Jihad Watch

Report: Pakistani intel helped Mullah Omar flee Quetta

2009-11-20T23:26:32Z

Fiend, er, Friend and Ally Update. "EXCLUSIVE: Taliban chief hides in Pakistan," by Eli Lake, Sara A. Carter, and Barbara Slavin for the Washington Times, November 20 (thanks to Alan):

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Afghan Taliban, has fled a Pakistani city on the border with Afghanistan and found refuge from potential U.S. attacks in the teeming Pakistani port city of Karachi with the assistance of Pakistan's intelligence service, three current and former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Mullah Omar, who hosted Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders when they plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had been residing in Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban shura -- or council -- had moved from Kandahar after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Two senior U.S. intelligence officials and one former senior CIA officer told The Washington Times that Mullah Omar traveled to Karachi last month after the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. He inaugurated a new senior leadership council in Karachi, a city that so far has escaped U.S. and Pakistani counterterrorism campaigns, the officials said.

The officials, two of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI, helped the Taliban leaders move from Quetta, where they were exposed to attacks by unmanned U.S. drones.

The development reinforces suspicions that the ISI, which helped create the Taliban in the 1990s to expand Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan as the Obama administration prepares to send more U.S. troops to fight there.

Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran and analyst on al Qaeda and the Taliban, confirmed that Mullah Omar had been spotted in Karachi recently.

"Some sources claim the ISI decided to move him further from the battlefield to keep him safe" from U.S. drone attacks, said Mr. Riedel, who headed the Obama administration's review of policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring. "There are huge madrassas in Karachi where Mullah Omar could easily be kept."

Mr. Riedel also noted that there had been few suicide bombings in Karachi, which he attributed to the Taliban and al Qaeda not wanting to "foul their own nest."

A U.S. counterterrorism official said, "There are indications of some kind of bleed-out of Taliban types from Quetta to Karachi, but no one should assume at this point that the entire Afghan Taliban leadership has packed up its bags and headed for another Pakistani city."

A second senior intelligence officer who specializes in monitoring al Qaeda said U.S. intelligence had confirmed Mullah Omar's move through both electronic and human sources as well as intelligence from an unnamed allied service....

American convert to Islam endorses death penalty for apostasy

2009-11-20T22:06:44Z

After this post, I decided to write to Umar Lee (with whom I've had some interaction in the past) and ask for an interview. Here is our exchange, in which he endorses the death penalty for apostasy in principle, just not at the moment in America. At very least, his honesty about Islamic teaching is a refreshing departure from the deceptions and diversions of Honest Ibe Hooper, Brave Ahmed Rehab, and their ilk:

1. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Umar
How you doing? It's been a long time. I hope you're well.

I've read your post on Muslims in the military with great interest, and am posting about it now at Jihad Watch.

Would you be up for an interview with me on this and related issues?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Your friend as ever,
Robert Spencer

2. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Mr. Spencer, i do not have time to grant interviews at this time. Regarding my position on muslims in the military i stand by the fatawa posted on my blog and that is why i encorage all muslims in america to not join. My feelings on the ft hood shooting and brother nidal hassan will be in the next edition of muslim quarterly magazine in an article titled why the fort got hood.

3. Spencer to Umar Lee:

Thanks for your kind and informative note. I respect the fact that you base your position on Sharia norms as delineated by the Qur'an and Sunnah. In line with that, I was wondering about what you thought on a tangential but related matter: in light of all the publicity that the Rifqa Bary case has gotten, and the many statements by Muslim leaders in the U.S. denying that Islam mandates death for apostates, do you uphold the traditional death penalty for apostasy as taught by Muhammad and by all the madhahib?
Thanks and regards
Robert

4. Umar Lee to Spencer:

Im not that up on that case. What i do know is we live in a very imoral society and teens are bombarded with negative messages. Any teen girl who is not a serial fornicator is seen as square and if she has good muslim parents making sure she is not acting like a ho she may rebel. I am not a scholar but the ruling on apostacy is clear. In an ideal world the apostate would face death but there is no authority to implement the shariah in america so no she shouldnt be killed and besides this girl may very well be making the whole thing up.

Rifqa Rally video!

2009-11-20T21:19:00Z

Ace videographer Dave Miles kindly sent along these superb videos from the Rifqa Rally for human rights and religious freedom, Columbus, Ohio, November 16.

Russian Orthodox priest who preached among Muslims shot to death in church

2009-11-20T20:46:48Z

The identity of the masked gunman is not yet known, but the number of threats against Fr. Sysoyev that already existed because of his work among Muslims is itself noteworthy. And Russian prosecutors are also proceeding with the theory that "religious motives" are behind the murder.

"Russian Priest Gunned Down in Church," by Alexander Marquardt for ABC News, November 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Russian Orthodox priest known for his missionary work among Muslims was gunned down in his Moscow church, Russian officials said Friday.

Thirty-four-year-old Daniil Sysoyev was shot at least four times at in the head and chest in the Church of St. Thomas by a masked gunman Thursday night, according to the Prosecutor General's Investigative Committee. The assailant also wounded the church's choirmaster, Vladimir Strelbitsky.

Sysoyev died on the way to the hospital. Strelbitsky is in critical condition.

"The main theory is that religious motives are behind the crime," a prosecutor's office spokesman told reporters.

Sysoyev routinely denounced Islam and actively reached out to Muslims and various religious sects to convert them. In a recent interview with a Russian newspaper, Sysoyev boasted that he had baptized 80 Muslims.

But with his ambitious missionary work came death threats.

"They've threatened to cut my head off 14 times," Sysoyev told Komsomolskaya Pravda in the interview. "The FSB [Federal Security Service] got in touch with me a year ago to say they had uncovered a murder plot against me."

He told a television interviewer in February 2008 that he considered it a sin not to preach to Muslims, according to the Interfax news agency.

Sysoyev was originally from the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, where a large majority of the population is Muslim. He published books titled "An Orthodox Response to Islam" and "Marrying a Muslim," which criticized the faith and drew fierce responses from Muslim organizations.

'No Reason to Kill'

Russia's Council of Muftis strongly denounced the murder Friday, saying differences should be worked out in a civilized way....

Minnesota: Sixth Muslim charged with recruiting Somali residents for jihad

2009-11-20T20:33:41Z

Still another "misunderstander" of Islam. Funny how that keep happening. "Sixth area Somali man is indicted in probe," by James Walsh, Richard Meryhew and Allie Shah for the Star Tribune, November 20:

A 24-year-old local Somali man has been indicted in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on charges of conspiring to provide support to terrorists.

Omer Abdi Mohamed, an unemployed employment counselor and father of a 2-month-old boy, was indicted on charges of conspiracy to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" people in foreign countries, according to an indictment filed Tuesday but made public Thursday.

Mohamed, of Minneapolis, is the sixth Somali man with local ties to be charged in connection with a two-year-old federal counterterrorism investigation aimed at finding out who recruited as many as 20 area men of Somali descent to return to their homeland and train and fight with the terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. The probe is considered to be one of the most sweeping international counterterrorism investigations since Sept. 11, 2001.

When asked if investigators allege that Mohamed was a recruiter, Peter Wold, his attorney, said: "In the end, I think you'll see that certainly wasn't the case."

The indictment released Thursday provides few details, but it links Mohamed to a broad conspiracy involving other men who returned to Somalia to fight or train with terrorists, including Shirwa Ahmed, a 26-year-old Minneapolis man believed to be the first U.S. suicide bomber.

According to the indictment, others connected to the conspiracy include: Salah Osman Ahmed, Kamal Said Hassan, Ahmed Ali Omar, Abdifatah Isse and Khalid Mohamud Abshir -- all of whom left the United States in December 2007 with a final destination of Somalia. Ahmed, Hassan and Isse all have pleaded guilty to the same charges Mohamed faces.

Wold said after the hearing Thursday that his client knew the other men through the mosque where they prayed. Isse Hussein, Mohamed's cousin, said Mohamed prayed "a lot" at Abubakar as-Saddique Islamic Center in south Minneapolis. [...]

A Minneapolis woman who described herself as an acquaintance of Mohamed said he was known by the nickname "Galeyr" and was good friends with Salah Ahmed. She said Mohamed also was related to Adarus Abdullah Ali, 25, who admitted in federal court this month to lying to a grand jury about knowing men who went to Somalia to fight.

The woman, who was close friends with Mohamoud Hassan, a local Somali who was killed in Mogadishu in September, said Mohamed and Ahmed and some of the other men who left Minnesota for Somalia often spent time at Abubakar, the largest Somali mosque in the state. [...]

The woman said she doesn't know for certain why all the men left for Somalia, but said she believes it's rooted in a combination of patriotic feelings toward the Somali homeland and religious fervor. [...]

Minneapolis has been at the center of the international counterterrorism investigation since the first of up to 20 young Somali men from Minnesota began quietly leaving to return to their homeland. In most cases, the men left without telling their families or friends of their plans.

The focus of the investigation has been uncovering the identities of those who recruited the men and financed their return to Somalia to train and fight.

The men are believed to have been recruited by Al-Shabaab, which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaida.

Since October 2008, five of the Minnesotans who left have died. A sixth man, a Muslim convert from Minneapolis, also is thought to have been killed.

Senators getting closer: Fort Hood massacre was terrorism

2009-11-20T09:38:58Z

It's not the whole truth. It's not "Fort Hood massacre was jihad," although even that word comes up. It's not an acknowledgment that the attack was motivated by the same murderous ideology that took down the Twin Towers and that threatens Israel and other free nations around the world every day, but it's a step.

"Senators say Fort Hood shooting was terrorism: Several lawmakers and terror experts at Senate hearings on the Fort Hood shooting Thursday called the incident a terrorist attack, and warned of the danger of homegrown jihad," by Patrik Jonsson for The Christian Science Monitor, November 19:

The Senate Homeland Security Committee Thursday began its probe into the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting with few details about what everyone really wants to know: the true motives of alleged shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.
Nevertheless, several lawmakers at the hearing called the rampage a terrorist attack.

That label was supported by most of the terror experts who testified at the Senate hearing. Addressing questions about how red flags were missed in the lead-up to the rampage, experts pinpointed a rise in homegrown terrorism and expressed the need for the government to establish, in the words of retired Army Gen. John Keane, "clear specific guidelines as to what is jihadist extremist behavior, how do you identify this behavior, and how does it manifest itself?"

Uh, yeah. One would think that such a thing would have been in place for years now -- long enough for clear-eyed and clear-minded people, i.e., those more interested in truth than in political correctness, to realize that there was nothing "extremist" about Hasan's actions from the standpoint of the Koran and Sunnah. But of course nothing like this is in place at all. CAIR and its allies, with their campaign of intimidation and obfuscation, have made sure of that.

The Fort Hood shooting, like no other incident, has "fueled discussion about the spectre of violent extremist ideology in our midst," said Juan Zarate, the former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.
"There is no smoking gun that reveals Hasan's true motivations and signaled intent, so the patchwork of data points and behavioral clues in light of the incident ... appear to point to a path of violence," he added. "The question then is whether the data points were seen and evaluated properly."...

No smoking gun. He passed out Korans on the day of the shooting and shouted "Allahu akbar" as he shot, but really, it all could have been about the poor quality of the food available at Fort Hood.

News reports have detailed the failure of the military to report up the chain of command the disturbing and delusionary behavior Hasan exhibited. Some have suggested this was partly because of the fear of appearing to be targeting a Muslim.
"Political correctness played a role," according to Keane. "It shouldn't have to be an act of moral courage on behalf of a soldier to report behavior that we should not be tolerating within the military; it should be an obligation."

Yep.

Fitzgerald: Yemen, and What to Think About It

2009-11-20T08:47:52Z

If you have been paying attention - and even if you have not - by now you know that something is going on in Yemen. You have heard about the "Houthis" - that is, a group of Shi'a, who have named themselves after a leader of one of their tribes, and who live in the northern part of Yemen, where they constitute a majority of the population. They also perhaps constitute as much as 40% of the total Yemeni population. And you know that these Shi'a are not quite like the Shi'a of iran, but nonetheless, they are Shi'a, and so, to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, they are considered to be nearly Infidels.

That didn't keep the Saudis, more than forty years ago, from supporting tribes, including "Zaidi" or Shi'a tribes, in the north of Yemen, against the dangerously "Marxist" southerners of Yemen. But that word "marxist" is treacherous. As J. B. Kelly has written, the casual application of the word "Marxist" in the context of an Arab Muslim country is misleading, for beneath that "Marxism" is Islam. The dictatorship of the proletariat, and the collective ownership of the means of production, is not exactly on the minds of Muslim tribesmen; "Marxism" has been a phrase used by one set of would-be seizers of the national wealth against whatever prior seizers of the national wealth are currently in power.

Yes, in the mid-1960s Yemen, a country that contains a larger population than its immediate northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia, was the site of what so many are content to call a "proxy war" between Nasserist Egypt (representing not so much the "Marxists" - as the American State Department appeared to think, as those who were less fanatical, and slightly more secular, in their reception of Islam) and Saudi Arabia, said to be backing people called "the Royalists." That proxy war in Yemen has no significance whatsoever save that it helped to occupy and preoccupy Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and to weaken the forces of both - an outcome that should be remembered as we try to think about Yemen today.

]]> And in the Yemen today there is not one conflict, as much of the coverage seems to imply, but two. The one that gets all the attention is that in the north, because now at long last, everyone and his brother has finally realized that the Shi'a and the Sunnis do not exactly get along, anywhere. And having grasped at least that - which if it had been thoroughly understand five or six years ago, might have made the goals in Iraq different from what they turned out, impossibly, to be, and we would have left many years earlier, once the inevitable transfer of power from Sunni Arab to Shi'a Arab had taken place. But, in making up for their previous ignorance, many have chosen to see, a bit carelessly, the conflict in Yemen, or at least in north Yemen, as one simply of Shi'a and Sunni. But it is not. It is also a struggle of those who have rightly sensed that they do not share in the nation's wealth, the nation's power, as do others. And those people most aware of this appear to be the Zaidis, or as they now style themselves, the Houthis. The President of Yemen himself is a Zaidi. He understands that the battle against his government is that of wanting a greater share of money and power, but as everywhere in Muslim-dominated lands, religion will color and come to define a conflict. Just as a despotic and corrupt ruler cannot be opposed for being despotic and corrupt, but only for being a bad Muslim, for being a friend of Infidels and thus practically an infidel himself, so a war for money and power, conducted by Shi'a, in a country where the Shi'a ruled for centuries and now rule no longer, is likely as time goes by to take on a Shi'a against Sunni cast.

And the Islamic Republic of Iran has been supporting the Shi'a Hizballah in Lebanon, has been supporting the Shi'a Arabs In Iraq, has managed to make the Alawite rulers of Syria come closer to Iran, partly because the Iranian clerics are wiling to consider the Alawites (who rule Syria despite being only 12% of the population) as full-fledged Muslims, a judgment or endorsement that is important to the Alawites, since they are forever threatened by the real Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, who make up more than 70% of Syria's population. Whether Iran has actually been sending shiploads of weapons or not is unimportant. The conspiracy theories and hysteria that come so easily to Muslim rulers and ruled alike, make it hard for the Saudis not to believe that something is up. Their behavior now has been such as possibly to intrigue the plotters in Teheran, to make them feel that perhaps, for a little investment, they might make trouble for their enemy Saudi Arabia, the country where Shi'a are treated, by some, and regarded, by many, as not only Infidels but even worse than the normal run-of-the-mill Infidels.

There is another, different, smaller conflict. And it is in the south of Yemen, and is centered on the area that was once a separate state, supposedly full of "Marxists," - the state that we associate with Aden and Aden town. Shades of Mad Mike Hoare and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. That conflict is important only insofar as it shows what difficulty the government of Yemen may have in holding the country together. As with the north, the revolt in the south is about the distribution of wealth and power. In the Muslim Arab countries, wealth and power come not from economic activity, as we understand that, but rather from control of the government (and the military), and then seizure or diversion of much of the national revenues to the favored family or group or tribe. Think of Saddam Hussein and his Tikrit band, of the Assad dynasty, of the Mubarak soon-to-be dynasty and the stratokleptocrats at the pharaonic court, think of Qaddafi, soon to be succeeded by Saif Qaddafi, think of the FLN generals ruling Algeria, of the Al-Maktoum, of the Al-Sabah, the Al-Nayyan, and above all of the tens of thousands, by now, of princes and princelings and princelettes, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, of the rapacious family of the Al Saud. That is what is going on in Yemen. In the north it has another dimension, one that perhaps will grow, of a religious conflict, for part of the reason the dominant Sunnis in Yemen do not give the Zaidis (or Houthis) their due is because, precisely, that they are not Sunnis but despised Shi'a, Arabs.

What should be our reaction to all of this? The answer: Not much. We should take pleasure in the spectacle of warfare, in any Muslim land, warfare that takes up the attention of the locals, and uses up not only their resources, but also, one hopes, the resources of their neighbors. The Saudis are right to be worried. For Yemen is not only more populous, but the border is impossible to defend (the Saudis are planning to spend many tens of billions on a fence, so frightened are they). The Yemenis, unlike the pampered Saudis, are akin to the Afghans in being naturally warlike, living as they do in a Hobbesian state (and in Yemen, itself a Hobbesian state). They are much tougher than the Saudis who have become soft, since they rode out of the Hejaz and defeated the Shammar tribe in 1920, now well-used to relying on blue-eyed mercenaries, Infidels, for their ultimate survival.

Of course the Saudis have airplanes, and are perfectly willing to bomb, mercilessly, civilian villages, and have done so, killing how many hundreds we do not know. No one cares. No outrage from the U.N. That is all perfectly predictable. For Saudi Arabia can get away with this, even though exactly one Saudi soldier had been killed, while Israel, that endured years of rockets shot into Israel's villages and cities, was furiously and is still furiously denounced for actions far less indiscriminate than the bombings that Saudi Arabia has been engaged in. And note that the Saudis say they will establish a zone, within Yemen, a buffer zone that is not to be inhabited, and that will be 10 kilometers deep. Ten kilometers - why, that's just a little under 8 miles, and 8 miles is the width of Israel in the 1949 armistice lines to which some, including our immoral and ignorant government, are attempting once again to squeeze the Jews of Israel into - the wasp-waist that goes from Qalqilya to the sea is merely 8 miles, about the width of that buffer zone that Saudi Arabia is now imposing.

Oh, let them impose the buffer zone. Let the Iranians deliver weapons, including missiles to shoot down Saudi planes. Let Saudi planes be shot down. Let Saudi Arabia, with its waddling princes and its unmerited trillions, and its absurd pretensions - a primitive society based entirely on oil revenues, and on the work of foreign, chiefly Infidel, wage-slaves - be occupied with that. The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day's news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. And the showdown in Iraq, that is surely coming, between Sunni Arabs (who will never accept their new, inferior status) and the Shi'a Arabs (who will never yield any of the power they have now acquired thanks to the deposing of Saddam Hussein by the Americans) is likely only to exacerbate Shi'a-Sunni tensions and war in the Yemen.

No one was paying much attention, back in the 1960s, to the war in Yemen. I did, because for a short time, in Madrid, I shared living quarters with a most unsavory Belgian who ran guns to the "Royalists" and was as big a crook as you can imagine. But it was, from the viewpoint of Infidels, a good war. It was not as good a war as the eight-year war that took up the attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and caused both sides to expend men, money, materiel for eight wonderful years. And if this new war continues, and does not exhaust itself soon, with too decisive a victory over the Houthis, no one in our world, in Dar al-Harb, should worry about this, or think things should be done to stop it. Let it go on. Let it go on, forever.

SecDef orders Army inquiry into why nobody reported the Fort Hood jihadist

2009-11-19T23:52:37Z

Secretary Gates, I can save you a lot of time and trouble: no one reported Nidal Hasan because they were afraid of the repercussions that would come to them in this politically correct age. They were afraid of being accused of being racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc. They were afraid of showing up in the next Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Alert.

But it will be interesting to see what creative fiction your investigators come up with in lieu of admitting that.

"Gates orders Army inquiry after Fort Hood killings," from the BBC, November 19 (thanks to Hildegard):

A review of US Army and Pentagon policies has been ordered by the defence secretary in the wake of a shooting at a military base.
The review will include Pentagon medical and personnel programmes, and US military base security.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates appointed a former Army secretary and an ex-Navy chief to report in 45 days.

The review is in addition to others into the Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed.

Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, was shot by police during the incident on 5 November, and remains in hospital. He has been charged with 13 counts of murder.

"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Mr Gates said at the Pentagon....

Former US Army secretary Togo West and former chief of naval operations, Admiral Vernon Clark will oversee the review.

US President Barack Obama has already ordered a review of the way intelligence agencies handled information about the major.

US intelligence authorities revealed they knew Maj Hasan had been in contact with a cleric sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

An FBI-led task force monitoring the e-mail of Yemen-based US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki said he had communicated with Maj Hasan - a US-born Muslim and army psychiatrist - on 10 to 20 occasions.

However, it was decided that further investigation was not needed, as the content of the messages did not advocate or threaten violence.

Muslim countries trying again to criminalize criticism of Islam at the UN

2009-11-19T22:19:18Z

They're doing it, of course, under the cover of criminalizing "blasphemy," but the real agenda here is to compel the West to adopt Sharia norms forbidding criticism of Islam, including analysis of the jihad terrorists' motives and goals. This, of course, would leave us mute and defenseless before them.

AP thinks that the free nations of the West will oppose this. But with Barack Obama in the White House, that isn't actually certain. After all, he made sure that the U.S. not only supported, but cosponsored (with Egypt) a similar initiative at the United Nations not too long ago.

American convert to Islam says it is not permissible for Muslims to join an Infidel army

2009-11-19T16:03:41Z

Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"?

Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.

"Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army?," by Umar Lee, November 19:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen a serious re-defining and whitewashing of what our deen is and is not. Since the Ft Hood shootings, and even before that, we have seen many Muslim organizations refer to US troops which are occupying Muslim lands, as "our troops". They have celebrated Muslims that have gone over to fight and kill other Muslims. We see Muslim spokesmen saying that the Muslims must abandon the concept of "Ummah". We are seeing Muslims and Muslim Organizations calling for American citizenship to be put above their loyalty to other Muslims around the world. This is a very strange thing as prior to 9/11 the ulamaa of Islam had many fatwas that said just the opposite, especially with regards to a Muslim joining a kufr army and going to fight other Muslims.
We find the people nowadays saying that it is perfectly permissible and even praiseworthy to join the kufr army. This is in contrast to what we saw in the past from the scholars. I would like to know what our friends at Muslim Matters have to say about the following fatwas from such scholars as Sh Ibn Uthaymeen and Sh. Al Munajid. What do they think the scholars would say about al wala wal bara (something completely forgotten about and not taught these days)?

This first fatwa is from Sh Al-Munajjid:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war. What should I do? What is the ruling if I go...?
Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa', i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them"[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters - unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da'wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter.

This one is from Sh Ibn Muhammad Saalih al-Uthaymeen, May Allah have mercy upon him:

What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country ? What is the evidence for its permissibility or prohibition? And lastly, what is the status of a Muslim working to help those in the military to fulfill their obligations to Allaah while serving in the Army, Navy, or whatever?
Praise be to Allaah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:

"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit, it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."

On this basis, if a person works as a preacher or daa'iyah or imaam or muezzin, serving the Muslims and calling non-Muslims to Islam, then there is nothing wrong with this.

And for good measure, here is one more fatwa

So can the brothers find me a fatwa from a repudible scholar of the sunnah (not one that quotes from his desires) that says that it is permissible to put citizenship above our Islam and join the kafir army and to fight against Islam and the Muslims? It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

The evidence is clearly against those who are saying that these things are permissible.

Here is a question:

If a group of Muslims in Mecca attacked the United States and the US Army wanted to retaliate by taking the haram, would it still be permissible to join the kufr army?

Fittingly enough, Osama bin Laden's son wants to work at the UN

2009-11-19T15:18:48Z

Since the UN, with its OIC-driven agenda, is simply the other side of bin Laden's coin, this would be a perfect fit. "Britain: Bin-Laden's son wants to work for the UN," from AKI, November 19 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

New York, 19 Nov. (AKI) - The son of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Omar, has told a British magazine that he would like to promote peace and work for the United Nations. His comments were published on Thursday in New Statesman magazine.
"I do not believe that I would be a good politician - I have a habit of speaking the truth, even when it does not serve me well. But I would like to be in a position to promote peace. I believe that the United Nations would be ideal for me," said Omar Bin-Laden.

So do I, Omar!

Last year in November, Omar requested asylum in Spain, but his application was refused.
He was travelling on a Saudi Arabian passport and was detained at Madrid's Barajas Airport after arriving on a flight from Egypt.

In the interview, Omar told New Statesman that he would seek God's advice in whether to report his father if he knew where he was hiding.

"If such a time comes, God will guide me to the correct path. But any child on earth would have difficulty with such a situation."...

Spencer interviewed at the Rifqa Rally

2009-11-19T15:01:21Z

Interviewed by ex-Muslim Nabil Qureshi at the Rifqa Rally, November 16, Columbus, Ohio. (Thanks to David.)

Spencer on the Fred Thompson Show

2009-11-19T14:58:55Z

Interview from November 6 (thanks to James).

Imam misunderstands Islam, asks, "What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals...why is it wrong to cut off his hand?"

2009-11-19T14:06:53Z

If someone in America points out that such punishments are part of Sharia, he is derided as an ignorant "Islamophobe." But the Koran is clear: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." -- Koran 5:38

And it is also clear that this verse is taken literally and seriously by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. And so this imam is saying something that is only controversial to those who are ignorant (whether willfully so or not).

"What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks," by Christian Peregin for the Times of Malta, November 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

Imam Mohamed El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, believes chopping off the hands of thieves is a "deserving punishment".
Mr El Sadi made the statement during Monday's television programme Bondiplus, where he defended Sharia law, a judicial system used in some Islamic states and which can involve severe corporal punishments.

Contacted yesterday, Mr El Sadi stood by his comments and added the world was incurring the "wrath of God" through its permissiveness and destruction of spiritual and moral values, namely through the acceptance of "same-sex marriages, homosexuality, adultery and abortion".

Under Sharia law, such things are considered crimes that may even be punishable by death. When asked if he agreed with such punishments he said: "Yes, of course. I agree with everything Islamic."...

Mr Bondì then asked whether religion should dictate the laws of the country, through, say, Sharia law.

"What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals, he is taking from the country or the poor, so why is it wrong to cut off his hand?" the Imam replied.

Mr El Sadi said the punishment should terrify thieves and criminals, "not the good people".

When speaking to The Times about his remarks, the Imam said: "Why don't you concentrate on what is common rather than pick on what is controversial?"

He said he was not proposing this system for Europe because it would be undemocratic. But it was also undemocratic for Muslim countries not to use it because most Muslims wanted it....

He conceded there were different kinds of Muslims who thought of Sharia differently. "But whoever denies this is not a Muslim," he said, adding the law of God was perfect.

He said there were many safeguards to ensure Sharia law was applied justly, through a court system that depended on having several witnesses. "This does not apply to thieves who are poor or hungry. This is for people who have everything and want more; people who are greedy... The point is to frighten criminals."

Fr Renè Camilleri, who was also a guest on the programme, said he was "shocked" by the Imam's comments.

"I tried to insist violence is unacceptable. The concept is horrific to me. It is equivalent to the death penalty. I know it is what Sharia law dictates but, coming from him, such a moderate and tolerant person, I was shocked," he said, adding he never considered the Imam to be a fundamentalist....

Columbia and Princeton cancel talks by ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish after Muslim pressure

2009-11-19T14:01:04Z

Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Pamela at Atlas Shrugs:

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of "Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law". and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.
Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before she was scheduled to speak, the groups (the Debate Society and Tigers of Israel) succumbed to student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Nonie called me from her NY taxi, shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on US soil, the largest in US history, that activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

There is much more. Read it all.