Cardinal: Christians Second-Class in Muslim Lands

Few non-Muslims in America seem to recognize the realities of the institutionalized oppression that non-Muslims must endure under Islamic law. But the Vatican seems to be becoming quite aware of these realities: "Too many Islamic countries treat their Christian minorities as second-class citizens and bar them from building churches while Western states let their Muslims build mosques freely, according to a senior Vatican official." This from Reuters, with thanks to Nancy Block.

"Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who recently retired as the Vatican's foreign minister, told the French Catholic daily La Croix Wednesday that Christianity and Islam faced 'an enormous task' of learning to live together in mutual tolerance. Tauran was the latest and highest-ranking Catholic official to voice concern about Vatican relations with Muslims, an issue seen as central for whoever succeeds the ailing Pope John Paul.

"'There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens,' said Tauran, the church's top diplomat for 13 years before he had to step aside on being made a cardinal by Pope John Paul in October. Stressing the need for respect for minorities, he singled out 'the extreme case of Saudi Arabia, where freedom of religion is violated absolutely -- no Christian churches and a ban on celebrating Mass, even in a private home. Just like Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well,' the French-born cardinal said.

"Leading church figures have increasingly expressed concern about Islam in view of friction between Muslims and Christians in Africa and the Middle East and the difficult integration of Muslim minorities in traditionally Christian Europe.
La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit journal published with Vatican approval, said last October Islam had a 'warlike face' throughout history and charged Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan discriminated against Christians.

"This was seen as a departure from the more balanced approach the Vatican has taken toward the Muslim world, where it usually stressed both positive and negative aspects of its relations. In Rome that same month to celebrate Pope John Paul's 25th anniversary as pontiff, several cardinals cited relations with Islam as a key issue for the next papacy, akin to the Communist challenge at the beginning of the Polish pope's reign.

"The head of the United States bishops' conference, Bishop Wilton Gregory, spoke of potential religious violence. Referring to Islam in the West and in Africa, he said: 'It's growing in places it didn't exist before and it is growing in places where Christianity is growing. The world cannot afford a violence that is born of religious intolerance.'

"Saudi Arabia has rejected criticism of its ban on churches, arguing the Vatican would not let mosques be built on its land. Abid Ullah Jan, a Pakistani writer based in Canada, wrote that the Civilta Cattolica article signaled the Vatican had 'joined the ranks of intellectual warriors who are battling Islam with renewed zeal since the fall of the Soviet Union.'

"Since becoming cardinal, Tauran has taken a lower-profile post as Vatican librarian but has also been appointed to several important Church commissions for foreign affairs, Catholic doctrine, Eastern churches and bishops' appointments."

Ford Has a Better Idea: One Nation Under Allah

Even though revelations had already come out about the Ford Foundation's involvement in funding terrorist groups, Alyssa A. Lappen's Front Page piece today is eye-opening. Some of the new information even involves Khaled Abou El Fadl, the prominent Muslim academic who was recently embroiled in an imbroglio with an Egyptian newspaper he says misquoted him.

Read it all: it is full of enlightening information (plus an abundance of supporting links). But here are a few highlights:

"To most Americans, it may seem unlikely that the U.S. Constitution could -- or should -- ever be revised to conform to strict Islamic law. But an educational program funded by the Ford Foundation has explored that very possibility, challenging our right to unfettered freedom of speech. The program, administered by the woefully misnamed Constitutional Rights Foundation, asks students to ponder how the Constitution could be amended or otherwise interpreted to prohibit blasphemy against Allah. . . .

"Just how piddling are the offenses in question? Ask a group of young party-goers in Seattle. They printed a flyer advertizing a "rave" and unknowingly decorated it with a verse from the Koran. Ali-Salaam Mahmoud, head of the Sea Tac, Washington Majid As Salaam mosque demanded the rave promoters recall and destroy their 50,000 brochures. The rave promoters did not comply, but 400 Seattle Muslims organized a taxi work stoppage in protest. Several Jewish and Christian leaders supported the offended Muslims. . . .

"In Islam, cursing Allah or misusing the Koran is equivalent to blasphemy. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the legality of the offending brochure. Even if the rave promoters had knowingly used the Koran script, their right to distribute it would still be protected. No U.S. citizen is required to defer to this or any other religion; indeed, the Constitution confers on Americans the right to ridicule religion if they choose. . . .

"The Los Angeles-based Constitutional Rights Foundation was established in 1962 to 'instill in our nation's youth a deeper understanding of citizenship' and 'values expressed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.' Its $3 million annual budget creates and distributes teaching materials ostensibly to support the Bill of Rights. However, CRF’s Service Learning Network in 2002 issued online 'diversity' teaching units featuring terrorism and Islam sections—plus a whitewashed history of Islamic law and a proposed blasphemy amendment to the U.S. Constitution. CRF created the Islamic Issues segments for the winter 1998 edition of its quarterly newsletter.

"Its final Islamic study unit does ask students to consider Islamic views on the Salman Rushdie case—and a proposed blasphemy amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating, 'The First Amendment shall not be interpreted to protect blasphemous speech. States shall be free to enact anti-blasphemy laws as long as they prohibit offensive speech against all religions.' Students are asked to define blasphemy, explain the 'strong' Islamic reaction to Rushdie’s novel, and assume the role of a U.S. Senator considering the amendment. They are not asked to discuss the Sharia punishment for blasphemy, which traditionally has been death. Such condemnations occur to this day. . . .

"The same Ford Foundation that funded anti-Semitic NGOs at the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban also finances CRF’s Service Learning Network. . . . UCLA Islamic law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl was academic reviewer for CRF’s 1998 Origins of Islamic Law unit, reissued online in 2002. He read the other units as well, according to Hayes, who adds that he continues to advise CRF on Islamic history together with University of Southern California Middle East 'expert' Lori Brand and UCLA associate history professor Michael Morony. Curiously, Hayes says the adviser for the blasphemy unit 'did not want to be identified.'

"In May 2003, El Fadl’s reputed 'moderation' earned him a seat on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF). In November 2002, he reported receiving death threats a year earlier, after writing that the September 11 attacks reflected a crisis at Islam’s core. In April 2003, in a 10,000-word Boston Review essay El Fadl claimed that Sharia 'fulfills the criteria of justice and legitimacy,' is 'based on the rule of law,' and binds the governed to governor. Sharia 'deprives human beings of arbitrary authority over other human beings,' he claimed, and could therefore provide a 'normative stance' considering 'justice and diversity to be core values' of a democratic constitutional order.

"Sharia offers no democratic foundation, however. Far from protecting diversity or justice, Sharia historically has provoked and sanctioned oppression and wholesale genocide of non-Muslim minorities. Such policies continue to this day in Islamic countries like Pakistan, Sudan and Indonesia, where Muslims perpetrate genocide against Christian and other minorities with little sanction." But I doubt you will find Professor El Fadl acknowledging that.

Iraqi Christians fear for their lives

Reuters offers a harrowing account of life for Christians in today's Iraq. In accordance with dhimmi restrictions on selling alcohol, liquor salesmen are being targeted by radical Muslims. Meanwhile, Iraqi police turn a blind eye to Muslims committing genuine offenses.

"Bashir Toma Elias was killed by a single shot to the head in the middle of Basra's bazaar on Christmas Eve as he prepared to head home to celebrate with his wife and five children. The killing of the Iraqi Christian alcohol merchant sowed fresh fear in a community afraid of increasing religious intolerance in mainly Shi'ite Muslim southern Iraq.

"His widow Jihan cried hysterically outside the Chaldean Church in the affluent Manawi Pasha neighbourhood after Christmas Mass, held in the morning because the lack of security prevented holding a midnight service. 'We buried Bashir and our priests are celebrating while we are being slaughtered,' said 40-year-old Jihan. 'Where is the peace they preach?'

"Bashir, 48, was the latest liquor store trader fatally shot in the country's second largest city since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April. Residents say the killer escaped as passers-by looked on, in a city still plagued by crime and mob rule despite the British military presence. Since the war that toppled Saddam, armed groups have looted and set ablaze several liquor stores in the once freewheeling city, where Shi'ite religious parties now wield power and seek to impose strict moral regulations, similar to Iran.

"More than 400 liquor stores run by Christians, the only community allowed to sell alcohol under the former Baathist government, were forced to close in the immediate aftermath of the US led occupation of Iraq. Basra was once a cosmopolitan trading centre and playground for rich Kuwaitis and Saudis who flocked to its casinos and nightclubs in the midst of an austere region where alcohol was banned.

"'Alcohol selling has changed from Christians to Muslims. Now it's Muslims who sell after taking the trade from us,' said an embittered Joseph Hanna, a Christian property developer and hotel owner who blames militant Shi'ite groups for the killings. 'We fear for our lives and our interests from the extremist Shi'ites who are targeting us as Christians,' said Misak Victor, another liquor merchant.

"Iraqi Christians are terrified of armed Shi'ite groups, which have names like God's Vengeance, God's Party and the Islamic Bases Organisation. Their members roam the streets to chase mobsters, drug addicts and prostitutes, exacting their brand of what they call God's law.

"The number of parties carrying Islam's banner is a force to reckon with in the post-Saddam political order, holding sway in local councils and competing with a beleaguered police force in imposing order in the unruly streets. Abdullah Faisal, head of the Islamic Bases Organisation, says Islam venerates his young 'martyrdom seekers', who have a mandate from God to stamp out vice.

"But Faisal says the killings of liquor traders were carried out by undisciplined militant Islamic groups and that Islam opposed the summary executions witnessed in Basra. 'Some Islamic movements have challenged liquor merchants. There was burning and killings,' he said. 'Religion doesn't allow this even though we confront vice and crime.'

"Unlike the majority Shi'ites long persecuted by Saddam Hussein, many Christians found that Saddam's Baath party and its secular pan-Arabist nationalist ideology tolerated them. 'We never saw harm under Saddam Hussein,' said Tareq Boutros, a former liquor store owner who now runs a garment business.

"Christian Iraqis fear that militant Shi'ite militias want to impose an intolerant brand of Islam on minorities and rival Muslim sects. They say Shi'ite power in postwar Iraq has allowed them to dominate a new police force, which they say is corrupted by a mix of local mobsters and militant Islamic parties. 'You now find police in the streets, but I am certain if a murder takes place in front of them they would not deal with it. If you talk to a police officer he will tell you I cannot do anything,' said Sami Shamas, a mathematics teacher.

"'Those who sell drinks are killed but thieves who steal homes or kidnap girls are left free,' said an angry Christian who refused to give his name.

"Families cite growing intolerance in Basra's society at large, with schoolgirls and female university students under intimidation from teachers to wear the veil. 'Our daughters are being fought. They are telling them you have to wear a veil and become a Muslim,' said Abdulahad Wissam, a Christian who runs a chain of household goods stores.

"Fears of worse to come have prompted more than 2,000 families from the community of at least 100,000 Christians in the city to pack up and leave. Most headed to northern Iraqi cities such as Mosul where their ancient communities trace their ancestry, their leaders say. 'A lot of Christian families have left for Mosul and Baghdad,' said goldsmith Naji Ahanyous. 'If this situation continues there will not be one Christian in Basra.'" And that's just the way the Shi'ites want it.

GE feels the heat, sees the light

"General Electric has felt the heat of a 'significant' number of Paul Harvey listeners and has decided to resume advertising on the newsman's radio program after initially pulling its commercials due to complaints about a negative comment the broadcaster made about Islam." This from WND.

"As WorldNetDaily reported, in a Dec. 4 news item in which the legendary newsman described the bloody nature of cockfight gambling in Iraq, he said: 'Add to the thirst for blood a religion which encourages killing, and it is entirely understandable if Americans came to this bloody party unprepared.' The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, subsequently demanded an apology from Harvey, which was broadcast by a substitute anchor on the daily program Dec. 9. . . .

"Gary Sheffer, spokesman for GE, confirmed that a radio ad for a lighting product was pulled from the show. The company decided to restore its advertising last week, however, after hearing from people upset with the initial decision. 'We have had significant feedback from Mr. Harvey's listeners,' Sheffer told WorldNetDaily. He says those contacting GE have expressed support for the newsman and asked that the advertising be restored."

Dhimmitude at the Supreme Court?

We'll get a sense of whether or not dhimmitude has entered the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court on January 9, when the high court "will discuss whether to hear arguments in a case in which a Muslim sued Mississippi over the Confederate battle emblem in the state flag." This from AP, with thanks to Nicolei.

"Lower federal courts had rejected John Ellis Briggs' argument that the Mississippi flag contains a Christian symbol - the St. Andrew's Cross - and that the symbol represents state endorsement of a particular religion. Briggs' lawsuit seeks punitive damages of up to $77.77 million. It also seeks to have the symbol 'removed from display in public places.'"

This is pure judicial terrorism. It's abundantly clear that neither Mississippi nor any other state endorses Christianity; to target an arcane symbol that nobody understands as a symbol of Christianity (it's much more likely to inspire thoughts of the Confederacy) and to demand punitive damages on this basis is — at best — craven opportunism. It also stinks more than a little of dhimmitude, recalling the classic prohibition in Islamic law against Christians displaying crosses.

"Since 1894, Mississippi's flag has contained the Confederate battle emblem, a blue X with 13 whites stars over a field of red. Experts differ on whether the X in the Confederate battle emblem is the St. Andrew's Cross. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi, said Monday what people have claimed for years is the St. Andrew's Cross is not. 'What is in the Confederate battle flag is a blue saltier. The St. Andrew's Cross is a white diagonal cross on a blue field,' Sansing said. 'The man who designed the (Confederate battle) flag makes no reference to the St. Andrew's Cross.'

"Sansing said the designer of the flag described it to Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard as a blue saltier on a red field with one star for each of the 13 Southern states. Sansing said the St. Andrew's Cross dates back to the Middle Ages and represents the X-shaped cross on which the apostle Andrew was crucified. Andrew was the patron saint of Scotland. The St. Andrew's Cross is Scotland's national flag. 'So, he's (Briggs) wrong to begin with. It's not a Christian symbol,' Sansing said.

"Briggs filed suit in federal court in Gulfport in 2001. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2002. Briggs appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against him in June. The 5th Circuit said it could not accept that 'every X, or every X the straight-line connection of whose four points would form a square, is predominantly a religious symbol.'

"Appeals Judge Will Garwood, writing for himself and Judges E. Grady Jolly and Jerry E. Smith, said it was clear that a community's display of the flag was not an endorsement of religion. Garwood said the debate over the flying of the Confederate battle flag, or its being a part of a state flag, has centered on its symbolism of the Confederacy and to what extent the symbol extolled or excused slavery. 'None of this concerns any religious symbolism related to any presence of the St. Andrews Cross in the flag,' Garwood wrote.

"Garwood said that in 1894 - and in 2001, when voters declined to change the flag - the Mississippi flag included the canton corner of identical design that was created by Confederate generals in 1861. He said the design was used by Confederate forces throughout the Civil War and became well known, at least throughout the South. Garwood said those decisions had no religious intent."

WZO: Europe is becoming Muslim

"'Europe is becoming a Muslim continent,' a new public relations booklet prepared by the World Zionist Organization warns." This from Haaretz, with thanks to Nicolei.

"The booklet, a Hebrew-language copy of which was obtained by Haaretz, was prepared for a conference of leaders of Orthodox communities worldwide that opens today in Jerusalem, and will be distributed to all of the approximately 200 rabbis and community leaders in attendance. Entitled 'A Guide to Anti-Semitism and Terror for Diaspora Communities,' the booklet was prepared by the WZO's Spiritual Services for the Diaspora unit, 'with the goal of raising awareness of the issue,' according to unit chairman Rabbi Yehiel Wasserman.

"The booklet states that dialogue on the basis of mutual concern for religion is impossible with Muslims, even moderates, because Islam has no common theological concepts with Judaism.

"Regarding the dangers posed by Muslims in Europe, the document states that 'what began 40 years ago as an innocent migration by the unemployed' has become 'an attempt at conquest aimed at changing the face of the Western world and history.'

"The document warns in particular against contact with young, Western-educated Muslims, claiming many have been 'born again' as extremists."

This is the bitter fruit of multiculturalist education that exhorts young people to recover their ethnic heritage and cling tightly to their traditions. When these are Islamic traditions that reject secularism, what will be the outcome?

"Wasserman said the booklet is still undergoing revisions and that some of these statements will be 'softened.'

"Muslim anti-Semitism is expected to occupy a prominent place at the conference. Rabbi Yitzhak Haleva, the chief rabbi of Turkey, said yesterday that the attacks on two Istanbul synagogues last month was the first evidence of the existence of Muslim anti-Semitism in Turkey. Immediately after the attacks, he added, some people began blaming the Jews, but these accusations died down following the bombings five days later of the British consulate and the Istanbul headquarters of the HSBC Bank.

"The French rabbis attending the conference, meanwhile, were divided over a recent statement made by the country's chief rabbi, Joseph Sitruk, in which he urged French Jews to wear hats rather than kippot (skullcaps) in 'sensitive' areas, such as subway stations, in order to avoid anti-Semitic attacks. The chief rabbi of Paris, David Messas, said yesterday that Jews 'should be proud of their Judaism' and simply avoid places where a kippa might endanger their lives.

"With regard to the French government's decision to pass a law that would forbid students to wear kippot, headscarves or large crosses in schools, Messas and the other French rabbis said that if the law passes, they will tell their congregants to obey it and go to school bareheaded.

"However, although French rabbis have joined Muslim leaders in opposing the law, Messas believes that it will ultimately aggravate Jewish-Muslim relations, because 'the Jews, unlike the Muslims, will accept the law, and therefore, we will again find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence.'"

Dhimmitude on British TV: Christians satirized, Muslims lionized

"Comedians and dramatists delight in 'pouring scorn' on Christianity but are 'timid' about mocking Muslims, a broadcasting watchdog chief said yesterday." This from the Telegraph, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm and Nicolei.

"Islam was accorded far more respect on television and radio than other religions because satirists were 'cautious' and 'self-censoring' when faced with the prospect of causing offence to Muslims, said Lord Dubs, chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

"'In portraying Muslims they have held back, they have censored themselves, they are timid,' the Labour peer said. 'I have seen them pour scorn on Christianity more than on other religions. Christianity is an easier and more acceptable target followed, to a lesser extent, by Jews and Hindus.'

"His remarks come on the eve of an announcement by the BSC that it is to impose one of the stiffest penalties it can draw on after Channel 4 re-broadcast a remark by Jamie Oliver about 'Jesus —ing Christ'.

"The BSC had already upheld a complaint that the comment, made by the celebrity chef in an episode of the fly-on-the-wall series Jamie's Kitchen, was offensive to Christians. The regulator was angry when the offending remark was aired again in an unedited repeat of the programme.

"A spokesman for Channel 4 said the repeat went out later than the original programme, at 10pm rather than 9pm, and it had been thought that the audience at the later time would not be offended. In a rare intervention of this kind by the BSC, Channel 4 will be forced to broadcast the commission's new adjudication on air and have it published in a newspaper.

"The commission is subsumed from today into the new super-regulator Ofcom. Lord Dubs admitted that the BSC had also shown bias in favour of Muslims. 'We have tried to treat the religions equally. I doubt we have succeeded. I think we have shaded a bit on the side of Islam,' he said.

"The Right Rev Richard Holloway, the former Bishop of Edinburgh and a member of the BSC board, said Oliver's remark would never have been aired had it been about the Prophet Mohammed.

"'There is much more sensitivity to disturbing Islam,' he said. 'It is partly because the Muslim community does not have a tradition of humour about religion, although Christian leaders will stand up for things that are fundamentally important.'" Christians are also unlikely to kill those who offend them.

The difference between jihad and terrorism? The target

Reader "my.joy18" has kindly forwarded to me an Arab News question and answer piece entitled "Sept. 11 Attacks Nothing but Terrorism." Alas, I have been occupied with many other things the last few days, and didn't immediately put it up. Now it is gone without a trace. I wonder if that has anything to do with its content: it declares that while the September 11 attacks were terrorism because they targeted innocent people, in Israel it's a different story. "To resist Israel by all means available to us is justified under divine and human law." Including, evidently, blowing up innocent people on buses and in restaurants, and gunning down little babies.

As ghastly as this sounds, it is in accord with Islamic law, which does indeed forbid the killing of the innocent — provided that they are not aiding the war effort. Apparently the author of this answer shares the widespread view among Islamic scholars that there are no innocent non-combatants in Israel: by virtue of simply being there, everyone in the country is a kafir harbi, an unbeliever at war with Islam. Thus everyone in the country is fair game.

As a favor to the folks at Arab News, I'll preserve the article for posterity in its entirety here:

"Edited by Adil Salahi

"Q. Could you please tell me whether the Sept. 11 attacks were acts of jihad or terrorism? Would those who were killed in them be martyrs? What about other acts such as those done by Hamas and similar groups?

"S. Hanif

"A. Islam does not approve of indiscriminate killing in any situation. When Muslim armies went out to war in the early period of Islam, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his successors like Abu Bakr and Umar gave them clear instructions.

"They ordered the army not to kill a child, a woman, an elderly person, a priest or anyone who is not engaged in the fighting or helping the enemy fighters. The attacks on the US that took place on Sept. 11 involved hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

"The passengers in the planes were innocent bystanders and the people in those buildings were the same. Those who launched this attack did not consider them so, because they followed a mistaken view that everyone who pays taxes to the US government is aiding war against Islam. This view is seriously defective, because people have to pay taxes or they will be in great trouble with their government. Besides, to ask every citizen in the world to have an informed opinion on the justice of our cause and then to take an attitude of peaceful disobedience to their government is to live in a dreamland. Had people been able to judge things in this way, they would all be very religious. God says in the Qur’an that He could have made all mankind a single community, but He has not done so. So, how can we impose our views or beliefs on people?

"I cannot understand how a Muslim could justify boarding a plane, intending to kill all its passengers by flying it into a building used by thousands of civilians. This is simply terrorism and cannot be justified under Islamic law. The operations launched against Israeli occupation are totally different. They are undertaken against occupiers who have turned the local people, Muslims and Christians, from their homes and lands, desecrated mosques and terrorized the population into leaving their land. To resist Israel by all means available to us is justified under divine and human law. It is indeed Israel and its supporters that are engaged in a gigantic and continuous act of terrorism."

The face of Islamic tolerance in Seattle

The Sharia mandates second-class status for non-Muslims, and forbids a non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman. This provision seems to have come West already: "A Grant County man has been charged with trying to kidnap his sister from her Sedro-Woolley home in what police believe was an attempt to punish her for marrying outside her Muslim faith." This from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

"Khalil Nassar, 21, and a 24-year-old acquaintance, Antonio Cortez, were charged Wednesday with attempted kidnapping, said Robin Webb-Lakey, a Skagit County senior deputy prosecutor. Nassar also was charged with felony harassment. The two men told police they were simply planning to visit Nassar's sister, according to an affidavit signed by Sedro-Woolley Police Sgt. William Tucker and filed in Skagit County Superior Court. Nassar and Cortez were arrested Monday morning after a police officer found them parked a block away from the sister's apartment in downtown Sedro-Woolley, police Lt. Doug Wood said.

"The two men were in a rented van. Police found rope, gloves, coveralls and a hardhat in the vehicle, according to the affidavit. Police believe the coveralls and hardhat were to be used as a disguise, Wood said. The two men remained in jail Friday pending payment of bail, set at $250,000 for Nassar and $150,000 for Cortez.

"The 18-year-old sister called police in Sedro-Woolley in early December to complain that she and her 19-year-old husband, who is a Christian, were being harassed by her father, according to Tucker's statement to the court.

"Previously, the Grant County Sheriff's Department had investigated complaints made by both families while the couple lived in the Moses Lake area, according to court documents. The couple was engaged at the time. Both families told Grant deputies that the other threatened them.

"The young couple relocated to Sedro-Woolley, but the woman's family continued to call her cellular phone and ask for her to return, according to Tucker's statement.

"During one of these conversations, the woman taped her brother saying he would return her to her family 'dead or alive,' Tucker said in his affidavit. Nassar's father, Sadallah Nassar, told the Skagit Valley Herald that the accusations were false. 'My son went to visit his sister. That's it,' Sadallah Nassar said. 'He wanted to see how she's been, how she is, nothing else.'

"Police reports also say the two men who were arrested told officers they were only in the area to visit the young woman, but officers were bothered by inconsistencies in the two men's stories, according to court records. 'We determined they made a substantial attempt to retrieve her,' Wood said.

"In some conservative strains of Islam, marrying outside the faith is particularly problematic for women. Farhat J. Ziadeh, a University of Washington professor emeritus who specializes in Islamic law, said from the Muslim perspective that Islamic law exists to ensure a continuation of the faith. 'The man is the head of the family and the children follow the man's religion and they don't want anyone to be cut off from Islam,' Ziadeh said."

Sharia watch: Kuwaiti MP calls for music ban in schools

Radical Muslims are fighting around the world to institute Sharia law, with its institutionalized oppression of non-Muslims — dhimmitude. A new glimpse at what a Sharia state would look like comes from Kuwait, where "an Islamist parliamentarian has said he was coordinating with other MPs to ban music education at schools in Kuwait as 'anti-Islamic and a waste of time'." This from News.com.au, with thanks to Nicolei.

In Islam Unveiled I explore some elements of the Islamic legal tradition that lead radical Muslims today to consider music sinful. Here is more confirmation that what I was writing about wasn't ancient historical, or some eccentric invention of the Taliban.

"MP Daifallah Buramia al-Mutairi, in a statement received today, said he could submit such a proposal to parliament, which is due to start a debate on the emirate's education policies next week.

"'Music lessons use up the students' time without any benefit. Parents do not send their children to learn how to play music, but for useful scientific education that is good for them and for their nation,' the MP said.

"Mutairi was a medical doctor before he was elected to parliament for the first time in July's general elections, backed by his tribe for his religious views. Arguing that music contravened Islam, Mutairi said he would propose substituting music lessons with Islamic education."

A letter to AP

A letter to AP was recently sent to Jihad Watch from the author of the Letter to Reuters:

"Dear Editor:

"Your 'Year in Photos' has six glaring omissions, therefore, six major distortions. You chose 6 photos depicting 'Palestinian' suffering at the hands of Israelis but none of Israeli suffering at the hands of 'Palestinians.' I call them six distortions because they convey the false message that 'Palestinians' suffer and that Israelis are the cause. They omit the reality that Israelis are the victims of 'Palestinian' attacks and are trying to defend themselves. They omit the truth that if the terror ceased, the Israelis would be out of their face in almost no time.

"You might have attempted a little reality just to create the impression that you worried about that other false concept: balance. But, being journalists, I don't have to lecture you about your job. You know your responsibilities. You also know the truth but you prefer to conceal it. The fact is, there is no 'balance' on the two sides. The 'Palestinians' promote, enthusiastically support and carry out terror against Israelis. Their own polls indicate that their support for terror is a societal phenomenon. You prefer to conceal the barbarism of the perpetrators by portraying them as victims.

"Still, for the sake of presumed 'balance,' you might have at least indicated that the 'Palestinians' contribute a little something to their misery by making Israelis miserable as well. You might have shown images of Jewish children dying in their strollers, for example, bombed out buses with the remains of scattered schoolwork, or destroyed restaurants splattered with blood or body parts. Actually, for this latter image, you could have appealed directly to the Palestinian Authority. They gladly would have obliged you with photos of their traveling exhibit of the Sbarro Pizza Parlour bombing! They are proud of it, you know. They actually took it on an international tour. You might have caught that one. You say you missed it? Sorry, I don't mean to tell you how to do your job.

But, your silence tells me you don't care for that idea. Well then, try this angle: Displaying photos of Israeli medical teams saving the lives of terrorists alongside their Jewish victims. And what about Arab and Christian victims of suicide bombers? It does happen, you know. After all, Arabs and Christians ride Israeli buses, go to restaurants, etc. If you don't wish to emphasize Jewish suffering at the hands of 'Palestinian' terrorists, why not Arab and Christian suffering? There is no such thing as a 'smart' suicide bomb, you know. The shrapnel goes everywhere. One of the most dramatic images I have ever seen, and one you, apparently, missed, is an x ray of a victim of a suicide bombing. These make great works of art. They are innovative as well. Nothing like them has ever been seen before in history! Imagine, a human brain, kidney or heart studded with nails, nuts and bolts--the shrapnel shows up very well in print and could have made a dramatic impression. The only thing you can't see is the rat poison. But, best of all, you cannot tell from the film if the victim is Arab, Jewish or Christian!

But, if you only want to focus on 'Palestinian' victimhood, here's another idea: 'Palestinian' victims of summary execution by 'Palestinian' police. Their tortured and mutilated corpses are displayed in public-- to serve as an example to others-- and you can even photograph them with toddlers at play in the foreground. And, if you want to appeal to your feminist readers, why not a photo of a victim of an honor killing or a mutilation? The husband, brother or son who wielded the knife or vial of acid would not shy away from being photographed with his victim. He would, no doubt, however, insist on wearing his black or other colored mask in case he turns out to be a person of note. Still, it would be a poignant photo. Actually, you would have two victims: 1) The victim of the execution; and 2) The executioner. Yes, he is a victim too! His evil wife, mother, sister or cousin victimized him by tarnishing his honor. In killing her, he made a personal sacrifice to restore honor to the family name. So, not only is he a victim, he is a martyr! Moreover, the mask is a badge of courage and comes in handy for other activities as well. Trust me, you are missing some great photos! But, if you really want to score with the feminists, you can get photos of women executioners, too, like the one of the mother who killed her daughter for being raped and impregnated by the girls two older brothers. If you had been quick on your feet, you could have gotten her to pose with the corpse. Once she killed her daughter, the neighbors started talking to her again, so she is considered a heroine in her village. A photo would have done her proud. The point is, there is no shortage of subject matter and if you like depicting 'Palestinians' as victims, you needn't confine yourself to the suffering inflicted upon them by Israelis.

But, forgive me, for I digress. In fact, this is nothing but talk. You are not going to take my suggestions to heart. Why risk being accused of conspiracy in a Zionist plot to depict 'Palestinians' as terrorists and Israelis as victims? Much too dangerous. You know what almost happened to the Italian journalist who smuggled out the film of the two Israelis who were torn to pieces by the victimized 'Palestinian' mob a few years ago. She had to flee for her life! The Italian TV station that employed her subsequently issued a letter of apology to the Palestinian authority for having broadcast the incident. The Palestinian Authority actually printed the letter in the government-controlled press! You didn't know that? Come on! You're journalists. It's your job to know! You say you didn't?

Incidentally, there was a great photo of two Arabs displaying the entrails of their human prey before a frenzied, hysterical mob going wild at the sight of Jewish blood. Now that was a winner! You missed that one too? Oh well, whatever....

P.S. If you would like to know why I surround the word 'Palestinian' with quotation marks, here are a few reasons:

The Palestinian Identity

Statement by Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO:
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."

Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977:
"One always finds in Palestine Arabs who have been in the country only a few weeks or a few months...Since they are themselves strangers in a strange land, they are the loudest to cry: 'Out with the Jews!'...Amongst them are to be found representatives of every Arab country: Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan and Iraq." (Ladislas Farago, Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Putnam 1937) p17

The Jordanian Foreign Minister said (Adwa'min pp. 4-5):
"Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan, and Jordan hails every Palestinian who seeks to do his duty to his cause and his country."

Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress:
"Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from earliest times? The creation of one political entity in East Jordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity." (R. Hamid (ed.) Muqararat al-majlis al-watani al-filastini 1964 Resolutions of the PNCs 1964-1974, Beirut, PLO Research Centre, 1975, p178 Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress)

"This (Jerusalem) for them (the Arabs) was not in 'Palestine'? For the Arabs (And the Turks) the whole of the region lying between the Taurus Mountains and the confines of Egypt, and between the Mediterranean and the edge of the desert, was 'Syria' a term which had been in use since remote antiquity." (Sir Geoffrey Furlonge, Palestine is My Country, The Story of Mussa Alami (New York, 1969) p. 7

Abdul Malik Dahamshe, an Israeli Arab Knesset member, said at a solidarity visit in Damascus, Syria [David Makovsky, Jerusalem Post, January 24, 1995]:
"Palestine and Syria are one homeland. The Arab people will win by the
sword; the victory will be won by the Jihad of the Arab world."

Statement by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Pell Commission in 1937:
"There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

Arab MK, Abdul Darawshe said [Jerusalem Institute of Western Defence, Bulletin 3, August 15, 1997]:
"There is no difference between one Palestinian and another. We are all
Palestinians and we are all Syrian Arabs."

Statement by Ahmed Shuqeiri, to the UN Security Council in 1949:
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) number two in the PLO leadership (Al Sachrah, Kuwait, Jan. 6, 1987):
"We will take Palestine and turn it into a part of the greater Arab nation."

Grassley to review Ford Foundation's support for Palestinian extremists

We noted the Ford Foundation's no-strings-attached support for Palestinian terrorists last month; now, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has taken note as well. Opinion Journal notes that "in response to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency series detailing Ford's support for Palestinian NGOs crusading against Israel, the Iowa Republican has announced that the Senate Finance Committee will review the matter."

One matter he should review is that of "PNGO--an umbrella group of 90 Palestinian NGOs that's also received more than $1 million from Ford. Its director is quoted as admitting that PNGO gets almost no Arab support and that Ford is its biggest funder. Yet this is the same group that denounced as 'unacceptable' a U.S. government requirement that Palestinian NGOs partnering with tax-exempt American charities sign a pledge promising that no funds would ever find their way to 'advocate or support terrorist activities.'" (Thanks to Nicolei.)

A Not So Merry Christmas in the Holy Land

David Bedein writes at FrontPage about Christmas in the Palestinian Authority, noting that "this is the first Christmas since the Palestinian Authority adopted an official constitution based on Koranic 'Sharia' Law, which means that all Christians who live under the PA are now subject to Islamic Law.

"Over the past three years, while attention has focused on Israeli and Palestinian casualties of the current war, at least one hundred Christians who live in areas ruled by the Palestinian Authority have been arrested and imprisoned for holding church services or conducting public Christian
practices without authorization.

"Some of these Christians were set free when the Israeli army liberated the jails in the Palestinian Authority at the time of the Israeli army incursion into Palestinian cities in April, 2002. Those freed Christian prisoners from the Palestinian jails now take refuge by hiding throughout Israel, as they surreptitiously work to try to get their families out of Palestinian cities to join them and emigrate to any safe haven they can find in the West

"I have met with a few of these Christian Palestinians. One of them, whom I shall call Joseph to protect the confidentiality of his identity, described the ordeal that he has experienced. He and his brother live in hiding while badgering the US consulate for help to try to get US visas for their families, and have done so ever since their liberation by Israel more than 18 months ago. Joseph described to me how his family cannot openly practice Christian holidays in Bethlehem under the watchful eyes of the PLO's Islamic police force. After all, the only place in the West Bank where the PLO army currently operates is in the Bethlehem area. Joseph also described how the US-funded Palestinian public school system has become Islamicized, and how his late nephew was literally tortured to death at age 12 by his schoolmates because he expressed love and respect for his uncle as a practicing Christian.

"Last Spring, the Vatican Ambassador to the Holy Land, Archbishop Msgr. Pietro Sambi, known as the Papal Nuncio, warned a US Congressional delegation that the new Palestinian Authority's approved state constitution, funded by US AID, provided no juridical status whatsoever for any religion other than Islam in the emerging Palestinian Arab entity. The Papal Nuncio also expressed his concern to visiting US lawmakers that the PA had adopted 'Sharia' Islamic Law, based on the model of the 'Sharia' from Koranic edicts as practiced in Iran or in Saudi Arabia.

"Article (5) of the official Palestinian State Constitution reads as follows: 'Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected'. In other words, As Archbishop Sambi noted, 'other' religions such as Christianity, let alone Judaism, are only to be 'respected', while being denied any juridical status under the new Palestinian State Constitution.

"The status of Islam as the official religion of any future Palestinian Arab entity is also expressed in Article (7) of the official Palestinian State Constitution which states that 'The principles of Islamic Sharia are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.' The constitution's translation can be accessed on the home page of the website www.israelbehindthenews.com.

"Islamic nations which have adopted the 'Sharia' law, have mandated the absolute supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims as matter of law, more than of simply of attitude.

"What worried the Archbishop was that all Christian churches and all Christian schools will be placed under the arbitrary authority of Islamic Fundamental Law, which allows nothing more than 'tolerance' of other religions at best.

"For the past seven months, the US embassy has been asked to comment on the US-funded Palestinian State Constitution. No response has been forthcoming from anyone in the US government, except for denials that it exists. Yet the author of the PA State Constitution, Mr. Nabil Shaath, affirms the existence of the PA State Constitution, as presented by the Vatican's ambassador.

"The PA state constitution's imposition of Sharia Islamic Law is most certainly in effect.

"Calls to the US embassy and US consulate to determine whether the US government is looking into the situation of Christians under the rule of the Palestinian National Authority have not been answered.

"After all, it was US AID which financed the creation of the PA State Constitution, which meant the imposition of the Islamic Law throughout the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

"Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran which have adopted Sharia Islamic Law, have made life quite difficult for Christians. Under Sharia Islamic Law, Christians are considered 'dhimmis', second class citizens.

"A research study released last Christmas by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs entitled 'The Beleaguered Christians', notes that in Egypt, 'Muslim, but not Christian, schools receive state funding....It is nearly impossible to restore or build new churches....Christians are frequently ostracized or insulted in public, and laws prohibit Muslim conversions to Christianity.'.

"That same study notes that Saudi Arabia 'is one of the most oppressive countries for Christians. There are no churches in the whole country. Foreign workers make up one-third of the population, many of whom are Christians. For their entire stay, which may be years, they are forbidden to display any Christian symbols or Bibles, or even meet together publicly to worship and pray. Some have watched their personal Bibles put through a shredder when they entered the country.' In Iran, 'the printing of Christian literature is illegal, converts from Islam are liable to be killed, and most evangelical churches must function underground.'

"Bethlehem is understood by Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus. When Israel retook control of Bethlehem in 1967, the majority of Bethlehem's residents practiced various denominations of the Christian faith. However, with Israel's withdrawal due to the Oslo Accords and after less than ten years of Palestinian Authority rule the Middle East has witnessed a dramatic exodus of Christians from the city. This Christmas, less than 5% in the city of Jesus's birthplace is Christian. The mainstream media have hesitated to report that fact.

"President George W. Bush's administration has envisioned a democratic Palestinian entity that is devoid of terror. Instead, officials of US AID have fostered a constitution which envisions creation of the Islamic totalitarian state of Palestine, completely devoid of religious freedom and human rights.

"This Christmas, an Islamic army occupies Bethlehem. This Christmas, no Church can operate in Bethlehem without Islamic approval. And Christians in the Palestinian Authority are not seeing a Merry Christmas as a result. This is the legacy of what the US AID has facilitated, with or without the knowledge of the White House."

Dhimmitude and Bernard Lewis

In connection with scholar Bernard Lewis's strange misapplication of the Qur'anic verse declaring that there is "no compulsion in religion," Bassam Madany of Middle East Resources has kindly directed me to his article " Bernard Lewis on 'Triumphalist Religions.'"

In it, Madany points out that Lewis's equation of the missionary impulses of Christianity and Islam is theologically and historically inaccurate, as well as severely misleading in today's political climate. Madany is a Christian (as am I), but anyone, Christian or not, who is not wearing idelogical blinders can see that there is a serious difference in the teachings of the two religions on these matters. Many like to imagine that all religions are equivalent in their ability to inspire murderous impulses; for anyone to point out that the facts are otherwise is not a function of Christian or any other faith, but simply of an ability to look honestly at the facts of the case.

Madany begins by expressing his admiration for Lewis: "In the June 2003 issue of WRFNET.com web journal, I shared a summary of 'An In-Depth Interview' with Bernard Lewis, the well-known scholar on Islam and the Middle East, which had appeared on the cable channel C-Span 2, in April 6, 2003. I ended my article, with an analysis of the interview and some critical remarks. Much as I have admired this author’s way of telling the story of Islam across the last fourteen centuries, I was dismayed by his silence on certain dark aspects of this civilization, especially its treatment of the conquered peoples. I had hardly finished my work on that article, when I noticed that the May 2003, issue of The Atlantic Monthly, had an article by Bernard Lewis with the rather shocking title, 'I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go To Hell: Religions and the Meeting of Civilization.'

"Again, I must reiterate how much I like the works of Bernard Lewis. His style, whether in writing, or in speaking, is gripping. He excels in telling the story of different peoples and their specific civilization. His goal is to explain, elucidate, and instruct. This is very praiseworthy at this juncture in world history when so many trouble spots in the world happen to be within the household of Islam.

"Having said this, I am both chagrined and disappointed that this great scholar tends, in this Atlantic Monthly article, to posit equivalence, between Christianity and Islam, in their respective outlook on the world, and more specifically, as they sought and still seek, to win converts to their specific faiths.

"To begin with, Bernard Lewis reminds us that, 'only two civilizations have been defined by religion. Others have had religions but are identified primarily by region and ethnicity.' These two religions are Christianity and Islam, they 'are the two religions that define civilizations, and they have much in common, along with some differences.'

"Having thus set Christianity and Islam apart from the rest of world religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, professor Lewis classifies the latter as relativist religions, while the former two as triumphalist religions. 'For some religions, just as "civilization" means us, and the rest are barbarians, so "religion" means ours, and the rest are infidels. Other religions, such as Judaism and most of the religions of Asia, concede that human beings may use different religions to speak to God, as they use different languages to speak to one another. God understands them all… The relativist view was condemned and rejected by both Christians and Muslims, who shared the conviction that there was only one true faith, theirs, which it was their duty to bring to all humankind. The triumphalist view is increasingly under attack in Christendom, and is disavowed by significant numbers of Christian clerics. There is little sign as yet of a parallel development in Islam.'

"Professor Lewis regards Islam and Christianity as triumphalist religions. Both faiths consider all 'others' as infidels. While, according to him, some Christian leaders are nowadays 'disavowing' the triumphalism that has marked Christianity throughout history, there is no such parallel movement among Muslim leaders. In our globalized world, triumphalism (whether Christian or Muslim) is not conducive to world peace. In order to put across his thesis in the clearest way, Bernard Lewis sums up his disapproval of triumphalism, both in Islam and Christianity, with these words:

"'For those taking the triumphalist approach (classically summed up in the formula "I’m right, you’re wrong, go to hell"), tolerance is a problem. Because the triumphalist’s is the only true and complete religion, all other religions are at best incomplete and more probably false and evil; and since he is the privileged recipient of God’s final message to humankind, it is surely his duty to bring it to others rather than keep it selfishly for himself.'

"The first point I would like to make is that, great as the scholarship of Bernard Lewis is, his lumping together of the 'triumphalism' of the two religions is neither proper, nor objective. One has to be careful in categorizing the faith of others. As a Christian, I find the title of his article very offensive. It is a caricature of Christianity to sum up its attitude to the 'other' as being, 'I’m Right, You’re Wrong. Go to Hell.'

"Throughout history, Christians, beginning with the apostolic age, sought to win converts through preaching and witnessing. It was none other than the Risen Lord that gave his church the marching orders: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I will be with you always, to the very end of the age.'
Matthew 28:18b-20 (NIV)

"The greatest missionary of the First Century was Paul. After his conversion, his life was dedicated entirely to the spread of the faith and the organization of churches in the Mediterranean world. He described his mandate in the opening words of his Letter to the Romans: 'I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.' Romans 1:16 (NIV)

"Paul’s message consumed him. He was absolutely convinced that the Risen Savior had entrusted with the message that brings salvation to all kinds of people regardless of their ethnic or religious background. As to the primary means for converting 'others,' God had ordained the preaching of the Gospel. In his First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote, 'For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.' 1:21 (NIV)

"In contrast with this peaceful spread of Christianity, Islam spread primarily through conquest. When studying the history of Islam back in Syria in the late forties, my teachers at the Syrian College used to glory in the 'Futuhat' (Conquests) of the Arabs. By 732 A.D., one century after the death of Muhammad, Islam had conquered territories stretching from Spain in the west, to India in the east. While Christians and Jews were allowed to remain in their respective religions, pagans were forced to Islamize. Furthermore, the People of the Book (as Christians and Jews were called) had to submit to some stringent rules that greatly limited their freedoms. Originally, the Christian populations of the Middle East formed the majority of the population, but a few centuries later, they became minorities in such areas as Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.

"Professor Lewis should not have posited equivalence between Christianity and Islam as far as the method for gaining converts. As a historian, he should know better than that!

"The second point in my criticism of the article of Bernard Lewis is that he fails to see the great contrast between what he calls the 'triumphalism' of the two religions. Yes, Christians do believe in the ultimate triumph of the Gospel. Their faith is summarized in these great words of Revelation 11:15b 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.' (NIV) And in one of the most familiar passages of this NT book, we hear the heavenly choir sing these triumphant words: 'Hallelujah! For Lord God Almighty reigns.' 19:6b (NIV)

"Islam, throughout history, has been triumphalist. Notwithstanding its many setbacks, especially after the leader of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, abolished the caliphate, Muslims have never ceased to believe in the final triumph of their faith. I still remember reading a poster in the window of a Palestinian grocery store in a suburb of Chicago, these Arabic words: 'Al-Islam li-sa’adat al-bashariyya' i.e., Islam is for the happiness of all mankind.

"Today, the inevitable triumph of Islam remains the core belief of the radical Islamists. They do not and would not hesitate to use any means to bring about the triumph of Islam, even if that meant total confrontation with the rest of the world.

"On the other hand, if Christianity is described as a triumphalist faith, its triumphalism is related to an eschatological event. While the gospel has many implications and applications for the here and now, its complete fulfillment takes place beyond the horizon of this world order. Nowhere is this made plainer than in Romans 8. Let’s listen to that great confession of Paul as he describes the ultimate triumph of the Christian faith: 'I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits with eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. … For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. For who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.' Romans 8:18-21, 24, 25 (NIV)

"I was on the air for thirty-six years preaching and teaching the Word of God in Arabic. I was fully aware that most of my audience in North Africa and the Middle East were Muslims. I heard from many, many of them, mostly appreciating what I was teaching on the basis of the Book that their tradition praises. Throughout all these years, both in broadcasting and in correspondence with Muslims, it never, ever, entered my mind that my approach or attitude could have been summed up in the strange formula used by Bernard Lewis in his Atlantic Monthly article. My personal commitment to the Augustinian and Calvinist traditions kept me from ever resorting to such a crude formulation of the Christian message. I could have never even thought of 'I’m Right, You’re Wrong. Go to Hell.' My method was irenical, and not confrontational, as I proclaimed the 'Injeel,' the Good News of salvation. My preaching was summed up in the familiar words of John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world…' My responsibility has always been to be faithful to the Biblical message. I did not coerce listeners to faith in Jesus Christ, since I believe that conversions are the sole prerogative of the Holy Spirit. He is, as the Nicene Creed puts it 'the Lord and Giver of life.'

"Yes, I do believe in the ultimate triumph of my Christian faith. But I know that this triumph will not come because of any military campaign, or through any worldly means. The victory of Christ over the world will become visible to all at his Second Coming. Paul described the triumph of Jesus Christ in this memorable words: 'Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.' Philippians 2: 9-11 (NIV)

"Therefore, there is no equivalence between Christianity and Islam, neither in their core beliefs, nor in the way they conceive of history, and its End. Much as I still appreciate the works of Bernard Lewis, I was compelled to write this article because his thesis in this article is flawed, both historically and theologically."

Christmas under fire, mufti warns

A Muslim leader in Australia has publicly taken issue with a radical Muslim fatwa that instructs Muslims not to wish Christians Merry Christmas or to join in the celebrations of the unbelievers in any way. Unfortunately, however, other Muslims in Australia have defended the radicals.

"Australia's radical Muslims are trying to sabotage Christmas, according to the nation's most senior Islamic leader, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali." This from news.com.au, with thanks to Agent Azure.

"The accusation from the Islamic mufti is based on a Wahabist edict from Saudi Arabia, which he said had been circulating among Australia's fundamentalist Muslims. The edict tells conservative Muslims how they should respond to Christmas, which is not celebrated by followers of Islam.

"Sheikh al-Hilali said the strongly worded edict, issued some years ago, amounted to religious intolerance and would not be supported by mainstream Muslims. 'Other Australians would look at people who believe this as people who live on Mars, not Earth,' he said.

"The edict says Muslims must not greet anyone with the phrase 'Merry Christmas' and must not return the season's greetings to anyone who offers them.

"It also says that Muslims must not:

"Offer or accept any food or drink linked with the celebration of Christmas.

"Send greeting cards for or import or sell anything related to Christmas.

"Put up Christmas lights or keep Christmas trees or have any signs relating to the Christmas season.

"According to Sheikh al-Hilali, the edict also asks: 'How can you Muslims participate with Christians in their festivals and celebrations? How can you greet them on this occasion in relation to the falsehood in their religion which is a symbol of their misguided, disbelieving creed? Isn't that giving support from you for their false religion?'"

These kinds of restrictions on Muslims not only participating in Christmas, which would be understandable, but even extending good wishes to Christians, are actually rather common worldwide. You can even find them among Muslims in the United States. This one is from Illinois (with thanks to "Allah.") They are, of course, manifestations of the same assumptions of superiority (of Muslims) and corruption (of Christians) that give rise to the institutionalized oppression of dhimmitude.

"But several fundamenalist sheikhs who have seen the edict disputed Sheikh al-Hilali's interpretation. They said the edict was not intended to spoil Christmas for Christians, but merely to keep Muslims away from a celebration their religion does not recognise.

"Although many religions did not recognise the Christian celebration of Christmas, Sheikh al-Hilali said all Muslims needed to be tolerant of other people's faiths. Sheikh al-Hilali, a moderate Muslim, has been highly critical of Australia's fundamentalist Islamic leaders, who he said had been weak in condemning terrorism and had 'followed in the footsteps of Osama bin Laden'.

"'They want that reputation - to appeal to simple Muslims - that they are people applying jihad. These people bring a rigid and incorrect understanding of Islam to Australia and they bring harm to their religion,' he said in an interview with The Australian. Sheikh al-Hilali's criticism of the Christmas edict is a further reflection of the tension between mainstream Muslim leaders and fundamentalist clerics.

"Fundamentalist Muslims, who adhere to a strict and conservative version of Islam, make up only a small proportion of Australia's 280,000 Muslims. But this small group is the main focus of ASIO." That would be the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.

The Complex Nature of Middle Eastern Problems

By Bassam M. Madany

In the aftermath of World War II, several changes had to be made to the map of the world. For example, the boundaries between Germany and Poland were adjusted, and what used to be East Prussia became part and parcel of Poland. The Indian subcontinent was partitioned in 1947 by Great Britain into India and Pakistan. That resulted in great upheavals and bloodshed. Many Muslims left India for the new Islamic state, while most Hindus who found themselves in what became Pakistan, had to relocate and settle in India. Eventually, almost all of the old and new nations learned to accept each other’s existence. Not so in the Middle East where one situation has defied solution. I refer to the Palestinian-Israeli problem.

Back in 1946, the United Nations decided to divide the land of Palestine between its Arab and Jewish populations. The Palestinians and their Arab neighbors opposed the partition plan. So, when the State of Israel was born on May 15, 1948, war broke out between the nascent Jewish state and its Arab neighbors. Since then, several wars took place between the antagonists. Now, more than half a century later, peace in the Holy Land remains elusive. It is very hard to believe that ten United States presidents have had to deal with this problem, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush.

Personally, I have been aware of this unending crisis since my youngest days. One of my earliest recollections is my attempt to decipher the Arabic script of a headline in a Beirut newspaper in 1936. It dealt with a Palestinian leader, a forerunner of Yasser Arafat, who was leading a rebellion against the British that administered the Holy Land under a mandate given by the League of Nations. He and his followers were resisting the influx of European Jews into Palestine after the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.

Then, for two summer seasons in 1943 and 1944, I worked (in Syria and Lebanon) as a civilian in a branch of the British Army, known as the RASC (Royal Army Service Corps.) My superior was a Jewish sergeant from Tel Aviv; the second in command was a Palestinian Christian corporal from Jerusalem, whose brother was a well-known singer on the radio station of the PBC (Palestine Broadcasting Corporation.) Both used to talk about their aspirations and dreams for the future. Once in a while I wonder what happened to them since 1948.

Years have passed, and I have been living in the United States since 1958. Geographically, I am far away from the Middle East, still I cannot forget the Palestinian problem. My entire ministerial calling has been with the lands of my birth. For thirty-six years, I broadcast the Gospel to the Arabic-speaking world of North Africa and the Middle East. Thousands of listeners used to correspond with me, and many of them were Palestinians.

In 1966 while traveling in the Middle East, I paid a visit to two elderly sisters who lived near the Augusta Victoria Hospital in Jerusalem. At the time, it was located in an area under the control of Jordan. Late in May 1967, I received an air mail letter from them, telling me about their fears as the war clouds were gathering. Hostilities between Egypt and Israel were imminent. Having no where else to go, they planned to stay in their little home. After the end of the Six-Day War, I saw pictures of the awful devastation that took place near the place where the two sisters lived. I never heard from them again!

Then, in June 2001, I received a heart-rending message from an Evangelical pastor in the West Bank. He told me of the sad incident that occurred as he and his family, were on their way to Jerusalem to attend the graduation of one of their sons. At the checkpoint separating their town from East Jerusalem, the Israeli Army stopped their car. The pastor and his family were not allowed to proceed further. They missed that very important occasion in the life of their son.

Why has this problem persisted, defying all attempted solutions undertaken by well-meaning world leaders? I have not stopped reflecting on this subject, reading about it, and around it. I say around it, since quite often, we tend to isolate this problem from its larger context. You see, this matter does not just involve Palestinians and Israelis; it has to do with the Islamic concept of the world. After the first Arab Islamic armies conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, they regarded the world as being either within Daru’l Islam, (i.e., the Household of Islam) or falling into the domain of Daru’l Harb, (i.e., the Household of War.) Once a specific area came within their domain, it had to remain Islamic for ever!

This brings me to comment on a very helpful book. The author is Bernard Lewis. For several years, he lectured at the University of London. Then he moved to the USA where he taught at Princeton University. He retired in 1986, but continues to write and lecture on Islam and the Middle East. He has authored more than two dozen books on this subject.

Professor Lewis’ book, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, was published by Random House, NY, in 1998. It offers some needed background for the understanding of the people and politics of the Middle East. One of its main themes deals with a complexity that arises from the fact that Middle Easterners identify themselves both ethnically and religiously. However, the religious element is and remains the dominant one. The root for this outlook is embedded in the history of the last 1400 years.

Within the vast Islamic empire, the conquerors classified people according to their religions affiliation. One was either a Muslim or a follower of one of the earlier religions. Muslims enjoyed all the rights and privileges accorded to them by the Islamic Shari’a Law. As for others, such as Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, they were given the status of dhimmis, i.e., the “protected ones.” This “protection” was actually a mere euphemism as it entailed many restrictions imposed on non-Muslims. Thus, one’s identity was not primarily defined by an ethnic or geographic factor, but by one’s religious faith. This classification continues to the present day. A Middle Easterner’s primary identity resides in his or her religious faith; secondarily it is defined by the state within which he happens to live.

For example, on my Lebanese Identity Card, I was registered as a Protestant Christian. In the 99-member Lebanese Parliament (before the upheavals of 1975), we had one Protestant representative! The president of the republic had to be Maronite, i.e., of the Roman Catholic faith, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the Parliament, a Shi’ite Muslim. Usually, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs went to a Christian of the Greek Orthodox Church! This way of identifying Middle Easterners created a serious crisis whenever relations between the various religiously-defined groups were strained. Quite often, Muslims even though living within a distinct country such as Lebanon, felt that their ultimate identity (and therefore loyalty) resided elsewhere, within the Islamic Umma. That kind of allegiance practically nullified the modus vivendi that had existed in Lebanon since the 1920s, and that led eventually to the loss of freedom in a land that used to be known as the Switzerland of the Middle East.

As Bernard Lewis put it: "During the centuries-long confrontation between the states of Europe and the Ottoman Empire, the Europeans always saw and discussed their relations in terms of Austrians, Frenchmen, Germans, Englishmen, and other nationalities versus Turks; the Turks saw it in terms of Muslims versus Christians. In pre-modern Muslim writings, the parochial subdivisions of Christendom are given scant importance. In the worldview of Muslims, which they naturally also ascribed to others, religion was the determinant factor of identity, the focus of loyalty and, not less important, the source of authority" (P. 22).

In these words, we notice how the religious factor is of utmost importance in our relations with the Middle East or any nations within the vast Islamic world that surrounds it. Secular Western writers tend to ignore the critical importance of religion in Islam and what constitutes a Muslim’s ultimate loyalty. They tend to forget the fact that in contrast with Christianity, Islam is an amalgam of religion, politics, and culture, in one indivisible entity. If this thesis is correct, and I believe that the history of the last 1400 years supports it, then we may ask: why do some writers and politicians continue to ignore this fundamental fact about Islam? Islam is more than religion, and has always maintained an exclusivist political worldview. It has no room for non-Muslim entities (i.e., states) to freely exist within the context of the Household of Islam.

The history of Pakistan affords us a modern example of why Muslims believe that they ought to live in an environment that is officially and legally Islamic. Before the end of the British rule, the most outspoken representatives of Indian Muslims requested the Raj not to leave before the partition of the subcontinent. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, this is why the Islamic state of Pakistan was carved out of India. That event signified that at the end of European colonial presence in Asia and Africa, Muslims would not tolerate living under non-Muslim rule. Since they identify themselves primarily as Muslims, their first loyalty goes to the Islamic Umma. Ideologically, Muslims feel at home only within Daru’l Islam.

Back to the book of Bernard Lewis. "In the modern world, the political role of Islam, internationally as well as domestically, differs significantly from that of its peer and rival, Christianity. The heads of state or ministers of foreign affairs of the Scandinavian countries and Germany do not from time to time foregather in a Lutheran summit conference. Nor was it customary, when the Soviet Union still existed, for its rulers to join with those of Greece and Yugoslavia and, temporarily forgetting their political and ideological differences, to hold regular meetings on the basis of their current or previous adherence to the Orthodox Church. Similarly, the Buddhist nations of East and Southeast Asia, the Catholic nations of southern Europe and South America, do not constitute Buddhist or Catholic blocs at the United Nations, nor for that matter in any other political activities.

"The very idea of such a grouping, based on religious identity, might seem to many modern Western observers absurd or even comic. But it is neither absurd nor comic in relation to Islam. Some fifty-five Muslim governments, including monarchies and republics, conservatives and revolutionaries, practitioners of capitalism and disciples of various kinds of socialism, friends and enemies of the United States, and exponents of whole spectrum of shades of neutrality, have built an elaborate apparatus of international consultation and even, on some issues, of cooperation. They hold regular high-level conferences, and, despite differences of structure, ideology, and policy, have achieved a significant measure of agreement and common action" (P.26).

"There are also large and growing numbers of Muslims living as minorities in countries with non-Muslim majorities in Asia and Africa, and latterly also in Europe and the Americas. For these minorities, especially in the democratic West, the question of relations between Muslims and others arises in a new and largely unprecedented form" (P. 112).

As we focus our attention on the Palestinian-Israeli problem, we have to recognize that the basic identity of a Palestinian Muslim is intimately connected with his religion. And since his religion has supplanted both Judaism and Christianity, neither of these faiths possesses any legitimate claim to land of Palestine. The underlying problem is theological, thus it remains radically different from all other international problems.

The secularized West cannot and does not understand this basic religious motif for the Palestinian’s refusal to accept Israel as a valid political entity within the vast Islamic world. It is up to Christians to speak boldly about this subject, and to point out to all parties in this conflict that genuine coexistence in our globalized world is a must. The continual refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a sovereign state leads to more violence and to acts of terror that spill beyond the borders of the Holy Land.

The Copts' plight

The Wall Street Journal (under subscription, so no link) today contains a commentary by Jonathan Eric Lewis, "The Coptic Path." (Thanks to Jerry Gordon.)

In it, Lewis cuts through the politically correct misinformation that usually chokes of any discussion of the fact that the Coptic Christians Egypt are, "to put it with supreme understatement, less free than we are to practice the religion of [their] own choosing." Lewis states forthrightly that "for Egypt to democratize, it must end its discrimination against its Coptic population, arrest and prosecute the Islamic extremists who have repeatedly targeted the Christian community, and include the Coptic community in all aspects of civic and political life."

This would also constitute a useful question for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other American Muslim advocacy groups: do you support equality of rights for the Copts in Egypt, and an end to restrictions on the freedom of Egyptians to convert from Islam to Christianity? If not, why not? And if not, do you someday hope to institute a system like Egypt's in the United States?

Lewis also stands out from most commentators in his accurate awareness of the realities of Islamic history — including dhimmitude: "Having had to live under dhimmi, or inferior non-Muslim, status for much of their history, Copts nevertheless produced a rich corpus of theological literature for Near Eastern Christianity, particularly during the 13th-century Coptic Renaissance. It was not until 19th-century Ottoman reforms, however, that Coptic Christians were freed from their subservient status under Islamic rule and were released from paying the jizya, a discriminatory tax mandated for non-Muslims."

But they have still not been released from the discriminatory attitudes and practices that dhimmitude has ingrained into Egyptian culture.

Dhimmitude at GE: Harvey in the dark

"General Electric has pulled a lighting ad from Paul Harvey's syndicated radio show, heard here on WABC (770 AM), after receiving complaints from listeners over Harvey's comment that Islam 'encourages killing.'" This from the New York Post, with thanks to seafarious.

"Harvey, 84, made the comment Dec. 4 while describing cockfighting in Iraq. 'Add to the thirst for blood a religion which encourages killing, and it is entirely understandable if Americans came to this bloody party unprepared,' he said. Harvey apologized six days later through an on-air substitute - a day after GE pulled its ad (for a lamp).

"'We're considering whether to resume advertising [on the show],' a GE spokesman said yesterday. 'No decision has been made yet.'" Are they waiting for a go-ahead from the Council on American Islamic Relations?

Jordan: Muslim brother confronts Christian widow, claims her children

"Jordanian police used an outdated arrest warrant two days ago in another foiled attempt to detain Siham Qandah, a Christian widow fighting to retain custody of her two minor children in Jordan." So says Compass Direct in an update of a story posted here some time ago.

"But when police in the northern Jordanian town of Husn came to arrest Qandah on the evening of December 16, she was not at home with her daughter Rawan, 15, or son Fadi, 14. Qandah’s lawyer inquired about the police raid yesterday morning at the Irbid civil court, only to learn that in fact the arrest warrant being used by the police was dated last June. Although the local court had decreed six months ago that Qandah must turn over her children to a Muslim guardian or be jailed, the arrest warrant has been blocked since September by a restraining order issued by a higher court in Amman.

"In light of the known restraining order, it was not clear whether the police actually intended to arrest Qandah, or were simply part of another ploy by the children’s court-appointed Muslim guardian to intimidate and harass Qandah.

"After a flurry of telephone calls yesterday following the attempted police raid, a leading cleric in Jordan’s ecclesiastical court summoned Qandah to Amman today and offered her legal representation by a new lawyer. He proposed that this attorney file a new case to challenge the validity of her late husband’s alleged conversion to Islam. When Qandah replied she had no money to hire another lawyer, he assured her that all the costs would be covered.

"So Qandah signed papers to give this new lawyer her power of attorney. While she was still in the priest’s office, he telephoned a judge in the Islamic court, asking him to meet with Qandah while she was in Amman. When the Muslim official agreed, the widow went directly to meet with him and explain her case.

"But on the way out of the building, she came face to face with Abdullah al-Muhtadi, her estranged brother and the very man trying to take her children away from her. She had not seen him for years, despite repeated court subpoenas for him to appear at legal appeals over the children’s custody. But in an apparently deliberate confrontation in a public place, al-Muhtadi talked loudly and abusively to his sister for several minutes in the hall of the building, the widow said.

"'He kept repeating loudly, "Are you threatening me?"' Qandah said, 'while he was forcing me to talk with him in front of everyone passing by!' Qandah said she told her brother, 'You have no right to take away my children. They are all I have left in this world.' But he vowed he would fight to the end to get them, saying she had 'no right' to have them. 'I will prove that you are not a good mother,' he told her. 'You are trying to make them Christians. But they are Muslims, and they need to be receiving Islamic teaching.'

"After Qandah was widowed nine years ago, a local Islamic court produced a so-called 'conversion' certificate, attesting that her soldier husband had converted to Islam three years before he died in Kosovo. Although both her children are baptized Christians, their father’s alleged conversion forcibly changed their legal identity from Christian to Muslim.

"Under Jordan’s application of Islamic law, the courts were required to name a Muslim guardian for the children, in order to handle their orphan benefits. So since her brother converted to Islam as a teenager, Qandah asked him to fill this role.

"However, over the next few years, al-Muhtadi began to appropriate some of the monthly orphan stipends for himself, and in 1998 he filed a lawsuit demanding custody of his niece and nephew so he could raise them as Muslims. In February 2002, Qandah lost her last appeal before the Supreme Court of Jordan, which awarded the children’s custody to her brother.

"Although al-Muhtadi is said to be a mosque prayer leader, the courts serving him with subpoenas to appear in subsequent cases filed by Qandah have declared they do not know his residence or whereabouts.

"'Siham’s brother has a number of other court cases filed against him for all sorts of illegal practices,' one source told Compass. 'He has had all these charges against him for years, but he has never been convicted of a single one.
Her brother knows very well how to manipulate judges, to convince them he is a good Muslim who is only acting in the very best interests of his niece and nephew,' the source said. 'He has even convinced one leading judge that the $20,000 he withdrew from their orphans’ trust fund had been used for the children!'

"Qandah is convinced that her brother’s motives are primarily driven by greed, although she fears that he also wants to marry her daughter to a Muslim once he gains custody of her. 'Our government won’t let Siham and her children leave Jordan, and they won’t solve her problem here either,' a friend of the widow said. 'After nine years of fear and harassment, she needs to be allowed to live in peace.'"

Dhimmitude at Reuters challenged

A letter that was recently sent to Reuters was kindly forwarded to Jihad Watch:

"Dear Editor:

"Why do you slant the news in favor of terrorists? Why do you call suicidal maniacs driven by the ideology of Jew-hatred and genocide 'activists' and 'freedom fighters'? You know they are funded by Saudi Arabia, Iran and other terrorist supporting countries. You know they have sophistocated weapons. Why do you not reveal their true intentions?

"Why do you conceal the facts about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah etc? Why do you not mention that they are waging chemical and biological warfare against Israeli civilians? Surely you know that their bombs are laced with rat poison in order to compound suffering and insure death. Surely you know that many of the suicide bombers have AIDS, hepatitus and other diseases -- that is why they are chosen -- and that their tissue fragments become imbedded in the tissue of their victims. If you do not know about these details, why not interview Israeli emergency room doctors? They will tell you more than you want to know. They will show you x rays of victims with nuts, bolts and nails lodged in brains, hearts, muscle and other vital organs that cannot be removed surgically. Have you ever inquired of your 'freedom fighters' why they pack their bombs with shrapnel and lace them with poison? Is their love of liberty so great that shrapnel imbedded in babies' brains is a must? Why not ask these questions?

"Perhaps you have asked them in private, amongst yourselves. If you have not, then I give you more credit than you deserve. I cannot believe that you are so willfully ignorant that you have not already encountered this information on your own. It is not being hidden from view. Any idiot can stumble upon it. Then, if you do know these facts, why are you not stating them publicly? In your position, only public statements matter. It is your job to represent the facts. If you are in business to promote your political agenda and it is pro-'Palestinian' -- as it appears to be -- then say so publicly so that the world will not be fooled. Otherwise, you are merely propagandists, deliberately indoctrinating the unsuspecting with concepts of heinous irrationality. Do you really want people to believe there is a moral equivalency between a suicide bomber and its Israeli victims or the Israeli soldiers defending civilians against barbaric terror?

"Your denials are unacceptable. Too much evidence supports all of the assumptions presented here. Please respond."

PA trafficking in Christian holidays

The fundamental hallmark of dhimmi status is the jizya, the special tax that non-Muslims have to pay in Muslim societies. While this tax is still part of the Sharia, it is enforced almost nowhere in the Islamic world today (although radical Muslims are laboring to change that). But the Palestinian Authority has hit on a new way to get the infidels' money: "The Palestinian Broadcasting Authority has sent letters in the past few days to international and Arab television and satellite broadcasting networks, notifying them of an unprecedented decision by the Palestinian Authority to charge fees from any networks wishing to broadcast on Christmas from the area near the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem." This from Haaretz, with thanks to Mary Beth Roderick.

"Fees will be charged all three dates of Christmas: December 24, for Catholics, Protestants and others; January 6 for Orthodox Christians; and January 18 for Armenians.

"The letter was sent by the deputy head of the authority, Ali Abu Rian. He explained that this year - as opposed to previous years - the Palestinian police and the Broadcasting Authority will supervise and arrange all the broadcasts from the Manger Square outside of the church. The fees will be $1,000 for users' fees and another $500 for film and sound crews for each of the three planned holiday dates.

"Every year dozens of television stations from all over the world broadcast the Christmas ceremonies from Bethlehem and the PA is expected to receive a large sum from the broadcast fees. In addition, the mass and ceremonies inside the Church of the Nativity will be produced and filmed exclusively by the official Palestinian television station, and no other stations will be allowed to film inside the church. . . .

"The price for broadcasting the Midnight Mass for each of the three different Christmas dates is $2,000 for foreign television stations, while the news agencies will be charged $6,000 for each date. According to the letter, print journalists and stills photographers will not be charged for covering the ceremonies. . . .

"Before the start of the intifada, the Palestinian Authority had charged for the exclusive pictures of the ceremonies inside the church, in which Yasser Arafat participated, but this year's letter added the charges for filming outside of the church in the area of Manger Square. This area is filled with hundreds of journalists every year.

"The Christian communities that are part of the ceremony are also incensed over the fees. One of the patriarchs who serves in the Palestinian Authority said, 'They are trafficking in Christian holidays, which should be available to every Christian.' The patriarch had previously raised the issue with Arafat, and sources say that in the past various groups had charged journalists for rights to broadcast.

"This year, for the first time since the start of the current intifada, a number of tourist groups are visiting Bethlehem, and hotel and shop owners in the city are hoping for some recovery in the holiday trade.

"Palestinian sources say that they approached Israel with a request a few weeks ago to allow Arafat to participate in the Christmas Mass this year, but the request was denied."

Iran criticizes France's "extremist decision"

"Iran on Sunday criticized French President Jacques Chirac's 'extremist decision' to back a ban on Islamic headscarves and other conspicuous religious signs at schools." This from AFP, with thanks to LGF.

It's amusing to see the government of Iran calling any other entity "extremist," but it gets worse: "'We regard this as an extremist decision aimed at preventing the development of Islamic values' in France, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in his weekly press conference."

You know, I think Asefi is right. This decision is aimed at preventing the development of Islamic values. That is, Islamic values like government according to the Sharia, under which non-Muslims and women live under institutionalized oppression. Islamic values like stoning for adultery and amputation for theft. If those are the Islamic values that the French hope to prevent by banning the hijab, I'm all for them.

"This decision goes against civil rights and will undermine the image of France in the Islamic world," he added.

I expect that it will. I also am well aware of the terrible persecutions that non-Muslims in Iran have suffered under the rule of the Islamic Republic. If Asefi really cares about civil rights, let him fight to bring them to Iran.

That said, I must also note that civil rights, as has been said in other contexts, is not a suicide pact. The proposed banning of the Jewish kippa and Christian crucifix along with the hijab is just silly multiculturalist posturing. Neither of them constitute a statement that one supports the overthrow of French secularism. It is a pity that the French don't have the courage to acknowledge that there are significant elements of the French Muslim population that are totally opposed to secularism, and that since no such populations exist in the Christian and Jewish communities, no across-the-board action is necessary.

Saudi Arabia dodges U.S. sanctions on religious rights

I have said for quite some time that the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia is going to have to be addressed, and addressed thoroughly, if we are going to be consistent in the war on terror. But there are few signs that this is going to happen anytime soon. Here is more evidence that Washington is still busy placating the House of Saud: "The Bush administration has termed Saudi Arabia as the worst violator of religious freedom in the Middle East, but refrained from placing the kingdom in a category that would have resulted in U.S. arms sanctions." This from Middle East Newsline.

"A State Department report cited Saudi Arabia as the most flagrant violator of religious freedom in the region. They said the Saudi kingdom continues to display hostility toward non-Islamic religions despite numerous U.S. appeals.

"'Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia,' the report said. 'Muslims not adhering to the officially sanctioned version faced harassment at the hands of the [religious police].'

"But the report, dismissing a recommendation by a congressionally-mandated U.S. commission, avoided placing Saudi Arabia in a category termed 'countries of particular concern.' The six countries in that category have been subject to a range of U.S. sanctions, including a ban on the delivery of U.S. military platforms. Saudi Arabia is the biggest client of U.S. weaponry and has been negotiating several major deals to modernize the kingdom's military and National Guard."

The New York Times reviews two books on Islam

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, reviews two new books on Islam in today's issue. Kristof, who famously portrayed suspected terror group leader Sami Al-Arian as "a rumpled academic with a salt-and-pepper beard," actually takes issue with Demi's biography of Muhammad on the grounds that "it comes across not just as respectful, which would be fine, but as reverential. For example, Demi recounts as fact that Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel during Ramadan in 610, and then under divine inspiration began to recite the Koran. Sure, Muslims believe that, but I felt funny reading this aloud -- as historic fact -- to my 6-year-old daughter."

I don't know why Kristof chose to read a hagiographical biography of the Muslim Prophet to his daughter in the first place, but I think this statement is interesting. Statements of Islamic belief presented as fact were just what parents objected to in the recent textbook case in California. It's good to know that the parents who complained that this sort of thing shouldn't be done in public schools would have an ally in Kristof.

Kristof continues: "'Muhammad was called upon to be God's messenger,' Demi writes, 'to make known God's will to the whole of humanity and to show the way to human dignity, progress and real happiness.' On the next page, the Koran is described as 'the eternal and infallible word of God.' Hmm. Why not just say that Muslims consider the Koran to be the infallible word of God, and leave it at that? Multiculturalist parents may want to expose their children to the world's major religions, but I doubt they want to indoctrinate them."

Precisely. This exact distinction must be made in America's public schools.

Kristof: "It's a pity, because there's an intellectual struggle in America now about how to portray Islam. Some conservatives, particularly evangelical Christians, see it as 'a very evil and wicked religion,' as the Rev. Franklin Graham put it. Some Arabists insist that Islam is warm, fuzzy and far more tolerant than other religions, because it accepts Judaism and Christianity as legitimate and just believes they are incomplete. I fall somewhere between the camps. Islam clearly has a problem with fundamentalism and violence, and it hasn't adapted as well to modernity as some other religions. But the common American perception of overseas Muslims as violent hotheads is the complete opposite of the warmth and hospitality one mostly finds traveling in places like Yemen, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. It would have been nice to have an introduction to Muhammad or Islam that didn't seem to be written by propagandists for either side."

This is a false opposition. There is a good deal more nuance among critics of Islam, and particularly of Islamic radicalism, than one may surmise from Kristof's broad-brush evocation and dismissal of Graham. Moreover, to dismiss such critics as "propagandists" is not, of course, to engage the substantive issues they raise.

And to invoke "the warmth and hospitality one mostly finds traveling in places like Yemen, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia" is particularly unfortunate choice as a counterweight to the alleged prejudices of these critics. (Thanks to Avi Goldwasser and Jerry Gordon.)

Petition: End Human Rights Abuses against Copts in Egypt

To: The UN Secretary, U.S.Congress, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

WE THE UNDERSIGNED wish to bring to the attention of the World Community the continuing plight of Coptic Christian Citizens living in the sovereign Nation of Egypt:

1.Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt have been continually persecuted in Egypt. More than forty cold-blooded massacres have been committed against Coptic Christians in recent years, resulting in the injury and murder of men, women, and children, and untold loss of businesses and property.

2. On Friday November 7, 2003, in the village of Gerza-Ayiat-Giza, eleven Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were injured, and dozens of homes and businesses were burned by a mob of approximately 500 radical Egyptian Muslims armed with knives, sticks, kerosene and benzene. Fields and crops were also burned by this violent mob. Many of the injured who were bleeding and suffering with broken bones were unable to leave their homes to seek medical attention as they feared to leave their children while this violent angry mob was permitted to go unchecked. The local Police refused to document this event, and refused to allow local Coptic Christians to file complaints against the perpetrators of this attack. Not a single individual to date has been arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

3. In October of 2003, more than 22 Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were arrested, many of them converts from Islam to Christianity. These Christians were beaten, interrogated and tortured. The women among them may have been raped. All of this has been done in an attempt by the Islamic Authorities to persuade these Christians to renounce their Christian Faith and return to Islam. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

4. On August 19, 2003, over 300 Egyptian Soldiers were ordered by the local governor to destroy a fence surrounding the historic 4th century Monastery of St. Anthony in El Zaaferane, Red Sea Governorate in spite of the fact that this fence was authorized and constructed by the previous governor of the Red Sea, State Security and the Ministry of the Interior in 1991-1992. The monks in
residence at this Monastery used their bodies as shields to prevent the Egyptian Government Security Forces from attacking the Monastery.

5. On April 5, 2003, an Egyptian Army Unit attacked the Charity Isle of Patmos, a Coptic Christian Center, the sole purpose of which is to provide treatment and support for mentally and physically handicapped children and orphans. This Center is legally registered with the Egyptian Authorities. This attack was conducted with armed vehicles, a bulldozer and tear gas, against unarmed helpless children. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

6. On February 11, 2002, a newly constructed and completed Coptic Christian Church was stormed by dozens of radical armed Muslim Egyptians. These individuals set fire to this newly constructed house of worship, and additionally set fire to 35 homes and 3 automobiles belonging to Egyptian Coptic Christians. Ten Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were wounded in this attack. In addition, these radicals also attacked two buses carrying parishioners to the church. Local police failed to arrive on the scene for more than four hours. Muslim radicals were observed preventing fire trucks from entering the village to extinguish the fire inside the Church. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes with one notable exception. The Church Priest, Father Luka Ibrahim Sargious was arrested and questioned.

7. On February 24, 2001, over 100 Egyptian Policeman stormed and destroyed with bulldozers the Coptic Church of St. Bola located in Shobra Elkhaima after the local Bishop had asked for permission to hold prayers.

8. On Friday, December 31, 1999, New Year’s Eve, a dispute between a Muslim trader and a Christian shop-owner in the village of El-Kosheh erupted into violence, which resulted in the deaths of 21 Coptic Christians. Over 260 Christian homes and businesses were destroyed. During the violence local Police forces either stood passively watching the mayhem, or worse, became actively involved in the attacks. 96 suspects were arrested and “prosecuted” by the Egyptian Courts, however an Egyptian State Security Court acquitted all 96 suspects on February 5, 2001. The Sohag Criminal Court found four men guilty. One Muslim perpetrator received a sentence of 15 years for the killing of the sole Muslim victim, which in fact was in another village and not part of the El-Kosheh massacre. The other three men received two and one-half year sentences for setting a truck on fire. Not a single individual responsible for the deaths of these 21 Christians was brought to justice. This miscarriage of justice may now be viewed by the Muslim community as a green light to kill Christians in Egypt.

9. On August 14, 1998, two Coptic Christians were murdered, again in the village of El Kosheh. The Egyptian Authorities’ response to these murders was to arrest 1000 Coptic Christians, many of whom were tortured in an effort to force confessions. Local Coptic Christians insisted that the murderers were Muslim.

10. On March 13, 1997, hundreds of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the village of Bahgoura, Nagi-Hammady. Nine Coptic Christians were killed. The homes and businesses of Coptic Christians were burned and destroyed. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

11. On February 12, 1997, a group of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked and murdered 12 Coptic Christian Sunday School students praying inside their church in the village of Abu Quorcas. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

12. On February 25, 1996, hundreds of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the Coptic village of El-Badary, Asyut, looting homes, animals and crops, and destroying homes and fields. Seven Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were murdered. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

13. On October 10, 1994, a mob of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the village of El-Qousya, Asyut, looting and destroying homes and businesses, resulting in the deaths of seven Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

14. On March 11, 1994, at St. Mary’s Monastery in the village of El-Mouharak, Asyut, a mob of radical Muslim Egyptians attacked and killed an Archpriest, a Monk, and three laymen in front of the Monastery. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

15. On May 4, 1992, in the village of Manshyet El-Nasr, Dairout, Asyut, a group of radical Muslim Egyptians attacked and murdered 12 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt in their field, looted their animals and crops.
Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

16. On May 12, 1990, in the city of Alexandria, a group of radical Muslim Egyptians ambushed and murdered a Coptic Priest and six other Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

17. On June 17, 1981, 22 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were burned inside their homes and businesses in the village of El-Zawia El-Hamra, Cairo, during religious rioting. The Egyptian Internal Minister at that time, General Hassan Abu Basha declared after his resignation from office that 81 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were killed, over one hundred were seriously wounded, and 80 homes were looted and destroyed. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

1. 1. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
Coptic Christian citizens of Egypt do not differ from their Muslim neighbors either ethnically or linguistically. All speak Arabic. All are Egyptian citizens.
According to the Islamic sharia Law, anyone who denounces his religion of Islam should be executed, his marriage annulled and his children and property confiscated.
The Egyptian constitution, second article states that “Egypt is a Muslim country and the Islamic Sharia law is the main source of legalization.” This statement contradicts article number forty as contained in the Egyptian constitution, which states that all “all citizens are equal regardless of color, creed, or religion.”
The Sovereign Nation of Egypt is a Signatory to the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations without dissent, which states in part that:
Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of persons.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, not to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
Article 20: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
(2) (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
WE CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT to educate it’s Muslim population as to the rights of their Coptic neighbors to live in peace and security, free from harassment and violence, and to ensure that it’s Coptic Christian citizens are afforded the same rights as its Muslim citizens.
WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT:
To reveal to the World Community ‘the whole truth’ concerning the persecution of Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt, to identify all those responsible, either actively or complicity, for these continuing atrocities;
To arrest and bring to trial’ all suspects implicated in the murders of 21 Coptic Christians in the village of El Kosheh in 199/2000;
To provide all victims of the violence of El Kosheh with reparation and support for material and emotional loss;
To lay the foundations for Egypt which respects and promotes Human Rights for all its citizens without distinction.
WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO FORMALLY CONDEMN THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENTS AND TO FORMALLY CONDEMN ALL PERSECUTION OF COPTIC CHRISTIANS TAKING PLACE IN THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT.
WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO ESTABLISH AN INQUIRY COMMISSION TO FULLY INVESTIGATE THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999,2000, AND TO PROSECUTE THE GUILTY THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENACT A RESOLUTION DEMANDING THE IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF VIOLENCE, HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RELGIOUS INTOLERANCE PERPETRATED AGAINST COPTIC CHRISTIAN CITIZENS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT.
WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD A MINIMUM OF $300,000,000 IN UNITED STATES TAXPAYER FUNDED FINANCIAL AID TO THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A FEDERAL COURT IN THE UNITED STATES RULES ON AWARDING PUNITVE DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED, AND TO SURVIVORS OF THE EL-LOSHEH MASSACRE.
WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVERIEIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CORRECT THE FLAGANT DENIAL OF JUSTICE WHEREBY ONLY THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH OF A MUSLIM BY MUSLIMS WAS PUNISHED IN REGARD TO THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999/2000, WHILE THE MURDERS OF 21 COPTIC CHRISTIAN CITIZENS OF EGYPT WENT UNPUNISHED.
WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CARRY OUT AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE EGYPTIAN SECURITY FORCES IN 1998.
WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CONDUCT