “This volume of translations, taken as whole, prove once and for all that, despite the propaganda of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, Radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances — real or imagined — but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith.” This means that the fight will be long and hard, that leaving Iraq or creating a Palestinian state will not buy peace, and that the side that accurately understands its enemy and has confidence in its own beliefs will ultimately triumph. Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader, we have the means for achieving that understanding.

Jihad and dhimmitude

Andrew Bostom reviews Diana West's superb new book in The Washington Times.

...The author's witty, evocative phrasemaking — "hair-trigger moderate [Muslims]," "mash of civilizations," "far from realpolitik, this is dreampolitik," "in denial there is defeat" — elucidates an infantilized American (and Western) culture, further immobilized by the pervasive fanaticism of the new "secular religion" of multiculturalism, to the point where it appears incapable of identifying, let alone adequately defending against, the resurgence of jihadist Islam.

Accurately portraying the central, uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad, and its corollary, dhimmitude, the author eschews the dominant, politically correct but ahistorical characterizations.

Jihad — as sanctioned by Islam's core texts, the Koran, hadith and sira, and actualized by the Muslim prophet Muhammad himself — is the eternal, aggressive quest for totalitarian Islamic hegemony, i.e., the imposition of Islamic law, over the entire world, including via terrorism and genocide. Dhimmitude is the permanent state of legal, social and psychological inferiority imposed, coercively or by threat of force (i.e., resumption of the jihad), upon the non-Muslim survivors vanquished by jihad war, and neither converted to Islam nor enslaved.

Julien Benda, in his 1928 classic "La Trahison de Clercs," decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truths abetted totalitarian ideologies, which led to the cataclysmic destruction of World War II. The author identifies the "Trahison de Clercs" of our time: The complete failure of Western intellectuals to acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude.

Might Diana West's pellucid analyses help awaken Western elites to the existential threat they pose? One hopes these elites follow the admonition to rediscover and reclaim our shamefully derided Western cultural patrimony of "dead white males," including icons such as Britain's Winston Churchill and America's John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt, whose uncompromised wisdom on Islam is so desperately needed if our civilization is to survive.

TR, for example, wrote these words in 1916, presaging this book's advice: "The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization... [including] those of Charles Martel in the 8th century [over Arab jihadists] and those of John Sobieski in the 17th century [over Ottoman Turkish jihadists]. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier [Martel] and the Polish king [Sobieski], the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any 'social values' whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence [is]... concerned."

Saudi Youth Enter Rehab to Overcome Their Terrorist Ways

"'I would like to say to the American people that Islam forbids killing innocent people,' said the seemingly deprogrammed al-Shayea through an interpreter."

"Seemingly deprogrammed" is good. Al-Shayea, like so many others, doesn't bother telling us whom he considers innocent. Unfortunately, some jihadists have said that no non-Muslims are innocent. For Al-Shayea to be truly "deprogrammed," he would need to be specific about non-Muslims being innocent.

From FoxNews (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON — A new program in Saudi Arabia is offering young terrorists rehabilitation from a life of violence in the name of jihad. A Saudi government-sanctioned program to try to reverse the terrorist way of thinking has already begun to help some participants who have survived their own crimes.

Ahmed al-Shayea, for instance, is recovering not only from being a member of Al Qaeda, but from the burns over most of his body and missing fingers that are the result of an attack he carried out three years ago in Baghdad.

Al-Shayea is the among the newest members to join hundreds of other Islamic fighters, including detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, at a halfway house located on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Al Janderea.

"I would like to say to the American people that Islam forbids killing innocent people," said the seemingly deprogrammed al-Shayea through an interpreter.

Al-Shayea had dreamed of being a suicide bomber like the ones he saw in Al Qaeda propaganda videos. He was unemployed, 19 years old and lured to Baghdad by a school friend. He nearly blew himself up while driving a tanker filled with explosives outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. The attack killed nine Iraqis.

He ratted out his Al Qaeda handlers, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had flown al-Shayea and 23 other Saudis to Damascus, provided them safe houses in Syria and then smuggled them into Iraq.

"No doubt, they used me as a tool to kill innocent people," he said of his handlers.

Iraqi Muslims, Al-Shayea? Or non-Muslims?

Al-Shayea and other inmates say the Internet is much to blame for their indoctrination. Twenty-year-old Saddam Saleh said he got his fatwa, the religious edict that serves as marching orders, from a questionable cleric who he found over the Internet.

"That is what caused all this problem that I am in right now," he said.

The former jihadists are given a second chance through the three-year-old program sponsored by the Saudi interior ministry. During their recovery, the men stay in a rehabilitation center that looks more like a spa than a halfway house. The Saudi facility maintains a pool, a library, a volleyball court, gardens and other leisurely quarters.

Similar government-sponsored pilot programs are also being tried in Egypt and Yemen.

The staff uses art therapy, sports and reading to rehabilitate the "students" through a "12-step program." Among their lessons is a new education about Islam.

"We tell them that they should give the right picture of Islam. They should not kill or bomb or do anything against Islam," said Dr. Ahmad Hamad Jilan of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

Jilan and other instructors teach the inhabitants that jihad should not be waged against any non-Muslims with whom an Islamic nation has a truce or peace treaty. Jihad must also be approved, he said, by the state and by one's parents....

This leaves intact the possibility of jihad -- religious-based warfare -- against non-Muslims with whom there is no treaty, as long as it is approved by the state.

The halfway houses are designed to show the West as much as anyone that they are taking the problem seriously. So far, the effort is trickling down.

But is it really addressing the real problem?

CAIR: Our membership is up! Our membership is down!

Here is yet another indication of the deeply ingrained mendacity of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

In "CAIR’s Reputation and Incredibly Fluctuating Membership Roll," the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) notes that in CAIR's amicus brief in the Holy Land Foundation terror charity trial, CAIR complains:

This negative reaction by the American public can be seen in the decline of membership rates and donations resulting from the government’s publicizing of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Yet just two months ago, CAIR claimed just the opposite, in the words of cofounder Nihad Awad:

Our membership is increasing steadily, as is our donor base, annual budget, and attendance at CAIR events around the country promoting interfaith understanding and respect for civil liberties.

So which is it, Nihad? Is your membership and donor base increasing steadily, or declining? Will you and your colleagues just say anything if you believe it is to your advantage? Can you explain, in the light of self-contradictions like this, why any government or media organization should accord your group any credibility at all?

Sleepless in Seattle: FBI searching for two suspicious ferry passengers

"They had more than the average interest in the working parts of the ferry, the layout of the ferry, the size of it -- more than you would see in normal passenger."

"FBI searching for two suspicious ferry passengers," by Chris Ingalls for KING 5 News (thanks to all who sent this in):

SEATTLE – The FBI is asking for the public's help to identify two men who have been seen acting suspiciously aboard Washington State ferries recently.

The FBI released a bulletin late Monday, including photographs of the two men. One of the photos shows the men side-by-side and the other is a solo shot of one of them. They were snapped by a ferry employee who thought the pair acted suspiciously.

"They had more than the average interest in the working parts of the ferry, the layout of the ferry, the size of it -- more than you would see in normal passenger," said FBI spokesperson Robbie Burroughs.

The FBI says the men were seen on more then one ferry and more than one run over the past several weeks. They were also taking photos of parts of the boat, which the agents won't reveal, but that apparently aroused the suspicions of passengers and crew alike.

The FBI says the men had an unusual interest in the layout and workings of the ferries.

"We got several different reports of this, these same gentlemen," said Burroughs. "We've attempted through law enforcement means to identify and locate them and we've been unsuccessful."

So now, the FBI wants to hear from anyone who knows or has seen these men, and it wants passengers to keep an eye peeled.

Spencer: Islamic Jihad and Leftist Dreams

What would happen if we heeded the Left’s claim that there is no terror threat? From FrontPage (news links in the original):

Abdullah Al-Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla, was convicted on Thursday of supporting terrorist activity and, according to Associated Press, “conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.” At the Leftist website Daily Kos, Padilla was hailed as an “American Martyr to ‘War on Terror,’” and his trial was compared to the witch hysteria: “As was the case during the witch trials of yesteryear, only the socially unpopular, the mentally ill, and the politically dangerous end up at the end of a noose or in yet another bonfire of political vanity.” The barely literate posting went on to complain that the case against Padilla “hinged on one piece of papar [sic]: an application with his fingerprints.” No mention was made of the fact that this “one piece of papar” happened to be an Al-Qaeda application.

The Kos entry was just one small example of the Left’s tendency to see virtually all defensive efforts against the global jihad as manifestations of an encroaching Bushitler police state. Michael Moore said it a few years ago: “There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It’s the biggest lie we have been told.” This has become conventional wisdom on the Left, coalescing neatly with a notable solicitude toward Islamic jihadists: one notorious example was radical feminist lawyer Lynne Stewart who became a water-carrier for the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The activities of various members of the “nonviolent” International Solidarity Movement have given rise to numerous questions about its ties to violent jihadists.

So what kind of a world will it be for Leftists who turn a blind eye to the jihad, if the jihadists achieve their objectives? Writing in the entertainment paper TimeOut London in June, TimeOut editor at large Michael Hodges imagined an Islamic London. London under Sharia law, Hodges wrote, would be healthier: “the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim.” It would be sober: “Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.” It would also be ecologically sound, and Islamic education would raise “general levels of discipline and self-respect among London’s young people.”

Meanwhile, “application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems.” Religious bigotry would disappear as Jews, Christians, and – probably -- Hindus became protected dhimmis under the benevolent rule of Islamic law.

Unfortunately for future dhimmis, however, and for like-minded liberals, Hodges left a few things out of his Islamic Leftist paradise. He didn’t mention that in exchange for the “protection” they would receive from their new Islamic overlords, religious minorities would have to accept a humiliating second-class status that institutionalized their humiliation and denied them equality of rights with Muslims in numerous ways – ensuring that they “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29). Nor would life be any more comfortable for trendy liberal atheists.

An Islamized country in the West, meanwhile, would be filled with liberal bugaboos: prayer in schools; abortion made illegal (except, most likely, in cases involving the life of the mother); punishments (varyingly draconian) for homosexuals; and even legalized polygamy (Qur’an 4:3) and wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34). Freedom of speech would also probably disappear, at least where discussion of the elements of Islam that incite to violence are concerned -- but given their propensity to smear rather than answer their opponents, Leftists probably wouldn’t miss it much.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a world in which Jose Padilla’s activities continued unhindered, and the jihadists finally succeeded in imposing their will on the rest of us, would hardly be comfortable for liberals. Evidently they believe that there is no real challenge to the West from the Islamic world, and that Christianity (as I detail in my new book Religion of Peace?) represents the real theocracy threat to Western pluralism and non-sectarian government. The multiculturalist anti-Americanism from which this delusion springs may be more lethal to the American Republic in the short run than the jihad itself; but in the long run, the two threats coalesce quite easily.

Spencer: Atlas on the Air interview

Here is a podcast of one of the most fun interviews I've ever done: an hour yesterday with the fearless, peerless Pamela of the excellent Atlas Shrugs site, and a goodly number of incisive and interesting callers.

Spencer on radio today

Discussing the book Religion of Peace? and whatever else I may be asked to discuss.

All times PDT:

5:00 AM NewsTalk 800 WVHU

5:35 AM John Pendleton Show WBOB

8:00 AM True North Radio

9:00 AM Podcast with Fausta (Blogtalk Radio)

4:20 PM Deace in the Afternoon WHO

A response to CAIR's "exposé" of Spencer

As I noted here, the lengthy hit piece on me that the Council on American Islamic Relations recently linked to is frankly absurd, and virtually every assertion it makes about who I am, what I am doing, and what I am trying to accomplish is false -- although it is so far out that it is good for a few laughs. It would be unworthy of serious comment had not CAIR picked it up, leading some otherwise sane commentators to take at least some of its claims at face value.

So now Glen Reinsford of the excellent site TheReligionofPeace.com has very kindly taken it upon himself to write a detailed reply, "Spinning Spencer: An Analysis of the CAIR-Endorsed 'Exposé' of Robert Spencer." Reinsford demonstrates, just in case anyone has any doubt, how much of a transparent farrago this "exposé" is, and thus also how desperate and frightened CAIR has shown itself to be by posting it.

Thanks, Glen.

CAIR blames Justice for its troubles

Audrey Hudson reports in the Washington Times about CAIR's ongoing attempts to be taken off the unindicted co-conspirator list. CAIR is crying "Islamophobia" at the highest levels now, claiming that the disclosure of the unindicted co-conspirator designation was "the vindictive attempt of the government to smear a group which has been critical of the government's actions in aggressively and selectively prosecuting Muslim groups or persons."

So you see, if the government would just stop prosecuting Muslims, and drop CAIR's unindicted co-conspirator status, everything would be hunky dory -- except for the nettlesome fact that Islamic jihadists would have a more or less free hand. Isn't it funny how so many of CAIR's initiatives seem to end up with exactly that result -- most notoriously the Flying Imams' suit against air passengers who reported their suspicious behavior. But CAIR is evidently more concerned about the imams' hurt feelings than about the safety of both Muslim and non-Muslim air passengers from Islamic terror attacks on airplanes. If CAIR is truly a moderate group, it is at very least a singularly inept one. These guys are veritable Keystone Moderates.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) says it is suffering from a decline in membership and fundraising and blames the Justice Department for listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving a charity accused of terrorist ties.

CAIR is asking a federal judge to strike it as one of the more than 300 Muslim groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the government's case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which is currently on trial in Dallas.

"The public naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator has impeded its ability to collect donations as possible donors either do not want to give to them because they think they are a 'terrorist' organization or are too scared to give to them because of the possible legal ramifications of donating money to a 'terrorist" organization," CAIR said in an amicus curiae brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The brief cites reporting by The Washington Times about the organization's declining membership — coverage that CAIR had previously denounced as a "hit piece."

The Justice Department shut down the Holy Land Foundation and in 2004 indicted several of its top officers who are accused of raising $36 million from 1995 through 2001 for organizations and persons linked with Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the Clinton administration in 1995. The foundation raised $12.4 million after the designation that made such fundraising illegal, prosecutors say.

The 42-count federal indictment accused the foundation's officers of conspiracy, providing support to terrorists, money-laundering and income-tax evasion.

On May 29, the Justice Department made public a list naming 307 unindicted co-conspirators — including CAIR — in the case now being tried in the Dallas courtroom of U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish.

"The name of CAIR has been smeared by association with a criminal case that ostensibly involves the charitable funding of a 'terrorist' group," said the brief filed last week.

The brief says federal prosecutors had no legitimate governmental interest in publicly releasing the names of CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators. "Instead, the disclosure is the vindictive attempt of the government to smear a group which has been critical of the government's actions in aggressively and selectively prosecuting Muslim groups or persons," CAIR told the court.

Supporters of NYC Arabic school want founding leader reinstated

Intifada: the Palestinian "resistance," targeting innocent civilians and celebrating that targeting. Deborah Almontaser was disingenuous in explaining the meaning of the word, and defended it, and was rightly excoriated for doing so. But now Muslim groups are claiming that in getting heat for defending jihad terrorism she was a victim of -- you guessed it -- "racism" and "bigotry."

As if it is "racist" to stand up for human decency and the civilization that is menaced by the Islamic jihadists.

From Newsday (thanks to James):

NEW YORK - Supporters of an Arabic-themed academy are calling for the reinstatement of the public school's founding principal, who resigned amid a frenzy of negative publicity after she defended the word "intifada" on T-shirts.

About 200 people demonstrated in support of the Khalil Gibran International Academy on Monday night, gathering in front of the city's Department of Education.

They carried signs that read "NYC needs multi-cultural education" and "The Torah and the Koran both teach peace." Many were Muslims themselves, while others were Jewish.

They shared outrage over the political flaying that led Deborah Almontaser, the founding principal, to resign earlier this month.

"I thought this was not just an attack on her as an Arab, as a Muslim, but this was an attack on our community as a whole," said Sara Said Alkhulaidi, originally from Yemen, but now living in Brooklyn.

Almonteser had defended the use of the word "intifada," an Arabic term commonly used to refer to the Palestinian uprising against Israel, by Arab Women Active in Art and Media on T-shirts. The term, literally translated, meant "shaking off," Almonteser said, while asserting that she didn't think violence was suggested by the T-shirts.

But that response only helped to infuriate critics of the school.

They kept the volume of their rhetoric high on Monday, with critics warning students could be "indoctrinated" with radical Islamic beliefs.

State Assemblyman Dov Hikind said the school's children could be "indoctrinated" and warned in a statement that "establishment of an Arab school is a misguided and dangerous idea."

"It will not, as suggested, be a hope for peace; it is a blueprint for anti-Israel and anti-U.S. extremism," he said, adding that the school has been endorsed by "radical" groups.

Supporters called such statements "racist."

"Unless we all send a clear message that racist comments associating Arabic language and culture with terrorism will not be tolerated, we will continue to hear them again and again," the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee and other community groups said in a statement in support of the academy.

Sure. And as long as we tolerate the smearing of opposition to jihad mass murder and Islamic supremacism as "racism," we are going to see the race card again and again.

Muslims take over Sikh Temple in Pakistan

Religious imperialism: "They have taken over our temple, claiming it as their own. They have stopped us from entering the premises for the past two months."

"Muslims take over gurdwara in Lahore," from Rediff (thanks to Twostellas):

An 18th century Sikh temple at Naulakha Bazaar in Lahore has been taken over by a Muslim group, which has replaced the gurdwara's religious symbols with Islamic slogans, a Pakistani daily reported Tuesday.

"They have taken over our temple, claiming it as their own. They have stopped us from entering the premises for the past two months," the Daily Times quoted Dr Mampal Singh, a representative of the Sikh community, as saying.

He also claimed that the Evacuee Trust Property Board -- which controls the Bhai Taro Singh Jee gurdwara -- was supporting the intruders on their claim and not taking any action against them.

"We have written to ETPB on July 8 for the restoration of the temple to us and the officials told us they would act on the application within a month. But they haven't done anything yet and the intruders are tightening their grip on our worship place," Dr Singh said.

Hamas attacks Israel with 25 mortar shells

The endless cycle of revenge continues. But only one side wants to make peace -- although the other will happily take advantage. From Xinhua (thanks to Twostellas):

GAZA, Aug. 21 (Xinhua) -- Al-Qassam Brigades, armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), said on Tuesday that its militants fired 25 mortar shells at Israeli posts on Gaza-Israeli borders.

In leaflets, the group said that five mortar shells were fired at Kerem Shalom Crossing southeast Gaza Strip while 12 othermortar shells landed at the military post of Kiss, east of central Gaza Strip.

The group said in another leaflet that six more mortar shells were fired at another Israeli army post, east of Kahn Younis town in southern Gaza Strip.

Israeli Radio also reported that several homemade mortar shells were fired from several parts of central and southern Gaza Strip at Israeli army posts on the borders between Israel and the Gaza enclave. No injuries or damages were reported.

Hamas said that the mortar attacks came as a revenge for killing six of its militants in an air strike on Monday east of al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza Strip.

Spencer in Pajamas

At Pajamas Media today, John Derbyshire reviews my new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Not unexpectedly, he doesn't like it, but his review is so well-written that it is superbly entertaining even though I disagree with it. It is such a welcome departure from the heaps of abuse and po-faced dishonesty that usually greet my books, that I keep reading it and rereading it with delight. I laughed out loud at the part about Roger Cardinal Mahoney and Abu Ayyub Al-Masri. Don't miss it.

I'll be writing a serious, po-faced reply to this review, and the Pajamas people have kindly agreed to post it. Maybe John D. and I can enjoy that rarest of creatures nowadays: a civilized dialogue between people who disagree.

Oh, and John, dagnabbit, it's "Qur'an," not "Qu'ran."

Meanwhile, also at Pajamas is a video of Richard Miniter interviewing me awhile back, about this new book and other things. For some arcane technical reason, or maybe just my witless Luddism, I cannot view this interview; let me know what you think.

Pakistan frees man held in terror case, dismaying U.S. officials

Friend and Ally Alert. By Salman Masood and Carlotta Gall for the IHT (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: The release after three years of imprisonment of a Pakistani man accused of aiding Al Qaeda has dismayed U.S. officials.

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, 28, was released without charge and turned up at his home in Karachi on Monday, his lawyer, Babar Awan, said. Khan was part of a group of people being held without charge in Pakistan and whose cases came before the Supreme Court on Monday.

Naheeda Mahboob Elahi, deputy attorney general of Pakistan, was asked about Khan's whereabouts by the court and said he had already been released. Awan said his office later reached Khan's family, who confirmed that he had arrived home. Awan said he had not yet spoken to his client.

Khan was arrested in Lahore International Airport in July 2004 during a joint Pakistani-British operation. Soon after his arrest, the authorities in Pakistan and the United States said they had found files on his computer that led to the raising of the terrorism alert level in the United States.

The authorities said the files included surveillance information on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, the Citigroup Tower and New York Stock Exchange in New York and the Prudential Building in Newark, New Jersey.

Fitzgerald: Work to educate Infidels

"I believe the only way is to expose the Muslims to different cultures, different thoughts, different belief systems," said Dr Sultan, who is completing her first book, The Escaped Prisoner: When Allah is a Monster. -- from this article

Here is one of those details: those who are in a position to do so must work first to educate Infidels, so that a sufficient number of them in positions of power clearly understand the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam. They must also be brought to understand why it is that efforts at appeasement and "integration" of Muslims into societies whose basic principles are flatly contradicted by Islam will fail.

And then, beyond the political and journalistic groups, and beyond those who are to protect and instruct us, there are ever-widening groups of citizens. These must make sure that in every encounter with Muslims, their new knowledge, and new implacable attitude, are not hidden from view, but self-confidently displayed.

What effect will this have on Muslims? It will madden many. So what? Many have already been taught to spread Islam, to subdue Infidels, to remove every obstacle to the imposition of rule by Muslims. And they are prepared to use what instruments at the time prove most effective. Furthermore, they have never been put in a position where they are forced to look at, or to confront, the history of Islamic Jihad conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims. Make them do so. Force them to do so.

And make them look -- because increasing numbers of Infidels will not for one minute let them forget -- at the way in which the basic doctrines of Islam, and the figure of Muhammad, have worked themselves out in history. If there is despotism and corruption all over the Muslim lands, make sure they understand that it is Islam itself that locates political legitimacy in the will expressed by a whimsical Allah, as revealed in the Qur'an, and glossed -- for most Muslims -- by the Hadith and Sira. Make them look at the fact that there is economic paralysis in the Muslim lands, despite the ten trillion dollars received since 1973 alone by ten Muslim members of OPEC. The few Muslim states that have some economic development have it because, though Muslim, they have for a long time been living with the systematic constraining of Islam as a political and social force, as in Turkey. Or they might enjoy a relatively higher level of economic development because they have within their borders a sufficient number of non-Muslims who are able to provide the essential element for economic development, as in Malaysia, or to provide a kind of modernizing and civilizing effect on the local Muslims, or at least on some of them, as has happened because of the large Christian presence in Lebanon.

And do the same with social, moral, and intellectual development. Try to persuade Muslims to learn history, including the history of early Islam, and how it developed, and what was the real story of the Qur'an. In other words, subject Islam to the same treatment that Christianity and Judaism were subjected to by the practice of the Higher Criticism.

The most primitive people will not stand for it. But others will, and then they will begin to think. Some may have already begun to think, especially if they are non-Arab Muslims and can first have their minds opened a bit by appealing to their understanding of the role non-Arabs play within Islam. Some may already have begun to think if it has been pointed out to them how Islam is, and has always been, a vehicle for Arab linguistic, cultural, and other kinds of imperialism. Intelligent Persians, Indonesians, even some Pakistanis, will not be able to deny the truth of that assertion, and who knows? Some may, after examining all this evidence, find themselves in a mood to look back to their pre-Islamic pasts, national and personal.

But it starts with the Infidels, and what they know, or are capable of learning and understanding. The only way to expose the Muslims to different cultures, different thoughts, different belief systems, as Dr. Sultan recommends, is through the efforts of Infidels.

Fitzgerald: The communications jihad

"Another example of how the ease of modern communications makes the spread of jihad easy also, for now jihadists can penetrate into areas of the Muslim world where the jihad ideology had lain dormant for considerable periods." -- from Robert Spencer's comment on this article

Technological advances made by Infidels, but then appropriated by Muslims, allow the latter to disseminate not some made-up texts, but the actual texts of Islam, those that pertain most directly to the Jihad. That includes those texts about the Jihad using the instrument of qitaal, or combat. This is the version that Infidels have no trouble describing as "terrorism" and that for many Muslims is perfectly licit, given both their quite narrow definition of Infidel "civilians" and their willingness to describe suicide bombers as not really committing suicide (which is not licit in Islam) but merely as conducting combat operations that may very likely lead to their death. The Jihad, so central to Islam, manages to justify a great deal.

But technology, remember, is made more readily available where there is enough prosperity for television sets, or cassette players, or for towers to be built. Or for an Internet message to get through -- that requires access to the Internet. In other words, the poorest villagers, in the most remote places, leading their hardscrabble existence, are the least likely to be a problem. But as soon as the wonders of modern (Infidel) technology arrive, things change.

Furthermore, there is one aspect of technology -- the revolution in transportation -- that also helps to disseminate the message of those conducting Jihad through violent means. Jihad conducted through any means, through Da'wa, through demographic conquest, is a danger, and in the long run far more dangerous to Infidel well-being than these acts of terrorism, but in order to recognize them as a danger, one must first be willing or able to comprehend their use, quite conscious use, as instruments to further Jihad, which itself is a "struggle" to spread Islam, not until it covers the globe, but until it dominates the globe, and Muslims rule, everywhere. That is the desired, that is the obvious, that is the natural end point. And whether it happens or not (one cannot imagine China, Japan, Korea, sturdier, more aware of their own pasts and cultures, succumbing to Islam) it is the state of permanent war between Believers and Infidels, one mandated by Islam -- though open warfare need only be conducted when conditions are right, and ripe. It is advancing today against those who seem most vulnerable -- psychically and economically marginal individuals and groups. And it is advancing because of that blend of willful ignorance and deliberate sentimentalism that characterizes, today, those who would presume to instruct and protect us.

The ability to send out the full message of Islam, with the special effects of the day, has indeed been damaging: those endless scenes of Arab "martyrs" and their deeds of derring-do, as this Humvee is seen being blown up, and then this one, or as the Twin Towers are shown as they crumble, or this or that hapless Infidel is spurtingly decapitated, and all to the sound of Arab war-cries and monotonous music, designed to thrill the would-be Jihadists everywhere. And then there are the endless pictures, the propaganda about American or Israeli or British or Thai or Filipino or Indian or (Your-Infidel-Here) supposed atrocities, with emphasis on blood, women and children, the whole thing.

Just imagine if the Nazi propaganda machine, which managed to take over all of Germany, had had the instruments now available -- had had the Internet -- for Goebbels and his associates to work their sinister magic, to people all over the world, in a dozen or perhaps two dozen languages.

And there is one other technological revolution that makes things quite different, and much more dangerous for Infidels. It is the communication and transportation revolution, the great ease with which Muslims, living in, and perhaps even being citizens of, this or that Infidel nation-state, but being able, as they could not, say, fifty years ago, to keep in constant touch by telephone with other Muslims in Muslim lands -- especially those that they or their parents may have come from. And then there is the ability to travel back and forth, as hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis, some of them British citizens no doubt in the most limited, formal passport sense, do every year. They travel back to good old Pakistan to take a wife, or dump an old one, to refresh yearly their contact with the Old Sod -- the Old Sod in question being a place where Al Qaeda is protected, where A.Q. Khan the nuclear thief ("Father of the Islamic Bomb") lives in luxury safe from prying American investigators. And Lashkar Jihad, and Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Sipaha-e-Sahaba and a hundred other groups are there on the ground to see that justice is done.

Yet what is the position of the American and other Western governments? It is to "end poverty" and to build up, with roads, with all kinds of transportation and communication infrastructure, the very places which, as soon as they get it, will now be even more vulnerable to Arab Muslim propaganda. Will the Afghani villages as yet untouched by the Internet or satellite television become more, or less, fanatically Muslim when the Americans, in their heedless haste and waste (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, everywhere) proceed to brightly march in and bring with them as much as they can of advanced technology? Will those who think it is a splendid idea to present every little boy and girl in the backward world with a brand-new computer, and a very nice Internet connection to go with it, give a thought to what is now going to be available on that computer?

Don't even think about it, we are told. Or rather, the question is not even raised. It is not even raised about sub-Saharan Africa, where we assume that those negroponte-ish (the other Negroponte) computers can only do good. But if such gift-horses bring with them, inadvertently, the "gift" of Islam, what Infidel, knowing what Islam does to stunt mental and moral growth (and the defectors or apostates from Islam know this perfectly well), would support such endeavors?

Oh, not to worry, some say, because little Muslims will naturally reject that, thanks to mindless Infidels. They will merely be tapping their feet to "High School Musical Part I" or possibly "High School Musical Part II." Don't be silly.

Philippines jihadists turn to YouTube

Another example of how the ease of modern communications makes the spread of jihad easy also, for now jihadists can penetrate into areas of the Muslim world where the jihad ideology had lain dormant for considerable periods. "Philippines militants turn to YouTube," from the Sydney Morning Herald (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Al-Qaeda-linked extremists in the Philippines have turned to the wildly popular Internet video-sharing website YouTube in an apparent attempt to raise cash and recruits, the military said Tuesday.

For the first time, two video clips from the Abu Sayyaf group, responsible for some of the worst terror attacks in the Philippines, have been posted on the site.

Military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Bartolome Bacarro said the clips were taken from a one-hour video that was distributed throughout the Arabic-speaking jihadist community.

He said the speakers used Arabic apparently to appeal to wealthy would-be benefactors from the Middle East.

The armed forces, which is mounting a bloody major offensive against Abu Sayyaf strongholds on the southern islands of Jolo and Basilan, dismissed the YouTube posting as an "act of desperation."

Spencer on radio today

Discussing the book Religion of Peace? and related matters.

All times PDT:

4:34 AM KCMO Morning Show with Chris Stigall

5:00 AM Peter Boyles Show KHOW

6:00 AM George Khoury Show WMEL

7:00 AM Martha Zoller Show WDUN

7:30 AM Jeff Schiffman WSBA

9:00 AM Atlas on the Air

1:00 PM Politics of Money KCEO

1:35 PM Open Forum with Marc Bernier WNDB

3:00 PM Viewpoints WTKF

British Civics Class Asks, What Would Muhammad Do?

The closest this latest exercise in half-measures comes to getting at the heart of the matter is the project organizer's noting that "some got really confused when you put jihad next to it. Jihad has got a sacred context, so things that were unacceptable became acceptable." He adds, "We had to dig down to defuse the misconception," but he doesn't say how. And aiming to "defuse" (poor word choice) "misconceptions" still dances around the fact that the jihad doctrine is the problem in that it prescribes open-ended warfare against non-believers.

And pretending jihad violence is really something else (say, hirabah) does not change the fact that its perpetrators are motivated by and directly cite Islamic teachings on jihad. Anything short of engaging those texts is window-dressing. And if they don't engage those texts, others will, and not necessarily to discourage jihad.

By Jane Perlez for the New York Times:

BRADFORD, England -- At the Jamia Mosque on Victor Street in this racially and religiously tense town, Idris Watts, a teacher and convert to Islam, tackled a seemingly mundane subject with a dozen teenage boys: why it is better to have a job than to be unemployed.

[...]

The back and forth represented something new in Britain’s mosques: a government-financed effort to teach basic citizenship issues in a special curriculum intended to reach students who might be vulnerable to Islamic extremism.

In the long haul, the British government hopes that such civics classes, which use the Koran to answer questions about daily life, will replace the often tedious and sometimes hard-core religious lessons taught in many mosques across the land. Often, these lessons emphasize rote learning of the Koran and are taught by imams who were born in Pakistan and speak little English and have little contact with British society.

Written by a Bradford teacher, Sajid Hussain, 34, who holds a degree from Oxford, the new curriculum is being taught in some religious classes here in a city that is increasingly segregated between South Asians and whites. The pilot effort in Bradford has the backing and the financing from the Labor government as part of a hearts-and-minds campaign that it hopes will eventually spread to other cities and help better integrate the country’s mainstream Muslims into British culture. Approximately two million Muslims, mostly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, live in Britain.

Since four British Muslim suicide bombers attacked the London transit system in July 2005 and two other major terrorist plots were uncovered last year that British Muslim men were suspected of planning, British officials have been struggling with how to isolate the extremist Muslim minority from the moderate majority.

The new prime minister, Gordon Brown, said at his first news conference last month that he wanted to demonstrate the "importance we attach to nonviolence" and "the importance we attach to the dignity of each individual," and in the process make unpalatable the "extreme message of those who practice violence and would maim and murder citizens on British soil."

"The question for us is, how we can separate those extremists from the moderate mainstream majority?" he said.

One of the virtues of the curriculum in Bradford in applying Mr. Brown’s vision, according to his aides, is that it is taught by forward-leaning imams and is based on matching messages from the Koran to everyday life in Britain. The Labor government has been particularly concerned because, in part through its involvement in the Iraq war, it lacks credibility with many British Muslims.

An estimated 100,000 school-age Muslim children attend religious classes held at mosques in Britain daily, generally after regular school hours, said Jane Houghton, a spokeswoman for the Department of Communities and Local Government. "The impact this teaching could have is quite considerable," she said.

But as much as the government likes the curriculum, it has faced opposition from some Muslims.

Why, asked Nuzhat Ali, the women’s coordinator of the Islamic Society of Britain in Bradford, should Muslim children be singled out for civics lessons?

"One of our primary concerns is: why the Muslim community again?" Mrs. Ali said. "Extremism is a problem in all communities, especially among the British National Party," she said, referring to a right-wing party that has articulated white supremacist views. "The issue of terror and extremism needs to be addressed across the board rather than saying: ‘Here, Muslims, go into your corner and have your curriculum.’ "

Red herring. Even if BNP members had killed dozens of people in train and bus bombings, that wouldn't tell us anything about Islam. And they haven't, while Muslims have.

Some of the specifics of the curriculum met with disapproval, too.

In lesson plans provided to imams by Mr. Hussain, the teachers were asked to pose questions to their students based on recent events in Britain.

In one example, the students were to be asked what they would do if a friend bought a large quantity of fertilizer and announced he planned to build a bomb out of it. The question was based on the evidence in a recent trial in London in which five Muslim men were found guilty of buying fertilizer, storing it and planning to use it for a terrorist attack.

[...]

After a heated meeting with the critics in Bradford, Mr. Hussain, who said he had submitted the curriculum to a vetting panel of half a dozen Muslim scholars, agreed to remove the examples from the curriculum. "They were perhaps a little too frontal," he said.

But the important point, Mr. Hussain said, was to show Muslim students that their religion provided some answers to issues they confronted every day.

They understand that it’s wrong to go out and commit suicide bombings," Mr. Hussain said. "But some got really confused when you put jihad next to it. Jihad has got a sacred context, so things that were unacceptable became acceptable. We had to dig down to defuse the misconception."

Read it all.

Iran hangs 30 over 'US plots'

"...in an apparent bid to create a climate of intimidation while sending out uncompromising signals to the West." Hmmm. How interesting that we have Islamic groups in the United States also that are trying, in a vastly different way, to create a climate of intimidation. From the Mail & Guardian (thanks to IG):

Iran has hanged up to 30 people in the past month amid a clampdown prompted by alleged United States-backed plots to topple the regime, the British Observer newspaper has revealed.

Many executions have been carried out in public in an apparent bid to create a climate of intimidation while sending out uncompromising signals to the West. Opposition sources say at least three of the dead were political activists, contradicting government insistence that it is targeting "thugs" and dangerous criminals.

The executions have coincided with a crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a "soft revolution' with US support.

The most high-profile recent executions involved Majid Kavousifar (28) and his nephew, Hossein Kavousifar (24), hanged for the murder of a hard-line judge, Hassan Moghaddas, a man notorious for jailing political dissidents. They were hanged from cranes and hoisted high above one of Tehran's busiest thoroughfares.

Holy Land terror charity defendant: "This trial is an extension of a Zionist conspiracy"

Elashi was a founding board member of CAIR-Texas.

"Defendant scolded over outburst during Holy Land trial," by Jason Trahan for The Dallas Morning News (thanks to LGF):

U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish threatened to bar one of the Holy Land trial defendants from the courtroom Monday after he shouted in frustration as the courtroom was clearing for a mid-morning break.

It wasn’t immediately clear what Ghassan Elashi, the Holy Land Foundation’s former board chairman, said after the judge had left and the jury was exiting, but he yelled and pointed as court security guards escorted him to a holding cell. During breaks and at night, Mr. Elashi goes back into federal custody to serve time on a previous sentence.

Judge Fish addressed the outburst after jurors left the courtroom for their lunch break.

“It was reported to me during the last recess, although I didn’t hear it myself, as the jury was leaving the courtroom, there was an outburst from Ghassan Elashi,” Judge Fish said. “It was reported to me that [Mr. Elashi said] ‘This trial is an extension of a Zionist conspiracy,’ or something to that effect. I just need to tell Mr. Elashi, and what I’m saying to him applies to all the defendants, we can’t have outbursts like that that will disrupt the trial.”

He said federal law allows defendants to sit in on their own trials, but “it can be waived” if there are disruptions....

At the time of the outburst, the courtroom was cleared of spectators as an Israeli government agent known by the pseudonym “Avi” was being cross examined. Holy Land supporters and members of the media were listening in through an audio feed in an overflow courtroom.

Khalil Meek, president of the Muslim Legal Fund of America, spoke to the defendants after Mr. Elashi’s outburst. He said that they told him that what triggered the incident was the judge’s decision not to allow into evidence a document that showed the Israeli government appeared to sanction some of the work by one of the Palestinian charity committees Holy Land is accused of illegally funding.

CNN pretends that Judaism, Christianity, Islam all equally likely to incite violence

Just as my book Religion of Peace? confronts this very notion. Ms. Amanpour, I am available to provide for you an alternative view.

"CNN explores religious fundamentalism," by David Bauder for AP (thanks to all who sent this in):

NEW YORK - Christiane Amanpour's work on the documentary series "God's Warriors" took her directly to intersections of extreme religious and secular thinking.

She watched, fascinated, as demonstrators in San Francisco accused teenagers in the fundamentalist Christian group BattleCry of intolerance in a clash of two cultures that will probably never understand each other.

Understanding is what Amanpour is trying to promote in "God's Warriors," which takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week. The series on religious fundamentalism among Christians, Muslims and Jews airs in three parts, 9 p.m. EDT Tuesday through Thursday.

[...]

"I'm not interested in drumming up false fears, or falsely allaying fears," CNN's chief international correspondent told The Associated Press by phone from France, where she added last-minute touches to the series. "I just want people to know what's going on."

Amanpour traveled extensively over eight months to work on the series. The trips to Amanpour's native Iran are most fascinating. She explored the ancient roots of the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, and talked with one of the country's most accomplished female politicians about how Muslim women are treated.

Another segment tried to explain why so many devout Muslims are willing to give their lives to a cause.

"To the West, martyrdom has a really bad connotation because of suicide bombers who call themselves martyrs," she said. "Really, martyrdom is actually something that historically was quite noble, because it was about standing up and rejecting tyranny, rejecting injustice and rejecting oppression and, if necessary, dying for that."...

This is true in both Christianity and Islam. Amanpour fails to point out, however, that in Islam, but not in Christianity, a martyr is someone who kills for Allah, and is killed in the process (cf. Qur'an 9:111). One might forgive "the West" for getting this "bad connotation" in the face of the Islamic scriptural jihadists use to justify suicide attacks.

"I did come away with a sense that we — or those people who don't want to see religion in politics and culture — if we don't look into it and see what is going on, we're in danger of missing it and not be able to react to it properly," she said.

Ain't it the truth, Ms. Amanpour?

Amanpour was one of the last reporters to talk to the Rev. Jerry Falwell. She interviewed him a week before he died about the legacy of the Moral Majority, the organization that thrust evangelical Christians onto the political stage.

The segment on Christians explores BattleCry in some depth, digging at the roots of an organization that fights against some of the cruder elements of popular culture and urges teenagers to be chaste. In noting how girls at some BattleCry events are encouraged to wear long dresses, Amanpour asks the group's leader how it is different from the Taliban.

Well, uh, Ms. Amanpour, one might note the absence of AK-47s, the lack of opposition to the education of girls, the absence of burqas, the absence of divine sanction for wife-beating, and sundry other things. Unless you're too blinded by political correctness to notice, as is evidently the case.

In a non-judgmental way, she visits a family that is home-schooling its children and explores the influence of Evangelicals on the courts.

Homeschooling is evil too? Sheesh. Over 9,000 terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11, and Christiane Amanpour is spending her time demonizing homeschoolers.

Ellison on the jihadists: "I am not a Muslim in their eyes because I am for tolerance and inclusion, and they don't want an Islam that is inclusive"

Keith Ellison can't understand how Muslims could read the Qur'an and get the idea that it incites violence. That's interesting, since clearly there are many Muslims around the world who read the same Qur'an and do think that it incites violence. It would be good of Ellison to confront this more explicitly and offer some refutation, whether written by him or by someone else, of the jihadist view. I would be most happy to host it here and discuss it.

"Muslim congressman ends Israel trip," by Herb Keinon for The Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

As the first Muslim member of the US Congress, Minnesota's Keith Ellison realizes that every step he takes regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict will be closely scrutinized by both American Muslims and Jews.

[...]

In fact, Ellison left Israel on Saturday after a six day-visit as part of a Democratic congressional delegation brought here by the American Israel Education Foundation, an independent, nonprofit charitable organization affiliated with the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. This was Ellison's second visit here since he was elected just nine months ago.

[...]

As to whether he felt he had a greater sensitivity to the Arab perspective than other congressmen, he said, "I know Islam, I know the religion, I read the Koran every day. When I went to the [Aksa] Mosque, it wasn't just a tourist site for me, it was a holy site. I felt the affinity for it."

But what he doesn't understand, Ellison said emphatically, were those - he called them "crazies" - who read the same Koran he did and came away with a license to murder.

"The murderers and the extremists are into something I don't know about," he said. "I don't know how they read what they read and come out with what they do. They wouldn't consider me a Muslim because I'm American, because I believe in the unity of people and that we are all on the planet to work together."

"The people who did 9/11 are hostile to everyone, and in fact if you are not the type of Muslim they want you to be, they would be happy to kill you too," Ellison said. "I am not a Muslim in their eyes because I am for tolerance and inclusion, and they don't want an Islam that is inclusive."

"(As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed"

In saying that, Wafa Sultan, the hero of Al-Jazeera, refers to Qur'an 9:111, which promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah.

"Warning to West on 'evil of Islam,'" by Richard Kerbaj for The Australian (thanks to Sheik Yermami):

THE West was still underestimating the evil of Islam, an influential Muslim thinker has warned, insisting that Australia and the US have been duped into believing there is a difference between the religion's moderate and radical interpretations.

On a two-week "under the radar" visit to Australia, Syrian-born Wafa Sultan secretly met both sides of federal politics and Jewish community leaders, warning them that all Muslims needed to be closely monitored in the West.

In an interview with The Australian, Dr Sultan -- who shot to recognition last year following an interview on al-Jazeera television in which she attacked Islam and the prophet Mohammed -- said Muslims were "brainwashed" from an early age to believe Western values were evil and that the world would one day come under the control of Sharia law.

The US-based psychiatrist -- who has two fatwas (religious rulings) issued against her to be killed -- warned that Muslims would continue to exploit freedom of speech in the West to spread their "hate" and attack their adopted countries, until the Western mind grasped the magnitude of the Islamic threat.

"You're fighting someone who is willing to die," Dr Sultan told The Australian in an Arabic and English interview. "So you have to understand this mentality and find ways to face it. (As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed. You're here for only a short life and once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God."

Dr Sultan, who was brought to Australia by a group called Multi-Net comprised of Jews and Christians, met senior politicians, including Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Labor deputy leader Julia Gillard.

[...]

"That's why the West has to monitor the majority of Muslims because you don't know when they're ready to be activated. Because they share the same basic belief, that's the problem," said the 50-year-old, who was last year featured in Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

[...]

But while she considered the prophet Mohammed "evil" and said the Koran needed to be destroyed because it advocated violence against non-believers, Dr Sultan struggled to articulate her vision for Muslims, whom she said she was trying to liberate from the shackles of their beliefs.

"I believe the only way is to expose the Muslims to different cultures, different thoughts, different belief systems," said Dr Sultan, who is completing her first book, The Escaped Prisoner: When Allah is a Monster.

"Muslims have been hostages of their own belief systems for 1400 years. There is no way we can keep the Koran."

Iranian clerics goose-step over American flag

Feel the love.

From Kamangir (thanks to Marvin).

UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader John tells me this photo dates from 1981. If so, my apologies, but of course little has changed in the attitudes of the Islamic regime in Iran since then. If anyone has more details about this photo, please let me know.

Spencer: Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 4, “Women,” verses 1-16

Sura 4, “Women,” is another Medinan sura, containing laws for the conduct of women and Islamic family life.

V. 1 says that Allah created men and women from a “single soul.” Many Muslims in the West have pointed to this verse as evidence that Islam recognizes the full human dignity of women. Ayatollah Murtada Mutahhari says that “other religions also have referred to this question, but it is the Qur’an alone which in a number of verses expressly says that woman has been created of the species of man, and both man and woman have the same innate character.” He then quotes 4:1. The “single soul” from which mankind was created was Adam’s, and while the Biblical story of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib is not repeated here, Muhammad refers to it in a hadith that suggests that while men and women may have the same “innate character,” that doesn’t mean they are equal in dignity, for women are…crooked: “Woman has been created from a rib and will in no way be straightened for you; so if you wish to benefit by her, benefit by her while crookedness remains in her. And if you attempt to straighten her, you will break her, and breaking her is divorcing her.”

V. 3 is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. For according to the Mishkat Al-Masabih, Muhammad said: “The person who has two wives, but is not just between them, shall appear on the Day of Judgment in such a condition that one half of his body will be collapsing.” But of course, justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

And as for polygamy, Asad notes that “one might ask why the same latitude has not been given to women as well; but the answer is simple. Notwithstanding the spiritual factor of love which influences the relations between man and woman, the determinant biological reason for the sexual urge is, in both sexes, procreation: and whereas a woman can, at one time, conceive a child from one man only and has to carry it for nine months before she can conceive another, a man can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Thus, while nature would have been merely wasteful if it had produced a polygamous instinct in woman, man’s polygamous inclination is biologically justified.”

V. 3 goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiples wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “the captives that your right hands possess” – that is, slave girls.

Slave girls? Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

V. 3 also directs Muslims to “marry women who seem good to you.” Ibn Majah records a tradition in which Muhammad details the qualities of a good wife, including that “she obeys when instructed” and “the husband is pleased to look at her.”

V. 4 requires a husband to give his wife a dowry. Ibn Kathir explains that “no person after the Prophet is allowed to marry a woman except with the required dowry…” However, the wife may choose to free the husband from this obligation: “If the wife gives him part or all of that dowry with a good heart, her husband is allowed to take it…”

Verses 5-14 give rules for inheritance and related matters. V. 11 directs that when an estate is being parceled out, daughters are to receive half the share that sons receive.

Verses 15-16 lay down penalties for sexual immorality. V. 15 prescribes home imprisonment until death (unless “Allah ordain for them some (other) way”) for women found guilty of “lewdness” on the testimony of four witnesses. According to Islamic law, these four witnesses must be male Muslims; women’s testimony is inadmissible in cases of a sexual nature, even in rape cases in which she is the victim. If a woman is found guilty of adultery, she is to be stoned to death; if she is found guilty of fornication, she gets 100 lashes (cf. Qur’an 24:2). The penalty of stoning does not appear in the Qur’an, but Umar, one of Muhammad’s early companions and the second caliph, or successor of Muhammad as leader of the Muslims, said that it was nevertheless the will of Allah: “I am afraid,” he said, “that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed.” Umar affirmed: “Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” And he added that Muhammad “carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

V. 16, says the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, refers to men who commit “a lewd act, adultery or homosexual intercourse.” They are to be punished “with insults and beatings with sandals; but if they repent, of this [lewd act], and make amends, through [good] action, then leave them be, and do not harm them.” However, it adds that this verse “is abrogated by the prescribed punishment if adultery is meant [by the lewd act],” that is, stoning. The Islamic jurist al-Shafi’i, it goes on, requires stoning of homosexuals also, but “according to him, the person who is the object of the [penetrative] act is not stoned, even if he be married; rather, he is flogged and banished.”

Next week: When to beat your wife, and what you should do first.

(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; 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.)

Hizb ut-Tahrir posts propaganda videos on YouTube

A search on "Hizb ut Tahrir" at YouTube yields abundant examples of HuT propaganda. "Islamist propaganda on YouTube," by Natalie O'Brien for The Australian:

THE hardline Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir has started posting professionally produced propaganda video clips on YouTube.

The clips, some lasting almost 10 minutes, posted on the internet video-sharing site depict Muslims being attacked by Western forces and asks "for how much longer?"

Produced by the group's Malaysian branch, the clips call on Muslims to "arise and shake off the dust" of European colonialism and show members marching in support of Palestinians to the commentary "O armies of the Muslim world, we wait for your help".

US intelligence analyst Madeleine Gruen has warned that the younger generation's pioneering spirit has made Hizb ut-Tahrir one of the world's most innovative extremist groups.

[...]

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in Europe, China and countries in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia.

However, it remains active in Britain and Australia, promoting the idea of an international caliphate, or Muslim government, to run countries with a majority Muslim population under sharia law.

Only Muslim-majority countries? Then, why is it active in Britain and Australia, among other places?

Barry Rubin, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says the group has been banned in the Middle East because people there understand the dangers, but is allowed to continue operating in the West because its governments fail to appreciate the group prepares people mentally for terrorism.

Professor Rubin, also the director of Israel's Global Research for International Affairs Centre, has called on the Australian Government to outlaw the group.

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has said the status of Hizb ut-Tahrir is under constant review, but said last week the threshold test for banning an organisation was the involvement in or advocacy of terrorism.

Ms Gruen says that five years ago most Western observers considered Hizb ut-Tahrir's goal of overthrowing governments to replace them with a caliph was unrealistic and unlikely to resonate with Western Muslims.

How about now?

The group used to have a presence in about 40 countries but that has now grown to 45.

She argues the group's membersip has swelled and several branches, including Australia's, have become large enough to move from their "covert gestational phase to a publicly active stage".

Jihadists granted amnesty by Olmert will fight on

Another example of how fantasy-based policymaking just doesn't work.

"Terrorists: Amnesty shamnesty! We prefer human slaughter: Militant leader says organization granted 'free pass' by Olmert won't disarm," by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily.com (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

JAFFA, Israel – The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group will not disarm or cease attacks on the Jewish state in spite of an amnesty agreement forged with Israel last month in which top Brigades members pledged to turn in their weapons and refrain from attacks, a senior Brigades leader told WND.

"We respect our leaders but will keep fighting until Israel withdraws completely from the West Bank. We are the resistance. We will keep fighting and never give up our weapons until Israel withdraws," said Ayad Frehat, a Brigades leader in the West Bank city of Jenin.

"Whenever the Israeli army acts in the West Bank, we will fight side-by-side with our brothers from the other resistance movements," Frehat told WND.

Frehat is on a list of Brigades members presented to Israel for amnesty consideration.

Last month, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert granted amnesty to 178 members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah's organization, in exchange for pledges not to engage in terrorist activity.

The Brigades, along with Islamic Jihad, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The amnesty agreement reportedly was made as an Israeli gesture to Abbas' and to bolster Fatah against Hamas in the West Bank.

Israel issued documents for the 178 Fatah fugitives to sign, pledging their resignation from any so-called paramilitary organizations. The wanted militants – who comprise much of the senior Brigades leadership – also were required to turn in their weapons, spend a week in a PA holding area and restrict their movements to the area in which they reside for three months. After that, they would be allowed to move freely throughout the West Bank.

U.S. forces tracking elite force of Iranians in Iraq to train Shi'ite militias

Another "We know what they are doing and it needs to stop" Alert. (And if they don't stop, when will someone stop them?) "U.S. forces tracking Iranians in Iraq," by Kim Gamel for the Associated Press:

BAGHDAD - American forces are tracking about 50 members of an elite Iranian force who have crossed the border into southern Iraq to train Shiite militia fighters, a top U.S. general said Sunday. The French foreign minister, meanwhile, arrived in Baghdad on a groundbreaking visit after years of icy relations with the United States over Iraq.

[...]

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose command includes the volatile southern rim of Baghdad and districts to the south, said his troops are tracking about 50 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in their area -- the first detailed allegation that Iranians have been training fighters within Iraq's borders.

"We know they're here and we target them as well," he said, citing intelligence reports as evidence of their presence.

He declined to be more specific and said no Iranian forces have been arrested in his territory.

"We've got about 50 of those," he said, referring to the Iranian forces. "They go back and forth. There's a porous border."

The military has stepped up allegations against Iran in recent weeks, saying it supplies militants with arms and training to attack U.S. forces.

Iran denies the allegations and says it supports efforts to stop the violence.

[...]

Lynch, whose mission is to block the flow of weapons and fighters into the Baghdad area, said Sunni and Shiite extremists have become increasingly aggressive this month, trying to influence the debate in Washington before a pivotal progress report on Iraq.

He singled out the Shiite extremists as being behind rising attacks using armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which he said were largely assembled in Iraq from parts smuggled in from Iran. He also noted a marked increase in Iranian-rockets that have been increasingly effective against U.S. bases.

There has been an overall decrease in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians, south of Baghdad, but 46 percent of those were being carried out by Shiite extremists, Lynch said.

"The real difference now is we've got to spend as much time fighting the Shia extremists as Sunni extremists," he said.

Khatami: Failure of socialist movements led people to embrace Islam

In the 1960s Sayyid Qutb in Egypt wrote that both capitalism and socialism had failed and that Islam was ready to assume a role of world leadership. Now Khatami explains how this is in full swing.

From IRNA (thanks to James):

Head of the International Center for Dialogue of Civilizations Mohammad Khatami said on Saturday that failure of the socialist and nationalist movements have led world people to embrace Islam.

He said in his statement to the Thirteenth Seminar of Baran Foundation that despite the fact that followers of different religions live in the Middle East, the region has assumed an Islamic identity in the course of history.

"Nevertheless, the resistance to aggression on the Middle East territories by foreign forces to forge dominance over the region has served to found such an Islamic identity."

He said that colonialism has actually faced with the wall of Islamic identity in the Middle East.

"Though the Islamic identity can go in parallel with the positive aspects of the Western civilization, Western politicians do not accept any dispute due to their selfishness, especially when their interests are challenged."

He said that the self-esteemed Western politicians see themselves entitled to stir up Islamophobia and violence against Muslims, so Islam has been exposed to damages owing the Western and Zionist campaigns.

Not that Islam has done anything to provoke negative reactions. Not that Muslims have committed any violence of their own in the name of Islam. Oh, no.

Government Troops, Jihadists Killed in Southern Philippines

Latest from the inner spiritual struggle in the Philippines.

From VOA News:

Philippine military officials say 16 troops and about 30 Muslim extremists have been killed in clashes in the southern Philippines.

[...]

The fighting was one of the bloodiest clashes on Basilan since 14 marines were killed in an ambush last month.

The United States considers Abu Sayyaf a terrorist group with ties to the radical Jemaah Islamiyah organization. Philippine forces have been on the offensive against Abu Sayyaf since 2005, fighting primarily on Jolo.

The al-Qaida-linked group is blamed for several deadly attacks in the Philippines, including a 2004 bombing that gutted a ferry and killed 116 people.

Turkish airplane hijacked by Al-Qaida

"We are Muslims," said the hijackers, according to Suzan Fraser for Associated Press (thanks to Jeffrey Imm).

And the Times of India (thanks again to Jeffrey Imm) says they claimed to be members of Al-Qaeda also:

ISTANBUL: Hijackers claiming to have bombs and to be members of Al-Qaida on Saturday hijacked a Turkish passenger plane heading from northern Cyprus to Istanbul.

The hijackers had asked that the plane be diverted to Iran or Syria but the pilots landed the plane at Antalya airport, near the Mediterranean coast, said Tuncay Doganer, CEO of the private Atlas-Jet airline company.

Most of the passengers managed to escape from the rear exit of the plane while the hijackers were releasing the women from the front exit, one passenger told private NTV television.

Now live: Das Koran-Blog

I am pleased to announce that my weekly Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series is now being translated into German, courtesy the good people at Islam-deutschland.info. Almost all the existing segments are now available in German here.

Oh, and you can find them in English here.

Ahmadinejad: Israel Is Bearer of Satan

And Ahmadinejad is an expert on Satan. From AP (thanks to Darcy):

TEHRAN, Iran (AP)-- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Saturday.

The agency quoted Ahmadinejad as he spoke at a religious conference and did not elaborate on what he meant by Satan. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, however, Iran has regularly referred to the United States as ''the Great Satan.''

''The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan,'' he said, predicting Israel's eventual demise. ''When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution.''

Muslims were in America before Columbus!

"Islam in America before Columbus" by Hisham Zoubeir appears this week in the Muslim Weekly (thanks to all who sent this in), but actually it has been making the rounds for years, and can be found on many Islamic sites.

Zoubeir claims that there is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a pre-Columbian Muslim presence in North America. I don't know of any scholarly refutation of the claims he makes, and for all I know they could be true, although they recall Khrushchev-era Soviet propaganda about how the Russians actually were the first people to do just about everything.

Zoubeir's article may seem to many to be simply an exercise in chauvinistic overreaching until one realizes that to some Muslims who take his claims seriously, America is now Muslim land -- and Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam; this is a key element of the claims to Israel and Spain put forward by Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and others. Chauvinistic overreaching, yes, but quite possibly with a political agenda.

FBI: Maybe they didn't have pipe bombs

Witless for the Prosecution Alert: the FBI has issued a statement in the Mohamed and Megahed case saying that "there is the possibility that the publicly reported allegations involving the students may be proven to be false." Now of course the only reason why anyone thinks that they did have pipe bombs is because authorities said they did: "They admitted to having what they said were fireworks. Based on the officer's judgment at hand, based on what he had seen, we judged it to be other than fireworks," Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt said.

Of course, Sheriff Wayne DeWitt ain't the FBI, but no one should have said anything if he wasn't sure, and the FBI should have challenged DeWitt's statement when he made it if it wasn't accurate. If these two young men didn't have pipe bombs or bomb-making material after all, the authorities have defamed Mohamed and Megahed. If they did, why this weaselly cautionary statement? The stakes are too high for this kind of bungling in terror cases.

"FBI's caution puzzles experts," by Abbie Vansickle for the St. Petersburg Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

TAMPA - For days after the arrest of two University of South Florida students accused of having pipe bombs, the FBI remained silent.

On Wednesday, the agency released a statement telling the public it's possible there's no merit to the accusations against Youssef Megahed, 21, and Ahmed A. Mohamed, 26. Both were arrested Aug. 4 in Goose Creek, S.C., on charges of possession of explosives.

"The FBI would like to remind everyone that this is an ongoing investigation and there is the possibility that the publicly reported allegations involving the students may be proven to be false," it read.

An FBI spokesman said the agency is still investigating, that it released the statement only because there's so much interest in the case, and it wants to be fair.

"We're just making a request for everybody to be very objective at this time, very neutral," said Special Agent Dave Couvertier.

But local legal experts say there's likely more to it.

"That is a highly unusual statement from the FBI," said Tampa lawyer John Fitzgibbons, a former federal prosecutor.

Other legal experts agreed, but no one knew what to make of it.

"Well, who knows what that means?" said Ed Page, a lawyer who has experience in Tampa and Washington, D.C. "Perhaps the initial assessment that the trunk contained pipe bombs was inaccurate. That's a weird statement, I've got to tell you, to be coming out of the FBI."

Fitzgibbons saw two scenarios. First, the FBI may not have a strong case against the students. Second, the Department of Justice may require a statement of that sort in its communication with the media.

Imam puts 'unlimited reward' on Taslima's head

What the heck is an "unlimited cash reward"? Is the Imam Syed Mohammed Noorur Rahman Barkati going to give the killer of Taslima Nasreen all the money in the world? Meanwhile, he demands that she be deported and threatens to set up a roadblock in front of her home.

And why all the threats and terrorizing? Because she "exposed Indian Muslims to ridicule and contempt" and defamed "Islam and the Prophet." It doesn't seem to occur to the Imam Syed Mohammed Noorur Rahman Barkati that he might deal more effectively with whatever threat to Islam he thinks is coming from Taslima Nasreen by refuting what she says, or at least debating her and making his case while she makes hers.

But in India as in the United States, Muslim spokesmen who take umbrage at statements by non-believers don't seem interested in debating their opponents and taking the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of what they're saying and the falsity of what their opposition is saying. Instead, in a manifestation of utter intellectual bankruptcy, they resort to threats. Legal threats instead of death threats here -- for now at least.

An update on this story. From Rediff.com (thanks to all who sent this in):

Charging her with defaming Islam and the Prophet, an Imam in Kolkata on Friday declared "unlimited reward" on the head of Taslima Nasreen, the controversial Bangladeshi writer. Taslima was attacked in Hyderabad last week.

Speaking at a rally after the Friday prayers, Syed Mohammed Noorur Rahman Barkati, imam of the Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid, also demanded that the writer be deported from the country in a month.

"If our demand is not met, there will be an unlimited cash reward for whosoever kills her. The United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre and the Left Front government in the state will be responsible for the consequences," he told the gathering at Esplanade, in Kolkata.

'If you harbour Taslima and Rushdie in India, then drive away all the Muslims from this country,' a banner at the rally said.

Alleging that Taslima had exposed Indian Muslims to ridicule and contempt, the imam threatened to organise a road block in front of the writer's residence in Kolkata after the month of Ramzan.

Iranians take pride in terror classification

A true professional takes pride in his work, as it is a true reflection of his very being. Iran's IRGC is no exception; they are true professionals of the terror trade.

"US effort to include IRGC among terror organs a pride for Guards- Khatami," from IRNA:

Provisional Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran said here Friday the US decision to include the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in the list of international terrorist organizations is another golden page in the IRGC's history. Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami added, "As in the nuclear case, the Iranian nation and government would never leave alone their revolutionary offsprings."

Two leading US dailies, the Washington Post and the New York Times reported in their Wednesday edition about US officials intention to survey adding the name of Iran's Revolutionary Guards to the list of the international organs involved in terrorist acts.

He said, "The IRGC has truly shined well during the 28-year history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, both in confronting foreign enemies and foiling domestic plots."

Khatami said, "Among the prides of the IRGC we can refer to the late founder of the Islamic Republic's words about the Guard Corps, where he said he was pleased with the IRGC, and that he would never think negatively about them.

He added, "The late Imam also said that there would have been no Islamic Republic of Iran if there were no IRGC; I love the IRGC very dearly; My entire hope lies in IRGC's conduct;" and "There is nothing in the records of the IRGC, save serving Islam."

Ayatollah Khatami said, "Therefore, the US State Department's decision to include IRGC in its list of world terror organs is merely another golden point in the records of IRGC pride.

Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot.

Russia starts delivery of air defense units to Syria

It's 1967 all over again. Russia is arming the Syrians; which almost certainly means that it is supplying Iran and Hizballah as well. Put another log on the fire.

"Russia begins delivery of air defence system to Syria – report," from Thomson Financial:

MOSCOW (Thomson Financial) - Russia has begun delivery of modern air defence units to Syria while rejecting speculation that some of the weapons could be forwarded secretly to Iran, a newspaper reported on Friday.

'The first part of the delivery to Syria has started,' the centrist daily Nezavissimaya Gazeta reported, quoting information from a domestic military information agency.

A spokesman for Russia's arms export agency Rosoboronexport, contacted by Agence France-Presse, declined to comment on the newspaper report.

The report acknowledged that the delivery of the weapons, the Pantsyr-S1E self-propelled short-range missile air defence system, was particularly sensitive in light of Israeli claims last year that Russian arms sold to Syria had ended up in the hands of militant group Hezbollah.

In May, the London-based arms specialist magazine Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Syria had agreed to send Iran at least 10 of the Pantsyr units.

That report was categorically denied by a range of top Russian officials including First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov.

Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot.

Saudi cleric: Allah wants Islam to rule the world

Apparently, in his view, to make the world safe for white underwear.

"Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid: Western 'Beasts' Use Colored Underwear to Conceal Their Filth," from MEMRITV:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid, which aired on Iqra TV on July 26, 2007:

Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid: This is a nation of monotheism, and this is the Islam that Allah wants to spread throughout the world, and to rule the land it its entirety. Allah wants this. He sent down the Koran and the hadith for that purpose.

[...]

Humanity can have no happiness without Islam. Humanity can enjoy no goodness, unless the sun of monotheism, the Koran, and the Sunna shines upon it. The world without the sun of the divine revelation is a place of eternal darkness, as we can see today – a world of frustration, collapse, injustice, arbitrariness, and wrongdoing. The world today is a jungle – a world of barbarism of all kinds. People in many parts of the world are not happy, because they do not walk in the path of Allah.

[...]

There are rules of shari'a in everything. We have counted almost 70 rules about how to urinate and defecate. In contrast, how do those beasts in the West answer the call of nature? They stand in front of other people, in toilets at airports and other public places. They do not care about covering their private parts. Even their underwear is colored and not white, so it can conceal all that filth. We are a nation that has long known the meaning of cleanliness, what to do when nature calls, and what the rules of hygiene are. The others, to this day, live like beasts. To this day, many of them are not circumcised, even though the World Health Organization has advised to circumcise people as a treatment for AIDS, because it has been scientifically proven that circumcised people are less susceptible to AIDS, and are less likely to spread it than uncircumcised people.

Players become Israeli-killing mujahideen in new Hizballah computer game

There will be many, of course, who despite this and all the other evidence will continue to insist that deep down they want peace. "Players become Israeli-killing mujahideen in new Hezbollah computer game," from the Daily Mail (thanks to all who sent this in):

Raid Israel to capture soldiers, battle tanks in the valleys of south Lebanon and launch Katyusha rockets at Israeli towns - a new Hezbollah computer game puts players on the frontline of war with the Jewish state.

"Special Force 2" is based on last year's 34-day conflict between the Lebanese guerrilla group and Israel.

It was launched yesterday at a special exhibit south of Beirut by Hezbollah legislator Hussein Haj Hassan.

"It is not only a game, it is an education and culture and it is part of the confrontation because the American and the Western companies created games featuring us as terrorists and it is widespread on the market. This achievement is an addition to the tools of resistance and confrontation," said Hassan.

Afghanistan: Suicide bomber kills official and children

Taliban charm offensive: another Misunderstander of Islam reads Qur'an 9:111 and fails to notice that Islam forbids suicide. From Reuters (thanks to JE):

A SUICIDE bomber killed an Afghan district chief and three of his family members today in their home in the southern city of Kandahar, witnesses and a police said.

Khairuddin Kaka, the district chief for Zerai, one of his teenage daughters and two of his sons were killed when the bomber blew explosives attached to his body, they said.

"The bomber knocked at the door of Kaka's house and blew himself up after the door was opened," said a policeman who witnessed the attack.

Al-Jazeera ad: Shark eats goldfish

In my new book Religion of Peace?, I tell the story of a bumper-sticker war that broke out in Cairo a few years ago. When Coptic Christians began putting the Christian fish symbol, long popular with American evangelicals, on their cars, Muslims responded with their own bumper stickers depicting sharks. An Egyptian Muslim explained: "The Christians had the fish so we responded with the shark. If they want to portray themselves as weak fishes, okay. We are the strongest.”

So look at the ad for Al-Jazeera mobile, above. On the right there is a shark about to swallow a fish in a plastic bag. Now of course maybe this image is meant only to refer to the freshness of the news one gets from Al-Jazeera, as fresh as the goldfish the shark is about to enjoy. But it reminded Conservative Book Club Editor Elizabeth Kantor of the above story, and some other people as well. What do you think?

CAIR whines about anti-jihad blogs in terror charity case legal filing

In CAIR's Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in the Holy Land Foundation terror charity case, CAIR complains about anti-jihad blogs' reporting on its being named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case: World Net Daily (which is not actually a weblog), the Counterterrorism Blog, Militant Islam Monitor and Little Green Footballs.

What, no Jihad Watch? Ibrahim, you disappoint me.

Our friend Jeffrey Imm writes about this at the Counterterrorism Blog: "CAIR Cites Counterterrorism Blog in HLF Legal Filing":

In the case of United States versus Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), et al, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) clearly doesn't like it when the Counterterrorism Blog and the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is presenting the news on this subject.

In an Amicus Curiae brief by CAIR to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, CAIR complains about the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) postings on the Counterterrorism Blog with news in regards to the HLF case and CAIR.

In CAIR's Amicus Curiae brief, CAIR apparently believes that it can protect its first amendment rights by silencing the Counterterrorism Blog and other organizations reporting the news. Unfortunately, it does not understand that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to all Americans, even those that CAIR does not agree with or does not like.

In CAIR's Amicus Curiae brief, on page 36, CAIR states that "the list of unindicted coconspirators has spread and gained notoriety through non-mainstream media, as well, including various 'anti-terrorism' weblogs. These weblogs are often extremely biased and inaccurate in their reporting, leading to even more severe damage to the reputation of the unindicted coconspirators. "

[...]

The Counterterrorism Blog will continue to report the news, regardless of how much it displeases CAIR.

Bravo.

CORRECTION: Jihad Watch reader Shiloh points out below that Jihad Watch is mentioned on page 9 of the brief. My faith in Ibrahim Hooper is restored.

Palestinian soccer tournament named for jihadist

How about the "Taliban Bowl" or the "Osama Cup"? The US taxpayer continues to fund the jihad.

"Soccer tournament named for 'Bat Mitzvah attack' terrorist," by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook for Palestinian Media Watch:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to glorify terrorists and to present them as role models for children.

In a school in Tulkarem (West Bank) this week, a soccer tournament was named after Ziyad Da’as. Da’as planned the attack in which a gunman opened fire with an M-16 rifle at a Bat Mitzvah in Hadera in January 2002, killing six and wounding 30. He was also behind the kidnapping and murder of two Israelis in Tulkarem in 2001. Da’as, a Fatah-Tanzim city commander, was killed by Israel in August 2002.

Significantly, the article indicated that the tournament took place in a Palestinian school and that the school administration was thanked "for providing the means for its success." Some Western governments have recently renewed funding of the Palestinian Authority, including its educational infrastructures, based on the assumption that schools are involved in positive education.

It should also be noted that in reporting the story, the PA daily glorified the terrorist as “one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance." The daily Al Hayat Al Jadida is owned by the Palestinian Authority, and is therefore indirectly funded by Western money.

Da’as plans an attack at a religious celebration in the honor of a 12 year old girl and he is referred to as “one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance."

Does this represent the educational values of a society that wants to make peace? Are these are the people that the US is hell bent on giving a state? Are these the "peace partners" that Condi Rice and George Bush are shoving down the Israeli throat?

When you take a look your next payroll stub, keep in mind where some of your federal tax deduction is going. You may have helped sponsor this event.

Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot.

Bostom: Sword Swallowing to Oblivion

Andrew G. Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, reviews my new book at The American Thinker:

A review of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?-Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, Regnery, 2007, 246 pp.

This past December, 2006, a British radiologist, and the executive director of the Sword Swallowers Association International published a fascinating survey which evaluated, "information on the practices and associated ill-effects of sword swallowing." The respondent sword swallowers typically required extended daily practice for months or years to appropriately desensitize their gag reflex,

...sometimes by repeatedly putting fingers down the throat, but other objects are used including spoons, paint brushes, knitting needles, and plastic tubes before the swallower commonly progresses to a bent wire coat hanger. The performer must then learn to align a sword with the upper esophageal sphincter with the neck hyper-extended.

Not surprisingly, such "desensitization" training does not spare sword swallowers from the predictable hazards of their chosen profession, including serious morbidities -- perforations of the pharynx or esophagus and associated neck abscess or aspiration, pneumothorax, pleurisy, pericarditis, and intestinal bleeding, ranging from melena (frankly bloody stools), to blood-transfusion-requiring hematemesis (vomiting blood)-and even death.

Robert Spencer's sobering new book, Religion of Peace? reveals how the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy in the West -- rooted in self-hatred, uncritical, blanket pacifism, and complacency -- negates the profound differences between Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilization, obfuscating the existential threat posed by Islam's enduring, central institution: the jihad. This corrosive mentality is disseminated by the avatars of immoral equivalence, "elite" sword swallowers for jihadism who have foisted their own self-destructive desensitization to this genocidal institution upon a general public, sadly ill-informed about Islamic doctrine and history.

Throughout the first four chapters, Spencer analyzes a spate of books that appeared in 2006 -- whose authors were oblivious to reams of daily, concrete evidence, and reason -- which warned not about the real global progress of Shari'a (both violently and non-violently imposed), but the supposed imminent threat of Christian theocracy in the United States, and the export overseas of this religious zealotry by a modern "Crusading" military adventurism.

Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy was prototypical of this genre which, by waves of the hand, dismissed obvious foreign and domestic threats of jihad terrorism while ignoring altogether cultural jihadism -- the aggressive, if transiently "peaceful" methods of Islamic dawa -- and their long term implications for truly theocratic, i.e., Islamic rule, including, within the West. Phillips insists that the post 9/11 incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were merely, "the war whoops of militant Protestantism...," the apotheosis of a "biblically stirred foreign policy," willing to use force to achieve its ultimate end: broader Christian missionary activity in the Islamic Middle East, another shameful Crusade.

Spencer eviscerates Phillips' "analysis" of George Bush's October 2001 speech (outlining the President's proposed military response to the cataclysmic attacks of 9/11), which epitomizes the counterfactual, and bizarre, if not frankly paranoid argumentation of the "Christian-ist conspiracy" mongering authors. Despite the fact that Bush had refrained from invoking religious language-in stark contrast to Osama bin Laden-Phillips,

...resorted to claiming that the president used "double coding," through which he "signaled attentive Bible readers that he shared their private scriptural invocations -- using phrases from the revelation of St. John (6:15-17, about the wrath of the lamb) and Isaiah (about evildoers hiding in caves and the lonely paths of the godless)." Never mind that Bush never used the words wrath or lamb, and never mind that bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives actually do hide in caves. Why let the truth get in the way of a great theory?

As Spencer continues, he exposes the full-blown preposterous absurdity of Phillips' putative "insights", which, depressingly, enjoy rather broad acceptance, regardless of well-established contradictory facts, including: the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions; the plight of unassuming Afghan Muslim "apostate to Christianity" Abdul Rahman; the ongoing tragic destruction of the ancient Assyrian Christian community in Iraq, accelerated since the US invasion, as perpetrated by Sunni and Shi'ite Arab Muslims, as well as Muslim Kurds, and taking place within a larger overall context of the attrition of all the indigenous Christian communities of the Islamic Middle East oppressed by resurgent jihadism, beginning after World War I, and increased since the culmination of the Western European colonial era, following World War II.

He [Phillips] describes Bush as an "evangelical Christian missionary, " influenced by "heady talk about bringing liberty and freedom to new shores." But maybe, just maybe, Bush's real mission was not biblical at all, but an attempt to defend America from a second September 1, and he was seeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the replacing of their tyrannies with democracies as part of this effort. Phillips and his ilk certainly have to stretch to portray Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a Christian missionary enterprise; the constitutions of both contries give a privileged place to Islam, and the Bush administration has taken no special measures to halt the persecution of Christians in post-Saddam Iraq.

...the constitution of the new, post-Taliban Afghani regime stipulates that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." Abdul Rahman's case showed that Islam's traditional classification of apostasy as a capital crime would be included in this. The prophet Muhammad regarded apostasy from Islam as a supreme evil, and one of the main reasons the punishment is so severe is because apostates were once Muslims but "turn renegade." Muhammad decreed that no Muslim could be put to death except for murder, unlawful sexual intercourse, and apostasy. He said flatly: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, although there is some disagreement over whether the law applies only to men. Thus it was not at all surprising that the Afghan government, constituted so that no law could be made that contradicted Islamic law, put Abdul Rahman on trial. Yet Western analysts seem to have trouble grasping the import of Rahman's case...After an international firestorm, Abdul Rahman was released, and asked for asylum in Italy, which was swiftly granted. However, the Islamic law provision in the Afghani constitution remains today. But if this episode made anything clear, it was that the Bush administration had no interest whatsoever in defending the rights of a Christian prisoner in an Islamic state. American officials did nothing, after all, to prevent the approval of the constitution, despite its stipulation about Islamic law. If the American incursion into Afghanistan represented a modern-day Crusade or an exercise in evangelical Christian wish fulfillment, it was a singularly inept one.

In Iraq, likewise, the dire predicament of Christians facing jihadist persecution after the fall of Saddam Hussein demonstrated this point. If spreading Christianity was what Bush was after, he was doing a decidedly poor job of it...In Iraq, half the nation's prewar 700,000 Christians have fled the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein...Christian communities throughout the Middle East that date back to the dawn of Christianity are decreasing so much that they are on the verge of disappearing from the area altogether...Overall the Middle Eastern Christian population has dropped from 20 percent in 1900 to less than 2 percent today.

Spencer completes the first third of his book by highlighting another commonplace immoral equivalence espoused by assorted non-Muslim and Muslim apologists for Islam: comparing Pat Robertson and other Christian evangelical leaders, "despite the fact that they have killed no one and have no organization equivalent to Al Qaeda," and the handful of abortion clinic bombers, or murderers of physicians who perform abortions, to the legions of mass murdering global jihadists. The author contrasts the unequivocal, powerful denunciations of such isolated attacks on abortion clinics and their personnel, made by all major mainstream Christian denominations and their leaders, to the equivocal, elusive, and vaguely worded statements by Islamic organizations or religious bodies, and their clerical elites-domestic and international-who consistently refuse to condemn by name major Muslim entities responsible for heinous acts of murderous jihad terrorism, including Hamas, Hizbollah, and even Al Qaeda.

The remainder of this engaging, essential, and remarkably compendious work illuminates the profound theological (and philosophical) differences between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, and civilizations. With the same erudition, wit, and lucid, didactic presentation style characteristic of his previous books, Spencer adduces convincing contemporary and historical evidence to support the following main arguments:

* Based upon its earliest inception by Muhammad -- an unabashed 7th century military and political leader, the antithesis of the pacifist proselytizer Jesus -- through the present, jihad has been central to the thought and writings of prominent Muslim theologians and jurists. The precepts and regulations elucidated in the 7th through 9th centuries are immutable in the Muslim theological-juridical system, and they have remained essentially unchallenged by the majority of contemporary Muslims. The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Koranic revelation -- "the uncreated word of Allah". The Old Testament sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaan -- a limited domain -- it does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Old Testament, unlike the Koran, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Old Testament clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the world's pagan peoples, as, for example enjoined by Koran 9:5.

* In opposition to the Judeo-Christian conception of God as a God of reason, the Koran (5:64) makes clear that Allah's hand is unfettered -- he was not bound to govern the universe according to consistent and observable laws -- which has had profound implications for the (arrested) development of the natural sciences in Islamic societies, and Islamic ethics.

o Spencer cites Professor Rodney Stark's observation that Islam lacks "a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science...Allah is not presented as a lawful creator, but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy in that they deny Allah's freedom to act." Not surprisingly leading historians and sociologists of science have concluded "...it is indisputable" that modern science -- an organized, empirically directed effort to explain natural phenomena through theory construction and testing -- that modern science "emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else".

o Moreover, even notions about supposed Islamic contributions to pre-modern science and philosophy -- fostered by the triumphalism of the jihad conquests -- are purely mythical. Despite taking credit for the invention of algebra, the Arabs did no more than copy the treatises of Diophantus of Alexandria, who lived in the fourth century. The numerals commonly referred to as Arabic, and the system of notation which bears the same name, derive from Hindustan. The Arabs themselves called arithmetic "Indian reckoning," and geometry "Indian science" (hendesya). Arab knowledge of botany was obtained either from the treatises of Dioscorides, or from Hindu and Persian works. In chemistry, or rather alchemy, they were the pupils of the Alexandrian school. Djeber and Rhazes, the latter an Islamized Persian, did no more than copy the works of Alexandrian Hermetism. There is the same absence of invention regarding medicine. Greek physicians, from the third century of the Christian era, made their way into Persia, where they founded a celebrated school which soon became the rival of Alexandria. But earlier it was especially at Alexandria that Greek medicine emerged from empiricism and assumed a truly scientific character. Aaron, a Christian priest who lived at Alexandria in the seventh century, compiled and translated into Syriac the treatises of Galen, under the name of Pandects of Medicine. This Syriac version was translated into Arabic in 685, becoming a major source used by Arab physicians, most notably Serapion, Avicenna, Albucasis, and Averroes-whose own Koullyat is merely a translation of Galen. Rhazes best known work, the Kanoun, is a compilation of the treatises of Galen, from the Syriac versions. And the Arabs left the doctrines of Aristotle (and of the Jewish and Christian philosophers) just as they were transmitted to them by various non-Muslims-reproduced, but neither invented nor improved.

o Finally, the unique persistence of chattel slavery in Islamic societies, and both the brutal oppression of Muslim women (including widespread polygamy, wife beating, honor killings, and clitorectomy/genital mutilation), and non-Muslim minorities, are living testimony to the continued failed paradigm of "Islamic ethics", as sanctioned by the Shari'a-a seemingly immutable obstacle to modern conceptions of human rights, which evolved exclusively in Judeo-Christian societies.

Sword swallowers -- even when not suffering serious morbidity or death from their weird, dangerous vocation -- are prone to throat soreness, "sword throats", if their performances are oft-repeated. Abstinence from swallowing is the mainstay of treatment. The same therapy -- complete abstinence -- should be applied to contemporary sword swallowers for jihadism, so that they and the larger public who celebrate their performances finally awaken to the existential dangers posed by desensitization to the global jihad, and gag, collectively. Because, as Robert Spencer warns, it is indeed,

...but to state fact-a fact that many Muslims cheerfully and proudly avow. Christianity is a religion of peace, and it is a religion without a jihadist movement. Islam is a religion of the sword and there are, by even the most conservative estimates, more than one hundred million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia not only in the Islamic world, but in Europe and ultimately in the United States. And they will succeed, in time, if Westerners continue to delude themselves that Western civilization is uniquely responsible for the evil in the world, that Christianity is just as inherently violent as Islam, that all cultures are equal in their capacity to inspire magnanimity, nobility, generosity, and greatness of soul. This is a suicidal myth.

Whether one believes in Christianity or not, it is necessary now for all lovers of authentic freedom to acknowledge their debt to the Judeo-Christian West, to the Judeo-Christian assumptions that built Europe and the United States, and to acknowledge that this great civilization is imperiled and worth defending.

Security increased for Holy Land Foundation trial

More suspicious incidents. By Rebecca Lopez for WFAA:

DALLAS - Police are on high alert as the Holy Land Foundation trial continues in downtown Dallas.

The trial is centered around terrorism and The Holy Land Foundation, who is accused of funneling money to terrorist organizations. The department has a command post near the federal courthouse to watch for suspicious people.

"We evaluate continually everyday, and will be during the trial," said Deputy Chief Vince Golbeck, Dallas Police Department.

Several recent incidents prompted the Dallas Police Department and federal authorities to beef up security in some areas. Last week, police received information about a suspicious man who appeared to be Middle Eastern and was said to have been spotted checking out a TXU plant near downtown two days in a row.

"We are staying alert on those particular properties," Golbeck said.

Also, police said the lead U.S. attorney in the case, Jim Jacks, had his car vandalized at his home in North Dallas. However, there were also other cars in the neighborhood vandalized as well. But as a precaution, the U.S. Marshall's Office has stepped up security at Jacks' home.

Police said many of the tips are not terror related, but are checking everything, leaving nothing to chance.

"The majority of these things we are going to be very conservative, very thorough to track down any kind of intel that comes to us like that," Golbeck said.

Shock Horror! Abbas Seeks Unity With Hamas, Breaking Promise to US Congressmen!

Not that this will change anything. And anyone who is actually shocked by it is believing too much mainstream media propaganda. "Abbas Seeks Unity With Hamas, Breaking Promise to US Congressmen," by Ezra HaLevi for Israel National News (thanks to all who sent this in):

(IsraelNN.com) Just days after promising US lawmakers that his Fatah movement would not reconcile with Hamas, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is inviting the Islamist movement to kiss and make up.

Abbas called on Hamas to “return to national unity” following his meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso Wednesday. "The split that happened as a result of Hamas's coup is temporary and will be removed," Abbas said. Hamas welcomed Abbas’s statements and invited him to negotiations in Gaza.

Friday Spencer radio rounds

Tomorrow I'm scheduled to discuss my new book Religion of Peace? on these shows:

All times PDT:

4:15 AM Troy Neff Morning Show WCWA

6:00 AM Chris DiBello Show WNNJ

7:35 AM Kirby Wilbur KVI

8:00 AM Charles Goyette Show KFNX

9:00 AM Bloggers' Conference

10:00 AM Spirit Morning Show KVSS

10:35 AM Bob Dutko Show WMUZ

12:05 PM Jeff Katz Show WBT

3:00 PM Viewpoints WTKF

CAIR whines about being an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case

They might have thought of the difficulty it would cause them before conspiring. But if they succeed in intimidating the Justice Department into taking them off the list, they will have won a major victory.

"Muslim Groups Oppose a List of ‘Co-Conspirators,’" by Neil MacFarquhar for the New Duranty Times, aka the New York Times:

Two prominent Muslim American organizations took steps yesterday to reverse what they called a Justice Department effort to smear the entire Muslim community by naming some of its largest organizations as unindicted co-conspirators in a Texas terrorism trial.

The National Association of Muslim Lawyers, which is not named, sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales objecting to the list, which it said breached the department’s own guidelines against releasing the names of unindicted co-conspirators and did not serve any clear law enforcement purpose.

The letter, also signed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, said the “overreaching list” of more than 300 organizations and individuals would further cripple charitable donations to Muslim organizations and could ratchet up the discrimination faced by American Muslims since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In addition, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which is on the list, announced that it would file a brief today asking Judge A. Joe Fish of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to remove its name and all others from the list.

The brief, a copy of which was released yesterday, says the list furthers a pattern of the “demonization of all things Muslim” that has unrolled in the United States since 2001.

“Most people don’t understand what an unindicted co-conspirator is,” said Parvez Ahmed, CAIR’s board chairman, adding that the release of the list prompted death threats and hate mail against the council. “They think that being related to a terrorism case means we are terrorists.”

No, it means being related to a terrorism case.

"son of a hundred million fathers"

This message, with the subject line "yo punk," came in this morning:

check out

www.jewwatch.com

you m----- f------ c--- s------ son of a hundred million fathers. you know damn well that jesus and moses taught islam but your just anothr racist

Feel the love.

Abdullah Al-Muhajir (José Padilla) guilty on terror charges

Guilty. "Padilla Is Convicted in Terrorism Case," by Curt Anderson for Associated Press:

MIAMI (AP) - Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to stop homegrown terror.

The Chicago native was once accused of being part of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the U.S., but those allegations were not part of his trial with two co-defendants.

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke set a Dec. 5 sentencing date for all three defendants.

The three were accused of being part of a North American support cell that provided supplies, money and recruits to groups of Islamic extremists. The defense contended they were just trying to help persecuted Muslims in war zones with relief and humanitarian aid.

[...]

Padilla had lived in South Florida in the 1990s and was supposedly recruited by Hassoun at a Broward County mosque to become a mujahedeen fighter.

The key piece of physical evidence was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, which would link the other two defendants as well to Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

The form, recovered by the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, contains seven of Padilla's fingerprints and several other personal identifiers, such as his birthdate and abilities to speak Spanish, English and Arabic.

Padilla's lawyers insisted the form was far from conclusive and denied that he was a "star recruit," as prosecutors claimed, of the support cell intending to become a terrorist. Padilla's attorneys said he traveled to Egypt in September 1998 to learn Islam more deeply and become fluent in Arabic.

In imams' suit, status of 'John Does' in dispute

Are the Flying Imams suing the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior, or aren't they? Perhaps Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, which supports this suit (the Imams' attorney was as of 2006 a leader of CAIR-NY), could clear this up for us, if he can take time out from defaming me long enough to look into it. A Flying Imams Update from the indefatigable Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times:

A legal squabble in a lawsuit brought by Muslim imam passengers is escalating among lawyers over the question of who is being sued over their removal from a flight last year.

"John Doe" passengers are named as parties in the litigation for reporting suspicious behavior of the six men, which led to their removal from the flight. Employees of U.S. Airways and a Minneapolis airport are also targets of the lawsuit now proceeding through a federal court.

One of the attorneys representing the six Muslim men says they do not intend to pursue the passengers in litigation, but the Becket Fund, which is aiding the defendants in the case, says "John Doe" passengers remain listed as a party to the lawsuit and are still targets of the litigation.

Frederick J. Goetz, the imams' attorney in Minnesota, said the passengers are no longer included in the lawsuit, and referenced a footnote in one motion of several he filed on Aug. 2. The footnote says, "Plaintiffs also agree to strike paragraphs 21 and 22 of the first amended complaint and the dismissal of the parties named therein" — the paragraphs that identify unknown "John Doe" passengers who reported some of the imams' activities to flight attendants.

"The issue is moot. I don't know why [the Becket Fund] is grandstanding," Mr. Goetz told The Washington Times.

Pat Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, said its attorneys have not been alerted that the passengers have been released from the lawsuit filed on March 12.

Fitzgerald: Is it illegitimate to defend ourselves?

Islam is an all-encompassing belief-system. It is quite different from those other monotheisms which, for obvious reasons while they are still a small group in the West, Muslims like to have "so very much" in common -- that "three abrahamic faiths" pitch that once went over well, but nowadays appears to attract only the most muddle-headed or those who, while supposedly being Christian or Jewish clergymen, have brought their art of self-preening or cravenness to such a level that they become Defenders of the Faith, that Faith being Islam.

But Infidels can no longer be stopped. Once they begin to realize that the texts of Islam are not hermetic, and can be studied, they will study them. Once they realize that a knowledge of classical Arabic is not essential to learning about Islam, not least because 80% of the world’s Muslims know not a bit of Arabic, classical or otherwise, and that even many Arabs have difficulty understanding classical Arabic and certainly the text of the Qur’an (see Christoph Luxenberg on the 20% of the Qur’an that is inexplicable, in his view, until one recognizes an Ur-text of Syriac -- that is, the Aramaic of Edessa), they will dare to open them. So Infidels are now free to read the immutable texts of Islam -- Qur'an, hadith, and Sira -- read, and reread, and study with growing understanding, but not necessarily growing delight or pleasure. They can find out about the interpretative doctrine of “naskh” or “abrogation,” by which -- as in the common law -- the texts deemed later cancel out, or abrogate, the texts deemed to have been set down earlier. And those later texts, presumably from the “Medinan” period of Muhammad’s existence, are far harsher than the softer, “Meccan” verses from the period when Islam was still weak.

Infidels can do so many things. They can find out, as apparently George Bush was incapable of finding out or being told, why Qur’an 5.32 cannot conceivably be understood without the context of the succeeding verse, 5.33. They can learn the real meaning, the meaning that Islam and Muslims assign to the seemingly benign Qur’anic observation that “there is no compulsion in religion.” They can find out what is Halal and what Haram in Islam. They can find out what Muslims are taught to think of sculpture, of paintings depicting living creatures, of music. They can find out what Muslims think of free and skeptical inquiry, and of the possibility of someone born into Islam being permitted to choose for himself whether to remain a Muslim, or to abandon that faith for another, or for no faith at all. They can find out. They can find out the details of Muhammad’s life, and consider what is the likely effect of those details on Muslims who are taught to regard Muhammad, a warrior who took part in 78 military campaigns, 77 of them offensive, as the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man -- uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil -- for all Muslims, and for all time. Consider the implications of that in light of the beheading of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the satisfaction taken when he heard of the assassinations of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan, the “treaty-making model” of Al Hudaibiyyah, and of course the business with little Aisha.

The Qur’anic text is available online, a click away, with several different translations set out synoptically. Much of the Hadith is too, and so is the Sira. More and more studies by the great Western students of Islam, from the period of genuinely free and uninhibited study, roughly 1860 to 1960, are being gathered into sourcebooks (such as Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad) or republished (especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions). More and more people have uncovered what the Great of the Past had to say about Islam, writing as they did in a period when no punches had to be pulled, and one could speak or write one’s mind. What did that great religious reformer John Wesley write about Islam? And the most learned of nineteenth-century American statesmen, John Quincy Adams? What did that wise student of men and events, Alexis De Tocqueville, write about Islam, based on his wide knowledge, including his observations in Algeria? What did Gladstone have to say about the Turks, and about their role in Europe, and about the Bulgarian Wars? What did Winston Churchill, with his knowledge of history, say about Muslims and Islam?

And above all, we know have the phenomenon of “defectors” from Islam, the apostates from Islam, who in the Western world are no longer fearful, and are willing to speak from their own lifetimes of experience of being born into Islam and then choosing to abandon it, some for Christianity (Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish), and some to be resolute freethinkers, such as Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, and so many more. Some have been Iranians, some Pakistanis, some Arabs, some from still other backgrounds. Muslim spokesmen would prefer that you pay as little attention to these keen observers as possible, and attempt on every occasion to shut them up or shout them down. But up or down, those Muslim spokesmen and enforcers have not succeeded, for when someone such as Ibn Warraq writes Why I Am Not a Muslim and Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes her own stirring testimony in Infidel, or when Ali Sina, with a growing army of fellow apostates, conducts his own lucid campaign from the heights of www.faithfreedom.org, Muslims in this country cannot, as they would in a minute in a Muslim country, shut such efforts down. Thus we, the Infidels, are the beneficiaries of such valuable witnesses, such indispensable temoignage.

It seems a century ago that we were willing to engage in those phony “dialogues” which always end up being sinister apologies for Islam, with the non-Muslim clergymen willingly or unwillingly inveigled into participating into a farce of supposedly symmetrical fault-finding, a farce that relies heavily on Infidel ignorance of Islam, and willingness to assume that if some belief-system is called a “religion” then of course it must be a force for good, must be beyond criticism, and only that “handful of extremists” are not good. But “extreme” about what? If Islam is in its essence so unthreatening, so peaceful, so tolerant, so good, then why should someone who is fanatically in favor of that something good be a threat to Infidels?

Those “interfaith candlelight ceremonies” that were all the rage just after 9/11/2001 ring hollow today, especially with the list of all those Muslim clerics who appeared to utter all kinds of soothing words, and then were discovered in the past, or at the same time, or later on, to have been heard, even recorded, making quite different statements when they thought no non-Muslims were around. It has been quite a revelation, too, to discover the Islamic websites that counsel Muslims in how to talk to Infidels, telling exactly the things that should be said and the topics that should be carefully avoided, even explaining that one should “let the Sisters talk” if the subject is Islam and the Treatment of Women. And there are those Muslim websites that inform parents just how to wangle special treatment -- prayer rooms and suchlike -- from teachers and principals. It’s down to a science, all written out. And eventually someone is going to put all that advice for fellow Muslims together, and publish it, but as a warning to, and for the edification of, Infidels.

No Infidels need any longer accept the word of tireless apologists as to what those texts say, or what their "meaning" is, especially when we have all been treated to example after example of Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya, sometimes by omission, sometimes by deliberate misinterpretation for the limitlessly naive. Furthermore, we have the long historical record of Jihad-conquest, and the texts, written by Muslims themselves, on the subject of the necessity of Jihad, and the rules of Jihad -- here again, see Bostom's sourcebook, The Legacy of Jihad. We have 1350 years of such a record, and are entitled to study that record, from Spain in the west to what is present-day Indonesia in the east. We can study how non-Muslim populations slowly or quickly were reduced in size: what happened to the Copts of Egypt? What happened to the Jews and Armenians under Shah Abbas II in Iran? What happened to the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula? What happened to the Christians of North Africa, where Tertullian and St. Augustine once lived? What happened to the Hindus of India under Muslim rule? Was it all wonderful, or is there reason to think that K. S. Lal and other Indian historians are right in their claim that between 60 and 70 million Hindus lost their lives? What was the historical record of Arab Muslims and slavery in Black Africa? Splendid? A tale of Muslim Wilberforces, long predating the English one? When was slavery formerly abolished in Arabia, and why? And is there any evidence of the continuance of slavery in Arab Muslim countries? And is there any evidence that Muslim scholars today have written about the continuing, indeed permanent, legitimacy of slavery, because it was recognized and accepted by Muhammad?

And these are not the only questions that need to be examined, studied, discussed. One wishes to know what happened to the Hindus of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why did their numbers in the populations of those countries drop so precipitously, while the Muslim population of India has gone up, both relatively and absolutely? What has happened to Buddhists in southern Thailand, and why? What happened to the Christians of East Timor under Muslim rule? What has been happening to the Christians of the Moluccas? Or Iraq? Or Lower Egypt? Or in Lebanon over the past fifty years? What has happened to the French peres blancs and the Italian monks who tried to help the Muslims of Algeria, and for their pains were murdered? What is that history all about? What happened to the Armenians, and why was it that when Turks and Kurds killed those Armenians, they took pleasure in calling them "gavours" (Infidels), and were delighted if Armenian priests and their wives were among the victims, as recorded by eyewitnesses?

And here is yet another question that needs to be considered, to be discussed, to be pondered and not only in the corridors of power. What are the instruments of Jihad? Bush has focused quite monomaniacally on "terror" -- as if he cannot bring himself to see the use of the Money Weapon, carefully-targeted campaigns of Da'wa, and of course a demographic conquest that has been openly discussed by Muslims. It has been discussed by Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974, and by mild-mannered Pakistani accountants in the letters pages of "Dawn" (see that for December 5, 2001 for example). There are Muslim websites where these developments are openly discussed -- as they are by all kinds of Muslim posters at this (see "Naseem") and other websites.

Is it illegitimate for inhabitants of the Western or larger non-Muslim world to study these matters, and to raise these issues? Why? Is it illegitimate to discuss the proposition that one has a perfect right to defend the legal and political institutions that one's own society has received as a legacy, that others before one helped to create, over time, and that in every respect are flatly contradicted by what Islam inculcates? Is the individualism of the West, are our individual rights, those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be simply swept away, or to be subject to incessant attack by the adherents of a collectivist faith who do not believe in free speech, or in freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave one faith for another, or to have no faith at all? Are these illegitimate questions?

And is it illegitimate to point out how frequently in history states and peoples have felt it necessary to expel others in their midst, and that it is a bit hasty to denounce all such efforts (though many certainly should be denounced), especially when one considers the reasons, the historical context, of the Benes Decree, which was adduced not as a model to follow, but as a case to study and ponder?

We in the West have an obligation to defend a civilizational legacy, even if many of us, individually, have not exactly proved ourselves worthy of it. And that includes considering measures that others have undertaken, to see if they provide lessons, any lessons at all, for us at this point in our endangered history.

And that is hardly illegitimate. It is the very least we should ask of ourselves, and of those who presume to "lead" us, or rather, in the cant of this cant-filled age, presume to "take a leadership role." Many people in this country have gone far beyond their so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, in their understanding of Islam. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing.

NYPD warns of homegrown threat

As far as one can tell from this article, there is not that much useful information in this report, except for a restatement of possible outward signs of radicalization among Muslims living in the West. But the article then takes a contradictory turn as the report shifts its focus to how easy it is for jihadists to blend in when they choose to do so (as the al-Qaeda playbook suggests).

This, along with the assumption that the Internet is the source of "radicalizing" material, implies a limited set of tools for understanding the jihad ideology, for outward appearance and Internet habits are only the tip of an iceberg they still dare not examine for connections to Islamic texts and teachings older than the Internet or al-Qaeda.

"NYPD warns of homegrown terror threat," by Tom Hays for the Associated Press:

NEW YORK - They preferred bookstores or hookah bars to mosques. They stopped listening to pop music and instead surfed Web sites promoting radical Islam. They threw away their baseball caps and grew beards.

There are many reasons they may seem to eschew mosque attendance. For one, they may congregate privately.

New York Police Department intelligence analysts have concluded those were some of the telltale signs of homegrown terrorists in the making -- a mounting threat as grave as that from established terrorist groups like al-Qaida.

An NYPD report released Wednesday warns of a "radicalization" process in which young men -- otherwise unremarkable legal immigrants from the Middle East -- grow disillusioned with life in America and adopt a philosophy that puts them on the path to jihad.

"Hopefully, the better we're informed about this process, the more likely we'll be to detect and disrupt it," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said while presenting the findings at a briefing of private security executives at police headquarters.

The findings drew swift criticism from Arab-American civil rights groups, which accused the NYPD of stereotyping and of contradicting recent federal warnings that the chief terrorism threat remains foreign.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said federal authorities "appreciate efforts to better understand the phenomenon of radicalization."

"We are fortunate that radicalization seems to have less appeal in the U.S. than in other parts of the world," he said, "but we do not believe that America is immune to homegrown terrorism."

The FBI declined to comment.

Police officials said the study is based on an analysis of a series of domestic plots thwarted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including those in Lackawanna; Portland, Ore.; and Virginia. It was prepared by senior analysts with the NYPD Intelligence Division who traveled to Hamburg, Germany; Madrid; and other overseas spots to confer with authorities about similar cases.

The report found that homegrown terrorists often were indoctrinated in local "radicalization incubators" that are "rife with extremist rhetoric."

Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be "cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores," the report says.

The Internet also provides "the wandering mind of the conflicted young Muslim or potential convert with direct access to unfiltered radical and extremist ideology."

The report warns that potential terrorists are difficult for law enforcers to detect because they blend in well with society. It also argues that more intelligence gathering is needed to thwart potential terror plots at their earliest stages.

Potential homegrown terrorists "are not on the law enforcement radar," the study says. "Most have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble."

They "look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them," the study adds. "In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mind-set, intention and commitment to conduct jihad."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the NYPD analysts of distorting the innocent behavior of observant Muslims.

"Is Islamic attire or giving up bad habits ... now to be regarded as suspicious behavior?" asked the group's chairman, Parvez Ahmed.

Here, Ahmed and CAIR unwittingly offer a stronger affirmation of the fact that jihadists are devout Muslims than anything mentioned above about baseball caps, beards, and music.

How to be a jihadi: Taliban's training secrets

"In a situation where infidels and their crooks are ruling the world, it is the prime duty of all the Muslims to take arms and crush those who are bent upon crushing the Muslims throughout the world."

By Isambard Wilkinson and Ashraf Ali for the Telegraph (thanks to Davida):

The Taliban has published its first military field manual detailing how to spring ambushes, run spies and conduct an insurgency against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

At 144 pages, Military Teachings - for the Preparation of Mujahideen, is a minutely detailed "how to" book on subjects ranging from tactics and weapons to building training camps and spycraft.

The guide, which is similar in its aims to British and American military field manuals, was obtained by The Daily Telegraph from a source in Pakistan who claimed to be close to the Taliban. Its cover bears the image of two crossed swords and the Koran, the arms of the Taliban's ousted government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The Qur'an? But don't they know they're hijacking that book of peace?

The book, written in the Pashto language, "will soon be made available to the commanders in Afghanistan as well as its adjacent tribal areas in Pakistan", the source said. He added that copies of the manual had been circulated to the Pakistani tribal area of Bajaur. Its publication highlights the extent of the Taliban's revival six years after it was deposed by a US-led invasion.

"This is the first of its kind and shows a significant level of organisation," said Brigadier Mahmood Shah, a retired military intelligence officer who was in charge of security in the tribal areas.

Brig Shah said "soft" Pakistani government policy towards the pro-Taliban militants had allowed them to flourish in the lawless ethnic Pashtun tribal areas that straddle the Afghan-Pakistani border....

Its preface sets out the Taliban's justification for war: "In a situation where infidels and their crooks are ruling the world, it is the prime duty of all the Muslims to take arms and crush those who are bent upon crushing the Muslims throughout the world.

"This is the best time to take on the usurpers and occupants of our holy land. They should be killed, slaughtered and destroyed."

It sets out to convince women and children to join the Taliban with verses from the Koran.

"In this situation the children are not bound to seek the permission of their parents; a woman should go to jihad without the permission of her husband, a slave without the permission of his master, a student without the permission of his teacher, could go to jihad. And this is totally applicable in the prevailing situation where the infidels have occupied the land of the Muslims in Afghanistan," it states.

This is in accord with the Islamic legal principle that if a Muslim land is attacked, defensive jihad becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on every believer. Then the manual disposes of the contention that jihad can only legimately be called by the state authority. This is the kind of argument that Islamic spokesmen in the West never address -- and by ignoring it, demonstrate how little they actually do to resist the jihad ideology.

It addresses the question of prosecuting jihad without one's ruler's permission, making a veiled reference to Pakistan's president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. "Islam does not allow a person, group or an entity to announce jihad, without the permission of the ruler of the day (Khalifa)." However, it states "if a Khalifa is a puppet of the infidels, then there is no need to seek his permission for jihad."

The manual also plays on the heightened Pashtun sense of virility. "Jihad is a man's job. Those lacking qualities of being a man cannot do jihad."

Military students are advised to run spy networks drawn from political prisoners, "criminals, especially murderers", beggars, hairdressers and "international visitors - players, filmmakers, artists etc".

"Is it fair to slaughter enemy spies?" it asks. The answer it gives, perhaps unsurprisingly, is yes.

Islamic Charity Drops Suit Against Terrorism Analyst

Legal intimidation fails again. "Charity Drops Suit Against Terrorism Analyst," by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun (thanks to Davida):

A children's charity that funnels money to Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, Kinder USA, has dropped a libel suit it brought against a prominent terrorism analyst who suggested that the group was funding a terrorist organization, Hamas.

In April, Kinder USA, formally known as Kids in Need of Development, Education, and Relief, Inc., sued Matthew Levitt over a brief passage about the group in his book, "Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad."

The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, also named the book's publisher, Yale University Press, and Mr. Levitt's employer from 2001 to 2005, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

On Tuesday, Kinder USA moved to withdraw the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

"I conducted three years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the subject of academic peer review," Mr. Levitt said in a statement issued yesterday by the Washington Institute, which he returned to this year after a stint as a top Treasury Department official. "I am pleased that this suit has been dismissed with prejudice, vindicating my free speech rights."

In the passage that led to the suit, Mr. Levitt wrote: "Even after the closure of the Holy Land Foundation in 2001, other America-based charities continue to fund Hamas. One organization that has appeared to rise out of the ashes of the HLFRD is Kinder USA."

[...]

"We view this early, voluntary, and full dismissal as a complete victory," the executive director of the Washington Institute, Robert Satloff, said. The defendants said no payments or promises were made to Kinder USA. Mr. Levitt, a former terrorism analyst for the FBI, lectures widely on terrorism financing issues. Last month, he testified at a criminal trial in which federal prosecutors have accused officers of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation of being a front for Hamas.

Former Guard Accused Of Hiding Muslim Ties

He allegedly hid them when applying for a job at...Andrews Air Force Base.

By Dan Morse for the Washington Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

On April 19, 2005, Darrick Jackson completed an application to work as a private security guard at an entrance gate to Andrews Air Force Base.

"Have you ever used or been known by another name?" he was asked in the second of 20 queries.

"No," Jackson answered.

He got the job.

Federal prosecutors now allege that Jackson intentionally withheld his Muslim name, Abdul-Jalil Mohammad, to conceal a connection to a controversial imam in Southeast Washington. Jackson, 37, who is no longer in the civilian job, has been charged with making a false statement, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

In a pretrial hearing scheduled for today, prosecutors are expected to argue that they should be permitted to present evidence at trial that they say links Jackson to extremist views. The evidence includes speeches in which the imam wishes for the U.S. government's collapse, essays posted on Jackson's MuslimSpace Web page and a mosque directory listing Jackson as the head of security.

But Jackson's lawyers say he thought it was a question about maiden names. Why he thinks an interviewer would ask him is maiden name is left unexplained:

Jackson's attorneys argue that he believed the question applied to maiden names for female applicants and that the omission was at worst an innocent mistake. They say that Jackson has never advocated violence toward the United States, that his religious and political views are irrelevant to the case and that airing them before a jury would deprive him of his right to a fair trial.

"In these times in our country, the mere suggestion that a defendant may be a terrorist sympathizer is extraordinarily prejudicial," John Chamble, one of Jackson's attorneys, wrote in a court filing last month.

of course is, Chamble.

In addition, the defense alleges that authorities built the case to goad Jackson into giving up information on the imam, who claimed in an interview that the FBI has been watching him for four decades....

Abdul Alim Musa, 62, is the outspoken imam at the mosque, Masjid al-Islam. In public statements, Musa has called Jews cowards, denounced the United States as the most criminal government in the world and lauded suicide bombers as heroes. He has praised Hezbollah and Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and advocated the creation of an Islamic state in the United States by 2050.

Radio Religion of Peace? for Thursday

Tomorrow, before an important evening appointment with Mr. Gin and Mr. Tonic, I'll be discussing my new book Religion of Peace? on these radio programs:

All times PDT:

4:00 AM Bill Bennett's Morning In America (nationally syndicated)

4:30 AM Steve Kane WWNN

5:00 AM 1440 KEYS Morning Show

6:15 AM Fox's Morning Blend KOLE

7:05 AM Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan KSFO

7:40 AM Progressive News Weekly with Jimmy Andruszkewicz

8:00 AM Tom Marr WCBM

8:33 AM Greg Allen The Right Balance

1:00 PM Janet Parshall's America (syndicated)

2:44 PM Drive Time with Roy Brassfield WKCT

CAIR defames me, Jihad Watch yet again

CAIR is so bent on defaming me that it has resorted to lying about me on national television, endorsing ludicrous libelous screeds full of fevered fictions fashioned by felons, and siccing its lawyers (who also defamed me) on a group that dared to have me speak even before I had said a word.

And now we have this from CAIR's "American Muslim News Briefs" for today. In it, CAIR asks me some questions. Unlike Ibrahim Hooper, who hung up on me when I tried to ask him questions, I will answer them:

ROBERT SPENCER'S WEBSITE SUPPORTS EXPULSION OF EUROPE'S MUSLIMS - TOP http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017779.php

QUESTIONS FOR ROBERT SPENCER:

1. IS IT 'JIHAD WATCH' OR 'DER STÜRMER'?

It's Jihad Watch.

2. WHO IS THE MYSTERIOUS 'HUGH FITZGERALD'?

Vice President of the Jihad Watch Board and Jihad Watch columnist.

3. DOES ROBERT SPENCER CALL FOR A SIMILAR EXPULSION OF U.S. MUSLIMS?

Since Hugh Fitzgerald did not call for the expulsion of all European Muslims, but only raises the question of what is to be done about -- as you can see from the excerpt below -- "jihadists and Sharia supremacists," the question itself is manipulative and leading, rather like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Hugh hasn't done what they say he has, so I can hardly do something "similar." In any case, no, I don't support the expulsion of U.S. Muslims.

Here is the excerpt CAIR quotes from Hugh's article:

In 1970 there were 15,000 Muslims in the Netherlands. There are now one million. They are causing now, and they have caused, a situation for the indigenous Dutch (and of course for other, but non-Muslim immigrants, such as Vietnamese Buddhists, Hindus from India and even Indonesia, and Chinese of Confucian or Christian or other persuasion) that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would be without that quite unwelcome, quite unnecessary, and deeply dangerous Muslim presence. That presence is one that the Muslims themselves recognize as being one behind what they are taught to regard, and most do regard, as enemy lines, the lines of the Infidels.

Those countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands that pride themselves on their easygoing tolerance ought to realize that it is a false tolerance, even a diseased tolerance, to continue to tolerate in one's midst a permanent danger to real -- i.e., Western -- tolerance. Western tolerance is based on the Western enshrinement of individual rights. That does not include tolerating those who cling tenaciously to a doubly totalitarian Belief System, that offers a Complete Regulation of Life, and a geopolitical plan that justifies, by any instruments available and effective (and not merely qitaal, or combat, or its variant "terrorism"), the removal of all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam everywhere, and everywhere a situation where Muslims rule.

Benes and Masaryk were wise, tolerant, advanced statesmen, two who belonged to an older and better educated generation. They had no hesitation in implementing the Benes Decree(s) of 1946, and in banishing the Sudeten Germans who had proved to be such a threat. For them, for the Czechs, Germany lay prostrate, but they were not about to take another chance. And no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral -- save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war.

Why should the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, and the other countries of Europe not recognize a similar permanent danger in their midst, in the presence of jihadists and Sharia supremacists? And if Germany was prostrate in 1946, the world of Islam is hardly prostrate today. Rather, it feels itself stronger than ever, thanks to that ten trillion dollars in OPEC money received since 1973, along with all the aid, a disguised Jizyah, that is received, almost as tribute, by Muslim states and nascent statelets that have no oil or gas, but are able to count on the foreign aid that the Infidels provide.

Study the threats, and the intelligent response to recognized threats, in the not-so-distant past.

And now, since CAIR is asking questions, I have a few questions for CAIR:

1. Hugh wrote that the presence of jihadists and Sharia supremacists was a danger to non-Muslims in Europe, and that in recent memory a Western government had used expulsions without genocide or international opprobrium. This was presented in the manner of question, not a recommendation -- he nowhere says about the Benes Decree, "Let us do as they did." Does CAIR want jihadists and Sharia supremacists to remain in Europe? If so, for what purpose? Does CAIR wish to state on the record that a nation has no right under any circumstances to expel those whom it has determined are a risk to national security?

2. Hugh wrote that European countries should recognize the danger of jihadists and Sharia supremacists in their midst. But CAIR mischaracterized this in its Defamation Brief as a call to expel all Muslims from Europe. Is CAIR then saying that all Muslims are jihadists and Sharia supremacists?

3. Hugh referred to the Benes Decree, which was a post-World War II step by the government of Czechoslovakia to expel ethnic Germans from the country, as part of attempts to ensure that there would be no recrudescence of the Nazi exploitation of those ethnic Germans -- which had led under Hitler to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the loss of its sovereignty. The Benes Decree was not protested or condemned by anyone -- not the UN, not the US, not the Soviets. Is CAIR thus putting itself on record as opposing postwar anti-Nazi efforts by the Czech government? And if so, isn't that ironic in light of CAIR's defamatory attempt to link Jihad Watch to the Nazis, above?

4. The expulsion of large numbers of people for national security reasons, and large-scale population exchanges, have numerous historical precedents. The Benes Decree was just one of many post-World War II dislocations of peoples. Another was the massive population exchange of Hindus and Muslims that accompanied the creation of what are today known as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Does CAIR oppose the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh? Does CAIR oppose the later expulsion, in all cases for stated reasons of national security, of 400,000 Palestinians by Kuwait, more Palestinians by Libya, and one million Yemenis by Saudi Arabia? Does CAIR believe that the UN and international human rights bodies were wrong not to oppose or condemn most of these large-scale measures?

Then there were the expulsion of Egyptians by Iraq; the expulsion of Moroccans by Algeria and Algerians by Morocco; the expulsion of Egyptians (as well as the already mentioned Palestinians) by Libya when Libya and Egypt were at loggerheads; and any number of smaller, unreported expulsions. Arabs have behaved this way toward non-Arab Muslims, moving them about at a government's whim, and subjecting them to pressures that would cause them to leave the country. Look at what happened to the non-Arab Kurds of Iraq, about whom not a single Arab Muslim state or spokesman uttered a syllable of sympathy. Look at the mass murder of the black African -- i.e., non-Arab -- Muslims of Darfur, with, again, not a syllable of sympathy. Not a single expression of horror by the Arab League or any Arab state or Muslim Arab group. Would CAIR care to make such an expression?

5. What is the exact nature of CAIR's relationship with the terrorist group Hamas? Is there active collaboration between the two organizations? What did Ibrahim Hooper mean when he said that CAIR doesn't support Hamas and Hizballah publicly? Does CAIR support them privately? What is the nature of this support? Does this have anything to do with CAIR officials' repeated refusal to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups?

That should do it for now. Once you get those done, Ibrahim, feel free to ask me more questions, and I will cheerfully answer them. I may also have a few more for you.

Spencer on the Laura Ingraham Show

With Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society.

Listen here.

(Thanks to Bryan Preston.)

Islamic opposition to free speech in the U.S.

You've heard about the murder of Chauncey Bailey, and some recent incidents of nonviolent intimidation. You probably haven't heard about the author who was shouted down at a reading in New York City for daring to affirm the reality of the Armenian genocide. You probably haven't heard about the UN genocide exhibit that was censored for mentioning the same thing.

Political Mavens has the details (thanks to Hal).

Shocker: Muslim American Society chief admits that Spencer quotes Qur'an accurately!

I was just on the Laura Ingraham Show with Dr. Esam Omeish, President of the Muslim American Society. Toward the end of the show, after I had quoted (with citations) a few Qur'an verses, Ingraham asked Omeish, "Is Spencer misquoting the Qur'an?" Omeish said no, I wasn't. (I'll see if I can get hold of an mp3 of the whole thing.)

Now, this is extraordinary, especially coming on the heels of CAIR's false and defamatory charges against me. Will Ibrahim Hooper call Omeish in for a friendly heart-to-heart? Better yet, will American Muslim advocacy groups actually begin to formulate new ways for Muslims to understand the passages I quoted and others, so as to stymie jihadist use of these passages to gain recruits and justify their actions among peaceful Muslims?

I won't be holding my breath.

India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

After she was assaulted by thuggish Islamic "scholars." From the CBC (thanks to WriterMom):

Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen will face criminal charges in India after being accused of stirring up religious enmity.

The charges come after Nasreen was attacked at a publication party because of opposition to a translation of her latest book, Shodh, in Hyderabad last week. Several lawmakers and members of a conservative Muslim political party threw flowers and other items at her and called for her death.

They threw flowers, eh? They threw a leather case at her and threatened her with a chair. And yes, flowers.

Nasreen, author of Wild Wind and Shame, is an exile from her native Bangladesh because of a fatwa against her and a threat by the government to lay charges stemming from her writing.

She lived in Sweden and France for several years, but moved to India in 2002.

In articles and books, she writes about the poor treatment of Hindus in mostly Muslim Bangladesh, and rape and mistreatment of women in Muslim societies. A police official in Hyderabad said Nasreen had been charged with "hurting Muslim feelings," according to Agence France Presse.

Under Indian law, promoting "disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will" between religious groups is punishable by up to three years in jail.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees aided Islamic jihadists

In identification fraud schemes and more. "U.S. agents accused of aiding Islamist scheme," by Sara Carter for the Washington Times (thanks to Alan):

A criminal investigations report says several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are accused of aiding Islamic extremists with identification fraud and of exploiting the visa system for personal gain.

The confidential 2006 USCIS report said that despite the severity of the potential security breaches, most are not investigated "due to lack of resources" in the agency's internal affairs department.

"Two District Adjudications Officers are allegedly involved with known (redacted) Islam terrorist members," said the internal document obtained by The Washington Times.

The group "was responsible for numerous robberies and used the heist money to fund terrorist activities. The District Adjudications Officers made numerous DHS database queries to track (Alien)-File movement and check on the applicants' status for (redacted) members and associates."

According to the document, other potential security failures include reports that:

Employees are sharing detailed information on internal security measures with people outside the agency.

A Lebanese citizen bribed an immigration officer with airline tickets for visa benefits.

A USCIS officer in Harlington, Texas, sold immigration documents for $10,000 to as many as 20 people.

A USCIS employee, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, said many of the complaints in the multipage document are as many as three years old.

"Terrorists need immigration documents to embed in our society and work here without raising alarm bells," said the employee.

"Whether through bribing an immigration officer, an employee with the department of motor vehicles, or utilizing highly effective counterfeit documents produced by the Mexican drug cartels. They are always looking for that documentation to live amongst us."...

Last week, The Times disclosed a confidential DEA report substantiating the link between Islamic extremists and Mexican drug cartels. The 2005 DEA report states that Middle Eastern operatives, in U.S. sleeper cells, are working in conjunction with the cartels to fund terrorist organizations overseas. Several lawmakers promised congressional hearings based on the information disclosed in the DEA documents.

The DEA report also stated that Middle Eastern extremists living in the U.S. — who speak Spanish, Arabic and Hebrew fluently — are posing as Hispanic nationals.

USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez in March told Congress that he could not establish how many terror suspects or persons of special interest have been granted immigration benefits....

US to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "specially designated global terrorist"

1938 Alert: "Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist': U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard," by Robin Wright for the Washington Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

Muslim Brotherhood Phonebook Confirms that Muslim American Society is Brotherhood's Baby

At 8:15 AM PDT today I'm scheduled to debate Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society on the Laura Ingraham Show, which I have done before, so I thought that some might find this report illuminating -- the MAS is a Muslim Brotherhood entity, and the Muslim Brotherhood is the direct forefather of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, as well as a leading proponent of the Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia imperative.

"Muslim Brotherhood Phonebook Confirms that MAS is Brotherhood's Baby," by The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT):

As the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) continued today, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that a phonebook found at the home of Ismail Elbarrasse - un-indicted co-conspirator and former assistant to HAMAS leader Musa Abu Marzook - listed the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. On the first page of the phonebook under the title “Members of the Board of Directors” were fifteen names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani: the founding incorporators of the Muslim American Society (MAS).

This evidence confirms Counterterrorism Blog contributor Matthew Levitt’s expert testimony that MAS is the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, and is substantiated by a 2003 Chicago Tribune article that outlined the history of MAS.

Ahmad Elkadi, who told the Chicago Tribune that he was the leader of the Brotherhood in the U.S. from 1984-1994, worked with Mohammed Mahdi Akef, head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood since 2003, to advocate for the founding of MAS. According to the Tribune report, Akef and Elkadi pushed for more openness for the Muslim Brotherhood through MAS. Akef himself “says he helped found MAS by lobbying for the change during trips to the U.S.”

In fact, MAS does not deny its Muslim Brotherhood foundations. In 2004, then-Secretary General of MAS Shaker Elsayed stated to the Tribune that “Ikhwan [Brotherhood] members founded MAS…” Elsayed even went so far as to admit that about 45 percent of MAS’s active members belong to the Brotherhood. Federal officials have confirmed this, noting continued ties between MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood.

A senior Muslim Brotherhood official in Cairo, Mohamed Habib, seems to explain MAS’ motivations for espousing Brotherhood ideology while simultaneously distancing itself from the movement that birthed it: “I don’t want to say MAS is a [Brotherhood] entity. This causes some security inconveniences for them in a post-Sept. 11 world.”

Yes indeed.

Here Daniel Pipes notes that "Esam Omeish, the president of the Muslim American Society, acknowledges that MAS has been influenced by the 'moderate school of thought prevalent in the Muslim Brotherhood' and makes no effort to refute the article's premise that MAS has in mind 'the goal of an Islamic state.'"

Britain "stepping up counter-terrorism cooperation" with Africa, South Asia in effort to thwart jihad attacks

"Al Qaeda seeks high impact from Western recruits," from Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is stepping up counter-terrorism cooperation with countries in South Asia and Africa to thwart al Qaeda attempts to train Britons overseas and send them back home to commit attacks, a senior official said.

The aim is to counter a perceived al Qaeda preference for deploying Western volunteers on their home soil, even when they have trained abroad or volunteered for foreign theatres such as Pakistan, Somalia or Iraq.

The source said British authorities are now working with a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Bangladesh to keep tabs on suspected militants planning to pick up training abroad and then apply it back home.

One hopes this undertaking might implement some lessons learned from recent American data-sharing with Pakistan.

While officials refuse to name the African countries involved, analysts and media reports have cited South Africa as a popular transit point between Britain and South Asia.

Security analyst Kurt Shillinger said the country's liberal laws, sizeable Muslim minority, English-language Islamic seminaries and strong communications and transport links made it an attractive location where militants could lie low while raising funds or obtaining false passports for onward travel.

"It's easy to get in here, it's easy to find receptive communities," said Shillinger, who heads the security and terrorism research project at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

[...]

"Pakistan is probably always going to feature most strongly as a destination, certainly for as long as core al Qaeda appear to be situated in the tribal areas of Pakistan and, for historical reasons, we have a large British Pakistani population and every year there's perfectly legitimate travel to Pakistan by thousands and thousands of people," said one security source.

But other countries are also of concern, the source added, citing Somalia as one where militants have issued an "open invitation" to Muslims to come and gain jihadist experience.

[...]

And British sources say they are also worried about the possible training of recruits in camps run by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the network's new North African arm.

British and other European officials increasingly believe that Westerners who train abroad and volunteer to fight in foreign conflict zones are being encouraged instead to return home to plan attacks, instead of blowing themselves up in "just another suicide bombing" in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"For al Qaeda it makes little sense to waste European passport-holders in the Iraqi terror arena" when they could use Arab volunteers instead, a European intelligence source said.

"It certainly makes more sense in al Qaeda's eyes, when it has second- or third-generation immigrants with the right to live in Europe, to deploy them there rather than burn them up in attacks in Iraq."

Online Islamist Forum Hosted in Texas Posts Guide for Kidnapping Americans

Does RealWebHost know what they are hosting? From MEMRI (thanks to all who sent this in):

The popular Islamist-jihadist forum www.alhesbah.org, hosted by RealWebHost in Texas, U.S., recently posted an anonymously written document from 2003 titled "The Excellent Summary of the Rules of the Art of Kidnapping Americans." The 60-page guide describes each stage of the kidnapping, explaining how to select the target and then how to follow him, seize him, transport him to a safe location, and hold him there, as well as how to conduct negotiations. The guide also explains how to execute the hostage should negotiations fail.

The following are the details:

The guide begins by enumerating goals that a kidnapping can achieve, including the release of prisoners, extraction of information from the hostage, weakening the enemy's morale and creating deterrence, raising international awareness of conflicts in which the kidnappers' organization is involved, blackmailing the enemy for money, and generating anti-government sentiment in the hostage's country of origin.

In the section dealing with selecting a target, the guide recommends choosing someone of importance to the enemy (such as a high-ranking military officer or a prominent businessman). However, he should not be a physically strong person who can put up significant resistance. In order to ensure that the operation goes smoothly, it is recommended that he be knocked out with tranquilizers.

[...]

The last section of the guide deals with the demands stage, and states that after stipulating their demands and setting a deadline, the kidnappers must conduct negotiations using a mobile phone registered under a false name, or else a pay phone (a different one for each call). The guide also explains that if it becomes necessary to execute the hostage, this is best done by hanging or poisoning rather than by shooting. This is because soldiers regard death by shooting as an honorable death, and because shooting leaves considerable bloodstains at the scene.

Orthodox Jew to head controversial Brooklyn Arabic school

Replacing Intifada Debbie Almontaser. Does this mean that suddenly all the troubling aspects of this school will magically disappear? Of course not. Danielle Salzberg is just window dressing.

"Orthodox educator to head controversial NYC Arabic school," by Michael Lando for the Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

An Arabic language public school set to open in Brooklyn on September 4 is on its second principal before even opening its doors.

Experienced educator Danielle Salzberg, who grew up Orthodox, was appointed as the school's interim principal late Monday, following last week's abrupt resignation of the school's founder, Debbi Almontaser.

Khalil Gibran International Academy, named after a Lebanese-American poet and intended to emphasize Arabic language and culture, has been mired in controversy since it was first announced in February. Critics are concerned the school will become a hotbed for Islamic extremism, despite assurances from the Department of Education that the school will not teach religion....

Criticism of the school, which has three rabbis on its advisory board, reached a high last week over Almontaser's failure to condemn T-shirts printed by the group Arab Women Active in Art and Media, that read "Intifada NYC." Almonaster sits on the board of the Saba Association of American Yeminis, which shares office space with the organization that made the T-shirts.

The shirts were first revealed on the Web site of Stop the Madrassa Coalition, an unidentified group that has been campaigning to shut down the school.

Almontaser told the New York Post last week that the shirts were not endorsements of violence, but "an opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society." She later apologized, saying she regretted "minimizing the word's historical associations."

Intifada Debbie says she resigned because of those awful Islamophobes:

Almontaser resigned shortly thereafter, saying she was doing so out of concern for the future of the school. The "intolerant and hateful tone" used by critics of the school "has come to frighten some of the parents and incoming parents," she wrote in a letter of resignation, as reported in the New York Sun. "I have grown increasingly concerned that these few outsiders will disrupt the community of learning when the Academy opens its doors on September 4. Therefore, I have decided to step aside ...."

[...]

Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has been at the forefront of the campaign to shut down the school, is not assuaged by the choice of principals. Salzberg's Orthodox background has not persuaded Hikind, who represents an Orthodox district of Brooklyn, to step back from his criticism.

"Some of our worst enemies are Jews," said Hikind. "The principal being Jewish hardly gives me comfort." Learning Arabic is necessary, but can be done within the context of other public schools, said Hikind, who will continue to try to convince the administration to "chuck the whole thing."

Australian pol to oppose Islamic immigration

When will an American politician dare to say this? Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries and on all applications from Muslims coming from other places also, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny. Those who claim that such a measure is “Islamophobic” should be prepared to provide a workable way for immigration officials to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims, or, if they cannot do so, should not impede basic steps the U.S. should take to protect itself. And Muslims entering from anywhere -- Britain, France -- should be questioned as to their adherence to Sharia and Islamic supremacism. This is not because anyone will expect honest answers, but so that answers proven false by the applicant’s subsequent activity can become grounds for deportation.

"Hanson to oppose Islamic immigration," from AAP (thanks to Davida):

RIGHT-wing firebrand Pauline Hanson says she will run on similar policies to those that won her international notoriety a decade ago when she vies for a Queensland Senate seat at the upcoming election.

The main difference will be that this time the former fish and chip shop owner, who claims credit for forcing the Howard Government to adopt a harder line on immigration controls, will target Muslims.

"We need to have a look at our immigration levels and I'd like to have a look at putting a moratorium on any more Muslims coming into Australia," she said today.

Suicide truck bombers strike members of ancient religious sect in northwestern Iraq; dozens killed

Jihad against the Yazidis. "Suicide truck bombers strike members of ancient religious sect in northwestern Iraq; dozens killed," from The Associated Press (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

BAGHDAD: Three suicide truck bombers hit members of an ancient religious sect in northwestern Iraq, killing at least 20 people and wounding 70, police said.

All the blasts occurred about 8 p.m. in two residential areas primarily inhabited by Yazidis near the town of Qahataniya, 120 kilometers (75 miles) west of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, police and city officials said.

Several shops were set ablaze and apartment buildings were destroyed by the powerful explosions.

[...]

Nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks. But they bore the hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq, which has been regrouping in the north of the country after being driven from safe havens in Anbar and Diyala provinces.

Yazidis — a primarily Kurdish sect that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians — have been the frequent target of violence in northern Iraq, particularly in areas surrounding Mosul, 360 kilometers (225 miles) northwest of Baghdad.

The stoning death in April of a Yazidi teenager who had recently converted to Islam after she fell in love with a Muslim and ran off with him appears to have triggered some of the worst attacks. Police said 18-year-old Duaa Khalil Aswad was killed by relatives who disapproved of the match.

A grainy video showing gruesome scenes of the woman's killing was later distributed on Iraqi Web sites, but its authenticity could not be independently verified.

Two weeks later, gunmen shot and killed 23 Yazidis execution-style after stopping their bus and separating out followers of other faiths after checking their identification cards in what was believed to have been retaliation for the woman's death.

The bodies of two Yazidi men who had been stoned to death also turned up in the morgue in the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, six days after they had been kidnapped while they were en route to Baghdad to sell olives, police said.

Police Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir and a Sunni tribal leader said Akbar Hassan, 38, and Ayad Khadir, 50, had been kidnapped by al-Qaida-linked insurgents who took them to the predominantly Sunni village of al-Saeeda and ordered the residents to stone them because they were "infidels." The villagers refused, so the insurgents killed the men themselves, Qadir said.

Sheik Ismael al-Hadidi, a Sunni tribal leader in Kirkuk, said about 40 gunmen had distributed fliers signed by the al-Qaida front group the Islamic State of Iraq in the village saying that the killing of the two Yazidi men was in retaliation for the killing of the Yazidi woman in April.

The bodies were left outside for 24 hours before being buried because the villagers were afraid of the gunmen. But some villagers later told al-Hadidi, who informed the family of the slain men, who lived near Mosul.

"By this savage act, the insurgents wanted to win the support and the sympathy of the Sunni residents of al-Saeeda village, but the Sunni villagers' refusal to participate in the stoning shows that those insurgents have failed and they are unpopular," al-Hadidi said.

Relatives traveled to Kirkuk but were afraid to go to the village, so five police cars were sent to retrieve the bodies, al-Hadidi said.

"This is a criminal act carried out by cowards who want to exploit the story of the slain Yazidi woman," one of them, 44-year-old Sami Benda, said. "The two men killed were only peasants who were planning to sell their crops in Baghdad, they have nothing to do with political and religious disputes. We are still paying the price of a foolish, wrong act conducted by small number of Yazidis who stoned the woman."

Spencer on radio tomorrow

Discussing, all day tomorrow, my new book Religion of Peace? and related matters.

I'll have lozenges at the ready.

All times PDT:

5:10 AM Mark Larson Show XETE

5:30 AM Front Page with Chad Bresson (WCDR syndicated)

6:10 AM Allman and Crane in the Morning (nationally syndicated)

7:07 AM Mickelson in the Morning WHO

7:30 AM Lynn Woolley Show (nationally syndicated)

8:15 AM Laura Ingraham Show (nationally syndicated) with Dr. Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society

9:20 AM Vicki McKenna Show WISN

10:00 AM Bill Handel KFI

11:00 AM The Wilkow Majority (Sirius)

1:00 PM Fox Across America with Spencer Hughes (nationally syndicated)

2:00 PM Michael Medved Show Salem Radio Network

4:30 PM Georgene Rice Show KPDQ

5:00 PM Clash Radio (internet)

5:30 PM Michael Reagan Show (nationally syndicated)

7:00 PM The Roth Show (nationally syndicated)

Spencer on Fox and Friends

Link: sevenload.com

This morning, talkin' 'bout my new book Religion of Peace? for a few minutes with Brian Kilmeade and Lauren Green.

(Thanks to Bryan Preston for the technical help.)

Iran's Thug-In-Chief: "There is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind"

Make no mistake: this is not just an expression of piety. It is a political statement, a statement of Islamic supremacism, and of the will to wage war until Islamic Sharia is imposed over the whole world. "President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind," from the Islamic Republic News Agency (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.

President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.

"Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks."
He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan," he added.

The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.

Hamas TV's child star says she's ready for martyrdom

A study in indoctrination. By Dion Nissenbaum for McClatchy Newspapers:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Saraa Barhoum picked at the buttons on her pink bellbottom jeans as she twisted on a chair inside the bustling new Hamas television headquarters. The afternoon light bounced off the sparkly outlines of butterflies on her frilly top, and a colorful hijab framed her 11-year-old face.

Saraa wants to be a doctor. If she can't, the young star of Hamas television's best-known children's show said, she'd be proud to become a martyr. Saraa says little Jewish girls should be forced from their homes in Israel so that Palestinians can return to their land.

With the show's producer helpfully offering written tips during an interview, Saraa didn't get into how she hopes to die for her cause, be it suicide bombing, fighting the Israeli military or some other way. She carefully sidestepped any suggestion that she's subtly calling for the destruction of Israel .

"Israel says that we are terrorists," Saraa said minutes before an interview with her was interrupted by an errant Israeli airstrike that slammed into an apartment building on the adjacent block. "But they are the ones that must stop their attacks against us and our kids."

Saraa is the sweet face of "Tomorrow's Pioneers," a weekly, hour-long Hamas television children's show best known for bringing the world a militant Mickey Mouse look-alike and then having him killed off by an Israeli interrogator.

With her jarring mix of innocent charm and militant rhetoric, Saraa is at the center of the militant Islamist group's increasingly sophisticated campaign to become the dominant force in Palestinian politics.

[...]

Since it went on the air last year in the Gaza Strip , the Hamas -funded al Aqsa television has gained momentum and expanded its audience to include the West Bank.

Taking a lead from Hezbollah's al Manar television station in Beirut , Hamas is using al Aqsa to promote its agenda and challenge its rivals, in this case Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his fractured Fatah allies.

[...]

The station, which operates with a license from the Palestinian Authority, also features religious lessons, cartoons, advice shows and militant music videos. One video hailed a female suicide bomber whose young daughter vows to follow her mother's example.

"Tomorrow's Pioneers" sparked an international furor in April when it began featuring Farfour, the Mickey Mouse look-alike who sounded more like Iran's firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than a Disney character.

Mustafa Barghouti, then serving as the Palestinian Authority's information minister, called the show a "mistaken approach" to helping Palestinians and tried unsuccessfully to force the show off the year.

The Israeli government and activists who monitor Palestinian programming accused Hamas of poisoning the minds of young children with the show.

After two months, Farfour was beaten to death on the show by an Israeli interrogator. Nahoul, a larger-than-life bee, is now carrying his message.

"A lot of people in Palestine have died as martyrs, and lots of Palestinians hope to be martyrs," Saraa said of Farfour's demise. "This is one of the ends."

Asked if she hoped one day to be a martyr, Saraa instinctively nodded her head.

"Of course," Saraa said. "It's something to be proud of. Every Palestinian citizen hopes to be a martyr."

Saraa helps deliver similar messages to Palestinian children from a Hamas TV set filled with colorful numbers and pictures of kittens. During the show, Saraa fields calls from Palestinian children who warble songs about Islam, liberating Jerusalem and finding answers in the barrel of a machine gun.The show has provided new fodder for Israeli activists, who say that Saraa is the true face of Hamas , an extremist group that's using an innocent front to conceal its real agenda.

[...]

Hamas television officials defend the show, saying it's designed to help young children connect with their country and their God.

Read it all.

Turkey's foreign minister Gul renominated for presidency

"Raising the possibility of another showdown with secular factions, including the military."

"Islamist again seeks Turkish presidency," by Selcan Hacaoglu for the Associated Press:

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's Islamic-oriented ruling party decided Monday to renominate the religious-leaning foreign minister for president, raising the possibility of another showdown with secular factions, including the military.

When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed Abdullah Gul as his party's candidate earlier this year, opposition groups accused Gul of wanting to scrap the secular traditions of this predominantly Muslim but officially secular nation.

Opposition lawmakers boycotted the previous presidential voting in parliament, leading Turkey's top court to annul the balloting for lack of the required quorum and causing early elections that were won by Erdogan's party last month.

[...]

The candidacy signals that Erdogan's party apparently bowed to pressure from its grass-roots supporters to challenge secular circles.

Gul's earlier nomination alarmed the military-backed, secular establishment, which accused the government of seeking a lock on power so it could impose Islamic ways unchecked.

Although the presidency is largely ceremonial, the post has the power to veto legislative bills and government appointments.

The current president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, has often frustrated Erdogan's government by blocking its initiatives, such as vetoing a newly passed constitutional amendment in June that would have allowed the people -- rather than legislators -- to elect the president.

Erdogan's party won a majority of parliament seats in the July 22 election, but it did not secure the two-thirds needed to approve a presidential candidate on its own during the first two rounds of voting.

[...]

"It is not appropriate to have a president who has problems with the founding philosophy of the Turkish Republic," said Deniz Baykal, leader of the main opposition party, the pro-secular Republican People's Party.

Onur Oymen, a senior member of the Republican People's Party, said Gul's candidacy is a serious threat to the secular principles of Turkey. "Gul's candidacy is not expected to contribute to peace and stability in the country," he told private NTV television.

Attempted suicide bombing in Morocco

Only the bomber was injured. "Islamist attempts suicide attack in Morocco," from Reuters:

RABAT (Reuters) - A suspected radical Islamist tried to blow up himself near a bus carrying tourists in the Moroccan city of Meknes on Monday but he detonated the gas cylinder he was carrying before reaching it, police sources said.

"The gas cylinder exploded some metres (yards) from the bus and badly injured the attacker," said one police source.

Another source said authorities suspected the bomber was a member of the radical Islamist Jihadia group.

Police sources said the failed suicide attack came after anti-terrorism police stepped up a crackdown on radical Islamists in the past six months, arresting scores of suspected jihadists.

"That crackdown move put terrorists on the defensive and destabilised their plots and forced them to commit acts of despair like this one," a third source added.

Of course, it's hard to tell despair from optimism when suicide attacks are standard procedure.

[...]

In June, Morocco raised its security alert to the [maximum] level, suggesting an attack was imminent.

Guilty plea in Oregon jihad camp charges

James Ujaama Update. "Man pleads guilty to terror camp charges," by Larry Neumeister for the Associated Press:

NEW YORK -- An American credited with playing a key part in a probe of an Oregon terror training camp pleaded guilty to terrorism charges Monday, admitting his role after his violation of a plea agreement let the government bring more serious charges against him.

James Ujaama, a Muslim convert from Seattle, said he tried to set up the camp in Bly, Ore., in 1999 and notified a radical Islamic cleric in Britain that he and others were stockpiling weapons and ammunition in the United States.

He also admitted that between June 2000 and Dec. 19, 2001, he tried to raise money and provide other help to terrorists in Afghanistan.

Ujaama's lawyer, Peter Offenbecher, declined to comment.

The plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and providing material support or resources to terrorists exposed Ujaama, 41, to a potential prison sentence of up to 30 years.

U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan set sentencing for Dec. 12.

Ujaama was once a prized government cooperator. He pleaded guilty in April 2003 in Seattle to lesser charges of conspiring to provide cash, computers and fighters to the Taliban. He served two years in prison and agreed to cooperate with terrorism investigations until 2013.

Federal officials have called Ujaama's help crucial in the 2004 indictment of Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri on charges of trying to establish the training camp and providing aid to al-Qaida.

Al-Masri was arrested in England on a U.S. extradition warrant but has since been sentenced to seven years in jail there for inciting followers to kill non-Muslims. Also charged in the terror-camp case are Haroon Rashid Aswat, who is being held in England, and Oussama Kassir, who is being held in the Czech Republic.

Ujaama was returned to prison in February for violating parole by traveling to Belize with a fake Mexican passport.

Ujaama said Monday he fled because he did not want to testify in a case in federal court in Manhattan pending against al-Masri.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein in Seattle found he had violated his 2003 plea agreement, an action that permitted the federal government to restore terrorism charges against him.

The indictment said that while in Bly, Kassir and others discussed a plan to kill truck drivers traveling through Oregon and then steal their cargo for money and goods to support the training camp. It said Kassir and Aswat tried to train others on how to make bombs and poisons.

Oregon authorities have said the Bly camp never materialized beyond a dozen people taking target practice.

CAIR: Youngest Member of Hamas Family Tree

More evdence from the Holy Land Foundation trial linking CAIR to the jihad terrorists of Hamas. By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT):

As the trial for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) continues, the mountain of evidence presented by prosecutors demonstrates, in detail, the existence of a grand Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States dating back to the 1960s. A segment of this network, the self-designated “Palestine Committee,” sought to financially, politically, and morally support the efforts of HAMAS to destroy the “Zionist enemy.”

One exhibit – the Palestine Committee’s 1991 bylaws - reveals a web of key organizations tied to the Committee that were tasked with promoting HAMAS’ agenda, each in a particular field. Six groups were listed, the most prominent being HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR).

What has so far gone unnoticed, though, is one last organization on this list that the Committee hoped to establish in the future. As stated in the bylaws, this organization would handle “issues relating to political work and foreign relations”:

It is a committee which operates through the Association [IAP] for now. It is hoped that it will become an official organization for political work and its headquarters will be in Washington, God’s willing. It represents the political aspect to support the cause politically on the American front.

An organization headquartered in Washington, DC, tasked with political activism, born out of the IAP? Maybe a vague reference at first glance, but growing evidence points to the identity of the mystery organization listed in the bylaws as the youngest in the family of HAMAS front groups founded on American soil.

Fast forward to July 30, 1994, just weeks after the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded. A Palestine Committee meeting agenda lists several issues to be discussed, including a review of the reports of the “working organizations.” Listed among these organizations right beside HLF, IAP, and UASR – all members of the Palestine Committee as listed in the bylaws – is the word “CAIR."

The same CAIR that is headquartered in Washington, and whose co-founders - executive director Nihad Awad and chairman emeritus Omar Ahmad - served as president and public relations director, respectively, of the IAP.

Michelle Malkin interviews Robert Spencer

...about the new book Religion of Peace?.

Video here.

Free speech under assault in India

How long will it last in the West? And if I were in India, could I file charges against people who hurt my sentiments?

"Hyderabad police lodge case against Taslima Nasreen," by Syed Amin Jafri for Rediff.com (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

Hyderabad City Police have booked a case against controversial Bangladesh writer Taslima Nasreen for hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims. The Police have also sought the clearance from a court to file a case against Majlis-e-Ittehaadul Muslimeen floor leader in Assembly Akbaruddin Owaisi for allegedly holding out threats to Taslima Nasreen if she visits Hyderabad again.

On Thursday, the city police had arrested three MIM legislators for their bid to attack Taslima Nasreen when she was in the city to release a Telugu translation of her controversial novel "Shodh."

After the unsavoury incident, the police escorted Taslima Nasreen to the Hyderabad airport from where she took the flight to Kolkata.

The police had booked a case against MIM MLAs and other activists under sections 147 and 18 (rioting with deadly weapons), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 427 (mischief causing damage to property), 452 (trespass after preparation for hurt, assault and wrongful restraint), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sections 147, 148 and 506 of IPC are non-bailable offences.

On the same day, MIM floor leader Akbaruddin Owaisi had filed a complaint against Taslima Nasreen, alleging that she had hurt the sentiments of Muslim community with her writings and speeches against Islam, including Holy Prophet Mohammed.

Based on his complaint, the City Police booked a case against Taslima Nasreen under section 153 (A) of IPC for "promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony." The case is under investigation.

Kantor: The Book We’ve All Been Waiting For

Elizabeth Kantor, editor of the Conservative Book Club and author of the superb Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature, writes about my new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.

We're proud to be offering Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is -- and Islam Isn't as a Main Selection of the Conservative Book Club. This is the book all of us have been waiting for.

By "all of us," I mean:

1) The host of folks annoyed and frustrated by the flood of anti-Christian bestsellers that have been pouring off the presses for the last two years, from Sam Harris' condescending Letter to a Christian Nation to Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; plus

2) Everyone who's ever shouted at a television screen or argued back to the editorial page when a commentator made Christian "fundamentalists" out to be the moral equivalents of the Islamists who brutalized the women of Afghanistan and murdered 3,000 civilians on 9/11; as well as

3) The many fans of Robert Spencer's previous bestselling books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth about Muhammad; and finally,

4) Robert Spencer's personal friends, who've been waiting for years for him to write a book about the Christian faith, because they know something about what that faith means to him.

The first three categories add up to a large proportion of the Conservative Book Club membership, and I belong in all four. Robert Spencer is an old and dear friend of mine; in the 1980s we were both students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I studied English literature (with the last generation of English professors who saw studying and teaching literature as their job). Spencer was working toward an M.A. in religious studies and, in his off hours, engaging in lively intellectual exchanges with the Muslims on campus.

In his previous books, Robert Spencer set forth an exhaustively documented case about the danger in which we now stand from Islamic jihad -- and the ultimate source of that jihad in the founding documents of Islam and the life of its Prophet. In Religion of Peace? he answers the objection he hears over and over again, as he travels the country warning about the dangers of jihad and encroaching Islamic law. (Believe it or not, sharia is making headway not just in Asia and Africa, but in Europe and Canada as well). Yes, Spencer's interlocutors may admit, the Koran does include exhortations that inspire believers to violence, and Muslims do want to impose their religious law on other people. But, they add, so does the Bible, and so do Christians.

Religion of Peace? blows this nonsense out of the water. The book begins with an up-close look at the cultural cringe that too many Westerners have learned from their "multicultural" (i.e., West-bashing) educations. Spencer tells the fascinating story of one American college student, "Rachel," who was so ashamed of her own culture that her professor, an American Indian, was moved to quote a Cheyenne proverb: "A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground," and to ask, "Who had conquered Rachel's people? What had led her to disrespect them?"

From there, Spencer goes on to dismantle the case for moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam, taking on each piece of supposed evidence that Christianity is a source of violence, prejudice, and oppression. He exposes the multiple absurdities of the "theocracy" scare books and shows that the violent passages in the Bible have never justified or inspired violence as the Koran most certainly has (and continues to do). He sets the record straight on the "dominion" movement among American Protestants, on Christian anti-Semitism, on Timothy McVeigh (he was an atheist, not a Christian), on the Catholic Church and Galileo, on "patriarchal" oppression in the West, on the Inquisition and the Crusades. Along the way, he gives us shocking glimpses of the gulf between the Christian and the Islamic mind: When Christians in Cairo began putting fish bumper stickers on their cars in 2003, Muslims responded by putting shark bumper stickers on theirs. ("If they want to portray themselves as weak fishes, okay," explained an Egyptian Muslim. "We are the strongest." No empty boast in a country where Christians suffer continual harassment, punctuated by violent persecution.) Spencer also makes a moving argument that Christianity is the indispensable source of the freedom and dignity we enjoy. Finally, he appeals to everyone who doesn't want fall prey to the jihad to rally around the banner of the Judeo-Christian civilization of the West.

The question the reader is left with, at the end of this powerful book, is whether there's still time. Is there still a chance for us to do as Spencer suggests -- for all of us, not only Christians and Jews, but also atheists and peaceable Muslims -- to put aside our disagreements, face the jihadist threat, and rally around the freedom that's the legacy of Christianity, but that non-Christians in the West also enjoy? Or is it too late for that?

If it is -- if, in the end, we come not just to a clash of cultures, but to the clash of religions that the jihadists are bent on forcing -- then the implication of this book is that peaceful Christians will face violent Muslims with the weapons Christians have always used: patience, reason, love even of our enemies, willingness to die (not to kill) to spread the gospel. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christians. B