Saudi King serenaded with Darth Vader theme as he enters Buckingham Palace

How wonderfully appropriate. But surely someone is going to get sacked.

Video at Weasel Zippers (thanks to James).

Bali bomber cried for Muslims but unrepentant for others

This shouldn't surprise anyone, given the sharp dichotomy between believers and unbelievers that runs through all of Islam.

From the Herald Sun (thanks to JE):

ONE of the three Bali bombers on death row in Indonesia has admitted crying for Muslim victims of his crime, but remained unrepentant for taking other lives. Bali bombings mastermind Imam Samudra told an Indonesian television station he was "very sorry" and had wept because he had killed Muslims in the 2002 attack.

But he remained unrepentant for the other innocent lives he had ended, when he masterminded the twin nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

Indonesian television station Lativi has broadcast footage from a hidden camera, filmed this week when two journalists gained access to the tightly-guarded island prison at Nusakambangan island, by pretending to be relatives.

Family of the three - Samudra, the "smiling assassin" Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, and his brother Ali Ghufron alias Mukhlas - visited the prison on Monday in what could be their last meeting with the death row convicts before their executions.

Samudra used the gathering to deliver a set of 10 final wishes to his family.

He asked his family to not cry out loud in front of his body.

"Nobody, neither family, nor parents, nor wife or children can cry out loud in front of my dead body," he told relatives.

"I asked you to buy the cheapest white cloth to cover my body, but it should be bought from clean money.

"And when I am dead, I don't want to be autopsied," he said.

The 10 wishes included a request he be buried in his home village in Serang, West Java and that his funeral be conducted by fellow muslims.

Meanwhile, Amrozi had been fasting for two consecutive months inside the prison to ask God's forgiveness for killing the Muslims, the program said.

"Tell the others that I am sorry for the Muslims that had become victims," Amrozi said.

But the terrorist, who was scorned for laughing at the carnage during his trial, said that the blasts had gone as planned, and only regretted there weren't more victims.

"When I was caught, no one in the coastal area knew what jihad was," he said.

"But right now, everyone is saying it, and I really feel it.

"This evidence was (shown) when I am still alive, (so) it would be even more when I die."

No, man. Everyone in the Western world knows that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle. Get with the program, will you? You're just another of the multitudinous Misunderstanders of Islam.

"I have resources backing me that have pockets far deeper and wider than yours will ever be, Insha Allah"

I get lots of hate mail, and indeed, I've gotten a particularly large amount from a frequent commenter on the articles at FrontPage magazine, who sent me this one. But this is one of the oddest:

I am a just and fair person, so I must inform you that I have resources backing me that have pockets far deeper and wider than yours will ever be, Insha Allah. I will be watching very closely.

Well, my friend, you know what the man says: All the money you've made will never buy back your soul.

Miami group was ready for jihad, says terror expert

And they didn't mean an interior spiritual struggle.

"Expert: Miami Group Ready for Holy War," by Curt Anderson for Associated Press (thanks to Block Ness):

MIAMI (AP) -- A group of men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower were in the final stages of forming a homegrown terrorist cell dedicated to waging an Islamic holy war before they were arrested, a prosecution terrorism expert testified Tuesday.

Raymond Tanter, a Georgetown University professor and terrorism scholar for 40 years, said suspected ringleader Narseal Batiste and the other six had nearly completed the "radicalization process" and moved toward acts of terrorism before their arrests in June 2006.

Hallmarks of this process include religious conversion, operation within a military-style hierarchy and adoption of goals shared by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to destroy U.S. landmarks, Tanter said. The final stage - which he called "jihadization" - means the group is ready to plan, recruit and prepare for an attack.

"I believe that Mr. Batiste falls in the jihadization, or final stage of the radicalization process," Tanter said, adding the other members of the "Liberty City Seven" also fall into that category.

Evidence introduced at trial shows that Batiste "was talking only about violent jihad" and not other meanings of the Arabic word, such as self-examination, Tanter said.

The oath of allegiance to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden taken by the seven men - captured on an FBI videotape - "is the manner in which al-Qaida binds individuals to the organization," Tanter said.

The oath was administered by a man Batiste's group knew as "Brother Mohammed" who claimed to be an emissary sent by al-Qaida to assist in the purported terror plot. In reality, "Mohammed" paid FBI informant Elie Assad, who testified earlier that he was playing a role under close watch of FBI agents.

Breaking news: John Derbyshire doesn't think I'm nuts

Several people have sent me this item from The Corner:

Constant Reader [John Derbyshire]

An astonished reader:

Mr. Derbyshire—You read Human Events? You think abortion is ok, Intelligent Design is bunk, Christianity is false, and Robert Spencer is nuts, yet you read Human Events? Why?

[Me] Well, for great political reporting like the John Gizzi piece I quoted, for one thing. For Ann Coulter. For Jed Babbin. For the Capital Briefs. Perhaps more than anything, for the stats. I'm a sucker for numbers, and HE doesn't stint on them. (In that Oct. 22 issue, there's an entire page of numbers on the fund-raising efforts of the presidential candidates.)

And I don't think Robert is nuts. In my exchanges with him, he has always come across as courteous, civilized, and perfectly sane. His zeal for his own religion, and scorn for other people's, is the kind of thinking that, in my opinion, gets us nowhere we should want to be; but it's a point of view, and I respect Robert's scholarship. Nuts? No way.

Why, thank you, John. I don't think you're nuts, either.

I must have been nuts, however, when I did something I had never done before and will never do again: announce that a piece was coming before I had written it. On September 21 I promised an imminent reply to Derbyshire's "Islamophobophobia" article, and haven't delivered yet. One day it will appear, but this yawning gap between promise and fulfillment is getting to be embarrassing.

Anyway, one thing for now: this business about my "zeal" for my own religion, and "scorn for other people's" is wholly false. I don't have scorn for anyone's religion, and lots of people would question my zeal for my own. In this I expect that Derbyshire is referring to my last book, Religion of Peace?, which he seems to have taken as some kind of proselytizing tract or exercise in religious one-upmanship. It is neither. I explain in the book that I believe the same book could have been written by any atheist, or Jew, or Hindu, or Buddhist who was interested in the facts of the case, and in setting them forth in a neutral manner.

The book does not proselytize, and doesn't analyze the truth or falsehood of Christianity or Islam. All it does is evaluate from various angles the question of whether Christianity and Islam are equally threatening to a pluralistic society that respects non-establishment of religion, as Rosie O'Donnell and many others contend. It was an attempt to respond to the "Religion is the Problem" types like Christopher Hitchens by exploring whether it is really useful to lump all religions together, and to the Christian Theocracy scaremongers by examining whether there is really any comparison between Islamic supremacism and the alleged desire of Christians to replace the U.S. Constitution with Biblical law.

And for all that, we hear that it because I am zealous and scorn other religions. John, with respect, that's a particularly pungent pile of hooey. I don't scorn any religion, particularly Islam. In fact, I have been fascinated by Islam for many years now, which has led to my doing this work. And I respect Islam enough to tell the truth about it, including its warlike and supremacist doctrines -- these are matters of verifiable fact, and it is not "scornful" to point out their existence. I believe it is a particular act of scorn for Islam to adopt the patronizing pap and wishful thinking that marks the work of so many analysts of Islam and terrorism today. When I hear a non-Muslim judge lecturing a jihadist about how he has twisted his own religion, out of a mistaken and condescending distorted view of Islam that he has picked up from the deceivers (both Muslim and non-Muslim), I see scorn for Islam in action.

Speaking about something honestly is not scorning it, much less hating it. I do not wish to become a Muslim or live as a dhimmi under Sharia; I prefer Western notions of human rights. But "scorn" Islam? Not by a long shot. As I say here, I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc. If all that is "anti-Muslim," as some have said it is, so be it.

Google Video removes video of Spencer talk at Dartmouth

The indefatigable Harrison Sonntag of Dartmouth notifies me that Google has removed the video of my talk at Dartmouth, with this explanation:

As set forth in the Terms & Conditions, Google Video is not required to host or display uploaded content. Google Video may refuse to host content that violates its policies, including:

illegal content
invasions of personal privacy
pornography or obscenity
hate or incitement of violence
graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death
violations of copyright. Please see our DMCA policy for more information.
Please note that we also reserve the right to not show mature content to users with their safesearch activated. This includes content that would typically not be shown to users under 18 years of age.

We may change these policies at any time without notice.

Of course, my speech was none of those things. It just caught the attention of someone who disagrees with it politically, and rather than engage in reasoned discussion or debate, or mount a rebuttal, he or she just made sure I would not be heard.

The fascist thugs aren't just at Emory. Some of them apparently work for Google.

UPDATE: Charles at LGF kindly vouches for me:

I watched the video, and there was absolutely nothing in it that violated these terms of service. It was a calm, well-reasoned speech that contained nothing hateful, no incitement to violence, no invasion of privacy, no pornography or obscenity, and certainly no violation of copyright.

Thanks, Charles. I'm glad I decided to take out that bit about Paris Hilton, but obviously it didn't do any good anyway.

SECOND UPDATE: Harrison has now kindly made the video available here.

Ahmadinejad: Millions of Iranians ready for "martyrdom"

"Millions of Iranians ready for martyrdom: Ahmadinejad," from Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday millions of Iranians would be ready to sacrifice themselves fighting the country's enemies, in an apparent reference to the United States and its allies.

Ahmadinejad's statement came a day after an Iranian commander said the Basij religious militia and their spirit of martyrdom could disrupt strategic Gulf oil shipping routes with a small operation.

But, alas: No houris for economic suicide.

They both spoke at annual ceremonies marking the death of a 13-year-old Basij, Mohammad Hosseini Fahmideh, who died trying to destroy an Iraqi tank in the 1980s war with Iran's neighbor.

"Enemies of the Iranian nation must know that by the passing away of martyrs like Fahmideh, the hands of the Iranian people are not empty," Ahmadinejad told a crowd of student Basij members in Tehran, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"And today millions of Fahmidehs are standing fresher and more prepared," he said.

So, more child soldiers, too? That's not generally something people are proud of.

Iran is locked in a standoff with the West which accuses Tehran of seeking atomic bombs. The United States has said it would not rule out force if diplomacy fails to end the row.

Iran says it nuclear aims are peaceful and says it would respond to any U.S. attack, including targeting U.S. interests.

On Monday, Brigadier General Ali Fahdavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' naval force, told a rally of Basijis: "The area of Persian Gulf and strategic Strait of Hormuz is such that a small operation can have a big outcome."

The Revolutionary Guards, the ideological wing of Iran's military which commands the Basij militia, has previously suggested it could, if pushed, disrupt oil flows in the Gulf and the narrow Strait of Hormuz at its mouth of the oil-rich region.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty

Jihad guilt from all over:

Guilty Plea In Plot To Attack Fort Dix

Guilty verdicts over Madrid bombs

Will the Islamophobia never end?

Red Sox Jihad

This is just weird. Why would someone bring a Saudi flag to the Boston Red Sox victory rally?

Go Yankees!

(Thanks to Hot Air.)

Speaker at Emory defends Hizballah and Hamas

And the Leftist thugs who shouted down David Horowitz were nowhere in evidence, of course. Not that they would have wanted to turn out to protest a speech by an apologist for jihad terror -- and meanwhile, Emory's President James Wagner pretended that conservative students were just as likely to behave like fascist thugs as liberal ones, and took precautions to protect Ashrawi's speech that he did not take for Horowitz.

"Ashrawi defends Hizbullah and Hamas," by Gil Hoffman in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

Veteran Palestinian Authority lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi, who represents PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's Third-Wave party, defended both Hamas and Hizbullah in a speech at Emory University in Atlanta on Monday night.

"The [Second Lebanon] War proved [Israel] could not defeat a nation fighting for freedom," Ashrawi said. Later, the Christian lawmaker blamed Hamas's January 2006 election victory on Israel, saying the occupation bred extremism.

Ashrawi also discussed the plight of the Palestinian people, saying they had plunged into a deep depression with unemployment and poverty at record levels, and that peace was the only answer.

Palestinians are experiencing "one of the most difficult phases in our history," she said. "Violence and [the] extreme ideology of Israel feed violence and extremism on the other side. And that's what led to the election of Hamas."

"Now we see not just a political and economic battle, but a battle over the soul of Palestine," she told an audience of about 200. "We find ourselves in the grip of... the deconstruction of Palestine."

Nearly 75 percent of Gazans were dependent on welfare and the Strip's unemployment rate had skyrocketed to 50%, she said, adding that conditions there had worsened since Hamas seized power in June.

[...]

She said peace talks must be moved forward rather than waiting for the violence to subside.

"You cannot hold peace hostage and say, 'Until every single Palestinian becomes peaceful, I'm not going to have talks,'" Ashrawi said. "You have to talk in order to bring about peace."

Evil bloggers, including Jihad Watch, force new Cleveland imam to resign!

Not really, of course. I never called for him to resign, much less force him to do so. I did call attention to things that he admits to having said. But AP, characteristically, puts the blame on Jihad Watch and Patrick Poole, as if we trumped up the charges.

Just imagine if an anti-jihadist made reference to some ancient text that says that in the last days, Jews will kill Muslims -- not that any such text exists -- and resigned from his job amid the ensuing controversy. Do you think AP would run a weepy story depicting the anti-jihadist complaining about what a "nightmare" his critics have created for him, and the critics themselves as relentless head hunters bent on doing in a good man?

I don't think so either.

You'll note also that AP doesn't seem to have made any attempt to contact Central Ohioans Against Terrorism or Jihad Watch for comment. This article is wall-to-wall Alzaree, who doth bestride this narrow world like a colossus, a Julius Caesar done in by his mad, craven, jealous opponents.

"Blog critics force imam to resign at Ohio mosque," from The Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):

PARMA, Ohio (AP) — An imam who was to become the new spiritual leader of Ohio's largest mosque resigned because of allegations by bloggers that he is anti-Semitic, he said.

Imam Ahmed Alzaree said the Web postings so poisoned the atmosphere in the community that he and his wife, Marwa, decided to look elsewhere.

"Cleveland now is a nightmare for her," Alzaree said Monday, three days before he was to start at the Islamic Center of Cleveland in suburban Parma. "It will never be a good start for me and the Jewish community."

Alzaree, 38, an Egyptian-born cleric, was to be the mosque's first permanent imam since Fawaz Damra, who was deported in January after a 1991 videotape surfaced showing him disparaging Jews and raising money for the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.

Damra apologized and said his views had changed but was shunned by the interfaith leaders who once worked with him.

Alzaree, who previously led a mosque in Omaha, Neb., said bloggers such as Central Ohioans Against Terrorism and Jihad Watch continued to attack him for a 2003 sermon in which he referenced the Hadiths, a collection of Prophet Muhammad's sayings.

"The hour of judgment shall not happen until the Muslims fight the Jews," the sermon quotes a Hadith. "The Muslims shall kill the Jews to the point that the Jew shall hide behind a big rock or a tree."

Alzaree has said the sermon gave many examples of Islamic teaching on the Day of Judgment and that it is clear that Muslims in the present are required to "strive and struggle in the world doing the good."

Bloggers also attacked him for an appearance at the Omaha mosque by Wagdy Ghoneim, an Egyptian and former imam at the Islamic Institute of Orange County in California who was forced to leave the United States in 2005 because of immigration violations.

Ghoneim had come to the attention of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, which believed his speeches could be considered supportive of terrorist organizations.

Alzaree said it was the administration of the Omaha mosque that had invited Ghoneim to speak.

Leaders of the Ohio mosque said they investigated Alzaree's background and that a major reason they hired him was his commitment to interfaith work. And just last week, Alzaree said he still planned to come to Ohio and make an extra effort to reach out to Jewish and Christian leaders.

But Alzaree said bloggers made it impossible for him to have a good beginning.

"I leave the field" to the bloggers, he said. "I have peace now." Alzaree said he will decide among a half-dozen other job offers....

"I leave the field...I have peace now." And so the noble man rides off into the sunset, without ever having explained whether he actually believes that Muslims will spend their days during the end times killing Jews, or, for that matter, what he believes about Islamic supremacism in general. And no AP reporter, or any reporter, is informed enough or free enough of PC blinders to ask him.

Germany battles jihad...with a comic book

Emblematic of the general unserious response in the West to the ideological challenge from the jihadists. You'll notice that the problem all comes from the young man being unable to find a job -- in other words, jihadism is all the West's fault, and the West can put an end to it with the proper welfare and jobs programs.

"Germany Battles Terror in the Classrooms," by Yassin Musharbash in SpiegelOnline (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Interior Ministry of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is taking a new tack in the fight against homegrown terrorism. It's using a comic book -- complete with colorful images and "youthful" language -- to battle nasty jihadism.

Creativity is often found in the most unlikely places. Take, for example, a couple of German state domestic intelligence offices charged with tasks such as tracking far-right extremism and terrorist cells. In Baden-Württemberg, they recently constructed a mock Pakistani terror camp for a touring exhibition about Islamism. And their colleagues in North Rhine-Westphalia are no slouches either: They've commissioned a comic book, in which kids talk about Islam, the ideology of Islamism and terrorism. Its hero is a young German named Andi.

[...]

Andi has all the accoutrements needed to mark him as your run-o-the-mill hipster kid -- baseball cap, hoodie and messy hair -- and he has a Turkish girlfriend, Ayshe. Her brother -- and Andi's buddy -- Murat, is going through a bit of a crisis because he can't find a position as an apprentice, and he blames his rejection letters on xenophobia. That makes Murat the perfect prey for the strange new kid on the playground, Harun, with his serious demeanor and steadfast belief in what he's been fed from Islamists. Harun, in turn, beats it into Murat's head that he will be discriminated against because of his religion.

My New Homie, the Jihadist

Huran takes Murat under his wing, and it's not long before he makes some progress by convincing him that he shouldn't have any infidel friends because Islam forbids it. Basketball is taboo, too. And he also needs to make sure that his sister doesn't go to the movies with Andi.

After a while, Harun even takes Murat to meet his favorite sheik, whose sermons are filled with hatred. His preaching goes along these lines: "God has ordered the Muslim to neither associate with nor befriend the infidel!" Huran also shows Murat radical Web sites showing videos of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. "But a lot of Muslims get killed in those attacks, too," Murat ventures to comment. "They are all hypocrites and liars!" comes the response of the Jihadist sheik. And even if a Muslim were among the dead, he would have died a martyr. What more could a man want?

Of course, after 38 pages, there is the inevitable happy ending: Murat transforms himself from a potential public enemy number one back into a cheerful chap. And, joy upon joy, an apprenticeship position appears out of nowhere, just to hammer home the moral of the story.

Realism and Reality

It's hard to say whether school kids are going to laugh themselves silly while reading this stuff or if their slippery attention can be held. There will be 170,000 copies of Andi's first adventure and Hamburg is also planning to use them. The second issue in the Andi series is set to hit schools soon.

One thing is for sure: the officials have given it a good shot. The story is a bit too short and sweet but, at the same time, it's half-way believable because you can see that a lot of the details are a fairly faithful reflection of reality.

That said, the character of the headscarf-wearing Ayshe is a bit exaggerated and too good to believe: She's friendly, smart, versed in the Koran, pious ... and on top of that she's a rock-solid believer in the tenets of liberal democracy....

Ah, yes, of course, the great Unicorn, the Western Muslim we are all commanded to believe exists in large numbers, but whom virtually no one has ever actually seen.

Spencer: Pols Pander at Arab American Institute Conference

My column this week in Human Events:

The Arab American Institute held its national conference in Detroit over the weekend, and presidential hopefuls Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were there. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards addressed the conference via video hookup. Obama also sent an adviser, Tony Lake, and Edwards sent his campaign manager, David Bonior. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean was there as well.

A Detroit Free Press article noted how much this was indication of changing times: “In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis rejected the endorsement of a major Arab-American group.” But now? “This year, Democratic party leaders gave the candidates permission to address the conference despite a campaign boycott of Michigan because legislators moved up the date of the state’s primary.”

The candidates lined up to prove they were More Antiwar Than Thou. “This is a war that I have opposed from the start, and I still do,” said Obama on his video. “Our neglect of the Middle East peace process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism.” Kucinich pledged to end the war in Iraq immediately: “We as a nation must take a new direction,” he said. “We must stop telling people ‘It’s my way or the highway.’ It’s time for American to get out of the Middle East and stop trying to dominate the politics of the region. My plan is to end the war now. It is the occupation of Iraq that is feeding the insurgency.” Edwards declared: “I want to be the president who is going return America as keeper of peace in the region. America needs to return to the position in which it is the moral leader in the world.”

Listening to them, a visitor from a distant planet might be forgiven for thinking that the entire problem between the West and the Islamic world stems from the United States’ unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The wisdom of that invasion as a truly effective means to limit the advance of the global jihad is debatable, but none of the candidates took into account the 9/11 attacks that brought that jihad to the United States. They didn’t seem to make any recognition of the fact that Islamic jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism exist.

Thus they took a similarly dim view of domestic measures to protect Americans from another jihad terror attack, expressing empathy over the alleged erosion of the civil rights of Arab-Americans, and a determination to redress it. “I will follow the Constitution of the United States,” said Richardson. “The erosion of our civil liberties is not just something that is felt by minorities -- it affects all Americans.” He also said: “I will protect these values we have compromised through unwarranted surveillance and ethnic profiling.” Obama, according to the Detroit News, “reminded the potential voters that he has introduced legislation to make police profiling illegal,” and Kucinich emphasized his consistent opposition to the Patriot Act.

But it was Howard Dean played to the galleries most shamelessly, telling the conference attendees: “You have been singled out unfairly and unjustly...by politicians who hope to have a cheap electoral trick.” He then referred to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Apple CEO Steve Jobs as successful Arab Americans, adding: “It is important for us to stand and recognize these leaders at a time when this community is under siege by those who would divide America in order to win elections.”

The Democrats apparently believe that the Patriot Act was an unprovoked racist measure designed to rob Arabs of their civil liberties. The fact that America faces a threat from Islamic jihadists – who come in all races, colors, and ethnicities – who have vowed to destroy this nation never seems to enter into their calculations. After all, it was Edwards who said that the terror war was just a “bumper sticker.”

The candidates could have used the occasion of the AAI conference to exhort Muslims in America to support anti-terror measures instead of fulminating against them, and institute comprehensive programs in American mosques and Islamic schools teaching against the ideology of Islamic supremacism.

Instead, they pandered.

Indonesia: Arrest of seven 'dangerous' Muslims

"The sect believes that praying once a day is sufficient for Muslims and also calls for a revision of the current interpretations of the Koran."

Oh, the horror!

Wouldn't it be refreshing if somewhere, anywhere, Muslim authorities cracked down this hard on the jihadists?

From AKI (thanks to Twostellas):

Jakarta, 30 Oct. (AKI) – Ahmad Mushaddeq, the leader of the controversial Muslim sect, Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah, and six of his followers have been arrested in Indonesia.

The Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), Indonesia’s main state religious institution welcomed the arrests of the Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah sect members, but asked the police to do more.

“We are asking the police to limit the spreading of these beliefs,” Anwar Ibrahim, head of the MUI Fatwa division told AdnKronos International (AKI).

“The teachings are dangerous and we must be vigilant.”

The sect is regarded as a heretic organisation by the MUI and several other religious organisations also complained to the police.

Al Qiyadah was founded by Haji Salam, later known as Ahmad Moshaddeq several years ago in Bogor, West Java.

It first surfaced in 2000 and has rapidly grown to count some 4000 followers across Java and Sumatra.

On July 23, Ahmad Moshaddeq claimed to be a prophet. He said he had the revelation after he spent 40 days and nights in meditation at Mount Bunder, Bogor, West Java.

The sect believes that praying once a day is sufficient for Muslims and also calls for a revision of the current interpretations of the Koran.

Dartmouth Muslim student spreads falsehoods about Qur'an, Spencer

As with the Brown story, this story from the Dartmouth college newspaper is accompanied by a bogeyman photo obviously designed to portray me as a Hitlerian rabble-rouser. There was a campus photographer at the Darmouth talk who was, I was told, taking "hundreds" of photos. I responded at the time that he was no doubt taking so many pictures so he could find one that made me look as bad as possible. And here we are.

Anyway, in the story, a Muslim student blandly retails falsehoods about what the Qur'an says, and where I stand. More comments below.

"‘Islamo-fascism’ speaker met with controversy," by Thomas Bukowski in TheDartmouth.com (thanks to Harrison Sonntag):

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic jihad, gave a speech to an audience of around 70 in Dartmouth Hall on Friday on the subject of “Islamo-fascism.” Amid much controversy over the week’s advertising, the keynote speech received a standing ovation and was the concluding event of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” at the College.

During his speech, Spencer called on the audience to end the silence on the subject of what he called Islamo-fascism.

“Now is the time for every person of conscience to call what oppression and injustice are —- oppression and injustice,” Spencer said. “That’s why we need Islamo-fascism Awareness Week.”

Chloe Mulderig ‘05, who identifies as a “moderate Muslim” and works for the anthropology department, said that Dartmouth disagrees with Spencer’s assertion that Dartmouth needs such a week.

“Part of their agenda is to illicit [sic] a response, but we’re smarter than that,” Mulderig said. “Debate about terrorism is very important, but Robert Spencer is unfortunately bringing hate speech on campus and hates Islam itself.”

Of course, no evidence is offered for this. I ask anyone and everyone, including Chloe Mulderig, to listen to the talk I gave at Dartmouth and to come up with even a single example of "hate speech."

Spencer defended the term “Islamo-fascism” and denied that the term equates Islam to terrorism. He added that terms such as Italian and German fascism used during World War II did not apply to the entire populations of Italy or Germany.

“Saying that Islamo-fascism tars all Muslims simply defies all common sense,” he said.

Spencer said that there was a growing movement of fundamentalist Muslims within the Islamic world who are “claiming the mantle of Islamic purity”.

“Without an authority on who can say what is ‘true Islam’ and when they can base their words on the Koran, then it can and does have a great effect on the Islamic world.”

Spencer claimed that Al-Qaeda and Hamas, who feel “the need for waging war against Christians and Jews until they submit,” sprang from this disagreement about the finer details of Islam.

Spencer also emphasized that in the society that jihadists would implement, women would be one of main groups to suffer .

Though Mulderig was impressed by Spencer’s knowledge of Islamic theology, she questioned the accuracy of his comments concerning the Koran in regards to women.

“[Spencer’s assertion] that the Koran says it is okay to beat women is incorrect and offensive,” she said.

Is that so?

Qur'an 4:34 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”
Daryabadi: "and beat them"
Asad: “then beat them”

Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all "incorrect and offensive"?

Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates Qur'an 4:34 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.”

But Mulderig would apparently prefer to pretend that I made this up rather than deal with Muslim approval of wife-beating.

Muldering also wished that a speaker without an agenda was brought in to ignite discussion about terrorism.

“Though a part of Spencer’s agenda is to increase awareness [of terrorism], the other part is to hate on Muslims,” she said.

Once again: prove it. These are false and libelous charges. I argued during the talk that peaceful Muslims were among the victims of jihadists who deem them insufficiently Muslim. It is an act of hate to make false and libelous charges against someone one opposes. Mulderig should back it up if she can, or retract it.

In the question and answer session following the speech, Spencer was asked by a member of the audience if having an Islamo-fascism Awareness Week meant that the College should also have a week for other countries, including a “CIA-fascism awareness week”.

“You guys have that every week here,” Spencer replied, a comment that was met with applause from the mostly-conservative audience.

Spencer was introduced by Professor Meir Kohn of the economics department, who highlighted how the effects of Islamo-fascism was brought to the world’s attention by Sept. 11, 2001 and criticized the ambivalent view of Islamo-fascism by the “left”.

“Marxism currently exists in only three places: North Korea, Cuba and American universities,” said Kohn. He went on to call the academic left a “watered-down version of Marxism.”

Kohn also said that the silence about Islamo-fascism by the academic left is a form of passive approval, and that the front of the war for awareness of this issue is waged on American university campuses.

At one point during the speech, two Safety and Security officers came into the auditorium. They said that they were “not here in official capacity”, but there “just to make sure things were OK,” adding that they found the speech interesting.

Mulderig felt that the presence of the Safety and Security officers was the most offensive part of the event.

“The College clearly has a lot of faith in the muslim community,” she said sarcastically.

Sorry. I know Noam Chomsky and Tom Friedman could go to any campus and speak without needing guards, given the Leftist fascist thugs who dominate so many campuses today, I am not going to have faith in anyone.

“What we did was to fight the soldiers of Zion and the cross. If there are victims among Muslims it was just an error. Muslims’ blood is not halal and their killing was not intentional.”

These Islamophobes: how dare Imam Samudra, Mukhlas and Amrozi link Islam with terrorism! I trust they will be getting a strongly worded letter from Ibrahim Hooper. Or at least that CAIR will issue a strong denunciation of these statements.

Won't they?

"No regrets for the smiling murderers," from the Times (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

The three Indonesians sentenced to die for the 2002 Bali blasts say that they are ready to be executed and their only regret is that Muslims were among the 202 killed in the attack.

Imam Samudra and the brothers Mukhlas and Amrozi are held at the top-security Batu prison, off the southern coast of Java. They were allowed to meet relatives yesterday in what is likely to be the last such visit before they face a firing squad, probably within the next two months.

Amrozi became known as the smiling bomber because of his constant grin during his trial. “People ask me, why am I smiling? I am happy because I will be united with 72 angels in heaven,” he said in an interview with Reuters and a local television network. “I have killed many with my bombs. I have been tested by spending time in this prison, but if you make infidels angry you will be rewarded.”

The Bali bombings, blamed on the South East Asian Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiah, were intended to scare away foreigners so that Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, could eventually become part of a larger Islamic caliphate. Instead, the attacks in Bali and Jakarta pushed Indonesia into a closer security and intelligence relationship with the US and Australia.

The bombers said that Indonesia’s ties to Washington and Canberra did not mean that they had failed. “What we did was to fight the soldiers of Zion and the cross,” said Samudra, who is considered to have been the chief planner of the Bali attack. Mukhlas added: “If there are victims among Muslims it was just an error. Muslims’ blood is not halal [allowed to be killed] and their killing was not intentional.”

Questions for a journalist

I just emailed this to Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes, who wrote this morning's wildly biased story about those horrible Republican Presidential candidates linking Islam with terrorism:

Dear Ms. Holmes,

In light of the considerations I voiced in my Jihad Watch post about your article, I'd like to interview you for an article I'm writing about journalistic bias.

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a moment to answer these questions via email, or call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

1. When we spoke, I explained to you that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions, and told you that if we refuse to explore this, and to speak about it honestly, we are voluntarily declining to make use of the only key that they themselves have given us to understanding their own motives and goals. You did not quote or refer to anything I said; nor did you quote anyone else saying anything similar. Why did you think these observations irrelevant to the question of the Republican candidates' usage of terms like "Islamic terrorism"?

2. Why did you quote four authorities against the Republicans' usage and only two in favor, and both of those were "man-on-the-street" quips as opposed to four recognized analysts and spokesmen on the other side?

3. On what grounds do you and/or your editors believe that the religion of a particular analyst might color his understanding of the appropriateness of the usage of the adjective "Islamic" in front of the word "terrorism"?

4. Do you yourself believe that if terror groups take names like "Islamic Jihad" or "the Party of Allah" (Hizballah) or "The Islamic Resistance Movement" (Hamas), that non-Muslim officials and writers have the responsibility to find other names by which to refer to them, so as to obscure the Islamic content of their message and appeal within the Islamic world? If so, why?

5. Do you yourself believe that referring to "Islamic terrorism" tars all Muslims as terrorists? If so, can you please explain why this usage is different in substance from common terms such as "white racism" and "Italian fascism," which no one has ever understood as referring to the entire group involved?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I'll let you know if I get any answer.

UPDATE: Elizabeth Holmes writes:

Robert, All interview requests must go through our public relations department in the New York office – please contact Robert Christie (cc’d here). Thanks and best, Elizabeth Holmes

So I wrote Christie and asked for permission. He responded:

Mr. Spencer, Respectfully, we need to decline your interview request for Ms. Holmes. Please feel free to quote from her reporting and if you need any information or fact checking about The Wall Street Journal, please don’t hesitate to ask. Regards, Bob

I wrote back:

How very interesting, Bob. How very, very interesting. Thank you.

Would you yourself then be willing to answer the questions below?

And he responded:

The story speaks for itself and we have no further comment on the matter. Regards, Bob

Indeed it does speak for itself. It speaks volumes.

Emory President apologizes for disruption of Horowitz speech, promises to guard apologist for jihad terror

James W. Wagner, President of Emory University, where the self-proclaimed proponents of free speech and free inquiry behaved like the fascist thugs they really are and shouted down David Horowitz last week, has apologized to the College Republicans for the disruption of the event they sponsored.

In the course of his apology, Wagner says this:

It is worth reminding ourselves and others, in this context, that Emory invites speakers to our campus primarily for the interest and enrichment of the campus community. We open our doors to others as a courtesy. One regrettable consequence of Wednesday night’s assault on free speech is our decision to restrict admission to Glenn Auditorium on Monday afternoon for a lecture by former Palestinian minister of higher education and research Hanan Ashrawi. Admission will be open only to persons with a valid college or university photo ID from Emory or elsewhere. In order to accommodate the interest of persons from the general community, an off-site video feed will be made available in White Hall 208.

Hey, thanks, Dr. Wagner. That's terrific. One speaker's address got disrupted, so you're taking extra precautions for the next speaker. Admirable foresight, sir!

Just a few questions: does your determination to make sure Hanan Ashrawi's speech goes off without disruption have anything to do with her status as an apologist for Palestinian jihad terror against Israel?

And aren't your precautions regarding her speech a suggestion that conservative students are likely to engage in the same fascist silencing tactics that the Emory student Leftists engaged in when they torpedoed Horowitz's speech?

Yet where and when have conservative students ever behaved in such a manner?

If you are really interested in free speech and free inquiry, as you say, wouldn't it make more sense not to trumpet your protections of Hanan Ashrawi, which are not needed in any case since Leftist and pro-jihad speakers are never in physical danger on college campuses, but to invite David Horowitz back to Emory and make sure he is allowed to speak without being shouted down by thugs?

BBC trolls for Muslim grievance stories

More balanced, objective journalism: at the end of a story on Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, being detained at a U.S. airport (thanks to PRCS for the heads-up), the BBC adds this:

Are you a Muslim who has been detained in an American airport? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below

Has the BBC ever run any requests like these?

Are you a victim of Islamic terrorism? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below

Are you a non-jihadist who has been detained and questioned in an airport because of Islamic terrorism? Are you willing to put up with inconveniences in order to head off another terrorist attack? Send us your comments using the form below

Somehow I doubt it.

CAIR whines that Republicans speak of "Islamic terrorism," Democrats don't

Pamela has a post this morning, "CAIR Plays Presidential Politics With Our Lives," about CAIR complaining that "while Democrats tend to talk about terrorism in general, Republicans increasingly pin the threat directly on Islam." That quote comes from a piece posted on CAIR's website, "CAIR: Republicans Pin Terror on Islam, Democrats Don’t."

This is not, however, a CAIR press release. CAIR has simply reposted a Wall Street Journal article, "Linking Terror on the Trail: Republicans Point To Islam, Democrats Take Different Tone," by Elizabeth Holmes.

Elizabeth Holmes interviewed me at some length for this article, and I explained to her that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions. If we refuse to explore this, and to speak about it honestly, we are voluntarily declining to make use of the only key that they themselves have given us to understanding their own motives and goals. And without understanding the motives and goals of an opponent, you cannot defeat him.

Does speaking of "Islamic terrorism" defame or demean all Muslims? Not unless speaking of "Italian fascism" classified all Italians as followers of Mussolini. In fact, if groups like CAIR really wanted to fight against the use of Islamic texts and teachings by jihad terrorists, they would not ignore that use, and criticize those who note it, but would confront it head-on and develop comprehensive programs for mosques and Islamic schools in America to teach against it.

Anyway, I explained all this, and more, to Elizabeth Holmes. But I am not mentioned in the article. Now, that's fine -- it doesn't have to come from me, as long as the perspective I articulated is represented. But in fact, this perspective doesn't appear in the article at all, although it's the best, and indeed the only, defense of the Republican candidates' usage.

The article is thoroughly stacked: in defense of the Republicans speaking of "Islamic terrorism," we hear from "a 62-year-old retiree who heard Mr. Romney speak in Clinton, Iowa, earlier this month," who just offers a quip, and "Henry Eldridge, the past chairman of the York County Republican Party in South Carolina." On the critical side there are four full paragraphs devoted to the negative reactions of David Halperin, a senior vice president at the Democratic-leaning think tank Center for American Progress; James Zogby of the Arab American Institute; Gary Sick, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs; and CAIR's Nihad Awad.

This is fairness? Balance? Objectivity? Journalism?

To top it off, Elizabeth Holmes followed up with me late last week, sending me this email: "Robert – my eds wanted me to ask you what religion you are – would you mind?"

I responded: "I don't mind -- it's a matter of public knowledge -- but why? Is this something that changes the understanding and usage of the word 'jihad' by Islamic supremacists?"

Holmes: "No, it's just something I mention with others, a trait they used in explaining their reactions to Romney."

Spencer: "My reactions to Romney aren't a result of my religion. They result from my readings of Islamic texts and study of how those texts are used by the jihadists to justify terrorism and Islamic supremacism."

I didn't hear from her after that. But the question itself indicates how thoroughly such reporters, who guide and control so much of what we know about the world, misunderstand the jihad threat in all its dimensions.

And the whole episode illustrates once again why I so dislike talking with reporters, who so often just don't care to report on matters fairly or accurately.

'Hate literature easily found at UK mosques'

No one should be surprised by this. But of course they are surprised, because they refuse to look into the contents of Islamic teaching for themselves. By Toby Helm in the Telegraph (thanks to all who sent this in):

Extremist literature that encourages hatred of gays, Christians and Jews can be easily found at many of Britain's mosques, according to a new survey.

Researchers for the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange claims it found the literature in a quarter of the 100 mosques and Islamic institutions they visited.

Many of the publications allegedly called on British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims and for unbelievers to be treated as second-class citizens wherever possible.

The literature also allegedly contained repeated calls for gays to be thrown from mountains and tall buildings and for women to be subjugated.

These things are not "extremism." They are mainstream, traditional Islam. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, directed his followers to “kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him” (‘Umdat al-Salik, p17.3). And the Qur'an says that "men are in charge of women" and that disobedient women should be beaten (4:34).

Thus the absence of literature teaching these things in three quarters of the mosques in Britain is good, but it is not enough. If the Muslims in those mosques don't hold these views, they should explicitly disavow and teach against them.

Policy Exchange said that among the documents were the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and other publications peddling bizarre conspiracy theories.

Anthony Browne, the director of Policy Exchange, said: "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques.

"I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques."

Yes, I'm sure they're thoroughly horrified that any Muslim takes Qur'an 9:29 as instructions for action today. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Policy Exchange visited more than 100 mosques and other Islamic institutions and said it found the literature was accessible both openly and "under the counter". Altogether some 80 books and pamphlets were collected over the course of a year.

Under the counter. So they knew they had something to hide.

And they were funded well -- another manifestation of the Saudi money weapon:

Many of the institutions were among the best funded and most active of Britain's 1,500 or so Islamic establishments. In several cases they had received official visits from politicians and even members of the royal family.

In response, we get excuses, not the taking of responsibility:

Dr Yunes Teinaz, of the London Central Mosque, said: "Any book or literature like this found in the mosque will reflect the views of the author and not at all the view of the mosque." He added that the bookshop in the mosque was not run by the mosque, but was a franchise.

Iqbal Sacranie says it's all because verses of the Qur'an have been -- you guessed it -- taken out of context:

Iqbal Sacranie, a former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, criticised the report. He said: "The majority of Muslims will totally dismiss this because it is written by the Policy Exchange, who have an agenda to denigrate the mainstream of Islam in this country.

"If there is any material which falls foul of the law, then the law should take its course. We cannot accept messages of hate - there is zero tolerance on that. But it is irresponsible to target religious texts and take them out of context. These texts can be found not just in mosques but in ordinary bookshops - the report overlooks that."

Pakistan: Memorizing the Qur'an, but not learning multiplication or even how to write

Why Pakistan's estimated 20,000 madrassas are the country's biggest jihad threat.

"Pakistan's problem child recites the Koran," by Colin Freeman in the Telegraph (thanks to Joe):

Like many younger pupils at Karachi's Jamia Binoria madrassa, 12-year-old Imran Mohammed is a shy, quietly spoken child who is all but tongue-tied in front of his elders. One thing can get him talking though – for hours if need be.

"God is one and he is our creator," he intones, his faltering voice suddenly breaking into fluent Arabic. "He has not given birth of anyone, nor did anyone give birth of him."

It is a verse from the Koran, a tiny part of four entire chapters he has learnt by heart since arriving at the madrassa, or religious school, two years ago. Four chapters is roughly 60 pages, and to recite it fully – as he can do – takes up to two hours.

However, when it comes to non-religious learning, such as the alphabet or multiplication tables, Mohammed is somewhat behind for his age. Asked to add 10 and 11 together, he uses his fingers to reach the right answer, and the only words he can write are his own name and his father's.

For much of the past two decades, though, this has been what passes as education for hundreds of thousands of young Pakistanis. With secular, state schools all but non existent in much of the country – six million children never see a classroom – growing numbers of parents "opt out" their children for religious education instead.

That, though, is what makes Pakistan's estimated 20,000 madrassas the country's biggest threat. By teaching religion to the exclusion of almost everything else, they are blamed for training a generation of youngsters whose only job prospects lie in preaching and zealotry, fuelling the Islamic fundamentalism that many Pakistanis fear could turn their country into another Afghanistan. The more militant madrassas are also accused of recruiting volunteers for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, among them Britons such as Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, who are thought to have attended them before going on to commit the July 7 London bombings in 2005.

Read it all.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard general threatens suicide attacks in Persian Gulf

"Iranian general warns of Gulf suicide bombings," from Agence France-Presse:

TEHERAN - A top general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Monday warned that the Basij militia were ready ‘if necessary’ to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf, amid rising tensions with the United States, the Fars news agency reported.

‘If necessary we will take advantage of the element of martyrdom-seeking,’ said Brigadier General Ali Fahdavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards’ naval forces.

‘This spirit is prevailing now throughout the Revolutionary Guards,’ he added. The Basij militia is part of the Guards’ military apparatus.

‘They have taken an example from Shahid (martyr) Fahmideh,’ Fahdavi said, referring to 13-year-old Iranian Hossein Fahmideh who became a national hero after blowing himself up under an Iraqi tank in the 1980-1988 war.

One can tell a lot about a society from the figures it regards as heroes. Here, we have a 13-year-old suicide bomber.

‘The scene of the Persian Gulf and strategic Strait of Hormuz is such that even a small operation can have a big impact,’ he added.

Pols pander at AAI conference

Several presidential candidates and other prominent politicians appeared at this weekend's Arab American Institute conference, and they appear to have indulged in a good deal of sobbing and handwringing over the alleged human rights abuses that Arab Americans currently suffer, while saying nary a word (at least from the looks of this story) about our shared responsibility to resist the jihad threat. But of course, candidates like Richardson, Paul and Kucinich would say, "What jihad threat?" It has all been cooked up by the State Department to provide a foundation for their imperialist project, doncha know.

And those boys over at CIA and State are good: look at all the violent material they've managed to finagle into the Qur'an and Sunnah.

"Arab Americans host hopefuls: Richardson, Paul, Kucinich attend conference, speak," by Niraj Warikoo in the Detroit Free Press:

After three days of networking and political speeches, Arab Americans who attended a national conference in Detroit say they went home committed to continuing their fight for constitutional rights and restoring the United States' image in the world.

[...]

The conference reflects the growing clout of the Arab-American community, which not too long ago was avoided by presidential candidates: In 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis rejected the endorsement of a major Arab-American group. This year, Democratic party leaders gave the candidates permission to address the conference despite a campaign boycott of Michigan because legislators moved up the date of the state's primary.

A mix-up over the boycott might explain why none of the leading candidates appeared at the conference, institute head James Zogby said.

"We ran into this cross fire with the early states versus Michigan," he said.

But he noted that the campaign teams sent high-level surrogates, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's adviser, Tony Lake, and former Sen. John Edwards' campaign manager, former Michigan congressman David Bonior.

The candidates who did appear were warmly received.

"I will follow the Constitution of the United States," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Sunday to loud applause. "The erosion of our civil liberties is not just something that is felt by minorities -- it affects all Americans."

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, was the first candidate to speak Sunday. He spoke about meeting with victims of war in Lebanon and criticized current U.S. foreign policy.

Republican candidates were also invited, but only Ron Paul addressed the conference.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean slammed those who divide the nation by scapegoating those with Middle Eastern ancestry.

"You have been singled out unfairly and unjustly ... by politicians who hope to have a cheap electoral trick," Dean said.

He cited successful Arab Americans such as former Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell and Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.

"It is important for us to stand and recognize these leaders at a time when this community is under siege by those who would divide America in order to win elections," Dean said.

Spencer on the Islam Is Peace campaign's focus on "Islamophobia"

Hugh and others have urged me to expand this Hot Air Jihad Watch video into a five-part series, examining each of the five objectives of the UK "Islam Is Peace" campaign at some length.

And so it begins with this video on the first objective. More to come.

US embassy targeted by Azerbaijan Methodists -- no, wait...

...it was "a radical Islamic group." Oh, will the Islamophobia never end?

"US embassy targeted by Azerbaijan terror," by Aida Sultanova for Associated Press:

BAKU, Azerbaijan - The U.S. and British embassies suspended operations Monday in Baku, where the government said it thwarted a radical Islamic group's plot to conduct a "large-scale horrifying terror attack" against diplomatic missions and government buildings.

The Azerbaijani National Security Ministry said one suspect was killed and several others were detained in a weekend sweep in village outside the capital. The ministry said the Islamic group included an army lieutenant who stole 20 hand grenades, a machine gun, four assault rifles and ammunition from his military unit and made them available for the planned attack.

The British Embassy in Baku temporarily closed Monday, and the U.S. Embassy sent out an announcement to American citizens saying it had closed its consular office for an indefinite period because of a security threat. No specifics were given.

National Security Ministry spokesman Arif Babayev told The Associated Press that the radical Islamic group had planned to launch a "terror attack against several government structures in Baku and the U.S. Embassy."

Spencer speaking at Dartmouth College, October 26, 2007

Here is video of my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk at Dartmouth College last Friday night, courtesy Harrison Sonntag, the fearless and redoubtable Dartmouth student who was largely responsible for making it possible for me to speak there.

Please watch this video. Compare and contrast it to this email that was sent around by Kurt Nelson, "Multi-Faith Program Advisor, The Tucker Foundation, Dartmouth College":

As interested folks, many of whom have pledged support for Dartmouth's Muslim community, I wanted to update you on the goings on.

Instead of responding directly to Robert Spencer's presence on campus or the violent and hateful posters associated with Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, al-Nur with the help of the Multi-Faith Council and Hillel is planning a collection of events for the near future.

We have a bare-bones sense of them at this point, but under the title "Islamo-Fashion Awareness Week" al-Nur, the Multi-Faith Council and Hillel (and any other groups interested in co-sponsorship) will host the following:

Friday November 2, Sundown in the Muslim Prayer Room, N Fairbanks all are welcome to come to Maghrib prayer with an introduction and question and answer hosted by al-Nur

Monday November 5, time and location TBD a showing of the Oscar Winning WEST BANK STORY with discussion. A musical comedy about competing Hummus restaurants in the West Bank. A must see. (MFC folks, this will take the place of our regular meeting)

Wednesday November 7th 6:00 PM Collis Commonground hear students Muslim students about the Muslim faith and what unites this unique and diverse group, eat dinner and discuss.

It appears that Mr. Nelson is dismissing my talk as hateful and violent without even bothering to listen first to what I said. So I ask you to do so, and to write in the comments field below if you believe anything I said was hateful or violent, or even false.

We'll discuss it here, if Nelson and his ilk won't discuss it at Dartmouth. They apparently would rather content themselves with talk of hummus restaurants, as if that will make the global jihad go away. No one is bothering to refute what I said, because, of course, they can't. But if they want to try, I can be reached at director@jihadwatch.org.

Sudan president says will export ethics and morals to Western countries

The murderous Khartoum regime, which has been butchering Christians in Southern Sudan for years and is now waging a jihad against those it deems insufficiently Muslim in Darfur, has now accused the West of "lacking ethics and morals," and promised to "export" them to us.

Omar Al-Bashir must be one of those whom Dinesh D'Souza has dubbed "traditional Muslims," whom he believes are waging jihad in order to protect the traditional morality of their societies from being contaminated by Britney Spears. But unfortunately for the estimable Dinesh, and the rest of us, Omar's methods of restoring morals to those he deems immoral are not quite as non-lethal as, say, Pat Robertson's. "We are," says Omar, "waiting on Allah’s promise to obliterate them.” How beautifully moral!

By Wasil Ali in the Sudan Tribune (thanks to Stacey):

October 28, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — The Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir lashed out at Western countries and accused them of “lacking ethics and morals”.

“Western nations have no ethics or morals and we will export it to them. These countries have the political, military and economic strength. We are strong with our values and we are waiting on Allah’s promise to obliterate them” Al-Bashir said while addressing crowds at the White Nile state capital.

Four more years! Four more years!

Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of Jihad Watch, and we are beginning our second term with things pretty much the way they always have been: the jihadists are still plotting, their allies and dupes are still lying and covering for them, the mainstream media (liberal and conservative) is still cowering in fear, and we are still telling the truth.

This is not a struggle that will take up to five or ten more years, as the learned analysts have predicted to the horrified gasps of the media. The jihadists believe they are continuing a 1,400-year-old struggle. They will not be bought off or negotiated away. And they are advancing in myriad ways that aren't even on the radar screen of law enforcement and government officials in the West.

And so whether it takes four more years, or eight, or sixteen, and whether we will have to pass this struggle for human rights and human dignity on to our children and our children's children, we will never give up. We will not be subdued, we will not be shouted down, we will not be subjugated.

Thank you for reading the site, and for your own efforts for the Counterjihad Resistance.

Britain not doing enough to fight terror, says...Saudi King

Yes, you read that right. I would venture to say that the Chutzpah level of this one far surpasses anything we have seen in four years of jihad watching at this site.

"Saudi king chides UK on terrorism," from the BBC (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism, which he says could take 20 or 30 years to beat.

He was speaking in a BBC interview ahead of a state visit to the UK - the first by a Saudi monarch for 20 years.

He also said Britain failed to act on information passed by the Saudis which might have averted terrorist attacks.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Whitehall officials have strenuously denied this.

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 8, “Booty,” verses 1-30

Speaking of the assertion that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which all good Brown University students know is axiomatically true, despite the cascades of Qur'an verses and claims of Islamic purity that shower upon us on a regular basis courtesy Osama bin Laden and his ideological kin, here is some evidence of the fact. In this installment of my Blogging the Qur’an series, I discuss the first thirty verses of Sura 8, “Booty,” in which Muhammad confronts the forces of the pagan Quraysh at Badr and...turns the other cheek! Exhorts his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them! And begins a Gandhi-esque nonviolent protest!

Sura 8, Al-Anfal — “Booty,” or “The Spoils of War” — dates from the second year of the Medinan period, the second part of Muhammad’s prophetic career. It was revealed not long after the Battle of Badr, the first great victory of the Muslims over their chief rivals of the time, the pagan Quraysh tribe. The title of this sura is better known than most, since Saddam Hussein used Al-Anfal as the name for his genocidal 1988 campaigns against the Kurds, in which between 50,000 and 100,000 people were murdered.

At Badr, the Quraysh came out to meet Muhammad’s three hundred men with a force nearly a thousand strong. Muhammad had provoked the battle by sending his men out to raid a Quraysh caravan, telling them: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you.” As the battle loomed, according to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the Islamic prophet strode among his troops and issued a momentous promise — one that has given heart to Muslim warriors throughout the ages: “By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise.” One of the Muslim warriors, ‘Umayr bin al-Humam, exclaimed: “Fine, Fine! Is there nothing between me and my entering Paradise save to be killed by these men?” He flung away some dates that he had been eating, rushed into the thick of the battle, and fought until he was killed.

The Quraysh were routed. Some Muslim traditions say that Muhammad himself participated in the fighting; others that it was more likely that he exhorted his followers from the sidelines. In any event, it was an occasion for him to avenge years of frustration, resentment, and hatred toward his people who had rejected him. One of his followers later recalled a curse Muhammad had pronounced on the leaders of the Quraysh: “The Prophet said, ‘O Allah! Destroy the chiefs of Quraish, O Allah! Destroy Abu Jahl bin Hisham, ‘Utba bin Rabi’a, Shaiba bin Rabi’a, ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’ait, ‘Umaiya bin Khalaf (or Ubai bin Kalaf).’” All these men were captured or killed during the battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq says that one Quraysh leader named in this curse, ‘Uqba, pleaded for his life: “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” In the confrontation, ‘Uqba had thrown camel dung, blood, and intestines on the Prophet of Islam, to the great merriment of the Quraysh chieftans, while Muhammad prostrated himself in prayer. Muhammad had pronounced a curse on them, and now it was being fulfilled. Who would care for ‘Uqba’s children? “Hell,” Muhammad declared, and ordered ‘Uqba killed.

The victory at Badr was the turning point for the Muslims. It became the stuff of legend, a cornerstone of the new religion. And Allah rewarded those to whom he had granted victory. Verses 1-4 praise the true believers, who follow the Islamic rules concerning prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, and address for the first time the question of the spoils of war from Badr. There was great booty for the victors — so much, in fact, that it became a bone of contention. Muhammad was receiving questions about the disposal of the booty, and Allah tells the Muslims that that is entirely up to Muhammad (v. 1). This was in accord with a special privilege that Allah had granted to Muhammad. Muhammad explained: “I have been given five (things) which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me.” These included the fact that “Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies)” and “the booty has been made Halal (lawful) to me (and was not made so to anyone else).”

Verses 5-17 refer to various incidents that took place before and during the battle, emphasizing that Allah commands warfare and protects the believers in it. The true believers were willing to go out of their homes to wage jihad warfare, although some disliked doing so and disputed with Muhammad about having to do so (vv. 5-6). This echoes 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.” Allah’s promise of “one of the two enemy parties” (v. 7) means, according to Ibn Kathir, that the Muslims would attain victory by either “confiscating the caravan or defeating the Quraysh army.”

Allah announced that a thousand angels joined the Muslims to smite the Quraysh (v. 9), and that he had “inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them’” (v. 12). The Tafsir Al-Jalalayn explains: “that is, [smite] the extremities of their hands and feet: thus, when one of them went to strike an disbeliever’s head, it would roll off before his sword reached it.” V. 12 became one of the chief justifications for the Islamic practice — then and now — of beheading hostages and war captives. At the beheading of American hostage Nicholas Berg in May 2004, for example, the now-dead Iraqi jihad leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi invoked the great battle: “Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?…The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them….And he set a good example for us.”

Allah sent angels against the Quraysh “because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment” (v. 13). The Muslims must always advance, never turning their backs on the enemy, unless they do so as a stratagem of war (vv. 15-16). Allah tells Muhammad that the Muslims were merely passive instruments at Badr. At one point, according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad threw pebbles toward the Quraysh, exclaiming: “Foul be those faces!” But it was Allah who killed the Quraysh and even Allah who threw the pebbles, “in order that He might test the believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things)” (v. 17).

Verses 18-19 address the unbelievers, warning the Quraysh not to attempt another attack, telling them they will again be defeated no matter how much more numerous they are than the Muslims. Verses 20-30 then address the Muslims again, exhorting them to faith and reminding them how Allah gave them victory at Badr despite the enemy’s superior numbers (v. 26). The unbelievers may plot and plan, but “Allah is the best of plotters” (v. 30).

(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.)

Brown Daily Herald praises students for not rioting over assertion that Islam is not a religion of peace

"Polemics don't advance the debate," says the Brown Daily Herald in "Ignoring 'Islamofascism' hype," a vicious little polemic that accuses the organizers of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week of wanting a "fight." The editorialist preens: "We're glad that the debate is being carried out at this level, not with signs and shouting."

Of course, there was shouting when I spoke at Brown last week, although not too much, so the Daily Herald has every right to be proud. Very proud, considering the immense provocation they had to suffer through:

Fortunately, despite confrontational remarks made by Robert Spencer, who said in his lecture here Thursday that he does not believe "that Islam at its core is a peaceful religion," Brown's campus remained largely calm.

Largely?

Anyway, this was not an assertion I made without evidence. I drew a distinction between teaching and practice and explaining the vulnerability of peaceful Muslims to jihadist recruitment on the basis of the jihadists' use of various passages of the Qur'an and Hadith (which I cited), I explained that all the schools of Sunni and Shi'ite jurisprudence have a doctrine involving warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

This was and is a statement of fact. If it is false, the Brown Herald, or the Muslim community at Brown, should refute it. Anyone is welcome to refute it if they can. I can and have (in my books and elsewhere) explained it at length, with abundant citations from the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as from mainstream Islamic commentaries on the Qur'an and Islamic jurists.

But they don't refute it. No one ever has refuted it. Instead, here the Herald treats it as if the very statement constitutes incitement to violence against Muslims. And in an unconscious irony, the Herald expresses relief that the campus remained "largely calm," rather than erupt into violence over someone daring to assert that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Well, bravo, Brown students! What admirable, nay, noble restraint! But if you really want a debate on the key issues, as you say in this editorial, simply heaping abuse and contempt on your opponent and being glad that nobody popped him one is not actually a demonstration of the falsity of his arguments. If you are willing to engage in a genuine discussion and debate of this question -- does Islamic doctrine actually teach peace? -- I am at your service, and will return to Brown.

If you do not wish to engage in such a debate, as appears clear, then be assured that you will not forever be able to ignore this question, or to act as if the mere asking of it is the equivalent of burning a cross on someone's front lawn. Unfortunately, those Muslims who do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace, who are the ones who benefit most from the ruling of this question out of polite discourse, will continue -- unimpeded by their peaceful coreligionists -- to commit acts of violence in order to advance the cause of Islamic supremacism. It is more than likely that this conflict will touch you personally, and your vilification of the anti-jihad movement and your refusal to engage it intellectually may at that point look very different to you from the way it looks today.

Muslim USAF vet: "Hizballah are freedom fighters"

From our Which Side Are You On Department comes Patrick Poole's story about Ohio Muslim activist and U.S. Air Force veteran Mahmoud El-Yousseph, who declares in video at the Central Ohioans Against Terrorism site (scroll down) that the Death-to-America chanting jihadists of Hizballah are actually freedom fighters. Poole also provides substantial background on Hizballah's war against the United States.

Fitzgerald: Sudan, Darfur, and the Jihad

Osama bin Laden is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels" -- i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur.

He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government -- and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.

In Darfur, the Sudanese government has made sure that the troops will only be from the African Union, and has repeatedly said that not a single Western soldier will be allowed in. In other words, there will be no force effective enough to smash the Janjaweed, and protect the black Africans being killed for the crime of being black African, rather than Arab, Muslims.

Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and -- so Muslims believe -- in Arabic. In his remarks on the Sudan, he reveals his indifference to, or rather his tacit approval of, the mass murdering of black Africans. That is not surprising. What is surprising is how this is overlooked by the entire Western world, including those -- such as Nicholas Kristof -- who write about the Sudan without any mention, much less understanding, of either Islam, or that aspect of Islam that makes it a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistic, economic, and political imperialism. That subject is too difficult and too troubling for the heart-on-sleeves (and Pulitzers carefully pocketed) likes of Nicholas Kristof and others like him, who can report, who can be mere reporters, full of their easy anguish, but who cannot make sense, for themselves much less for others, of what it is they have been reporting on. They cannot explain the promptings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, that move the people who run the government in Khartoum. They cannot explain the Arab Muslim view of non-Arab Muslims. Don't expect someone on the mental level of Nicholas Kristof to conceivably be able to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur, where he reports so much and understands so little.

No, Bin Laden doesn't have to worry about the Turabi government in Khartoum. They know exactly how to delay any day of reckoning.

But what of the American government? Does it realize what an opportunity it is missing by not sending a few thousand troops to seize all of the southern Sudan, with its oil, that would allow that region to pay for itself, and deny those oil revenues to the Arabs in the north? They could also send troops to Darfur, and hold both regions until a referendum on independence can be held. That would be a blow for "freedom" and "democracy" that, unlike in Iraq, might actually mean something. For the southern Sudanese are not Muslims, and those in Darfur are nominal Muslims who, having had a taste of the Arab Muslim attitudes, might be willing to listen to the message of Christianity. Already hundreds of refugees from Darfur have apparently, once out of the Sudan, converted to Christianity. Quite an opportunity presents itself for the American government to draw a line against further Arab (and Egyptian Arab) expansion further south. That expansion threatens Ethiopia and Kenya and the rest of the littoral, including Tanzania, which is where the old Arab slave trade had its entrepots, at Pemba and Zanzibar, to ship those black slaves to the Arab slave markets of Muscat, and beyond.

But Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It gets in the way of properly dealing with Iran's nuclear project. It gets in the way of domestic surveillance that is amply justified. It gets in the way of thinking clearly about the future of the Western countries now subject to demographic assault from within. It gets in the way of considering the Jihad as a worldwide phenomenon, one for which terrorism is the least effective of its weapons.

Bin Laden needn't worry about the Sudan. The government there knows exactly what it needs to do to protect the Arab Muslim position, and it has already violated the "peace agreement" with the south in ways that, if Bin Laden knew, would leave him well-satisfied. And they are doing much the same, or trying to, in Darfur.

Those who need to worry about the Sudan are the Infidels. Why has the American government not yet taken the step -- the "humanitarian" step -- of rescuing the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Why has it not allowed its troops to be deployed effectively, instead of ineffectively -- to attain exactly the wrong goals -- in Iraq? Why has it not created a situation in which the Arab League would have to denounce the Americans (and other Western troops) for protecting those who would be obviously grateful to the Americans for ending the mass murder, by Arabs, of black Africans? (See those photographs of smiling black faces surrounding their saviors and protectors?) What better way to drive a wedge between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africa? What better way to bring to the attention of black Americans, one group long targeted for sinister campaigns of Da'wa, that the Arabs conducted a slave trade that lasted far longer (indeed lasts to this day, despite Western efforts to end it) and claimed far more victims (see "The Hideous Trade") than the Atlantic slave trade? The Qur'an permanently recognizes the institution of slavery (and Saudi clerics have restated that position repeatedly). The fury of the Arab League over the rescue of black Africans in Darfur or southern Sudan ought to tell us all a great deal about the real attitudes and intentions of the Arabs.

The Sudan presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, through a very small deployment and application of force. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam not through the bringing of "democracy" and keeping the country together, but by the removal of American troops, in order that the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, may work themselves out, as they inevitably will.

There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Jihad. And that is, or should be, the goal.

"I want the Sharia law imposed in my country"

Those words are spoken by a Muslim woman, apparently a student of George Washington University, in this Incorrect U video (the top one) of GWU Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week festivities. It's at right about the five-minute mark.

Maybe she doesn't mean the United States. Hard to say. But she may.

"Imposed." Not "voted in," or even "instituted." "Imposed." The forcible subjugation as inferiors of women and religious minorities. "Imposed." An Islamic supremacist system that denies the freedom of conscience, stones adulterers, and amputates the hands of thieves.

Well, at least she's honest about it.

Sued for watching jihad

Don't miss the interview with ex-spy Bruce Tefft at FrontPage, and contribute to his legal defense fund. He is being victimized by an effort at legal intimidation the likes of which Jihad Watch readers have seen many times before.

Hey, we came here to wage an interior spiritual struggle!

Actually, they knew it would be about waging war, but they found out no war needed to be waged: "They'd followed the call from a religious leader in Pakistan to come in and wage jihad. They were told believed that the 'infidels' -- the NATO forces -- were running this country now, and they came in to help drive them out...they suddenly realize that Afghanistan is not ruled by infidels, that this very much still a Muslim country, and they were proclaiming their naivete."

Or that's what they say, anyway.

All week during my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talks at DePaul, the University of Rhode Island, and Brown (I also spoke at Dartmouth, but this didn't happen there), I was confronted by people who had been lied to and who fervently believed the lies and were acting upon them. This is apparently -- if the claims of these men are to be believed -- happening in jihad recruitment in Pakistan also.

These men may well be lying, but in theory it is completely believable that these men would have been told that Afghanistan was being trodden under by infidels, with no mention made of how anxious those infidels are not to do anything to give offense to Islam or Muslims. But when the propagandized saw that their propaganda didn't match reality, their eyes began to be opened. Perhaps that will begin to happen on college campuses also.

"Arrested Taliban bombing jihadists claim naivety," from CTV.ca (thanks to DSH):

Three self-confessed, 20-something Pakistani jihadists arrested in Afghanistan have an odd story to tell -- assuming it's true.

"They'd followed the call from a religious leader in Pakistan to come in and wage jihad," CTV's Paul Workman told Newsnet on Saturday from Kandahar.

"They were told believed that the 'infidels' -- the NATO forces -- were running this country now, and they came in to help drive them out.

After their arrest, "they suddenly realize that Afghanistan is not ruled by infidels, that this very much still a Muslim country, and they were proclaiming their naivete," he said.

An Afghan security official told a news conference that three suspected Taliban 'trainers' from Pakistan had been arrested as they travelled to Kandahar province.

Security agents picked up the three men on the highway between Uruzgan province and Kandahar to the south, Abdul Qayoom, of the National Directorate for Security, said Saturday in Kandahar City.

Authorities said they believe the men are trainers for the Taliban, who have been trying to recruit more members to become suicide bombers.

"The intelligence services say they knew they were coming and that they are not just naive foot soldiers, that they very much are involving in training people to make and set roadside bombs," Workman said.

The arrests actually happened a week ago but only made public now. However, the Afghan security forces want to show that they are doing their jobs, he said.

Sermon about killing Jews? Check. Association with accused jihadist cleric? Check. He must be out to ease Muslim-Jewish relations!

"Out of context." "Anti-Muslim prejudice." Not: "We repudiate now and forever any Islamic tradition or teaching that teaches hatred of and/or violence against Jews, and pledge to do all we can to offer benign reinterpretations of this material if it cannot be rejected outright, and to work against the effects of such teachings within the Muslim community."

"New Cleveland imam hopes to ease Muslim-Jewish relations," by David Briggs in the Cleveland Plain Dealer blog (thanks to Mary):

Ahmed Alzaree was looking forward to his new job as spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of Cleveland. The stocky, spirited 38-year-old, who five years ago left his job as a physician in Egypt to become an imam in Omaha, Neb., wanted to be a voice for "tolerance, harmony and understanding."

No sooner did Ohio's largest mosque announce Alzaree's hiring last month, than bloggers posted a portion of a 4-year-old end-times sermon in which the imam quoted the Prophet Muhammad saying one sign of the approach of the Day of Judgment is that "the Muslims will kill the Jews."

Yes indeed. And it's all the bloggers' fault, you see. No would ever have gotten the idea that "The Muslims shall kill the Jews" meant anything crazy like "The Muslims shall kill the Jews" if it hadn't been for those evil bloggers. Alzaree himself was "stunned" that anyone could have mistaken this as anything but an appeal for peace, love, and understanding:

Alzaree was stunned by the ensuing uproar. The Islamic Center of Omaha took his sermons off its Web site as allegations circulated on the Internet that Alzaree associated with an Egyptian cleric suspected of having terrorist ties.

In interviews this week, the imam said he and his wife considered backing out of the Cleveland offer. He said he knew about the lingering tension in Cleveland, where his predecessor, Fawaz Damra, had been deported, but "I did nothing wrong to defend myself [against]."

After lengthy conversations with his family and mosque leaders, the imam put aside his worries and will begin work Thursday at the center in Parma. He has vowed to make an extra effort to meet area Jewish and Christian leaders "to explain Islam, to explain myself to them."

[...]

Muslim-Jewish relations in Northeast Ohio have been troubled since fall 2001 when a decade-old videotape of Damra, the previous imam, surfaced. It showed him railing against Jews "as the sons of monkeys and pigs" and raising money for Palestinian militant groups. Damra apologized, saying he made the remarks when he did not know the Jewish and Christian communities, and the mosque retained him as imam. But some members left in protest, and the center's interfaith work was severely curtailed. In January, Damra was deported to the Middle East on charges he falsified his citizenship application by failing to disclose ties to extremist groups.

The celebration over Alzaree's hiring was short-lived.

Bloggers quickly posted the 2003 sermon in which the imam included a controversial Hadith, a saying of Muhammad. "The hour of judgment shall not happen until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims shall kill the Jews to the point that the Jew shall hide behind a big rock or a tree," the Hadith reads in part.

Bloggers such as Patrick Poole of Central Ohioans Against Terrorism noted that Wagdy Ghoneim, a controversial cleric who left the country after being charged with violating his visa, spoke at the Omaha mosque when Alzaree was imam. Many in the Islamic community believe Ghoneim is a respected scholar, but some terrorism watchers say he preached hatred against Jews and raised funds for militant groups. Poole also wrote that the mosque's Web site contained photographs and statements comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Steven Emerson, executive director of the Washington-based Investigative Project On Terrorism, said based on his study of Alzaree's sermons and the mosque's speaking invitation to Ghoneim, the imam "is a fairly typical Islamic fundamentalist who believes in a literal translation of the Koran. . . . In our parlance, he would be called a militant."

Yehudit Barsky, director of the Division on Middle East and International Terrorism for the American Jewish Committee in New York, said the Hadith in Alzaree's sermon is used today in the Muslim world to legitimize suicide bombings. "If one believes in interfaith dialogue, one should not use that Hadith," she said.

Others offer a different view.

Zeki Saritoprak, professor of Islamic studies at John Carroll University, said the Hadith is part of the ambiguous, allegorical sayings of the prophet. He said Alzaree seemed to be using the saying as part of a discussion of the end times, and not in a political sense encouraging violence against Jews.

"We shouldn't immediately accuse someone just for saying a saying of the prophet," Saritoprak said.

Ashfaque Hussain, treasurer of the Islamic Center of Omaha, said Alzaree visited temples and participated in interfaith programs and gave no indication of being anti-Semitic. "When you talk to some people, you can feel that. He's nothing like that," Hussain said.

Alzaree said the allegations against him are unfounded.

He said the sermon gave many examples of Islamic teaching on the Day of Judgment, including such signs as the rising of the sun from the West, the appearance of an animal or beast to face the unjust and three eclipses. Alzaree said it was clear he was not urging action against any group, and the end-time events the prophet spoke of were in the future. The sermon began with a reminder that no one but Allah knows when judgment day will occur, and in the interim people are encouraged to "strive and struggle in the world doing the good and avoiding the bad and forbidden."

Alzaree also said it was the administration at the Omaha mosque that invited Ghoneim to speak, and the cleric said nothing inflammatory. He said he was unaware of the Holocaust photographs and commentary on the Web site.

Of course.

Islamic Center of Cleveland leaders defended Alzaree. Abu-Shaweesh said the Islamic teaching was taken out of context, and the bloggers' response is an example of anti-Muslim prejudice that undermines the mosque's efforts to rebuild interfaith and community relations.

Out of context. Are we ever going to be told the context in which such statements become harmless?

Pakistani jihadists behead six security officials, murder seven civilians

"It is the fate of an American agent. Whoever works for America will face the same fate."

"Pakistan militants behead guards," from the BBC (thanks to Davida):

Militants in north-west Pakistan have beheaded six security officials and killed seven civilians in apparent reprisals for an army attack.

The army attack on the stronghold of pro-Taleban militant Maulana Fazlullah on Thursday left at least 17 soldiers and a number of civilians dead.

The bodies of the guards reportedly had notes saying they were American agents.

Swat is one of a number of areas near the Afghan border where militants have been gaining control in recent months.

Leaflets dropped

Reports say the civilians who were killed were dragged out of a minibus.

A local resident told Associated Press news agency the bodies of the security officials had notes on them reading: "It is the fate of an American agent. Whoever works for America will face the same fate."

Spencer at Counterjihad Summit, Brussels, October 18, 2007

I linked last week to the indefatigable and courageous Pamela's video of the same talk, given in the Flemish Parliament building in Brussels during the Counterjihad Summit. This new video comes courtesy of Steen.

Of course virtually the entire discussion of the Counterjihad Summit has degenerated into accusations and counter-accusations revolving around the alleged neo-Nazi ties of some of the people who attended. CAIR has attempted to make hay with this, of course, but their dishonesty is well known and abundantly established; deeply unfortunate is the split in the anti-jihad ranks over this. At this point it bears repeating that if there were any actual racists or neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers at this meeting, which is based on evidence that is hotly contested, I completely repudiate them and all that they stand for.

More importantly, the Counterjihad Summit was about the Islamization of Europe, which concerns us all, and concerned just the opposite of what CAIR and its allies and dupes have suggested: it was a conference concerned with defending Western societies and civilization. There was, contrary to the neo-Nazi claims, a strong emphasis on the plight of the Jews in Europe and in general, with Andrew Bostom's address on Islamic antisemitism as the centerpiece. Full reports are being assembled here. The attention should be focused on what we discussed and accomplished there.

Afghan jihad/martyrdom bomber, recent grad of Pakistani madrassa, kills own family

Things didn't go precisely the way he had planned. "Afghan Suicide Bomber Kills Own Family," from Associated Press (thanks to DFS):

KABUL, Afghanistan - A mother who tried to stop her son from carrying out a suicide bomb attack triggered an explosion in the family's home in southern Afghanistan that killed the would-be bomber, his mother and three siblings, police said Monday.

The would-be bomber had been studying at a madrassa, or religious school, in Pakistan, and when he returned to his home in Uruzgan province over the weekend announced that he planned to carry out a suicide attack, Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said.

Surviving family members told police that the suicide vest exploded during a struggle between the mother and her son, said Juma Gul Himat, Uruzgan's police chief. The man's brother and two sisters were also killed.

The Mother of All IFAW Wrap-Ups...

...is at the Washington Times' Fishwrap, where Robert Stacy McCain has collected news from all over. A few of the don't-miss items are:

1. Video of Umar Lee, a Muslim writer who has charged me with harboring secret racist tendencies. (His evidence? Why, I run Jihad Watch!) It looks as if maybe Umar was projecting, for in the Incorrect U video he directs several racial slurs at the black policeman who was evicting him from the IFAW event at George Washington University.

2. Then there's Hot Air video of YAF phenom Jason "CAIR can go to hell and take their 72 virgins with them" Mattera speaking with Adam Kokesh, the GWU student who posted "satirical" flyers that have been taken as real IFAW publications all over. Mattera questions Kokesh brilliantly, tying him up into knots with the contradictions in his thinking, getting him to acknowledge essentially that one may speak in terms of Fascism in an Islamic Context, but not, good heavens, Islamo-Fascism. Here again, on lavish display, is the intellectual bankruptcy of the opposition, and why they must resort to slander, intimidation, and the shouting-down of speakers.

McCain has a great deal more on the Fishwrap page also. Read it all.

Wrapping up IFAW at Dartmouth

Last night I ended Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week on an unexpectedly high note at Dartmouth. Even the hostile questions had less of an edge to them than they had at